PDA

View Full Version : Why Hitler lost WW2.



Comrade Commisar
08-26-2008, 02:16 PM
He lost it because if his ideals he could have taken Russia easly if his ego didint get in the way. He had to many Commandrs sacked because they didint think he any good ideas. He lost because he meant to torture the Slavs because at first they welcomed the Germans but then they were tortured and killed thus forming partsian bands. He lost because of the manpower eating battles of Kursk and Stalingrad.He lost because he didint defend Berlin well. Helost because he didint strike down Britain fast enough. He lost because of Japan and its war a the US. He lost because of his belive in Wunderwaffen. He lost because of his lack of tactics. He lost because he couldent defeand the reich.
Yes the German military was a well oild machine its only flaw was Hitler and the Nazis.

These are just some of the reasons.

Kent
09-13-2008, 05:22 PM
I just happened on this topic and decided to cut and paste bits and pieces of a reply I made on another subject. My two cents:

Hitler's biggest mistake (among numerous big mistakes) was picking too many fights with too many opponents at the same time**, and those opponents each had greater resources than he did. And his so-called allies were not that much help, either. Consequently, from 1943 onwards Germany was, for all intents and purposes, fighting defensively in a reactive mode still, Hitler refused to surrender long after the handwriting was on the wall.

**It's like walking into a Biker Bar alone on Saturday night and yelling, "Harley-Davidson and anybody who rides one, SUCKS!!!" You may know Kung Fu and be armed to the teeth, but eventually, innevitably, you are going to get your *** kicked.

Kiwiguy
09-14-2008, 04:45 AM
I think it starts with the fact he was a paranoid psychotic and lacked any realistic perspective.

pdf27
09-14-2008, 05:16 AM
Country 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
Austria 24 27 27 29 27 28 29 12
France 186 199 164 130 116 110 93 101
Germany 351 384 387 412 417 426 437 310
Italy 141 151 147 144 145 137 117 92
Japan 169 184 192 196 197 194 189 144
Soviet Union 359 366 417 359 274 305 362 343
UK 284 287 316 344 353 361 346 331
USA 800 869 943 1094 1235 1399 1499 1474

Allied Total: 1629 1600 1331 1596 1862 2065 2363 2341
Axis Total: 685 746 845 911 902 895 826 466

Values are for GDP in Billions of 1990 dollars. The Allied/Axis totals are weighted rather than pure adding up (e.g. France is included in both Allied and Axis columns, depending on year).

Just a cursory glance comparing the US figures alone with those for the whole of the axis demonstrates rather nicely that no matter what the Axis did, the US would crush them like a bug as soon as it got going.

Source is Harrison, Mark, "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison", Cambridge University Press (1998), via Wiki.

Adrian Wainer
09-14-2008, 07:08 AM
There is obviously a lot more to it than those figures would suggest, for a start if Britain had been overwhelmed in 1940, the Third Reich might well have then gone on to defeat Russia [ NB I am not saying that a defeat of Russia would have been dependent on an occupation of the United Kingdom by the Third Reich ], the USA would have been sandwiched between Japan and a Third Reich that could draw on the Soviet Union's vast natural resources. On the other hand the figures are accurate in that with Russia and Britain undefeated, the odds were massively stacked against the Axis once the USA placed her economy on a full war footing and committed her armed forces to combat.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

pdf27
09-14-2008, 07:38 AM
It gets worse once you realise that the US never fully went to a war economy. Yes, there was a mass conversion to a war footing, but it never went as far as in e.g. the UK (where women were conscripted from 1940 onwards). The war making potential of the US in the 1940s matches that for the rest of the world put together, and over the course of the war this imbalance just got worse.

Adrian Wainer
09-14-2008, 07:50 AM
I think it starts with the fact he was a paranoid psychotic and lacked any realistic perspective.

Hi, I think it is a fair comment to call Hitler a nutjob or suchlike, but when one gets in to the arena of medical terminology I think one should try to get and get at precisely what sort of person he was.

In my view Hitler's life and activities are too complex and too directed over too long a time to support the view that he was a paranoid psychotic in that he does not seem to have been driven by fear nor does he seem to be out of touch with reality, there are certainly elements of the psychopath about Hitler and I think that is the personality type which comes closest to him. One does not have to anyway agree with Hitler's thinking and ideology to allow for the possibility that he might well have thought himself a highly honourable person trying to achieve some positive good. If one blends a psychopathic personality with an intense motivation to achieve a common good that could account for Hitler's life story. Many of Hitler's actions were highly intelligent and he succeeded in in a relatively easy defeat of several States and caused a complete and rapid collapse of what was at the time regarded ( though wrongly ) as one of the foremost military powers in the World in the shape of France and he came very close to defeating both Britain and the USSR and had he done so, I personally believe it is highly likely he would have then gone on to defeat the USA. One of the critical problems that Hitler had was that apparently believed in what he was doing e.g. a serious fascist dictator would have dropped the whole anti-Jew thing like a hot potato after he had secured power and in the event of War with the Soviet Union would have presented the Russian people with a plan for representive National Government and been precise to instruct German troops in Russia to treat civilians and POWs with respect and humanity in order to draw a distinction between "civilized" fascist German "liberators" and tyranical Communist bandit overlords in the Kremlin. Because of Hitler's ideological hobbyhorses [ which made bringing the bulk of the Russian population on-side a non-starter ] once committed to War with Russia, if he could not finish off Russia in a quick campaign he was sure to invoke ferocious resistance from the Russians. The large Russian population and the size of the country would then make a decisive victory over the Soviet Union almost impossible and so anything other than a quick and decisive victory over the USSR spelt doom for the Reich, in that Germany would be hard pressed to fight a War against Russia and Britain and would be totally overwhelmed once America's industrial economy was to fully harnessed to military production and the US troops became battle hardened.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

SS Ouche-Vittes
09-14-2008, 09:28 AM
britain could of been won if he destroyed the sea ports and the radar stations.

Churchill
09-14-2008, 09:54 AM
Then thank the Lord he didn't!

Nickdfresh
09-14-2008, 11:41 AM
britain could of been won if he destroyed the sea ports and the radar stations.

Or continued the center of gravity on bombing the RAF aerodromes instead of losing focus to prove a political point by intensifying the attacks on UK population centers....

pdf27
09-14-2008, 11:42 AM
britain could of been won if he destroyed the sea ports and the radar stations.
Errr... no. The radar stations were important to minimising RAF attrition, but the point everyone misses about the Battle of Britain was that the RAF were a sideshow. To successfully invade, the Germans had to negate the Royal Navy. The plan to do this was to use the Luftwaffe instead of the Kriegsmarine, on the grounds that the Kriegsmarine had been slapped stupid in the Norwegian campaign (in large part by the Norwegians, it has to be said) and were incapable of meaningfully engaging the RN. Now the problem with this plan is, to quote Blackadder, is the fact that "it was bollocks".
At Dunkirk the Luftwaffe demonstrated that they were only very marginally capable of hitting destroyers which were parked in harbour loading men, and a year after the proposed invasion date they were only marginally capable of engaging moving destroyers during the evacuation of Crete.
Worse still, the Luftwaffe in 1940 didn't have any armour piercing bombs as would be required to engage the RN home fleet, and the number of torpedo carrying aircraft was extremely limited (IIRC to a small number of seaplanes). In practice all the Luftwaffe could do to anything larger than a light cruiser in 1940 is make rude gestures out of the cockpit windows!

Destroying the port infrastructure is valid, but was attempted as part of the Battle of the Atlantic. The Silvertown area of London (the worst hit at the start of the Blitz) was after all the biggest port in the UK at the time. Nonetheless, they still failed to make a strategically significant dent in imports.

Nickdfresh
09-14-2008, 03:57 PM
Errr... no. The radar stations were important to minimising RAF attrition, but the point everyone misses about the Battle of Britain was that the RAF were a sideshow. To successfully invade, the Germans had to negate the Royal Navy. The plan to do this was to use the Luftwaffe instead of the Kriegsmarine, on the grounds that the Kriegsmarine had been slapped stupid in the Norwegian campaign (in large part by the Norwegians, it has to be said) and were incapable of meaningfully engaging the RN. Now the problem with this plan is, to quote Blackadder, is the fact that "it was bollocks".
At Dunkirk the Luftwaffe demonstrated that they were only very marginally capable of hitting destroyers which were parked in harbour loading men, and a year after the proposed invasion date they were only marginally capable of engaging moving destroyers during the evacuation of Crete.
Worse still, the Luftwaffe in 1940 didn't have any armour piercing bombs as would be required to engage the RN home fleet, and the number of torpedo carrying aircraft was extremely limited (IIRC to a small number of seaplanes). In practice all the Luftwaffe could do to anything larger than a light cruiser in 1940 is make rude gestures out of the cockpit windows!

Destroying the port infrastructure is valid, but was attempted as part of the Battle of the Atlantic. The Silvertown area of London (the worst hit at the start of the Blitz) was after all the biggest port in the UK at the time. Nonetheless, they still failed to make a strategically significant dent in imports.

I agree to an extent. But if the RAF had been overwhelmed, the Germans could have compensated for the inherent weaknesses in the Kriegsmarine via submarine blockade and possibly through the use the new generation of guided missiles and bombs. Armor piercing bombs are hardly difficult to develop and produce!

I do think a "Sea Lion" attempted without complete neutralization of the Royal Navy would have resulted in tens of thousands of drowned Wehrmacht in the English Channel, and a precarious, at best, beachhead at Dover if not a major victory for the British Army. But if the Luftwaffe had achieved air superiority, all bets were off...

pdf27
09-14-2008, 04:24 PM
I agree to an extent. But if the RAF had been overwhelmed, the Germans could have compensated for the inherent weaknesses in the Kriegsmarine via submarine blockade
Nope. U-boats have effectively no capability against targets moving at high speed and zig-zagging unless they get some pretty extraordinary luck. They would have virtually no capability against the Home Fleet, which would be going at ~30kts in and around the channel.


and possibly through the use the new generation of guided missiles and bombs.
Not in 1940!


Armor piercing bombs are hardly difficult to develop and produce!
Yet, despite the plan which calls for the Luftwaffe to neutralise the Royal Navy they didn't produce them. Which suggests either a lack of capability to produce them, that the Luftwaffe was below something else in the priority tree, or they simply didn't appreciate that they needed armour piercing bombs against armoured targets.


I do think a "Sea Lion" attempted without complete neutralization of the Royal Navy would have resulted in tens of thousands of drowned Wehrmacht in the English Channel, and a precarious, at best, beachhead at Dover if not a major victory for the British Army.
It was war-gamed repeatedly after the war at Sandhurst, with the parts largely played by people who had been there at the time. The best the Germans could do was a small enclave near Deal which was effectively starved into submission over the winter.

Kiwiguy
09-14-2008, 07:52 PM
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-06.html

What's your definition of Paranoia Adrian ?

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh212/727Kiwi/HitlerOSS1.jpg

Adrian Wainer
09-15-2008, 07:50 AM
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-06.html

What's your definition of Paranoia Adrian ?



Hi, Paranoia is an ir-rational fear, so that if one was say a US Navy air-sea rescue pilot in the pacific in WW2, it would make sense for one to seek to effect the rescue of ship-wrecked sailors as quickly as possible for amongst other reasons, the threat of shark attack to men in the sea and such a concern could no way said to be paranoid. On the other hand, the story of the person in the Midwestern USA town, who locked themselves in their house, after seeing the Jaws film [ if true ] is a good example of paranoia. Hitler's activities against the Jews in my opinion, do superficially resemble that of a person in a paranoid state but I do not think he was actually afraid of the Jews but merely regarded them as negative e.g. if one has a cockroach infestation in one's house, it does not follow one would be anyway afraid of the cockroaches, one would call in the extermination company and they would get rid of them. NB I am not equating Jews with cockroaches, I am merely trying to put myself in what I was presume was Hitler's way of thinking.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Kent
09-15-2008, 11:26 AM
Hi, Paranoia is an irrational fear, ...

I agree with Adrian, somewhat. Hitler is probably best described as a meglomaniacal tyrant, which describes most tyrants. One definition of a tyrant, "Anyone who exercises authority in an oppressive manner; cruel master".

That said, tyrants always need bogeymen to justify their actions ie: "Give me more power so I can protect you from the Bogeyman. I may be very bad, but the Bogeyman is much, much worse." Hilter's bogeymen were the Jews, the Bolshevicks, or anyone or anything else that could provide him with justification (it's called, delegating blame for unreasonable behavior) for what he was really doing; acquring more power and control by conquest. And I don't think he would have stopped until he "had it all". You can see this same mindset today in liberal politicitians. Can you say, "Global Warming"?

Also, tyrants are typically cruel and ruthless, and they see anyone else, particularly any opposition or contrary view, as being just as cruel and ruthless as themselves. Therefore, better to do unto others, before they can do unto you. Is this a form of paranoia, or just a cunning calculation?

Albert Speer wrote is his book that Hitler would deliberately appoint people with equal rank and authority then, give them conflicting orders. That way, they would be so busy trying to follow the Furher's orders that they wouldn't have time to conspire against him. It's amazing the Third Reich operated as efficiently as it did with Hitler at the helm. Like I've said before, if Hitler had let his generals run the war, things would have be worse for us. Not that the eventulal outcome would have been any different, just that it would have taken longer to get there, at a much higher cost.

Adrian Wainer
09-15-2008, 02:53 PM
I agree with Adrian, somewhat. Hitler is probably best described as a meglomaniacal tyrant, which describes most tyrants. One definition of a tyrant, "Anyone who exercises authority in an oppressive manner; cruel master".

Kent I appreciate your kind remarks, so I hope I do not seem too horrid in make comments on your observations. For sure Hitler was a tyrant, but I am not sure to add the word "meglomaniacal" adds very much to our understanding of him. Many of his projects such as the conquest of Russia and no doubt the entire planet, aswell as his extensive building plans for Berlin have all the hall marks of meglomania, but this is very much a value judgment based on the concept that what Hitler was doing was bad, now I am not arguing that was Hitler did was good but if e.g. he had not got involved with the Concentration camps gig and had confined his plans for a greater Reich to the annexation of the Sudetenland and Anchluss with Austria and had then gone on to invade the USSR win and installed a progressive Government in Russia, Hitler would probably be regarded as one of the great figures of the 20th Century and not a meglomaniac but somebody who was decisive and thought big.



That said, tyrants always need bogeymen to justify their actions ie: "Give me more power so I can protect you from the Bogeyman. I may be very bad, but the Bogeyman is much, much worse." Hilter's bogeymen were the Jews, the Bolshevicks, or anyone or anything else that could provide him with justification (it's called, delegating blame for unreasonable behavior) for what he was really doing; acquring more power and control by conquest. And I don't think he would have stopped until he "had it all". You can see this same mindset today in liberal politicitians. Can you say, "Global Warming"?

Well what you say, would make sense in a properly Fascist state such as was run by Mussolini, in that Mussolini was dependent on others but in the Hitlerian Nazi state all power was vested within Hitler and therefor Hitler had much more scope to change policy, than say a fascist dictator like Mussolini. Mussolini had to justify his actions to others and justify his actions within the context of a fascist ideology, whereas in the Third Reich Nazism was whatever Hitler said it was, whenever he said it was.Therefor there was no inherent problem in doing 180 degree policy U-turns, so whilst e.g. whipping up anti-Jewish hate was useful to him in acquiring power, there was no need for him to continue on that path once he had secured power. As for the Soviet Union, it was murderous regime and given the nationalist sentiments of the Germans in the Thirties/forties, there was no need for him to present the USSR as a bogeyman, because that is what it was. As it so happened, given the excesses of the Third Reich in the USSR during the invasion, that is likely to have gained support for Hitler when the War started to go wrong for Germany, when it was realized that the Russians would be likely to come looking for revenge on German soil and better a continued support of Hitler than getting rid of him and a greater possibility of a Soviet occupation of Germany, but I don't think Hitler planned that. As much as I find so called "liberal" politicians spouting almost Hitlerian pseudo science about global warming to be offensive, the case is radically different in that thse people engage in such tactics because:they have basically no power if they are out of office and even if they are the Government of the day, they have limited power. Hitler once he was firmly in power really did not need real or imagined bogeymen to do what he wanted, he had absolute power.



Also, tyrants are typically cruel and ruthless, and they see anyone else, particularly any opposition or contrary view, as being just as cruel and ruthless as themselves. Therefore, better to do unto others, before they can do unto you. Is this a form of paranoia, or just a cunning calculation?

Well I believe, Hitler differs somewhat from either an opportunistic tyrant or somebody who is an position of great power and is suffering from a paranoid delusion of persecution. If Hitler was just being opportunistic as I said before, he would have dropped the whole anti-Jew thing like a hot potato once he was firmly in power if not before. For example Stalin who was a ferocious persecutor of Christianity, when he had his back to the wall during the early part of the Nazi invasion, re-opened the Churches in order to stiffen the patriotic morale of the Russian people. And I think the fact he [ ie Hitler] was not apparently in fear of the Jews disqualifies him from the label paranoid.




Albert Speer wrote is his book that Hitler would deliberately appoint people with equal rank and authority then, give them conflicting orders. That way, they would be so busy trying to follow the Furher's orders that they wouldn't have time to conspire against him.
Well it was more that with several people given authority for the same areas and activities, they would be too busy fighting amongst themselves in their personal empire building activities to challenge Hitler's authority.




It's amazing the Third Reich operated as efficiently as it did with Hitler at the helm.

The words Third Reich and efficency just do not go together, yes the German army as a fighting force was an efficent organization but the German War economy was a shambles.



Like I've said before, if Hitler had let his generals run the war, things would have be worse for us.

Well yes and no, from a purely narrow military tactical point of view much of Hitler's actions certainly in the early part of the War were genius, the decision not to finish Britain off before turning on Russia was a catastrophic mistake and from then on if Germany failed to secure a quick and decisive victory over the USSR the odds were then stacked against the Reich, regardless of whether Hitler or his Generals had led it from that point on [ ie after the initial attack on Russia had stalled ].



Not that the eventulal outcome would have been any different, just that it would have taken longer to get there, at a much higher cost.

Well possably not, if Hitler had say been killed in a car crash and the Generals had taken over after the Invasion of the USSR they might have sought to develop a political alternative for the Russians that could mobalize significant Russian support, in effect turning the Nazi invasion in to a Russian civil war. And with a more favourable situation in Russia, they could have devoted more resources to neutralizing the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is not a very big place and a couple of Hiroshima sized nuclear weapons strikes would have very much degraded its potential both as an adversary and as a base for the US military, with the United Kingdom nuked, that buys time to bring the War in Russia to a sucessful conclusion. With a pro-Nazi regime in Moscow that would put Germany then in to a better position in terms of available resources etc, that she is capable of either frightening the US in to accepting a peace agreement or fighting her with some possibility of success if the US decides on War.

Thanx again Kent and your points are good and well made.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Kent
09-16-2008, 10:29 AM
Adrian,
I believe you have to examine a person's actions with respect to their intent. Is a particular action just a means to an end, or the end itself? Using that criteria, Hitler was anything but a benevolent dictator seeking to bring peace and prosperity to the German people, or anyone else that would follow him. The guy was just plain evil, and I truly believe he had supernatural help (not the good kind). It gives much insight into the reason he tried to eliminate the Jews, God's chosen people. And his chosen symbol for the Nazi Party, the reversed Swastika, is the symbol for a broken cross. Ultimately, I trust in the words of the greatest judge of character the world has ever known:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you shall know them.

Adrian Wainer
09-17-2008, 02:24 PM
Adrian,
I believe you have to examine a person's actions with respect to their intent. Is a particular action just a means to an end, or the end itself? Using that criteria, Hitler was anything but a benevolent dictator seeking to bring peace and prosperity to the German people, or anyone else that would follow him. The guy was just plain evil, and I truly believe he had supernatural help (not the good kind). It gives much insight into the reason he tried to eliminate the Jews, God's chosen people. And his chosen symbol for the Nazi Party, the reversed Swastika, is the symbol for a broken cross. Ultimately, I trust in the words of the greatest judge of character the world has ever known:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you shall know them.

Well Kent I respect your opinons, but I don't think I ever said he was a nice person, though I did imply he was a mass murdering pyschopath, which is hardly a charactor reference. That said from what I know of him, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he actually thought he was doing good. If somebody wishes to ascribe a supernatural involvement behind events, that's fine, I personally would not but I have no problem with other people doing so. My view is that the devil, ( if that is who you are talking about ) gets blamed for a lot of bad stuff, that people are perfectly capable of getting up to on their own account. As for the Swastika, it is a much respected religious symbol and I know the point is made that the traditional Swastika is orientated differently but that sounds a bit too subtle a difference for the Nazis. Well, if Hitler was in league with supernatural forces of darkness a lot of organized religion does not come out of this very well either, in that the French catholic church establishment was a disgrace and the Croatian catholic church establishment should have been placed on a par with the SS in respect of their respective reactions to the Third Reich's occupations of France and Yugoslavia. In fairness to the Wartime pope, much of the criticism of him is quite idiotic in the sense that the Vatican as a military force has only a tiny army in the shape of the Swiss Guard and the only thing he could do was exert a moral influence and to have gone further in criticizing the Third Reich than he actually did over its treatment of the Jews, probably would have achieved nothing except to strip away what little protection the Vatican could offer to Catholic clergy and nuns engaged in helping Jews. If the quotes you made are from Jesus Christ, I think he also said

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23:34

http://biblebrowser.com/luke/23-34.htm

Which, ( i.e. the above ), I have to factor in to the equation with respect to Hitler

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Matthew 5:39

http://biblecc.com/matthew/5-39.htm

Which sounds to me patently idiotic. But maybe I reading it out of context?

As for being a wolf in sheep's clothing, I think a wolf in a wolf's clothing would be a better description of Hitler, in that everything he said he was going to do in Mein Kampf he did and as Mein Kampf was written by him and widely sold in Germany and translated in to several languages elsewhere in Europe, it was not as if the guy was keeping his plans a secret. As for the supernatural bit, if it is true it is true and even if is not true, if people wish to believe that for honourable reasons, that's fine with me, [ and no personal criticism intended ] but I think it might suit some people in Germany to believe Hitler was in league with the Devil, in that if Hitler has the Devil on side, it makes those who thought he was the best thing since sliced bread ie the bulk of the German people of the Wartime generation somewhat less guilty. As for the Jews being "the chosen people", that is phraseology used by non-Jews, personally I have never seen it used by Jews.

Anyway thanks for your comments and whilst I would not agree with them, I do respect them.

You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings, and brought you to myself. Exodus 19:4

http://biblecc.com/exodus/19-4.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuI0gFUq3HY&feature=related

Hals Und Beinbruch
Adrian Wainer

aly j
09-18-2008, 04:00 AM
why would u attack ur on alli,meanin germany actackin russia,what a mouron.
hey...is every one on here from germany.......

flamethrowerguy
09-18-2008, 04:21 AM
why would u attack ur on alli,meanin germany actackin russia,what a mouron.
hey...is every one on here from germany.......

Once again, what makes you think so? However I get the impression that the few germans on the forum were much more attentive than you learning english grammar at school...

aly j
09-18-2008, 04:50 AM
Once again, what makes you think so? However I get the impression that the few germans on the forum were much more attentive than you learning english grammar at school...

well hitler is a moron cause he lost.....but ive been interested in german soilders 4 a long time............i think there more better lookin.........i hav nothin against germans so im not ganna get nastie with u....i know my english is bad.

flamethrowerguy
09-18-2008, 05:53 AM
well hitler is a moron cause he lost.....but ive been interested in german soilders 4 a long time............i think there more better lookin.........i hav nothin against germans so im not ganna get nastie with u....i know my english is bad.

OK, aly j, sorry for feeling prematurely offended. it was early in the morning!

navyson
09-18-2008, 06:02 AM
well hitler is a moron cause he lost.....but ive been interested in german soilders 4 a long time............i think there more better lookin.........i hav nothin against germans so im not ganna get nastie with u....i know my english is bad.
Everyone's a fashion critic:D. Although I like the german uniforms also, thank god that it didn't come down to dress on who would win the war;).

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 06:26 AM
why would u attack ur on alli,meanin germany actackin russia,what a mouron.
hey...is every one on here from germany.......

When Britain declared War on Germany, Moscow asked British Communists to sabotage British war industries. When Germany invaded France his Panzers were using Russian fuel and even as Germany invaded Russia, trains were leaving Russia for Germany with vital War supplies. All that said, given the nature of the Nazi regime and its desire to acquire "Lebensraum" in the East, it was only a matter of time before the Third Reich invaded the Soviet Union. As for Hitler being Stalin's ally and then attacking Russia, your comment re same might suggest that you would believe that Hitler would feel obliged to honour international treaties and agreements he had made, if that is the case you would be wrong. If you are instead making the point that Russia was more useful as an ally than attacking her, that is a more finely balanced question in that whilst Russia was indeed a useful ally to the Third Reich, the Reich had considerably more to gain by occupying the USSR than trading with her as sovereign state provided of course that the War went well and the Reich could defeat the USSR in a short and decisive campaign, which it nearly succeeded in dong but didn't. As for Hitler being a Moron, most people who are morons can not get several millions of people to follow them etc, etc. Hitler also succeeded in running rings round some very clever people, e.g. it suits a lot of people to see Neville Chamberlain as either an idiot or a craven appeaser in fact he was neither in that e.g. if it was not for the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters which were the products of the Chamberlain administration, Churchill for all his bravery and skill would have had nothing to fight the battle of Britain with. Furthermore whilst the decision not to contest Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland was with 20/20 hindsight in my opinion likely a wrong one, Chamberlain did not have 20/20 hindsight and in War anything can happen, as one can see how France imploded after suffering a defeat at the hands of the invading German armies and therefor I can not criticize Chamberlain for not going to War over Hitler's demands on Czechoslovakia. As for your comments about Germans, a television reporter from a foreign country was interviewing a officer from the post World War 2 West German Army and asked him the question.

"Do you not feel uncomfortable as a German to have your profession as being a soldier after what happened in World War 2"

and he answered

"Well the people who liberated the concentration camps, they were solders too"

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 06:36 AM
Everyone's a fashion critic:D. Although I like the german uniforms also, thank god that it didn't come down to dress on who would win the war;).

The Italian officers uninforms looked pretty good and the British paratroops camo gear I think look pretty good too!

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

aly j
09-18-2008, 06:56 AM
OK, aly j, sorry for feeling prematurely offended. it was early in the morning!

thats ok.....
all is well .....what happen 2 steve....i saw on the other posts

aly j
09-18-2008, 07:01 AM
When Britain declared War on Germany, Moscow asked British Communists to sabotage British war industries. When Germany invaded France his Panzers were using Russian fuel and even as Germany invaded Russia, trains were leaving Russia for Germany with vital War supplies. All that said, given the nature of the Nazi regime and its desire to acquire "Lebensraum" in the East, it was only a matter of time before the Third Reich invaded the Soviet Union. As for Hitler being Stalin's ally and then attacking Russia, your comment re same might suggest that you would believe that Hitler would feel obliged to honour international treaties and agreements he had made, if that is the case you would be wrong. If you are instead making the point that Russia was more useful as an ally than attacking her, that is a more finely balanced question in that whilst Russia was indeed a useful ally to the Third Reich, the Reich had considerably more to gain by occupying the USSR than trading with her as sovereign state provided of course that the War went well and the Reich could defeat the USSR in a short and decisive campaign, which it nearly succeeded in dong but didn't. As for Hitler being a Moron, most people who are morons can not get several millions of people to follow them etc, etc. Hitler also succeeded in running rings round some very clever people, e.g. it suits a lot of people to see Neville Chamberlain as either an idiot or a craven appeaser in fact he was neither in that e.g. if it was not for the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters which were the products of the Chamberlain administration, Churchill for all his bravery and skill would have had nothing to fight the battle of Britain with. Furthermore whilst the decision not to contest Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland was with 20/20 hindsight in my opinion likely a wrong one, Chamberlain did not have 20/20 hindsight and in War anything can happen, as one can see how France imploded after suffering a defeat at the hands of the invading German armies and therefor I can not criticize Chamberlain for not going to War over Hitler's demands on Czechoslovakia. As for your comments about Germans, a television reporter from a foreign country was interviewing a officer from the post World War 2 West German Army and asked him the question.

"Do you not feel uncomfortable as a German to have your profession as being a soldier after what happened in World War 2"

and he answered

"Well the people who liberated the concentration camps, they were solders too"

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

how old r u?u sound very mature

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 07:47 AM
how old r u?u sound very mature

Not very old, not very young either. :)

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

aly j
09-18-2008, 09:03 AM
The Italian officers uninforms looked pretty good and the British paratroops camo gear I think look pretty good too!

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

i hav 2 take ur word 4 it
cause i dont think ive seen there unifroms
us girls do lik men in unifroms
and i cant help it if the german had better
lookin unifroms

Nickdfresh
09-18-2008, 09:30 AM
Everyone's a fashion critic:D. Although I like the german uniforms also, thank god that it didn't come down to dress on who would win the war;).

German uniforms only began to "look cool" after about 1942. When they adopted a more utilitarian loose fitting camo and field gray pants...

Kent
09-18-2008, 09:42 AM
Adrian,
Apparently, our little back-and-forth has lit a fire under this forum's topic, but its seems to be spreading in multiple, spurious directions. So, I'll try to at least get it back on track and address your last comment to me.

From my vantage point, it appeared that you were beginning to rationalize Hitler's actions. Whether my impression is right or wrong about your intent (there's that word, again), this is a very dangerous thing to do, regardless. In Hitler's case, his means justified his end which was ultimate power and control ie:to beome a god. The first man to try that was Adam, and look where that got us.

As for my beliefs; yes, I am a Christian, my Lord and Saviour is Jesus Christ. And He speaks to men through the Bible (it's not called God's Word for nothing). And yes, some passages stand alone, and some absolutely must be taken in context in order to understand their true meaning. That said, there's more wisdom in Scripture than any one man can find in a thousand lifetimes. End of sermonette.

On a personal note, I hope you take my comments in context, and that I did not offend you in any way. If I did offend you, I hereby publically apologize. I can get a little fired up at times. It is good to converse with you, even if we may disagree. You are obviously knowledgeable and articulate, and make your points well. I look forward to your continuing input. Thank you.

navyson
09-18-2008, 09:45 AM
German uniforms only began to "look cool" after about 1942. When they adopted a more utilitarian loose fitting camo and field gray pants...
To be honest, I didn't know that the germans used camo until looking around the site. Amazing the things I've learned :D! You're definitely right, they had some great camo uniforms.

flamethrowerguy
09-18-2008, 09:54 AM
German uniforms only began to "look cool" after about 1942. When they adopted a more utilitarian loose fitting camo and field gray pants...

Aaahhh, Nick, come on...:

aly j
09-18-2008, 10:19 AM
German uniforms only began to "look cool" after about 1942. When they adopted a more utilitarian loose fitting camo and field gray pants...

german unifrom look cool at the start of the war

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 12:44 PM
Adrian,
Apparently, our little back-and-forth has lit a fire under this forum's topic, but its seems to be spreading in multiple, spurious directions. So, I'll try to at least get it back on track and address your last comment to me.

From my vantage point, it appeared that you were beginning to rationalize Hitler's actions. Whether my impression is right or wrong about your intent (there's that word, again), this is a very dangerous thing to do, regardless. In Hitler's case, his means justified his end which was ultimate power and control ie:to beome a god. The first man to try that was Adam, and look where that got us.

Hi Kent, if you are suggesting I was seeking to rationalize Hitler's actions, you would be right in the sense, I was seeking to put myself in his place with his beliefs and what would I do. Now that does not mean in any sense I would be agreeing with what he did, I am merely trying to understand as best I can why he did what he did. Unfortunately as things developed in the thread there was not a convenient place for me to say, "I believe that Hitler was a mass murdering psychopath" but that is my position and I apologise to anybody, that might have had difficultly understanding where I was coming from, as in an ideal world I would probably have stated that, from the get go of the thread. Since in my view Hitler was not God, whether he may have felt himself to be a God or not and I don't believe he did, but even if he felt himself to be God, he could not do a whole lot as one man, and frankly I do not think anything I have said in the thread would encourage anybody to become a foaming at the mouth NeoNazi which is the only danger I can see, so if it was not that you were refering to, I would be genuinely interested to know what you are talking about when you write

"this is a very dangerous thing to do, regardless."

as I really [ and I am not being sarcastic ] would not have a clue, what you are refering to when you speak of actions and danger.



The first man to try that was Adam, and look where that got us.
Now in so far as I can see what you are proposing, is that there is some sort of major similarity between Adam and Hitler. Firstly I do not believe that there was an Adam and Eve in a Garden of Eden but taking the story as if it were true, then. Adam took a bite of an apple and he gained knowledge, well one could argue that he was disobedient in not obeying God's command, but even accepting that would be a wrong action and I think it is debateable whether Adam was wrong in eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and not obeying God's instruction, I think takeing a bite out an apple that you were told not to and sending pregnant Women to gas chambers is in quite a different order of the scale things even if one might assume they were both wrong doing, and I would argue that making such a comparison with Hitler and Adam is inherently dangerous as it seems to suggest an assumption of such a level of original sin on the part of mankind and/or the legitimization of anti-knowledge based zealotry to the level, that would justify all sorts of religious fanaticism.



As for my beliefs; yes, I am a Christian, my Lord and Saviour is Jesus Christ. And He speaks to men through the Bible (it's not called God's Word for nothing). And yes, some passages stand alone, and some absolutely must be taken in context in order to understand their true meaning. That said, there's more wisdom in Scripture than any one man can find in a thousand lifetimes. End of sermonette.

Well I have no problems with people who are religious and it is fair enough that you are open about your faith.



On a personal note, I hope you take my comments in context, and that I did not offend you in any way. If I did offend you, I hereby publically apologize. I can get a little fired up at times. It is good to converse with you, even if we may disagree. You are obviously knowledgeable and articulate, and make your points well. I look forward to your continuing input. Thank you.

Well there was nothing there that offended me or would have cause to give me offence, so logically I was not offended, as for being fired up, well no harm in that either.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 12:59 PM
i hav 2 take ur word 4 it
cause i dont think ive seen there unifroms
us girls do lik men in unifroms
and i cant help it if the german had better
lookin unifroms


LOL Yes for sure they had some pretty nice uniforms, the black SS uniform was particularly attractive from a fashion point of view.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

PS Is there any possibility to start a new thread on WW2 Military from a fashion design point of view, as on the one hand people seem interested in it, whilst at the same time, it has not got a lot to do with
"Why Hitler Lost World War 2"

Comrade Commisar
09-18-2008, 06:39 PM
That would be dumb and anyways Hitler thought it would be cool to climb a 5,000 foot tall mountain to place the swaztika on the top while his boys were being slughterd at stalingrad.

navyson
09-18-2008, 06:49 PM
That would be dumb and anyways Hitler thought it would be cool to climb a 5,000 foot tall mountain to place the swaztika on the top while his boys were being slughterd at stalingrad.
Would you mind elaborating a little more on your post, don't quite get it. (i get the video)

Comrade Commisar
09-18-2008, 06:53 PM
Well in this be fricking huge world war 2 book I have it sais that hitler orderd a mountain divsion to climb a 5,000 ft high mountain in the caucas to put the swaztika banner on top.

navyson
09-18-2008, 06:55 PM
Well in this be fricking huge world war 2 book I have it sais that hitler orderd a mountain divsion to climb a 5,000 ft high mountain in the caucas to put the swaztika banner on top.
Kind of like the US marines did on the island of Iwo Jima I guess.

flamethrowerguy
09-18-2008, 07:03 PM
Well in this be fricking huge world war 2 book I have it sais that hitler orderd a mountain divsion to climb a 5,000 ft high mountain in the caucas to put the swaztika banner on top.

It was the Elbrus and it was/is rather 17000ft. high. German 1st and 4th Gebirgsdivisionen (mountain divisions) climbed only to about 12000 ft. to the Khotiutau pass. Only 21 chosen mountain troopers continued for the peak. BTW, this occured on August 21, 1942, about 5 months before the Stalingrad pocket was closed.

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 08:03 PM
It was the Elbrus and it was/is rather 17000ft. high. German 1st and 4th Gebirgsdivisionen (mountain divisions) climbed only to about 12000 ft. to the Khotiutau pass. Only 21 chosen mountain troopers continued for the peak. BTW, this occured on August 21, 1942, about 5 months before the Stalingrad pocket was closed.

Perhaps they were searching for Noah's Ark in the Khotiutau pass, and the mountain climbing was an elaborate ploy to distract attention from the search for the Ark.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?p=387741

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Comrade Commisar
09-18-2008, 08:48 PM
You got to be kidding I belive in it but in turky?

Adrian Wainer
09-18-2008, 09:01 PM
You got to be kidding I belive in it but in turky?

I was only kidding that, that the Nazis used the mountain expedition as a cover for the search for the Ark but given the quasi mystical elements played a not important role in Nazism it certainly would not surprize me if the Nazis had been looking to find the Ark, though as you say Turkey would be a better bet, if they were looking for it, and that is where they probably would have been looking.

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Nickdfresh
09-18-2008, 09:06 PM
Aaahhh, Nick, come on...:

Nope. Do not like those uniforms. They look like country club waiters with helmets and rifles.

http://neilbidner.com/wp-content/uploads/manuel.jpg

aly j
09-19-2008, 01:10 AM
LOL Yes for sure they had some pretty nice uniforms, the black SS uniform was particularly attractive from a fashion point of view.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

PS Is there any possibility to start a new thread on WW2 Military from a fashion design point of view, as on the one hand people seem interested in it, whilst at the same time, it has not got a lot to do with
"Why Hitler Lost World War 2"

ok this is about ww2..........maybe germany lost the war because all of her
allies russia,italy,left 2 go on englands side

Churchill
09-19-2008, 09:01 AM
Italy left because the Allies invaded and had conquered half the country, and Russia was never really an ally. Germany and Russia signed a non-agression pact, meaning that they wouldn't go to war against each other.

Adrian Wainer
09-19-2008, 09:49 AM
Italy left because the Allies invaded and had conquered half the country, and Russia was never really an ally. Germany and Russia signed a non-agression pact, meaning that they wouldn't go to war against each other.

What about Germany and Russia both invading Poland, Moscow telling the British Communists to sabotage British industries after Britain declares War on the Third Reich, German Panzers runing on Soviet oil during the invasion of the France. The newspaper of the French Communist party telling its members to collaborate with the occupation forces. Etc Etc

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Churchill
09-19-2008, 11:41 AM
...

All of that nonwithstanding...

...

Adrian Wainer
09-19-2008, 12:46 PM
...

All of that nonwithstanding...

...

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wsp%C3%B3lna _parada.jpg/180px-Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wsp%C3%B3lna _parada.jpg
Generals Heinz Guderian (center) and Semyon Krivoshein (right) at the common parade in Brest.

http://englishrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/germans_and_soviets.jpg


Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Comrade Commisar
09-19-2008, 06:44 PM
Well the German helmets were awsome and so were there uniforms!

Kent
09-21-2008, 09:43 PM
Hi Kent, if you are suggesting I was seeking to rationalize Hitler's actions, .....Adrian Wainer

Adrian,
I just took the beginning of your text to serve as a reference point. Let me see if I can respond to your responses, in response to my responses, in no particular order. (Hey, I’m losing track.)


On Hitler and his inner circle’s dabbling in the occult, I'll use excerpts from Hitler’s Cross by Erwin W. Lutzer (ISBN 0-8024-3583-1)

· "A Symbol it really is!", he exclaimed in Mein Kampf. "In red we see the social idea of the movement; in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man". Though the cross of Christ was later embedded within the swastikas that adorned German churches, Hitler was not satisfied. His stated plan was to have the swastika replace the cross of Christ altogether. A new messiah called for a new cross.

· Even those who knew Hitler from his early days were well aware of his occult powers. August Kubizek, a friend, said, "It was as if another being spoke out of his body....It was not a case of a speaker carried away by his own words....I felt as though he himself listened with astonishment and emotion to what broke forth from him".

· Of course, Hitler had to pay for his power. No one can be in league with Satan "on the cheap". Rauschning* describes a recurring scenario: "He yells for help...seized with power that makes him tremble so violently his bed shakes...in his bedroom he is muttering...’It is he! He’s here!’ His lips turn blue...He was dripping with sweat....He was given a massage and something to drink....Then all of a sudden he screamed, ‘There! Over there in the corner!’". *Hermann Rauschning; a friend of Hitler who later defected to the Allies.

· Hitler confided to those who were closest to him that he was under orders from higher beings in his unique mission. "I will tell you a secret," he told Rauschning, "I am founding an order....the Man-God, that splendid being will be an object of worship....But there are other stages about which I am not permitted to speak." We can only speculate as to who was forbidding him to reveal more.


I don’t think for a minute you think Hitler was a god. But I think, in many ways if not actually, Hitler thought of himself as a type of god (small "g"). He was a firm believer that providence ruled his destiny as a world leader.


The Serpent’s closing selling point (the biggest lie of all time) that convinced Eve to take the first bite out of the fruit God had forbade her to eat was, "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil". First Eve, then Adam fell for it, and both were kicked out of Paradise. And no one has been able to return since because now we not only know evil, we do it constantly. That is the consequence of knowing the difference between good and evil. God makes the rules, and there are always dire consequences for breaking them. The "Original (first) Sin", as it is popularly called, is referred to in Scripture as, "Adam’s sin" because God told Adam not to eat the fruit, and Adam told Eve. God held Adam responsible for Eve’s action because God gave her to him, and the responsibility for her as his "suitable helper".


About my, "...this is a very dangerous thing to do, regardless" remark. By that, I mean if we rationalize about Hitler’s inner motivations, some day, some how, someone will mistakenly, or on purpose, take your speculations and present them as fact.

Think about it, we are at the mercy of those people who record history, even the eye witnesses (who often prove unreliable), if it is recorded at all. And the more time that passes between then and now, the more it can and does get distorted or lost. Ten thousand years from now archaeologists discover one of our landfills and try to figure out our culture from what remains of our garbage. Even today, there is a cottage industry of "spin doctoring" and rewriting history to suit self-serving agendas. It’s better not to contribute to the distortion of history, albeit unintentionally. Also, if the history we have is incorrect then, the lessons we learn from it will be incorrect, too. I like the way you put it, "...Hitler was a mass murdering psychopath". That works so, let’s chisel that one in stone and be on the lookout for the next Hitler wannabe.


Last, but by no means least; I’m glad to hear I did not offend you.


If you want to continue this discussion then, we should seek another venue as philosophy and theology is really off topic for this forum.

aly j
09-21-2008, 10:48 PM
Well the German helmets were awsome and so were there uniforms!

I differently really agree with you on this one:D

Adrian Wainer
09-22-2008, 07:14 AM
Adrian,
I just took the beginning of your text to serve as a reference point. Let me see if I can respond to your responses, in response to my responses, in no particular order. (Hey, I’m losing track.)


On Hitler and his inner circle’s dabbling in the occult, I'll use excerpts from Hitler’s Cross by Erwin W. Lutzer (ISBN 0-8024-3583-1)

· "A Symbol it really is!", he exclaimed in Mein Kampf. "In red we see the social idea of the movement; in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man". Though the cross of Christ was later embedded within the swastikas that adorned German churches, Hitler was not satisfied. His stated plan was to have the swastika replace the cross of Christ altogether. A new messiah called for a new cross.

· Even those who knew Hitler from his early days were well aware of his occult powers. August Kubizek, a friend, said, "It was as if another being spoke out of his body....It was not a case of a speaker carried away by his own words....I felt as though he himself listened with astonishment and emotion to what broke forth from him".

· Of course, Hitler had to pay for his power. No one can be in league with Satan "on the cheap". Rauschning* describes a recurring scenario: "He yells for help...seized with power that makes him tremble so violently his bed shakes...in his bedroom he is muttering...’It is he! He’s here!’ His lips turn blue...He was dripping with sweat....He was given a massage and something to drink....Then all of a sudden he screamed, ‘There! Over there in the corner!’". *Hermann Rauschning; a friend of Hitler who later defected to the Allies.

· Hitler confided to those who were closest to him that he was under orders from higher beings in his unique mission. "I will tell you a secret," he told Rauschning, "I am founding an order....the Man-God, that splendid being will be an object of worship....But there are other stages about which I am not permitted to speak." We can only speculate as to who was forbidding him to reveal more.


I don’t think for a minute you think Hitler was a god. But I think, in many ways if not actually, Hitler thought of himself as a type of god (small "g"). He was a firm believer that providence ruled his destiny as a world leader.


The Serpent’s closing selling point (the biggest lie of all time) that convinced Eve to take the first bite out of the fruit God had forbade her to eat was, "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil". First Eve, then Adam fell for it, and both were kicked out of Paradise. And no one has been able to return since because now we not only know evil, we do it constantly. That is the consequence of knowing the difference between good and evil. God makes the rules, and there are always dire consequences for breaking them. The "Original (first) Sin", as it is popularly called, is referred to in Scripture as, "Adam’s sin" because God told Adam not to eat the fruit, and Adam told Eve. God held Adam responsible for Eve’s action because God gave her to him, and the responsibility for her as his "suitable helper".


About my, "...this is a very dangerous thing to do, regardless" remark. By that, I mean if we rationalize about Hitler’s inner motivations, some day, some how, someone will mistakenly, or on purpose, take your speculations and present them as fact.

Think about it, we are at the mercy of those people who record history, even the eye witnesses (who often prove unreliable), if it is recorded at all. And the more time that passes between then and now, the more it can and does get distorted or lost. Ten thousand years from now archaeologists discover one of our landfills and try to figure out our culture from what remains of our garbage. Even today, there is a cottage industry of "spin doctoring" and rewriting history to suit self-serving agendas. It’s better not to contribute to the distortion of history, albeit unintentionally. Also, if the history we have is incorrect then, the lessons we learn from it will be incorrect, too. I like the way you put it, "...Hitler was a mass murdering psychopath". That works so, let’s chisel that one in stone and be on the lookout for the next Hitler wannabe.


Last, but by no means least; I’m glad to hear I did not offend you.


If you want to continue this discussion then, we should seek another venue as philosophy and theology is really off topic for this forum.

Hi Kent, well I would not worry about continuing this conversation for it is valid enough in the sense one can't really figure out why Hitler lost the War unless one is investigating what sort of person he was and why he did what he did. Now you are offering a supernatural component to his activities examined from a Christian religious perspective and it would not be my way of looking at things but it is a perfectly legitimate stance, furthermore best practice science as opposed to the bastardized version of science peddled by many scientists will always look at other systems outside of science to see whether they might usefully provide assistance to improve aspects that can be incorporated to advance science. Personally, I don't believe in evil supernatural forces and if a supreme being created the World, well I do not believe that any of the organized religions Christanity, Judaism and Islam [ I am not commenting on other religions since I do not know enough about them ] are actually revelations from this supreme, if it in facts exists. Therefor, if does not believe in evil supernatural forces then one makes the assumption that even if Hitler thought he was talking to the devil, he was suffering delusions. Really I do not know what people might think 10,000 years from now, though I doubt if they would know or care what I thought. As for the distortion of history, people who are stupid will be stupid and people who want to tell lies will tell lies and really I can't see that I have made it any easier for stupid people to get the wrong end of the stick, nor can I see I have made it any easier for liars to tell lies. To come back to the supernatural aspect that you suggest played a role in Hitler's activities, at one stage he was doing pretty well, just after the fall of France in 1940 things seemed to have gone pretty well for him, what happened in the attack on Russia at the stage when the war against the Soviet Union started to go wrong, did the devil get bored or something and decided he wasn't going to help out Hitler any longer, like I am not being sarcastic I am just trying to workout how this evil supernatural involvement works at a practical level?

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

aly j
09-22-2008, 09:24 AM
I think it starts with the fact he was a paranoid psychotic and lacked any realistic perspective.

Hey there
How did you get youre pic up there?

Kent
09-22-2008, 11:38 AM
Hi Kent, well I would not worry about continuing this conversation for it is valid enough in the sense one can't really figure out why Hitler lost the War unless one is investigating what sort of person he was and why he did what he did. Now you are offering a supernatural component to his activities examined from a Christian religious perspective and it would not be my way of looking at things but it is a perfectly legitimate stance,.....
Adrian Wainer

I'm game if you are.

OK, so it would appear that my position about one of the main reasons why I believe Hitler "did what he did" hinges on the existence of supernatural powers. The central question being, "Does God exist?", and If He does, how can that be proven? For those who don’t believe God exists, logic is a good way to argue for His existence using the Bible (God’s own words, given to us by God via human writers) as the Bible is quite logical. The best evidence God provides for His own existence appears in the beginning of the letter to the Roman Church, approximately AD 57, written by the Apostle Paul.


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Now, I will bet that quote is not sufficient enough to convince you as it has to be taken in part, by faith. And all it does is swerve us directly into the Creation vs. Evolution debate (aka Intelligent Design vs. Darwin). Yeah, that one has been going on forever.

Most evolutionists eventually take a stand that, "The universe originated when some of the basic elements (carbon, hydrogen, methane, etc.) randomly came together by chance and slowly, over countless eons of time, evolved into what we see, today. However, by using that argument they hoist themselves on their own petard; "So, where did the ‘basic elements’ come from?" You can’t get something, especially the 'very first thing’, from nothing. (When cornered, some of them will resort to ‘extraterrestrial visitors’, but that position contains the exact same flaw.)

Once again, the Bible has the answer in the book of Hebrews, circa 50-69 AD, author unknown, but the consensus is the Apostle Paul:


"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible"

Only God can make something out of nothing because He is in reality the "very first thing", ie: God is eternal. And yes, that must be taken by faith. But if you can’t believe then, you’re right back to nothing, again.

Another way to approach the question about whether or not to believe in the existence of God is expressed by "Pascal’s Wager", which I will paraphrase myself, since I could not find an exact quote:


"If I believe God exists and I am wrong, I have lost nothing.
But if I believe God does not exist and I am wrong, I have lost everything."
-Blaise Pascal -- French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist (1623-1662)

Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

Krad42
09-22-2008, 03:06 PM
Adrian,
I agree with your assessment of Hitler. I don't think that he was paranoid and I don't think he had an irrational fear of those he sought to destroy. It is also worth noting that, in spite of the fact that the extermination started with his ideas, he didn't really oversee much of the operation and he left it to others to do whatever was necessary to accomplish it. In reality, I think that he was rather unpreoccupied with the Final Solution and didn't give it much thought because others were taking care of it. However, I do think that towards the end, the shock of what was happenning must have rattled him and he may have removed himself from the reality of it all.
On the topic of whether the Germans could have won, I think that the only way that they could have won would have been by taking Moscow the first time. If this would have happened and if the Germans would have treated the people decently, I don't think that the US would have been so willing to go into war in Europe, regardless of its economic capabilities. Of course, this doesn't mean that the Germans would have been able to hold on to Russia for an indefinite time. There are inherent problems with ruling over countries that are at considerable distances from the main government. I don't think that the Russian people would have taken German rule for a long time.

redcoat
09-23-2008, 07:22 AM
Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.
Less of a wager, more of a cop out.

Rising Sun*
09-23-2008, 08:11 AM
I'm game if you are.

OK, so it would appear that my position about one of the main reasons why I believe Hitler "did what he did" hinges on the existence of supernatural powers. The central question being, "Does God exist?", and If He does, how can that be proven? For those who don’t believe God exists, logic is a good way to argue for His existence using the Bible (God’s own words, given to us by God via human writers) as the Bible is quite logical. The best evidence God provides for His own existence appears in the beginning of the letter to the Roman Church, approximately AD 57, written by the Apostle Paul.

As Bertrand Russell said in a debate about these issues, it is all predicated upon accepting the bible as the word of god to prove that god exists. If the debaters don't accept that position, then the bible is irrelevant to any discussion about the existence of god.

In the absence of the bible, where is the logic which proves the existence of the god presented in the bible?

If the bible is the source of belief and logic, what qualifies it with its various versions of a god as more believable and logical than a host of other beliefs about various sorts of other gods in other cultures?

It all comes back to belief, which is the opposite of logic.

So where is the logical consistency in the old testament's fire and brimstone approach which is consistent with the new testament's softer teachings of Christ? At the simplest level, an eye for an eye (and stoning an errant ox and stoning the owner of an errant ox to death in the same passage in Exodus) compared with turning the other cheek?

And where is the logic in any of that in the world at large?


Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. ....

If there is no god and no afterlife, then someone who lives life as if there is one and lives in accordance with the bible might well lose out during the only life they have by denying themselves various experiences and pleasures.

It is just as logical, and just as sensible in probability, to take the 50/50 position and live life as if there is no god. And have a hell of a lot more fun during one's existence.

Adrian Wainer
09-23-2008, 09:54 AM
I'm game if you are.

OK, so it would appear that my position about one of the main reasons why I believe Hitler "did what he did" hinges on the existence of supernatural powers. The central question being, "Does God exist?", and If He does, how can that be proven? For those who don’t believe God exists, logic is a good way to argue for His existence using the Bible (God’s own words, given to us by God via human writers) as the Bible is quite logical. The best evidence God provides for His own existence appears in the beginning of the letter to the Roman Church, approximately AD 57, written by the Apostle Paul.


"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

Now, I will bet that quote is not sufficient enough to convince you as it has to be taken in part, by faith. And all it does is swerve us directly into the Creation vs. Evolution debate (aka Intelligent Design vs. Darwin). Yeah, that one has been going on forever.

Most evolutionists eventually take a stand that, "The universe originated when some of the basic elements (carbon, hydrogen, methane, etc.) randomly came together by chance and slowly, over countless eons of time, evolved into what we see, today. However, by using that argument they hoist themselves on their own petard; "So, where did the ‘basic elements’ come from?" You can’t get something, especially the 'very first thing’, from nothing. (When cornered, some of them will resort to ‘extraterrestrial visitors’, but that position contains the exact same flaw.)

Once again, the Bible has the answer in the book of Hebrews, circa 50-69 AD, author unknown, but the consensus is the Apostle Paul:


"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible"

Only God can make something out of nothing because He is in reality the "very first thing", ie: God is eternal. And yes, that must be taken by faith. But if you can’t believe then, you’re right back to nothing, again.

Another way to approach the question about whether or not to believe in the existence of God is expressed by "Pascal’s Wager", which I will paraphrase myself, since I could not find an exact quote:


"If I believe God exists and I am wrong, I have lost nothing.
But if I believe God does not exist and I am wrong, I have lost everything."
-Blaise Pascal -- French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist (1623-1662)

Wikipedia: Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal's Wager was groundbreaking as it charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.

Hi Kent, I do not believe either the new testament or the old testament is a fairy story, rather what I believe is that they are stories with a legitimate moral basis which recount real events with aspects told in somewhat exagerated terms when it comes to "miracles" and such like. Now it is perfectly legitimate to explain your global view here but if your are propositioning that Hitler had supernatural assistance I really would like you to explain why, everything went so well for him till after he invaded Russia and then things went wrong.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Adrian Wainer
09-23-2008, 10:07 AM
Adrian,
I agree with your assessment of Hitler. I don't think that he was paranoid and I don't think he had an irrational fear of those he sought to destroy. It is also worth noting that, in spite of the fact that the extermination started with his ideas, he didn't really oversee much of the operation and he left it to others to do whatever was necessary to accomplish it. In reality, I think that he was rather unpreoccupied with the Final Solution and didn't give it much thought because others were taking care of it. However, I do think that towards the end, the shock of what was happenning must have rattled him and he may have removed himself from the reality of it all.
On the topic of whether the Germans could have won, I think that the only way that they could have won would have been by taking Moscow the first time. If this would have happened and if the Germans would have treated the people decently, I don't think that the US would have been so willing to go into war in Europe, regardless of its economic capabilities. Of course, this doesn't mean that the Germans would have been able to hold on to Russia for an indefinite time. There are inherent problems with ruling over countries that are at considerable distances from the main government. I don't think that the Russian people would have taken German rule for a long time.

Pretty much agreed on that, Hitler's great problem in Russia is that since the Third Reich was defacto committed to the extermination of the bulk of the Russian people which allied to the insufficent numbers of troops the Reich could commit to the Eastern front, meant that there was no political package the Reich could offer the Russian people as an alternative to Stalinist Communism and therefor the Reich's only way of prevailing over Russia was a short War which would crush Russia. The Reich could not fight a war of attrition in Russia and once the offensive stalled it was only a matter of when not if, Russian tanks would be arriveing at the Fuhrer bunker in Berlin. Your point about Russia and "treating the people decently" is a good one" but that was never a possibility given Hitler's ideology of race struggle.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Kent
09-23-2008, 05:19 PM
Hi Kent, I do not believe either the new testament or the old testament is a fairy story, rather what I believe is that they are stories with a legitimate moral basis which recount real events with aspects told in somewhat exagerated terms when it comes to "miracles" and such like. Now it is perfectly legitimate to explain your global view here but if your are propositioning that Hitler had supernatural assistance I really would like you to explain why, everything went so well for him till after he invaded Russia and then things went wrong.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
The supernatural assistants Hitler was entertaining never play fair, and although they may offer help, and for a time it may appear they actually are, ultimately, they only do so to achieve their own ends. Here's what Jesus says about the devil in His reply to the Pharisees (John 8:44b):


".....He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."


There is a real devil, and although he was convicted and condemmed to everlasting punishment by Jesus Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross, the devil's sentence will not be carried out until Christ's return. In the meantime, the devil is working very hard to take as many of us with him as he can.

The devil is NOT the almost likeable, wise-cracking trickster you see in TV sit-coms.

Adrian Wainer
09-25-2008, 04:31 AM
The supernatural assistants Hitler was entertaining never play fair, and although they may offer help, and for a time it may appear they actually are, ultimately, they only do so to achieve their own ends. Here's what Jesus says about the devil in His reply to the Pharisees (John 8:44b):


".....He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."


There is a real devil, and although he was convicted and condemmed to everlasting punishment by Jesus Christ's sacrifice of Himself on the cross, the devil's sentence will not be carried out until Christ's return. In the meantime, the devil is working very hard to take as many of us with him as he can.

The devil is NOT the almost likeable, wise-cracking trickster you see in TV sit-coms.

Hi I am well aware of the concept that any contract with the devil would not be worth the paper it is written on and one could therefor easily understand the devil double crossing somebody, who was not a totally bad person, but I would have thought that Hitler being such a thoroughly bad egg, would have got a lot more support from the Devil in that e.g. the extermination campaign against the Jews did not really get under way until the invasion of the USSR and that it is only with invasion of Russia that things start to go wrong for Hitler and since he was being even more nasty and vicious at that stage than he had been before, one would have thought he would have got more support from the devil not less. As for the Devil being condemned by Christ on the cross, well if the Devil was around before Christ was born and doing devil things ie evil things, it did not take Christ being on the Cross to get him a punishment because in the old testament God was existing long before the birth of Christ and God could have punished him.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

Kent
09-28-2008, 08:05 PM
Hi I am well aware of the concept that any contract with the devil would not be worth the paper it is written on and one could therefor easily understand the devil double crossing somebody, who was not a totally bad person, but I would have thought that Hitler being such a thoroughly bad egg, would have got a lot more support from the Devil in that e.g. the extermination campaign against the Jews did not really get under way until the invasion of the USSR and that it is only with invasion of Russia that things start to go wrong for Hitler and since he was being even more nasty and vicious at that stage than he had been before, one would have thought he would have got more support from the devil not less. As for the Devil being condemned by Christ on the cross, well if the Devil was around before Christ was born and doing devil things ie evil things, it did not take Christ being on the Cross to get him a punishment because in the old testament God was existing long before the birth of Christ and God could have punished him.

Yes, one would think that as long as Hitler was doing Satan’s bidding that Satan would keep assisting Hitler, all the while cheering him on. However, Satan is a creature, superhuman but not divine; having no more power than God allows him.


Job 1:12 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him." (ie: Don’t kill him.) So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.


Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat.

These are but two of many verses that speak to the principal of God’s total sovereignty over all His creation. The words "total" and "all" are to be taken literally. Known theologically as "God’s Eternal Decree; God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass". Think about it. God created the universe out of nothing, and sustains it by His power, ie: providence. He is not a passive observer, as some claim, but is in active control. And the word "ordain" signifies He does not foresee the future, He foreknows it.


Daniel 4:34b, 35 For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven, and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand, or say to Him, "What have You done?"

Matthew 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done. On earth as it is in heaven.

Acts 7:21a for in Him we live, and move, and exist.

Romans 11:36a For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.

Ephesians 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all thing after the counsel of His will.

Adrian, the short answer to your first question is: God’s in charge, not Satan.

Now, regarding your second question on Satan vs. Christ, you have asked for an explanation of God’s plan for our salvation, whether you meant to, or not. Regardless, I will attempt to give you a brief synopsis of the Gospel, ie: the Bible. The quickest answer is Jesus Christ is both God eternal, and incarnate. I’ll elaborate.

Adam’s sin, the eating of the fruit God commanded him not to eat, introduced sin into God’s heretofore perfect creation, bringing the curse of God upon him and the rest of the creation because God is holy and will not let sin go unpunished. Adam’s sin also brought death into the world; both physical, and spiritual (everlasting punishment).

Being the very first human, and the original father of us all, Adam’s sinful nature, acquired by his rebellious act, is imputed to his offspring through normal regeneration. If we need any proof of that we only have to look at Adam’s first child, Cain, who ended up murdering his brother Abel out of jealousy. We are all born sinful, hating God, and deserving of His wrath. Sounds hopeless doesn’t it? But God by His grace (of which we are totally undeserving, but is wholly given to us by His mercy) had a plan.


John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish*, but have everlasting life.

*be spared/saved from God's punishment for our sins, and go to heaven and be with Him forever.

Jesus Christ is God’s only Son, begotten (conceived) by God’s Spirit in a virgin’s womb, born without original (Adam's) sin. He is God incarnate, with an inseparable nature that is both fully God, and fully man, ie: divine. God’s greatest miracle. After living a sinless life, He became the only sacrifice acceptable to God the Father for the atonement for sins, both past and present. Jesus was crucified on the cross, being totally sinless and innocent nevertheless, He willingly submitted to His Father's will, and willingly accepted the punishment we deserved, and suffered under the full wrath of God the Father for all the sins of mankind. Only Jesus Christ, the God-Man could do this due to His sinlessness, and great value to God. We know this to be true because if Christ's life and sacrifice had been unacceptable to God, then God would not have raised him (resurrected his physical being) from the dead on the third day.

Although Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for the sin everyone, both past and present, it is only efficient for believers (faith). Look at John 3:16, again. The operative word is, "whoever", which does not include everyone. The one and only way we can be "saved" from God's wrath is to believe in His Son, and what the Son accomplished. Once again, it is God who is in control:


Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved though faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

My candidate for the best definition/explanation of spiritual faith was penned by John Calvin; "God gracefully gives some people the ability to believe Him."

Kent
09-28-2008, 09:35 PM
Rising Sun,
You really hit me with a barrage so, pardon me while I just hit the high points.


Romans 1:20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21: For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.

That's more of the same Scripture I assume you are questioning(?) In brief, it says God points to His creation as the evidence of His existence, and not believing it does requires one to employ tortured logic. You have do ask yourself, "Could all this really happen by chance?" If you believe it did then, you have much more of a different kind of faith than me.

You either have the God of the Bible, or a god of your own making.

If you take Bible passages out of their context you are doomed to confusion. Text out of context is a pretext.

If you are living life as if there is no God, you'd better be right.

ww11freak34
09-28-2008, 09:36 PM
i think he lose cause becauce he invaded russia if he didnt he would have got more resources thats why i think he lost ww11

B5N2KATE
09-29-2008, 03:28 AM
Quoting scripture to justify archaic beliefs is a little tawdry.

One of the conventions of historians is that they keep personal belief out of analysis...

We then do not get lengthy explainations from the "God was on our side" evangelistic school of historical thought.....and we stick to the facts, therefore.

God, devil, heaven/hell don't exist anyway, so quoting scripture to explain the "righteousness" of one cause or another really is doing a dis-service to those that come to this site looking for hard data....and opinions with some kind of factual basis.

Don't you think that German believers also thought the God concept was on THEIR side?

Believers make me laugh......Dispense with the "Billy Graham" explainations of the causes, course and outcome of WW2.

Stick to the facts as they appear on EARTH. The rest is a figment of imagination anyway......

B5N2KATE
09-29-2008, 03:48 AM
Statements such as this one from above contribute NOTHING to our understanding of the history of WW2....

"We know this to be true because if Christ's life and sacrifice had been unnacceptable to God then God would not have raised him on the third day..."


How or what you can base this religiously correct tripe on is beyond me....

Ressurrection and god are CONCEPTS, and vastly UNPROVEN at that. Pointing out one unproven concept to justify another might be standard practice in a Seminary, but in history you begin with what you can prove, and then speculate on this basis. Airheads that rave on about god's will or "God wanted this" lose credibility for the historical stuff they might come up with. Delusionists that have a "personal audience with the almighty" on a daily basis really do belong in a monestary, and their religious opinions have absolutely nothing to do with history.

It is a poor historian that has to mention religon at all, except as explainational motivation for behaviour. Make too much of it and you may as well get your work published by a Church publishing house, to be sold in the "Religon" section of the bookstore, rather than the "non-fiction" section.....

Local believers on the site need not comment in outrage....I couldn't give a toss what you thought anyway.....just keep religious views or explaination OUT.

Try writing an academic paper and using the same evangelism....I know what your grade will be....F

pdf27
09-29-2008, 06:35 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen
I would just like to point out that this is a site about WW2 history, not about theology in all it's forms. Discussions about the existence or otherwise of God, the Devil or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be confined either to specific threads in Off Topic or omitted from this site altogether.

For the record, I consider any statement that "there is no God" to be equally a statement of belief to "there is a God", as both are by their nature unproven and probably unprovable statements, and I will act accordingly in moderating subsequent comments.

aly j
09-29-2008, 06:41 AM
i think he lose cause becauce he invaded russia if he didnt he would have got more resources thats why i think he lost ww11

Wow this guy sounds just like Aly j:shock:
There could be two Aly js on here.
Only joking but you remind me of my self-smiles.
I also think that his biggest mistake was that he made two fronts by attacking Russia before finishing off the other front first and that cost me dearley.
Cheers

herman2
09-29-2008, 09:11 AM
Ladies and Gentlemen
I would just like to point out that this is a site about WW2 history, not about theology in all it's forms. Discussions about the existence or otherwise of God, the Devil or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be confined either to specific threads in Off Topic or omitted from this site altogether.

For the record, I consider any statement that "there is no God" to be equally a statement of belief to "there is a God", as both are by their nature unproven and probably unprovable statements, and I will act accordingly in moderating subsequent comments.

PDF, I want to learn more about the Flying Spaghetti Monster you mentioned. Is there such a thing?..Do you have a picture?..How does he fly?:mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
09-29-2008, 09:18 AM
For the record, I consider any statement that "there is no God" to be equally a statement of belief to "there is a God", as both are by their nature unproven and probably unprovable statements, and I will act accordingly in moderating subsequent comments.

So you will exercise your god-like powers?

Hurrrummph, Sirraah!



Sorry.

Got a bit carried away on the god thing.

That should have been 'mod-like powers'. :D

pdf27
09-29-2008, 02:09 PM
PDF, I want to learn more about the Flying Spaghetti Monster you mentioned. Is there such a thing?..Do you have a picture?..How does he fly?:mrgreen:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg


The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."[13] The Monster's intoxication was supposedly the cause for a flawed earth. All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith — a form of the Omphalos hypothesis. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."[3]

The Pastafarian belief of heaven stresses that it contains beer volcanoes and a stripper factory.[25] Hell is similar, except that the beer is stale, and the strippers have VD.[26]

Henderson uses parallel concepts from religious texts when describing the FSM, poking fun at those who literally interpret the Bible. The religious text of the Pastafarian religion is called the Loose Canon instead of the formal Canon. In place of the Ten Commandments, it contains the Eight I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts.

The official conclusion to prayers is "RAmen", contained in certain sections of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on. It is a portmanteau of the Semitic term "Amen" (used in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and Ramen, a type of noodle. While it is typically spelled with both a capital "R" and "A", it is also acceptable to spell it with only a capital R.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

flamethrowerguy
09-29-2008, 03:37 PM
Holy Makkaroni! Are these meat ball-testicles???

navyson
09-29-2008, 06:01 PM
The guy on the left has a small "dudette"!:lol:

flamethrowerguy
09-29-2008, 06:04 PM
The guy on the left has a small "dudette"!:lol:

Probably he used too many steroids...

navyson
09-29-2008, 06:09 PM
The guy on the left has a small "dudette"!:lol:
Or maybe Michelangelo disliked this man and tried to embarass him.......eternally!:D

aly j
09-29-2008, 10:19 PM
The guy on the left has a small "dudette"!:lol:


Probably he used too many steroids...

Hey guys,Um i might have to change my name now cause of youse too.;)

Kent
09-30-2008, 08:24 AM
Adrian,
If you want to continue this discussion then, we should seek another venue as philosophy and theology is really off topic for this forum.

Yeah, I get these kind of reactions whenever I quote the Bible, but I know by now to expect them. I also know that I am off topic for this particular forum so, if you're interested, Adrian has respectfully started a new one in that venue. 'Sorry, for the disruption.

rove1
11-16-2008, 07:43 AM
Reasons Hitler lost was:

- he went too far after hitting the Jack pot (Poland & France);
Wow: he did it and these victories made him thinking he could take it all!!!
But Germany had limited offensive power, which he did not realise enough.

But wenn going further he should have:

- commit all Luftwaffe units against Britain in 1940 and operate with a plan to anhillate the RAF on its airfields and in the air.

But wenn this turned out to be a failure:

- he could have go for a strong Cyprus/Turkey/Syria variant to get to the oil in Iraq.

But wenn he still went further invading the Soviet Union (which was a bad decision):

- he could have been friendly to the Ukrainian and Russian people. With this approach he could have beaten Stalin.

But even when Stalingrad emerged:

- he could have used the divisions freed after the fall of Sevastopol to bolster the 2 drives to Stalingrad and the Caucasus: now he sent 4 best units to France and an army (11th) to Leningrad. If they woould only have been present near Rostov as a reserve, Hitler could have avoided the Stalingrad disaster, by using these forces to counterattack.

After Stalingrad Germany could not hope to win anymore.
Germany was stopped at Stalingrad. Thereafter a lack of infantry made any operation hazardous: Mansteins counterattack, Zitadelle...... they failed because a lack of infantry and this problem worsened after Kursun, the Crimea, Brody, Tarnopol, Vitebsk, Bubruisk, Orsja, Minsk, Vilnius, Brest, Falaise, Kishinev, Budapest, Warschau, Heiligenbeil, Danzig, Königsberg, Breslau, Kolberg, Berlin and Halbe.

So Hitler made a series of mistakes and threw all what was gained away and even worse: destroyed Germany till in its veins and core !!!! When he was not to win, Germany did deserve its destruction.

knight
11-16-2008, 07:45 AM
well that's weard...

knight
11-16-2008, 07:51 AM
i think that Hitler was too arrogant...he opened two battle fronts at the same period.If he just finished the campaign of europe and took cotrole of it...then he turns his scope to the soviet union...probably he would prevail using this way...

Rising Sun*
11-16-2008, 08:44 AM
Reasons Hitler lost was:
...
But Germany had limited offensive power, which he did not realise enough.

Possibly due to Germany's many great offensive successes on all points of the compass at great distances from the Fatherland in the first few years of the war, which could lead anyone to think that Germany was a mighty military power. Which it was, having defeated everyone in continental Europe it wanted to defeat, and giving the Soviets a big run for their money, which Soviet money was amply supplemented by Lend Lease and other support and diversions from America and Britain while Germany stood on its own.


But wenn going further he should have:

- commit all Luftwaffe units against Britain in 1940 and operate with a plan to anhillate the RAF on its airfields and in the air.

Why?

What is the point of that without an invasion?

Could Germany reach and destroy all RAF airfields which could be brought to bear against a German invasion force?

What is the point of any of that without virtually obliterating the RN?


But wenn this turned out to be a failure:

- he could have go for a strong Cyprus/Turkey/Syria variant to get to the oil in Iraq.

Or just gone eastwards through Egypt etc, which Rommel failed to do. Meanwhile Britain and the USSR grabbed Iran and threatened any incursion into Iraq, which Britain invaded and subjugated in 1941 to overcome Iraqi nationalist sentiment and actions which frustrated the Allied war effort.


But wenn he still went further invading the Soviet Union (which was a bad decision):

- he could have been friendly to the Ukrainian and Russian people. With this approach he could have beaten Stalin.

If Hitler was friendly to the Slavs, he would not have invaded their lands in pursuit of his expansionist policies which held the Slavs as less than human.

Comrade Commisar
11-16-2008, 01:38 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg


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


Holy crap! Praise are noodly overlords!

SS Ouche-Vittes
11-16-2008, 10:03 PM
GREAT SCOTT!!!!!!!! oh the humanity!!!!

Panzergrenadier Italien
11-22-2008, 02:08 PM
I made a list of personal thinkings of what may Hitler mistake....you are the judge.

1-)Bad time for the invasion of Russia and the hate for them "Slavs"
2-)Not have conquered England and wester Afrika in the time he was thinking in conquered russia.(it problably had stop allies into europe way)
3-)He never took opinions from his commandants just like mussolini
4-)He don't took practically any interest in american followers or other parties from europeans contries at all.
5-)Bad theaty over the people he conquered
6-)The pact with japan(bring americans into war in a bad time)
7-)Hitler was't really interest in Italy's war in afrika which was a key because it will block the allies attacks and he would gain more oil to support a future war in russia now with rumania as ally
8-)And for me the big one was that he underestamed his oponents and allies just because they weren't germans or Aryans which was realy stupid becaused that did't even existed.

Joel109
02-03-2009, 07:04 AM
He lost mainly because he wanted far too much. Even if he had been able to somehow conquer all of the land that he intended to conquer, there is no way that the Germans could have held all of that land forever. Russia for example is far too large of a country to conquer and hold. When he attacked Russia, he now had a second front to fight which means that forces that he could have had fighting elsewhere now had to push into Russia, which, like I said before, was far too large of a country to go up against. The brutal Russian winter did not help either. He did not like to take advise from, or listen to his generals which was also a mistake. Instead of invading Russia, he should have continued to hammer England. Waiting a few more years before starting the war may have helped him as well. There are many reasons why Hitler lost the war, but I think it comes down to the fact that Hitler was a nutjob who was not really living in reality. He was his own reason for losing the war. Even if he had won the war, I think at some point someone within the reich would have realized how evil and wrong everything was that Hitler was doing and someone, somehow would have killed him.

Schuultz
02-03-2009, 08:29 AM
Well, I think Hitler lost because he was pretty darn bad at managing manpower.

Obviously Hitler thought that the Slavs and Jews were inferior to the Aryan, but it is still an idiotic move not to let them fight.
That would be like the British killing the Indians instead of letting them fight in WW1/WW2...
Especially in his situation, he would have needed any manpower he could get.

And I doubt he would've ever been able to conquer all of Russia, it simply wouldn't be logistically possible. He could have captured all of the main cities, which are in the West/Southwest anyway, and that would have likely knocked Russia out of the war, but conquering the entire territory would have not only been a waste of resources, but almost impossible to achieve, too.

At the same time, I have trouble seeing him make peace with England, because that would've been mutually unwanted. I rather see him trying to invade it, which would have called the US into action no matter what, especially because a successful fascist Germany would have further encouraged the South American sympathizers...

And that would've become very ugly, especially thinking of the Manhattan Project...

Or do you guys think the US would tolerate a fascist German superpower on the European continent, a fascist Japanese superpower on the pacific continent and fascist Hispanic powers in South America?

Ivaylo
02-03-2009, 09:35 AM
Let's not forget the ideology that Hitler used and reflected his beliefs , that was the main motor that powered on the machine of war and hate . Hitler in his beliefs mainly saw himself , his ruling nation ( not to forget his was from Austria not Germany ) to be more smart , inferior to any other so he believed that he can outsmart the democratic nations which in his view were weak whorehouses and destroy them in one quick punch . The main error was in the east , there wasn't democracy there wasn't even signs of that since middle ages .( I mean mainly Russia not Poland or Romania , Bulgaria and so on ) . That was the main error he simply didn't understood the system that was ruling Russia the terror that system used and on his turn he though : ok I will do like in France , Netherlands and so on i will go and simply smash them with one more thing i will crush my main enemy the one i hate so much . They are weak the same as the democracy nations are so it won't be so hard .
That was the biggest mistake when you have power to underestimate an enemy it's like playing football match and you are leading with 1:0 and you say " ok the match is mine everything is won " . The result is well known for anyone . So i think the error of the managing man power and others are simply result of that believe and the ideology of the Nazi Germany .

Nickdfresh
02-03-2009, 02:05 PM
Even with enough manpower, Germany simply did not have enough other natural resources to defeat Soviet Russia in a war of attrition; certainly not in the way the German military was set up to win quick victories. Everyone with half a military-brain knew this except for the dedicated racists like Hitler, who thought the Aryan superiority would overcome this fact, despite problem of him never bothering to knock out the Aryans on the island to his west...

flamethrowerguy
02-03-2009, 02:50 PM
And I doubt he would've ever been able to conquer all of Russia, it simply wouldn't be logistically possible. He could have captured all of the main cities, which are in the West/Southwest anyway, and that would have likely knocked Russia out of the war, but conquering the entire territory would have not only been a waste of resources, but almost impossible to achieve, too.

Let's not forget that it wasn't planned to invade the entire Soviet Union all the way to Vladivostok. The goal was the line Arshangelsk in the north, Astrakhan in the south, last one was almost reached (with ~60 miles missing) but there was a stumbling block in Hitler's way called Stalingrad.


At the same time, I have trouble seeing him make peace with England, because that would've been mutually unwanted.

Many sources from Hiltler's closer environment report that a peace with the UK was one of Hitler's most fervent wishes.

Schuultz
02-03-2009, 04:27 PM
His, maybe temporarily, but Churchill's definitely not. And I kind of doubt that he would have kept it for long...

Centurion
02-03-2009, 06:09 PM
Even with enough manpower, Germany simply did not have enough other natural resources to defeat Soviet Russia in a war of attrition; certainly not in the way the German military was set up to win quick victories. Everyone with half a military-brain knew this except for the dedicated racists like Hitler, who thought the Aryan superiority would overcome this fact, despite problem of him never bothering to knock out the Aryans on the island to his west...

Your right on the manpower part, throwing away lives when the situation was hopeless instructing his General's to hold on to the last man. Luckily a few General's defied those orders. Plus not having the Luftwaffe at his back severely hampered Germany's position. Simply, lack of resources such as fuel etc and Hitler's brain was the downfall for Germany.

Ivaylo
02-03-2009, 06:28 PM
From other hand we have to admit that a slow approach mean simply the transfer of more russian troops and the result will be nothing but trench warfare something like WW1 or slow retreat from the germans . Such scenario was not about to be tolerated from Hitler as well as from his generals .

rove1
02-08-2009, 05:11 AM
Hitler lost WW2 because:
- he was a racist and waisted available manpower resources in Germany (jews) and the
Soviet Union (inferior people) easily worth 100 divisions which he lacked dearly before
and after Stalingrad.
- he invaded the SU in te East without taking proper care of the unbeaten British in the
West
- he waisted his scarce resources on too many weapon developments
- he himself took over the supreme command, not letting things done by his generals
- instead of invading the SU he far more better could have went for the ME, keeping
the Italians in the war, closing the MED with a superior air force and going for the oil
in (friendly) Iraq.

Ivaylo
02-08-2009, 09:10 PM
Hitler lost WW2 because:
- he was a racist and waisted available manpower resources in Germany (jews) and the
Soviet Union (inferior people) easily worth 100 divisions which he lacked dearly before
and after Stalingrad.
- he invaded the SU in te East without taking proper care of the unbeaten British in the
West
- he waisted his scarce resources on too many weapon developments
- he himself took over the supreme command, not letting things done by his generals
- instead of invading the SU he far more better could have went for the ME, keeping
the Italians in the war, closing the MED with a superior air force and going for the oil
in (friendly) Iraq.

And imagine what would happen if he leave the whole Soviet Union to rearm in 1942 ( that was indicated by some documents found in the russian archives ) and strike in his back or simply Stalin to make a deal with US/UK for this . Hitler was racist and ilusionist but not definatelly a fool , he knew well that the war machine needed quick victories , that's why the blitzkrieg was used , if you don't take the russians or the Allies by few months maximum year your industry run out of resurces and soon you find yourself in defense instead of forward march . So it was inevitable at the end , to fight against your great ideological enemy and at the same time to keep the Allies from Western Front and the reasons are iconomical , military mistakes and industry shortages . For example i doubt that if the russians were on the place of the german industry shortages and produce only 20500 T-34 per year would stand much such as the germans did but of course we will never know that .

Schuultz
02-09-2009, 06:34 AM
So are you saying that winter clothing would have been enough to grant the Wehrmacht a victory in the east?
Or were there more factors other than a lack of winter clothing/equipment that stopped the Wehrmacht dead in their tracks before Moscow?
Perhaps the Red Army??

Ivaylo
02-09-2009, 06:56 AM
So are you saying that winter clothing would have been enough to grant the Wehrmacht a victory in the east?
Or were there more factors other than a lack of winter clothing/equipment that stopped the Wehrmacht dead in their tracks before Moscow?
Perhaps the Red Army??

Not the winter clothing , enough production of tanks , full control of for example Mainstein over the front and of course a bit luck to achieve quick victory , without any of these the task is impossible . The red army didn't exist until the 1942 , stalingrad and the transfer of siberian troops until then they only made some delay actions and tactical withdraw .So if any of the high command generals was in control and not so many manpower and so on wasted on ruined city maybe the outcome would be different , imagine wehrmacht full with Tigers and Panthers with production such as the USSR had and the front in the hands of the generals , proper equipment too , i doubt there would be even a chance even if you are with high spirit defending the "liberty " that would not make a difference .

pdf27
02-09-2009, 07:09 AM
So are you saying that winter clothing would have been enough to grant the Wehrmacht a victory in the east?
Or were there more factors other than a lack of winter clothing/equipment that stopped the Wehrmacht dead in their tracks before Moscow?
Perhaps the Red Army??
The Wehrmacht had plenty of winter clothing - in warehouses back in Germany. What they were unable to do was transport it to the front and distribute it there - their entire logistics tail was marginally able to provide fuel and ammunition. This is the same reason why so many Soviet citizens died of starvation in the area under occupation - the Wehrmacht made the calculated decision to take their food supplies from them to feed the Army, so reducing the logistical requirements. This decision was taken in the full knowledge that it would result in the deats of millions of civilians.

Schuultz
02-09-2009, 07:19 AM
In their mindset therefore saving them gas and bullets, eh? :neutral:

But seriously, that's how war was fought in Europe since Early Modern times... which is why armies of either side were despised by the civil population back then (before the rise of Nationalism).

But did they expect their soldiers to steal warm winter coats from the civilians, too?? That's just foolish.

pdf27
02-09-2009, 12:04 PM
They didn't expect it (at least not so far as I know), rather the failure of the logistics system to keep up to the expected throughput was what denied the Wehrmacht it's own winter clothing. And yes, there are plenty of documented examples of Russian civvies being thrown out in the snow by German soldiers stealing their winter clothes.

Ivaylo
02-09-2009, 12:06 PM
They didn't expect it (at least not so far as I know), rather the failure of the logistics system to keep up to the expected throughput was what denied the Wehrmacht it's own winter clothing. And yes, there are plenty of documented examples of Russian civvies being thrown out in the snow by German soldiers stealing their winter clothes.

Absolutely right , even in the history films made for the Eastern Front it was mentioned . I think they didn't expect their logistics to fail because simply everyone including Hitler expected quick stunning victory so no one prepared the logistics for a long war .

Comrade Commisar
02-19-2009, 06:38 PM
I say just take england then drive to moscow on pure adrenaline that would have won the war

pdf27
02-19-2009, 06:42 PM
I say just take england then drive to moscow on pure adrenaline that would have won the war
"Just" take England? It would have taken an operation the size and capability of Overlord, launched in June 1940 against British forces shattered at Dunkirk for taking England to have a cat in hell's chance of success.
As for Moscow, what would the Germans do when they got there? Napoleon took Moscow, the Russians promptly set fire to it and withdrew further. His retreat from Moscow was one of the greatest disasters in military history.

Ivaylo
02-20-2009, 08:31 AM
"Just" take England? It would have taken an operation the size and capability of Overlord, launched in June 1940 against British forces shattered at Dunkirk for taking England to have a cat in hell's chance of success.
As for Moscow, what would the Germans do when they got there? Napoleon took Moscow, the Russians promptly set fire to it and withdrew further. His retreat from Moscow was one of the greatest disasters in military history.

True the things are not simple as they might look , and even a dreamer like Hitler knew that .

herman2
02-20-2009, 09:15 AM
Hitler lost WW-2 because he ate his food too fast and bit his fingernails at the dinner table. god!

brunoz
02-20-2009, 09:48 AM
Hi, there !! :)

I believe that WW2 was lost from the very beginning anyway.
Dictators are regularly and arrogantly underestimating all their opponent's
determination to fight.
The idea was that, once the battle on the continent was won the English
would have said "enough", which didn't happen.
The idea was that, after being severly beaten up during the opening weeks
of Barbarossa, the Russians would have surrendered, which didn't happen.
Plus the foolish Italian ally, good enough to open a number of unnecessary
new fronts whom he was totally unable to keep without German aid (Greece,
NorthAfrica, Ethiopia).
I remember having read about Ciano (Mussolini's son-in-law) telling Mussolini
these words, roughly: "Now that the U.S.A. are in the war, things will get
much harder." to which Mussolini had replied something like: "It's not going
to be something to bother greatly about, having another enemy!" At this
point Ciano grabbed the Rome telephone book, handed it to Mussolini, and
said: "This here is Rome's telephone book. Have you ever had the chance
of seeing New York's?"

(Ciano was trialed by the fascists for conspiracy and shot in January 1944)

Bye.
Bruno

Schuultz
02-20-2009, 02:22 PM
I read somewhere in another thread that Hitler had offered Mussolini to support him in North Africa.

Mussolini declined, and his troops ended up getting decisively defeated in one battle after another. Grudgingly, Mussolini asked for Hitler's help. The Afrikakorps was sent to help them and they started winning again.

brunoz
02-23-2009, 01:57 AM
Hi, there !! :)


I read somewhere in another thread that Hitler had offered Mussolini to support him in North Africa.

Mussolini declined, and his troops ended up getting decisively defeated in one battle after another. Grudgingly, Mussolini asked for Hitler's help. The Afrikakorps was sent to help them and they started winning again.

Yeah, and what about the ill Greece-campaign, a new front launched without
any practical reason, propaganda-yelled as "a promenade to Athens"... instead
the Greek fought, and bravely, and maybe would have even thrown the Italians
back into the Adriatic sea if the Germans hadn't decided to postpone Barbarossa
and walk across Yugoslavia to relieve the Italians out of their misery!
It is reported that during the very first days of the Greek campaign a frightened
young Italian soldier, soaked in a muddy trench, turned on to his captain saying:
"Captain, but, but... the Greek are shooting at us!" Which quite tells you how
the official propaganda had boosted the thing, pretending that at the only sight
of an Italian uniform the Greek would have lowered their trousers.

Bye.
Bruno.

Schuultz
02-23-2009, 09:22 AM
Is think it's amazing what a lack of strength the Italian army showed again and again.

I read somewhere that a German officer, commented about them as saying: 'The average soldier is capable, but undisciplined. The officers are incompetent.'
(Don't quote me on this, but I think it was something along those lines)

It amazes me that Mussolini, who apparently tried to revive the Roman Empire to a certain extent, neglected his army and let it come to this...
Cesar must have turned in his grave...

brunoz
02-23-2009, 10:24 AM
Hi-ya !! :D

In all fairness the Italian average soldier is no real "warrior", but that's not
the main point, I think. Incompetence of officers was essentially determined
by a "save-my-chair" policy and a ambiguous attitude throughout, keeping
eyes wide open to conveniently jump on the winner's chariot as soon as the
wind changes. As they say "keeping one foot in two shoes". Never the case
of getting into the thick of fight... how is it that Italy, an actual "bridge" into
the Mediterranean, was never able to provide convoy air/sea patrol/control
to North Africa?
OK, I agree that poor equipment was also part of the overall weakness, but,
hey, Malta was initially air-defended by Gladiators and it was Swordfishes that
attacked and badly shattered half the Italian Navy in Taranto...

Bye.
Bruno.

Chevan
02-23-2009, 12:02 PM
I read somewhere in another thread that Hitler had offered Mussolini to support him in North Africa.

Mussolini declined, and his troops ended up getting decisively defeated in one battle after another. Grudgingly, Mussolini asked for Hitler's help. The Afrikakorps was sent to help them and they started winning again.
I have to agree.
Indeed i was alwyas wondering why peoples called the Axis "coalition" , when there were "visibility" of coalition .There were just a separate states who waged its own war-
Japane in the East, Finland in north,Italy in the south and GErmany everywhere:)
The only exception as i know, was a Barbarossa where the some of Romanians, Italians ,Humgarians, even Croatians fought under general German management.
But in most other cases the Germany fought alone , to the contrast the Allied coalition that actualy interacted ,helping to each other, all the war.

Ivaylo
02-25-2009, 06:22 AM
I have to agree.
Indeed i was alwyas wondering why peoples called the Axis "coalition" , when there were "visibility" of coalition .There were just a separate states who waged its own war-
Japane in the East, Finland in north,Italy in the south and GErmany everywhere:)
The only exception as i know, was a Barbarossa where the some of Romanians, Italians ,Humgarians, even Croatians fought under general German management.
But in most other cases the Germany fought alone , to the contrast the Allied coalition that actualy interacted ,helping to each other, all the war.

I have to agree too , that was the main mistake which caused that Germany turned short of supplies fighting on every side .

Schuultz
02-25-2009, 02:29 PM
Well, but that obviously had political reasons, too. Hitler had it a lot harder finding powerful Allies while at the same time telling his people how much superior they are and how they'll dominate the world. Who would want to truly ally themselves with somebody they can be sure of that he will fall them in the back as soon as he doesn't need them anymore?

The Soviets allied themselves with him at the beginning because they were sure they could easily defeat Germany if they should attack - that's why they were arming themselves as much as they did. And I'm pretty positive that the Soviets would have attacked Germany by '42 or '43 if Germany hadn't beaten them to it. The two dictators would have never tolerated each other.

Ivaylo
02-26-2009, 07:52 AM
Well, but that obviously had political reasons, too. Hitler had it a lot harder finding powerful Allies while at the same time telling his people how much superior they are and how they'll dominate the world. Who would want to truly ally themselves with somebody they can be sure of that he will fall them in the back as soon as he doesn't need them anymore?

The Soviets allied themselves with him at the beginning because they were sure they could easily defeat Germany if they should attack - that's why they were arming themselves as much as they did. And I'm pretty positive that the Soviets would have attacked Germany by '42 or '43 if Germany hadn't beaten them to it. The two dictators would have never tolerated each other.

Interesting ... Actually Hitler had on paper many allies - Hungary , Italy , Vichy France and so on but they were so weak that i doubt on long term they were able to do something , so actually Germany was alone from the begining . As for the Soviets I can't agree that from the begining of 39' they knew that they would easily defeat Germany , if that was so why they didn't simply invade them ? Because Stalin knew what opposition he have to face in such war and the great dissaster of the Finish war prove it , as well as 41-43 period when the germans were hard opponents not to speak about the begining of the war where there was total panic and confusion in the Red Army showing that the Soviet side never thought of plan to attack Germany . And even in the first day of the war Stalin sent a trains with provisions and materials to the Germans if i am not mistaken . The true part is that Stalin had an idea to bring modernisation in the Soviet army by 42' but actual plan for attack was never written on paper .

DavisC12
03-01-2009, 12:54 PM
I also agree.

Nickdfresh
03-01-2009, 01:07 PM
I also agree.

Are you capable of writing more than one frigging sentence? Why are you even posting this crap?

Schuultz
03-01-2009, 05:33 PM
Interesting ... Actually Hitler had on paper many allies - Hungary , Italy , Vichy France and so on but they were so weak that i doubt on long term they were able to do something , so actually Germany was alone from the begining . As for the Soviets I can't agree that from the begining of 39' they knew that they would easily defeat Germany , if that was so why they didn't simply invade them ? Because Stalin knew what opposition he have to face in such war and the great dissaster of the Finish war prove it , as well as 41-43 period when the germans were hard opponents not to speak about the begining of the war where there was total panic and confusion in the Red Army showing that the Soviet side never thought of plan to attack Germany . And even in the first day of the war Stalin sent a trains with provisions and materials to the Germans if i am not mistaken . The true part is that Stalin had an idea to bring modernisation in the Soviet army by 42' but actual plan for attack was never written on paper .

Well, Stalin obviously knew that he wasn't going to be able to defeat Nazi Germany easily, but he still thought he could. However, the failure that the Winter War turned out to be for the Soviets was a wake up call for him, and he realized that his army might not be as powerful at the moment as he had believed. That's why he started a huge number of changes, and if he had been given the time to finish those, the German Army would have probably never been able to push the Soviets back to Moscow in the first place.
There's a good chance that Hitler realized how weak the Soviets were in the Winter War, and was smart enough to come to the conclusion that they were going to improve themselves. So he pretty much invaded at the best time possible. The Russians were still weakened from the Winter War, and had not yet fixed their army's main issues...
Had the Supply lines been able to go along the Army, and had the Army been kept as one powerful spearhead, the Russians might've well been defeated...

Comrade Commisar
03-01-2009, 07:06 PM
I put this into consideration in why Hitler lost ww2-
i don't know the reason why Italy left Hitler,maybe on there own account, i am not sure on that.





Well they left because they didn't want a war on there soil with there terrable army and because they simply did not like hitler as he often belittled italy.

Ivaylo
03-02-2009, 04:51 AM
Actually i think we forget one factor in the Pacific during that time called Japan , what would been if Japan stroke USSR in the back , the USSR would never got the troops needed and we won't call Hitler so stupid or Italy so not powerful ally i think it was just the japanise choice that turned the war i think rather than anything else .

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 05:26 AM
Hitler open too many fronts,while he has not finshed with the first fronts he Hitler Started.

I think the second front was the back. You can't have two fronts. It'd be like one person being two different people, which is impossible. I think his problem was opening his back. That's how he got reamed up the arse by the Russkis. It's like bending over to pick up the soap in the showers in a prison. Starts out clean and simple, but someone always ends up in the shit.


Plus Hitler's two main Axis Allies in the western war Russia and Italy were no more these two countries if still with Hitler may have swing the war on Hitler's side-For supplie lines,more fighting troops,more equitment,help which Hitler and Germany needed.

Yeah, you're right.

A pity Hitler didn't have you on his general staff to avoid those problems.

He was stupid to have Russia as an Axis ally when Russia swung its supply lines, troops and equipment against him. Especially after Barbarossa when Hitler went to a lot of trouble to send as many forces as he could spare to support his Russian ally against them.


Hitler was born in a really cold country Austria?

No, he was born in Australia, a really warm country, which is why he failed to understand the Russian winter.

Also, his mother was a kangaroo, which is why he was always jumping from one thing to another.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 06:43 AM
I think the second front was the back. You can't have two fronts. It'd be like one person being two different people, which is impossible. I think his problem was opening his back. That's how he got reamed up the arse by the Russkis. It's like bending over to pick up the soap in the showers in a prison. Starts out clean and simple, but someone always ends up in the shit.

Sooo... you're pretty much saying that Hitler was Stalin's prison bitch?


No, he was born in Australia, a really warm country, which is why he failed to understand the Russian winter.

Also, his mother was a kangaroo, which is why he was always jumping from one thing to another.

Haha, that actually made me laugh out loud :D... Everybody in the study area is looking at me funny....:oops:

PS: That was pretty aggressive, RS*... :neutral:

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 07:11 AM
Sooo... you're pretty much saying that Hitler was Stalin's prison bitch?

I hadn't thought of it that way, largely because it hadn't occurred to me that soap had reached Russia before the war (Chevan and Egorka, forgive me, for I know not what I do :D).

But, yeah, in the end Adolf, even though he was a burnt out shell of himself by war's end, was Joe's punk.


Haha, that actually made me laugh out loud :D... Everybody in the study area is looking at me funny....:oops:

Yes, and this is even stranger, Hitler's father was a wombat. A wombat, like a kangaroo, is a marsupial but it is a burrowing one (very handy for building bunkers) which eats roots, shoots and leaves. They are an emblematic animal for the Australian adult human male who emulates them in his brief contacts with the Australian adult human female (most of whom are called Sharon or something ending in 'elle'), as soon after meeting the Sharons etc the average Aussie bloke eats, roots, shoots, and leaves.


PS: That was pretty aggressive, RS*... :neutral: It will become clearer as we progress.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 08:49 AM
Now I understand, RS*

Viper: He was making a joke. And to clarify things: Yes, Hitler was Austrian and didn't become a German citizen until the 1920s, IIRC.

Sorry to correct you, RS*, I know I'm just nitpicking here, but he was the child of an Austrian Wombat, a subspecies that was exterminated during the Holocaust. This leads many historians to believe that Hitler's relations with his Dad might have been sub-ideal.

Kent
03-02-2009, 11:37 AM
..... That's why he (Stalin) started a huge number of changes, and if he had been given the time to finish those, the German Army would have probably never been able to push the Soviets back to Moscow in the first place.

Highly unlikely. A paranoid Stalin had recently finished savagely purging (changing) his entire military, mainly the offiicer corps, particularly the upper ranks, ie: he be-headed his armed forces. Although the Russian military looked good on paper with large numbers of men and equipment (albeit poorly trained and obsolete), it was leaderless, and intimidated by a Kremlin ready to punish risk taking and perceived disloyalty to the state. The loyal political types he hastily promoted still left his military effectively devoid of men schooled for decades in military tactics, and experience leading men into battle. Small wonder the recently battle hardened, superbly lead, highly disciplined, well educated, experienced, and highly motivated German military rolled over them in the beginning. The two biggest advantages Stalin had was the vastness of his country, and General Winter.

And it was only Germany's stunning initial successes that made Stalin at least subdue, for a time, his paranoia and use the military properly to fight for Russia's survival. Great Patriotic War, my foot. It was as much, or more, about Stalin saving his own ***, and power.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 01:44 PM
You're very right about Stalin 'beheading' his own military. Hitler was very well aware of that, which was why he accepted him as an 'Ally' at first. The Winter War against Finland, however, was a fantastic failure for the Russian Army, and brought to light just how much damage the 'beheading' had caused.

Stalin was working hard to fix those problems and bring back a decent leadership to his army. Hitler realized that, too, and part of the reason for the timing of Barbarossa was that he feared Stalin might fix up his military back up to a dangerous strength for Germany, and he chose to strike before that happened.

Firefly
03-02-2009, 03:01 PM
Rising sun. I don't think Hitler was born in Australia.

First Hitler was born in Austria than Hitler move to Germany.
Third,Hitler could never speak the English language and plus i don't think people who were not born in Austria or Germany can be Chancellor of Countries which they were not born in.

Surely when Adolph was born it was still officially the Australian-Hungarian Empire? This stretched from the Danube all the way to Queelong if my history is correct.

I believe to get to Germany Hitler had to walk all the way and thats why it took him from 1918 to 1922, using 73 pairs of jackboots on the way, which is still a Guinness world record to this day.

From the wiki
Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Australian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), popularly known as the Nazi Party. He made the famous Jaegerfuknackering March from Queelong to Munich between 1918 and 1922 and was the ruler of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as Chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945.

Schuultz
03-02-2009, 03:18 PM
:shock::shock::shock::shock:

That's the first time I see you outside the Falkland War forum, Firefly!

And with such valuable information!!

:D

Rising Sun*
03-02-2009, 10:15 PM
Is there any chance of that Wilki proof being a misprint?

Yes.

Hitler didn't march from Queelong. It was from Geelong. He was repatriated there by the British after WWI after trying to fool people into believing he was Austrian.

In fact he was originally from a German settlement in the Barossa Valley in South Australia. He never lost his roots in the Barossa, as shown by calling the attack on the USSR Barbarossa.

You could find more details on this in Anthony Blunt's book "Hitler's Long March to Munich", but it has been out of print and unobtainable since the late 1930s when German spies and sympathisers obtained and destroyed all copies in the world to prevent the German people and the rest of the world learning the truth about Hitler's Australian ancestry. Anthony Blunt died in mysterious circumstances in London around 1938, being found dead under a peer.

Rising Sun*
03-03-2009, 05:01 AM
For some reason , you're taken the p/ss out of me.

Rising sun, I don't think Germany and Hitler was ever with Australia, Germany and Hitler have never been under the British Empire.

Nobody is arguing that Germany was under the British Empire or that Hitler was with Australia during WWII.

However, Hitler's childhood experiences in Australia gave him a certain affection for the Anglos, which is why, and all these events are well documented, he allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk; chose not to invade Britain; and always hoped for an alliance or at least peace with Britain. All this is in Anthony Blunt's missing book.

It's no accident that the German-settled Barossa Valley, from whence Hitler came, was the centre of Nazi activity in Australia before WWII.


After immigrations restrictions were lifted in 1925, a number of German nationals came to live in South Australia, the heartland of earlier German settlement. Among them was Dr Johannes Becker, who would go on to achieve infamy as Hitler’s Confidential Agent, and “Australia’s No.1 Nazi”.

A 29 year old war veteran and ship’s surgeon, Becker travelled to the Barossa Valley and quickly established a thriving medical practice. Embroiled in controversy and litigation from the start, he should later become the leading Nazi Party organizer for Australia. He gathered around him a small following of like-minded expatriates who were eager to see the re-emergence of Germany from the wreckage of the Great War. http://www.strictly-rare.com/Links.html

When Hitler completed his long march from Geelong to Germany in 1922 as previously posted by Firefly, Dr Becker saw Hitler speak and was inspired to travel to Australia to set up what was to become the Australian end of the Nazi Party in the Barossa Valley.


Johannes Becker saw Adolf Hitler speak in 1922, and subsequently became a willing member of the Nazi Party. He travelled to Germany in 1933, where he met Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, a staff member of Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess, and was appointed chief organiser of the party in Australia. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21869296-601,00.html

If you think we're taking the piss out of you, then the authors of these books and articles have been taking the piss out of the rest of us with their fabrications of Hitler's history. Do you really think that that is likely, especially given the hordes of fact checkers employed by book publishers and newspapers to ensure that their publications are accurate and not likely to attract legal action?

And don't forget that Dr Becker was under Hess, and that Hess flew to Britain to try to broker peace between Germany and Britain. How much proof do you need from sources other than Wiki?

herman2
03-03-2009, 12:15 PM
Quote from R.S.:
And don't forget that Dr Becker was under Hess, and that Hess flew to Britain to try to broker peace between Germany and Britain. How much proof do you need from sources other than Wiki?__________________

...but R.S. You forgot to mention the History Channel!!
remember your old girlfriend who always quoted you stuff from the History Channel!...don't you miss her?...deep down, I think you miss her.

flamethrowerguy
03-03-2009, 03:01 PM
...but R.S. You forgot to mention the History Channel!!
remember your old girlfriend who always quoted you stuff from the History Channel!...don't you miss her?...deep down, I think you miss her.

RS* has certainly no reason for that.

Firefly
03-03-2009, 03:06 PM
Yes.

Hitler didn't march from Queelong. It was from Geelong. He was repatriated there by the British after WWI after trying to fool people into believing he was Austrian..

Yes, your right RS, it was Geelong, I was using the German spelling there by mistake.

What I find interesting though is that Hitler never lost his Aussie accent, Triumph of the Will was heavily edited and his voice was dubbed by the famous German actor Hugho von Jass, commonly known as Hugh Jass. Goebbles worked extremely hard to eradicate the Australianess from Hitlers image, although he was often known to lapse back into Vegimite sandwiches and a few bottles of Castlemaine in the Berghoff.

navyson
03-03-2009, 03:14 PM
although he was often known to lapse back into Vegimite sandwiches and a few bottles of Castlemaine in the Berghoff.

Is that why Hitler had stomach problems and the farts? Oh...my bad...wrong thread!http://www.smilieshq.com/smilies/fighting0092.gif :mrgreen:

Firefly
03-03-2009, 03:14 PM
:shock::shock::shock::shock:

That's the first time I see you outside the Falkland War forum, Firefly!

And with such valuable information!!

:D

Yes mate, I rarely get out nowadays in the public forums. Spending most of my time locked in the Falklands Rooms doing penance for my past sins of serving down there in the past.

Of course all I ever wanted to do here was become head Mod and I carried out a ruthless campaign to get there, finding political dirt on my fellow Mods, ruining other guys chances of becoming a mod and generally evily working my way to the top.

You can be rest assured though that I silently patrol the Forums looking out for anyone who may challenge me for the Dictatorship crown I have.

So be warned, I am watching you all!:evil:

herman2
03-03-2009, 03:37 PM
Now I'm scared. I didn't know the Honourable Firefly was silently watching us!. His one comment carries more weight than rs,pk and nick, all combined!. That red mean looking gremlin sign is going to stick in my head for a long while...Long Live the FireFly!

Schuultz
03-03-2009, 03:46 PM
http://i455.photobucket.com/albums/qq271/Schuultz/paranoid-cat.jpg

Firefly
03-03-2009, 03:47 PM
Now I'm scared. I didn't know the Honourable Firefly was silently watching us!. His one comment carries more weight than rs,pk and nick, all combined!. That red mean looking gremlin sign is going to stick in my head for a long while...Long Live the FireFly!


You neednt worry Herman, as you have no chance of being a Mod in the foreseeable future you leave me with no worries except your insane penchant for sucking up. Please dont keep it up, its tedium for me to read!:rolleyes:

Schuultz
03-03-2009, 04:22 PM
Say, Firefly, what comic is your avatar from? it looks extremely familiar, but I just can't place it...:neutral:

Schuultz
03-03-2009, 07:27 PM
Yes, your right RS, it was Geelong, I was using the German spelling there by mistake.

What I find interesting though is that Hitler never lost his Aussie accent, Triumph of the Will was heavily edited and his voice was dubbed by the famous German actor Hugho von Jass, commonly known as Hugh Jass. Goebbles worked extremely hard to eradicate the Australianess from Hitlers image, although he was often known to lapse back into Vegimite sandwiches and a few bottles of Castlemaine in the Berghoff.

Yes, Goebbels was masterful in his masking of Hitler's Australian origins. It is still a marvel to a lot of Historians, how Goebbels managed to convince millions of Germans that his Australian accent is actually Bohemian.
Funny enough, Goebbels wasn't even completely lying - Hitler was in fact born in 'Bohemia' - except it was 'Bohemia Way' in Parkwood, Western Australia.
http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=bohemia%20way%2C%20parkwood%2C%20australia&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl
His parents were there visiting friends of the family when his mother's water broke. Obviously, the fact that one of the world's most terrifying Dictators was born there, isn't something they like to tout with...
Annually, Parkwood is plagued with large Nazi-Rallies because of this dark part of their history...

Firefly
03-04-2009, 10:21 AM
Say, Firefly, what comic is your avatar from? it looks extremely familiar, but I just can't place it...:neutral:

Its not from any comic, it was custom drawn as part of a ww2 themed set by a guy at an old website I used to be on.

If you come across it, or others like it anywhere then more than likely it will be from a guy who was on the same site.

peopleselbow
03-05-2009, 02:17 PM
he thought that russia would collapse under german arms and cave in to hitler