|
No, it's titled simply "Reinhard Heydrich" and written by the norwegian author Knut Kristofersen. As an aside, when people talk about the Holocaust, what is it commonly understood to mean? The entire process of Nazi ethnic cleansing, starting basically with the Nuremberg laws, or the outright extermination campaign (including executions, death camps and "work 'til you die" labour camps)?
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:No, it's titled simply "Reinhard Heydrich" and written by the norwegian author Knut Kristofersen. Funny thing: googling the author revealed that the book has peculiar titles in different editions: The original Norwegian is Den musikalske bøddel, "The executioner with musical talent", the Swedish edition is named Heydrich, Förintelsens arkitekt ("Architect of annihilation") and the Danish is Heydrich. Det tredje riges bøddel ("Executioner of the third Reich"). Doesn't seem like it has been published outside those countries, though. Kopijeger fucked around with this message at 10:45 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
"Förintelsen" in this case refers to the Holocaust specifically. So, "Heydrich, the Architect of the Holocaust".
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 10:30
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:No, it's titled simply "Reinhard Heydrich" and written by the norwegian author Knut Kristofersen. Ugh. All or one of the above, depending on who you're talking to. Some people use the term "Holocaust" to refer specifically to the extermination of Jews, some include Roma, some include Poles, Russians or other Slavs, some differentiate between the Final Solution (planned, methodical genocide) and everything before the Wannsee Conference. Given functionalist theory, it's usually useful to differentiate between persecution and outright elimination, as one was not necessarily the intentional precursor to the other. Any of the above are "acceptable" to me, but this is the sort of thing that gets groups angry at each other. Extent of victimization can become competitive.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
A good example for "we were victims too" paired with "the jews had it coming" poo poo-stirring would be discussion in Poland about the book that I gave. Really, read the Zeit articles about it if you know German. http://www.zeit.de/2005/06/Jedwabne e: Ok, I feel that my post gives a wrong impression and needs another landmark, so that you can get a better feel how messed up and complicated everything about Poland is. Look to the Righteous among the Nations. So many Poles. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 13:21 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
Let's just agree that every European country was deeply anti-Semitic, and that the Germans just came up with a endgültige Lösung before the Russians came up with their погром, but definitely after the Spanish had their little inquisición and the Italians their lovely i ghetti.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Ferdinand the Bull posted:Let's just agree that every European country was deeply anti-Semitic, and that the Germans just came up with a endgültige Lösung before the Russians came up with their погром, but definitely after the Spanish had their little inquisición and the Italians their lovely i ghetti. Inquistition i know and i ghetti is, given the subject matter, something to do with a ghetto, but what are the other two? Final solution for german i assume?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
He means Endlösung = final solution
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
And "pogrom" in cyrillic script.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
What (and when) exactly is the earliest recorded incident of prejudice/oppression/hatred etc. with regards to the Jews?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:What (and when) exactly is the earliest recorded incident of prejudice/oppression/hatred etc. with regards to the Jews? 586 BCE when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
mcustic posted:586 BCE when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple? Eh, that's kind of just an ancient empire doing what ancient empires do and taking a giant poo poo on a conquered enemy. There isn't any specific religious or ethnic animosity there - they did that poo poo to basically everyone. Same deal for the Romans kicking them out later on - that was more due to the fact that there was a history of uprisings in that region, and it was more or less how they treated everyone who bucked the empire. For the Jews specifically you probably need to get into the Christian era at least and figure out what the earliest incidents of religious persecution are. I know the English Edict of Expulsion was 1290, but I would be surprised if there aren't earlier examples. You could certainly argue that there's indirect evidence of some kind of prejudice or wide-spread dislike of them at least as early as the 5th Century, since that's when you have St. Augustine writing that they should be tolerated; if there weren't people running around making life difficult for them it's doubtful he would have felt the need to specifically argue for their toleration. edit: note that this is all based on religious anti-Semitism, however. Racial anti-Semitism as practiced by the Nazis is a different beast all together. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 21:59 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
mcustic posted:586 BCE when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple? Yeah, like the poster below said, I'm more referring to cultural/ethnic aversion.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Thinking about it more, I'd probably argue for the roots of racial anti-Semitism being in pre-Expulsion Spain. That's where you have the first (I think - not a medieval or early modern scholar) articulation of an inherent "jewishness" that couldn't be gotten rid of simply by converting. The Spanish made a distinction between regular Christians and 'conversos' and there was a lot of angst about conversos continuing to practice Judaism behind closed doors. Critically the converso stigma, as I recall, was also something that was an inheritable trait - if your parents were conversos you were still suspect, even if you were born and baptized Catholic. Personally I'd argue that this is still a bit early for true racial anti-semitism, though, because most of the real fear behind it has a religious nature to it - the core objection was a theological one, rather than the fact that they simply existed. The stuff that most directly influenced Nazism would probably be 19th century 'scientific' racism. Where and when, exactly, that begins I'm not sure, but it was certainly alive and kicking by the middle of that century. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 22:21 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Yeah, like the poster below said, I'm more referring to cultural/ethnic aversion. My response was a little bit tongue in cheek, but it's really hard to draw a line. Was it the forced hellenization and the ban on circumcision in the second century BCE? Or was it really only in the Middle Ages? e: I forgot about Muhammad kicking the Jews out of Medina. Take the plunge! Okay! fucked around with this message at 22:38 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Thinking about it more, I'd probably argue for the roots of racial anti-Semitism being in pre-Expulsion Spain. That's where you have the first (I think - not a medieval or early modern scholar) articulation of an inherent "jewishness" that couldn't be gotten rid of simply by converting. The Spanish made a distinction between regular Christians and 'conversos' and there was a lot of angst about conversos continuing to practice Judaism behind closed doors. Critically the converso stigma, as I recall, was also something that was an inheritable trait - if your parents were conversos you were still suspect, even if you were born and baptized Catholic. That about Spain is something that I read too, which linked traits to "blood", but to no great consequence in furthering the idea elsewhere. Where it really takes off is with the ideas of Charles Darwin that inspired these people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_eugenics and also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism Sidenote: You can follow the red line to the Austrian School of economics, and surprise, where does it lead to?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Rookersh posted:When I moved to the US, most people seemed to think the Polish army was so doomed it attempted to fight tank divisions with guys on horseback throwing grenades. This is actually enduring Nazi propaganda. Party reporters came across a battlefield near Krojanty with dead Polish cavalrymen and horses, created a narrative about them charging tanks, and then made a propaganda reel about it. There's a pretty good writeup here and (I think) the "original" footage is here. (There's some dead people and horses, so watch out.)
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 12:19
|
|
|
Didn't most Polish cavalry charges succeed in getting the German infantry they charged to pull back?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
moths posted:This is actually enduring Nazi propaganda. Party reporters came across a battlefield near Krojanty with dead Polish cavalrymen and horses, created a narrative about them charging tanks, and then made a propaganda reel about it. There's a pretty good writeup here and (I think) the "original" footage is here. (There's some dead people and horses, so watch out.) This is really interesting. Surprising how this lasted decades and decades after the war. I still hear this often today.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
There is a considerable amount of Nazi propaganda that still gets parroted today. See also the Bismark, Blitzkrieg, the Versailles Diktat etc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Kuiperdolin posted:There is a considerable amount of Nazi propaganda that still gets parroted today. See also the Bismark, Blitzkrieg, the Versailles Diktat etc. Basically anything about the Tiger tank, too. For some reason, the decent designs are ignored and everyone gushes about how SS-Sturmbahnfuhrer whoever destroyed 500 Pershings in a single evening.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
It's kind of hilarious how Barkmann's Corner is treated like it's actually a historical location of note and stuff. Whoa! Real tank killed some vehicles from a recon squadron! Stop the presses! Then again considering that it's sometimes a stretch to get people to realize that the vast majority of the difference in Soviet and German military deaths is covered by 3.6 or so million PoWs who died in captivity...
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
My favourite overglorified Tiger commander was probably Whittmann, who destroyed a bunch of Stuarts and artillery observers and then got blown up for running out in the middle of a field like an idiot. Yes, this is a man whose achievements we should all celebrate.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
Kuiperdolin posted:See also the Bismark, Blitzkrieg, the Versailles Diktat etc. Other than the Blitzkrieg myth, what is often said of the other two?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
How much if Blitzkrieg a myth? I haven't read that opinion much, I'd be interested in hearing it broken down. My understanding is that blitzkrieg-like strategy works well against smaller targets, but is at a great disadvantage when fighting others with significant reserves, is that not true?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Kuiperdolin posted:There is a considerable amount of Nazi propaganda that still gets parroted today. See also the Bismark, Blitzkrieg, the Versailles Diktat etc. There is also Triumph of the Will, which is a big reason why the Nazis have the reputation of being a hyper-disciplined, organized fighting force with Hitler treated as a demigod. I have to wonder how people reacted to that film when it was released, it's crystal clear to the modern viewer that the Nazis were preparing to start a major war and take back what they lost in WWI. One of the unintentional sad parts was watching the Hitler Youth rally and realizing that most of those kids probably died in the war.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:How much if Blitzkrieg a myth? I haven't read that opinion much, I'd be interested in hearing it broken down. The myth is that the nazis (specifically Guderian) came up with the invincible strategy of using high speed combined arms formations to swiftly penetrate enemy territory, bypassing pockets of resistance, even though military thinkers have been talking about that sort of thing for ages (for instance, Tukhachevskiy and Deep Battle). Also, German contemporary sources never mentioned the word "blitzkrieg". It was mostly used as an excuse by Allied commanders. We couldn't do anything, they used Blitzkrieg on us!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
The closest thing you'll find to explanation of what blitzkrieg is, is the application of overwhelming force so as to overcome the enemy as quickly as possible IE: what every commander since the dawn of humanity has attempted to do. The nazis just happened to be successful at it 2 and half times in a row.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
It's kind of funny but that's a lot like the Prussian/Imperial German record with similar stuff. It seems that the third time is most certainly not the charm.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
There's also a perception today that Blitzkrieg! was a nonstop nitro-burning whirlwind assault across Europe, but there was a seven month period of near inactivity in France preceding her invasion. A British expeditionary force was deployed to France (who had declared war on Germany) but no substantial fighting happened for an extensive amount of time. This was called the Phoney War - an expeditionary force was sent to France (who had declared war on Germany) but everyone more or less stood around while politics happened. After the war, German generals acknowledged that if France had invaded Germany during this time, the German army could have held out for at most two weeks. They were extremely vulnerable at this time, having over-committed to the war in Poland.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Kuiperdolin posted:There is a considerable amount of Nazi propaganda that still gets parroted today. See also the Bismark, Blitzkrieg, the Versailles Diktat etc. What about Versailles?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
The Bismarck wasn't really that great of a ship even. First, let's ignore the fact that the Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal Navy, and that the HMS Hood was a battlecruiser, pressed into a role she wasn't designed for, sunk in the very sort of engagement that she wad advised to avoid, and was never given a proper overhaul when many of her contemporary battleships were given two full reconstructions. She entered the battle with rust spots and leaky steam pipes. As for the Bismarck, she was a very flawed ship. Although she was fast, stable and had powerful main guns, she was thoroughly outclassed by contemporary battleships in most respects. She was a very poor sea boat. She had difficulty executing turns, and required tugs for any sort of tight manoeuvres. She only had one rudder, which was relatively delicate, compared to contemporaries. She had small fuel bunkers, and was a gas (well, heavy fuel oil) guzzler, even among battleships. Her radar was inferior to American and British designs. She also had a small and ineffective AA battery, and poor damage control. All of these flaws led to her sinking, the fact she was basically sent on a suicide mission and that Admiral Luetjens was overconfident and made terrible decisions notwithstanding. Sunshine89 fucked around with this message at 07:28 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
The mythologizing of the capabilities of nazi germany comes from several sources. Nazi propaganda that seeped into the public unconsciousness in the west, media focusing on the spectacular (and overblowing the mundane), surviving german commanders' views of themselves and the war etc. This mythologizing serves several purposes. If you depict your enemy as an unstoppable juggernaut with superior technology, with soldiers that are disciplined bordering on brainwashed being led by fanatics, your own struggle looks more impressive. It also becomes easier to explain your own failings. The allies fighting against a superior enemy for several years, until finally through great efforts they manage to turn the war around, makes for a better story. Also, when the Cold War started getting into swing at the end of WWII, the idea of the Soviet throwing hordes of illiterate peasants armed with sticks and clad in rags against the technological marvels of the germanic race, was something that was readily accepted in the west. It played into existing prejudices and beliefs. If you admit that Blitzkrieg wasn't this super-strategy that couldn't be countered, you have to admit that the allied setbacks at the start of the war were due to strategical and political failings. You understand why no-one in a leading position would be interested in doing this. Sure, Scandinavia, Poland and the Benelux probably didn't stand a chance to start with (too small, too underdeveloped) but the Fall of France and the opening year of Barbarossa was all due to the political and military leadership doing all the wrong things in the buildup to the war. Russia managed to turn things around because they could trade land and lives for time, and eventually adapted. France couldn't. The myth of nazi super-science feeds into the same self-comforting delusions. Sure, they managed some spectacular things like rockets and jet planes, but only late in the war and it never amounted to much. The legendary nazi supertank, the Tiger:  It was based on an outdated design from the mid 1930s. It was all right angles and straight lines, overcomplicated and too expensive for what it actually did, and the Germans never had more than a few handfuls. Yes, it was big. Yes, it had a huge gun. But contrast with something like the soviet IS tank:  Look at that. One of these two is the design-philosophical ancestor of all modern tanks, and it isn't the box on wheels. Towards the end of the war, Soviet battlefield technology and their strategical thinking were far superior to what the Nazis had. But acknowledging that wouldn't allow western (and nazi!) leaders to paint the soviets as barbarians callously throwing their starving and ill-equipped population into the meat grinder, so we're stuck with the "oriental hordes" image.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Guess who also shaped that image? Shortly before the war ended it is obvious who the new enemy no.1 will be for the US. So, who has substantial experience with that new enemy? German generalship. These guys tell intelligence what expect from the SU, how they operate, how the "character" of soviet soldiers is supposed to be, all that stuff that you would expect from a good NS-General.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
If you're not a tank nerd, sloped armor conveys has huge advantages: There's both some force deflection of impacting shells, and you 'cheat' extra thickness since incoming rounds must traverse the not-shortest path to breach the armor. (Think of crossing a street directly (regular armor) vs crossing the same street at a weird 45 degree angle.) With sloped armor you get more protection out of your armor, which is better design all the way down since it weighs less and puts less stress on other design elements. All that rocket-planes and night-vision scopes accomplished was to to devour research assets that would have been better spent on tilting armor.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 12:41
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Guess who also shaped that image? Shortly before the war ended it is obvious who the new enemy no.1 will be for the US. So, who has substantial experience with that new enemy? German generalship. These guys tell intelligence what expect from the SU, how they operate, how the "character" of soviet soldiers is supposed to be, all that stuff that you would expect from a good NS-General. Exactly. A lot of former Wehrmacht commanders were seen by the west (by which I mean largely the US and UK) as experts on fighting the soviets. Of course these commanders would claim that their technologically and intellectually superior forces were simply overrun by the numerically superior Soviet hordes, and that they would have prevailed had it not been for Hitler's meddling. This was lapped up by both the western public and leaders, as it played into pre-existing prejudices about the underdeveloped and primitive Russian.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
I'm curious whether a similar process occurred in the Soviet bloc.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Sunshine89 posted:The Bismarck wasn't really that great of a ship even. I'll actually elaborate a bit especially on her stern because it was really badly designed and the Kriegsmarine had an epidemic of bad stern failures (Bismarck, Prinz Eugen and Luetzow all had their sterns collapse). The Bismarck for some reason (probably because the Reichsmarineamt was working in a crazy environment using WWI design elements wherever possible) used a three propeller layout rather than a four propeller one like modern battleships of her era. This was already bad because it meant they couldn't pair the shafts and then pair the pairs to damp each others' vibrations, but that's actually not that relevant here. The centerline shaft is irrelevant to turning, and it was found that she could barely turn at all using differential thrust in case of rudder failure. Even worse, the size of a single propeller expected to absorb 50,000 metric horsepower is pretty huge, so the stern had to be configured around that and giving it enough room to avoid vibration, losing a lot of underwater lateral area, which negatively impacts directional stability. In addition the rudders (there were two) had to be located between the centerline and outside shafts, which makes the distance between them smaller than in a quadruple propeller arrangement. Overall the design meant the ship had about two thirds the turning power of a comparable quadruple propeller ship of the same power. But mere issues with turning weren't the only thing. Having to give that clearance to the center propeller made the stern overhang longer than usual, with all the weight of the rudders, steering gear and the steering gear's armor. There wasn't much buoyancy rear because there wasn't much volume in the water back there. The stern also had no continuous longitudinal bulkheads aft of the steering gear room, and the stern was unarmored and had a weakly reinforced connection to the steering gear room, which was. This meant that the stern and the armored section of the ship experienced a whipping motion as the stern vibrated at a different frequency and there was not enough structure to absorb the stresses. All this led to the stern collapsing on the rudders. The rudders getting jammed wasn't a lucky result, it was the inevitable result of a stern hit. I also wouldn't go so far as to say that the Bismarck had particularly powerful main guns, they're in the same class as French and Italian guns, but sacrifice some power for rate of fire at shorter range. Meanwhile the US, UK and Japan all have designs with 16" guns going around, and Japan's doing that wacky thing with 18.1" guns.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
moths posted:
I was under the impression that this was a myth as well, at least relative to Polish nationalists on Wargaming forums.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
It might be overstated that it would have won the war or anything, but it would have been a pretty disastrous situation for Germany since their western industrial regions are not very far from the border, the "Westwall" was a joke, and the Polish campaign actually resulted in pretty heavy aerial losses for the Germans (I think the Luftwaffe lost something like 1/3 of its available aircraft). The Phony War was actually a pretty necessary time for the Germans as they had severely depleted their pre-war ammunition stocks, and I believe they also undertook some fairly significant re-equiping of their armored units, since at the time of the invasion of Poland the Panzer III and IV were just coming into service, so the Polish invasion was conducted largely with poorly armed and armored light tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:57
|
|