Questions to Malte

[jansenov]

^http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDm2JcnTPs

This is one possible scenario. I had to do this.    I'm sure Malte will forgive me.

[Malte279]

I haven't yet watched the video to avoid it taking any influence on my response. I am going to watch it after posting here.
I suppose the time of his assassination would play some role "before coming to power" would probably mean an assassination before 1933, but given that when calling a killing an asassination it suggests that the dead person probably would be in the public spotlight already (rather than for example a largely anonymous Hitler being killed in WW1). So assuming that he would be killed prior to 1933 but after getting some public attention for his attempted putsch in 1923 Hitler still might have inspired some misery in case whoever would have taken power would have taken Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" literally, a book which Hitler wrote in arrest after the failed putsch and which leaves little doubt about what Hitler was up to.
The overall situation of Germany in the 1920s and 1930s made the country a real brooding pit for radical nutcases. Dissatisfaction with the democracy of the Weimar republic, discordance among the many small political parties (not all of which were radical), the anger about the treaty of Versailles, the high rate of unemployment and economic suffering (especially after the crisis of 1929) and the fierce and violent battling between radical factions of the left and right wings made it very likely for somebody to seize dictatorial power in Germany, since large parts of the population were willing to let this happen. I'll therefor base my scenarios on the presumption that somebody else would have ended up with dictatorial powers rather than the pretier scenario of a continuation and growing acceptance of democracy in Germany at the time.
Antisemitism was regretably present among many Germans, with or without Hitler, but still chances are that not every dictator which might have come to power would have been as ready to carry out the madness Hitler had laid out in "Mein Kampf". The breaking out of another war was likely (though not set in stone) even with a different radical than Hitler in power. The horrible crime of the Holocaust may perhaps not have been as likely under a different dictator.
I guess the worst case scenario would have been a different dictator who took Hitler (based on his writings) as an example to follow but who was a better strategist than Hitler. The worst case scenario would be a dictator who in many ways (especially in his persecution of war and genocide of the Jews) would resemble Hitler, but on the other hand would not have made the kind of decisions Hitler made which contributed to his failure (such as the bombing of towns rather than airfields and military facilities during the battle of Britain, the decision to attack the Soviet Union, the many orders prohibiting any kind of tactical withdrawl, the decision to turn the Me-262 into a bomber etc.). Probably the best case scenario short of a lasting of the democracy in Germany would have been a moderate dictator at the time. A dictator that is who didn't share the fanatism (especially the antisemitism) of Hitler, who would have focused on the country rather than personal interests and who would have been ready to give up power when it was no longer helping the country. While such a "lovely, kind, dictator" sounds very fictional, there is actually a contemporary at the time whom I was thinking of. Mustafa Kemal, better known as Atat¸rk (which means "father of the Turks") came to power through a putsch similar to the way other dictators did. Throughout his rule over what remained of the former Ottoman Empire he made a number of decisions he could not have made without the dictatorial power he held. The forced deportation of the Pontic Greeks (combined with the Greek decision to force Turks living in Greek to settle in Turkey), and his harsh punishments of people who ignored his prohibition of the continuation of a number of Ottomanic traditions are among his harshest decisions. Given the context however these decisions may have helped to prevent future wars and conflicts. Atat¸rk transformed a weak and defeated, backwards oriented country into a modern nation and did reestablish democracy (though to this day the military which brought him to power does play a very important political role in Turkey) even at the risk of giving up his power.
A dictator of similar nature in Germany at the time might have taken some measures similar to some Hitler took in the 1930s, perhaps the unification with Austria (which most Austrians were quite happy with at the time) might have been conducted by such a dictator too. However, in case of such a dictator it would not have all been work in preparation for a future war but more on behalf of reestablishing Germany (especially in the mind of the people at the time) after the defeat in WW1. Such a dictator would not have striven for conquest of further land or reoccupation of territories lost in WW1 (Mustafa Kemal never tried to reconquer the former Ottoman territories which became independent after WW1 either), but rather would have tried to consolidate Germany by non-military means and reintroduce democracy at a time when people were more accepting for it.

PS: Note that I am not speaking out for any kind of dictatorship with the second scenario I described. It was a "best case" short of a continuation of democracy scenario.

[Chomper98]

Thanks Malte for those scenarios, guess it may not have been much different even if Hitler never came to power.

[Malte279]

It depends on who else would have come to power. A difference it would have been in any case, but it is not certain what kind of difference it would have been. Assuming that a ruthless dictator would have come to power, but one without the fanatic and insane antisemitism of Hitler the entire Holocaust might not have happened and that would have been a huge difference indeed, even if we assume the other dictator too would have started WW2.

[jansenov]

^What anout the Nazis' fixation on Lebensraum, their anti-Slavic attitude and Generalplan Ost? As long as Nazism is influental, an invasion of Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union can't be avoided. And if a Nazi Germany achieved victory over the USSR, it would probably start a genocide of such proportions over the 200 million Slavs under its rule that the Holocaust would pale in comparison.

It was anti-Slavism, not anti-Semitism that sealed Germany's defeat in Eastern Europe. The people of the Soviet Union suffered considerably under the Soviet Union, and millions of Ukrainians and Russians were ready to join Germany's perceived anti-Bolshevik crusade. However, the German authorities' appaling treatment of the East Slavic population made the people realise that Stalin wasn't so bad after all. But even under such bad conditions a million Russians under Vlasov fought together with the Germans. How many millions more would have been available had Germans treated Russians like human beings?

In short, I believe it was possible for a militaristic Germany to conquer all of continental Europe, but only if it abandoned both anti-Semitism and anti-Slavism, that is, if it abandoned the basic tenets of Nazy ideology.

[Malte279]

Aye, that was one of the fixations Hitler already laid out in "Mein Kampf" so any alternative dictator trying to follow Hitler's writings would likely have striven for that "Lebensraum" too destroying many Leben in the process. I very much doubt though that a person other than Hitler alone would be the decicive factor that would have made a victory of Germany over the Soviet Union possible. Chances are that even in case of a scenario in which the Soviet Union did collapse and in which it was occupied by Germans it would have proven more than Germany could swallow. Such an occupation, and especially one accompanied by genocide would have almost certainly provoked a degree of resistance that would have made it impossible to keep the land occupied in the long run. In any case you are correct that the bloodshed probably would have been as bad (or worse in case of a dictator who was more of a strategist in military matters than Hitler was (though he probably wouldn't have started that war in that case to begin with)).
I wonder what would have been in case of a dictator who was anticommunist and with that terrible "Lebensraum" thinking, but without the fierce anti-slavism and antisemitism. Given the harsh rule of Stalin chances are that he would have been considered a liberator by some people. In fact there are some reports about some Russians welcoming the attacking Germans before they found that not liberation but murder was the purpose of the invaders.

[Chomper98]

What if the Germans marched into Russia as liberators? I don't want to hear, they wouldn't, I would like to know what would happen if they did liberate the Russian people.

[Malte279]

What if the Germans marched into Russia as liberators? I don't want to hear, they wouldn't, I would like to know what would happen if they did liberate the Russian people.

What I think you need to realize is that this isn't far away history over here. There are few places in our large towns over here from where one can go a few hundred meters without passing by sites of nazi crimes. In our roads there are thousands of brazen commemorative stones reminding of people murdered by the nazis. Where there are thousands of memorials of flag hoisting, glorious trumpet calls and uniformed generals in other places we got memorials for countless of people being robbed, humiliated, starved, murdered, tortured and gassed. The entire attitute of most people here therefore is different than the "funny, exciting or glorious story" kind of attitute with which people elsewhere may approach WW2.
I studied history and consider the "what if" scenarios kind of toying around but they can't be scientific for lack of possibility to prove or disprove any scenarios. I try to describe scenarios that would be likely or possible to some degree.
What I just want you to realize (before dealing with the question) is that your question is pretty much like I wanted you to tell me what if Osama Bin Laden had come to the United States to distribute candy (paid for by Saddam Hussein) on Pennsylvania Avenue while requiring open mindedness and religious tollerance <_<

If the unlikely scenario had taken place that the entire building up of hatred against the Soviet "Untermenschen" in the 1920s and 30s had not taken place. The whole scenario could not have taken place on the basis of the 1939 borders. Germany and the Soviet Union did not share any borders. So either the criminal war against Poland would have had to take place or Poland would have had to become Germany's ally with a sudden urge to invade the huge Soviet Union in order to be "a good neighbour" and spread democracy there (any thoughts on this Myrkin?).
In the unlikely scenario that a Germany in the 1940s had suddenly been overcome by the need to spread democracy to Russia (a statesform which had not exactly been widely accepted in Germany) rather than just murdering or destroying everything that looked communist or Slavic the reactions of some people are likely to have been different. Especially in the border regions and in the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and possibly regions like Ukraine and Bellarus there might have been some active support for the invaders. The results in the end would very much depend on the degree to which fear of Stalin and adherence to the original ideals of communisim would weigh against the hopes stuck to the foreign invaders with the unexplained self-less urge to spread democracy. In order to liberate a people the people too need to want to be liberated or at least (as in case of Germany) not want things to continue the way they have. No doubt there would have been some confusion in addition to the bloodshed that a war brings even if it is not the kind of war of total annihilation and devastation that Germany historically waged against the Soviet Union.

[Chomper98]

What if the Germans marched into Russia as liberators? I don't want to hear, they wouldn't, I would like to know what would happen if they did liberate the Russian people.

What I think you need to realize is that this isn't far away history over here. There are few places in our large towns over here from where one can go a few hundred meters without passing by sites of nazi crimes. In our roads there are thousands of brazen commemorative stones reminding of people murdered by the nazis. Where there are thousands of memorials of flag hoisting, glorious trumpet calls and uniformed generals in other places we got memorials for countless of people being robbed, humiliated, starved, murdered, tortured and gassed. The entire attitute of most people here therefore is different than the "funny, exciting or glorious story" kind of attitute with which people elsewhere may approach WW2.
I studied history and consider the "what if" scenarios kind of toying around but they can't be scientific for lack of possibility to prove or disprove any scenarios. I try to describe scenarios that would be likely or possible to some degree.
What I just want you to realize (before dealing with the question) is that your question is pretty much like wanted you to tell me what if Osama Bin Laden had come to the United States to distribute candy (paid for by Saddam Hussein) on Pennsylvania Avenue while requiring open mindedness and religious tollerance <_<

Oh, sorry, I don't mean to sound like that, and I really do feel sorry for those millions who were murdered, I would just like to know, for some reason beyond all rational possibilties, that if the Germans tried to charm the russians into submission, like they did in the western countries.

[The Chronicler]

I've recently found out that, 150 years ago today (September 13) during the American Civil War, some Union soldiers found a copy of orders from Confederate general Robert E. Lee (likely dropped by accident) shortly before the Battle of Antietam. This meant that the Union general now knew where the Confederate troops were. I'm bringing this up because, in an Alternate History book series about what if the South had won the Civil War, the point it diverges from actual history is when those orders are found by Confederate soldiers instead.

In your opinion, how significant was the discovery of these "lost orders" to the battle that followed and the war itself? How different do you think things could have been if the Union soldiers had not found those orders?

[Malte279]

Thank you for the question

In the end the finding of these papers, Special Orders, No. 191 didn't turn out nearly as deceicive as they would have in case the federal army had been commanded by someone less cautious than George B. McClellan. McClellan, who commanded the Army of the Potomac at the time was a brilliant organizer and his service to the union was that he had in fact shapped the Army of the Potomac into an effective fighting unit. However, he was not ready to use the army and always presumed for Lee to outnumber him (when in fact the Army of Northern Virginia at no point outnumbered the Army of the Potomac). When McClellan received Lee's orders which laid out exactly how Lee's army was divided (and thus in a perfect position to be cut up before it coult reunited) McClellan is said to have exclaimed: "Here is a paper with which, if I cannot whip Bobby Lee, I will be willing to go home."
After calling that he quickly proceeded to doing... not exactly very much. Lee learned on the same evening from southern sympathizers that his battle orders had been found and Lee moved to concentrate his forces around the town of Sharpsburg. Had McClellan moved more aggressively he could have caught and defeated Lee piecemeal. Instead he approached very carefully and vastly inferrior southern forces bought Lee an additional day (September 14th) at Turner's and Crampton's gap (two engagements often summarized as the battle of South Mountain), after the gaps were taken McClellan continued to move slowly and even when his army was in position opposite to Lee on the 16th of September he decided against attacking that evening. All this time allowed for Lee's troops to concentrate and even the last division (that of A.P. Hill) Lee had on the southern side of the Potomac and which had still been kept there by the necessity of organizing the surrender of Federal forces who had been "bottled up" in Harper's Ferry managed to arrive on the field just in the nick of time when the federals were about to break through Lee's right flank.
September 17th, the battle of Antietam was in any case the bloodiest day in US history with the battle casualties of that day exceeding the battle casualties of the war of 1812, the war against Mexico 1846-48 and that against Spain 1898 combined. Nevertheless the battle of Antietam does get less attention than for example the battle of Gettysburg. I think that this is not only because even more people were killed and wounded there in a time span of three days, but also because the battle of Antietam didn't seem to have a clear victor. In spite of being outnumbered about two to one and having been pushed back in several spots with a dreadful deathtoll Lee was still on the field on the evening of September 17th and would remain there throughout September 18th waiting for another federal attack that never came before finally retreating back over the Potomac. So on a tactical level it was pretty much of a draw with neither side having swept the field. Southern casualties exceeded 10 000 northern casualties exceeded 12 000 (with the south however having much less reserves of manpower to fill the ranks). Nonetheless with the north in the end having forced the south to retreat back south, thus ending Lee's invasion of Maryland it turned into a strategic victory for the north. It is the political consequences of this battle however that make me consider it a much more decicive turning point of the Civil War than the battle of Gettysburg ever was. The outcome of the battle allowed Abraham Lincoln to pass the proclamation of emancipation without it looking like an act of despair. The proclamation ended any realistic hope for an intervention of a European power on behalf of the South. If the south had won (after the series of victories it had won before) it might perhaps have convinced England and France to join the war which (up to that point) was at least not fought officially about slavery (in spite of the fact that it would have never even started without the conflict about the "peculiar institution").
Nonetheless the battle of Antietam was also a great chance for the north which was totally missed by McClellan. Lee had placed his forces in a surprisingly precarious position at Antietam. While the ground itself was defensible, Lee also had the Potomac river in his rear. In case of a defeat there would have been no save escape route but one single ford which could have easily fallen into the hands of the federals (in fact it almost did but for the aforementioned arrival of A.P. Hill in the nick of time) and the Army of Northern Virginia would have been completely surrounded. Lee risked everything there. From a tactical point of view it would have probably been a much easier battle (if in that case the battle had happened at all) if he had withdrawn to the other side of the ford of the Potomac and wait for the Army of the Potomac to cross. But such a retreat (which would have meant leaving Maryland) would have been seen as a concession of defeat without a battle.

As for special orders, number 191, chances are that perhaps it would not have made a huge difference if they had not been found by the federals. A more aggressive commander of the Army of the Potomac at the time could have made all the difference though with or without the respective orders which McClellan just failed to use to any advantage whatsoever.

I got to admit it is very, very bitter for me to be here at these days. I had planned to write my dissertation on the 150th anniversary celebrations / commemorations of the American Civil War. Fate had it though that to this day I have not found a job or other means that would allow me to go to the US to attend these events and observe them first hand. I got to admit that this is the kind of thing that I am likely to look back on with the deepest regret and some bitterness for the rest of my life.

[Serris]

This is something that I feel compelled to ask, what exactly is your issue with US gun laws and gun owners? I've seen your posts on the topic and they seem come off as borderline insulting.

In fact, I actually chatted with someone (not gonna say who) about this and they agree with me.

To sum it up, why are you so hostile to US gun owners?

[Malte279]

As for my posts being borderline insulting, please tell me which parts you perceive as insulting without what I said at least containing a perception one may argue for or again. And then look at your own posts and count the times you are using f*** and s*** and other formulations that don't include any arguments but read like blunt pure hatred.
It is not limited to the topic of gun control either. Would you like to look at some examples?
All of the following was posted by you within this year, within the last few weeks that is and I daresay your choice of words can be considered offensive:

The fact that the f---ing asinine "Assault Weapons Ban" is on the table again by Senator Feinstein.

It didn't do s--- the first time, why are they wasting their time? I f---ing hate politicians sometimes.

Fuck it, I loathe caustic critics. News flash, you're not being edgy or funny. This type of critique makes you look like an utterly unlikable, tactless killjoy.

How much I'm starting to think NJ is a s---hole.

F---! Idea overload!

Words cannot describe how pissed off I am.

Great, the Anti-TCB Group on Fimfiction is being attacked by some dumbass who've we banned like ten times. [...]
I already hate TCB fans because of previous drama with them (mainly because if you admit to not liking Chatoyance's stories, they'll fucking crucify you) but now I fucking loathe them.

That f---ing asinine 2013 Assault Weapons Ban may not have the votes to pass the Senate.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/a...ass-senate.html

F--- yeah!

Give it up, Senator Feinstein, you've lost.

Be my guest to find any case in the last nine years on the GOF where I have been posting like that.
Not only can these hateful messages be seen as quite offensive, but strictly speaking they are a violation of the board rules. Everyone writing about me as some kind of board tyrant please at least take the lenience into account. I cannot and I don't want to dictate you what to think of me, but I do not think I have ever been providing a basis for the perception of me as a kind of tyrant which I am sometimes told about.
I can still see why my posts can be annoying for someone who disagrees with my views, and I think there are plenty more people who disagree with me. They have every right to disagree with me and maybe feel annoyed about my ocassional cynism on matters like gun control. But I don't think I have descended to the degree of cursing and swearing and foaming and burning hatred which is glaring at the readers from your own posts Serris.
Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think your view comes down to letting pretty much everyone have any gun (including automatic and semi-automatic weapons designed for no other purpose but mass killing), while my view is that there are types of guns with no practical purpose to justify the risks and also that before someone earns the right to own a gun that someone must prove that he or she is most likely not going to abuse that gun. Never would I think that gun control alone can solve an issue of many roots (one of the main ones being the permanent fear so common in America that one must always be ready to kill before someone else is), but that is not a reason to pour out more guns into the hands of everyone pretending that this would make the US any saver.
I have often laid out my view on gun control and if you still need to ask for my issues with the current legal situation then you may want to read my posts in the thread and try to focus not on getting offended but und understanding (which is not the same as agreeing with) what I am saying.

[Serris]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think your view comes down to letting pretty much everyone have any gun (including automatic and semi-automatic weapons designed for no other purpose but mass killing), while my view is that there are types of guns with no practical purpose to justify the risks and also that before someone earns the right to own a gun that someone must prove that he or she is most likely not going to abuse that gun.

Close but not quite. I prefer dealing with the people; not the instrument. This involves a background check and training. Once you pass those, you can own any small arms you desire (no explosives though) in any quantity. You want to have enough weapons to outfit an infantry platoon? Go for it! You want a full-auto, belt fed M2? Go for it! Also applies to all non-explosive ammunition (hollow point, tracer, AP, etc) too.

Abuse this and your weaponry is confiscated and auctioned off (and you and your family are barred from the auction). And depending on what you did, you'll suffer penalties. Stitch your neighbor's car at 3 AM with your M2? Lose your weapons and license for five years and pay restitution. Hose down a local school during the school day with your Minigun? Lose your weapons and your license for the rest of your life. But that won't matter because you'll spend the rest of your life in jail. Oh, your family will also have to pay for the damages too.  

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

As for those posts. Well, they were written when I was either excited or angry. I tend to swear a lot under moments of high passion; it's a coping mechanism for me.

On the topic of gun control, how about we agree to disagree? We will never see eye-to-eye.

[Malte279]

^ The agreeing to disagree is pretty much what I wrote two months ago in the Sandy Hook thread:

Disagree with me as many will, but I do not believe that is the way to go.

But agreeing to disagree includes not getting offended about the other one voicing the own view as well. You have been going on a lot about your view, oftentimes in the hatefilled tone of which I gave some examples. And you you are the one feeling offended by me voicing my own opinion?
Agreeing to disagree doesn't work with one side claiming a monopoly on being offended all the while using a much more agressive tone.
As for your view, I do not deny that with all restraint of politeness I consider the idea insane for a private person to own that kind of weaponry which got no purpose other than mass killing or quantities of weapons suited to start their own little civil war if they feel offended or something.
All too often nobody had ever "expected" the person who gunned down other people in a public place or the like to do that. While your suggestions are aimed at punnishing the ones who do this (and their families) I would much rather aim to prevent such tragedies in the first place. With the amount of victims to gun violence in the US these days I do not think that the satisfaction certain people get for having the power to slaughter entire communities is so lofty a matter as to justify the prize of the death, maiming, and the suffering of the victims and their relatives.
I am glad that President Obama addressed the matter in his state of the nation address and I do hope that he will live up to it. When he does Serris, I think you might find more support for your own view if you come up with arguments and bottle the whole f*** and s*** and the like which you expect others not to find offensive while being yourself rather touchy about the views and arguments of others.

[aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato)]

How are your career efforts going? If I am not mistaken, you hope to become a history professor?

[Malte279]

Thank you for the question
Indeed becoming a professor for history, or at least teach history at university level is kind of a life dream for me and has been pretty much since my childhood. I'm still applying since there are very few possibilities and many applications to those job offers which are out there (most of the applications I am writing are unsolicited). These days there is one job offer which is really exactly what I have been looking for. I is a position that would allow for the applicant to write a dissertation while being involved in another research project in the field of North American culture and history. In case I do get that job there is no doubt I'll be with it heart, hand, soul and mind (I hope that doesn't sound too dramatic ).
Also that current job application may be my last chance to write my dissertation about the sesquicentennial of the civil war and actually attend some of the events I would like to write about. Chances are slim, but really the requirements for the job are exactly what I have to offer, so here is to hope. Please keep your fingers crossed for me

[Pangaea]

Just a random question relating to something you mentioned in Littlefoot1616's star day thread:

Did you ever find out when, where, and by whom the trampoline was invented? (Seriously, I'm rather curious myself.)

[Malte279]

I admit I had never researched about that one and had to in order to give a usable answer. One basis for the invention of the tramboline seem to be games in which one person kann jump on a solid blanket or animal skin which is held by a group of other people. I recal seeing such activities in early 19th century caricatures, but I suppose such games would have been around earlier than that. The life saving function of such a blanket used by firefighters to allow for people trapped on the upper floors of a burning building to jump to safety was also figured out in the 19th century.
Wikipedia credits George Nissen and Larry Griswold, two American gymnasts with the construction of the first modern trampoline in 1936.

[The Chronicler]

When it comes to Land Before Time fanfiction, you've made it no secret that you prefer the kind that "stay true to the series", without any mindless wars, human interactions, or crossovers of any kind.

Seeing as you have recently gotten interested in the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, would you say that these same preferences of yours also apply to MLP:FiM fanfiction?