Japan didn’t conquer China, first off there’s no need for sarcasm this is a friendly thread man, second off the USA gave it aid obviously.
He would give them nuclear weapons to minimize controversy in Germany, he’s running a superpower now after all.
There is a cold, brutal logic involved with nuclear weapons–a logic which is largely independent of ideology. Communist and capitalist nations had very different ideologies from each other, yet the nuclear weapons logic both sides used was very similar.
Back in the '80s, the Reagan administration was concerned about a possible Soviet invasion of Iran. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had not yet been proven a failure. Were the Soviets to grab Iran as well, they would gain a large quantity of oil, and warm water ports in the Indian Ocean. In part as a result of this concern, the Reagan administration decided to sell arms to the Iranians. But they did not consider the possibility of giving the Iranians nuclear weapons; in large part because Iran was so ideologically different from the U.S. Nor am I aware of any instance of the U.S. having provided nuclear weapons to any nation not fundamentally committed to secular democratic capitalism, or the Soviet Union to any nation not fundamentally committed to communism. It’s hard for me to imagine Nazi Germany providing nuclear weapons to any nation not committed to Nazism.
It’s been noted that the Japanese Zero was a good plane by the standards of late '41, but had become hopelessly obsolete by '44. More generally, Japan’s piston-driven aircraft were vastly qualitatively inferior to their American counterparts by '44. But German piston-driven aircraft were not. Japan was Germany’s ally, both nations were fighting for their very existence against an overlapping group of enemies, and every American plane sent to the Pacific to deal with Japan was one less which could be sent to Germany. Further, Japan was committed to fascism, and to the notion that the Japanese were racially superior to their Chinese and Korean neighbors. Despite all this, Germany did not initiate large-scale technology transfers to Japan until the war in Europe was nearly over. And this was with piston aircraft technology! You seem like a good guy, but the idea that Hitler would have transferred nuclear technology to non-white, non-Nazi nations, in hope those nations would blow each other up, may not be the absolute best idea you’ve ever had! :wink:
That said, I think you brought up a good point by saying that Hitler would have been loath to himself use nuclear weapons. (For the same reason that, other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. and the Soviet Union had refrained from using such weapons.) Hitler had been willing to take risks to achieve victory in Europe. In large part this was because of his belief that Germany would be at great risk until it had considerably strengthened its military position with respect to its (typically hostile) communist and pro-communist European neighbors. But after he had achieved that European victory, he would want a more cautious approach for Germany.
Part of that cautious approach would have involved the expansion of Germany’s population. Plans had been made to forcibly relocate 30 - 50 million Poles eastward after the war was over. The lands thus vacated would be resettled by Germans. If Germany had still been in the midst of a British food blockade, the deaths of some of those people during the migration would have been seen as an acceptable way of alleviating the famine conditions that blockade had imposed. To the best of my knowledge, there was no plan in place to exterminate large numbers of people during the postwar period except as necessitated by Germany’s food situation.
All of that is true, but i would like to point out that Adolf wasn’t exactly…sane, assumedly less so as he aged.
Also, all this is hypothetical, I’m not saying this is likely just possible obviously.
I honestly don’t think the Nazis and Hitler were that concerned with world opinion. Sure, they didn’t overtly advertise the fact they were slaughtering millions of people for being a Slav or Jewish. You can attribute that to several reasons. I don’t think after a total victory over the allies and in possession of nuclear weapons they would be that concerned with anyone’s opinion. The only other party that would matter is Japan and they would be a decade or two behind the Germans in missile and nuclear technology. The authors of the Rape of Nanking would not be that appalled by the use of nuclear weapons against civilian targets.
If Japan had a serious problem with what the Germans were doing then they too would be on the losing end of German might. Germany would have little difficulty in lobbing nukes at mainland Japan from soviet territory by 1950 with upgraded V2 rockets.
I have read several memoirs of German officers from WW2 and I firmly believe that had the Germans “won” the war, then it would only have been a matter of time before the German officer class and the Wehrmacht overthrew the Nazi’s a slowly turned Germany in to a quasi-conservative democracy. When Hans Von Skeet was forming his 100,000 man army the treaty of Versailles limited Germany to, he stressed they be non-political. The reason many German officers and soldiers did resist the Nazis was because they were trained to stay out of politics. However, after a victorious war I think many would have started to look around at what was going on in Germany and the occupied areas and start questioning the government. The only thing that would have prevented them from acting would have been if Adolf Hitler was still alive. If the Germany pull of a victory in say 1945 (hypothetically; negotiating a peace with the west after a disastrous D-day lets say and then concentrating in the east to bleed the Russians white by 45/46) then really you would only have had to deal with Hitler for about another 3 years before his Parkinson’s claimed him, which many now believe he had. An earlier victory would have to involve an assassination on Hitler of the sort attempted in operation Valkyrie. I think in a non war setting there would have been a greater involvement of German officers and the plot would have been more likely to succeed. In that event there would have been some infighting, some-what like a civil war, between the SS (who I believe would have been framed as though they had killed Hitler) and the rest of the Wehrmacht. Though bloody, the deaths caused by this fighting would pale in comparison to a world where the Nazis where left to their own devices.
I have read several memoirs of German officers from WW2 and I firmly believe that had the Germans “won” the war, then it would only have been a matter of time before the German officer class and the Wehrmacht overthrew the Nazi’s a slowly turned Germany in to a quasi-conservative democracy.
Alternately, it might only have been a matter of time before Hitler started liquidating the Wehrmacht’s senior leadership, the way Stalin did with the Red Army in the 1930s. Hitler’s long-standing dislike of the German officer class turned into firm distrust after the failed assassination attempt against him in mid-1944.
That is very true CWO and I think you’ve touched on the “catch-22” of all this. The officers would have a hard time justifying their actions in assassinating Hitler had they won the war as he would have been extremely popular with the public and, the other side of this coin, Hitler would of had trouble bumping off the officer corps like Stalin did as they had just helped him prosecute a victorious war. So it really is all hypothetical but I think Germany would have been better off with Hitler and the Nazis gone shortly after victory.
I have read several memoirs of German officers from WW2 and I firmly believe that had the Germans “won” the war, then it would only have been a matter of time before the German officer class and the Wehrmacht overthrew the Nazi’s a slowly turned Germany in to a quasi-conservative democracy. When Hans Von Skeet was forming his 100,000 man army the treaty of Versailles limited Germany to, he stressed they be non-political. The reason many German officers and soldiers did resist the Nazis was because they were trained to stay out of politics. However, after a victorious war I think many would have started to look around at what was going on in Germany and the occupied areas and start questioning the government. The only thing that would have prevented them from acting would have been if Adolf Hitler was still alive. If the Germany pull of a victory in say 1945 (hypothetically; negotiating a peace with the west after a disastrous D-day lets say and then concentrating in the east to bleed the Russians white by 45/46) then really you would only have had to deal with Hitler for about another 3 years before his Parkinson’s claimed him, which many now believe he had. An earlier victory would have to involve an assassination on Hitler of the sort attempted in operation Valkyrie. I think in a non war setting there would have been a greater involvement of German officers and the plot would have been more likely to succeed. In that event there would have been some infighting, some-what like a civil war, between the SS (who I believe would have been framed as though they had killed Hitler) and the rest of the Wehrmacht. Though bloody, the deaths caused by this fighting would pale in comparison to a world where the Nazis where left to their own devices.
Good post. :)
There’s a significant chance the scenario you’ve outlined would have come to pass. Even if CWO Marc is right and it hadn’t, you’ve still touched on a larger issue. Hitler would not have lived for very long after the war, and his death would have left a gaping hole in German leadership. Hitler wasn’t sold on anyone in particular as his successor. For a while that successor had been Goering by default. But Goering’s incompetence had cost him significant credibility in the eyes of almost everyone. Even Hitler himself had referred to Goering with derision. (And rightly so.)
Back in the early '20s, the Nazi Party was small, and consisted largely of dedicated revolutionaries. As it became larger and more mainstream, the people who joined it were often less radical, less completely committed to its ideology. After Hitler came to power in '33, a number of people claimed to have a greater adherence to Nazism than they really felt. There were social and economic rewards for being pro-Nazi, and penalties associated with being anti-Nazi. The earlier someone had joined the Nazi Party, the more fully committed he or she was likely to be to its ideology.
This meant that Hitler and the other core members of the Nazi Party had a problem. As they died of old age, their replacements would be milder, more moderate men–men less fully committed to the Nazi ideology. The Soviet communists had the same problem. Stalin had been a communist revolutionary back when the czar was still in power. But after Stalin’s death, his successors were milder and less revolutionary than Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin had been.
Traditionally, Germany had been a more humane nation than Russia. During WWI, the world’s Jewish community had supported the Axis, on the theory that, while European nations in general tended to be deplorably anti-Semitic, Russia was significantly worse than the others. (And was associated with pogroms.) Working conditions in czarist Russia were appalling, and peasants were clearly considered expendable. That brutality was considerably intensified during Lenin’s and Stalin’s regimes. Given these cultural differences, post-Hitler Nazi Germany would likely have been more civilized and humane than the post-Stalin Soviet Union.
I agree with you Kurt, 100%. Its often forgotten that WW1 ear Germany was a relatively open country when compared to Hitlers Germany. Many Jewish intellectuals did support the central powers during WW1 against Czarist Russia for just those reasons. The Jews in Russia at that time had to live in isolated settlement outside regular Russian cities, not unlike the ghettos of WW2. Also, despite many anti-semitic attitudes in Europe at the time, the Jewish people of Germany were full integrated in to German society. During WW1 nearly 150,000 Jewish Germans fought in the German army and of those 30,000 were awarded the Iron Cross for bravery in battle.
To follow up on my post from yesterday: It should be noted that Hitler did in fact carry out a Stalin-like purge of his own in 1934, when he eliminated the leadership of the SA. There had been rising tensions between the Army and the SA since Hitler had come to power in 1933 because the chief of the SA, Ernst Rohm, had been pushing to have his Stormtroopers take over the role of the regular Army.
Hitler found it easy to choose between the SA and the Army at this point because: a) the SA had already accomplished its main job, which was to help bring Hitler to power, and b) Hitler needed the professional Army – not an unruly bunch of streetfighting thugs – to carry out the next part of his program, which was to reverse the results of the First World War. So he had Rohm and his senior colleagues liquidated.
The Army was pleased to have had their SA competitors brought under control in this manner, but it turned out to be a bad bargain because the group which carried out the assassinations was the SS. Up to that point, the SS had been a relatively small specialized force within the SA. After the Rohm purge, the SS rapidly gained importance, and it played a major role in turning Germany into a police state.
If we fast-forward to a hypothetical scenario in which Germany had won the Second World War, it could be argued that the Wehrmacht at that point would have been much in the same position as the SA in 1934. It would have served its main purpose (winning the war), and its senior leadership – never liked and often mistrusted by Hitler – would have been dispensable. The SS terror apparatus would have had ten years since 1934 to grow in size and power, and would have had the resources to carry out a Stalinesque purge of the German officer corps.
Moreover, by the end of the actual war (which would also have been the case in the hypothetical one), Hitler had at his disposal a supplement to – and potential replacement for – the regular Army: the Waffen SS. The Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS got into a lot of competition for military resources in 1944 and 1945, with the Waffen SS often getting some of the prize equipment like the Tiger tanks. So it’s not inconceivable that, in this hypothetical scenario, the Army might have ended up being sidelined in favour of an expanded Waffen SS – in other words by a private army belonging to the Nazi Party. Ironically, this pretty much what Ernst Rohm had been advocating in the first place back in 1934.
@CWO:
To follow up on my post from yesterday: It should be noted that Hitler did in fact carry out a Stalin-like purge of his own in 1934, when he eliminated the leadership of the SA. There had been rising tensions between the Army and the SA since Hitler had come to power in 1933 because the chief of the SA, Ernst Rohm, had been pushing to have his Stormtroopers take over the role of the regular Army.
Hitler found it easy to choose between the SA and the Army at this point because: a) the SA had already accomplished its main job, which was to help bring Hitler to power, and b) Hitler needed the professional Army – not an unruly bunch of streetfighting thugs – to carry out the next part of his program, which was to reverse the results of the First World War. So he had Rohm and his senior colleagues liquidated.
The Army was pleased to have had their SA competitors brought under control in this manner, but it turned out to be a bad bargain because the group which carried out the assassinations was the SS. Up to that point, the SS had been a relatively small specialized force within the SA. After the Rohm purge, the SS rapidly gained importance, and it played a major role in turning Germany into a police state.
If we fast-forward to a hypothetical scenario in which Germany had won the Second World War, it could be argued that the Wehrmacht at that point would have been much in the same position as the SA in 1934. It would have served its main purpose (winning the war), and its senior leadership – never liked and often mistrusted by Hitler – would have been dispensable. The SS terror apparatus would have had ten years since 1934 to grow in size and power, and would have had the resources to carry out a Stalinesque purge of the German officer corps.
Moreover, by the end of the actual war (which would also have been the case in the hypothetical one), Hitler had at his disposal a supplement to – and potential replacement for – the regular Army: the Waffen SS. The Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS got into a lot of competition for military resources in 1944 and 1945, with the Waffen SS often getting some of the prize equipment like the Tiger tanks. So it’s not inconceivable that, in this hypothetical scenario, the Army might have ended up being sidelined in favour of an expanded Waffen SS – in other words by a private army belonging to the Nazi Party. Ironically, this pretty much what Ernst Rohm had been advocating in the first place back in 1934.
Both you and Clyde have made very solid contributions to this discussion, which I appreciate. You’ve raised a very interesting possibility.
The Versailles Treaty had limited the German Army to a token size of 100,000 men. In 1934, the SA had 3,000,000 men–men who had varying degrees of armament. Roehm had become increasingly disaffected with Hitler. Members of the SA had expected to have been lavished with lucrative positions and other financial rewards. Instead, the Nazi government assigned technical and other positions on the basis of merit. Another bone of contention was that many members of the SA wanted the Nazi government to assume ownership of Germany’s large corporations. Instead, Hitler chose to leave those corporations in the hands of their owners.
Hitler feared that Roehm might use the 3,000,000 men he controlled to overthrow his own government. Roehm had increased the armed element within the SA, a point which augmented Hitler’s concerns. Hindenberg had threatened to declare martial law unless Hitler did something to check the power of the SA.
Some of Roehm’s rivals had warned Hitler of an imminent coup. Hitler responded to those warnings by flying to the SA headquarters, and personally ordering the SA men present to turn their weapons over to the SS troops Hitler had brought with him. Hitler was apparently confident that not even one armed, disaffected SA man would choose to shoot him! Had Hitler been absent, the SS officers who’d arrived at the SA headquarters would have demanded that the SA turn over their weapons. Had those demands been contradicted by the SA officers present, the result could have been a shooting confrontation. A confrontation which might have turned into a full-blown civil war, with the SA on one side and the German Army and the SS on the other. The absolute obedience of the SA men to Hitler–and Hitler’s physical presence at the SA headquarters–prevented that outcome.
A number of SA leaders were subsequently purged, as were some others who had been critical of Hitler. This purge may have been similar in kind to Stalin’s purges of his own army. But the two purges were not comparable in scale. Hitler’s purge had 85 - 200 victims. Stalin’s Great Purge claimed 680,000 - 2.1 million lives.
It’s possible that the Nazis would have expanded the Waffen SS until it had taken over the role of the army. Himmler may have wanted to do exactly that. The problem with this–at least from Hitler’s perspective–is that if this had happened, Himmler would then have had the power with which to overthrow Hitler.
Hitler may have preferred to keep the Army and the Waffen SS as separate entities. If the Army became troublesome, Hitler could always threaten to grow the Waffen SS at the Army’s expense. If the Waffen SS became uppity, Hitler could count on the Army’s support to keep it in check. By playing the two groups off against each other, Hitler would work to prevent either one from overthrowing him. Hitler’s successor would have been weaker than Hitler. Keeping power divided in this way would have been even more essential for the successor than it had been for Hitler.
I take serious exception to two statements made earlier. The first regarding Hitler being insane. The second regarding Hitler’s would-be assassins justifying the assassination of Hitler after the fact.
Hitler was no more insane than any of the other major world leaders. The fact is, the Allies won the war, so Allied propaganda is what ended up spreading around the world. Take Stalin’s position. You know how messed up Stalin’s reign and his personal life was, but he ended up with huge popularity and power. Hitler had MANY more redeeming qualities than Stalin. If the Axis had won the war, it is certain that people would have incredible admiration and respect for Hitler.
If you doubt it, then think about this. Why would you think Hitler was evil or insane? Because you were told he was evil and insane. Because others think he was evil and insane. And why would they think that? Because they heard it from others, and so on and so forth. If the Axis had won, they would have controlled the media, and you can be damn well sure that the Jew-loving Roosevelt, the megalomaniacal Churchill, and the drunkard Stalin would have been put in their proper place, while the beloved father of the Fatherland would have been put at the right hand of God.
As far as justifying the assassination of Hitler after the fact had the Nazis won the war - that’s entirely missing the point. If the Nazis were looking like they were going to win the war, and Hitler was a popular figure, of course Hitler’s assassins would not take credit for the assassination! They would blame subversives, Allied commandos, or rival power factions within the Reich. It would be like the Vice President of the United States murdering the President on national television, stepping over the body, and claiming the Presidency of the United States. Just not going to happen! The only reason the assassins considered moving openly against Hitler and taking credit later in the war was because everyone in the Reich was sure the war was LOST!
Now back to the poop discussion -
. . . Hitler and the other core members of the Nazi Party had a problem. As they died of old age, their replacements would be milder, more moderate men–men less fully committed to the Nazi ideology. The Soviet communists had the same problem. Stalin had been a communist revolutionary back when the czar was still in power. But after Stalin’s death, his successors were milder and less revolutionary than Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin had been.
On the death of Mao, China’s economy shifted from a centrally planned economy towards privatization. That is to say, even in a centrally controlled state with a cult of personality, in the end, individual self-interest naturally won out. (I do not mean to say by this, nor do I believe, that it is natural that “capitalism” or “representative democracy” are the natural economic or political end products of evolution. But I will leave this for now.)
That is, although individuals can and do make vast differences to the particulars of everyday life, after the death of those particular individuals, things tend to follow certain general tendencies.
Imagine ice sculptures of two very different people, set out in the sun. At first, there seem to be vast differences between the two. But over time, the sun melts the ice, until there is little to be seen but generic pits for the eyes or a lump for the nose. That is the normalization effect over time. My view of things is that as social, economic, political, and technological advances are made, that the basic ice sculptures that can be created can become more complex, or are able to last longer under the sun’s rays.
Sculptors normally want to believe that the changes they have made to the ice sculpture are lasting, or superior to changes that other sculptors have made. Or people have a favorite sculptor that they want to believe in. But in my experience, there are few sculptors that can make real and lasting changes; the supposed differences that most sculptors tout as triumphs fade into the ice sculpture as it is heated by the sun. This is how I view the failure of the Axis to win World War II. It’s my opinion that it made some difference, even drastic, but that the current state of the world is not terribly significantly different now than it would have been had the Axis had won - and that another hundred years from now, even less difference would be seen, as the ice sculpture continues to melt in the sun, but is also continually worked on by other sculptors.
Part of the problem with creating lasting change is that superficial change is easier to create than real and lasting change, so superficial change is often not only acceptable but preferable. Suppose you wanted a chip in the ice so you would have a place to put your beer. It is a fast and easy solution to knock a chip out yourself quickly, or to hire someone to knock that chip out for you. It is another entirely different solution to get an engineer to mess with the entire statue to get a chip to naturally form. With one solution, the chip melts into the contours of the ice in time, so you need to chip again in a few days. With the other solution, you chip once and never need to chip again. But how many people, myself included, would probably end up knocking out that chip themselves?
@Bunnies:
I take serious exception to two statements made earlier. The first regarding Hitler being insane. The second regarding Hitler’s would-be assassins justifying the assassination of Hitler after the fact.
Hitler was no more insane than any of the other major world leaders. The fact is, the Allies won the war, so Allied propaganda is what ended up spreading around the world. Take Stalin’s position. You know how messed up Stalin’s reign and his personal life was, but he ended up with huge popularity and power. Hitler had MANY more redeeming qualities than Stalin. If the Axis had won the war, it is certain that people would have incredible admiration and respect for Hitler.
If you doubt it, then think about this. Why would you think Hitler was evil or insane? Because you were told he was evil and insane. Because others think he was evil and insane. And why would they think that? Because they heard it from others, and so on and so forth. If the Axis had won, they would have controlled the media, and you can be damn well sure that the Jew-loving Roosevelt, the megalomaniacal Churchill, and the drunkard Stalin would have been put in their proper place, while the beloved father of the Fatherland would have been put at the right hand of God.
As far as justifying the assassination of Hitler after the fact had the Nazis won the war - that’s entirely missing the point. If the Nazis were looking like they were going to win the war, and Hitler was a popular figure, of course Hitler’s assassins would not take credit for the assassination! They would blame subversives, Allied commandos, or rival power factions within the Reich. It would be like the Vice President of the United States murdering the President on national television, stepping over the body, and claiming the Presidency of the United States. Just not going to happen! The only reason the assassins considered moving openly against Hitler and taking credit later in the war was because everyone in the Reich was sure the war was LOST!
Now back to the poop discussion -
. . . Hitler and the other core members of the Nazi Party had a problem. As they died of old age, their replacements would be milder, more moderate men–men less fully committed to the Nazi ideology. The Soviet communists had the same problem. Stalin had been a communist revolutionary back when the czar was still in power. But after Stalin’s death, his successors were milder and less revolutionary than Lenin, Trotsky, or Stalin had been.
On the death of Mao, China’s economy shifted from a centrally planned economy towards privatization. That is to say, even in a centrally controlled state with a cult of personality, in the end, individual self-interest naturally won out. (I do not mean to say by this, nor do I believe, that it is natural that “capitalism” or “representative democracy” are the natural economic or political end products of evolution. But I will leave this for now.)
That is, although individuals can and do make vast differences to the particulars of everyday life, after the death of those particular individuals, things tend to follow certain general tendencies.
Imagine ice sculptures of two very different people, set out in the sun. At first, there seem to be vast differences between the two. But over time, the sun melts the ice, until there is little to be seen but generic pits for the eyes or a lump for the nose. That is the normalization effect over time. My view of things is that as social, economic, political, and technological advances are made, that the basic ice sculptures that can be created can become more complex, or are able to last longer under the sun’s rays.
Sculptors normally want to believe that the changes they have made to the ice sculpture are lasting, or superior to changes that other sculptors have made. Or people have a favorite sculptor that they want to believe in. But in my experience, there are few sculptors that can make real and lasting changes; the supposed differences that most sculptors tout as triumphs fade into the ice sculpture as it is heated by the sun. This is how I view the failure of the Axis to win World War II. It’s my opinion that it made some difference, even drastic, but that the current state of the world is not terribly significantly different now than it would have been had the Axis had won - and that another hundred years from now, even less difference would be seen, as the ice sculpture continues to melt in the sun, but is also continually worked on by other sculptors.
Part of the problem with creating lasting change is that superficial change is easier to create than real and lasting change, so superficial change is often not only acceptable but preferable. Suppose you wanted a chip in the ice so you would have a place to put your beer. It is a fast and easy solution to knock a chip out yourself quickly, or to hire someone to knock that chip out for you. It is another entirely different solution to get an engineer to mess with the entire statue to get a chip to naturally form. With one solution, the chip melts into the contours of the ice in time, so you need to chip again in a few days. With the other solution, you chip once and never need to chip again. But how many people, myself included, would probably end up knocking out that chip themselves?
Excellent post, Bunnies! Your metaphor of a melting ice sculpture is a good one, and is applicable to a great many situations.
Just as China is becoming more like the West (in terms of its economy) many Western nations are becoming more like China. In most Western nations–with the United States being a notable exception–it’s illegal to voice opinions which differ too radically from the government’s ideology. The way that European governments or Canada treat neo-Nazis (or, in Mark Steyn’s case, those who insult Islam) has parallels with the way communist China treats its own dissidents. The melting ice creates a free market economy, but with some government interference. And some freedom of expression, except when the government disagrees too strongly with the ideas being expressed.
If institutions tend to reach the same end points, regardless of the ideologies of those who created them, the same is not always true of civilizations. A few million years ago, small and subtle genetic differences began appearing between two groups of apes. Those small differences became larger over time, with one group ultimately evolving into humans, the other into chimps.
However, human fertility rates are inversely correlated with genetic intelligence. This means that the human race is becoming progressively dumber. The ice of the sculpture that is humanity is melting, if only just a little.
Had the Axis won the war, its leaders would have attempted to address this problem. I recall seeing a Nazi propaganda poster which lamented the fact that intelligent, law-abiding people were having fewer children than their less intelligent law-abiding counterparts, who in turn had fewer children than unintelligent criminals. Whether the Nazis would have been successful in reversing dysgenic fertility patterns is of course another question, but at least the attempt would have been made. One of the results of the Allied victory is that people have been imbued with anti-eugenics scare stories and propaganda, to the point where calm, rational, emotion-free consideration of the issues at hand is no longer an option.
One would think that anyone who accepts Darwin’s theories would also readily grasp (or at least not be offended by) their logical implications. One of those implications is that species evolve in the direction of genetic pressure. If fast, alert deer are more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation, deer will tend to become faster and more alert. If unintelligent people have more children than their more intelligent counterparts, human intelligence will decline. But in a jaw-dropping feat of propaganda and intellectual sleight of hand, communists and other Allied propagandists have managed to convince people to accept Darwinism while rejecting the single most basic and fundamental implication of Darwinism. Which is sort of like accepting Galileo’s theories of astronomy, while rejecting the thought that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
“History is written by the victors.” Enough said. By the way excellent post bunnies, and Kurt.
I agree with Bunnies completely except on one point. The reason I said Hitler wasn’t completely sane, although I did not say he was Insane( there is a fine line) was because he initiated a massive genocide. Say what you will about Churchill or Roosevelt, they never came close to that. In my opinion (stress on the opinion!!!) the desire to rid the world of “inferior” races is not the product of a healthy mind.
However, human fertility rates are inversely correlated with genetic intelligence. This means that the human race is becoming progressively dumber.
Care to cite some papers that support this premise Kurt?
One of the results of the Allied victory is that people have been imbued with anti-eugenics scare stories and propaganda, to the point where calm, rational, emotion-free consideration of the issues at hand is no longer an option.
It almost seems you lament this? Nazi concentration camps and the slaughter of millions of people imbued people with anti-eugenics feelings. The fact you classify history as scare stories and propaganda concerns me.
I’ve read some Eugenics studies Kurt refer’s to, it began mostly as an an American science. They used to sterilize Alchoholics, and other undesirables in the US, it even had some links to the Prohibition movement. Circa 1890-1930
In Canada, they tried to adopt similar policies in the 20’s to sterilize natives, and the mentally handicapped. These almost reached fruition. I want you to think about that for a moment…
Even though I’ve read the studies however, I disagree, the problem with the “The educated elite have less kids” theorum, and the addage that we are all getting dumber, is that just because my grandfather LITERALLY lived in a barn with animals, eating what they ate, has no bearing on the fact, that I work in the CEO class of a multi million dollar company today.
The most common reality in my opinion, is that each parent tries to make sure their child does better than they do. And more often than not they succeed.
As for the rest of the comments and whats being implied about Kurt in general…. I think the biggest problem here is that everyone points at the Nazi’s as “Mass Murderers”, whilst there are plently of other examples, of even LARGER mass murder, that goes unspoken of. If you want to talk about history, then you need to speak of all history. Whilst realizing that all the “Facts” might just be part of “his-story”.
You don’t see Hudson’s Bay getting sued because they gave blankets to the natives that were infected with Small Pox in the 1800’s.
So the REAL question is, is Nazism and Mass Murder the same thing? If you believe they are, then isn’t Communism and Mass Murder the same thing? What about Corporate Expansionism at the pains of indigenous peoples?
Or in all cases are each of the items seperate entities? despite one being a product of the other.
These are decisions you need to make for yourself. And we probably shouldn’t be debating them here!
So the REAL question is, is Nazism and Mass Murder the same thing? If you believe they are, then isn’t Communism and Mass Murder the same thing? What about Corporate Expansionism at the pains of indigenous peoples?
The question that holds my attention the most is: what the viewpoint that is being promoted by the arguments we’ve heard? Is it the viewpoint that Dictator X has gotten a bad rap from historians, and that he should be looked upon more kindly because he killed fewer millions of people than Dictator Y? The viewpoint that Doctrine Z should not be criticized for the crimes that were commited by its proponents, given that the proponents of other doctrines over the centuries have done nasty things too?
However, human fertility rates are inversely correlated with genetic intelligence. This means that the human race is becoming progressively dumber.
Care to cite some papers that support this premise Kurt?
One of the results of the Allied victory is that people have been imbued with anti-eugenics scare stories and propaganda, to the point where calm, rational, emotion-free consideration of the issues at hand is no longer an option.
It almost seems you lament this? Nazi concentration camps and the slaughter of millions of people imbued people with anti-eugenics feelings. The fact you classify history as scare stories and propaganda concerns me.
You’ve made a very reasonable request that I support my statements about dysgenic fertility rates. If you’re in the mood for an in-depth paper, you could try the following:
Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 2, March-April 2004, Pages 193-201
Richard Lynn, Marian Van Court
Or, if you just want to click on a link, there is this.
In a 1988 study, Retherford and Sewell examined the association between the measured intelligence and fertility of over 9,000 high school graduates in Wisconsin in 1957, and confirmed the inverse relationship between IQ and fertility for both sexes, but much more so for females. If children had, on average, the same IQ as their parents, IQ would decline by .81 points per generation. Taking .71 for the additive heritability of IQ as given by Jinks & Fulker,[14] they calculated a dysgenic decline of .57 IQ points per generation.[15]
Another way of checking the negative relationship between IQ and fertility is to consider the relationship which educational attainment has to fertility, since education is known to be a reasonable proxy for IQ, correlating with IQ at .55;[16] . . . One study investigating fertility and education carried out in 1991 found that high school dropouts in America had the most children (2.5 on average), with high school graduates having fewer children, and college graduates having the fewest children (1.56 on average).[18]
If you want to dig further, you can also read this paper.
Innovation rates became sufficient for runaway growth in wealth at the end of the 19th century. Subsequent declines in Western genotypic IQ have however diminished innovation rates.
I had a sandbox as a little boy. I remember how happy I was when my father added sifted sand to the sandbox. It was exactly what I’d wanted all along! :) Back when I’d had unsifted sand, I’d had to use a screen to sift it! :)
Mainstream historians write from the Allied perspective. This means that they seek to present a story of Allied good triumphing over Axis evil. Facts which do not fit into the story they wish to tell are carefully sifted out. It’s possible to read thousands of pages of mainstream history books without encountering anything other than this sifted sand.
But some mainstream/Allied historians are more intense about sifting than others. While some historians make 100% sure that nothing makes it through without being sifted, others allow the occasional pebble to make it through. It’s very rare for these pebbles to escape the sifting process, which is why close attention should be paid to them when they do make it through. Our objective should be to see facts as they actually were, without anyone sifting out data they found inconvenient.
As a result of this sifting process, many have come to believe that Churchill and FDR did not commit genocide, and were heroes for standing up to someone who did (Hitler). Churchill and FDR were guilty of five separate acts of European genocide.
1. The Anglo-American food blockade imposed on Germany during WWII.
2. The Anglo-American bombing effort against German cities.
3. The effort to impose starvation on postwar Germany.
4. The treatment of German POWs, most of whom were turned over to the Soviet Union.
5. The turning over of millions of Soviet refugees and Soviet POWs to the Soviet government.
1. The food blockade.
As 1940 drew to a close, the situation for many of Europe’s 525 million people was dire. With the food supply reduced by 15% by the blockade and another 15% by poor harvests, starvation [was] a threat. . . . Former president Herbert Hoover, who had done much to alleviate the hunger of European children during WW1, wrote
| The food situation in the present war is already more desperate than at the
| same stage in the [First] World War. … If this war is long continued, there is
| but one implacable end… the greatest famine in history.
Also,
In January Herbert Hoover’s National Committee on Food for the Small Democracies presented the exiled Belgian Government in London with a plan he had agreed with the German authorities to set up soup kitchens in Belgium to feed several million destitute people.[60] . . . However, Britain refused to allow this aid through their blockade. . . .
Hoover said that his information indicated that the Belgian ration was already down to 960 calories–less than half the amount necessary to sustain life–and that many children were already so weak they could no longer attend school. . . .
The American Red Cross chartered [mercy ships to carry] relief supplies into unoccupied France. . . . A number of prominent liberals denounced the release of food to France in a letter to United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull.
2. The Anglo-American bombing effort
One of the objectives of this bombing effort was to reduce Germany’s cities and its people to ash, on the theory that both were contributing to the German war effort. The goal of the late-war Anglo-American bombing raids was to create firestorms. There were times–such as at Hamburg and Dresden–when they succeeded. The bombing of Dresden is especially notable because it had little military value, was a cultural center, and was filled with large numbers of refugees who had fled west to escape the terror and mass murder of the Red Army. In the aftermath of the Dresden raid–and the international outcry against it–Churchill sent the following telegram to the British Chiefs of Staff:
It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land.
The Dresden raid, alone, killed about eight times as many civilians as did the September 11th terrorist attacks. Also, the Dresden raid was specifically targeted against German firefighters and other rescue workers.
It had been decided that the raid would be a double strike, in which a second wave of bombers would attack three hours after the first, just as the rescue teams were trying to put out the fires.[36]
3. The effort to impose starvation on postwar Germany.
On March 20, 1945 President Roosevelt was warned that the JCS 1067 was not workable: it would let the Germans “stew in their own juice”. Roosevelt’s response was “Let them have soup kitchens! Let their economy sink!” Asked if he wanted the German people to starve, he replied, “Why not?”[47]
By February 28, 1947 it was estimated that 4,160,000 German former prisoners of war, by General Dwight D. Eisenhower relabeled as Disarmed Enemy Forces in order to negate the Geneva Convention, were used as forced labor by the various Allied countries to work in camps outside Germany: 3,000,000 in Russia, 750,000 in France, 400,000 in Britain and 10,000 in Belgium.[70] Meanwhile in Germany large parts of the population were starving[70] at a time when according to a study done by former U.S. President Herbert Hoover the nutritional condition in countries that in Western Europe was nearly pre-war normal".[70]
4. The treatment of German POWs
The highest-scoring fighter ace in human history was Erich Hartmann. As WWII in Europe drew to a close, Hartmann surrendered to the Americans. But then
After his capture, the U.S. Army handed Hartmann, his pilots, and ground crew over to the Soviet Union on 24 May, where he was imprisoned in accordance with the Yalta Agreements, which stated that airmen and soldiers fighting Soviet forces had to surrender directly to them.
Most of Hartmann’s fellow servicemen were less famous and less lucky than he had been. Instead of merely being tortured and starved by the Soviets–as Hartmann had been–many were allowed to die outright.
Finally we arrived near Kirov and disembarked in a swamp. This was our home for a while. Of the 1,500 POWs who were dropped at this place about 200 lived through the first winter. This I know from some who survived. They were not fed, just worked to death.
Millions of other captured German servicemen endured the same fate at Soviet hands. FDR, Truman, and Churchill knew that Stalin was a mass murderer when they decided to turn millions of captured German servicemen over to him.
5. Turning over refugees and POWs from the Soviet Union to the Soviet government
Outlining the plan to forcibly return the refugees to the Soviet Union, this codicil was kept secret from the US and British people for over fifty years.[2] The name of the operation comes from the naval practice of corporal punishment, keelhauling. . . .
The refugee columns fleeing the Soviet-occupied eastern Europe numbered millions of people. . . .
Often prisoners were summarily executed by receiving Communist authorities, sometimes within earshot of the British. . . .
Tolstoy described the scene of Americans returning to the internment camp after having delivered a shipment of people to the Russians. “The Americans returned to Plattling visibly shamefaced. Before their departure from the rendezvous in the forest, many had seen rows of bodies already hanging from the branches of nearby trees.”[10]
To his credit, Winston Churchill was less enthusiastic about items 3 and 5 on the above list than FDR or Truman had been. Conditions in British-occupied postwar Germany were slightly less bad than the American section. Churchill did not turn over all the refugees he’d agreed to, but allowed some to remain safe from Soviet mass murder. However, FDR, Truman, and Churchill had directly participated in all five of the above-described acts of mass murder in Europe. America’s bombing of Japanese cities–and its use of nuclear weapons against Japan’s civilian population–is of course a separate subject.
Imagine the sand I could sift, if many moons from now I gave IL’s Eulogy :P.
