|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:David Irving was literally proved in a court of law to be a lying piece of poo poo. So yeah. Isn't he also banned from entering like half the world due to his shitbaggery?
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
I can hardly think of anything in social science that is so well documented and researched as what the 3rd reich did. I think you'd need to invent a new level of being full of poo poo to come up with ideas like these revisionists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Isn't he also banned from entering like half the world due to his shitbaggery? Going by wiki, he's not welcome in at least Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Germany, and France
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
He shouldn't be allowed in any country. He should be confined to the wreck of the Principality of Sealand. Speaking of revisionism, there are currently people in the D&D photo thread unironically white knighting Stalin and the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Oct 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Sobieski posted:What do you think of revisionist historians such as Ernst Zundel, David Irving, etc. Irving is the only revisionist, outside Mark Weber, to have any professional historical research training. He made a career out of willfully misinterpreting evidence, but has since come around the conclusion that the Holocaust happened but was just Himmler's secret project. There's no evidence to support this, but ironically this has ostracized him from the denier community as well, who generally hold Himmler in high esteem and deny Aktion Reinhardt. Ernst Zundel is a straight-up neo-Nazi who fell out of the scene in the '90s. These days, Carlo Mattogno is the "heavyweight" of the denier crowd, but he has no formal training, willfully ignores evidence, repeats and reframes standard denailist canards and distorts historical methodology to arrive at his conclusions. Nothing new under the sun here, just more pages of bullshit. Holocaust denial has been dead on arrival since Harry Elmer Barnes (and any scholar of political thought looking for original research would be well served looking into the connection between post-war WWII isolationism/early libertarianism, with people like Murray Rothbard the editors of the Rampart journal, to early American Holocaust denial, since there was such an overlap), and for me Pfannenstiel swearing to Rassinier that he saw the gas chambers was an early nail in its coffin. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Oct 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
David Irving isn't the only anti-Semite to get banned recently. Ho ho. I did a thing there. Serious question: How much can you separate Irving's anti-Semitism from his broader career? He wrote a ton of books. Are they all bad? Or was he once a respected historian who - for whatever reasons - began to sympathize with his subject (the Nazis) a little too much? Or have historians gone back and looked at his early pre-revisionist work and concluded: well this guy was full of poo poo all along?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
It's a broken clock situation. Historians didn't have to go back and look over his work for indications that he was a poo poo. There was never any question that David Irving had racist, anti-semitic, pro-Fascist views, and his work was criticized from the start for portraying the Nazis more sympathetically than the archive could support. At the same time, he had an exceptional grasp of the German military archives, and he produced some work that actually held up pretty well. But that's incidental, the whole reason he became an author was so he could produce revisionist histories that showed the Nazis in a better light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Yeah, it seems like he has a pretty technical understanding of the German military, but he's nobody's child now. Even deniers are skeptical about his forthcoming Himmler biography, which, rightfully, virtually no one will read. The only real Irving sympathizers I've ever seen who aren't public deniers are a handful of regular posters on the Axis History Forum, and even their integrity is highly suspect, in my opinion. It's strange, because Irving and his few acolytes now represent a weird, Internet-only niche of "the Holocaust happened but its scale was likely overstated and it was Himmler's, mostly economically driven, project" thesis, which is utter bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Assuming everything went their way, at what point would the Nazis have considered themselves to have achieved all their military aims, and the war to have been won? Was there an endgame in mind, in terms of how far to expand territory etc? On a similar note, is there any indication of what a peacetime, post-war Third Reich would have been like in the event of all military goals being achieved? The governing of occupied territories in 'peacetime', economic/social/cultural/political plans etc. I mean this in terms of actual Nazi plans/discussions about after the war, rather than the usual alt-history predictions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:Assuming everything went their way, at what point would the Nazis have considered themselves to have achieved all their military aims, and the war to have been won? Was there an endgame in mind, in terms of how far to expand territory etc? Generalplan Ost and then a more "tame" version for the Western occupied territories.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
It has always been my understanding that Hitler admired the courage of the Greeks, and considered them to be 'Aryan', despite not looking like his ideal Aryans. Others claim that he hated the Greeks precisely because they did not look Aryan, and that modern Greeks were unrelated to the ancient Greeks. What do you know about this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 14:29
|
|
|
Is there any merit to the argument that the Allies would've beaten the Nazis easily if they'd made a preemptive strike in 1936 or '37?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:Is there any merit to the argument that the Allies would've beaten the Nazis easily if they'd made a preemptive strike in 1936 or '37? Certainly. It depends on the definition of easily, of course, but the Wehrmacht was nowhere near as capable in 1936 as it was in 1939. There are obviously secondary concerns, such as the Allies taking the offensive, popularity of the war at home and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
The Red Army was still unpurged, and various forward thinking officers were still around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Red Army was still unpurged, and various forward thinking officers were still around. Still have to deal with Poland not wanting the Red Army on their turf for some odd reason. IIRC analysis and testimonials from German generals showed that during the Czechoslovak crisis the Wehrmacht maintained a minimum of troops on the border with France which would have easily been broken through had the West attacked. The Czech defenses, while not yet fully constructed, combined with the terrain would have probably blunted a German invasion long enough for the French to reach them or force a military coup in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Still have to deal with Poland not wanting the Red Army on their turf for some odd reason. Even in '39, if I recall Manstein's book correctly he says that the forces spread out in the west during the invasion of Poland were pretty thin, and mostly new units thrown together, and were basically a giant bluff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
The Monkey Man posted:Is there any merit to the argument that the Allies would've beaten the Nazis easily if they'd made a preemptive strike in 1936 or '37? Those "what if" scenarios don't make any sense, even more if you remove any political context from them. It's easy now to look back at something with information that the actors back then didn't possess or didn't deem valid. At that time none of the big players in Europe was eager/ready for another war. H. real political goals remained unknown. I often hear "But everything is he planned to do is in Mein Kampf". Yes, it is. That book is so full of poo poo that nobody would seriously assume that somebody in central Europe would get such complete controll of a modern state's apparatus to be able to pull this off. There were few people who read it as a whole, and even fewer who took that stuff serious who were in a position of power. It was just unthinkable that H. would be able take things so far before getting into conflict with the old elites. At that time the power of the german military was still a serious threat to H. himself and the party, so he was by no means completely free to decide without considering the goals of the military complex. Whatever you might think of H., he was a master of political maneuver and managed to outplay just about everybody in Germany. Maybe most importantly, there was no way to sell a preemtive war against Germany to the public of France or Britain at 36 or 37, with the memory of the bloody grind of WWI still fresh. That was what everybody was expecting from the next war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:Assuming everything went their way, at what point would the Nazis have considered themselves to have achieved all their military aims, and the war to have been won? Was there an endgame in mind, in terms of how far to expand territory etc? While we do know of things like Generalplan Ost and the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line being the military objective of the German invasion, there's really no reason to believe that Hitler would have stopped anywhere. When he defeated France, he was thinking about (and tried) England. When Rommel made large gains in Libya, he was thinking about Egypt. When Case Blue was driving into the Caucasus, he was already thinking about the Middle East. At the height of the Third Reich, there were plans for an Amerika bomber and later an upsized V-2 Rocket that could reach New York. What I'm saying is that what we would consider an endgame is only really that because of the limits of what Germany managed to achieve and by extension a limit on what the Nazis were thinking about 2-3 steps after their next victory, but AFAIK their Fascist ideology would lead them to declare war on someone else, and indeed everyone else, as long as they kept winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 12:05
|
|
|
Why'd Hitler invade France if he just wanted to spread east? Just Adolf being Adolf?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 13:52
|
|
|
Andy Cancer posted:Why'd Hitler invade France if he just wanted to spread east? Just Adolf being Adolf? They were kinda at war at the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Andy Cancer posted:Why'd Hitler invade France if he just wanted to spread east? Just Adolf being Adolf? Besides, Germany had some scores to settle with the French, as evidenced by the choice of Compiègne to sign the surrender documents after France was defeated. They even used the same train car used to sign the WWI armistice. I would also expect that the Germans believed that it would take fewer men to garrison France and defend against an invasion across the Channel than to garrison their entire border with France while going after Poland and the Soviets, though I have nothing to back this up other than my own reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:I would also expect that the Germans believed that it would take fewer men to garrison France and defend against an invasion across the Channel than to garrison their entire border with France while going after Poland and the Soviets, though I have nothing to back this up other than my own reasoning. This makes sense. Thanks. Slightly different question: I just watched Inglorious Basterds again and it got me wondering about Nazi cinema. Are any of their films worth watching? Are they available anywhere online?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Andy Cancer posted:This makes sense. Thanks. Depends on what you consider Nazi cinema; do you mean any film produced during the NSDAP regime, or just propagandaistic ones? The 1944 drama Ofpergang is quite highly regarded by some. The propagandistic element consist of a relatively subduded extolling of the nobility of sacrifice. Here is detailed article on the film, and it can found herehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni1zIds7deY (english subtitles). There is also the 1943 version of Münchhausen:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ximQyzWH_H8, also with english subs. TCM article and online review. Otherwise there is wikipedia. Much is available on Youtube if you search for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
There was a weird Titanic movie made by the Nazis in 43.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Andy Cancer posted:This makes sense. Thanks. Pretty much anything by Leni Riefenstahl is worth seeing. She's up there with D.W. Griffiths, Fritz Lang, and Orson Welles in terms of important filmmakers. She revolutionized using unusual camera angles, and basically invented smash cuts, extreme close-ups, tracking shots... The Blue Light is a genuinely good film, and Der Sieg des Glaubens and Triumph of the Will are the reason we still today think of the Nazis as a terrifying and unstoppable lockstep group of well-trained and perfect super-soldiers, rather than a mostly disorganized and over-sized street gang run by a bunch of barely competent thugs who were constantly at one another's throats. Question of my own that may be a little off topic for this thread: I've been reading and really enjoying Richard J. Evans' trilogy about the Third Reich, and it led me to take a detour and read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad which I enjoyed immensely. Are there any works in English on the entire "Great Patriotic Conflict," told from the Soviet standpoint rather than the American? Or just any good books about the USSR of that period? Something kinda like John Toland's The Rising Sun would be awesome, if it exists... Toph Bei Fong fucked around with this message at 05:51 on Oct 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There was a weird Titanic movie made by the Nazis in 43. Yeah there was, and in some serious cosmic irony, the film premiered in Nazi occupied territories, but was never played in Germany, and the ship used for the Titanic in it was sunk at the end of the war with like 3,000 more fatalities than the actual Titanic.(Also a few scenes from the nazi film wound up being used in A Night to Remember in 1958)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:Pretty much anything by Leni Riefenstahl is worth seeing. She's up there with D.W. Griffiths, Fritz Lang, and Orson Welles in terms of important filmmakers. She revolutionized using unusual camera angles, and basically invented smash cuts, extreme close-ups, tracking shots... "Absolute War" by Chris Bellamy is good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:David Irving isn't the only anti-Semite to get banned recently. Ho ho. I did a thing there. Late reply, but for anyone interested in a thorough take on David Irving, you can read the entire transcript of the Irving v Lipstadt trial here, hosted by Emory University (where Deborah Lipstadt is employed). For those who don't know the story, author Deborah Lipstadt wrote a book called Denying the Holocaust in which she mentioned David Irving as a leading historian who was also a Holocaust denier. He sued her (as well as Penguin Books) for libel, and he did it in the UK, since they have much stricter libel laws than the US. Penguin's lawyers paid for experts to go over Irving's works with a fine-tooth comb. The verdict indicated pretty strongly that even Irving's earliest works had falsifications and factual stretches, and that he couldn't be trusted as a historian at all. Richard J Evans was one of the expert witnesses, and wrote a book about his experiences, entitled Lying about Hitler. Both the transcripts and Evans' book are highly recommended, though I realize plenty of people aren't interested in slogging through hundreds of pages of court reports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Spoilers Below posted:Pretty much anything by Leni Riefenstahl is worth seeing. She's up there with D.W. Griffiths, Fritz Lang, and Orson Welles in terms of important filmmakers. She revolutionized using unusual camera angles, and basically invented smash cuts, extreme close-ups, tracking shots... You might want to check out Russia At War, 1941-1945 by Alexander Werth. It's a very Russian-centered look at WWII and is a pretty massive work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:David Irving isn't the only anti-Semite to get banned recently. Ho ho. I did a thing there. There have been some people to go back over Irving's work and saw that when he was talking about military tactics, but any deviation from that he went into his revisionist ways. Also just wanted to revive this thread as I have found I do not get enough discussion about the Third Reich in my day to day. Some background about myself, I recently finished a B.A. Honours program in history with a focus on the Holocaust, writing a dissertation on Homosexuals in the Third Reich. I also studied other minority groups, and the Third Reich as a whole so feel free to ask any questions, I would love to answer/discuss any topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Off the top of my head, I think Irving got some praise because he wasn't half bad at digging through archives. For instance I think Hitler's War is one of the first books that deal with stuff like Göring's extensive wiretapping program. However, the more books he wrote, the more irregularities appeared and it wasn't just about Holocaust revisionism, it was also his habit of using really iffy sources and hearsay in his writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
A month ago, I read about this movie. Might be interesting for you guys. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_radikal_B%C3%B6se_(Film)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Newfie posted:There have been some people to go back over Irving's work and saw that when he was talking about military tactics, but any deviation from that he went into his revisionist ways. Have you read the play I am my Own Wife? It's about a transsexual who surived the Third Reich and the East German Stasi, possibly by narcing on her peers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:A month ago, I read about this movie. Might be interesting for you guys. I was waiting on subs for this film because while my reading comprehension is pretty good, I still struggle with hearing and understanding German. I am hearing a lot of good talk about the movie so I really hope we see an English release for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have you read the play I am my Own Wife? It's about a transsexual who surived the Third Reich and the East German Stasi, possibly by narcing on her peers. There is also a docu-drama about the same person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_My_Own_Woman
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Have you read the play I am my Own Wife? It's about a transsexual who surived the Third Reich and the East German Stasi, possibly by narcing on her peers. I did read parts of it, but did not get to read the whole thing as my paper was more focused on the overall study of homosexual males. I did read several volumes on Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld and his experience as a transsexual which was very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
How many LGBT people made it through just by staying closeted as all gently caress? That's difficult to get a real census of but there's got to be speculation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How many LGBT people made it through just by staying closeted as all gently caress? That is probably one of the hardest questions to answer. Demographers tear their hair out over this question because of issues like defining the LGBT community at the time. Some estimates are based off things like the the Kinsey reports and other modern studies of homosexuality, but their applicability to a different time and nation are shaky at best. It is also hard to judge as most people did not come out after the war due to Germany keeping Nazi anti homosexuality laws. This means any speculation I can give you would be as accurate as just blind guess work. There were many homosexuals that did do this to avoid persecution, but no quantitative estimate. On a related note, the number of charges laid for homosexual behaviour in the period numbers around 1.5 million charges. The problem is that by the final revisions of Paragraph 175, something such as hugging another male or someone spreading rumors of you being engaged in anything homosexual could count as a charge of homosexual activity, so these numbers are not an accurate reflection either. Even the number of charges that lead to incarceration in concentration camps shifts widely from historian to historian, with 10,000 being the low ball number. Sorry that this doesn't give you an answer to the question. There have been some authors who speculated on the topic, but it is really an impossible question to answer with any degree of accuracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
I don't want to turn this into a "hitler would have won if he had just.." thread, but what do you think of the following: Hitler tells Mussolini to deal with it, and launches Barbarossa on time, so he has 6 - 8 extra weeks of summer and all the troops he originally planned to use. Barbarossa is planned as a TWO year operation so troops are issued winter equipment and dig in once winter arrives. Which would more likely as not have been after or at least inside Moscow. Hitler puts off the Russian genocide till the Soviet Union is dealt with, he actively spreads the word he is here to free the Russian people from communism. He no longer has to "guard the rear" or use troops to massacre the population, god knows how many "freed" Russians join him. Europe's in a lot of trouble.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:41 |
|
|
There is a pile of things wrong with that but I'll just point out that the restraint on winter equipment isn't equipment, it's transport. You can't ship coats if you need to ship fuel and ammo and guess what was the first priority?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2014 01:48
|
|
