[Smilin' Dave]

Just in case you miss it:
http://www.thehistoryforum.com/forum/vi ... 139#423139

[starman2003]

Lately this has been discussed in another forum and none of the posts mention possible Russian intervention on behalf of Turkey as a possible impediment tio German utilization of the country's territory.

[Smilin' Dave]

I thought we were not dicussing this here any more? I provided you with an alternative, appropriate, place for discussion. You didn't follow it up. Now you post this here as if it proves you were right all along, just as it seems you tried to end the debate while trying to get the last word in.

Lately this has been discussed in another forum and none of the posts mention possible Russian intervention on behalf of Turkey as a possible impediment tio German utilization of the country's territory.

Would I be surprised if the people debating this in the 'other forum' were amatuers (and I use this term the same way McPherson uses it) who were ignorant of
a) What real warfare entails
b) WWII at higher levels
c) The Soviet Union, its military etc.
d) Turkey and the Middle East in general.
No, I wouldn't be surprised.

The thread I have already linked to is available if you are genuinely interested in debate.

[starman2003]

Posters in the tanknet forum are very well informed and it is the best place for general military discussion. I note that some mentioned logistical problems but nobody mentioned a possibility of Russian intervention, except for someone who thought it might've happened in Europe.

[Smilin' Dave]

This is off topic and the discussion should stop.

[starman2003]

OK from now on I'll just continue it in tanknet. Some posters are amazingly well informed.

[Saf]

07.06.05 thread maldiscussion moved histforum

[blitzfritz]

the only good thing i can think of were sport activity programmes for everyone.

i think it's not necessary to recall all the dishonesty, destructiveness and crudity of the nazi system again. in principle it was a gangster state.

[Monkeydust]

After reading some of what's been said here, it seems that much of what people consider "good" about National Socialist Germany is based not on the evidence but upon idealized conceptions of what it was really like. Propaganda seems to have its sway even today.

Here's what I mean:

Sense of community

This seems well and good, but isn't as true as most think.

In the first place, it's tempting to overlook the fact that what Nazis considered to be part of the "community" was very restrictive. The thousands of gays, jews, gypsies, political dissidents, mentally and hereditarily ill in the Reich were not only not allowed in the community, but were overtly set against it.

Even amongst "good" Aryan Germans life doesn't seem to have been so rosy. If you look at the recent research into the Gestapo - such as those done in Saarsbrucken and Professor Gellately's work in Wurzburg - the vast majority of cnvictions relied on voluntary denunciations, that is, your neighbour "grassing" on you. This would have seemed to have bred an oppressive rather than a united atmosphere.

I think the key point here is to grasp that outward manifestation of solidarity were often not as real as they seemed.

Strong economy

Again, this is not entirely true.

In terms of how the Third Reich set against the Depression years fared, things were pretty good. But real wages didn't reach their pre-depression levels until the late 30s (and then naturally went down with the war); agriculture was subject to resrictive price-controls that angered many peasants; and even the Nazis' much vaunted war economy was pretty inefficient until Todt and Speer "rationalized" it well into the war.

generous to hard working people

People have already pointed out the absurdity of this argument.

Physically, mentally and emotionally strong people

Only insofar as those who weren't these things were quite literally taken out of the equation.

[Smilin' Dave]

OK from now on I'll just continue it in tanknet. Some posters are amazingly well informed.

I'll give you the run down on McPherson's (who actually writes on the American Civil War, but it is a question of historiography) definition of amatuer and you might be able to figure out why I can't take that seriously.

McPherson felt that an amatuer could well know a specific subject very well. You could ask them were a regiment was on any given day during the war, and that person could tell you in minute detail. The professional might not know this. He can tell you the broader implications of it however, or why. At best the amatuer can only do this by reading a book about it. McPherson didn't say that either was better, they simply did different things.

My guess is that tanknet's experts are like most that are encountered on a regular basis: They know their stuff (I'm guessing they specialise in tanks based on the name), but they don't necessarily have a real understanding of it. The idea that these people could discuss a Turkish theatre of war, without even considering the Soviet Union, demonstrates this lack of broad perspective. This is particularly important if you are going to raise a 'what if', where knowledge of individual detail isn't as important, the facts have been changed in ways that hadn't actually happened and we enter the realm of guesswork.

Matters are not helped much by the simple fact that there hasn't been a lot of attention paid in the past to Middle Eastern or Soviet history and when we do, it is usually from a limited perspective.

There is also the simple matter that you didn't refute anything else I pointed out, which were probably more important over all.

Anyhow, to chip something into the original topic:
Many of the pros of Nazism are also negated by the fact that they can (and have) been found in other systems. For example the US demonstrated a high level of cohesion and strength during WWII, based on the fact that it was on the winning side, probably stronger than the Nazi system.

[Lokakyy]

Dave wrote:

The professional might not know this.

...because s/he knows that such details can be found from books, if they are needed.

For example the US demonstrated a high level of cohesion and strength during WWII, based on the fact that it was on the winning side, probably stronger than the Nazi system.

I presume that a huge factor to that was that the US population wasn't getting their cities bombed into a rubble. It is much easier to maintain unity and strength when the civilian populace isn't physically threatened. American contribution to the war was primarily material and secondarily militarian and when the US actively entered the war, Germany had already been exhausted by the constant war effort.

['Freiheits Kämpfer']

I love you, Kilgore.

-FK

[Smilin' Dave]

...because s/he knows that such details can be found from books, if they are needed.

Ah, but at the same time those books might not have been written by a professional. For example a lot of journalists write history.

I presume that a huge factor to that was that the US population wasn't getting their cities bombed into a rubble. It is much easier to maintain unity and strength when the civilian populace isn't physically threatened. American contribution to the war was primarily material and secondarily militarian and when the US actively entered the war, Germany had already been exhausted by the constant war effort.

Then we could use the examples of Britain or the Soviet Union, which pulled together nicely during the war.

[Lokakyy]

Ah, but at the same time those books might not have been written by a professional. For example a lot of journalists write history.

The difference isn't really that hard to tell when you are a professional. The way of writing betrays a journalist, but even the publisher tells a lot. Not to mention the books that contain information who the author is.

Then we could use the examples of Britain or the Soviet Union, which pulled together nicely during the war.

You're right.
In a fact, it is hard to find many countries that didn't retain remarkable national unity - only Central and Eastern European countries that usually had ethnic conflicts are an exception to this.

[Smilin' Dave]

The difference isn't really that hard to tell when you are a professional. The way of writing betrays a journalist, but even the publisher tells a lot. Not to mention the books that contain information who the author is.

I wasn't saying that it was hard to tell the difference, only that there is one. I was also emphasising that there isn't necessarily a better approach, they both just do different things.

You're right.
In a fact, it is hard to find many countries that didn't retain remarkable national unity - only Central and Eastern European countries that usually had ethnic conflicts are an exception to this.

Which brings me to another point. Nazism in practice was probably fairly badly unifed during the later stages of the war. As well as the administrative chaos (which has parallels with many systems), you also have things like the various plots to remove Hitler, conclude a seperate peace and general empire building that was part and parcel of the system.

[Lokakyy]

I wasn't saying that it was hard to tell the difference, only that there is one. I was also emphasising that there isn't necessarily a better approach, they both just do different things.

Amateur history is very often poorly sourced and exaggerating (not saying that all amateur history is without exception bad). They also usually lack access to necessary primary sources.

Personally, I prefer books written by people with academic credentials over books written by enthusiastic amateurs or journalists.

[starman2003]

Yeah there was the plot to eliminate Adolf in July '44. But I think it says much about the effectiveness of a totalitarian system that the plot fizzled so quickly, and had so little support, despite the very difficult circumstances at the time, which "should' have led many more to oppose the system.

[Smilin' Dave]

Yeah there was the plot to eliminate Adolf in July '44.

Actually plots to remove Hitler started as early as 1941/1942. Not to mention that there were attempts by civilians to get him too, one of which came closer to success than the Staufenburg (sp?) plot.

and had so little support, despite the very difficult circumstances at the time

I suppose the flip side of this is that the difficult circumstances just encouraged people to stick together more. The perception being that going after Hitler would mean annihilation in the war.

[starman2003]

There was opposition to Hitler from a General Beck c 1938 IIRC, and Adolf sure lucked out in March 1943 when a bomb smuggled aboard his plane failed to go off. Regarding difficult circumstances: it is noteworthy that the Kaiser's rule collapsed after only a few months of bad news; the Germans still seemed to be winning until about August 1918. In sharp contrast, the nazis held firmly to power until the very end, despite much worse circumstances for over two years-disasters in the east and west, and severe bombing of German cities.

[Smilin' Dave]

Regarding difficult circumstances: it is noteworthy that the Kaiser's rule collapsed after only a few months of bad news; the Germans still seemed to be winning until about August 1918.

I think you are exaggerating there. The home front, which was where is all fell apart ultimately, had been in a sorry shape from at least 1916. The blockade had a very serious effect and radical groups were gaining ground. Many returning soldiers noted the defeatism in the air.

It is also worth considering that Imperial Germany became progessively more militarised as the war dragged on, yet the home front got worse and worse.

The German military defeats that you mention were also very serious. Allies were dropping out, the Western front was clearly spent and bordering on collapse and the Michael offensive which had promised so much had been reversed.

In sharp contrast, the nazis held firmly to power until the very end, despite much worse circumstances for over two years-disasters in the east and west, and severe bombing of German cities.

But the threat of defeat in WWII was much more serious. The Soviets were bearing down on Berlin and the German people knew what that would mean. The allies had declared unconditional surrender, quite unlike Wilson's fourteen points or the more traditional outcome of WWI.

To continue with the theme of other systems doing it better, just look at Britain early in the war. Military defeats on land, bombed by the Luftwaffe, supplies needed to feed the population were getting short and maratime supremacy in doubt. Add the entry of the Japanese into the war, throwing much of the empire into doubt and things were looking pretty grim. Worse the democratic system notionally means that there was more room for defeatist candidates than there was under Nazi Germany. Yet they stayed the course, and won.