PDA

View Full Version : Adolf Hitler, pros and cons



witman111
06-03-2011, 09:14 AM
As he is usually portray as evil demon let's skip media campaign and dig deeper, shall we.
Pros:
1. He rallied German people, economy and created powerful country - so very good manager.
2. He had gift for selecting right people for right job. For example it is difficult to find better man for propaganda than Goebels, better man for secret police and execution than Himmler, better minister of war time economy than Speer. Not to mention he HANDPICKED Rommel and Manstein from relative anonymity and propelled them into limelight as field marshals! This was perhaps his biggest asset.
3. He was no coward. His WW1 record proves that having obtained Iron Cross on battlefield and almost blind after gas attack.
4.His intuition was second to none. He predicted nobody will interfere with rearming, breaking Versailes, recapturing Alsas, Austria and Czech. He knew that France demanded different strategy and found Manstein who gave it to him etc. He was right about rotten Soviet system which he almost defeated. He was right about French being lazy and tired despite having equivalent Army etc.
5. He was lucky as he escaped 30 or so assassinations.
6. He had hadn't forgotten to marry Braun in last days of life.
7. He let everyone go (Himmler, Goering,Speer...) from surrounded Berlin although he didn't have to and addressed Speer as gentlemen wishing him farewell. Nice little touch.

Cons:
1. Genocidal maniac.
2. He distrusted everyone once things went wrong. He blamed others for his faults.
3. He hadn't realize his weaknesses.
4. Starting war on 2 fronts - braking his own words.
5. Establishing totalitarian system in Germany.
6. Declaring war on USA although by reading generic translation declaration itself is mere acknowledgment of war like present situation brought by USA rather than declaration of war upon USA. Very nicely put together.

tankgeezer
06-03-2011, 09:39 AM
Perhaps you should send him Roses, and chocolates..

Rising Sun*
06-03-2011, 10:47 AM
As he is usually portray as evil demon

I expect that that's because Jews and Russians, among others, feel that he had rather a lot to do with the unnecessary and brutal deaths of millions of their people, purely because he hated them for no good reason. And that lots of other people also think this was evil.


let's skip media campaign

What's the media got to do with Hitler's reputation?

Do you mean you want to skip history?

Most people who want to portray him as a great man find his history rather inconvenient.



and dig deeper, shall we.

You mean like making people dig pits at gunpoint so they could be lined up on the edges before getting a Nazi bullet in the back of their necks?



Pros:
1. He rallied German people, economy and created powerful country - so very good manager.

He caused the deaths of millions of his own people and left his country (which was united and made powerful by Bismarck) in ruins. Admittedly, that makes Hitler an outstanding manager judged by the standards of the incompetent and rapacious ****s who destroy many major corporations and national and international economies nowadays, but there’s nothing commendable about it unless you admire pointless destruction and magnificent failure by people of modest ability but forceful and self-centred personality who abuse their power to gain and maintain their power and wealth without regard to the interests of anyone else.



2. He had gift for selecting right people for right job. For example it is difficult to find better man for propaganda than Goebels, better man for secret police and execution than Himmler, better minister of war time economy than Speer. Not to mention he HANDPICKED Rommel and Manstein from relative anonymity and propelled them into limelight as field marshals! This was perhaps his biggest asset.

If they were so good, how come they lost the war?

If Goering was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he deliver on his promise of rendering Britain ready for invasion?

If Himmler was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he stomach watching executions?

If Speer was such a brilliant choice and Hitler had such a gift for selecting the right people for the right job, why didn’t he recognise the need for Speer a few years earlier and appoint him when Germany needed a full war economy while fully engaged in a war?

Yeah, Rommel was a great choice. Hitler’s intuition was so good that he was able to pick a commander he would have executed a few years later if Rommel hadn’t committed suicide under duress from Hitler’s henchmen. Definitely another great piece of intuitively correct handpicked selection by Hitler.

Could it be that apart from making bad decisions which eliminated some of his most able people, Hitler also had a gift for making astonishingly bad strategic decisions on all aspects of the military and civilian conduct of the war he started?


3. He was no coward. His WW1 record proves that having obtained Iron Cross on battlefield and almost blind after gas attack.

You need to dig deeper on this, disappointing though it may be to you when you find out that he wasn’t exactly the most courageous soldier engaged in combat with the enemy, although anyone who served under fire in the trenches in WWI on either side demonstrated courage.


4.His intuition was second to none. He predicted nobody will interfere with rearming, breaking Versailes, recapturing Alsas, Austria and Czech. He knew that France demanded different strategy and found Manstein who gave it to him etc. He was right about rotten Soviet system which he almost defeated. He was right about French being lazy and tired despite having equivalent Army etc.

Then it must have come as a great surprise to him to realise that he was losing the war in the last couple of years before he, no coward, committed suicide because he couldn’t face the reality crowding in on him as a spectacularly unsuccessful war leader.

I wonder if his second to none intuition in 1939 saw that coming?


5. He was lucky as he escaped 30 or so assassinations.

Plans or bullets?

Anyway, how lucky was he when his motorcade was preceded with sacrificial vehicles and he was surrounded with guards and his routes were checked beforehand by his security people?


6. He had hadn't forgotten to marry Braun in last days of life.

Well, had he or hadn’t he?

Was this an example of his second to none intuition selecting the right person for the job?


7. He let everyone go (Himmler, Goering,Speer...) from surrounded Berlin although he didn't have to and addressed Speer as gentlemen wishing him farewell. Nice little touch.

Actually, if you check the historical record closely you will find that he sent them on a mission to find closely woven wool carpets as he had chewed his way through the Persian rugs in the bunker, and his teeth were beginning to hurt from chewing on the concrete.

Do you know that Hitler liked lying under a glass table to look closely at a woman shitting, but for the glass, into his mouth?

Churchill might have been drunk for most of the war and Roosevelt was a cripple, but it looks like a drunk and a cripple will triumph over a sicko who likes being shat on, regardless of the shitee’s supposedly great abilities.

I wonder if Hitler’s second to none intuition told him that ladies shitting into his mouth, but for the glass, was prophetic about his war and other abilities.


Now, my dear witman111, you come across as a Nazi fanboi, and about as ill-informed as most of your ilk. This forum is a lot more tolerant than most and some of us are happy to dispute Nazi fanboi nonsense, but there comes a point where Nazi fanboi nonsense results in fanbois being banned. It’s up to you whether you want to keep pushing to find out where that point is, but be aware that you are being watched closely by the mods.

pdf27
06-03-2011, 11:31 AM
You forgot a rather important con:
7: Starting a war with a whole bunch of countries more powerful than him, that he couldn't win and which would leave Germany in ruins and divided for nearly 50 years.

leccy
06-03-2011, 02:40 PM
I have noticed a slightly larger than average amount of people posting with the seeming intention of getting banned with the Nazifanboi posts all seem to use SS names (individuals or units) or ranks. It seems to give a slight hint of their leanings.

Nether less I have a question for witman111 why did you chose that particular nic, just being nosey really but I was wondering.

Peacejager
06-04-2011, 11:09 AM
Don't forget that Adolf was also a drug addict....among those he used was meth-amphetamine daily by injection. He was displaying all the common symptoms for long term abusers.

tankgeezer
06-04-2011, 11:31 AM
Further, according to more recent information postulated by historical tv shows, (and written of in other threads here) he had been suffering from late stage Syphilis. A true Paragon of all Human virtue...

Nickdfresh
06-04-2011, 02:04 PM
Don't forget that Adolf was also a drug addict....among those he used was meth-amphetamine daily by injection. He was displaying all the common symptoms for long term abusers.

Despite the fact that he was militantly against smoking, a teetotaler, and a vegetarian superficially dedicated to healthy living...

Nickdfresh
06-04-2011, 02:55 PM
As he is usually portray as evil demon let's skip media campaign and dig deeper, shall we.
Pros:
1. He rallied German people, economy and created powerful country - so very good manager.

Hitler didn't build anything out of nothing. Germany was already a powerful economy that would have rallied on its own, and in time, perhaps securing the Wiemar Republic despite the restrictions of Versailles. Much of what Hitler gets credit for the groundwork was already laid by the Wiemar Republic. In fact, rearmament was inevitable and may well have been more ably carried out under a more democratic or more efficient authoritarian regime albeit under a more prolonged period. It was in fact already happening by the late 1920s...


2. He had gift for selecting right people for right job. For example it is difficult to find better man for propaganda than Goebels, better man for secret police and execution than Himmler, better minister of war time economy than Speer. Not to mention he HANDPICKED Rommel and Manstein from relative anonymity and propelled them into limelight as field marshals! This was perhaps his biggest asset.

Yes. He had a penchant for taking men who were mostly failures in other aspects of their lives, devoid of real talent, and making chicken farmers into secret policemen. Speer is way overrated. Most of the 'new histories' paint him as a cynical opportunist often taking credit for others' work. Germany was already ramping up production before Speer took over and again, like Hitler, he gets credit for much of what his predecessor had set up....


3. He was no coward. His WW1 record proves that having obtained Iron Cross on battlefield and almost blind after gas attack.

It's hard to gauge his cowardice or physical courage. But as RS* stated, you might want to look at his record a bit closer. He was NO FRONT-LINE SOLDIER! He was a messenger, but this in no way implies cowardice in itself. But contrary to Nazi propaganda, Hitler was not really in the trenches very often and was not particularly popular with his comrades who often thought of him as an oddball. Adolf did get a whiff of gas--unfortunately not nearly enough--and he was blinded and hospitalized. But that sort of wound is a far cry from someone directly in the line of fire during combat, although I think there were times when Hitler did display physical courage by running messages during battle. But if he had some physical courage, it sure left him and he never seems to have had all that much moral courage. At any rate, his "Iron Cross" was not at all uncommon for favored rear echelon soldiers operating out of command posts and in HQ's around officers whom had relatively little contact with enlisted and junior NCO's, whose status tended to be elevated over their comrades in the trenches IIRC....


4.His intuition was second to none. He predicted nobody will interfere with rearming, breaking Versailes, recapturing Alsas, Austria and Czech. He knew that France demanded different strategy and found Manstein who gave it to him etc. He was right about rotten Soviet system which he almost defeated. He was right about French being lazy and tired despite having equivalent Army etc.

At best, you're being rather selective regarding Hitler's "intuition." It didn't work all that well at Stalingrad, did it? Or when he wanted to attack the advancing Allies with phantom divisions? The best that can be said about Hitler regarding France was that he set the stage for Manstein's (and Halder as well, who deserves much credit) "Sichelschnitt" out of his reckless abandon to invade France, whether the Army wanted too or not. But only because the original, rushed Fall Gelb was a very basic, awful plan that basically semi-retraced the original WWI Schleiffin Plan with far more limited objectives.

But, you're again vastly oversimplifying things by leaving out the fact that Hitler possibly sent Germany into total disaster by trying to prematurely invade through Belgium in the fall of 1939, marching in right where the French wanted them too. His intuition was kept intact by delays of weather and obstinate officers who saw him as foolhardy. Adolf only turned to Manstein after the original Fall Gelb documents partially fell into Allied hands. Rommel already had a name for himself dating back from his valiant attacks and his propensity to lead from the front and bring order to the chaos of battle in is sector, he would have risen no matter what...

And how do you reckon he "almost defeated the Soviets?" Most sensible people with an IQ above 40 tend to see the "Rotten structure" statement as the height of hubris and folly. The whole structure did not come down until his head was under it!



5. He was lucky as he escaped 30 or so assassinations.

He had a cordon of security around him at all times. And he was "lucky," but so what?


6. He had hadn't forgotten to marry Braun in last days of life.

Why does that make him "good?" Because he made an 'honest woman' out of his bird-brained whore?


7. He let everyone go (Himmler, Goering,Speer...) from surrounded Berlin although he didn't have to and addressed Speer as gentlemen wishing him farewell. Nice little touch.

Yeah, his "golden eagle" henchmen could go free. But the little people, both civilian and military were ****ed and had to fight to the bitter end, to the death. BTW, those that told them this seemed to have a penchant for fleeing westward. What a great guy...

Rising Sun*
06-04-2011, 06:43 PM
Adolf did get a whiff of gas--unfortunately not nearly enough--

:mrgreen:

pdf27
06-05-2011, 03:40 AM
Hitler didn't build anything out of nothing. Germany was already a powerful economy that would have rallied on its own, and in time, perhaps securing the Wiemar Republic despite the restrictions of Versailles. Much of what Hitler gets credit for the groundwork was already laid by the Wiemar Republic. In fact, rearmament was inevitable and may well have been more ably carried out under a more democratic or more efficient authoritarian regime albeit under a more prolonged period. It was in fact already happening by the late 1920s...
This is one of the less well-known causes of WW2. German spending on rearmament was unsustainable, so by summer 1939 Germany could either launch a major war to seize more money/resources or would run out of money and suffer an enormous recession - potentially as bad as that of the 1930s. Doesn't look such a bright idea now does it?

Rising Sun*
06-05-2011, 07:30 AM
This is one of the less well-known causes of WW2. German spending on rearmament was unsustainable, so by summer 1939 Germany could either launch a major war to seize more money/resources or would run out of money and suffer an enormous recession - potentially as bad as that of the 1930s. Doesn't look such a bright idea now does it?

That's not my field, but there is a parallel with Japan and its threatened oil supplies, reinforced by other trade embargoes, impelling Japan towards an expansionist war as a consequence of Japan's armaments expansion, notably its oil-dependent navy, inviting hostility from its intended enemies.

The same thing could have happened during the Cold War where some of the same elements were present on both sides, especially a ruthless expansionist dictatorship in the USSR, but it didn't.

It could be interesting to explore the differences and why the Cold War didn't result in another calamitous conflict. MAD was undoubtedly one reason, and perhaps the absence of critical trade conflict was another, in part because the USSR had its own trade bloc and external trade and strategic partners.

Apart from that, I don't know enough detail.

Laconia
06-05-2011, 05:45 PM
Let's see, where do I start?
Pro: Hitler loved little children.
Con: Unless of course you were a Jewish, Gypsy, Soviet, Polish, or French child. Hitler had no problem with killing or snatching them up from their families.

Pro: Hitler loved military parades.
Con: After the parading was over his soldiers were apt to "parade" into other countries uninvited.

Pro: Hitler loved snappy looking uniforms.
Con: The soldiers wearing those "snappy" uniforms struck terror into the hearts of the peoples' of Europe.

Pro: Hitler loved being on the cutting edge of medicine.
Con: Unfortunatly, the testing for this "cutting edge" medicine was done on unwilling live human beings.

Pro: Hitler loved cutting edge technology.
Con: His "cutting edge" technology killed millions.

We could go on and on about this man, but we all know the truth about this individual. Everything about this person can be summed up with one word. EVIL!!!

navyson
06-05-2011, 07:19 PM
Adolf did get a whiff of gas--unfortunately not nearly enough--...


I'm with RS, had a nice laugh at this one...:mrgreen:

witman111
06-06-2011, 07:39 AM
Perhaps you should send him Roses, and chocolates..
My girlfriend might become jealous :mrgreen:


I expect that that's because Jews and Russians, among others, feel that he had rather a lot to do with the unnecessary and brutal deaths of millions of their people, purely because he hated them for no good reason. And that lots of other people also think this was evil.
Which in no way changes what you quoted...


What's the media got to do with Hitler's reputation?
Do you mean you want to skip history?
Most people who want to portray him as a great man find his history rather inconvenient.
1. Nowdays, media create history. They tell one thing and forgot thew other. For example, Russian dead - 0 minutes, deaths in British colonies - 0 minutes, genocide over American indians - 0 minutes, enemies of Jews 100% minutes etc. This is my perception as independent viewer.
2. I don't know why somebody would want to portray him as a greatest man ever.
But he certainly started big events which costed him his life and that of others as well. No doubt he become nuisance to imperial powers but for Germans - I think it is safe to say they lived better under dictatorship (destruction does not count as falling bombs are result of declaring war on too many nations rather than domestic economic policies) than after Versailles or 1950s when they still wore wooden shoes :). I forgot to mention 3 other things:
1) he was gifted artist - look on you tube
2) he designed VW beatle car
3) he invented highways

This was certainly not true of Rosenvelt, Churchill or Stalin. And Stalin was genocidal maniac and Churchill HM imperialistic maniac.


You mean like making people dig pits at gunpoint so they could be lined up on the edges before getting a Nazi bullet in the back of their necks?
Nobody denies that happened. But so did Stalin (on much larger scale), and was he declared war criminal ? how many people sees him as genocidal maniac and why is that ?


He caused the deaths of millions of his own people and left his country (which was united and made powerful by Bismarck) in ruins.
That indeed had happened.


admire pointless destruction and magnificent failure by people of modest ability but forceful and self-centred personality who abuse their power to gain and maintain their power and wealth without regard to the interests of anyone else.
I would not call German economic model of 1930s failure. First they had close to 0% unemployment, second they had free medical insurance, state pension system, lot of them buying WV cars - much better than USA at the time for example !!! If that is his selfish interest - be it so. War is other story.


If they were so good, how come they lost the war?
considering ratios it is a miracle it lasted as much as it did.


If Goering was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he deliver on his promise of rendering Britain ready for invasion?
Did I mention Goering ?


If Himmler was such a brilliant choice, why couldn’t he stomach watching executions?
Well, efficiency of extermination has nothing to do with other abilities...


If Speer was such a brilliant choice and Hitler had such a gift for selecting the right people for the right job, why didn’t he recognise the need for Speer a few years earlier and appoint him when Germany needed a full war economy while fully engaged in a war?
Better late than never.


Yeah, Rommel was a great choice. Hitler’s intuition was so good that he was able to pick a commander he would have executed a few years later
He knew and therefore had to pay the price - at least in Hitlers mind.


Could it be that apart from making bad decisions which eliminated some of his most able people, Hitler also had a gift for making astonishingly bad strategic decisions on all aspects of the military and civilian conduct of the war he started?
Yes


although anyone who served under fire in the trenches in WWI on either side demonstrated courage.
Amen to that


Then it must have come as a great surprise to him to realise that he was losing the war in the last couple of years before he, no coward, committed suicide because he couldn’t face the reality crowding in on him as a spectacularly unsuccessful war leader.
Most probably. He thought and worked in interest of greater German empire which, had it been successful would probably have been on par or stronger than US rather than being hungry communist-Bolshevik misery for 50 years in East Europe. Germany today, much reduced in size, has 40% of US GDP.


I wonder if his second to none intuition in 1939 saw that coming?
No


Plans or bullets?
many of them bullets and bombs


Do you know that Hitler liked lying under a glass table to look closely at a woman shitting, but for the glass, into his mouth?
no, where did you get that


Churchill might have been drunk for most of the war and Roosevelt was a cripple, but it looks like a drunk and a cripple will triumph over a sicko who likes being shat on, regardless of the shitee’s supposedly great abilities.
Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin had advantage of 4:1. What's your point ?


Now, my dear witman111, you come across as a Nazi fanboi, and about as ill-informed as most of your ilk. This forum is a lot more tolerant than most and some of us are happy to dispute Nazi fanboi nonsense, but there comes a point where Nazi fanboi nonsense results in fanbois being banned. It’s up to you whether you want to keep pushing to find out where that point is, but be aware that you are being watched closely by the mods.

about as ill-informed as most of your ilk
please, go ahead, try to challenge anything I have written


I have noticed a slightly larger than average amount of people posting with the seeming intention of getting banned with the Nazifanboi posts all seem to use SS names (individuals or units) or ranks. It seems to give a slight hint of their leanings.
Nether less I have a question for witman111 why did you chose that particular nic, just being nosey really but I was wondering.
Because Wittman was what allies wanted to be but simply couldn't. And no he DID NOT commit any war crimes but even displayed acts of humanity by feeding and helping wounded russian tankists - despite wearing SS insignia - think about it ?
From German inventory there is plenty to pick really, be it Ulrich Rudel or Eric Hartmann...or you name it. All performed miracles beyond belief.


Don't forget that Adolf was also a drug addict....among those he used was meth-amphetamine daily by injection. He was displaying all the common symptoms for long term abusers.
and that was last minute signal he should be removed as incapable of fulfilling his duties


Hitler didn't build anything out of nothing. Germany was already a powerful economy
That is simply not true as data on employment and GDP tells you


that would have rallied on its own
you mean like US only with higher debt to be paid. Had it not been for Hitler US would be in recession looong time.


despite the restrictions of Versailles
Right :confused:


Much of what Hitler gets credit for the groundwork was already laid by the Wiemar Republic. In fact, rearmament was inevitable and may well have been more ably carried out under a more democratic or more efficient authoritarian regime albeit under a more prolonged period. It was in fact already happening by the late 1920s...
Before Hitler there was disaster and that's why he won elections in 1933.


Yes. He had a penchant for taking men who were mostly failures in other aspects of their lives, devoid of real talent, and making chicken farmers into secret policemen..
While this is true can you think of anyone better than Himmler for sick job he had ?


Speer is way overrated. Most of the 'new histories' paint him as a cynical opportunist often taking credit for others' work.
No he isn't. 38000 planes in 1944 against 3 times less in 1941 ?


It didn't work all that well at Stalingrad, did it? Or when he wanted to attack the advancing Allies with phantom divisions?
Correct his intuition was valid until ... 1942.


he would have risen no matter what...
maybe to divisional commander at best ?


And how do you reckon he "almost defeated the Soviets?" Most sensible people with an IQ above 40 tend to see the "Rotten structure" statement as the height of hubris and folly.
Had it not been for USA and LL Soviets would have ultimately been defeated or at least in steal mate. Not only did USA gave USSR incredible amount of supplies but also has done incredible damage to Germany.Germans had what 5:1 or 10:1 in kill ratios over Russians. 90 million germans vs. what 200 million Russians.


Why does that make him "good?"
she followed him through good and bad and had to be rewarded


both civilian and military were ****ed and had to fight to the bitter end, to the death.
not so relevant for my statement. he let go his closest partners in order they save themselves while he did not even try. Stalin for example would not do this.


Adolf did get a whiff of gas--unfortunately not nearly enough--

:D:D

witman111
06-06-2011, 08:00 AM
German spending on rearmament was unsustainable, so by summer 1939 Germany could either launch a major war to seize more money/resources or would run out of money and suffer an enormous recession - potentially as bad as that of the 1930s
Well how many people here are economists ?
I certainly know for one. Actually GDP consists of personal and government spending, investments and exports-imports. and there are 2 things government can spend money: luxury or investment goods. Investment goods are expected to yield return after some time. Military classifies as luxury because it does not produce anything back aside money spent on wages and material in military industry - think of it as equivalent of buying luxury cars and jewels only slightly more dangerous.. Provided all wages and material are German no money is lost by producing military equipment as long as money does not come from foreign loans that had to be repaid and as long Germans don't mind having lesser WV cars for example due to increase in PzKmpfw I production for example.

As ore from Russia and Sweeden was mostly paid with finished military products, and as other things Germans produced themselves and were paid for by Nazi government to which they themselves paid taxes and as there were minor loans ... Germany could rearm forever. They could even sell military products and create exports too further boost other luxury spending.
What people fail to realize is that Nazis achieved incredible boosts in GDP by increase in efficiency/scale of human capital and carefully pooling scarce capital "as inputs" and could consequentially "in terms of outputs" produce far more of something ie. give more to the people via social programmes, build highways and rearm at the same time - such can be scale of well governed dictatorship.

People think democracy is best because you can oust people you elect every 5 years. However, even democracy is filled with corruption and "unholy" alliences between bank(S)ters, media moguls and politicians that distort free markets and make basically mockery of free elections. In US there are two parties who change every so often while all have their fingers dipped in same backwater sugar - I mean common who are you kidding here. Influence of US weapon companies on US foreign policy is frightening.

Well governed dictatorship can beat democracy any time of day. Look at China for example.

Rising Sun*
06-06-2011, 08:39 AM
Well how many people here are economists ?

One hopes, none.

It wasn't christened 'the dismal science' for nothing, although Carlyle in coining the term was actually complaining about the notion of market forces interfering with the right of the socially privileged to exploit labour for their own benefit.

The Nazis would have loved him.



I certainly know for one. Actually GDP consists of personal and government spending, investments and exports-imports. and there are 2 things government can spend money: luxury or investment goods. Investment goods are expected to yield return after some time. Military classifies as luxury because it does not produce anything back aside money spent on wages and material in military industry - think of it as equivalent of buying luxury cars and jewels only slightly more dangerous.. Provided all wages and material are German no money is lost by producing military equipment as long as money does not come from foreign loans that had to be repaid and as long Germans don't mind having lesser WV cars for example due to increase in PzKmpfw I production for example.

As ore from Russia and Sweeden was mostly paid with finished military products, and as other things Germans produced themselves and were paid for by Nazi government to which they themselves paid taxes and as there were minor loans ... Germany could rearm forever. They could even sell military products and create exports too further boost other luxury spending.
What people fail to realize is that Nazis achieved incredible boosts in GDP by increase in efficiency/scale of human capital and carefully pooling scarce capital "as inputs" and could consequentially "in terms of outputs" produce far more of something ie. give more to the people via social programmes, build highways and rearm at the same time - such can be scale of well governed dictatorship.

I don't know what university you attended to acquire a bastardised understanding of Economics 101, but I hope you didn't pay any money for it because you sure as hell didn't get value for money.


People think democracy is best because you can oust people you elect every 5 years. However, even democracy is filled with corruption and "unholy" alliences between bank(S)ters, media moguls and politicians that distort free markets and make basically mockery of free elections. In US there are two parties who change every so often while all have their fingers dipped in same backwater sugar - I mean common who are you kidding here. Influence of US weapon companies on US foreign policy is frightening.

You are confusing free elections, where all people can vote, with electioneering, which is what those seeking election to office do. As, indeed, Hitler and the Nazis did to get into power.


Well governed dictatorship can beat democracy any time of day. Look at China for example.

1. Name one well-governed dictatorship.
2. Specify the criteria which make it well-governed.
2. Name some well-governed dictatorships which have had a military or any other major victory over a democracy.
3. Describe how China (a) is well-governed; (b) is a dictatorship; (c) has beaten a democracy; and (d) explain the fact that without the substantial contribution of English-speaking democracies before and during WWII to China's war with Japan then China would not exist in its present, or probably any, form.

Rising Sun*
06-06-2011, 09:29 AM
Which in no way changes what you quoted...

You mean that he's usually portrayed as an evil demon?

I wonder why that might be?



1. Nowdays, media create history.

Really?

But even if that is now so, was it the case 1923-45?

Isn't it possible that professional historians might have a little influence on the interpretation of past events, which we commonly call history?


They tell one thing and forgot thew other. For example, Russian dead - 0 minutes, deaths in British colonies - 0 minutes, genocide over American indians - 0 minutes, enemies of Jews 100% minutes etc. This is my perception as independent viewer.

My perception of that as an independent viewer is that I have no idea what you're trying to say.


2. I don't know why somebody would want to portray him as a greatest man ever.
But he certainly started big events which costed him his life and that of others as well. No doubt he become nuisance to imperial powers but for Germans - I think it is safe to say they lived better under dictatorship (destruction does not count as falling bombs are result of declaring war on too many nations rather than domestic economic policies) than after Versailles or 1950s when they still wore wooden shoes :).

It's a bit of a revelation that Germans post-WWII aren't better off than they were under Hitler, and notably 1943-45 when their country was steadily pounded into submission by the Allies from the East and West. Could you demonstrate how it is that, say, people in Dresden or Hamburg or Berlin are worse off now than they were 1943-45?



I forgot to mention 3 other things:
1) he was gifted artist - look on you tube
2) he designed VW beatle car
3) he invented highways

If you seriously believe any of that, and some of your subsequent drivel that doesn't merit a response, you have no place in a serious historical discussion.

If you don't believe any of that, you are just a troll who has no place in the forum.

Either way, those idiotic statements combined with your other ill-informed provocative statements are getting you very close to an involuntary exit from this forum.

This is a formal moderator's warning to reinforce previous informal moderators' warnings given to you: Post more of this nonsense and you will be banned, without further warning.

Or, given your love of dictatorships over democracies, I might just exercise my arbitrary dictatorial power and ban you because you look or sound like a Jew, Gypsy, Russian, other Slav, homosexual, mentally retarded person (for which there is ample evidence from your posts), or sundry other groups determined by the Nazis as worthy of extermination.

You've just about run your race. You decide how it ends.

leccy
06-06-2011, 11:36 AM
wittman111


Because Wittman was what allies wanted to be but simply couldn't. And no he DID NOT commit any war crimes but even displayed acts of humanity by feeding and helping wounded russian tankists - despite wearing SS insignia - think about it ?
From German inventory there is plenty to pick really, be it Ulrich Rudel or Eric Hartmann...or you name it. All performed miracles beyond belief.

The reason I asked was because he seems to be the most picked German tank ace despite not being the most prolific. Kurt Knispel a Wehrmacht NCO (Feldwebel) born in the Sudetanland had 168 confirmed kills but did not seem popular with the Nazi ruling class.

5518



Originally Posted by witman111
I forgot to mention 3 other things:
1) he was gifted artist - look on you tube
2) he designed VW beatle car
3) he invented highways

The VW Beetle was designed by Erwin Komenda, Porsches Chief Designer not Hitler.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, personally I think he was adequate for cheap tourist stuff but not very good otherwise, some of his work is little more than daubings. The styles of some seem so different that it lends a huge amount of credence to the claims that many paintings and drawings around now are forgeries especially as he personally rarely mentions them.

Iron Yeoman
06-06-2011, 12:12 PM
Well f**k me sideways, which nuthouse did you crawl out of? Obviously the Boys from Brazil wasn't a work of fiction.

Picking up on some of the barking quotes
'They tell one thing and forgot thew other. For example, Russian dead - 0 minutes, deaths in British colonies - 0 minutes, genocide over American indians - 0 minutes, enemies of Jews 100% minutes etc. This is my perception as independent viewer.'

Good gracious, are you devoid of all news sources? There are plenty of television progammes and books on Russian casualties. Again, there are stories abound of Kenyans queuing up for compo from HM Gov. As for the the phrase 'enemies of Jews' it causes alarm bells to start ringing in my head, you're not a member of Aryan pride et al are you?

And then there's this one
'2. I don't know why somebody would want to portray him as a greatest man ever.
But he certainly started big events which costed him his life (unlucky:lol: ) and that of others as well. No doubt he become nuisance to imperial powers but for Germans - I think it is safe to say they lived better under dictatorship (destruction does not count as falling bombs are result of declaring war on too many nations rather than domestic economic policies) than after Versailles or 1950s when they still wore wooden shoes .'

Whilst considering how better off the Germans were under Hitler, why don't we consider how worse off every other bugger was, the Austrians, Czechs, French, Poles etc etc now they had a REALLY fun time as part of Hitler's 3rd Reich paradise.

I'm hoping you're a wind-up because seriously no-one, and I mean no-one other than a shaven headed, knuckle dragging neo-nazi thinks Hitler had any good points.

pdf27
06-06-2011, 12:41 PM
Actually GDP consists of personal and government spending, investments and exports-imports.
Wow, you've looked up Wikipedia and read the definition. Congratulations.


and there are 2 things government can spend money: luxury or investment goods. Investment goods are expected to yield return after some time. Military classifies as luxury because it does not produce anything back aside money spent on wages and material in military industry - think of it as equivalent of buying luxury cars and jewels only slightly more dangerous...
Hence my comment about rearmament causing problems for the German economy. The money spent on rearmament was money taken from somewhere else - either through taxation (removing it from the private sector), borrowing (requiring repayment with interest in future) or printing money (devaluing the existing money supply and increasing the likelihood of inflation). All three cause problems for the economy, particularly the former.


Provided all wages and material are German no money is lost by producing military equipment as long as money does not come from foreign loans that had to be repaid and as long Germans don't mind having lesser WV cars for example due to increase in PzKmpfw I production for example.
This is where it becomes evident that you really don't know anything about economics. Ever heard of the multiplier effect? See http://www.cnmi-guide.com/info/essays/economics/33.html for a good introduction. The problem with military spending is that you are taking resources away from something that could be used in future to make more money (e.g. retooling a factory) and spending it on something that will make a loud bang and in the process destroy the accumulated wealth. The German rearmament was largely funded with deficit spending, thus it gave a short term boost to the economy as predicted by Keynes. However, because what they spent the money on by and large was unproductive (military equipment, etc.) after a while they ran out of money to borrow and, having not improved the productivity of the economy in the process, had no real chance of getting more. Hence the decision to steal it before the German economy imploded.


As ore from Russia and Sweeden was mostly paid with finished military products, and as other things Germans produced themselves and were paid for by Nazi government to which they themselves paid taxes and as there were minor loans ... Germany could rearm forever.
Nope. Not only does this violate the laws of Economics, this violates the laws of physics. You are suggesting that a discrete unit - the German economy - can perpetually output weapons for a smaller input than output. That's exactly akin to a perpetual motion machine - and suffers the same problem. Military production takes money out of the economy and diverts it to non-productive purposes. In most cases, there is sufficient money in the economy that this comes across as a small reduction in growth. However, when this value gets large then the economy simply can't take it. For the financial year 1938-39, government spending in Germany was 33.5% of GDP, of which 46% went on rearmament. In other words, every year 15% of the value of the economy was being taken out of it and pretty much buried in a hole in the ground. During a phenomenal boom, perhaps, an economy could support this for a while on a peacetime footing. The Soviet Union managed to sustain this for some time by essentially operating on a wartime footing. The way the German economy was structured, it couldn't. The Nazis didn't even pretend to fund this in the long term - from about 1933 onwards government spending exceeded income by about 50%. If you think that's a sustainable way to run an economy, I suggest you spend 50% more than your income and see how far that gets you


They could even sell military products and create exports too further boost other luxury spending.
They could. Alternatively, they could sell something else and do the same. Exports are pretty much irrelevant here - you've got to export something to pay for your imports, and if you're only making military equipment then that's what you've got to export. Since German military equipment wasn't (at the time) all that highly regarded, then they will have got a lower price than they would have if they had concentrated on those products which were and still are highly regarded - machine tools, ball bearings and the like.


What people fail to realize is that Nazis achieved incredible boosts in GDP by increase in efficiency/scale of human capital and carefully pooling scarce capital "as inputs" and could consequentially "in terms of outputs" produce far more of something ie. give more to the people via social programmes, build highways and rearm at the same time - such can be scale of well governed dictatorship.
Nice idea. Shame it's total bollocks. From 1929-38, German productivity (i.e. the economic value of each hour worked - this is the foundation of all true economic growth as opposed to Keynesian stimulus) grew by about 1.3% per year. Britain grew at about twice this rate. This is further evidence that your claim above is untrue, and in fact the German economy was being fuelled by deficit spending in this period.


Well governed dictatorship can beat democracy any time of day. Look at China for example.
China has achieved it's growth by adopting the economic freedoms of the West without their political freedoms. Other countries have done the same in the past (notably South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Chile). This works - for a while - but there are two problems with it.
1) When the economic growth stops, the people hold the government fully responsible and are frequently quite violent about it.
2) Economic freedom brings the wish for political freedom. Revolutions aren't led by those with nothing, but those who have something and want more.
That being said, I think the Chinese government are planning to gradually introduce political freedoms to their country from the bottom up. The long Confucian history of China also helps here - expectations are different from those with a Graeco-Roman heritage.

horst
06-06-2011, 04:19 PM
[QUOTE=Rising Sun*;178124]
Do you know that Hitler liked lying under a glass table to look closely at a woman shitting, but for the glass, into his mouth?

If this is a joke you should use any of this :) :D ;) :mrgreen: otherwise mention a credible source.

horst
06-06-2011, 05:03 PM
Further, according to more recent information postulated by historical tv shows, (and written of in other threads here) he had been suffering from late stage Syphilis. A true Paragon of all Human virtue...
Would you please mention a source to endorse this statement.

tankgeezer
06-06-2011, 07:45 PM
Would you please mention a source to endorse this statement.

How convenient the timing of you to showing up horst,Valhalla must be a small place.

Here is one citation, there are reams of them on the net, so peruse them as you might wish.
The Royal College Of Psychiatrists Annual Meeting
Edinburgh International Conference Centre
19-22 June 2007

Rising Sun*
06-06-2011, 08:36 PM
Do you know that Hitler liked lying under a glass table to look closely at a woman shitting, but for the glass, into his mouth?

If this is a joke you should use any of this :) :D ;) :mrgreen: otherwise mention a credible source.

From memory, it's in here http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Adolf-Hitler-Secret-Wartime/dp/0465046207

EDIT: BTW, it was his niece, Geli Raubal who had to squat over his face and shit for his pleasure. And some people say there was nothing wrong with Hitler!

Nickdfresh
06-06-2011, 10:10 PM
Firtsly, for the love of God, please respond to individual posters individually, or at least list the user name as appropriate. That's only only considerate to those you're debating with...


....

Because Wittman was what allies wanted to be but simply couldn't. And no he DID NOT commit any war crimes but even displayed acts of humanity by feeding and helping wounded russian tankists - despite wearing SS insignia - think about it ?...

I don't know of any war-crimes related to Wittman, he probably didn't commit any and seemed for the most part to have been an honorable fellow from what I've read. But, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "(he) was what the Allies wanted to be by simply couldn't?" What was he? There are several, including German historians that criticize his command as essentially irresponsible and short-sighted. That is, he has some tactical successes, but those successes were undermined by his "lone wolf" actions that were essentially strategically and operationally irrelevant at best, and possibly undermined a cohesive defense of his sector...

Secondly, Wittman's Panzer Mark VI was shot to pieces along with between two and four other Tigers by Canadian and British tankers essentially sucking him into an ambush. And five Tiger tanks may not seem like all that much, but considering there were only around 90 in Normandy at the time, it was actually a major blow...


That is simply not true as data on employment and GDP tells you

By all means, post it! Germany was still one of the top industrialized countries in Europe once they sorted out all of the post war chaos. The employment and GDP figures are largely dependent on the world economy and not which regime was in power at whatever time...


you mean like US only with higher debt to be paid. Had it not been for Hitler US would be in recession looong time.


Um, WTF are you talking about here? Please be specific?


Right :confused:

Indeed...



Before Hitler there was disaster and that's why he won elections in 1933.

Before Hitler, there was a worldwide depression exacerbated in Germany by Versailles. And he DIDN'T win the elections of 1932, Hindenburg did (by a landslide). Hitler was APPOINTED as chancellor...


While this is true can you think of anyone better than Himmler for sick job he had ?

Probably Reinhard Heydrich. He was a sick ****, and without all of the occultism crap...


No he isn't. 38000 planes in 1944 against 3 times less in 1941 ?

You do realize that without the planning of 1941, there aren't 38K planes in 1944, right?


Correct his intuition was valid until ... 1942.

No. Actually, I pointed out--and you ignored--that his intuition was sort of shitty in 1939 as he wanted to attack France (predictably) through Belgium. Hitler's "intuition" was only effective if balanced by a Greek chorus of dissenting Heer officers goading him to a patient, balanced decision. Fall Gelb was the last time that this was achieved, the last time a agreement was forged out under duress of conservative and progressive German generals. Operation Barbarossa would be the exact opposite. A Nazi regime imposing its ideological rantings onto the backs of pragmatists, and crushing their realism with fantasy. Something you've quite echoed here actually...


maybe to divisional commander at best ?

Why? He made his reputation in France leading the "Ghost division." He also was notable for his actions in Italy in WWI...



And how do you reckon he "almost defeated the Soviets?" Most sensible people with an IQ above 40 tend to see the "Rotten structure" statement as the height of hubris and folly.
Had it not been for USA and LL Soviets would have ultimately been defeated or at least in steal mate. Not only did USA gave USSR incredible amount of supplies but also has done incredible damage to Germany.Germans had what 5:1 or 10:1 in kill ratios over Russians. 90 million germans vs. what 200 million Russians.

Um, the Soviets did indeed receive huge amounts of American aid. But the Battles of Moscow and Stalingrad were won with little aid. And kill ratios are pretty easily manipulated like any statistics as "damn lies." Speaking of which, I suspect that your population figures are way off.


she followed him through good and bad and had to be rewarded

So she was a birdbrained sheep that followed an impotent, homicidal maniac mainly for prestige? Let us sing her praises!



not so relevant for my statement. he let go his closest partners in order they save themselves while he did not even try. Stalin for example would not do this.

He didn't really have any choice, after seeing what befell Benito...

Iron Yeoman
06-07-2011, 12:02 PM
Just want to pick up on one of Nickdfresh's points, he said in response to wittman's assertion that there were 90 million Germans

suspect that your population figures are way off.

Habeaus corpus

http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac149/wyvern43/166567_649247401446_60501653_38219302_4489688_n.jp g

Taken from when I visited the Heeresgeschichtliches museum in Vienna. Excellent museum and one day when I can be bothered I put up all the photos I took of the WW2 section.

horst
06-07-2011, 04:43 PM
How convenient the timing of you to showing up horst,Valhalla must be a small place.

Here is one citation, there are reams of them on the net, so peruse them as you might wish.
The Royal College Of Psychiatrists Annual Meeting
Edinburgh International Conference Centre
19-22 June 2007

About Hitler alleged disease:

That theory supported by 'ample circumstantial?? evidence though no final proof', according to a team led by Dr Bassem Habeeb, a psychiatrist at Hollins Park Hospital Warrington, in a paper presented to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual meeting in Edinburgh.

There has been speculation that Hitler had the infection since his personal doctor, Theo Morrell expressed his own suspicion?? in his private diary. But the theory has never been rigorously examined, say the researchers.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/74776.php

So Hitler’s personal doctor only had suspicions on that matter??

At least a very weak biased argument

horst
06-07-2011, 04:48 PM
From memory, it's in here http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Adolf-Hitler-Secret-Wartime/dp/0465046207

EDIT: BTW, it was his niece, Geli Raubal who had to squat over his face and shit for his pleasure. And some people say there was nothing wrong with Hitler!

I will quote some fragments of Hitler’s Psychological Analysis which is mentioned here:

First it started with this:

The world has come to know Adolph Hitler for his insatiable greed for power, his ruthlessness, cruelty and utter lack-of feeling, his contempt for established institutions and his lack of moral restraints….

Sounds more like a political harangue than a Psychological Analysis
Then some pearls like this one:

“ From what we know about his mother's excessive cleanliness and tidiness we may assume that she employed rather stringent measures during the toilet training period of her children. This usually results in a residual tension in this area and is regarded by the child as a severe frustration which arouses feelings of hostility. This facilitates an alliance with his infantile aggression which finds an avenue for expression through anal activities and fantasies. These usually center around soiling, humiliation and destruction, and form the basis of a sadistic character.”

So cleanliness and tidiness of his mother caused such a perversion.... we are all good candidates to suffer from a sadistic character then. What a brilliant conclusion!
The “analysis”, as an example of Hitler’s fixation with anal activities and fantasies quotes Hitler saying:

"Charity is sometimes actually comparable to the manure which is spread on the field, not out of love for the latter, but out of precaution for one's own benefit later on."

Hell of an evidence!!
Finally we got to the point, Gelly is quoted writing or saying to the holly spirit maybe because there is no sources, no witnesses at all the following:

. In her description of sexual experiences with Hitler, Geli stressed the fact that it was of the utmost importance to him that she squat over him in such a way that he could see everything.

I don’t know if this Walter C. Langer suffered of coprofhilia himself, or maybe was paid to put his knowledge to make up the most disgusting and perverted theories I’ve ever read about Hitler or if he was plainly retarded but I’m sure it is not worthy of being cited as a credible source in a respectable forum as this one.

leccy
06-07-2011, 05:32 PM
An encounter with a Jewish prostitute in Vienna in 1908 may have given Hitler neuro-syphilis and provided the 'deadly logic and blueprint for the Holocaust' as well as giving him a reason to attempt to eliminate the mentally retarded, according to evidence presented at the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

That theory supported by 'ample circumstantial evidence though no final proof', according to a team led by Dr Bassem Habeeb, a psychiatrist at Hollins Park Hospital Warrington, in a paper presented to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual meeting in Edinburgh.

There has been speculation that Hitler had the infection since his personal doctor, Theo Morrell expressed his own suspicion in his private diary. But the theory has never been rigorously examined, say the researchers.

'But if Hitler's life is looked at through the lens of a syphilis diagnosis, one clue leads to another until a pattern of infection and progressive infection emerges, a disease that may have defined him from youth as an outsider and that progressively ravaged his body and mind.

Hitler put syphilis high on his political agenda, devoting 13 pages to the disease in Mein Kampf. The job of 'combating syphilis… the Jewish disease… should be the task of the entire German nation,' he wrote. 'The health of the nation will be regained only by eliminating the Jews'.

According to Dr Theophanous, Hitler's bizarre belief that syphilis was a hereditary disease that was originated and propagated by the Jews and resulted in insanity and mental retardation' could be the reason he attempted to eliminate the mentally retarded.

His doctor, Theo Morrell noted his Parkinson's disease, severe gastric crises, skin lesions and violent mood swings as evidence that he had contracted syphilis - as well as 'sudden criminal behaviour, paranoia, grandiosity and mania, all of which changes show in cases of neuro-syphilis.

The Royal College Of Psychiatrists Annual Meeting
Edinburgh International Conference Centre
19-22 June 2007
www.rcpsych.ac.uk

tankgeezer
06-07-2011, 07:19 PM
About Hitler alleged disease:

That theory supported by 'ample circumstantial?? evidence though no final proof', according to a team led by Dr Bassem Habeeb, a psychiatrist at Hollins Park Hospital Warrington, in a paper presented to the Royal College of Psychiatrists' annual meeting in Edinburgh.

There has been speculation that Hitler had the infection since his personal doctor, Theo Morrell expressed his own suspicion?? in his private diary. But the theory has never been rigorously examined, say the researchers.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/74776.php

So Hitler’s personal doctor only had suspicions on that matter??

At least a very weak biased argument

I had said "according to more recent information postulated by historical tv shows" which makes my citation accurate.And thats about all the Citation the subject deserves, if you must have more, do visit the net, there is plenty to look at. Does it trouble you Herr Horst, that the object of your shining fascination could be a syphilitic coprophiliac ?

Rising Sun*
06-07-2011, 09:10 PM
I don’t know if this Walter C. Langer suffered of coprofhilia himself, or maybe was paid to put his knowledge to make up the most disgusting and perverted theories I’ve ever read about Hitler or if he was plainly retarded but I’m sure it is not worthy of being cited as a credible source in a respectable forum as this one.

Bear in mind that Langer was the lead author for the work of a team. I suppose you'd write that off as evidence of a conspiracy, as you probably will an independent study which came to the same conclusions about Hitler being unable to engage in normal heterosexual relations, preferring instead to lie under a cascade of lady poo to get his jollies. http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/Hitler/upload/Vol_XC_Sec_1.pdf pp.18-19

Remember also that Langer and Murray didn't 'make up the most disgusting and perverted theories' you’ve ever read about Hitler but that their analyses were based on all the information available from a range of sources, and that the Geli Raubal affair occurred long before Hitler was able to control the flow of information in Germany.

I don't see why you're so upset about Hitler's sexual inadequacy, coprophagia and masochism. They’re almost commendable characteristics compared with most of the rest of what he did.

A bit of being shat upon in private by a female relative for personal sexual gratification isn't inherently evil or even bad, just sick. If he'd confined himself to being shat on by lady friends rather than trying to shit on the rest of the world, the world could have avoided all the deaths, destruction and suffering he caused.

Something that seems to have been ignored in the studies is the part his funny little moustache played in his coprophagia. Maybe it operated as a catcher. Or it could have been a flavour saver.

Something else that has been ignored in the studies is the glaringly obvious relationship between Hitler's love of shit and the choice of brown for the brownshits. Sorry, brownshirts. He must have got off big time at the rallies with a sea of adoring, obedient people covered in shit-coloured clothes, which was clearly a metaphor for Hitler’s yearning to be covered in lady shit.

Hitler also had an unhealthy obsession with his own shit (of the faeces variety, not his shithouse conduct towards other people), which is reflected in this rare archival footage. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f6e58ff7ce/hitler-loses-his-mind-over-poop-the-world-iphone-app

I'm wondering if Hitler was the inspiration for the phrase 'shit eating grin'?

tankgeezer
06-07-2011, 10:38 PM
Quote: "I'm wondering if Hitler was the inspiration for the phrase 'shit eating grin'? "

You be the judge,,,,

Rising Sun*
06-07-2011, 11:44 PM
Quote: "I'm wondering if Hitler was the inspiration for the phrase 'shit eating grin'? "

You be the judge,,,,

:mrgreen:

pdf27
06-08-2011, 01:15 AM
Not you too :shock:

burp
06-08-2011, 04:25 AM
As he is usually portray as evil demon let's skip media campaign and dig deeper, shall we.
Pros:
1. He rallied German people, economy and created powerful country - so very good manager.
Just two things:
- the problem for Germany is Versailles treaty and first years after WWI, with founds needed for reconstruction, Hitler ignores the first problem and take profit for economic strategy of Weimar republic;
- Hitler makes some moves, like kill people with serious illness and steal Jewish properties, that dope the Germany economy;


2. He had gift for selecting right people for right job. For example it is difficult to find better man for propaganda than Goebels, better man for secret police and execution than Himmler, better minister of war time economy than Speer. Not to mention he HANDPICKED Rommel and Manstein from relative anonymity and propelled them into limelight as field marshals! [B]This was perhaps his biggest asset.
Rommel, one of the best tactician, was put in forced medical retirement because he said the true, African theater was doomed by mistake of Hitler.
Adolf Galland, one of best Luftwaffe General, was put in forced retirement because he said the true, Reich air defense are doomed by mistake of Hitler and Goering.

In any case, sure, Hitler makes at the beginning of war some right choices again all odds. For example when he orders to attack Poland he knows that if France attacks German are doomed.
Anyways Hitler lives in his court of of lackes and pages. If someone try to say something, this person will be relieved from his duty, regardless if he has absolutely right or he is necessary for war.
Some of the most brilliant weapon of WWII, like Stg. 44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_44), must be developed in secret from Hitler, because he is ignorant, doesn't know modern weapons and doesn't understand it. He like huge toys because they are huge, for example the waste of resources Mouse tank, or get a good weapon and transform it in waste of money, like Me-262 fighter used as Jabo.

He sure have good qualities, there is no questions about it. You cannot create a nation of fanatics without great qualities of civil leader. At the start of war he makes the right choices. But every choice he made is a a gamble with the future of his entire country. Sure the duty of a nation leader is exactly this, take choice for his nation. But when the war created by himself turns on bad, he wasn't able to sustain his duty of military chief while he doesn't want to admit it and punish everyone that try to say it. In 1944 a lot of high officials know that war is lost without hopes. Hitler cannot not know this true. But he is crazy. He prefers to destroy his "beloved" Germany instead to admit that his dream of 1000 years reich was ruined by Allies bombs, like the German cities that he wasn't able to protect.

SpaceofSpades
06-08-2011, 08:06 PM
Hello all. I have originally had no plans of registering to post, I prefer to simply read what everybody has to share, but I could not help but make my own thoughts clear, as they have yet to be pointed out. I observe here Wittman111 having sparked a albeit controversial topic, but it was not his post that has repulsed me. Rather, it is the great pool of hypocrisy. I see moderators speaking of banning Wittman111 simply for pointing out pros and cons of a certain notoriously evil man? Is this not Nazi-like behavior in itself? What happened to free speech and expression of ones thoughts? This IS a forum relating to all relevant study of WW2, is it not? From what I have read here, atleast 80% of what Wittman111 has said, is true. The other 20%, I do not know.. I am obviously not one of these "Nazi-fanboys", yet my rebuttal will probably be met with contempt and ignorance, as I have witnessed a great deal of that here. Wittman111, I stand behind you and confide in your speech, you are NOT in the wrong here. Good day to you all.

tankgeezer
06-08-2011, 08:52 PM
Quote:"I am obviously not one of these "Nazi-fanboys", yet my rebuttal will probably be met with contempt and ignorance, "

No contempt or ignorance for you space shovel,, I think you already have more than you can use. But since you're a spammer, you do get banned, although we may leave your post up for our member's amusement.

Rising Sun*
06-08-2011, 09:58 PM
I observe here Wittman111 having sparked a albeit controversial topic, but it was not his post that has repulsed me. Rather, it is the great pool of hypocrisy. I see moderators speaking of banning Wittman111 simply for pointing out pros and cons of a certain notoriously evil man? Is this not Nazi-like behavior in itself?

No. It's maintaining forum standards, including denying crypto-Nazis access to the forum when they post pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler or anti-Semitic drivel under the smokescreen of legitimate historical discussion.


What happened to free speech and expression of ones thoughts?

See above.


yet my rebuttal will probably be met with ... ignorance

Not from the mods, as in this thread the ignorance emanates from wittman111 and horst.

Nickdfresh
06-09-2011, 05:32 AM
Someone's been a very bad boy, SpadeofDouche:

http://www.google.com/search?q=64.255.180.85&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1MOZA_en___US401

http://www.stopforumspam.com/ipcheck/64.255.180.85

horst
06-10-2011, 11:49 AM
Bear in mind that Langer was the lead author for the work of a team. I suppose you'd write that off as evidence of a conspiracy, as you probably will an independent study which came to the same conclusions about Hitler being unable to engage in normal heterosexual relations, preferring instead to lie under a cascade of lady poo to get his jollies. http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/Hitler/upload/Vol_XC_Sec_1.pdf pp.18-19

Remember also that Langer and Murray didn't 'make up the most disgusting and perverted theories' you’ve ever read about Hitler but that their analyses were based on all the information available from a range of sources, and that the Geli Raubal affair occurred long before Hitler was able to control the flow of information in Germany.

I don't see why you're so upset about Hitler's sexual inadequacy, coprophagia and masochism. They’re almost commendable characteristics compared with most of the rest of what he did.

A bit of being shat upon in private by a female relative for personal sexual gratification isn't inherently evil or even bad, just sick. If he'd confined himself to being shat on by lady friends rather than trying to shit on the rest of the world, the world could have avoided all the deaths, destruction and suffering he caused.

Something that seems to have been ignored in the studies is the part his funny little moustache played in his coprophagia. Maybe it operated as a catcher. Or it could have been a flavour saver.

Something else that has been ignored in the studies is the glaringly obvious relationship between Hitler's love of shit and the choice of brown for the brownshits. Sorry, brownshirts. He must have got off big time at the rallies with a sea of adoring, obedient people covered in shit-coloured clothes, which was clearly a metaphor for Hitler’s yearning to be covered in lady shit.

Hitler also had an unhealthy obsession with his own shit (of the faeces variety, not his shithouse conduct towards other people), which is reflected in this rare archival footage. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f6e58ff7ce/hitler-loses-his-mind-over-poop-the-world-iphone-app

I'm wondering if Hitler was the inspiration for the phrase 'shit eating grin'?

Some quotes from the “source” that RS has mentioned:
http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/Hitler/upload/Vol_XC_Sec_1.pdf

as a boy of
twelve, Hitler was caught engaging in some sexual
experiment with a little girl (I was caught doing the same once:oops::oops:); and later he seems
to have developed a syphilophobia, with a diffuse
fear of contamination of the blood through contact
with a woman.

In other section:

and yet ,
Hitler himself is impotent He is unmarried (?) and his old acquaintances say that he is incapable of consummating the sexual act in a normal fashion.

If Hitler suffered from syphilophobia with a “diffuse fear of contamination of the blood through contact with a woman” and was impotent (since he is unmarried) and unable of consummating the sexual act in a normal fashion then, how on earth did he get syphilis from a prostitute in 1908??

The following quote from this “analysis” give us a good idea about the credibility of this “source” which seems to be a work developed by a real psychopath and a masterpiece of hate and racism :

In treating the Germans psychologically we must
realize that we are dealing with a nation suffering
from paranoid trends: delusions of grandeur; delusions
of persecution; profound hatred of strong opponents
and contempt of weak opponents; arrogance , suspiciousness
and envy ,aII of which has been built up as a reaction
to an age-old inferiority complex and a desire to
be appreciated.

Since the germans are the largest ethnic group in America, they are spitting at the sky…….

horst
06-10-2011, 12:02 PM
I had said "according to more recent information postulated by historical tv shows" which makes my citation accurate.And thats about all the Citation the subject deserves, if you must have more, do visit the net, there is plenty to look at. Does it trouble you Herr Horst, that the object of your shining fascination could be a syphilitic coprophiliac ?

TV Shows…. you mean like Desperate Housewives:):)?
It is supposed to be your duty to provide reliable sources to support your statements.
It has been demonstrated here that about the “ample circumstantial evidence” on Hitler alleged disease, there is not even the slightest, remote and single clue.
Nevertheless , I will give some examples of great men who had syphilis:
Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Franz Schubert, Oscar Wilde, Van Gogh, Henry VIII, Sir Randolph Churchill…, here it is relevant to make a quote:
Congenital syphilis may occur during pregnancy or during the birth process. Most infants (2/3) are born without symptoms. Common symptoms that then develop over the first couple years of life include: hepatosplenomegaly (70%), rash (70%), fever (40%), neurosyphylis (20%), pneumonitis (20%) If untreated late congenital syphilis may occur in 40% including: saddle nose deformation, Higoumenakis sign, saber shin, or Clutton's joints among others.
Maybe a good explanation for the dreadful consecuences in his offspring.

5524




http://www.historyking.com/Famous-people/Famous-People-Who-Died-Of-Syphilis.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis

Rising Sun*
06-11-2011, 08:14 AM
If Hitler suffered from syphilophobia with a “diffuse fear of contamination of the blood through contact with a woman” and was impotent (since he is unmarried) and unable of consummating the sexual act in a normal fashion then, how on earth did he get syphilis from a prostitute in 1908??

Probably the same way that a married mate of mine got HIV from homosexual encounters in public toilets during a couple of decades of marriage without his wife or kids or anyone else close to him knowing that he was trawling poofter beats for anonymous arse sex.

Just because someone has a particular sexual orientation or proclivity doesn't mean they haven't tried other forms of sexual expression.

There is compelling evidence from analysis of historical records that Hitler did not have syphilis, based on the diary of one of his doctors, Theodor Morell, who recorded that blood tests showed no evidence of it. You can find this in the entirely reliable and utterly unbiased analysis by an outstanding professional historian entitled The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor.. You can read it here http://www.whitehonor.com/Morell.pdf . Don't pay too much attention to the site name 'whitehonor' or to the swastika which precedes its site address, or to the fact that the outstanding professional historian is David Irving. They are just distractions from the ineluctable truth contained in Irving's work.

I can't imaging why anyone would think that Hitler had the pox, even if he chose Morell as his doctor when Morell was an established specialist in venereal diseases.


The following quote from this “analysis” give us a good idea about the credibility of this “source” which seems to be a work developed by a real psychopath and a masterpiece of hate and racism :

In treating the Germans psychologically we must
realize that we are dealing with a nation suffering
from paranoid trends: delusions of grandeur; delusions
of persecution; profound hatred of strong opponents
and contempt of weak opponents; arrogance , suspiciousness
and envy ,aII of which has been built up as a reaction
to an age-old inferiority complex and a desire to
be appreciated.

Seems like a fair appreciation of the national victim complex Hitler and his ilk built up to reinforce the Nazis' right to reclaim their national and mystical Nordic heritage and persecute the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and everyone else who wasn't like what they wanted Germany to be (which was blue-eyed, blonde, etc, which was everything Hitler and his main henchmen weren't).


Since the germans are the largest ethnic group in America, they are spitting at the sky…….

What is the relevance of Americans of ancient German descent to the crimes of Hitler and the Nazis?

Rising Sun*
06-11-2011, 08:31 AM
TV Shows…. you mean like Desperate Housewives:):)?
It is supposed to be your duty to provide reliable sources to support your statements.
It has been demonstrated here that about the “ample circumstantial evidence” on Hitler alleged disease, there is not even the slightest, remote and single clue.
Nevertheless , I will give some examples of great men who had syphilis:
Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Franz Schubert, Oscar Wilde, Van Gogh, Henry VIII, Sir Randolph Churchill…, here it is relevant to make a quote:
Congenital syphilis may occur during pregnancy or during the birth process. Most infants (2/3) are born without symptoms. Common symptoms that then develop over the first couple years of life include: hepatosplenomegaly (70%), rash (70%), fever (40%), neurosyphylis (20%), pneumonitis (20%) If untreated late congenital syphilis may occur in 40% including: saddle nose deformation, Higoumenakis sign, saber shin, or Clutton's joints among others.
Maybe a good explanation for the dreadful consecuences in his offspring.

5524


Nice picture of a syphilitic head taken from wiki, but the wiki one doesn't have the Churchillian bow tie and cigar. Cute photoshopping, which tells us all we need to know about where your sympathies lie.

It must really get up your arse that Churchill with all his syphilitic deformities defeated the pure, noble, vegetarian and virgin Hitler, who took the coward's way out after getting his niece to shit on him years earlier.

This shows that shit sticks for years after the event.

leccy
06-11-2011, 08:36 AM
Originally Posted by horst
Since the germans are the largest ethnic group in America, they are spitting at the sky…….


All figures come from the U.S. Census Bureau Report issued in June 2004

This is a self reported and unverifiable claim. In 10 years from 1990 to 2000 there was a drop of 15 million people claiming to have German heritage while the population grew in the same period by nearly 33 million.

It relies on what people claim and so can not be checked. The race selection as used by the census Bureau is rather more general.

The race item provides the primary source of data for White, Black, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian groups, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander groups. The Hispanic-origin question is the primary identifier for Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and other Hispanic groups.

Nickdfresh
06-11-2011, 11:35 AM
...
The following quote from this “analysis” give us a good idea about the credibility of this “source” which seems to be a work developed by a real psychopath and a masterpiece of hate and racism :

In treating the Germans psychologically we must
realize that we are dealing with a nation suffering
from paranoid trends: delusions of grandeur; delusions
of persecution; profound hatred of strong opponents
and contempt of weak opponents; arrogance , suspiciousness
and envy ,aII of which has been built up as a reaction
to an age-old inferiority complex and a desire to
be appreciated.

That's not racism. Ethnocentrism, perhaps, but not quite racist. This is mainly because he's talking about Germans' collective and national identity sociologically and not as a separate and distinct race with inherent characteristics inferior from other European white people, including Germany's principle historical adversary France, which to my understanding are pretty close to Germans as racially Caucasian since they both came from the same kingdom...


Since the germans are the largest ethnic group in America, they are spitting at the sky…….

IMHO:

I am from a town named after Hamburgh, Germany, and further lived in a farming town (Eden) that was largely founded by, and for, German agricultural immigrants in the 1840s (I think). I'm also probably more "German-American" than most since my great-grandmother was herself a German immigrant. With that being said, I don't see myself as a "German" nor Irish-American (I'm probably mostly both Catholic and Anglican Irish than anything), and I probably can say with certainty that most European stock Americans no longer identify that much with the countries their ancestors came from. Within my lifetime even, there's been a downturn in membership of cultural heritage organizations here and although there are some exceptions with some Italian-Americans, Polish-Americans and Irish-Americans who may refer to themselves as such (being more recent white, Euro immigrants than most), I'm pretty sure that there is still a downward trend of saying one is English-American, Scots, or German and most people with the exception of the elderly probably couldn't name the current leaders or politics of the countries they may claim some ethno-affiliations with (read the idiots on the Jersey Shore cast running around with Italian flag stickers on their cars or whatever). That's not to say we don't celebrate "Octoberfest" as there is still a profound cultural influence especially when it comes to food. But few would readily self-identify themselves as much other than American nor would, say, being of Irish lineage make them share the same unique cultural proclivities of those residing in Ireland for instance. Rather, you see Irish refer to the comical, stereotypical representations of them by "Irish-Americans" as "Lucky Charms Irish" (named after a kids sugary breakfast cereal featuring a leprechaun on the front of the box) and might even resent the image of the Irish as superstitious drunken hooligans--as reenacted here every St. Patrick's Day even though the Irish national holiday is seen as more of a solemn religious day akin to Easter there IIRC...

tankgeezer
06-11-2011, 11:51 PM
Quote from horst: "TV Shows…. you mean like Desperate Housewives?"

The show was on the History channel, or the Military channel, and dealt specifically with Herr Schmutzlippe's health issues. from Parkinson's, to the effects of the gas attack, his drug regimen, and the few facts available concerning his having late stage syphilis. Now horst, do you think for one moment that there would ever, anywhere be kept a permanent record of such a diagnosis ? the utter, and complete suppression of any information not approved of, or indeed fabricated by the reichs ministry for bafflegab would have never allowed it to come to light.

Quote by horst:"It is supposed to be your duty to provide reliable sources to support your statements."

My only duty is to uphold site standards. Said standards are defined by the site administration, and the moderator staff. And then only for legitimate, and honorable exchanges of information, not those seeking to advance an agenda or obsession,or delusion. Your presumption, and flippancy presents you as being immature.

witman111
06-27-2011, 09:12 AM
First of all, I participate on this forum only to maintain my knowledge of English and to expend knowledge of ww2 if possible. Apologies for absence, I have been on leave but lets waste couple of more hours shall we...


I don't know what university you attended to acquire a bastardised understanding of Economics 101, but I hope you didn't pay any money for it because you sure as hell didn't get value for money.
you'd be surprised that much of this you could learn at Oxford/Cambridge, but than again they are ... bastardian colleges


1. Name one well-governed dictatorship.
Compare China to India, or China to Russia and try to see difference. Other would be Nazi Germany

2. Specify the criteria which make it well-governed.
1. Dramatic increase in economic/scientific/military power/capability

2. Name some well-governed dictatorships which have had a military or any other major victory over a democracy. Stupid question as there are elephant-ant ratios between Germany and Czech or between USA and Germany. Germany defeated dozens of democracies as China easily would.

Describe how China (a) is well-governed;
This is even more stupid. China's economic growth in last 10 years is most spectacular in economic history. And look at democratic India ?? Where is everything manufactured including you monitor/mini tower/keyboard and mouse ?

is a dictatorshipIs it a democracy, can you register political party ? Enough said.

has beaten a democracy stupid question let's go on.

explain the fact that without the substantial contribution of English-speaking democracies before and during WWII to China's war with Japan then China would not exist in its present, or probably any, form.Irrelevant as it was not well managed. I said well managed. Even Nazi Germany could have become mismanaged after some time I suppose.

You mean that he's usually portrayed as an evil demon?

I wonder why that might be?
I also wonder :lol:. But it would seem this forum should dig deeper, shouldn't it or are we official Allied proxy subject to CIA and MI6 control ?


Really?
But even if that is now so, was it the case 1923-45?
It is now so. Over a million Iraqi children died because of ban on food imports after 1990. But you didn't know that did you ?


Isn't it possible that professional historians might have a little influence on the interpretation of past events, which we commonly call history?
It is definitely the case. However, it is interesting why no historians, let's say analyze, the reason of wide spread hatred towards Jews ie. why where they expelled from half a dozen countries during history ? I would like to see that kind of documentary for example.


My perception of that as an independent viewer is that I have no idea what you're trying to say.
And I do. When the topic is ww2 victims one item is dominant - holocaust, although in terms of sheer numbers of victims involved it is not justified. What media shows is determined of course with that who owns the media.


It's a bit of a revelation that Germans post-WWII aren't better off than they were under Hitler, and notably 1943-45 when their country was steadily pounded into submission by the Allies from the East and West. Could you demonstrate how it is that, say, people in Dresden or Hamburg or Berlin are worse off now than they were 1943-45?
You are mixing here apples with ... bananas. Nazi economic policy is one thing and Nazi war effort is another thing. It is colorful picture with many shades of grey not black and white. Given that all major powers declared war on Germany result can't be in question, but given that Germany fought 6 years practically on it's own with 4 major powers it comes as a surprise it lasted that long.
Indeed citizens of Dresden are now better off than in 1943, because whole world is now better off than in 1943. there have been many technological advancements etc. Real question would be is Dresden now better of than it would be given Nazis continued to govern Germany to this day. Answer for Dreseden, as economy is concerned, would be that it would better off with Nazis to this day, simply because it was under Bolshevik system for 45 years thanks to Allied victory much the same as half of Europe. Additionally, according to Toozes Wages of Destruction Nazi Germany managed to get GDP back on track in 1945 ie, even in 1944 Germany was no longer in recession while great Democracy USA did not get out of recession until early 1940s. Yes, without war and within Nazi Germany including provinces Germany has apparently lost, Dresden would now be 5 times more rich than it is now. Berlin is same story only worse, Hamburg little better as it received cynical Allied help to bolster defenses against their former Allies the Russians.


If you seriously believe any of that, and some of your subsequent drivel that doesn't merit a response, you have no place in a serious historical discussion.
If you don't believe any of that, you are just a troll who has no place in the forum.
You mean Hitler did not:
- paint :shock::shock:
- sketched WV Beatle car - most produced car in history:shock::shock:
- built highways all across Germany before any other country :shock::shock:

too see how ill informed you actually are please see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loHEhCf9h34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUc0y1dT-HE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=mALbFREo-bk

There was sketch by AH of future German volks car which I can't find right now but I will.


Either way, those idiotic statements combined with your other ill-informed provocative statements are getting you very close to an involuntary exit from this forum.

I got used to this insults of yours, which are resulting from frustration of not being able to match my arguments and maybe you are overstepping your authority.
I however decline from insulting others I very much enjoyed your responses in topics on Bomber Harris, Dunkirk etc.


This is a formal moderator's warning to reinforce previous informal moderators' warnings given to you: Post more of this nonsense and you will be banned, without further warning.
After answering previous question please ban me.


Or, given your love of dictatorships over democracies, I might just exercise my arbitrary dictatorial power and ban you because you look or sound like a Jew, Gypsy, Russian, other Slav, homosexual, mentally retarded person (for which there is ample evidence from your posts), or sundry other groups determined by the Nazis as worthy of extermination.

Please quote my love for dictatorships I said they can be more efficient if well managed.
Furthermore do you know:
1) how many dictatorial regimes were supported by USA,UK
2) that UK/USA brought down Iranian democracy when suited their selfish needs
could it be that some of these fine democracies are abusing their massive economic/military/political power for someones private interest ?


You've just about run your race. You decide how it ends
Mr Goebels do what you got to do. Instruct your henchman I would prefer being shot rather than hanged. But eternal glory awaits in Valhalla :mrgreen:


Kurt Knispel a Wehrmacht NCO (Feldwebel) born in the Sudetanland had 168 confirmed kills but did not seem popular with the Nazi ruling class.
I know but Villers Bockage got my heart. Kicked entire British divisions *** !!!


Art is in the eye of the beholder, personally I think he was adequate for cheap tourist stuff
Well I would like to see someone from Kanagaroo country do better :confused:


Good gracious, are you devoid of all news sources? There are plenty of television progammes and books on Russian casualties. Again, there are stories abound of Kenyans queuing up for compo from HM Gov. As for the the phrase 'enemies of Jews' it causes alarm bells to start ringing in my head, you're not a member of Aryan pride et al are you?
Well no, but I dont understand why are bells ringing in your head.
Had I written enemies of:
- Kurds
- Armenians
- gypsies
- indians
- neanderthals
- kelts
would bells still be ringing in probably that head of yours ?
Because, imagine that all these fine stand up people faced genocide but *somehow* did not manage to LEGALIZE HEIR SUFFERINGS in slangs like Anti Semit or something like that. Use couple nerve cells of yours to try and find the reason why your bells are ringing.

witman111
06-27-2011, 09:15 AM
I'm hoping you're a wind-up because seriously no-one, and I mean no-one other than a shaven headed, knuckle dragging neo-nazi thinks Hitler had any good points.
You are hopeless case, my dear Goy. You will be fine slave one day.


Whilst considering how better off the Germans were under Hitler, why don't we consider how worse off every other bugger was, the Austrians, Czechs, French, Poles etc etc now they had a REALLY fun time as part of Hitler's 3rd Reich paradise.
do explain, will you:
- did Germany declared war on France or other way around ?
- Did Hitler want to negotiate borders with Poland on terms of public plebiscite or not ?
Austrians lived same as Germans. Invasion of Czechoslovakia is aggression without any legal ground. Much as Iraq in 2003...


And then there's this one
'2. I don't know why somebody would want to portray him as a greatest man ever.
Yes and don't forget this one:
He was genocidal maniac. Emm who wrote that I wonder ? Maybe somebody who is not trained to get diarrhea from mentioning AH but rather tries to see all shades of grey.


Wow, you've looked up Wikipedia and read the definition. Congratulations.
No, worse. I had to learn it !!!


The money spent on rearmament was money taken from somewhere else - either through taxation (removing it from the private sector), borrowing (requiring repayment with interest in future) or printing money (devaluing the existing money supply and increasing the likelihood of inflation). All three cause problems for the economy, particularly the former.

Congratulations dear. Your first attempt at economics. Did you see part about Germans don't minding having less VW cars and more tanks ?


The problem with military spending is that you are taking resources away from something that could be used in future to make more money
This I have written, you don't need binoculars yet do you my dear ?


The German rearmament was largely funded with deficit spending, thus it gave a short term boost to the economy as predicted by Keynes
All correct


However, because what they spent the money on by and large was unproductive (military equipment, etc.) after a while they ran out of money to borrow and, having not improved the productivity of the economy in the process, had no real chance of getting more
Wrong, I'll post figures from Wages of destruction. Local government spending was reduced and civilian services were reduced for sake of military expense.


Not only does this violate the laws of Economics, this violates the laws of physics. You are suggesting that a discrete unit - the German economy - can perpetually output weapons for a smaller input than output.
Part of outputs for necessary insputs outside Germany. Please view trade agreement with Russia to better illuminate your horizons.


For the financial year 1938-39, government spending in Germany was 33.5% of GDP, of which 46% went on rearmament. In other words, every year 15% of the value of the economy was being taken out of it and pretty much buried in a hole in the ground.
1) Term "Rearmament" does not mean 15% of GDP it could well be less as it was in previous years. Here you took excesive example
2) Did you mention that 15% included large stocks of raw material from Russia ie. it was not hole in the ground and obviously Germans did not mind that or to say it otherwise if it meant return of Western Prussia they were willing to accept it ?


The Nazis didn't even pretend to fund this in the long term - from about 1933 onwards government spending exceeded income by about 50%. If you think that's a sustainable way to run an economy
I don't and never said that 50% is sustainable.

Exports are pretty much irrelevant here - you've got to export something to pay for your imports, and if you're only making military equipment then that's what you've got to export.
Yes that pretty much summarizes it. And Nazis did not produce only military equipment with imports bu civilian stuff too. Do look at trade agreement with Russia to see what other side really wanted and then comment on what is good and what is not good.


From 1929-38, German productivity (i.e. the economic value of each hour worked - this is the foundation of all true economic growth as opposed to Keynesian stimulus) grew by about 1.3% per year.
Maybe, please quote your source. But you fail to take into account 2 things:
1 ) How many unemployed were employed under Nazis as additional labour inputs for overall economic growth ie. amount of goods and services delivered
2) what about capital, do you suggest it is by mispooling of scarce capital that Germany suddenly became largest economy in Europe


German economy was being fuelled by deficit spending in this period
Do tell me who bought the deficit. Somebody has to buy deficit or it resutls in hiper inflation. But somehow I don't remember hyperinflation in that period but rather in democratic period of Weimar Republic.


China has achieved it's growth by adopting the economic freedoms of the West without their political freedoms. Other countries have done the same in the past (notably South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Chile). This works - for a while - but there are two problems with it.
1) When the economic growth stops, the people hold the government fully responsible and are frequently quite violent about it.
2) Economic freedom brings the wish for political freedom. Revolutions aren't led by those with nothing, but those who have something and want more.
Well on a good day I could agree with this.


And some people say there was nothing wrong with Hitler!
I wonder who might that be, probably somebody who didn't write he was genocidal maniac.


But, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "(he) was what the Allies wanted to be by simply couldn't?"
Do you know of any ally tank crew obliterating 150 Axis tanks ?


By all means, post it!
tomorrow


Had it not been for Hitler US would be in recession looong time.
Military spending got USA out of recession with many unemployed ending up in war and with other Allies paying for USA imports while they could.


You do realize that without the planning of 1941, there aren't 38K planes in 1944, right?Maybe some less. Do tell what additional resources Germany gained in 1944 that did not exist in say ... 1942. Kill me but circumstances were lot worse in 1944 than 1942 or 1941.


No. Actually, I pointed out--and you ignored--that his intuition was sort of shitty in 1939 as he wanted to attack France (predictably) through Belgium. Hitler's "intuition" was only effective if balanced by a Greek chorus of dissenting Heer officers goading him to a patient, balanced decision
No, it was Hitler who saw genius of Case Yellow by Mabnstein. And OKH/OKW sent Manstein to east not to hear him any time soon.


Speaking of which, I suspect that your population figures are way off.
do correct than.


So she was a birdbrained sheep that followed an impotent, homicidal maniac mainly for prestige?Well I would say she was in love, easily manipulated and probably had no knowledge of such things as Holocaust. It is difficult to interpret her perspective.


Just want to pick up on one of Nickdfresh's points, he said in response to wittman's assertion that there were 90 million German
10 million more/less


No. It's maintaining forum standards, including denying crypto-Nazis access to the forum when they post pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler or anti-Semitic drivel under the smokescreen of legitimate historical discussion.
again this Anti-semitic born impulse by non Semite people. How about Anti-Indian or better still Anti-Bushman :D
I refuse to be labeled as crypto Nazi for one reason or other.


Not from the mods, as in this thread the ignorance emanates from wittman111 and horst.
dear, dear


Seems like a fair appreciation of the national victim complex Hitler and his ilk built up to reinforce the Nazis' right to reclaim their national and mystical Nordic heritage and persecute the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, and everyone else who wasn't like what they wanted Germany to be (which was blue-eyed, blonde, etc, which was everything Hitler and his main henchmen weren't).
Interesting indeed. I still prefer my slavic country to that of multi-culti crap. I visited Germany recently and boy, mythical blue goddesses are gone for good.
If I were to marry please invent time machine.

Rising Sun*
06-27-2011, 09:45 AM
After answering previous question please ban me.

Well, I could do that, but so far we haven't banned people just for being stupid and pointlessly provocative.

Your posts certainly don't raise the bar to the point that we should do it instead of just letting your posts reveal you to the world at large as a fool who can't do better than incoherent ramblings uninformed by any accurate historical knowledge or sensible analysis.

This forum allows and likes a great deal of humour. Your most recent posts are among the funniest we have ever seen. Why would we want to ban a funnyman, and especially one who wants to be a pointless martyr which would stop his funny posts?

tankgeezer
06-27-2011, 10:22 AM
Very definitely Popcorn worthy,junge Wittman. I have always enjoyed hyperbole.

leccy
06-27-2011, 11:44 AM
hmmm


sketched WV Beatle car - most produced car in history

Hitler asked Porsche to design a peoples car, it was based on ideas and some patents taken from Tatra in Czechoslovakia who sued VW.


did Germany declared war on France or other way around ?
- Did Hitler want to negotiate borders with Poland on terms of public plebiscite or not ?

Lol Hitler wished to negotiate borders with Poland, I am sure negotiating after invading works very well. Hitler kept promising he only wanted one more thing but then after getting it wanted just one more, appeasement would only go so far before even the blindest could see he was after all of Europe so of course other countries declared war on Germany.

Nickdfresh
06-27-2011, 07:59 PM
...
do explain, will you:
- did Germany declared war on France or other way around ?

Hitler invaded Poland and knew the consequences and he also abrogated the Munich Accords by seizing control of all of Czechoslovakia! But yes, feel free to tell how the poor Fuhrer was the victim of Gaulish aggression...


- Did Hitler want to negotiate borders with Poland on terms of public plebiscite or not ?

Gee, after how he lived up to the "negotiations" over Czechoslovakia, I can really see why the Poles might not have wanted to trust Hitler..


Austrians lived same as Germans. Invasion of Czechoslovakia is aggression without any legal ground. Much as Iraq in 2003...


Austria had never been part of Germany in the modern era, so they didn't just "live the same" as the Germans did. And while I was never in favor of the Iraq War, there wasn't anything "illegal" about it...
...


Wrong, I'll post figures from Wages of destruction. Local government spending was reduced and civilian services were reduced for sake of military expense.

Of course. Please cite the specific pages though. Because from what I've read in Wages, much of it has passed well over your head as you seem to have difficulty seeing the forest through the trees...
...

Do you know of any ally tank crew obliterating 150 Axis tanks ?

No. Most Allied tank crews were too busy taking territory and winning the war to sit back and pick off their exposed enemy from a distance. Or to conduct the occasional surprise, local counter-attack/ambush/raid. There were however instances, as I've pointed out already, where Allied tank crews laid ambushes and slaughtered panzer crews just the same and probably statistically would have rivaled even the best German crews had they had to sustain their defensive efforts over a prolonged period as the German crews did. Specific times you might note were at various intervals in Normandy, The Battle of the Bulge (where 90mm toting M36 Jacksons eviscerated several panzer squadrons), or The Battle of Arracourt where a single thinly armored M18 Hellcat destroyed almost a dozen Panthers and Mark IVs...




Military spending got USA out of recession with many unemployed ending up in war and with other Allies paying for USA imports while they could.

Um no, that's a fallacy. The Depression was already ending by 1940 and factory orders were sharply up for civilian goods. In fact, it was the hangover of the postwar U.S. transition from a war-economy that caused much economic malaise in the late 1940s. The idea that WWII is what ended the depression is simpleton economics for shit politicians...


Maybe some less. Do tell what additional resources Germany gained in 1944 that did not exist in say ... 1942. Kill me but circumstances were lot worse in 1944 than 1942 or 1941.

No one said anything about "resources." The Germans had resources, just not nearly enough of them at any point to achieve semblance of a victory. What didn't exist in 1941 was the necessary planning and a realist, pragmatic outlook of what Germany would need to win a war that actually she couldn't possibly win. The circumstances in 1944 was a response to needs whereas the "circumstances" in 1941 was akin to victory disease until the reverses in the Soviet War and the one against Britain brought reality home once again...



No, it was Hitler who saw genius of Case Yellow by Mabnstein. And OKH/OKW sent Manstein to east not to hear him any time soon.

Maybe you should actually try reading about it sometime rather than rewriting a revisionist pamphlet praising the genius of the Fuhrer? The only "Case Yellow" in 1939 was the limited, shit one that Gen. Halder was forced to expedite under duress and envisioned heavy casualties and a staged battle of attrition through Belgium and into France for very modest gains. Hitler only saw the "genius" of Manstein after Generals Halder and von Brauchitsch bulwarked him until the Autumn campaign season was finally over.

But by all means, feel free to educated us on when Manstein was able to present his plan to Hitler, and when Hitler was pressuring the general staff to attack France at all costs as early as October of 1939 with what was a very feeble, faint echoic version of the Schlieffen Plan...



do correct than.

They've already been! And check your own ****ing facts!


Well I would say she was in love, easily manipulated and probably had no knowledge of such things as Holocaust. It is difficult to interpret her perspective.

Yeah, I'm sure she was so totally innocent and never smelled Adolf's cabbage farts either?



10 million more/less

Based on what?



Interesting indeed. I still prefer my slavic country to that of multi-culti crap. I visited Germany recently and boy, mythical blue goddesses are gone for good.
If I were to marry please invent time machine.

I sense you might need more than that. Pity they don't have mail-order Aryans..

Nickdfresh
06-27-2011, 08:02 PM
Additionally, according to Toozes Wages of Destruction Nazi Germany managed to get GDP back on track in 1945 ie, even in 1944 Germany was no longer in recession while great Democracy USA did not get out of recession until early 1940s. Yes, without war and within Nazi Germany including provinces Germany has apparently lost, Dresden would now be 5 times more rich than it is now. Berlin is same story only worse, Hamburg little better as it received cynical Allied help to bolster defenses against their former Allies the Russians.

By all means quote Tooze and in what context...

leccy
06-28-2011, 05:35 AM
@wittman111


It is now so. Over a million Iraqi children died because of ban on food imports after 1990. But you didn't know that did you ?

As part of the ceasefire conditions Iraq was to provide proof of the destruction of its biological, ballistic and nuclear weapons and development facilities. Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and continued its abuse of Kurdish and other minority groups. As a result, the United Nations imposed import/export sanctions on Iraq in 1990.

The UN sanctions prohibit exports from Iraq and imports to Iraq with the exception of medicine and other essential civilian needs not covered by the import ban. Under the UN's 1996 "food for oil" program, Iraq is permitted to sell set amounts of oil to fund the purchase of food, medicines and other humanitarian goods, and equipment to repair the civilian infrastructure. Since 1998 Iraq has been allowed to purchase equipment and spare parts for the rehabilitation of its oil industry.

And just in case you did not read it
Resolution 687 (1991), adopted following the liberation of Kuwait, stated that the measures first imposed against exports to Iraq would not apply to foodstuffs and to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, and that the Council would review this part of the sanctions regime every 60 days. Several such reviews have so far taken place, although none have resulted in a modification of the sanctions regime. Resolution 700 (1991) established that the Committee report at 90-day intervals to the Council on the implementation of the arms embargo and related sanctions against Iraq; to date, more than 40 such reports have been submitted.


that UK/USA brought down Iranian democracy when suited their selfish needs

Iran was a monarchy not a democracy until the 1979 revolution then it became a theocracy. The monarchy was heavily supported by the west. So which democracy was brought down by the UK and USA


I know but Villers Bockage got my heart. Kicked entire British divisions

Which Divisions. The UK unit involved was 22nd Armoured Brigade, part of the 7th Armoured Division.


Well I would like to see someone from Kanagaroo country do better

Get the right person when you respond, I posted that and I definitely don't come from a kangaroo country (although there are a few wild groups of wallabys around in the UK do they count).
So for some one from say Australia to do better let me think. Ah yes I am quite partial to Rolf Harris and the bonus is he is a dammed fine singer, songwriter and musician. I will say though that it may be in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe these are more your meaning though, as they are definitely better than Hitlers work
Tom Roberts, Rupert Bunny, Han Heysen, John Peter Russel, Norman Lindsey and George Lambert (albeit Russian born).
Brett Whiteley (b.1939–d.1992), Peter Booth (b.1940), Charles Blackman (b. 1928) and Nicholas Harding (b. 1956)
Sidney Nolan began (b.1917 – d. 1992) painting professionally in 1933 for Fayrefield Hats, Abbotsford, producing display stands and advertising.

Rising Sun*
06-28-2011, 06:23 AM
Well I would like to see someone from Kanagaroo country do better :confused:

Adding to leccy's last post.

You could try the Heidelberg School http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/heidelberg-school

Or Jeffrey Smart http://www.etchinghouse.com.au/pages/artist_details.php?artist_id=76

Or Brett Whiteley http://www.brettwhiteley.org/

Or countless others, such as Aelita Andre http://www.aelitaandreart.com/aelitaandre/Home.html whose works as a two year old are rather better than Hitler's as an adult.

If you want to set yourself up for failure, challenge anyone from any nation to find someone from their nation who can paint better than Hitler's mediocre daubings. You'll lose every time.

But what I find most interesting is that you want to defend Hitler's ability as a painter. Seems like a bit of hero worship has got in the way of accepting the opinion of every half-way qualified art critic that Hitler's work was crap.

witman111
06-29-2011, 07:02 AM
Well, I could do that, but so far we haven't banned people just for being stupid and pointlessly provocative
What does "pointlessly provocative" mean ?


uninformed by any accurate historical knowledge
any proof of that or just... ramblings ?



hmmm
Please see
http://www.hitler.org/artifacts/volkswagen/
http://www.volkswest.co.uk/beetle_history.html


Lol Hitler wished to negotiate borders with Poland
You are truly ignorant, aren't you ?

text of german proposal of August 29, 1939:
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:

The situation between the German Reich and Poland is now such that any further incident could lead to action by the military forces that have taken position on both sides of the frontier. Any peaceful solution must be such that the basic causes of this situation are eliminated so that they are not simply repeated, which would mean that not only eastern Europe but other areas as well would be subject to the same tension. The causes of this situation are rooted in, first, the intolerable border that was specified by the dictated peace of Versailles [of 1919], and, second, the intolerable treatment of the minority populations in the lost territories.

In making these proposals, the German Reich government is motivated by the desire to achieve a permanent solution that will put an end to the intolerable situation arising from the present border demarcation, secure to both parties vitally important connecting routes, and which will solve the minority problem, insofar as that is possible, and if not, will at least insure a tolerable life for the minority populations with secure guarantees of their rights.

The German Reich government is convinced that it is absolutely necessary to investigate the economic and physical damage inflicted since 1918, with full reparations to be made for that. Of course, it regards this obligation as binding on both sides.

On the basis of these considerations, we make the following concrete proposals:

1. The Free City of Danzig returns immediately to the German Reich on the basis of its purely German character and the unanimous desire of its population.

2. The territory of the so-called [Polish] Corridor will decide for itself whether it wishes to belong to Germany or to Poland. This territory consists of the area between the Baltic Sea [in the north] to a line marked [in the south] by the towns of Marienwerder, Graudenz, Kuhn and Bromberg -- including these towns -- and then westwards to Schoenlanke.

3. For this purpose a plebiscite will be conducted in this territory. All Germans who lived in this territory on January 1, 1918, or were born there on or before that date will be entitled to vote in the plebiscite. Similarly, all Poles, Kashubians, and so forth, who lived in this territory on or before that date, or were born there before that date, will also be entitled to vote. Germans who were expelled from this territory will return to vote in the plebiscite.

To insure an impartial plebiscite and to make sure that all necessary preliminary preparation work is properly carried out, this territory will come under the authority of an international commission, similar to the one organized in the Saar territory [for the 1935 plebiscite there]. This commission is to be organized immediately by the four great powers of Italy, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. This commission will have all sovereign authority in the territory. Accordingly, Polish military forces, Polish police and Polish authorities are to clear out of this territory as soon as possible, by a date to be agreed upon.

4. Not included in this territory is the Polish port of Gdynia, which is regarded as fundamentally sovereign Polish territory, to the extent of [ethnic] Polish settlement, but as a matter of principle is recognized as Polish territory. The specific border of this Polish port city will be negotiated by Germany and Poland and, if necessary, established by an international court of arbitration.


5. In order to insure ample time for the preparations necessary in order to conduct an impartial plebiscite, the plebiscite will not take place until after at least twelve months have elapsed.

6. In order to ensure unhindered traffic between Germany and East Prussia, and between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea, during this period [before the plebiscite], certain roads and rail lines may be designated to enable free transit. In that regard, only such fees may be imposed that are necessary for the maintenance of the transit routes or for transport itself.

7. A simple majority of the votes cast will decide whether the territory will go to Germany or to Poland.

8. After the plebiscite has been conducted, and regardless of the result, free transit will be guaranteed between Germany and its province of Danzig-East Prussia, as well as between Poland and the [Baltic] Sea. If the plebiscite determines that the territory belongs to Poland, Germany will obtain an extraterritorial transit zone, consisting of a motor super-highway [Reichsautobahn] and a four-track rail line, approximately along the line of Buetow-Danzig and Dirschau. The highway and the rail line will be built in such a way that the Polish transit lines are not disturbed, which means that they will pass either above or underneath. This zone will be one kilometer wide and will be sovereign German territory. In case the plebiscite is in Germany's favor, Poland will have free and unrestricted transit to its port of Gdynia with the same right to an extraterritorial road and rail line that Germany would have had.

9. If the Corridor returns to Germany, the German Reich declares that it is ready to carry out an exchange of population with Poland to the extent that this would be suitable for the [people of the] Corridor.

10. The special rights that may be claimed by Poland in the port of Danzig will be negotiated on the basis of parity for rights to Germany in the port of Gdynia.

11. In order to eliminate all fear of threat from either side, Danzig and Gdynia will be purely commercial centers, that is, with no military installations or military fortifications.

12. The peninsula of Hela, which will go to either Poland or Germany on the basis of the plebiscite, will also be demilitarized in any case.

13. The German Reich government has protested in the strongest terms against the Polish treatment of its minority populations. For its part, the Polish government also believes itself called upon to make protests against Germany. Accordingly, both sides agree to submit these complaints to an international investigation commission, which will be responsible for investigating all complaints of economic and physical damage as well as other acts of terror.

Germany and Poland pledge to compensate for all economic and other damages inflicted on minority populations on both sides since 1918, and/or to revoke all expropriations and provide for complete reparation for the victims of these and other economic measures.

14. In order to eliminate feelings of deprivation of international rights in the part of the Germans who will remain in Poland, as well as of the Poles who will remain in Germany, and above all, to insure that they are not forced to act contrary to their ethnic-national feelings, Germany and Poland agree to guarantee the rights of the minority populations on both sides through comprehensive and binding agreements. These will insure the right of these minority groups to maintain, freely develop and carry on their national-cultural life. In particular, they will be allowed to maintain organizations for these purposes. Both sides agree that members of their minority populations will not be drafted for military service.

15. If agreement is reached on the basis of these proposals, Germany and Poland declare that they will immediately order and carry out the demobilization of their armed forces.

16. Germany and Poland will agree to whatever additional measures may be necessary to implement the above points as quickly as possible.

So as factual evidence was this proposal formally submitted or not ?
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wars/whitebook/1.shtml

witman111
06-29-2011, 07:13 AM
Accords by seizing control of all of Czechoslovakia! But yes, feel free to tell how the poor Fuhrer was the victim of Gaulish aggression...
what is the problem here, I said absorption of Czekoslovakia was agression, even the Sudetenland if it was without plebiscite. As austria is concerned, one would really need to look a bit deeper into Autro-Prussian history and "Kleine solution" dating from 19th century to pass final verdict.


Gee, after how he lived up to the "negotiations" over Czechoslovakia, I can really see why the Poles might not have wanted to trust Hitler.
Well I guess we will never know. Hitler's offer seemed true and fair to me.
People don't realize this but once Britain and France declared war on Germany, independence of countries become irrelevant as Germany has no resources of it's own to fight war and survive. It had to fight preventive war by first attacking France before Allies built up.


I was never in favor of the Iraq War, there wasn't anything "illegal" about it
really, so... any country can invade Middle east and all is jolly right ?


Austria had never been part of Germany in the modern era
do look at Austro-Prussian relations during creation of Germany.


Of course. Please cite the specific pages though. Because from what I've read in Wages, much of it has passed well over your head as you seem to have difficulty seeing the forest through the trees...
I forgot yesterday but here it goes:
Pg 48.
Unemployment in 1933 is six million and lets say in 1937 1 million. I think this is rather spectacular. Next GDP, pg 63:
1933 46 billion Reich marks and 1937 is 58 billion Reich marks. Rather spectacular don't you think. On same table, as I already said, structure of GDP changed in a way military spending went up and local government and civilian spending went down ?
Now where is that Rising Sun chap to oppose this fine figures, did he by any mean elaborate how Germans funded deficit and why was there no hyperinflation in 1933-1939 ? But I guess he is busy passing jokes, he is good at that


No. Most Allied tank crews were too busy taking territory and winning the war to sit back and pick off their exposed enemy from a distance
Ahh, you mean against rommel in Africa ?


The Depression was already ending by 1940 and factory orders were sharply up for civilian goods. In fact, it was the hangover of the postwar U.S. transition from a war-economy that caused much economic malaise in the late 1940s. The idea that WWII is what ended the depression is simpleton economics for shit politicians
do post figures for military part of GDP will you, with appropriate time series please...


The Germans had resources, just not nearly enough of them at any point to achieve semblance of a victory. What didn't exist in 1941 was the necessary planning and a realist, pragmatic outlook of what Germany would need to win a war that actually she couldn't possibly win. The circumstances in 1944 was a response to needs whereas the "circumstances" in 1941 was akin to victory disease until the reverses in the Soviet War and the one against Britain brought reality home once again..
Maybe in 1941 but what about 1942 ???


But by all means, feel free to educated us on when Manstein was able to present his plan to Hitler, and when Hitler was pressuring the general staff to attack France at all costs as early as October of 1939 with what was a very feeble, faint echoic version of the Schlieffen Plan...
I will - there is fine description in Hitler/s warriors by Guido Knopp. And book is really against Hitler, with justification I might say.


They've already been! And check your own ****ing facts
If figure of 90 million disturbs you so much how about this:
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Now if we extrapolate trend to say.1941 there would be some 82 million Germans in Germany, that is without emigration all over Europe.


Yeah, I'm sure she was so totally innocent and never smelled Adolf's cabbage farts either?
Well, I really don't care.


Based on what?[/CODE]
there is always error margin of 10% :mrgreen:. But anyway see above link

[QUOTE]Pity they don't have mail-order Aryans
that indeed is a pity. Would have been biggest export good on top of all that GDP:)


Additionally, according to Toozes Wages of Destruction Nazi Germany managed to get GDP back on track in 1945 ie, even in 1944 Germany was no longer in recession
This was typo. Meant 1935 and 1934.


By all means quote Tooze and in what context...
I did ... figures and facts. Opinion I can form of my own.


As part of the ceasefire conditions Iraq was to provide proof of the destruction of its biological, ballistic and nuclear weapons and development facilities. Iraq refused to allow UN weapons inspectors into the country and continued its abuse of Kurdish and other minority groups. As a result, the United Nations imposed import/export sanctions on Iraq in 1990.

The UN sanctions prohibit exports from Iraq and imports to Iraq with the exception of medicine and other essential civilian needs not covered by the import ban. Under the UN's 1996 "food for oil" program, Iraq is permitted to sell set amounts of oil to fund the purchase of food, medicines and other humanitarian goods, and equipment to repair the civilian infrastructure. Since 1998 Iraq has been allowed to purchase equipment and spare parts for the rehabilitation of its oil industry.

And just in case you did not read it
Resolution 687 (1991), adopted following the liberation of Kuwait, stated that the measures first imposed against exports to Iraq would not apply to foodstuffs and to materials and supplies for essential civilian needs, and that the Council would review this part of the sanctions regime every 60 days. Several such reviews have so far taken place, although none have resulted in a modification of the sanctions regime. Resolution 700 (1991) established that the Committee report at 90-day intervals to the Council on the implementation of the arms embargo and related sanctions against Iraq; to date, more than 40 such reports have been submitted.
no doubt but that is for lawyers. And it is the question of interpretation of facts. You can read some real reports here:
http://www.iraqikids.org/common-myths
Well I would certainly like you to go ti Iraq and try explain them what you say here. I think you will not return with your interpretation of democracy and Security council. As history is concerned post ww2 USA engagements around the world resulted in so many people getting killed (directly or indirectly) it makes Holocaust child's play. Let me repeat it to you: child's play. And try to visit each of this places to verify who is correct you or me.


Iran was a monarchy not a democracy until the 1979 revolution then it became a theocracy. The monarchy was heavily supported by the west. So which democracy was brought down by the UK and USA
Do try reading ... Century of war by William Endahl so you won't post such bullocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
"In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to use Iranian railroad capacity during World War II. The Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi."
So Britain is invading other countries. Strange indeed, I thougt they fight against tyranny.

"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government"
So are you demented my dear boy or... are just playing demented ? Again, try to visit any place where USA/UK is spreading democracy and see how you fare.
And do contemplate why Egyptians wished Rommel to win and celebrated his earlier victories ? Probably they don't know what democracy means - maybe you should show them again ?


The UK unit involved was 22nd Armoured Brigade
and a rifle battalion, 250+ human casualties.


Maybe these are more your meaning though, as they are definitely better than Hitlers work
nowhere did I say Hitler was best, only better artist than other politicians


You could try the Heidelberg School http://australia.gov.au/about-austra...delberg-school

Or Jeffrey Smart http://www.etchinghouse.com.au/pages...p?artist_id=76

Or Brett Whiteley http://www.brettwhiteley.org/

Or countless others, such as Aelita Andre http://www.aelitaandreart.com/aelitaandre/Home.html whose works as a two year old are rather better than Hitler's as an adult.
bravo

Rising Sun*
06-29-2011, 08:02 AM
nowhere did I say Hitler was best, only better artist than other politicians

That's not reflected by one of Hitler's efforts getting a top price of US $15,000 a couple of years ago http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/world/hitler.auction_1_oil-painting-watercolors-nazi-death-camps?_s=PM:WORLD against about US $2 million a couple of years earlier for one of Churchill's. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557428/Winston-Churchill-painting-sells-for-1m.html

Separate issue. When you're quoting posts, please indentify the poster. You can do this by copying the poster's ID at the start of the post inside the square brackets, e.g. QUOTE=witman111;178474 and finishing the part you want to quote with /quote inside square brackets. I've omitted the square brackets in the examples to avoid making the text in between a quote by you, like this if the start and finish are inside square brackets.
...

leccy
06-29-2011, 11:18 AM
wittman111

No need to troll and get all abusive mate, I seem to be getting under your skin for some reason.

You posted very limited specific statements that I showed were not factually correct, you then expand your answer getting rather aggressive and abusive because you worded your statement badly.


It is now so. Over a million Iraqi children died because of ban on food imports after 1990. But you didn't know that did you ?


As I said food imports were not banned

Personally having been to Iraq, Bosnia, Pakistan, Jordan, Angola with UNHCR delivering food and shelter aid I also saw the massive corruption by the local warlords, we delivered aid and as we were leaving armed men would come and take it. Never see that in the reports though, or that in some areas we had to pay with the aid to go through road blocks (local warlords and in some case government troops).



I know but Villers Bockage got my heart. Kicked entire British divisions *** !!!

You said Divisions Plural ie more than one, it was a British Brigade part of a singular British Division and it was a two day battle.


and a rifle battalion, 250+ human casualties.

Er yes part of the 22nd Armoured Brigade, part of the 7th Armoured Division and not all down to the one famous Wittman incident.



Well I would like to see someone from Kanagaroo country do better

Hmmm


nowhere did I say Hitler was best, only better artist than other politicians

Can't quite see the bit you said about politicians all I see is a bit about Kangaroo Country.


Do try reading ... Century of war by William Endahl so you won't post such bullocks

You did not specify a time period, I chose one you chose another, apologies if your crystal ball is not in tune with mine.


By Leccy
Iran was a monarchy not a democracy until the 1979 revolution then it became a theocracy. The monarchy was heavily supported by the west. So which democracy was brought down by the UK and USA

I did by the way ask which democracy you were talking about so you could have saved yourself the 'bullocks' saying (although what male bovines have to do with Iran I don't know)


So are you demented my dear boy or... are just playing demented

Definition - crazy; insane; mad.

Hmmm nope

Open it out a little to dementia

Severe impairment or loss of intellectual capacity and personality integration, due to the loss of or damage to neurons in the brain.

Well possibly how would I know after all its starts so imperceivably.

So play nice theres a good chap.


You are truly ignorant, aren't you ?

text of german proposal of August 29, 1939:
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:

Oh yes and he only wanted the Sudatenland off of Czechoslovakia, did he lose his map of where it started and ended. A brief pause after annexing the Sudatenland then invasion of the rest of the country. Britain and France were not going to buy into his promises again.


Well I guess we will never know. Hitler's offer seemed true and fair to me.
People don't realize this but once Britain and France declared war on Germany, independence of countries become irrelevant as Germany has no resources of it's own to fight war and survive. It had to fight preventive war by first attacking France before Allies built up.

Britain and France declared war after Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland and troops were busy fighting. Did the declaration of war by the Allies incite Hitler to invade Russia who was in a non aggression pact with Germany nearly 2 years later.

Hows about if Herr Hitler with his super economic growth turned Germany instead of a military state into a major industrial one, exporting goods etc. Maybe that would have been a better plan than taking by force.

I like the start of the link you posted by the way


So as factual evidence was this proposal formally submitted or not ?
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/w...tebook/1.shtml


The information in this German White Book contains alleged documents that record events as they transpired in those last weeks before Adolph Hitler realized there was no way to avoid war.

The masters who controlled the British Prime Minister, French President, Polish President, etc. would not tolerate a peace being negotiated. They MUST have this war, or their Plan for World Dominion is waylaid for a time. We say waylaid, because it's become clear they've never stopped, regardless the setbacks or holdups, and today the beat goes on.

Researchers/authors whose work has been suppressed have confirmed the information herein.



2) he designed VW beatle car

http://www.hitler.org/artifacts/volkswagen/volkswagen.jpg

Ok sketched in 1932 a quite common body shape then. (By the way I have seen three different versions of this sketch purportedly done by Hitler).

The Zundapp P12 was designed in 1931 using that basic shape, the NSU P32 built in 1932 both designed by Porsche. The Tatra V570 also used that shape. Oh and by the way your link says he gave the sketch to Daimler Benz (who did a design but it was not accepted) not Porsche or VW

I said Hitler did not design the car, I also said that VW were sued by Tatra in relation to 10 patents used on the Beetle before the war, due to Czechoslovakia being invaded the suit was dropped until after the war when VW paid an out of court settlement to Tatra.

pdf27
06-29-2011, 01:43 PM
text of german proposal of August 29, 1939:
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:
Which can be summarised as:
Poland evacuates the territory Germany wants immediately, even if the referendum isn't for a year.
Germany will have the right of free transit through formerly Polish territory, no matter what the outcome of the referendum.
The "referendum" will give votes to those living there in 1918 - i.e. prior to the Versailles settlement, and ignoring any rights accrued to those who have lived there for the past 20 years.

Essentially Poland gives a load away to Germany that it was awarded by the Treaty of Versailles, and Germany gives nothing in return. That isn't negotiation, it's a highwayman giving an ultimatum. Poland declined to negotiate on this basis (hardly surprising), at which point Germany invaded.

And before you start spouting on about how unfair Versailles was, I suggest you read the text of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is the treaty Germany dictated to the Soviet Union when it thought itself victorious, and probably ended any chance the Germans had of getting a reasonable peace from the western allies.

Nickdfresh
06-29-2011, 08:32 PM
What does "pointlessly provocative" mean ?


any proof of that or just... ramblings ?

It means you're a lazy idiot too incompetent to actually separate and answer separately the posts you're trying to respond too...

Please see
http://www.hitler.org/artifacts/volkswagen/
http://www.volkswest.co.uk/beetle_history.html

Yeah my parents had the last model imported into the United States, and 1979 convertible...


You are truly ignorant, aren't you ?

text of german proposal of August 29, 1939:
Proposal for a settlement of the Danzig-Corridor problem and the German-Polish minority question:
...

Oh, I'm the "ignorant" one? I thought you were the lying ****wit who wasted bandwidth with the meaningless shit regarding "negotiations" between Poland and Germany regarding Danzig and other assorted territories. But the fact has clearly sailed over your head (once again) that I implied that all negotiations with the Reich were fallible and hence meaningless since the Fuhrer was a lying **** as evidenced by the aborted Munich Accords...

So, instead of vilifying the Poles for refusing to negotiate, perhaps we should anoint them as the ones who were prophets when dealing with the Third Reich? But of course, a neofascist as yourself needs to grasp at straws to rationalize the genocide and warmongering of his Fuhrer. Doesn't he?

Nickdfresh
06-29-2011, 08:35 PM
what is the problem here, I said absorption of Czekoslovakia was agression, even the Sudetenland if it was without plebiscite. ...

Yeah, right before you faulted the Poles for not negotiating with Hitler, dummy....

Try to maintain some vague consistencies in your arguments...

leccy
06-29-2011, 08:43 PM
@wittman111

I am wondering if you accidently nailed your flag to the wall with your link to the Hitler Historical Museum which purports to be just a factual place with no bias at all towards or against Hitler.

Unfortunately the links on it are mostly to Stormfront, a holocaust denial site and David Irving. Not exactly unbiased then.

tankgeezer
06-29-2011, 08:44 PM
*****

leccy
06-29-2011, 08:48 PM
Tankgeezer

You got any beer to go with the popcorn lol

Nickdfresh
06-29-2011, 08:52 PM
And this? Really?



Well I guess we will never know. Hitler's offer seemed true and fair to me.

Oh, okay Neville Chamberlain. Is that from reading the tea leaves up Hitler's *******?


People don't realize this but once Britain and France declared war on Germany, independence of countries become irrelevant as Germany has no resources of it's own to fight war and survive. It had to fight preventive war by first attacking France before Allies built up.

Um, actually "people" do realize this. Unlike you, we've read books on it and haven't relied on the faux history recited to us by our weird, German-speaking uncle. And there was little thought about "preventative war(s)" nor preserving resources. The OKW simply went with a risky plan that was high risk, high reward. But that wasn't the initial war-plan nor was anything premeditated by Hitler nor the general staff prior to the initiation of hostilities. There was no "plan" for a "quick war." That's the "Blitzkrieg myth" dispelled in recent literature...

Nickdfresh
06-29-2011, 09:22 PM
...
really, so... any country can invade Middle east and all is jolly right ?

Um, no, strawman, that's quite a leap from my statement. Iraq was clearly in violation of the armistice negotiated after the first Gulf War and there had been an ongoing aerial guerrilla war since the Clinton Administration called "Desert Fox." Saddam was in violation of numerous tenets of the peace accord. So no, no one can "just invade" any Middle Eastern country since the circumstances in Iraq were far from those of any other Middle Eastern country...


do look at Austro-Prussian relations during creation of Germany.

No. I don't feel like it.


I forgot yesterday but here it goes:
Pg 48.
Unemployment in 1933 is six million and lets say in 1937 1 million. I think this is rather spectacular. Next GDP, pg 63:
1933 46 billion Reich marks and 1937 is 58 billion Reich marks. Rather spectacular don't you think. On same table, as I already said, structure of GDP changed in a way military spending went up and local government and civilian spending went down ?

Yeah, except many of those blessed workers were treated as little more than slave laborers, especially those working on the Autobahn. Secondly, one can also argue that conscription was a pretty disingenuous way to combat the unemployment of young men. Yet, it was a major factor in the 'jobs creation.' Wasn't it?
...


Ahh, you mean against rommel in Africa ?

That's not really what I meant. But more to the point, what do you mean?

...

Maybe in 1941 but what about 1942 ???

I dunno. What about 1942? After Hitler unnecessarily claimed war on the U.S.?


I will - there is fine description in Hitler/s warriors by Guido Knopp. And book is really against Hitler, with justification I might say.

Okay, cite the text and answer the question I asked!



If figure of 90 million disturbs you so much how about this:
http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html

Now if we extrapolate trend to say.1941 there would be some 82 million Germans in Germany, that is without emigration all over Europe.

You mean including Austrians and anyone else that might sort of have a vaguely German sounding name? Yeah, hardly a rock to build ones' war planning on! But many were still not truly "German."


...

that indeed is a pity. Would have been biggest export good on top of all that GDP:)

Of course, but then we'd have angry German men...


This was typo. Meant 1935 and 1934.

Fine, but then again, you're crediting Hitler for what the Wiemar Republic started...


I did ... figures and facts. Opinion I can form of my own.

But you cannot misrepresent the fundamental thesis of Tooze by quoting him out-of-context nor posting sophistry, which you are somewhat guilty of doing actually...


...

tankgeezer
06-29-2011, 09:48 PM
Tankgeezer

You got any beer to go with the popcorn lol
Most certainly...

leccy
06-29-2011, 10:45 PM
Ah a show popcorn and beer, almost perfect evening relaxation.

Grenadier
06-30-2011, 10:02 AM
it seems ubelievable to me, that some people are still trying to exculpate the things hitler did... even if I'm fed up with this way of still being indicted just because of being German, but it is a fact, that Hitler and his paladines brought devastation over europe.

Rising Sun*
06-30-2011, 10:20 AM
even if I'm fed up with this way of still being indicted just because of being German,

This may be a case of different perspectives.

From my perspective as a non-German born a few years after WWII in a nation which was one of the Allies against Germany (or more accurately the Nazis who hijacked Germany for their own purposes), neither I nor anyone I know considers that current Germans bear any 'war guilt'. That notion went out a long time ago, probably in the 1960s, the 1970s at the latest.

However, I can understand how a German might be sensitive to the recurrent references to the Nazis, the Holocaust, etc when coupled with references to Germany and Germans, but in my experience those references are limited to events up to about 1945.

It's a different issue with Japan, which has consistently refused to accept its own war guilt in any meaningful sense by Western (or Japanese - the outbreak of ritual suicides would have had a significant impact on the population until a couple of decades ago) and particularly Chinese standards.

If anything, I think that Germany might have gone too far in its repudiation of its past, but that's a lot better than the denial of its past that is entrenched in Japan.

As for the Italians? Well, they didn't really do anything all that bad and they didn't really do all that much of great significance to the war in general (even if they did do some things in various land and sea encounters with the Allies which contradict the common view of them as always not very good), and they made great prisoners of war in the Allied countries to which they were sent as farm labourers etc, to the extent that after the war many of them were sponsored as immigrants by their former employers. There's a lot to be said for the Italians in WWII as by far the least bad Axis power. Which is probably why they didn't benefit like the Germans and Japanese from post-war Allied investment etc which made Germany and Japan major economies.

leccy
06-30-2011, 10:24 AM
Grenadier

I lived in Germany for 16 years and in that time I most definately learnt that most of those that wish to place Hitler on a pedestal are not German.

I have met more neo nazis from the UK, USA and former Eastern Bloc countries than German. Wonder if it was due to the de-nazification that was done and the education received in German schools.

Rising Sun*
06-30-2011, 10:32 AM
I have met more neo nazis from the UK, USA and former Eastern Bloc countries than German.

And the most bizarre of all is neo-Nazis in Israel, apparently among immigrant Russians with some Jewish descent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israels-nightmare-homegrown-neonazis-in-the-holy-land-396392.html

Iron Yeoman
06-30-2011, 10:46 AM
it seems ubelievable to me, that some people are still trying to exculpate the things hitler did... even if I'm fed up with this way of still being indicted just because of being German, but it is a fact, that Hitler and his paladines brought devastation over europe.

Grenadier, Like leccy in the past I lived in your wonderful country for several years, in fact I was born there! I have a great fondness for the Germans and I can imagine you're getting quite fed up with being given grief over something that happend many years ago. At school I was often given grief for the war as I was born in Germany and was therefore German in their eyes. You'll always find idiots everywhere, nicht war? :D

horst
06-30-2011, 10:47 AM
So, instead of vilifying the Poles for refusing to negotiate, perhaps we should anoint them as the ones who were prophets when dealing with the Third Reich? But of course, a neofascist as yourself needs to grasp at straws to rationalize the genocide and warmongering of his Fuhrer. Doesn't he?

Certainly the Poles were no prophets when dealing with Churchill and Roosevelt who sold them to the russians, covering the Katyn massacre of 20.000 polish officers in hands of the Bolshevik executioners and blackmailing and forcing the polish government in exile to handle Stalin the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reMFluRR2cc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fnKL...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq9pm...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Xbs...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlJco...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxDYO...eature=related

tankgeezer
06-30-2011, 11:20 AM
Horst :
I don't recall Nickdfresh's statement including Allied leaders, only the third Reich. Is distraction the best you have to offer? The thread specifies Hitler, not Stalin, nor Churchill, nor Roosevelt,nor anyone else. Just hitler himself. If you can't keep to the topic, then just keep the voices in your head to yourself.

Nickdfresh
06-30-2011, 02:01 PM
Certainly the Poles were no prophets when dealing with Churchill and Roosevelt who sold them to the russians...

Nice deflection. But Hitler sold Poland to the Soviets when the Non-Aggression Pact. What other choice did they have since the Red Army was flooding in from the East?


...covering the Katyn massacre of 20.000 polish officers in hands of the Bolshevik executioners

How did they "cover" the Katyn Massacre? I think everyone assumed it was the Nazi regime that was the culprit since they seemed remarkably efficient at killing large numbers of Poles...anyway, they didn't control the massacre site and could not conducted any sort of investigation...


...and blackmailing and forcing the polish government in exile to handle Stalin the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reMFluRR2cc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fnKL...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq9pm...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Xbs...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlJco...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxDYO...eature=related

I haven't seen the documentary. But what sort of alternatives would a gov't in exile have regarding territories they no longer control?

Chevan
07-01-2011, 12:26 AM
Nice deflection. But Hitler sold Poland to the Soviets when the Non-Aggression Pact. What other choice did they have since the Red Army was flooding in from the East?

Hitler sold Poland?!!:mrgreen:
All time i thought Hitler has "reserved" Poland for Reich:) All what STalin might to dream about is the Western Ukraine and Bessarabia..


How did they "cover" the Katyn Massacre? I think everyone assumed it was the Nazi regime that was the culprit since they seemed remarkably efficient at killing large numbers of Poles...anyway, they didn't control the massacre site and could not conducted any sort of investigation...

No they exactly "covered" coz they ignored the London polish govenment who know for sure it was NKVD during the Nurenberg trial.

Chevan
07-01-2011, 12:41 AM
Certainly the Poles were no prophets when dealing with Churchill and Roosevelt who sold them to the russians, covering the Katyn massacre of 20.000 polish officers in hands of the Bolshevik executioners and blackmailing and forcing the polish government in exile to handle Stalin the eastern part of Poland as was revealed by a BBC documentary:

Sure the Rosevelt and Church had to agree with Stalin coz the "eastern poland" had been almost totally cleared out from poles by...local nationalists within 1943-44. BTW Poles after themself was not been pissed on Stalin coz they got a rich pieces of former Prussia - Upper Silezia and Pomerania.Did the BBC reveal such a Stalin-Polish crime?

horst
07-01-2011, 09:41 AM
[QUOTE]Nice deflection. But Hitler sold Poland to the Soviets when the Non-Aggression Pact. What other choice did they have since the Red Army was flooding in from the East?

At least , not rewarding Stalin and his Red Army through Lend and Lease.



How did they "cover" the Katyn Massacre? I think everyone assumed it was the Nazi regime that was the culprit since they seemed remarkably efficient at killing large numbers of Poles...anyway, they didn't control the massacre site and could not conducted any sort of investigation...

The following fragment will be very illustrative on Roosevelt’s behavior regarding this matter:

In 1944, President Roosevelt assigned Capt. George Earle, his special emissary to the Balkans, to compile information on Katyn. Earle did so, using contacts in Bulgaria and Romania. He too concluded that the Soviet Union was guilty. FDR rejected Earle's conclusion, saying that he was convinced of Nazi Germany's responsibility. The report was suppressed. When Earle requested permission to publish his findings, the President gave him a written order to desist. Earle--who had been a Roosevelt family friend--spent the rest of the war in American Samoa.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/winter99-00/art6.html

And Churchill not conducting but preventing any sort of investigation of the massacre is evidenced through this servile message in response to Stalin’s complaints about the intention of the Polish Government in exile of investigating the massacre with the aid of the international Red Cross:
Ambassador Maisky delivered your message to me last night. We shall certainly oppose vigorously any investigation by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority. Such investigation would be a fraud, and its conclusions reached by terrorism. Mr Eden is seeing Sikorski today and will press him as strongly as possible to withdraw all countenance from any investigation under Nazi auspices. Also we should never approve of any parley with the Germans or contact with them of any kind whatever and we shall press this point upon our Polish allies.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/correspondence/01/43.htm (messages 150 and 151)


I haven't seen the documentary. But what sort of alternatives would a gov't in exile have regarding territories they no longer control?

I think that was exactly the argument Churchill used to blackmail the Poles and force them to satisfy Stalin’s greed.

Grenadier
07-01-2011, 10:12 AM
Hi Leccy,

still have to learn how use the tools here...

Strange, isn't it? But if you say you are proud of this country you are suspected to sympathize with the right wing here... which just not true. I've seen a documentation about Neonazis in USA which was absolutely unbelievable to me to see people running around with SA-Uniforms waving a banner with Swastika. These people never listened during history lessons, didn't they?

leccy
07-01-2011, 10:30 AM
And Churchill not conducting but preventing any sort of investigation of the massacre is evidenced through this servile message in response to Stalin’s complaints about the intention of the Polish Government in exile of investigating the massacre with the aid of the international Red Cross:
Ambassador Maisky delivered your message to me last night. We shall certainly oppose vigorously any investigation by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority. Such investigation would be a fraud, and its conclusions reached by terrorism. Mr Eden is seeing Sikorski today and will press him as strongly as possible to withdraw all countenance from any investigation under Nazi auspices. Also we should never approve of any parley with the Germans or contact with them of any kind whatever and we shall press this point upon our Polish allies.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/correspondence/01/43.htm (messages 150 and 151)



I think that was exactly the argument Churchill used to blackmail the Poles and force them to satisfy Stalin’s greed.

Hmmm that passage you posted says Churchill would not countenance an investigation while the territory was under Nazi control as the Nazis would pressure the Red Cross to provide the answer they wanted. Churchill had absolutely no love for the Soviet Union and a complete distrust of Stalin but they was fighting the common enemy so politics sometimes took priority over ethics.

How did Churchill blackmail the Poles. What exactly did he do.

Not that this has anything at all to do with the good and bad points about Hitler that this thread was about.

If you wish to continue with your intervention Horst then why don't you start a new thread instead of trying to divert this one.

Rising Sun*
07-01-2011, 10:49 AM
And Churchill not conducting but preventing any sort of investigation of the massacre is evidenced through this servile message in response to Stalin’s complaints about the intention of the Polish Government in exile of investigating the massacre with the aid of the international Red Cross:
Ambassador Maisky delivered your message to me last night. We shall certainly oppose vigorously any investigation by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority. Such investigation would be a fraud, and its conclusions reached by terrorism. Mr Eden is seeing Sikorski today and will press him as strongly as possible to withdraw all countenance from any investigation under Nazi auspices. Also we should never approve of any parley with the Germans or contact with them of any kind whatever and we shall press this point upon our Polish allies.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/correspondence/01/43.htm (messages 150 and 151)

If you want to demonstrate that Churchill was a flexible politician focused only on the survival of the British Empire or at least England when dealing with his Allies and with British dominions, there is no shortage of evidence for that.

So what?

Everybody else on every other side was doing it for their own nation, as was done by everyone for ever before and will be done for ever after.

But if you're going to focus on Churchill's messages to Stalin and other war leaders, you should compare Churchill's memoirs with contemporary evidence which shows that he was somewhat erratic and self-contradictory in many of his positions.

Churchill was a great man, but at times a terribly impetuous and a stupidly blind man. As Alan Brooke said of him in an early part of the war, something along the lines of 'God knows where we would be without Winston. God knows where we shall be with him.'

leccy
07-01-2011, 10:55 AM
@horst

Having read a large part of those alleged communiques (I have no way of knowing if they are true transcripts and there seems to be messages missing that are referenced in the texts), you seem to be cherry picking specific passages without putting them in context or adding the complete message. In effect you are doctoring them to try and support your derailment.

tankgeezer
07-01-2011, 11:12 AM
Horst, thread jacking is at best rude, and perfidious if done with forethought to subtle practice. if you continue to stray from the topic of this thread, any future excursions from it will be subject to editing, or deletion by the staff at our leisure, and discretion. This is an official mod warning.

Nickdfresh
07-01-2011, 11:51 AM
At least , not rewarding Stalin and his Red Army through Lend and Lease.

"Rewarding" them? More like punishing Hitler. You do know many historians agree now--especially with the writings of Tooze--that Hitler's primary goal for taking most of the Soviet Union was to achieve ultimate economic parity with the United States in preparations for a long war against what he saw as an economic powerhouse secretly controlled by insidious Jews?

How about it was more like America's benevolent self-interest to assist the Soviets in preventing their people from being massacred wholesale, and in destroying the bulk of Hitler's war-machine on land. Otherwise, the U.S. would have suffered millions of dead...


The following fragment will be very illustrative on Roosevelt’s behavior regarding this matter:

....

I think that was exactly the argument Churchill used to blackmail the Poles and force them to satisfy Stalin’s greed.

I really don't care that much either. We're discussing the "Pros and Cons" of Hitler, not the finer points of who ****ed over whom the worst. But if you're trying to assert guilt on Churchill and FDR as some sort of despots on par with your beloved Fuhrer, you're sadly a fail here with your desperate grasping at straws.

But suffice to say, there are limits to power. And Churchill can hardly be called a Joe Stalin fan nor can one argue that overall he didn't attempt to strengthen the Western Allied hand against the inevitable Soviet Bloc well before VE day, even when FDR and Ike could be seen as a bit more naive......

Kregs
07-07-2011, 12:43 AM
Sure the Rosevelt and Church had to agree with Stalin coz the "eastern poland" had been almost totally cleared out from poles by

I attempted to research this issue, but I don't think the census records conducted by the Polish government are entirely accurate representations of the ethnicity of the kresy. I have a feeling that the numbers of ethnic Poles living in the borderlands were inflated to ensure that those areas were incorporated in the newly independent Poland. In fact, and I'm speaking from experience, the areas had an overwhelming Ukrainian and Belorussian majorities, and the Poles living there attempted to Polonize the natives through violent measure. My schoolfriend had an uncle who had many Ukrainians working on his land, and an aunt who attempted to suppress the Ukrainian language in schools with her sharp ruler. (Pani Chmielewska, who could ever forget her, she used to cruelly punish Ukrainian children whenever they attempted to speak their native tongue in class.)

I have been reading this thread for interest and don't understand what Poland has to do with Adolf Hitler's "pros and cons."

pdf27
07-07-2011, 01:20 AM
Nothing at all. The link (so far as this thread as concerned) is an attempt by some rather misguided neo-nazis to show that Churchill and Roosevelt were as bad as Hitler, and he was just given a bad press postwar.

Kregs
07-08-2011, 08:36 PM
I haven't seen the documentary. But what sort of alternatives would a gov't in exile have regarding territories they no longer control?

You should read the book first. My granddaughter bought the book for me, and I haven't been able to put it down thus far. I think the documentary has eight parts to it, but I've only had a chance to see three of them. It is interesting, but has very little to do with Adolf Hitler and more about Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt.

witman111
08-08-2011, 06:34 AM
No need to troll and get all abusive mate, I seem to be getting under your skin for some reason.
sorry about that, got little carried away


That's not reflected by one of Hitler's efforts getting a top price of US $15,000 a couple of years ago http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-23/w...ps?_s=PM:WORLD against about US $2 million a couple of years earlier for one of Churchill's. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ls-for-1m.html
Well one might think that had Hitler won, Churchill paintings would be worthless. Interesting, although I am carefully reading Churchill memories and am currently at middle of second volume -which I quite enjoy- nowhere had been mentioned so far that he paints.


As I said food imports were not banned
Well, effectively they were as oil for food programme could never have hoped to provide enough food. What matters is result. close to a million children dead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

Estimates of deaths during sanctionsEstimates of excess deaths during sanctions vary depending on the source. The estimates vary [30][37] due to differences in methodologies, and specific time-frames covered.[38] A short listing of estimates follows:

Unicef: 500,000 children (including sanctions, collateral effects of war). "[As of 1999] [c]hildren under 5 years of age are dying at more than twice the rate they were ten years ago."[30][39]

Former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Denis Halliday: "Two hundred thirty-nine thousand children 5 years old and under" as of 1998.[40]
Iraqi Baathist government: 1.5 million.[28]

Iraqi Cultural Minister Hammadi: 1.7 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning) [41]
"probably ... 170,000 children", Project on Defense Alternatives, "The Wages of War", 20. October 2003[42]

350,000 excess deaths among children "even using conservative estimates", Slate Explainer, "Are 1 Million Children Dying in Iraq?", 9. October 2001.[43]

Economist Michael Spagat: "very likely to be [less than] than half a million children." He claims that these estimates are unable to isolate the effects of sanctions alone due to the lack of "anything resembling a controlled experiment".[44][44]

"Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period"[45] for sanctions-related excess deaths.[46]

Zaidi, S. and Fawzi, M. C. S., The Lancet (1995, estimate withdrawn in 1997):567,000 children.[44]

Editor (then "associate editor and media columnist") Matt Welch,[47] Reason Magazine, 2002: "It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has ... contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990."[28][46]

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark: 1.5 million (includes sanctions, bombs and other weapons, depleted uranium poisoning).[48]

British Member of Parliament George Galloway: "a million Iraqis, most of them children."[49]

and it was well known that it won't. Much like Warsaw gettos if you think about it. But than again who cares about Iraqis. They won't end up on History channel.
as to conclude on this topic I'll quote Wikipedia: "The Iraq sanctions were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the nation of Iraq - obviously resulting in extreme rise in child mortality..."


You said Divisions Plural ie more than one,
my mistake, typo



I did by the way ask which democracy you were talking about so you could have saved yourself the 'bullocks' saying (although what male bovines have to do with Iran I don't know)

Iran was a monarchy not a democracy until the 1979 revolution then it became a theocracy. The monarchy was heavily supported by the west. So which democracy was brought down by the UK and USA

Leader was elected by parliament. Even Sadam Hussein held "democratic" elections. Fact that they may not have been up to standards is another matter. UK is monarchy but everyone consider it democracy - what's your problem ? Can't you count countries USA/UK attacked in 20th century on their own account ?

As Security Council is concerned it is nothing else that band of gangsters giving so called "authorisation" or passing "resolutions" to attack this or that country. That already sounds suspicious enough, but when one thinks that it was formed primarily by USA/UK (giving necessary concessions to Russia/France and China) picture becomes complete of what sort of world dictatorship we are talking about here.

Actually, west or rather USA/UK brought down Iranian government TWICE. Nicely explained in Century of war per longum et latum. I have no desire to waste time copying data on this forum. If somebody does not believe - read the book. Considering that Allied Teheran conference was held in ... Iran :) I would venture Iranians are fed up with west or to be specific Britais/USA for this millennium. That is next to Iraqis, Vietnamese and host of other countries conveniently labeled "Axis of Evil".
Kuwait itself, after all, was created or better to say devised by...you guess -Britain- for sole purpose of pupeteering middle east as Queen herself saw fit.


Britain and France were not going to buy into his promises again
why would Britain and France have anything to do with it ? did Germany intervened with Ireland, Falklands etc ?


Did the declaration of war by the Allies incite Hitler to invade Russia who was in a non aggression pact with Germany nearly 2 years later.
As Toose properly expalined - YES


Hows about if Herr Hitler with his super economic growth turned Germany instead of a military state into a major industrial one, exporting goods etc. Maybe that would have been a better plan than taking by force.
1. He followed American policy of ruthless colonization with added twist of Holocaust
2. Obviously he should have done that


Which can be summarised as:
Poland evacuates the territory Germany wants immediately, even if the referendum isn't for a year.
Germany will have the right of free transit through formerly Polish territory, no matter what the outcome of the referendum.
1. Territory was once German, whose citizens had German citizenship, received German pensions and spoke mostly German language. that is before Queen intervened with her divine wisdom
2. As Germany had East Prussia I don't see why free road or railroad track is a problem. Poland would also have free transit with Gdanya. Whats the problem ?
Interestingly why don't Baltic countries complain about free transit from Kaliningrad with Russia ?


And before you start spouting on about how unfair Versailles was, I suggest you read the text of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is the treaty Germany dictated to the Soviet Union when it thought itself victorious, and probably ended any chance the Germans had of getting a reasonable peace from the western allies.
The "referendum" will give votes to those living there in 1918 - i.e. prior to the Versailles settlement, and ignoring any rights accrued to those who have lived there for the past 20 years.

Rightly so, people who lived there for 20 years are immigrants. not domicile population. In addition Poland already ensured reducing German population as much as possible. That's why. Germany has done the same before that...


Essentially Poland gives a load away to Germany that it was awarded by the Treaty of Versailles, and Germany gives nothing in return. That isn't negotiation, it's a highwayman giving an ultimatum.
No it isn't. It's called freedom of speech as you British would say. Why don't you make parallels wit Saar region ? If majority of population wanted to be in Germany, and was in Germany before that what is you problem ? You prefer solution to forcefully keep them is another foreign state of obviously "inferior" design and welfare. I might mistake you for some dictator - since when referendum is not democratic means of settlement ?


I suggest you read the text of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Brest Litovsk was rectified or so to say nullified as had Germans not only Hitler tried with Versailles. Interestingly people blame hitler for everything. He merely articulated voices and fillings of majority of Germans at that time. Be it West Prussia, be it Versailles, be it Army restrictions, be it French occupation or be it Jewish question. Germans can not, on any account transfer quilt only on Hitler shoulders. Nor should they. Laws, agreements and justice may not have to be same things.

witman111
08-08-2011, 06:54 AM
Oh, I'm the "ignorant" one? I thought you were the lying ****wit who wasted bandwidth with the meaningless shit regarding "negotiations" between Poland and Germany regarding Danzig and other assorted territories. But the fact has clearly sailed over your head (once again) that I implied that all negotiations with the Reich were fallible and hence meaningless since the Fuhrer was a lying **** as evidenced by the aborted Munich Accords...

May have been. But Poland should have thought about that twice as it faced worst imaginable destiny not only from Nazis. Returning German Danzig to Germany and allowing railroad to East Prussia is hardly concession worth risking total war fromj Polish point of view. I very well understand Churchill and Daladier thought little about Polish welfare but rather tried to contain Germany becoming superpower. And good thing Pols learned their lesson. This way they ensured that their fate was sealed. They underestimated German strength and placed their hopes in British.
Proposal was formally made. Poland formally didn't respond.
But Hitler would attack nevertheless, maybe not Poland but Russia surely, probably through satelite Poland -like Rumania.


neofascist as yourself needs to grasp at straws to rationalize the genocide and warmongering of his Fuhrer
Neofacist, you say ? For a person who indulges watching Russian males in boy locker room this is hardly worth any reply. But let speak about facts shall we.
1. Great democracies were forced to be allies of Great dictator in order to get rid of another Great Dictator.
2. Great democracies than entered cold war with their former dear ally.
3. Great democracies is fallacy in itself as it is enough to see how were they formed. Through blood, slaughter, war and conquest all over the world through centuries. Even through entire 20th century.
But go ahead, call me neofacist if it makes you any smarter.


Yeah, right before you faulted the Poles for not negotiating with Hitler, dummy....
Yes and I still do. They gained German territory which they obviously did not deserve which was to be rectified by referendum demanded by Germans. Or are you against freedom of speech of people living on some land for generations ?


Try to maintain some vague consistencies in your arguments...
I have. Invasion of Czeklosvakia is invasion -only without Security council blessing so to speak. Agreement with Poles is another matter. But Hitler was psychopath who would risk all or nothing. As Tooze put it Volga was to be Germany's Missisipy.
True, who now asks about fates of Indians at hand of American cavalry during 18,19th century ? All we now know is USA.
That was his decision and he failed.

More to come in few days.

Rising Sun*
08-08-2011, 08:45 AM
witman

Your most recent posts fail to identify the members to whose comments you are responding.

I, and no doubt most other members, have no idea who made those comments.

For ****'s sake, please comply with my request at #59


Separate issue. When you're quoting posts, please indentify the poster. You can do this by copying the poster's ID at the start of the post inside the square brackets, e.g. QUOTE=witman111;178474 and finishing the part you want to quote with /quote inside square brackets. I've omitted the square brackets in the examples to avoid making the text in between a quote by you, like this if the start and finish are inside square brackets.

If you can't be bothered doing the rest of us the courtesy of identifying the members to whose comments you are responding, I'm going to be equally lazy and just delete any posts where you fail to do so. Including your most recent posts if you don't get them into order by editing them pretty soon.

witman111
08-08-2011, 09:13 AM
Fetched some spare time so to continue on German warmongering I will provide list of American occupation only regarding "banana wars":
Cuba and Puerto Rico, U.S. intervention in Cuba and invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898.
Panama, U.S. interventions in the isthmus go back to the 1846 Mallarino-Bidlack Treaty and intensified after the so-called Watermelon War of 1856. In 1903, Panama seceded from the Republic of Colombia, backed by the U.S. government,[2] amidst the Thousand Days War. The Panama Canal was under construction by then, and the Panama Canal Zone, under United States sovereignty, was then created (it was handed down to Panama as of 2000).
Nicaragua, which, after intermittent landings and naval bombardments in the previous decades, was occupied by the U.S. almost continuously from 1912 through 1933.
Cuba, occupied by the U.S. from 1898-1902 under military governor Leonard Wood, and again from 1906–1909, 1912 and 1917–1922; governed by the terms of the Platt Amendment through 1934.
Haiti, occupied by the U.S. from 1915-1934, which led to the creation of a new Haitian constitution in 1917 that instituted changes that included an end to the prior ban on land ownership by non-Haitians. Including the First and Second Caco Wars.[3]
Dominican Republic, action in 1903, 1904, and 1914; occupied by the U.S. from 1916-1924.
Honduras, where the United Fruit Company and Standard Fruit Company dominated the country's key banana export sector and associated land holdings and railways, saw insertion of American troops in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925.[4] Writer O. Henry coined the term "Banana republic" in 1904 to describe Honduras.
Mexico, The U.S. military involvements with Mexico in this period are related to the same general commercial and political causes, but stand as a special case.

Having in mind "banana wars" and calling me Neo-facist (this is new one it is usually neo-nazi :)) mind my view that Hitler's breach of Munich agreement is not quite on scale of USA/UK interventions, limiting the scope only on bananas if you will.


I am wondering if you accidently nailed your flag to the wall with your link to the Hitler Historical Museum which purports to be just a factual place with no bias at all towards or against Hitler.
What do you want. I linked bloody sketch to web page I found on google. Be it biased or not it makes no difference. It's a sketch - no mystical powers emanating from it.


Um, actually "people" do realize this. Unlike you, we've read books on it and haven't relied on the faux history recited to us by our weird, German-speaking uncle. And there was little thought about "preventative war(s)" nor preserving resources. The OKW simply went with a risky plan that was high risk, high reward. But that wasn't the initial war-plan nor was anything premeditated by Hitler nor the general staff prior to the initiation of hostilities. There was no "plan" for a "quick war." That's the "Blitzkrieg myth" dispelled in recent literature...
1. Invasion of Denmark and Norway was to secure iron ore from Sweden. Try reading Churchill memories, punk.
2. Ober Commando Wehrmach did not go anywhere. Almost all were against war. even conspired to murder adolf. But faced with possibility Hitler knew of this treason they backed down and try to "articulate" what he wanted. World war was not what army wanted.
3. IMO !!! Try reading Wages of Destruction to see how "Blitzkrieg myth" is dispelled in recent literature. Although half crazy Hitler, knew nevertheless that only chance Germany had was quick war not war of attrition.


Um, no, strawman, that's quite a leap from my statement. Iraq was clearly in violation of the armistice negotiated after the first Gulf War and there had been an ongoing aerial guerrilla war since the Clinton Administration called "Desert Fox." Saddam was in violation of numerous tenets of the peace accord. So no, no one can "just invade" any Middle Eastern country since the circumstances in Iraq were far from those of any other Middle Eastern country...
Ahh. did not know that, what you said "circumstances in Iraq were far from those of any other Middle Eastern country" ? Why don't you try explaining circumstances starting from aforementioned banana wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Serbia, Libya and god knows which other country you have invaded.


No. I don't feel like it.
You don't know what you are missing :)


Yeah, except many of those blessed workers were treated as little more than slave laborers, especially those working on the Autobahn. Secondly, one can also argue that conscription was a pretty disingenuous way to combat the unemployment of young men. Yet, it was a major factor in the 'jobs creation.' Wasn't it?
Fact remains as follows:
1. jobs were created - even those involving hard labor. Better that than starvation I guess. Trick is who will pay for autobahn ?
2. Germany did not increase it's foreign debt.
3. number of soldiers is irrelevant. somebody has to pay for their upkeep, capish ?
Reich economic policies were not funded with foreign debt not devaluation of Reichmark. This is indeed unique situation in history. Germany did rob Austria for 700 million Reichmark but also employed all her workers. To their satisfaction I believe. It also robbed Jews for 1 billion Reichmark. But just to put this figures into perspective and dispel usual myths total Wehrmacht cost from 1933-1939 was around 65 billion Reichmark. So everything was paid by hard German labour and exports of course.
No bankster loans strangling USA now for example.
BTW did you know FED consists of private banks (Jewish) that print dollars for American state which USA taxpayers need to pay back to these banks with interest ? Did you know that smartass ? how many Americans know that ?


I dunno. What about 1942? After Hitler unnecessarily claimed war on the U.S.?
1. During brief period of 1942 Germans indeed controlled vast territory with vast resources from Caucuses to Britain. And could have fared better than Stalingrad.
2. As Tooze pointed out even during 1939-1940 USA started building plants that eventually produced over 150.000 aircraft and effectively decided the outcome of war. Wages of war provides conclusive proof that Roosvelt always planned to be at war with Germany and Hitler's only chance of success was invasion of Russia before that happened.


Okay, cite the text and answer the question I asked!
1. I will, currently don't have the book
2. Hitler knew time was of essence and he war certainly right on this was - as Tooze also pointed out. Time did not work in Germany's favour.
3. Second thing is that he recognized brilliance of Manstein plan before others and force it as official Sigil Stroke strategy that should be elaborated.


Of course, but then we'd have angry German men...
Not necessarily, 1933-1944 was most fertile period as born childs are concerned in Germany I read somewhere...


Fine, but then again, you're crediting Hitler for what the Wiemar Republic started..
Nazis spent between 15-20% of GDP on armaments production between 1933-1939 and succeeded in maintaining fair living standard of citizens. that is without parallel in recent economic history. and no they did not inherit rich country with full coffers. On the contrary they inherited country that was hit by Depression worst of all.


But you cannot misrepresent the fundamental thesis of Tooze by quoting him out-of-context
no, dear friend there are facts and there are personal opinions. for this occasion I quoted facts.


it seems ubelievable to me, that some people are still trying to exculpate the things hitler did
No such thing. I comment on events from my perspective. And therby drawing parallel to other empire to show how ignorant people are.


even if I'm fed up with this way of still being indicted just because of being German, but it is a fact, that Hitler and his paladines brought devastation over europe
Be German or not, devastation was brought to Europe many times over, from French, Mongols, diseases at such etc. What is important is to look at all the facts. Bismark did not brought devastation over Europe simply because Britain did not pursue all or nothing war with him and because USA did not become of age.

witman111
08-08-2011, 09:18 AM
If you can't be bothered doing the rest of us the courtesy of identifying the members to whose comments you are responding, I'm going to be equally lazy and just delete any posts where you fail to do so. Including your most recent posts if you don't get them into order by editing them pretty so

where the hell is poster ID ???
what's your poster ID ?
what's this "178474 " number ?

danke

Rising Sun*
08-08-2011, 09:29 AM
where the hell is poster ID ???
what's your poster ID ?
what's this "178474 " number ?

danke

Click on 'reply with quote' at the bottom right of this post.

You'll see



where the hell is poster ID ???
what's your poster ID ?
what's this "178474 " number ?

danke

Click on 'reply with quote' at the bottom right of any other post to which you are responding and you'll see the same thing.

Just copy and paste the post or part of it to which you want to respond. For example, in the quote above just copy and paste [ QUOTE=witman111;179422 ] and finish it with [/quote].

I'm having more than a little difficulty accepting that you can't do this when you can quote the comments to which you choose to respond.

I'm also not disposed to waste any more of my time giving clear instructions to someone who chose to ignore them close to 50 posts ago.

steben
08-08-2011, 09:38 AM
I agree to the point that there is little difference in policy and geo-politics between the nazi empire and all other major powers in history. Including the present days.
And it is a negative conclusion

Nickdfresh
08-08-2011, 04:29 PM
May have been. But Poland should have thought about that twice as it faced worst imaginable destiny not only from Nazis. Returning German Danzig to Germany and allowing railroad to East Prussia is hardly concession worth risking total war fromj Polish point of view. I very well understand Churchill and Daladier thought little about Polish welfare but rather tried to contain Germany becoming superpower.

Now we're backpedaling! "But Poland should have...?" Even if Poland had returned a corridor to Danzing, when did Hitler ever stop at limited objectives? Czechoslovakia? Oh yes, the evil French and British trying to keep Germany from becoming a superpower by invading its neighbors? Oh yes, what a myopic, ignorant view of history. The British and French largely stood by and allowed the Nazi German gov't to completely breach the Versailles Treaty and rearm, and they didn't really have the power nor political will to actively "hold back" Germany, though it is highly arguable that Germany could ever had reached the status of a superpower without invading everyone as their standard of living was that of essentially a modern Third World nation in the 1930s. And incidentally, Churchill wasn't PM during the invasion of Poland, genius!


And good thing Pols learned their lesson. This way they ensured that their fate was sealed. They underestimated German strength and placed their hopes in British.
Proposal was formally made. Poland formally didn't respond.
But Hitler would attack nevertheless, maybe not Poland but Russia surely, probably through satelite Poland -like Rumania.

The underestimated the capabilities of the mechanized Heer as did almost everyone, or rather probably overestimated their own power and ability to hold out against, and attrit, the German onslaught. They didn't put their faith in just the British, but also the French...


Neofacist, you say ? For a person who indulges watching Russian males in boy locker room this is hardly worth any reply. But let speak about facts shall we.

Well, either English isn't your first language, or you have a severe learning disability. I suspect both. But since I do not live in Russia nor have I been in a locker room in ten years, I think that idiot troll bate to be highly unlikely. Perhaps you're just projecting your Ernst Rohm fantasies onto me?:o


1. Great democracies were forced to be allies of Great dictator in order to get rid of another Great Dictator.

So?


2. Great democracies than entered cold war with their former dear ally.

And?


3. Great democracies is fallacy in itself as it is enough to see how were they formed. Through blood, slaughter, war and conquest all over the world through centuries. Even through entire 20th century.
But go ahead, call me neofacist if it makes you any smarter.

I've never used the term "Great Democracies?" So I am wondering who the **** you are responding too????

And generally idiotic Hitler-sycophants generally constitute what one would call "neofascist."



...I have. Invasion of Czeklosvakia is invasion -only without Security council blessing so to speak. Agreement with Poles is another matter. But Hitler was psychopath who would risk all or nothing. As Tooze put it Volga was to be Germany's Missisipy.
True, who now asks about fates of Indians at hand of American cavalry during 18,19th century ? All we now know is USA.
That was his decision and he failed.

ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzz


More to come in few days.

Don't hold your breath... :evil:

Kregs
08-08-2011, 11:52 PM
But Poland should have thought about that twice as it faced worst imaginable destiny not only from Nazis. Returning German Danzig to Germany and allowing railroad to East Prussia is hardly concession worth risking total war fromj Polish point of view.

The Polish government, especially Lipski, was very suspicious about German intentions, mostly because Germany had openly expressed the desire to annex Danzig, and wished to destroy the Versailles treaty by destroying the country that had exasperated previous chancellors and taken much needed land away from honest, hardworking German settlers. If the Polish government conceded a railroad to East Prussia, the Reich might demand more concessions that would cut into the economic heart of Poland. Therefore, the Government believed that Germany was shifting the borders in order to steal the prosperous shipyard for themselves without just compensation; the ethnic German issue, they believed, was a pretext for an annexation or, if the demands were not met, an invasion.


And good thing Pols learned their lesson. This way they ensured that their fate was sealed. They underestimated German strength and placed their hopes in British.

This quote pains me very deeply. I do not know how to respond to something like this. Are you stating that Poland deserved its fate?


But Hitler would attack nevertheless, maybe not Poland but Russia surely, probably through satelite Poland -like Rumania.


In order to invade and conquer Russia quickly, Hitler's Wehrmacht would have had to invade Poland because the country is sandwiched in between Russian and German territory. That is simple geography. It makes perfect sense to invade Russia through Soviet-controlled Poland to the east-- previously known as the Kresy--and possibly through Czechoslovakia because these countries are closest to Russia. The Wehrmacht should have secured Romania, yes, but it makes perfect sense to secure your eastern flank before launching another attack.

Also, Romania was not a satellite of Poland, nor was it ever. I don't understand what you mean by "satelite Poland." Could you explain that one to me, witman?

steben
08-09-2011, 02:59 AM
People should try not to confuse healthy criticism with sympathy falacies :(

I read some Chomsky last weeks and he is particularly critical towards United States and their "democratic cloak". He never addresses Hitler as being better choice though. In one way or another, try decoupling issues a bit.

Nickdfresh
08-10-2011, 03:13 AM
This thread is closed until further notice due to blatant thread-jacking and trolling...

But I will respond to these few comments that irk me...




Having in mind "banana wars" and calling me Neo-facist (this is new one it is usually neo-nazi :)) mind my view that Hitler's breach of Munich agreement is not quite on scale of USA/UK interventions, limiting the scope only on bananas if you will.

WTF do "Banana (Republic, I assume you mean) Wars have to do with the "pros and cons" of Adolf Hitler? Secondly, I've never defended U.S. "Monroe Doctrine" policies you're referring too...


1. Invasion of Denmark and Norway was to secure iron ore from Sweden. Try reading Churchill memories, punk.
2. Ober Commando Wehrmach did not go anywhere. Almost all were against war. even conspired to murder adolf. But faced with possibility Hitler knew of this treason they backed down and try to "articulate" what he wanted. World war was not what army wanted.
3. IMO !!! Try reading Wages of Destruction to see how "Blitzkrieg myth" is dispelled in recent literature. Although half crazy Hitler, knew nevertheless that only chance Germany had was quick war not war of attrition.

Really? You're citing Tooze's Wages of Destruction for this? My assertion of your learning disability coupled with your inability to grasp English language nuance is becoming ever truer and truer with every little trolling post. Actually Tooze is EXACTLY the literature that dispels the "quick war" "Blitzkrieg" notion as he cites The Blitzkrieg Legend (written by a German military historian and Bundeswehr officer). And if you had actually read this text you throw around in a completely inappropriate manner, you'd note that the reason why the OKW didn't want to go rumbling into France was that the very blueprint for war that Hitler was screaming to put into place was in fact a BATTLE OF ATTRITION through Belgium! NOT a BLITZ of any kind, as the Blitzkrieg was essentially invented on the fly during the war with France, not for a war with France. The genius of the Manstein/Halder plan didn't come to fruition until well after Hitler was pressuring his army to attack into Belgium in October-November of 1939, with a plan that anticipated over 600,000 casualties for marginal gains at best!


Ahh. did not know that, what you said "circumstances in Iraq were far from those of any other Middle Eastern country" ? Why don't you try explaining circumstances starting from aforementioned banana wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Serbia, Libya and god knows which other country you have invaded.

I don't know what a "banana war" is, but I'm pretty sure none of those countries grow bananas as America's evil plot to seize the worlds banana supply was thwarted!



Blah blah off-topic mentally ill ramblings...