When did the penny drop?

[Stanley Doble]

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
In an interview with Gilbert in Göring's jail cell during the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (18 April 1946)

 

[Stanley Doble]

For years, like you and everyone else, I was brought up on the idea that Hitler was an insane monster and that he ruled a country composed 100% of insane monsters who agreed with him about everything.

Eventually it dawned on me that this description did not fit any people or country I ever heard about, and was contrary to all I knew about human nature.

So I started to do some research in original sources and in books by reliable historians and found the real story was a lot more complicated. Hitler in fact was an all star stinker but also a clever and talented politician. He was very good at telling people things that were music to their ears, and sucked in a lot of people including professional politicians from other countries who you would think could see through a politician's bull****.

The events of the Nazi regime did not all happen in a day.It was not easy to see at the start how things were going to work out. The lesson I learned is that human affairs and politics are more complicated than we may think. But once you discard your principles and let "the ends justify the means" you are on a slippery slope.

 

[Big J]

All right. Explain to me why the American people allow their government to start wars for false reasons and commit war crimes around the world without protest?

'Politics' is taboo on the Lounge Stanley. But what you're doing, by bringing up America, is called 'deflecting'. It's technique people use to avoid accepting responsibility for their actions. The simplest example of deflecting is when a child does something wrong, is told off by it's mother, and the child squeals that other kids do it too! Just because other kids do naughty things, doesn't make it 'less' naughty. Whatever other countries do, or have done, does not make Nazi Germany 'less' evil.

But, to get back to the nazis, we've been all through this before. You've been given explanations about 'the banality of evil' and 'abdication of responsibility is no excuse for not stopping war crimes'. I (and several other members) wrote many long posts explaining all this the last time you brought it up. I guess you can't accept the facts? I'm not surprised, you're the guy who recommended we read convicted holocaust denier David Irving's 'history' book to see how history has treated the nazis unfairly. Other people attacked you for that, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I thought that maybe you'd been taken in by the far-right's psuedo-academic propaganda, and I wish I hadn't bothered, because you're just throwing it back in my face.

I guess you won't stop until we say something you agree with? Something like; Those poor German's are really the victims of WW2, first Hitler leads them astray, and then the Allies bomb the cr*p out of them. Something like that, Stanley? Or maybe something like this; War crimes? Sure, they were terrible for the jews, the gypsies, and the homosexuals, but think how those poor Germans who actually had to commit the war crimes must have been emotionally scarred!

Is that the sort of 'correct understanding of history' you want us to believe in Stanley?*

*Hint; if your answer is 'yes', you are a nazi apologist and war-crimes denier.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Point to one pro Nazi statement I have made, or one statement that is untrue.

All I want you to do is cut the crap. History is messy and complicated. Reducing it to a Superman comic does not help understand it. It leads to the kind of situation we have today in the Middle East. Your avatar could have been in charge of the US foreign policy for the last 20 years and look what a success that has been (sarcasm alert).

Go on thinking your only choice is to buy the conventional mythology 100% or be dismissed as a nut case. Avoid all independent thought and independent research.

If you can figure out why America never protested against torturing prisoners who had never been accused of a crime, or bombing a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders maybe you can figure out why citizens support their governments even when they are wrong.

 

[Trenchfriend]

The Nazi-government uses brilliant, modern propagandism (Goebbels), impressive happenings and THAT works heavily to children and youth, I think. This generation (1920 - 1925) was manipulated perfectly!

For example:
Survivors of war, like men from the battleship Bismarck, which are only 18/19 in 1941, said today:

It was the "Freiheitskampf der Deutschen!" (german "struggle for freedom") and WE just WANT to be part of it!

That was the point. And they have to done their job.

And in 1940 until 1941 Crystal-Meth ("Pervitin") was into troop.

 

[Stanley Doble]

The funny part is I hate fascism. I hate being regimented, I hate being told what to read, what to think, what to say. This has led me to read, think and say things that are 'verboten' and if I upset anybody thereby, I apologize.

 

[Stanley Doble]

Here is an interesting article on pro Hitler propaganda appearing in respectable American publications like the New York Times as late a April 1941. You must remember that America was still neutral at that time though the war had been going on for almost 2 years.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32885-hitler-at-home-how-the-nazi-pr-machine-duped-the-world

This is what I mean by things not being as clear cut back then as we like to think now.

 

[Big J]

Here is an interesting article on pro Hitler propaganda appearing in respectable American publications like the New York Times as late a April 1941. You must remember that America was still neutral at that time though the war had been going on for almost 2 years.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/32885-hitler-at-home-how-the-nazi-pr-machine-duped-the-world

This is what I mean by things not being as clear cut back then as we like to think now.

Sorry Stanley, you're just a Nazi apologist. You should get a slap on the wrists from the mods for bringing up modern American politics.

In Coburg, Germany, holocaust denial and pro-nazi statements are criminal offenses. Can't you go and find a neo-nazi forum full of people who will agree with you, and leave us alone?

 

[Big J]

I wish something could be done about the myth that the German people wanted Hitler.

What, like revisionist history, cherry picking historical 'facts', white-washing truth, and (just for you Stanley) ignoring all explanations that don't fit the opinion you've already made, and repeatedly re-phrasing and asking the same question over and over again, hoping someone will finally agree with your distorted understanding of history?

lol

 

[Trenchfriend]

Just don't feed the trolls, I think. They are "histrionics", energy-vampires.

 

[robrinay]

This kind of apologism reminds me of an old fundamentalist saying,
'Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!'

 

[Stand By]

Hmmm.

Following your most recent comments Stanley, I would go as far as to agree with you that past history and current geo-politics are very complex affairs (such as the Middle East as you say, and the former Yugoslavian conflict being another) but at this juncture, with 75 years of established hindsight on WW2, any attempt of historical revisionism/apologism is a slippery slope to nowhere good.

I'm sorry but your comments regarding Big J's avatar (Sarcasm? I don't think so) and US foreign policy border on being unacceptable to me.
I personally feel that I cannot possibly elaborate further to your points as I would need to give more political examples myself - and I cannot do that as, as Big J properly states, political discussions are simply a no-no here. It's not the forum for it and Paddy's Rules are quite clear on this (they are literally set in black and white!). And personally, I'm glad for that. The world has more than enough political conflict and discord in it without inviting it on TFL and I'm not looking to fall out with anyone - especially around here. I like it here.

So that said, when one considers the original title of the question as posed by the OP (whereby further emphasis was placed solely on the German military - not the German civilians), I hope that you can see how you are steering this thread away from it and down a spurious political rabbit hole which will only end in the thread being closed - and that would be a shame as I think it's been a good, interesting and fair question that The Hairy Bloke posed.

 

[plain old dave]

Well.

To get back to the topic at hand, I don't thing there were any strategists in the OKW, Luftwaffe or Kriegsmarine. A sweeping statement, to be sure, but one supported by hardware.

The Heer never established heavy-arms doctrine; Blitzkrieg, by its design, was never intended for sustained conflict.

The Luftwaffe never seriously contemplated a strategic bomber in the class of the Lancaster, B-17, B-24 or B-29. The Battle of Britain was fought with TACAIR assets with almost no loiter time over their target area.

And the Kriegsmarine's "battleships" were not much more that USN/RN/IJN battle cruisers; the Kriegsmarine was very little more than commerce raiders after the River Plate, Narvik, and the loss of the Bismarck.

I am surprised no German flag officer joined one of the many anti-Hitler conspiracies once the Kriegsmarine was fatally compromised in 1941. Seems obvious none of the higher-ups were Mahanians.

 

[Big J]

Thank you Stand By.

I've just been reading The Guns of August, and it seems that German military leaders since 1870 have had an overwhelming megalomaniacal streak a mile wide, combined with a bizarre ability to selectively believe only that information that they wanted to believe. This led to German failure in 1872 and 1914 (and therefore, ultimately 1918), so having not been able to grasp reality before overcome by disaster on two previous occasions, I see no reason why OKW should have had a sudden moment of clarity during WWII.

 

[plain old dave]

I would call 1914 at best a tactical failure for the Germans. IMO the Great War was still open to decision until the Spring and Summer of 1918. Another profoundly unpopular opinion, but the American Expeditionary Force's victories at Cantigny and the Belleau Wood turned the tide of WW1, and after the Argonne there was no will to win left in the German Army. Off topic, but I couldn't leave it without comment.

 

[Big J]

I would call 1914 at best a tactical failure for the Germans. IMO the Great War was still open to decision until the Spring and Summer of 1918. Another profoundly unpopular opinion, but the American Expeditionary Force's victories at Cantigny and the Belleau Wood turned the tide of WW1, and after the Argonne there was no will to win left in the German Army. Off topic, but I couldn't leave it without comment.

I don't disagree at all. But I think that the German military's delusions and over-whelming belief that German wasn't getting the 'respect' it deserved is behind their failures of 1872 and 1918, so I think their failure to spot Hitler as a mad man getting thin into trouble is the norm, rather than the exception. German military leaders and planners seem to have shared the same weakness through 3 wars against France.

 

[Stearmen]

This kind of apologism reminds me of an old fundamentalist saying,
'Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!'

Good one!

 

[GHT]

'Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!'

If you don't mind, I'm going to steal that and when I'm confronted with pollsters, politicians and other hotheads, about the In/Out EU debate, quote it.

 

[robrinay]

You are welcome - it's an old saw I first heard from a colleague many years ago apparently originating and often used in the US
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/13/confuse-me/

 

[MikeKardec]

There may have been some fundamentally flawed thinking, emotional logic that goes back a good deal earlier than the start of the war. Looking at it superficially, it seems to me that Germany, Italy and Japan all wanted to get into the "Empire Game" but were too late to really make it work ... the best empires having been founded hundreds of years earlier. It may have made no sense, but they wanted it nonetheless.

Using 20-20 hindsight, by the final days of the expansion of the British empire i get a sense of England merely pressuring locals leaders to accept "advisers" and then subtly manipulating things to get what they wanted rather than violently oppressing people. With the United States (possibly the last semi successful empire) the territory that was incrementally taken was mostly attached to the existing country ... a modest and controllable effort that never really fell into the over-reach that the European empires did. I wonder if the age of empires, especially far flung, tightly controlled and violently held empires, may have truly been waning even by the middle of the 19th century. By the 20th century the era where it made sense, or was even possible, was over. Like anyone who tries something too late, the Japanese, German and Italian adventures seem destined to fail from today's perspective ... but I wouldn't be surprised if there were people at the time who accepted that, economically, what they were trying wasn't a gigantic screw up. With relatively small populations of trusted (racially, politically) people, how in the world were they going to control all those "conquered" peoples and make it all economically viable? You wonder who was or wasn't asking THAT question. Western militaries tend to create scholars who think deeply about stuff like that, but I'm not sure the politicians ever listen.

Does anyone know if the 19th and 20 century British empire was an undue economic burden to England? I believe I have heard that and I can certainly see how it could be so. Once you morally evolve past mowing down "the natives" to get what you want (and once they get a hold of reasonably modern weapons and tactics) I'm not sure there's much of an economy there.