NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just been listening to a few excerpts from events leading up to World War II, specifically Hitler's declaration of war against Poland, and have attempted to place myself in its historical context. Yet several things about the behaviour of the masses make no sense.


1: There is not even the slightest realization among the people that Germany is the cause of the world's problems. There is only the atmosphere that the world is out to get Germany and it must protect itself. Millions of people consigned absolute faith in the legitimacy of their government's actions, though that very government as it turns out was the most criminally corrupt in human history.

2: Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.

3: Nobody even questioned what the invasion of another nation had to do with the main Nazi message of being anti-communist and anti-jewish. At the least one would expect blank faces or confusion in the audience. It was as if they were pre-programmed to agree with whatever Hitler would utter the next moment.



I'm not sure quite where I'm going with all this. It's just disturbing that so many ordinary people could have their thought processes so completely screwed up. This was a modern western country that even before Hitler's rise was democratically in favor of the Nazi party. It makes me wonder if what they were vulnerable to, we may also prove vulnerable to.

I think it is more of a product of the times than you are generally letting on. First, Germany's Economy was in the crapper after WWI. Second, The German people felt incredibly cheated by the treatment they received in the Treat of Versailles and I don't blame them. Hitler used these to gain power and by 1939 when he invaded Poland he had absoulute power and if you disagreed with what he was doing you were liable to disappear during the night.

I think it is more of a product of the times than you are generally letting on. First, Germany's Economy was in the crapper after WWI. Second, The German people felt incredibly cheated by the treatment they received in the Treat of Versailles and I don't blame them. Hitler used these to gain power and by 1939 when he invaded Poland he had absoulute power and if you disagreed with what he was doing you were liable to disappear during the night.

He also got involved in the Spanish Civil War as a precursor to future ambitions.

Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.


Hmm, can anyone think of a modern context to set this in .....

I've just been listening to a few excerpts from events leading up to World War II, specifically Hitler's declaration of war against Poland, and have attempted to place myself in its historical context. Yet several things about the behaviour of the masses make no sense.


1: There is not even the slightest realization among the people that Germany is the cause of the world's problems. There is only the atmosphere that the world is out to get Germany and it must protect itself. Millions of people consigned absolute faith in the legitimacy of their government's actions, though that very government as it turns out was the most criminally corrupt in human history.

2: Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.

3: Nobody even questioned what the invasion of another nation had to do with the main Nazi message of being anti-communist and anti-jewish. At the least one would expect blank faces or confusion in the audience. It was as if they were pre-programmed to agree with whatever Hitler would utter the next moment.



I'm not sure quite where I'm going with all this. It's just disturbing that so many ordinary people could have their thought processes so completely screwed up. This was a modern western country that even before Hitler's rise was democratically in favor of the Nazi party. It makes me wonder if what they were vulnerable to, we may also prove vulnerable to.


Im SO gonna get screamed at for this.....

Ive occasionally made correlations to the period in time, to the Bush adminstration for a while now.
Not saying you are......thats all me.

When I say this, I dont mean to imply that Bush is Hitler, or call them equals, or accuse Bush of the same levels of butchery.
I simply say that many of the same tactics Hitler used to sway the German people into allowing thier government, nay, encouraging thier government, to march to war.
The mind control techniques are similar.

Hitler made the Jews the scapegoat, in the eyes of the German people.
Bush has done the same, with Muslim "Insurgents", or more particularly, "Terrorists".

Hitler appealed directly to the patriotism and nationalisic pride of the German people.
Bush appeals directly in the same way.
However, Bush does something Hitler didnt.
Bush appeals to the Faith, as well.

Again, Bush is not Hitler....

Hitler was Hitler.

The similarites are many, and frightening. really.

Most people in the US who support or oppose the government are well informed . Because people do not follow your train of thought reguarding the war or any other policy doesnt mean they are being brainwashed by the government . You are insulting a vast majority of Americans .

Historical context is important in determining the perceived needs, and fears, therefore gullibility, of a society. The Germans saw Hitler as a way to change their fortunes - after the disaster of WW1, and the crushing peace terms of Versailles.

The need of the north american and western european people for oil to maintain their reckless overconsumptive lifestyle leads to a fear where this is perceived as threatened by the raped and bleeding developing world seeking to reach a similar lifestyle.

Persuasion techniques are the same all over the world. The anti-west rhetoric of the post-colonial Africa and Asia, and apartheid South Africa also used the Faith, Race, Nationalism/Patriotism factor. But it is primarily the need/greed for a life of perfect health, beauty and luxury, and the fear of losing it, that drives the machine that is currently destroying the Earth and its inhabitants

Everything the government.... or any government... says is bullshit until proven otherwise . The average American knows this from birth .

Most people in the US who support or oppose the government are well informed .
You wish.

Everything the government.... or any government... says is bullshit until proven otherwise . The average American knows this from birth .

Totally agree which brings us back to the original question. Why do so many people still fall for the bullshit?
Don't wish to speak for Americans but in the UK claims to being well-informed on anything are also usually bullshit among the general tabloid reading population.

Most people in the US who support the government are well informed .:rolleyes: what a joke.

I clearly remeber some polls about

"Saddam involved in 9-11"
"some WMD found in Iraq"
"some WMD used by Iraq"

As usual the War of Misinformation.

Everything the government.... or any government... says is bullshit until proven otherwise . The average American knows this from birth .
It'd be nice to think so, but would Bush have been given the degree of leeway he has for the last five years if that was really the case?

I've just been listening to a few excerpts from events leading up to World War II, specifically Hitler's declaration of war against Poland, and have attempted to place myself in its historical context. Yet several things about the behaviour of the masses make no sense.


1: There is not even the slightest realization among the people that Germany is the cause of the world's problems. There is only the atmosphere that the world is out to get Germany and it must protect itself. Millions of people consigned absolute faith in the legitimacy of their government's actions, though that very government as it turns out was the most criminally corrupt in human history.Well, not really that many. Millions maybe, but not only with absolute faith. The biggest thing Hitler managed to play on was that Germans weren't used to democracy and democracy had "resulted" in a loss of jobs and whatnot.

2: Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.Well, the statement was true, if you replace "Polish soldiers" with "Gestapo stooges dressed up as Polish soldiers". A border station was actually attacked, which was what Hitler used to justify the attack (it just wasn't the Poles).

3: Nobody even questioned what the invasion of another nation had to do with the main Nazi message of being anti-communist and anti-jewish. At the least one would expect blank faces or confusion in the audience. It was as if they were pre-programmed to agree with whatever Hitler would utter the next moment.You'd be surprised at how willing people are to go along with things, even when they don't have Gestapo officers arresting people that look like they're dissenting (and that's literally how it was done).


I'm not sure quite where I'm going with all this. It's just disturbing that so many ordinary people could have their thought processes so completely screwed up. This was a modern western country that even before Hitler's rise was democratically in favor of the Nazi party. It makes me wonder if what they were vulnerable to, we may also prove vulnerable to.I actually have a couple real nice quotes from a certain NSer that I won't mention that underline that.

Most people in the US who support or oppose the government are well informed . Because people do not follow your train of thought reguarding the war or any other policy doesnt mean they are being brainwashed by the government . You are insulting a vast majority of Americans .Where'd he talk about America? OK, I can read between the lines too, but he has a valid point. People from any political group are capable of closing their minds. I see it everywhere. The polarized nature of the US bi-partisan political system helps that kind of mentality along, and ignoring its danger won't prevent it.

You wish.

That's the standard Democrat argument for "why the voters don't vote for us".

Either they have the IQ of a popsicle stick, or they are brainwashed.

Have you ever considered any alternatives? Such as "they like the policies that are promised"? Or, "we don't care what happens to some people on the other side of the world - better them than us"?

Sure, people get disappointed when either policies aren't carried out, or things don't work out like they planned. But honestly, how many Americans do you think would have had a parade in the streets had we actually done worse - like nuke Afghanistan in retaliation for 9-11? Or be far, far more brutal in our occupation of Iraq? Declaring it the 51st state?

No, it's not because they are stupid or brainwashed.

Maybe you need to read your Hannah Arendt again - we would like to say that bad things are only done by evil people, or by stupid people, or by uncivilized people - we would like to say that smart people never make a mistake, and never participate in cruelty - but the simple fact of history is that all of the brutality of war, all of the cruelty, all of the strife, is created by people with brains. You should look in the mirror more honestly.

Either they have the IQ of a popsicle stick, or they are brainwashed.


Ignorance is irrelevant to IQ. A person who holds wall to wall degrees in medical fields can be completely clueless in politics. And just as gullible.

As a rule, people like things to be simple. When it gets complicated, they either are really interested, and thus delve into it, or throw it out of their minds as irrelevant if they don't have to face it.

People who play on ignorance invariably do better in the short term so far as convincing the masses than those who play on knowledge that requires more thinking than base primal emotions and reactions.

And an argument that not robbing a federal bank makes robbing a state bank alright is illogical and a fallacy.

Ignorance is irrelevant to IQ. A person who holds wall to wall degrees in medical fields can be completely clueless in politics. And just as gullible.

As a rule, people like things to be simple. When it gets complicated, they either are really interested, and thus delve into it, or throw it out of their minds as irrelevant if they don't have to face it.

People who play on ignorance invariably do better in the short term so far as convincing the masses than those who play on knowledge that requires more thinking than base primal emotions and reactions.

And an argument that not robbing a federal bank makes robbing a state bank alright is illogical and a fallacy.

You're missing the point. Or have you not read Arendt's book?

Khodros makes some good points, which I do agree with, despite havinf done my research on this topic.

Secondly - how the hell did Bush come into this thread? Keep that arse wipe out of this! Yes, we know he has right-wing tendancies and spewed general feces-laden lies and propoganda to further his agenda, but, even so, this thread had nothing to do with him!

I remember during the seventies; the commies used to get a lot of the blame for Hitler's rise to power. I suppose now the wall has fallen and we are all buddies, that has been swept under the rug.

Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia! :confused:

tag

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem

Read the book - everyone is a potential Hitler, and even when shoveling people into ovens, may have no reservations or compunctions about doing so.

I just feel like I have to add one thing:

It wasn't that ridiculous an idea that Poland would be the aggressor. The Poles seemed to have no idea how weak they actually were at the time.

Danzig and the corridor had been a continuous area of friction, and Poland had at times also taken rather aggressive positions. They had a very nationalistic government under a General with the name of Piludski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Pilsudski) previously, and he had won a number of fairly impressive victories in wars to the East.

He died in 1935, but the idea of a powerful Poland in the tradition of the kingdoms of the Middle Ages remained.

So there were very real tensions and ideas that Poland could take Danzig (especially since it wasn't even supposed to be a part of Germany in accordance with the Versailles treaty) - although there were no actual attempts to do so.
So when the war began, the Polish Government actually was quite confident. The Polish ambassador in Paris told the French foreign minister that Poland will begin defeat Germany from Day One. And the Polish ambassador in Berlin, Libski, thought that war would immediately result in revolution in Germany, thus giving Poland free reign to occupy Germany. And the Polish war minister Kaprzycki refused to talk about defense, saying "They advise us to build fortresses and to prepare for defence, advise us to do retreats and resist along our rivers. We won't do any of that. We only know the offensive, and in attack we will triumph!".

http://ww2.boom.ru/Last/ This is a summary of Poland and its dealings with the West before the war.

None of that excuses the attack by Germany on another nation, but maybe it helps understand why so relatively few Germans doubted the reasons for the war, or even the war itself, early on.

I just feel like I have to add one thing:

It wasn't that ridiculous an idea that Poland would be the aggressor. The Poles seemed to have no idea how weak they actually were at the time.

Danzig and the corridor had been a continuous area of friction, and Poland had at times also taken rather aggressive positions. They had a very nationalistic government under a General with the name of Piludski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jozef_Pilsudski) previously, and he had won a number of fairly impressive victories in wars to the East.

He died in 1935, but the idea of a powerful Poland in the tradition of the kingdoms of the Middle Ages remained.

So there were very real tensions and ideas that Poland could take Danzig (especially since it wasn't even supposed to be a part of Germany in accordance with the Versailles treaty) - although there were no actual attempts to do so.
So when the war began, the Polish Government actually was quite confident. The Polish ambassador in Paris told the French foreign minister that Poland will begin defeat Germany from Day One. And the Polish ambassador in Berlin, Libski, thought that war would immediately result in revolution in Germany, thus giving Poland free reign to occupy Germany. And the Polish war minister Kaprzycki refused to talk about defense, saying "They advise us to build fortresses and to prepare for defence, advise us to do retreats and resist along our rivers. We won't do any of that. We only know the offensive, and in attack we will triumph!".

http://ww2.boom.ru/Last/ This is a summary of Poland and its dealings with the West before the war.

None of that excuses the attack by Germany on another nation, but maybe it helps understand why so relatively few Germans doubted the reasons for the war, or even the war itself, early on.


....but wasn't hitler's official reason for attacking the east "liebensraum"?

i hope i spelled that right...

....but wasn't hitler's official reason for attacking the east "liebensraum"?

i hope i spelled that right...

Nearly...:D you said something like trysting chamber...lol "Lebensraum"...for free

....but wasn't hitler's official reason for attacking the east "liebensraum"?

i hope i spelled that right...Hehehehe... Brings tears to my eyes :D
Sorry, but apart from German nouns being capitalized, you spelled out "Love/Loving/Love's Room/Space"...:p

To the content of your post, that was what he said in Mein Kampf. It was mainly based on the principle that it was unfair for an "inferior" race like the Slavs to have as much space as Russia had. Poland wasn't really considered anything but former German territory.
It wasn't really just looking for "living space", it entailed evicting/executing/working to death the people that occupied that "living space".

....but wasn't hitler's official reason for attacking the east "liebensraum"?
Hitler himself had all kinds of ideas - Lebensraum was one of them, but that was more for the war against the USSR.
Poland was a lot about supposed Polish aggression towards Germans in Danzig and inside the Polish borders.
But really it was about securing more resources to prepare for the war against France and Russia - apparently Hitler really didn't think the Allies would act.

Hitler himself had all kinds of ideas - Lebensraum was one of them, but that was more for the war against the USSR.
Poland was a lot about supposed Polish aggression towards Germans in Danzig and inside the Polish borders.
But really it was about securing more resources to prepare for the war against France and Russia - apparently Hitler really didn't think the Allies would act.Actually, Hitler thought the allies would act when he went for the Czechs. He would have had a better chance at beating Britain too. If Mussolini hadn't arranged the Munich conference, who knows what the world might have looked like?

Hitler himself had all kinds of ideas - Lebensraum was one of them, but that was more for the war against the USSR.
Poland was a lot about supposed Polish aggression towards Germans in Danzig and inside the Polish borders.
But really it was about securing more resources to prepare for the war against France and Russia - apparently Hitler really didn't think the Allies would act.

...then why did he give half of the spoils to the country he was planning to attack?

poland was partitioned between germany and russia, in a secret agreement between hitler and stalin, and was not invaded outright. that he invaded for resources, then, makes little sense.

I've just been listening to a few excerpts from events leading up to World War II, specifically Hitler's declaration of war against Poland, and have attempted to place myself in its historical context. Yet several things about the behaviour of the masses make no sense.


1: There is not even the slightest realization among the people that Germany is the cause of the world's problems. There is only the atmosphere that the world is out to get Germany and it must protect itself. Millions of people consigned absolute faith in the legitimacy of their government's actions, though that very government as it turns out was the most criminally corrupt in human history.

2: Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.

3: Nobody even questioned what the invasion of another nation had to do with the main Nazi message of being anti-communist and anti-jewish. At the least one would expect blank faces or confusion in the audience. It was as if they were pre-programmed to agree with whatever Hitler would utter the next moment.



I'm not sure quite where I'm going with all this. It's just disturbing that so many ordinary people could have their thought processes so completely screwed up. This was a modern western country that even before Hitler's rise was democratically in favor of the Nazi party. It makes me wonder if what they were vulnerable to, we may also prove vulnerable to.

Oh you know damn well where you're going with this. America=Nazis thread #2342

Hitler made the Jews the scapegoat, in the eyes of the German people.
Bush has done the same, with Muslim "Insurgents", or more particularly, "Terrorists".


Where your analogy completely falls apart is right here. The Jews never poisoned any wells or anything. On the other hand, civilians, American and otherwise, are continuously being murdered by Islamic terrorists.

Where your analogy completely falls apart is right here. The Jews never poisoned any wells or anything. On the other hand, civilians, American and otherwise, are continuously being murdered by Islamic terrorists.

I think you're confusing Muslims with Terrorists. Pretty sure there's a distinction in there somewhere :p

Anyway nobodys calling Americans Nazis but governments (particularly Blair and Bush in connection with this thread) frequently use a scapegoat to drum up support - be it benefit cheats, Jews or crazed arabs intent on bringing down western civilisation (c)

Oh you know damn well where you're going with this. America=Nazis thread #2342Aw, bullshit. EVERYONE is like this, not only Americans. Let me give you an example why we happen to be a prime example for it: "Bush is bad." That statement will get roughly 25% of the US population riling against whoever said it and 25% in full support of it. A very large portion of those will be motivated by the fact that it is Bush, and not on any other logic. We had a thread a while back on whether or not Bush was an alcoholic or not, and some people shouted it as truth disregarding the unreliability of the source while another person categorically ruled out that President Bush could ever be an alcoholic.

Both of these stem from the human trait that shows up more or less strong in all of us and keeps us from changing our minds since "we're right". There will always be someone that ignores facts, no matter what cultural or political group they're from, simply because its easier to interpret evidence in favor of your own hypothesis than to face facts.

This is what convinced so many ardent Nazis that Hitler still had some secret weapons waiting to be unleashed on the invading armies, because they couldn't admit that they were wrong, and they had one heck of a lot of evidence proving them wrong.

Where your analogy completely falls apart is right here. The Jews never poisoned any wells or anything. On the other hand, civilians, American and otherwise, are continuously being murdered by Islamic terrorists.
Nobody has been continuously murdered: you only ever get murdered once.

...then why did he give half of the spoils to the country he was planning to attack?

it was imperiative to guarantee that the USSR would not intervene.

poland was partitioned between germany and russia, in a secret agreement between hitler and stalin, and was not invaded outright. that he invaded for resources, then, makes little sense.

in the later war against the USSR, that which had been given to them would be "returned" upon their defeat.

Wasn't parts of Poland the old Prussia? He also demanded Danzig long before the invasion. If any of you remember his plans, Poland, Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe were the areas where Aryans would be moved to "cultivate"?

Nobody has been continuously murdered: you only ever get murdered once.
And that must rank as the best post of the day! Very nearly signature worthy!

that he invaded for resources, then, makes little sense.
I would primarily be thinking the coal areas of Silesia.

Anyways, here are four maps:
Germany before WWI - The second German Empire, as formed by Bismarck after unifying the German States.
http://www.rootsweb.com/~wggerman/map/germanempire.htm

Germany after the Treaty of Versailles, between WWI and WWII.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~mapping/afterWWI.gif
As you can see, much land in the east had been taken, and the state of Poland had been founded there.

Poland after the invasion of 1939
http://www.hrono.ru/proekty/ostu/poland1939.gif
So you see that the USSR took quite a chunk out of it as well, but Germany obviously gained the industrial areas of Western Poland, and all the areas that used to be German before WWI.

Today
http://www.gate1travel.com/central-europe-travel/maps/MapCentralEurope.gif
After WWII, the USSR didn't want to give up the areas it had captured together with Hitler in 1939, so they moved Poland westwards, by giving it more areas that used to be part of Germany.
Today the USSR broke apart, and now there's plenty of little states there as well.

So you see that the USSR took quite a chunk out of it as well, but Germany obviously gained the industrial areas of Western Poland, and all the areas that used to be German before WWI.

i see; well, that does make sense then....sort of. i

i guess it's probably not a fruitful task to try and figure out hitler's actions based on the rule of logic.

i guess it's probably not a fruitful task to try and figure out hitler's actions based on the rule of logic.
There is the inherent logic of freeing Germany's back for the war against France.
It was obvious that France would be against Germany, and if the long-term goal was to take out Russia, it was certain that France would intervene.
So they had to take out France, and if Russia would keep quiet during that, then eastern Poland is a price worth paying - especially if you consider that any concessions would be taken back once the invasion began.

Germany was playing the European powers like a fiddle in that case, which was possible because both Britain and France were inherently appalled by the USSR and its socialist system.

When I read the title of this thread I was all excited "'Eariness'" I thought "now that sounds intense!" I clicked, and read. Not a single ear in the post! What a disappointment! Just a thread full of...good questions without good answers. I could try to answer your question, but I believe that before I attempt it, we must look at our own nations history...

Politics in our country is seen as an incredibly filthy business full of lies, and worthless grafters for candidates. This hasn't always been the case. Infact, until Watergate, Presidents were trusted. Nixon stole documents, we found out about it, and this revealed the true dirty nature of the beast to us. Before that, if the President did something bad, it was thought that the President was just a bad person. Now if a President does something bad, we're really not that suprised, because we now know politicians are full of crap. I suspect something similiar in Germany during the 1930's, and 40's, but there's a different factor here too. Like America around the same time, Germany was going through a desperatelly bad depression, worse than America's. When the people saw Hitler on the television (but more likelly at rallies or on radio) they saw a man who could return Germany to it's former glory, and if some people needed to get stomped on to achieve this goal, who cared? They were desperate! I'm not justifying their actions, not by any means, infact, I think the German's were rash in their thinking. They let emotions control their choice for a leader. However, a sick reality of all of this is that Germany is now one of the richest nations in the world...

...They let emotions control their choice for a leader...
People often do that, and that is the very reason why Fascism works.

People often do that, and that is the very reason why Fascism works.

For a little while at least....hmmm...almost five years for my country...

For a little while at least....hmmm...almost five years for my country...
Care to tell me what that is?

In a strictly fascist country, as described by Mussolini (but never put into reality), I don't really see what could go wrong.
And Nazism is the best example of how an ideology that differs from all others in its appeal to the irrational side of the individuum, rather than the rational one (as everything from Communism to Anarcho-Capitalism does), how such an ideology can survive and become powerful.

To be honest, I don't see what could have stopped the Empire from lasting a thousand years if Germany had taken Moscow in '41.

Care to tell me what that is?

In a strictly fascist country, as described by Mussolini (but never put into reality), I don't really see what could go wrong.
And Nazism is the best example of how an ideology that differs from all others in its appeal to the irrational side of the individuum, rather than the rational one (as everything from Communism to Anarcho-Capitalism does), how such an ideology can survive and become powerful.

To be honest, I don't see what could have stopped the Empire from lasting a thousand years if Germany had taken Moscow in '41.

Blech. I don't see the point of taking Russia. The only point is because it's really really big. Don't say resources, because they have some diamond mines, some iron deposits, and some oil. ALl of that you can get in the middle east, or Africa, so why the hell didn't Hitler go after either of those? I know Mussolini went for Africa, but he wasn't a factor for long.

I personally don't think fascism can last. I thinkthe only way a government can survive is if the people support it, and I don't think people would support a fascism for long.

Blech. I don't see the point of taking Russia. The only point is because it's really really big.
So millions and millions of slave labourers, and room to expand in.

Don't say resources, because they have some diamond mines, some iron deposits, and some oil.
I believe the Baku fields were the biggest in the world at the time. Add to that the industrial capacity and the above points.

ALl of that you can get in the middle east, or Africa, so why the hell didn't Hitler go after either of those?
Because the USSR was the direct opponent, politically and ideologically. As long as the USSR under Stalin existed, Nazism could not have been considered successful, and the empire would always have been under threat.
Taking Russia out would've meant that Europe would be unassailable. Africa and India could've been taken without much effort, as could Britain.
Then the US would've had no choice but to end the fighting.

I personally don't think fascism can last. I thinkthe only way a government can survive is if the people support it, and I don't think people would support a fascism for long.
People did in Germany (and yes, I know there was a resistance, but as a whole the presentation of Nazism to the people was taken in favourable terms).
Every fascist dictator ever got into power with much support from the populace, they just often failed to warrant the enthusiasm with proper policies.

It doesn't bother me. I have a kraut helmet with some bullet holes in it. I also have an iron cross but I don't know where either are from...

Well it proves to me that America is Great and she shall not be conquered by anyone ever!!

It doesn't bother me. I have a kraut helmet with some bullet holes in it. I also have an iron cross but I don't know where either are from...
Probably from a souvenir shop in Houston, Texas...:rolleyes:

Well it proves to me that America is Great and she shall not be conquered by anyone ever!!
Case in Point, 90th US-Division under command of Collins in Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte.
I'd be surprised if you find info about that on any American pages...

And besides, read up on the concept of "logic", and what does and doesn't constitute "Proof".

2: Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.

3: Nobody even questioned what the invasion of another nation had to do with the main Nazi message of being anti-communist and anti-jewish. At the least one would expect blank faces or confusion in the audience. It was as if they were pre-programmed to agree with whatever Hitler would utter the next moment.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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 greater danger."

Do you know who said that? Hermann Goering. If you don't know who he is, do some research. Read the complete article: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm

Reminds me of a certain Texan gazman occupying the White House...

Do you know who said that? Hermann Goering.
That's Gold!
You know, I think that warrants its own thread..."Guess who said this", or something.

That's Gold!
You know, I think that warrants its own thread..."Guess who said this", or something.

:)

I've just been listening to a few excerpts from events leading up to World War II, specifically Hitler's declaration of war against Poland, and have attempted to place myself in its historical context. Yet several things about the behaviour of the masses make no sense.

1: There is not even the slightest realization among the people that Germany is the cause of the world's problems. There is only the atmosphere that the world is out to get Germany and it must protect itself. Millions of people consigned absolute faith in the legitimacy of their government's actions, though that very government as it turns out was the most criminally corrupt in human history.

I agree with the people before. After WW1 Germany, one of the official loser of the war was in a crisis, because of reparations paying and land loss. People were afraid, angry and desperate. They followed an authorian leadership, because it gave them hope and a way they can follow. Jewish were rumored to be not honest, to have sabotaged the german army on many occasions (thus responsible for the defeat of Germany) and to be fishy and just interested in money (many jews were bankers, because they were banned from most trades by german law in the 18th century. Also jews were easily recognized and discriminated because their names had to be german words for items.)
Jews were discriminated and hated before (!) Hitler thus made excelent scapegoats.
2: Hitler informed the crowd that Poland had launched a sneak attack and was out to destroy the German people, which must have come off as a weak lie at best. And yet everyone believed him. Nobody stopped to consider whether Poland with its medieval army was even a threat to Germany, let alone would be crazy enough to attack, they just assumed what their leader said was true.
The most recent example would be 09/11. Ok it's a hard thing to compare and I'm sorry if that gets too close to somebody. I just have one question: Did you misthrusted the goverment when they said that Osama Bin Laden was behind this? Did you really cared or even thought about the innocent people killed during the time of revenge? Did you ever ask why people would choose to die in a plane flying against a building? (Apart from the anwser that they want to "destroy the great western world".)
3: Nobody even questioned what the invasion of another nation had to do with the main Nazi message of being anti-communist and anti-jewish. At the least one would expect blank faces or confusion in the audience. It was as if they were pre-programmed to agree with whatever Hitler would utter the next moment.

The people weren't really pre-programmed but IMO they learned that if you don't stand on the side of the governemnt you're the enemy. Out of fear and peer pressure nobody was eager to do something against it, except for some rebel groups like "05" or "Die Weisze Rose".

I'm not sure quite where I'm going with all this. It's just disturbing that so many ordinary people could have their thought processes so completely screwed up. This was a modern western country that even before Hitler's rise was democratically in favor of the Nazi party. It makes me wonder if what they were vulnerable to, we may also prove vulnerable to.
I kinda disagree with the modern western country and that Hitler corrupted it. This was a country rebuilding what was lost in war while being exploited by the WWI winners. Also the country has been stripped of some of its territory.

Concerning vulnerability, consider the fact that WE ALL ARE VULNERABLE, but we have to make sure that discrimitation against minority groups at such a scale may never happen again. It could happen for various reasons but the main reason is lack of communication, that you don't talk to that person because he's different and rather learn about the minority group he's in by rumors and second hand information (That includes the news on the media.)
I'd say one clue how to get rid of nationalism and racism is to look behind the social front. You will find something very familiar, a human like you.

There is the inherent logic of freeing Germany's back for the war against France.
It was obvious that France would be against Germany, and if the long-term goal was to take out Russia, it was certain that France would intervene.
So they had to take out France, and if Russia would keep quiet during that, then eastern Poland is a price worth paying - especially if you consider that any concessions would be taken back once the invasion began.


but, russia was a much more formidable enemy! i don't think hitler ever put a lot of thought into attacking france. he knew they'd fold rather quickly.

that being said, he did about the dumbest thing he could have done. signing an alliance with russia only scared the british and french....history tells us it was a "secret" agreement, but chances are the british knew all about it or at least did by the time the tanks started rolling in. had he just attacked russia, the british and french would have sat back and let them beat each other up. i think it was william dodd that pointed out that american policy at the time was to let the "commies" and the "fascists" beat each other up, take each other down a notch. i firmly believe that the reason britain declared war had nothing to do with poland; they were concerned about a long term hitler-stalin pact. you said stalin was the enemy, but the reality is that hitler just did what stalin always wanted to do, except he made it work right. they were natural allies outside of hitler's racial policy.

however, by signing an alliance with russia [even if it was short term] and stopping with poland he:

1) gave the russians more time to get ready. you don't really think stalin didn't see it coming did you?
2) wasted some (not a lot but some) manpower and resources in the west.
3) had to station a significantly larger front on the west than he may have needed to had he just focused on the east.
4) made the same dumb mistake that the kaiser did.

he should have just rolled through poland and hit russia straight on, if he wanted to maximize his chances of winning, by exerting all his manpower towards moscow and ignoring a western front that may have not developed until moscow had fallen.

as it is, his actions played no small part in helping russia win the war, which germany lost almost solely due to hitler's terrible management.


Germany was playing the European powers like a fiddle in that case, which was possible because both Britain and France were inherently appalled by the USSR and its socialist system.

he wasn't playing his fiddle very well; the declaration of war hit him as a total shock.....

I personally don't think fascism can last. I thinkthe only way a government can survive is if the people support it, and I don't think people would support a fascism for long.

Franco was arguably fascist, and he remained in power in Spain from 1936 until his death in 1975.

but, russia was a much more formidable enemy! i don't think hitler ever put a lot of thought into attacking france. he knew they'd fold rather quickly.
Not at all. Read up on "Fall Gelb", the German plan for attacking France, and you'll see that they took France very seriously indeed. And so they had to.
France had more tanks, more guns and the Brits to help (yeah, but we all know how that turned out...).

Russia was a stronger enemy in numbers, but Hitler was certain that the Soviet Government would break apart, and that the Russian soldier was inferior anyways. Remember the Finnish Winter War.

had he just attacked russia, the british and french would have sat back and let them beat each other up.
To attack Russia, he first had to take out Poland, and South Eastern Europe. And besides, Versailles comes into it as well. The German people were primarily after a revision of that treaty, so ignoring them was not an option.

i think it was william dodd that pointed out that american policy at the time was to let the "commies" and the "fascists" beat each other up, take each other down a notch.
That was later. At the time people were very impressed with Fascism, and less impressed with Communism, such that Churchill praised Hitler time and time again as the leader who saved Germany from the Reds...

i firmly believe that the reason britain declared war had nothing to do with poland; they were concerned about a long term hitler-stalin pact.
I would think they were primarily concerned that Germany was becoming too powerful for them. WWI was still in their minds, and then they had intervened to save Belgium...this time it would have to be Poland, after they had already sacrificed the Czechs.

you said stalin was the enemy, but the reality is that hitler just did what stalin always wanted to do, except he made it work right. they were natural allies outside of hitler's racial policy.
Possible, but they would never have been able to work together. It was the fundamental core of Nazi Policy to destroy Communism and the Slavic States. An alliance with Stalin was just a means to an end, and never meant to be a serious affair.

however, by signing an alliance with russia [even if it was short term] and stopping with poland he:

1) gave the russians more time to get ready. you don't really think stalin didn't see it coming did you?
Some Russians did - he didn't. Look at Soviet Policy at the time...they really didn't want to face it.

2) wasted some (not a lot but some) manpower and resources in the west.
And gained a free back, besides vital Resources and Access to the North Sea.

3) had to station a significantly larger front on the west than he may have needed to had he just focused on the east.
He attacked Poland. He had to, because Poland was between him and the Soviets. He didn't think that would get the Allies to declare war on him (in fact he had been convinced they would when he marched into the Czech Republic).
When they did declare war on him, he had to finish them off, if only to free his rear from being attacked. Rest assured that leaving France and Britain in a position to march right into Germany would have required more troops than the occupation.

4) made the same dumb mistake that the kaiser did.
But he didn't - that's the whole point. He signed the pact with Stalin so he didn't have to fight on two fronts. Had Operation Sealion worked, he would've won. His dumb mistake was that he didn't finish Britain off first.

he should have just rolled through poland and hit russia straight on, if he wanted to maximize his chances of winning, by exerting all his manpower towards moscow and ignoring a western front that may have not developed until moscow had fallen.
Very unlikely indeed. Poland and Britain were allied. France and Britain were allied. Britain was in no mood to let Poland fall just like that and let a major war start without getting involved.