Historical ignorance

I am under the impression that since this is a military oriented forum the term is perfectly fine and judging from some of the responses and interactions I think some of the posts genuinely cause a stir and healthy debate. All aspects of war could in some degree fall under the nasty category and this is an unnecessary "safe-space" idea.

My only complaint is that generally it hones more towards military subjects that are less inclusive of specialties such as mine, Middle East, and lean heavily on U.S. military history.

I object to the use of 'hand grenade' as a descriptive title for discussion topics. Hand grenades are nasty weapons. Can't the community find a more congenial metaphor?
Stephen Fein

What does autonomous mean in context of 1939 v. 1940 and after ?

Political Sympathy and support for Fascists already existed among some, including the political officer charged by Defense Minister Groener, Schleicher, who was Chief of General Staff's political arm.

In understanding the rise of Hitler, and indeed other fascists in Europe, it is important to keep in mind that democratic traditions were very weak. In the Weimar Republic, there was broad rejection, both on the left and the right of parliamentary democracy and liberal traditions. Key elements of society--for example the universities--were mainly anti-democratic, and there were early supporters of Hitler among both professors and students.

Being mildly interested in this subject, having just read the post about Hitler and his aversion to military uses of gas but not civilian populations, to obtain his objectives, do not think any reason here to post further depth analysis or argument or discussion on the question.

It seems fairly presented on the points. There are a couple of other matters, related should like to set forth. Probably because this is military history, should not attempt to comment on the foreign policy issues, as per editorial request as well, they are not here central.

John, in my opinion that was far from the most stupid thing Spicer has said. Chemical weapons, by and large, were not used in combat by either side in World War II, unless I've forgotten something. And the idea that the Russian Federation was weighing in on the side of a state that resorted to using chemical weapons ought to have given the Kremlin pause. That's all Spicer seemed to be trying to say.