Member
I found a WWI thread but couldn't see a WW2 thread. If there is one could someone please merge?
I found this video that takes another look at Hitler's most befuddling decisions and gives an incredibly logical explanation for them. It blew my mind and completely rewrote my comprehension of the entirety of the Second World War. I was so keen to share it here that I thought I would make a new thread for this and other materials related to it.
Member
I found this video that takes another look at Hitler's most befuddling decisions and gives an incredibly logical explanation for them. It blew my mind
???
I've listened this guy, but he didn't say anything radically new. German oil thirst and desire to capture the Caucasus (as source of this oil) was described in my school textbooks. Other hand, I don't think Red Army was supplied any better than Germans and reducing everything to oil is just another oversimplification. Not any better than "we would definitely win, but harsh winter..."
Member
???
I've listened this guy, but he didn't say anything radically new. German oil thirst and desire to capture the Caucasus (as source of this oil) was described in my school textbooks. Other hand, I don't think Red Army was supplied any better than Germans and reducing everything to oil is just another oversimplification. Not any better than "we would definitely win, but harsh winter..."
On your first pints--It's a variable I've never encountered before. The narrative I've heard was that Hitler continually defied the competent advice of his capable military leadership and for irrational reasons diverted the Moscow army group south, losing the military's momentum for a far less strategically important objective. In short, I've always heard about Hitler's irrational strategic decision making. Attacking the Soviets when he did was another; "Hitler shouldn't have opened a second front. That was irrational etc". This blew my mind because it offers a totally different take on why he made some of these choices.
On the second--even though the video is literally titled 'The MAIN reason Germany lost ww2' he makes it clear that it's not the only reason for Germany's loss and it wasn't enough by itself. It was hover the cause for the rush in opening the Soviet front in 1941. So while this isn't reducing the entire war into a univariate equation, he is again explaining just how important oil was in setting the schedule for WW2 and the rationale for Hitler's most notorious strategic decisions.
It also gave me a newfound admiration for Churchill. He was a hell of a man.
Member
The narrative I've heard was that Hitler continually defied the competent advice of his capable military leadership and for irrational reasons diverted the Moscow army group south, losing the military's momentum for a far less strategically important objective. In short, I've always heard about Hitler's irrational strategic decision making. Attacking the Soviets when he did was another; "Hitler shouldn't have opened a second front. That was irrational etc".
The decision to attack the USSR (by that time, the fair and responsible trade partner which was already supplying Germany with resources) was fully rational, in its own way. Hitler just did not take Russia seriously and hoped for a quick and relatively easy victory that would allow him to turn against the "main" enemy.
He's not the first who made such a fatal mistake. In early XVIII century, Swedish king Charles XII, being already at war with Russia, after the very first successful battle with "Muscovite hordes" distracted to "real" and "stronger" enemies like Poland and Saxony. And just one decade later Swedish greatness and ambitions were fully destroyed (not by Poles or Saxonians, of course). But this Charles XII wasn't the champion strategist, there were even more brilliant plans:
Operation Pike was the code-name for a strategic bombing plan, overseen by Air Commodore John Slessor, against the Soviet Union by the Anglo-French alliance... The plan was designed to destroy the Soviet oil industry, to cause the collapse of the Soviet economy and deprive Nazi Germany of Soviet resources.
Planners identified the dependence by Nazi Germany on oil imports from the Soviet Union as a vulnerability that could be exploited. Despite initial opposition by some politicians, the French Government ordered General Maurice Gamelin to commence a "plan of possible intervention with the view of destroying Russian oil exploitation"
Do you see? This is the same logic of Charles XII: war against USSR is a less significant factor than chance to "weaken" Germany. And these suicidal plans were already on the way to real implementation:
As of 1 April, four squadrons comprising 48 Bristol Blenheim Mk IV bombers were transferred to the Middle East Command, supplemented with a number of single-engined Wellesley bombers for night missions. A French force of 65 Martin Maryland bombers and a supplementary force of 24 Farman F.222 heavy bombers were allocated for night operations during the campaign. The French were preparing new air fields in Syria which were expected to be ready by 15 May. The campaign was expected to last three months and over 1,000 short tons (910 t) of bombs were allocated to the operation.
It was only the German blitzkrieg in France that sent this plan to the trashbasket of history. Otherwise, the whole course of WW2 would be very different from what we know today: after the very first Anglo-French attack, USSR would enter the war on German side. And few months (or years) later, sitting in German (or Soviet) concentration camp, those British and French strategists would have enough time to curse themselves for what they did...
Member
Yes, It Could Happen Here: When Nazis Came to New York
https://www.commondr...s-came-new-york
Entire Article (less photos and video):
(Common Dreams) With Trump's latest crime against the poor, the brown, the other - wherein immigrants may have to choose between food or housing and a green card - it's a good time to consider a new book detailing the threat of a "21st-century master of divisive rhetoric" whose toxic mix of fear, lies, greed and racism uncannily echos an earlier monster, and whose virulent skillset could prevail over a deeply flawed political system. In When at Times the Mob Is Swayed: A Citizen’s Guide to Defending Our Republic, civil liberties attorney Burt Neuborne argues America's allegedly invincible checks and balances - weakened by today's unrepresentative Congress, skewered Electoral College and right-wing Supreme Court majority - may not be able to withstand Trump's abuses of power. Using 20 points of comparison, Neuborne outlines how Trump parrots not just longtime policies of authoritarian dictators - fake news/invasions/grievances - but the rhetoric of Hitler's early playbook, which he famously studied. Above all, he describes the "demagogic spells" cast by a dangerous narcissist who increasingly can't control the hate and havoc he's unleashed: "The Nazis did not overthrow the Weimar Republic. It fell into their hands thanks to Hitler’s satanic ability to mesmerize enough Germans to trade their birthright for a pottage of scapegoating, short-term economic gain, xenophobia, and racism."
For those clinging to the belief it can't happen here, watch "A Night At the Garden," a short chilling film by Marshall Curry and Field of Vision documenting the night in 1939 when 20,000 New Yorkers came to Madison Square Garden to cheer on Fritz Kuhn, head of the Nazi German-American Bund, as he urged them to join "fellow American patriots" in demanding "our government (be) returned to the American people who founded it” to preserve a "white, Gentile-ruled United States." "The point is less an indictment of bad things Americans have done in the past than it is a cautionary tale about the bad things we might do in the future," Curry notes. "These were 20,000 New Yorkers who loved their kids and were probably nice to their neighbors, came home from work that day, dressed up in suits and skirts, and went out to cheer and laugh and sing as a speaker dehumanized people who would be murdered by the millions in the next few years" - and as he sold "an ideology that hundreds of thousands of Americans would die fighting against." The film's power lies in its sights and sounds - the huge swastikas flanking George Washington and the U.S. flag, the marching thugs, the roar of the crowd as a young Jewish protester is savagely beaten. "We'd like to believe that there are sharp lines between good people and bad people," says Curry. "But I think most humans have dark passions inside us, waiting to be stirred up" - by, say, a monstrous buffoon who taunts a mob into chanting, "Send Her Back."
The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other. - John Rawls
Member
France marks 75 years since 'the other D Day' began
https://www.thelocal...her-d-day-began
Introduction:
(The Local) It's the lesser-known D-Day, one launched two months after the Normandy landings on the other side of France, with French forces this time playing a premier role.
On August 15, 1944, thousands of French soldiers set foot on home soil for the first time in years as Allied forces staged an ambitious assault on Mediterranean beaches, taking a direct hand in the fight to free Europe of Nazi Germany's grip.
Besides accelerating the German retreat, this second landing was hugely symbolic for a French nation eager to emphasise its role in its own liberation.
Only a handful of French soldiers had taken part in the Normandy landings a few weeks earlier - General Charles de Gaulle snubbed the operation after being largely excluded from its planning.
The Mediterranean offensive included the remnants of France's free forces, including tens of thousands of soldiers from its African colonies, whose contribution remained little known, let alone celebrated, for decades after the war.
French troops landing in St Tropez.
Photo: AFP
The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other. - John Rawls
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Sign In
Create Account
Back to top
