Who was the best leader during WWII?

Old Sarge · Dec 23, 2017

calamity said:
Oppenheimer has my money.

I see your point but Ike won the European war and MacArthur pushed the Japanese back far enough that we could hit Japan with the bomb.

Fledermaus · Dec 23, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

B'smith said:
I don't dispute that Germany invaded those countries however in the case of the Sudeten Germans, Alsace Lorraine & the Danzig corridor, it was to reclaim territories earlier held by Germany.

The oeprative word is INVADED.

B'smith said:
Germany's conquests pale in comparison to those of the British Empire in degree, & genocidal brutality:

Tu Quoque fallacy. That and the discussion is WWII leaders.

<Snipped irrelevant BS>

B'smith said:
I don't mean that German is extremely hard to translate but that it is frequently deliberately mistranslated to meet an authors bias. For example Herrenvolk is misrepresented as meaning "Master Race", a term the Nazis never used when it means, roughly "people who control their own destiny"

Moving goalposts.

B'smith said:
Hitler's hatred for the Jews was not to all Jews but primarily to the atheistic Bolshevik/Communist Jews who made up the leadership of the Communist party. Remember, it was Trotsky (aka Bronstein), Yakov Sverdlov (Solomon), Grigori Zinoviev (Radomyslsky), Karl Radek (Sobelsohn) etc who had just overthrown Russia's government (1917 -20), imposed a cruel & despotic government & intended to do the same in Germany. Those and the banking community were the Jews that Hitler primarily had in mind when he wrote "Mein Kampf" soon after in 1923.
Hitler was not the hyper-racist as were some of his followers who were far more harshly anti Semitic or else he wouldn't have awarded so many of Germany's WW1 & WW2 Jewish War fighters the highest medals. Yes, there were about 150,000 Jews who fought in Germany's WW2 military:

Revisionist BS of the highest order. By the time Hitler was in power the vast majority of the Soviet Leadership had been purged of Jews.

<Snipped irrelevant BS book review>

B'smith said:
I think that if you were to look more objectively at all the leaders mentioned you'll find that Churchill was every bit the racist murderer as Hitler. He just happened to be among the victors & his racism was directed at brown/black "savages" whom he intentionally starved by the millions

More Tu Quoque.

<Snipped irrelevant BS book review>

That's the umpteenth time you've spammed that book review.

B'smith said:
Austria & Germany agreed to unite during WW1, again it was the Treaty of Versailles that invalidated that union & Hitler reestablished that earlier unification. Apparently the Germans & Austrians wanted unification in 1918.

<Snipped irrelevant BS book review>

Austria-HUNGARY was allied with Germany. There was no "Austria"

calamity · Dec 23, 2017

Old Sarge said:
I see your point but Ike won the European war and MacArthur pushed the Japanese back far enough that we could hit Japan with the bomb.

I don't disagree.

southwest88 · Dec 23, 2017

Secrets @ Los Alamos

Fledermaus said:
Theoretical physicist. Not a world leader.

No, he was also an excellent administrator, as it turned out. He got the scientists, techs, engineers throughout Los Alamos weapons lab pulling together. He was able to work with Gen. Groves - apparently not an easy task. Groves was the head of the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer was an inspired choice to head the weapons lab - but other than a handful of people in the US military, FDR's admin, Churchill & British & Allied scientists on loan (plus K. Fuchs & other Soviet plants - & thus Stalin & GRU - not sure about NKVD), Oppenheimer was relatively unknown outside of the World physics community.

For the purposes of developing & then constructing & testing a nuclear weapon, he was a World leader. But hidden, to the extent that FBI/US Army could manage it.

southwest88 · Dec 23, 2017

A serious misconception there

Fledermaus said:
Ike won the European Front without the A bomb. MacArthur would have won the Pacific with or without the A Bomb.

The question is about LEADERSHIP.

Yah, well, if MacArthur had carried out his written orders @ the beginning of the war for the Philippines, he might not have had to flee to Australia. Certainly the Philippine-based US Army & Army Air Force would have done much better, as well as the Philippino Army units that were battered as a result of MacArthur improvising a stand @ the beaches with inadequately trained, officered, equipped & supplied Philippine military forces.

& of course MacArthur wasn't alone in the Pacific on behalf of the US. He was driving out of Australia to retake the Philippines - an assignment he had to fight for. The US Navy & Marines were driving in from Hawaii, pushing relentlessly west, until we had bases that B-29s could stage from. Between the two forces pushing in, I'm sure we gave the IJN & IJA fits - they never knew who was going to hit them next.

B'smith · Dec 23, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

Fledermaus said:
The oeprative word is INVADED.

Tu Quoque fallacy. That and the discussion is WWII leaders.

<Snipped irrelevant BS>

Moving goalposts.

Revisionist BS of the highest order. By the time Hitler was in power the vast majority of the Soviet Leadership had been purged of Jews.

<Snipped irrelevant BS book review>

More Tu Quoque.

<Snipped irrelevant BS book review>

That's the umpteenth time you've spammed that book review.

<Snipped irrelevant BS book review>

Austria-HUNGARY was allied with Germany. There was no "Austria"

RE:

Austria-HUNGARY was allied with Germany. There was no "Austria"

Wrong again, in 1918 Austria & Germany succeeded in forming "German-Austria_

"Anschluss in WW2: Definition & Overview"
https://study.com/academy/lesson/anschluss-in-ww2-definition-overview.html
A Connected History
EXCERPT "Austria is a German-speaking nation with roots that connect it with Germany going back to the Holy Roman Empire. From the mid-19th Century, Austrians and Germans had begun to think about a union. By the end of World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary were on the verge of defeat. Pan German groups in Austria campaigned for the annexation of Austria to Germany, and succeeded in 1918 when the country German-Austria was proclaimed. However, the Allies of World War I opposed this union and outlawed it in 1919. Both the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Treaty of Versailles prohibited the political and economic union of Austria with Germany."CONTINUED

RE

Revisionist BS of the highest order. By the time Hitler was in power the vast majority of the Soviet Leadership had been purged of Jews.

Wrong again, Hitler came to power in 1933. As of 1934, Jews comprised roughly 5% of Russia's population yet: "...38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges." (1)
As of 1940 there were fewer (5%) Jews in positions of power(2) but, still they hadn't been purged.

(1) "Stalin's Jews"
"We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish"
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

(2) "Stalin and antisemitism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism
EXCERPT "The percentage of Jews in positions of power dropped to 6% in 1938, and to 5% in 1940.[19]
Relocation and Deportation of Jews During the War[edit]
Following the Soviet invasion of Poland, Stalin began a policy of relocating Jews to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and other parts of Siberia. Throughout the war, similar movements were executed in regions considered vulnerable to Nazi invasion with the various target ethnic groups of the Nazi genocide. When these populations reached their destinations, work was oftentimes arduous and they were subjected to poor conditions due to lack of resources caused by the war effort.[24][25] According to first hand testimony, Stalin was sympathetic to Hitler and saw that "Gas chambers are sometimes necessary"CONTINUED

Fledermaus · Dec 23, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

B'smith said:
RE:

Wrong again, in 1918 Austria & Germany succeeded in forming "German-Austria_

"Anschluss in WW2: Definition & Overview"
https://study.com/academy/lesson/anschluss-in-ww2-definition-overview.html
A Connected History
EXCERPT "Austria is a German-speaking nation with roots that connect it with Germany going back to the Holy Roman Empire. From the mid-19th Century, Austrians and Germans had begun to think about a union. By the end of World War I, Germany and Austria-Hungary were on the verge of defeat. Pan German groups in Austria campaigned for the annexation of Austria to Germany, and succeeded in 1918 when the country German-Austria was proclaimed. However, the Allies of World War I opposed this union and outlawed it in 1919. Both the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye and the Treaty of Versailles prohibited the political and economic union of Austria with Germany."CONTINUED

RE

Wrong again, Hitler came to power in 1933. As of 1934, Jews comprised roughly 5% of Russia's population yet: "...38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges." (1)
As of 1940 there were fewer (5%) Jews in positions of power(2) but, still they hadn't been purged.

(1) "Stalin's Jews"
"We mustn't forget that some of greatest murderers of modern times were Jewish"
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

(2) "Stalin and antisemitism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin_and_antisemitism
EXCERPT "The percentage of Jews in positions of power dropped to 6% in 1938, and to 5% in 1940.[19]
Relocation and Deportation of Jews During the War[edit]
Following the Soviet invasion of Poland, Stalin began a policy of relocating Jews to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast and other parts of Siberia. Throughout the war, similar movements were executed in regions considered vulnerable to Nazi invasion with the various target ethnic groups of the Nazi genocide. When these populations reached their destinations, work was oftentimes arduous and they were subjected to poor conditions due to lack of resources caused by the war effort.[24][25] According to first hand testimony, Stalin was sympathetic to Hitler and saw that "Gas chambers are sometimes necessary"CONTINUED

German-Austria = A non-recognized non-state. A non-state that was historically the Hapsburg Empire. Not Prussia nor Germany.

So, more Jew bashing now?

38.5 percent to 5 percent... No purge there....

No wait now you are arguing Stalin agreed with Hitler's views on Jews?

And that there is no such thing as Jewish Communism?

Are those goalposts getting heavy?

B'smith · Dec 23, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

Fledermaus said:
German-Austria = A non-recognized non-state. A non-state that was historically the Hapsburg Empire. Not Prussia nor Germany.

So, more Jew bashing now?

38.5 percent to 5 percent... No purge there....

No wait now you are arguing Stalin agreed with Hitler's views on Jews?

And that there is no such thing as Jewish Communism?

Are those goalposts getting heavy?

RE: "German-Austria" please read the link I provided: Germany & Austria's connection go back to the Holy Roman Empire, they decided to join & the Treaty of Versailles divided them against their will

So, more Jew bashing now?

Show ONE negative thing I've ever said against the Jews...just ONE. I'll wait.

38.5 percent to 5 percent... No purge there....

It would have been 0% Jewish Communist leadership if Stalin were serious about purging Jews. He may have been many things but he was not subtle.

No wait now you are arguing Stalin agreed with Hitler's views on Jews?

Where did I say or imply that?

And that there is no such thing as Jewish Communism? & Are those goalposts getting heavy?

What are you talking about?

Fledermaus · Dec 23, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

B'smith said:
RE: "German-Austria" please read the link I provided: Germany & Austria's connection go back to the Holy Roman Empire, they decided to join & the Treaty of Versailles divided them against their will

Show ONE negative thing I've ever said against the Jews...just ONE. I'll wait.

It would have been 0% Jewish Communist leadership if Stalin were serious about purging Jews. He may have been many things but he was not subtle.

Where did I say or imply that?

What are you talking about?

German-Austria... A non-state that was part of the Habsburg empire.

And there was a purge. 38.5% to 5%.

Andthat gives lie to your oft repeated nonsense of 1941 invasion to stop the Jewish Communists..

B'smith · Dec 23, 2017

Fledermaus said:
Post #252 awaits...

The topic of this thread is "Who was the best leader during WW2" not history's many tragic instances of grotesque human suffering.

The photo at the top could be of any number of groups of unfortunate people and the photo at the bottom with bodies in the pit is alleged to be from Bergen Belsen whose inmates died of rampant typhus which plagued all the camps especially toward the end of the war when German supply lines were bombed.
During that time everyone in Germany was suffering homelessness, hunger in addition to being targeted as refugees* & a "labor source".

Meanwhile, Typhus was so prolific at Bergen & elsewhere that 14,000 people died AFTER Belsen's Liberation & the camp was under British control.

* Prime Minister Churchill had said earlier:
“I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war, what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.”CONTINUED

Fledermaus · Dec 23, 2017

B'smith said:
The topic of this thread is "Who was the best leader during WW2" not history's many tragic instances of grotesque human suffering.

The photo at the top could be of any number of groups of unfortunate people and the photo at the bottom with bodies in the pit is alleged to be from Bergen Belsen whose inmates died of rampant typhus which plagued all the camps especially toward the end of the war when German supply lines were bombed.
During that time everyone in Germany was suffering homelessness, hunger in addition to being targeted as refugees* & a "labor source".

Meanwhile, Typhus was so prolific at Bergen & elsewhere that 14,000 people died AFTER Belsen's Liberation & the camp was under British control.

* Prime Minister Churchill had said earlier:
“I do not want suggestions as to how we can disable the economy and the machinery of war, what I want are suggestions as to how we can roast the German refugees on their escape from Breslau.”CONTINUED

You and I both know that wasn't typhus.

Stop.

Just stop.

Your rampant defense of a murderous regime is sick and sad.

You blame everyone but Hitler for Hitler's excesses.

Hitler butchered the Jew? Complain about Stalin.

Hitler invades every nation on its borders? Blame the treaty.

Hitler annexes former Austria-Hungary territory? Appeal to the HRE.

Hitler slaughters millions in Poland? Cry about Stalin invading and killing thousands.

The English at at fault because they did not assassinate Hitler.

Hitler was justified in stopping Jewish Bolshvism except no such thing remained in 1941.

All BS revisionist nonsense.

calamity · Dec 23, 2017

Does anyone know what the **** B'Smith's point is here? I don't see him saying Hitler was the best world leader (thank gawd for that). So I'm not sure why we see 30 posts between BS and FM. What did I miss? And, no, I'm not reading all that garbage between here and there to find out.

Someone pass me the Readers Digest version.

Fledermaus · Dec 23, 2017

calamity said:
Does anyone know what the **** B'Smith's point is here? I don't see him saying Hitler was the best world leader (thank gawd for that). So I'm not sure why we see 30 posts between BS and FM. What did I miss? And, no, I'm not reading all that garbage between here and there to find out.

Someone pass me the Readers Digest version.

B'smith feels the need to defend the Nazi regime and blames everyone and everything other than Hitler for what Hitler did....

Pure revisionist BS.

calamity · Dec 23, 2017

Fledermaus said:
B'smith feels the need to defend the Nazi regime and blames everyone and everything other than Hitler for what Hitler did....

Pure revisionist BS.

I see that part. But, has he at least adhered to the thread topic and picked a world leader?

Fledermaus · Dec 24, 2017

calamity said:
I see that part. But, has he at least adhered to the thread topic and picked a world leader?

Not sure. The poll is not designed to allow folks to see who has been voted for.

B'smith · Dec 24, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

Fledermaus said:
German-Austria = A non-recognized non-state. A non-state that was historically the Hapsburg Empire. Not Prussia nor Germany.

So, more Jew bashing now?

38.5 percent to 5 percent... No purge there....

No wait now you are arguing Stalin agreed with Hitler's views on Jews?

And that there is no such thing as Jewish Communism?

Are those goalposts getting heavy?

So, more Jew bashing now?

Still waiting for you to show ONE post in which I've said something negative about all Jews.

Fledermaus · Dec 24, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

B'smith said:
Still waiting for you to show ONE post in which I've said something negative about all Jews.

Still waiting for an explanation for the JEWISH COMMUNISTS the Third Reich was going to charge of after since the JEWISH portion amounted of less than 5% after r the purges.

That was your excuse for Hitler going after Russia. Right?

And your repeated references to "Stalin'Jews"? Why were Stalin's Jews pertinent to the discussion if not to demonize them?

In fact you appear less than enthusiastic about discussing Jews beyond tying them to some Bolshevik/Communist cabal standing as a cause for war. Any discussion of the Poles slaughtered en mass by the Peace loving Nazi's is ignored or handwaved away with some reference to "Churchill (or Stalin) killed people too".

Clue: There is a trend I see. It is based on what you wrote and who you quote and what you are willing to hand wave and/or ignore in your quest to exonerate Hitler.

B'smith · Dec 24, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

Fledermaus said:
Still waiting for an explanation for the JEWISH COMMUNISTS the Third Reich was going to charge of after since the JEWISH portion amounted of less than 5% after r the purges.

That was your excuse for Hitler going after Russia. Right?

And your repeated references to "Stalin'Jews"? Why were Stalin's Jews pertinent to the discussion if not to demonize them?

In fact you appear less than enthusiastic about discussing Jews beyond tying them to some Bolshevik/Communist cabal standing as a cause for war. Any discussion of the Poles slaughtered en mass by the Peace loving Nazi's is ignored or handwaved away with some reference to "Churchill (or Stalin) killed people too".

Clue: There is a trend I see. It is based on what you wrote and who you quote and what you are willing to hand wave and/or ignore in your quest to exonerate Hitler.

Still waiting....That was your excuse for Hitler going after Russia. Right?

No, Hitler's attack on Russia was a pre-emptive attack as the Germans already knew of Russian plans to attack Germany no matter who was currently in control of the Communist party

"Soviet offensive plans controversy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
EXCERPTS "The Soviet offensive plans controversy refers to the debate among historians and authors on the question of whether Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was planning to attack Axis forces in Eastern Europe prior to Operation Barbarossa.
Authors, such as historian Viktor Suvorov, argue that Stalin's plan was to attack Hitler in the rear while Germany fought the Allies.
He argued that Soviet ground-forces were extremely well organized, and were mobilizing en masse along the German-Soviet frontier for a Soviet invasion of Europe slated for Sunday, July 6, 1941, but they were totally unprepared for defensive operations on their own territory.
Either way, most historians agree that war between the Soviet Union and the Axis was inevitable due to their vast ideological differences."CONTINUED

And your repeated references to "Stalin'Jews"? Why were Stalin's Jews pertinent to the discussion if not to demonize them?

My citing that Jews disproportionately represented Communist party leadership (38.5% in 1934) was to try to explain Hitler's hatred for Jews who were Communists as expressed in "Mein Kampf" not to personally demonize all Jews. Hitler's views about Jews were complex & sometimes contradictory.
If he hated all Jews, why would he promote them them to the highest ranks in Germany's military?
You are aware that about 150,000 Jews served in Germany's military and that Hitler even awarded medals to WW1 Jewish war veterans who were in Palestine?(1)
Why?

In fact you appear less than enthusiastic about discussing Jews beyond tying them to some Bolshevik/Communist cabal standing as a cause for war. Any discussion of the Poles slaughtered en mass by the Peace loving Nazi's is ignored or handwaved away with some reference to "Churchill (or Stalin) killed people too".

If I appear less than enthusiastic about discussing Jews its because the topic of this thread is not about Jews, It's about WW2 leaders, their crimes, accomplishments and flaws. The crimes of the Nazis are already well worn territory however the atrocities committed by Churchill, Stalin, Genrikh Yagoda etc are apparently new and/or OK to you. How many people have even heard of Genrikh Yagoda or know that he is responsible for the deaths of 10 million people? I'm simply able to look at history more objectively because of the people I've known who survived it's horrors. You only know & regurgitate what's been poured into your head by MSM.

Your "Clue / trend" is only in you imagination. My only goal is to look at history more thoroughly & objectively with an open mind, not "exonerate Hitler".

(1) "When Hitler Honored Jewish Soldiers"
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/.premium-1.602868
EXCERPT "The Nazi regime conferred honors on many of the 100,000 Jews who fought in the German army in the Great War, even on some who had already escaped to Palestine."CONTINUED

Fledermaus · Dec 24, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

B'smith said:
No, Hitler's attack on Russia was a pre-emptive attack as the Germans already knew of Russian plans to attack Germany no matter who was currently in control of the Communist party

"Soviet offensive plans controversy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_offensive_plans_controversy
EXCERPTS "The Soviet offensive plans controversy refers to the debate among historians and authors on the question of whether Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was planning to attack Axis forces in Eastern Europe prior to Operation Barbarossa.
Authors, such as historian Viktor Suvorov, argue that Stalin's plan was to attack Hitler in the rear while Germany fought the Allies.
He argued that Soviet ground-forces were extremely well organized, and were mobilizing en masse along the German-Soviet frontier for a Soviet invasion of Europe slated for Sunday, July 6, 1941, but they were totally unprepared for defensive operations on their own territory.
Either way, most historians agree that war between the Soviet Union and the Axis was inevitable due to their vast ideological differences."CONTINUED

My citing that Jews disproportionately represented Communist party leadership (38.5% in 1934) was to try to explain Hitler's hatred for Jews who were Communists as expressed in "Mein Kampf" not to personally demonize all Jews. Hitler's views about Jews were complex & sometimes contradictory.
If he hated all Jews, why would he promote them them to the highest ranks in Germany's military?
You are aware that about 150,000 Jews served in Germany's military and that Hitler even awarded medals to WW1 Jewish war veterans who were in Palestine?(1)
Why?

If I appear less than enthusiastic about discussing Jews its because the topic of this thread is not about Jews, It's about WW2 leaders, their crimes, accomplishments and flaws. The crimes of the Nazis are already well worn territory however the atrocities committed by Churchill, Stalin, Genrikh Yagoda etc are apparently new and/or OK to you. How many people have even heard of Genrikh Yagoda or know that he is responsible for the deaths of 10 million people? I'm simply able to look at history more objectively because of the people I've known who survived it's horrors. You only know & regurgitate what's been poured into your head by MSM.

Your "Clue / trend" is only in you imagination. My only goal is to look at history more thoroughly & objectively with an open mind, not "exonerate Hitler".

(1) "When Hitler Honored Jewish Soldiers"
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/.premium-1.602868
EXCERPT "The Nazi regime conferred honors on many of the 100,000 Jews who fought in the German army in the Great War, even on some who had already escaped to Palestine."CONTINUED

ALERT... ALERT... ALERT...

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT MOVING GOALPOSTS HAVE BEEN SIGHTED.....

No. Just no.

Stalin even agreed to purge MORE Jews to placate Hitler.

And you were the one insisting it is the supposed Jews who in your words made up the leadership of the USSR that raised Hitler's ire.

They were long gone by the invasion.

And "preemptive strike"?

The Soviets were in no condition to invade. Most of their tanks were not up to the task. Their aircraft while capable were not in mass production. Their defense was nil. Their officer corp a shell. Their conscription had not even started.

It was Hitler attacking another country he had agreed not to attack.

And the 38,. 5% number applied to the SECURITY portion of the government per your spammed "sources".

And Hitler did not hate Jews except bankers and imaginary Soviet Jews?

Then why all the poor Jews in Poland hunted down and killed? Why the roaming groups of Einsatzgruppen? Why the gas and ovens for man, woman and child? Why the camps spread out over occupied territories?

Fledermaus · Dec 25, 2017

Re: The second death of a nation

Did some looking up... Conscription had started.

Checkerboard Strangler · Dec 25, 2017

phattonez said:
What do you call the Marshall Plan?

Something that should be carefully considered whenever any nation has designs on wiping out an enemy regime.
No matter how evil the enemy regime happens to be, no matter how taken in the people might be by that evil, in the end, when the war is over, something must be done to stand the populace on its own two feet again in the name of not only rehabilitation but plain old common sense.

Lack of anything resembling some kind of "Marshall Plan" is what gives us the Paul Bremers of the world.
It used to be weapons were manufactured to fight wars. Now wars are manufactured to sell weapons.

B'smith · Dec 25, 2017

calamity said:
Does anyone know what the **** B'Smith's point is here? I don't see him saying Hitler was the best world leader (thank gawd for that). So I'm not sure why we see 30 posts between BS and FM. What did I miss? And, no, I'm not reading all that garbage between here and there to find out.

Someone pass me the Readers Digest version.

No, I don't contend that Hitler was the best WW2 leader however Time magazine saw fit to choose him as "Man of the Year" in 1938 for his role in the miraculous rescuing of Germany from anarchy, starvation, hyperinflation, communist control and/or total collapse.

Later, Hitler became an addled, delusional & brutal drug addict after the war began and a liability to Germany's war effort even though the German High Command was eager to depose / assassinate Hitler & end the War.

Guided by the maxim "The victors write the History", it is not surprising that most people chose one of the victors, Churchill, to whom History has been most generous.
Obviously, most people don't know that Churchill's machinations in Afghanistan, India, Iraq, Kenya etc slaughtered millions of people while the British Empire presided over one of the most ruthless & racist genocidal enterprises the world has ever seen.

As far as I know, I am the only person who has contributed to this thread who has lived, worked & studied in Germany in the mid 1970s and had the opportunity to know countless Europeans who survived WW1, the 1919 starvation of Germany, the chaotic Weimar years, the concentration camps, WW2 & post WW2 Allied atrocities including Eisenhower's death camps & learn from their eyewitness accounts many things that contradict the traditional, distorted & simplistic Allied propaganda narrative that has shaped so many flawed opinions.

Throughout this thread I have cited the works of many historians who are far better qualified to speak on this topic than emotionally charged, puerile & insulting anonymous forum posters.

The works I've cited throughout this thread support the strong likelihood that Hitler wanted peace with the West & a “wohlwollende Neutralitat” with Britain in order to fight what turned out to be the West's primary enemy, the USSR.
One work "Hess, Hitler & Churchill" by Peter Padfield strongly asserts the Hitler sent Hess to Britain in 1941 with a Peace Plan to surrender Germany's recent conquests (North, West & South). The documents related to that effort were supposed to be released this year but because Churchill didn't want peace with Germany and all that it would have entailed (i.e. dismantlement of the concentration camps), the British government refused to release the Hitler-Hess Peace documents but to hide them for another 20 years

southwest88 · Dec 25, 2017

Give them an inch, they'll take ...

B'smith said:
No, I don't contend that Hitler was the best WW2 leader however Time magazine saw fit to choose him as "Man of the Year" in 1938 for his role in the miraculous rescuing of Germany from anarchy, starvation, hyperinflation, communist control and/or total collapse.

Later, Hitler became an addled, delusional & brutal drug addict after the war began and a liability to Germany's war effort even though the German High Command was eager to depose / assassinate Hitler & end the War.

Guided by the maxim "The victors write the History", it is not surprising that most people chose one of the victors, Churchill, to whom History has been most generous.
Obviously, most people don't know that Churchill's machinations in Afghanistan, India, Iraq, Kenya etc slaughtered millions of people while the British Empire presided over one of the most ruthless & racist genocidal enterprises the world has ever seen.

...

Hitler & Time magazine. Yah, I don't recall what the relationship was there. There were groupings of people in the US (& elsewhere in the World) that were frankly admiring (nearly worshipful) of Hitler & the Nazi Party. I assume that in the US they were mostly against FDR, & certainly they seemed to feel that Hitler's program in Germany was superior to the US program to deal with the stock crash & Depression. (Plus the Crash & Depression were taken as harbingers of the West's decline, after the catastrophe of WWI. Communism &/or Fascism/Nazism looked like the coming things, back then. The World mostly ignored the troubling behavior & signs out of the USSR in the Spanish Civil War - we had problems of our own.)

And as far as Churchill goes, yah, I think he inflated his own role in the British Empire & WWI & WWII. His mother was from the US, & Churchill himself always seemed to be maneuvering for the most likely way forward for himself, taking up & rising in & then abandoning several parties. This is one reason the Conservatives never fully trusted him again, & he was thrown out of the PM's office in 1945, I think it was.

Churchill was an adventurer & journalist, as well as an idea guy - he was constantly throwing off ideas for military interventions here, there & everywhere (Gallipoli in WWI stuck to him for a long time - not his best moment). He was also the only WWII leader to survive the war & write his memoirs - aided by special considerations & copies of official documents & paid staff - a massive staff, as I recall). Everyone else died in harness, & Stalin wasn't about to give anything away in any event - plus he was busy trying to catch up to the West, particularly the US - in terms of economics.

I think Churchill did his best in trying circumstances - but he also puffed himself up in his ruminations on the war - there was hardly anyone alive left to gainsay his version of events, & the British archives are still closed on some of the key events of the war - plus Churchill had special access denied to everyone else. I tend to distrust the UK's version of events - somehow, the Brits tend to slant/shade every account to their advantage. Note their machinations in WWI, as the US again did not enter the war immediately.

The UK cut the direct trans-Atlantic cables from Europe to the US, & everything had to go through UK. They broke codes, rummaged mail, & generally took every advantage to spy & intercept & influence US policy, public opinion, & on & on. We weren't targeted with such ferocity again until the Soviets cranked up against us in the 1920s.

calamity · Dec 25, 2017

B'smith said:
No, I don't contend that Hitler was the best WW2 leader however Time magazine saw fit to choose him as "Man of the Year" in 1938 for his role in the miraculous rescuing of Germany from anarchy, starvation, hyperinflation, communist control and/or total collapse.

Later, Hitler became an addled, delusional & brutal drug addict after the war began and a liability to Germany's war effort even though the German High Command was eager to depose / assassinate Hitler & end the War.

Guided by the maxim "The victors write the History", it is not surprising that most people chose one of the victors, Churchill, to whom History has been most generous.
Obviously, most people don't know that Churchill's machinations in Afghanistan, India, Iraq, Kenya etc slaughtered millions of people while the British Empire presided over one of the most ruthless & racist genocidal enterprises the world has ever seen.

As far as I know, I am the only person who has contributed to this thread who has lived, worked & studied in Germany in the mid 1970s and had the opportunity to know countless Europeans who survived WW1, the 1919 starvation of Germany, the chaotic Weimar years, the concentration camps, WW2 & post WW2 Allied atrocities including Eisenhower's death camps & learn from their eyewitness accounts many things that contradict the traditional, distorted & simplistic Allied propaganda narrative that has shaped so many flawed opinions.

Throughout this thread I have cited the works of many historians who are far better qualified to speak on this topic than emotionally charged, puerile & insulting anonymous forum posters.

The works I've cited throughout this thread support the strong likelihood that Hitler wanted peace with the West & a “wohlwollende Neutralitat” with Britain in order to fight what turned out to be the West's primary enemy, the USSR.
One work "Hess, Hitler & Churchill" by Peter Padfield strongly asserts the Hitler sent Hess to Britain in 1941 with a Peace Plan to surrender Germany's recent conquests (North, West & South). The documents related to that effort were supposed to be released this year but because Churchill didn't want peace with Germany and all that it would have entailed (i.e. dismantlement of the concentration camps), the British government refused to release the Hitler-Hess Peace documents but to hide them for another 20 years

Hitler definitely tried to make peace with Britain....several times.

Fledermaus · Dec 25, 2017

calamity said:
Hitler definitely tried to make peace with Britain....several times.

After gobbling up practically every non-fascist state in Europe at the time.

Who was the best leader during WWII?

Who was the best actor in WWII?

Churchill

Hirohito

Hitler

Mussolini

Roosevelt

Stalin

More options

Old Sarge

Active member

Fledermaus

calamity

Privileged

southwest88

southwest88

B'smith

Fledermaus

B'smith

Fledermaus

B'smith

Fledermaus

calamity

Privileged

Fledermaus

calamity

Privileged

Fledermaus

B'smith

Fledermaus

B'smith

Fledermaus

Fledermaus

Checkerboard Strangler

Make Video Horizontal Again

B'smith

southwest88

calamity

Privileged

Fledermaus