- Joined
- Mar 30, 2016
- Messages
- 81,814
- Reaction score
- 20,427
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Clearly the first thing any Army on the verge of a major offensive does is kill every competent officer they can find :mrgreen:
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Who was the best leader during WWII?
- Thread starter phattonez
- Start date
Clearly the first thing any Army on the verge of a major offensive does is kill every competent officer they can find :mrgreen:
Quag
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2012
- Messages
- 35,727
- Reaction score
- 18,653
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Did I ever say Stalin was a nice guy? Nope he was like Hitler an evil dictator.
Are you seriously trying to argue that Hitler wasnt an evil dictator because he murdered less people than Stalin?
Citation needed, not that it matters because Hitler had made many promises to stop his agressive land grabs and failed every time. In fact if Hitler had left Poland after he invaded (not the actions of a man of peace now was that?) The English and French would have made peace. However as Hitler wanted to rule others he refused and continued to attack Poland.
So there really is no evidence Hitler would have gone back to the pre invasion borders but lots of evidence that Hitler's words were worth less than the paper they were written on.
Citing revisionist history crap to defend revisionist history crap doesn't work. Do you deny that Hitler and Stalin had a secret pact top divide Poland? Was that the actions of a man who wanted peace?
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Wrong target set
I'm afraid you recall incorrectly. One of my uncles was a high ranking US Air Force Bomber pilot & said that they had orders to target the civilian work force as a matter of strategy to hinder production & demoralize the German population.
Not only was the "labor force"/ civilian population "reduced" but other members of the "labor force"/civilians would have to take time off from work for attending funerals thus further hindering production.
Meanwhile, Churchill was even more bloodthirsty:
“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.” Winston Churchill (1)
(1) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/
I'm afraid you recall incorrectly. One of my uncles was a high ranking US Air Force Bomber pilot & said that they had orders to target the civilian work force as a matter of strategy to hinder production & demoralize the German population.
Not only was the "labor force"/ civilian population "reduced" but other members of the "labor force"/civilians would have to take time off from work for attending funerals thus further hindering production.
Meanwhile, Churchill was even more bloodthirsty:
“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.” Winston Churchill (1)
(1) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, I am simply curious as to why he is more violently denounced for killing fewer people.
And there is no evidence that he would not have withdrawn from conquered territories North, West & South. I feel that he would have gone to great lengths to avoid a 2 Front War and he felt a great affinity for the British (1) & that Churchill could have made extensive demands.
Claiming that the Soviets committed the Katyn Massacre was considered to be "revisionist history crap" until it was proven to be true. Believing absolutely everything that MSM pours into your head may work for you but I've lived enough history to know that MSM can & does lie.
No, I don't deny the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact but I do believe that Hitler would have made significant sacrifices for peace with the West in order to fight communism which was threatening to consume Germany and already earlier existed as the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
"Bavarian Soviet Republic"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic
(1) "Hitler didn't want world war"
Hitler didn't want world war
EXCERPT "Hitler didn't want a world war, and had no stomach for fighting England, according to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Louis Kilzer, author of "Churchill's Deception" (Simon & Schuster, 1994).
Hitler believed the future of Western civilization depended on the cooperation of Germany and her Aryan cousins: England and the United States. His territorial demands were limited to conquering Communist Russia, which he regarded as a proxy for Jewish world ambitions. He was determined to avoid fighting a war on two fronts.
The "miracle at Dunkirk" was in fact an extraordinary peace overture to England. We don't normally associate Hitler with such magnanimity.
In May 1940, the British were on the verge of defeat. The English army was trapped at Dunkirk. Rather than take them prisoner, Hitler halted his generals for three days allowing 330,000 men to escape.*
"The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to shed," Hitler said. "Our two people belong together racially and traditionally. That is and always has been my aim, even if our generals can't grasp it." (Kilzer, p.213)*
Rudolph Hess, the Deputy Leader of Nazi Germany, was in contact with the Cliveden group and flew to England May 10, 1941 to negotiate peace. According to Kilzer, Hess had Hitler's complete blessings. CONTINUED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 2,988
- Reaction score
- 1,411
- Location
- NM
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The US considered bombing civilians a waste of resources
OK, I'll look @ my sources. The USAF wasn't a separate branch until after WWII, though, Sept. 1947.
From Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#US_bombing_in_Europe
"In mid 1942, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) arrived in the UK and carried out a few raids across the English Channel. The USAAF Eighth Air Force's B-17 bombers were called the "Flying Fortresses" because of their heavy defensive armament of ten to twelve machine guns — eventually comprising up to thirteen heavy 12.7 mm calibre, "light barrel" Browning M2 guns per bomber — and armor plating in vital locations. In part because of their heavier armament and armor, they carried smaller bomb loads than British bombers. With all of this, the USAAF's commanders in Washington, D.C., and in Great Britain adopted the strategy of taking on the Luftwaffe head on, in larger and larger air raids by mutually defending bombers, flying over Germany, Austria, and France at high altitudes during the daytime. Also, both the U.S. Government and its Army Air Forces commanders were reluctant to bomb enemy cities and towns indiscriminately. They claimed that by using the B-17 and the Norden bombsight, the USAAF should be able to carry out "precision bombing" on locations vital to the German war machine: factories, naval bases, shipyards, railroad yards, railroad junctions, power plants, steel mills, airfields, etc."
(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
This is specific to ETO - the PTO was very different.
OK, I'll look @ my sources. The USAF wasn't a separate branch until after WWII, though, Sept. 1947.
From Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II#US_bombing_in_Europe
"In mid 1942, the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) arrived in the UK and carried out a few raids across the English Channel. The USAAF Eighth Air Force's B-17 bombers were called the "Flying Fortresses" because of their heavy defensive armament of ten to twelve machine guns — eventually comprising up to thirteen heavy 12.7 mm calibre, "light barrel" Browning M2 guns per bomber — and armor plating in vital locations. In part because of their heavier armament and armor, they carried smaller bomb loads than British bombers. With all of this, the USAAF's commanders in Washington, D.C., and in Great Britain adopted the strategy of taking on the Luftwaffe head on, in larger and larger air raids by mutually defending bombers, flying over Germany, Austria, and France at high altitudes during the daytime. Also, both the U.S. Government and its Army Air Forces commanders were reluctant to bomb enemy cities and towns indiscriminately. They claimed that by using the B-17 and the Norden bombsight, the USAAF should be able to carry out "precision bombing" on locations vital to the German war machine: factories, naval bases, shipyards, railroad yards, railroad junctions, power plants, steel mills, airfields, etc."
(My emphasis - more @ the URL)
This is specific to ETO - the PTO was very different.
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
That isn't it at all. Stop being dishonest.
There IS evidence he signed agreements and then invaded.
He signed an agreement in regards to Czechoslovakia... Then invaded.
He signed non-aggression pacts with Denmark... Then invaded.
He signed agreements with the USSR... Then invaded.
He signed trade agreements with Norway... Then invaded.
He was allies with Vichey France, Italy and Hungary only to take over complete control. France in 1942, Italy in 1943, and Hungary in 1944.
He invaded Belgium, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia...
Who called the Katyn Massacre "revisionist history crap" HERE AND NOW? No one. STRAWMAN ARGUMENT REJECTED.
OMFG... Hitler and "significant sacrifices for peace" in the same sentence.
Hilarious.
And he proved it by going to war with everyone of his neighbors... AND declaring war on the US.
<Snipped book report>
Because it is BS.
Air Marshal Hermann Göring urged Hitler to let the Luftwaffe (aided by Army Group B[47]) finish off the British, to the consternation of Halder, who noted in his diary that the Luftwaffe was dependent upon the weather and air crews were worn out after two weeks of battle.[48] Rundstedt issued another order, which was sent uncoded. It was picked up by the RAF Y service at 12:42: "By order of the Fuhrer ... attack north-west of Arras is to be limited to the general line Lens-Bethune-Aire-St Omer-Gravelines. The Canal will not be crossed."[49][50] Later that day, Hitler issued Directive 13, which called for the Luftwaffe to defeat the trapped Allied forces and stop their escape.[51] At 15:30 on 26 May, Hitler ordered the panzer groups to continue their advance, but most units took another 16 hours to attack.[52] The delay gave the Allies time to prepare defences vital for the evacuation and prevented the Germans from stopping the Allied retreat from Lille
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
GERMANY: Hitler issues his war directive number 13, ordering the annihilation of the Allies in Artois and Flanders and an aerial attack on Britain.
The OKW issues Führer Directive #13.
(i) The next object of our operations is to annihilate enemy forces in Artois and Flanders by concentric attack and the rapid seizure of the Channel coast. The task of the Luftwaffe is to break resistance of surrounded forces, to prevent the escape of English forces across the Channel, and to protect the southern flank of Army Group A. The enemy air forces will be engaged at every opportunity.
(ii) The remaining enemy forces in France will then be destroyed in the shortest possible time. Phase I will entail a thrust between the sea and the Oise towards the lower Seine. Phase II will be the main attack including strong armoured forces directed south-eastwards either side of Rheims, with the intention of defeating the main body of the French Army and bringing about the collapse of the Maginot Line. Phase III includes subsidiary attacks on the Maginot Line with the aim of breaking through the most vulnerable points.
(iii) The Luftwaffe is now authorized to attack the English homeland. When sufficient forces are available the attack will open with an annihilating reprisal for the English attacks on the Ruhr. Air operations will continue in support of our forces in France, with the added aims of breaking up enemy reinforcements and hampering the re-grouping of enemy forces. Consideration should be given to strengthening air defenses in those areas where the enemy is concentrating his attacks.
(iv) All restrictions on naval operations in French and English waters are now lifted. Kriegsmarine plans for the siege of England should be submitted to OKW. The Führer reserves the decision of announcing the form of the blockade.
11.30 am - Hitler arrives at Rundstedt’s CP. According to the army group’s war diary: "he had the situation explained to him, and fully approved of the idea of keeping the Panzers on the line of the canals, in order to block the enemy and beat him once he has been defeated on the east by Group B. He insisted on the absolute necessity of saving the Panzers for ensuing operations, and of not pressing too hard on the surrounded Allies, which would have the undesirable effect of restricting the Luftwaffe’s field of action." Hence Hitler stops the Panzers at the gates of Dunkirk.
24 May 1940
I suspect B'smith will not respond.
The OKW issues Führer Directive #13.
(i) The next object of our operations is to annihilate enemy forces in Artois and Flanders by concentric attack and the rapid seizure of the Channel coast. The task of the Luftwaffe is to break resistance of surrounded forces, to prevent the escape of English forces across the Channel, and to protect the southern flank of Army Group A. The enemy air forces will be engaged at every opportunity.
(ii) The remaining enemy forces in France will then be destroyed in the shortest possible time. Phase I will entail a thrust between the sea and the Oise towards the lower Seine. Phase II will be the main attack including strong armoured forces directed south-eastwards either side of Rheims, with the intention of defeating the main body of the French Army and bringing about the collapse of the Maginot Line. Phase III includes subsidiary attacks on the Maginot Line with the aim of breaking through the most vulnerable points.
(iii) The Luftwaffe is now authorized to attack the English homeland. When sufficient forces are available the attack will open with an annihilating reprisal for the English attacks on the Ruhr. Air operations will continue in support of our forces in France, with the added aims of breaking up enemy reinforcements and hampering the re-grouping of enemy forces. Consideration should be given to strengthening air defenses in those areas where the enemy is concentrating his attacks.
(iv) All restrictions on naval operations in French and English waters are now lifted. Kriegsmarine plans for the siege of England should be submitted to OKW. The Führer reserves the decision of announcing the form of the blockade.
11.30 am - Hitler arrives at Rundstedt’s CP. According to the army group’s war diary: "he had the situation explained to him, and fully approved of the idea of keeping the Panzers on the line of the canals, in order to block the enemy and beat him once he has been defeated on the east by Group B. He insisted on the absolute necessity of saving the Panzers for ensuing operations, and of not pressing too hard on the surrounded Allies, which would have the undesirable effect of restricting the Luftwaffe’s field of action." Hence Hitler stops the Panzers at the gates of Dunkirk.
24 May 1940
I suspect B'smith will not respond.
Last edited:
Quag
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2012
- Messages
- 35,727
- Reaction score
- 18,653
- Location
- Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Well there are a few reasons for that, one of them being because Hitler was the cause of WW2 and Stalin was on the winning side. Another was his methods, he created death camps with poison gas chambers and massive crematoriums, Stalin let people starve en mass. You also you have a lot of academics being sympathetic to communism and thus less inclined to attack its leadership. If going by death toll alone Mao is the clear winner, but that doesn't change the fact that Hitler was an evil dictator responsible for the deaths of millions.
There are several problems with that.
1. Hitler was insane
2. Hitler could have avoided a 2 front war by NOT invading Poland
3. Hitler could have avoided a 2 front war by NOT invading Russia
4. Hitler like much of the world felt England was contained.
5. Hitler showed that his word was worth nothing
6. Hitler believed he knew more than his generals
They didn't believe the Nazi death camps at first either, but since the revisionist crap is not conclusions based on research but targeted research and interpretations to try and fit a pre-conceived conclusion it is still crap.
Your belief can only exist by ignoring the fact that Hitler initiated the war and invaded several neutral nations all the while lying and breaking every treaty he ever made.
Revisionist history is crap
The panzers halted to regroup and re-arm, Goering claimed he could destroy the English at Dunkirk from the air, which he tried very hard to do. There is no way you can objectively look at what happened and claim Hitler a man who had shown he NEVER wanted peace let the English go as a peace gesture.
Again his word was worthless and his actions prove them to be untrue
Again not known if he actually had Hitlers blessing but we do know what he tried to negotiate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Hess
Which means if Hitler supported Hess then Hitler had no intention of leaving the countries he had invaded and occupied but merely of not finishing off England for the teem being
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Letting the Soviets conquer Eastern Europe isn't a neutral choice.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 2,988
- Reaction score
- 1,411
- Location
- NM
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It was Realpolitik
It wasn't a question of letting the Soviets - once France fell on the Western Front, & UK & Allied forces had to retreat & abandon their heavy equipment, the USSR was the only resistance left in Europe. & they paid & paid & paid for it. The UK was the only other force that could have put boots on the ground, & they needed to rearm (replace all the lost material, arty, tanks, train up new troops, & etc.) The US was gearing up & planning for possible intervention in the war, but that wasn't until Dec. 1941, & we needed the time to induct, train & equip our own forces (& we had to build camps, dust off training manuals, plus continue to produce & ship POL, war materiel, food, clothing - everything that the Allies needed & could not produce enough of on their own.)
The Soviets were willing to fight & die - it was as simple as that. UK was leery to commit their own troops, the US didn't have any troops to spare - the tiny inter-war military was training constantly. Any good history of WWII will cover the basics.
It wasn't a question of letting the Soviets - once France fell on the Western Front, & UK & Allied forces had to retreat & abandon their heavy equipment, the USSR was the only resistance left in Europe. & they paid & paid & paid for it. The UK was the only other force that could have put boots on the ground, & they needed to rearm (replace all the lost material, arty, tanks, train up new troops, & etc.) The US was gearing up & planning for possible intervention in the war, but that wasn't until Dec. 1941, & we needed the time to induct, train & equip our own forces (& we had to build camps, dust off training manuals, plus continue to produce & ship POL, war materiel, food, clothing - everything that the Allies needed & could not produce enough of on their own.)
The Soviets were willing to fight & die - it was as simple as that. UK was leery to commit their own troops, the US didn't have any troops to spare - the tiny inter-war military was training constantly. Any good history of WWII will cover the basics.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: The US considered bombing civilians a waste of resources
Yes, I know that there wasn't an official U.S. Air Force separate from the US Army but that doesn't negate the fact that both the British and Americans targeted civilian populations as a matter of strategy to hinder production & demoralize the German population.
Not only was the "labor force"/ civilian population "reduced" but other members of the "labor force"/civilians would have to take time off from work for attending funerals thus further hindering production.
Churchill was apparently especially bloodthirsty in that regard:
“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.” (1) Winston Churchill
(1) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/
Yes, I know that there wasn't an official U.S. Air Force separate from the US Army but that doesn't negate the fact that both the British and Americans targeted civilian populations as a matter of strategy to hinder production & demoralize the German population.
Not only was the "labor force"/ civilian population "reduced" but other members of the "labor force"/civilians would have to take time off from work for attending funerals thus further hindering production.
Churchill was apparently especially bloodthirsty in that regard:
“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.” (1) Winston Churchill
(1) "Winston Churchill: the Imperial Monster"
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/28/winston-churchill-the-imperial-monster/
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 2,988
- Reaction score
- 1,411
- Location
- NM
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's priest, have a little priest
Except that @ its height, about 20% of the German workforce was Jews, POWs, foreigners & other enemies of the Reich. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II
"The use of forced labour in Nazi Germany and throughout German-occupied Europe during World War II took place on an unprecedented scale.[2] It was a vital part of the German economic exploitation of conquered territories. It also contributed to the mass extermination of populations in German-occupied Europe. The Nazi Germans abducted approximately 12 million people from almost twenty European countries; about two thirds came from Eastern Europe.[1] Many workers died as a result of their living conditions - mistreatment, malnutrition, and torture were the main causes of death. They became civilian casualties of shelling.[3] At its peak the forced labourers comprised 20% of the German work force. Counting deaths and turnover, about 15 million men and women were forced labourers at one point or another during the war.[4]"
(My emphasis - more detail @ the URL)
Yep, gotta love them peace-loving Nazis. I think we're done with this particular aspect of this topic. The German forced-labor battalions were not - TMK - housed in German residential areas - & therefore even if the US had been targeting civilians directly - which still strikes me as a waste of resources - the POWs & etc. were not there to be bombed. I assume they were held in work camps or barracks or barns or some kind of structure near their assigned workplace. All of this - kidnapping people to work them to death, putting POWs to work involuntarily - all of this violated the Geneva accords on the treatment of prisoners & civilians.
Except that @ its height, about 20% of the German workforce was Jews, POWs, foreigners & other enemies of the Reich. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labour_under_German_rule_during_World_War_II
"The use of forced labour in Nazi Germany and throughout German-occupied Europe during World War II took place on an unprecedented scale.[2] It was a vital part of the German economic exploitation of conquered territories. It also contributed to the mass extermination of populations in German-occupied Europe. The Nazi Germans abducted approximately 12 million people from almost twenty European countries; about two thirds came from Eastern Europe.[1] Many workers died as a result of their living conditions - mistreatment, malnutrition, and torture were the main causes of death. They became civilian casualties of shelling.[3] At its peak the forced labourers comprised 20% of the German work force. Counting deaths and turnover, about 15 million men and women were forced labourers at one point or another during the war.[4]"
(My emphasis - more detail @ the URL)
Yep, gotta love them peace-loving Nazis. I think we're done with this particular aspect of this topic. The German forced-labor battalions were not - TMK - housed in German residential areas - & therefore even if the US had been targeting civilians directly - which still strikes me as a waste of resources - the POWs & etc. were not there to be bombed. I assume they were held in work camps or barracks or barns or some kind of structure near their assigned workplace. All of this - kidnapping people to work them to death, putting POWs to work involuntarily - all of this violated the Geneva accords on the treatment of prisoners & civilians.
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: The US considered bombing civilians a waste of resources
While the Nazis did it because they were Nazis....
While the Nazis did it because they were Nazis....
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obviously I disagree with your contention that revisionist history is "crap" because new documents emerge, frauds are uncovered and a more close examination of ANYTHING can only produce a more accurate account.
The simplistic Allied propaganda narrative is fine for the simple minded but I'm more interested in accuracy, truthfulness & what really happened than old, Politically Correct Allied propaganda.
RE:
1. No, Hitler was not "insane". No one who managed to help guide Germany from the ruins of the Weimar Republic to minimal unemployment & prosperity could do so without lucidity & organizational skills. Toward the end of the War he became mentally compromised due to drug intoxication & addiction.
2. Germany/Hitler invaded/reclaimed Part of Poland (2/5ths) due to the various massacres of German civilians. At any rate, War with Poland was unavoidable:
"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to." (Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly as reported in the Daily Mail, August 6th, 1939)
3. Hitler invaded the USSR because the USSR was preparing to attack Germany. Why else would there have been hundreds of thousands of Soviet paratroopers on Russia's border since paratroopers are Offensive Units.
"Germany invaded to pre-empt imminent Soviet attack"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQkppjOE7z4
4. I've already contended & supported the fact that Hitler wanted peace with Britain in exchange for a free hand in dealing with the inevitable Soviet threat.
5. Many of the agreements that Hitler abrogated were agreements made under duress such as the draconian Treaty of Versailles. He chose to invade the Sudetenland because the German population faced the same sure of murderous persecution as the Germans along the Danzig corridor.
6. I agree, one of Hitler's many flaws was overriding his excellent German Generals. For example, if he had followed Rommel's advice, D-Day would have been a disaster for the Allies however the war was virtually over before the Allied Invasion.
RE:
I am looking at "what happened" objectively. That's where we differ. Hitler knew that he had to make peace with Britain & abide by the terms to have a chance of surviving the enormous Soviet military that was poised to consume not just Germany but all of Europe
RE:
EXCERPT "Mr Padfield, who makes the claims in a new book, Hess, Hitler and Churchill, said: “This was not a renegade plot. Hitler had sent Hess and he brought over a fully developed peace treaty for Germany to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West.”CONTINUED
I agree with Padfield because German-British ties go back to the English House of Hannover, Hitler had an affinity for his British "cousins" & Hitler's primary fear was of expansionist Communism that was (and did) expand West eventually.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It's priest, have a little priest
You've said & posted nothing that negates the fact that the Allies were just as vicious toward innocent civilians in their air extermination policy, rampant Soviet rapists, Eisenhower's criminal Death Camps etc.
"Eisenhower’s death camps — a stain on American*history"
https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/eisenhowers-death-camps-a-stain-on-american-history/
EXCERPT "The POW camps set up by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, after World War II ended, are also called death camps, because 1.7 million German POWs allegedly died in these camps. To read more about Eisenhower’s camps, go to this website or this website.
On May 7, 1945, the German army had surrendered to General Eisenhower, who refused to shake hands with the German General, as is customary. The neutral country of Switzerland was removed as the Protecting Power for German prisoners, which was another violation of the Geneva Convention. General George S. Patton quickly released the prisoners who had surrendered to his Third Army, but General Eisenhower held his POWs until the end of 1946, forcing them to live on starvation rations. German civilians were forbidden to bring food to the POWs. Red Cross packages sent to the German POW camps were returned. The POW camps had no barracks or tents"CONTINUED
RE:
In light of your sarcasm, I agree that we're done with this particular aspect of the topic.
If you expect future responses from me, drop the sarcasm
You've said & posted nothing that negates the fact that the Allies were just as vicious toward innocent civilians in their air extermination policy, rampant Soviet rapists, Eisenhower's criminal Death Camps etc.
"Eisenhower’s death camps — a stain on American*history"
https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/eisenhowers-death-camps-a-stain-on-american-history/
EXCERPT "The POW camps set up by General Dwight D. Eisenhower, after World War II ended, are also called death camps, because 1.7 million German POWs allegedly died in these camps. To read more about Eisenhower’s camps, go to this website or this website.
On May 7, 1945, the German army had surrendered to General Eisenhower, who refused to shake hands with the German General, as is customary. The neutral country of Switzerland was removed as the Protecting Power for German prisoners, which was another violation of the Geneva Convention. General George S. Patton quickly released the prisoners who had surrendered to his Third Army, but General Eisenhower held his POWs until the end of 1946, forcing them to live on starvation rations. German civilians were forbidden to bring food to the POWs. Red Cross packages sent to the German POW camps were returned. The POW camps had no barracks or tents"CONTINUED
RE:
In light of your sarcasm, I agree that we're done with this particular aspect of the topic.
If you expect future responses from me, drop the sarcasm
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Re: It's priest, have a little priest
Revisionist BS good. Mocking revisionist BS BAD.....
Revisionist BS good. Mocking revisionist BS BAD.....
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
More repetitive BS. Really. Your facts are lacking. Your logic is flawed. Your citation is suspect and it is clearly obvious you are simply mouthing talking points and are incapable of actually discussing the subject in any depth.
You don't know a Stuka from Shinola and yet you keep trying to convince people who actually understand military matters and history that Black is White and the UP is Down.
That and you tend to ignore most who have fact slapped you.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Re: It was Realpolitik
So if the options are either Hitler controls Europe, or Stalin controls Europe, then why get involved at all? Or if you want to get Hitler out of France, then why cooperate with Stalin and why not stop at the old border?
So if the options are either Hitler controls Europe, or Stalin controls Europe, then why get involved at all? Or if you want to get Hitler out of France, then why cooperate with Stalin and why not stop at the old border?
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2017
- Messages
- 2,988
- Reaction score
- 1,411
- Location
- NM
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: It was Realpolitik
Hitler did control a lot of Europe (with Italy & a couple of the Baltic states that cooperated) - although I think resistance was growing.
Stalin never did control Europe - he invaded & controlled much of Eastern Europe, which is a substantial difference from controlling all or even most of Europe. The US edged into WWII, just as we didn't rush into WWI. I think eventually we would have entered the war on the side of the Allies - from our transatlantic shipping of war materials & food & POL, if nothing else. & German attacks on that shipping, the convoys & the USN escorts.
We had diplomatic & commercial ties to the Allies - we'd sold them a lot of material, Lend-Lease, & we'd extended financing & credit, as well as transportation, to get the goods to them in Europe. Eventually, we had a stake in the Allies triumphing in the war. Which was why we backed Stalin & the USSR - because realistically, from May 1940 until the US & Allies landed in West Africa, major resistance to Nazi Germany rested on the Soviets. Which was why we offered the same kind of support to them that we offered to UK & the other Allies.
The US couldn't put armies into the field immediately. The UK was also rebuilding & reequipping from Dunkirk. There was no other force that could take the field against the Nazis - it was the USSR or wait until the UK & US forces could take the field against the Nazi forces - & give them all that time to prepare & improve their defenses.
Hitler did control a lot of Europe (with Italy & a couple of the Baltic states that cooperated) - although I think resistance was growing.
Stalin never did control Europe - he invaded & controlled much of Eastern Europe, which is a substantial difference from controlling all or even most of Europe. The US edged into WWII, just as we didn't rush into WWI. I think eventually we would have entered the war on the side of the Allies - from our transatlantic shipping of war materials & food & POL, if nothing else. & German attacks on that shipping, the convoys & the USN escorts.
We had diplomatic & commercial ties to the Allies - we'd sold them a lot of material, Lend-Lease, & we'd extended financing & credit, as well as transportation, to get the goods to them in Europe. Eventually, we had a stake in the Allies triumphing in the war. Which was why we backed Stalin & the USSR - because realistically, from May 1940 until the US & Allies landed in West Africa, major resistance to Nazi Germany rested on the Soviets. Which was why we offered the same kind of support to them that we offered to UK & the other Allies.
The US couldn't put armies into the field immediately. The UK was also rebuilding & reequipping from Dunkirk. There was no other force that could take the field against the Nazis - it was the USSR or wait until the UK & US forces could take the field against the Nazi forces - & give them all that time to prepare & improve their defenses.
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Well...
I finally clicked on the "Hitler didn't want war" link..
Are you serious?
Henry Makow? He has the ILLUMINATI "tricking" Hitler into war.
The JEWISH ROTHSCHILD ILLUMINATI is at fault.
Yep. That's right. The good little Austrian Corporal was tricked by DA JOOOZ into marching the armies of the peace loving Third Reich hither and you....
Do you even read the articles you copy and paste from?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Re: It was Realpolitik
Again, why not just stop at the German border? Why keep pushing into Germany and help Soviets get to Berlin?
If your major ally is really a friend, then sure, I understand toppling the Nazi government. However, Soviets were at least just as bad, so why help their push deep into Germany?
Again, why not just stop at the German border? Why keep pushing into Germany and help Soviets get to Berlin?
If your major ally is really a friend, then sure, I understand toppling the Nazi government. However, Soviets were at least just as bad, so why help their push deep into Germany?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 30,870
- Reaction score
- 4,246
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Were Danzig and the Polish Corridor unreasonable demands?
Fledermaus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 121,383
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yes. They were independent in the case of Danzig and Polish in the case of the corridor. .
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2015
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Not when you consider that the majority of the inhabitants were Germany and that territory had formerly been Prussia, an integral part of Germany.
The so called invasion of Poland was actually a reclamation of what was taken from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles which is widely accepted as a major cause of WW2.
Prussia comprised parts of Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium and the Czech Republic.(1)
(1) "Kingdom of Prussia"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Prussia
EXCERPT "The Kingdom of Prussia (German: Königreich Preußen) was a German kingdom that constituted the state of Prussia between 1701 and 1918 and included parts of present-day Germany, Poland, Russia, Lithuania, Denmark, Belgium and the Czech Republic.[3] It was the driving force behind the unification of Germany in 1871 and was the leading state of the German Empire until its dissolution in 1918."CONTINUED
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2010
- Messages
- 37,412
- Reaction score
- 13,542
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Umm. Hitler gained a lot, but he lost it all. Stalin gained a lot of land. England lost their colonies.