What's new

Germany considers lifting 'Mein Kampf' ban

Germany considers lifting 'Mein Kampf' ban | Europe | Worldbulletin News

World Bulletin / News Desk

Reprinting or selling Adolf Hitler's “Mein Kampf” is illegal in Germany, but with the copyright term on the 90-year-old book set to run out next year, lawmakers are mulling whether to ban or reprint the highly controversial work.

A meeting was held between the Regional and national German justice ministers on Wednesday at the island of Rügen to discuss whether Germany should make a new law banning Hitler's National Socialist manifesto once the 70-year copyright term, which started in 1945, runs out.

President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dieter Graumann, told The Local he would strongly oppose ever publishing the work.

"The very thought of a new publication of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ is more than disgusting and goes against all my beliefs to fight neo-fascism and right-wing extremism," said Graumann.

"This book was and will remain a pure anti-Semitic work of irrational hatred that should be forbidden for evermore. It is an abhorrent pamphlet full of incitement of the Jewish people and it brutally hurts the feelings of the Shoa-survivors."

The state of Bavaria, which took over rights after Hitler's death at the end of World War II is the current copyright holder. However after 2015 anyone can print and sell the book.

Bavaria's Justice Minister Winfried Bausback said in a statement on Wednesday: "We owe it to the victims of the holocaust and their relatives to do everything we can to prevent the duplication and distribution of this ideological, inflammatory text."

"I would prefer this book to be forbidden forever. Regrettably and obviously we cannot prevent a new publication, since the copyright is about to expire by the end of the year 2015," added Graumann.

“So if a publication cannot be avoided, it should be at least guaranteed that there is a scholarly edition which provides a scientific and critical analysis in order to demystify this horrible text.”

Lower Saxony's Justice Minister Antje Niewisch-Lennartz said at the ministers’ conference that a legal ban of printing and distributing the work is not an answer.

The Green Party politician suggested that the work should be allowed to be published with an academic commentary so the anti-Semitic text could have a “preventative effect” against fascism.

Niewisch-Lennartz acknowledges that for some Jewish groups putting the book back on sale in Germany would be 'almost unbearable'.

Millions of copies were published and given to newlyweds as a gift, after Hitler rose to power.

In 1943 ten million copies of the work were thought to be in German households.

----------------------------------------

@Götterdämmerung @MarkusS

What do you guys think?
Won't change a thing. Plus the book is extremely boring. Anybody who is undecided will hate Hitler more after reading the book. Yes - that is torture.

Neo Nazis will revere the book regardless. In any case it's all available on the Internet. :P


Nonsense, Germans have become an open minded and tolerant society. In fact they despise Hitler for everything he did to them
Germans are neither open minded nor are they tolerant. But they have learnt a valuable lesson - to shun overt violence. They have achieved today what their forefathers wished to without shedding blood :D

Thats just plain wrong.

1.) Germany managed to catch up pretty quickly in the late 19th and early 20th century in terms of industrialization.

2.) The industrial output of Germany was never on par with the real industrial giants: The USA and the USSR.

3.) The "great statesman" was indeed responsible for bringing Germany economic growth, infrastructure and less unemployment.

But why is nobody thinking about the cost or at least the reason for all this?

Everything that Hitler invested in was meant for one thing only: Total war! Business, from the small ones to the biggest ones were slowly transformed to war fuelling industries.

Of course unemployment falls drastically with such measures and obviously, Germany was only able to pull this off by taking insane amount of debts, which were supposed to be paid by plundering and pillaging other countries and bringing death, destruction and countless other evils to others.
There never was Total War in the Third Reich. Even after the February 43 speech of Goebbels' famous Total War speech, the German economy was not geared for total mobilization. It was done much later after the July 20 plot, in 1944. By then it was already too late.
 
Last edited:
The Versailles treaty did not make Germany into an "agrarian state". Thats a total exaggeration




Thats another myth and a blunt generalization.

Sure, the Germans were slightly ahead in some areas like rocket science but in many cases, the Allies had comparable or better knowledge. The allies had better radar technology, knowledge about computers etc etc.

French tanks like the Char B1 were vastly superior to more than 3/4 of the German panzer corps during the Battle of France (The Germans won due to superior tactics not machines).

The Soviets and American had successful heavy tanks like the KV1 or Pershing, but unlike the Germans, they did not waste resources on heavy, less mobile and complicated machines and concentrated on mass production of Sherman and T 34 tanks.

Same goes for the British, who also had jet engines before WW2, but they concentrated primarily on piston engine fighters instead of allocating scarce resources on prototypes.

In short: The Germans frantically (often against the will of German commanders) tried to get highly experimental technology operational, despite the fact that they never had the resources nor the industrial capabilities to do this.

Just because the Allies put more emphasis on tried and more available equipment, it does not mean that they did not have it!






Highly dubious.

Once the Soviets reached their full industrial potential, Germany`s could not keep up with it. Even if they had sacked Moscow, the Russians would have done the same as they did when Napoleon sacked Moscow: Moving further and further to the east and waiting for the moment to counterattack.

Besides, the more territory the Nazis occupied, the more they had to fight with resistance.

The role of resistance movements during WW2 is extremely underplayed.
The Germans were decades ahead in many fields. The Vergeltungswaffen Programme itself is one example. Precisely why Operation Paperclip was launched. Also remember Werner von Braun. Like many other scientists who would later be NASA topshots, Braun also started off at Peenemunde. :tup:

Problem was the Germans were ahead in technology but feasibility was not their strong point. Practical tech is vital to build simple and effective weapons. That's what Sowjet Union did. The Germans did the opposite.

The rest of what you said is spot on. Germany would never have matched Sowjet Union alone either - simply because she was not prepared for a war of attrition. The Russians were always ready for deprivations of Total War. For Germany, it started too late.
 
1.) That is not an excuse for what Hitler did in the end. Yes, there was a threat perception among many countries, but no one planned to invade the USSR... and no one certainly viewed the Eastern European people as sub humans who could be dislocated, butchered or used as slave labour.
It wasn't a "perception", rather a reality. And your statement that "but no one planned to invade the USSR" doesn't hold true because none of the countries in Eastern Europe HAD the industrial capabilities nor manpower to muster force against the USSR and they did look forward to a German invasion of the Soviet Union. Bulgarian Tsar Boris III actually urged Hitler to invade the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was invading Europe for "lebensraum" LONG BEFORE Hitler wrote Mein Kampf:

Soviet Invasion of Eastern Europe,1919-Wikipedia

Soviet Westward Offensive Toward Germany, 1919-Wikipedia

Soviet Invasion of Poland,1920-Wikipedia

So i can see why Hitler was justified in viewing the Soviet Union as a threat that needed to be dealt with.



2) Germany could have not survived for an extended amount of time with being "self sufficient" (which it never was) and I agree, it was wrong to say that they nationalized entire industries, but they did heavily interfered in the economy especially by spending insane amounts of money they did not have.

This entire statement is completely false and ignorant. Germany was self sufficient financially and economically unlike Britain, France, and USA, because it disconnected itself from the established financial system of which these nations were a part of and the German gov.t began printing its own interest-free and debt-free money. THAT is called self sufficiency!! Of course, Germany still traded with other nations for raw materials it didn't possess, but it did so completely free of any middlemen and it traded in goods and NOT currency which made it difficult to impose any kind if economic sanctions on the German economy. Regarding German gov.t spending money, well you contradicted yourself there because HOW could it spend "insane amounts of money" if it didn't have any like you said??:what:

The Statement below by a Notable and respected Chinese Economist tears apart your claims that Hitler wiped out unemployment through massive rearmament spending:


"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US entry to World War II put the US market economy on a war footing. While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy
."-Henry C. K. Liu

Nazism and the German economic miracle - By Henry C K Liu - Asia Times





3.) It does hardly matter what a maniac like Hitler actually wanted.
If it didn't matter then you wouldn't have been making factually incorrect comments like "Germany was preparing for total war" and other absurd claims without any truth to them.


What did he expect would happen after he invaded a sovereign Poland after staging false flag ops to justify it? And Poland was not the first country to fall prey to him.
Everything, from his anti human rhetoric to his aggressive foreign policy made it impossible for the other powers to just sit back and watch. In fact they should have acted much earlier.

And concerning Poland, why should anyone with self respect and sovereignty accept such ridiculous offers made by a totalitarian fascist terror state, which openly declared your own people as useless sub humans?

Then could you explain to me as to why the innocent Poles teamed up with the Nazi "totalitarian fascist terror state" (even though Nazism and Fascism are two different ideologies and world views, again, your ignorance) to invade, occupy, and then annex portions of the Sovereign State of Czechoslovakia in 1938?? :lol:

Polish invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie

The Poles and the "evil fascist totalitarian" Nazis were bed buddies. Hitler actually viewed the Poles as potential allies against the Soviet Union.

BTW, Hitler's "ridiculous" offer to Poland included free access to German ports and railway transportation as well as return of territory inhabited by ethnic Poles in exchange for the Danzig corridor which was 97% ethnic German and was German/belonged to Germany for 700 years prior to the Treaty of Versailles.


I find it amazing how people comment on subjects they have very little knowledge on as if they are some sort of experts without even doing any form of research.

@DESERT FIGHTER @Akheilos @The SC @Tshering22 @Hazzy997 @Abu Nasar @qamar1990
 
Last edited:
I've read the fairer few chapters of main kampf ..hope to read the rest after my exams..ending on the coming 7th.
 
It wasn't a "perception", rather a reality. And your statement that "but no one planned to invade the USSR" doesn't hold true because none of the countries in Eastern Europe HAD the industrial capabilities nor manpower to muster force against the USSR and they did look forward to a German invasion of the Soviet Union. Bulgarian Tsar Boris III actually urged Hitler to invade the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was invading Europe for "lebensraum" LONG BEFORE Hitler wrote Mein Kampf:

Soviet Invasion of Eastern Europe,1919-Wikipedia

Soviet Westward Offensive Toward Germany, 1919-Wikipedia

Soviet Invasion of Poland,1920-Wikipedia

So i can see why Hitler was justified in viewing the Soviet Union as a threat that needed to be dealt with.





This entire statement is completely false and ignorant. Germany was self sufficient financially and economically unlike Britain, France, and USA, because it disconnected itself from the established financial system of which these nations were a part of and the German gov.t began printing its own interest-free and debt-free money. THAT is called self sufficiency!! Of course, Germany still traded with other nations for raw materials it didn't possess, but it did so completely free of any middlemen and it traded in goods and NOT currency which made it difficult to impose any kind if economic sanctions on the German economy. Regarding German gov.t spending money, well you contradicted yourself there because HOW could it spend "insane amounts of money" if it didn't have any like you said??:what:
The Statement below by a Notable and respected Chinese Economist tears apart your claims that Hitler wiped out unemployment through massive rearmament spending:
"The Nazis came to power in Germany in 1933, at a time when its economy was in total collapse, with ruinous war-reparation obligations and zero prospects for foreign investment or credit. Yet through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full-employment public-works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies it could exploit, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began. In fact, German economic recovery preceded and later enabled German rearmament, in contrast to the US economy, where constitutional roadblocks placed by the US Supreme Court on the New Deal delayed economic recovery until US entry to World War II put the US market economy on a war footing. While this observation is not an endorsement for Nazi philosophy."-Henry C. K. Liu

Nazism and the German economic miracle - By Henry C K Liu - Asia Times






If it didn't matter then you wouldn't have been making factually incorrect comments like "Germany was preparing for total war" and other absurd claims without any truth to them.




Then could you explain to me as to why the innocent Poles teamed up with the Nazi "totalitarian fascist terror state" (even though Nazism and Fascism are two different ideologies and world views, again, your ignorance) to invade, occupy, and then annex portions of the Sovereign State of Czechoslovakia in 1938?? :lol:

Polish invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie

The Poles and the "evil fascist totalitarian" Nazis were bed buddies. Hitler actually viewed the Poles as potential allies against the Soviet Union.

BTW, Hitler's "ridiculous" offer to Poland included free access to German ports and railway transportation as well as return of territory inhabited by ethnic Poles in exchange for the Danzig corridor which was 97% ethnic German and was German/belonged to Germany for 700 years prior to the Treaty of Versailles.


I find it amazing how people comment on subjects they have very little knowledge on as if they are some sort of experts without even doing any form of research.

@DESERT FIGHTER @Akheilos @The SC @Tshering22 @Hazzy997 @Abu Nasar @qamar1990


The war in the East was vieded as Crusade against the Red Terror and a fight for civilisation.This is the Romanian answer to the British ultimatum in which they explain why they are fighting alongside Germany.


Romanian answer to the British ultimatum of 30 November 1941

Romanian Royal Government has taken notice of the communique that Her Majesty’s Government transmitted by the means of United States of America’s Legation.
Given the situation brought about by this note, Romanian Government is obliged to offer for consideration the following review:

In June 1940 Romania was the victim of a grave aggression of USSR. Disregarding the rules of Nation Rights, the historical rights and the rights of self-determination, as well as the obligations formally assumed by the acts of 9 February 1929 and 3 July 1933, the Government of USSR has taken over Bessarabia, Bukovina and the Hertza Region of Moldavia.

Graver than this – and that is a fact that Romanian Royal Government wants to declare openly, USSR is the main offender in the case of territorial changes on other Romanian borders, changes that Romania had to endure because of the Soviet aggression.

In this light, all the acts of neutrality, non-aggression and recognition of rights made by USSR to Romania between 1929 and 1940, can be seen as dissimulation means for goals of expansion and usurpation upon Romania, USSR taking advantage of the first critical and complex international situation, to unleash not only her invasion, but to bring about hard conditions on Romania, which had to choose between its total collapse and anarchy in South-Eastern Europe, and a temporary state of usurpation. Having achieved its first goals of aggression, the Soviet government did not cease the provocations, showing up its will of continuing the policy of expansion and invasion.

We bring into attention:

The brutal occupation of four islets on the Danube in the fall of 1940;
Daily harasses at borders and the continuous strive to change the borderline by force;
The tendency to take over the shipping routes on the seaside Danube;
Steady intrusions of the Russian airforce, of 2-7 surveys per day during April-June, with all Romanian protests, proving the preparation of military operations against Romania;
The massive concentration of military forces at the Northern and South-Eastern borders of Romania, with operative disposals and reconnaissance raids. The Soviet forces deployed on Romanian border comprised 30 infantry divisions, 8 cavalry divisions and 14 motorized brigades;

The attempts of Commissar Molotov to sap the security of Romania, and the revealment of Russian goals of expansion, by speech or actions towards foreign statesmen;
In the same time, Bessarabia and Bukovina were subject of organized destruction, tens of thousands of men were suppressed or imprisoned, hundreds of thousands Romanians were banished into Siberia, therefor population of centres as Kishinev was severely diminished.

In face of this grave situation and under the pressure of the threat rendered by the many Soviet divisions at the borders, on 22 June 1941Romania has set in a military action for preserving its national entity against the never ceasing aggression and for re-establishing its stolen rights.

Romanian Royal Government strongly believes that its military action was the only way to fulfill its salvation from the Russian threat, a new aggression being impending, as proven afterwards by the most objective and categorical findings.

To defend its national entity, to re-establish its rights and to preserve the order and civilization of the South-East (of Europe), Romania had no other choice than to fight beside the Great Power (Germany) which engaged in this historical fight to defend the European civilization and to counter the invasion that was to come upon Romania and Finland first, then upon the rest of Europe.

Engaged in this war, Romania respects the rules of honor.

On 22 June, Great Britain was not allied with USSR. Nevertheless, on 30 November 1941, Great Britain considers that Romania carries out aggression acts against Russia, the ally of Great Britain.

Romania did not carry out and does not carry out aggression acts.

The military action which Romania has undertaken is a legitimate act of defense against the Russian aggression, begun in 1940 and following after, and the military operations for cleansing the border, for reducing the military center of Odessa, which at 45-km away from the liman of Dniester was a focus of permanent threat, as well as Crimea was a center of airpower covering the Romanian territory and oil; these operations are natural military actions on a front born by Russian aggression, and which Romania had to undertake in order to secure a zone of peace.

Romanian Government fulfills its duty to remember Her Majesty’s Government that:

At the Paris Convention of 28 October 1920, Great Britain officially stated that “the borders regulated by the present treaty, as well as the Romanian sovereignty on the territories stipulated in it, cannot be reconsidered…”

A series of international regulations between 1920 and 1939 required the borders to be respected in a solidary manner.

The Great Britain’s declaration of guarantee, of 13 April 1939, stipulated that “in case of an action that threatens the independence of Romania … Her Majesty’s Government is obliged to offer its assistance”.

In spite of these, when on 26 June 1940USSR divulged its aggression, accomplished in the following days, Her Majesy’s Government did not undertake any action to defend or to respect the guarantees offered to Romania.

The Romanian Royal Government, remembering Her Majesty’s Government the terrible sufferings and threats, usurpations and occupations that Romanian people had endured since the 18th century from its Eastern neighbors, and the healthy anti-communist position that Romania displayed in the last two decades, defending since 1919 the South-Eastern (Europe) against social disorder and invasion, must emphasize the fact that in the past, this kind of attitude was strongly supported by Great Britain.

Arguments can be found in many declarations of English statesmen between 1919 and 1939, declarations which raised the alarm of communist threat against the social and political security of Europe.

Romanian Royal Government believes that what Romania had accomplished by this day, it was the only thing that could be done for defending the South-Eastern (Europe) and for preserving the Great institutions of European civilization.

Romania was the victim of an aggression with grave consequences in 1940, and it was living under the threat of further aggressions; what it did in 1941 was the only thing to be done. But this is nothing else than a self defense and a sacrifice for civilization.

6 December 1941

Read more: Why did Romania Join the Axis in WWII? (WW2, influence, Hitler) - History -U.S. and World, studying past, wars, presidents, language, economy - Page 2 - City-Data Forum
 
Really?? It was always "top dog"??? And that to even under the Weimar republic?? Is that why close to 6 million Germans were unemployed when Hitler took over?? German currency had no value and you're saying German economy was "top dog"??

Yes, that how effective the German economy was. I mean come on!? Who in mainland Europe have the Industrial capacity that Germany had during the 20s, at the height of it's depression? Spain, an country that was practically poor as French N. Africa per capita and would decent into civil war? France? The same country that had it Northern Cities torn to pieces by Artillery and trench warfare during WW1 and lagged behind Germany by an factor of 4-7? Belgium? Netherlands? New Republic of Poland was too busy fighting against the Red Army after the Russian Civil war and lacked an functioning industrial base. Czechoslovakia had good science research institution and an good level of industrial production (Skoda, Defense Industry, Electronics etc) but is far too weak to matter. Soviet Russia had just emerge from years of civil war and just start on the level of pre-1900 Tsarists Russian production level and would not rival USA or Germany until Stalin Five year plan. That leaves only Britain left, which was suffering from manufacturing decline because it's industry was still based and staple products like Iron and steel, coal, textiles and Shipbuilding which were not competitive compared to US exports during the 'Booming 20s' like portable radio sets, chemical products produced like Dow, Automobiles like Ford cars, US steel organization like Union Steel which had the most advance integrated steel plant system etc. This result in massive unemployment (though not extreme as Germany) and strikes in 1925 which vertically made Britain economy goes to an standstill and was forced to go on the Gold Standard, while trying maintain empire in India (Gandhi) and Iraq (Arab and Kurdish rebellions). So yes, Germany was still top dog. How did think Nazi Germany was able to physically rearm the Heer, Luftwaffe and Kreigmarine? Because Germany had the scientific amplitude and Industrial base to do so. There is an reason why Britain was worried more about NASAP taking power,than Mussolini's Fascist Italy which had power in Italy since 1920s,despite Italy occupying in more strategic lands (like Med. Sea, close to the Suez Canal, Less Borders with enemies, larger Navy than Germany etc). I stand by my comment.
 
1.) Yes, the Soviets did expand their territory, but calling it a quest for Lebensraum is simply wrong. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories.

And just because most European countries had not the military or industrial capabilities to fight a war with the Soviet Union, it does not mean that they were willing to start a new World War! Just look at Britain, France or the USA, which were completely reluctant to declare war on Germany, despite its countless violations of international laws and inhuman policies.

Apart from that, many European countries (including Germany) had substantial amounts of communists.

2.) The reason why Hitler ordered Germany to become "self sufficient" he expected to go to war against several nations at the same time!

And concerning the "economic miracle":

Hitler had simple tricks to cheat in the unemployment statistics:

Women were simply excluded from work, since real Aryan women had to stay at home to produce fine German boys which could later be used as soldiers. Jews and other undesirable minorities were obviously not included as well, which gave Hitler a significant amount of less unemployed people.

And those who went to work, were payed less and had to work more than in comparison to other Western nations and had lost labour rights (Labour unions were banned and their leaders arrested)!.... while refusing to work meant that one could be harassed by a bunch of Nazi goons and stamped as a social dropout (Some were even put into concentration camps!)

The way the Nazis made the people content with these conditions was by using their propaganda machine, controlling every bit of social life, blaming the Jews and others for all bad things and by state organized events, holidays etc which all included even more brainwashing...
Another great idea was to force young male men into a national labour force (Reichs Arbeits Dienst), which obviously had great effects on the youth unemployment rate. These men were put in military uniforms, built infrastructure and even had military training to prepare them for war.

And in building this infrastructure, the Nazis had the clever idea to do it manually, in order to further increase the need for workers!

But nevertheless, the rearmament was a key factor in the Nazi economic revival!
Hitlers 4 year plan were meant to make Germany war ready within 4 years.

Of course a huge part of the labour force was employed in countless supply industries which did not directly build arms... but the saying that it did not play a major role would be plain wrong.

Military spending rose from 2% of the national income in 1933 to over 44% 7 years later!

Obviously, such acts had profound effects on the unemployment rate as well!


This plan also meant to make Germany self sufficient with its economy.... for example by stopping to import raw materials like oil and rubber. The plan was to produce such materials artificially (Which was not really cost effective :rolleyes: ) until the German army would capture oilfields in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, but that did not go well either.


@Desert Fox It is beyond me, why you try so hard to defend one of the worst and most despicable organization in human history...
 
1.) Yes, the Soviets did expand their territory, but calling it a quest for Lebensraum is simply wrong. The Nazis supported territorial expansionism to gain Lebensraum as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories.

And just because most European countries had not the military or industrial capabilities to fight a war with the Soviet Union, it does not mean that they were willing to start a new World War! Just look at Britain, France or the USA, which were completely reluctant to declare war on Germany, despite its countless violations of international laws and inhuman policies.

Apart from that, many European countries (including Germany) had substantial amounts of communists.
The Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe was indeed a quest for "lebensraum" as you described it since the Soviets were emptying out entire territories of the native populations and either deporting them to slave camps in Siberia or liquidating them.

Forced Settlements in the Soviet Union-Wikipedia

Population Transfer in the Soviet Union-Wikipedia


Soviet Deportations from Estonia-Wikipedia

Soviet deportations from Estonia in 1940s - estonia.eu

Soviet Mass Deportations from Latvia

Soviet Russia's Persecution of Latvia, 1918-1991

Latvia 50 Years

Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina-Wikipedia

Soviet Liquidation of Polish Officers - Katyn Forest Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Soviet Deportations from Lithuania-Wikipedia


Secondly, as i stated in my previous post, the Eastern European countries actually looked forward to a German attack on the Soviet Union, and in some cases even urged Hitler to invade as did the Tsar of Bulgaria Boris III.

@flamer84 actually posted valuable information in the form of an explanation from the Romanian gov.t as to why they joined Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union.

The Communists in Germany attempted to overthrow the German gov.t in 1918-1919 and establish a Soviet Republic in coordination with the Red Army's advance into Europe. This was another reason why Hitler viewed the Soviet Union as a threat that needed to be dealt with.


Communist Revolution in Germany, 1918-1919-Wikipedia

2.) The reason why Hitler ordered Germany to become "self sufficient" he expected to go to war against several nations at the same time!

Nonsense! I and other members have already addressed this point countless times on this thread and the other threads where you brought up this factually incorrect claim.

And concerning the "economic miracle":

Hitler had simple tricks to cheat in the unemployment statistics:

Women were simply excluded from work, since real Aryan women had to stay at home to produce fine German boys which could later be used as soldiers. Jews and other undesirable minorities were obviously not included as well, which gave Hitler a significant amount of less unemployed people.

Firstly, i would like to know from where you are coming up with such absurd claims because till now you have not backed your fallacious arguments with any links or reputable sources.

To say that Hitler created jobs by removing women and Jews from the work force is completely absurd and baseless
because there weren't that many women employed in the major industries to begin with and the Jews who made up only 0.75% of Germany's population mostly held White collar jobs and important gov.t positions alongside positions in the financial and banking sector.

Germany's unemployment rate was 33% (highest in European history) which was roughly 7 million persons out of the population, almost all of which were men. And almost all of them were factory workers, miners and construction workers, former business owners, etc. Women rarely worked in such professions. The only "profession" (if you could call it that) in which women dominated was prostitution which had become rampant during the years under the Weimar gov.t. Hitler outlawed prostitution and cracked down on it because it is a social ill.

Weimar Germany 1919-1933

Women weren't "excluded" from work as you claimed, because Hitler's own secretaries were all females. Women weren't removed from work at gun point the way your making it seem.
They were encouraged to have children and raise their own families, and that was as far as it went. They were still allowed to work.

I'm beginning to question your "knowledge" on WW2 because everything you posted thus far reeks of ignorance on the subject.

And those who went to work, were payed less and had to work more than in comparison to other Western nations and had lost labour rights (Labour unions were banned and their leaders arrested)! while refusing to work meant that one could be harassed by a bunch of Nazi goons and stamped as a social dropout (Some were even put into concentration camps!)

The way the Nazis made the people content with these conditions was by using their propaganda machine, controlling every bit of social life, blaming the Jews and others for all bad things and by state organized events, holidays etc which all included even more brainwashing...
Another great idea was to force young male men into a national labour force (Reichs Arbeits Dienst), which obviously had great effects on the youth unemployment rate. These men were put in military uniforms, built infrastructure and even had military training to prepare them for war.

Again, more ignorant nonsense from you!! The Nazis were the first ones to introduce the 8 hour work shift in Europe (the 40 hour week). Wages increased drastically once the industries were stimulated through public works spending. The German workers had paid vacations and every factory had its own recreational facility like swimming pools, gymnasium, gardens, tennis courts, etc. Not even the British had implemented such a system in Britain at that time.

"Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers, with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields. Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young workers was established, with the world's best system of technical training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health insurance system was the world's most modern and complete."


Secondly, Germany's Labor Union Federation the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (ADBG) actually aligned with Hitler and rallied to his cause. This was before Hitler disbanded all labor unions.

Anti-Hitler historian Joachim Fest acknowledges this fact in his book Hitler : "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest, Hitler, p. 413.)

How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution

How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy

And in building this infrastructure, the Nazis had the clever idea to do it manually, in order to further increase the need for workers!

You don't make any sense here. Even today most construction/infrastructural projects are done manually using human labor and little assistance from machines.

But nevertheless, the rearmament was a key factor in the Nazi economic revival!
Hitlers 4 year plan were meant to make Germany war ready within 4 years.

Of course a huge part of the labour force was employed in countless supply industries which did not directly build arms... but the saying that it did not play a major role would be plain wrong.

Military spending rose from 2% of the national income in 1933 to over 44% 7 years later!

Obviously, such acts had profound effects on the unemployment rate as well!


This plan also meant to make Germany self sufficient with its economy.... for example by stopping to import raw materials like oil and rubber. The plan was to produce such materials artificially (Which was not really cost effective :rolleyes: ) until the German army would capture oilfields in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, but that did not go well either.

Again, you are making totally baseless claims that have no historical truth to them:

Germany was the least prepared for a war out of all of the major powers involved in the European theater (Britain, France, America, Soviet Union).

German Tank production was the lowest in the first 3-4 years of the war and only went full swing in 1944 when Germany was already losing the war:

Rg6ArRU.png


German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the charts in the link below, Germany ranks amongst the lowest in military production.

Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


@Desert Fox It is beyond me, why you try so hard to defend one of the worst and most despicable organization in human history...

I'm defending historically proven facts. You on the other hand are making things up and just supporting hearsay without any actual research on your part.

@DESERT FIGHTER @Akheilos @The SC @Tshering22 @Hazzy997 @Abu Nasar @qamar1990 @KingMamba
 
Last edited:
Hitler messed up because he got in over his head before he was ready. He was impatient. He saw a window of opportunity and jumped because he felt time would be against him if he didn't. If he had only prepared his war machine a few more years he would been in a far better situation.

He saw Russia as militarily weak and the US as militarily backwards. He gambled he could take over Europe and Russia before they could get their acts together. He wasn't fully ready and jumped the gun.
 
The Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe was indeed a quest for "lebensraum" as you described it since the Soviets were emptying out entire territories of the native populations and either deporting them to slave camps in Siberia or liquidating them.

Forced Settlements in the Soviet Union-Wikipedia
Population Transfer in the Soviet Union-Wikipedia

Soviet Deportations from Estonia-Wikipedia

Soviet deportations from Estonia in 1940s - estonia.eu

Soviet Mass Deportations from Latvia

Soviet Russia's Persecution of Latvia, 1918-1991

Latvia 50 Years

Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina-Wikipedia

Soviet Liquidation of Polish Officers - Katyn Forest Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

Soviet Deportations from Lithuania-Wikipedia


Secondly, as i stated in my previous post, the Eastern European countries actually looked forward to a German attack on the Soviet Union, and in some cases even urged Hitler to invade as did the Tsar of Bulgaria Boris III.

@flamer84 actually posted valuable information in the form of an explanation from the Romanian gov.t as to why they joined Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union.

The Communists in Germany attempted to overthrow the German gov.t in 1918-1919 and establish a Soviet Republic in coordination with the Red Army's advance into Europe. This was another reason why Hitler viewed the Soviet Union as a threat that needed to be dealt with.


Communist Revolution in Germany, 1918-1919-Wikipedia



Nonsense! I and other members have already addressed this point countless times on this thread and the other threads where you brought up this factually incorrect claim.



Firstly, i would like to know from where you are coming up with such absurd claims because till now you have not backed your fallacious arguments with any links or reputable sources.
To say that Hitler created jobs by removing women and Jews from the work force is completely absurd and baseless because there weren't that many women employed in the major industries to begin with and the Jews who made up only 0.75% of Germany's population mostly held White collar jobs and important gov.t positions alongside positions in the financial and banking sector.

Germany's unemployment rate was 33% (highest in European history) which was roughly 7 million persons out of the population, almost all of which were men. And almost all of them were factory workers, miners and construction workers, former business owners, etc. Women rarely worked in such professions. The only "profession" (if you could call it that) in which women dominated was prostitution which had become rampant during the years under the Weimar gov.t. Hitler outlawed prostitution and cracked down on it because it is a social ill.

Weimar Germany 1919-1933
Women weren't "excluded" from work as you claimed, because Hitler's own secretaries were all females. Women weren't removed from work at gun point the way your making it seem. They were encouraged to have children and raise their own families, and that was as far as it went. They were still allowed to work.

I'm beginning to question your "knowledge" on WW2 because everything you posted thus far reeks of ignorance on the subject.



Again, more ignorant nonsense from you!! The Nazis were the first ones to introduce the 8 hour work shift in Europe (the 40 hour week). Wages increased drastically once the industries were stimulated through public works spending. The German workers had paid vacations and every factory had its own recreational facility like swimming pools, gymnasium, gardens, tennis courts, etc. Not even the British had implemented such a system in Britain at that time.
"Similarly neglected is the body of sweeping reforms that dramatically changed the condition of the worker in Germany. Factories were transformed from gloomy caverns to spacious and healthy work centers, with natural lighting, surrounded by gardens and playing fields. Hundreds of thousands of attractive houses were built for working class families. A policy of several weeks of paid vacation was introduced, along with week and holiday trips by land and sea. A wide-ranging program of physical and cultural education for young workers was established, with the world's best system of technical training. The Third Reich's social security and workers' health insurance system was the world's most modern and complete."

Secondly, Germany's Labor Union Federation the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (ADBG) actually aligned with Hitler and rallied to his cause. This was before Hitler disbanded all labor unions.

Anti-Hitler historian Joachim Fest acknowledges this fact in his book Hitler : "On March 20, the labor federation's executive committee addressed a kind of declaration of loyalty to Hitler." (J. Fest, Hitler, p. 413.)

How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched A Social Revolution

How Hitler Tackled Unemployment And Revived Germany’s Economy



You don't make any sense here. Even today most construction/infrastructural projects are done manually using human labor and little assistance from machines.



Again, you are making totally baseless claims that have no historical truth to them:

Germany was the least prepared for a war out of all of the major powers involved in the European theater (Britain, France, America, Soviet Union).

German Tank production was the lowest in the first 3-4 years of the war and only went full swing in 1944 when Germany was already losing the war:

Rg6ArRU.png


German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on the charts in the link below, Germany ranks amongst the lowest in military production.

Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I'm defending historically proven facts. You on the other hand are making things up and just supporting hearsay without any actual research on your part.

@DESERT FIGHTER @Akheilos @The SC @Tshering22 @Hazzy997 @Abu Nasar @qamar1990 @KingMamba


1.) Sure the Soviets did terrible things as well, but they never used the same racist ideology which the Nazis used (Not trying to defend them though). They did not claim to be of superior blood, which was justification enough for them to do what they did to millions of people. Which makes the USSR the lesser of two evils to me, but thats something personal.

And just because Hitler as a dictator reigning with terror, fear and manipulation saw a threat in communism, it does not mean that all Germans did since Germany had a sizable share of communists (Again, not trying to defend the communists)

2.) Concerning the "economic miracle", I cannot find my actual source anymore and I am running out of time for my assignments (I will post it later) but this "streamlined" says almost the same
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: How did Nazi economic and social policy affect life in Germany?
The Nazis and the German Economy
3.) The fact that Germany lagged behind in arms production (at the start of the war) is correct, but thats because the Nazis planned to begin the carnage in the early 40s... Germany was not as war ready as they planned.

And in terms of the percentage of the GDP spent on the military, Germany was leading before the war began,
 
1.) Sure the Soviets did terrible things as well, but they never used the same racist ideology which the Nazis used (Not trying to defend them though). They did not claim to be of superior blood, which was justification enough for them to do what they did to millions of people. Which makes the USSR the lesser of two evils to me, but thats something personal.

And just because Hitler as a dictator reigning with terror, fear and manipulation saw a threat in communism, it does not mean that all Germans did since Germany had a sizable share of communists (Again, not trying to defend the communists)

Germany had 15 million Communist supporters/sympathizers and more than 6 million actual Communist party members, more than double the number of Hitler's Brown Shirts and SS. These were the exact number when Hitler took over as Chancellor in 1933. Yet within four years and without any bloodshed, 99% of the Communists became Nazis because unlike the Communist leaders, Hitler walked the talk when it came to economic reform and combating unemployment.

2.) Concerning the "economic miracle", I cannot find my actual source anymore and I am running out of time for my assignments (I will post it later) but this "streamlined" says almost the same
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: How did Nazi economic and social policy affect life in Germany?
The Nazis and the German Economy

Well, i read into your sources and they are laughable! Here are the reasons why:

Your sources imply that Hitler was evil because he created jobs that involved manual labor (which was pretty common in every nation at the time). Really?? :lol: And German workers were paid in "pocket change"??

Your second source states that the Nazis were hiding the immense unemployed female population while handing their jobs over to men, thus decreasing unemployment but making Germany's women miserable, and that makes the Nazis evil!!

That makes absolutely no sense at all because unlike the Soviet Union there was no "Iron Curtain" preventing foreign journalists and gov.t dignitaries and tourists from visiting Germany and traveling within the country at free will seeing the people and places for themselves. I can post to you countless quotes from British PM's and royalty as well as other dignitaries from other countries who witnessed a Germany more economically prosperous and German people lively and healthy, full of admiration for Hitler.

I'll take the words of economists, who are experts on this subject any day, over some satirical propaganda articles trying to downplay historical facts due to political bias. :disagree:

"One of the most influential and widely read American economists of the twentieth century was John Kenneth Galbraith. He was an advisor to several presidents, and for a time served as US ambassador to India. He was the author of several dozen books, and for years taught economics at Harvard University. With regard to Germany’s record, Galbraith wrote: “… The elimination of unemployment in Germany during the Great Depression without inflation -- and with initial reliance on essential civilian activities -- was a signal accomplishment. It has rarely been praised and not much remarked. The notion that Hitler could do no good extends to his economics as it does, more plausibly, to all else.

The Hitler regime’s economic policy, Galbraith goes on, involved “large scale borrowing for public expenditures, and at first this was principally for civilian work -- railroads, canals and the Autobahnen [highway network]. The result was a far more effective attack on unemployment than in any other industrial country.” / 1 “By late 1935,” he also wrote, “unemployment was at an end in Germany. By 1936 high income was pulling up prices or making it possible to raise themGermany, by the late thirties, had full employment at stable prices. It was, in the industrial world, an absolutely unique achievement.” / 2 “Hitler also anticipated modern economic policy,” the economist noted, “by recognizing that a rapid approach to full employment was only possible if it was combined with wage and price controls. That a nation oppressed by economic fears would respond to Hitler as Americans did to F.D.R. is not surprising.” / 3"

How Hitler Tackled Unemployment

3.) The fact that Germany lagged behind in arms production (at the start of the war) is correct, but thats because the Nazis planned to begin the carnage in the early 40s... Germany was not as war ready as they planned.

And in terms of the percentage of the GDP spent on the military, Germany was leading before the war began,

Well, according to your source, the Nazis began rearming their military in 1936. That is three years after Hitler took power. Now, if Hitler was a warmonger as he is painted out to be he would have initiated rearmament as soon as he took power in 1933 instead of wasting three years before doing so.

But, that's besides the point! The charts that I PROVIDED you in my previous post show that the German rearmament in 1936 was meager compared to the armies/forces and arms productions/armaments spending of Britain, France, America, and Soviet Union. In other words, Germany was only rearming to maintain a credible armed forces which it was denied by the Treaty of Versailles and which it had all the rights to do so. If Britain, America, Soviet Union, and France already had well established armies, air forces, and navies, then Germany was well within her rights to build up her own Armed forces, which was denied to her in the Treaty of Versailles.

I already refuted this countless time and i won't bother wasting my time again.
 
Back
Top Bottom