Can't Access My Hard Drive On File...
Technology7 mins ago
The 'final Solution'
Just watching some TV and I don't understand why, when the Nazis attained power early in 1933, they waited until 1942 to carry out the mass extermination of the Jews. Absolutely no axe to grind, just puzzled.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by scooping. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Comprehensive answer here:
https:/
https:/
Scooping....that answer is that they didn't wait until 1942.
While its true that the Germans built gas chambers and gas ovens in the early 1940s. One of the earliest attempts at genocide was at Babi Yar in Sep 1941.
There is a wealth of info available on the net :::
https:/
Also, I can recommend a Leon Uris book, "Exodus"
While its true that the Germans built gas chambers and gas ovens in the early 1940s. One of the earliest attempts at genocide was at Babi Yar in Sep 1941.
There is a wealth of info available on the net :::
https:/
Also, I can recommend a Leon Uris book, "Exodus"
I guess a short, and somewhat cold, answer might be that it's actually logistically very difficult to organise the systematic destruction of an entire religion. So the solution was "final" in the sense that, before then, Germans tried to get rid of Jews and other 'undesirables' in other ways, say by encouraging Jews to leave the country* or just shooting the ones you come across.
I guess, if it was ever planned in advance, maybe Hitler et al preferred to wait until they could deal with the entire "Jewish problem" at once, as in when they controlled mainland Europe.
*Incidentally, Ken Livingstone was therefore technically right when he said that Hitler supported Zionism, but it's a pretty stupid thing to say without context: it's transparently obvious that Hitler's support for a state of Israel was to get rids of the Jews in Germany for his own benefit, rather than theirs, and to therefore claim that he was a Zionist is just offensive. I mention it here only to disassociate myself from such a pathetic reading of history.
I guess, if it was ever planned in advance, maybe Hitler et al preferred to wait until they could deal with the entire "Jewish problem" at once, as in when they controlled mainland Europe.
*Incidentally, Ken Livingstone was therefore technically right when he said that Hitler supported Zionism, but it's a pretty stupid thing to say without context: it's transparently obvious that Hitler's support for a state of Israel was to get rids of the Jews in Germany for his own benefit, rather than theirs, and to therefore claim that he was a Zionist is just offensive. I mention it here only to disassociate myself from such a pathetic reading of history.
I'm not prepared to get into an argument when I literally agree with you. Perhaps I put it in a way that was a little too close to what Livingstone said, but since I then went on to say that what he said was rubbish I'm not entirely sure why you felt the need to jump in and say "No, what he said was rubbish."
// Also, I can recommend a Leon Uris book, "Exodus"//
there is a film Exodus - otto preminger - which is pretty terrible and last 208 mins - 3h 20m
it will make you not want to read the book
other things about WW2 I dont understand are
why did France collapse so completely so quickly 1940 ?
if we knew where the German forces were every minute of the war thro enigma why didnt we win it in say mid 1941 ?
why did the Japanese war party not want to give up after Nagasaki and the re bombing of Tokyo in mid august 1945 ?
it can only really be a metter of opinion
there is a film Exodus - otto preminger - which is pretty terrible and last 208 mins - 3h 20m
it will make you not want to read the book
other things about WW2 I dont understand are
why did France collapse so completely so quickly 1940 ?
if we knew where the German forces were every minute of the war thro enigma why didnt we win it in say mid 1941 ?
why did the Japanese war party not want to give up after Nagasaki and the re bombing of Tokyo in mid august 1945 ?
it can only really be a metter of opinion
What a pity that someone had to derail this interesting thread.
Scooping....if you are like me, the more you will read and learn about the Germans treatment of the Jews, the angrier you will become.
I recently re-read "Exodus" and was even angrier that I was when I first read it, in the early 1970's, lying on a Greek Island beach.
Can I also recommend another Leon Uris book......."QB V11"
Scooping....if you are like me, the more you will read and learn about the Germans treatment of the Jews, the angrier you will become.
I recently re-read "Exodus" and was even angrier that I was when I first read it, in the early 1970's, lying on a Greek Island beach.
Can I also recommend another Leon Uris book......."QB V11"
"Why did France collapse so completely so quickly 1940 ?"
I'm sure whole books have been written about that. Comes down to a lot of things but credit has to go to the German War machine for being so tactically brilliant in the early stages of the war.
For the Enigma thing, I think again there are lots of reasons, one of which might be that decoding German messages isn't enough if you also don't have the resources needed to exploit that knowledge. Enigma decoding etc was still vital and undoubtedly played a huge role in winning or shortening the war.
I'm not quite sure I can comment on the Japanese decision not to surrender instantly after Hiroshima or, indeed, beforehand. Perhaps it was for essentially similar reasons to why the British ultimately didn't throw in the towel in 1940?
I'm sure whole books have been written about that. Comes down to a lot of things but credit has to go to the German War machine for being so tactically brilliant in the early stages of the war.
For the Enigma thing, I think again there are lots of reasons, one of which might be that decoding German messages isn't enough if you also don't have the resources needed to exploit that knowledge. Enigma decoding etc was still vital and undoubtedly played a huge role in winning or shortening the war.
I'm not quite sure I can comment on the Japanese decision not to surrender instantly after Hiroshima or, indeed, beforehand. Perhaps it was for essentially similar reasons to why the British ultimately didn't throw in the towel in 1940?
