|
The general consensus among historians as far as I picked up is that there was no way in hell Germany could have beaten Russia (save for some hard alternative history where they are the only country to invent the nuclear bomb or something). It would have been longer, it would have been more bloody but the end result would have been the same and would probably have stretched Russian communist influence to the entire Nazi-occupied area.
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
The ONLY and I mean only alternate scenario that may have resulted in a German victory over the Soviet Union would have been if someone knocked off Stalin during his paranoid self seclusion during the first atrocious days of the war. If that had happened theres a good chance that the USSR would have internally collapsed due to infighting and break away attempts. But noone even tried to kill Stalin during that time because, ironically, his purges worked and noone dared to move against him. In the end though the Western Allies would have eventually defeated Germany either way as the Germans simply didnt have the resources to exploit and protect their newly conquered territories. But we would have seen Generalplan Ost initiated and it would have been unfathomably destructive. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 23:58 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Forgive me if this has been answered before but if the Nazis really wanted to stay neutral with the Soviet Union would that actually work or would the Soviets just join the allies anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Pekinduck posted:Forgive me if this has been answered before but if the Nazis really wanted to stay neutral with the Soviet Union would that actually work or would the Soviets just join the allies anyway. Well, that brings up the whole "If they'd stayed neutral they wouldn't have been the Nazis," but maybe. Really, the whole point of WW2 from Hitler's perspective was to take land from Eastern Europe. He wouldn't have been content with 2/3 of Poland.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Yes that is exactly what I am saying. The entry of the US did shorten the war but victory for the allies had already been assured by then, mostly thanks to Hermann Goering actually, for being so terrible at his jobs. It is really quite astonishing how terrible and incompetent Goering was despite his WW1 accomplishments. No wonder Ernst Udet offed himself after Barbarossa was launched. He saw it all coming.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Honestly it's not really surprising when you look at a list of all the jobs and ministries he had. 1. Party member (1922-1945). 2. Supreme Leader of the SA (1923-November 1923). 3. Member of the Reichstag (1928). 4. President of the Reichstag (1932). 5. Prussian Minister of the Interior (1933-34). 6. Prussian Prime Minister (1933-45). 7. Prussian Chief of Secret State Police (1933-36). 8. Prussian Chief of State Council (1933-36). 9. Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan (1936-45). 10. Reichsminister for Air (1933-45). 11. Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force (1935-45). 12. President of the Cabinet Council for the Defense of the Reich (1939-45). 13. Member of the Secret Cabinet Council (1938-45). 14. Reichsmarshall (1939-45). 15. Successor Designate to Hitler (1939-45). 16. Head of Reichswerke Hermann Goering (1938-45). 17. Head of Gestapo in Prussia (1933-34). Of course I wouldn't trust a morphine addict to handle any jobs let alone eight simultaneously at the end of the war but hey that's national socialism for ya.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Devour posted:I'm not even getting into the specifics of how badly trained/equipped the Red Army was, or how stupid Stalin was with his generals. You're kind of in a Catch-22 situation as far as this goes, because if you actually knew enough about the topic to get into those specifics in a meaningful way, you would probably know enough that you wouldn't be making this argument in the first place. You might have some awareness of how many and which elements of the German armed forces were detailed to Africa, Italy, and the Atlantic Wall, as compared to the Eastern Front. Without getting too deep into this, a good example is your idea that the Afrika Korps drew off some notable part of German strength. In reality, most of the Axis forces in theater were (garbage) Italian units, and the German forces amounted to two understrength Panzer divisions and two light (aka understrength) infantry divisions, whereas at the same time German forces on the Ostfront were probably somewhere around 200 divisions--admittedly many of those were understrength as well but you get the point.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
Devour posted:No it's not a joke. Without the U.S. in the Europeon theatre, it was basically Britain & the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany and its allies. Again, Britain did not have the resources nor the manpower to invade Nazi-occupied france/the Atlantic wall without the support of the U.S. militarily or economically. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany has already conquered Europe & North Africa, effectively taking control of the resources/raw minerals in these occupied territories. American military was not integral to winning WWII. However, it was integral to establishment of an anti-communist bloc in Western Europe. By 1942, the war had been won at Stalingrad. The American contribution to the war at that point was the occupation of French North Africa. The invasion of France took place long after the war was decided. During Overlord, the Soviets were destroying entire armies in Bagration. That was the point when the Western Front became a relevant article for the German military. Before then, the German investment in fighting the Western Allies amounted to second-rate garrisons and a small contingent of regulars. They were not guarding themselves against the Americans either, since there was a whole year and a half between the fall of France and Pearl. In the future, please elaborate any arguments you have instead of trying to pass yourself off as knowledgable.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:05
|
|
I'm not even getting into the specifics of how badly trained/equipped the Red Army was, or how stupid Stalin was with his generals.
|
The US didn't play a huge combat role in Europe but the Soviets would have had a really rough time without Lend-Lease, particularly the trucks and prime movers.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Finland occupies a very weird place in WWII. Thanks for the answer. As a Finn I know something about Finland's complicated WW2 relationship with Russia and Germany, but I still find it a bit out of character for Hitler to be able to let his anti-Semitic principles slide for the sake of having the support of a minor country with a small and ill-equipped army. Guess he thought that Finland's Jewish "problem" could be sorted out after the war was over.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US didn't play a huge combat role in Europe but the Soviets would have had a really rough time without Lend-Lease, particularly the trucks and prime movers. The Soviets could have won without an Allied invasion of the continent but I would say taking all of France, Italy and most of Germany qualifies for a huge combat role. Not as big as the Soviets, but still enormous. The US and the UK had millions of troops in western Europe at the end of the war, if that's not huge I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:32
|
|
|
The original statement was that Hitler would have won the war if not for Pearl Harbour, and lend-lease was already well underway before Pearl Harbour so it is a pretty indefensible position.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 02:46
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:You're kind of in a Catch-22 situation as far as this goes, because if you actually knew enough about the topic to get into those specifics in a meaningful way, you would probably know enough that you wouldn't be making this argument in the first place. You might have some awareness of how many and which elements of the German armed forces were detailed to Africa, Italy, and the Atlantic Wall, as compared to the Eastern Front. Without getting too deep into this, a good example is your idea that the Afrika Korps drew off some notable part of German strength. In reality, most of the Axis forces in theater were (garbage) Italian units, and the German forces amounted to two understrength Panzer divisions and two light (aka understrength) infantry divisions, whereas at the same time German forces on the Ostfront were probably somewhere around 200 divisions--admittedly many of those were understrength as well but you get the point. EDIT: Beaten like a rented mule. Well, let me at least respond to this: Frungy! posted:Thanks for the answer. As a Finn I know something about Finland's complicated WW2 relationship with Russia and Germany, but I still find it a bit out of character for Hitler to be able to let his anti-Semitic principles slide for the sake of having the support of a minor country with a small and ill-equipped army. Guess he thought that Finland's Jewish "problem" could be sorted out after the war was over. I would also take a bit of issue with your deprecation of the Finnish army. They were small and ill-equipped, that's true, but they were superbly trained and led. Their tactics allowed them to kick some serious Soviet rear end in both the Winter War and the Continuation War. They held out against the Russians up until the Russians managed to bring the massive weight of their numbers to bear, at which point the Russians were pushing back the German army as well, and likely had the strongest army on the planet, bar none. Perhaps the most telling is that the Russians negotiated a peace with them, though they got favorable terms, they clearly did not want to fight another war with Finland. Azathoth fucked around with this message at 03:27 on May 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Devour posted:No it's not a joke. Without the U.S. in the Europeon theatre, it was basically Britain & the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany and its allies. Again, Britain did not have the resources nor the manpower to invade Nazi-occupied france/the Atlantic wall without the support of the U.S. militarily or economically. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany has already conquered Europe & North Africa, effectively taking control of the resources/raw minerals in these occupied territories. You really need to go back to the history books and re-read the whole 39-45 period because you really didn't seem to read the period that well. For content, what was the position of Sweden during the war? It's interesting how the managed their neutrality even though they were pressure on all sides to act on their behalf. The same question can be asked about Turkey.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Gumby posted:Well, that brings up the whole "If they'd stayed neutral they wouldn't have been the Nazis," but maybe. Thanks, for some reason I thought he wanted western Europe more.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Mans posted:For content, what was the position of Sweden during the war? It's interesting how the managed their neutrality even though they were pressure on all sides to act on their behalf. Sweden's position boils down to basically "here hitler take all of our iron, please please please don't invade us." Up until Kursk Germany basically got to demand that Sweden trade with it and allow military access, but as they were beaten back the swedes became more and more pro allies. Turkey was pretty much the same but replace iron with some rarer metal that the Germans were in need of for their industry.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Are there any good books about how Germany, as a country, has dealt with their guilt over the holocaust? In a history class in college the professor said that it was really the post-war generation that started asking questions about what their parents and grandparents did during the war, and I'd like to know more about how they dealt with that knowledge. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can accept that their relatives were involved in something so massively horrendous.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 09:38
|
|
|
Pinball posted:Are there any good books about how Germany, as a country, has dealt with their guilt over the holocaust? In a history class in college the professor said that it was really the post-war generation that started asking questions about what their parents and grandparents did during the war, and I'd like to know more about how they dealt with that knowledge. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can accept that their relatives were involved in something so massively horrendous. My German housemate tells me high school history for her was essentially a 6(?)-year WW2 guilt trip with some French Revolution at some point. And this is a prestigious mayor cosmopolitan German school, not a backwater shack.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:My German housemate tells me high school history for her was essentially a 6(?)-year WW2 guilt trip with some French Revolution at some point. And this is a prestigious mayor cosmopolitan German school, not a backwater shack. Yeah, that's fairly accurate. I'd say about 2/3 of my history classes were about the 3rd Reich in one way or another. It was also covered in some other classes and there were day trips to a KZ (we had a subcamp of Buchenwald right around the corner from the school), the holocaust memorial in Berlin and the site of the Wannsee conference. So yeah, it's pretty extensively covered in school.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 10:38
|
|
|
As it should be. Its a shame that the US education system merely brushes over shameful events like Indian removal and the Japanese just ignore their crimes completely.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
Pinball posted:Are there any good books about how Germany, as a country, has dealt with their guilt over the holocaust? In a history class in college the professor said that it was really the post-war generation that started asking questions about what their parents and grandparents did during the war, and I'd like to know more about how they dealt with that knowledge. I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can accept that their relatives were involved in something so massively horrendous. You can accept it because you have to in order to keep society functioning when most people were either directly involved in these atrocities, or at the very least had a pretty good idea of what was going on and did nothing to stop it. Most of the blame has been given to a handful of key people who were then quickly executed as to put this whole ugly business behind us, because anyone who didn't die during the war was now desperately needed to rebuild the country. The Allies may have insisted on a far less reconciliatory course if Germany hadn't become a major focal point in the upcoming Cold War the second WWII was over, but that's just not what happened. Thus many of the people who were involved in the Nazi crimes were put in positions of power, where they did everything to cover up their involvement, making it very hard for later generations to find out who did what. Without much hard evidence to go on you are basically left to speculate or blindly accuse a whole generation of being guilty, including your own relatives. Which is, I think, something most people would hesitate to do without any kind of proof one way or the other. tl;dr: Those who did / do have knowledge of what their relatives and fellow citizens did became very angry and dealt with it in numerous ways, but a lot of people still simply don't know for sure, and probably never will.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:As it should be. Its a shame that the US education system merely brushes over shameful events like Indian removal and the Japanese just ignore their crimes completely. gently caress, when I got WWII history, it boiled down to Nazis bad, US heroes and saved the world, and atom bomb. No mention of the Rape of Nanking, anything about the Soviet Union, and we barely touched on the drat Holocaust other than Hitler loved blonde-haired blue-eyed people and he himself was brown in both sets. Did Hitler himself have an opinion on the attack on Pearl Harbor, or any of the atrocities committed by Japan? Or was he more concerned with Germany and didn't give a gently caress about Japan overall?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Yeah, that's fairly accurate. I'd say about 2/3 of my history classes were about the 3rd Reich in one way or another. It was also covered in some other classes and there were day trips to a KZ (we had a subcamp of Buchenwald right around the corner from the school), the holocaust memorial in Berlin and the site of the Wannsee conference. So yeah, it's pretty extensively covered in school. I don't know, we basically had a rotating schedule of Ancient Greece/Rome (Democracy!), Middle Ages (Charlelemange! Also walking through the snow barefoot because the pope is mad at you!), French Revolution (More Democracy!) and Nazis (No Democracy!). They switched to the next topic every six months or so. Only in our last year did we get anything about 19th century German history. We also had the mandatory trip to a KZ, although we only got Sachsenhausen, so a political prisoner camp. It was pretty creepy, but I think Auschwitz would have hit us that much harder. As it was, it seemed more like a really lovely prison where the guards don't care if you live or die rather than a camp where people were actively murdered on an industrial scale. But Germany's struggle with the past had several stages. As noted, there was a first wave right after the war, where the worst of the worst were handled. Then nothing happened for about 20 years. Then the people born during and immediately after the war started to ask questions. The students in West Germany started to rebel against the conservative society, and the fact that major Nazis were still in office. One of the most often quoted slogans was "Unter den Talaren, Muff von 1000 Jahren!" (Under the robes lies the stink of a thousand years). And, of course, the later RAF terrorist Gudrun Enslin's "Das ist die Generation Auschwitz, mit denen kann man nicht verhandeln" (That is the Generation of Auschwitz, you can't negotiate with them). Over the following 10 years or so, there was a massive conflict around the former Nazis still in office, although the new social democratic government was at least headed by a former exile (Willy Brandt). Part of the problem was that you were hard-pressed to find anybody who wasn't somehow connected to the regime. Every little dog breeding club was part of the Nazi system, however small. If you banned the head of every one of them you would quickly run out of people with which you could run a country. But at least the crimes were discussed openly and could no longer be suppressed. However, the Wehrmacht was still considered mostly clean. It was the SS who had committed most of the crimes, so unless Grandpa had been in the SS, he was good. I mean, he always left the room 10 minutes before Santa arrived, and he let you play with his model trains, and he read you bedtime stories so he couldn't be bad, right? Right. In the 90s, a sweeping new exhibition opened that detailed all the ways in which the Wehrmacht was connected to the Holocaust, and the myth died an ugly death. As the war generation dies out, I expect that Germany's treatment of it will change once again because people will be able to look through their parent's and grandparent's files and see what they did. But I think it is fairly widely accepted that most people are related to Germans who participated in warcrimes or the Holocaust in some capacity. 80% of all German soldiers served in the East, and it is almost impossible to get back from the East without having done some disgusting stuff. Even Helmut Schmidt, a former chancellor and utterly free of any charges of fascist tendencies freely admitted that the Flak unit he served with shot up villages with civilians in them.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:As it should be. Its a shame that the US education system merely brushes over shameful events like Indian removal and the Japanese just ignore their crimes completely. Very true. We spent a week in high school talking about westward expansion and manifest destiny and never mentioned the Native Americans once. We would have skipped WWI if I hadn't been the teacher's pet and interested in it, and we never got past WWII. Thanks for the answers, everyone. Do those of you that are German feel that maybe it's overemphasized? Not to deemphasize the horror of it at all, it just seems to me like after so many years it might become numbing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Pinball posted:Thanks for the answers, everyone. Do those of you that are German feel that maybe it's overemphasized? Not to deemphasize the horror of it at all, it just seems to me like after so many years it might become numbing. Well they don't seem to appreciate jokes about it. For context, I live in a Dutch college town with Germany in walking distance. We get a lot of German college-aged students and obviously war jokes come up. Talking about it with my German housemate she is telling me the following; Having pride in your own country is a big taboo, it took them till 2006 to start putting out the flag in public spaces (big soccer games etc) again. Anyone taking pride in being German in public too much (where 'too much' is very little) will be not so popular. Similarly, while racism is often semi-acceptable in most countries, it is even more of a taboo in Germany for obvious reasons (keep in mind the age group I'm talking about). According to her this is also somewhat extrapolated to feminism ideals, resulting in more equality between the sexes. Not entirely an answer to your question but I figured someone might appreciate the information. Final answer; I just asked if they feel it is a bit overemphasized; answer is absolutely yes. They know they hosed up and it's all terrible and most people associated are dead now. There is a lot of atrocity in the world to keep focusing on this now.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Honestly it's not really surprising when you look at a list of all the jobs and ministries he had. You forgot Reichsjaegermeister ( Reich Master of the Hunt), the job he liked to spend most of his time doing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
It must have been impossible for Germany to plant any fifth columnists in the Baltic States and Ukraine, in spite of the sympathy they kind of received in those regions. If Hitler would have managed that, he could have bided his time with Russia and focused on Britain. Then at some point an internally weakened Ukraine calls for Hitler to intervene, like in Czechoslovakia. Germans roll right in, receiving a full welcome. Beyond that, it would still become a gruesome war of production/attrition, but could have made for a significant edge on both fronts for Der Fuhrer.
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
How did Hitler and Mussolinis relationship develop during the 30s-40s - I remember reading that Mussolini was very much anti--germany before the formation of the axis, what changed? And how did the german military heads react to the Italians basically failing at everything they did, anywhere, ever?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Peenigrippe posted:It must have been impossible for Germany to plant any fifth columnists in the Baltic States and Ukraine, in spite of the sympathy they kind of received in those regions. If Hitler would have managed that, he could have bided his time with Russia and focused on Britain. Then at some point an internally weakened Ukraine calls for Hitler to intervene, like in Czechoslovakia. Germans roll right in, receiving a full welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Peenigrippe posted:It must have been impossible for Germany to plant any fifth columnists in the Baltic States and Ukraine, in spite of the sympathy they kind of received in those regions. If Hitler would have managed that, he could have bided his time with Russia and focused on Britain. Then at some point an internally weakened Ukraine calls for Hitler to intervene, like in Czechoslovakia. Germans roll right in, receiving a full welcome. The treatment of ethnic Germans living withing the USSR was a significant issue for Germany and quite the source of controversy between the two nations in the runup to WWII. Stalin and the NKVD did everything possible to make sure that there would be no collaborating Germans when the inevitable invasion came. Any ethnic Germans living within the projected invasion area were forcibly relocated far into the USSR well before the Germans got to the point of massing on the borders. This happened to a lot of other ethnic groups within the USSR as well, so this was just part of a larger Soviet effort to prevent revolution among any potentially counter-revolutionary ethnic groups. Most of them were sent either to Siberia or to the central Asian republics, and a significant percentage of them died in the relocation. The reason that I bring this all up, is that you say that the Ukraine would have asked Hitler to intervene like he did in Czechoslovakia. By the time that Hitler was ready for invasion, and would thus be looking for his casus belli, there wasn't anyone left in the Ukraine who would conceivably want intervention from Hitler. Nevermind that even asking for such a thing would be a guaranteed ticket to the firing squad, almost the entire remaining population would be people that the Nazis considered sub-human and not worthy of life. The Nazis were, on a deep philosophical and practical level, utterly incapable of working with the remaining people in the same way that they worked with Vichy France. Also, at the time of Operation Barbarossa, 80-90% of the German army was in the East and Britain was unable to mount a serious threat to invade the Continent, having been lucky to escape Dunkirk with the majority of their army intact, but having to leave behind massive amounts of equipment. The extra units that could have been pulled east were minimal. Where the Germans could really have used the extra manpower would have been in creating regular army units made up of the local populations of the areas that they conquered, but Nazi ideology and policy were totally unable to even begin to consider such an idea and, as has been said, if they did that, then they wouldn't have been the Nazis.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Thought this might interest a few here: SS tattoos
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Did Hitler himself have an opinion on the attack on Pearl Harbor, or any of the atrocities committed by Japan? Or was he more concerned with Germany and didn't give a gently caress about Japan overall? Hitler was livid that Japan had poked the bear that was the U.S., but I've never seen anything about him caring about the atrocities. After all, neither the Japanese or Chinese were Master Race Category. Doesn't much matter what happens to them long term.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 18:56
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Paxicon posted:How did Hitler and Mussolinis relationship develop during the 30s-40s - I remember reading that Mussolini was very much anti--germany before the formation of the axis, what changed? And how did the german military heads react to the Italians basically failing at everything they did, anywhere, ever? Hitler had something ofma soft spot for Mussolini. When Germany annexed Austria Hitler was very nervous that Mussolini wiuld object (and Mussolinimmight have been able to do something about it). When Mussolini stood down and let Hitler have it Hitler sent multiple messages thanking the Duce and praising him and promising he would never forget this favor. Hitler seems to have thought he was some kind of kindred soul. Mussolini tried to jump on the bandwagon when the war was going well for the Axis but failed spectacularly. German military leaders held the Italians in contempt. Hitler seems to have stayed fond of Mussolini anyways. When Italy capitulated Hitler took steps to have Mussolini liberated and put in charge of what was left of Axis-controlled Italy. Documents indicate that Hitler did not understand him from then on. Mussolini was broken and Hitler was expecting him to do what Hitler would have done: Purge traitors and consolidate power again at all costs while screaming defiance at the world to the end.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hitler was livid that Japan had poked the bear that was the U.S., but I've never seen anything about him caring about the atrocities. After all, neither the Japanese or Chinese were Master Race Category. Doesn't much matter what happens to them long term. Was there ever a plan for Hitler to escape like some of the others did? Run off and hide in South America? Or was he set to suicide for reasons other than pride?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Was there ever a plan for Hitler to escape like some of the others did? Run off and hide in South America? Or was he set to suicide for reasons other than pride? By that time, fleeing was just not possible, even if he had wanted to. At that time, his best case scenario would have been to flee to American lines and surrender to them, which only would have meant a humiliating trial and execution, and he knew it. Even if there was a fully stocked and undamaged ship/sub at a German-controlled port staffed with nothing but hard-core Nazi loyalists, which he could get to by having Hanna Reitsch fly him, the ship would still have to make it thousands of miles through water entirely populated by British and American ships who would be searching every single ship once they found out that he escaped. Even if he somehow managed to make it to South America despite all that, there's not a country that would have him. To house him is literally to invite invasion from America, who just proved rather conclusively that they can land an invasion force thousands of miles from home. He knew that if Germany didn't win the war, he was dead and he knew it. He chose to end his life on his own terms, rather than have them dictated to him by either the German people, who he viewed as having failed him, the "sub-human" Russians, or the Jew-controlled Americans. When faced with those choices, he decided suicide was his only option. Azathoth fucked around with this message at 02:20 on May 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 01:58
|
|
|
How did Hans Globke get away with being a direct aide to the Chancellor of West Germany?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
rivid posted:How did Hans Globke get away with being a direct aide to the Chancellor of West Germany? Seems to have been good at laws I guess...
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
How much privilege did having "good" genetics get you in Nazi Germany? If you were the prototypical blue-eyed blonde, did you get tangible benefits or favoritism from the government and military because of this, beyond what "ordinary" Germans got?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:How much privilege did having "good" genetics get you in Nazi Germany? If you were the prototypical blue-eyed blonde, did you get tangible benefits or favoritism from the government and military because of this, beyond what "ordinary" Germans got? I read a thing ages ago where students in class would be singled out and praised for having perfect genetics.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
So, I guess this goes into the thread. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22427976 quote:Germany arrests 'former Auschwitz guard' Hans Lipschis
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 18:27
|
|