|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Although Göring did eventually become leader of Jagdgeschwader 1 (or the Flying Circus) at the tail end of the first world war, I don't think it was indicative of any amount of personal courage he may have had. What are you trying to demonstrate with those quotes? I have no idea how you define "personal courage" but if you don't think flying numerous combat missions in WW1 required courage, then I don't know what to say. Darth Brooks posted:The IJN of 1941 was better prepared to fight than the USN of 1941 was. The Great Battle was probably a fight they could have won. The US military realized that too so they let places like Wake Island and the Philippines go while they rebuilt. Once that was put into motion Japan's defeat was going to happen, it was just a matter of when. Japan picked a fight with a nation of near infinite resources, one they couldn't touch and still they thought they would win because only they had warrior spirit. They may have thought that they had superior warrior spirit to the Americans, but that's not why they thought they'd win. They thought they'd win because they assumed America didn't really care that much about the western Pacific and that if the Japanese delivered a few quick and hard knock-out blows, the Americans would fold and they'd get a beneficial negotiated peace. They also knew that war with America somewhere down the line had become inevitable (the oil embargo had a lot to do with this) and decided to act now rather than wait for the relative advantage they enjoyed to slip away. The Americans thought they were racially superior to the Japanese, too. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 10:29 on Jun 29, 2013 |
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
oops
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 10:26
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:What are you trying to demonstrate with those quotes? I have no idea how you define "personal courage" but if you don't think flying numerous combat missions in WW1 required courage, then I don't know what to say. Any participation in any kind of combat in war requires courage. It probably takes even more courage to charge over trenches as an ordinary infantryman than to fly a fighter plane. So I guess he meant that Goering didn't have any extra courage compared to the rest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
Göring was in the right place at the right time to become involved with the Flying Circus. And I still don't think personal courage had anything to do with flying fighter planes, at least compared to the alternative, that is, the trenches. Remember that enlisted men generally did not fly in the Luftstreitskräfte; it was a privilege for officers. Where would you rather lay your head at night: a comfy airfield or a rat-infested trench? There's no courage in the former choice. Air combat itself was treated as more of a game than anything else by the fighter pilots of the time as well, not as something to be afraid of and thus possibly courageous toward. As for the quotes specifically, I believe they're supposed to be parsed to say that Göring was and always had been a coward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
Jedi Knight Luigi posted:Göring was in the right place at the right time to become involved with the Flying Circus. And I still don't think personal courage had anything to do with flying fighter planes, at least compared to the alternative, that is, the trenches. Remember that enlisted men generally did not fly in the Luftstreitskräfte; it was a privilege for officers. Where would you rather lay your head at night: a comfy airfield or a rat-infested trench? There's no courage in the former choice. Flying fragile pieces of unreliable, near-prototype high technology into combat, without parachutes, without modern avionics, without navigation aids - what cowards! quote:Air combat itself was treated as more of a game than anything else by the fighter pilots of the time as well, not as something to be afraid of and thus possibly courageous toward. This is completely wrong. quote:As for the quotes specifically, I believe they're supposed to be parsed to say that Göring was and always had been a coward. I don't see that at all. Irresponsible and arrogant, maybe, and he was certainly disliked by his subordinates in the squadron.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
Putting courage aside you could also frame his actions as those of an extremely pragmatic person. Place in command of some air circus thingy he has a crack at it and does badly losing some key engagement. Recognising this and perhaps the limits of his own abilities he decides rather than keep plugging ahead consequences be damned it might be better to allow a more competent individual to take control of things. Probably a lesson most German generals prayed Hitler would learn. Not saying thats how it was, but its a narrative that fits the events posted in the last few posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Hey man, I actually asked a question about this very quote over in the Mil History thread a good while back. Do you have the entire thing and if I may, what exactly did you google to find it? Just something like "Göring physical courage." It's been reproduced in a couple biographies of Göring, but unfortunately not in its entirety as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
So, while we are on the topic of bravery, does anybody know how strong the influence of the Karl May style native American myth actually was on the nazi self image? The backstory is that there is large amount of very popularity of 19th century German adventure books that deal with native Americans and the wild west. Most of them were written by people who never even looked at a map of America, most famously Karl May. Those created a totally distorted image of the native Americans in Germany, and this image was upheld as a example for children to be brave like a native American. "Tapfer wie ein Indianer", " Ein indianer kennt keinen Schmerz". This influenced the German scouting movement until the Internet age. The story I sometimes heard ( but I can't find direct sources on the Internet) is that the Nazis actually liked that image and in the Hitler Youth people were actually asked to consider native American stereotypes as an Ideal. Some version goes even further is that Hitler ( as a fan of Karl May ) declared the native Americans to be honorary Aryans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Was it true that at the very end of the war Göring mulled over jumping into a fighter and going down fighting in the sky? Of course he didn't because he was a coward too fat to fit in the plane but I think I remember hearing something like this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
I asked this at the beginning of this thread, but I think it kinda slipped through the cracks. To what extend did the "Preußenschlag" in 1932 contribute to the Nazi's rise to power?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
I'm totally blanking on this, and the internet isn't helping. What was the major Nazi occult site that was a geographic formation associated with an older esoteric tradition? Not Wewelsburg or anything like that, but a place with a walking path through it buffeted by natural formations. Unfortunately I don't have Goodrick-Clark on hand, but I think the site was associated with a medieval event(s). Really vague, I know, but anyone? edit: Solved my own question. I was thinking of the Externsteine. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:This is completely wrong. Welp, I might as well pack it in. Apparently I'm wrong about the tone of MvR's combat manual—which specifically says "I need daredevils, not acrobats"—as well as in Der Rote Kampfflieger, where he refers to the skies above the Somme as the "happiest hunting grounds" of his whole life. Maybe try reading a book...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:I'm totally blanking on this, and the internet isn't helping. What was the major Nazi occult site that was a geographic formation associated with an older esoteric tradition? Not Wewelsburg or anything like that, but a place with a walking path through it buffeted by natural formations. Unfortunately I don't have Goodrick-Clark on hand, but I think the site was associated with a medieval event(s). Really vague, I know, but anyone? That sounds like the Externsteine to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick response. I was reminded of them by discovering that there are modern-day "irminists," loosely affiliated with Asatru and other neo-pagan revivalists, who are basically 21st century Ariosophists. It never fails to amaze me how many "radical traditionalists" and others are still out there that follow quasi-neo-Nazi German pagan traditions and revere people like Julius Evola and Savitri Devi. The whole "libertarian nationalism" coupled with esoteric traditionalism is alarmingly more popular among some politically active men in their late '20s/early '30s than one might suspect. That there are more than a few hundred is shocking.
MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Hey man, I actually asked a question about this very quote over in the Mil History thread a good while back. Do you have the entire thing and if I may, what exactly did you google to find it? "Like many men capable of great acts of physical courage which verge quite often on desperation, he lacked the finer kind of courage in the conduct of his life which was needed when serious difficulties overcame him." Pretty poignant quote, especially considering it's just from a doctors exam. Here's the source: http://books.google.com/books?id=7L...ct%20of&f=false Pekinduck fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:The German physicists (severely depleted by anti-fascist brain drain) had discussed and rejected (as unfeasible) the idea of constructing a nuke for the current war. benem posted:How about the Hitler Youth? Was it really that big of a part of Nazi society, or do modern audiences just get hung up on the "ick" factor of brainwashing kids? How compulsory was membership? How big of a deal did it play in kids' general lives? How heavily did ideology actually factor in, or was it largely just a rebranded Boy Scouts? ArchangeI posted:As for Luther, I have always been taught that he was antijudaistic rather than antisemitic (opposed to the religion rather than the race). Has there been anything to prove that he considered Jews a separate race that would remain a problem even if they converted to Christianity? MN-Ghost posted:I have a question. Why did Hitler break the non-aggression pact with Russia and invade them before securing the western front by forcing Britain into surrender? I was taught that being forced to fight on two front between France and Russia was one of the biggest reason Germany lost WWI. So given that Hitler should have already learned this lesson, this always seemed to me to be a monumentally dumb move. A lot of Germans believed that the Schlieffen plan was a good plan. The premise was that since France and Russia were allies (and had treaties requiring them both to attack whoever one of them was at war with), every war with one would involve both. So the WW1 version was to make a quick knockout blow and knock France out of the way and then proceed to stomp Russia. It was premised mostly on the fact that Russia being a huge country would take far longer to mobilize than the whole war against France would take. The WW2 version of was called the Manstein plan, and the part about knocking out France before Russia worked reasonably well. Many Germans were enamored of Manifest Destiny and they felt that all great nations needed something like this. So they called their version Lebensraum. To them, the "wide open" plains of Russia and Ukraine were theirs for the taking, much like most of the North American continent was taken by the US. As he wrote in Mein Kampf, Hitler truly believed that in a war against Communism, that England and America would be natural allies of the Nazis. 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? He had no escape plans. He felt betrayed by the German people for letting him down, and that his punishment of them would for him to deprive them of his presence and leadership. Kemper Boyd posted:They didn't even manage to build a real replacement for their rapidly aging bomber fleet. Everything in Nazi Germany was highly politicized. Walther Wever was the advocate for heavy bombers. When he died in a plane crash, the only "big wigs" remaining were pushing for smaller bombers and dive bombers. The main philosophy of the surviving bomber advocates was a combination of the WW1 mantra "the bomber will always get through", the belief that "if only our bombers were faster, they couldn't be shot down" and a military doctrine that said the Luftwaffe existed only to support ground troops. This last bit came from experiences in the Spanish Civil War and meant that a bomber capable of bombing hundreds of miles past the front lines was a waste of material. The concept of bombing cities to destroy manufacturing and distribution was an Allied idea and one that didn't get a lot of study by the Luftwaffe's planners until it was pretty much too late to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Huttan posted:This was covered in Rhodes' book The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Heisenburg was in charge of the program and he miscalculated the "mean free path" of a neutron through uranium. This is the mean distance that a neutron could travel before it collided with another nucleus and do something. His calculations showed that a uranium bomb would take about 2000 tons of enriched uranium which they believed to be something close to all the uranium in the world. His reputation was so great as a physicists, that no one checked his math. I doubt it would have mattered either way, the Nazis simply didn't have the resources to develop nukes even if they got the science right. The Manhattan Project took billions of dollars and four years, with the largest industrial base in the world and no danger of bombings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
Also the OSS and SOE were constantly doing their damnedest to hamstring the nazi nuclear project such as that raid in Norway the British did to deny the nazis heavy water.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Also the OSS and SOE were constantly doing their damnedest to hamstring the nazi nuclear project such as that raid in Norway the British did to deny the nazis heavy water. Several raids, actually. Operation Freshman failed after the gliders carrying the commandos crashed and the survivors were captured and executed. The successful Operation Gunnerside against the Norsk Hyrdo plant by Knut Haukelid. And the final sinking of the Hyrdo ferry that destroyed the remainder of the German heavy water stocks. Another interesting player in the whole affair is one-time Major League baseball player Moe Berg who spoke fluent Japanese and German and moonlighted as a spy for the OSS. One of Berg's final assignments was to attend a lecture in Switzerland delivered by Werner Heisenberg. If the lecture revealed the German's had the physics know-how to build the bomb, Heisenberg was to be killed. Fortunately for Heisenberg, the lecture showed the Nazis were nowhere near close enough to building a bomb, so Berg spared him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Fair enough. I guess he just looks good in comparison to the generals he was facing, and until Monty they weren't anything special. I still hold that Monty is only seen as a great general because he shortened the usual allied strategy of Attack->Defeat->Attack->Defeat->Attack with overwhelming support->Victory to just the last step. The answer you got was pretty much what I was thinking about, but I might add that Rommel is one of the figures who always gets remembered as the brave not-at-all nazi general who died tragically murdered (coaxed into suicide, but who's counting?) by the SS. Rommel was very much pro-Nazi early on in his career and only turned against the Nazis when the going wasn't good anymore. Which is pretty much the whole story on the Wehrmacht. You don't get to run Hitler's personal bodyguard unit if you're not a Nazi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:The answer you got was pretty much what I was thinking about, but I might add that Rommel is one of the figures who always gets remembered as the brave not-at-all nazi general who died tragically murdered (coaxed into suicide, but who's counting?) by the SS. Rommel's drive through North Africa would have, if successful, conquered Palestine, and there is no reason to believe that he would have stood in the way of the persecution and murder of Jews that would have followed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Rommel's drive through North Africa would have, if successful, conquered Palestine, and there is no reason to believe that he would have stood in the way of the persecution and murder of Jews that would have followed. Don't know about Rommel, but that reminds me of something I read in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands; namely, that the NS regime considered several other solutions involving deportations to Madagascar or reservations in occupied territory, but found them unworkable and decided to start killing them in 1942. What I'm curious about is this: is it likely that they would have begun to murder the local jews if they seized control of Palestine, or would they perhaps have attempted to deport the European jews to the area, as a reservation/penal colony so to speak?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
The Nazi's literally had Einsatzgruppen units all organized, set, and ready to go for the expected conquest of Palestine in 1942. They were going to begin murdering right away, there is no question about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
Re: Rommel as a general, it probably helped that he had superb intel. He was reading the american military attaches extremely detailed reports.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
vuk83 posted:Re: Rommel as a general, it probably helped that he had superb intel. He was reading the american military attaches extremely detailed reports. How did he manage that? I thought german intelligence was pretty shoddy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
IIRC the Germans had managed to break the codes of the American embassy(?) in Alexandria in one of the few intelligence coups the Axis had.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
A few questions/confusions @OP/EvanSchenck: 1. What facets of Communism were being pushed by the Communist party (pre-WWII) that worried Germans so much? From posts I read here, it seems like the rich and moderates were the ones most concerned...? Why is that? 2. I'm under the impression that the US joined the war effort only once they were attacked at Pearl Harbour. Is this correct? What was America's plan in regards to the Nazi threat? I saw Devour's post but... It seemed unhelpful. 3. As MrBling mentioned, Denmark was peaceably occupied, though they snuck all their Jewish citizens out, I believe mainly to Sweden. While I know Sweden was neutral, I have heard stories both of them assisting Jewish people, and turning over Jewish people to the Nazi's. Were both these situations prevelant, or did they tend to a bias one way or another? I think the Swedish government harboured Jewish people unofficially, but citizens could/would still sell out Jewish people and somehow get them sent back to Germany... But I am entirely confused on the matter. 3b. I saw Raskolnikov's post on Sweden, but I was hoping for more detail. I was not under the impression the neutral countries were that concerned about invasion. I know the American concept of a neutral country is they're a bunch of pansies, but a lot of those countries train all their citizens as soldiers, which I would imagine to be quite off-putting to a potential invading force. 4. Were Germans/Hitler confused by the lack of Scandinavian enthusiasm for their project? The typical Scandinavian is quite Aryan, after all. 5. Nazi architecture and civil planning seemed quite thoughtful. Do you happen to know if their plans were realistic? Eg. Building seaside resorts that people of any income level could enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
Shade2142 posted:How did he manage that? I thought german intelligence was pretty shoddy. http://www.historynet.com/intercepted-communications-for-field-marshal-erwin-rommel.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonner_Fellers quote:In 1941, Colonel Fellers was assigned as military attaché to the U.S. embassy in Egypt. He was tasked with the duty of monitoring and reporting on British military operations in the Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre. The British granted Fellers full access to their activities and information. Fellers dutifully reported everything he learned to his superiors in the United States. His reports were especially prized by Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall.[citation needed]
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 10:33
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:The Nazi's literally had Einsatzgruppen units all organized, set, and ready to go for the expected conquest of Palestine in 1942. They were going to begin murdering right away, there is no question about it. Yup, Einsatzgruppe Egypt was ready to depart from Athens. Regarding Rommel, if I recall correctly there was a general who joined his forces in North Africa that told several other officers about mass murders on the Ostfront, so presumably this knowledge trickled back to Rommel. I really wish I could find the citation now, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I don't watch History Channel and I wasn't aware of the bad reputation it has. What is exactly their problem? Inventing or misrepresenting stuff to make it more interesting? I know this is not central to the thread but I'd still appreciate an answer...
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 15:32
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:I know this is not central to the thread but I'd still appreciate an answer... Not American myself but the version I've heard is that years and years ago the History channel was considered good (well for "casual" history) if a little overly obsessed with WWII (at one point apparently it was nicknamed the Hitler Channel.) Over time though it began to shift in search of ratings to showing stuff like: Did aliens build the pyramids? did a secret cabal of templars attempt to hide the descendants of Buddha? sort of crap. Now apparently though it running a ton of crap that is barely even related to history people going out and hunting for antiques to buy and sell live on TV sub ice road truckers the 10 most dangerous jobs in the 20th century sort of things. As a result now finding any sort of reliable history on the History channel is completely impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Theomanic posted:3. As MrBling mentioned, Denmark was peaceably occupied, though they snuck all their Jewish citizens out, I believe mainly to Sweden. While I know Sweden was neutral, I have heard stories both of them assisting Jewish people, and turning over Jewish people to the Nazi's. Were both these situations prevelant, or did they tend to a bias one way or another? I think the Swedish government harboured Jewish people unofficially, but citizens could/would still sell out Jewish people and somehow get them sent back to Germany... But I am entirely confused on the matter. Denmark was not peaceably occupied - although the invasion was largely bloodless and the government quickly surrendered, there was some fighting and some dying involved. Sweden harbored Jews - both the Jews that originally lived here and others that arrived later, such as the Danish Jews. I'm not sure what you mean by "unofficially". I have also never ever heard of anyone in Sweden getting Jews sent back to Germany, that sounds utterly insane. quote:3b. I saw Raskolnikov's post on Sweden, but I was hoping for more detail. I was not under the impression the neutral countries were that concerned about invasion. I know the American concept of a neutral country is they're a bunch of pansies, but a lot of those countries train all their citizens as soldiers, which I would imagine to be quite off-putting to a potential invading force. Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium were all neutral when the Germans invaded them. Finland was neutral when the Soviet Union invaded it. Neutral countries were, obviously and rightly, concerned about invasion. America was also neutral at the start of both world wars, so I guess Americans must consider themselves a bunch of pansies. quote:4. Were Germans/Hitler confused by the lack of Scandinavian enthusiasm for their project? The typical Scandinavian is quite Aryan, after all. You'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the expected vs actual reactions of the people of Norway and Denmark to being invaded and occupied? Or some kind of hypothetical assumption on the part of the Germans/Hitler that Scandinavians would flock to join the Nazis? Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jul 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Theomanic posted:1. What facets of Communism were being pushed by the Communist party (pre-WWII) that worried Germans so much? From posts I read here, it seems like the rich and moderates were the ones most concerned...? Why is that? The international Communist movement held dear a number of objectives that tended to arouse resistance from many sectors of society. Redistribution of wealth and property, would obviously frighten the wealthy and propertied. The threat of factories, mines, and other industrial concerns becoming state enterprises didn't seem like a great deal to the people who owned them. People of elevated social class didn't like the Communists' promise to do away with social distinctions and promote egalitarianism. The aggressive atheism of the Communist movement was a problem for religious people. Communist parties were also officially internationalist and in favor of racial equality and women's rights (although in practice never lived up to the principles), which engendered further opposition from, well, nationalists, sexists, and racists--which at that time was most people. Additionally, the Russian Civil War had been the occasion of widespread atrocity and huge numbers of Russian aristocrats were killed, imprisoned, or sent into exile after their property was seized. The specter of the Red Terror was influential in driving opposition to international Communism. Generally speaking Communism was most popular among working-class people who were unemployed, occupied relatively low positions in the workshop hierarchy, or who felt very strongly some of the stances I outlined above. Better-established workers (i.e. people who thought they had something to lose), or workers who were more socially conservative by nature, wold be more likely to support mainstream Social Democratic parties like the SPD. quote:2. I'm under the impression that the US joined the war effort only once they were attacked at Pearl Harbour. Is this correct? What was America's plan in regards to the Nazi threat? I saw Devour's post but... It seemed unhelpful. Until the Japanese attack, the American plan was to supply Britain and, later, the Soviet Union with war materiel through the Lend-Lease program. The US government was also engaging in actions to secure their own strategic interests that were provocative towards Germany. A good example of this was when the British turned Iceland over to US occupation in the summer of 1941. US naval forces were already participating in the Battle of the Atlantic before Germany's declaration of war, by escorting Commonwealth convoys as far as Iceland, as well as observing U-Boats and reporting their position to the Royal Navy. This direct collusion with the enemies of Germany would almost certainly have led to open hostilities with Germany at some point. This became clearly inevitable after Japan launched their attack, because the Americans and British began cooperating directly against Japan, an arrangement that would surely extend to the European theater as well. Germany's defensive treaty with Japan did not oblige them to declare war in sympathy with their attack on the USA, but Hitler did so anyway, judging that then was as good a time as any. quote:3. As MrBling mentioned, Denmark was peaceably occupied, though they snuck all their Jewish citizens out, I believe mainly to Sweden. While I know Sweden was neutral, I have heard stories both of them assisting Jewish people, and turning over Jewish people to the Nazi's. Were both these situations prevelant, or did they tend to a bias one way or another? I think the Swedish government harboured Jewish people unofficially, but citizens could/would still sell out Jewish people and somehow get them sent back to Germany... But I am entirely confused on the matter. I honestly don't know. Maybe somebody else can help you. Folke Bernadotte and Raoul Wallenberg are well known Swedes in this area. quote:3b. I saw Raskolnikov's post on Sweden, but I was hoping for more detail. I was not under the impression the neutral countries were that concerned about invasion. I know the American concept of a neutral country is they're a bunch of pansies, but a lot of those countries train all their citizens as soldiers, which I would imagine to be quite off-putting to a potential invading force. Sweden was vulnerable to German attack because their military would not have been able to resist a German invasion via Denmark and Norway, which were already occupied, and because Swedish iron ore was critical to the German war effort. Anything that imperiled that line of supply would have elicited an aggressive response from Germany. The Swedish government was negatively disposed towards the Nazis but mindful of the fact that they could not survive direct opposition. As a result Sweden aided both sides: the Nazis openly, and the Allies clandestinely. Swedish neutrality was not particularly inspiring or heroic but was in the best interests of the state and its citizens. quote:4. Were Germans/Hitler confused by the lack of Scandinavian enthusiasm for their project? The typical Scandinavian is quite Aryan, after all. No. A good proportion of Germans were unenthusiastic about the Nazi project, which was a source of real anxiety for the Nazis. Historians have suggested that one major reason that the Nazi government failed to effectively mobilize war industries and put the economy on a war footing until midway through the fight was the fear that the population would turn on them. The NSDAP also spent a long period of time before 1930 as an underground party, intermittently banned, with a tiny base of support among the German population at large. They were probably well aware that many Aryans, such as in Scandinavia, did not support them, but believed they would eventually come around after Germany won the war and demonstrated the rightness of Nazi ideology. quote:5. Nazi architecture and civil planning seemed quite thoughtful. Do you happen to know if their plans were realistic? Eg. Building seaside resorts that people of any income level could enjoy. Some of them, sure. Not everything they thought up was ridiculously grandiose crap like Welthauptstadt Germania.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Does anyone have any good recommended reading on the experiments conducted during WWII? I find it an endless source of fascination, mostly because it was so meticulious. As for the back-forth happening regarding the pilots of WWI, I believe there is a grandious sort of light cast upon it in history books, however we have to remember these were still men in rickity paper+wood planes trying to shoot down each other. Richtofen might have referred to it as the grand hunt etc, but at the end of the day each time they stepped into the cockpit they might very well have been shot to bits or set on fire... 100's of feet in the air. I believe it took courage to even start the drat thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the homeless rates were in Nazi Germany 1933-1945, assuming there was any record of it? If there were homeless ethnic Germans in the Third Reich, what did the society/leadership of Nazi Germany do about it? I ask because of the high emphasis the Nazi Party had on Aryans, which is something I've been curious about in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Devour posted:Does anyone know what the homeless rates were in Nazi Germany 1933-1945, assuming there was any record of it? If there were homeless ethnic Germans in the Third Reich, what did the society/leadership of Nazi Germany do about it? I ask because of the high emphasis the Nazi Party had on Aryans, which is something I've been curious about in this case. They were marked as "asocials" and put into concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:They were marked as "asocials" and put into concentration camps. And coincidentally now counted as "employed" for the purpose of German economic statistics!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:They were marked as "asocials" and put into concentration camps. You'd find more than a few people in the US who would support that today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:You'd find more than a few people in the US who would support that today. Why what do you think a government job is, just a bunch of dudes digging holes and fillin' 'em back up again! Here is a good backgrounder on the broad asocial category, known as the black triangles. Anyone from prostitutes to petty criminals to substance abusers fell under the rubric. More than 20,000 were arrested, and about 10,000 in the camps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 01:19 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Until the Japanese attack, the American plan was to supply Britain and, later, the Soviet Union with war materiel through the Lend-Lease program. The US government was also engaging in actions to secure their own strategic interests that were provocative towards Germany. A good example of this was when the British turned Iceland over to US occupation in the summer of 1941. US naval forces were already participating in the Battle of the Atlantic before Germany's declaration of war, by escorting Commonwealth convoys as far as Iceland, as well as observing U-Boats and reporting their position to the Royal Navy. This direct collusion with the enemies of Germany would almost certainly have led to open hostilities with Germany at some point. This became clearly inevitable after Japan launched their attack, because the Americans and British began cooperating directly against Japan, an arrangement that would surely extend to the European theater as well. Germany's defensive treaty with Japan did not oblige them to declare war in sympathy with their attack on the USA, but Hitler did so anyway, judging that then was as good a time as any. As a hypothetical, if Hitler hadn't declared war, wouldn't the US be forced to anyway? I mean, it seems unlikely that the UK/Commonwealth/etc. could retake the entire continent, meaning it'd be left to the Soviets otherwise? And that seems undesirable to everybody. Is there any realistic way the US couldn't get involved?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 18:58
|
|
