British Bomber Command gets really lucky really early?

Rubicon

Banned
There is no such thing as a "correct page number" for citations involving multiple editions and formats of a book, so quit acting like this.

And there are correct ways of presenting your sources and there are wrong ways, if we are to get technical he still hasn't presented what source he has taken his quotes from, if we are to get technical that is.:rolleyes:

It says interesting things that your first accusation is not that he's mistaken, but that he's lying. Might I suggest that you restrain yourself a little bit?
He asked for my opinion, what should I have done? Lied to him?:eek:
 
OP: It is possibe for the German leadership to be taken out in an early strike but highly unlikely. However I don’t think you have to choose between the entire nazi hierarchy being wiped out by an act of God/Allies or the Wehrmacht assassinating Hitler, there are acres of middle ground here.

If Hitler was assassinated by someone else or in some way incapacitated, or if there was an attempted coup from within the party, could the Wehrmacht conceivably step in and move against remaining Nazi leadership whilst keeping their hands clean?

Oh, I agree there is lots of middle ground. BTW, I have no idea how many people in the nazi hierarchy there were with ranks higher than Gauleiter, I'm sure the number is more than 40, but my guess is less than 500.
 

loughery111

Banned
And there are correct ways of presenting your sources and there are wrong ways, if we are to get technical he still hasn't presented what source he has taken his quotes from, if we are to get technical that is.:rolleyes:


He asked for my opinion, what should I have done? Lied to him?:eek:

Um, this is a discussion board. He is not writing a graduate thesis, and he DID cite the damned book, including the fact that it was a PDF edition. What do you want, a two-page synopsis with parenthetical citations to a known edition that just happens to be the same one you have?

He cited a book, then gave page numbers for his excerpts. This is a much more thorough citation than normally accompanies argument around here, and is easily verifiable, so it's decidedly unlikely that he's lying about owning the work in question.

Nonetheless, you responded that, because you have a different edition and those pages of YOUR EDITION do not say those things, he must be lying? How in Hell is that an acceptable response to his clearly honest effort to provide evidence for his argument? Reported.
 

Cook

Banned
Oh, I agree there is lots of middle ground. BTW, I have no idea how many people in the nazi hierarchy there were with ranks higher than Gauleiter, I'm sure the number is more than 40, but my guess is less than 500.

These online sources might help:

http://schikelgruber.net/hierarchy.html

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-01/nca-01-06-organization.html

http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/Eurorealist/Hatefactory/nazistate.html

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm

http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch23set-3.htm

The Nazi party had some 12 million members but of course a lot of them joined through necessity; you couldn’t hold a lot of jobs without being a member. More significantly the Americans prosecuted some 170,000 Nazis after the war, the British another 22,000 and the Soviets 18,000.
 
These online sources might help:

http://schikelgruber.net/hierarchy.html

The Nazi party had some 12 million members but of course a lot of them joined through necessity; you couldn’t hold a lot of jobs without being a member. More significantly the Americans prosecuted some 170,000 Nazis after the war, the British another 22,000 and the Soviets 18,000.

Just looking at the first one, it appears that there are 20 names before that of the first Gauleiter. (and I agree with the disclaimer that the number would vary during the war due to Hitler's whims.) I do wonder whether all 20 would have likely been in once place at one time for other things (how many of them were there for the July 20th, 1944 meeting, probably not the minister for Agriculture.

Hmm. I wonder which of the 6 major powers in the war would have been most and least screwed by losing that level of the highest leadership. Oddly enough, I think the Nazi's and the Soviets. I think that Italy and Japan had enough formal government structure that looked to their monarch that they could have put their leadership back together without as much infighting as would have happened for the Nazis and the Soviets.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Um, this is a discussion board. He is not writing a graduate thesis, and he DID cite the damned book, including the fact that it was a PDF edition. What do you want, a two-page synopsis with parenthetical citations to a known edition that just happens to be the same one you have?

He cited a book, then gave page numbers for his excerpts. This is a much more thorough citation than normally accompanies argument around here, and is easily verifiable, so it's decidedly unlikely that he's lying about owning the work in question.

Nonetheless, you responded that, because you have a different edition and those pages of YOUR EDITION do not say those things, he must be lying? How in Hell is that an acceptable response to his clearly honest effort to provide evidence for his argument? Reported.

Do you watch alot of Fox news? Because you've certainly put a Fox news worthy spin on this.

To simplify it for you
He made an to me outrageous claim.
I asked for his source.
He gave a quote but failed to give the source.
I asked for his source.
He gave a source, but failed to give a page number.
I asked for the page number.
He gave page numbers and he asked if I thought he was lying.
I failed to find his quotes at the given page numbers, checked if there were any other editions of the book available at online stores (which I couldn't find) and I answered that I thought he was lying.
Then he said he took the quotes from a pdf document of the book.

At that point I realised that the page numbering of his pdf document was off, and began searching the book for his quotes to be able to have a meaningfull discussion, which I did.

I still do not see what I could have done differently as I was not given the correct information before calling him a liar in answer to a direct question.

And you still haven't answered my direct question: He asked for my opinion, what should I have done? Lied to him?
 

Cook

Banned
Do you watch alot of Fox news? Because you've certainly put a Fox news worthy spin on this.

To simplify it for you
He made an to me outrageous claim.
I asked for his source.
He gave a quote but failed to give the source.
I asked for his source.
He gave a source, but failed to give a page number.
I asked for the page number.
He gave page numbers and he asked if I thought he was lying.
I failed to find his quotes at the given page numbers, checked if there were any other editions of the book available at online stores (which I couldn't find) and I answered that I thought he was lying.
Then he said he took the quotes from a pdf document of the book.

At that point I realised that the page numbering of his pdf document was off, and began searching the book for his quotes to be able to have a meaningfull discussion, which I did.

I still do not see what I could have done differently as I was not given the correct information before calling him a liar in answer to a direct question.

And you still haven't answered my direct question: He asked for my opinion, what should I have done? Lied to him?

Okay, now you’re just being a dick. Mowque gave you the book that was his source, just use the index like a normal person would. If you two want to start throwing quotes at each other that’s one thing, but abusing someone else just because he’s pointed out that you are going over the top is another. Tone down the abuse, especially since as far as I can tell what you two were arguing about has little if anything to do with the thread.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I have looked at your posts throughout this thread. The first nasty set of comments could have been you just having a bad day, unfortunately you have kept it up for a couple pages now.

You are being an utter jerk.

Don't be a jerk.

CalBear in Mod Mode.

Using Tooze's book has become something of a holy grail on this board, in that it can apparently point out exactly why something would be impossible economically for Germany in any alternative timeline. When in fact the conclusion of Tooze is entirely different.

When I then cannot find the given quote from Tooze's book, my assumption is that whomever is giving the quote is lying, or do not own the book in the first place.

So I am suspicous of dodgy quotes (particulary from Tooze's book), so sue me.
 
Top