|
Redeye Flight posted:They talk a little bit in the making-of about the agonizing over what to put in. It's fascinating stuff and their justifications for most everything are pretty well done. "The World At War" is the gold standard of WW2 documentaries, and I always wished there were more episodes. But I believe there's a DVD set with a lot of extra material that didn't make it into the series. There's also a book, but I found it disappointing. I was especially impressed with the way they occasionally stepped away from documenting the combat once it began, and dealt with side issues. I'm thinking particularly of "Genocide" (the Holocaust), and "Occupation," which dealt with civilian life in Holland while under the Nazis' boot. I collect 78 rpm records, and I have the original records of much of the music in the series from all the belligerent countries.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
I liked Ken Burn's 'The War' even though it just focused on a couple American families. It didn't capture the macro scale, but it was amazing in the micro.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
504 posted:After WW1 and the general feelings of the populations (in allied nations at least) what are the chances of WW 2 simply not happening if Hitler didn't "get it going" was there much of a war party feeling in Germany? I currently read Overy's "The Dictators" and he stresses that Germany was super-nationalist in the 1920ies (and this breeds revanchism), from the high-ups down to the worker unions. So even without Hitler, it might have been possible that another "strong leader" type would come to power, because the conditions were ideal for such a character. Redeye Flight posted:They talk a little bit in the making-of about the agonizing over what to put in. It's fascinating stuff and their justifications for most everything are pretty well done. I especially liked Episode 14 - Burma, mostly because that theater is often barely mentioned in other war docus. Hammerstein fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Aug 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Do you know if there were industries that suffered from their original Jewish workers/employees/owners being thrown out, but the ethnic Germans not wanting to perform them either? I would describe many academic disciplines in this way. We can see very concretely how America benefited from absorbing so much of Germany's human capital in this way after WWII.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
Hammerstein posted:I currently read Overy's "The Dictators" and he stresses that Germany was super-nationalist in the 1920ies (and this breeds revanchism), from the high-ups down to the worker unions. So even without Hitler, it might have been possible that another "strong leader" type would come to power, because the conditions were ideal for such a character. The level and character of political polarization in late interwar Germany made it basically impossible for the country to continue as a liberal democracy, no matter how counterfactual you want to get. The only real possible alternative outcome to letting the Nazis into a dominant position in government after 1930 was probably a dictatorship under the DNVP, the old-guard Prussian conservative party, supported by the SPD and Centre, and even that would probably have needed to split the Nazis to get support from the Strasserites The fact that the KPD refused to cooperate basically ensured the country was going to become a right-wing dictatorship of some form
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Yeah when you really think about it it's the communists' fault that the fascists came to power... Except when you *really* think about it then no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Yeah when you really think about it it's the communists' fault that the fascists came to power... It sort of was though. Not entirely, obviously, but a KPD-SPD-Centre coalition would have had a comfortable majority after the November 1932 election
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
The SPD murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
I was told once that had Hitler died or given up power by 1936, he would have been remebered as a one of the better German leaders of the 20th century. This is because his backround in right wing fringegroups and as a streetfighter or his antisemitism and racism wasn't really that unusual at the time. And by that time he had changed Germany's course to the better regarding unemployment and national pride.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
I've heard the same about Mussolini before he got involved with Hitler. My take is that if either had disappeared from history, the movements they'd spearheaded carried enough momentum that someone else would have had to take over. These were sweeping cultural and political changes with a lot of people on board. I mean, (to use probably an inappropriate comparison) the civil rights movement didn't die with MLK. At some point an idea becomes a cultural phenomena larger than any individual, and unlike civil rights these movements had both unified national support and Big money. Am I also correct in understanding that the "good" Hitler was doing for Germany was unsustainable without war? The Nazis were able to irresponsibly burn through Germany's own resources because they planned to annex the wealth of their neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The SPD murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht. No, fascist paramilitaries murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht. I understand the KPD was deeply butthurt about their failed revolution, but that's not really a good reason to let the fascists win
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:The SPD murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht. icantfindaname posted:No, fascist paramilitaries murdered Lucembourg and Liebknecht. I understand the KPD was butthurt about their failed revolution, but that's not really a good reason to let the fascists win The SPD government at the time called on the fascist paramilitaries who killed Luxemburg and Liebknecht. There was a lot of bad blood over that kind of thing. When Moscow chose to change its line to the common front, the communist underground in Germany was confused and not inclined to follow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
moths posted:I've heard the same about Mussolini before he got involved with Hitler. As far as I know Hitler's economic policies were fine, with the usual caveat of "as long as you weren't part of a minority targeted for persecution and ultimately murder." Which is kind of a huge deal of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:I was told once that had Hitler died or given up power by 1936, he would have been remebered as a one of the better German leaders of the 20th century. This is because his backround in right wing fringegroups and as a streetfighter or his antisemitism and racism wasn't really that unusual at the time. And by that time he had changed Germany's course to the better regarding unemployment and national pride. By 1936 tens of thousands were already in concentration camps.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:By 1936 tens of thousands were already in concentration camps. In that period of Nazi rule, the focus was on eliminating political opponents, from the underground SPD and KPD to the SA and DNVP holdouts. That was also the time, of course, of 'Aryanization' and the beginning of the process of eliminating the Jews from society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The SPD government at the time called on the fascist paramilitaries who killed Luxemburg and Liebknecht. There was a lot of bad blood over that kind of thing. The SPD turned against the revolution generally, that doesn't mean they are responsible for fascist paramilitaries killing Luxemburg and Liebknecht. And again, not a good reason to let the fascists win Also official Comintern policy regarding popular fronts didn't change to support till after the Nazis came to power, IIRC
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Well I'm glad this thread is still alive. Excuse me everyone but I have a quick and I would hope easy question to asnwer but my gut tells me not. I find wars and conflicts mainly interesting in terms of politics and societal changes. Battles and strategies and hard numbers and analyzing technology? Ehhhh, goes over my head completely. So I always kind of took what I heard for granted that the Germans had amazing technology and their tanks were especially great. But I've recently been told this is all wrong? That it's some "narrative" that the Allies cooked up basically to make the Nazis look unbeatable and thus show the Allies were the great and righteous victors by beating them? I have seen this a few times admittedly. The last post I remember reading in this thread said something like "if the Nazis were really such inferior foes, what does that say about the Allies who took so long to beat them?" Also this post from elsewhere especially caught my eye quote:Touch late but the German super science/high tech thing is tied to the idea that the Soviets just zerg rushed their way through the war and didn't actually write the whole loving book on armored warfare with things like Deep Battle. I inherently mistrust any statement about "actually, Russia is great." Nothing against all Russians but recently I've been running into a lot of....uh, very zealous Russian defenders who defend things like the Holodomor. So...yeah. Sorry if there's too much incoherence here. I guess what I'm asking is, how did Germany stack up to its foes in terms of its war tech? And specifically how did the Soviets' fare against the Nazis in this department? Also, I remember reading a few things that said one of Stalin's great crimes was liquidating most of the Red Army's officers and turning the rest into yes-men. The Nazis were, by contrast, supposed to have an excellent talent pool of military commanders. How true is this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The SPD turned against the revolution generally, that doesn't mean they are responsible for fascist paramilitaries killing Luxemburg and Liebknecht. And again, not a good reason to let the fascists win The SPD literally called on the freikorps to put down the revolution. If you call on soldiers to put someone down and they get into murder mode, that's your responsibility. The KPD was formed because the SPD supported the Kaiser in WW1. The SPD wanted to be rid of the left once and for all and solidify their alliance with the center party. They simply got outflanked and outfoxed because of Hindenburg ultimately still being a right-winger. The underground KPD was very skeptical of the change to the common front, and the SPD was not really open to joining with the KPD because they thought themselves a respectable political party. It was a two way street. I think it's a cautionary tale of what happens when you try to get rid of 'radicals' in your party. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I'm glad this thread is still alive. Excuse me everyone but I have a quick and I would hope easy question to asnwer but my gut tells me not. I find wars and conflicts mainly interesting in terms of politics and societal changes. Battles and strategies and hard numbers and analyzing technology? Ehhhh, goes over my head completely. So I always kind of took what I heard for granted that the Germans had amazing technology and their tanks were especially great. It's complicated. To grossly simplify: Early in the war German tanks were pretty mediocre; the French had better tanks in the Battle of France and the T-34 really was better than the bulk of German tanks when it first came out. North Africa Germany went back and forth with the US and UK over who had the better tanks deployed at any given time. Later on Panther and Tiger tanks were sophisticated and had very strong armor and and very powerful long-range guns, but both were unreliable and the Tiger and poor mobility, and the Germans were using shitloads of  Panzer IVs right to the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:But I've recently been told this is all wrong? That it's some "narrative" that the Allies cooked up basically to make the Nazis look unbeatable and thus show the Allies were the great and righteous victors by beating them? NikkolasKing posted:Sorry if there's too much incoherence here. I guess what I'm asking is, how did Germany stack up to its foes in terms of its war tech? And specifically how did the Soviets' fare against the Nazis in this department? What hurt them the most ultimately was that the Nazi economy was an insane ratfuck of truly epic proportions. There were several paralell and mutually hostile acquisition systems for military equipment. The SS were running their own parallel economy and stealing from everyone else, anyone who could convince Hitler/Goering/Himmler/etc they had a good idea could basically run roughshod over the Wehrmacht, and for some reason the Luftwaffe had an army. poo poo was whack. It also didn't help that Germany never really got fully onboard with modern mass production techniques. German equipment, especially the expensive stuff, tended to be practically hand built. Tanks and planes ate up multiple times more man-hours than their allied counterparts. The Tiger for example went through an insane number of revisions. Something like every 3rd Tiger was different than the 2 before it, and parts were not necessarily interchangeable. Compare that system to the US and USSR who, on armor at least, settled on "This tank is good. Build 10 million of them exactly like this" as a procurement strategy. Not to say that designs didn't change, but they changed in rational ways, at set times, and usually changed to make the vehicles easier and cheaper as well as more effective. Perfect example of Nazis being Nazis: During the trials for the heavy tank that was to become the Tiger the finalists were Henschel and Porsche designs. Henschel's was a fairly traditional tank, turned up to 11. Porsche's was uh, innovative, and also basically nonfunctional. The army selected the Henschel design, at which point Ferdinand Porsche was like "Ah shucks, well I already built 90 of mine and here's the bill." Then he merrily skipped off to design more impossible tanks and cars with the engine the wrong way around, leaving the army stuck with a monstrous boondoggle of an armored vehicle that they converted into a questionably effective tank destroyer. Really the lesson is that in a fight the best tank is the one that's there. All the wonder-weapons in the world won't win a war if they are too big to fit over bridges, break down every 10 miles, and don't work in the rain. NikkolasKing posted:Also, I remember reading a few things that said one of Stalin's great crimes was liquidating most of the Red Army's officers and turning the rest into yes-men. The Nazis were, by contrast, supposed to have an excellent talent pool of military commanders. How true is this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I'm glad this thread is still alive. Excuse me everyone but I have a quick and I would hope easy question to asnwer but my gut tells me not. I find wars and conflicts mainly interesting in terms of politics and societal changes. Battles and strategies and hard numbers and analyzing technology? Ehhhh, goes over my head completely. So I always kind of took what I heard for granted that the Germans had amazing technology and their tanks were especially great. This is a really complicated question, and I could spend hours typing up a sufficient response. But to save some time, I'd just recomment watching this lecture by David Glantz, who is probably the preeminent Eastern Front historian in the West: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg But to tl;dr your questions: -The Germans had some great medium tanks and overrated heavy tanks -The Soviets had great medium tanks and great heavy tanks -Tanks aren't everything -Germans had great generals and excellent training at the beginning of the war that slowly disintegrated as men were killed and the situation became more desperate -Soviets had decent generals but an utterly hosed logistical situation at the beginning of the war that took several years to fully unravel, eventually becoming a hardened and exceptionally powerful army. -Lack of archive access meant that until the 1990s, nobody actually knew what the gently caress was up with the Soviets and few people were interested in finding out as opposed to taking the Germans' word for it for granted. Some other good things to watch are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6xLMUifbxQ&t=1580s John Parshall of Shattered Sword fame (A really fuckin' great book about the Battle of Midway) talks about the German industrial situation and why their production was so completely hosed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY Former armor officer who currently works as a researcher for Wargaming (Company that makes World of Tanks) talks about why American tanks got such a bad rap during and after the War. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhXKlYnSWjA A great, great documentary series that explores the Eastern Front in-depth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:It's complicated. To grossly simplify: Well, yes and no. In terms of armor and caliber definitely. But not when it came to "soft" factors. They adopted a 5 man crew system early, had radios, commander cupolas and turret baskets already with the Pz III and IV models. These were serious factors on a battlefield which the French and Russian tanks often lacked. Also it was not only about Tigers and Panthers, the Panzers got serious upgrades as early as 1942. The Panzer III starting with the J model had a long-barrelled 50mm gun which could knock out a T-34 frontally at ranges up to 600 meters and the Panzer IV F2 had an even more capable 75mm gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Well I'm glad this thread is still alive. Excuse me everyone but I have a quick and I would hope easy question to asnwer but my gut tells me not. I find wars and conflicts mainly interesting in terms of politics and societal changes. Battles and strategies and hard numbers and analyzing technology? Ehhhh, goes over my head completely. So I always kind of took what I heard for granted that the Germans had amazing technology and their tanks were especially great. When discussing the nitty gritty of the war the main thing to understand is that the Axis logistics were a total omnishambles. Equipment was often much too specialized and virtually everything was over-engineered as gently caress. Combine that with the integration of military equipment from a bunch of other nations and what you get is a huge logistics tail which would be a nightmare to manage even if your doctrines placed adequate focus on logistics and your factories and supply lines weren't getting bombed. This need to overspecialize in lieu of standardization persists in Germany to this day, leading to for example having something like 8 different ambulance types in a single city, which in turn leads to a firefighter ambulance showing up to a call about a potential stroke victim while carrying no equipment whatsoever to help with this type of emergency. Now imagine making a different version of each of your tanks for each role you envision they might play so that you can optimize the design entirely for that role. Except oops your assault gun got caught in a tank brawl while your turret-less tank destroyer is engaged in a maneuver battle, your heavy tank is engaged in urban house to house fighting and your self propelled artillery appears to have just received a bunch of regular tank shells? Except you don't have a tank destroyer and a assault gun and a self propelled artillery and a heavy tank and a regular tank. No you've got like 5 types of each, each of which has different versions which renders a portion of spare parts incompatible. Oh and each of these things is like a crafts-project of fine handmade Aryan supremacy or some poo poo meaning thousands of labour hours went into these hunks of junk and maybe 3 seconds of thought on how to get the required fuel, oil, lubricants, ammo, trained mechanics and spare parts together in the right place at the right time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:
Gonna second a recommendation for this. Turns out a tank even a bad tank is better than no tank, which is a problem when you are barely producing one tank a day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Yeah the ridiculous amount of overspecialization in German vehicles meant that you would occasionally get ridiculous stories like "one Panther/Tiger happened to be in the right place at the right time and blew up ten enemy tanks" (though both sides tended to inflate these numbers, the Germans for reasons of pride and the Allies for reasons of making the Germans seem scary) but you get a ton more stories about tanks breaking down because their super specialized widget broke and there are no replacement widgets so the tank was abandoned or immobilized and easily destroyed, and the severe under-production meant they were constantly outnumbered once the Allies got their poo poo together. But the stories about widgets breaking tend not to get immortalized in newspaper articles and memoirs and TV specials and movies, so they didn't enter popular memory the way the occasional stories of German overengineering paying off did. PS yeah that Jonathan Parshall video is a ridiculous proclick if you want to know anything about WWII tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Did German tanks use plastic cooling systems too? (this is a BMW joke)
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
US logistics in Europe were both the most amazing thing ever and a hugely spectacular mass of criminal enterprises.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah the ridiculous amount of overspecialization in German vehicles meant that you would occasionally get ridiculous stories like "one Panther/Tiger happened to be in the right place at the right time and blew up ten enemy tanks" (though both sides tended to inflate these numbers, the Germans for reasons of pride and the Allies for reasons of making the Germans seem scary) but you get a ton more stories about tanks breaking down because their super specialized widget broke and there are no replacement widgets so the tank was abandoned or immobilized and easily destroyed, and the severe under-production meant they were constantly outnumbered once the Allies got their poo poo together. But the stories about widgets breaking tend not to get immortalized in newspaper articles and memoirs and TV specials and movies, so they didn't enter popular memory the way the occasional stories of German overengineering paying off did. quote:The 10 Jagdtigers of 2nd Company, Panzerjagerabteilung 512 destroyed one American tank for one Jagdtiger lost to combat, one lost to friendly fire, and eight others lost to breakdown or destroyed by their crews to prevent capture. German engineering. 
Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Aug 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:As far as I know Hitler's economic policies were fine, with the usual caveat of "as long as you weren't part of a minority targeted for persecution and ultimately murder." Which is kind of a huge deal of course. Hitler's economic policies mostly just managed to not gently caress up the recovery that was already happening (due to late Weimar policies) too badly. And of course it all went to poo poo once he started invading and annexing places, outside of short term boosts cause by being able to seize massive amounts of foreign reserves, industrial plant and stuff like that. They were pretty lovely objectively, and that's before we consider how it all really went to poo poo during the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hitler's economic policies mostly just managed to not gently caress up the recovery that was already happening (due to late Weimar policies) too badly. And of course it all went to poo poo once he started invading and annexing places, outside of short term boosts cause by being able to seize massive amounts of foreign reserves, industrial plant and stuff like that. They were pretty lovely objectively, and that's before we consider how it all really went to poo poo during the war. Also it turns out slave labour does wonders for your GDP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The level and character of political polarization in late interwar Germany made it basically impossible for the country to continue as a liberal democracy, no matter how counterfactual you want to get. The only real possible alternative outcome to letting the Nazis into a dominant position in government after 1930 was probably a dictatorship under the DNVP, the old-guard Prussian conservative party, supported by the SPD and Centre, and even that would probably have needed to split the Nazis to get support from the Strasserites Wasn't that exactly what Von Papen was trying to do? Only he made the mistake of thinking he could use the Nazis as puppets for his own gains and thus allowed them to become more and more powerful until their takeover was basically inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:Wasn't that exactly what Von Papen was trying to do? Von Papen had political designs of his own, and he (on more than one occasion) approached German military leaders about pre-emptively couping the government in order to preempt the takeover of parties that were unsavory to the German military establishment(both of which were turned down). Since he turned out to be way less clever than he thought he was, we don't really know much about what Von Papen would've done, but I think it's not entirely impossible that Von Papen could've ended up just being a nicer,softer Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Von Papen had political designs of his own, and he (on more than one occasion) approached German military leaders about pre-emptively couping the government in order to preempt the takeover of parties that were unsavory to the German military establishment(both of which were turned down). Since he turned out to be way less clever than he thought he was, we don't really know much about what Von Papen would've done, but I think it's not entirely impossible that Von Papen could've ended up just being a nicer,softer Hitler. Papen's big play was to destroy the SPD's last base of power by eliminating the Prussian state government as anything but an appointed posting. The Reichsbanner stood by meekly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
How about German armored cars? I'm not an expert on the matter, but those various 8 wheeled scout cars seemed to be rather advanced for the time. Did those cars have any influence on the way post-war armored cars were designed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
I've been in one moving at reinactment event. It was a late war model 8 wheeler. I'm 6' tall 200lbs and in full time period battle rattle we could barely fit 6 people. The inside is amazingly sparse and empty. It's basically just deflective plates. It's also loud. Like really really loud because it was designed with no ball bearings. It could be heard squealing from miles away. It rode pretty stiff but competently on bad dirt roads. Didn't take it truly off roads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Any good (and free) reads or documentaries about Stalin's Gear Purge? Or just personal insight? I get the effects it had on USSR during WW2, but the whole thing seems like a series of really bad shots to the foot. Seeing as Stalin was one of the few survivors, I'm assuming it was something he spearheaded alone? Or maybe something him and the communist party did until it the momentum was too much to control?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Avocados posted:Any good (and free) reads or documentaries about Stalin's Gear Purge? Or just personal insight? I get the effects it had on USSR during WW2, but the whole thing seems like a series of really bad shots to the foot. Seeing as Stalin was one of the few survivors, I'm assuming it was something he spearheaded alone? Or maybe something him and the communist party did until it the momentum was too much to control? If you're looking for a book that allows the reader to get into Stalin's mind, I'd recommend "Stalin; the Court of the Red Tsar" by Simon Sebag Montefiore. You can Google search the title and see if that's the kind of book you're interested in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 04:29
|
|
Avocados posted:Any good (and free) reads or documentaries about Stalin's Gear Purge? Or just personal insight? I get the effects it had on USSR during WW2, but the whole thing seems like a series of really bad shots to the foot. Seeing as Stalin was one of the few survivors, I'm assuming it was something he spearheaded alone? Or maybe something him and the communist party did until it the momentum was too much to control? Warning: many recommendations you will receive will be motivated largely by political preferences.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Hitler's economic policies mostly just managed to not gently caress up the recovery that was already happening (due to late Weimar policies) too badly. And of course it all went to poo poo once he started invading and annexing places, outside of short term boosts cause by being able to seize massive amounts of foreign reserves, industrial plant and stuff like that. They were pretty lovely objectively, and that's before we consider how it all really went to poo poo during the war. Yeah, Hitler didn't really care too much about economic policy details, did he? He was into a more moralistic and less economic view of conflict and society and saw the economy stuff as just kind of "make friends with the powers that be in Germany and let them do whatever". All the conquest and slavery and genocide were really the whole point for him. Really kind of hard to get our heads around for such quantitative and economic-minded people as we Marxist/hyper-capitalist modern folks tend to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:59 |
|
shovelbum posted:Yeah, Hitler didn't really care too much about economic policy details, did he? He was into a more moralistic and less economic view of conflict and society and saw the economy stuff as just kind of "make friends with the powers that be in Germany and let them do whatever". All the conquest and slavery and genocide were really the whole point for him. Really kind of hard to get our heads around for such quantitative and economic-minded people as we Marxist/hyper-capitalist modern folks tend to be. Not just that, but Hitler's economic policies created short term recovery that would have led to crashes by depleting reserves and printing money etc.; the economy was about to crash in 1941 when he pushed east and he wrongly thought the booty of conquest could continue to prop up the state.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 05:30
|
|