|
The Monkey Man posted:What did the Ku Klux Klan think of the Nazis? Did they object to fighting them in World War II? It's not that the KKK liked the Nazis, it's more about the hypocrisy of the US government and people complaining in a high-minded way about {x group being oppressed by a foreign country} while still turning a blind eye to lynchings and Jim Crow in the South. It was a common theme of the Soviet Union in the 50s and 60s, as well.
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Even during the Holocaust, killing a Jew in Germany itself was by German law a murder. The Nazis went through a lot of effort to strip Jews of their German Citizenship before they killed them. There was never a point where the official line was "killing a Jew is not a crime, go hogwild". There is a world of difference between the state killing someone and a private person killing someone (see also: why Police killing a bank robber isn't murder or manslaughter). While this is true, there's a difference between the letter of the law and its execution (see also the American South at about the same time. In theory, killing black people == murder. In practice, there are souvenir photos of lynch mobs with their faces uncovered because they knew law enforcement wasn't going to do a drat thing to them).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:The Red Army was still unpurged, and various forward thinking officers were still around. Russia wasn't 'the allies' in 1936, though; the UK government considered them more of a menace to world peace than the Germans. It's also worth pointing out that the UK and France were both militarily less strong than they were in 1939, too - rearmament became a thing in the West once it became clear (to some) that Hitler wasn't going to stop. Britain in January 1936 has neither the Spitfire, nor the Hurricane, nor radar (in fact the RAF was still rocking biplanes), which would make the Battle of Britain interesting. Contrariwise the Italian army in 1936 was reasonably up to date rather than having obsolescent gear as it did in 1939.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:I thought Bismarck united the disparate German "tribes" under the banner of a modern nation state. It was a precursor to the modern conception of a race, where there wasn't one before in the same way (I am sure a case can be made for this, maybe with Foucault). I wouldn't call his brand of nationalism "not racist". He didn't try to unite the British and the Germanic tribes under one roof, for example. Talking about the states of 19th century Germany as 'tribes', quotes or not, is really rather weird, and the 19th century is exactly when the modern conception of race as used by the Nazis developed. Nonetheless, Bismarck didn't go in for, say, laws outlawing marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans or stripping Germans of their citizenship based on their racial purity. That's because Bismarck was a fairly normal 19th century nationalist. Saying Bismarckian nationalism was pretty much the same as Nazism is fundamentally incorrect.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
moths posted:My understanding is that Germany didn't start rebuilding their airforce until the 30s, so the radar story sounds unlikely. Why? Appeasement was a mid-late 30s thing, generally, and Chain Home wasn't started until 1936. Not that radar specifically was something Chamberlain would have known would be vital (the theory in the 30s was that the bomber would always get through anyway), but that extra year did allow for the construction of a lot more Spitfires and Hurricanes which would turn out to be pretty important. On the other hand, Czechoslovakia was pretty well defended and was known for its tank and artillery knowhow, so who knows how it would have balanced out if the Germans had ended up breaking their teeth on the (mountainous, fortified, tank-unfriendly) Sudetenland instead of rolling through the flat plains of Poland?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It seems pretty likely that the Germans would have been able to win against the Czechs, but then they'd need to spend significant time rebuilding and rearming to pre-war-with-Czechs strength On their own, yes. We're positing a world in which it's Germany versus the Czechs and France and the UK, as opposed to Germany plus Russia versus Poland, France and the UK.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:15 |
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Invasions are expensive and sending them some food once in a while is cheaper than trying to unfuck the country. Plus an unfucked North Korea is probably just going to be reunified with the South, and China isn't going to be super happy about bordering a US ally. Also, if there is anything North Korea could actually manage to nuke, it's an invading army. Also, we just did Iraq and Afghanistan and those were both fuckfests.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2015 20:05
|
|