Looks like a giant submarine to me.

It’s a documentary about Robert McNamara. Very good.

Has anyone else seen this yet?

He’s doing a movie about some Inca tribe in South America. All the actors have to learn some dead language. True shit.

@Soon_U_Die:

I selected the war could not have been won :)

Under the following premises:

1.  initiation of hostilities begins between 1935 and 1945,

2.  Germany & Italy, plus other minor powers, face the same set of Western Allies + Russia, although the order/timing can change

3.  Axis does not develop nukes.

With just those conditions, the Axis cannot win :)  The only possibility is that the Allies could lose…through stupidity.  My point being that any set of Axis assumptions can logically be paired with the corresponding/likely Allied reaction.   The Germans came nowhere near to winning WWII.  All of their gains are simply a reflection of poor Allied response from 1939 through 1941.  Think about it…the Allies could not have been ‘played’ worse.

But an Allied loss is an Axis win. And I don’t see where you think the Axis did not come close. They could see the spires of the Kremlin before they were stopped. Taking Moscow probably would have been the end of Russia. If Hitler hadn’t stomped on Yugoslavia for a month, the timing would have been prefect to take Moscow before winter struck.

I don’t think Japan ever really had a chance, but Germany came very close to knocking Russia out of the war.

@AgentSmith:

Of course they had an ideology. The Nazis wanted a “pure” Germany, to the point where they rounded up almost every non-Aryan and slaughtered them. As the Wehrmacht rolled through Russia, teams of Einsatzcommados systematically slaughtered “undeseraibles” in special-made vans that delivered poison gas

But like I said this fails b/c they were not the first party in Germany like this and they were not the first groups to advocate this.  To focus solely on the Halocaust aspect of the Nazis also means that you must ignore the first decade they held power, and the decade previously while they were on the ascent in Germany.  Which is to say Mary that your position that this was their “ideology” means these 20years are irrelevent compared to the 4 years of the Halocaust.  Further, it ignores the question of whether or not the Halocaust would’ve occured if their hadn’t been the war.  Prior to the war the Nazis had a great deal of anti-semitic laws but to argue this would’ve inevitably led to the same outcome is a stretch.  So if it is concievable that the Nazis could’ve held office longer without the halocaust how can this be foundational to who they were.  Again this demonstrates what is true about Fascism in that it necessarily contained an ambigious political ideology which mixed right wing backlash with revolution but this means that all these other outcomes of Nazi rule were a product of seeking power.

As the Wehrmacht rolled through Russia, teams of Einsatzcommados systematically slaughtered “undeseraibles” in special-made vans that delivered poison gas. The only reason this was done was so the Nazis’ liebensraum wouldn’t be polluted by Slavic inferiors. We know all this because Britain had cracked Enigma and was getting daily reports on just how effective the Einsatzcommandos were.

But focusing on the racialist nature of Nazism/Fascism ignores that the attitudes of the Germans were identical to those of the French, Italians, Spanish and English but there were no Halocausts started there.  Unless you can’t explain this you can’t explain how this was a foundational ideology.

But anyway, the Wansee Conference, Mein Kamph, creation of the ghettos, the Final Solution, Krystalnahct, etc. all show a clear ideology at work. In fact, you can see the ideology evolve from ostrasizing (wearing gold stars), to ghettos, to the Final Solution and the death camps themselves.

So how is Kristallnacht any different than the Dreyfuss Affair or any of the other examples of anti-semitism in Europe during this time.

Not true. At the end, Hitler blamed the German people (along with the Jews, of course) for his defeat. Some of his generals asked to surrender to spare the civilians and Hitler replied that they knew what they were getting into and had no sympathy for them. Hitler was anything but a “protector of the German people”.

This is largely irrelevent b/c this assumes the outcome is all that matters which in of itself assumes an egocentric view of the war in favor of whose telling the history.  by this reasoning had the Germans won he would’ve been the great protector of the German people?  No this is absolutely how Hitler saw himself and that is all that matters.  If you want to dispute that then pull up some sources of Hitler blaming the people, and better yet for once explain how that would be at all relevent to the discussion at hand.  Analysis mary, analysis.  I can site blanket facts too but that doesn’t really reveal anything.

Sorry, didn’t read the whole thing. More of the same obfuscation and non sequiters. If you want to believe the Nazis had no ideology, go right on ahead.

Just to clear up a few misconceptions.

My argument was that they didn’t have an ideology and that their use of killing was only a means to an end.  That their killing was industrialized was only a function of circumstance and not particularly relevent b/c it creates ways to rationalize one over the other.  The Nazis like the Stalinists lacked ideology and it undermined both until their ends.

Of course they had an ideology. The Nazis wanted a “pure” Germany, to the point where they rounded up almost every non-Aryan and slaughtered them. As the Wehrmacht rolled through Russia, teams of Einsatzcommados systematically slaughtered “undeseraibles” in special-made vans that delivered poison gas. The only reason this was done was so the Nazis’ liebensraum wouldn’t be polluted by Slavic inferiors. We know all this because Britain had cracked Enigma and was getting daily reports on just how effective the Einsatzcommandos were.

But anyway, the Wansee Conference, Mein Kamph, creation of the ghettos, the Final Solution, Krystalnahct, etc. all show a clear ideology at work. In fact, you can see the ideology evolve from ostrasizing (wearing gold stars), to ghettos, to the Final Solution and the death camps themselves.

But I would argue it was Hitlers creation of himself that prevented him taking these options.  Hitler had built up this notion that he was the protector of the German people and to flee would not just mean the end of his power but any notion of the specialness of Hitler.  That is his entire identity for 25+ years had been built around this persona and it was all he had going for him.  Hitler wasn’t a rich person, wasn’t a nobleman he was actually a bit of a loser.  For Hitler fleeing would be accepting mediocrity.Â

Not true. At the end, Hitler blamed the German people (along with the Jews, of course) for his defeat. Some of his generals asked to surrender to spare the civilians and Hitler replied that they knew what they were getting into and had no sympathy for them. Hitler was anything but a “protector of the German people”.

@AgentSmith:

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps?

Yes!  Your history is again spotty Mary I hope you aren’t a history teacher.  The purges of the military and party offiicials began in 1937 and even then Russias state of industrialization was not what it was by wars end.  Further, the even I was referring to ie forced collectivization began in the late 20s almost at the beginning of his reign.  This is when Stalin let peasants in the Ukraine starve etc etc in order to industrialize, but even at the end of the war Russia was not as industrialized per capita anywhere near to where Germany was.  They made up for this by their vastness.  Also, a lot of the capital in terms of gold that Russia used to finance this came from Spain during the Spanish Civil War as the Russians demanded the Republic pay for arms in gold so much of the gold from the Americas ended up in Moscow.

This is all moot. By referencing T-34’s and Katyusha rocket launchers, I am clearly talking about DURING the war. The point stands: The Russians had the means to build concentration camps to liquidate ethnic undesireables. They did not do so.

No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

Sure but so did Germany.

::boggle:: Um, Yeah, I know. Kind of why I said GERMANY and all. Nice to see you agreeing with me.

The amount of manpower tied down to the final solution was very small relatively speaking and stalin too had death squads.

Stalin had the equivalent of Einsatzcommandos roaming around Eastern Europe in their little death vans? The Ukrainians actually welcomed the Germans… until the death squads showed up in the army’s wake. As to the 2nd point: Resources were spent running trains full of “undesireables” to the death camps (oppurtunity costs there as well), the camps themselves took valuable resources to keep running, and roundiing up jews and patrolling the camps took more resources. All with the Russians advancing everywhere in the East. The Russians had NOTHING equivalent to such an industrialization of death, and hadn’t even articulated a philosophy for it because they had NO guiding philosophy for “purifying” their race. Germany had already had the Wansee conference where the “final solution” had been laid out in great detail.

    And you neglect to mention that many of the first immigrants to the Levant after the war not from the MiddleEast came from Stalinist Russia, ie the Ukraine and the Baltic States b/c they were afraid of Stalin.

Probably because it has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. As usual. If you bother replying to this, it will be for another audience. I’m about done arguing this point.

@AgentSmith:

Stalin wasn’t trying to methodically liquidate an entire group of people.

He wasn’t?  You might want to check on that.  Stalin was as anti-semitic as was Hitler, and like Hitler he connected the Bolshevik movement with the jews since there were some jews among the original Bolsheviks like Trotsky.  In fact his purge of the Communist party of the Bolsheviks could be seen as an act of anti-semitism.  And not only this but his purges brought famine which was worst in the Ukraine where the Jewish population was the largest.

The goal of the Nazis, and the industry to which they tried to accomplish that goal make them uniquely evil in history.

Well this is true but Russia really didn’t have the industrial capacity for this hence he let people especially jews starve.

So Russia could churn out T-34’s, Katyushas, Migs, mobilize millions of men, but they lacked the indsutry to build concentration camps? No. They poured everything into defeating Germany. Germany, on the other hand, devoted resoucres to liquidating ethnic groups EVEN as the Wehrmacht was being steamrolled across the Volga. THAT is murderous insanity.

Stalin wasn’t trying to methodically liquidate an entire group of people. The goal of the Nazis, and the industry to which they tried to accomplish that goal make them uniquely evil in history. Don’t get me wrong: Stalin was a murdering bastard, but he wasn’t giving awards on who could liquidate peasents most efficiently.