You cannot understand this if you happen to believe that the war was lost until America entered it.

The abandonment of Eastern Europe was even worse considering they actively deported the Allied soldiers from that region back over to the Soviets after 1944

well thanks for the information in this thread history is fascinating to read about but i'm more concerned about the future; is there a place for futurism in the history forum? silly question, of course not, that belongs in SMP. The biggest question I ask myself is will we wipe ourselves out or will there be people talking about the propaganda wars going on with donald trump and hilary clinton in the future?

does present day history deserve a place in these forums? again, silly question, politics is the place for that

Probably.

Assume that we wipe ourselves out (by nuclear means or otherwise) in any given year with probability 1 in 1,000,000- a grossly optimistic estimate no doubt. Then, the probability of wiping ourselves out in the next 1,000,000 years is roughly (1- 0.999999^1,000,000=) 63%*. And I assume we don't wipe ourselves out inadvertently through raping the planet.

We've existed for about 2.5 million years as hom0-"various" but it's sadly probable that we won't reach 3.5 million years.



So I'm about a third of the way through William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". I'm enjoying it despite the author's shamelessly homophobic remarks. Just one question:

After the night of the long knives, Hitler announced publicly, on July 13 1934, that he was responsible for organizing the deaths of over 100 people.
His reasons for doing so were (paraphrased): "argo fargo...these people were a blight on Germany and I take the law into my own hands."

Remarkably, Hindenburg commended him for it (page 225). What the hell?

Why wasn't he arrested on the spot? If, say, John Key or Justin Trudeau killed 100 people and then issued a public confession by television or radio announcement, there would be complete outrage. And they'd be arrested immediately.

I wasn't taught history at school so i'm probably naive but it's inconceivable to me that a politician, or anyone for that matter, could get away with that.

If a nuclear war went off now there would be many human survivors, so I don't agree with your one in a million estimate.

Also, if you changed it to one in a billion the end probability drops to less than 10%; and this all assumes that humans stay as we are and don't ever take the opportunity to genetically modify some of our inherited behaviours that run against our best interests in surviving as a species in the modern and future world where ICBMs exist.

So you're telling me there's a chance?

I'd agree it's unlikely we'd wipe ourselves out completely. The people of North Sentinel Island for instance probably won't be drawn into a nuclear battle and would remain unaffected by power struggles.

But to estimate the likelihood of a nuclear wipe out (in a given year) at one in a billion is grossly optimistic. You do realize how large a billion is right?
The current environment poses a number of struggles that could lead to a nuclear fest:
-unresolved conflict in the middle east
-Putin's game of chess (at least that's how the west see it)
-racial hatred among hom0-sapiens in Europe
-subtle power interests in the pacific

Personally, i think you'd be optimistic at estimating the likelihood at anything under 1 in 100,000 in the current year. Which i admit is small but over millions of years its a sure thing.

You make a great point about modifying ourselves and that would be one of our escape cards aside from the classic "migration to another planet."

Because they aren't stupid.

They would have got destroyed by Germany and the Soviets..

Though it fun to think about the changes that would happen

The Nazi-Soviet Pact (at least the part where they agreed to divide Poland) was secret. The Soviets went into Poland under the public pretense of securing their own border against the German advance.

Why would you call that "pretext"? The Soviets knew the Germans had been rearming - the Soviets had helped them do it. The Soviets knew that Germany would invade Poland - hence the pact. The Soviets never presumed rhey would be at peace with Nazi Germany for decades. They knew a war was inevitable. They had a very real reason to want to secure their borders with a buffer area. That may not have been their only reason for grabbing the eastern part of Poland, but it was a genuine part of their reasons for doing so.

The Soviets and Germans were like oil and water at the time. However, one thing they shared in common was their hatred of the Poland as an independent nation. Stalin was well aware, like you say, of Germany's intentions of invading Poland and eventual invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin's reasoning behind the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was to bide time and allow the Soviet Union to strengthen and mobilize it's own forces in case this occurred.

I started watching few documentaries from a channel called TIK:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfZ...SJ2rtcEJHM2kCg

I have to say I am really surprised how detailed it is and lots of stuff I didnt knew. At the moment watching about the oil problems of the Germans and never expected them to be this severe. You never read about that stuff when you often only read about not taking Moscow in 1941.

Thanks for the link.

I had a look at a couple of his vids and I have to say they seem reasonably good. My only criticism so far is I saw a couple places where he left out some relevant facts that didn't support his main points. E.g, in his vid about the role of tanks on the eastern front, he didn't break the German tanks down between light medium and heavy, nor did he compare the capabilities of corresponding tank classes, or tanks within classes, very much. I don't think these omissions mean his overall conclusions are incorrect though.

You're a really arrogant person. Do you have any degrees/published material in the history field?

I like the Eastory videos as well. They have some cool animations that have helped me wrap my head around what happened on the eastern front. Hopefully they make more videos soon.

Eastern Front Animated: 1941

Eastern Front Animated: 1942

Those videos are awesome. The POW numbers are underestimated imo, especially in 1941

Whereas you would appear to have nothing about which to be arrogant.
I took history in University but it was not my major. In fact, I ended up transferring to another faculty entirely.

I have been published on historical topics, but not in a scholarly journal. I have also been interviewed on national TV news but, strictly speaking the topic of the interview was more current events than history.

I have worked with the late Ludwig Kosche, Librarian of the Canadian War Museum, on military history research projects, and have collaborated with an employee of what was then the Defence History Directorate of the Department of National Defence (D Hist has since become the Directorate of History and Heritage.). I was not a paid employee of either of these organizations.

I have given talks about history to tour groups interested in the subject, after being invited to do so by the PhD organizing the tours.

I have been recommended for employment at both the Canadian War Museum, and history-related roles at Parks Canada, but chose a different
path.

When it comes to history-related work, I am strictly an amateur, but I have worked alongside professionals who are aware of my skills and knowledge in the field.

What about you? What are your credentials and background in history?

Wow lol what a childish response.

It doesn't matter. Thanks for answering my question.

Read the thread last night and just as I finished I caught a bit of the news.

Joachim Ronneberg passed away.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/o...berg-dead.html