Speaker: How to Look Good as a Nazi
457 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 15 16 17 18 19 Newer→ Last
-
Perhaps a distinction could be made between the state and the military.
Perhaps. I think the answer is both yes and no.
I read somewhere recently (can't remember reference) that one of the core principles of Nazism as applied in practice was that there should always be some internal conflict within the various departments and apparatuses of the state.
The idea was a sort of 'survival of the fittest' type of thing. If two different arms of the state were in conflict, then the stronger one - the one that was more 'fit for purpose' - would eventually triumph. An example would be the conflict between the SA and the SS which ultimately resulted in the SA being wiped out in the 'night of the long knives'.
So on this reading, it was quite consistent with Nazi philosophy for the Whermacht to be in constant low-level conflict with the other arms of the state - for example the SS. In fact, throughout the Nazi regime there was conflict to a greater or lesser extent between various arms of the party and the Whermacht.
However, having said that, the Whermacht hitched their wagon for better or worse to the Nazis, and had no choice but to go along with what the politicians wanted. Invade Russia? Sure thing, Mr Bossman.
And this is where I find myself agreeing more with Tom's view that the Nazi's couldn't survive long term. They needed conflict internally and externally at all times. It was part of their core philosophy. It was how they managed to exist. Craig's 'Fatherland' reference is reasonably on point. What if the UK had been defeated and Germany and the US hadn't ended up at war? There's a pretty good chance that Germany would have ended up bogged down in an unwinnable war in the east, with an increasingly restless population growing more and more disillusioned with having an economy on a semi-permanent war footing, and more and more fathers and sons failing to come home.
But because the Whermacht were subjugate to the Nazi party (of their own volition) they had no choice but to follow it's whims.
The generals may have been inspired military geniuses on the tactical and semi-strategic level (pure military), but without the economic muscle to back it up, they were bound to fail. And that was a party decision.
For example, during the Russian campaign, the tanks would drive forward almost unopposed for miles. And would then have to sit and wait. And wait. And wait, for the footsloggers to catch up. There simply weren't enough trucks to transport the bulk of the infantry. And the army relied mainly on horse-drawn carts (!) for supplies, including petrol for the tanks. Because of this, they advanced, literally, at a walking pace.
The economy simply wasn't set up for sustained conflict. Germany and the Nazi party controlling it and the occupied territories simply couldn't supply enough logistical material to sustain the fighting in the way necessary to win.
There's a scene at the end of 'band of brothers' where the US troops are driving in their truck past endless columns of German prisoners, all on foot, and one of the Americans starts yelling 'how could you expect to win? You're walking! Look at us! Say hello to Studebaker! Say hello to General Motors!' etc.
I don't think in the long term it really mattered how many ball-bearing factories were bombed or not. Even at their best, the Germans couldn't punch hard enough, in an industrial sense, to win the war that their own philosophy dictated they had to start.
Rommell was vastly superior in Africa than anyone on either side from a purely military angle. His loss there wasn't due to not being very effective, he was just out-resourced and his allies were awful. The Nazi state didn't greatly affect the equation.
Possibly worth noting that as early as 1942 Rommel was making noises about the war being lost. And also that Rommel was implicated in one of the plots to kill Hitler. He was very much part of the Whermacht, and not the Nazi party.
-
We h rmacht.
(Sorry. But pedantry is fun for all the family.)
-
He was very much part of the Whermacht, and not the Nazi party.
The High Command was largely tamed after the 1938 scandal & clean out. One of the major criticisms of the military under Hitler was that they were not only subservient to but pro-active in the worst excesses of the Nazis, hence the hanging of Jodl in 1946. The active co-operation of the military, who after all swore a direct oath to Hitler from the 1934 onwards, not only was crucial to the downfall of the Republic but the advance and security of Nazism thereafter.
If you look at these figures, production was never a problem and indeed, the end of WW2 left thousands of unused tanks, aircraft and guns stockpiled, albeit with no fuel and, in the case of the planes, nobody to use them.
The main issue was the quality of what was produced. The Germans produced some extraordinary hardware after 1943...way more advanced than most of the equivalent Allied designs. The Me-262 was the rough layout prototype for just about every successful jet fighter since, and the Fw-190 /Ta-152 was the best piston engined fighter ever produced, but they also continued to throw out large numbers of obsolete designs like the He-111 and Bf-109 and then there was Hitler's interference in the Me-262, insisting that it be used for a bomber rather than a fighter.
There's a scene at the end of 'band of brothers' where the US troops are driving in their truck past endless columns of German prisoners, all on foot, and one of the Americans starts yelling 'how could you expect to win? You're walking! Look at us! Say hello to Studebaker! Say hello to General Motors!' etc.
The real importance of the American truck was on the Eastern front where lend-lease was, of course, massive. After all, the invasion of Western Europe was never really more than a sideshow to the real battle that took down Nazi Germany, the death-battle between the two totalitarian giants. Battles such as Kursk utterly dwarf anything that went on in France or Belgium. But it was the trucks, jeeps and much more supplied by the US, and the vehicles and aircraft (C-47) produced by the Soviets under license (plus the boots..millions of them from America) that made Georgy Zhukov's forces into the powerful Nazi smashing machine that it was.
There is a fairly strong argument to be made, and it often is, that the totalitarian nature of the Soviet Union was what was needed to bring down a state like Nazi Germany. Whereas the American troops on the Western front relied on massive firepower but were stymied by an ongoing unwillingness to physically confront the enemy closer than that (Stephen Ambrose's jingo-istic re-writings aside), the Soviets were able to combine both, utterly ruthlessly, and relentlessly bludgeon an equally ruthless enemy until it was over.
-
the American troops on the Western front relied on massive firepower but were stymied by an ongoing unwillingness to physically confront the enemy closer than that (Stephen Ambrose's jingo-istic re-writings aside)
A little harsh on Stephen Ambrose. He's written several other excellent texts apart from 'band of brothers'. If I recall his general 'US troops in western Europe' book correctly, it was very far from hero-ising the average GI.
an ongoing unwillingness to physically confront the enemy closer than that
Max Hastings wrote a mini-autobiography of Audie Murphy in which he addressed this point. I'm not disagreeing.
But you haven't directly addressed my logisitics/trucks argument.
Certainly the Germans had the better designed combat equipment, and arguably they had more of it than they could use, as you've pointed out.
But my point is that they ignored or underestimated the need to have enough logistical resource to put their men and machines where they were needed quickly enough. Logistics is boring, but from all my reading about various armies and campaigns through history, it seems to be what wins or loses wars more than any other factor. Boots, food, fuel, ammo, etc. If you ain't got 'em where you need 'em when you need 'em, you lose the war....
The German infantry couldn't keep up with the tanks in Russia, so their summer campaign gains were limited to what they could capture at a walking pace, not at truck or half-track speed.
The Nazi party overlooked the necessity to equip the army troops with winter uniforms and piddling trifles like winter gun oil that would allow rifles and machine guns to work in sub-zero temperatures.
Also, the dear old fatherland couldn't breed soldiers fast enough, putting it crudely. Even when the Germans started the Russian campaign they were heavily reliant on allied troops of dubious quality. It was their undoing at Stalingrad, where the Romanians on the flanks broke under the Russian pincers, and allowed the native Germans in the city to be surrounded.
And Goering was so out of touch logistics-wise he thought the besieged troops at Stalingrad could be completely resupplied by air drops.
So. Building the neccesary logistics network takes time. Lots of it. Because the Nazi party machine relied on constant conflict as a core tenant of their philosophy, they couldn't allow themselves the necessary time or opportunity to consolidate their gains, fully subdue captured countries, breed and train more men, and basically have the breather they needed to build the necessary logisitics network.
By applying their own philosophy, they had to keep fighting, moving from one opponent to the next. It was therefore inevitable that sooner or later they would come up against one that they couldn't KO in the first round. Inevitably they overextended their logistical reach, and were blugeoned to death by America's industrial muscle, ruthlessly wielded by Uncle Joe.
We h rmacht.
(Sorry. But pedantry is fun for all the family.)
Yes indeed. I'll blame a lazy cut'n'paste from google for that one.
-
A little harsh on Stephen Ambrose.
Perhaps yes, but his D-Day book was an abomination and was only one step away from some Hollywood 'how we won the war' epic. I know he's harsh on the US military at times but he virtually ignores everyone else or is very token in his tribute.
I'm agreeing pretty much with the balance of what you wrote. This page has some pretty good detail on the Eastern war.
-
There's a scene at the end of 'band of brothers' where the US troops are driving in their truck past endless columns of German prisoners, all on foot, and one of the Americans starts yelling 'how could you expect to win? You're walking! Look at us! Say hello to Studebaker! Say hello to General Motors!' etc.
Sigh. Typical loud-mouthed ignorant c*cks*cker. While Nazi Germany lacked Studebakers, GM's massive Brandenburg plant produced vast amounts of American-designed Opel trucks for the Wehrmacht. Along with similar German-made Fords these were used on all fronts, often against very similar designs operated by the allies. Although under Nazi control, Ford and GM's German plants were never nationalised.
Ford's technical involvement with the Soviet Union started in 1929. There's plenty of footage from the siege of Stalingrad showing large convoys of a locally-built version of the Model A truck supplying the city. With its high ground clearance and abundant low-end torque the rugged Ford A often outperformed the Jeep in off-road conditions.
-
Give the Russians some credit. It wasn't totalitarianism or Stalins evil ruthlessness. It was The Great Patriotic War to defend their homes. Not so for thrid party combatants such as us and the Americans.
Rich has at least highlighted how blitzkreig was an excercise in propoganda and not a cohesive military tactic. And I think not having your factiories bombed might be a big advantage, such as the American production line proved through their lend-lease.
Lets also remeber overriding philosophy the Nazis are known for, Genocide.
Who made up the police forces and mop-up groups. Teachers and accountants. These otherwise normal people, often educated family men who murdered whole towns and families "Come & See" or organised the civilian populations into various groups in order to exterminate them and create a divide by which to have assistance by the other chosen civilian population.
These guys chose to be here rather than the Eastern Front, kids don't normally carry guns and are not great shots either. -
Joe I never knew that about Ford & GM. So not only did Ford promote the Protocols of Zion but equipped the Nazis.
All this time I've avoided BMWs & Mercs because of the slave labour, but I take it the Fords & Holdens would have had slaves too?
-
All this time I've avoided BMWs & Mercs because of the slave labour, but I take it the Fords & Holdens would have had slaves too?
Nobody tell him about IBM and Bayer, or he'll be left computerless and sick.
-
Give the Russians some credit. It wasn't totalitarianism or Stalins evil ruthlessness.
Umm...nobody has taken any credit away from the Soviet Army, but the fact that you have to charge or be shot, or that every tenth member of your platoon is shot if you falter and so on, adds quite some impetus to the attack. I don't think that happened under Ike (although Patton may've been keen).
Beevor's narrative of the Battle of Berlin is quite staggering as it documents the brutality of the Soviet forces to their own men and women.
Not so for thrid party combatants such as us and the Americans.
....bombs fell on London and I think you underestimate the anger Pearl caused. Many of the Soviet troops were also from far flung Asiatic regions to whom Ukraine was as alien as Mars. Their lives were almost as much under threat from their own side as they were from the Germans. It was not all some rah-rah around the hammer and sickle....
-
Nobody tell him about IBM and Bayer, or he'll be left computerless and sick.
or Leica, Agfa, BASF and Nivea...
-
Plus, if you're looking for a reason to stop buying Fords, why go a step further than The International Jew?
-
. . . but I take it the Fords & Holdens would have had slaves too?
Um, not exactly, though there are those who've voluntarily enslaved themselves to the cult of Holden. The wiki GM history page explains the strange mix of separation and complicity rather well.
As for old Henry, that supreme self-publicist managed to be honored by both Hitler and Stalin. If you're into quantifying such things a good argument could probably be made that he had a bigger influence in shaping the 20th century than both of them.
-
Oh the wonders of wiki. Wiki says yes Ford & GM used slave labour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OST-Arbeiter
Ford was bigger than Hitler or Stalin, I never thought of that.
-
Thanks J T, interesting link.
. . . Ford was bigger than Hitler or Stalin
In Huxley's Brave New World he's god. Over in the Windows 7 thread I think I spotted someone making similar claims for Bill Gates - single-handedly raising Africa from the primeval slime and all.
-
Someone directed cars as the new mode of transport, and petrol as the main fuel. Electric cars being around for over a centuary now.
I take it Ford takes a bow here too? -
Everything I've read about Ford indicates that he was more opportunist than idealogue or engineer. Like Gates he happened to be in the right places at the right times, and wasn't shy about taking credit for the innovations of others. By 1927 he was largely a technical as well as a political reactionary, and regarded within his own company as a bit of a crackpot. Whether Hitler realised it or not, his open admiration for Ford seems to have been largely for the guy's talent in creating a personal myth.
-
Typical loud-mouthed ignorant c*cks*cker.
I love you, too, Joe.
But my point was that while Germany may have had the trucks, they didn't deploy them effectively.
-
. . . while Germany may have had the trucks, they didn't deploy them effectively.
You too, Rich:)
If they deployed them much like Band of Brothers deployed meaningful historical insight, no wonder they lost. Give me Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Children's Crusade: A Duty-Dance With Death any day.
-
Band of Brothers
Well, I wasn't relying on it as my primary source, just using it to illustrate a point.
Antony Beevor, among others, is quite clear that in the Russian campaign, for example, the vast majority of the infantry were on foot, and a large proportion of the necessary supplies were transported by horse-drawn carts.
All the footage we tend to see from that period is of tanks, because it tends to be captured propaganda footage. It's far more photogenic to show tanks dramatically charging through fields than it is to take footage of a quartermaster sitting on a cart. This does tend to skew our perception.
-
Ahem, it was actually the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who first popularised that very useful aphorism. Sorry for being pedantic :)
I'm sure you're right, Matthew -- and someone else said before Danny. :)
Perhaps yes, but his D-Day book was an abomination and was only one step away from some Hollywood 'how we won the war' epic. I know he's harsh on the US military at times but he virtually ignores everyone else or is very token in his tribute.
Having said that, Simon, I think its only fair to point out that our own martial mythology is less than admirable on that score. There's plenty of people who could be forgiven for not knowing that significantly more Turks, French and British soldiers than ANZACs were killed during the Dardanelles campaign.
There's still a reason for political correctness IMHO and it's to guard against the sort of hurt and discrimination you are outraged by, Craig.
You know something, Cecelia, I was more offended by MacDonald being quite so blithe about Moir's crassness (I prefer to wait until after the funeral before pissing on someone's grave), and her rather careless approach to basic matters of fact. If it's "political correctness" to believe that people who offer medical opinions in public should know WTF they're talking about, so be it.
I'm disappointed in Finlay MacDonald. I think he used to write in a more considered way but the SST columnists seem to have to stir up a reaction by overstating their opinions.
Something I think about quite a bit when doing my PA Radio pieces. Nothing easier than going all the way OTT for insincere, sensational, attention-grabbing effect. (Personally, I don't think fellow SST columnist Michael Laws believes half the shit he comes up with -- but it sure keeps his revenue-earning "profile" up.) But, hell... I wouldn't argue that the 100+ op-eds I've done are perfect, but I do think there's nothing I'm really ashamed of.
-
Perhaps yes, but his D-Day book was an abomination and was only one step away from some Hollywood 'how we won the war' epic. I know he's harsh on the US military at times but he virtually ignores everyone else or is very token in his tribute.
Simon, have you read his Pegasus Bridge book?
This covers the (purely) British airborne action at the far eastern flank of the D-Day landings. No yanks involved at all. His opinion is that if this had failed, the Germans would have been able to quite easily 'roll up' the beaches one by one from the side, so it was imperative that this suceeded.
Worth a read.
-
Band of Brothers
Well, I wasn't relying on it as my primary source, just using it to illustrate a point.
Yeah, got that. It was the Band of Bs quote that triggered the truck thing with me.
-
Saving Private Ryan is used to teach the rules of engagement in our NZDF.
The opening scene of the guy burning and not being shot is the 'right' thing to do.
Reason - we don't use euthasia and being on fire renders you a non-combatant and therefore not to be shot.
They then show real footage of brits who have survived well after having what seems like half their head (including brain) being shot away.
The legality of killing is a tricky thing.appologies to gio
-
Band of Brothers is used to teach the rules of engagement in our NZDF.
Oh, I hope you're going to update via the far superior Generation Kill at the first available opportunity.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.