Trk 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 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 106 to 120 of 120

Thread: Allied ≠ Russians?

  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    250

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    I was under the impression that allies aside from France also wanted the Germans treated harshly after the 1914-18 war. The territorial losses Germany suffered to France appear to be less than what they lost to the Soviets in 1945 but this did not lead to Germany seeking revenge.

    Also, if France was responsible for the 1939-45 war why would the nazis be less brutal towards them than to the Soviets/Russians whom they had defeated?

  2. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Halifax & Heidelberg
    Posts
    1,231

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Because (most) Russians were of Slavic descent and considered 'Sub-Humans' by the Germans. The French on the other hand were another fully European people, and even though they had been the nemesis of Germany for quite some while, they were considered to have proven themselves to be worthy of further existence.
    (From Hitler's point of view, the fact that the Soviets were communists also was further 'evidence' for the sub-humanity of them.)

    Furthermore, Hitler wanted to create additional living space for Germans in the East, which obviously meant that the previous inhabitants of those areas had to go.
    The fundamental problem of Democracy is that the majority of voters are idiots fueled by uninformed rage - and the Politicians do everything to cater to them.

  3. #108
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuultz View Post
    Furthermore, Hitler wanted to create additional living space for Germans in the East, which obviously meant that the previous inhabitants of those areas had to go.
    As far as i know the Hitler was going to inhabit the Eastern Europe by the GErmans settlers, who should controll and managed the local slavs as a slaves.
    But the question is - really was he was aimed to liquidate part of locals according so called "plan Ost"?Or it was just communist propogand?
    We know for sure that a big part of Soviet "volunteres" ( i heard soemthing about million) has been sent to inner GErmany as a cheap manpower at plants and farms during the war.
    Last edited by Chevan; 03-13-2009 at 01:41 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  4. #109
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    93

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuultz View Post
    Because (most) Russians were of Slavic descent and considered 'Sub-Humans' by the Germans. The French on the other hand were another fully European people, and even though they had been the nemesis of Germany for quite some while, they were considered to have proven themselves to be worthy of further existence.
    (From Hitler's point of view, the fact that the Soviets were communists also was further 'evidence' for the sub-humanity of them.)

    Furthermore, Hitler wanted to create additional living space for Germans in the East, which obviously meant that the previous inhabitants of those areas had to go.
    Though the French were not considered as sub human, they where nevertheless not considered as Aryans. The French volunteers where therefore not worthy a full SS title, the reason for the funny name, Charlemange SS, instead af full description, like Waffen SS Charlemange.

    They simply placed the SS designation behind Charlemange.
    Last edited by freyir_33; 03-13-2009 at 05:40 AM.

  5. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by freyir_33 View Post
    Though the French were not considered as sub human, they where nevertheless not considered as Aryans. The French volunteers where therefore not worthy a full SS title, the reason for the funny name, Charlemange SS, instead af full description, like Waffen SS Charlemange.

    They simple put the SS designation in back
    It's not true freyir.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...en_SS_Brigades
    The 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne was indeed the part of Waffen SS.

    Also there wer a pretty much of non-germans( non-arians) foreign Waffen SS units
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...oreign_Legions
    Azeri Waffen SS Volunteer Formations
    British Free Corps
    Blue Division
    Estonian Legion
    Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS
    Frikorps Danmark
    Indische Legion
    Kaminski Brigade
    Latvian Legion
    SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger
    Tatar Legion
    SS Volunteer Grenadier Brigade Landstorm Nederland
    In late 1944 the ALL sort of criminals, sadist and simply race-haters were welcomed in Waffen SS pretty much.
    Like the Kaminski SS- Brigade of scums
    Also many Tatars and Azeri( it makes me delight al time) were recruited into previously race-cleanes troops of Germany- SS.
    Such a betrayal of "race principles" has come to the situation when SS has been transformed into the real instrument for crimes.
    When i see such an ...Aryans in the Deutsche Wochenschau, every time it makes me to laugh.
    Last edited by Chevan; 03-13-2009 at 09:36 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  6. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Egorka View Post
    Really? Most of the materials?
    Do you have some numbers on that?
    I don't have exact percentages, I'm not sure anyone does. But it is clear that the Soviet Union was a major source of grain, oil, magnesium, and rubber...of course the US and other Euro powers also conducted business with Germany. But Nazi Germany could not have prosecuted the War against Western Europe -and eventually the USSR itself- without these resources...

    http://books.google.com/books?id=bK-...lRh7VQ6IAmZ4Ns


    http://books.google.com/books?id=boJ...Ko1mE#PPA13,M1

  7. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    I don't have exact percentages, I'm not sure anyone does. But it is clear that the Soviet Union was a major source of grain, oil, magnesium, and rubber...of course the US and other Euro powers also conducted business with Germany. But Nazi Germany could not have prosecuted the War against Western Europe -and eventually the USSR itself- without these resources...
    Nickdfresh is right , Egorka.
    Actualy the USSR was for the short time a biggest seller the ore , oil and grain to the Nazi Germany since september 1939 till the most june 1941( when the soviet-german trade agreement has been signed)
    But at the same time USSR got a much of industry equipment , machinery and tehnologies, that contributed a lot to the Soviet victory LATER.
    As for possibility to wage a war in Europe - the Hitler has began the war till the soviet -german cooperation. He captured the Poland befor the soviets even send them anything.
    After that the Britain and France declared the war- the War in Western Europe was started, independently of Soviet contribution.
    But since end 1940 the Germany has enough resources to wage a war everywhere, coz Romania( oil) , Finland( Nickel) and Sweden(ore) were at full German service
    All they need is a grain- but that was enough in Ukraine.
    So Barbarossa was just waiting of its time.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  8. #113
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aachen/Aken/Aix-la-Chapelle
    Posts
    2,966

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by freyir_33 View Post
    The French volunteers where therefore not worthy a full SS title, the reason for the funny name, Charlemange SS, instead af full description, like Waffen SS Charlemange.

    They simply placed the SS designation behind Charlemange.
    Bollocks, once again.
    "I just ran out of ammo. I will ram this one. Good bye, we'll meet in Valhalla." - Major Heinrich Ehrler, April 4, 1945

  9. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    1,855

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    I don't have exact percentages, I'm not sure anyone does. But it is clear that the Soviet Union was a major source of grain, oil, magnesium, and rubber...of course the US and other Euro powers also conducted business with Germany. But Nazi Germany could not have prosecuted the War against Western Europe -and eventually the USSR itself- without these resources...

    http://books.google.com/books?id=bK-...lRh7VQ6IAmZ4Ns

    http://books.google.com/books?id=boJ...Ko1mE#PPA13,M1
    Thanks for the links. I did not understand what is the second link for though.

    It is true that some of the materials Germany purshassed through USSR had great value for them. Despite this fact it remains that in 1940 supplies from the USSR were only 7,6 % of the total German import, and supplies to USSR 4,5% of German export, with 6,3 and 6,6 % respectively the next year. Thus, USSR occupied the fifth place in the list of importers to Germany (following Italy, Denmark, Romania and Holland).

    Fx. Soviet Oil was the most noticeable of the main goods and constituted ... 10% of the German consumption.

  10. #115
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Russia, Moscow
    Posts
    1,855

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Nickdfresh is right , Egorka.
    Actualy the USSR was for the short time a biggest seller the ore , oil and grain to the Nazi Germany since september 1939 till the most june 1941
    Ho short is the "short time"?
    Yearly statistical totals speak for themselves.

  11. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,286

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by freyir_33 View Post
    Though the French were not considered as sub human, they where nevertheless not considered as Aryans. The French volunteers where therefore not worthy a full SS title, the reason for the funny name, Charlemange SS, instead af full description, like Waffen SS Charlemange.

    They simply placed the SS designation behind Charlemange.
    No, they didn't.

    And the funny name isn't Charlemange but Charlemagne, which refers to a rather important character in European, and German, history.

    And the French were worthy of a full Waffen SS title (unfortunately in more ways than one): Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS Charlemagne

    http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=881
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  12. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,286

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by flamethrowerguy View Post
    Bollocks, once again.
    Well, there's a lot of it about at the moment. From the same source.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  13. #118
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Halifax & Heidelberg
    Posts
    1,231

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    But the question is - really was he was aimed to liquidate part of locals according so called "plan Ost"?Or it was just communist propogand?
    I can't say anything for sure, but I'm positive that he wanted to get rid of the 'Slavic-Element' at one point or another. He might have used the Slavs as workforce as long as he needed, but I'm positive that the idea was to create purely German/Aryan living space in the East, and that in order for the Germans to be safe, the Slavs would have had to be 'removed'.

    That was actually part of the Nazi-Propaganda effort, the claim that the Jews and Bolsheviks were trying to remove the German race from the face of the earth. For this, they used things like the American Jew Theodore Kaufmann's 'Germany must Perish!' book, which pretty much suggested the extermination of all Germans and Austrians followed by the partition of German (and Austrian) lands into Holland, France, Denmark, Italy, Czech Republic and Belgium.
    (This book was written & published by him in 1941, so it was one of the later influences in the propaganda, but they had similar, also original foreign books of the same kind beforehand. People like Kaufmann have often been condemned for their statements by the Allies later on, as they pretty much gave the Nazi Propaganda exactly what it needed to convince the Germans that they were, in fact, only defending themselves)

    This is also why in one picture in the Photo section, which portrays German soldiers writing messages on their bombs, one message is 'So we can live, you dogs have to die!'

    Couple this with the (exaggerated) reports of massacres against the German population in Poland, and there was not an insignificant amount of people who believed the Propaganda and actually considered Germany's war against Poland and Russia as well as their extermination of Jews a preemptive war...

    Just watch the video link in the 'Wehrmacht Exhibition' thread. One of the veterans still claims that their war against Russia was a purely preemptive one, and that Russia was going to invade them if they hadn't beaten them to it, he even goes so far as to claim that Russia provoked them by moving combat troops to the border and cites several massacres committed against ethnic Germans in Poland as legal acts of war against Germany.
    Last edited by Schuultz; 03-13-2009 at 12:22 PM.
    The fundamental problem of Democracy is that the majority of voters are idiots fueled by uninformed rage - and the Politicians do everything to cater to them.

  14. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,087

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Schuultz View Post
    I can't say anything for sure, but I'm positive that he wanted to get rid of the 'Slavic-Element' at one point or another. He might have used the Slavs as workforce as long as he needed, but I'm positive that the idea was to create purely German/Aryan living space in the East, and that in order for the Germans to be safe, the Slavs would have had to be 'removed'.

    That was actually part of the Nazi-Propaganda effort, the claim that the Jews and Bolsheviks were trying to remove the German race from the face of the earth. For this, they used things like the American Jew Theodore Kaufmann's 'Germany must Perish!' book, which pretty much suggested the extermination of all Germans and Austrians followed by the partition of German (and Austrian) lands into Holland, France, Denmark, Italy, Czech Republic and Belgium.
    (This book was written & published by him in 1941, so it was one of the later influences in the propaganda, but they had similar, also original foreign books of the same kind beforehand. People like Kaufmann have often been condemned for their statements by the Allies later on, as they pretty much gave the Nazi Propaganda exactly what it needed to convince the Germans that they were, in fact, only defending themselves)

    This is also why in one picture in the Photo section, which portrays German soldiers writing messages on their bombs, one message is 'So we can live, you dogs have to die!'

    Couple this with the (exaggerated) reports of massacres against the German population in Poland, and there was not an insignificant amount of people who believed the Propaganda and actually considered Germany's war against Poland and Russia as well as their extermination of Jews a preemptive war...

    Just watch the video link in the 'Wehrmacht Exhibition' thread. One of the veterans still claims that their war against Russia was a purely preemptive one, and that Russia was going to invade them if they hadn't beaten them to it, he even goes so far as to claim that Russia provoked them by moving combat troops to the border and cites several massacres committed against ethnic Germans in Poland as legal acts of war against Germany.
    From my reading many, many years ago (John Toland "Hitler", I think, and that was in 1978 that I was reading it) "Plan Ost" was basically intended as a gradualised replacement of ethnic Slavs and Asiatics by Germanics once the war against the USSR had been won by Germany.

    The basic idea was that Slavs should only be permitted to breed sufficient numbers to man the various factories and industries required by the Reich for its' expansion, after which the Slavs were to be gradually reduced of resources `til they died out by attrition.
    It is of note here, that there was not at this stage planned an extermination regime as of the Jews, Gypsies, and various other 'undesirable races'. The Slavs and certain limited numbers of Asiatics were viewed as sufficiently able to man factories and farms under German Rule for about two decades, perhaps three, after which attrition among the Slavs was expected to come into affect.

    That was the basic plan. I do not now recall the full details, it has simply been too many years since I did read them.

    Whether or not there would eventually have been an extermination policy regarding the Slavs and Asiatics is perhaps debatable, albeit I regard it as having been very likely as Hitler grew older and more rigidified in his outlook. I can say with some certainty that Reinhard Heydrich certainly viewed the Slavs and Asiatics as initially a necessary evil, but ultimately disposable. Heydrich is relevant to this subject by virtue of being Hitler's Heir Apparent after the defection of Hess. Heydrich would certainly have followed-through on Hitler's wishes regarding the Reich in the eastern territories, which is one of the reasons his assassination was sanctioned and approved by the British.

    Regards, Uyraell.

    "Honi-Soit Qui Mal'Y Pense." :
    "Ill unto he who ill of it thinks."
    Edward III, Rex Britania, AD1348.

    "Wenn Schon, denn schon."
    "Be It Done, Best be It Be Done Well."
    Known German adage.

    "Until you have looked into a veteran's eyes and actually seen it,
    you'll never fully understand."
    ^Uyraell^

    "Aligaes : Amore vel Ira." :
    "^Winged Ones^ : Love or Wrath."

  15. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,087

    Default Re: Allied ≠ Russians?

    France as an "Ally".

    I have been some days in thought, as to how best address the points Nickdfresh and kamehouse raised, in debating an earlier post I made to this thread.

    Nick, I'm sorry but I don't see French casualties as entitlement to claims as a Victor. France was, in terms of available manpower, virtually bled dry by the time of April 1917. The British Nations were in not much better case, and could have managed holding actions at best, which would have resulted in the stalemate France was already facing. A stalemate though, is not a Victory.

    You ask "Who won the war then, for France?" I answer: America, in effect.
    For the reasons cited above. Without America, WW1 would emphatically NOT have been an Allied victory.

    And now to kamehouse: while the individual prowess of French soldiery in WW1 was considerable, I nonetheless retain the opinion that France basically failed. It did so again, in WW2. (At no point did I say French soldiery had spent WW1 hiding behind bushes.)
    However: having so said, I freely acknowledge that French politicians threw away or sadly abused the sacrifices French soldiery had made, when it came time for the Versailles Peace Treaty.
    In this misuse of the results the poilous had gained, I chiefly view Foche as the main perpetrator, in as much as he basically browbeat everyone else at Versailles into letting him have his way.
    Or expressed the other way: Ferdinand Foche whined and moaned til he got what he wanted. The other representatives went to great lengths to warn Foche he was demanding far too much, and that France would herself eventually come to pay a high price for his demands. Woodrow Wilson spent much effort on the above, as did David Lloyd George (who had no love for France, be assured).
    So, in short: while I freely acknowledge the valour of French troops: without the USA entering WW1 said French valour would not have won that war, nor eventually would the valour of the British nations, including my own.

    Now, to an aside that nonetheless is relevant to France, in particular the way France is viewed at this end of the globe.
    An uncle of mine is a WW2 veteran. After France attacked and sank the Rainbow Warrior vessel in NZ waters, (an Act of War upon an Allied Nation) my uncle said the following; "Well christ, it looks like New Zealand fought on the wrong side, in 1914 and 1939." He's in his late 80's nowadays, and is still extremely hurt by the outright treachery of France. Most New Zealanders share a view similar to his.
    And it is easy to see why. Having been among the nations that gave France the victory in WW1, NZ is rewarded by having France try to block our access to European markets for our products. The same happens after WW2 also, and continues to this very day.
    Then as further reward: France spends much of the 1960's and 1970's and 1980's testing nuclear weapons in the South Pacific, thus subjecting the local populations to hazards which France would never willingly expose her own European population.
    Then, France sinks the Rainbow Warrior in an NZ harbour. No-wonder France became almost hated.
    Meanwhile, French arrogance continues on unabated, shitting upon each and every Ally that gave its' blood that France might survive as a nation.
    Expressing the above in another way: France has made of the blood sacrificed for her survival as a nation "La Grande Quonnerrie".

    And finally a personal view. And yes, I know this will cause upset.

    France would even today be best if run from Berlin, as a German Province.
    Europe would be nowhere near as ****ed-up, and would be economically far more stable. As was once said in a history class at high school: "France is the Perfect German Province, the only problem is the French are too arrogant, too conceited, and too ignorant to realise that."

    France views itself, quite wrongly, as the Saviour of Europe: France is Europe's Bane.

    Regards, Uyraell.
    Last edited by Uyraell; 03-14-2009 at 06:42 AM.

    "Honi-Soit Qui Mal'Y Pense." :
    "Ill unto he who ill of it thinks."
    Edward III, Rex Britania, AD1348.

    "Wenn Schon, denn schon."
    "Be It Done, Best be It Be Done Well."
    Known German adage.

    "Until you have looked into a veteran's eyes and actually seen it,
    you'll never fully understand."
    ^Uyraell^

    "Aligaes : Amore vel Ira." :
    "^Winged Ones^ : Love or Wrath."

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678

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
  •