-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ask me about the Third Reich, National Socialism, Hitler & the Holocaust
- Thread starter Nietzsche
- Start date
Depends entirely on the time frame. The Legal System was slowly chipped away, until in around 43-44 it became a 'True Fuehrer State', where Hitler was the law.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Makes sense, thank you, Nietzsche.
What about the Nazi Reich attacking Scandinavia?
Was it because they wouldn't join the Nazi Reich?
It seems insane to attack all of their closest allies, was it all Hitler?
Scandinavia was by no means "allied" to Hitler. However, the invasions of Denmark & Norway were for strategic & economic purposes.
Invade Denmark to turn the Baltic Sea into a German lake, as the position on the Straits allow for the holder to decide who gets in & out of the Baltic.
Norway was to ensure shipments of Swedish Iron-ore through the port of Narvik, and also to use the Fjords as Kriegsmarine(specifically Uboat) bases.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Danke. The were defeated by attacking Scandinavia alone. I mean, America's composition at the time was majorly Celt/ Germanic/Scandinavian.
That could have been the plank that broke the camels back in the first place. It barely makes reasonable sense to attack Scandinavia at the time. People love Scandinavia, for sure.
My god what a reckoning to bring upon yourself, attack Scandinavia, with America's Make-up..
I believe that was the final last straw?
No one really cared actually, because the British tried to invade Norway first(to cut off Germany from some of their iron-ore) but it failed. That gave Germany a legitimate casus-beli, to invade Norway in order to protect it(the Norwegian government agreed, the King & Army didn't).
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Go on with a more thorough presentation if you please, please do.
This is a good explanation of the British Invasion of Norway.
As for international reaction, one must understand that this occurred after the invasion of Poland. Any enemies Germany was going to amass were already arrayed against her.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that 1940s USA citizens were mainly Nordic from an ethnic perspective and therefore would not fail to oppose a military invasion in those countries?
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Ya, uh...
Well, I wasn't there or anything, but I'm not quite picturing that society as identifying quite that much with the Nordic. Waging war across an ocean takes a lot of commitment, and I don't think the USA were ever particularly Nordic-centric.
IIRC, in the end the motivation for entering WW2 had a lot more to do with supporting the UK and France than it did with sympathy for Scandinavia. And even then, it took Pearl Harbor for actual direct intervention to happen, didn't it?
@Nietzsche : do you get a sense that Hitler was much too central to his regime for his own good?
IIRC, quite a few important decisions ended up needing his personal approval, among other reasons because he cared little about the strife and mistrust his commanded had among themselves. That no doubt furthered his much-needed image as a "strong leader", but at the same time I don't think it helped any in making his regime actually strong. At the very least, it wasn't much stronger than his own personal detemination.
IIRC, quite a few important decisions ended up needing his personal approval, among other reasons because he cared little about the strife and mistrust his commanded had among themselves. That no doubt furthered his much-needed image as a "strong leader", but at the same time I don't think it helped any in making his regime actually strong. At the very least, it wasn't much stronger than his own personal detemination.
Oh, without question. The system he designed relied exclusively on himself as the font of power. Jurisdiction and areas of competence were window-dressing. You could do whatever Hitler said you could do. And in many cases, one didn't even need Hitler's permission, you just needed to make sure you could couch it in fulfilling the "Will of the Fuehrer". I've referred to Nazi Germany as a feudal state. That's not hyperbole or exaggeration. It only had the faintest trappings of a modern state & bureaucracy. Infighting was rampant in the regime, because Hitler would wait for one side to gain the upper-hand and back the winner.
The entirety of the Nazi-state was founded entirely on Hitler. Mix that with his erratic & dilettante style of 'governing' and you have the basis for an utterly unworkable system, and it is a genuine miracle it didn't collapse sooner than it did.
This is something that makes Hitler's Germany stand out from all the other authoritarian & totalitarian states of the time. Mussolini had a functioning government. Stalin had an incredibly efficient bureaucracy. Tojo's Japan also had a fully-functioning government(complete with genuine elections). None of them even made the attempt to weave themselves into the fabric of their governments to the extent Hitler did.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Dictatorship would suffice. I found myself forgetting it was a dictatorship and asking what type of government it was, like a monarchy or something.
I'm more interested in the religion elements of the movements more over.
Mussolini thought he was a deity?
The Asians also involved religion in their movements from what I understood.
The Hochiman, dude. Got to get the Hochiman.
'Nam Vets used to cadence to that ****. It was a VC politician, but named after a War God.
I find it hysterical. History has emotionally broken me though.
---
Gotta get the Hochiman. ~ Cadence
That's even in the Full Metal Jacket Film, I **** my pants again.
I'm more interested in the religion elements of the movements more over.
Mussolini thought he was a deity?
The Asians also involved religion in their movements from what I understood.
The Hochiman, dude. Got to get the Hochiman.
'Nam Vets used to cadence to that ****. It was a VC politician, but named after a War God.
I find it hysterical. History has emotionally broken me though.
---
Gotta get the Hochiman. ~ Cadence
That's even in the Full Metal Jacket Film, I **** my pants again.
The Occult stuff is honestly severely over-blown. The only people really involved in that was the SS, and even then only Himmler's most trusted confidants.
No, Mussolini was an atheist.
Not really. Only Japan, and that had nothing to do with the war. The notion that the Emperor was/is Divine is as old as the Royal House itself. And the Japanese Royal House is literally the oldest on the planet, with an unbroken line of succession going back thousands of years.
Ho Chi Minh translates to "Father of the Country", more or less. No religious overtones.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Works for me, I guess, your views are text book, But I can't complain or argue.
Not so much textbook as much as "we have ludicrous amounts of documentation". The problem however, or at least the problem I have with the Occult stuff, is that it takes away our responsibility for it. The conflict, the Holocaust, everything. Invoking the supernatural(when people are plenty terrible enough to be the sole authors) in this cheapens the lives lost.
Whaaattt?!?
First I have ever heard of any suggestion of that.
Aren't we talking about the guy who gave the Vatican its lands?
No. The Vatican never lost their lands. The Papal State ceased to exist when Italy united, but the Vatican & Holy See were never in danger of being taken. The Lateran Treaty(1923 if I remember) merely recognized the status-quo regarding the Vatican.
As for his atheism, yes. He's the only genuine atheist you'll find amongst far-right totalitarians.