| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Could Hitler Have Won?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Could Hitler Have Won?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Could Hitler Have Won?
    Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 07:57
In the lead up years to, and during the Second World War, Adolph Hitler's obsession with eliminating the Jewish race, and others he classed as Unter Menschen occupied much of his attention.

Much more than that, he commited so much in manpower and materiel to serve that purpose that in fact his war fighting troops were eventually starved as more and more resources were turned to eliminating people who in fact posed him no threat.

If his resources had been channeled into making more tanks, aircraft and ships, his troops sent to bolster fighting units rather than rounding up civilians and staffing concentration camps and his factories used for war rather than railways, could Germany have won WW2?

He had a succesful formula-Blitzkreig! And it worked well. But, ultimately, the war was lost. On the Eastern Front his troops were starved of food,ammunition and warm clothing. On the Western Front, they were overpowered by the mighty Allied war machine, but, had his resources been concentrated on war fighting rather than genocide, could he have won?




Edited by toyomotor - 19 Jul 2017 at 08:05
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Jul 2017 at 22:50
The Hungarian-American historian John Lukacs writes in his _Five Days in May_ that Winston Churchill could not have won the war, but he could have lost it.  Chamberlin etc. gave Churchill the Prime Minister position, so that he would have the shame of surrendering, and they wouldn't.  And he didn't surrender.  My point is that Hitler could have won if events went differently, for example the surrender of Great Britain, in significant ways, and in some cases it was close.  Again, for example if Britain had surrendered, then it would have been very difficult (but not impossible) to make up for that setback.

Hitler's whole point was German Lebensraum, wiping out undesirables, which generally were not a military threat at all (not withstanding the uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto), but in his eyes a cultural threat.  Of course, running down, into the ground probably the most advanced nation at the time (Germany), is also a danger to culture, and all that crap 3rd Reich (propagandistic) art is one too.  Look at the coins of the time too, especially for occupied nations, they're ugly in both what they signify and in their appearance.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jul 2017 at 03:14
franciscosan

Not really relevant to what I'm asking.

Germany fielded some 13million troops during WW2, and I don't know how many of them were deployed to rounding up the undesirables, transporting them, detaining and murdering them.

In addition, some hundreds of thousands of people, both German citizens and slave labourers were in some way employed to build trains with which to transport the prisoners and to build the railways and camps. More, Hitler also had a railway fetish, and as countries fell under his control, more people were put to work maintaining the rail system.

He had rediculous ideas, such as building a double decker luxury train, building a rail system with a 5foot guage, and so on.  

Had all of these resources been put to war fighting, utilising blitzreig, could he have won?


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jul 2017 at 04:38
I am saying that if Winston Churchill had capitulated, then Hitler would have won, regardless of whatever mistakes he made.  
But, to answer your question, maybe he would have "won" if he hadn't devoted time and energy towards "purification," but wasn't purification his whole point in the first place?  Wasn't his whole rise in power based upon vilification of what the Germans found strange and threatening?  The capitalist England and America, the communists, the Jews, the Gypsies.  Hitler is all about "us and them."

If rabbit had long, sharp fangs, maybe they could take on dogs, but they wouldn't be rabbits, would they?
It was part of Hitler's power that he was going after others, and advocating Lebensraum and the third way (opposed to capitalism and communism).  If a leopard changed his spots, he wouldn't be a leopard. 

Hitler's whole power base was whipping people up into a frenzy about how xyz is unfairly picking on you.  Unfortunately there was a thread of truth to that (truth, not Truth), the treaty of Versailles was pretty punitive towards Germany.  The Austrian-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire did not survive, and so Germany bore the brunt of the Allies rage.


Edited by franciscosan - 20 Jul 2017 at 04:50
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jul 2017 at 08:04
franciscosan

I've always been of the opinion that Hitlers main attraction to the people was his drive to right old wrongs from the end of WW1 when land was taken from Germany and distributed among other countries.
Quote Germany lost to the allies in WW1 and suffered huge territorial losses giving away its land and population to Poland, Russia, France, Belgium an Denmark and ultimately had to sign The Treaty of Versailles. Terms of the treaty were: ... Germany had to accept the "War Guilt Clause" and pay reparations  https://www.quora.com/How-did-WWI-affect-Germany
.
Hitler played the National pride card, "Let's make Germany great again!" (sound familiar?) and it worked.

England would have been the jewel in the crown, had he been able to take it.
Quote I am saying that if Winston Churchill had capitulated, then Hitler would have won, regardless of whatever mistakes he made.

I don't know how you reach that conclusion.  IMHO it's way off track.

His ability to blame the Jewish people for many of Germany's problems, mainly financial, was a popular call, as the Jews has for centuries been accused of financial finangling, all over Europe.

I find the rest of your post confused verbage.



I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2017 at 13:28
Could Hitler have won? Won what? At what level does your question apply? He was subject to a plethora of assassination attempts, eighteen of which were serious, some before WWII. HE deliberately set a policy of overlapping his minions responsibilities so they would always conflict with each other rather than him. Truth is he was lucky to survive as long as he did. Most importantly though, he did exactly what he had preached against, and extended the war to two fronts. That effectively meant the industrial weight of the USA would overtake German resources and production. You can argue about strategies and political decisions, but the truth is that Hitler over-extended his Reich, took on too many enemies, had a divided command structure, wasted effort on some seriously nasty initiatives, and even if he had emerged the victor in WWII, it is likely that eventually the Reich would have turned on itself. After all, we're told that Karl Doenitz was the successor to Hitler after his suicide - but few people know that Goering had himself proclaimed Fuhrer in April 1945 while Hitler was still alive.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Jul 2017 at 16:13
Caldrail
Pleased to hear from you.

I was speaking of WW2, and I should have not confined my question to Hitler himself, but to the Third Reich.

I'm aware that there were numerous plots to assasinate Hitler, one of which led to one of Germany's war heroes being executed, the Desert Fox.

Do you think that the Reich would have/could have split along Doenitz/Goering lines? That of course would have been the end for them if it had.

And of course, I was looking at one aspect of the Nazi regime only, the waste of resources on The Final Solution and Hitlers playthings, railways, resources which could/should have been turned to war fighting.


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Aug 2017 at 13:02
Hitler had always given his high ranking minions overlapping responsibilities so that they would always fight each other rather than him. Given that Hitler was the intended victim of a huge number of assassination attempts starting from before he was Chancellor (Eighteen of which were serious though failures), one can see why.
 
It is the nature of large politico-social structures that rely on the cult of personality to fracture or disintegrate after the leading personality is gone. The Hunnic Empire for instance broke up after Attila died.
 
With regard to Germany, Doenitz was the official candidate for succession. Goering was being opportunistic but reliant on taking control of southern areas of Germany still unconquered by allied forces. That was of course at a time when the Third Reich was in a state of collapse and such anarchy often invites the opportunistic to claim power.
 
Would that have been the end for them? No, not necessarily. The Roman Empire came back from the brink many times from this sort of schism and in fact the dangers of usurpers were always more important that border security. There was even a breakaway empire in the west, consisting of Gaul and Britannica which lasted for 14 years in the third century. IF the Third Reich was going to follow this pattern (as well it might), there would have been official leaders and constant rebellions from powerful figures that had built personal loyalties and forces. Long term survival is harder to predict. Rome survived because of strong leadership, both in the tetrarchy of Diocletian (which ultimately failed) and the ensuing victory of Constantine I in the civil war that followed.
 
The issue is further interesting because whilst Constantine would go on to utilise Christian cults as a basis for social cohesion, the Nazi's were planning something similar - the SS were developing a pagan faith of their own designed as a vehicle for inspiring social cohesion (and control). Nonetheless, the Allies had learned from the mistakes of WW1. The Americans had always insisted that the war to should go on until Berlin was captured and the Germans knew they were defeated. The European nations however were tired of the conflict and keen to get it over and done with. So unlike the situation in Roman times, where normally barbarian raids were intended to grab wealth and go, or at the extreme, tribal kingdoms installed like those of the Goths, the Romans were not under attack from an increasingly powerful coalition with a firm intention to defeat them utterly.
 
The Final Solution was the means by which the Third Reich achieved the desired rate of elimination of undesirables, as conventional methods were not fast or efficient enough. Bear in mind that those condemned were processed for resources so the Germans were making some profit from their unwelcome plans. Also, one purpose was to free territory for German exploitation rather than simply eradicate people they didn't like, so the long term plan had economic targets in mind, especially the Ukraine, seen as a breadbasket to feed the Third Reich and developed as a colony in the same way western nations did in Africa and Asia.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Charlie Primero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Aug 2017 at 12:44
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

...had his resources been concentrated on war fighting rather than genocide, could he have won?


In order to examine both sides of this question I could play Devil's Advocate on behalf of Herr Hitler, but you would ban me. Big smile
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2017 at 01:46
Originally posted by Charlie Primero Charlie Primero wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

...had his resources been concentrated on war fighting rather than genocide, could he have won?


In order to examine both sides of this question I could play Devil's Advocate on behalf of Herr Hitler, but you would ban me. Big smile

ABSOLUTELY NOT

This forum is not about quelling opinion, but against bad behaviour. Read the Code of Conduct.

If you wish to play Devil's Advocate, go right ahead, it could lead to some interesting discussion.

Moderator.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Aug 2017 at 02:13
Charlie

In considering your reply, will you also consider the waste of manpower and resources in places like Norway, where, in order to defend his own Atlantic shipping lanes, while attacking both Russian and British sea transport, Hitler had man major gun emplacements and airfields built along the Norwegian North Western coastline. He also had submarine pens built, and to defend all of this, stationed thousands of troops in the region. At wars end it was found that most of the gun emplacements were never used, and the troops were idle.

Bear in mind also that Nazi troops were attacking the Russian borders, were rampaging through Europe and were heavily engaging the 8th Army in North Africa.

His navy was being wasted on fleet convoys in the wrong places, and the mighty Bismark, biggest battleship afloat, was sunk after only nine days at sea.

Had these resources been better utilised, along with those mentioned in my origional post, could the Nazis have won?
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Charlie Primero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2017 at 11:25
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

...had his resources been concentrated on war fighting rather than genocide, could he have won?


To investigate this question it is necessary to estimate the amount of resources Germany wasted by diverting those resources to the program of Genocide.

I contend that the vast majority of what has is called "Genocide" for propaganda purposes was actually strategic war-fighting.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.

Consequently, only an insignificant number of Jews/Gypsies/Jehovah's Witnesses et al. killed by the German war machine were killed for no other reason than ethnic cleansing.  I estimate approximately 90,000.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Aug 2017 at 22:22
figures don't lie, but liars figure.

90,000?  90,000 is a good number, of course 100,000 is better, being 10 to the 5th power, but maybe that's too perfect, 10 being the perfect number for Pythagoreans.  How about 7, or 42 for the Douglas Adams books?  Or 23 for the Principia Discordia?  If we are into just coming up with numbers....

"Depends on what you mean by 'is'"
Bill Clinton


Edited by franciscosan - 16 Aug 2017 at 22:24
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Aug 2017 at 02:09
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

figures don't lie, but liars figure.

90,000?  90,000 is a good number, of course 100,000 is better, being 10 to the 5th power, but maybe that's too perfect, 10 being the perfect number for Pythagoreans.  How about 7, or 42 for the Douglas Adams books?  Or 23 for the Principia Discordia?  If we are into just coming up with numbers....

"Depends on what you mean by 'is'"
Bill Clinton

Come on Frank, we're trying to have a serious discussion here, and Charlie's playing Devils Advocate.

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.

It's well recognised that the German supply lines were stretched too thinly and they were far too long. Goering's promise to provide the troops with what they needed to fight the war never eventuated.

In essence, what I'm saying is that if Hitlers Final Solution had been taken off the board (along with all that went with it, the railways, buildings, roundups etc), some of his more adventurous building schemes curtailed, and more notice taken of his generals in this regard, could the Third Reich have won the war?



I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 2126
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 02:32
If Charlie cannot take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen.  He could say that the current accepted figures are lies or distortions.  But, he does not.  Now I would agree that various people have an agenda as far as portraying the holocaust one way or another.  Some use a promotion of Jewish culture to mitigate the 'psychic' impact of the holocaust (Europe), others justify Israel and Zionism through it (Israel), whereas some deal more directly with the horror of the holocaust (the US _diasporic_ community).  He apparently wishes to do a revision, the thing is, the initial understanding of an event tends to be the most comprehensive in understanding it, that historical view can get tweaked, and revised, but the whole is not overthrown.  
We may have better analysis and more facts than Thucydides did of the Peloponnesian War, but the fact is we have to go back to Thucydides anytime we revisit the Peloponnesian War.  Revision can tweak the picture, compensating for biases, showing for example how the Vietnam War was not so much the happening of the march of the proletariat, and the domino theory, as it was of Vietnamese nationalism, but that really doesn't change the facts on the ground.  Likewise, I believe the basic view of the holocaust is _basically_ correct, if Charlie wants to say 90,000, he can, but I feel that like Bill Clinton's definition of sex (and oral sex not being sex), Charlie is making nice (non-existent) distinctions that are defining the deaths away of a lot of people that, shall we say, were of little or no military 'value' according to the Geneva Conventions.  
Charlie seems to think it was all strategic, but the question is; what the strategic is for?  Nazi Germany was not a state, it was a cancer, a mad dog that had to be shot down.  I'll tell you what would have been strategic, for Germany to be something that could have been tolerated.  Get rid of the psychotic behavior, and you wouldn't make an unconditional surrender necessary.  That is why there were so many plots against Hitler, kill Hitler off an sue for peace.




Edited by franciscosan - 21 Aug 2017 at 02:34
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 02:45
franciscosan
Quote If Charlie cannot take the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. 

Hey, whoa, perhaps you should read back over Charlies earlier posts to understand what's going on. As usual, you charge in, and again, you're wrong.

The discussion between Charlie and me is taking the form of Charlie being Devils Advocate. So either read and absorb what's being written or butt out!

As for the rest of your post, in the context of our discussion, GIGO!Angry


I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Charlie Primero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Aug 2017 at 15:23
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.


To examine that question we need to tabulate all the resources you believe were devoted to the "The Final Solution" and compare them to the overall German war effort as a percentage.

Then we decide if that small percentage of resources was a deciding factor.

I contend that it was not.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 952
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 hours 46 minutes ago at 06:47
Originally posted by Charlie Primero Charlie Primero wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.


To examine that question we need to tabulate all the resources you believe were devoted to the "The Final Solution" and compare them to the overall German war effort as a percentage.

Then we decide if that small percentage of resources was a deciding factor.

I contend that it was not.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.

'ello Charlie :) Good to have you here you devil Evil Smile

The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied. They also worried about the psychological effect that multiple murders, in cold blood, on unarmed civilians would have on young German soldiers. The Reich didn't want psychopaths coming back after the war infecting their families.

In very plain language Hitler describes the Jews as a disease to be eradicated as Germany's enemies were "strangling her." Probably Hitler's repressed memories of being swaddled and hung on the wall, a mother who told him he was a messiah and a father who hated him. Not to mention starvation and other horrors of post WW1 Germany. They are well documented by British aid workers.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 3778
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 hours 30 minutes ago at 07:03
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by Charlie Primero Charlie Primero wrote:

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Charlie-take a more wholistic view of the German war effort;
the resources wasted on The Final Solution-all of them, the wasted resources in Norway versus the spread of troops on the Eastern Front, the European Front and North Africa.


To examine that question we need to tabulate all the resources you believe were devoted to the "The Final Solution" and compare them to the overall German war effort as a percentage.

Then we decide if that small percentage of resources was a deciding factor.

I contend that it was not.  Examples:

* Concentration camps were industrial production facilities utilizing slave labor, not extermination facilities.

* What is usually characterized as "hunting and killing Jews" was for the most part internal anti-terrorism programs against Germany's primary enemy, Marxists.

'ello Charlie :) Good to have you here you devil Evil Smile

The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied. They also worried about the psychological effect that multiple murders, in cold blood, on unarmed civilians would have on young German soldiers. The Reich didn't want psychopaths coming back after the war infecting their families.

In very plain language Hitler describes the Jews as a disease to be eradicated as Germany's enemies were "strangling her." Probably Hitler's repressed memories of being swaddled and hung on the wall, a mother who told him he was a messiah and a father who hated him. Not to mention starvation and other horrors of post WW1 Germany. They are well documented by British aid workers.

Thanks V.
Charlie, how about expanding your thought into a bit more detail so that we can pick them to pieces. Hitler had a psychotic hatred of the Jews, as did many other Europeans, and blamed many of Germany's ill's on them.

The gas chambers were an expeditious means of killing thousands in one day, as cheaply as possibly.
I often wonder why I try.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 7 hours 29 minutes ago at 11:04
Quote The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied.
Bullets weren't the problem. It was the time it was taking to assemble shooting parties, dig burial pits, and commit the executions. By conventional means the eradication of Jews was not going to happen any time soon and leaders of the Third Reich wanted a more expedient method of getting results.
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 952
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 7 hours 24 minutes ago at 11:09
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied.
Bullets weren't the problem. It was the time it was taking to assemble shooting parties, dig burial pits, and commit the executions. By conventional means the eradication of Jews was not going to happen any time soon and leaders of the Third Reich wanted a more expedient method of getting results.

Hi Caldrail. 

Ammunition was definitely a problem. I will provide a reference for that fact.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
Charlie Primero View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 06 Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Charlie Primero Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 7 hours 17 minutes ago at 11:16
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The gas chambers were an expeditious means of killing thousands in one day, as cheaply as possibly.


We can examine the cost factor on that.

What specific gas chambers are you referring to?
Back to Top
Vanuatu View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Location: New England
Status: Offline
Points: 952
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Vanuatu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 3 hours 5 minutes ago at 15:28
Originally posted by Vanuatu Vanuatu wrote:

Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote The reason the gas chambers were built was bc Germany could not produce enough ammo to bullet every condemned head and keep their soldiers supplied.
Bullets weren't the problem. It was the time it was taking to assemble shooting parties, dig burial pits, and commit the executions. By conventional means the eradication of Jews was not going to happen any time soon and leaders of the Third Reich wanted a more expedient method of getting results.

Hi Caldrail. 

Ammunition was definitely a problem. I will provide a reference for that fact.

Yes gas was the most efficient way bc ammunition was expensive and mass shootings meant psychological repercussions for the German soldiers.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220
 

GAS VANS 
 
After the June 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union and Einsatzgruppe (mobile killing unit) mass shootings of civilians, the Nazis experimented with gas vans for mass killing. Gas vans were hermetically sealed trucks with engine exhaust diverted to the interior compartment. Use of gas vans began after Einsatzgruppe members complained of battle fatigue and mental anguish caused by shooting large numbers of women and children. Gassing also proved to be less costly. Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) gassed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and mentally ill people.
The root of all desires is the one desire: to come home, to be at peace. -Jean Klein
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.