I'm reading an interesting book that might appeal to you. It's called
Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Fuhrer and was written by Dr.
Mark Felton, an eminent historian with a major interest in WWII. (He has
a couple of YouTube channels that are widely acclaimed by history buffs
and has also published a bunch of books.) I'm not all that far into it
yet but the focus is on describing the arrangements used to keep Hitler
safe and details the various aspects of his security. It also mentions
any number of events that might well have gotten Hitler killed had it
not been for the vigilance of his security - or sheer luck! (Bad luck
for the rest of the world, good luck for Hitler.)

Felton makes an interesting claim that I'm in no position to challenge,
namely that all the major elements of security used for important people
today were pioneered by Hitler's security teams. I would have thought
the Secret Service would have come up with many of these before Hitler's
people did but maybe I'm assuming too much?

Anyway, I thought I should mention it. It seems like something you might
like to read, just out of professional curiousity.

--
Rhino

On Aug 28, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:

> I'm reading an interesting book that might appeal to you. It's called
> Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Fuhrer and was written by Dr.
> Mark Felton, an eminent historian with a major interest in WWII. (He has
> a couple of YouTube channels that are widely acclaimed by history buffs
> and has also published a bunch of books.) I'm not all that far into it
> yet but the focus is on describing the arrangements used to keep Hitler
> safe and details the various aspects of his security. It also mentions
> any number of events that might well have gotten Hitler killed had it
> not been for the vigilance of his security - or sheer luck! (Bad luck
> for the rest of the world, good luck for Hitler.)
>
> Felton makes an interesting claim that I'm in no position to challenge,
> namely that all the major elements of security used for important people
> today were pioneered by Hitler's security teams. I would have thought
> the Secret Service would have come up with many of these before Hitler's
> people did but maybe I'm assuming too much?

Yeah, that's not true. The USSS protective methodology was not developed from
the Nazis.

On 2022-08-28 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'm reading an interesting book that might appeal to you. It's called
>> Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Fuhrer and was written by Dr.
>> Mark Felton, an eminent historian with a major interest in WWII. (He has
>> a couple of YouTube channels that are widely acclaimed by history buffs
>> and has also published a bunch of books.) I'm not all that far into it
>> yet but the focus is on describing the arrangements used to keep Hitler
>> safe and details the various aspects of his security. It also mentions
>> any number of events that might well have gotten Hitler killed had it
>> not been for the vigilance of his security - or sheer luck! (Bad luck
>> for the rest of the world, good luck for Hitler.)
>>
>> Felton makes an interesting claim that I'm in no position to challenge,
>> namely that all the major elements of security used for important people
>> today were pioneered by Hitler's security teams. I would have thought
>> the Secret Service would have come up with many of these before Hitler's
>> people did but maybe I'm assuming too much?
>
> Yeah, that's not true. The USSS protective methodology was not developed from
> the Nazis.
>
Neither Felton or I are saying the USSS consciously imitated Hitler's
security people, let alone hired them to teach Americans how to do it
properly! But mightn't each organization have separately come to the
same realizations about what would be necessary to safeguard their
protectees and therefore developed similar methods?
>
Here's a short(ish) excerpt from the introduction of the book:
===============================================================================
The senior officers who founded and commanded Hitler’s close protection
details effectively wrote the book on modern VIP body guarding
techniques. And this was because Hitler himself evolved a completely new
type of leadership style.

He was the first politician to combine different forms of travel, using
aircraft, trains and cars, and the first world leader to use multiple
homes and headquarters complexes, all requiring differing types of
protection to match particular circumstances. He was unusual among
twentieth century leaders in actually going to war fronts and placing
himself in harm’s way on several occasions. In fact, Hitler’s security
needs, and the needs of his inner circle of Nazi paladins, required
multiple bodyguard units drawn not only from the SS but also from the
army and the police.

The Führer’s bodyguards were probably the first such units to conduct
threat assessments, keep complex files on suspects, and carefully guard
routes and venues. They were the first to use modern technology to
protect their asset, including X-ray machines and ‘bombproof’ materials.
Hitler was easily the world’s most carefully guarded man, particularly
during the latter half of the war, and in this regard we can see a lot
of the methods pioneered by the Führer’s close protection details in the
techniques used by today’s US Secret Service in its guarding of American
presidents and Congressional leaders. Armoured limousines, guarded
routes, high-tech gadgets, the monitoring of potential threats, and
special VIP aircraft all originated with Hitler’s protection. But no
American president has ever been the subject of so many assassination
attempts. The figures vary, but it is believed that during his lifetime
over forty separate attempts were made to kill Hitler by both
individuals and groups. Some, like the 1944 July Bomb Plot, came very
close to succeeding. But Hitler’s security was virtually impenetrable
and extremely professional, and through a combination of his bodyguards’
vigilance and his own almost unearthly luck, the Führer survived every
single attempt on his life.

===============================================================================

--
Rhino

In article <tegdm6$mjmm$1@dont-email.me>,
Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On 2022-08-28 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm reading an interesting book that might appeal to you. It's called
> >> Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Fuhrer and was written by Dr.
> >> Mark Felton, an eminent historian with a major interest in WWII. (He has
> >> a couple of YouTube channels that are widely acclaimed by history buffs
> >> and has also published a bunch of books.) I'm not all that far into it
> >> yet but the focus is on describing the arrangements used to keep Hitler
> >> safe and details the various aspects of his security. It also mentions
> >> any number of events that might well have gotten Hitler killed had it
> >> not been for the vigilance of his security - or sheer luck! (Bad luck
> >> for the rest of the world, good luck for Hitler.)
> >>
> >> Felton makes an interesting claim that I'm in no position to challenge,
> >> namely that all the major elements of security used for important people
> >> today were pioneered by Hitler's security teams. I would have thought
> >> the Secret Service would have come up with many of these before Hitler's
> >> people did but maybe I'm assuming too much?
> >
> > Yeah, that's not true. The USSS protective methodology was not developed
> > from the Nazis.
> >
> Neither Felton or I are saying the USSS consciously imitated Hitler's
> security people, let alone hired them to teach Americans how to do it
> properly! But mightn't each organization have separately come to the
> same realizations about what would be necessary to safeguard their
> protectees and therefore developed similar methods?
> >
> Here's a short(ish) excerpt from the introduction of the book:
> ==============================================================================
> =
> The senior officers who founded and commanded Hitler’s close protection
> details effectively wrote the book on modern VIP body guarding
> techniques. And this was because Hitler himself evolved a completely new
> type of leadership style.
>
> He was the first politician to combine different forms of travel, using
> aircraft, trains and cars, and the first world leader to use multiple
> homes and headquarters complexes, all requiring differing types of
> protection to match particular circumstances. He was unusual among
> twentieth century leaders in actually going to war fronts and placing
> himself in harm’s way on several occasions. In fact, Hitler’s security
> needs, and the needs of his inner circle of Nazi paladins, required
> multiple bodyguard units drawn not only from the SS but also from the
> army and the police.
>
> The Führer’s bodyguards were probably the first such units to conduct
> threat assessments, keep complex files on suspects, and carefully guard
> routes and venues. They were the first to use modern technology to
> protect their asset, including X-ray machines and ‘bombproof’ materials.
> Hitler was easily the world’s most carefully guarded man, particularly
> during the latter half of the war, and in this regard we can see a lot
> of the methods pioneered by the Führer’s close protection details in the
> techniques used by today’s US Secret Service in its guarding of American
> presidents and Congressional leaders.

This ought to tell you how thorough the producers of this were. The fact
that they're saying the USSS protects members of Congress indicates
they're not real concerned with the facts.

On 8/28/2022 2:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tegdm6$mjmm$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-28 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Aug 28, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm reading an interesting book that might appeal to you. It's called
>>>> Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Fuhrer and was written by Dr.
>>>> Mark Felton, an eminent historian with a major interest in WWII. (He has
>>>> a couple of YouTube channels that are widely acclaimed by history buffs
>>>> and has also published a bunch of books.) I'm not all that far into it
>>>> yet but the focus is on describing the arrangements used to keep Hitler
>>>> safe and details the various aspects of his security. It also mentions
>>>> any number of events that might well have gotten Hitler killed had it
>>>> not been for the vigilance of his security - or sheer luck! (Bad luck
>>>> for the rest of the world, good luck for Hitler.)
>>>>
>>>> Felton makes an interesting claim that I'm in no position to challenge,
>>>> namely that all the major elements of security used for important people
>>>> today were pioneered by Hitler's security teams. I would have thought
>>>> the Secret Service would have come up with many of these before Hitler's
>>>> people did but maybe I'm assuming too much?
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's not true. The USSS protective methodology was not developed
>>> from the Nazis.
>>>
>> Neither Felton or I are saying the USSS consciously imitated Hitler's
>> security people, let alone hired them to teach Americans how to do it
>> properly! But mightn't each organization have separately come to the
>> same realizations about what would be necessary to safeguard their
>> protectees and therefore developed similar methods?
>>>
>> Here's a short(ish) excerpt from the introduction of the book:
>> ==============================================================================
>> =
>> The senior officers who founded and commanded Hitler’s close protection
>> details effectively wrote the book on modern VIP body guarding
>> techniques. And this was because Hitler himself evolved a completely new
>> type of leadership style.
>>
>> He was the first politician to combine different forms of travel, using
>> aircraft, trains and cars, and the first world leader to use multiple
>> homes and headquarters complexes, all requiring differing types of
>> protection to match particular circumstances. He was unusual among
>> twentieth century leaders in actually going to war fronts and placing
>> himself in harm’s way on several occasions. In fact, Hitler’s security
>> needs, and the needs of his inner circle of Nazi paladins, required
>> multiple bodyguard units drawn not only from the SS but also from the
>> army and the police.
>>
>> The Führer’s bodyguards were probably the first such units to conduct
>> threat assessments, keep complex files on suspects, and carefully guard
>> routes and venues. They were the first to use modern technology to
>> protect their asset, including X-ray machines and ‘bombproof’ materials.
>> Hitler was easily the world’s most carefully guarded man, particularly
>> during the latter half of the war, and in this regard we can see a lot
>> of the methods pioneered by the Führer’s close protection details in the
>> techniques used by today’s US Secret Service in its guarding of American
>> presidents and Congressional leaders.
>
> This ought to tell you how thorough the producers of this were. The fact
> that they're saying the USSS protects members of Congress indicates
> they're not real concerned with the facts.

Irony alert!

On 2022-08-28 3:04 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tegdm6$mjmm$1@dont-email.me>,
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-08-28 1:13 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Aug 28, 2022 at 7:45:31 AM PDT, "Rhino" <no_offline_contact@example.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm reading an interesting book that might appeal to you. It's called
>>>> Guarding Hitler: The Secret World of the Fuhrer and was written by Dr.
>>>> Mark Felton, an eminent historian with a major interest in WWII. (He has
>>>> a couple of YouTube channels that are widely acclaimed by history buffs
>>>> and has also published a bunch of books.) I'm not all that far into it
>>>> yet but the focus is on describing the arrangements used to keep Hitler
>>>> safe and details the various aspects of his security. It also mentions
>>>> any number of events that might well have gotten Hitler killed had it
>>>> not been for the vigilance of his security - or sheer luck! (Bad luck
>>>> for the rest of the world, good luck for Hitler.)
>>>>
>>>> Felton makes an interesting claim that I'm in no position to challenge,
>>>> namely that all the major elements of security used for important people
>>>> today were pioneered by Hitler's security teams. I would have thought
>>>> the Secret Service would have come up with many of these before Hitler's
>>>> people did but maybe I'm assuming too much?
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's not true. The USSS protective methodology was not developed
>>> from the Nazis.
>>>
>> Neither Felton or I are saying the USSS consciously imitated Hitler's
>> security people, let alone hired them to teach Americans how to do it
>> properly! But mightn't each organization have separately come to the
>> same realizations about what would be necessary to safeguard their
>> protectees and therefore developed similar methods?
>>>
>> Here's a short(ish) excerpt from the introduction of the book:
>> ==============================================================================
>> =
>> The senior officers who founded and commanded Hitler’s close protection
>> details effectively wrote the book on modern VIP body guarding
>> techniques. And this was because Hitler himself evolved a completely new
>> type of leadership style.
>>
>> He was the first politician to combine different forms of travel, using
>> aircraft, trains and cars, and the first world leader to use multiple
>> homes and headquarters complexes, all requiring differing types of
>> protection to match particular circumstances. He was unusual among
>> twentieth century leaders in actually going to war fronts and placing
>> himself in harm’s way on several occasions. In fact, Hitler’s security
>> needs, and the needs of his inner circle of Nazi paladins, required
>> multiple bodyguard units drawn not only from the SS but also from the
>> army and the police.
>>
>> The Führer’s bodyguards were probably the first such units to conduct
>> threat assessments, keep complex files on suspects, and carefully guard
>> routes and venues. They were the first to use modern technology to
>> protect their asset, including X-ray machines and ‘bombproof’ materials.
>> Hitler was easily the world’s most carefully guarded man, particularly
>> during the latter half of the war, and in this regard we can see a lot
>> of the methods pioneered by the Führer’s close protection details in the
>> techniques used by today’s US Secret Service in its guarding of American
>> presidents and Congressional leaders.
>
> This ought to tell you how thorough the producers of this were. The fact
> that they're saying the USSS protects members of Congress indicates
> they're not real concerned with the facts.

Oops; I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that. *I* know the USS does
not protect Congressional leaders; it is strictly Executive Branch.

Felton is not *quite* as good as his reputation ;-)

But as for the rest, does it pass the laugh test?

I know FDR rode on trains and took a ship to Newfoundland for his
meeting with Churchill and he certainly flew to Europe for the Yalta and
Tehran conferences although some of those may have been after Hitler did
those things first.

--
Rhino

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Oops; I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that. *I* know the USS does
>not protect Congressional leaders; it is strictly Executive Branch.

Foreign dignataries, informing nubile young actresses of threats,
families of protectees, and the Secretary of the Treasury. I'm not sure
who else there would be.

>. . .

In <teggh4$n95f$1@dont-email.me> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:

[snip]

>Oops; I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that. *I* know the USS does
>not protect Congressional leaders; it is strictly Executive Branch.

Isn't there a modest Secret Service presnce [a] for the House Speaker
'cuz that position is #2 in Line of Succession?

[a] i.e., one or two agents at all times in proximity,
with pre-planned staging areas and facilities ready
to get filled damn fast?

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In article <tegmo7$jl$3@reader2.panix.com>,
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> In <teggh4$n95f$1@dont-email.me> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>
> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Oops; I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that. *I* know the USS does
> >not protect Congressional leaders; it is strictly Executive Branch.
>
> Isn't there a modest Secret Service presnce [a] for the House Speaker
> 'cuz that position is #2 in Line of Succession?

No. Capitol Police has full responsibility for the Speaker.

> [a] i.e., one or two agents at all times in proximity,
> with pre-planned staging areas and facilities ready
> to get filled damn fast?

In the event of a COG scenario in which the presidency falls to the
Speaker, a temporary protective detail would be formed from USSS agents
out of the Washington Field Office and headquarters, or from the nearest
local field office if the Speaker wasn't in D.C. at the time. Those
agents would relieve the Capitol Police and assume all protective
functions the moment the oath was administered. That temporary detail
would serve as the Presidential Protective Division until actual agents
from PPD could arrive and assume their duties. (Which might be a while
because if we've lost both president and vice president, we likely lost
a lot of their detail agents as well.)

In <atropos-2DA6CB.14371428082022@news.giganews.com> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:

>In article <tegmo7$jl$3@reader2.panix.com>,
> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>> [snip]
>>
>> Isn't there a modest Secret Service presnce [a] for the House Speaker
>> 'cuz that position is #2 in Line of Succession?

>No. Capitol Police has full responsibility for the Speaker.

>In the event of a COG scenario in which the presidency falls to the
>Speaker, a temporary protective detail would be formed from USSS agents
>out of the Washington Field Office and headquarters, or from the nearest
>local field office if the Speaker wasn't in D.C. at the time. Those
>agents would relieve the Capitol Police and assume all protective
>functions the moment the oath was administered. That temporary detail
>would serve as the Presidential Protective Division until actual agents
>from PPD could arrive and assume their duties. (Which might be a while
>because if we've lost both president and vice president, we likely lost
>a lot of their detail agents as well.)

Thanks. I'm a bit surprsed the Secret Service, etc., don't
have all that pre-arranged, but I guess they know what they're doing.

Now for the follow up question: What are the arrangements
for the (as an example) Sec of the Interior who's purposely
visiting Yellowstone during the State of the Union Address?

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Aug 28, 2022 at 4:37:28 PM PDT, "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> In <atropos-2DA6CB.14371428082022@news.giganews.com> BTR1701
> <atropos@mac.com> writes:
>
>> In article <tegmo7$jl$3@reader2.panix.com>,
>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Isn't there a modest Secret Service presnce [a] for the House Speaker
>>> 'cuz that position is #2 in Line of Succession?
>
>> No. Capitol Police has full responsibility for the Speaker.
>
>> In the event of a COG scenario in which the presidency falls to the
>> Speaker, a temporary protective detail would be formed from USSS agents
>> out of the Washington Field Office and headquarters, or from the nearest
>> local field office if the Speaker wasn't in D.C. at the time. Those
>> agents would relieve the Capitol Police and assume all protective
>> functions the moment the oath was administered. That temporary detail
>> would serve as the Presidential Protective Division until actual agents
>> from PPD could arrive and assume their duties. (Which might be a while
>> because if we've lost both president and vice president, we likely lost
>> a lot of their detail agents as well.)
>
> Thanks. I'm a bit surprsed the Secret Service, etc., don't
> have all that pre-arranged, but I guess they know what they're doing.
>
> Now for the follow up question: What are the arrangements
> for the (as an example) Sec of the Interior who's purposely
> visiting Yellowstone during the State of the Union Address?

Every cabinet department has its own GS-1811 special agents who are
responsible for safeguarding their respective secretaries. The only exception
is Treasury, who has a Secret Service detail out of tradition. It was the USSS
that protected SecTreas when the agency fell under the Treasury Department
before 9-11. Treasury must reimburse DHS for the cost of the detail.

On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:43:30 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>But as for the rest, does it pass the laugh test?
>
>I know FDR rode on trains and took a ship to Newfoundland for his
>meeting with Churchill and he certainly flew to Europe for the Yalta and
>Tehran conferences although some of those may have been after Hitler did
>those things first.

I'm pretty sure that when FDR went to Argentia Bay, NF to meet with
Churchill he travelled on a US Navy ship. (Churchill went from England
in HMS Prince of Wales which up until its sinking by the Japanese was
considered a top battleship) And I would be astonished if FDR's
flights were at all lacking in fighter protection.

While Hitler certainly flew, I'm not aware he ever used the
Kriegsmarine to go anywhere by sea.

On 2022-08-29 12:42 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2022 15:43:30 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>> But as for the rest, does it pass the laugh test?
>>
>> I know FDR rode on trains and took a ship to Newfoundland for his
>> meeting with Churchill and he certainly flew to Europe for the Yalta and
>> Tehran conferences although some of those may have been after Hitler did
>> those things first.
>
> I'm pretty sure that when FDR went to Argentia Bay, NF to meet with
> Churchill he travelled on a US Navy ship. (Churchill went from England
> in HMS Prince of Wales which up until its sinking by the Japanese was
> considered a top battleship) And I would be astonished if FDR's
> flights were at all lacking in fighter protection.
>
> While Hitler certainly flew, I'm not aware he ever used the
> Kriegsmarine to go anywhere by sea.

I've never heard of him going anywhere by sea either.

Hitler is said to have been the first politician to have gone to (many)
of his various rallies by air during election campaigns. It was
apparently the only way he could really get to so many widely dispersed
rallies in a timely fashion.

Remember the 2011 federal election here in Canada? Jack Layton got some
press because he was travelling to many rallies by air so that he could
do a rally in, say, Thunder Bay and then another in Vancouver the same
day. A guy in my book club who was an NDP supporter gloated about how
cool and forward-thinking Layton was to do that. I pointed out that the
*first* politician to go to rallies by air was Hitler. As you can
imagine, that juxtaposition didn't go over well with the NDP supporter :-)

I'm not clear exactly *which* election campaigns were ones where Hitler
did a lot of flying. Weimar Germany had *frequent* elections and Hitler
campaigned in many of them. Even if he only started doing this in the
two 1932 elections (one in the spring and one in the fall), that
probably still put him ahead of his counterparts in the US and UK
chronologically.

--
Rhino

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:25:06 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>> While Hitler certainly flew, I'm not aware he ever used the
>> Kriegsmarine to go anywhere by sea.
>
>I've never heard of him going anywhere by sea either.
>
>Hitler is said to have been the first politician to have gone to (many)
>of his various rallies by air during election campaigns. It was
>apparently the only way he could really get to so many widely dispersed
>rallies in a timely fashion.

Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
assist from "Memorex".

>Remember the 2011 federal election here in Canada? Jack Layton got some
>press because he was travelling to many rallies by air so that he could
>do a rally in, say, Thunder Bay and then another in Vancouver the same
>day. A guy in my book club who was an NDP supporter gloated about how
>cool and forward-thinking Layton was to do that. I pointed out that the
>*first* politician to go to rallies by air was Hitler. As you can
>imagine, that juxtaposition didn't go over well with the NDP supporter :-)

Really? :)

>I'm not clear exactly *which* election campaigns were ones where Hitler
>did a lot of flying. Weimar Germany had *frequent* elections and Hitler
>campaigned in many of them. Even if he only started doing this in the
>two 1932 elections (one in the spring and one in the fall), that
>probably still put him ahead of his counterparts in the US and UK
>chronologically.
>
Britain had 8 elections between 1918-1945 and 4 of them were between
1918-1924 (e.g. before Hitler and the Nazis were a factor in Germany)

Weimar Germany had 9 between 1918 and 1932 and 4 of those were also
1918-1924. I don't think those numbers suggest Hitler spent
significantly more time campaigning that European leaders of the day
particularly since he was a non-factor before 1925.

As for having elections 6 months apart it happens a lot in countries
where no party wins a majority (e.g. most of the proportional
representation countries) and no stable coalition emerges. Modern day
Italy and Israel are both good examples of what I mean. (Britain, the
US and Canada are relatively stable even when there's not a clear
majority either way)

But definitely Hitler capitalized on his reputation as being an
energetic leader who worked hard and travelled hard to get things done
for Germany. You can judge for yourself how justified that reputation
actually was, but no question the Nazis worked very hard to polish
that image.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:25:06 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

>>>While Hitler certainly flew, I'm not aware he ever used the
>>>Kriegsmarine to go anywhere by sea.

>>I've never heard of him going anywhere by sea either.

>>Hitler is said to have been the first politician to have gone to (many)
>>of his various rallies by air during election campaigns. It was
>>apparently the only way he could really get to so many widely dispersed
>>rallies in a timely fashion.

>Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
>recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
>the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
>Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
>travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
>assist from "Memorex".

Vinyl? Generally, master recordings are not made on vinyl, which is more
often used for mass production.

You mean wax.

The United States lost a hell of a lot of potential for recording
archival-quality and improved broad-quality audio during this period for
refusal to use a superior magnetic recording techique for not having
been invented here.

>. . .

On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 18:17:53 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
>>recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
>>the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
>>Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
>>travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>>the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
>>assist from "Memorex".
>
>Vinyl? Generally, master recordings are not made on vinyl, which is more
>often used for mass production.
>
>You mean wax.

Probably - I would never ever claim expertise in the area of
1920s/1930s era recording media. My only personal experience with
these was at my grandparents' place (which was next door to us
1958-66) and I've no idea what happened to their stereo or their
records when they retired in 1969.

>The United States lost a hell of a lot of potential for recording
>archival-quality and improved broad-quality audio during this period for
>refusal to use a superior magnetic recording techique for not having
>been invented here.
>
As if THAT were the only time in US history eh?

On 2022-08-29 1:35 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:25:06 -0400, Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> While Hitler certainly flew, I'm not aware he ever used the
>>> Kriegsmarine to go anywhere by sea.
>>
>> I've never heard of him going anywhere by sea either.
>>
>> Hitler is said to have been the first politician to have gone to (many)
>> of his various rallies by air during election campaigns. It was
>> apparently the only way he could really get to so many widely dispersed
>> rallies in a timely fashion.
>
> Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
> recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
> the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
> Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
> travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
> the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
> assist from "Memorex".
>
>> Remember the 2011 federal election here in Canada? Jack Layton got some
>> press because he was travelling to many rallies by air so that he could
>> do a rally in, say, Thunder Bay and then another in Vancouver the same
>> day. A guy in my book club who was an NDP supporter gloated about how
>> cool and forward-thinking Layton was to do that. I pointed out that the
>> *first* politician to go to rallies by air was Hitler. As you can
>> imagine, that juxtaposition didn't go over well with the NDP supporter :-)
>
> Really? :)
>
>> I'm not clear exactly *which* election campaigns were ones where Hitler
>> did a lot of flying. Weimar Germany had *frequent* elections and Hitler
>> campaigned in many of them. Even if he only started doing this in the
>> two 1932 elections (one in the spring and one in the fall), that
>> probably still put him ahead of his counterparts in the US and UK
>> chronologically.
>>
> Britain had 8 elections between 1918-1945 and 4 of them were between
> 1918-1924 (e.g. before Hitler and the Nazis were a factor in Germany)
>
> Weimar Germany had 9 between 1918 and 1932 and 4 of those were also
> 1918-1924. I don't think those numbers suggest Hitler spent
> significantly more time campaigning that European leaders of the day
> particularly since he was a non-factor before 1925.
>
> As for having elections 6 months apart it happens a lot in countries
> where no party wins a majority (e.g. most of the proportional
> representation countries) and no stable coalition emerges. Modern day
> Italy and Israel are both good examples of what I mean. (Britain, the
> US and Canada are relatively stable even when there's not a clear
> majority either way)
>
Italy used to be notorious for frequent elections and averaged one every
11 months over most of the postwar years. Didn't they finally change
that a while back, perhaps under Berlusconi? I thought I heard something
to that effect but I don't know what's different about the new system if
there is indeed a different system now.

Israel continues to have that problem and it's been especially bad the
last few years. I think they've had 5 elections in 2 years or thereabouts.

Weimar Germany also used proportional representation, which is how
Hitler got into power. Hitler only had enough seats to be the biggest
party in the Reichstag but finessed Von Papen to form a coalition with
him with everyone thinking Von Papen would ensure that Hitler didn't go
too crazy. Well, we know how that worked out....

> But definitely Hitler capitalized on his reputation as being an
> energetic leader who worked hard and travelled hard to get things done
> for Germany. You can judge for yourself how justified that reputation
> actually was, but no question the Nazis worked very hard to polish
> that image.

--
Rhino

On 8/29/2022 1:17 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>> Mon, 29 Aug 2022 08:25:06 -0400, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>
>>>> While Hitler certainly flew, I'm not aware he ever used the
>>>> Kriegsmarine to go anywhere by sea.
>
>>> I've never heard of him going anywhere by sea either.
>
>>> Hitler is said to have been the first politician to have gone to (many)
>>> of his various rallies by air during election campaigns. It was
>>> apparently the only way he could really get to so many widely dispersed
>>> rallies in a timely fashion.
>
>> Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
>> recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
>> the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
>> Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
>> travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>> the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
>> assist from "Memorex".
>
> Vinyl? Generally, master recordings are not made on vinyl, which is more
> often used for mass production.
>
> You mean wax.
>
> The United States lost a hell of a lot of potential for recording
> archival-quality and improved broad-quality audio during this period for
> refusal to use a superior magnetic recording techique for not having
> been invented here.

You must not have heard of 78s. Does anybody on this group know any
fucking thing?

lcraver@home.ca wrote:

>Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
>recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
>the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
>Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
>travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
>assist from "Memorex".

I thought all recording were reel-to-reel.
What did they use previously?

--
Let's go Brandon!

Ubiquitous wrote:

> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>
>>Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel
>>to reel recording tape which gave a far superior
>>reproduction to vinyl with the net result being that the
>>Nazis played "live" speeches all over Germany creating the
>>impression that he was even more energetically travelling
>>around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>>the more well travelled German politicians of his day
>>without the assist from "Memorex".
>
> I thought all recording were reel-to-reel.
> What did they use previously?
>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
There were recorders that used a thin wire reel-to-reel
instead of the magnetic tape.

Nyssa, who used to have a reel-to-reel magnetic tape
recorder/player decades ago

In article <tel0rr$1fk66$1@dont-email.me>, Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> lcraver@home.ca wrote:

>>>Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel
>>>to reel recording tape which gave a far superior
>>>reproduction to vinyl with the net result being that the
>>>Nazis played "live" speeches all over Germany creating the
>>>impression that he was even more energetically travelling
>>>around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>>>the more well travelled German politicians of his day
>>>without the assist from "Memorex".
>>
>> I thought all recording were reel-to-reel.
>> What did they use previously?
>
>There were recorders that used a thin wire reel-to-reel
>instead of the magnetic tape.

Oh, like on Hogan's Heroes?
I thought that was something they jury-rigged or invented for the show!

--
Let's go Brandon!

Nyssa <Nyssa@LogicalInsight.net> wrote:
>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>lcraver@home.ca wrote:

>>>Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel
>>>to reel recording tape which gave a far superior
>>>reproduction to vinyl with the net result being that the
>>>Nazis played "live" speeches all over Germany creating the
>>>impression that he was even more energetically travelling
>>>around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>>>the more well travelled German politicians of his day
>>>without the assist from "Memorex".

>>I thought all recording were reel-to-reel.
>>What did they use previously?
>There were recorders that used a thin wire reel-to-reel
>instead of the magnetic tape.

>Nyssa, who used to have a reel-to-reel magnetic tape
>recorder/player decades ago

Wire recorders, which were used for dictation since the early 1920s as
an alternative to wax cyliders. They really weren't improved till the
immediate post-war period and could be used for transcriptions with
better audio quality for use in broadcast radio.

Refreshing my memory from the Wikipedia page, the huge leap forward in
audio recording made by the Germans, who had already pioneered reel-to-reel
magnetic tape in the 1920s, was the accidental discovery of the improved
sound quality due to the use of AC bias in lieu of DC bias.

This led to the improved sound quality H.G. was telling us about
elsewhere in the thread.

Engineers in the U.S. Army Signal Corps during WWII investigated what
the Germans were doing and, after the war, began to exploit it for
commercial sale in movie production and broadcast.

It took a while for reel-to-reel to displace wire recording for use in
radio broadcast.

You may have heard that 1930s prime time radio was broadcast live twice:
Once on New York time, also fed live to Chicago and the rest of the
midwest for a one-hour earlier start to prime time, and a second live
feed three hours later on Los Angeles time.

Which feed Mountain Time zone cities used in the 1930s confuses me.

Transcriptions were made for archival use but not always for broadcast. At
some point, wax records replaced wax cylinders.

Here's a description of a 16 inch wax record system that supplied 15
minutes of audio in the 1930s.
https://obsoletemedia.org/electrical-transcription-disc/

Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> lcraver@home.ca wrote:
>
>> Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
>> recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
>> the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
>> Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
>> travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
>> the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
>> assist from "Memorex".
>
> I thought all recording were reel-to-reel.
> What did they use previously?

You never saw wax cylinders on the wild wild West?

Or those booths where they would actually record onto a vinyl record?

>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<1715202228.683565013.264951.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> > lcraver@home.ca wrote:
> >
> >> Another thing Hitler was a very early adopter of was reel to reel
> >> recording tape which gave a far superior reproduction to vinyl with
> >> the net result being that the Nazis played "live" speeches all over
> >> Germany creating the impression that he was even more energetically
> >> travelling around the country than he really was - and he was one of
> >> the more well travelled German politicians of his day without the
> >> assist from "Memorex".
> >
> > I thought all recording were reel-to-reel.
> > What did they use previously?
>
> You never saw wax cylinders on the wild wild West?
>
> Or those booths where they would actually record onto a vinyl record?

Wire recorders were still being used during WW2 and Korea. You spliced
the wire by twisting the ends of a cut together, wrapping it with
magnesium tape, and setting it off with a lit cigarette.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>. . .

>Or those booths where they would actually record onto a vinyl record?

I know nothing about these. Was this meant for home use or strictly
professional or novelty use?

I've just never heard of it being used for broadcast transcription.

In the movie The King's Speech (2010), Lionel creates one for Bertie
during their first meeting to prove to Bertie that he can speak without
stuttering. This is in 1925, too early for vinyl records. Must have
been wax.