|
Does anyone have recommended reading on the inception and rise of the Nazi party or on the Nuremberg trials?
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Does anyone have recommended reading on the inception and rise of the Nazi party or on the Nuremberg trials? https://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Rise-...rise+nazi+party this would be a good book for starters. there is a lot of material, academic and popular about the rise of Hitler, the Nazis and subsequent events. It also does need to be seen in the context of post World War One Europe, with an understanding of Germany's position, the brutality of the war, the Treaty of Versailles all playing into the eventual development and success of the Nazi Party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Another good book to read is The Wages of Destruction, which deals with it kind of indirectly. It's a book about the economy of Nazi Germany, and also spends some time looking at the economy of Weimar Germany and how developments there laid the way for the nazis. One take away from that and other things I have read is that the economic harshness and impact of the Treaty of Versailles has been mostly either misunderstood or overstated, far more bitter points of contetion for German nationalists were the implications of the stab-in-the-back myth which posited that Germany had been forced to surrender and be humiliated by mutineers, republicans, socialists, Jews and profiteers whilst its armies were still undefeated on the battlefield. Economically Germany was mostly doing pretty good in the 20s thanks to generous American loans and investments in German industry. This also angered and humiliated German nationalists who saw this as trading away national sovereignty and pride for economic prosperity, which they saw as a poor bargain. As for Goebbles. Wasn't he an important figure in the left-wing (emphasizing the socialist) of the party and initially an opponent of Hitler? Him coming around to supporting Hitler was of pretty great importance in unifying and rallying the party around Hitler. Agnosticnixie posted:Admittedly my standards (anyone who volunteered for the Waffen SS, among other things) are iirc more extreme than the soviet union's. You do know that quite alot of foreigners in the Waffen SS late in the war "volunteered" by way of prison camps? The Hitlerjugend Division was essentially just a whole year of Hitlerjugend boys drafted into the organization, don't think they had much say in it. Anyway for much of the war, especially as you go near the end, there isn't really that much difference between the Waffen SS and the army in terms of war crimes. Though alot of Waffen SS formations did prove themselves to be quite brutal in regards to their treatment of prisoners of war and partisans, in general the war crimes they committed were the same as those committed by the army, even if they tended to be more infamous for brutality and sadism. The camp guards and einsatzgruppen were mostly normal SS and local sympathetic militias, not frontline soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Randarkman posted:As for Goebbles. Wasn't he an important figure in the left-wing (emphasizing the socialist) of the party and initially an opponent of Hitler? Him coming around to supporting Hitler was of pretty great importance in unifying and rallying the party around Hitler. Yeah, in the early days (20s) there was a north/south split, with the north essentially being authoritarian socialists and the south being law-and-order authoritarians. This led to pretty serious infighting, and at least once an attempted coup that was supposed to relieve the Munich faction (Hitler) of their power. Goebbels was on the side of the coup, until last minute the main northern agitator got cold feet and Goebbels immediately stabbed him in the back to ingratiate himself with Hitler. Goebbels for instance was thoroughly opposed to the landed aristocracy and wanted to forcibly remove them and take their poo poo, but Hitler's southern Nazis were all about upholding the law, so that never happened. Goebbels had communist sympathies until the end, but was always too much of a bootlicker to do anything about them. He wanted a leader he could follow. He wasn't above trying to subtly influence that leader towards the left but only if that wouldn't lead to an argument that potentially could have undermined Goebbel's position within the party. Hitler was keenly aware of how useful Goebbels could be as a propagandist and flattered and complimented him constantly to keep him happily at heel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
If caugth alive the masses in each of the allied states would have demanded his head. Because of this and regardless of his actual guilt him killing would have been justified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:If caugth alive the masses in each of the allied states would have demanded his head. Because of this and regardless of his actual guilt him killing would have been justified. this argument is so bad it makes goebbels look good
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 02:09
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
He wasn't just propaganda minister, he was part of Hitler's inner circle and had a lot more authority over what happened in the government than his title would suggest. So yes, hang him high.Panzeh posted:Doenitz had the best defense lawyer there who wrote a book on the proceedings. It's why he got a rather light sentence for being Hitler's successor. Doenitz got off lightly because senior American admirals pointed out that they had waged an identical submarine campaign in the Pacific that the Germans had in the Atlantic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
I mean Riefenstahl by her own admission was passing messages from Mussolini to Hitler with nothing more than her usual justification of "Well *I* certainly didn't know what I was doing", so yeah
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Does anyone have recommended reading on the inception and rise of the Nazi party or on the Nuremberg trials? Richard Evans' Third Reich trilogy, Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction, and Volker Ulrich's newly-released biography of Hitler are all good bets on the rise of Nazism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Goering and Donitz (assuming they didn't do significant political party poo poo) both deserved to be let off, or Allied bomber and sub command deserved to be hung too. But I like to think of myself as a radical moderate so I say just hang the people who carried out the London Blitz and Dresden to make it fair. Goebbels should've been hung not for what he said but for being a working leader in a government that committed genocide. fake e: nvm just remembered Goering founded the Gestapo. Shoot the fucker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
Throw a tire around his neck and light'em up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Donitz should have hanged, Riefenstahl should have hanged, basically anyone in a command/authority position in the third reich should have died, unless they can prove they actively prevented atrocities or sped up nazi germany's defeat, say by passing intelligence to the allies or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Also hanging allied bomber command is absolutely retarded, the allies didn't start the war, and their actions helped end it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Goering and Donitz (assuming they didn't do significant political party poo poo) both deserved to be let off, or Allied bomber and sub command deserved to be hung too. But I like to think of myself as a radical moderate so I say just hang the people who carried out the London Blitz and Dresden to make it fair. Yeah, Goering was one of the early Nazi political guys and he probably was going to hang no matter what but Goering didn't even try to defend himself. He didn't take the trial seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Horseshoe theory posted:Then again, Julius Streicher was convicted and executed for his propaganda. Yeah, Streicher was an 'alternative' media mogul/propagandist and they hanged his rear end. He was also a Gauleiter though I think, but I have no idea what crimes he committed in that role. That Bannon scumbag is the Julius Streicher of the Drumpfenreich for real.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also hanging allied bomber command is absolutely retarded, the allies didn't start the war, and their actions helped end it. lol no, firebombs and nukes are not ok
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also hanging allied bomber command is absolutely retarded, the allies didn't start the war, and their actions helped end it. That and they won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:lol no, firebombs and nukes are not ok They were ok in Ww2 to beat Germany and Japan. Nothing was not ok in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They were ok in Ww2 to beat Germany and Japan. Nothing was not ok in that situation. Really? Nothing? Japanese internment camps? The French Moroccan troops raping and murdering their way across Italy? Soviet occupation of Austria and Germany? This is a horrifying way to think, and a complete misunderstanding of war and its consequences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:lol no, firebombs and nukes are not ok NO NO STOP DO NOT BRING UP NUKES IN A NON-NUKE THREAD STOP NO
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Really? Nothing? Japanese internment camps? The French Moroccan troops raping and murdering their way across Italy? Soviet occupation of Austria and Germany? Japanese internment camps wasn't killing Japanese people/destroying Japanese stuff (ie: beating them in the war) so I'd say it was probably wrong. We shouldn't have locked Americans up like that. Soviet Occupation of Austria and Germany was the price the Germans and Austrians paid for their crimes. I can think of worse things of the top of my head pretty easy, like the Austrian/German occupation of the Soviet Union. But everything up to and including just completely wiping out Germany and Japan were justified in WW2. They started the war, and they committed and would have gone on committing the worst crimes in human history if they weren't stopped. At what point do you people think the Allies should have stopped what they were doing to Germany/Japan and started telling the Axis' victims "sorry, we could do more, even save your life, just by killing more of the people who are doing this to you, but we have decided not to, that you should die instead?" Why do you people think Japanese lives were worth more than Chinese and American lives? Why do you think German and Austrian lives were worth more than Eastern European or Jewish lives? Or the lives of soldiers from all the countries fighting the 3rd Reich? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Uhhh hold up there Dr. Strangelove. What's justified in war is doing things to end the war that are proportional actions. 100,000 German women getting raped by Red Army troops in pacified areas behind the frontlines doesn't further that goal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Uhhh hold up there Dr. Strangelove. What's justified in war is doing things to end the war that are proportional actions. 100,000 German women getting raped by Red Army troops in pacified areas behind the frontlines doesn't further that goal. I dont have a single kind word to say about the soviets. We probably should have gone to war against them after WW2. At any rate, trying to confuse the issue from Allied fire/nuclear bombing to soviet rapists is a different argument altogether. What we were justified in doing was killing as many Germans and Japanese as possible, and destroying as much of the material basis for their war effort as possible, until they surrendered unconditionally. It was what we actually did, it was good, and it lead to good outcomes for Japan and Germany as well as the rest of the world. Both countries were rebuilt peaceful, free, and prosperous. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I dont have a single kind word to say about the soviets. quote:But everything up to and including just completely wiping out Germany and Japan were justified in WW2. Well good, but you don't have to say anything nice about them in order to be still wrong. FWIW I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 100% justified and less destructive than some conventional bombing raids. But there's a difference between destroying industry and causing collateral damage in an era before laser- or GPS-guided bombs existed and just dunking on civilian areas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Well good, but you don't have to say anything nice about them in order to be still wrong. FWIW I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 100% justified and less destructive than some conventional bombing raids. But there's a difference between destroying industry and causing collateral damage in an era before laser- or GPS-guided bombs existed and just dunking on civilian areas. We dunked on civilian areas deliberately though, since we believed that those areas were vital for the enemy's production of weapons. If they didnt have houses, they wouldnt be as productive, was the plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I dont have a single kind word to say about the soviets. We probably should have gone to war against them after WW2. Allied mass rapists weren't OK either, you weirdo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Who said they were? Hell is wrong with you? Firebombing Germany and Japan were OK. Dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was OK. Dude who said they weren't was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I dont have a single kind word to say about the soviets. We probably should have gone to war against them after WW2. you are human loving garbage
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:you are human loving garbage Says the guy saying we shouldn't have fought the Nazis and the Japanese...
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Says the guy saying we shouldn't have fought the Nazis and the Japanese... you really are sick, you know that? Don't try to twist words, you're nowhere near smart enough. Burning cities to the ground to see if we could turn fire into a hurricane just wasn't justified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Who said they were? Hell is wrong with you? No he was not. Also Allied war crimes are not limited to firebombing and nuking German and Japanese civilians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:you really are sick, you know that? Don't try to twist words, you're nowhere near smart enough. Burning cities to the ground to see if we could turn fire into a hurricane just wasn't justified. The Germans and Japanese were responsible for the deaths of more than sixty million people spangly. Would you have preferred it was seventy? eighty? ninety? A hundred million people? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The Germans and Japanese were responsible for the deaths of more than sixty million people spangly. I'll leave you the honor of telling Jürgen Müller and Hanae Takehara that the destruction of their homes and their subsequent senseless deaths prevented millions of other deaths. EDIT never mind, it probably wouldn't be appropriate, since you'd be more than likely to develop at least a half-chub Flowers For Algeria fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Soviet Occupation of Austria and Germany was the price the Germans and Austrians paid for their crimes. I can think of worse things of the top of my head pretty easy, like the Austrian/German occupation of the Soviet Union. You are literally apologizing for, and handwaving away the single largest mass rape event in recorded human history. Explain how you come to the conclusion that the rape of 2 million women, including children, near and past the end of the war justifiably prevented German aggression.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The Germans and Japanese were responsible for the deaths of more than sixty million people spangly. How many deaths did the firebombing of Dresden prevent? How exactly did it prevent them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
The allies weren't going to kill their own leadership over war crimes no matter if they thought it was justified or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
The funny thing is I didn't even argue against killing civilians employed in vital industries or using incendiaries or nukes or the almost certain fact that 9 out of 10 bombs dropped from B-17/B-29 formations that were spread out across miles from 20,000 feet up hit civilians instead of an actual target. I'm just asking there be some minimal link that could be deduced between "win war" and "do this thing" before causing collateral damage. "LOL literally anything goes get hosed Axis" isn't deductive in the slightest. Intentionally specifically bombing granny out of her home just means she'll die for no reason because any state on a total war footing will prioritize food, medical care, and shelter to people who are actually useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You are literally apologizing for, and handwaving away the single largest mass rape event in recorded human history. Explain how you come to the conclusion that the rape of 2 million women, including children, near and past the end of the war justifiably prevented German aggression. I couldn't possibly come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The funny thing is I didn't even argue against killing civilians employed in vital industries or using incendiaries or nukes or the almost certain fact that 9 out of 10 bombs dropped from B-17/B-29 formations that were spread out across miles from 20,000 feet up hit civilians instead of an actual target. I'm just asking there be some minimal link that could be deduced between "win war" and "do this thing" before causing collateral damage. "LOL literally anything goes get hosed Axis" isn't deductive in the slightest. Intentionally specifically bombing granny out of her home just means she'll die for no reason because any state on a total war footing will prioritize food, medical care, and shelter to people who are actually useful. The stated aim was to destroy the homes of people contributing to the war effort, consume Germany's resources, and to decrease the German people's morale and willingness to continue fighting. It was called "de-housing." quote:The following seems a simple method of estimating what we could do by bombing Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Feb 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Yeah, we know what the strategy was. Practically every WWII historian agrees it was a lovely strategy that didn't work at all. The entire strategic bombing plan was a mishmash of theory cooked up in the 1920's that was a waste of resources, men and civilian lives by every possible measure. I specifically asked you to explain how you thought Dresden was a successful campaign because it's probably the most glaring example of this. Despite killing 25,000 civilians and razing the entire city center, it ended up becoming a huge propaganda coup for Germany. Goebbels (back on topic!) spun it into a rallying cry that, if anything, extended the war. Here's a book on the subject, which you should really, really read before you start talking in definitive terms about your grand opinions about the war. That and probably the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and Speer's memoir. Or gently caress, watch a documentary or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 02:42
|
|