|
Disinterested posted: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. Yeah, transforming Germany into some kind of superpower-sized land empire via ethnic cleansing and slavery well into the 20th century is maybe not feasible regardless of your economic or military prowess or doctrine. He missed the boat on that era in history by centuries!
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
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. hitler didn't give a single gently caress about economics. he was a meek failed artist vegetarian with a virulent hatred of jews and slavs and that's about it
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
Hitler's strengths were in oratory and organizing. This made him a fantastic leader of the Nazi Party but he was far, FAR too willing to overlook character or ability flaws in his underlings and too willing to delegate matters that didn't interest him. Which led to a party filled with economic cranks and unstable psychopaths, which is all fine when you're an opposition party, but not great when you're trying to run a major global country or conduct a continent-wide war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Hitler's strengths were in oratory and organizing. This made him a fantastic leader of the Nazi Party but he was far, FAR too willing to overlook character or ability flaws in his underlings and too willing to delegate matters that didn't interest him. Which led to a party filled with economic cranks and unstable psychopaths, which is all fine when you're an opposition party, but not great when you're trying to run a major global country or conduct a continent-wide war. Yeah we are quick to dismiss his strengths these days, he basically laid out his whole program in Mein Kampf and followed through based on his keen understanding of the deeply flawed society he lived in. Amid all the anti-semitic rambling it's basically a pretty solid evidoer's manual for setting yourself up as a dictator in an unstable country, from the excerpts I've seen. But even if your economic policy is going to be mere pragmatism or whatever like he intended, you have to actually understand economics a little, and thus we can rightly laugh at Hitler all day for letting some of those lunatics get a minute of his time. I don't think any degree of competence could've taken Germany in the 30s and turned it into an America-style hegemonic hyperpower though honestly, the guy started on the wrong side of history thank God.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
shovelbum posted:He missed the boat on that era in history by centuries! Let's not overstate the timeperiod, he might've been seen as real succesful and fondly remembered had he been born British just ~100-150 years prior. The Empire was really quite bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 07:58
|
|
icantfindaname posted:[Hitler was] meek I do not think this means what you think it means.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 08:09
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Hitler's strengths were in oratory and organizing. This made him a fantastic leader of the Nazi Party but he was far, FAR too willing to overlook character or ability flaws in his underlings and too willing to delegate matters that didn't interest him. Which led to a party filled with economic cranks and unstable psychopaths, which is all fine when you're an opposition party, but not great when you're trying to run a major global country or conduct a continent-wide war. I don't think there's evidence to support he was a great organiser; in fact, you say he's a great organiser and immediately list a bunch of qualities of a very poor political organiser. You've also overlooked the possibility here that some of this massive dysfunction in the leadership system was programmatic, which it often was: Hitler liked the idea of competing power structures and political figures beneath him, despite the fact it was bad. Of course, he was also the ultimate 'economic crank' and 'unstable psychopath to' so it can hardly be surprising if that follows on below. Orange Devil posted:Let's not overstate the timeperiod, he might've been seen as real succesful and fondly remembered had he been born British just ~100-150 years prior. I don't think this is accurate even though it's thrown around a lot. The whole purpose of conventional empire is to have people as subjects. Hitler in victory wasn't looking for an empire of slavic subjects, he was looking for the total obliteration of non Aryan peoples on an industrial basis and their replacement with homesteading Germans, and slavery for the races in the middle. It's unprecedented in scope. What Hitler had planned would have been to do the world under his control what the combination of disease and imperialism did to the Americas. Hitler took inspiration from European empire but he wasn't really proposing to emulate it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
He literally said on several occasions that "the East" would be Germany's India?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 08:31
|
|
Rappaport posted:He literally said on several occasions that "the East" would be Germany's India? His intention wasn't to rule Russia like Britain ruled India, it was to kill every Slav in it and replace them with Germans. Comparing his project to European imperialism was a way of trying to normalize a much more radical design and ambition.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
I'm not trying to go USA = Hitler here but what he ultimately envisioned was something like the late 1800's in the American west, with the natives wiped out and replaced by homesteaders, but with a bit of the dangerous frontier to toughen up the youth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:29
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I'm not trying to go USA = Hitler here but what he ultimately envisioned was something like the late 1800's in the American west, with the natives wiped out and replaced by homesteaders, but with a bit of the dangerous frontier to toughen up the youth. That is the most apt comparison, except with much greater brutality than even that pretty sordid chapter. And he wasn't proposing to wipe out the remnants of a civilization already mostly wiped out by disease either, but the whole thing top to bottom. You wouldn't find a self-justifying ideology of it being 'done for their own good' either, and I doubt you would have seen children taken away and given to white families etc. Just a war of annihilation, and slavery designed to work people to death.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:His intention wasn't to rule Russia like Britain ruled India, it was to kill every Slav in it and replace them with Germans. Comparing his project to European imperialism was a way of trying to normalize a much more radical design and ambition. I agree that Hitler's designs went markedly beyond regular European imperialism, but if we grant that his racism was shaped by the time and place he grew up in we can attempt to imagine what he might've been like growing up British. Then again, having him grow up in a different time and place maybe all we're left with is a Hitler who isn't Hitler. On the flipside of that, if we accept (as I think we should) that Hitler was shaped into becoming who he was by the Austria and Germany he grew up in then that must point to a very substantial amount of implicit support and even greater implicit tolerance for his views on race and struggle and empire within those societies (including decades before he came to power), which ought to put to rest the excuse that Hitler somehow dragged German society into something it either had no idea about or was opposed to. I feel this also reflects rather poorly on the rise of far right leaders across Europe in the past decade and a half. That is, they are a symptom of the presence of very significant quantities of systemic racism and the tolerance thereof rather than solely causative in nature. In my view from here we must conclude there exists some border where the liberal idea of disagreeing with someone's speech but being willing to die for their right to say it becomes this implicit support. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:38
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I agree that Hitler's designs went markedly beyond regular European imperialism, but if we grant that his racism was shaped by the time and place he grew up in we can attempt to imagine what he might've been like growing up British. Then again, having him grow up in a different time and place maybe all we're left with is a Hitler who isn't Hitler. I feel like this spun in to a few different tangents. Firstly: yes, if you do that to Hitler he's not Hitler anymore. That's clear. Secondly, that's true, but that is also to not adequately deal with the concept of what it is to be a radical. Everyone is the product of their society, but there's still a range of response to stimuli, where Hitler represents the deep far end of a bell curve. I think it would be a mistake to go as far as you seem to want to and say that there were widespread shared views, just as it would also be a mistake to re-invent the myth of the good German. But it's a very complex topic. As for what it means for Europe today - sure, but there is also a broader global phenomenon there, not just a European one, and historic attitudes play only some part. Another question is just as ripe: why is the progress of the post-war decades being undone now, rather than at some other time? That's a question that can't be answered with reference to an unbroken continuity of attitudes.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is the most apt comparison, except with much greater brutality than even that pretty sordid chapter. And he wasn't proposing to wipe out the remnants of a civilization already mostly wiped out by disease either, but the whole thing top to bottom. You wouldn't find a self-justifying ideology of it being 'done for their own good' either, and I doubt you would have seen children taken away and given to white families etc. Just a war of annihilation, and slavery designed to work people to death. Slavic children that looked sufficiently "Aryan" were absolutely kidnapped and given to German families.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:50
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Slavic children that looked sufficiently "Aryan" were absolutely kidnapped and given to German families. That's true, but that's not the condition attached to the programs of ethnic cleansing in, say, Australia. The whole point of the children Germany abducted is that they were regarded as racially German but not culturally German, not non-Germans altogether. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Aug 24, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That is the most apt comparison, except with much greater brutality than even that pretty sordid chapter. It's an comparison which Hitler himself drew in Mein Kampf. A German continental landbase like that of the US was his goal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:01
|
|
|
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. His second book has his weird economic ideas. He basically thought that competition for resources was increasing rapidly and that WW1 proved that a import/export economy was too dangerous. He had a very Trump-esque view of economics: hitler posted:The present world commodity market is not unlimited. The number of industrially active nations has steadily Unlike Trump who wants to "bomb them and take their oil," Hitler's plan was to bomb them and take their soil. Because he thought agriculture would be the most important industry due to population growth. https://archive.org/details/ZweitesBuch-AdolfHitlersSecretBook
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:07
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I don't think there's evidence to support he was a great organiser; in fact, you say he's a great organiser and immediately list a bunch of qualities of a very poor political organiser. You've also overlooked the possibility here that some of this massive dysfunction in the leadership system was programmatic, which it often was: Hitler liked the idea of competing power structures and political figures beneath him, despite the fact it was bad. Of course, he was also the ultimate 'economic crank' and 'unstable psychopath to' so it can hardly be surprising if that follows on below. I'm more thinking of the early period. Hitler was an exceptional party organizer and had bottomless drive. He very adroitly assessed the state of and weaknesses of German society in the Weimar period and built the Nazis up from effectively nothing--seven dudes in a beer hall back room--to a major political power in the span of approximately ten years. And that's WITH the party being banned in the middle of that period, with him being jailed and large swathes of the rest of the leadership going into political or actual exile. Hitler basically couldn't have done what was done if he hadn't been a great organizer on SOME level--pure oratory alone won't sustain a prolonged political movement. He assembled a "state within a state" (to borrow from Shirer) to undermine Weimar, and that takes some degree of organizational competence. He was just exceedingly willing to overlook the flaws of his own underlings, which wasn't a crippling problem in the short-term of getting INTO power, but caused catastrophic problems once the Nazis were IN power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Unlike Trump who wants to "bomb them and take their oil," Hitler's plan was to bomb them and take their soil. Because he thought agriculture would be the most important industry due to population growth. His obsession with agriculture was most likely attributed to Germany's food shortages in the First World War and the belief that if Germany had vast arable lands like the US, it could also compete with it militarily. Granted, a similar line of thinking motivated Stalin to push for collectivization. In both cases the priority was put on agricultural autarky with the expectation that trade would be unworkable during war-time, especially with enemies and potential enemies. Also, to bring up Hitler's policies versus the US, the amount of death the Nazis wished to accomplish in the east was always to a higher degree both numerically and proportionally. Roughly, 65-80% of Slavs to be starved or murdered straight away (at least 100+ million people) while the rest were either shipped off to the wilderness, enslaved or under go "germanization" (most likely collaborators). The American West was won by murder and conquest but just not to that extent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That's true, but that's not the condition attached to the programs of ethnic cleansing in, say, Australia. The whole point of the children Germany abducted is that they were regarded as racially German but not culturally German, not non-Germans altogether. I guess I was thinking of superficial similarities, such as the destruction of their names and their native language.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 10:33
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I guess I was thinking of superficial similarities, such as the destruction of their names and their native language. I'm not making light of anything. In the Austrlian case they're stealing mostly mixed race children, so there's still a clear continuity of practice, but the Nazis represent the most extreme version of the behavior possible: everyone who's not deemed to be German in a Slavic country is subject to their direct and violent annihilation, as soon as practicable. The slaves aren't even livestock, they're just to be worked until they die.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I'm not making light of anything. In the Austrlian case they're stealing mostly mixed race children, so there's still a clear continuity of practice, but the Nazis represent the most extreme version of the behavior possible: everyone who's not deemed to be German in a Slavic country is subject to their direct and violent annihilation, as soon as practicable. The slaves aren't even livestock, they're just to be worked until they die. Don't sell the Nazis short, their plans specifically included teaching future slavs how to read traffic signals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:06
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:Don't sell the Nazis short, their plans specifically included teaching future slavs how to read traffic signals. Yes, although curiously Nazis in custody of slaves can't seem to bring themselves to keep them alive virtually no matter how beneficial it is for them to do it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 11:12
|
|
|
"hitler posted:"
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Einbauschrank posted:It's an comparison which Hitler himself drew in Mein Kampf. A German continental landbase like that of the US was his goal. We can safely say at this point that having a giant, resource rich land empire is basically required to be a superpower or global hegemon in the modern age, if only to be able to absorb the effects of a limited nuclear exchange and to maintain a wholly domestic nuclear industry. Hitler was definitely aware of the advantages of size and geographic isolation in total war, even if he understood it primarily as agricultural autarky. I cannot imagine what the post WW1 era feels like to a European or Japanese nationalist - the industrialization of the U.S., Russia, and much later China have definitely brought a permanent end to the idea of some singular European hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
What army had the worst experience with mother nature during the war? World at War keeps one-upping itself with answers. The Germans in the eastern front during winter seemed terrible, but then watching British soldiers retreat in Burma made me feel exhausted just seeing it. Tank life in Northern Africa looked horrendous too for allied soldiers, although that was more lined up with dying in a tank fire rather than heat or sandstorms. I know misery is subjective, but this documentary is teaching me just how absolutely hellish some environments are when you add war to the mix. I used to think environment was more of a background component of war, but for the allies in SE Asia, it seemed like an immediate and direct opponent.
buglord fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Avocados posted:What army had the worst experience with mother nature during the war? World at War keeps one-upping itself with answers. The Germans in the eastern front during winter seemed terrible, but then watching British soldiers retreat in Burma made me feel exhausted just seeing it. Tank life in Northern Africa looked horrendous too for allied soldiers, although that was more lined up with dying in a tank fire rather than heat or sandstorms. I know misery is subjective, but this documentary is teaching me just how absolutely hellish some environments are when you add war to the mix. I used to think environment was more of a background component of war, but for the allies in SE Asia, it seemed like an immediate and direct opponent. Asking which army on the whole had it worst is really subjective since how do you compare freezing to death in the Russian winter with dying of malaria in the jungles of Burma, but there are a few specific examples of unpleasant encounters with nature from the war, like the Battle of Ramree Island where it's possible dozens or hundreds of Japanese soldiers were eaten by crocodiles (though strong doubts have been cast on the exact magnitude of this event) or the sinking of the USS Indianapolis whose survivors were left floating in the Pacific Ocean for three days with sharks eating them periodically. Personally I would probably say the Eastern Front was the worst just for sheer scale. For individuals the fighting in Pacific and Southeast Asian jungles may have been worse, but the army sizes there were never as great as they were on the Eastern Front, where literally millions of soldiers were directly affected by the horrendous winter conditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Yeah I know there's no one right answer, I just had a long standing impression that these conditons were few and far between. Thanks for the insight!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 04:42
|
|
Avocados posted:What army had the worst experience with mother nature during the war? World at War keeps one-upping itself with answers. The Germans in the eastern front during winter seemed terrible, but then watching British soldiers retreat in Burma made me feel exhausted just seeing it. Tank life in Northern Africa looked horrendous too for allied soldiers, although that was more lined up with dying in a tank fire rather than heat or sandstorms. I know misery is subjective, but this documentary is teaching me just how absolutely hellish some environments are when you add war to the mix. I used to think environment was more of a background component of war, but for the allies in SE Asia, it seemed like an immediate and direct opponent. There's nothing that compared to the scale of the carnage of the eastern front, as the person above me said. But consider another thing: because the German army was ill equipped and undersupplied, with no winter billets, it forced countless thousands or millions of people out of their homes and stripped them of their food and winter clothing in November/December 1941. The struggle for the soldiers was visited in turn on the civilians.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
The worst weather conditions during WW2 in terms of injuries and deaths was probably the black rain full of radiation that fell after the atomic bombings. If you want to talk about large-scale misery, the Soviet army experience during the Winter War sounds pretty nightmarish, as does the Reich army experience during the winter of '41. Smaller scale I'd definitely go with various jungle conditions in the Pacific or the Arctic warfare. Even smaller I'd go with conditions faced during the Aleutian Islands campaign. That was probably the worst for any actual soldiers. edit: if you want a real rough source document: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a273052.pdf Teriyaki Hairpiece fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Also, to bring up Hitler's policies versus the US, the amount of death the Nazis wished to accomplish in the east was always to a higher degree both numerically and proportionally. Roughly, 65-80% of Slavs to be starved or murdered straight away (at least 100+ million people) while the rest were either shipped off to the wilderness, enslaved or under go "germanization" (most likely collaborators). The American West was won by murder and conquest but just not to that extent. It was also a lot slower, and largely the result of a massive plague followed up by two centuries of relatively small events that all added up into something big. Hitler planned to have most of Eastern Europe exterminated or enslaved in what, a couple decades at most?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 06:11
|
|
Fojar38 posted:It was also a lot slower, and largely the result of a massive plague followed up by two centuries of relatively small events that all added up into something big. Hitler planned to have most of Eastern Europe exterminated or enslaved in what, a couple decades at most? The process was already well underway during the war, despite lack of resources.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Avocados posted:What army had the worst experience with mother nature during the war? World at War keeps one-upping itself with answers. The Germans in the eastern front during winter seemed terrible, but then watching British soldiers retreat in Burma made me feel exhausted just seeing it. Tank life in Northern Africa looked horrendous too for allied soldiers, although that was more lined up with dying in a tank fire rather than heat or sandstorms. I know misery is subjective, but this documentary is teaching me just how absolutely hellish some environments are when you add war to the mix. I used to think environment was more of a background component of war, but for the allies in SE Asia, it seemed like an immediate and direct opponent. Thousands of Soviet soldiers were caught in mottis for months during the Winter War. They couldn't move in any direction, and believed they would be tortured if they surrendered. They would freeze in temperatures around -40 C, as well as starve. Some resorted to cannibalism. Seems like a pretty bad experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
So what was Japan's endgame re:the war in China? I understand the Japanese military leadership was sort of a trainwreck and many of the escalations were done by rogue elements, but surely someone must have had a long term vision of some sort beyond pouring more troops into a Chinese meatgrinder hellscape forever? As far as I'm aware Japanese wartime ideology didn't really do the Lebensraum thing with China, did they somehow think they could make China a Manchukuo style puppet but with a billion people?
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:43 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 08:39
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So what was Japan's endgame re:the war in China? I understand the Japanese military leadership was sort of a trainwreck and many of the escalations were done by rogue elements, but surely someone must have had a long term vision of some sort beyond pouring more troops into a Chinese meatgrinder hellscape forever? As far as I'm aware Japanese wartime ideology didn't really do the Lebensraum thing with China, did they somehow think they could make China a Manchukuo style puppet but with a billion people? There's some evidence that some people in the Japanese government played with concepts like lebensraum, but their intention seems broadly to have been to establish an empire over Asia with Japan as the dominant economy and culture. I don't believe any definitive plan is available however, and given the overall willingness of Japan to use genocidal methods against the Chinese who knows what they would have done if victorious. Also China's population in 39 was about 500,000,000, Japan's about 73 million.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So what was Japan's endgame re:the war in China? I understand the Japanese military leadership was sort of a trainwreck and many of the escalations were done by rogue elements, but surely someone must have had a long term vision of some sort beyond pouring more troops into a Chinese meatgrinder hellscape forever? As far as I'm aware Japanese wartime ideology didn't really do the Lebensraum thing with China, did they somehow think they could make China a Manchukuo style puppet but with a billion people? The Japanese tried to establish a credible puppet government in the form of Wang Jingwei. Unfortunately, the things the Japanese did to the Chinese immediately destroyed any credibility that Jingwei's government had, and the brusque touch with which they played the political game of China made it so that anyone who worked with the collaborationists (important people that is) was tainted by their stench until their dying day. While they were happy to delegate less important areas to clients(and make no mistake, there wasn't anything that the Japanese saw as valuable in Inner Mongolia), they wanted strict control of resources and industrial zones. They might have meant to run China much like the European's ran African-style colonies. I think that the biggest mistake the Japanese had was not trying to fully invest their puppet regimes as legitimate figures. Some of the biggest pots of manpower that the Japanese could've drawn on where Chinese collaborationists, but because they were such vicious cunts in China, those manpower pools became utterly worthless as useful resources. The Japanese consistently tried to create a functional army for the Reorganized KMT government, mainly for police reasons, but they were so piss-poor in combat (and in policing) that they had to do those tasks themselves, sapping valuable manpower away from the front. A Festivus Miracle fucked around with this message at 10:33 on Aug 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Asking which army on the whole had it worst is really subjective since how do you compare freezing to death in the Russian winter with dying of malaria in the jungles of Burma, but there are a few specific examples of unpleasant encounters with nature from the war, like the Battle of Ramree Island where it's possible dozens or hundreds of Japanese soldiers were eaten by crocodiles (though strong doubts have been cast on the exact magnitude of this event) or the sinking of the USS Indianapolis whose survivors were left floating in the Pacific Ocean for three days with sharks eating them periodically. Worth noting that the deadly winter of the Eastern Front was preceded by some of the worst rasputica period on the record, during which the army exhausted itself swimming in viscous mud. So in a way they experienced the best of the two worlds - the numbing cold of the winter, and the humid, sweaty and torturous nightmare that is usually associated with the monsoon season in SEA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Could you, uh, drown in mud? Like literally?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Could you, uh, drown in mud? Like literally? I've read accounts of fully weighted soldiers sinking into the mud up to their chests(granted, the account I read was in central Belarus, which is a marshy region), so I don't think it's entirely implausible to drown in mud, provided there's enough rainfall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 16:46 |
|
|
 Here's a neat little image of a vehicle the Germans specifically designed to function in the mud. The awful mud is also part of the reason why Soviet tanks had huge horizontal profiles - it's much more difficult to sink into the mud if you distribute the weight of your vehicle across a lot of ground.  It didn't always work so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2016 12:06
|
|