Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 91 to 101 of 101

Thread: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Valhalla
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    No need to troll and get all abusive mate, I seem to be getting under your skin for some reason.
    sorry about that, got little carried away

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

    I did by the way ask which democracy you were talking about so you could have saved yourself the 'bullocks' saying (although what male bovines have to do with Iran I don't know)
    Iran was a monarchy not a democracy until the 1979 revolution then it became a theocracy. The monarchy was heavily supported by the west. So which democracy was brought down by the UK and USA
    Leader was elected by parliament. Even Sadam Hussein held "democratic" elections. Fact that they may not have been up to standards is another matter. UK is monarchy but everyone consider it democracy - what's your problem ? Can't you count countries USA/UK attacked in 20th century on their own account ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And before you start spouting on about how unfair Versailles was, I suggest you read the text of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This is the treaty Germany dictated to the Soviet Union when it thought itself victorious, and probably ended any chance the Germans had of getting a reasonable peace from the western allies.
    The "referendum" will give votes to those living there in 1918 - i.e. prior to the Versailles settlement, and ignoring any rights accrued to those who have lived there for the past 20 years.
    Rightly so, people who lived there for 20 years are immigrants. not domicile population. In addition Poland already ensured reducing German population as much as possible. That's why. Germany has done the same before that...

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

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

  2. #92
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Valhalla
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    Oh, I'm the "ignorant" one? I thought you were the lying ****wit who wasted bandwidth with the meaningless shit regarding "negotiations" between Poland and Germany regarding Danzig and other assorted territories. But the fact has clearly sailed over your head (once again) that I implied that all negotiations with the Reich were fallible and hence meaningless since the Fuhrer was a lying **** as evidenced by the aborted Munich Accords...
    May have been. But Poland should have thought about that twice as it faced worst imaginable destiny not only from Nazis. Returning German Danzig to Germany and allowing railroad to East Prussia is hardly concession worth risking total war fromj Polish point of view. I very well understand Churchill and Daladier thought little about Polish welfare but rather tried to contain Germany becoming superpower. And good thing Pols learned their lesson. This way they ensured that their fate was sealed. They underestimated German strength and placed their hopes in British.
    Proposal was formally made. Poland formally didn't respond.
    But Hitler would attack nevertheless, maybe not Poland but Russia surely, probably through satelite Poland -like Rumania.

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

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

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

    More to come in few days.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    witman

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

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

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

    Separate issue. When you're quoting posts, please indentify the poster. You can do this by copying the poster's ID at the start of the post inside the square brackets, e.g. QUOTE=witman111;178474 and finishing the part you want to quote with /quote inside square brackets. I've omitted the square brackets in the examples to avoid making the text in between a quote by you, like this if the start and finish are inside square brackets.
    If you can't be bothered doing the rest of us the courtesy of identifying the members to whose comments you are responding, I'm going to be equally lazy and just delete any posts where you fail to do so. Including your most recent posts if you don't get them into order by editing them pretty soon.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  4. #94
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Valhalla
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Valhalla
    Posts
    66

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    If you can't be bothered doing the rest of us the courtesy of identifying the members to whose comments you are responding, I'm going to be equally lazy and just delete any posts where you fail to do so. Including your most recent posts if you don't get them into order by editing them pretty so
    where the hell is poster ID ???
    what's your poster ID ?
    what's this "178474 " number ?

    danke

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    where the hell is poster ID ???
    what's your poster ID ?
    what's this "178474 " number ?

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

    You'll see

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    where the hell is poster ID ???
    what's your poster ID ?
    what's this "178474 " number ?

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

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

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

    I'm also not disposed to waste any more of my time giving clear instructions to someone who chose to ignore them close to 50 posts ago.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 08-08-2011 at 10:34 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

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

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,413

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    May have been. But Poland should have thought about that twice as it faced worst imaginable destiny not only from Nazis. Returning German Danzig to Germany and allowing railroad to East Prussia is hardly concession worth risking total war fromj Polish point of view. I very well understand Churchill and Daladier thought little about Polish welfare but rather tried to contain Germany becoming superpower.
    Now we're backpedaling! "But Poland should have...?" Even if Poland had returned a corridor to Danzing, when did Hitler ever stop at limited objectives? Czechoslovakia? Oh yes, the evil French and British trying to keep Germany from becoming a superpower by invading its neighbors? Oh yes, what a myopic, ignorant view of history. The British and French largely stood by and allowed the Nazi German gov't to completely breach the Versailles Treaty and rearm, and they didn't really have the power nor political will to actively "hold back" Germany, though it is highly arguable that Germany could ever had reached the status of a superpower without invading everyone as their standard of living was that of essentially a modern Third World nation in the 1930s. And incidentally, Churchill wasn't PM during the invasion of Poland, genius!

    And good thing Pols learned their lesson. This way they ensured that their fate was sealed. They underestimated German strength and placed their hopes in British.
    Proposal was formally made. Poland formally didn't respond.
    But Hitler would attack nevertheless, maybe not Poland but Russia surely, probably through satelite Poland -like Rumania.
    The underestimated the capabilities of the mechanized Heer as did almost everyone, or rather probably overestimated their own power and ability to hold out against, and attrit, the German onslaught. They didn't put their faith in just the British, but also the French...

    Neofacist, you say ? For a person who indulges watching Russian males in boy locker room this is hardly worth any reply. But let speak about facts shall we.
    Well, either English isn't your first language, or you have a severe learning disability. I suspect both. But since I do not live in Russia nor have I been in a locker room in ten years, I think that idiot troll bate to be highly unlikely. Perhaps you're just projecting your Ernst Rohm fantasies onto me?

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

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

    3. Great democracies is fallacy in itself as it is enough to see how were they formed. Through blood, slaughter, war and conquest all over the world through centuries. Even through entire 20th century.
    But go ahead, call me neofacist if it makes you any smarter.
    I've never used the term "Great Democracies?" So I am wondering who the **** you are responding too????

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


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

    More to come in few days.
    Don't hold your breath...

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    87

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post
    But Poland should have thought about that twice as it faced worst imaginable destiny not only from Nazis. Returning German Danzig to Germany and allowing railroad to East Prussia is hardly concession worth risking total war fromj Polish point of view.
    The Polish government, especially Lipski, was very suspicious about German intentions, mostly because Germany had openly expressed the desire to annex Danzig, and wished to destroy the Versailles treaty by destroying the country that had exasperated previous chancellors and taken much needed land away from honest, hardworking German settlers. If the Polish government conceded a railroad to East Prussia, the Reich might demand more concessions that would cut into the economic heart of Poland. Therefore, the Government believed that Germany was shifting the borders in order to steal the prosperous shipyard for themselves without just compensation; the ethnic German issue, they believed, was a pretext for an annexation or, if the demands were not met, an invasion.

    And good thing Pols learned their lesson. This way they ensured that their fate was sealed. They underestimated German strength and placed their hopes in British.
    This quote pains me very deeply. I do not know how to respond to something like this. Are you stating that Poland deserved its fate?

    But Hitler would attack nevertheless, maybe not Poland but Russia surely, probably through satelite Poland -like Rumania.
    In order to invade and conquer Russia quickly, Hitler's Wehrmacht would have had to invade Poland because the country is sandwiched in between Russian and German territory. That is simple geography. It makes perfect sense to invade Russia through Soviet-controlled Poland to the east-- previously known as the Kresy--and possibly through Czechoslovakia because these countries are closest to Russia. The Wehrmacht should have secured Romania, yes, but it makes perfect sense to secure your eastern flank before launching another attack.

    Also, Romania was not a satellite of Poland, nor was it ever. I don't understand what you mean by "satelite Poland." Could you explain that one to me, witman?
    Last edited by Kregs; 08-09-2011 at 10:55 PM.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    People should try not to confuse healthy criticism with sympathy falacies

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

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,413

    Default Re: Adolf Hitler, pros and cons

    This thread is closed until further notice due to blatant thread-jacking and trolling...

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

    Quote Originally Posted by witman111 View Post

    Having in mind "banana wars" and calling me Neo-facist (this is new one it is usually neo-nazi ) mind my view that Hitler's breach of Munich agreement is not quite on scale of USA/UK interventions, limiting the scope only on bananas if you will.
    WTF do "Banana (Republic, I assume you mean) Wars have to do with the "pros and cons" of Adolf Hitler? Secondly, I've never defended U.S. "Monroe Doctrine" policies you're referring too...

    1. Invasion of Denmark and Norway was to secure iron ore from Sweden. Try reading Churchill memories, punk.
    2. Ober Commando Wehrmach did not go anywhere. Almost all were against war. even conspired to murder adolf. But faced with possibility Hitler knew of this treason they backed down and try to "articulate" what he wanted. World war was not what army wanted.
    3. IMO !!! Try reading Wages of Destruction to see how "Blitzkrieg myth" is dispelled in recent literature. Although half crazy Hitler, knew nevertheless that only chance Germany had was quick war not war of attrition.
    Really? You're citing Tooze's Wages of Destruction for this? My assertion of your learning disability coupled with your inability to grasp English language nuance is becoming ever truer and truer with every little trolling post. Actually Tooze is EXACTLY the literature that dispels the "quick war" "Blitzkrieg" notion as he cites The Blitzkrieg Legend (written by a German military historian and Bundeswehr officer). And if you had actually read this text you throw around in a completely inappropriate manner, you'd note that the reason why the OKW didn't want to go rumbling into France was that the very blueprint for war that Hitler was screaming to put into place was in fact a BATTLE OF ATTRITION through Belgium! NOT a BLITZ of any kind, as the Blitzkrieg was essentially invented on the fly during the war with France, not for a war with France. The genius of the Manstein/Halder plan didn't come to fruition until well after Hitler was pressuring his army to attack into Belgium in October-November of 1939, with a plan that anticipated over 600,000 casualties for marginal gains at best!

    Ahh. did not know that, what you said "circumstances in Iraq were far from those of any other Middle Eastern country" ? Why don't you try explaining circumstances starting from aforementioned banana wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Serbia, Libya and god knows which other country you have invaded.
    I don't know what a "banana war" is, but I'm pretty sure none of those countries grow bananas as America's evil plot to seize the worlds banana supply was thwarted!


    Blah blah off-topic mentally ill ramblings...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 08-10-2011 at 04:16 AM.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •