What if instead of creating tank (or panzer) formations, Germany concentrated on building more trucks (and some half-tracks although not enough can probably built for the whole army) to fully motorise their army? How would their performance during the war have changed?
Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…
-
My intent at pointing this out, is that I believe we can label his views, either specifically or generally, as being fringe or well outside the norm. If this is true about one rather significant thing, then should we not view his other causes with caution? Yes, at the most basic level this comes down to a difference of opinion. But when the opinion is about something this serious, it inevitably colors the rest of your worldview, for either good or bad.
I would say that I have a very low level of trust in the government, or any body of government, but on a philosophical level. There is a difference between low trust in your government and believing that your government orchestrated mass murder of their own civilians. (Prante is a Canadian, but that matters little.) If you believed the latter, how could you see it as anything but evil and something that must be morally opposed? I believe that it is certainly damaging to his credibility, at least with me and anyone who holds a normal or mainstream view of the world. Fortunately, I can focus on his comments on Germany and examine them without his other views impacting my assessment. But as a whole, seen as a man who is very non-trusting, I can realize that his investigation into secrets can becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
I strongly disagree. Your analogy fails because the circumstances were radically different.
-
Being the government in power, the Nazis made the conscious decision to eliminate a specific group or groups of humans whom they did not find worthy, for one reason or another. This is a majority vs minority persecution, with discrimination of victims, unlike some sort of anarchical cannibalism for survival. This also ignores the fact that the Nazis created this issue themselves. As the effective ruler of Europe by 1940, Hitler could very easily have used his resources to round up all the Jews and ship them out of the Reich to some Eastern European nation or into Africa or France or wherever… if he and the Nazis had any commitment to a “humane” solution, this would have been easily achievable. Obviously, preserving Jewish and other lives was not that important… Germany was not an island with no recourse.
-
The Nazis racial motivations were evident long before embargoes and starvation came upon Germany. Nor can it be argued that the Nazis held any reservations about either the forced labor, incarceration or extermination of these groups. It may not have happened when it did, had things turned out differently, but those items were inevitable.
-
The majority of extermination of Jews did not happen in Germany or to German Jews, but rather in Poland to Polish Jews. This was not a case of there being inadequate foodstuffs or land to provide for the German people, rather it was plain genocide.
-
Pertaining to your rationale above… There really can be no excuses for German extermination camps. Purposeful and industrialized killing is far different from starvation or death from exposure, much different even from execution as “traitors”. The murder of POWs, civilians and others by the Soviet Union is another issue entirely, but even that does not somehow justify the Nazis actions. Your examples above do nothing but to say that it was okay because other people did it too and they killed more!
The Allies, as I have admitted, had their share of faults. However, they should be examined in two different groups: the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. Because the US and UK were ideologically and geographically separate from the USSR does not prevent us from asking questions, but very little blame for actions of the Soviet Union can be shared by the US and the UK. Their alliance with the Soviet Union was one of necessity and expedience rather than brotherhood. While I shrink from calling the USSR the “lesser” of the two evils (Germany or USSR) in Europe, I am sure that is what it seemed like to the Allies at the time.
My intent at pointing this out, is that I believe we can label his views, either specifically or generally, as being fringe or well outside the norm.
Whether they are fringe or outside the norm is beside the point. The only question worth asking is, are they well-researched and well-supported?
As the effective ruler of Europe by 1940, Hitler could very easily have used his resources
to round up all the Jews and ship them out of the Reich to some Eastern European nation or into Africa or France or wherever…The problem was not so easily solved as that. In 1938, Hitler had suggested the idea of relocating Germany’s Jews to some British or French colony. He suggested French Madagascar, but made it clear he didn’t care which colony was chosen as the destination, as long as it was someplace other than Europe. Both Daladier and Chamberlain refused. Hitler therefore exported large numbers of Jews to Palestine, until Britain put a stop to it in 1939.
Two years later, Hitler and other Nazis seized upon a modified version of the Madagascar plan. This time around, the idea was for Nazi Germany to gain control of Madagascar via negotiations with Vichy France. Once this was achieved, the Jewish population could be resettled there, in a Nazi-controlled state. This was less than ideal from the Jewish standpoint, but it would have been preferable to the Holocaust. However, Britain soon seized Madagascar from Vichy France, rendering the new Madagascar Plan moot. Nor could Hitler export the Jews to Western nations, because of their restrictions on Jewish immigration.
As events of the day contributed to the closure of the west to Jewish immigrants, so too was the sanctuary of the Land of Israel denied the Jews in their greatest hour of need.
Getting rid of the White Paper of 1939 was so important to the Jewish community that they even began attacking the British during WWII.
[Avraham] Stern believed that the war in Europe was so important to the British that they would be more than willing to make concessions to Jews in Israel if this proved necessary. He . . . formed the LEHI (Lochamei Cherut Yisrael - “Freedom Fighters of Israel”), also known as the “Stern Gang.” The British did everything possible to track LEHI members. Finally, in 1942, the British arrested Stern himself and killed him shortly thereafter. This only served to make Stern a martyr to LEHI members, and their resolve to attack the British was strengthened with Stern’s death. . . .
As the world outside of Germany began to learn the gruesome details of the Holocaust, the Jews of Israel increased their pressure on the British to rescind the White Paper and allow Holocaust survivors to come to Israel. The British, however, refused to cooperate. As a result, the struggle against the British intensified - especially from the LEHI, whose members considered any British policeman or soldier a legitimate target.
With more and more British being killed in Israel, the people of the United Kingdom increased their demands that the British pull out of Israel altogether. The British finally gave up, returning the Mandate for Palestine to the United Nations in 1947.
For many Jews, the events of World War II underscored the need for a safe haven for Jews, so that they would never again be without a place to flee from anti-Semitism in the Diaspora. Consequently, the State of Israel was founded in 1948.
After WWII, large numbers of Jews attempted to immigrate to Palestine. Many made it into Palestine successfully, aided by underground Jewish organizations. But a number of would-be Jewish immigrants were captured by the British, and placed in concentration camps.
|| The immigrants had no citizenship and could not be returned to any country. Those interned included a large number of children and orphans.
Most of the inmates of these camps were Holocaust survivors and refugees. There was also the plight of the Jews in postwar Europe.
The press was filled with stories about the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Holocaust survivors in European Displaced Persons camps, waiting for permission to go to Eretz Yisrael. U.S. envoy Earl Harrison had recently returned from a visit to the camps and reported that the DPs suffered from inadequate medical care, shelter, food, and clothing. Some had nothing to wear but German SS uniforms. Conditions were so poor, Harrison asserted, “we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them.”
Holocaust survivors placed in concentration camps. Holocaust survivors with nothing to wear but SS uniforms. Not what the Allied public relations teams were hoping for! These public relations problems could easily have been solved, had there been some nation willing to take in very large numbers of Jewish immigrants. However, no such nation existed–a problem Hitler also faced after the creation of the White Paper of 1939.
-
-
What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?
-
Wait wait wait - are you telling me that Hitler invaded Poland and France, allies of the United Kingdom, and DIDN’T expect a blockade? Did he know nothing of 19th century history? If Germany couldn’t feed itself without trade, Hitler essentially brought famine on his own people by invading Poland.
The Jews would not be in refugee camps if not for the Nazis. They were living in their own homes providing for themselves before the “final solution”. Hitler created his problems by inviting a blockade and beginning the holocaust.
-
What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?
-
@Lieutenant:
Wait wait wait - are you telling me that Hitler invaded Poland and France, allies of the United Kingdom, and DIDN’T expect a blockade? Did he know nothing of 19th century history? If Germany couldn’t feed itself without trade, Hitler essentially brought famine on his own people by invading Poland.
The Jews would not be in refugee camps if not for the Nazis. They were living in their own homes providing for themselves before the “final solution”. Hitler created his problems by inviting a blockade and beginning the holocaust.
Wait wait wait - are you telling me that Hitler invaded Poland and France, allies of the United Kingdom, and DIDN’T expect a blockade?
The fact that Britain and France had waged an illegal war against civilian populations during and after WWI does not justify their decision to use the same murderous tactics again during WWII.
After Poland fell, Hitler mistakenly thought he could negotiate peace with Britain and France. After France fell, Hitler thought he could negotiate peace with the British. Had these optimistic beliefs corresponded even slightly with reality, Europe would not have been exposed to the horror of a long-term Allied food blockade. However, the Allies never offered Germany any peace other than unconditional surrender. Their food blockade was not intended as leverage in negotiations. It was meant to kill people.
If Germany couldn’t feed itself without trade, Hitler essentially brought famine on his own people by invading Poland.
Prior to the start of WWII, French politicians made two promises to Poland:
- If Germany invaded Poland, France would declare war on Germany.
- If Germany invaded Poland, then within 15 days of general mobilization, France would launch a large-scale offensive against Germany.
In 1939, Polish political and military leaders built their entire diplomatic and military policies on the foundation of these two promises. The second promise was absolutely essential. Without a large-scale French offensive, Germany would be free to devote the bulk of its military strength to its Polish front. Poland could not hope to stand up to that kind of offensive. But if the French kept their promises and kept Germany at bay, then in a long war the Anglo-French industrial advantage over Germany would, it was felt, prove decisive. But French promises proved to be a pack of lies.
In his post-war diaries general Edmund Ironside, the chief of Imperial General Staff commented on French promises “The French had lied to the Poles in saying they are going to attack. There is no idea of it”.[24] The French initiated full mobilization and began the limited Saar Offensive on 7 September but halted short of the German defensive lines and then withdrew to their own defences around 13 September. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed by dispatch marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The Polish military envoy to France, general Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki, upon receiving the text of the message sent by Gamelin, alerted marshal Śmigły: “I received the message by general Gamelin. Please don’t believe a single word in the dispatch”.[23] The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line.
The French government wanted a state of war with Nazi Germany in 1939; but didn’t want to launch a general offensive until several years later. Over the short-term, the plan was to grind down the German military in a purely defensive war. Eventually, the Allies’ industrial strength would allow them to build up a massive advantage over Germany. Only then would they launch their general offensive. Unfortunately, their actual plan bore no relation at all to anything which was said to the Polish. On the contrary: the goal had been to sacrifice Poland to achieve the desired state of war, much like a chess player sacrifices a pawn.
Not content with sacrificing the Polish state, the Allies also chose to sacrifice the Polish people. The Allied governments had analysts who’d read Mein Kampf. They didn’t have to guess how Hitler would act, if it came down to a choice between feeding the Polish or feeding the Germans. They already knew. Knowing this, they did the very best they could to impose famine conditions in German-controlled territory. Millions of Poles died as a result. The dead Poles were then used as part of the Allies’ anti-Nazi propaganda effort.
After WWII, all Polish territory east of the Curzon Line was ethnically cleansed of Poles, and added to the Soviet Union. This represented the loss of more than half of Poland’s prewar land area. To partially compensate it for this loss, large sections of eastern Germany were ethnically cleansed of Germans, and added to Poland. Both Poles and Germans were forcibly resettled westward, because both Poland and Germany had lost the war. Poland became a Soviet puppet state; its people subjected to the terror and bloodshed of communist rule.
There is the idea that the Allies had benign intent toward Poland. That belief is a fiction created by Allied propagandists. To the Allies, Poland was never anything more than a dupe. A nation to be cynically used to give the Allies the war they so badly wanted, while receiving only heartache, starvation, and the loss of freedom in return.
-
In 1939, Polish political and military leaders built their entire diplomatic and military policies on the foundation of these two promises. The second promise was absolutely essential. Without a large-scale French offensive, Germany would be free to devote the bulk of its military strength to its Polish front. Poland could not hope to stand up to that kind of offensive. But if the French kept their promises and kept Germany at bay, then in a long war the Anglo-French industrial advantage over Germany would, it was felt, prove decisive. But French promises proved to be a pack of lies.
In his post-war diaries general Edmund Ironside, the chief of Imperial General Staff commented on French promises “The French had lied to the Poles in saying they are going to attack. There is no idea of it”.[24] The French initiated full mobilization and began the limited Saar Offensive on 7 September but halted short of the German defensive lines and then withdrew to their own defences around 13 September. Poland was not notified of this decision. Instead, Gamelin informed by dispatch marshal Edward Rydz-Śmigły that half of his divisions were in contact with the enemy, and that French advances had forced the Wehrmacht to withdraw at least six divisions from Poland. The Polish military envoy to France, general Stanisław Burhardt-Bukacki, upon receiving the text of the message sent by Gamelin, alerted marshal Śmigły: “I received the message by general Gamelin. Please don’t believe a single word in the dispatch”.[23] The following day, the commander of the French Military Mission to Poland, General Louis Faury, informed the Polish Chief of Staff, General Wacław Stachiewicz, that the planned major offensive on the western front had to be postponed from September 17 to September 20. At the same time, French divisions were ordered to retreat to their barracks along the Maginot Line.
The French government wanted a state of war with Nazi Germany in 1939; but didn’t want to launch a general offensive until several years later. The thinking was they needed several years using their industrial advantages to build themselves up. In the meantime, they’d grind the German military down in a purely defensive war. To achieve all this, the Polish state had to be sacrificed; much like a chess player sacrifices a pawn.
Not content with sacrificing the Polish state, the Allies also chose to sacrifice the Polish people. The Allied governments had analysts who’d read Mein Kampf. They didn’t have to guess how Hitler would act, if it came down to a choice between feeding the Polish or feeding the Germans. They already knew how Hitler would resolve that particular dilemma. Knowing this, they did the very best they could to impose famine conditions in German-controlled territory. Millions of Poles died as a result.
After WWII, all Polish territory east of the Curzon Line was ethnically cleansed of Poles, and added to the Soviet Union. This represented the loss of more than half of Poland’s prewar land area. To partially compensate it for this loss, large sections of eastern Germany were ethnically cleansed of Germans, and added to Poland. Both Poles and Germans were forcibly resettled westward, because both Poland and Germany had lost the war. Poland became a Soviet puppet state; its people subjected to the terror and bloodshed of communist rule.
There is the idea that the Allies had benign intent toward Poland. That belief is a fiction created by Allied propagandists. To the Allies, Poland was never anything more than a dupe. A nation to be cynically used to give the Allies the war they so badly wanted, while receiving only heartache, starvation, and the loss of freedom in return.
What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?
-
Sorry IL, I’m bored at work and this thread is helping me stay awake :-D
Kurt, I agree that the Western Allies abandoned the Poles. But that doesn’t address my question. Did Hitler and the Nazi’s not expect a blockade to result from the invasion of Poland? I thought the British and French had both publicly pledged to defend the Poles. Yes, its true they broke their promise to open a second front. It still seems to me that Hitler should have recognized that invading Poland would result in war with the UK and France, and war with the UK would result in a blockade. Even if there was only a 10% chance of the UK joining the war and starting a blockade, that would still mean Hitler was willing to risk millions of innocent lives to begin his invasion.
Basically, if, as you say, the allies knew that a blockade would result in starvation, why didn’t Hitler know the same? I’m sure the German government knew how badly they needed food imports, and how likely a blockade was if war began with the UK. Why did they risk starving Europe by invading Poland? -
@Lieutenant:
Sorry IL, I’m bored at work and this thread is helping me stay awake :-D
Kurt, I agree that the Western Allies abandoned the Poles. But that doesn’t address my question. Did Hitler and the Nazi’s not expect a blockade to result from the invasion of Poland? I thought the British and French had both publicly pledged to defend the Poles. Yes, its true they broke their promise to open a second front. It still seems to me that Hitler should have recognized that invading Poland would result in war with the UK and France, and war with the UK would result in a blockade. Even if there was only a 10% chance of the UK joining the war and starting a blockade, that would still mean Hitler was willing to risk millions of innocent lives to begin his invasion.
Basically, if, as you say, the allies knew that a blockade would result in starvation, why didn’t Hitler know the same? I’m sure the German government knew how badly they needed food imports, and how likely a blockade was if war began with the UK. Why did they risk starving Europe by invading Poland?It still seems to me that Hitler should have recognized that invading Poland would result in
war with the UK and France, and war with the UK would result in a blockade.A fair and reasonable point to make.
John Toland is the author of the book Adolf Hitler. Toland’s book has been praised by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and other similar media outlets. Below is a quote from pages 566 - 567:
[A.I.] Berndt [a German government official] thought the reported number of German nationals killed by Poles too small and simply added a nought. At first Hitler refused to believe such a figure but, when Berndt replied that it may have been somewhat exaggerated but something monstrous must have happened to give rise to such stories, Hitler shouted “They’ll pay for this! Now no one will stop me from teaching these fellows a lesson they’ll never forget! I will not have my Germans butchered like cattle!” At this point the Fuhrer went to the phone and, in Berndt’s presence, ordered Keitel to issue “Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of the War.”
Hitler’s desire to protect German nationals living in Polish-occupied territory probably explains one of his reasons for going to war. Also, Poland engaged in a series of behaviors which, collectively, sent signals about its intentions:
- Killing of German nationals (as described above)
- Refusal to negotiate with Germany
- Refusal to make any territorial concessions to Germany, even though just a year earlier Hitler had given Poland a portion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler had thought–mistakenly–that this gesture would mark the beginning of good relations between Poland and Germany.
Poland’s actions went above and beyond merely standing up to attempted German bullying. They amounted to a decision to actively court war with Germany. Poland’s leaders were not stupid or insane. They knew that Poland alone could not stand up to Germany. The only reason Poland could have for adopting such a belligerent stance was if someone had made very tempting promises to it. (The dishonest French promises I’d described in my earlier post.) While the Germans were not privy to the secret promises the French had made to the Polish, they could see the effect those promises had on the attitudes and actions of the Polish. Hitler appears to have concluded–correctly–that Britain and France had decided to go to war against Germany.
Germany had nothing to gain from such a war. Hitler’s plans for Lebensraum did not involve France: his focus was on the east. A war against Britain would be even more fruitless from the German perspective. Hitler wanted to throw all Germany’s military strength against the Soviet Union, without dealing with Western democratic food blockades, or bombing raids, or useless battles in Africa or Italy.
However, if British and French leaders had firmly decided on war, there was an excellent chance that sooner or later they’d get their wish. Britain and France were rapidly expanding their military production. Germany was in a greater position of relative strength in 1939 than it could expect to be later, if it passively waited.
Hitler knew that the Soviet Union was unready for war in 1939. But he also knew it was only a matter of time before that changed. If the Western democracies succeeded in provoking a war with Germany, and if Germany lost a significant portion of its military strength as a result, then sooner or later the Soviet Union would join the Allied side, in order to begin helping itself to German territory. Even if the Western democracies didn’t succeed in getting their war with Germany, a fully militarized, fully industrialized Soviet Union could have rolled right over Germany, at least assuming Germany had made no territorial conquests in the meantime. The major Western democracies would have done absolutely nothing to stop this offensive. They probably would have welcomed it.
Hitler’s hope in 1939 was to begin the war against the Western democracies early; and to end that war early as well. The sooner it ended, the sooner he could do what he really wanted; which was to focus all his attention on the Soviet Union. He knew that invading Poland was not a safe option. But he felt–probably correctly–that Germany had run out of safe options.
-
It still seems to me that Hitler should have recognized that invading Poland would result in
war with the UK and France, and war with the UK would result in a blockade.A fair and reasonable point to make.
John Toland is the author of the book Adolf Hitler. Toland’s book has been praised by the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and other similar media outlets. Below is a quote from pages 566 - 567:
[A.I.] Berndt [a German government official] thought the reported number of German nationals killed by Poles too small and simply added a nought. At first Hitler refused to believe such a figure but, when Berndt replied that it may have been somewhat exaggerated but something monstrous must have happened to give rise to such stories, Hitler shouted “They’ll pay for this! Now no one will stop me from teaching these fellows a lesson they’ll never forget! I will not have my Germans butchered like cattle!” At this point the Fuhrer went to the phone and, in Berndt’s presence, ordered Keitel to issue “Directive No. 1 for the Conduct of the War.”
Hitler’s desire to protect German nationals living in Polish-occupied territory probably explains one of his reasons for going to war. Also, Poland engaged in a series of behaviors which, collectively, sent signals about its intentions:
- Killing of German nationals (as described above)
- Refusal to negotiate with Germany
- Refusal to make any territorial concessions to Germany, even though just a year earlier Hitler had given Poland a portion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler had thought–mistakenly–that this gesture would mark the beginning of good relations between Poland and Germany.
Poland’s actions went above and beyond merely standing up to attempted German bullying. They amounted to a decision to actively court war with Germany. Poland’s leaders were not stupid or insane. They knew that Poland alone could not stand up to Germany. The only reason Poland could have for adopting such a belligerent stance was if someone had made very tempting promises to it. (The dishonest French promises I’d described in my earlier post.) While the Germans were not privy to the secret promises the French had made to the Polish, they could see the effect those promises had on the attitudes and actions of the Polish. Hitler appears to have concluded–correctly–that Britain and France had decided to go to war against Germany.
Germany had nothing to gain from such a war. Hitler’s plans for Lebensraum did not involve France: his focus was on the east. A war against Britain would be even more fruitless from the German perspective. Hitler wanted to throw all Germany’s military strength against the Soviet Union, without dealing with Western democratic food blockades, or bombing raids, or useless battles in Africa or Italy.
However, if British and French leaders had firmly decided on war, there was an excellent chance that sooner or later they’d get their wish. Britain and France were rapidly expanding their military production. Germany was in a greater position of relative strength in 1939 than it could expect to be later, if it passively waited.
Hitler knew that the Soviet Union was unready for war in 1939. But he also knew it was only a matter of time before that changed. If the Western democracies succeeded in provoking a war with Germany, and if Germany lost a significant portion of its military strength as a result, then sooner or later the Soviet Union would join the Allied side, in order to begin helping itself to German territory. Even if the Western democracies didn’t succeed in getting their war with Germany, a fully militarized, fully industrialized Soviet Union could have rolled right over Germany, at least assuming Germany had made no territorial conquests in the meantime. The major Western democracies would have done absolutely nothing to stop this offensive. They probably would have welcomed it.
Hitler’s hope in 1939 was to begin the war against the Western democracies early; and to end that war early as well. The sooner it ended, the sooner he could do what he really wanted; which was to focus all his attention on the Soviet Union. He knew that invading Poland was not a safe option. But he felt–probably correctly–that Germany had run out of safe options.
What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?
-
@Imperious:
What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?
Whoa, whoa thread police… Der Kuenstler has chimed in on this discussion too, and this being his thread I think that is tantamount to a sanctioning of where this has led. Maybe I am wrong though. :roll:
Anyway… to tie all this back in with the original post, summarize and generalize:
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945. While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did. They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies, who were in fact the true warmongers of the Second World War (and the First). Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis because they were intentional before war even began.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time. While some benefit of the doubt can be given to Hitler over his intentions, he caused many of the situations which prompted war and then initiated that war himself. The Allies did not fight a genocidal war to rid the world of Germans, nor did they callously exploit their continental allies or Jews for their own warmongering gain. In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time, and the more accessible one. Hitler repeatedly showed that he was not worthy of trust and coupled with the acts of persecution against European residents, a negotiated surrender with the Nazi government remaining in power was not an option.
While this may all seem very unrelated to the initial post, it rather quickly delved to the core of the meaning behind Der Kuenstler’s assertion. The initial post was not just about four engine bombers, the implications in it were far more significant than a commentary on a piece of technology. The underlying message was that our traditional understanding of the causes and forces behind the Second World War are the opposite of what currently recognize. This amounts to turning our interpretations upside down.
I have no problem at all exploring that assertion, in fact, I would love to explore it. So far, Kurt’s (and Der Keunstler’s) perspective has been remarkably well supported, even if I still do not buy the majority of it. I think this discussion has become far more compelling than a rather limited one about the history of four engine bomber aircraft.
-
Whoa, whoa thread police… Der Kuenstler has chimed in on this discussion too, and this being his thread I think that is tantamount to a sanctioning of where this has led. Maybe I am wrong though. :roll:
Anyway… to tie all this back in with the original post, summarize and generalize:
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945. While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did. They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies, who were in fact the true warmongers of the Second World War (and the First). Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis because they were intentional before war even began.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time. While some benefit of the doubt can be given to Hitler over his intentions, he caused many of the situations which prompted war and then initiated that war himself. The Allies did not fight a genocidal war to rid the world of Germans, nor did they callously exploit their continental allies or Jews for their own warmongering gain. In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time, and the more accessible one. Hitler repeatedly showed that he was not worthy of trust and coupled with the acts of persecution against European residents, a negotiated surrender with the Nazi government remaining in power was not an option.
While this may all seem very unrelated to the initial post, it rather quickly delved to the core of the meaning behind Der Kuenstler’s assertion. The initial post was not just about four engine bombers, the implications in it were far more significant than a commentary on a piece of technology. The underlying message was that our traditional understanding of the causes and forces behind the Second World War are the opposite of what currently recognize. This amounts to turning our interpretations upside down.
I have no problem at all exploring that assertion, in fact, I would love to explore it. So far, Kurt’s (and Der Keunstler’s) perspective has been remarkably well supported, even if I still do not buy the majority of it. I think this discussion has become far more compelling than a rather limited one about the history of four engine bomber aircraft.
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the
complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945.I’d like to rephrase the above slightly. I’d argue that for various reasons, Germany faced an uphill battle for survival. This uphill battle was caused by several factors:
- The militarization and industrialization of the Soviet Union. In the spring of '41, the German Army consisted of 150 divisions. By the late fall of '41, the Red Army consisted of 600 divisions. In 1942, the Soviet Union outproduced Germany by a 3 or 4 to one ratio in all major land weapons categories.
- The fact that the Soviet Union’s long-term goal was world conquest.
- The fact that the Western democracies had no interest in preventing Soviet expansionism. In the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-'20, the Western democracies did precisely nothing to prevent the Soviets from annexing Poland. (Except for a few French military advisors.) Influenced by pro-Soviet labor unions, Britain sold weapons to the Soviets but not the Polish.
- The fact that the major Western democracies were in many cases pro-Soviet. France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. As did Czechoslovakia. FDR was strongly pro-Soviet, and even became an accessory to Soviet mass murder.
- The Soviets had achieved significant penetration of the Western democracies; and therefore exerted significant influence on Western democratic foreign policies. This influence was generally used to promote “anti-fascism.” Before the Soviet Union invaded Germany, Stalin wanted there to be a long, bloody war between Germany and the Western democracies. Not only would this make the task of invading Germany easier, it would also weaken French resistance to the second stage of Stalin’s plans for expansion.
Could Otto von Bismarck have successfully navigated these shark-infested waters? Possibly. But the task would have been a grave challenge even for a statesman as gifted as him. Hitler lacked von Bismarck’s subtlety. He was too straightforward, too easily predicted, and therefore too easy for his enemies to manipulate.
While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do
the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did.Nazism consisted of three core aspects:
- Love for Germans and Germanic peoples
- Indifference or hatred for Slavs
- Intense hatred for Jews
The motives for Nazis’ actions could generally be explained in terms of the above. However, the degree they were willing to act on 2) and 3) has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted by Allied propagandists.
They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies,
This is beyond reasonable dispute. Take a standard-issue history book about WWII, such as Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Not once in his 1400 pages does he mention the Allied food blockade, or the fact that Germany did not have the food to feed the people within its borders. But he goes into extensive detail about Nazi killings of Jews and Slavs. Instead of telling the truth (that Hitler killed large numbers of Slavs due to the food shortage), Shirer creates the impression that Hitler was bursting with eagerness to get the anti-Slavic genocide started right away. (As opposed to doing the smart thing and waiting until the war was over before beginning the supposed planned genocide against the Slavs.)
Needless to say, neither Shirer nor others like him represent a credible source of information on how we should interpret WWII. His book is a (deliberate?) mix of historical fact and blatantly dishonest Allied propaganda.
Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis
I don’t think there can be a meaningful comparison between the two. The only time the Nazis engaged in large-scale mass murder was when they couldn’t feed their own people due to the Allied food blockade. The Soviet Union committed tens of millions of mass murders during the prewar period. Both the Soviet Union and Western democracies committed millions of murders during the postwar period. The Allies were also guilty of tens of millions of murders during the war.
In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time,
I cannot possibly express my disagreement with the above statement in strong enough terms! In the entire course of human history, there has never been a major power more evil than the Soviet Union.
There is this illusion that Allied leaders and Allied politicians were somehow “good” people who wanted what was best for the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. As an American, I’ve seen plenty of sleazy or immoral people elected to office. People without moral centers. Democratically elected Allied leaders of the '30s and '40s were like that too, only more so. This moral failure was why no major Western democracy adopted an anti-Soviet foreign policy until 1948.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally
Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time.There was a time in the past when I would have agreed with you. I’d lapped up everything I could about WWII, all of which was written from a very heavily slanted, pro-Allied perspective. But certain things didn’t add up. For example, Poland in 1939 was obviously very eager to stand up to Germany, and showed no interest to coming to any kind of mutually agreeable terms with Germany. Of course, no mention was made of the lies sleazy French politicians had told the Polish. Instead, Poland’s position was subtly portrayed as the result of bravery and stupidity. But I suspected–correctly, as it turns out–that the Polish couldn’t possibly have been that stupid.
The more Allied lies I uncovered, the more things added up and made sense. Every fresh Allied lie I discovered reduced my level of trust for the Allied perspective as a whole. I eventually concluded that the entire Allied perspective was built on a series of big lies.
-
@Imperious:
What is a four engined bomber again, why did Germany not built them?
This is an Attached pic of a German 4 engine bomber, proving that Germany did build them from 1937 and onwards.
The question should be, why didn’t they build a million 4 engine bombers ?
And the answer on that should be, the Germans are thieves, they conquer and occupy other peoples territory, enslave the people and steal their resources. Now, if the Germans were Destroyers of the Worlds, then they would build a million 4 engine Bombers and ruin everything within range
-
This thread has opened up historic issues that are far bigger than my original post. Perhaps some new threads could be started around these bigger issues. I think they mostly have to do with traditional history vs. revisionist history.
-
In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time,
I cannot possibly express my disagreement with the above statement in strong enough terms! In the entire course of human history, there has never been a major power more evil than the Soviet Union.
I was theoretically speaking from their point of view… Nazi Germany was seen as the greater of the two evils, at that time. I realize that you personally vehemently disagree, but my statement was not about you (or me).
There was a time in the past when I would have agreed with you. I’d lapped up everything I could about WWII, all of which was written from a very heavily slanted, pro-Allied perspective. But certain things didn’t add up. For example, Poland in 1939 was obviously very eager to stand up to Germany, and showed no interest to coming to any kind of mutually agreeable terms with Germany. Of course, no mention was made of the lies sleazy French politicians had told the Polish. Instead, Poland’s position was subtly portrayed as the result of bravery and stupidity. But I suspected–correctly, as it turns out–that the Polish couldn’t possibly have been that stupid.
The more Allied lies I uncovered, the more things added up and made sense. Every fresh Allied lie I discovered reduced my level of trust for the Allied perspective as a whole. I eventually concluded that the entire Allied perspective was built on a series of big lies.
Thanks for your discussion, it has been very eye opening and intriguing.
@Der:
This thread has opened up historic issues that are far bigger than my original post. Perhaps some new threads could be started around these bigger issues. I think they mostly have to do with traditional history vs. revisionist history.
Yes, it has. My apologies for the derailment. For my part at least, I have temporarily exhausted my desire to continue the back and forth here, let alone to begin another one. Though if such a new thread is created I will check in on it.
-
I was theoretically speaking from their point of view… Nazi Germany was seen as the greater of the two evils, at that time. I realize that you personally vehemently disagree, but my statement was not about you (or me).
Thanks for your discussion, it has been very eye opening and intriguing.
Yes, it has. My apologies for the derailment. For my part at least, I have temporarily exhausted my desire to continue the back and forth here, let alone to begin another one. Though if such a new thread is created I will check in on it.
I realize that you personally vehemently disagree, but my statement was not about you (or me).
I appreciate the clarification.
Thanks for your discussion, it has been very eye opening and intriguing.
It has.
For my part at least, I have temporarily exhausted my desire to continue the back and forth here.
Okay. If anyone else here feels like continuing, I’m game. But if not, we can put this conversation on hold for the time being. There will be time enough to resume discussing these topics once Imperious Leader starts a thread about battleship design or the Battle of Guadalcanal. 8-)
-
Re: Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…
Whoa, whoa thread police… Der Kuenstler has chimed in on this discussion too, and this being his thread I think that is tantamount to a sanctioning of where this has led. Maybe I am wrong though. rolleyes
Anyway… to tie all this back in with the original post, summarize and generalize:
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945. While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did. They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies, who were in fact the true warmongers of the Second World War (and the First). Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis because they were intentional before war even began.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time. While some benefit of the doubt can be given to Hitler over his intentions, he caused many of the situations which prompted war and then initiated that war himself. The Allies did not fight a genocidal war to rid the world of Germans, nor did they callously exploit their continental allies or Jews for their own warmongering gain. In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time, and the more accessible one. Hitler repeatedly showed that he was not worthy of trust and coupled with the acts of persecution against European residents, a negotiated surrender with the Nazi government remaining in power was not an option.
While this may all seem very unrelated to the initial post, it rather quickly delved to the core of the meaning behind Der Kuenstler’s assertion. The initial post was not just about four engine bombers, the implications in it were far more significant than a commentary on a piece of technology. The underlying message was that our traditional understanding of the causes and forces behind the Second World War are the opposite of what currently recognize. This amounts to turning our interpretations upside down.
I have no problem at all exploring that assertion, in fact, I would love to explore it. So far, Kurt’s (and Der Keunstler’s) perspective has been remarkably well supported, even if I still do not buy the majority of it. I think this discussion has become far more compelling than a rather limited one about the history of four engine bomber aircraft.
Kurt and Der Keunstler are arguing from the perspective that Germany was the
complete victim of circumstance in the time between 1938-ish and 1945.I’d like to rephrase the above slightly. I’d argue that for various reasons, Germany faced an uphill battle for survival. This uphill battle was caused by several factors:
- The militarization and industrialization of the Soviet Union. In the spring of '41, the German Army consisted of 150 divisions. By the late fall of '41, the Red Army consisted of 600 divisions. In 1942, the Soviet Union outproduced Germany by a 3 or 4 to one ratio in all major land weapons categories.
- The fact that the Soviet Union’s long-term goal was world conquest.
- The fact that the Western democracies had no interest in preventing Soviet expansionism. In the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-'20, the Western democracies did precisely nothing to prevent the Soviets from annexing Poland. (Except for a few French military advisors.) Influenced by pro-Soviet labor unions, Britain sold weapons to the Soviets but not the Polish.
- The fact that the major Western democracies were in many cases pro-Soviet. France signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935. As did Czechoslovakia. FDR was strongly pro-Soviet, and even became an accessory to Soviet mass murder.
- The Soviets had achieved significant penetration of the Western democracies; and therefore exerted significant influence on Western democratic foreign policies. This influence was generally used to promote “anti-fascism.” Before the Soviet Union invaded Germany, Stalin wanted there to be a long, bloody war between Germany and the Western democracies. Not only would this make the task of invading Germany easier, it would also weaken French resistance to the second stage of Stalin’s plans for expansion.
Could Otto von Bismarck have successfully navigated these shark-infested waters? Possibly. But the task would have been a grave challenge even for a statesman as gifted as him. Hitler lacked von Bismarck’s subtlety. He was too straightforward, too easily predicted, and therefore too easy for his enemies to manipulate.
While some of the Nazis actions were deplorable, they were predominantly trying to do
the right thing for Germans and did not intend for history to play out as it did.Nazism consisted of three core aspects:
- Love for Germans and Germanic peoples
- Indifference or hatred for Slavs
- Intense hatred for Jews
The motives for Nazis’ actions could generally be explained in terms of the above. However, the degree they were willing to act on 2) and 3) has been deliberately exaggerated and distorted by Allied propagandists.
They have been grossly maligned by history and the victorious Allies,
This is beyond reasonable dispute. Take a standard-issue history book about WWII, such as Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Not once in his 1400 pages does he mention the Allied food blockade, or the fact that Germany did not have the food to feed the people within its borders. But he goes into extensive detail about Nazi killings of Jews and Slavs. Instead of telling the truth (that Hitler killed large numbers of Slavs due to the food shortage), Shirer creates the impression that Hitler was bursting with eagerness to get the anti-Slavic genocide started right away. (As opposed to doing the smart thing and waiting until the war was over before beginning the supposed planned genocide against the Slavs.)
Needless to say, neither Shirer nor others like him represent a credible source of information on how we should interpret WWII. His book is a (deliberate?) mix of historical fact and blatantly dishonest Allied propaganda.
Allied war-crimes were just as bad, if not worse, than those of the Nazis
I don’t think there can be a meaningful comparison between the two. The only time the Nazis engaged in large-scale mass murder was when they couldn’t feed their own people due to the Allied food blockade. The Soviet Union committed tens of millions of mass murders during the prewar period. Both the Soviet Union and Western democracies committed millions of murders during the postwar period. The Allies were also guilty of tens of millions of murders during the war.
In fighting Germany rather than the USSR, the Western Allies chose to eliminate the greater of the two evils at the time,
I cannot possibly express my disagreement with the above statement in strong enough terms! In the entire course of human history, there has never been a major power more evil than the Soviet Union.
There is this illusion that Allied leaders and Allied politicians were somehow “good” people who wanted what was best for the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. As an American, I’ve seen plenty of sleazy or immoral people elected to office. People without moral centers. Democratically elected Allied leaders of the '30s and '40s were like that too, only more so. This moral failure was why no major Western democracy adopted an anti-Soviet foreign policy until 1948.
Myself and others here side with the traditional interpretation that war was generally
Germany’s (immediate) fault and that Nazi Germany was the true evil of the time.There was a time in the past when I would have agreed with you. I’d lapped up everything I could about WWII, all of which was written from a very heavily slanted, pro-Allied perspective. But certain things didn’t add up. For example, Poland in 1939 was obviously very eager to stand up to Germany, and showed no interest to coming to any kind of mutually agreeable terms with Germany. Of course, no mention was made of the lies sleazy French politicians had told the Polish. Instead, Poland’s position was subtly portrayed as the result of bravery and stupidity. But I suspected–correctly, as it turns out–that the Polish couldn’t possibly have been that stupid.
The more Allied lies I uncovered, the more things added up and made sense. Every fresh Allied lie I discovered reduced my level of trust for the Allied perspective as a whole. I eventually concluded that the entire Allied perspective was built on a series of big lies.
-
@Imperious:
Re: Why the Germans did not build four engined bombers…
Whoa, whoa thread police… Der Kuenstler has chimed in on this discussion too, and this being his thread I think that is tantamount to a sanctioning of where this has led. Maybe I am wrong though. rolleyes
Anyway… to tie all this back in with the original post, summarize and generalize:
…
Well maybe they should have. It would have stopped Kurt and I arguing about unrelated things.
-
Problem solved!
-
Well I’ll keep this short and technical. I’m not as well versed as many regarding WWII. To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example. The Condor also had problems with it’s power plants and needed constant repair. The airframe of the Condor also could be strainded in sharp turns or steep dives which were performed frequently during missions whilst spotting convoys for the ubootwaffe.
Hitler also seemed to have an “always be bombing” mantra in regards to aircraft. So the Luftwaffe’s line-up of aircraft heavily focused on medium-sized and light tactical bombers rather than the heavier stategic bobmbers of other nations.
One last note regarding planes like the B-17. One concept behind the B-17 was that it would be bombing fleet formations heading towards the coasts of the United States. The B-17 was also heavily modified throughout the course of the war. The need for these modifications was mostly due to the US making more accurate daylight bombing runs in the ETO thus losing the cover of nightfall and needing more defensive armament.
We must also take into account the accuracy of strategic bombng, it wasn’t. The concept of taking out spacific strategic targets was in its infancy. While the Norden bombsight was innovative, it was light years away from say a cruise missle or drone strike of today. It was however more accurate than most of the technology of it’s time but it took many bombs just to get one hit. It was akin to rolling a cup full of dice to score one snake eyes instead of a bucket.
Lastly I think it is easy to look upon the past from the vantage point of the future. The world wars occured at a time litterally when the world went from near Napoleonic era tactics to nuclear weapons in a short span of just over thirty years. The people and leadership of the world would make decisions during a time of rapid change both technologically and socially. This doesn’t excuse mistakes or tragedy but gives us insight.
-
Well I’ll keep this short and technical. I’m not as well versed as many regarding WWII. To the best of my knowledge Hitler did not like four-engined bombers because it basically cost 2-2.5 Heinkels for one Condor for example. The Condor also had problems with it’s power plants and needed constant repair. The airframe of the Condor also could be strainded in sharp turns or steep dives which were performed frequently during missions whilst spotting convoys for the ubootwaffe.
Hitler also seemed to have an “always be bombing” mantra in regards to aircraft. So the Luftwaffe’s line-up of aircraft heavily focused on medium-sized and light tactical bombers rather than the heavier stategic bobmbers of other nations.
One last note regarding planes like the B-17. One concept behind the B-17 was that it would be bombing fleet formations heading towards the coasts of the United States. The B-17 was also heavily modified throughout the course of the war. The need for these modifications was mostly due to the US making more accurate daylight bombing runs in the ETO thus losing the cover of nightfall and needing more defensive armament.
We must also take into account the accuracy of strategic bombng, it wasn’t. The concept of taking out spacific strategic targets was in its infancy. While the Norden bombsight was innovative, it was light years away from say a cruise missle or drone strike of today. It was however more accurate than most of the technology of it’s time but it took many bombs just to get one hit. It was akin to rolling a cup full of dice to score one snake eyes instead of a bucket.
Lastly I think it is easy to look upon the past from the vantage point of the future. The world wars occured at a time litterally when the world went from near Napoleonic era tactics to nuclear weapons in a short span of just over thirty years. The people and leadership of the world would make decisions during a time of rapid change both technologically and socially. This doesn’t excuse mistakes or tragedy but gives us insight.
Wisdom in a thread gone off the rails. 8-)
Suggested Topics
