| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Could Hitler Have Won?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedCould Hitler Have Won?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Could Hitler Have Won?
    Posted: 11 Dec 2017 at 21:10

Before 1940 the Germans stood even less chance of success in England. The 1939 Saar offensive advanced only five miles into German territory and did not attempt to penetrate the unfinished Siegried Line. There were no German tanks on the western front at one point. One German general has since forwarded the view that had the French mounted a serious and concerted offensive, with their superiority in numbers of troops, armoured cars, tanks, and aeroplanes, that the German forces on the Western Front would have lasted no more than one or two weeks. Some French tanks were heavier and better than the German panzers of the time (though in practice they proved to be unreliable and were often abandoned on the battlefield). Gamelin's policy however was to wait until French forces were in his view adequate before waging an offensive even if it meant waiting until 1941, thus a a waiting game on the western front and many foreign adventures were planned. The Germans for their part had spotted the weakness of the Ardennes, in which minor french defenses were present. The French ignored reports of fifty German divisions moving through the Ardennes as they believed that area was not suitable for an attack.

http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 12:45
Quote I am not sure what you mean by misuse of human resources, are you referring to the slave labor?  How are you supposed to treat slave labor?  Particularly slave labor that you are trying to get rid of through not feeding enough calories per day.

When are you thinking of when Britain would have been taken?  The time of the Battle of Britain, or later?

I used the word " misused" in the context of they could have been perhaps better utilised for war fighting.

And I'm referring to the soldiers who were diverted to building and static guard duty, and of course the prison camps, who could have been better utilised for war fighting.

I think that, if Hitler had launched a massive blitzkreig on England in 1937-38, he could have taken England, thereby also precluding the UK from use by the US for military bases, a course which, in itself would have changed the direction of the war in Europe.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10100
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 11:00
I wonder what would have happened on the Eastern front, if the Nazis had taken Moscow, from what I understand they came close.  What would have happened if they did?  Maybe Russia would have been a different story if that had happened.

I am not sure what you mean by misuse of human resources, are you referring to the slave labor?  How are you supposed to treat slave labor?  Particularly slave labor that you are trying to get rid of through not feeding enough calories per day.

When are you thinking of when Britain would have been taken?  The time of the Battle of Britain, or later?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Nov 2017 at 09:09
The OP relates to the misuse of materiel and human resources, along with bad policy decisions, which, if they had been altered, may have led Hitler to victory in Europe, as much by overwhelming force as anything else.

Technologically, the Germans outclassed the Russians by miles, and, along with weather conditions and stubborn resistance, breakdown of the supply lines resulted in a loss of German impetus-and therefore the battle.

Blitzkreig stunned the other countries into submission but there simply wasn't enough "push" to over-run the Russians.

With more resources dedicated to war fighting, rather than guarding worthless targets, and millions of men employed in building projects, I believe that England could have been taken, and probably WW2 won by Germany.


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Nov 2017 at 21:49
Quote Thirdly. Now this is a stretch but I think it fits the category. In 1941 when Hitler first crashed into Russia he could have drawn literally millions of disaffected Russians who hate Stalin and the Communists. Nothing could have been simpler than to arm then and point them at the Soviets. Leningrad falls, Moscow falls, the Germans reach Baku and the oil fields. Stalin is deposed and the Soviets reach a peace deal with Hitler. He then stages victory parades and machine guns the Russian troops he has duped into guaranteeing his victory.
You mean like the Ukraine SS units or the Russian Liberation Army? The latter was deeply distrusted by Hitler - remember that he considered slavs as sub-human. In the event he was right to be dubious. The vast majority of ROA units were taken out of the line because of desertions and sent to garrison duties in the west where they would later surrender en masse to the Allies. The only defence put up by the ROA was on the River Oder in 1945 for three days and the Russians, as you might expect, took revenge on their rebellious brethren.
 
It is worth noting that with the Wehrmacht a mere forty miles from Moscow (Recce units may well have been within sight of the objective) a mass evacuation was taking place. Stalin was on the point of giving up, becoming morose and despondent. I doubt a character like him would have surrendered and remember that as a very ruthless paranoid dictator (he had already executed the top 85% of the Red Army's leaders in the thirties) deposing him was a risky endeavour regardless of circumstance.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2017 at 14:26
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

If Hitler was not Hitler, then he could have won,
However, if Hitler was not Hitler, he probably wouldn't
have gotten into it, in the first place.

Uh, oh!! We've lost Franky again. Wink
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10100
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Nov 2017 at 10:29
If Hitler was not Hitler, then he could have won,
However, if Hitler was not Hitler, he probably wouldn't
have gotten into it, in the first place.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2017 at 09:18
Originally posted by Kevin Beach Kevin Beach wrote:

Hitler was not a good strategist. He tended to bite off more than he could chew, because he believed in his own ultimate invincibility.

In 1940, he attacked Britain too soon. If he had won the Battle of Britain, his forces would still have been stretched to keep Britain under the jackboot. He should have kept back until a year later, in 1941, after he had finished with the rest of western Europe.

In point of fact Hitler had Britain beaten IN 1940. Had he not issued the insane stop order. He could have bagged the entire BEF and forced an unconditional surrender by England. No if, and or buts.

His frolics into the Balkans and Greece were ridiculous. He should have left them alone until he had consolidated all his other positions.

A much more tenuous position. A--Mussolini put him in a difficult position to begin with. (Both WW I & II Germany's inept coalition partners required them to repeatedly save their bacon, just when they were on the verge of decisive victories.) B--The argument that this delayed Barbarossa long enough for Mother Winter to save the USSR ignores the fact that an earlier jump off date might also have been delayed by bad (wet) weather by a similar factor. You very well may be right, but no one can say definitively yes or no.

He should have stayed out of North Africa, until he had completely vanquished vanquished the rest of Europe.


A stronger argument would be that having gone there just a miniscule increase in commitment could have brought him total control of the Med, Egypt and the oil wealth of the middle east. With the same level of commitment, but with an airborn landing in Malta instead of Crete could have gotten him the same result. But the two paltry divisions he did commit could not have conceivably made any difference in Barbarossa.

Having decided to betray the Soviet Union and invade it, he should have done so only when he could commit all his attack forces to the campaign, instead of committing them to different fronts. He would have defeated Stalin and crushed the Soviet forces west of the Urals. He could then have had his Lebensraum.

Generally, he should have trusted the Wehrmacht's High Command, letting them use their own strategy and tactics to fulfill his policy aims. He hadn't a clue about logistics and frequently messed up good military plans by interfering with them.

Again an argument can be made that once committing to Barbarossa he should have either left it in the hands of his generals or stood his ground and demanded a complete commitment to the strategy of taking the Ukraine and continuing on to the Caucasus oil fields. In fact Hitler had nothing to do with the failure of the Wehrmacht to take Leningrad. The northern prong of Barbarossa got to the city limits of the city and waited 24 hours before trying to enter. Had the local commander had a sense of urgency and pressed them to enter immediately, the local Soviets did not even have a pack of Cub Scouts to oppose them.

So, yes, Hitler/the Nazis could have won, but only by doing things differently.
Back to Top
Kevin Beach View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Nov 2017 at 03:35
Hitler was not a good strategist. He tended to bite off more than he could chew, because he believed in his own ultimate invincibility.

In 1940, he attacked Britain too soon. If he had won the Battle of Britain, his forces would still have been stretched to keep Britain under the jackboot. He should have kept back until a year later, in 1941, after he had finished with the rest of western Europe.

His frolics into the Balkans and Greece were ridiculous. He should have left them alone until he had consolidated all his other positions.

He should have stayed out of North Africa, until he had completely vanquished vanquished the rest of Europe.

Having decided to betray the Soviet Union and invade it, he should have done so only when he could commit all his attack forces to the campaign, instead of committing them to different fronts. He would have defeated Stalin and crushed the Soviet forces west of the Urals. He could then have had his Lebensraum.

Generally, he should have trusted the Wehrmacht's High Command, letting them use their own strategy and tactics to fulfill his policy aims. He hadn't a clue about logistics and frequently messed up good military plans by interfering with them.

So, yes, Hitler/the Nazis could have won, but only by doing things differently.
Whoever ignores history is condemned to repeat it
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Nov 2017 at 09:27
Ironically two of the more egregious examples of squandered opportunities, were not made against the better judgment of his generals.

The infamous stop order which allowed the British army to escape at Dunkirk was made with almost complete agreement by the General Staff and the higher level commanders. It was only the lower level commanders like Rommel and Guderian who chaffed at the missed opportunity.

The other decision was the gratuitous declaration of war by Hitler against the US. Without deliberately going to war with the US, Hitler would have found it almost impossible to manage to lose the war. There is no conceivable way FDR as much as he yearned to go to war against Germany could have flown in the face of public opinion after the devastating attack against Pearl Harbor and allowed any continuation of aid to Britain and Russia. Far from defying his generals, they were to a man in favor of the declaration. Goering and others had in fact been lobbying him for months to declare war preemptively.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017 at 20:53
AnchoriticSybarite 

Thanks for your well thought out well written post.

Yes, my direct question hinged on missed opportunities due to misplaced resources, building massive fortifications, houses etc. Goering consistently promised Hitler that he could main the logistics supply line for front line troops, but he couldn't-he didn't have the resources.

Massive trains and train mobile artillery (which saw little action) was one of Hitlers passions.

As for how he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, as is currently being said  about President Trump, if he learned to listed, he'd learn to govern. In Hitler's case, if he had learned to listen to his generals, he may well have gone closer to winning the war, IMHO.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
AnchoriticSybarite View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 14 May 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 97
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Nov 2017 at 18:39
When I first saw the title of this thread my first impulse was to respond that you were asking the wrong question. Not could Hitler have won the war but how did he manage to fail to do so. Given the historical timeline there are at least a dozen instances where Hitler/the Germans snatched defeat out of certain victory. I am sure you are as aware of them as I so I won't bother to enumerate them.

However as I read it became apparent that you were more specific in your question and were specifically focusing on German misallocation of resources which weakened their warmaking capability sufficiently to result in defeat. The answer at least in the specifics you question is an unequivocable NO.

You cite Norway and the Holocaust as 2 examples. Neither significantly reduced Germany's warmaking ability.

As far as Norway, its significance is demonstrated by the fact that both Germany and GB coveted this prize. Possession of Norway allowed the U-boat campaign to be as successful as it was and its surface fleet was a constant threat to the efforts to supply the Russians. So successful that at times it completely blocked efforts to get supplies to them. Furthermore had the Brits managed to take the country instead, it is a gold plated guarantee that they would have stopped Swedish exports of ores critical to Germany's munitions industry either by threat or force. And finally occupation of Norway would have provided a base for GB to threaten Germany from the North. As proof look how the Allies for years convinced Hitler that they would in fact re-invade Norway to threaten him from the North.

As far as the Final Solution, I assume that a figure of 100,000 was put forward as the number involved in its implementation. In terms of the Russian front that was only a drop in the bucket. Also the "troops" involved were not first string troops generally. Lastly full scale implementation was not really realized until mid "42.

Allow me to backtrack for a minute. There are several instances of misallocation of resources that affected the outcome.

First. Had Hitler and the Wehrmacht in general learned the lessons of WWI they would have scrapped just one of the great German super ships and used the same metal to build 100 extra subs they could have brought GB to its knees in months if not weeks.

Second. After Pearl Harbor, the US immediately began converting its industry over to war production. I'm sure I don't have to cite numbers. Furthermore it tapped into a hidden resource--Rosie the Riveter. To a lesser extent GB did the same thing as well. Germany on the other hand did not truly convert from peacetime to wartime production until '42 when Speer was tapped to head German war production. As a result for instance they actually attacked the USSR with Mk II tanks whose greatest danger to Soviet troops was that they would laugh themselves to death. They never did tap into the female population which could have released millions of men to serve in the army. And finally they never did accept the utility of mass production techniques. (I used to have a WWII magazine where they compared the US/GB/USSR/German man hours to produce a single tank. Even seeing the numbers in black and white it is hard to believe the enormous discrepancy.)

Thirdly. Now this is a stretch but I think it fits the category. In 1941 when Hitler first crashed into Russia he could have drawn literally millions of disaffected Russians who hate Stalin and the Communists. Nothing could have been simpler than to arm then and point them at the Soviets. Leningrad falls, Moscow falls, the Germans reach Baku and the oil fields. Stalin is deposed and the Soviets reach a peace deal with Hitler. He then stages victory parades and machine guns the Russian troops he has duped into guaranteeing his victory.

I have a rogue theory about Hitler. He was formed during the first world war. He was a front line soldier for 4 years on the western front. From personal observation he knew that the German army was superior to either the Brits or the French. The problem as Hitler would have seen it was that whenever the German army was about to overwhelm them something else would pop up elsewhere requiring them to redirect resources elsewhere. To stop the Russians. To stop the Italians. Whoever. I think it is critical to remember that Hitler was in the hospital during the 100 days offensive in 1918. He never saw the Americans in action.

Hitler was only a high school graduate. He did not have to greater perspective that a college/university education could have provided. It wasn't Hitler that concocted the meme that the Jews had stabbed Germany in the back. It was a slogan fervently espoused by millions of decent Germans looking for a reason for their defeat.

Was Gemany anti-Semitic. ABSOLUTELY. But so was France, GB, the US, South America, France, Poland, the Balkans, Russia. Out of all occupied Europe only tiny Denmark defied the Nazis and saved the overwhelming majority of its Jews. Is it surprising that Hitler blamed two groups for Germany's demise--the Jews and the Communists. He was not alone.

Edited by AnchoriticSybarite - 07 Nov 2017 at 18:43
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Sep 2017 at 23:07
Again it depends on what you regard as victory. Also Hitler had assumed Britain would fold early on - for that matter, so did many of his subordinates - and once he realised Russia wasn't the military giant they advertised themselves as, that Russia would collapse. He also assumed that the industrial weight of America could be kept at bay by the U-Boat menace. Hitler wasn't a stupid man at all - just rather misguided and increasingly unable to cope with the reverses of his 'destiny' for the Third Reich. He also set up a political arena which meant potential rivals tackled each other instead of him, and that was hardly uniting German efforts.
But 'eye on the ball'? It's easy to see where they went wrong in hindsight - things looked different to them at the time, but bear in mind that often our preconceptions of the period interfere with the actual understanding of it. They did focus on the tasks at hand - the Germans are by nature an organised people - but all too often those tasks were badly targeted or conceived. Also, the significant weaknesses of the Third Reich such as dependence on foreign raw materials mirrored the same weakness of the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere. It all worked when Germany maintained control, but under the weight of strategic military action, became their Achilles heel.
 
Could they have won? Germany thought it had in 1940. It lost initiative, control of territory and airspace, lost the industrial battle, and eventually, any reasonable chance of bringing things back under their sway.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Aug 2017 at 10:55
Caldrail

So, going back to the OP, and the other conversations between Charlie Primero and me, had the Reich focused more on the task at hand, could it have won WW2?
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2017 at 21:58
The Third Reich was creating an Aryan empire - which although to us seems a flimsy excuse for conquest and assimilation (for the suitable), thus the expansion into other countries required more than a few flags outside offices and the presence of Nazi thugs on a Saturday night. It required the extension of German infrastructure to cement the whole together. There is a remarkable concrete bridge somewhere in the former Czechoslovakia that remains unfinished, an autobahn bridge to connect the German heartland with the new provinces - exactly the same rationale was used by the Romans. We tend to think of roads these days as a purely logistical asset given modern communications don't require travel, but even as late as the Second World War, the benefits of communicate were enhanced by physical routing, especially in an era in which the motor vehicle had yet to achieve the dominance in civil logistics against the railway networks of Europe.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2017 at 13:21
Franciscosan

That's all well and good,but you miss the the whole question of the OP, as usual.

The discussion between Charlie Primero and me has contained certain facts and parameters to be taken into consideration when answering the question, "Could Hitler Have Won?" Implicit in the question was, of course, "Could the Third Reich Havve Won (WW2)?



It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10100
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Aug 2017 at 09:43
All I know about German infrastructure development was that Hitler developed the autobahn (highway system, equal (or better than) the US Interstate Highway system).  Oh, and the Berlin stadium for the Olympics, ugly concrete structure, but "useful," especially for those mass rallies.  I tend to think Nazi art is particularly ugly, contributing to that perception is the book 'Art of the Third Reich' and Nazi coinage, especially from other (occupied) countries such as Belgium and Norway.  I don't know anything about double decker trains, but railway infrastructure would have been useful in a war, you would think.  I don't really understand, toyomotor, why you complain about infrastructure projects, in general if they're nazi they're ugly, but I am not sure that effects their usefulness in wartime.

As far as Charlie saying that they were going after communists, a lot of communists were Jewish, but that does not mean that a lot of Jews were communists, there were a lot of Jewish communities pre-war.  I think that it was the traditional, Orthodox or hasidic Jews that got particularly hit by the persecution.  Lenin wished he had more Jews, but it was the 'secular' Jews, not devout traditional.  There is a particular heresy of Judaism where one chooses to try to hasten the coming of the messiah by doing certain things, instead of just waiting.  That is like what Marx wants with his apocalyptic proletariat revolution.  For example, the messiah is first supposed to come, and _then_ Israel can be re-founded.  Not the Zionist method of founding Israel, and then the messiah will come.

Early on, way before the Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution, the Zionists also wanted to put pressure on the traditional Jews because, like the Nazis, they both wanted Jews out of Germany.  Originally, the Nazis wanted the Jews to go to Israel, but Israel was in British control, then the solution became sending them to Madagascar, and then since there is 'no other way,' the Final Solution.  There is a movie of the Wannsee Conference, the same length as the actual conference, dialog from the minutes and transcripts of the meeting.

Israel's existence often gets "justified" by the Holocaust, but really they should be decoupled.  Part of the fight over the holocaust is how it is used to justify the existence of Israel.  But ironically Zionism and ultra-German nationalism have the same birthplace and same era.  Vienna around the 1890s.  Nazis thought Israel was a good idea, they wanted to get rid of the Jews, it is just that other "solutions" were closed off from them, by the war, and thus with a sick 'logic' they adopted a Final Solution.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2017 at 12:33
Originally posted by Charlie Primero Charlie Primero wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The gas chambers were an expeditious means of killing thousands in one day, as cheaply as possibly.


We can examine the cost factor on that.

What specific gas chambers are you referring to?

I suggest that there's no need to detail each individual Concentration Camp for the purposes of this discussion. You asked to play Devils Advocate in the question of whether or not Hitler (the Third Reich) could have won WW2, had Hitler not been so obsessed with the mass murder of what he considered as unter menschen, and the resources spent on achieving that goal. 

You were also asked to defend his deployment of troops, construction of railways and massive buildings in other parts of Europe which were a pure waste of money and resources, the point being that had more rational thought been given to war fighting and troop deployment, could the Reich have won?

It seems, Charlie, that you have your back to the wall, trying to defend the indefensible.Wink
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Aug 2017 at 01:28
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied.
Bullets weren't the problem. It was the time it was taking to assemble shooting parties, dig burial pits, and commit the executions. By conventional means the eradication of Jews was not going to happen any time soon and leaders of the Third Reich wanted a more expedient method of getting results.

Hi Caldrail. 

Ammunition was definitely a problem. I will provide a reference for that fact.

Yes gas was the most efficient way bc ammunition was expensive and mass shootings meant psychological repercussions for the German soldiers.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220
 

GAS VANS 
 
After the June 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union and Einsatzgruppe (mobile killing unit) mass shootings of civilians, the Nazis experimented with gas vans for mass killing. Gas vans were hermetically sealed trucks with engine exhaust diverted to the interior compartment. Use of gas vans began after Einsatzgruppe members complained of battle fatigue and mental anguish caused by shooting large numbers of women and children. Gassing also proved to be less costly. Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) gassed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and mentally ill people.
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2017 at 21:16
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The gas chambers were an expeditious means of killing thousands in one day, as cheaply as possibly.


We can examine the cost factor on that.

What specific gas chambers are you referring to?
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2017 at 21:09
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied.
Bullets weren't the problem. It was the time it was taking to assemble shooting parties, dig burial pits, and commit the executions. By conventional means the eradication of Jews was not going to happen any time soon and leaders of the Third Reich wanted a more expedient method of getting results.

Hi Caldrail. 

Ammunition was definitely a problem. I will provide a reference for that fact.
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1165
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2017 at 21:04
Quote The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied.
Bullets weren't the problem. It was the time it was taking to assemble shooting parties, dig burial pits, and commit the executions. By conventional means the eradication of Jews was not going to happen any time soon and leaders of the Third Reich wanted a more expedient method of getting results.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2017 at 17:03
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by Charlie Primero Charlie Primero wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.


To examine that question we need to tabulate all the resources you believe were devoted to the "The Final Solution" and compare them to the overall German war effort as a percentage.

Then we decide if that small percentage of resources was a deciding factor.

I contend that it was not.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.

'ello Charlie :) Good to have you here you devil Evil Smile

The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied. They also worried about the psychological effect that multiple murders, in cold blood, on unarmed civilians would have on young German soldiers. The Reich didn't want psychopaths coming back after the war infecting their families.

In very plain language Hitler describes the Jews as a disease to be eradicated as Germany's enemies were "strangling her." Probably Hitler's repressed memories of being swaddled and hung on the wall, a mother who told him he was a messiah and a father who hated him. Not to mention starvation and other horrors of post WW1 Germany. They are well documented by British aid workers.

Thanks V.
Charlie, how about expanding your thought into a bit more detail so that we can pick them to pieces. Hitler had a psychotic hatred of the Jews, as did many other Europeans, and blamed many of Germany's ill's on them.

The gas chambers were an expeditious means of killing thousands in one day, as cheaply as possibly.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 1921
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Aug 2017 at 16:47
Originally posted by Charlie Primero Charlie Primero wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.


To examine that question we need to tabulate all the resources you believe were devoted to the "The Final Solution" and compare them to the overall German war effort as a percentage.

Then we decide if that small percentage of resources was a deciding factor.

I contend that it was not.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.

'ello Charlie :) Good to have you here you devil Evil Smile

The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied. They also worried about the psychological effect that multiple murders, in cold blood, on unarmed civilians would have on young German soldiers. The Reich didn't want psychopaths coming back after the war infecting their families.

In very plain language Hitler describes the Jews as a disease to be eradicated as Germany's enemies were "strangling her." Probably Hitler's repressed memories of being swaddled and hung on the wall, a mother who told him he was a messiah and a father who hated him. Not to mention starvation and other horrors of post WW1 Germany. They are well documented by British aid workers.
“The United Nations is the biggest joke of this century. If each one is trying to assert his own rights there, how can there be a United Nations?” UG Krishnamurti
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Aug 2017 at 01:23
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.


To examine that question we need to tabulate all the resources you believe were devoted to the "The Final Solution" and compare them to the overall German war effort as a percentage.

Then we decide if that small percentage of resources was a deciding factor.

I contend that it was not.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 12:45
franciscosan
Quote If Charlie cannot take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. 

Hey, whoa, perhaps you should read back over Charlies earlier posts to understand what's going on. As usual, you charge in, and again, you're wrong.

The discussion between Charlie and me is taking the form of Charlie being Devils Advocate. So either read and absorb what's being written or butt out!

As for the rest of your post, in the context of our discussion, GIGO!Angry


It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10100
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 12:32
If Charlie cannot take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.  He could say that the current accepted figures are lies or distortions.  But, he does not.  Now I would agree that various people have an agenda as far as portraying the holocaust one way or another.  Some use a promotion of Jewish culture to mitigate the 'psychic' impact of the holocaust (Europe), others justify Israel and Zionism through it (Israel), whereas some deal more directly with the horror of the holocaust (the US _diasporic_ community).  He apparently wishes to do a revision, the thing is, the initial understanding of an event tends to be the most comprehensive in understanding it, that historical view can get tweaked, and revised, but the whole is not overthrown.  
We may have better analysis and more facts than Thucydides did of the Peloponnesian War, but the fact is we have to go back to Thucydides anytime we revisit the Peloponnesian War.  Revision can tweak the picture, compensating for biases, showing for example how the Vietnam War was not so much the happening of the march of the proletariat, and the domino theory, as it was of Vietnamese nationalism, but that really doesn't change the facts on the ground.  Likewise, I believe the basic view of the holocaust is _basically_ correct, if Charlie wants to say 90,000, he can, but I feel that like Bill Clinton's definition of sex (and oral sex not being sex), Charlie is making nice (non-existent) distinctions that are defining the deaths away of a lot of people that, shall we say, were of little or no military 'value' according to the Geneva Conventions.  
Charlie seems to think it was all strategic, but the question is; what the strategic is for?  Nazi Germany was not a state, it was a cancer, a mad dog that had to be shot down.  I'll tell you what would have been strategic, for Germany to be something that could have been tolerated.  Get rid of the psychotic behavior, and you wouldn't make an unconditional surrender necessary.  That is why there were so many plots against Hitler, kill Hitler off an sue for peace.




Edited by franciscosan - 21 Aug 2017 at 12:34
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5242
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 12:09
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

90,000?  90,000 is a good number, of course 100,000 is better, being 10 to the 5th power, but maybe that's too perfect, 10 being the perfect number for Pythagoreans.  How about 7, or 42 for the Douglas Adams books?  Or 23 for the Principia Discordia?  If we are into just coming up with numbers....

"Depends on what you mean by 'is'"
Bill Clinton

Come on Frank, we're trying to have a serious discussion here, and Charlie's playing Devils Advocate.

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.

It's well recognised that the German supply lines were stretched too thinly and they were far too long. Goering's promise to provide the troops with what they needed to fight the war never eventuated.

In essence, what I'm saying is that if Hitlers Final Solution had been taken off the board (along with all that went with it, the railways, buildings, roundups etc), some of his more adventurous building schemes curtailed, and more notice taken of his generals in this regard, could the Third Reich have won the war?



It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 10100
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 08:22
figures don't lie, but liars figure.

90,000?  90,000 is a good number, of course 100,000 is better, being 10 to the 5th power, but maybe that's too perfect, 10 being the perfect number for Pythagoreans.  How about 7, or 42 for the Douglas Adams books?  Or 23 for the Principia Discordia?  If we are into just coming up with numbers....

"Depends on what you mean by 'is'"
Bill Clinton


Edited by franciscosan - 17 Aug 2017 at 08:24
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2017 at 21:25
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

...had his resources been concentrated on war fighting rather than genocide, could he have won?


To investigate this question it is necessary to estimate the amount of resources Germany wasted by diverting those resources to the program of Genocide.

I contend that the vast majority of what has is called "Genocide" for propaganda purposes was actually strategic war-fighting.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.

Consequently, only an insignificant number of Jews/Gypsies/Jehovah's Witnesses et al. killed by the German war machine were killed for no other reason than ethnic cleansing.  I estimate approximately 90,000.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.