Bernd
05/05/2021 (Wed) 01:09:27
No.43502
del
05/05/2021 (Wed) 01:09:27
No.43502
del
>>43417
>His chief concern (judging by the length and "frequency" he wrote about such) were the subversive actions of the Anglo-Jewish fifth column - which we probably can interpret as the normal opposition in every country, even in Germany -, and (from the subtext) the ideological preparation of the population, to steel the morals and endurance. I think he believed, that if there's enough will, then nothing is impossible. Probably coming from the favored view of WWI: "hinterland betrayed the armies, who could have won just with a little more effort from the people at home".
Nothing boosts morale like a successful offensive, and war economy propaganda can fuel morale even if there are no good news from the front. The latter was Germany's case. But it was precisely in the 1943-1945 period that the morale of German civilians broke down, in the previous years their behavior was orderly and cooperative.
>In the intro he wrote defense have to be done offensively (I think "proactively" would be descriptive) therefore he must have seen the German attacks as counter-attacks.
Well, it wasn't a regular offensive to seize large swathes of territory but only to weaken the Red Army and shorten the frontline, making it more defensible.
>>43489
So Hitler and Stresemann's foresight that America's rise as a superpower would define the century wasn't so obvious to figure out and an European observer could still miss or deemphasize it.
>His chief concern (judging by the length and "frequency" he wrote about such) were the subversive actions of the Anglo-Jewish fifth column - which we probably can interpret as the normal opposition in every country, even in Germany -, and (from the subtext) the ideological preparation of the population, to steel the morals and endurance. I think he believed, that if there's enough will, then nothing is impossible. Probably coming from the favored view of WWI: "hinterland betrayed the armies, who could have won just with a little more effort from the people at home".
Nothing boosts morale like a successful offensive, and war economy propaganda can fuel morale even if there are no good news from the front. The latter was Germany's case. But it was precisely in the 1943-1945 period that the morale of German civilians broke down, in the previous years their behavior was orderly and cooperative.
>In the intro he wrote defense have to be done offensively (I think "proactively" would be descriptive) therefore he must have seen the German attacks as counter-attacks.
Well, it wasn't a regular offensive to seize large swathes of territory but only to weaken the Red Army and shorten the frontline, making it more defensible.
>>43489
So Hitler and Stresemann's foresight that America's rise as a superpower would define the century wasn't so obvious to figure out and an European observer could still miss or deemphasize it.