|
Since lots of people are making ask me threads about historical topics and periods, I thought I'd throw one up. Hi, I'm Seven Hundred Bee and I know too much about Nazi Germany. I'm currently a graduate student studying History and finishing up my thesis, and much of my undergraduate and graduate work has been about Nazi Germany, the Holocaust and 20th c. history, with a special emphasis on intellectual history. I've sadly read too many books on these subjects. I'm happy to answer any questions I can, because this would be a lot more fun than rereading my boring chapters for the fiftieth time. Topics I know a lot about : The Holocaust German intellectual history/emigre intellectual history Democratic and legal responses to fascism and World War II The American response to the Holocaust (Should we have bombed Auschwitz? Was Roosevelt the worst?) Function and organization of the Nazi state Battlefield conditions Hitler if you ever wanted to know what the camps were like, watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2rXhWeMzTo be warned it is extraordinary graphic. i have seen people vomit while watching. I also know a fair bit about World War I. What I don't know about : specific technical military questions. But I'm sure there's probably other posters here who do know lots about that stuff. Sadly most of my knowledge is pretty firmly in the academic camp. My thesis advisor is also one of the leading experts on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so if there's a particularly difficult question I can probably run it up the flagpole to him, Ask away! Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Apr 2, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Why didn't we bomb Auschwitz?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
SERPUS posted:Why didn't we bomb Auschwitz? In early 1944 the advancing Allied forces in Italy captured airfields that would have allowed longrange bombers to reach Auschwitz in Poland. The debate in question is if, after this date, the US should have bombed the camp in order to prevent the extermination of the remaining Jews. Historiographically, this question was first posed by a historian named David Wyman in the early 1980s, and was extraordinarily controversial at the time. During 1943 and 1944, when information about the extermination camps began to leak out, Jewish refugee committees in the United States began to pressure the Roosevelt administration to do something to prevent the extermination from continuing. It wasn't until '44, when those airfields were captured, that the US could realistically do something. After the US had the capability, Roosevelt ordered the military to investigate the feasibility of the bombing. The military leadership quickly returned and said no, it's not feasible, and that it would interfere with the war effort. Now, the question about why we didn't bomb Auschwitz is really two questions: 1. Did the military actually investigate the feasibility of bombing? and 2. Would it have been feasible? Research has shown that not only would the bombing have been feasible, but that the military never even bothered to investigate the question. As far as feasibility, the classic argument against the bombing has been that by bombing the camps the US would've actually killed more Jews then it would have saved, and that they knew nothing about the layout of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We know now that both of these arguments are false. First, the US had considerable knowledge of not only the layout of the camp, but of the location of the gas chambers and the rail tracks that brought prisoners into the camp. This knowledge came from escapees from the camp, who by 1944 had worked their way out of Nazi territory and through the immigrant pipeline to Israel, and from reconnaissance photos of the area, which included a rubber plant that US bombed throughout 1944 and 1945. Second, studies have shown that by this date the Nazi rail system was close to overload and collapse, and if even one rail line had been damaged, it would have taken months to repair and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. There's also a persistent argument that if the Nazis thought that the US would act to stop the Holocaust (and an attack would should this), they would have slowed down the rate of killing to leave more Jews alive as potential bargaining chips. Now, to the question of investigation, which renders feasibility somewhat irrelevant. Documents now show that the military never even bothered to look into bombing. This was because of the fact that during the war, the American military leadership was virulently anti-Semitic. That's not to say they applauded the extermination of the Jews, but to them the war effort was to restrain Hitler and liberate France - rescuing Jews was a waste of time and resources: why bother saving a population of criminals and communists? Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 08:45 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
How prevalent were foreign workers during the war? I know my polish grandmother worked on a farm during the war and had official documentation for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
How can somebody who doesn't know nearly as much about nazi Germany as you do crazy respond to people saying that Obamacare/gun control/a black man being president of the USA are comparable to stuff that happened during the nazification of the country?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Awesome thread idea, Seven Hundred Bee. This was the focus of my undergraduate history degree, and I interned at a Holocaust museum. Hope you don't mind if I chime in sometime, although it's been a few years and my knowledge is admittedly rusty. My main areas of focus have been the occupied East, the extermination camps, the post-war American far right and, in an exercise in masochism, Holocaust denial. I considered pursuing graduate-level studies but a lackluster GPA dissuaded me. What's the state of the field from your perspective? I know Christopher Browning and others are rightfully putting emphasis on studies of ethnic minorities in the East and in Axis minors. As an aside, where do you stand in regard to the intentionalist/functionalist debate in Holocaust studies? MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 09:24
|
|
|
Did the Western Allies ever attempt to demand political concessions from the Soviet Union in exchange for lend-lease aid, like restoration of the pre-war borders of Poland and Finland and the independence of the Baltic states, and if not - why? In retrospect it seems hypocritical to declare war on Germany when they invade Poland, yet neglect to do so when the Soviet Union does the same from the other direction, plus the threat of cutting off lend-lease should have given them some leverage over Stalin's regime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
How close did the western allies come to allying with Hitler? What were the sun worship groups about? An earnest religious setup, or was it more like a kitsch attempt to do something the ancient germans did?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 11:28
|
|
|
I have a great number of questions that I'm still curious about although I got the full dose of public German education, which understandably uses a lot of time on the Holocaust. It is a disturbing thought that one's own grandparents were probably at least quietly complicit in such a giant crime. In no particular order: - What role did the Holocaust play in the overall scheme of things for the Nazis? Was it The Most Important Thing, was it pretty important, but not as important as winning the war, or was it just "Gee, we have to do something about the Jews"? In particular, what role did the Madagascar Plan play in it, was it just a fancy or did they honestly think that this could, and should, be done? - Why were the Nazis fighting until the very, very end? I don't necessarily mean the Wehrmacht, which did surrender en masse, particularly to the Western Allies, but the hardcore nazis fought on, knowing fully well that this would only end in their death, yet not committing suicide outright. Was there a genuine belief that they could still turn it around if they only fought hard enough? - finally, would you mind telling us what your thesis is about exactly? The Holocaust is probably the most researched historical event ever, I find it hard to believe that someone could still find really new perspectives about it (not to knock on you!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
If you know about it, how much support did the Morgenthau Plan have before it was leaked, and do we know why it was leaked in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
Lumius posted:How prevalent were foreign workers during the war? I know my polish grandmother worked on a farm during the war and had official documentation for it. Short answer: very prevalent. I assume by foreign workers you're not talking about Jews (who were used as slave labor throughout) or Russian prisoners (the same). Long answer: Depends on the what time period. Up until late '41, the German economy wasn't on a 'total war' footing (all production devoted to the war effort). Hitler was vey cognizant of public morale, and didn't want to impact the life of the average German to that extent until it was absolutely necessary. It's one of the reasons behind the eventual failure of the attack on Russia. After '41, when more and more men were needed for the the front, labor needs became acute. As the war dragged on, the Nazi government conscripted large numbers of civilians. For example, one of the key issues of contention between Vichy (technically independent) and Nazi Germany was that from '42 - '44, Germany kept demanding labor forces from France to be sent to Germany to work in factories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
I Fought The Mom posted:How can somebody who doesn't know nearly as much about nazi Germany as you do crazy respond to people saying that Obamacare/gun control/a black man being president of the USA are comparable to stuff that happened during the nazification of the country? These people are stupid, and I wouldn't try to engage with them. I'd probably point out that as soon as Obama came to office he didn't fire everyone who wasn't of a certain race, unlike Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 14:16
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Awesome thread idea, Seven Hundred Bee. This was the focus of my undergraduate history degree, and I interned at a Holocaust museum. Hope you don't mind if I chime in sometime, although it's been a few years and my knowledge is admittedly rusty. My main areas of focus have been the occupied East, the extermination camps, the post-war American far right and, in an exercise in masochism, Holocaust denial. I considered pursuing graduate-level studies but a lackluster GPA dissuaded me. What's the state of the field from your perspective? I know Christopher Browning and others are rightfully putting emphasis on studies of ethnic minorities in the East and in Axis minors. MothraAttack posted:Awesome thread idea, Seven Hundred Bee. This was the focus of my undergraduate history degree, and I interned at a Holocaust museum. Hope you don't mind if I chime in sometime, although it's been a few years and my knowledge is admittedly rusty. My main areas of focus have been the occupied East, the extermination camps, the post-war American far right and, in an exercise in masochism, Holocaust denial. I considered pursuing graduate-level studies but a lackluster GPA dissuaded me. What's the state of the field from your perspective? I know Christopher Browning and others are rightfully putting emphasis on studies of ethnic minorities in the East and in Axis minors. Please chime in! Hm. State of the field. Beyond my own issues with post-modernism and an over emphasis on gender/race as an the analytical jumping off point for historical research, I think the field is in a good place. I think Christopher Browning does great work. As far as new research, with the collapse of the USSR there's been a lot more access to information about the Eastern Front. Looking forward, I expect to see some great works coming out on the Holocaust in Russia, as well as more comparative work in genocide studies as a whole. As to functionalism vs intentionalism, I'd say I'm in the middle (for those who don't know, functionalism is the idea is that the Holocaust came about not because of a plan by Hitler, but rather the conditions and indoctrination surrounding the SS, intentionalism is the opposite). My views most align with David Kershaw. While Hitler definitely didn't plan each step of the Holocaust (there's no evidence that he did), he clearly knew and approved of the directives coming out of the SS, and probably at an early stage. I also believe that he gave his verbal approval for the construction fo the Death Camps, probably very early in the process. That said, I think the day-to-day development and spread of the Holocaust was more the combination of the three factors: (1) the deep indoctrination of anti-Semitism in the SS and Wehrmacht, which inclined them to participate in shooting/on the spot massacres; (2) a hardcore "core" of fervent believers who followed Hitler's prescribed plan to eliminate the Jews and perpetuated it out of this belief; and (3) a large and efficient mid-level leadership that, while by no means as anti-Semitic as the SS leadership, recognized that the higher ups did believe these things, and that expanding the Holocaust was an excellent way to make a name for themselves. Eichmann is an example of this third type.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Did the Western Allies ever attempt to demand political concessions from the Soviet Union in exchange for lend-lease aid, like restoration of the pre-war borders of Poland and Finland and the independence of the Baltic states, and if not - why? In retrospect it seems hypocritical to declare war on Germany when they invade Poland, yet neglect to do so when the Soviet Union does the same from the other direction, plus the threat of cutting off lend-lease should have given them some leverage over Stalin's regime. Yes and no. One of the major criticisms of Roosevelt was that he failed to appreciate Stalin's designs for Eastern Europe, and during Yalta and the other conferences allowed Stalin to convince him that he would allow free elections in Poland despite evidence to the contrary. With that said, by the time Hitler invaded Russia, the Alies were in such poor shape that they would take any help they could get, and do what they could to defeat Hitler -- and lendlease was part of that. The relationship between Russia and the rest of the Allies was born more out of necessity than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Bitter Mushroom posted:How close did the western allies come to allying with Hitler? What were the sun worship groups about? An earnest religious setup, or was it more like a kitsch attempt to do something the ancient germans did? Note: Going to multi-quote now that I figured out how. 1. Not close at all. 2. I don't know a ton about them, but from what I gather they have been way overplayed today. They were less of an outright 'let's worshop the sun!' than a vague appreciate for volkisch (the idea of old Germania race) thought. This goes with most of the runic/History channel stuff. ArchangeI posted:I have a great number of questions that I'm still curious about although I got the full dose of public German education, which understandably uses a lot of time on the Holocaust. It is a disturbing thought that one's own grandparents were probably at least quietly complicit in such a giant crime. 1. Depends on which Nazis. For some, especially the midlevel officials, it wasn't particularly important. For Hitler and the true ideological Nazis, it was everything. It was an essential product of their worldview. If you read Mein Kampf (which I wouldn't suggest), you'll see that anti-Semitism is fundamental to Hitler. The Madagascar Dream (exporting the Jews to Madagascar) was a pipedream from the start. They almost immediately realized that it was impractical, and improbable. Hitler encouraged its perpetuation as much to sow dissension among his subordinates (thus leading to competition) more than anything else. 2. A big part of it was an almost messianic belief in the ability of Hitler (and this belief extended to most Germans). Up until the final days, most Germans partially believed that Hitler had hidden, secret armies and wonder weapons that would rescue the German people. Large groups of Nazis also believed that it would possible to come to an accommodation with America, and help the West fight the Russians. And they kept going because systems develop a certain... momentum, and at some point, Nazi Germany had enough inertia to continue until it was forcefully destroyed. 3. My thesis isn't about the Holocaust. I'm researching two German emigre intellectuals and how they proposed democracy and America should fight fascism. There's lots of research on the Holocaust, but I promise you there are many thousands of unresearched topics just waiting for an eager graduate student. gradenko_2000 posted:If you know about it, how much support did the Morgenthau Plan have before it was leaked, and do we know why it was leaked in the first place? Not a ton. I don't think it was ever a realistic possibility, although the large number of German emigres (who fled Germany after Hitler came to power) supported similar retribution-style plans, and Morgenthau's plan definitely represented the thinking of more than a few on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
Beware my extensive Wikipedia knowledge! Did I get it right that most of the Shoa happened in 1941 and 1942, that there were more Jews killed in 1941 than in all other years but 1941 combined? If yes, why - simply because there were no more Polish Jews to murder, or because of external pressure? How dangerous would it have been to speak out against the Final Solution for somebody like Speer, or at the mid level? Not against Nazi rule or anti-semitism, but against extermination of people in favour of something like the Madagascar plan? Why is there so little direct evidence for the stated intent of mass extermination in the form of documents? For example, why is there no single document that says, "in this camp, we hope to be able to murder 8,000 Jews a day"? I assume during the later days of the war, when they could sense they would some day be brought to justice, it was prudent to try to hide the crimes, and even before, they tried to keep the total extent and nature of it hidden from the German public, or at least not in plain sight, but at least from what I am aware of, there is surprisingly little direct documentation by Nazis themselves of the intentional genocide and its scope (or maybe I'm just missing it). Cingulate fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:
quote:1. Depends on which Nazis. For some, especially the midlevel officials, it wasn't particularly important. For Hitler and the true ideological Nazis, it was everything. It was an essential product of their worldview. If you read Mein Kampf (which I wouldn't suggest), you'll see that anti-Semitism is fundamental to Hitler. The Madagascar Dream (exporting the Jews to Madagascar) was a pipedream from the start. They almost immediately realized that it was impractical, and improbable. Hitler encouraged its perpetuation as much to sow dissension among his subordinates (thus leading to competition) more than anything else. I'd argue that it was extremely important to midlevel officials, as they had a lot to gain (promotions) from publicly expressed anti-Semitism whether they believed in it or not. And the Madagascar Plan was a real plan that attracted attention for the same reasons. Sure it was never going to work while the Royal Navy was in existence, but in a state where everybody's working towards the Führer's plans, it made sense to overtly chart some waterways while your office supervisor was looking at you. I'm interested in the idea that Hitler encouraged it in order to increase competition though, as he was known for that. Any particular source you know of for that one? quote:2. A big part of it was an almost messianic belief in the ability of Hitler (and this belief extended to most Germans). Up until the final days, most Germans partially believed that Hitler had hidden, secret armies and wonder weapons that would rescue the German people. Large groups of Nazis also believed that it would possible to come to an accommodation with America, and help the West fight the Russians. And they kept going because systems develop a certain... momentum, and at some point, Nazi Germany had enough inertia to continue until it was forcefully destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
In the academic world is "The Holocaust" as a topic mostly centred on the extermination of the Jews as it is in mainstream media or is there acknowledgement of all the millions of other people that were killed in the camps as well? It just seems odd to ignore that at least as many Slavs, Romani, Poles, Russian POWs, Freemasons, Homosexuals and Freemasons were killed as Jews.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
MrBling posted:In the academic world is "The Holocaust" as a topic mostly centred on the extermination of the Jews as it is in mainstream media or is there acknowledgement of all the millions of other people that were killed in the camps as well? It just seems odd to ignore that at least as many Slavs, Romani, Poles, Russian POWs, Freemasons, Homosexuals and Freemasons were killed as Jews. Why on earth would you think that it's ignored in the academic world? And the 'mainstream media' generally acknowledges the other groups too. Actual question: Science in Nazi Germany. Obviously they shot themselves in the foot by getting rid of so many Jewish scientists right on the eve of war, but how much was the Nazi leadership involved in directing science? Did it get all Lysenko?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Gumby posted:I'd say that the amount of modern-day interest in Nazi völkisch religion and rituals (incidents of which are grossly overestimated) is probably an unconscious attempt by people to otherize the Nazis into non-Christian pagans. What's scary about the Nazis is how mundane they were and how close any population can be to fascism, racial hatred, militarism, etc. at any given time. 1. I'd believe that. 2. I think it was important in the careerist sense, but it wasn't the ideological axis around which the world turned as it was for the high-level Nazis. I'm sure even the mid-level careerists were anti-Semitic to some degree. 3. For the Madagascar Plan, I refer back to Kershaw's work on Hitler. Kershaw doesn't believe that it was ever a legitimate plan -- it was clear that it was unworkable, and ideologically it ran counter to Hitler's line of thinking. The continued existence of it (it bounced around for awhile) has as much to do with the chaos and competitive structure of the Nazi state, and Kershaw alludes to the fact that Hitler, in the case of the plan, encouraged it. 4. True, Hitler was pretty publicly reviled, but still, even in the end, you find diary entries from soldiers talking about how they've heard rumors about the wonder weapons and Hitler is going to save them all. The "Hitler Myth" was pervasive, and even three years of setbacks and slaughter hadn't completely eradicated it from the average German, and especially hadn't for the indoctrinated soldier. With that said, the biggest motivating factor for the average Wehrmact soldier was probably to head off the Russians as long as possible to give civilians more time to flee. MrBling posted:In the academic world is "The Holocaust" as a topic mostly centred on the extermination of the Jews as it is in mainstream media or is there acknowledgement of all the millions of other people that were killed in the camps as well? It just seems odd to ignore that at least as many Slavs, Romani, Poles, Russian POWs, Freemasons, Homosexuals and Freemasons were killed as Jews. No, it's not ignored at all, although obviously there's been much more work on the Jewish victims than others. The biggest 'fault' with genocide studies as a field is probably how the Holocaust is written about to a much higher degree than any other genocide, although again, not very surprising why. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why on earth would you think that it's ignored in the academic world? And the 'mainstream media' generally acknowledges the other groups too. This is one of the curious idiosyncrasies about Nazi Germany - on one hand, a part of Hitler's ideology was a return to historic Germany and historic values, on the other hand he wasn't a moron and recognized the importance of science, especially military research. There were lots of smart scientists working in Germany through the war, and with government support. That said, the Nazi state was extraordinarily chaotic, so there was never a single, well articulated scientific policy. Kicking out all the Jewish scientists (or gassing them) isn't why they lost the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Here's a question, why didnt the rank and file of the german communist party (i.e. Ernst Thalmann and the gang) put up a fight against the Nazi's when they started instituting a dictatorship? Whatever happened to all the other parties? was Hitler's allure so great that all of these civil society members/ parties just magically faded away into the dark after 1933?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Here's a question, why didnt the rank and file of the german communist party (i.e. Ernst Thalmann and the gang) put up a fight against the Nazi's when they started instituting a dictatorship? Whatever happened to all the other parties? was Hitler's allure so great that all of these civil society members/ parties just magically faded away into the dark after 1933? Good question. Couple of reasons: German society in 1933 was conservative, and a big appeal of Hitler and the Nazi Party was that they were an alternative to communism. Hitler was able to use the threat of an impending communist revolt (similar to those that happened in 1919 in the wake of the German defeat in World War I) as justification to seize more and more power, and eventually force through the Enabling Act. A large reason that the communists never, say, staged an uprising immediately, was because society was hostile in general to them. That said, there was communist opposition to Hitler, but he was able to stamp it out, either arresting, executing or exiling communist party members. After the first wave of arrests, most fled the country for Russia or the West. In 1933 and 1934 Hitler dissolved competing political parties. This was done under the guise of legality (the enabling act), but in actuality was a product of intimidation, coercion and violence. You also have to bear in mind that during the first seven years of his rule (until 1940), Hitler was immensely popular. It was extremely difficult for any political part, underground or otherwise, to mount an opposition to him when he enjoyed the support of 90%+ of German citizens. Look at his accomplishments in the 1930s: he helped turn around the economy; he remilitarized the Rhineland, thereby standing up to the Allies and abrogating the Treaty of Versailles, which was a source of deep German anger; he merged Germany with Austria, which was long a dream of many German nationalists; he successfully annexed portions of Czechoslovakia; and, most impressive of all, he defeated France, the country that Germans despised more than any. Throughout the 1930s the Nazi party would occasionally hold 'elections' or 'plebiscites' (there was really only one way you could vote) but historians have shown that during these periods, Hitler really did enjoy an astronomically high approval rate. In fact, the 'genius' of Hitler in the 1930s in regards to foreign politics was that many of the issues he pressed were completely legitimate. He, in a sense, was on the 'right' and even moral side. Why should Germany, a sovereign nation, not be allowed to defend its borders? How could the Allies, who supposedly supported Wilson's Fourteen Points and preached the necessity of self-determination, deny Germany a chance to incorporate German nationals trapped abroad? The British especially felt guilty about how harsh Versailles was, and they legitimately approved of many of the things Hitler was doing. Also bear in mind that the West in general (especially England and the US) looked on Hitler as an excellent bulwark against communism, which they feared far more than fascism. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:27
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:4. True, Hitler was pretty publicly reviled, but still, even in the end, you find diary entries from soldiers talking about how they've heard rumors about the wonder weapons and Hitler is going to save them all. The "Hitler Myth" was pervasive, and even three years of setbacks and slaughter hadn't completely eradicated it from the average German, and especially hadn't for the indoctrinated soldier. With that said, the biggest motivating factor for the average Wehrmact soldier was probably to head off the Russians as long as possible to give civilians more time to flee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Gumby posted:Yeah, that sounds plausible. It's just hard to tell what was truly believed based on what the primary sources thought was evidence at the time, and what's "we've gotta win, we just have to or we're screwed." I've got a copy of Kershaw's The End sitting on my shelf, where it's been for the last I don't know how long. Really got to start that. Let me know if you like it. I've been meaning to read it but have been too bust. Beevor's book on the Battle of Berlin is decent too, if for nothing more than it's good use of primary sources.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Beware my extensive Wikipedia knowledge! quote:How dangerous would it have been to speak out against the Final Solution for somebody like Speer, or at the mid level? Not against Nazi rule or anti-semitism, but against extermination of people in favour of something like the Madagascar plan? It probably wouldn't have been dangerous at all. During postwar crimes trials, every defendant tried to find precedents of Germans being harmed for speaking out against the Holocaust so they could use their own fear as a defense. They couldn't find any. Sure it probably would have wrecked your career, but you wouldn't have gone to jail for it. quote:Why is there so little direct evidence for the stated intent of mass extermination in the form of documents? For example, why is there no single document that says, "in this camp, we hope to be able to murder 8,000 Jews a day"? I assume during the later days of the war, when they could sense they would some day be brought to justice, it was prudent to try to hide the crimes, and even before, they tried to keep the total extent and nature of it hidden from the German public, or at least not in plain sight, but at least from what I am aware of, there is surprisingly little direct documentation by Nazis themselves of the intentional genocide and its scope (or maybe I'm just missing it). It's important to remember that the leaders of the Nazi party were a failed landscape artist who couldn't be bothered to get out of bed before 10, an unpublished writer, an agriculture student, and a morphine addict. While I was studying the Holocaust for my MA, I was constantly bewildered that these chucklefucks could get anything done. Edit: Not that I have anything against agriculture students or unpublished writers or struggling artists or morphine addicts; it's rather that none of the above lend themselves well to running a country. Kangaroo Jerk fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Gumby posted:
That efficient German bureaucracy. It's crazy how corrupt and inefficient the Nazi state was. The only parallel I can think of is maybe Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. One of the things that's always fascinated me is that after the war in the East began, Hitler virtually stopped governing, and focused all of his energy on the minutiae of military battles. That's not to say he was ever an involved leader, but in '43 and '44 he spent all of his time moving tanks on a map, and not planning the economy or directing foreign policy. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
The communist party was also under strict orders from Moscow to not do anything. Stalin didn't like the idea of left wing movements starting up things he didn't plan. His actions in Germany and during the Spanish Civil War were amazingly good at putting down the opposition against fascism. :cryingtrotsky: How did the military forces spread around the remaining nazi footholds heard about the surrender and how did they buy it? Wouldn't they be used to constant propaganda? Some units were stuck in the alps, in Poland or in Denmark. The fact that they surrendered in at most two days after the surrender actually shows just how "eager" the German troops wanted to fight until the end. As soon as the bell rang they immediately surrendered, ignoring the fanatics of course.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
I am interested in Hitler's court. Was there any formal system of succession for the Führer in place? I know how it ended up in practice (with the crazy guy who airdropped in Scotland as the first expected second in command if I recall correctly) but I wonder if the Nazi state had survived whether there were plans (or even laws already) for Hitler's succession. e. Or maybe were their certain cultural expectations? Namarrgon fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Were the effects of the "Preußenschlag" an important factor in Hitler's rise to power?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Why did Göring treat his pilots like poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Why didn't anyone question why Hitler had brown eyes and brown hair?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I am interested in Hitler's court. Was there any formal system of succession for the Führer in place? I know how it ended up in practice (with the crazy guy who airdropped in Scotland as the first expected second in command if I recall correctly) but I wonder if the Nazi state had survived whether there were plans (or even laws already) for Hitler's succession. Different people were treated as heir presumptive at different times. Hitler's 'court' involved the high officials (Goering, Bormann, Goebbeles, Speer) competing with each other for power and prestige, and, by extension the right to take over after Hitler died. It was extraordinarily chaotic, and actually encouraged by Hitler. In line with his philosophy of Social Darwinism, he believed that competition among his subordinates would: a. encourage them to do better; ie: survival of the fittest, and b. prevent them allying against him. Randler posted:Were the effects of the "Preußenschlag" an important factor in Hitler's rise to power? I actually can't answer this. I remember reading about it, and I even know what book it was is, so I'll go and check. Clayton Bigsby posted:Why did Göring treat his pilots like poo poo? Goring was a loving fat corrupt douchebag. He sucked at everything (although he was kind of responsible for the Anschluss). He treated his pilots like poo poo because he was an awful, awful person. SlenderWhore posted:Why didn't anyone question why Hitler had brown eyes and brown hair? There were always rumors about Hitler's ancestors, but there were lots of Aryans with brown eyes and brown hair. They invented a whole psuedo-science for determining ethnicity, including measuring skulls, ear shapes, nose shapes, etc. As far as we can tell, Hitler really was an Aryan. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:I am interested in Hitler's court. Was there any formal system of succession for the Führer in place? I know how it ended up in practice (with the crazy guy who airdropped in Scotland as the first expected second in command if I recall correctly) but I wonder if the Nazi state had survived whether there were plans (or even laws already) for Hitler's succession. I'm not aware of any plans, but I could be mistaken. Hitler had a method of setting his subordinates against each other in order to prove their worth, foster competition as an end in itself, and keep everybody dependent on Hitler's good graces. And given that the Nazi party was a backbiting, chaotic incoherent mess a lot of the time, whoever was going to succeed Hitler was always going to be the guy with the sharpest claws. Unless you're losing a World War, in which case you stick some admiral with the position. Also, (cough)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY SlenderWhore posted:Why didn't anyone question why Hitler had brown eyes and brown hair? Most Germans have brown eyes and brown hair. The Nazis meant all the Nordic Übermensch stuff, but that was only ever maybe a goal to be worked toward, and IIRC it was only Himmler that took that part seriously. I mean, all of the top Nazis looked like poo poo. You had to go down to Heydrich to find somebody who looked good in a uniform, and you had to disregard that nose as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
So essentially he went for an Alexandrian style of succession? That always works so well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Namarrgon posted:So essentially he went for an Alexandrian style of succession? That always works so well. Hey, Alexander's empire got split into pieces, and so did Germany. Hitler was just following the example of another great conqueror!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
If nobody minds, I'm not near the expert that the OP is, but I know a little about the situation and thought I might chime in:ArchangeI posted:Why were the Nazis fighting until the very, very end? I don't necessarily mean the Wehrmacht, which did surrender en masse, particularly to the Western Allies, but the hardcore nazis fought on, knowing fully well that this would only end in their death, yet not committing suicide outright. Was there a genuine belief that they could still turn it around if they only fought hard enough? I don't think any of them actually believed that it was winnable in the late war (in fact, lots of people believed that it wasn't winnable in the early part of the war). I actually got a chance to talk to a former SS soldier about 5-6 years ago and the way he made it sound was that it was a practically nihilistic, going down with the ship, sort of mindset. Interestingly enough, he said that when he heard that Hitler died, he literally sat down and cried imagining Hitler going out in a blaze of glory against the forces of Bolshevism. When he found out that Hitler killed himself and left them to pick up the pieces, he realised that he'd been had by the Nazis. He also claimed not to have participated in any war crimes and I didn't press the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
About trying to bomb Auschwitz, wasn't the wildly inaccurate method of strategic bombing at the time another factor in deciding whether to attempt to destroy it? The gas chambers were pretty small buildings relative to the rest of the camp, and the only way to ensure hitting them would have been to just wipe out the entire camp, killing up to 100,000 prisoners in the process. And even after all that it was still possible that the gas chamber buildings would still be standing. You run into the same type of problem attempting to bomb the correct rail lines leading into the camp, and those are much easier to rebuild afterwards. And not to mention that by the time this question was being debated in the summer of 1944 Auschwitz had already finished with the great majority of its extermination process. With the Hungarian Jewish population now already exterminated the deportations en masse had ended. Even if everything went perfectly and the gas chambers were blown up without wiping out the prisoner population how many lives would it have really saved in the end? I don't mean to be argumentative but I think these are also important pints to make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:About trying to bomb Auschwitz, wasn't the wildly inaccurate method of strategic bombing at the time another factor in deciding whether to attempt to destroy it? The gas chambers were pretty small buildings relative to the rest of the camp, and the only way to ensure hitting them would have been to just wipe out the entire camp, killing up to 100,000 prisoners in the process. And even after all that it was still possible that the gas chamber buildings would still be standing. You run into the same type of problem attempting to bomb the correct rail lines leading into the camp, and those are much easier to rebuild afterwards. No, feel free! Debate is always welcome. The question of accuracy has been debated (really to death) over the last ten years. The consensus that has emerged, at least in my eyes, is that the Allies could have successfully bombed the rail junctures, even if they lacked the capability to target the crematoriums, and that even the appearance of attempting to bomb the camp would function to warn the Nazis off, and to take further precautions when transporting prisoners, which would make transport slower and therefore save lives. As to the late date, even bombing in 1944 would have saved lives, and it could have, by extension, saved lives in other camps. It would also have served as a powerful symbol to the remaining prisoners. If you'd like to read more about this, I can provide you with some books and articles to look up. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
Dopilsya posted:If nobody minds, I'm not near the expert that the OP is, but I know a little about the situation and thought I might chime in: A big part of the Nazis holding on in the East was to by time to for civilians to flee to the American lines. When the Russians captured German territory, especially in Prussia, they looted everything and raped everyone. There are estimates that literally millions of women were raped (dozens if not hundreds of times) by the Russians. The abortion rate in Germany in 1945 and 1946 was astronomical. When you examine some of the battles in the closing days of the war, ie: Berlin, Seelow Heights, you see under equipped German armies filled with old men and children fighting against impossible odds. Surrender wasn't really an option - most of the Germans who surrendered to the Russians never returned to Germany and died in camps. Also, you have to remember just how indoctrinated many soldiers were. Your average soldier was in his early 20s, and had been educated his entire life under the Nazi regime. He regarded Hitler with awe -- when the assassination attempt on Hitler failed in 1944, most Germans were horrified that someone would have tried to kill Hitler. It was despicable. Even at the end, when logic dictated that the war was lost, many held at an irrational belief that Hitler would forge an alliance with the West and save them at the last minute. Stalin was afraid of that too actually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2013 20:14
|
|