Just for the record I never said Nazi Germany was something to strive after, not even it's economical "boom" during the 30's ...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I dont think that you can say that Germany lost the war because of their economic policies. If anything the only reason Germany got anywhere at all in WWII was because of the strength of its economy. Im not by any means suggesting the Nazis are something we should all strive to be, not in the slightest, Ive just studied the shite out of them and they were stupidly successful pre war. Hell till 1942 they were still hugely popular but shit hit the fan and Hitler started making really not very clever decisions.Varegg wrote:
Yeah ... you could actually stretch that some time into 1942, amazingly how slave labour can give you a boost ...FEOS wrote:
How about right up until Sep 1939?
But as mentioned earlier you can't isolate the start of a boom without taking the end result into consideration ... and the end result of Nazi Germany is evaluated long ago ... the Estonian end result will be evaluated some time in the future ... and that without the use of slave labour I might add
Germany suffered arguably the worst from the great depression because their whole country was surviving on US loans to pay their war debts (to the US lol, and the rest of the EU) so when all the loans were called in they were stuffed. The unemployment and hyperinflation are well documented and certainly worse than happened elsewhere at the time. Yet they fought a very successful war on numerous fronts until '42. With demonstrably better technology than any of their competitors.
You can very validly criticize the Nazis for a huge long list of truly awful things however you cannot deny the success of their economic policies or their popularity.
Then you are special ... most investors want fast money, the ones that want the same as you are fewer and fewer in numbers ...13rin wrote:
@ Varegg..
I want long term growth and stability. I don't want to have to look at the market every day and babysit my picks.
You're fantastically wrong. Hedge funds and other day traders are the small minority.Varegg wrote:
Then you are special ... most investors want fast money, the ones that want the same as you are fewer and fewer in numbers ...13rin wrote:
@ Varegg..
I want long term growth and stability. I don't want to have to look at the market every day and babysit my picks.
So did the British (and her colonies), the Japanese, the French, the Russians, etc.Cybargs wrote:
germans still used a ww1 rifle while everyone else moved on to semi-autos.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-06-21 07:56:22)
exactly.Shocking wrote:
Computers handle the hauling in of fast money. A human can't compete with them on the short term, long term however...
Besides, investors prefer a steady stream of money coming in rather than a volatile dip and peak situation. That gets you stressed.
And from the last financial crisis we learned what?Jay wrote:
You're fantastically wrong. Hedge funds and other day traders are the small minority.Varegg wrote:
Then you are special ... most investors want fast money, the ones that want the same as you are fewer and fewer in numbers ...13rin wrote:
@ Varegg..
I want long term growth and stability. I don't want to have to look at the market every day and babysit my picks.
Last edited by Jay (2011-06-21 07:57:12)
You are talking about daytraders, I'm not ...Jay wrote:
The numbers i found put the percentage of active (i.e. day) traders at 5%. Kind of outs the lie to 'all investors seek a quick buck' eh?
PPSH was a huge success, albiet a semi auto weapon. Japan had huge struggles with tech due to lack of resources. British enfield was a pretty fast bolt action rifle compared to most though.Superior Mind wrote:
So did the British (and her colonies), the Japanese, the French, the Russians, etc.Cybargs wrote:
germans still used a ww1 rifle while everyone else moved on to semi-autos.
most guys out to get a quick buck are daytraders.Varegg wrote:
You are talking about daytraders, I'm not ...Jay wrote:
The numbers i found put the percentage of active (i.e. day) traders at 5%. Kind of outs the lie to 'all investors seek a quick buck' eh?
By definition they are the ones seeking fast gains. Stop reading leftist propganda based on feelings rather than numbers. Its doing you no favors.Varegg wrote:
You are talking about daytraders, I'm not ...Jay wrote:
The numbers i found put the percentage of active (i.e. day) traders at 5%. Kind of outs the lie to 'all investors seek a quick buck' eh?
Their air assets were notably better than the allies however they could not compete on the numbers we were fielding. The armour description rings a bell with me.Shocking wrote:
Majority of them were panzer I & II's if I remember correctly, in France germanly definitely won with superior tactics. The nr. III & IV tanks were quite evenly matched with the british tanks, although they didn't pack as much of a punch and weren't as heavily armored they were a lot more mobile. They didn't make up a majority of the tanks in the war though.Jay wrote:
The mk3 and mk4 tanks that germany invaded france with were technologically inferior to the renaults they faced. Germanys tech superiority was a myth put forth by the allies to explain away their defeat. It was simply movement and tactics that prevailed.
The airplanes of the wehrmacht were I believe better than any contemporaries. Messerschmidt 109s were really good.
Once the Tigers started rolling out in the middle of the war these posed a real problem for any allied armor. Their engines failed all the time but even when standing still there was no way to get to it as it simply outranged and outgunned any other tank.
edit; lol germanly... germany
I disagree and have read much of Kershaws work but feel you are misinterpreting him, while he is an appreciated authority on the subject he did not write the bible so to speak. I found that Kershaw moved away from the easy solutions to the difficult questions that were suggested by other historians and that you refer to.Varegg wrote:
Just for the record I never said Nazi Germany was something to strive after, not even it's economical "boom" during the 30's ...
If you so called studied the shite out of them you would know Hitler himself never was much of a genius in anything but being an superb agitator, the economic policy of the Third Reich was doomed to fail sooner or later ... if it wasn't for WW2 it would have failed anyway and that is the conclusion of several historians ... that is well documented in the book Hitler by Ian Kershaw (the foremost expert on Adolf Hitler)
So the Nazis with huge amounts of luck was truly best at chaos ... it was extremely poor decision making from Von Papen and Hindenburg that lead to Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933, at that very time NSDAP was loosing votes by the millions and would have crumbled into mere pebbles ...
Basing economic success on such a short period of time is hardly an argument at all ...
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-21 08:36:28)
War of 1812 the British burned the whitehouse down.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I disagree and have read much of Kershaws but feel you are misinterpreting him, while he is an appreciated authority on the subject he did not write the bible so to speak. I found that Kershaw moved away from the easy solutions to the difficult questions that were suggested by other historians and that you refer to.Varegg wrote:
Just for the record I never said Nazi Germany was something to strive after, not even it's economical "boom" during the 30's ...
If you so called studied the shite out of them you would know Hitler himself never was much of a genius in anything but being an superb agitator, the economic policy of the Third Reich was doomed to fail sooner or later ... if it wasn't for WW2 it would have failed anyway and that is the conclusion of several historians ... that is well documented in the book Hitler by Ian Kershaw (the foremost expert on Adolf Hitler)
So the Nazis with huge amounts of luck was truly best at chaos ... it was extremely poor decision making from Von Papen and Hindenburg that lead to Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933, at that very time NSDAP was loosing votes by the millions and would have crumbled into mere pebbles ...
Basing economic success on such a short period of time is hardly an argument at all ...
Hitlers genius was realized in the form of his Charisma. People famously left his rallies feeling that Hitler knew what was in their hearts. The Nazi party were elected on a completely unprecedented scale. The Nazis were the 1st people to take advantage of door to door campaigning, they offered to collect people from their home or place of work and drive them to the poling station before returning them (and no they didnt beat them up if they refused). The nazis were the first party to campaign from the air both by dropping huge numbers of leaflets and by flying in low over rallies to make an impressive 1st impression. Many of the techniques the Nazis pioneered are now standard practice in government elections.
Von Papen and Hindenburg did not have a choice on whether to allow Hitler to become Chancellor, it was inevitable purely due to the support the NSDAP had. They were not losing votes by the millions, all parties were losing votes as the turn outs became lower and lower as Papen and Hindenburg desperately struggled to form a credible government that did not include the NSDAP.
Luck had little to do with it. Hitler positioned the NSDAP to take advantage of anything that came his way, as the saying goes "you make your own luck" and this is an area he excelled in.
Your final assessment of the Nazis as being capable only of Chaos falls far from the mark I am afraid. Once established the Nazi systems closest power structure is one of a feudal system with Barons vying for the Fuhrers influence. As gruesome as it was the final solution was highly organized. Infact it is mostly the cold hearted efficiency that people find so abhorrent.
Hitlers biggest mistake was thinking he was a military genius. He wasnt. At all. No power has successfully invaded Russia or America yet Hitler declared war on both..
war of 1812 didn't get anything done for either britain or the US...Cybargs wrote:
War of 1812 the British burned the whitehouse down.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I disagree and have read much of Kershaws but feel you are misinterpreting him, while he is an appreciated authority on the subject he did not write the bible so to speak. I found that Kershaw moved away from the easy solutions to the difficult questions that were suggested by other historians and that you refer to.Varegg wrote:
Just for the record I never said Nazi Germany was something to strive after, not even it's economical "boom" during the 30's ...
If you so called studied the shite out of them you would know Hitler himself never was much of a genius in anything but being an superb agitator, the economic policy of the Third Reich was doomed to fail sooner or later ... if it wasn't for WW2 it would have failed anyway and that is the conclusion of several historians ... that is well documented in the book Hitler by Ian Kershaw (the foremost expert on Adolf Hitler)
So the Nazis with huge amounts of luck was truly best at chaos ... it was extremely poor decision making from Von Papen and Hindenburg that lead to Hitler becoming Chancellor of Germany in 1933, at that very time NSDAP was loosing votes by the millions and would have crumbled into mere pebbles ...
Basing economic success on such a short period of time is hardly an argument at all ...
Hitlers genius was realized in the form of his Charisma. People famously left his rallies feeling that Hitler knew what was in their hearts. The Nazi party were elected on a completely unprecedented scale. The Nazis were the 1st people to take advantage of door to door campaigning, they offered to collect people from their home or place of work and drive them to the poling station before returning them (and no they didnt beat them up if they refused). The nazis were the first party to campaign from the air both by dropping huge numbers of leaflets and by flying in low over rallies to make an impressive 1st impression. Many of the techniques the Nazis pioneered are now standard practice in government elections.
Von Papen and Hindenburg did not have a choice on whether to allow Hitler to become Chancellor, it was inevitable purely due to the support the NSDAP had. They were not losing votes by the millions, all parties were losing votes as the turn outs became lower and lower as Papen and Hindenburg desperately struggled to form a credible government that did not include the NSDAP.
Luck had little to do with it. Hitler positioned the NSDAP to take advantage of anything that came his way, as the saying goes "you make your own luck" and this is an area he excelled in.
Your final assessment of the Nazis as being capable only of Chaos falls far from the mark I am afraid. Once established the Nazi systems closest power structure is one of a feudal system with Barons vying for the Fuhrers influence. As gruesome as it was the final solution was highly organized. Infact it is mostly the cold hearted efficiency that people find so abhorrent.
Hitlers biggest mistake was thinking he was a military genius. He wasnt. At all. No power has successfully invaded Russia or America yet Hitler declared war on both..
I think it was the pinkhouse at that pointCybargs wrote:
War of 1812 the British burned the whitehouse down.
Definitely a good source but with Nazi history it is very important to consider as wide a range of sources as possible due to the highly political and emotive content and connotations.Shocking wrote:
uh, I recommend The Nazis - A Warning From History. Can find it on youtube, has all the info you need.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-21 08:49:07)
Most ww2 factions had some kind of smg issued. I feel like they were much more important in combat than in previous wars; with the urban combat and all. Now armies have combined the rifle with the smg to produce things like the m16 and ak. I wonder what sort of weapons technologies would have been produced if WW2 went on for another 5 years or more.Cybargs wrote:
PPSH was a huge success, albiet a semi auto weapon. Japan had huge struggles with tech due to lack of resources. British enfield was a pretty fast bolt action rifle compared to most though.Superior Mind wrote:
So did the British (and her colonies), the Japanese, the French, the Russians, etc.Cybargs wrote:
germans still used a ww1 rifle while everyone else moved on to semi-autos.
The US had the 1st assualt rifle in WWII (name escapes me now)Superior Mind wrote:
Most ww2 factions had some kind of smg issued. I feel like they were much more important in combat than in previous wars; with the urban combat and all. Now armies have combined the rifle with the smg to produce things like the m16 and ak. I wonder what sort of weapons technologies would have been produced if WW2 went on for another 5 years or more.Cybargs wrote:
PPSH was a huge success, albiet a semi auto weapon. Japan had huge struggles with tech due to lack of resources. British enfield was a pretty fast bolt action rifle compared to most though.Superior Mind wrote:
So did the British (and her colonies), the Japanese, the French, the Russians, etc.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-06-21 09:00:51)
hes probs thinking of the BARSuperior Mind wrote:
US had the grease gun and the thompson gun. Maybe your thinking of the BAR or the M1 carbine?