Question 5: Was Adolf Hitler a Sexual Pervert?
Answer: During World War 2, the Allies started many rumors about Hitler for propaganda purposes. For example, when France surrendered, Hitler was shown over and over in the newsreels as apparently dancing a jig. After the war, the truth was released. The "jig" was actually the result of some fancy photo shop work by clever Allied intelligence.
Other rumors circulated about Hitler was that he had only one testicle (this was apparently supposed to prove that Hitler was not normal and, possibly, explain why he was so mad at the world) and also that Hitler was a sexual pervert.
Again, after the war, Hitler's doctors reported that Hitler had two testicles so he was not abnormal in that sense. Also, those persons closest to Hitler and to Eva Braun, Hitler's mistress and wife of one day, reported that Hitler's sex life was perfectly normal. Indeed, Hitler's sex life was so normal, it would be considered boring by today's standards.
Many German beauties (and some British and American women), threw themselves at Hitler and he could have had almost any women he wanted. Instead, he seemed to prefer "typical" German women such as the plain Eva Braun whom he seemed to genuinely care for.
Eva was his mistress for many years, but Hitler kept the affair from the German people because he did not want to upset their sensibilities (how conventional can you get?). When Hitler had big-wig visitors who did not know about his relationship with Eva, Eva was banned from the social gatherings. She often spent these "banned" periods talking with Albert Speer, a close associate of Hitler's, who had a genuine liking for her. When Hitler's inner circle had a social gathering, the ban was not in effect because they all knew about Eva. Eva could then join the close friends which often included Speer.
A possible evidence of perversion with Hitler was the Rebata Mueller incident. She claimed that while visiting Hitler at the Chancellery, he threw himself on the floor and begged her to kick him and inflict pain. The truth about this alleged event will probably never be known since Ms. Mueller apparently committed suicide shortly after the event was supposed to have taken place. (Her sister denied that Ms. Mueller committed suicide inferring that she was murdered.)
Hitler summed up his love life best when he told someone that he had had many disappointments in his love affairs. It appears that even when his love affairs were consummated, they were about as exciting as the love life of Ma and Pa Kettle.
Hitler was into power and not sex!
Monday, June 25, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Did the Brilliant but Egotistical, Panzer General, Guderian Cost Germany World War 2?
Question No. 4: Did General Guderian, the Brilliant Panzer General, Cause Germany to Lose World War 2 Because of His Egotism?
Answer: In late 1941, Guderian, the seemingly invincible German Panzer general, set off a series of events on the Russian front that some experts say cost the Germans World War 2.
Guderian, who never lost a battle, reported indrectly to General Halder, a far less brilliant but solid general. Their forces were moving to attack Moscow in late 1941. Guderian's Panzer divisions were to play a key role in the attack. But Guderian had had enough of the plodding General Halder. Guderian, Hitler's favorite general at the time, went straight to Hitler and talked him into letting him .take his powerful Panzer divisions on a lengthy diversion to the south away from Moscow and away from General Halder's other forces. Halder fumed (Guderian claimed Halder had a breakdown) but there was nothing Halder could do - Guderian was Hitler's pet.
Guderian's Panzer divisions wiped out about a million Russians and put entire Russian armies out of commission during the southern expedition.
But Moscow remained in Russian hands as winter approached.
When Guderian returned to the Moscow attack (with tracks virtually worn off his tanks according to some observers), the attack was out of phase and faltered. Winter caught the Germans in the open before Moscow, and the ensuing Russian counterattack in the frigid weather caused many German solders to be slaughtered when Hitler compounded his errors by refusing to allow the German armies to retreat to a safe defense line.
Early in 1942, Hitler summoned Guderian to his headquarters and relieved him of his command. Guderian was never allowed to return to effective combat duty for the remainder of the war. Germany's best "tactical" general had bitten the dust.
Had Moscow been captured, the Germans could have wintered in the city and, likely, would have forced the Russians from the war in 1942. Without Russia, the Allies would probably have been forced to settle for a draw with Germany.
Can a person be too brilliant?
(As you might suspect, Guderian, in post-war interviews told a somewhat different story of the incident. But the preponderance of evidence appears to be against him.)
Answer: In late 1941, Guderian, the seemingly invincible German Panzer general, set off a series of events on the Russian front that some experts say cost the Germans World War 2.
Guderian, who never lost a battle, reported indrectly to General Halder, a far less brilliant but solid general. Their forces were moving to attack Moscow in late 1941. Guderian's Panzer divisions were to play a key role in the attack. But Guderian had had enough of the plodding General Halder. Guderian, Hitler's favorite general at the time, went straight to Hitler and talked him into letting him .take his powerful Panzer divisions on a lengthy diversion to the south away from Moscow and away from General Halder's other forces. Halder fumed (Guderian claimed Halder had a breakdown) but there was nothing Halder could do - Guderian was Hitler's pet.
Guderian's Panzer divisions wiped out about a million Russians and put entire Russian armies out of commission during the southern expedition.
But Moscow remained in Russian hands as winter approached.
When Guderian returned to the Moscow attack (with tracks virtually worn off his tanks according to some observers), the attack was out of phase and faltered. Winter caught the Germans in the open before Moscow, and the ensuing Russian counterattack in the frigid weather caused many German solders to be slaughtered when Hitler compounded his errors by refusing to allow the German armies to retreat to a safe defense line.
Early in 1942, Hitler summoned Guderian to his headquarters and relieved him of his command. Guderian was never allowed to return to effective combat duty for the remainder of the war. Germany's best "tactical" general had bitten the dust.
Had Moscow been captured, the Germans could have wintered in the city and, likely, would have forced the Russians from the war in 1942. Without Russia, the Allies would probably have been forced to settle for a draw with Germany.
Can a person be too brilliant?
(As you might suspect, Guderian, in post-war interviews told a somewhat different story of the incident. But the preponderance of evidence appears to be against him.)
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Did the French Fight Cowardly in World War 2?
Question 3: Did the French Fight Cowardly in World War 2?
Answer: Right away, I must admit that no question about World War 2 irritates me as much as this question. The reason is that the right wing, and most notably, Rush Limbaugh, has criticized the "poor" performance of the French as a way to punish them for not going along with former President George W. Bush's fiasco in Iraq.
I am also incensed because I live in Louisiana where at least a third of the population is of French heritage, and yet, I have had to watch these Louisiana descendants of France attack their French cousins as if the French were a mortal enemy of the U.S. They even talked of renaming the French Quarter of New Orleans to get rid of the "French" word. It hurts me to see people deny their heritage and it really hurts to see how fellow Louisiana citizens are naive enough to listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
But to return to the question. There is no doubt that the French fought poorly in World War 2. But they were not cowards. Time and time again, the French prepared to face frontal onslaughts by the German forces only to find thmselves outflanked and outsmarted and were forced to retreat, again. The Germans under brilliant generals like Guderian and Rommel, were too smart to make frontal assaults unless it was absolutely necessary. They preferred to attack weak points rather than strong points.
The old French generals, experienced only in World War 1 trench warfare tactics, never knew what hit them.
Answer: Right away, I must admit that no question about World War 2 irritates me as much as this question. The reason is that the right wing, and most notably, Rush Limbaugh, has criticized the "poor" performance of the French as a way to punish them for not going along with former President George W. Bush's fiasco in Iraq.
I am also incensed because I live in Louisiana where at least a third of the population is of French heritage, and yet, I have had to watch these Louisiana descendants of France attack their French cousins as if the French were a mortal enemy of the U.S. They even talked of renaming the French Quarter of New Orleans to get rid of the "French" word. It hurts me to see people deny their heritage and it really hurts to see how fellow Louisiana citizens are naive enough to listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh.
But to return to the question. There is no doubt that the French fought poorly in World War 2. But they were not cowards. Time and time again, the French prepared to face frontal onslaughts by the German forces only to find thmselves outflanked and outsmarted and were forced to retreat, again. The Germans under brilliant generals like Guderian and Rommel, were too smart to make frontal assaults unless it was absolutely necessary. They preferred to attack weak points rather than strong points.
The old French generals, experienced only in World War 1 trench warfare tactics, never knew what hit them.
No, the French were not cowardly - they simply got the crap beat out of them by a much smarter military force. The French were prepared for a World War 1 trench warfare-type fight. They were unprepared for the German Blitzkrieg assault which featured mobility and quickness.
The French lost badly but they were not cowardly. They were just stupid. There is a difference. See France in World War 2 for more on the French defeat in World War 2.
Could Germany Have Won World War 2?
Question No. 2. Could Germany Have Won World War 2?
This is another frequently asked question on World War 2. The answer depends somewhat on the answer to Question No. 1 regarding whether Germany could have successfully invaded and conquered Britain in World War 2. Germany did not have to conquer Britain to win the war but it would have been difficult for them to win without accomplishing that conquest.
One scenario for Germany winning involved a much more aggressive armaments program coupled with a better planned attack on Russia in 1941. This scenario would have required the Germans to make a concerted effort to capture Moscow in 1941 instead of dividing their forces in three widely separated Russian offenses. All the multiple offenses did achieve quite a measure of success but the Germans failed to capture Moscow before the savage winter of 1941-42 set in. Instead, the force attacking Moscow found itself in the open as winter set in. They took tremendous losses as Hitler delayed allowing the German armies to retreat as the Russians counterattacked in the snow. The Germans had to capture Moscow! If they had captured Moscow, the Germans could have wintered there and Russia likely would have had to pull out of the war in 1942.
As far as the armaments effort went, Hitler was surprisingly very conscious of German public opinion and hesitated upsetting them by going with a 100% war effort as Goebbels, and later, Speer, advocated. For example, after France fell, Hitler sent a substantial part of the army home. Airplane production was in slow motion (Britain was actually producing more aircraft than Germany) and Hitler never allowed the German women to be mobilized as Russia, Britain, and the U.S. did. He dawdled in these areas even as he planned the attack on Russia. These are unbelievable actions for a country entering a world war. Hitler's relative inactivity from the fall of France to the Russian invasion was his greatest weakness. Later, his emphasis on producing "secret weapons" (unneeded long range bombers, death rays, etc,) instead of badly-needed conventional weapons (fighter planes, etc.) was almost as bad.
In addition to the Russian option, Hitler might have forced a draw in the war by not attacking Russia at all and, instead, adopting a Mediterranean strategy. This would have involved capturing Gibraltar and all of North Africa and the Middle East. By making the Mediterranean his lake, Hitler could likely have held out indefinitely. Turkey would probably have had to enter the war on Germany's side. These events would have put considerable pressure on Russia and they might have given in to whatever demands Hitler made of them.
But the fly in the ointment for the Mediterranean strategy was Franco and Spain. Franco, although a Fascist, would not enter World War 2 on Germany's side (actually, he just kept putting Hitler off with half promises). Without Spain's support, capturing Gibraltar was a much more daunting task. And Hitler liked easy "Blitzkrieg" type victories.
This is another frequently asked question on World War 2. The answer depends somewhat on the answer to Question No. 1 regarding whether Germany could have successfully invaded and conquered Britain in World War 2. Germany did not have to conquer Britain to win the war but it would have been difficult for them to win without accomplishing that conquest.
One scenario for Germany winning involved a much more aggressive armaments program coupled with a better planned attack on Russia in 1941. This scenario would have required the Germans to make a concerted effort to capture Moscow in 1941 instead of dividing their forces in three widely separated Russian offenses. All the multiple offenses did achieve quite a measure of success but the Germans failed to capture Moscow before the savage winter of 1941-42 set in. Instead, the force attacking Moscow found itself in the open as winter set in. They took tremendous losses as Hitler delayed allowing the German armies to retreat as the Russians counterattacked in the snow. The Germans had to capture Moscow! If they had captured Moscow, the Germans could have wintered there and Russia likely would have had to pull out of the war in 1942.
As far as the armaments effort went, Hitler was surprisingly very conscious of German public opinion and hesitated upsetting them by going with a 100% war effort as Goebbels, and later, Speer, advocated. For example, after France fell, Hitler sent a substantial part of the army home. Airplane production was in slow motion (Britain was actually producing more aircraft than Germany) and Hitler never allowed the German women to be mobilized as Russia, Britain, and the U.S. did. He dawdled in these areas even as he planned the attack on Russia. These are unbelievable actions for a country entering a world war. Hitler's relative inactivity from the fall of France to the Russian invasion was his greatest weakness. Later, his emphasis on producing "secret weapons" (unneeded long range bombers, death rays, etc,) instead of badly-needed conventional weapons (fighter planes, etc.) was almost as bad.
In addition to the Russian option, Hitler might have forced a draw in the war by not attacking Russia at all and, instead, adopting a Mediterranean strategy. This would have involved capturing Gibraltar and all of North Africa and the Middle East. By making the Mediterranean his lake, Hitler could likely have held out indefinitely. Turkey would probably have had to enter the war on Germany's side. These events would have put considerable pressure on Russia and they might have given in to whatever demands Hitler made of them.
But the fly in the ointment for the Mediterranean strategy was Franco and Spain. Franco, although a Fascist, would not enter World War 2 on Germany's side (actually, he just kept putting Hitler off with half promises). Without Spain's support, capturing Gibraltar was a much more daunting task. And Hitler liked easy "Blitzkrieg" type victories.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Could Germany Have Invaded and Conquered Britain?
The blog will attempt to answer questions about World War 2 that persist even 60 years after the war ended.
Question 1: Could Germany have successfully invaded and conquered Britain in World War 2?
Answer: I get this question more frequently on my Germany in World War 2 web site than any other question. It is also my personal number one question.
After the German blitzkrieg victory over France in 1940, Britain, at first glance, appeared ready to be conquered. A large part of the British army after Dunkirk was virtually disarmed since they had had to leave their weapons on the Dunkirk beaches. The argument goes that Germany had to strike quickly to invade and conquer Britain. Then North Africa, the Middle East, and Russia would have fallen over like a row of dominos.
Germany would have won the war!
Would Britain Have Folded if Invaded? The assumption that Britain could have been easily conquered is an erroneous assumption in my opinion. Sure, the army was badly hurt but the British Navy was still powerful and the fairly small Royal Air Force was very competent. Britain was not whipped yet!
But Germany's major problem was that they had only a small navy with virtually no transport vessels to land troops in Britain. They would have had to depend on paratroopers and on river barges to transport soldiers across the English channel. The thin-hulled river barges would have been sitting ducks for the RAF and the British Navy. And, with the homeland at stake, Britain would thrown everything into the battle. No doubt, the German Luftwaffe would also have been thrown wholeheartedly into the battle against the British Navy whose vessels would have been sittling ducks in the narrow English Channel.
The resulting battle would have been one that would have lived in infamy because of its fury and because so much was at stake. Loss of life and equipment on both sides would have been horrendous. There is little doubt that German paratroopers could have seized a beachhead along the British coast but holding on that beachhead would have been difficult. The British would have fought back like cornered rats with every weapon they could get their hands on: World War 1 weapons, shotguns, hunting rifles, pistols, pitchforks, glass bottles filled with gasoline, etc. And what about America? Could we have sat back and allowed our British buddies go down the drain. Hardly! Our army was small and weak at the time but we would have done what we could. Roosevelt was that kind of man.
It is likely that at many as a hundred thousand British soldiers, sailors, and airmen would have died in the battle. Also likely is that one-half the RAF would have been destroyed along with perhaps one-quarter of the British Navy. On the German side, the casualties would have been at least equal to that of the British. (Can you imagine the horror of the German soldiers trapped in river barges as the barges were sent to the briny depths?)
One of the keys to the battle would have been the fine leadership of the RAF. The RAF fighters would certainly have concentrated on sinking the soldier-laden barges and avoided meaningless air duels with German fighters. (Similar to their strategy during the Battle of Britain when that battle took place.)
When the greatest land-sea-air battle of all time was over, I believe the British would have held off the Germans.
No, I think Hitler carefully considered the risks involved in invading Britain and wisely decided against it. He had bigger fish to fry with the upcoming attack on Russia. Hitler was only a corporal during his military service but he had a far better feel for strategy than many of his generals.
But many experts say Hitler had no choice. He had to roll the dice and try to conquer Britain. Otherwise, the British would remain a thorn in his backside (as they did) as he moved against Russia.
Question 1: Could Germany have successfully invaded and conquered Britain in World War 2?
Answer: I get this question more frequently on my Germany in World War 2 web site than any other question. It is also my personal number one question.
After the German blitzkrieg victory over France in 1940, Britain, at first glance, appeared ready to be conquered. A large part of the British army after Dunkirk was virtually disarmed since they had had to leave their weapons on the Dunkirk beaches. The argument goes that Germany had to strike quickly to invade and conquer Britain. Then North Africa, the Middle East, and Russia would have fallen over like a row of dominos.
Germany would have won the war!
Would Britain Have Folded if Invaded? The assumption that Britain could have been easily conquered is an erroneous assumption in my opinion. Sure, the army was badly hurt but the British Navy was still powerful and the fairly small Royal Air Force was very competent. Britain was not whipped yet!
But Germany's major problem was that they had only a small navy with virtually no transport vessels to land troops in Britain. They would have had to depend on paratroopers and on river barges to transport soldiers across the English channel. The thin-hulled river barges would have been sitting ducks for the RAF and the British Navy. And, with the homeland at stake, Britain would thrown everything into the battle. No doubt, the German Luftwaffe would also have been thrown wholeheartedly into the battle against the British Navy whose vessels would have been sittling ducks in the narrow English Channel.
The resulting battle would have been one that would have lived in infamy because of its fury and because so much was at stake. Loss of life and equipment on both sides would have been horrendous. There is little doubt that German paratroopers could have seized a beachhead along the British coast but holding on that beachhead would have been difficult. The British would have fought back like cornered rats with every weapon they could get their hands on: World War 1 weapons, shotguns, hunting rifles, pistols, pitchforks, glass bottles filled with gasoline, etc. And what about America? Could we have sat back and allowed our British buddies go down the drain. Hardly! Our army was small and weak at the time but we would have done what we could. Roosevelt was that kind of man.
It is likely that at many as a hundred thousand British soldiers, sailors, and airmen would have died in the battle. Also likely is that one-half the RAF would have been destroyed along with perhaps one-quarter of the British Navy. On the German side, the casualties would have been at least equal to that of the British. (Can you imagine the horror of the German soldiers trapped in river barges as the barges were sent to the briny depths?)
One of the keys to the battle would have been the fine leadership of the RAF. The RAF fighters would certainly have concentrated on sinking the soldier-laden barges and avoided meaningless air duels with German fighters. (Similar to their strategy during the Battle of Britain when that battle took place.)
When the greatest land-sea-air battle of all time was over, I believe the British would have held off the Germans.
No, I think Hitler carefully considered the risks involved in invading Britain and wisely decided against it. He had bigger fish to fry with the upcoming attack on Russia. Hitler was only a corporal during his military service but he had a far better feel for strategy than many of his generals.
But many experts say Hitler had no choice. He had to roll the dice and try to conquer Britain. Otherwise, the British would remain a thorn in his backside (as they did) as he moved against Russia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)