> M forever wrote: > > On Nov 3, 9:15 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> O wrote: > >>> In article <Xns9CB87C796EE00quackandf...@216.168.3.30>, > >>> Matthew B. Tepper <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>>> "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> appears to have caused the > >>>> following letters to be typed in > >>>>news:KNydnayDcZja5G3XnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@supernews.com: > >>>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: > >>>>>> Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> appears to have caused the following > >>>>>> letters to be typed innews:7lb2vaF3c6q4aU1@mid.individual.net: > >>>>>>> Andrej Kluge schrieb: > >>>>>>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: > >>>>>>>>> And talk TR out of inviting Granados to play at the White House. > >>>>>>>> Who is TR? > >>>>>>> Theodore Roosevelt? > >>>>>> Yes. The president invited Granados to perform there, and the > >>>>>> pianist had to change his return plans, taking a ship that was sunk > >>>>>> by the Germans. > >>>>> Tragic story, but it was Woodrow Wilson. TR hadn't been president since > >>>>> 1909. > >>>> Yikes, I just rechecked the dates, and you're right! So blame a Democrat. > >>>> THIS time. ;--) > >>> The more you know about Woodrow Wilson, the less you'll like him. > >>> -Owen > >> Amen to that. A vicious racist, for starters.
> >> Bob Harper
> > Weren't most of them back then?
> No, not like Wilson. Just Google 'Woodrow Wilson Racism' to get a taste > of just where the noble Wilson was coming from. Remember, Teddy > Roosevelt had, a few years earlier, had Booker T. Washington to dinner > at the White House. That dinner caused great outrage in the South, a > South of which Wilson was representative.
> Bob Harper
Well, that's basically what I meant by "most of them". Obviously, not every single politician or private person held those views, but apparently, a great majority of people did. How representative is the following excerpt from a newspaper in Memphis which I found while googling the subject?
"The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any citizen of the United States was committed yesterday by the President, when he invited a nigger to dine with him at the White House. It would not be worth more than a passing notice if Theodore Roosevelt had sat down to dinner in his own home with a Pullman car porter, but Roosevelt the individual and Roosevelt the President are not to be viewed in the same light."
> > > >>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: > > > >>>> Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> appears to have caused the following > > > >>>> letters to be typed innews:7lb2vaF3c6q4aU1@mid.individual.net:
> > > >>>>> Andrej Kluge schrieb:
> > > >>>>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: > > > >>>>>>> And talk TR out of inviting Granados to play at the White House. > > > >>>>>> Who is TR? > > > >>>>> Theodore Roosevelt? > > > >>>> Yes. The president invited Granados to perform there, and the > > > >>>> pianist had to change his return plans, taking a ship that was sunk > > > >>>> by the Germans. > > > >>> Tragic story, but it was Woodrow Wilson. TR hadn't been president since > > > >>> 1909. > > > >> Yikes, I just rechecked the dates, and you're right! So blame a > > > >> Democrat. > > > >> THIS time. ;--)
> > > > The more you know about Woodrow Wilson, the less you'll like him.
> > > > -Owen
> > > Amen to that. A vicious racist, for starters.
> > > Bob Harper
> > Weren't most of them back then?
> Woodrow Wilson went above and beyond the racism of the times, and > inspired more. Remember those signs on the water fountains in > Washington, DC? "For Coloreds Only" Wilson put them there. Wilson > systematically fired every black person working for the government.
As President, Wilson was obviously also in a better position to implement such "policies" than most people of his time. The question is, did he simply abuse his power to implement views of a radical minority or did he simply do what the majority wanted anyway? Apparently, he felt that by segregating, he "protected" the "blacks" from the "whites". Was that what most "whites" wanted? How big was the outrage over his actions with regards to "blacks"?
M forever wrote: > On Nov 4, 12:33 am, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote: >> M forever wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 9:15 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> O wrote: >>>>> In article <Xns9CB87C796EE00quackandf...@216.168.3.30>, >>>>> Matthew B. Tepper <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>>>> "Frank Berger" <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> appears to have caused the >>>>>> following letters to be typed in >>>>>> news:KNydnayDcZja5G3XnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@supernews.com: >>>>>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: >>>>>>>> Johannes Roehl <parrhe...@web.de> appears to have caused the following >>>>>>>> letters to be typed innews:7lb2vaF3c6q4aU1@mid.individual.net: >>>>>>>>> Andrej Kluge schrieb: >>>>>>>>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> And talk TR out of inviting Granados to play at the White House. >>>>>>>>>> Who is TR? >>>>>>>>> Theodore Roosevelt? >>>>>>>> Yes. The president invited Granados to perform there, and the >>>>>>>> pianist had to change his return plans, taking a ship that was sunk >>>>>>>> by the Germans. >>>>>>> Tragic story, but it was Woodrow Wilson. TR hadn't been president since >>>>>>> 1909. >>>>>> Yikes, I just rechecked the dates, and you're right! So blame a Democrat. >>>>>> THIS time. ;--) >>>>> The more you know about Woodrow Wilson, the less you'll like him. >>>>> -Owen >>>> Amen to that. A vicious racist, for starters. >>>> Bob Harper >>> Weren't most of them back then? >> No, not like Wilson. Just Google 'Woodrow Wilson Racism' to get a taste >> of just where the noble Wilson was coming from. Remember, Teddy >> Roosevelt had, a few years earlier, had Booker T. Washington to dinner >> at the White House. That dinner caused great outrage in the South, a >> South of which Wilson was representative.
>> Bob Harper
> Well, that's basically what I meant by "most of them". Obviously, not > every single politician or private person held those views, but > apparently, a great majority of people did. > How representative is the following excerpt from a newspaper in > Memphis which I found while googling the subject?
> "The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any > citizen of the United States was committed yesterday by the President, > when he invited a nigger to dine with him at the White House. It would > not be worth more than a passing notice if Theodore Roosevelt had sat > down to dinner in his own home with a Pullman car porter, but > Roosevelt the individual and Roosevelt the President are not to be > viewed in the same light."
That's an interesting quotation. 1) It invokes the 'nigger' epithet. 2) It equates Booker T. with a Pullman car porter. 3) It holds the POTUS to a different socializing standard from a (presumably respectable) 'private' citizen at the end, but not at the beginning.
I find it irrational, but probably representative of a segment of the contemporary public, even without the 'damnable outrage' reaction. Without that 'damnable outrage', the sentiment would probably have been similar had the dinner taken place in Germany.
> Well, that's basically what I meant by "most of them". Obviously, not > every single politician or private person held those views, but > apparently, a great majority of people did. > How representative is the following excerpt from a newspaper in > Memphis which I found while googling the subject?
> "The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any > citizen of the United States was committed yesterday by the President, > when he invited a nigger to dine with him at the White House. It would > not be worth more than a passing notice if Theodore Roosevelt had sat > down to dinner in his own home with a Pullman car porter, but > Roosevelt the individual and Roosevelt the President are not to be > viewed in the same light."
Fairly representative, I would say, of whites in the old Confederacy. But of course the Confederacy was smaller than the Union. I wonder if there's a contemporaneous comment from a norther newspaper? The fact that Wilson had to institute Jim Crow policies in DC would seem to indicate that something better was in place before he got there. I'm sure it wasn't an atmosphere of perfect racial equality, but he certainly made things worse.
According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) actually had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, just before the start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk him out of it. One of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if he'd done it - and Hitler had had to replace Goering with a *competent* air commander?
forever <ms1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> The more you know about Woodrow Wilson, the less you'll like him. > > >>> -Owen > > >> Amen to that. A vicious racist, for starters.
> > >> Bob Harper
> > > Weren't most of them back then?
> > No, not like Wilson. Just Google 'Woodrow Wilson Racism' to get a taste > > of just where the noble Wilson was coming from. Remember, Teddy > > Roosevelt had, a few years earlier, had Booker T. Washington to dinner > > at the White House. That dinner caused great outrage in the South, a > > South of which Wilson was representative.
> > Bob Harper
> Well, that's basically what I meant by "most of them". Obviously, not > every single politician or private person held those views, but > apparently, a great majority of people did.
Few were as bad as Wilson's and less had the wherewithal that Wilson had to effect change.
> > Woodrow Wilson went above and beyond the racism of the times, and > > inspired more. Remember those signs on the water fountains in > > Washington, DC? "For Coloreds Only" Wilson put them there. Wilson > > systematically fired every black person working for the government.
> As President, Wilson was obviously also in a better position to > implement such "policies" than most people of his time. The question > is, did he simply abuse his power to implement views of a radical > minority or did he simply do what the majority wanted anyway?
It's my understanding that Wilson was the leader, not the follower, in such practises.
> Apparently, he felt that by segregating, he "protected" the "blacks" > from the "whites". Was that what most "whites" wanted? How big was the > outrage over his actions with regards to "blacks"?
Most of Wilson's segregationist policies affected only Washington, D.C. and government jobs. There was little outrage over the act which somewhat explains why Wilson is still venerated in some circles. Most people were more distracted by WWI then by racial unfairness. (Except if you were black, of course.)
> According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) > actually had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, > just before the start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk > him out of it. One of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if > he'd done it - and Hitler had had to replace Goering with a > *competent* air commander?
I think this is only interesting if Hitler & Co had a chance to win that war.
Bob Lombard wrote: > M forever wrote: >> "The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any >> citizen of the United States was committed yesterday by the President, >> when he invited a nigger to dine with him at the White House. It would >> not be worth more than a passing notice if Theodore Roosevelt had sat >> down to dinner in his own home with a Pullman car porter, but >> Roosevelt the individual and Roosevelt the President are not to be >> viewed in the same light."
> That's an interesting quotation. 1) It invokes the 'nigger' epithet. 2) > It equates Booker T. with a Pullman car porter. 3) It holds the POTUS to > a different socializing standard from a (presumably respectable) > 'private' citizen at the end, but not at the beginning.
> I find it irrational, but probably representative of a segment of the > contemporary public, even without the 'damnable outrage' reaction. > Without that 'damnable outrage', the sentiment would probably have been > similar had the dinner taken place in Germany.
Mark Twain's reaction was interesting as well. He thought Roosevelt was trying to grab some of Washington's aura of respectability in making the invitation, and that Washington had demeaned himself by accepting it.
> According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) actually > had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, just before the > start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk him out of it. One > of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if he'd done it - and Hitler > had had to replace Goering with a *competent* air commander?
The one theater in which Germany could have very likely have won a decisive victory was the Atlantic U-Boot blockade. Churchill said after the war that was what he feared the most. Military historians have estimated that if more resources had been directed to the U-Boot fleet, including air support which could have had a far bigger impact in that arena than in the air battle over Britain, they could easily have cut off Britain's lifeline. But not only Hitler and Goering but a lot of other military commanders did not quite realize that because they were not able to think "out of the box". So it's not a matter of having one or two more competent people in this or that place, and then history would have been completely changed. Individuals can and sometimes do play a very decisive role in history, but they also always act against the background of a larger historical situation, so in very, very few cases it would have made a really big difference if a particular individual had died earlier.
>>> O for a time machine and a Luger. >> According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) actually >> had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, just before the >> start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk him out of it. One >> of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if he'd done it - and Hitler >> had had to replace Goering with a *competent* air commander?
> The one theater in which Germany could have very likely have won a > decisive victory was the Atlantic U-Boot blockade. Churchill said > after the war that was what he feared the most. Military historians > have estimated that if more resources had been directed to the U-Boot > fleet, including air support which could have had a far bigger impact > in that arena than in the air battle over Britain, they could easily > have cut off Britain's lifeline. But not only Hitler and Goering but a > lot of other military commanders did not quite realize that because > they were not able to think "out of the box". So it's not a matter of > having one or two more competent people in this or that place, and > then history would have been completely changed. Individuals can and > sometimes do play a very decisive role in history, but they also > always act against the background of a larger historical situation, so > in very, very few cases it would have made a really big difference if > a particular individual had died earlier.
If Hitler had not decided that he needed an 'Eastern Front' - Czecho-Slovakia was already cowed, Hungary and Romania had Fascist governments even before the war began - a U-boat blockade of Mediterranean ports (as well as of the British Isles) could have stymied U.S. intervention in North Africa and Italy - for a year or so. That could have been enough.
> > According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) actually > > had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, just before the > > start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk him out of it. One > > of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if he'd done it - and Hitler > > had had to replace Goering with a *competent* air commander?
> The one theater in which Germany could have very likely have won a > decisive victory was the Atlantic U-Boot blockade. Churchill said > after the war that was what he feared the most. Military historians > have estimated that if more resources had been directed to the U-Boot > fleet, including air support which could have had a far bigger impact > in that arena than in the air battle over Britain, they could easily > have cut off Britain's lifeline. But not only Hitler and Goering but a > lot of other military commanders did not quite realize that because > they were not able to think "out of the box".
I don't think that's the reason - it wouldn't have been a cure-all for the "Battle of Britain." The reason is that in order to give reasonable support to submarines and other warships, they would need at least some measure of air superiority, which they never had. You can't assign fighters and bombers to cover warships if they could be in immediate attack. In addition, Hitler had no carriers, which meant all the planes had to fly from France to wherever they were covering.
The Battle of Britain was the battle for air superiority. Had the Germans won that, then they could've covered their ships with impunity. Trying to do that without first taking out the enemy's air defenses is literally leaving planes like sitting ducks.
> > > According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) actually > > > had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, just before the > > > start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk him out of it. One > > > of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if he'd done it - and Hitler > > > had had to replace Goering with a *competent* air commander?
> > The one theater in which Germany could have very likely have won a > > decisive victory was the Atlantic U-Boot blockade. Churchill said > > after the war that was what he feared the most. Military historians > > have estimated that if more resources had been directed to the U-Boot > > fleet, including air support which could have had a far bigger impact > > in that arena than in the air battle over Britain, they could easily > > have cut off Britain's lifeline. But not only Hitler and Goering but a > > lot of other military commanders did not quite realize that because > > they were not able to think "out of the box".
> I don't think that's the reason - it wouldn't have been a cure-all for > the "Battle of Britain." The reason is that in order to give > reasonable support to submarines and other warships, they would need at > least some measure of air superiority, which they never had. You can't > assign fighters and bombers to cover warships if they could be in > immediate attack. In addition, Hitler had no carriers, which meant all > the planes had to fly from France to wherever they were covering.
> The Battle of Britain was the battle for air superiority. Had the > Germans won that, then they could've covered their ships with impunity. > Trying to do that without first taking out the enemy's air defenses is > literally leaving planes like sitting ducks.
> -Owen
I am not a military historian, so my understanding of the "mechanisms" at work here is limited. What I said is something I saw in a series of British/American documentaries about the Atlantic War on the Military Channel recently. Obviously, just because "they said so on TV", that doesn't make it "true", but they explained pretty well why they said that. It had mostly to do with the different types of aircraft used for different operations, such as the air battles over Britain and naval support over the Atlantic, the different ranges of operation these planes had on both sides, etc. Unfortunately, I can't repeat all that in detail, but these documentaries seem to be on the MC regularly. That one was called "Wings" or "Wings of WWII" or something similar.
> >>> O for a time machine and a Luger. > >> According to history/myth/legend, Bugsy Siegel (no relation!!!) actually > >> had a chance to kill Goebbels and Goering in Italy in 1939, just before the > >> start of the war, but let his Italian girlfriend talk him out of it. One > >> of my paranoid alternate-universe ideas: what if he'd done it - and Hitler > >> had had to replace Goering with a *competent* air commander?
> > The one theater in which Germany could have very likely have won a > > decisive victory was the Atlantic U-Boot blockade. Churchill said > > after the war that was what he feared the most. Military historians > > have estimated that if more resources had been directed to the U-Boot > > fleet, including air support which could have had a far bigger impact > > in that arena than in the air battle over Britain, they could easily > > have cut off Britain's lifeline. But not only Hitler and Goering but a > > lot of other military commanders did not quite realize that because > > they were not able to think "out of the box". So it's not a matter of > > having one or two more competent people in this or that place, and > > then history would have been completely changed. Individuals can and > > sometimes do play a very decisive role in history, but they also > > always act against the background of a larger historical situation, so > > in very, very few cases it would have made a really big difference if > > a particular individual had died earlier.
> If Hitler had not decided that he needed an 'Eastern Front' - > Czecho-Slovakia was already cowed, Hungary and Romania had Fascist > governments even before the war began - a U-boat blockade of > Mediterranean ports (as well as of the British Isles) could have stymied > U.S. intervention in North Africa and Italy - for a year or so. That > could have been enough.
> bl
Hitler thought that a confrontation with the USSR was inevitable, and he thought it would be better to have it sooner than later, while the USSR was still building up its industrial basis, and while the Red Army was still weakened by Stalin's extensive "purges" of its leadership in the late 30s. I think he saw himself confirmed by the Red Army's disastrous performance during the invasion of Finland. Still, most of the Wehrmacht leadership disagreed with him and thought it was not such a good idea, and I guess history has proven them right. But Hitler had to have his way anyway. Here we may have one of those situations where the decisions made by one or a small group of individuals indeed made a significant impact on history and how it played out.
> Hitler thought that a confrontation with the USSR was inevitable, and > he thought it would be better to have it sooner than later, while the > USSR was still building up its industrial basis, and while the Red > Army was still weakened by Stalin's extensive "purges" of its > leadership in the late 30s. I think he saw himself confirmed by the > Red Army's disastrous performance during the invasion of Finland. > Still, most of the Wehrmacht leadership disagreed with him and thought > it was not such a good idea, and I guess history has proven them > right. But Hitler had to have his way anyway. Here we may have one of > those situations where the decisions made by one or a small group of > individuals indeed made a significant impact on history and how it > played out.
You said earlier:
> so > in very, very few cases it would have made a really big difference if > a particular individual had died earlier.
Can I assume that you agree that without Hitler, with his peculiar charisma, it's likely that the WWII we had would not have occurred? That's not to say there wouldn't have been a European confrontation, but I'm inclined to think it would have been between the West and the Soviet Union. Pure speculation, of course, but it does seem to me that Hitler, along with Lenin, Mao, and a handful of others, is among those individuals whose absence would have changed history.
> Hitler thought that a confrontation with the USSR was inevitable, and > he thought it would be better to have it sooner than later, while the > USSR was still building up its industrial basis, and while the Red > Army was still weakened by Stalin's extensive "purges" of its > leadership in the late 30s. I think he saw himself confirmed by the > Red Army's disastrous performance during the invasion of Finland. > Still, most of the Wehrmacht leadership disagreed with him and thought > it was not such a good idea, and I guess history has proven them > right. But Hitler had to have his way anyway. Here we may have one of > those situations where the decisions made by one or a small group of > individuals indeed made a significant impact on history and how it > played out.
It's easy to look back now and realize that Hitler went too far militarily in trying to invade Russia, and it was his most fatal error, but no one remembers how close he came to actual victory, and it was only the heroic and costly stands at Stalingrad and Kursk that saved the Russians from defeat.
> I am not a military historian, so my understanding of the "mechanisms" > at work here is limited. What I said is something I saw in a series of > British/American documentaries about the Atlantic War on the Military > Channel recently. Obviously, just because "they said so on TV", that > doesn't make it "true", but they explained pretty well why they said > that. It had mostly to do with the different types of aircraft used > for different operations, such as the air battles over Britain and > naval support over the Atlantic, the different ranges of operation > these planes had on both sides, etc. Unfortunately, I can't repeat all > that in detail, but these documentaries seem to be on the MC > regularly. That one was called "Wings" or "Wings of WWII" or something > similar.
I've seen many of these programs, and those on the history channel or National Geographic are generally based on a book written on the same theme, and basically summarize the book's main proposals. I'm not master enough of the actual aerial firepower the Germans were able to muster to say what actually would or would not have worked in particular to other strategems they took, but I do feel that the Battle of Britain was for air superiority (by the time it was over - Germany had none), and the winner of that battle could've had his pickings of whatever else they wanted to do, though in the nascent days of air warfare probably neither side realized that that was so at the time.
Now, if Hitler had built a couple of aircraft carriers instead of the Bismarck...
>> Hitler thought that a confrontation with the USSR was inevitable, and >> he thought it would be better to have it sooner than later, while the >> USSR was still building up its industrial basis, and while the Red >> Army was still weakened by Stalin's extensive "purges" of its >> leadership in the late 30s. I think he saw himself confirmed by the >> Red Army's disastrous performance during the invasion of Finland. >> Still, most of the Wehrmacht leadership disagreed with him and thought >> it was not such a good idea, and I guess history has proven them >> right. But Hitler had to have his way anyway. Here we may have one of >> those situations where the decisions made by one or a small group of >> individuals indeed made a significant impact on history and how it >> played out.
> You said earlier: >> so >> in very, very few cases it would have made a really big difference if >> a particular individual had died earlier.
> Can I assume that you agree that without Hitler, with his peculiar > charisma, it's likely that the WWII we had would not have occurred? > That's not to say there wouldn't have been a European confrontation, but > I'm inclined to think it would have been between the West and the Soviet > Union. Pure speculation, of course, but it does seem to me that Hitler, > along with Lenin, Mao, and a handful of others, is among those > individuals whose absence would have changed history.
Read Fry's "Making history" for a dissenting view (expressed in a SciFi/alternative history novel, not a historical treatise). Without spoiling the whole fun: In the book the intervention that prevents Hitler's existence leads to another guy's rise to power, who is more intelligent, better educated, but similarly charismatic... It's impossible to tell, I think. Most people would probably agree that the first world war would have taken place, even if one took particular politicians out of the game. If you prevented the assassination of Franz Ferdinand by Serbian nationalist, the entrenched powers would have found another pretext. Apart from the fact that democracy was not firmly established in Germany, one has to consider that fascist governments rose to power, more or less independently of each other, in many European countries. Even in Britain there was a fascist party and sympathy with central ideas of the ideology was widespread. So while a catastrophe like the one that actually occurred was probably not unavoidable, I believe that European wars, maybe on a smaller scale, would have arisen, even if you took out a few (or even a few dozen) central politicians. (I don't know enough about the situation in the Pacific.)
> Can I assume that you agree that without Hitler, with his peculiar > charisma, it's likely that the WWII we had would not have occurred? That's > not to say there wouldn't have been a European confrontation, but I'm > inclined to think it would have been between the West and the Soviet > Union. Pure speculation, of course, but it does seem to me that Hitler, > along with Lenin, Mao, and a handful of others, is among those individuals > whose absence would have changed history.
If you have Netflix, there's a valuable source of information from Goebbes' diary here: (It's currently available in the form of streaming directly to your monitor or a TV via the Roku box): http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Goebbels_Experiment/70041019 (I've only watched part of it thus far using Roku, and it has some excellent historical video coming over in more than an acceptable form.) I believe it can also be obtained via BitTorrent.
> > Hitler thought that a confrontation with the USSR was inevitable, and > > he thought it would be better to have it sooner than later, while the > > USSR was still building up its industrial basis, and while the Red > > Army was still weakened by Stalin's extensive "purges" of its > > leadership in the late 30s. I think he saw himself confirmed by the > > Red Army's disastrous performance during the invasion of Finland. > > Still, most of the Wehrmacht leadership disagreed with him and thought > > it was not such a good idea, and I guess history has proven them > > right. But Hitler had to have his way anyway. Here we may have one of > > those situations where the decisions made by one or a small group of > > individuals indeed made a significant impact on history and how it > > played out.
> You said earlier:
> > so > > in very, very few cases it would have made a really big difference if > > a particular individual had died earlier.
> Can I assume that you agree that without Hitler, with his peculiar > charisma, it's likely that the WWII we had would not have occurred? > That's not to say there wouldn't have been a European confrontation, but > I'm inclined to think it would have been between the West and the Soviet > Union. Pure speculation, of course, but it does seem to me that Hitler, > along with Lenin, Mao, and a handful of others, is among those > individuals whose absence would have changed history.
Very hard to say. Impossible, really, although "speculative" or "alternative" history can be an interesting game to play. I tend towards thinking though that if it hadn't been Hitler (or Mao, Lenin, Stalin, or any of the other "bad boys" of history), it would have been someone else in his place, probably someone rather similar. I think these people more float on the the tides of history than that they actually control them. There are reasons for why certain people get into positions of power in certain historical situations. I think the stage was pretty much set for what followed in 1919, after WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. But there are also reasons for why the decisions were made that were made, and those reasons were probably beyond the control of the individual decision makers, too. It may be interesting to speculate what might have happened if someone more intelligent had come into power in 1933 - or, since Hitler was undoubtedly very intelligent in his ways, someone more realistic and circumspect, possibly more benevolent and less extremist. But then there were plenty of such people, and they didn't get into power. Keeping in mind that the main reason Hitler was installed into power in 1933 was that less extreme, but also less influential right wing forces feared that if it wouldn't be him, there might be a communist takeover, it may also be very interesting to speculate what might have happened in that case. You could also speculate what would have happened if the world depression hadn't hit in 1929, after all, by the later 20s, the Nazis were almost gone from the political scene after the Weimar Republic had somewhat stabilized. The NSDAP had less than 3% of he votes in the election of 1928. Or, since the main reason for the new democratic government in 1918 to end the war abruptly and with unconditional surrender was that they feared if they did not get out of the war immediately, something similar to what had happened in Russia the year before might happen - we have to remember that the actual Russian revolution was the one that happened in February 1917, and the October "Revolution" was really more a communist putsch than an actual people's revolution - it may also be interesting to speculate what would have happened if a similar communist takeover had happened in Germany in 1918, or, or, or, or - the potential for speculation is endless...
> > Can I assume that you agree that without Hitler, with his peculiar > > charisma, it's likely that the WWII we had would not have occurred? That's > > not to say there wouldn't have been a European confrontation, but I'm > > inclined to think it would have been between the West and the Soviet > > Union. Pure speculation, of course, but it does seem to me that Hitler, > > along with Lenin, Mao, and a handful of others, is among those individuals > > whose absence would have changed history.
> If you have Netflix, there's a valuable source of information from Goebbes' > diary here: > (It's currently available in the form of streaming directly to your monitor > or a TV via the Roku box):http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Goebbels_Experiment/70041019
Thanks for the tip - I just signed up for netflix a few days ago, so I will probably watch that later tonight.
|
