Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I know nothing of this movement, but your words are confusing me–I need enlightenment.How are people (in a democracy) protesting Corporations like Marxists?Could they not be small business owners, socialists, progressives, anarchists or Christians advocatingSocial Justice--why Marxists all the time?Are we in the sematical slough again?
Staying on topic. If Stalin had not purged the military in the late 30's there is every possibility that the Russians would have been able to stop the Germans before they got in sight of the Kremlin. The Russians suffered something like 3-4 million casualties in the opening months of the war and lost 2 armies and 747,850 men in the first two weeks of the invasion alone.1 There were instances in the opening months of the invasion when the Russians plucked former officers out of the Gulag and put them back in command. it is not semantics to argue that Stalin was not a great leader. My earlier statement that leadership is about inspiration is still relevant. Napoleon was a great leader, he inspired those under his command to achieve the mission. Stalin inspired nothing other than fear, succeed or be shot does not lead one to trust the commander. It makes people hopeless. There is a reason why Russian casualties were so much higher than German, even in the final days of the war. It was because the Russians ruled through intimidation while the Germans fought under leaders. (Notice I do not make any claims about the rightness of the German cause but about the quality of German military leadership). Lastly, it should teel you something about leadership that most western militaries are modeled along Prussian lines, I cannot think of any militarily successful country other than Russia itself that follows the Russian organizational model, which is incidentally modelled on Prussian methods of the early 19th century.From everything I have read for the past forty years the German Army in the first and second world wars was the best in the world in terms of leadership especially among the non-coms who weretrained to deviate from instructions if the situation changed, which it usually did. Their moral, equipment and combat skills were well known especially those who had faced them in battle. Their organizationalmethods line/staff etc. have a ghostly parallel--most western bureaucracies in the civilian sector are based upon the same principles warped to fit the particulars of the agency.The Russians were not the best, but they had the advantage of numbers and in WWII the knowledge thatif they attacked they might be killed, but if they refused they would be killed.Stalin's purge just prior to the war was certainly not good for the Russian army, but it is conjecture to say that had it not occurred the blitz would have been stopped. Given Stalin's slavish adherence tothe provisions of the pact and his refusal to listen to his intelligence section made the German breakthrough surprise almost a given.As I am at a loss to speak to you of Stalin's leadership as your opinion seems to be adamantine. Letme try another approach. I know nothing about football, but I know a lot about motivating people. Letme combine the two. From the perspective of the team owner, a great coach (leader) is one who wins games and fills the coffers with cash. I imagine that it matters little to the owner whether the coachuses love or fear or anything in between to achieve his goal of victory. Motivation is an art that canuse fine tools or crude ones and the choice depends a lot on the particular task involved. Flattery,money, perks and fear of immediate execution are all arrows in a supervisors quiver, at least in theory.Stalin's methods worked and we need not concern ourselves as to the morality or the finesse of thetechnique. War is not only hell--it is amoral. Stalin's crude warriors with their crudely made weapons(the welding showed and the finish was inferior on guns and tanks) won the war on the eastern front.You may loath his leadership and disparage his skills, but he called the shots, picked the Generals andstiffened the resolve of the people and not only through fear. Granted that one can be a great leader on the loosing side, Lee, Rommel, Ludendorff et. al., but most historians I have read agree that Stalin wasa key figure in the success of Russian arms in the Great Patriotic War. I'm with them.
Scout:Thank you for your succinct comment. I have to say that you leaped over all the misinformation and nailed it--excellent. A friend of mine who is in the computer business said that there were two kinds of people==those that read the manual and those that just winged it--Hitler was in the latter category, a lazydilettante. To Hitler, Jews were vermin. The goal was to rid Germany of them while the method wasmerely detail work--anathema to those who do not read manuals.
Then perhaps we have said enough. If anyone else chooses to reply, I shall answer, but I think you and I have expended our ammunition.Best regards--always a pleasure to conduct a dialogue of differences in a civil manner. Perhaps we could open a school for politicians and automobile agency employees.WillyD
Oh my goodness no. I merely posted a thesis about Hitler. It seems to be born out by my reading of the published evidence. That he was a creature of evil incarnate is without question. That the Holocaust did in fact happen is an historical fact. But, his mindset at the beginning is not so easily plumbed and I set forth a thesis that I invite you to attack and destroy with historical evidence. For example: If he had said in his book:"While fighting against the British in France, I came to the realization that this war, like many others, is aresult of a Jewish plot. If I survive I swear to devote my life to eradicating these parasites from the face of the earth by shooting, hanging, burning, gassing, crucifixtion and any other means I can think of--so help me God."Now that would make my little thesis seem silly.I think my initial comments about Stalin were nicely supported by subsequent posts.
I read your post very carefully. I did not see any reference to a world-wide slaughter of the Jews. I did see this–which I agree is plausible: “But in addition to that, these individuals would have been aware of Goering's order for the administrative work to be done towards an “aspired” final solution. Everyone knew that a final solution – a decision to annihilate all of European Jewry – could only be made by Hitler. And Hitler was legendary for hesitating, at times with almost disastrous effects, when faced with grave decisions, such as the Roehm Purge, the Munich Crisis and whether to run in the presidential election of 1932. [10] It would be entirely in keeping with Hitler's personality if he hesitated several months after ordering the Einsatzgruppen shootings – a kind of pre-final solution – before he could bring himself to make the ultimate decision. Goering's order notwithstanding, there was little concrete action that Heydrich could take until there was a definitive decision from the man at the top. And the man at the top did not decide until December 1941.”The victims--European Jews and the decision--1941--would seem to support the thesis I proposed: To wit:In February of 1933 Hitler had no aspirations to kill all the Jews, but a strong desire to see them oustedfrom Germany by various means. After the death of Hindenburg and the passage of the "Enabling Act" his ability to overcome legal niceties was enhanced, but again I stress, I find no evidence to support yourstatement that Hitler wanted the Jewish race wiped from the face of the earth--his earth--yes--the earth--no. Are you aware of the somewhat odd arrangement the Nazis had with the Jews vis a vis emigrationto Palestine? Apparently exit visas could be obtained for a price which permitted Jews to go there withthe only limits being fiscal in Germany and politically (with the British who held the Mandate in Palestine).One final fillip: It seems to me that if Hitler had died of a stroke in February 1939 and was succeeded bysomeone who was a more traditional leader, please do not ask me for a name, he would have had avery long list of accomplishments, the holocaust would be an unimaginable horror and statues of him would stand in every German town to this day with an inscription that might read:TO OUR BELOVED LEADER, ADOLPH HITLER, WHO UNITED THE GERMAN PEOPLE AND RESTORED OURPRIDE IN OURSELVES. MAY HE BE REMEMBERED WITH AFFECTION FOR A THOUSAND YEARS.His bothersome preoccupation with the Jews would be a very minor thing.Does this sound far fetched?WillyD
Here is what I know.Hitler was convinced that the Jews were evil, the cause of much misery and had to be eliminated fromGerman society.Hitler would have been content if they all just left or somehow just disappeared.In February 1933 Hitler had no plans to conquer the World, to kill all the Jews or to build gas chambers.Here is what you do not know.What edition of his book I read or whether I read the second volume. (I did along with Table Talk.)There are many volumes and translations of his first book and in many languages. Were I not constrained I would dig out my copy and let you know.Again, I am not defending him--he was a horrid man. I am just illustrating that some of what we weretold may in fact not ring true when subjected to the harsh light of historical criticism.
I read this twice and still come up with zero concerning Hitler's supposed desire to eliminate the Jews from the face of the earth. I shall look again, but it would be much easier if you could give me some guidance–please–citation!? I should point out that my memory is deteriorating rapidly so you might well be correct.
Donald Baker:History is replete with cases where the government forcibly moved people. Stalin did it with Russiansof German ancestry, we did it with Japanese and Indians and contemplated doing it with slaves prior to the civil war. The British did it in South Africa and I could probably come up with many more if I took the time. Why--reasons of state. Getting the people to go along with it is easy--play on their prejudices,call them non-patriots if they object, lie, let them loot the wealth of the dispossed or give them a glimpse of the iron fist in the iron glove.WHATEVER HAPPENS WE HAVE GOTTHE MAXIM GUN AND THEY HAVE NOT
Donald Baker:I know of no source that would support your contention that Hitler intended or desired to eliminate the Jews from the face of the earth! He surely would not mind if this happened, but I recall no book or article that would lead me to agree with your view. Out of Germany--sure--out of territories occupied by Germans--sure again, but elsewhere--I think not. Perhaps Hitler was either limited or realistic in his thinking. We were taught in school that he wanted to conquer the world--how silly--he was not a youngman in 1933 and by 1945 he was a wreck.Anti-semitism was not just a German phenomenon as many nations of Europe were openly hostile toJews even if they no longer persecuted them. Even here ,in my lifetime, there were clubs, schools,sports associations, hotels and housing developments that discriminated against Jews as well as Blacks,Orientals, Mexicans and the swarthy races until court cases ended the practices.I would appreciate any citation you might be able to send. Please understand I am not a David Irvingfan and agree that the Holocaust did take place and was probably even worse than we have been told.I just do not think that Hitler, a lazy and slothful creature by nature, was a long range thinker when it came to the eventual disposition of the Jews. "Just get them out and let me eat my little cakes."
You have to make a distinction between Jews and inferior races such as Slavs. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany by whatever means were possible. The other inferior races, once Lebensraum had been acquired, were to be helots for the German master race. I do not think Hitler particularly cared how the Jews were to be ousted from Germany and I have good reason to believe that as the policy and the warprogressed he became less and less concerned with methodology.My point is that Hitler wanted a Aryan hegemony in a state with no Jews, but with lots of inferior races tohew wood and draw water. Think of the ante bellum south in the USA in 1859.Aryan master race--blue eyed blond beasts--check out photos of Hitler and friends--hardly fit the phenotype. I wonder how the scholars who got doctorates in racial studies handled that?
It is most annoying when the adults come into the playground with new rules and superimpose what they believe to be order on chaos. I do believe I'll dust my broom now.WillyD
