• 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!

Hitler: What if...?

Because of your history of lying & slander, you're on my Ignore List on this thread too. See Rule #4, "DBAJ"

What lies?

What slander?

Support or retract.


Oh, wait.

You just don't want to answer the question posed to you as to WHERE there would be fewer deaths.

And it is a FACT that the link you spam constantly is to an article ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF HISTORICAL REVIEW...

IT SAYS SO IN THE ARTICLE.
 
Sorry to be so late responding to your post, I just noticed it.

The British had far better reason to believe Hitler would follow through on his peace offer of May, 1941 than the Munich because Hitler was desperate to fight just a 1 front war against the Soviets.
He outlined his aversion to a 2 front war in his book, "Mein Kampf" & through German intelligence how formidable the Soviet forces were.
The Soviets were poised on their Westernmost border in an Offensive position complete with hundreds of thousands of Paratroopers in addition to everything else required for an Offensive thrust into Germany, the rest of Europe & then even London

Hitler broke every agreement so far and would offer peace so he could break ANOTHER agreement and England would take him at his word?

And you continue to ignore the facts about Russian preparedness in 1941....

Untrained conscripts. Under staffed officer corps. An ongoing purge. Obsolete tanks. Few front line tanks. Only about 7% were T34 or KV1 tanks.

Finally there are the Tank units undergoing reorganization...

Hell the final one would be a clue to ANYONE with any knowledge of the military... Add the others and you have the Soviets woefully unprepared for any offensive operations in early to mid 1941.

You don't send units in the midst of reorganization into an offensive role.

It makes no sense on any level.
 
Last edited:
Hitler broke every agreement so far and would offer peace so he could break ANOTHER agreement and England would take him at his word?

And you continue to ignore the facts about Russian preparedness in 1941....

Untrained conscripts. Under staffed officer corps. An ongoing purge. Obsolete tanks. Few front line tanks. Only about 7% were T34 or KV1 tanks.

Finally there are the Tank units undergoing reorganization...

Hell the final one would be a clue to ANYONE with any knowledge of the military... Add the others and you have the Soviets woefully unprepared for any offensive operations in early to mid 1941.

You don't send units in the midst of reorganization into an offensive role.

It makes no sense on any level.

Also dont forget that Hitler never promised to leave recently conquered territories. Hess was merely offering to leave Britain and its colonies alone. Not that any agreement with Hitler would be worth anything and there is no valid proof that Hess did this on Hitlers orders.
 
Also dont forget that Hitler never promised to leave recently conquered territories. Hess was merely offering to leave Britain and its colonies alone. Not that any agreement with Hitler would be worth anything and there is no valid proof that Hess did this on Hitlers orders.

I agree. I wonder where B'smith keeps dredging this fantasy from. First it was only the western nations. Now Hitler would have given up Western, Eastern and Southern.... Even though his reason for taking the southern was to ensure a full front from which to strike from.

And he never addressed the fate of the Poles.
 
I agree. I wonder where B'smith keeps dredging this fantasy from. First it was only the western nations. Now Hitler would have given up Western, Eastern and Southern.... Even though his reason for taking the southern was to ensure a full front from which to strike from.

And he never addressed the fate of the Poles.

I think the poles were commie Jews so no different than the soviets, Poles were probably planning on invading Germany in 1939
 
I think the poles were commie Jews so no different than the soviets, Poles were probably planning on invading Germany in 1939



RE:
Poles were probably planning on invading Germany in 1939

It's funny you should mention that:


"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)
 
RE:

It's funny you should mention that:


"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)

Aug 6th 1939 was a Sunday and there was no edition of the Daily Mail on a Sunday. The reference is a fake. There are no reproductions of the article. Why do you admire Hitler so much?
 
Aug 6th 1939 was a Sunday and there was no edition of the Daily Mail on a Sunday. The reference is a fake. There are no reproductions of the article. Why do you admire Hitler so much?

1. How do you know that Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly isn't the author of that quote?

2. I don't admire Hitler. I just try to look at history objectively, accurately & completely.

Additionally, France attacked Germany before Germany invaded France:


"When The French Army Invaded Germany in 1939 To Support Poland, All Did Not Go As Planned"
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/in...e-french-army-invaded-germany-in-1939-xb.html

EXCERPT "Germany was not the first country to go on the offensive on the western front of World War Two. That first attack came from France, which launched a brief and ineffective invasion of Germany in September 1939. This
That first attack came from France, which launched a brief and ineffective invasion of Germany in September 1939. This attack, intended to help the far-away Poles, became an embarrassing defeat and a harbinger of what would follow when Germany invaded France."CONTINUED
 
Aug 6th 1939 was a Sunday and there was no edition of the Daily Mail on a Sunday. The reference is a fake. There are no reproductions of the article. Why do you admire Hitler so much?


There are several sources that cite the quote I cited. Can you cite a source that claims it's "Fake"?

"Truth About WW2"
https://www.wattpad.com/36665741-the-hidden-truth-truth-about-ww2
"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)
 
If the July 20, 1944, assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler had succeeded, how do you think events might have played out afterward?

Leaving it wide open to start.

Yes, this is obviously pure speculation, but could be an interesting conversation for those willing to partake.

Hitler and his henchmen were all facing the noose. They had no reason to surrender. Russia was not about to kiss and make up after Hitler annihilated a complete generation of its men and many of its women.

Obviously somethings may have changed but the die was cast when Hitler invaded Russia.
 
There are several sources that cite the quote I cited. Can you cite a source that claims it's "Fake"?

"Truth About WW2"
https://www.wattpad.com/36665741-the-hidden-truth-truth-about-ww2
"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)

I'm not sure where you are going, Hitler was a hero, a thug, a sadist, a killer, a hypochondriac, disillusion, an egotistical maniac, a charmer, and a political genius.

He was all of these things as well as the most destructive human in more than a century, with a close second in Stalin who confined most of his murders to the home front.

The greatest murderers in history

Alexander

Julius Caesar (and kin)

Genghis Kahh

Napoleon Bonaparte

Adolph Hitler
 
There are several sources that cite the quote I cited. Can you cite a source that claims it's "Fake"?

Sorry, that's not how it works. You have to prove that your source is real. That is called validating your claims. Otherwise, you have nothing.

And to prove your source, just show us the original source. Not just find some other apologist site that also uses the quote.

For example, in a recent debate in here I had stated that the Japanese were horrific occupiers, and even beheaded civilians as a sport. And of course the idiot tried to scream that it was all American Propaganda, and it was all lies.

Until I actually provided the original Japanese newspaper clippings, from Japan, which were reporting the contest between 2 officers to behead 100 people like it was a baseball game.

tnn_a4_150.jpg


Now surely if that bit of newspaper could be found after Japan was ravaged by war surely the same can be find in an England that was much less ravaged. In fact, that is not the first article of the event that has been discovered. That is one of the later ones announcing they were tied and going into "extra innings". But wow, for some reason the one you try to quote does not seem to exist.

That is why nobody takes you seriously.
 
1. How do you know that Polish Marshal Rydz-Smigly isn't the author of that quote?

2. I don't admire Hitler. I just try to look at history objectively, accurately & completely.

Additionally, France attacked Germany before Germany invaded France:


"When The French Army Invaded Germany in 1939 To Support Poland, All Did Not Go As Planned"
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/in...e-french-army-invaded-germany-in-1939-xb.html

EXCERPT "Germany was not the first country to go on the offensive on the western front of World War Two. That first attack came from France, which launched a brief and ineffective invasion of Germany in September 1939. This
That first attack came from France, which launched a brief and ineffective invasion of Germany in September 1939. This attack, intended to help the far-away Poles, became an embarrassing defeat and a harbinger of what would follow when Germany invaded France."CONTINUED

And totally failing to do so, seeing as you have been repeatedly exposed for posting historical inaccurate information about Nazi Germany and its leader.

Poland was never going to go to war with Germany unless Germany did what it historically did, which was launch an unjustified land grab.

Additionally, the French were trying to help the Poles fight off the Nazi aggressors--- the problem, of course, being that France didn't really want a war.
 
Sorry, that's not how it works. You have to prove that your source is real. That is called validating your claims. Otherwise, you have nothing.

And to prove your source, just show us the original source. Not just find some other apologist site that also uses the quote.

For example, in a recent debate in here I had stated that the Japanese were horrific occupiers, and even beheaded civilians as a sport. And of course the idiot tried to scream that it was all American Propaganda, and it was all lies.

Until I actually provided the original Japanese newspaper clippings, from Japan, which were reporting the contest between 2 officers to behead 100 people like it was a baseball game.

tnn_a4_150.jpg


Now surely if that bit of newspaper could be found after Japan was ravaged by war surely the same can be find in an England that was much less ravaged. In fact, that is not the first article of the event that has been discovered. That is one of the later ones announcing they were tied and going into "extra innings". But wow, for some reason the one you try to quote does not seem to exist.

That is why nobody takes you seriously.



RE:
Sorry, that's not how it works. You have to prove that your source is real.

No, "how it works" is I'll post & support what a reasonable & objective person would find worthy of consideration and they can believe it or not.
 
RE:

No, "how it works" is I'll post & support what a reasonable & objective person would find worthy of consideration and they can believe it or not.

TRANSLATION : I will continue to post revisionist BS from discredited historians and will continue to ignore the verifiable facts in regards to Hitler and his unprovoked attacks on neighboring nations.
 
The conspirators would have had to agree to unconditional surrender or something very close to it.

I'm thinking they would have tried to sue for a better end, but at that point in the war I don't think it would have been successful and they would have had to go for unconditional.
 
I'm thinking they would have tried to sue for a better end, but at that point in the war I don't think it would have been successful and they would have had to go for unconditional.

The conspirators had very little leverage, and likely would have faced pro-Nazi counter coup plots. Moreover, after all the blood and sacrifice to defeat German aggression no one among the Allies would have been inclined to generosity. My guess is the Germans would have been given a 48 hour ultimatum, after which Allied offensive operations would resume.
 
Back
Top Bottom