Meanwhile, on the Eastern Front. . .

Dimlee said:

The wording is very much different. As for the meanings, - one can only guess what Hitler thought in 1925 about the implementation of his "eastern" ideas. We do know, of course, what he did later.
When I read that dull and ill-written book many years ago, I was surprised not to find a lot of what was attributed to that book. And to discover what was omitted.
Just looked quickly through one of the English translations and found the following.
"The fact was recognized that new territory could be gained only in the East; but this meant that there would be fighting ahead"
"...we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East"
"But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of Russia and the border States subject to her... Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here."

https://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt

The last two sentences are from Chapter XIV Germany's Policy in Eastern Europe. Where the author blabbers about everything else but the policy itself and writes about France as much as about Eastern Europe.

To conclude: no, there was no Hitler's statement in his books about the ultimate goal of the extermination of the Slavic nations. That does not make him any "better". But this fact can help to understand the dangerous unpredictabilities of totalitarian leaders and regimes.

Click to expand...

I agree that there is no such clear statement in his books but i'm seeing this through the perspective of events during WW2. You may come here to Poland and visit war necropolises as well what left from nazis concentration camps, see villages on the south of Warszawa which has been wiped out by SS during "cleaning actions", castle in Lublin where gestapo executed peoples almost every day during 5 years of occupation, or see Uprising Museum here in Warszawa presenting what happened here during two months of 1944 when nazis killed 80 000 of resistance soldiers and almost 250 000 civilians. This is how facts looks like - what may possibly change analyzing if "fuhrer" expressed his goals in written form or just whispered this to the Himmler's ears during Sunday dinner in Berghoff?
Probably you know this but in a case not i think you should familiarize yourself with "Generalplan Ost" - Generalplan Ost - Wikipedia
This should clarify to you what was the nazis government plans in a topic we are talking about.

gordonm1 said:

McHale's Navy not included? Those guys made Klink and Schultz look smart sometimes.

Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I really didn't watch McHale's Navy, and I don't remember why.

My son and I have recently started watching Russian made/produced WW2 movies and compare them to western made movies from different nationalities. As a sociology experiment it illustrates quite a few of the differences in how the war is remembered/experienced. We also watch them in the original language with subtitles as we can appreciate the emotions better.

J_P_C said:

I agree that there is no such clear statement in his books but i'm seeing this through the perspective of events during WW2. You may come here to Poland and visit war necropolises as well what left from nazis concentration camps, see villages on the south of Warszawa which has been wiped out by SS during "cleaning actions", castle in Lublin where gestapo executed peoples almost every day during 5 years of occupation, or see Uprising Museum here in Warszawa presenting what happened here during two months of 1944 when nazis killed 80 000 of resistance soldiers and almost 250 000 civilians. This is how facts looks like - what may possibly change analyzing if "fuhrer" expressed his goals in written form or just whispered this to the Himmler's ears during Sunday dinner in Berghoff?
Probably you know this but in a case not i think you should familiarize yourself with "Generalplan Ost" - Generalplan Ost - Wikipedia
This should clarify to you what was the nazis government plans in a topic we are talking about.

Click to expand...

I know this. Born and raised in the USSR. Visited Poland many times. Studied WW2 as a part of self-education since the 1990s.

The Nazis murdered their own people, their own grandmothers if they became feeble and "useless" and their own children if they were born that way. That they would exterminate entire people because of perceived racial inferiority is entirely in character.

NevadaK said:

2) It would be more appropriate to say that the war started as early as 1931 with the Japanese invasion Manchuria or 1937 with the Second Sino Japanese War. US economic sanctions as a result of Japanese aggression contributed to the Japanese decision to strike the US and its allies. Not to mention the incredible losses of the Chinese people.

Click to expand...

Pretty much agree with that, to me more likely 1937 after the Marco Polo bridge incident.

I would even say that there was no World War Two, rather multiple wars all over the world, at times with the same participants obviously influencenced ones by the actions of others.

NevadaK said:

My son and I have recently started watching Russian made/produced WW2 movies and compare them to western made movies from different nationalities. As a sociology experiment it illustrates quite a few of the differences in how the war is remembered/experienced. We also watch them in the original language with subtitles as we can appreciate the emotions better.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty much intented to go that way. I have seen a couple of movies (I think in Amazon Prime) of that kind. Could you recommend any one?

Thanks in advance!

Escuadrilla Azul said:

Pretty much agree with that, to me more likely 1937 after the Marco Polo bridge incident.

I would even say that there was no World War Two, rather multiple wars all over the world, at times with the same participants obviously influencenced ones by the actions of others.


I'm pretty much intented to go that way. I have seen a couple of movies (I think in Amazon Prime) of that kind. Could you recommend any one?

Thanks in advance!

Click to expand...

Greetings Escuadrilla Azul,

I can't say that the more recent Russian war movies are high cinema, but in the last few months we've watched:

1. T-34 - The opening tank battle scene is pretty good. It gets a little wonky after and the plot is not terribly realistic. Nicely shot and visually worthwhile. Notable for being the third highest grossing Russian film all time.
2. The Battle for Sevastopol - This is an "inspired" by true events story about a female sniper. The lead actress is Yulia Peresild who is a better actress than the material she has to work with. As a side note, she is the actress who recently went to the ISS to film a new movie.
3. Panfilov's 28 Men - Pretty good movie about an event that may or may not have happened. Excellent cinematography and scripted battle scenes.
4. Stalingrad - This is a big movie that is a bit of a hot mess to watch.

There are a few more on our list to watch in the next few months. Older movies that are worth watching are:

1. Only Old Men Are Going Into Battle - 1973, Probably a must for this forum. Depicts the daily lives of Soviet fighter pilots.
2. They Fought For Their Country - 1975, This is a classic war epic. Big Cast with lots of Russian stars. Think the Longest Day in scale.
3. Hot Snow - 1972, focuses on a historic battle in Stalingrad.
and Lastly
4. Come and See - This is a moving film about the toll of the Soviet people in the war. Can be difficult to watch. Frequently referenced as the best/most important Russian film of the war.

There are also some great documents-dramas that are worth watching as well.

I enjoyed T-34. Just not as an historical document.

Escuadrilla Azul said:

I would even say that there was no World War Two, rather multiple wars all over the world, at times with the same participants obviously influencenced ones by the actions of others.

Click to expand...

This is close to my opinion. WW2 as not one war but the "conglomerate" of wars, many of which were civil ones.
By the way, the largest civil war was on the Eastern Front. Over 1 mln of USSR citizens have chosen German uniform. The number of civil servicemen who collaborated is difficult to estimate.

NevadaK said:

Greetings Escuadrilla Azul,

I can't say that the more recent Russian war movies are high cinema, but in the last few months we've watched:

1. T-34 - The opening tank battle scene is pretty good. It gets a little wonky after and the plot is not terribly realistic. Nicely shot and visually worthwhile. Notable for being the third highest grossing Russian film all time.
2. The Battle for Sevastopol - This is an "inspired" by true events story about a female sniper. The lead actress is Yulia Peresild who is a better actress than the material she has to work with. As a side note, she is the actress who recently went to the ISS to film a new movie.
3. Panfilov's 28 Men - Pretty good movie about an event that may or may not have happened. Excellent cinematography and scripted battle scenes.
4. Stalingrad - This is a big movie that is a bit of a hot mess to watch.

There are a few more on our list to watch in the next few months. Older movies that are worth watching are:

1. Only Old Men Are Going Into Battle - 1973, Probably a must for this forum. Depicts the daily lives of Soviet fighter pilots.
2. They Fought For Their Country - 1975, This is a classic war epic. Big Cast with lots of Russian stars. Think the Longest Day in scale.
3. Hot Snow - 1972, focuses on a historic battle in Stalingrad.
and Lastly
4. Come and See - This is a moving film about the toll of the Soviet people in the war. Can be difficult to watch. Frequently referenced as the best/most important Russian film of the war.

There are also some great documents-dramas that are worth watching as well.

Click to expand...

Just to comment.
The female sniper story (Pavlichenko) remains a very contradicted one. So, it's not a true story but rather an adaption of the old Soviet war story.
Panfilov's 28 Men is about an event that did not happen. Simple as that.

The last four in the list are highly recommended. One can find some inconsistencies in them or technical errors, etc. But they stood up among the Soviet war movie production.
Come and See is a Russian/Belorussian production. One of the most "non-Soviet" Soviet films about WW2.

Some more from 1960-1980s:

WWII may be a bit complex to define, but consider the global scale and all involved.

For starters, the skirmish between Japan and the Soviet Union was a fight between the two.
The fighting between the Soviet Union and Finland was contained to the two nations.

Same goes for Italy and Abyssinia (Ethiopia).

The Spanish Civil war remained a contained "war" and even the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was a contest between China and Japan.

However, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, started a chain of events that ultimately involved the Soviet Union (at first), the US, Commonwealth nations, the Netherlands and France.

Meanwhile, the Axis invasion of Poland in 1939, set the stage for a domino effect that would draw in scores of nations across the globe.

In the end, it was a war that involved every continent on earth, save for Antarctica.

Even after the end of WWII in summer of 1945, there were still brush fires that smouldered for years afterward: Korea, Viet Nam, Hungary, Africa and the middle east.

So it would seem, that 1937 would define the start of a global conflict.

Dimlee said:

Just to comment.
The female sniper story (Pavlichenko) remains a very contradicted one. So, it's not a true story but rather an adaption of the old Soviet war story.
Panfilov's 28 Men is about an event that did not happen. Simple as that.

The last four in the list are highly recommended. One can find some inconsistencies in them or technical errors, etc. But they stood up among the Soviet war movie production.
Come and See is a Russian/Belorussian production. One of the most "non-Soviet" Soviet films about WW2.

Click to expand...

Dimlee, speaking of sniper stories, what is your opinion of the American-made Enemy at the Gates (2001)?

NTGray said:

My, how things have changed since then!

N°	Country (or territory)	Gross tonnage (millions)[1]​	Deadweight tonnage (millions)[1]​
​	World	1,034.3	1,552.2
1​	View attachment 652432 Panama	215.8	330.8
​	View attachment 652433 European Union	205.1	293.2
2​	View attachment 652434 Liberia	123.8	193.3
3​	View attachment 652435 Marshall Islands	81.1	133.3
4​	View attachment 652436 Hong Kong	78.5	130.3
5​	View attachment 652437 Singapore	59.2	91.7
6​	View attachment 652438 Bahamas	48.3	63.3
7​	View attachment 652439 Malta	45.0	70.3
8​	View attachment 652440 Greece	41.1	72.9
9​	View attachment 652441 China	38.8	61.2
10​	View attachment 652442 United Kingdom	30.0	40.7

The United States is down at #22

Click to expand...

Most U.S.-owned ships are foreign-registered. U.S. Maritime Law and unions / taxes make it almost prohibitive to be U.S.-registered except for U.S.-loaded and U.S.-bound cargo.

We can thank the National Maritime Union and Congress for that.

When I sailed out on a U.S.-owned ship (S.S. Gulfpride) in 1968, it was one of VERY few tankers carrying oil from the Pittsburg area (Hog Island) to the New Orleans area (Ostrica-Buras). Since then, U.S.-owned-and-flagged ship have gotten even more scarce. The U.S.A. simply wants too much money from shipowners for it to be a good choice to U.S.-flag their vessels.

GregP said:

Most U.S.-owned ships are foreign-registered. U.S. Maritime Law and unions / taxes make it almost prohibitive to be U.S.-registered except for U.S.-loaded and U.S.-bound cargo.

We can thank the National Maritime Union and Congress for that.

When I sailed out on a U.S.-owned ship (S.S. Gulfpride) in 1968, it was one of VERY few tankers carrying oil from the Pittsburg area (Hog Island) to the New Orleans area (Ostrica-Buras). Since then, U.S.-owned-and-flagged ship have gotten even more scarce. The U.S.A. simply wants too much money from shipowners for it to be a good choice to U.S.-flag their vessels.

Click to expand...

Right. To my knowledge, the "flag of convenience" was not a thing in 1940. Or at least it was a very, very small thing.

GrauGeist said:

So it would seem, that 1937 would define the start of a global conflict.

Click to expand...

I agree. The brushfires of 1918-1921 (?) helped keep things smoldering too (not to mention resentment over Versailles), but I think Japan's involvement in China helped drag America into the later general war even though the Marco Polo Bridge offensive was localized. Panay being sunk helped on that score too, due to the China Lobby here in this country.

Of course the war wasn't global and aligned into blocs as it would become by 1941, but I think it provided much of the kindling for the conflagration to follow, and by 1937 the alliances were pretty much sorting themselves out, with the exception of the USSR.

GrauGeist said:

Actually, the IJN was ahead of all other navies in regards to sea going replenishment at the start of the Pacific war.

Were Tankers the Key to Imperial Japan’s Early Wartime Success?

Japan had come to appreciate the value of at-sea replenishment for its navy early on.

thediplomat.com

Click to expand...

Not sure how to reconcile the article to the reports the total 1939 Japanese tanker fleet for ships of 1,600 GRT or more was 47 ships, 430,000 GRT, Germany had 37 ships 256,000 GRT, Italy 82 ships 427,000 GRT. World tanker tonnage was 1,622 ships, 11,390,000 GRT, so the Japanese ships were above average size wise. While Japanese oil consumption was about the same as Australia, which had a tenth the population. The USSBS credits the Japanese with 575,000 GRT of tankers in December 1941.

The IJN oiler fleet as of the outbreak of war was 10 ships capable of 14 knots and carrying 8,000 tonnes of fuel, all built in the early 1920's. They captured one tanker and turned it into an oiler and built two 16.5 knot fleet oilers during the war, in 1944 The IJN strike on Pearl Harbor used civilian tankers, doing astern fuelling and were not very good at keeping station while fuelling or over night, they had to be rounded up each morning, the three shorter range aircraft carriers loaded additional fuel as cargo.

Like the IJN the USN oiler fleet was old by WWII dating to WWI or just after, except for the Cimarron class entering service, so 17 old oilers, 11 could do 11 knots, 6 could do 14 knots, plus 8 of the Cimmaron class commissioned 1939 to 1941, 18 knots. Reports of the USS Maumee refuelling destroyers at sea in WWI, the Cuyama refuelling the Omaha broadside in 1924. The Maritime Commission reporting the building of 7 T3 tankers, at least 15.5 knots top speed, in 1939.

The Japanese found by mid 1942 they had expanded too far for the available merchant shipping to support, more so as the army and navy normally refused to co-operate to maximise cargo lift. So each loss hurt.

The USSBS estimates around 40% of Japan's foreign trade was carried in non Japanese hulls in 1937, as of the end of 1941 around 6,200,00 GRT of steel hulled ships (Kisen) including miscellaneous types and small ships, with another 1,200,000 GRT of wooden hulled ships (Kihansen), the large captures of merchant ships during the advance (including salvage of scuttled ships) meant the fleet mostly grew in 1942.

The October 1942 to April 1943 period saw allied airpower sink nearly 280,000 GRT of Japanese merchant ships, after which the Japanese kept the merchant ships further from the front line, while submarines sank around 550,000 tons in the same time period.

GrauGeist said:

WWII may be a bit complex to define, but consider the global scale and all involved.

For starters, the skirmish between Japan and the Soviet Union was a fight between the two.
The fighting between the Soviet Union and Finland was contained to the two nations.

Same goes for Italy and Abyssinia (Ethiopia).

The Spanish Civil war remained a contained "war" and even the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was a contest between China and Japan.

However, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, started a chain of events that ultimately involved the Soviet Union (at first), the US, Commonwealth nations, the Netherlands and France.

Meanwhile, the Axis invasion of Poland in 1939, set the stage for a domino effect that would draw in scores of nations across the globe.

In the end, it was a war that involved every continent on earth, save for Antarctica.

Even after the end of WWII in summer of 1945, there were still brush fires that smouldered for years afterward: Korea, Viet Nam, Hungary, Africa and the middle east.

So it would seem, that 1937 would define the start of a global conflict.

Click to expand...

Of course, given the global scale of the different conflicts it merits a World War consideration, albeit not as a single one IMHO.

Sure the Winter War was Finland vs USSR, but there were also swedish volunteers and war materials donations more or less official approved, with french and british support (scarce and late).

Spanish Civil War started as a internal affair but became what we can define now as a proxy war (not unlike Yemen or Libia nowadays).

In the early stages of Japan-China war, chinese get support from USA and USSR but saw the withdrawal of the german advisors and after Khalkhin Gol/Nomonhan (if I'm not mistak3n) even the USSR diminished their support to the chinese.

Agree that the Manchuria and Abyssinia wars were pretty much localized affairs but I think that Khalkhin Gol/Nomonhan was influenced by external situations, at least at its end by the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, that signaled to the japanese that the can't count with Germany to carry on and gave the USSR little worries in the western frontiers.

Dimlee said:

Just to comment.
The female sniper story (Pavlichenko) remains a very contradicted one. So, it's not a true story but rather an adaption of the old Soviet war story.
Panfilov's 28 Men is about an event that did not happen. Simple as that.

The last four in the list are highly recommended. One can find some inconsistencies in them or technical errors, etc. But they stood up among the Soviet war movie production.
Come and See is a Russian/Belorussian production. One of the most "non-Soviet" Soviet films about WW2.

Some more from 1960-1980s:

Chronicles of a Dive Bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Torpedo Bombers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At War as at War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Living and the Dead (1964 film) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Trial on the Road - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Click to expand...

Thanks, Dimlee.

As a Westerner, its a challenge to know what is fact and what is fictionalized. I was aware that Panfilov's 28 Men did not happen, however, it was maintained as fact by the USSR. These things have a way of becoming truths. I was less aware of the Pavlichenko story other than that the movie was highly fictionalized. In the US movie industry "inspired by" is code for not much is factual. One thing that we can see it the more recent Russian productions is a move towards more Hollywood style emphasis of action over plot/character development. That is unfortunate. On the other hand, the stereotype of the Russian soldier as brave and unafraid of the long odds seems to be a constant even if becoming more cartoon like in its depiction.

Thanks, again

Kk

Escuadrilla Azul said:

Of course, given the global scale of the different conflicts it merits a World War consideration, albeit not as a single one IMHO.

Sure the Winter War was Finland vs USSR, but there were also swedish volunteers and war materials donations more or less official approved, with french and british support (scarce and late).

Spanish Civil War started as a internal affair but became what we can define now as a proxy war (not unlike Yemen or Libia nowadays).

In the early stages of Japan-China war, chinese get support from USA and USSR but saw the withdrawal of the german advisors and after Khalkhin Gol/Nomonhan (if I'm not mistak3n) even the USSR diminished their support to the chinese.

Agree that the Manchuria and Abyssinia wars were pretty much localized affairs but I think that Khalkhin Gol/Nomonhan was influenced by external situations, at least at its end by the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, that signaled to the japanese that the can't count with Germany to carry on and gave the USSR little worries in the western frontiers.

Click to expand...

However, note that the conflicts you listed, remained confined?

When Japan invaded China, it started to draw in nations from outside of the conflict, unlike foreign nationals who volunteered for one side or the other.

Two years later, on the other side of the globe, the same thing happened when Germany invaded Poland. Up to that point, local armed conflicts had remained isolated affairs, but the September invasion resulted in declarations of war from nations outside of the conflict's borders and we know the rest.

Geoffrey Sinclair said:

Not sure how to reconcile the article

Click to expand...

Then don't.

The Imperial Japanese Navy had Kawasaki built fleet tankers in five classes:
Akatsuki Maru
Kuroshio Maru
Nissho Maru
Tatakawa Maru
Toa Maru

They were diesel powered, capable of 20 knots and armed with weapons that ranged from naval guns to depth-charges, all having AA defenses.

Of course there were other tankers, but the IJN needed tankers that could be an integral part of fleet operations - these were it.