Could Germany have won WW2?

[h4rm0ny]

Get a room...

Heh. Sorry!

German people don't have any complexes. If they had, they wouldn't put different price tags or wages amounts for employees who speak German and employees who speak any other language, for the same positions you will get lower pay-cheque if you speak another language.
It is in German people's DNA the "feel of superiority" over other ethnic groups. I see more often people from my country, who go to arbeit in Deutschland, complaining that the Germans are racists to them.
Like, 'the wolf changes his coat, but never changes his temper'.

I don't believe arrogance is coded for by DNA and "German" DNA is not meaningfully distinguished from most (any?) other European countries. No lab technician could receive a DNA sample and return you the person's nationality. (Maybe Polynesian or Aboriginal Australian).

Is there data about Hitler's IQ?
I suspect he was powerful like monster but yet silly as an ordinary evil person.
Is there data if he wasn't the devil himself under human skin?

IQ tests were administered to US soldiers by their government during WWI but I'm not aware of Germany doing the same so there's probably no record of an IQ test for Hitler. He wrote effectively and was politically astute so he was certainly intelligent. His problem was arrogance and being wedded to certain principles which caused him to not listen to his generals and make questionable military decisions. However, he was a soldier so it's not like he had no military understanding. Hindsight is 20/20.

I am not aware of any data that ever suggested he was a supernatural being. Some people alleged he had an interest in the occult. There's a book called Black Sun which I've never read but which deals with occult movements in the Nazi party.

 

[Rroff]

Is there data about Hitler's IQ?
I suspect he was powerful like monster but yet silly as an ordinary evil person.
Is there data if he wasn't the devil himself under human skin?

The evil was as much directed and enacted wholly by, though probably allowed or even facilitated by Hitler, by top members of the Nazi party and generals, etc. as it was Hitler. Though its popular to see it as if Hitler was the devil incarnate and almost taboo to question sometimes the truth is closer to a collective of evil.

 

[ubersonic]

Can anyone recommend a singular, reference and good read covering the build up, political state, the war itself and after?

Not a read, but if you can find the series "WW2 in HD color" it's excellent, it covers all the events from the beginning to the end of WW2, originally saw it on the history channel a decade ago or something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_HD_Colour

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Wouldn't say Germany got lucky - they used disciplined techniques and tactics against unprepared and poorly supported opposition.

Battle of Britian, North Africa and Russia, luck is when events happens in your favour that you have no control over, as in the enemy. Once the war got going and all sides had time to respond Germany's luck was over, its why Hitler kept going for the big push, break through or super weapon. The only major power Germany defeated was France, food for thought.

 

[4K8KW10]

We are lucky that Hitler didn't wait a couple more years to be technologically more advanced... with weapons for mass destruction
He could have destroyed all countries he wished...
​

I don't believe arrogance is coded for by DNA and "German" DNA is not meaningfully distinguished from most (any?) other European countries. No lab technician could receive a DNA sample and return you the person's nationality. (Maybe Polynesian or Aboriginal Australian).

I believe lab scientists can distinguish nationalities based on samples of people's DNA material.
https://www.ancestry.com/dna/

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I believe lab scientists can distinguish nationalities based on samples of people's DNA material.

No, although some aspects of the adverts for some companies may somewhat imply that or at least not contradict common misconceptions about it.

The actual results are far less precise and far less accurate. You'll get correlations with areas which might or might not indicate what proportion of your ancestors came from those areas. With a few relatively isolated populations in some parts of the world that might be a pretty accurate indicator of nationality but for western Europe you've got no chance of getting a nationality unless it's just plain made up.

In fact, look at the example in that advert you quoted. It states "Europe West" as a single category.

Some categories from these companies are larger than that, e.g. "West Africa". That's a lot of land and a fair few countries.

It's also worth noting that many countries are relatively recent anyway. The country of Germany, for example, was created in 1871. DNA is not going to pinpoint nationality to a country that's only existed for 146 years. The concept of Germanic is Roman in origin and boils down to "those people over there", who were a whole bunch of different tribes. Also, the area of land covered was different.

In short, it's almost always inherently impossible to use DNA to determine nationality and would be so even with the most accurate possible DNA analysis with a more advanced understanding than we have. The main purpose of these "trace your ancestry through your DNA" companies is to obtain your money. Some, perhaps all, also retain information about your DNA because information is a valuable commodity.

The only way you might indirectly use DNA to get a historical nationality, maybe, is by proving a close genetic relationship with someone who can prove a historical family nationality through surviving documents. But what would that mean? Say, for example, a French person discovers that they are closely genetically related to a Spanish person who can prove fro surviving documents that their family has been Spanish for at least 400 years. Would that make the French person Spanish?

 

[Roar87]

Thread is a great read, really interesting viewpoints and some well informed folks here.

Can anyone recommend a singular, reference and good read covering the build up, political state, the war itself and after?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War

Just watch that, it's by far the best documentary on WW2, and is infact just one of the best documentaries on any subject. It has interviews with loads of people, including German, Japanese, Russian, British and American soldiers/pilots/officers and civilians who were actually involved in the war. Plus loads of actual footage. There's 26 episodes every major event and looking at each country individually.

 

[4K8KW10]

No, although some aspects of the adverts for some companies may somewhat imply that or at least not contradict common misconceptions about it.

The actual results are far less precise and far less accurate. You'll get correlations with areas which might or might not indicate what proportion of your ancestors came from those areas. With a few relatively isolated populations in some parts of the world that might be a pretty accurate indicator of nationality but for western Europe you've got no chance of getting a nationality unless it's just plain made up.

In fact, look at the example in that advert you quoted. It states "Europe West" as a single category.

Some categories from these companies are larger than that, e.g. "West Africa". That's a lot of land and a fair few countries.

It's also worth noting that many countries are relatively recent anyway. The country of Germany, for example, was created in 1871. DNA is not going to pinpoint nationality to a country that's only existed for 146 years. The concept of Germanic is Roman in origin and boils down to "those people over there", who were a whole bunch of different tribes. Also, the area of land covered was different.

In short, it's almost always inherently impossible to use DNA to determine nationality and would be so even with the most accurate possible DNA analysis with a more advanced understanding than we have. The main purpose of these "trace your ancestry through your DNA" companies is to obtain your money. Some, perhaps all, also retain information about your DNA because information is a valuable commodity.

The only way you might indirectly use DNA to get a historical nationality, maybe, is by proving a close genetic relationship with someone who can prove a historical family nationality through surviving documents. But what would that mean? Say, for example, a French person discovers that they are closely genetically related to a Spanish person who can prove fro surviving documents that their family has been Spanish for at least 400 years. Would that make the French person Spanish?

People from different nations have distinctive features/qualities and in general it is difficult to guess it wrong who is French and who is German if you have two typical people in front of you. The German will/should be with blonde hair, tall, maybe blue eyes, etc. The French will/should be somewhat darker. The climate has an influence. And typical Germans are pretty much simalar to Scandinavians, Swedes, for example.
AFAIK, you just say that the database with DNA results isn't complete, hence it's difficult to compare.
When this database has thousands or even millions of results, it will be much easier to pinpoint where a certain person comes from based on his DNA result.

 

[Shocky-FM]

It would have been interesting to see how long we would have lasted if we lost air superiority, it could have easily happened. Would we have surrendered or fought until most of the country was destroyed.

 

[Irish_Tom]

People from different nations have distinctive features/qualities and in general, it is difficult to guess it wrong who is French and who is German if you have two typical people in front of you. The German will/should be with blonde hair, tall, maybe blue eyes, etc. The French will/should be somewhat darker. The climate has an influence. And typical Germans are pretty much similar to Scandinavians, Swedes, for example.
AFAIK, you just say that the database with DNA results isn't complete, hence it's difficult to compare.
When this database has thousands or even millions of results, it will be much easier to pinpoint where a certain person comes from based on his DNA result.

It depends on how far back you want to go in order to define 'German', 'British', 'French', 'Scandinavian', 'Swede' etc. Not least because, as @Angilion states, borders for many mainland-European countries have been pretty fluid over the centuries — immigration and conquest lead to the mixing of genes. Just look at the UK, we've been invaded by the Romans, French, Vikings etc… they've all left a genetic 'footprint'.

From a DNA point of view, everyone in Europe has a shared ancestor going back about 1,000 years — I assume you've heard the adage that "Everyone's related to Charlemagne" — it makes pinning down exactly where someone is 'from' next to impossible.

This is why the Nazi's idea of an Aryan 'super race' is so laughable, and ironic considering how many of the top echelons of the Nazi party weren't blond-haired and blue-eyed.

On a final note, I'd love to see you pick out from a lineup, based purely on looks alone, someone from Germany / Sweden / Norway / Denmark / Holland.

 

[Jean-F]

German people don't have any complexes. If they had, they wouldn't put different price tags or wages amounts for employees who speak German and employees who speak any other language, for the same positions you will get lower pay-cheque if you speak another language.
It is in German people's DNA the "feel of superiority" over other ethnic groups. I see more often people from my country, who go to arbeit in Deutschland, complaining that the Germans are racists to them.
Like, 'the wolf changes his coat, but never changes his temper'.

I don't want to argue with you, as you seem confident in what you say, but my son took intensive German courses when he was stationed there in the army, eventually becoming fluent.
Leaving the army, he studied engineering for about a year, then got a job in a company in Bielefeld, was quickly promoted to a managerial position, I assume earning the same as other managers, but more than regular workers.
They would send him to far eastern countries to oversee the German workforce on contracts in Malaysia, China, and Korea, the orientals would tell him what they wanted in English, and he'd translate that to the German workforce.
Coming back to Bielefeld he eventually sold the apartment the family lived at in the centre, and bought a big house on the edge of the Teutoburg Wald, with a pool and stables for his wife's two horses, so he couldn't have been doing badly there.

 

[Irish_Tom]

I don't want to argue with you, as you seem confident in what you say, but my son took intensive German courses when he was stationed there in the army, eventually becoming fluent.
Leaving the army, he studied engineering for about a year, then got a job in a company in Bielefeld, was quickly promoted to a managerial position, I assume earning the same as other managers, but more than regular workers.
They would send him to far eastern countries to oversee the German workforce on contracts in Malaysia, China, and Korea, the orientals would tell him what they wanted in English, and he'd translate that to the German workforce.
Coming back to Bielefeld he eventually sold the apartment the family lived at in the centre, and bought a big house on the edge of the Teutoburg Wald, with a pool and stables for his wife's two horses, so he couldn't have been doing badly there.

I have to say, my wife is German but her dad is English and has lived in German since the 70s — from all my time with her family and friends in various parts of the country, I've never heard anything like what @4K8KW10 is describing.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I have to say, my wife is German but her dad is English and has lived in German since the 70s — from all my time with her family and friends in various parts of the country, I've never heard anything like what @4K8KW10 is describing.

Nor I with the Germans I have worked with. I have to wonder what the "South-East Europe" in their location signifies, tbh.

 

[olivier renault]

V2's and atom bombs.

 

[Angilion]

People from different nations have distinctive features/qualities and in general it is difficult to guess it wrong who is French and who is German if you have two typical people in front of you. The German will/should be with blonde hair, tall, maybe blue eyes, etc. The French will/should be somewhat darker. The climate has an influence. And typical Germans are pretty much simalar to Scandinavians, Swedes, for example.

If you're going by typical appearance, you'd have to draw national borders very differently. England would have to become several different countries, for example, since typical appearance varies over the country.

I'll pick an example off the top of my head that directly addresses something you said...

Normandy is part of France now. It's called Normandy because it's the land of the people from the north. The Normans were Scandanavian. They took/were given the land as a peace treaty (take your pick - it was both) so they didn't attack further south. This occured very recently in terms of DNA, well within recorded history. We even know the name of the leader, although I've forgotten it. So there's a bunch of French people who are genetically Scandanavian to a large extent. You've also probably noticed that Germany and France share a border. That border has changed over time and lots of people have moved across it. A line drawn recently on a map is not going to have a retroactive effect on the DNA of people living near it.

There are places in Europe where a national border literally runs through people's houses(*). National borders are not a reflection of genetic differences. Europe has been a mash of peoples for a long time, many times longer than the existence of many modern countries. Not only Europe, as well. There were, for example, people travelling from Africa to Britain in the bronze age, maybe earlier. Romans had free movement within the empire and no doubt some of them used that. Britannia might have been the armpit of the empire to begin with, but it was a land of opportunity. In addition, we know for a fact that Roman soldiers often spent extended periods of time away from their area of origin in a different part of the empire, had families there and sometimes retired there if they survived. The world of the past was nowhere near as isolated as you make out and certainly not isolated on the basis of the borders of modern countries that didn't even exist then.

AFAIK, you just say that the database with DNA results isn't complete, hence it's difficult to compare.
When this database has thousands or even millions of results, it will be much easier to pinpoint where a certain person comes from based on his DNA result.

You mustn't have read what I wrote. I'll quote the clearest part here:

In short, it's almost always inherently impossible to use DNA to determine nationality and would be so even with the most accurate possible DNA analysis with a more advanced understanding than we have.

Inherently impossible. Inherently impossible. Inherently impossible.

That's what I said and am saying. That's very different to "the database isn't complete". You could have a database of the DNA of every person on Earth and you still wouldn't be able to use it to determine a person's nationality in most parts of the world and especially not in western Europe.

What you would find is remarkably little genetic diversity amongst humans all over the planet. Genetically, we're oddly similar. All of us. To such an extent that the most widely accepted hypothesis is that humanity was close to extinction recently (in genetic terms - ~70-80,000 years ago) and we're all descended from relatively few people.


* In one example I found amusing, a person found that they had "moved" to a different country because a more accurate measurement of the border put their front door in the other country. They resolved the issue by having a builder move their front door a metre or two, thus changing which country it was in. Which, presumably, changed their appearance quite distinctively. Or maybe not.

 

[Angilion]

It depends on how far back you want to go in order to define 'German', 'British', 'French', 'Scandinavian', 'Swede' etc. Not least because, as @Angilion states, borders for many mainland-European countries have been pretty fluid over the centuries — immigration and conquest lead to the mixing of genes. Just look at the UK, we've been invaded by the Romans, French, Vikings etc… they've all left a genetic 'footprint'.

From a DNA point of view, everyone in Europe has a shared ancestor going back about 1,000 years — I assume you've heard the adage that "Everyone's related to Charlemagne" — it makes pinning down exactly where someone is 'from' next to impossible.

This is why the Nazi's idea of an Aryan 'super race' is so laughable, and ironic considering how many of the top echelons of the Nazi party weren't blond-haired and blue-eyed. [..]

All the more so when you consider that the Aryans were from India, given the Nazi view of Indians (and pretty much everyone else).

I'm not convinced they believed their own nonsense, anyway.

 

[silversurfer]

Germany could have won the war but not the entire world war. Hitler was a curse to his 'own people' and a help to the allies in lack of abilities, Germans and the military tried to remove him several times.

I was listening to some program, RAF dropped 650,000 bombs on Dresden in one night and UK is a small country though a large empire at the time. Maybe that was why he underestimated USA and Russia and the stupidity of attacking both at once, he didnt seem to understand their production capabilities easily made defeat the most probable outcome. Japan even now lacks diverse resources and should never goto war against nations voluntarily. China is greatly flawed in this way, lacks oil and its an immediate problem if they ever went to war in that way. Anyone who considers war knows these logistical factors weigh massively overall, Hitler was a failure in so many ways. He would not delegate properly, he killed Rommel who also thought from 1943 onwards failure inevitable

 

[nightrider1470]

It seems that most people and myself thought Germany suddenly attacked Russia for no reason at all... But from reading and listening to a Hiltlers speech, Hitler believed from information he gathered that Russia was about to invade Germany and had arranged large Armies at the ready to pounce on a weakend Germany who was all ready fighting on other fronts..

Would you agree with this? As I have always been baffled how a great mind of Hiltlers could have made such a silly mistake..

 

[silversurfer]

Nobody judged Hitler a great military leader afaik, to be complimentary would be to say he made the same mistake Napoleon did but I just see it as sophisticated as a sucker punch and a mistake. There were some tensions, it wasnt out of nowhere same as Japan going after USA but it was a mistake to start a fight in either case. Germany at that time would rather have made peace with UK then Russia

 

[I_M_Weasel]

I was listening to some program, RAF dropped 650,000 bombs on Dresden in one night

But they would be small incendiary bombs at about 4lb each, we weren't able to deliver large bombs on that scale. I suppose we didn't need to as the fire bombing was extremely effective at destroying cities.