Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nazis versus the Soviets? (Livability)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    livability - is there really much difference? A jewish doctor/lawyer in Est. in 1940 would have been deported to GULAG because of his social class, in 1941 to KZ because of his nationality.
    A ukrainian farmer would have ended in GULAG for being a ´kulak´ or shipped to Germany for slave work .
    So which is worse - to ´clean´ country of a certain race group or a certain class ? Is there a difference at all?
    Last edited by BD1; 13 Dec 08,, 15:08.
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      I was under the impression that Hitler planned to turn Europe (minus most Slavic countries) into a European Union of sorts in which the members would be puppet states controlled by Germany.
      No, Hitler wanted Germany to be the economic and military powerhouse, but never thought of having actual puppet states among the "civilized" peoples of Europe such as England and Hungary. Hitler believed that being Number One was Germany's natural place, and that they would be looked up to and be respected by their neighbors, but that is a long way from being a puppet state.

      Comment


      • #18
        graniteforge,

        the establishment of a vichy french state sort of belies that.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by astralis View Post
          graniteforge,

          the establishment of a vichy french state sort of belies that.
          How so?

          And let me add: There really was no such thing as "Vichy France." France was, and remained, France. After surrender, the seat of government was simply moved from Paris to Vichy, as a temporary measure while the war lasted.

          Comment


          • #20
            Braindead,

            Originally posted by braindead View Post
            livability - is there really much difference? A jewish doctor/lawyer in Est. in 1940 would have been deported to GULAG because of his social class, in 1941 to KZ because of his nationality.
            A ukrainian farmer would have ended in GULAG for being a ´kulak´ or shipped to Germany for slave work .
            So which is worse - to ´clean´ country of a certain race group or a certain class ? Is there a difference at all?
            I understand that Estonia suffered horribly under Stalin, but in Belorousia and Ukraine there was no comparison. By measurable standards, Stalin was outdone.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by GraniteForge View Post
              How so?

              And let me add: There really was no such thing as "Vichy France." France was, and remained, France. After surrender, the seat of government was simply moved from Paris to Vichy, as a temporary measure while the war lasted.
              Because Vichy France had no power to excercize independent national policy to speak of. To answer Operational Torch, the Germans tored its treaty with Vichy and simply marched into the Vichy zone. The Vichy leaders bent over and took it.
              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Triple C View Post
                I understand that Estonia suffered horribly under Stalin, but in Belorousia and Ukraine there was no comparison. By measurable standards, Stalin was outdone.

                Nope, the 1932-1933 famine in the Ukraine cost between 5-7 million lives in the Ukraine and 3-5 million elsewhere (10 million total) other actions by Stalin led to the death of between 5-15 million more. So between 15-20 million people died. Both have around 20 million civilian deaths on their heads, and both are outdone by Imperial Japan.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by GraniteForge View Post
                  How so?

                  And let me add: There really was no such thing as "Vichy France." France was, and remained, France. After surrender, the seat of government was simply moved from Paris to Vichy, as a temporary measure while the war lasted.
                  I think that is a gross understatement. France was divided into two parts-one part was occupied militarily and the other one was allowed to be "free", but in reality was a puppet.

                  Nazi goals for Europe and specifically the USSR were more in line with Haushofer's thinking, influenced by MacKinder about control of the World-Island via the Pivot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Theory

                  Control of the Heartland via the Pivot-Ukraine (the breadbasket of Europe) would have (in theory) provided Germany an autarkic economy, making it basically number one. Western Europe, the Nazis could have cared less about, as long as they didn't interfere. France was a sore spot due to WWI, but Hitler was satisfied with the Vichy model.

                  This is a good book by Geoffrey Parker on Geopolitics: http://www.amazon.com/Geopolitics-Pr.../dp/1855673975 which goes into some of the detail of Mackinder's and Haushofer's works.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    Nope, the 1932-1933 famine in the Ukraine cost between 5-7 million lives in the Ukraine and 3-5 million elsewhere (10 million total) other actions by Stalin led to the death of between 5-15 million more. So between 15-20 million people died. Both have around 20 million civilian deaths on their heads, and both are outdone by Imperial Japan.
                    I think I should have been clear in saying that what I mean is Hitler did as much damage to Russia in four years to Stalin's twenty. Considering Germany's requisition of Ukrainian grain was higher than Russia's and the strategic plans that Nazi Germany had for European Russia, continued occupation would have been a disaster beyond imagination.

                    That said, I feel that there is something morbid in the "no, my detested dictator is more evil than yours" shouting contest.
                    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      Nope, the 1932-1933 famine in the Ukraine cost between 5-7 million lives in the Ukraine and 3-5 million elsewhere (10 million total) other actions by Stalin led to the death of between 5-15 million more. So between 15-20 million people died. Both have around 20 million civilian deaths on their heads, and both are outdone by Imperial Japan.
                      Those claims of Famine in the Ukraine come largely from Nazi sources in the 1930s and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by clyder View Post
                        Those claims of Famine in the Ukraine come largely from Nazi sources in the 1930s and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
                        Just because it may have been reported by them doesn't mean it's not true, and furthermore there's a general consensus among historians that the Holodomor occurred.
                        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          and the famine started 32. The Nazis were not even in power at that time.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Getting back to the original question, I believe the Nazis would've been worse for the free world than the Soviets; both societies had their own ideologies, but the Soviet ideology was, I believe, just a little more pragmatic than the Nazi ideology (but not by much!). The Nazi ideology was pretty hard-core, and didn't leave much wiggle room for flexibility when it came to dealing with other countries and/or ideologies. The Soviets were hard-liners, too, but they at least would change their ideology if it was in their best interest, then they would think of a way to justify it to the masses (if necessary).
                            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                              Getting back to the original question, I believe the Nazis would've been worse for the free world than the Soviets; both societies had their own ideologies, but the Soviet ideology was, I believe, just a little more pragmatic than the Nazi ideology (but not by much!). The Nazi ideology was pretty hard-core, and didn't leave much wiggle room for flexibility when it came to dealing with other countries and/or ideologies. The Soviets were hard-liners, too, but they at least would change their ideology if it was in their best interest, then they would think of a way to justify it to the masses (if necessary).
                              I don't think it was Communism that was pragmatic, rather, it was Stalin.

                              With regards to the original question, I think the fact that the Nazis would have controlled territories that comprised half the free world as defined during the Cold War would have made it much worse for the free world, without going into the respective communist and fascist ideologies. France, Benelux, Italy, Austria, Germany, Scandinavia -- all under the control of the Nazi Empire. The free world would then be restricted to just the Anglosphere.
                              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I think a Nazified Europe would have held on to its colonies in Africa and Asia. Independence movements in most countries would have been brutally crushed, possibly with large scale genocide of the native populations.

                                India might have broken away from a conquered, weakened Britain, but Hitler, an admirer of the British Empire might have intervened to keep India under European rule. The influence of the Indian leader Subhas Chandra Bose, who collaborated with the Axis powers might have been key.

                                The free world might have been reduced to simply the United States and a few other countries; in the long run overwhelmed by the superior resources and territories of the Axis countries.

                                Unlike the Soviet Union which was probably inevitably doomed to collapse from within; a brutish Nazi dominated world order might have survived to this day.

                                I'd say the possibility of the Nazi's victorious would have been far far worse to the world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X