Opinions on Communism

[Dr Fallout]

The Aryan blood part was a joke.

Ah I see.

Everyone was willing to change strategy, this isn't unique to Nazi Germany in anyway.
It's not really a question of tactics as much as it is of policy, anyway. There's a fundamental difference between rearming Germany and rearming the Nazis. If Churchill had wanted to rearm the Nazis then Germany would have to continue under a Nazi government (which would just be an utterly retarded move on Churchill's part), if Churchill wanted to rearm the Wehrmacht then it'd basically be a similar situation to modern day Germany with the Bundeswehr

But it was. While the British and French did minor changes to their military tactics, the Germans overhauled their entire army and built it from the ground up. You have to admit that it's impressive, especially with the economic crisis, political instability and Versailles treaty. Again, I have no idea why Churchill wanted specifically to arm Doenitz's Nazis but that's what he wanted to do.

 

[Izak]

But it was. While the British and French did minor changes to their military tactics, the Germans overhauled their entire army and built it from the ground up.

Unique to Germany circa 1939-45 maybe (but even then, the Soviets had done much the same during WW2 and the Japanese were implementing similar policies) but this doesn't make it unique to Germany throughout history, nor unique to the Nazis.

You have to admit that it's impressive, especially with the economic crisis, political instability and Versailles treaty.

All of that was over by 1939 (at least for Germany it was), the economic crisis was solved by Weimar and Nazi policy, Hitler's seizure of power solved the political instability and the British were more then happy to ignore German breaching of the Versailles treaty.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Many, if not all armies saw huge changes from 1939 to 45. You should see the first fight between US and German forces in Africa for example. It was a huge disaster for the Americans. But they learned some valuable lessons from it. But I think the Soviet army has seen some of the heaviest changes, considering how many men and material they lost from 1941 to 45.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Unique to Germany circa 1939-45 maybe (but even then, the Soviets had done much the same during WW2 and the Japanese were implementing similar policies) but this doesn't make it unique to Germany throughout history, nor unique to the Nazis.

The Soviets didn't. That was just officers who survived the purges getting better and more skilled. Their army was powerful even before 1939 (it had strong tanks, strong tactics and a big emphasis on camouflage) though with poor leadership. True, the Japanese were doing it from the 1800's.

All of that was over by 1939 (at least for Germany it was), the economic crisis was solved by Weimar and Nazi policy, Hitler's seizure of power solved the political instability and the British were more then happy to ignore German breaching of the Versailles treaty.

Actually, Hitler's seizure of power caused political instability. He created large crackdowns on communists and his political opponents, leading to widespread Nazi lynch mobs and intimidation. Sources?

 

[Izak]

Actually, Hitler's seizure of power caused political instability. He created large crackdowns on communists and his political opponents, leading to widespread Nazi lynch mobs and intimidation. Sources?

That was what solved the political instability, he illegalized opposition and put an end to the political street fighting that took place during the Weimar period.

 

[Dr Fallout]

That was what solved the political instability, he illegalized opposition and put an end to the political street fighting that took place during the Wiemar period.

He instigated much of the political street fighting. He ended opposition THROUGH street fighting.

 

[Izak]

He instigated much of the political street fighting.

Communists, Nationalists and other fringe political groups that inexplicably dominated Weimar Germany didn't help.

He ended opposition THROUGH street fighting.

He ended opposition through banning rival political parties and absorbing parties that were close to the NSDAP.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Communists, Nationalists and other fringe political groups that inexplicably dominated Weimar Germany didn't help.

He ended opposition through banning rival political parties and absorbing parties that were close to the NSDAP.

Of course not, though the Nazis instigated it all by ruthlessly banning the opposition.

And also assassinated them, arrested them (communists) and supported violent take downs.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Communists, Nationalists and other fringe political groups that inexplicably dominated Weimar Germany didn't help.

He ended opposition through banning rival political parties and absorbing parties that were close to the NSDAP.

The positive effects on Germany by the Nazis though, are vastily exagerated, at least in some areas. For example, the idea of the Reichsautobahn. This was never an idea that came from Hitler or that was even specifically made by the Nazis. The whole concept of it, was already worked out during the Weimar Republic. And you can say this about many reforms that are for some reason attributed to the Nazis, but they have been already put in to effect before the Nazis assumed power. Economically speaking, they ruined Germany. But no one noticed it, because well, there was a world war in 1939 going on. But without WW2, Germany would have been bankrupt in 1940.

 

[Dr Fallout]

The positive effects on Germany by the Nazis though, are vastily exagerated, at least in some areas. For example, the idea of the Reichsautobahn. This was never an idea that came from Hitler or that was even specifically made by the Nazis. The whole concept of it, was already worked out during the Weimar Republic. And you can say this about many reforms that are for some reason attributed to the Nazis, but they have been already put in to effect before the Nazis assumed power. Economically speaking, they ruined Germany. But no one noticed it, because well, there was a world war in 1939 going on. But without WW2, Germany would have been bankrupt in 1940.

Sure didn't stop their war effort and industrial might go sky high, even when being surrounded by the Allies.

 

[Crni Vuk]

It actually did. Some decisions and mistakes are more obvious then others though. The Third Reich had some huge success between 1939 and 42. And most of the 'myths' and belief of the German strength comes from those few years and is build on it. The whole period of the Nazis taking over the Weimar Republic and WW2 itself can be divided in different fields though. Eearly, midle and late. And depending on what you're looking at, be it the politics, the ideology or the military, has to be seen in the context of the period. The German war industry for example was not very impressive trough most of the war, not before Speer became the Minister of Amarment in 1942 and started to apply far reaching changes and where Germany managed to reach it's full industrial potential for the war, but it was already to late at that point.

Sadly I don't know what it is called in english, but in German it is known as 'Breitenrüstung ' and 'Tiefenrüstung '.Basically, the Germans didn't had enough industrial capabilities and resources to build up their army and to create a durable armament industry at the same time. Germany had to build up its army from scratch, their Airforce, Tank, infantry and artillery units. And this created a problem where they basically had to decide if they wanted to create a large army, or a permanent and durable war industry which would make sure that all the units would be sufficiently supplied. Hitler was more in favour of a quick military build up. And it should be achieved as fast as possible, like with the Four Year Plan in 1936. They favoured decisions and solutions that would increase the size of the army with the necessary equipment, on the expenses of a durable industry. The shortage of amunition and fuel in the later years is one example of this decision.

When it comes to the success of Germany, it is important to keep in mind that we're also dealing with a regime that had some of the best Propaganda machines. And they knew how to exploit certain traits, this goes so far, that has even effects today. Like with the Tiger I. When you're looking at the battles of the Tiger tank, it is in no proportion to the immense hype and attention it gets. Despite the fact that it had only a handfull of battles on the west front, and they had almost no impact on the war as a whole.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Yeah the Tiger Tank is highly overrated, and so are many of it's best tanks as well. The Panther suffered serious design flaws, and its armor could have been pierced by most late war tanks. Also, early, middle and late war are commonly used as ways to break up the war into periods, nothing special there.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, it helps to narrow down the success of the Germans in war, and to explain people why they are wrong, because I love doing that to those that glorify the Germans for things that are simply not true. Just like you said, the panther was a garbage tank, impressive on paper, but that's about it. Neither the Panther crews liked it very much, nor individuals like Guderian speaked very highly of the Panther - Guderian himself prefered the Panzer IV and the Stug, which makes sense as they have been reilable and combat proven, not to mention both tanks could effectively deal with 99% of the armor they faced in the field. Point is, most people think like, yeah! Germany was REALLY impressive in WW2! But what they do, is just taking the time between 1939-41 and extend it to like the war as a whole. But most of the German decisions and equipment was actually less impressive when you look at it after 1943. What I find really impressive, is how the German military managed to totally dominate two enemy nations in a very short time, even though they had in many situations the superior or equal equipment. Particularly the French tanks have been equal, or even superior. And yet, the Germans managed to outsmart them.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Well, it helps to narrow down the success of the Germans in war, and to explain people why they are wrong, because I love doing that to those that glorify the Germans for things that are simply not true. Just like you said, the panther was a garbage tank, impressive on paper, but that's about it. Neither the Panther crews liked it very much, nor individuals like Guderian speaked very highly of the Panther - Guderian himself prefered the Panzer IV and the Stug, which makes sense as they have been reilable and combat proven, not to mention both tanks could effectively deal with 99% of the armor they faced in the field. Point is, most people think like, yeah! Germany was REALLY impressive in WW2! But what they do, is just taking the time between 1939-41 and extend it to like the war as a whole. But most of the German decisions and equipment was actually less impressive when you look at it after 1943. What I find really impressive, is how the German military managed to totally dominate two enemy nations in a very short time, even though they had in many situations the superior or equal equipment. Particularly the French tanks have been equal, or even superior. And yet, the Germans managed to outsmart them.

Apparently the Germans even used Czech tanks in the early war period against the French. I feel like most of WW2 myths are concerned with the Germans and the Soviets. No we did NOT shoot soldiers as they retreated from the battlefield, as portrayed in games like Company of Heroes 2.

 

[Crni Vuk]

There have been very harsh penality units though, and retreating without official order, could lead to death penalties. Of course it wasn't anything like in enemy of the gates - not enough bullets for your own troops, but enough to cut the down when they retreat? What a bullshit. However, what many ignore, is that the Germans havn't been really very friendly to retreating units on their own side either. Particularly the more desperate the war has become, the more has fanatism and draconic measures taken over in some cases. Even as far, where just saying that it was hopeless, or that Germany would loose the war, could get you killed. But with saying this, there is a quote from Stalin, "In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance". Both the German and Soviet army, have been rather riggid in their methods and motivations. Just look at how the Soviets treated certain veterans during and after the war, if they got caught as prisoners, or those who retured from Germany because they have been used as forced labour. Many of them have been branded as 'traitors' to the Soviet Union. For some it was a change from a German prison camp, into a Soviet gulag ...

But we should also not forget, that the Soviet Union faced the reality of loosing in 1941. The situation was very desperate and chaotic in some cases. So they had to deploy some drastic measures to keep the order. You don't want your troops to panick and leave their positions, even if the situation isn't actually calling for it. A lot of people HAVE given up against the Germans after all! Simply because they though, there was no chance of beating them. The Soviet army lost an incredible amount of men and material in 1941 and 42. Replacing these troops was very difficult. What the Soviets achieved between 1941 and 45, is nothing short but amazing. They literaly lost a large part of their army a couple of times. And they had to build it up from scratch, during a war. Could you imagine the Germans, for example in 1939, loosing 1 million men(!) and more then 20 000 tanks, while being suprise attacked by France for example? People often concentrate on the feats of the Wermacht in 1939 and 1940. But if you look at what the Soviets endured, and the changes they made to their military and command, not without help of course, but still in my opinion the German achievements almost look like child play in comparision.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Except that the actual order which most people assume speaks about shooting en masse your own retreating soldiers only called for the execution of the officer, for the failure of keeping his men in line. The Red Army knew it needed it's veterans until the end of the war (where, like the US after WW1 it fucked them over) and so their officers shot not the men themselves unless they showed disloyalty, continued cowardice or other 'bad' things.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, a lot of soldiers did end up in penaltiy batalions though.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Well, a lot of soldiers did end up in penaltiy batalions though.

But they weren't shot. Penal battalions also allowed the 'wrong'-doer to redeem themselves, though as they were used indiscriminately this was doubtful.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Runing over a minefield, geting send to suicide missions. Yeah ... with some units had a casualty rate of like 90%. Not a death penality.
With saying this, both the Germans and Soviets have been very similar in that part, to say the least. Don't think that I am saying this was the norm or anything. But it is simply a historical fact, that the Soviet Army was in my ways very harsh and brutal, compared to the American, British and French military. The Soviet Union was a harsh and cruel regime after all. Not just to others, but for their own people as well. And in some sense, this extended to the way how the military was lead. You simply can't do the same kind of stuff that easily, in a democracy. You can't simply shoot the one that voice criticism. Or at least not all of them .

 

[Dr Fallout]

Runing over a minefield, geting send to suicide missions. Yeah ... with some units had a casualty rate of like 90%. Not a death penality.
With saying this, both the Germans and Soviets have been very similar in that part, to say the least. Don't think that I am saying this was the norm or anything. But it is simply a historical fact, that the Soviet Army was in my ways very harsh and brutal, compared to the American, British and French military. The Soviet Union was a harsh and cruel regime after all. Not just to others, but for their own people as well. And in some sense, this extended to the way how the military was lead. You simply can't do the same kind of stuff that easily, in a democracy. You can't simply shoot the one that voice criticism. Or at least not all of them .

Nope, not a death penalty. A death penalty is useless. Marching men across a minefield to blow up the mines and sending them on suicide missions as distractions isn't.