|
First and foremost, to understand II in any sense you must understand I. It is sad to see how I has become a forgotten war of sorts, and yet those millions dead need to be remembered. I and II are inextricably linked together and II is simply an extension of I. I go on kicks sometimes where I'll be incredibly interested in one period of time and read and watch as much as I can on it before I find something else to absorb myself in, but it's just a cycle because I'll come back round to the same period in a matter of time. Right now it's World War II. And it's blowing my brain into bits. The most incredible concept? Uh, it was 70 years ago. That's a drop in the bucket. There are men who fought in that thing still alive, though they are dying by the thousands each day and all of them at this point have got to be 90+. There are people alive now who were simply children during it. Europe was loving annihilated. Atomic bombs, Nazis, the Holocaust, Kursk, Stalingrad, Hitler, Stalin, the names, the figures, the blood, the insanity. It was essentially last week in the historical scheme of humanity. Use this thread to talk about WWII because I want a lot of info. One interesting tangent is the Rudolf Hess situation. For the early part of the Nazi rule in the 20s and 30s, he was one of Hitler's closest and most trusted confidants. Apparently Hitler was actually hoping for peace with England (though it's hard to believe Hitler), and Hess decided to undertake a secret mission to England in order to acquire this. Without Hitler's knowledge or approval. He was shot down in Scotland, became a POW, a traitor to Germany, and after Nuremburg spent the rest of his life in Spandau Prison. He died at age 93. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess But the controversy is, was that really Hess who was found dead in prison?
|
| # ? Jan 13, 2013 16:26 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 00:55 |
|
|
Pretty sure Dr. Mengele's experiments proved without a shadow of a doubt that a mind can only be blow apart once.
|
| # ? Jan 13, 2013 16:52 |
|
|
They still hunt nazis in South America or wherever they think they'll find them. There was someone 90+ who they were either trying to extradite or did extradite from Argentina a couple years ago.
|
| # ? Jan 13, 2013 17:45 |
|
|
The second world war basically demonstrated that America, Britain and Russia were willing to put down any and all fledgling empires. The British empire, of course, later collapsed under its own weight and the Russian empire is a shadow of its former self, and now America is so dependent on foreign production that it can't really call itself an empire. The first half of the twentieth century just saw the most drastic change in the nature and role of states. Fascinating poo poo.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 00:14 |
|
|
Hitler. Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. A man so unbelievably evil and a (in hindsight) blatent sociopath. Yet, somehow, one of the greatest public speakers of all time. His personal magnetism was right up there with the likes of Alexander. There's a speech of his on youtube, after he finishes Rudolf Hess gets on the lectern and is drowned out by cheering. His rapture is such that he can't contain the massive smile on his face, he turns to Hitler and gestures as if to say 'what a guy!'. The actual words are just rabble-rousing nonsense but his power and emotional delivery are unparalleled. I've never seen people behave that way in real life. It's almost like a movie, their emotion is so unguarded. They're like teenage girls at a Bieber concert. Also he was on crack. Literally on crack. edit: found what I was referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMqdUFfxhNI Slavvy fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 06:41 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 06:34 |
|
|
The sheer scale of WW2, in lives, geographical, production numbers, everything, is in itself mind boggling. This is a great lecture on the eastern front, in which part of it he focuses on the sheer scale of it.(The whole lecture is great though, watch it!) And this is just the eastern front. The Chinese-Japanese front was just around as deadly(and filled with war crimes), and then add in everything from Italy, Balkans, North Africa, Western Europe, Burma, Indonesia, the various island hopping, and the battle of Atlantic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 07:05 |
|
|
What I find interesting is that there are a few junctions in his life where Hitler may have turned out differently. First, his mom died while he was young, and his dad when he was a teenager. Had they lived, would he have turned out differently? Then, he applied to art school a few times but was rejected. Had he gotten into art school, would that have set him down a different path? The man is the villain of all villains, but I think it's interesting to look at his life and see how it could have been different. Because for all of the awful things he set in motion, he was just human. He wasn't a robot programmed for destruction from birth - there was a nurture component to his growing up and he could have ended up being a different man. Perhaps in an alternate timeline, there is an anti-semitic sociopathic curator of an art gallery Hitler. Raere fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 07:09 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 07:06 |
|
|
I sometimes wonder if Hitler wasn't just filling a role, that racism and and international tensions were just building up all over the world to the point that a World War was inevitable and that if it hadn't been Hitler, it would have just been someone else with enough charisma to kick things off.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 07:20 |
|
|
Der Luftwaffle posted:I sometimes wonder if Hitler wasn't just filling a role, that racism and and international tensions were just building up all over the world to the point that a World War was inevitable and that if it hadn't been Hitler, it would have just been someone else with enough charisma to kick things off. I suspect that this is the case, although just one man is unlikely. Usually things happen because of small groups of determined men; that's why brilliant conquerors in the vein of Ceasar and Napoleon are rare in history, rather than common place. Hitler was the 'right' man for the job.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 07:44 |
|
|
I don't find Hitler disturbing nearly as much as the fact that a whole nation of ordinary people were willing to go along with him.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 09:14 |
|
|
freebooter posted:I don't find Hitler disturbing nearly as much as the fact that a whole nation of ordinary people were willing to go along with him. Does this shock you? Hitler told people what they wanted to hear. He promised to feed the starving, end inflation, return Germany to the world stage. Anti-Semitism was nothing new. Hitler rode that particular train because it was easier to focus your anger on the "wealthy Jew" stereotype. Hitler was very evil, but he wasn't crazy or stupid. His political and military moves are more shrewd in context than many think. That's what made him so dangerous. He was elected by a populace that had a legitimate axe to grind with Clemenceau and Lloyd George.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 14:57 |
|
|
freebooter posted:I don't find Hitler disturbing nearly as much as the fact that a whole nation of ordinary people were willing to go along with him. It wasn't a nation of ordinary people, or rather, there's no such thing. It was a poverty-stricken nation being kept in poverty, with a bedrock of vicious anti-semitism promoted by Luther and nearly every other important 'German' of the past several hundred years. Blaming the Jews for poo poo, depriving them of legal rights, and killing them wasn't new territory. If circumstances had been different, it might have been some other nation. The master-race stuff wasn't very far outside the mainstream of racial thought in those days-- a ton of scientists, maybe even the majority, were convinced there were big differences between the 'races'. The scale of WWII is mindblowing, and that's important, as was the industrialization of the killing in the Holocaust, but the Nazis weren't a different sort of insane horror than all the previous supremacists who killed Jews in Europe.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 15:20 |
|
|
You just have to look at the terrible condition WW1 left Austria and Germany. Hitler promised then food and jobs. And he delivered. The whole thing is still shocking but that makes it a little mor understandable. How much did the common populace or even Hitler know about what was going on in the camps? Didn't a lot of it just come down to crazy commanders of the camps? Christoff fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 15:28 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 15:20 |
|
|
Christoff posted:You just have to look at the terrible condition WW1 left Austria and Germany. Hitler promised then food and jobs. And he delivered. The whole thing is still shocking but that makes it a little mor understandable. No. Although Hitler wasn't the architect of the Final Solution, he was fully aware of it and gave his approval. After 1943 or so most Germans, along with everyone else in Europe for that matter, knew more or less what was going on, though perhaps not the sheer scale of it.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 16:16 |
|
|
DasReich posted:His political and military moves are more shrewd in context than many think. That's what made him so dangerous. Militarily this might be true from 39 to maybe 42, but at some point he was making loving retarded military decisions that none of the German high command agreed with. Two front war seems like a bad decision at any point. edit: quote:If anything, Hitler's biggest strategic mistake (apart from all the various mistakes on the Eastern front) was declaring war on America after Pearl Harbor, more or less as an afterthought - this was in no way required of Germany, and it's entirely possible that the US in such a scenario had focused all its efforts on Japan. Very interesting. And good point. At the inception of the Eastern Front, France is done with, Britain isn't going mount an offensive into Germany, America isn't involved, so the only direction is to point east. Twat McTwatterson fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 16:45 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 16:25 |
|
|
Hitler contributed very little militarily even in the early war. His most notable "success" was the Battle of France, but what he actually did there was pretty much rubber stamp a plan laid out by Guderian because it offered a chance for an early, decisive victory instead of the WW1-like slog most people on both sides predicted. Of course, later in the war Hitler became more and more convinced that he really was the great commander that propaganda painted him as, so he stopped listening to his generals and constantly tried to micromanage everything. This is in contrast to Stalin, who had the sense to realize that he should step back and let his competent generals run things tactically and operationally. When it comes to the wisdom of attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, keep in mind that America wasn't in the war yet, Britain was isolated and posed no real threat to Germany and the SU was weak and unprepared, something the Germans were aware of. The alternative to attacking was waiting for the Soviets to attack them, as war was considered inevitable at some point. If anything, Hitler's biggest strategic mistake (apart from all the various mistakes on the Eastern front) was declaring war on America after Pearl Harbor, more or less as an afterthought - this was in no way required of Germany, and it's entirely possible that the US in such a scenario had focused all its efforts on Japan. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 17:11 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 16:37 |
|
|
One of the things that continues to blow my mind is that Franco remained in power after WWII, and stayed in power until the 70's. I guess since Spain remained somewhat "neutral" during the war, the Allies were unwilling to remove the last fascist dictator from power after slogging it out in the rest of Europe.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 16:56 |
|
|
Franco was also anti-communist. This proved to be more important during the Cold War than the fact that Spain was a dictatorship.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:00 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Hitler. Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler. Keep in mind that you're watching a propaganda movie - in fact, the propaganda movie of the century. That scene is designed to convey exactly that: ecstatic devotion on the part of the masses towards their Führer.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:03 |
|
|
It's extremely unlikely the US would have remained focused on Japan. We were already supplying the British and were by definition a co-belligerant. The USSR came very close to losing. Stalin NEVER kept away and everyone down to divisional commanders didn't do a drat thing until he gave orders. All roads lead right to him. Hitler's real mistake was supporting Mussolini in his insane Neo-Roman Empire poo poo and getting tied up in a campaign in North Africa.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:15 |
|
|
Twat McTwatterson posted:
I can't get past atomic bombs in a list of European stuff from WWII and its making me doubt everything I thought I knew 
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
DasReich posted:It's extremely unlikely the US would have remained focused on Japan. We were already supplying the British and were by definition a co-belligerant. The USSR came very close to losing. Stalin NEVER kept away and everyone down to divisional commanders didn't do a drat thing until he gave orders. All roads lead right to him. America would most likely have remained focused on Japan for at least some time, considering the huge outrage and shock caused by Pearl Harbor. At some point a formal US entry into the European war would likely have happened, but it would probably have taken longer. In the end, of course, the Manhattan Project would still have happened, so the US would have won any war that was still going on by 1945. Stalin certainly did not run the war himself, especially after the initial Red Army fiascoes; the Stavka had much more freedom than the OKH ever did. He did, however, remain extremely wary of his generals in that he was afraid of letting any one of them get too popular and powerful in his own right.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:34 |
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Hitler contributed very little militarily even in the early war. His most notable "success" was the Battle of France, but what he actually did there was pretty much rubber stamp a plan laid out by Guderian because it offered a chance for an early, decisive victory instead of the WW1-like slog most people on both sides predicted. To Hitler's credit though(well that feels weird to say), approving that plan did change a lot. It wasn't universally accepted, OKH seemed pretty hell bent on doing Schlieffen 2.0 until commanders in Army Group A managed to show Hitler the plan and change his mind. On the flip side though, Hitler also wanted a western offensive originally by November 1939, which was just DasReich posted:It's extremely unlikely the US would have remained focused on Japan. We were already supplying the British and were by definition a co-belligerant. The USSR came very close to losing. Stalin NEVER kept away and everyone down to divisional commanders didn't do a drat thing until he gave orders. All roads lead right to him. If at least the Suez Canal could've been taken, that alone would've made the north Africa campaign worth it, but adequate supplies and forces were never allocated. I think there's a decent chance the US would've in fact remained focused on Japan. We would've stepped up aid even more to the UK and USSR since we'd now be on a wartime footing, but, I don't think it would've been politically possible to declare war on Germany. People in general still didn't want to get involved in 'Europe's problems" and it was Japan who attacked us and was who everyone was riled up against.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:35 |
|
|
adventure in the sandbox posted:I can't get past atomic bombs in a list of European stuff from WWII and its making me doubt everything I thought I knew The atomic bombs were dropped on Japan, but the Nazis were working hard on them. Many prominent scientists fled Europe to America and helped work on the Manhattan Project. Albert Einstein convinced the President to develop the bomb, but he wasn't allowed to work on it because he was a suspected communist. Meanwhile, Heisenberg deliberately sabotaged the Nazi atom bomb project by convincing everyone that they needed to make a radium bomb. He know how to design a working uranium bomb, but wasn't willing to help the Nazis win.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:39 |
|
|
Amused to Death posted:To Hitler's credit though(well that feels weird to say), approving that plan did change a lot. It wasn't universally accepted, OKH seemed pretty hell bent on doing Schlieffen 2.0 until commanders in Army Group A managed to show Hitler the plan and change his mind. Something most people don't realize today is how bleak the outlook of the Germans appeared to be in 1939 to early 1940. Germany was at war with the two main powers that had defeated it in the last war, while simultaneously being less prepared for war than it had been in 1914; Hitler had gambled that the Allies wouldn't declare war when he invaded Poland, and the Wehrmacht still had several years to go before it would be fully prepared. France at the time appeared to have a more powerful army, and Britain had the most powerful navy on the planet, vastly superior to the Kriegsmarine. Fall Gelb, "Blitzkrieg" and all that should probably be seen more as a high stakes gamble out of desperation than some sort of carefully prepared master plan. In fact, Blitzkrieg didn't really exist as a doctrine at all, and the term was only applied retroactively.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:43 |
|
|
Manstein in his book stresses the gambling point of 1939, in the sense the Polish campaign was one giant gamble hoping on the fact France followed by British reinforcements would've launch any kind of serious attack into Germany since the western front was basically being defended by divisions that hadn't even finished organizing yet. Was Germany's outlook really that bleak in 1939 though, I don't mean in retrospect, I mean is there any surviving material showing higher ups thinking this. I know the fear was Germany wouldn't be able to handle a pro-longed war again since it'd be bled dry again especially as it increased the risk of more nations intervening as a long war went on, but Germany vs France and Britain is a pretty level fight at first when Russia/USSR or the US isn't also involved.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 17:59 |
|
|
It blows my mind and also saddens me that as it slips closer and closer into the history books, the lessons that should have been learnt are slowly already being forgotten  .One of the horrifying things when you think about it was the casulties of the day bombing crews for both sides, especially before they got proper tech for escorts into enemy territory. Also, the crews of the battleships when they suddenly sank or utterly exploded. Hundreds of men die, only a handful ever got out.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:21 |
|
|
Present Greece is a pretty good example of "history repeats itself"
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:23 |
|
|
Even the night bomber crews of Bomber Command suffered horrendous casualties at times, easily comparable to the trench warfare of WW1. There were apparently raids in which more RAF crew members died than Germans on the ground.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:23 |
|
|
Christoff posted:Present Greece is a pretty good example of "history repeats itself" I honestly thought somebody was joking when they told me about the fascists. Then I looked online. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:24 |
|
|
Been on a binge for WW2 related documentaries lately and the WW2 aspect that never ceases to overwhelm me is the sheer magnitude of casualties. Millions of people (of almost every ethniticity and nationality) died, in the most diverse locations of the planet, by the most diverse (and gruesome) causes. I can never wrap my head around this huge waste of life, even when I see footage from the recently-liberated concentration camps, where they show huge mass graves. I know virtually nothing about WW1 though, but I imagine it must have been as gruesome.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
Christoff posted:Present Greece is a pretty good example of "history repeats itself" I wanna say at least Golden Dawn only holds a marginal amount of seats in parliament and no one else likes them. But you know who else once had a marginal amount of seats in parliament and no one liked? That's right  quote:Also, the crews of the battleships when they suddenly sank or utterly exploded. Hundreds of men die, only a handful ever got out. Are you thinking of the HMS Hood specifically? It's not even a handful in that case, it's only 3 out of 1,400 3 out of 1,400. That is a 99.9% fatality rate. e: At least in a traditional naval battle you know when you're about to start battle. I can't imagine being part of convoys, constantly waiting to feel the explosion of a torpedo. Amused to Death fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 18:35 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:32 |
|
|
Don't get me wrong all forms of war are terrible. That being said gently caress being part of some WW2 Naval battle. Just waiting and hoping you won't get blown up by a ship or sub. If you survive whatever happens you end up in freezing water, possibly eaten by sharks, and most likely no rescue. I just can't imagine sitting on a ship terrified. Not sure if you guys have seen The Pacific but there's the part where they start cheering at all the sinking ships only to realize it they were ours.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:33 |
|
|
Hood is the most horrible case, but a lot of the time only a few hundred or less made it off Battleships when they met their end at sea.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:34 |
|
|
Alekanderu posted:Even the night bomber crews of Bomber Command suffered horrendous casualties at times, easily comparable to the trench warfare of WW1. There were apparently raids in which more RAF crew members died than Germans on the ground. To be expected. When you're bombing factories and refineries at night when people aren't working, you wont have bodies to bomb. When you're targeting industry, body count is the least of your worries.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:36 |
|
|
DasReich posted:Does this shock you? Hitler told people what they wanted to hear. He promised to feed the starving, end inflation, return Germany to the world stage. I think it's easy to have complete disbelief in the people who supported him now in hindsight. But if you suddenly found your nation taking a fast and deep plunge into third world territory before your eyes and a political party could actually reverse it, you might go along with unsavoury things if you thought they wouldn't affect you too much.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:36 |
|
|
I don't know about whether or not the US would have joined the European Theater if Germany never declared on the US, but this makes the case that the US very clearly was going to go for a Germany-first policy.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:40 |
|
|
Zsa Zsa Gabor posted:I know virtually nothing about WW1 though, but I imagine it must have been as gruesome. According to Wikipedia, 16 million died in WWI, with 36 million total casualties. Just military deaths alone: Britain- nearly 900k France- 1.4 million Russia- 2 million Germany- 2 million Austria- 1 million Is it any wonder that the moniker of the LOST GENERATION took hold? These are just soldiers! Absolutely loving insane. WWII Military Deaths: Britain- 400,000 France- 217,000 USSR- 10 million Germany- 5.5 million USA- 400,000 what the gently caress
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:40 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure (from reading the military history thread) that the US was going to get involved in Europe at some point no matter what. Stalin had been bitching for a second front since like '41. Of course, by the time the Americans finally invaded Europe, Stalin was pretty much on a roll toward Berlin. The Americans definitely quickened the end of the war, but the entire Western front was a bit of a second show. The Americans were fighting poorly trained regulars, the young, the old and generally ineffective/ 3rd-4th line German troops. World War II in Europe was decided by Stalin in the East. If you'd like to learn more about the Eastern front, I highly recommend this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg Its by the US Army War College. Did you know the Eastern front stretched the geographic equivalent of NYC to Florida? To head off the Sea Lion conversation, Britain was never going to be invaded. The only rehearsal Germany ever had of Sea Lion ended in disaster (ruled an "unacceptable" outcome of the war game by whichever German was in charge). They had neither sufficient naval ships to ensure safe passage across the channel, and did not posses the necessary troop transport craft to put boots on the ground. The German military didn't have ANY doctrine for an amphibious landing, and it would be nearly impossible to supply a beachhead even if one was established. I remember reading that the personnel transport they were going to use were basically rafts strapped together, or some type of simple low barge. A larger ship could simply sail past them at sufficient speed and proximity and cause them to sink. Further, to mount an effective landing the Germans would need complete air superiority, as well as naval command of the channel. Neither of these were going to happen. The idea Germany could have starved Britain is overblown, as the U-Boats were experiencing diminishing returns in their taskings. No one was going to stop American supply. Even without American boots on the ground, Europe would have been fine. It may have taken a little longer, and Stalin would have owned even a larger portion of the continent, but its not like America SAVED ALL OF EUROPE  They did save it from being saturated with communist influence though. My source for all that Sea Lion discussion was a link in the Military History Thread. I can't recall the name of the site, but it had a light blue background I want to say, and conducted an extremely thorough analysis of Sea Lion, down to comparing the strengths of each Naval Fleet on a ship by ship basis. If one of the Military History guys could re-link it, that'd be pretty cool. Also, everyone here should read the Military History thread from page one. It covers alot of material but there are literally pages and pages of discussion on WW2. It's pretty sweet if you don't mind tank derails every now and than. Pro Tip: We know about the loving bear. Don't post about it. edit: Military History Thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...40&pagenumber=1 If anyone has a hankering for WW2 documentaries, here is a youtube channel with a bunch of episodes of a show called Battlefield 360. It walks you through the political situation, the strategic military situation, the geography of the region, a brief bio on the command of the engagement, and than a tactical discussion. It covers most of the large clashes in WW2. I've only been through Midway and Leyte Gulf so far but they are absolutely amazing. I also watched half of the Battle of the Bulge and it was just as well done. If you need something to watch, I can't reccomend any of these enough http://www.youtube.com/user/HoustonGD?feature=watch Check uploaded vidos for more. He has a play list for like 2 battles and some tank stuff. Waroduce fucked around with this message at Jan 14, 2013 around 18:45 |
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:40 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2013 00:55 |
|
|
Blckdrgn posted:To be expected. When you're bombing factories and refineries at night when people aren't working, you wont have bodies to bomb. When you're targeting industry, body count is the least of your worries. Actually, those very people became the targets. Finding and bombing a factory from several miles up was hard enough in the day, and nearly impossible at night, with ridiculously low percentages of bombs hitting near their intended targets. Hence the switch to "de-housing", as it was called.
|
| # ? Jan 14, 2013 18:49 |
|
