Opinion: World War II 70 years later

[Ordie]

Opinion: Hanson: World War II, 70 years later

By Victor Davis Hanson

Posted: 09/03/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT


Seventy years ago this week, on Sept. 1, 1939, the Second World War broke out with the German invasion of Poland. Thousands of books have been written about the war. And by now, revisionist historians of revisionist historians engage in an endless cycle of disagreement over why the war started, how it ended and what it all meant.
Here are a few more controversial thoughts on the horrific conflict that killed 60 million people, wrecked Europe and set the stage for an ensuing half-century Cold War.
Most give the Red Army the most credit for finally wrecking the German army. That is absolutely true: Two of three German soldiers who died in the war were killed on the murderous Eastern Front, a larger theater of conflict than all others combined.
Yet despite the superhuman heroism of millions of brave Russian soldiers, Stalin's government was largely an amoral actor through the war. It, with Hitler's Germany, invaded neutral Poland in September 1939. Three months later, it attacked tiny Finland.
Until the day it was invaded by Hitler, Stalin's Soviet Union had provided Nazi industry with much of its strategic materials used to defeat and occupy democratic Western Europe.
Lately, the role of the United States in World War II has been downplayed, since we came late to it and suffered the fewest military and civilian casualties of the major Allies. But no other power fought on so many fronts in so many crucial ways: strategic air campaigns against Germany and Japan; invasions of North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Western Europe and the Pacific islands; submarine and surface fleet operations against Germany and Japan; and massive convoys and supplies to Britain, China and the Soviet Union. Likewise, it has become fashionable to diminish the British role, given that by 1943 its manpower reserves were exhausted and the bulk of the later fighting against the Axis was conducted by Russian and American troops.
In fact, Britain nearly alone saved Western civilization between September 1939 and June 1941. From May 1940, it fought almost alone against the entire continent of occupied Europe, when the United States was still isolationist and the Soviet Union was actively helping the Nazi cause. One of the great mysteries of the war is how an isolated Britain survived the Blitz, German submarines, Gen. Erwin "the Desert Fox" Rommel and the industrial might of the entire European continent until Russia and America joined its cause.
We also forget that the Allied victory was not foreordained. By December 1941, the odds were all in favor of the Axis powers. They had been arming since the mid-1930s. Hitler controlled much of the present-day area of the European Union and its surrounding environs. Much of China and almost all of Southeast Asia were under Japanese control.
Why then did the Allies recover and win? Largely because of Russian manpower, the American industrial colossus and British wartime experience. By 1944, the Allies had the best tanks, artillery and planes; the largest armies; the best wartime leadership in Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin; and the most adept generals.
Did any good come from the monstrous bloodletting?
Perhaps. The Holocaust was finally stopped before every Jew in Europe was killed as Hitler had planned. Germany, Italy and Japan were transformed from monstrous regimes into liberal states whose democracies have done much for humanity in the ensuing years. And Western civilization survived its own heretical cannibals — to foster in the ensuing decades the greatest growth in freedom and prosperity in the history of the planet.


Victor Davis Hanson is a columnist affiliated with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13255005?nclick_check=1

[rgjbloke]

The link isn't working for me for some reason so I can't see the mercury news publication but the bit I can see here is a very brief snapshot if you like, but also, a very good analysis.

[Mu-Meson]

VDH is da man!

[SoSo]

This is absolutely correct, I think. The day Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa was the day he signed his own death warrant.

[stonecutter]

In fact, Britain nearly alone saved Western civilization between September 1939 and June 1941.

Britain and all its colonies, maybe. Without the Merchant Marine, the Battle of the Atlantic would have been lost, and Britain starved. I believe Churchill considered this battle the most harrowing one for Britain. Didn't Canada have the third largest navy by the end of the conflict?

[Sagat]

This is absolutely correct, I think. The day Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa was the day he signed his own death warrant.

Not really. War between Soviet Union and Nazi were inevitable. Soviet industries were already gearing up for the coming war. They are going to strike Germany sooner or later. The only thing is Nazi did not attack Soviet early enough and Stalingrad was a disaster.

[Whitcomb]

VDH is da man!

VDH is a tool

[Sada]

In fact, Britain nearly alone saved Western civilization between September 1939 and June 1941. From May 1940, it fought almost alone against the entire continent of occupied Europe, when the United States was still isolationist and the Soviet Union was actively helping the Nazi cause.
If we assume this, with the same coherence we could state that Britain comdemned the entire continent of Europe to tiranny in september of 1938.
France fought together with Britain from september of 1939 until the final defeat in june of 1940, while Britain in fact was saving and keeping for itself the core of its military strenght. Also, it´s funny in the XXI century still having to read as if it was written in the sky that when war was declared in september of 1939 France was inevitably doomed to defeat 9 months later: in fact that defeat was the result of the innaction of France AND Britain in the west front during the long months of the drole de guerre.
Also, as spanish, I say that I don´t owe nor a gramme of freedom to any other country, specially the allied countries. In 1936 a democratic regime of Spain was shot in the head with the collusion of Britain, France after one year, and of course Germany and Italy: This four countries used the League of Nations for limiting the powers of the legal spanish regime to defend itself being this four countries the guardians of a non-intervention pact, forcing a legally elected regime to buy expensive old weapons in the black market while simultaneously two of this warrantees were betraying their own assumed obligations sending weapons and troops to spanish rebels since the first day of the war until the last day: Nor a single german or italian ship with troops or weapon to Franco was stopped by british of french navies while ships bringing weapons to the spanish legal regime were stopped by french and british navies or even sunk by german and italians pirate submarines. In january of 1939, before the end of spanish war, and as a following of the Munchen pact, Britain and France recogniced the fascist regime of Spain and sent ambassadors. The snow ball had began to roll and every body helped to that end.
It´s simply autoindulgent, fake, unfair and unesuful to write today about a single country that saved "western civilization" and etc. And if even so you want to do it, put your own deads in the table and the dead that caused to other people your bad policies and lets doing some maths.

[Vandervahn]

VDH is a tool

x2, even opinion should be somewhat anchored in reality.

[CMNot]

It´s simply autoindulgent, fake, unfair and unesuful to write today about a single country that saved "western civilization" and etc. And if even so you want to do it, put your own deads in the table and the dead that caused to other people your bad policies and lets doing some maths.

Chill man, why so bitter?

Spain had a great war.

[GregHJ]

You could actually say that WWII began with Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and then China in 1937, as the United States and the UK among others were providing aid to the Chinese and even directly engaged the Japanese.

[Grunt1983]

Its funny how the Pacific is always ignored

[Ordie]

Its funny how the Pacific is always ignored

It was always the case to give the European Theater a higher priority.

[shadowsrider]

Each nation has his own view of WW2. In this version Britain saved the civilization :)

[Gammelpreusse]

Especially funny how the Author mentiones Britian reponsible for saving all those jews, considering they never did the slightest to help them before and during the war. Not to talk about their treatment of jewish refugees to Palestine. Besides during the war all german resistance movements asking the allies for help and offering a toppling of the Nazis, which would have stopped the mass killings and the holocaust in an instant, were rejected.

And installing democracy in Germany? Please. Had the british and french granted the Weimar Republic what they granted Hitler before the war started, I doubt the Nazis would have ever come to power in the first place.

All in all a whitewashing and glorification of a war that was started by pure power politics on all sides. Germany certainly has to face the by far largest blame in this, but giving Britain any sort of cerdibility in saving the western world (not to talk about their reason to declare war on Germany, Poland, we all know how that played out after the war) or make this a struggle for humanitarian reasons is a joke.

Britain was an empire not because it had any interests in improving living conditions of anybody, but for solely economic dominance reasons. And that were its major motivators for both WW1 and 2. Everything else can be concluded from this base.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It´s simply autoindulgent, fake, unfair and unesuful to write today about a single country that saved "western civilization" and etc. And if even so you want to do it, put your own deads in the table and the dead that caused to other people your bad policies and lets doing some maths.


What you complaining about? Spain had a great war - with the added convenience of everyone else doing the heavy lifting :roll:

Sounds like someone's a bit jealous of Britain's pride in its role in the fight against fascism rofl

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Especially funny how the Author mentiones Britian reponsible for saving all those jews, considering they never did the slightest to help them before and during the war. Not to talk about their treatment of jewish refugees to Palestine. Besides during the war all german resistance movements asking the allies for help and offering a toppling of the Nazis, which would have stopped the mass killings and the holocaust in an instant, were rejected.

And installing democracy in Germany? Please. Had the british and french granted the Weimar Republic what they granted Hitler before the war started, I doubt the Nazis would have ever come to power in the first place.

All in all a whitewashing and glorification of a war that was started by pure power politics on all sides. Germany certainly has to face the by far largest blame in this, but giving Britain any sort of cerdibility in saving the western world (not to talk about their reason to declare war on Germany, Poland, we all know how that played out after the war) or make this a struggle for humanitarian reasons is a joke.

Britain was an empire not because it had any interests in improving living conditions of anybody, but for solely economic dominance reasons. And that were its major motivators for both WW1 and 2. Everything else can be concluded from this base.

Another kraut who's just jealous and twisted up because his grandfather's got their arses kicked by better soldiers :roll:

Must be hard for you coming from a nation that can't actually be proud of anything.

[Gammelpreusse]

Another kraut who's just jealous and twisted up because his grandfather's got their arses kicked by better soldiers :roll:

Must be hard for you coming from a nation that can't actually be proud of anything.

*lol* come on, you can do better;-)

It's not like these lines have not been repeated a bn times before. Ever heared of the concept of "projection"?

[JJC]

Especially funny how the Author mentiones Britian reponsible for saving all those jews, considering they never did the slightest to help them before and during the war. Not to talk about their treatment of jewish refugees to Palestine. Besides during the war all german resistance movements asking the allies for help and offering a toppling of the Nazis, which would have stopped the mass killings and the holocaust in an instant, were rejected.On this point you are 100% correct. Stopping the Holocaust was not even in the slightest concern of Brits or any Western power during the war so the author is talking out of his ass. In the text "Intelligence Cooperation Between Poland and Great Britain During WWII" by Taduesz Dubicki there is an account of how Polish General Sykorsky approached British government with detailed reports on what was happening to the Jews and he asked if Britain could intervene and the British response was that "there is no time for gestures."
There were many correspondence between the Jewish Agency, Ben Gurion and the British Government with requests to bomb Auschwitz and to allow Jewish immigration, but non of these requests were answered.
On October 3, 1944 U.K. replied to Jewish Agency's request to bomb Auschwitz by saying (not a direct quote) "wouldn't the Jews complain that not only Germans are killing them but others as well?" U.K.'s General John Dill replied that he would not redirect resources from the war effort to bomb Auschwitz when we know today that allied planes bombed an Auschwitz oil refinery for weeks just 5 miles away from the extermination camps. There are records that Ben Gurion in internal memos wrote to his people in Europe to not waste time with British government.

Also, there were numerous requests to the FDR's White House to bomb Auschwitz and the railroad networks but the inaction was just as bad especially when American bombers from the 15th Air Force in Italy flew over Auschwitz for months.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

*lol* come on, you can do better;-)

It's not like these lines have not been repeated a bn times before. Ever heared of the concept of "projection"?


Well let's see what has Germany actually done since the modern German state was formed in the late 19th century.

1870 invaded France
1914 invaded France
1939 invaded just about everywhere, genocide etc etc, millions of lives lost for no good reason etc etc

Nothing positive really to put you collectively 'in the black'

OK you've been neutered for a few decades now but a dog trainer would classify your nation as 'barely house trained' :)

You do have a most interesting 'self loathing' thing going on though

[Billy No Mates]

On this point you are 100% correct. Stopping the Holocaust was not even in the slightest concern of Brits or any Western power during the war

Hindsight is a wonderful thing,but one does wonder how an Anglo/American bomber assault on death camps with the justification of "if we don't kill them they'll die...." would sound to us today? .

[a_very_ex_STAB]

On this point you are 100% correct. Stopping the Holocaust was not even in the slightest concern of Brits or any Western power during the war so the author is talking out of his ass. In the text "Intelligence Cooperation Between Poland and Great Britain During WWII" by Taduesz Dubicki there is an account of how Polish General Sykorsky approached British government with detailed reports on what was happening to the Jews and he asked if Britain could intervene and the British response was that "there is no time for gestures."
There were many correspondence between the Jewish Agency, Ben Gurion and the British Government with requests to bomb Auschwitz and to allow Jewish immigration, but non of these requests were answered.
On October 3, 1944 U.K. replied to Jewish Agency's request to bomb Auschwitz by saying (not a direct quote) "wouldn't the Jews complain that not only Germans are killing them but others as well?" U.K.'s General John Dill replied that he would not redirect resources from the war effort to bomb Auschwitz when we know today that allied planes bombed an Auschwitz oil refinery for weeks just 5 miles away from the extermination camps. There are records that Ben Gurion in internal memos wrote to his people in Europe to not waste time with British government.

Also, there were numerous requests to the FDR's White House to bomb Auschwitz and the railroad networks but the inaction was just as bad especially when American bombers from the 15th Air Force in Italy flew over Auschwitz for months.

I often wonder what the revisionist brigade think bombing Auschwitz would have achieved given that:

1. The distance from bases in the UK would have made carrying a significant bomb load impossible
2. The inaccuracy of the bomb sights of the day would have rendered a precision attack impossible

As usual it is a rather poor attempt by the Germans to divert blame for the Holocaust on to their opponents. If only us awkward Brits had surrendered in 1940 then Alles would have been in Ordnung wouldn't it :roll:

[Alfacentori]

My opinion of WW2 70 years on is that I'm glad we won...................that is all.

Alfa

[Finn76]

Well let's see what has Germany actually done since the modern German state was formed in the late 19th century.

1870 invaded France
1914 invaded France
1939 invaded just about everywhere, genocide etc etc, millions of lives lost for no good reason etc etc
Nothing positive really to put you collectively 'in the black'

OK you've been neutered for a few decades now but a dog trainer would classify your nation as 'barely house trained' :)

You do have a most interesting 'self loathing' thing going on though

You seem to forget / not know, that it was France, not Germany who declared war on each time..

[Gammelpreusse]

Well let's see what has Germany actually done since the modern German state was formed in the late 19th century.

1870 invaded France
1914 invaded France
1939 invaded just about everywhere, genocide etc etc, millions of lives lost for no good reason etc etc

Nothing positive really to put you collectively 'in the black'

OK you've been neutered for a few decades now but a dog trainer would classify your nation as 'barely house trained' :)

You do have a most interesting 'self loathing' thing going on though


d'awww..... Come on, you guys will win the FIFA World Cup eventually, no reason to be so bitter, lost Empire or not. Sure, sucks to be a rather small US lapdog country now, but this pathological jealousy is such a negative attitude. You won the war after all! http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Geburtstag/smilie_geb_039.gif

Let's be friends :hug:



Well let's see what has Germany actually done since the modern German state was formed in the late 19th century.

1870 invaded France
1914 invaded France
1939 invaded just about everywhere, genocide etc etc, millions of lives lost for no good reason etc etc

Nothing positive really to put you collectively 'in the black'

OK you've been neutered for a few decades now but a dog trainer would classify your nation as 'barely house trained' :)

You do have a most interesting 'self loathing' thing going on though

Hey, don't be so westerncentric, Russia got its fair share in WW1 as well! Besides, as you base your argument on "invading" countries.

http://safalra.com/other/british-empire-map/british-empire-map.png

Oh, also Suez and Iraq come to mind, so there is not a lot that has changed up to this day.


And finally, about self loathing ...

http://cockornot.co.uk/images/upload/chavs.jpg


...didn't I mention "projection" already?


Now, kicking yipping puppies may provide some fun for the moment, but in the long run it's getting boring, so just drop me a line if you plan to bring some substance into your posts instead of those pathethic provocation attempts :)

[ShanghaiExpress]

Why I Hate WW II
By Gary Brecher Browse author (http://www.exile.ru/authors/detail.php?ID=2259) Email (%20war_nerd@exile.ru)






http://www.exile.ru/upload/iblock/d8d/wn-icon.jpg (http://www.exile.ru/articles/list.php?IBLOCK_ID=35&SECTION_ID=156)
Browse column (http://www.exile.ru/articles/list.php?IBLOCK_ID=35&SECTION_ID=156)
FRESNO -- Everybody's mad because Eastwood's Iwo Jima movie, Flags of Our Fathers, bombed. I read this one review that said every citizen ought to go pay to sit through it even if it is a bad movie, like it's some kind of patriotic duty for me to put $25 in Clint Eastwood's offshore account. (And yeah, I know movies don't cost $25 but I can't sit down in a darkened room unless I've got a Humpback-size diet coke in one hand, a Maxi-tub popcorn in the other, and a spare clip of Milk Duds in my ammo pocket.)
I've got my own theory about why all these WW II movies went down in flames like Zeros in the Marianas Turkey Shoot: because WW II is way overrated. Next to the guy who directed Pearl Harbor, the men who set that war in motion and made all the decisions from 1939-1945 were the biggest idiots in history. And that's why all the lessons of WW II, everything it's supposed to teach us, is either dead wrong or as obvious as a ballpeen hammer in your face, so obvious that even Barney could teach it to his diaper demographic between commercial breaks.
The biggest lie about WW II is that it was a war between good and evil. Bull****, because there were no good European countries.
Fact No1: They Were ALL Fascists. At a military level, let's face a nasty fact: WW II was Stalin vs. Hitler. The rest was window dressing. Stalin won because--because what, he was a nicer guy? Nope, he won because his brand of fascism was actually way more ruthless and bloody and effective than Hitler's smalltime snobbery, and because Stalin had the whole US industrial machine backing him. There's no moral lesson in that that I can see.
Of course, most of these WW II fans try real hard not to think about Stalin, so they prefer to think about Britain and the rest of Western Europe. Those are officially the good guys. Well, got some bad news for you: they were all fascists too, just weaker than Stalin and Hitler, more sly and suckup-y. The only lesson they've got to offer is that if you want to survive, start out as a raving fascist and when that becomes uncool, turn coward and start pretending you were always in favor of niceness.
http://www.exile.ru/transient/253/warnerd-1.jpg
Europe before Stalingrad was an alien planet, as crazy and bloodthirsty as any Aztec priest. Nobody realizes the complete flip-flop Europe did in 1945. Before that, it was a continent full of insane fascists. Some were braver, better soldiers, or smarter; those are the only real differences.
And when I say "smarter," I don't want to overdo it, because the Greatest Generation was a bunch of morons. Hitler was the stupidest of all, I grant you that, but he was just the standout in graduating class full of mongoloids in fedoras. Take Churchill, who's supposed to be a God of courage and decency and smarts. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Churchill was a buffoon. He was the moron who got Allied armies into useless Mediterranean campaigns in both World Wars. Gallipoli had Churchill's autograph all over it, and he was so stupid he tried the same crap 25 years later with the Italian adventure. He had this obsession with the "soft underbelly of Europe" which conveniently forgot about these things called "mountain ranges," like the Alps and the Apennines.
There's another inconvenient fact about Churchill: he was a fascist too, every bit as much as Hitler. Only thing is, you can't blame him much for that, because, and I want y'all to listen up here, everybody in Europe was a fascist until 1943--if they were quick on the uptake enough to see the Wehrmacht was doomed--or 1944, by which time it was obvious even to the moron majority that fascism was now officially taboo. I repeat: everybody in Europe. Fascist to the core.
Churchill's one and only reason for fighting Hitler was that he didn't want Germany challenging England for world domination. In 1936, Churchill told a British general, "Germany is getting too strong; we must smash her." That was his only objection to the Nazis. No way he could have minded their brutality, because Churchill was always in favor of violence against anybody who opposed British interests. Long before the war, he supported using concentration camps for the Boer women and kids, strafing Indian villages--and here's his enlightened democratic quote on how to deal with the Iraqi Kurds, everybody's favorite persecuted minority, from a 1919 memo: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned [sic] gas against uncivilized tribes."
http://www.exile.ru/transient/253/warnerd-2.jpg
That doesn't make him a bad guy; it just makes him a standard European, pre-1945. They were all like that, only more so. You can go down the list of European countries and come up with a list of homegrown fascist parties, all totally popular and democratic, that make the Nazis look like squeamish moderates. Some of them, like the Iron Guard in Romania, make even me flinch.
And if we rotate the globe, voila!: the Asian theatre also turns out to be a classic battle of fascism vs...more fascism. The Imperial Japanese military caste was beyond fascist. Seriously, they were so hardcore that it was taboo even to suggest the possibility of anything going wrong with the grand plan for total victory, which is why nobody dared to develop anything resembling a strategic plan. That was a good way to get yourself hacked into Kobe beef. The Japanese brass responded like Travis Bickle to questions like that: "You talkin' to us? You askin' us that question? Cuz we don't see any other Japanese brass around here..." Cut to: arterial sprays where the insolent questioner used to be.
And in the opposite corner: Chiang Kai Shek, the Asian Churchill: a totally incompetent military leader and lifelong fascist who saw how the wind was blowing and repackaged himself as a crusader for democracy in order to get aid from the gullible Americans. Chiang only valued one thing: obedience. And he only trusted one guy: himself. That's why he personally held 82 official positions in China, including head of all the armed services. He picked his generals for their incompetence, because he suspected that talented men might turn against him. Any sign of independent thinking, never mind criticism, meant the chop, and I mean that literally. Chiang even had himself declared the head of the Chinese Boy Scouts, that breeding ground of coups. That was the Good Guy of the Asian theatre. Oh wait, I'm forgetting Mao, another champion of human rights.
Even the noncombatant states were fascist before the Marshall Plan showed dictators that there was more profit in talking nice. Countries tried to copy the big, bad fascists with little comedy monsters of their own, like Trujillo in the Dominican Republic or Peron in Argentina. And in their humble way, all these guys did their best to do their worst. Trujillo actually tried to prove that the Dominicans were the lost tribe of Aryanism, and ordered something like 30,000 Haitian immigrants hacked to death with machetes for being "black." Even the Mexicans tried to do the Fascist two-step, only being Mexican they went for the gaudiest color they could find, so while Germany had the brownshirts and Mussolini had the blackshirts, Mexico came up with...the Gold Shirts! "And put some frilly cuffs on that while you're at it!"
After Stalingrad, the world's fascists just figured out that if you wanted to win, you needed US backing like Stalin got, and that meant you needed a cleaner line of patter than the Nazis and Japanese used. Those hick Jerries and Japs talked death, skulls, slaughter, suicide--tsk tsk, way uncool. Stalin, on the other hand, talked peace, friendship between peoples, justice for the working class...and not only killed far more civvies than Hitler did but got funded for it by the American taxpayer. It was the original no-brainer--which was lucky because this was the Dumbest Generation since the Thirty Years War.
Fact No2: The Holocaust is a One-Shot Exception; Genocide DOES Pay.
The Holocaust is the next-biggest non-lesson of WW II. Everybody loves to talk about this particular case of genocide because it failed, or so we're told. The Germans paid a terrible price for what they did to the Jews. Nope; the Germans paid a terrible price for invading Russia. If they'd stuck to holding their half of Eurasia, Stalin would have continued his love affair with Hitler, the only human being he ever liked, and the European Jews would have been a shared buffet, divvied up between concentration camps flying the swastika or the red star.
What made the Holocaust totally unlike most genocides is that we remember the victims; and the only reason we do is, once again, the USA. The European Jews were totally vulnerable and despised over there, but their kin in America were doing fine and cared enough to remember their relatives who died. Compare this to almost any other example of genocide, and there are literally thousands of examples, and you'll see the difference: most of the time (I mean DUH!) the tribe that gets genocided is the most despised, weak and helpless tribe in the region. That means nobody remembers them at all, or if they do they consider the genocide an example of Progress, or just one of those things. If you doubt that, then tell me quick what tribe lived 400 years ago in the city where you're reading this now. I still, after years of trying to find out, don't know what tribe lived around Fresno. Nobody even mentions them on the web--that's how most genocides work. The tribe vanishes forever. That's why they call it genocide, for God's sake! And once it's gone--Duh!--nobody remembers it or cares.
The reason people love to talk about Nazis killing Jews is that, thanks to the Jews in America, there were people who insisted on remembering the victims. If people thought about the genocide of, say, the tribe that lived where you lived, they'd get bummed. They'd realize the world is a slaughterhouse and there are no moral lessons. That's why they'd rather talk about Auschwitz than...Fresno.
Fact No3: There Are NO Military Lessons to Be Learned from WW II
This is my real pet peeve about WW II, because frankly I care way more about bad military history than all that moral bla-bla. Every military lesson people WANT to take away from WW II is wrong, and the one they COULD learn is the one they don't want to learn.
So for starters, here's the real lesson of the war: military superiority in the narrow sense isn't nearly as important as economic strength and propaganda working in tandem.
Now that is a real depressing lesson for all military buffs, and one that took me years to accept, but we have to face it. If military superiority settled things, the Germans and Japanese would have won because they were by far, and I mean by FAR, the best soldiers. A military historian with the unlucky name of Nutter has done a really good job of demolishing the hometown writers who try to assert that allied troops came close to Wehrmacht soldiers in combat power. I'll leave it to him to deal with diehard Greatest Generation fans: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/armies/introduction.aspx
Until Hitler poured its strength out on the Russian wasteland the Wehrmacht had total supremacy. Once you realize that you can drop a lot of myths, such as the crap that the French were cowards and the Brits brave heroes. The French lost because they had a land border with Germany, period. The British Army did as badly or worse than the French in combat with the Wehrmacht during the invasion of France, and survived for one reason: Hitler, the moron, had this idea that Britain would stand with him against Bolshevism when the Brits came to their senses, so he cancelled the invasion, codenamed Operation Sea Lion. If the invasion had gone ahead, Churchill's speech about fighting them on the beaches, etc., would have had a sequel: "We shall fight them on the beaches...for about ten minutes. We shall fight them in the hills...for about a week," and so on.
The key military struggle of the war was on the plains of Russia, and Hitler lost not because he was evil--what, Stalin wasn't just as evil?--but because he was too much of a snobby hick idiot to look for allies. If he'd courted the Belorussians, Ukrainians, Poles, the peasant landholders forced onto kolkhozes and all the other anti-Commie groups in Eastern Europe he'd have won hands down. And if Stalin had been one smidgen LESS evil, he'd have lost anyway. Stalin won because his soldiers were way more afraid of the NKVD than the Nazis. If a Russian soldier was captured, he was considered a traitor. If he retreated, the commissars were waiting to shoot him. If he bitched, he'd have his fingernails removed and end up begging to be shot.
So the real legacy of this ****ty war was a Soviet world, where the way to win is to mix propaganda about love and peace for grabbing US tax dollars with a new kind of violence, a mean cowardly kind that happened in Moscow basement interrogation cells, with 70-year sentences to Office World as the alternative for us lucky Fresno-ites.
Everything they told you is wrong. Everything you believe is wrong, and worse than that--it's dull, too. At least the fascists tried to make it interesting for us non-execs, non-surfers, non-golfers. They were brutal scum, sure...but I have to ask, "compared to who--YOU assholes?"

[shadowsrider]

I "love" this thread...
WW2 becomes subject of one-pagers and simplified opinions... jeez

[Gammelpreusse]

What do you expect? This topic has been discussed to death for 60 years in the West. All whats left is personal opinions and the moral club to beat around for personal gain. And without wanting to drift into broad generalisation and prejudices, nevertheless ->some<- Tommies have a particulary obnoxious history in this. For these individuals the war consists entirely of 50ies/60ies warmovies, 'Allo 'Allo, football tabloid press clichés and the firm believe that the Empire was created for the progress of the world.

You can't expect an objective and intelligent debate over this topic under such premises. Alfacentori probably made the only real substantial comment in this thread so far. And I agree to him.

[Gammelpreusse]

double post

[Holycrusader]

Not really. War between Soviet Union and Nazi were inevitable. Soviet industries were already gearing up for the coming war. They are going to strike Germany sooner or later. The only thing is Nazi did not attack Soviet early enough and Stalingrad was a disaster.

Good morning...

[tluassa]

Well let's see what has Germany actually done since the modern German state was formed in the late 19th century.

1870 invaded France
1914 invaded France
1939 invaded just about everywhere, genocide etc etc, millions of lives lost for no good reason etc etc

Nothing positive really to put you collectively 'in the black'

OK you've been neutered for a few decades now but a dog trainer would classify your nation as 'barely house trained' :)

You do have a most interesting 'self loathing' thing going on though

Thank God only Germany invaded countries in the time from 1870 - 1939, while Britain, France and the US were all peaceful ^^

PS: List of Wars 1800-1900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%931899
1900-1944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Thank God only Germany invaded countries in the time from 1870 - 1939, while Britain, France and the US were all peaceful ^^

PS: List of Wars 1800-1900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%931899
1900-1944
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944

None of which adds up to more than a hill of beans compared to the mountain of corpses that can be attributed to the Germans itchy marching feet since the creation of the German state :roll:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

d'awww..... Come on, you guys will win the FIFA World Cup eventually, no reason to be so bitter, lost Empire or not. Sure, sucks to be a rather small US lapdog country now, but this pathological jealousy is such a negative attitude. You won the war after all! http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Geburtstag/smilie_geb_039.gif

Let's be friends :hug:

No thanks we're particular about the company we keep.:)



And finally, about self loathing ...

http://cockornot.co.uk/images/upload/chavs.jpg

[QUOTE]

You literal-minded box heads just don't get it we take the piss out of chavs because we love them ;-)


[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;4431292]...didn't I mention "projection" already?[QUOTE]

Yes you did. It's quite obviously a new word that you just learned this week! And now you have to try and use it as much as you can :roll:


[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;4431292]Now, kicking yipping puppies may provide some fun for the moment, but in the long run it's getting boring, so just drop me a line if you plan to bring some substance into your posts instead of those pathethic provocation attempts :)

As we used to say in England 'OOOOOOH get her....'

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What do you expect? This topic has been discussed to death for 60 years in the West. All whats left is personal opinions and the moral club to beat around for personal gain. And without wanting to drift into broad generalisation and prejudices, nevertheless ->some<- Tommies have a particulary obnoxious history in this.

Rather less obnoxious than the current trend for German revisionist bleating about how they were so hard done by and they were victims too.

Oh dear how sad never mind.

[Mr.K]

I "love" this thread...
WW2 becomes subject of one-pagers and simplified opinions... jeez


Well at least they didn't forget Poland :)

[Gammelpreusse]

No thanks we're particular about the company we keep.:)


[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;4431292] And finally, about self loathing ...

http://cockornot.co.uk/images/upload/chavs.jpg

[QUOTE]

You literal-minded box heads just don't get it we take the piss out of chavs because we love them ;-)


[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;4431292]...didn't I mention "projection" already?[QUOTE]

Yes you did. It's quite obviously a new word that you just learned this week! And now you have to try and use it as much as you can :roll:




As we used to say in England 'OOOOOOH get her....'


heh, a_very_ex_STA, you may want to get your posting right, your quotation is a mess. Don't let the heat get to you, as this is our first debate, you can't lose any reputation ;):D

P.S: it even messed up mine! :D

[a_very_ex_STAB]

[QUOTE=a_very_ex_STAB;4432327]No thanks we're particular about the company we keep.:)


[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;4431292] And finally, about self loathing ...

http://cockornot.co.uk/images/upload/chavs.jpg

[QUOTE]

You literal-minded box heads just don't get it we take the piss out of chavs because we love them ;-)


[QUOTE=Gammelpreusse;4431292]...didn't I mention "projection" already?

heh, a_very_ex_STA, you may want to get your posting right, your quotation is a mess. Don't let the heat get to you, as this is our first debate, you can't lose any reputation ;):D

I just used the quotes I was given - by a German ;-)

[Gammelpreusse]

I just used the quotes I was given - by a German ;-)


oh, you mean like todays product trade with britain, quality in, gar...errr, less quality out?:|



:grin:

[filochard]

Opinion: Hanson: World War II, 70 years later

By Victor Davis Hanson
...
Lately, the role of the United States in World War II has been downplayed, ...


hu ?? I thought it was Russia and to a lesser extend Britain that was downplayed. The US isn't downplayed at all, putting it in its right place, that is huge but not the do it all alone like many believe, is not downplaying it.

[johanness]

Another kraut who's just jealous and twisted up because his grandfather's got their arses kicked by better soldiers :roll:.

Yeah, that's why Germany had the highest scoring fighter pilots and tank commanders?

Name a battle won by the British.
And I don't need a battle won by Australien, Canadien, South Africans or other Common Wealth troops.
Also Polish and French troops don't count.
And for sure no U.S. battles.

What's left and would be count as a British victory?

Maybe Dunkirk?

[QUOTE=Must be hard for you coming from a nation that can't actually be proud of anything.[/QUOTE]

Music, Philosophy, Science and CARS and FOOTBALL

[Flounder]

And Macs!
Don't forget Macs!

[Mastermind]

The article makes some rather broad assumptions.

First, it was just one thing that saved Britain...The Channel...and the so-called "Miracle" at Dunkirk..which was really nothing but German indecision.

As for the British "War Experience"...I find that a bit much to take. Most certainly, the Brits, god Bless 'em, had been carrying on for quite a while against terrific odds. But, aside from a few small successes here and there, until the US came in, it was rather touch and go. The Brits made some colossal blunders all on their own.. Crete was one, and the loss of Tobruk was almost inexcusable. We have to ask this...even after the US came in with material, equipment and men, why the massive mistakes were still happening when things were put inthe British hands...such as the slowness to take their objectives in Normandy and the really embarrassing disaster at Arnhem.

Now...lets be fair. The Brits fought like demons. There can be no question of their tenacity, sacrifice, and skills and courage as fighters. But, the writer pretends almost as if none of those things happened. Some was all Churchill's meddling, some was Monte's grandiose over reaching and poor planning. But, it was British...was it not?

That said....We also have to wonder about that crack about, "The Best Tanks..." The allies may have had the most tanks, and certainly, in my opinion, the T-34 was the best tank of the war (credible performance and sheer numbers give it to them). the Sherman (and variants) was finally able to compete, but the baptism of fire was atrocious. And, the Brits hardly fielded any tanks of match worth until almost at the very end. In fact, their tanks were so atrocious generally, they just used the somewhat dubious Shermans.

I really feel badly saying these things...I would love to join in the self praise party. But, history seems to speak otherwise.

But, that said, we must also recognize the proof of History..the prevailing warriors took the day and that alone says it all. In spite of these shortcoming, the Allies won....against what seemed at the beginning, insurmountable odds. And that tells us the sheer pluck of the British withstood the tide of battle. With so little, they held. And that is why courage is often the best weapon.

[Billy No Mates]

Yeah, that's why Germany had the highest scoring fighter pilots and tank commanders?

Name a battle won by the British.
And I don't need a battle won by Australien, Canadien, South Africans or other Common Wealth troops.
Also Polish and French troops don't count.
And for sure no U.S. battles.

What's left and would be count as a British victory?

Maybe Dunkirk?

I guess if thats the level you want to pitch it one might well ask questions such as name a German WW2 victory that wasn't achieved under the overall command of a funny little Austrian chap.....
If theres a reason for some of our piss poor early war efforts appart from the unlikely defeat of the our senior partner on land(and the inevitable problems accruing from it) its the fact that despite what the 'hey were all to blame' brigade believe we were actually trying to avoid war rather than meticulously planning and preparing for the violent conquest of our neighbours,nor did we have the luxury of hanging round for a couple of years to see how things were panning out .

[ren0312]

The article makes some rather broad assumptions.

First, it was just one thing that saved Britain...The Channel...and the so-called "Miracle" at Dunkirk..which was really nothing but German indecision.

As for the British "War Experience"...I find that a bit much to take. Most certainly, the Brits, god Bless 'em, had been carrying on for quite a while against terrific odds. But, aside from a few small successes here and there, until the US came in, it was rather touch and go. The Brits made some colossal blunders all on their own.. Crete was one, and the loss of Tobruk was almost inexcusable. We have to ask this...even after the US came in with material, equipment and men, why the massive mistakes were still happening when things were put inthe British hands...such as the slowness to take their objectives in Normandy and the really embarrassing disaster at Arnhem.

Now...lets be fair. The Brits fought like demons. There can be no question of their tenacity, sacrifice, and skills and courage as fighters. But, the writer pretends almost as if none of those things happened. Some was all Churchill's meddling, some was Monte's grandiose over reaching and poor planning. But, it was British...was it not?

That said....We also have to wonder about that crack about, "The Best Tanks..." The allies may have had the most tanks, and certainly, in my opinion, the T-34 was the best tank of the war (credible performance and sheer numbers give it to them). the Sherman (and variants) was finally able to compete, but the baptism of fire was atrocious. And, the Brits hardly fielded any tanks of match worth until almost at the very end. In fact, their tanks were so atrocious generally, they just used the somewhat dubious Shermans.

I really feel badly saying these things...I would love to join in the self praise party. But, history seems to speak otherwise.

But, that said, we must also recognize the proof of History..the prevailing warriors took the day and that alone says it all. In spite of these shortcoming, the Allies won....against what seemed at the beginning, insurmountable odds. And that tells us the sheer pluck of the British withstood the tide of battle. With so little, they held. And that is why courage is often the best weapon.

Well the performance of the USN in the naval battles around Guadalcanal was hardly something to write home about, Savo Island was a fiasco, and in the end the US and its allies won because they had more ships, and in almost every battle the US lost more ships than the IJN, however, the USN was able to replace its losses while the ships that the IJN lost were irreplaceable.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The article makes some rather broad assumptions.

First, it was just one thing that saved Britain...The Channel...and the so-called "Miracle" at Dunkirk..which was really nothing but German indecision.


I wouldn't say it was due to indecision. IIRC the Germans had to take a pause because their armoured forces had basically over-extended and needed to halt for a while to do trackbashing, refuelling, resupply, rest etc while their horse-drawn logistics chain and foot slogging infantry divisions caught up with them. Goering assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could finish off the BEF at Dunkirk during this interlude but got it wrong. However, they didn't stop fighting on the ground (my great uncle's unit was part of the rearguard at Dunkirk only one third of them made it back).

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Yeah, that's why Germany had the highest scoring fighter pilots and tank commanders?

Name a battle won by the British.
And I don't need a battle won by Australien, Canadien, South Africans or other Common Wealth troops.
Also Polish and French troops don't count.
And for sure no U.S. battles.

What's left and would be count as a British victory?

Maybe Dunkirk?


LOL that's hilariously ignorant.
You're conveniently forgetting that during the decisive victorious phase of the war Britain was in an alliance - that means everyone gets to take a share of the credit :-)

I don't expect you to grasp the concept of alliance - seeing as your nation was a pariah state. You really shouldn't be blaming us for the indisputable fact that your nation was the 'Norman Nomates' of the world due to slavish obedience to your repellent satanic ideology.:roll:

BTW on a personal note I had some interesting discussions on such issues with my wife's German relatives. Her grandfather was an SS officer who really hated us Brits. He had a hard time in captivity and was sentenced to 15 years for war crimes by a British military court in 1947. He fought against the French, Russians, Americans and Brits but according to my missus he reckoned the British were the best soldiers even though he hated us.;-)

[JRT]

Yeah, that's why Germany had the highest scoring fighter pilots and tank commanders?

Name a battle won by the British.
And I don't need a battle won by Australien, Canadien, South Africans or other Common Wealth troops.
Also Polish and French troops don't count.
And for sure no U.S. battles.

What's left and would be count as a British victory?

Maybe Dunkirk?


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

[Billy No Mates]

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

Apparently that doesn't count because it was not the sole endeavour of racially pure British counterparts of the herrenvolk .

[User_Name]

Must be hard for you coming from a nation that can't actually be proud of anything.

Actually there are more compaired to british achievements, are there any?
Go and cry about your lost empirep-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/b3q3J-_bkOI

[Mastermind]

I wouldn't say it was due to indecision. IIRC the Germans had to take a pause because their armoured forces had basically over-extended and needed to halt for a while to do trackbashing, refuelling, resupply, rest etc while their horse-drawn logistics chain and foot slogging infantry divisions caught up with them. Goering assured Hitler that the Luftwaffe could finish off the BEF at Dunkirk during this interlude but got it wrong. However, they didn't stop fighting on the ground (my great uncle's unit was part of the rearguard at Dunkirk only one third of them made it back).
Excellent points. Not all of the delay was due to errors from the top.

I think some of the jealousies and desires to cash in on the glory at the end of the Battle of France were not conducive to objective military decisions.

And...God Bless your G. Uncle.

[Mordoror]

so-called "Miracle" at Dunkirk..which was really nothing but German indecision.may be i should torn a legend but heavy fights occured around Dunkirk
yes Hitler decision to stop the PzDs won a lot of precious time for the brits (as well as the "stupid" claim of Goering that his planes alone can take care of the troops on the beach)
but fighting resumed as soon as it was clear that the troops were beginning to properly evacuate
fight were heavy
around 11 000 to 15 000 allied troops were killed (including a lot of french rear guard troops that have initiated a delay action) and the same number for the germans (some sources say up to 20 000 german soldiers but it is astonishly high for me ....)

PS : a ver ex stab was quicker than me .....

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Actually there are more compaired to british achievements, are there any?
Go and cry about your lost empirep-)



Why should I be bothered about Britain giving up something that was a drain on the nation's finances? We're much better off without it - but I guess you're simply too dumb and/or brainwashed by your blind Anglophobia to realize that.:roll:

Are you going to list Germany's glorious list of contributions to the world since the formation of the German state in the late 19th century for us then?

Or are you in denial like some of these guys?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y

[Gammelpreusse]

That one is a classic, STAB, couldn't help but send it all around. Check also out the Dönitz one :D

Gotta contribute to the fun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2DnW5uC1_A

(really, no hidden message in here, just good fun)

|^|

(this was no irony)


Btw, STAB, nobody is in denial at all. Not on this side of the channel, that is.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

That one is a classic, STAB, couldn't help but send it all around. Check also out the Dönitz one :D

Gotta contribute to the fun


(really, no hidden message in here, just good fun)

|^|



Ah yes Spitting Image thanks for that it's a good 'un :)

[Kitsune]

It's an article whose author feels apparently sad that America's and Britain's contribution in defeating Germany were not so large as everyone in the Western world was teached for decades (I myself had learned that as well as pupil, alongside so many other myths about WWII, and was completely surprised later). The name of the fellow is Victor Hanson, by the way, and he is a deeply nationalist American historian- just to mention it.

Where to begin?

Most give the Red Army the most credit for finally wrecking the German army. That is absolutely true: Two of three German soldiers who died in the war were killed on the murderous Eastern Front, a larger theater of conflict than all others combined.
AFAIK more like three out of four.

Lately, the role of the United States in World War II has been downplayed, since we came late to it and suffered the fewest military and civilian casualties of the major Allies.
No, this role has been considerably exaggerated for decades. Only recently have revisionist historians begun to rectify that picture. (Being revisionist is not a bad thing, by the way, it depends on whether you want to revision is true or false).

Likewise, it has become fashionable to diminish the British role, given that by 1943 its manpower reserves were exhausted and the bulk of the later fighting against the Axis was conducted by Russian and American troops.
Nonsense. The British role has been so shamelessly blown up, especially in the British mindset ("Britain defeated and liberated most of Europe" - M. Thatcher) that it is almost ridiculous. Actually, it is surprising, downright amazing, how little the British contributed. They did not help Poland. They were fastly defeated in France. They fought in Africa against Rommel, and if one listens to the typical British way of depicting it, one could think that this would have been the main theater of the war...but they fought against a small fraction of the German troops only. Even at the end of the war, they contributed only around a million soldiers, while Americans and Russians had each armies of many millions in the field. Their manpower reserves were depleted? Hardly, just look at their losses. Or take a look at how hard Germany fought in comparision - and its not that it had ten times more people than Britain or anything.

In fact, Britain nearly alone saved Western civilization between September 1939 and June 1941. From May 1940, it fought almost alone against the entire continent of occupied Europe, when the United States was still isolationist and the Soviet Union was actively helping the Nazi cause. One of the great mysteries of the war is how an isolated Britain survived the Blitz, German submarines, Gen. Erwin "the Desert Fox" Rommel and the industrial might of the entire European continent until Russia and America joined its cause.That now comes close to the worst propaganda. The Britain of the time saw itself as one of the world's greatest powers. Germany in comparision was an upstart (after the shining might of the Kaiser's nation had been crushed in WWI), having just rebuild its armed forces in essentially the last four (yes four) years before the war. Neither were the British alone. Poland had an army not so much weaker than the German one as everybody thinks (well, apparently they were weaker, but very much to the Polish surprise). France, had an army larger than Germany (more men, more immediate reserves, more tanks, larger tanks, double as many guns and a larger fleet than Germany had) and it did eventually fight. Actually, France, and by no means Britain, was Germany's main problem between October 1939 and late June 1940. And how did Britain survive after France fell? Well, it is an island and had one of the largest fleets in the world, that's how. The far more surprising thing is that Germany, with its utterly inexperienced army, which was completely outnumbered by the combined Polish, French and British armed forces in every regard - on land, sea or in the air - was able to overrun most of Europe. Britain, a country that had declared war against Germany, not because it was terribly heroic, but because it felt superior at the time when it did so (just like the France) did all in all surprisingly little surprisingly little for a superpower. Only in the bombing of cities did they truly excel, and that was only possible with lots of help from America, and because Germany was occupied elsewhere. In fact, the course of WWII showed more than anything that Britains great time was behind it. Even this version of history that came up, in which "poor, little Britain survived against all odds" shows that.

By December 1941, the odds were all in favor of the Axis powers. They had been arming since the mid-1930s.
No, they were not, at least as far as Germany was concerned, since it had failed to take out the Sovietunion. And yes, Germany had armed since the mid thirties, that is right. Most of Germany's war enemies had armed since well before that, however.

The Holocaust was finally stopped before every Jew in Europe was killed as Hitler had planned. Germany, Italy and Japan were transformed from monstrous regimes into liberal states whose democracies have done much for humanity in the ensuing years. Not very much before that. Interestingly, the Holocaust was not very much on the minds of either Germans or Allies at the time. Both, the Allies as well, either did not know or did not care. That circumstance has changed a lot after WWII, of course. For Germany's enemies, the Holocaust was the best imaginable justification for just about everything they did during that war, even for their alliance with Stalin with whom they divided up Europe at the end. Heck, even Stalin and the Sovietunion of the time - the most militarist and totalitarian state on the planet, beyond Nazi Germany in both regards - could be exonerated thanks to the Holocaust.

To sum it up: It is perfectly understandable that the revisionist view of WWII is not to everyone's liking. Certainly Americans and British will prefer the more heroic "classical" view of their nations role. Then, Russians may want to see the Sovietunion more as an hapless victim, like it was presented by Soviet propaganda. The problem is only that these views are, errr, wrong. And while a war between shining Good and dastardly Evil makes a good epic story, this is not the story of WWII. The whole idea of studying history is to learn from it, lest it may repeat itself. To do so, one must try to see things as they were, in so far that is humanly possible, like it or not. Otherwise, the view is wrong, and a wrong lesson will be learned. In which case it is more likely that history repeats itself - possibly in different places and with different actors, certainly with different weapons, but with a similiar, or even more desastrous outcome.

[John1980]

The initial post starts with the word "Opinion", and should end there too, cause thats all it is, revisionism at its own. There was and still is just shades of grey not just black and white, all major players were tainted by their crimes, admitted or not and driven there hunger for power and wealth.
Thats all i have to say.

Cheers.

[Mastermind]

Thank you, Kitsune! Perfectly said!

[User_Name]

Are you going to list Germany's glorious list of contributions to the world since the formation of the German state in the late 19th century for us then?


The most important one for Chavs:
pregnacy testp-)

[filochard]

There is some truth in what Kitsune said but after the American and English role was greatly exagerated, lets not do the reverse and dismish it too much. As for the British role, for the french, Churchill had the genius to support De Gaulle when he was nothing and that became quite relevant for us and not negligible in the whole war as well. Don't forget too that the German lost big in Tunisia, with the Americans and the french help but it's the Brits who brought them in this trap (with the help of Mussolini) and that is quite relevant too. But the most important of all is that the German couldn't invade the British isles, the RAF and the RN did a great job.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

The most important one for Chavs:
pregnacy testp-)


Germany has plenty of chavs too.;-)

Was that it by the way?:)

[TR1]

Another kraut who's just jealous and twisted up because his grandfather's got their arses kicked by better soldiers :roll:

Must be hard for you coming from a nation that can't actually be proud of anything.
By better soldiers? I forget, must have missed the part where Britain single handedly did anything critical to defeat Germany.

[User_Name]

Was that it by the way?:)

Yes, "Aschheim-Zondek-Test" or simply the "Rabbit test"

The rabbit test was an early pregnancy test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_test) developed in 1927 by Bernhard Zondek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Zondek) and Selmar Aschheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selmar_Aschheim). The original test actually used mice.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_test#cite_note-0) The test consisted of injecting the tested woman's urine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine) into a female rabbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit), then examining the rabbit's ovaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovaries) a few days later, which would change in response to a hormone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormone) only secreted by pregnant women. The hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin) (hCG), is produced during pregnancy and indicates the presence of a fertilized egg; it can be found in a pregnant woman's urine and blood. The rabbit test became a widely used bioassay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioassay) (animal-based test) to test for pregnancy. The term "rabbit test" was first recorded in 1949 but became a common phrase in the English language. Xenopus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenopus) frogs were also used in a similar "frog test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frogs_in_research)".
Modern pregnancy tests still operate on the basis of testing for the presence of the hormone hCG. Due to medical advances, use of a live animal is no longer required.
It is a common misconception that the injected rabbit would die only if the woman was pregnant. This led to the phrase "the rabbit died" being used as a euphemism for a positive pregnancy test. In fact, all rabbits used for the test died, because they had to be surgically opened in order to examine the ovaries. While it was possible to do this without killing the rabbit, it was generally deemed not worth the trouble and expense.

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

[Gammelpreusse]

Germany has plenty of chavs too.;-)

Was that it by the way?:)

That is true, but over here it's not such an pandemic occurance that we'd have to invent a word for them ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

By better soldiers? I forget, must have missed the part where Britain single handedly did anything critical to defeat Germany.

I didn't say that and you know it you knobber.

I mentioned it only because I was surprised to hear that an SS officer who hated the Brits would actually say that.:roll:

[a_very_ex_STAB]

By better soldiers? I forget, must have missed the part where Britain single handedly did anything critical to defeat Germany.

We could also similarly add that the USSR did nothing single handed too. Just look at the mountains of aid the US supplied to keep the USSR in the fight plus the valuable assistance supplied by Hitler's amateurish strategic blundering on a vast scale :) or the vital Enigma intel supplied by the British (oh no I forgot Stalin was too paranoid to benefit from it rofl)

I guess you must have forgotten that for a large part of the war when the Russians were fighting the Germans a thousand miles away from Germany the RAF was taking the fight directly to the enemy homeland every night turning their cities into heaps of rubble. Amnesia's wonderful isn't it comrade:roll:

[Gammelpreusse]

We could also similarly add that the USSR did nothing single handed too. Just look at the mountains of aid the US supplied to keep the USSR in the fight plus the valuable supplied by Hitler's amateurish strategic blundering on a vast scale :) or the vital Enigma intel supplied by the British (oh no I forgot Stalin was too paranoid to benefit from it rofl)

I guess you must have forgotten that for a large part of the war when the Russians were fighting the Germans a thousand miles away from Germany the RAF was taking the fight directly to the enemy homeland every night turning their cities into heaps of rubble. Amnesia's wonderful isn't it comrade:roll:


Oh yeah, thanks for bringing this up.
Please, I really like to hear it, what makes you think that killing those children, women and old men, even when it became totally clear that Germany was about to lose, was in any way "morally superiour" to what the germans did to british civillians?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Oh yeah, thanks for bringing this up.
Please, I really like to hear it, what makes you think that killing those children, women and old men, even when it became totally clear that Germany was about to lose, was in any way "morally superiour" to what the germans did to british civillians?

Where did I say it was morally superiour? How was it clear that Germany was about to lose? You can only say that with 20/20 hindsight not during the fog of war with it's uncertainties and ambiguities. Even in Feb 1945 when Dresden was bombed the Western Allies were only just breaking into Germany, resistance was stiff, casualties were high, V2s were raining down on SE England and patience was running out after everyone took 6 years out of the lives to deal with the consequences of Hitler's psychpathological defects. Plus most of the British Army was expecting to have to go to Asia to finish the Japs off in Malaya after dealing with the Germans and just wanted to finish it. To expect the bombing campaign to have stopped is just ridiculous :roll:

Germany's cities had to be area bombed to ensure that German war production could not increase to the extent that the Allies' war production did (an objective that was largely achieved and which helped out the USSR as much as it helped Britain and the USA). We wouldn't do it that way now because we have such things as precision-guided munitions but there wasn't any other way in those days.

Germany put a lot of effort into e.g. tank and U-boat design and production but neglected strategic bombers whereas the British Army had to suffer a series of mediocre tank designs because so much technical expertise and resources were put into the strategic bombing campaign. Ultimately I think it was the right strategic choice because it allowed Germany to be directly attacked for a long and sustained period.

Plus Germany bombed us first - so basically it was Germany's hard luck that the Western Allies were quite simply better at it. An added benefit was that it also tied up a huge amount of German manpower, 88mm flak guns and fighter planes that would otherwise have ended up on the Eastern Front for a substantial part of the war.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

That is true, but over here it's not such an pandemic occurance that we'd have to invent a word for them ;)Proleten.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,436351,00.html

[Robert.V]

We could also similarly add that the USSR did nothing single handed too. Just look at the mountains of aid the US supplied to keep the USSR in the fight plus the valuable assistance supplied by Hitler's amateurish strategic blundering on a vast scale :) or the vital Enigma intel supplied by the British


Myths, myths and more ****ing myths.



Where did I say it was morally superiour? How was it clear that Germany was about to lose?




Newsflash it was clear in end of 1942 already ..even Hitler himself admitted it.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Myths, myths and more ****ing myths.

You seriously need to start doing some home work. I suggest looking up how the USA supported the Soviet logistical chain as a startrofl- take some baby steps on the path to learning.



Newsflash it was clear in end of 1942 already ..even Hitler himself admitted it.

OK that's alright then so everyone was supposed to just 'down' tools when there was a genocidal dictator's army occupying the entire continent of Europe? :roll: Lucky for you that better men than you didn't eh ;-)

On the hand you're saying that my claim about Hitler's strategic blunders aiding the USSR is a myth and then you're saying it was so crystal clear in 1942 that Germany was losing that even Hitler was admitting it. You seem to be slightly confused are your prejudices blinding you by any chance? :-)

[Hadamar]

By better soldiers? I forget, must have missed the part where Britain single handedly did anything critical to defeat Germany.

http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x4xwzv

[Robert.V]

You seriously need to start doing some home work. I suggest looking up how the USA supported the Soviet logistical chain as a startrofl- take some baby steps on the path to learning.



Perhaps you should take your own advice.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4373806&postcount=100


And allot of militery equipment the land lease provided, the Soviets never really used but held for reserve because they deemed it inferior.

Especially pretty much everything your country provided

For example those second hand and by the time already old models of spitfire's with patched bullet-holes and all ..your country provided.. In which the soviet pilots were supposed to face the latest Bf-109Gs and Focke-Wulfs. And at lower altitudes ( where most aerial battles on the eastern front happened) the wide wings of the Spit bleed a lot of energy when turning - didn't get any praises from the soviet pilots at all nor much use for that matter either. Unlike the P-39 Airacobra which the soviets loved.



and don't forget ...take some baby steps on the path to learning. p-)



On the hand you're saying that my claim about Hitler's strategic blunders aiding the USSR is a myth and then you're saying it was so crystal clear in 1942 that Germany was losing that even Hitler was admitting it. You seem to be slightly confused are your prejudices blinding you by any chance?


What are you on about... ?


Btw the land lease was a piss in a bucket.

[Mastermind]

^^ Much of the equipment, trucks in particular, the soviets recieved ened up abandoned for some very odd reasons. One huge reason, discovered by an investigation team sent over to determine what equipment types would do the best job, Trucks were abandoned simply because the engines finally quit running due to fouled spark plugs. Soviets set the carburetors very rich, for easier starting and oepration in cold weather...so, the plugs tended to foul quickly on the low grade gasoline the soviets used. The drivers were illiterate farm boys, as a rule...and had no concept about how engines worked...when the engine quit, they simply hitched a ride on the next vehicle that came along, leaving the truck and the cargo to the elements until some rear echelon repair tech came along in the spring to get the vehicles operating again.

Soviets complained quite often about this kind of thing...soviet made trucks did not have these kinds of problems due to their engines being much less temperamental...although much cruder in design. Western designers were much more accustomed to operators having some training on how basic vehicle maintenance.

[Robert.V]

I heard about that and that's true, that's certainly happened, but by end of 1943 not so much anymore. Even old babushkas knew how to fix an engine by then. ;)


The drivers were illiterate farm boys

Illiterate in those times ? I don't think so ..not knowing how to fix an engine certainly.


Non the less Soviets loved American trucks.

[Nodak]

So,wait,at Dunkirk,Brits retreated.
And that counts as a Brit win?
Thats sad. :(

[Robert.V]

Hey, they helped in the end instead of giving up.

[Mordoror]

So,wait,at Dunkirk,Brits retreated.
And that counts as a Brit win?
Thats sad. :(
they had a good spin press service at that time that was regular to transform defeat to victory and pat to triumph p-)

[Gammelpreusse]

Where did I say it was morally superiour? How was it clear that Germany was about to lose? You can only say that with 20/20 hindsight not during the fog of war with it's uncertainties and ambiguities. Even in Feb 1945 when Dresden was bombed the Western Allies were only just breaking into Germany, resistance was stiff, casualties were high, V2s were raining down on SE England and patience was running out after everyone took 6 years out of the lives to deal with the consequences of Hitler's psychpathological defects. Plus most of the British Army was expecting to have to go to Asia to finish the Japs off in Malaya after dealing with the Germans and just wanted to finish it. To expect the bombing campaign to have stopped is just ridiculous :roll:

Germany's cities had to be area bombed to ensure that German war production could not increase to the extent that the Allies' war production did (an objective that was largely achieved and which helped out the USSR as much as it helped Britain and the USA). We wouldn't do it that way now because we have such things as precision-guided munitions but there wasn't any other way in those days.

Germany put a lot of effort into e.g. tank and U-boat design and production but neglected strategic bombers whereas the British Army had to suffer a series of mediocre tank designs because so much technical expertise and resources were put into the strategic bombing campaign. Ultimately I think it was the right strategic choice because it allowed Germany to be directly attacked for a long and sustained period.

Plus Germany bombed us first - so basically it was Germany's hard luck that the Western Allies were quite simply better at it. An added benefit was that it also tied up a huge amount of German manpower, 88mm flak guns and fighter planes that would otherwise have ended up on the Eastern Front for a substantial part of the war.

Please, 1945 it was not clear Germany was about to lose? Fog of War? Do you actually believe that yourself or do you want to give me opposition just for the fun of it? American and british planes flew over Germany every single day. Villages and towns were eradicated for such reasons as a "strategic road" running through them, even if this road was not more then a better dirt track. And up until the british bombed Berlin as a retaliation for accidently dropped bombs over London by a He111 the germans at least tried to concentrate on economic and military targets, just like the americans tried (without much success). (And before you bring up Warsaw and Rotterdam, those were fortress cities, as such declared by their respective defenders and thus were valid targets after international rules. But the poles and the dutch are very capable to speak for themselves.)


And why I remind you of morale superiority so much is simply because you love to use the moral club as a hobby it appears. Else we'd not be argueing here. I have zero problems in discussing and admitting the Holocaust, what the germans did to the russians, the poles, the gypsies and so many others, but not if this subject is abused by some guy whose nations did zip for these people.
The times when some guy could end any debate and win the argument, no matter the topic, with the single line "you killed the jews!", merely for the sake of winning an argument are over, get used to that.

To get back to your post, I do agree in the men and material bound by the british, though these came even more into play against the american daylight raids.

[Connaught Ranger]

they had a good spin press service at that time that was regular to transform defeat to victory and pat to triumph p-)

Was that before or after the French went over to ze Germans? :roll:

[Connaught Ranger]

Please, 1945 it was not clear Germany was about to lose? Fog of War? Do you actually believe that yourself or do you want to give me opposition just for the fun of it? American and british planes flew over Germany every single day. Villages and towns were eradicated for such reasons as a "strategic road" running through them, even if this road was not more then a better dirt track.

Again lets ask, who started the war? and who did not win the war?:roll:

And up until the british bombed Berlin as a retaliation for accidently dropped bombs over London by a He111 the germans at least tried to concentrate on economic and military targets, just like the americans tried (without much success). (And before you bring up Warsaw and Rotterdam, those were fortress cities, as such declared by their respective defenders and thus were valid targets after international rules. But the poles and the dutch are very capable to speak for themselves.)

Mmmmmm Fortress cities, like Manchester, Coventry, Dover, Belfast

Avery doubtful claim seeing their bomb aiming equipment was not much better than the Allies, but I would love to hear how you try to excuse the Luftwaffe Bombing campaign over Malta were 90% of the targets hit were civilian homes.:roll:


And why I remind you of morale superiority so much is simply because you love to use the moral club as a hobby it appears. Else we'd not be argueing here. I have zero problems in discussing and admitting the Holocaust, what the germans did to the russians, the poles, the gypsies and so many others, but not if this subject is abused by some guy whose nations did zip for these people.

Is that better or worse as standing up for a country that started but failed to win a World War? :roll:

The times when some guy could end any debate and win the argument, no matter the topic, with the single line "you killed the jews!", merely for the sake of winning an argument are over, get used to that.

Get used to it Germany lost, no amount of if, buts, or maybes, will change it.

[Mordoror]

Was that before or after the French went over to ze Germans?

before of course
since 1800s period....and still going on nowadays:roll:

[Gammelpreusse]

Get used to it Germany lost, no amount of if, buts, or maybes, will change it.

lol, sorry, I so must have forgotten that, certainly changes everything http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Optimismus/smilie_op_010.gif

You find the answers to your questions in the text you quoted, if you were to invest a bit of brain capacity into what I wrote here. But I doubt I will be capable to enlighten you anyways.

[johanness]

Get used to it Germany lost, no amount of if, buts, or maybes, will change it.

Who denied it?

[Sada]

Ex Stab, you asked me some question in the firsts post of this thread but I just didn´t want to bite your hook, I read some post of you in other threads about the scottish and their military feat with or without "" and I found it funny and good humored, we have our own breed of more-brave-than-nobody scotts in this peninsula, , but in this thread you just blurred some good discussions of other people and even of you mixing provocative funny exagerations about british with some little truths and personal anecdotes, the result it´s not good: This is not about gloryficating or denigrating the BRITISH emPIRE, I like how how the end of the word empire fills the mouth, just about how history has been taught in some places around the globe. God bless your grandfather, and other grandfaters too, we all have grandpas or grandgrandpas that did something last century. About the pintoresque german relative of you, I confess I can´t exhibit a war criminal in my most recent family, but didn´t you wonder that a SS member was by definition a hate machine and that they just hated everybody except themselves? I´m sure your relative hated even more the soviets than the british and that he prayed every night to Thor that he was dettained by your fellows and not by red soldiers. But it´s good that you attribute to the germans, such unesuful country in your words, the capacity to judge if one soldier is good or not, are germans the best for judging the valour of a soldiers? Do you really think people of your country were the best fighters of that war?
I think that so many grave things happened in the XX century that there´s stuff for historians, writers, poets, artists and etc. in the next 100 years to assimilate what happened, because many consequences about IIWW are being paid now, and I think that conflict will be seen more like a second chapter of the IWW, both chapters linked by a chain of hot conflicts: China invassion, spanish war, Abisinia,...
And I have a question to you Ex Stab and other brittish if you want to answer about memories of your elder people: I remember my grandfather, who was a merchant sailor and lived some conflicts, used to tell me when speaking about spanish post war and the famine that in IWW in UK the situation was if not similar only slightly better than in Spain because of the germans submarines blockading of the isles, and that in IIWW the food sourcing to the isles was way better than in IWW even in the peak year of submarine war in 1942. What said your old people about that? maybe was that people were more hardened in 1939 than in 1914?

[Billy No Mates]

And why I remind you of morale superiority so much is simply because you love to use the moral club as a hobby it appears. Else we'd not be argueing here. I have zero problems in discussing and admitting the Holocaust, what the germans did to the russians, the poles, the gypsies and so many others, but not if this subject is abused by some guy whose nations did zip for these people.

We did do something for those people,we kept fighting(however ineptly at times)and in doing so hastened the end of the regime doing the killing,that might be nothing to you but those people that the Nazi's didn't get time to polish of might well differ with your opinion .

[Switek]

One is short sighted:


to foster in the ensuing decades the greatest growth in freedom and prosperity in the history of the planet.


Yea... for Middle Europeans it started after the liberation from communism between 1989-91, not so long ago.

[Gammelpreusse]

We did do something for those people,we kept fighting(however ineptly at times)and in doing so hastened the end of the regime doing the killing,that might be nothing to you but those people that the Nazi's didn't get time to polish of might well differ with your opinion .


maybe you want to read the thread again, before we start going in cycles.

[pacifist]

Yeah, that's why Germany had the highest scoring fighter pilots and tank commanders?

Name a battle won by the British.
And I don't need a battle won by Australien, Canadien, South Africans or other Common Wealth troops.
Also Polish and French troops don't count.
And for sure no U.S. battles.

What's left and would be count as a British victory?

Maybe Dunkirk?

I guess if thats the level you want to pitch it one might well ask questions such as name a German WW2 victory that wasn't achieved under the overall command of a funny little Austrian chap.....
If theres a reason for some of our piss poor early war efforts appart from the unlikely defeat of the our senior partner on land(and the inevitable problems accruing from it) its the fact that despite what the 'hey were all to blame' brigade believe we were actually trying to avoid war rather than meticulously planning and preparing for the violent conquest of our neighbours,nor did we have the luxury of hanging round for a couple of years to see how things were panning out .



You nazis lost the war, get over it.

[Gammelpreusse]

You nazis lost the war, get over it.

wow, no reference to the holocaust? the substance level is improving.

[GiladS]

You nazis lost the war, get over it.

Ehm wasn't Finland aligned with Germany in WW2?

[pacifist]

Ehm wasn't Finland aligned with Germany in WW2?

There are different opinions about that.

Russians still today claim that we were, but in Finland official opinion is that we were just but a co-belligerant with Germany, because Soviet Union was our common enemy. Finland had different goals and there were no official treaty made between Finland and Germany, but Finland did receive much aid from Germany and was depended from it.

[Connaught Ranger]

lol, sorry, I so must have forgotten that, certainly changes everything http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Optimismus/smilie_op_010.gif

You find the answers to your questions in the text you quoted, if you were to invest a bit of brain capacity into what I wrote here. But I doubt I will be capable to enlighten you anyways.

Such as:-


"the germans at least tried"and failed to gain world domination. woot woot

or
"the germans at least tried" to present a defence during the Nuremberg war crimes trial, but,failed miserably.

[Nodak]

People should stop thinking WW2 was good vs evil just like they stopped thinking of WW1 as good vs evil.
Ah well,that will change in another half a century.

Everybody was evil!

[Gammelpreusse]

Such as:-

and failed to gain world domination. woot woot

or to present a defence during the Nuremberg war crimes trial, but,failed miserably.


topic failed, F, sit down :cantbeli:

[Breakfast in Vegas]

People should stop thinking WW2 was good vs evil just like they stopped thinking of WW1 as good vs evil.
Ah well,that will change in another half a century.

Everybody was evil!Well isn't that precious.

Maybe you should read up a little on the scale of atrocities committed by the Axis powers.

[Billy No Mates]

People should stop thinking WW2 was good vs evil just like they stopped thinking of WW1 as good vs evil.
Ah well,that will change in another half a century.

Everybody was evil!

Well hush my mouth,when you put it like that i suddenly wonder what ever are we all making such a fuss about?....

[Mordoror]

People should stop thinking WW2 was good vs evil just like they stopped thinking of WW1 as good vs evil.
Ah well,that will change in another half a century.

Everybody was evil!

i won't say everybody was evil
the scale of atrocities wasn't the same for the two plates of the balance

anyway, the winners lecturing of the war is a little too "all is nice and righteous from our side)
did the Allies killed thousand of civilians with bombing : yes
did rapes at a large scale occured : yes (and it was not only the russian involved, even if it may hurt some ears around here)
did the use of WMD by our side was planned even before the atomic bomb : yes
did prisonners were executed on the spot by Russian/US/French/Brit (less likely here as reports are more scarce than for the formers) : Yes
Did Axis soldiers were forced to labour even dangerous ones like EOD ? yes

all that would have put us on trial much like in Numremberg for War crimes if you were the losers

Anyway there is ONE big difference : nothing of that was organized and plannified at state head level (in contrast it was to an industrial scale in Axis countries)
so the label crimes vs Humanity is not one that belonged to the Allied action
at least it is one thing we can be proud of

[Gammelpreusse]

i won't say everybody was evil
the scale of atrocities wasn't the same for the two plates of the balance

anyway, the winners lecturing of the war is a little too "all is nice and righteous from our side)
did the Allies killed thousand of civilians with bombing : yes
did rapes at a large scale occured : yes (and it was not only the russian involved, even if it may hurt some ears around here)
did the use of WMD by our side was planned even before the atomic bomb : yes
did prisonners were executed on the spot by Russian/US/French/Brit (less likely here as reports are more scarce than for the formers) : Yes
Did Axis soldiers were forced to labour even dangerous ones like EOD ? yes

all that would have put us on trial much like in Numremberg for War crimes if you were the losers

Anyway there is ONE big difference : nothing of that was organized and plannified at state head level (in contrast it was to an industrial scale in Axis countries)
so the label crimes vs Humanity is not one that belonged to the Allied action
at least it is one thing we can be proud of

Pretty much spot on. You also may want to add the infamous Rheinwiesen. The war crime issue in particular make a lot of the posters here look particulary embarassing.

Nobody here ever denied the holocaust or the crimes comitted in the name of Germany during these times. It's pretty tasteless however, how a lot of folks abuse the topic for personal gain.

[Connaught Ranger]

Pretty much spot on. You also may want to add the infamous Rheinwiesen. The war crime issue in particular make a lot of the posters here look particulary embarassing.

Nobody here ever denied the holocaust or the crimes comitted in the name of Germany during these times. It's pretty tasteless however, how a lot of folks abuse the topic for personal gain.

Its big of you to to admit your agenda. :roll:

Its even more tasteless when you try to gloss over what happened with the "well you were not much better than us attitude.":roll:

Connaught Ranger.

[Gammelpreusse]

Its big of you to to admit your agenda. :roll:

Its even more tasteless when you try to gloss over what happened with the "well you were not much better than us attitude.":roll:

Connaught Ranger.

I don't unless it's provocted over the limit. Cause and effect, cry wolf often enough and nobody will give a damn. You may want to reread that thread to find an article at the very beginning that is more then just a bit pretentious to many and outright insulting to a few. And the amount of smart one liners certainly did not support your case at all.

[Connaught Ranger]

topic failed, F, sit down :cantbeli:


Only in your tiny mind chum woot woot woot

[RIPTIDE]

The only real wrong doing I see from the Allied side was after the war with the Forced moving of German civilians around Europe. Two wrongs never did make a right. :(

[Gammelpreusse]

Only in your tiny mind chum woot woot woot

my god, go talk to the hand or something. probably more enlightening.

[Connaught Ranger]

my god, go talk to the hand or something. probably more enlightening.

No I dont have your bad habits. tosser.p-)

[Stormz_STA]

The only real wrong doing I see from the Allied side was after the war with the Forced moving of German civilians around Europe. Two wrongs never did make a right. :(

Cry me a river :roll:
The Germans brought it on themselves. After all, they elected Hitler and his henchmen.

[TR1]

Cry me a river :roll:
The Germans brought it on themselves. After all, they elected Hitler and his henchmen.
Sure, but that doesn't make the killing and suffering German civilians endured (and granted, they endured far far less than certain other civilians) any better or more pleasant.

[RIPTIDE]

Cry me a river :roll:
The Germans brought it on themselves. After all, they elected Hitler and his henchmen.
You mean the Germans that lived in Holland and all across Eastern Europe? Come back when you know WTF you're talking about. :roll: Approx. 2 million died AFTER the war.

[Stormz_STA]

Sure, but that doesn't make the killing and suffering German civilians endured any better or more pleasant.

I never said killing or hurting German civilians was good or pleasant, but for God's sake, it was nothing compared to what other people went through under the German occupation.

[RIPTIDE]

I never said killing or hurting German civilians was good or pleasant but for God's sake it was nothing compared to what other people went through under the German occupation.
We all know that. NOBODY here is excusing what was done under German occupation, by German intent.

[Stormz_STA]

You mean the Germans that lived in Holland and all across Eastern Europe?

I'm talking about those who lived, for example, in East Prussia, Danzig, Stettin and other places that later became Polish or Russian, dumbass.


Approx. 2 million died AFTER the war.

Aww, poor Germans :roll:
Maybe you need to be reminded how many civilians from other countries were killed by Germans?

[Gammelpreusse]

I'm talking about those who lived, for example, in East Prussia, Danzig, Stettin and other places that later became Polish or Russian, dumbass.



Aww, poor Germans :roll:
Maybe you need to be reminded how many civilians from other countries were killed by Germans?

Maybe you need a reminder that we know? Maybe you also need a reminder that one bad does not excuse or nullify another one, and as long you cling to this concept you are the one ignoring reality here? These are very simple rules about morales you completely shove away.
No german will ask for salvation for the holocaust. That is our responsebility which we have to deal with accordingly, and we did, more so then any other country did to attone for it's sins.
We require no lecturing from folks that do not even have the balls to admit to their own wrong doings and constantly have to bring up another people's suffering, whom they hardly did anything for when they had the opportunities, just to push personal agenda in the attempt of silencing opinions they simply don't like. That just doesn't fly und you won't convince anyone of your POV by acting like that.

[RIPTIDE]

Aww, poor Germans :roll:
Maybe you need to be reminded how many civilians from other countries were killed by Germans?
I know all about it, you wanker. :roll: Like I said. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[filochard]

First it sure was a good thing that Germany got utterly and completelly crushed. Lucky them there civilization could survive: you don't play with fire without taking the risk to burn. That's one thing this young nation learnt the hard way.
I'm not speaking of the invasions: after all trying to build an empire is a legitimate goal, the strong survive, the weak got swallowed. After all Napoleon did the same. But at least Napoleon wasn't the agressor and was bringing Liberty and new rational way of ruling. Germany, because of the Nazis, brought a racist ideology, a "unwestern" way of fighting in the east, and of course genocides. Not to say that was the second time in 30 years that Germany was caught being too hungry, too in a hurry and too stupidly brutal to build its empire.
For the rest I find easy pride, easy blame, easy lessons, myth, and some way of speaking lightly of things importants, as anoying. And that's not the Germans that generally do that.

[shadowsrider]

People should stop thinking WW2 was good vs evil just like they stopped thinking of WW1 as good vs evil.
Ah well,that will change in another half a century.

Everybody was evil!

Such generalizations are definitelly not true. While the democracies were fighting total war bombing the cities etc. rember that this was a war against aggressive, criminal country which authorities wanted to murder millions of Jews, turn all Eastern Europe into slavery and finally eliminate also Slavic nations.

[shadowsrider]

Plus Germany bombed us first - so basically it was Germany's hard luck that the Western Allies were quite simply better at it.

Bombing open cities begun already in 1939. Just to remember: Warsaw was being bombed for 1 month, 2 undefended Polish cities were smashed off the ground (Wielun, Frampol) to test Luftwaffe effectiveness - these were in fact 2 new Guernicas.

In the West just to remind Rotterdam in 1940 just to terrorize the enemy.

[L J]

First it sure was a good thing that Germany got utterly and completelly crushed. Lucky them there civilization could survive: you don't play with fire without taking the risk to burn. That's one thing this young nation learnt the hard way.
I'm not speaking of the invasions: after all trying to build an empire is a legitimate goal, the strong survive, the weak got swallowed. After all Napoleon did the same. But at least Napoleon wasn't the agressor and was bringing Liberty and new rational way of ruling. Germany, because of the Nazis, brought a racist ideology, a "unwestern" way of fighting in the east, and of course genocides. Not to say that was the second time in 30 years that Germany was caught being too hungry, too in a hurry and too stupidly brutal to build its empire.
For the rest I find easy pride, easy blame, easy lessons, myth, and some way of speaking lightly of things importants, as anoying. And that's not the Germans that generally do that.
Napoleon wasn't the agressor and was bringing Liberty ??? Never heard of Fouché ,chief of secret police and responsible for the death of thousands ? Never heard of the looting of occupied Europe ? Never heard of the cultural genocide of the annexed nations ?

[Gammelpreusse]

The same thing was done by almost every country in some stage of history.
And the thing about eliminating Slavic nations a lie,but they did think of Slavs as lesser beings.
But honestly,so is the west thinking now.

That is not correct. The slavik people in Poland and huge parts of Russia were to either to be exterminaten or driven away in the long run. Poland especially was to be completly erridicated as a nation.

[RIPTIDE]

And the thing about eliminating Slavic nations a lie,but they did think of Slavs as lesser beings.
But honestly,so is the west thinking now.
That isn't a lie you numptie. I've said this 3 times aorund this forum. Germany's aims for the East were

1. Reduce Population of Slavs and other undesirables to 20 million. 20 million was deemed by the NAZI's as a 'managable' number to then...

2. Rail road and force march to East of the Urals, to languish and perish.

Its that simple. Anyone who denies this is a revisionist and a scumbag and is a living insult to the tens of millions who perished.


EDIT: IIRC the only debate that still goes on in Holocaust studies, carried out by serious academics is at what point did the NAZI's dream up this idea. That's the only debate that's left. SOme say it was dreamed up in the early 30's, some say it was dreamed up much later after '39.

[RIPTIDE]

Can you provide some sources? I have to admit I havent even read Mein Kampf, so I don't really know what went on inside Hitlers head..
It wasn't just Hitlers head. It was Heydrich, Himmler and many many others at the top.

If you look at my post you can see how in terms of Jewish Holocaust there is still some debate as to when the Final Solution was worked out. Thats because it wasn't just Hitler, but was a development over many years between a whole bunch of unsavoury fellows. There are others that wanted to Germanise large portions of the East, not just in Poland, for example. Then there was others that just wanted them all exterminated. Even more disturbing is that the Central Asian populations of the Soviet Union (Tartars, Kazaks, etc etc) were even LESS worthy of life, according to the Nazi's.

Anyway, the German plan for the East came under the umbrella of "GenerlplanOst", which was subordinated under a special Reichs Ministry.

Anyway... have a go at this. It contains many references with official document/catalogue numbers. http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/GPO/gpo%20sources.htm

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

And allot of militery equipment the land lease provided, the Soviets never really used but held for reserve because they deemed it inferior.

Especially pretty much everything your country provided



Btw the land lease was a piss in a bucket.

I wasn't talking about what the UK provided you numpty.

The reading comprehension of foreigners on this site has really been taking a nose dive recently.

Apart from military equipment you're conveniently forgetting the vast amounts of food that kept the Soviet war machine going. An army can't live on fresh air you know.

Taking just one vehicle type into consideration the USA supplied ~375000 6x6 trucks to the USSR - quite something when you consider the Wehrmacht's logistics chain was heavily reliant on horses.

Of course you're also conveniently forgetting that for propaganda purposes it suited the Soviets to deride the US contribution to their war effort.

Maybe you Dutchies would prefer it if we had just left you to starve under German occupation as well roflroflroflrofl

[Robert.V]

I wasn't talking about what the UK provided you numpty.

The reading comprehension of foreigners on this site has really been taking a nose dive recently.

Apart from military equipment you're conveniently forgetting the vast amounts of food that kept the Soviet war machine going. An army can't live on fresh air you know.

Taking just one vehicle type into consideration the USA supplied ~375000 6x6 trucks to the USSR - quite something when you consider the Wehrmacht's logistics chain was heavily reliant on horses.

Of course you're also conveniently forgetting that for propaganda purposes it suited the Soviets to deride the US contribution to their war effort.

Maybe you Dutchies would prefer it if we had just left you to starve under German occupation as well roflroflroflrofl

I wasn't talking only about UK either. And I did mention the food supply.

Reading comprehension do you have them ?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I wasn't talking only about UK either. And I did mention the food supply.

Reading comprehension do you have them ?

Ah but you didn't attest to its significance in the overall scheme of things ;-)

So your reading comprehension is still sh1te

Are you still wishing we hadn't released your forebears from their Nazi bondage;-)

[Robert.V]

Ah but you didn't attest to its significance in the overall scheme of things ;-)

So your reading comprehension is still sh1te

Are you still wishing we hadn't released your forebears from their Nazi bondage;-)


Now I don't know if your joking or not. :)


My forebears from my mother side at least ..happen to have Ze precious German blood in them. ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

My forebears from my mother side at least ..happen to have Ze precious German blood in them. ;)

I suspected as much :roll: it was fairly obvious that you're a closet Nazi revisionist.

[TR1]

lol, so claiming (and rightfully so) that the UKs contribution was rather small compared to that of the USSR and US is Nazi revisionism? count me in then.

[Robert.V]

I suspected as much :roll: it was fairly obvious that you're a closet Nazi revisionist.

I know you English have good sense of humor but this isn't funny anymore.


Ya dumayou on prosta shuttiyt TR1.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

lol, so claiming (and rightfully so) that the UKs contribution was rather small compared to that of the USSR and US is Nazi revisionism? count me in then.

You always know you're getting it right when both the commie and Nazi apologists are competing to disagree with you :-)

It depends on what you mean by contributions?
The USSR had huge levels of casualties (often due to their own stupidity/incompetence/brutality to their own people) which would simply never have been tolerated in Western democracies like the UK and USA.

If Britain had gone under in 1940 Hitler could have freed up more forces to attack the USSR in 1941, there would have been no Arctic convoys to support you and most likely no southern supply route via Iran either (as Britain foiled German attempts to stir up nationalist movements in the Middle East).

So Comrade you're going to have to thank us for surviving (which was of course our primary war aim) rofl

Ha ha

[TR1]

Thanking Britain for surviving? Yeah those dozen Hurricanes and Matildas helped the SU survive in the critical months of 41 enormously.

You ex stab, have a pathetically lacking view of ww2. Seems that British ego of yours cant deal with the fact that Britain was irrelevant when it came to defeating Germany. Sorry :).

This of course coming from the same guy who probably celebrates Dunkirk as a great victory.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Thanking Britain for surviving? Yeah those dozen Hurricanes and Matildas helped the SU survive in the critical months of 41 enormously.

You ex stab, have a pathetically lacking view of ww2. Seems that British ego of yours cant deal with the fact that Britain was irrelevant when it came to defeating Germany. Sorry :).

This of course coming from the same guy who probably celebrates Dunkirk as a great victory.

You still can't admit it to yourself that the Arctic convoys and other supplies which came from America couldn't have got to Russia without the existence of a free Britain.
Start looking at some maps comrade, learn some basic geography about supply routes etc. Remember 'amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics'

Then start banging those rocks together - maybe one day you'll make fire:roll:

Why are you so cranky these days? Has Pootie not been fcuking you homofanboyz up the arrse recently?

[Robert.V]

I thought you were just joking before but apparently you weren't. And you just ignored everything I said about the land lease and it's so called contribution to the Soviets haven't you ?



Congratulation Sir ..I think you are the biggest buffoon I've come across thus far.

[RIPTIDE]

-drivel-


Watch out guys. Stab here has hard core friends in VladiKavkaz that he'll get after you. He's also got friends in Nigeria. Apparently with rockets he tells me. Better not upset him. :):)

[RIPTIDE]

You still can't admit it to yourself that the Arctic convoys and other supplies which came from America couldn't have got to Russia without the existence of a free Britain.

More than half of all LL sent to the SU came through the East. If the Uk was not in a position to facilitate it, the Americans would have simple used the East for everything.

What is controversial however that a lot of the material according to Soviet manifests later gave them the bomb.

[L J]

You always know you're getting it right when both the commie and Nazi apologists are competing to disagree with you :-)

It depends on what you mean by contributions?
The USSR had huge levels of casualties (often due to their own stupidity/incompetence/brutality to their own people) which would simply never have been tolerated in Western democracies like the UK and USA.

If Britain had gone under in 1940 Hitler could have freed up more forces to attack the USSR in 1941, there would have been no Arctic convoys to support you and most likely no southern supply route via Iran either (as Britain foiled German attempts to stir up nationalist movements in the Middle East).

So Comrade you're going to have to thank us for surviving (which was of course our primary war aim) rofl

Ha ha
2 points:
1) Our Russian(?) friend has a point when he states that one should not overestimate the importance of LL:in 1941 the SU survived without the help of LL
2) What he seems to"forget" is that whithout the UK (unsinkable carrier ) there would be no intervention of the US:no bombardments of Germany and no Overlord;I doubt VERY much that without the US and the UK the SU would have beeb able to defeat Germany:no German divisions in France and Italy,all German aircraft operating in the East .

[RIPTIDE]

2 points:
1) Our Russian(?) friend has a point when he states that one should not overestimate the importance of LL:in 1941 the SU survived without the help of LL
2) What he seems to"forget" is that whithout the UK (unsinkable carrier ) there would be no intervention of the US:no bombardments of Germany and no Overlord;I doubt VERY much that without the US and the UK the SU would have beeb able to defeat Germany:no German divisions in France and Italy,all German aircraft operating in the East .
:roll:

Ya... just check the dates for Stalingrad, Kursk, the fast forward to D-Day. There is a big time difference. Also Strategic bombing form UK/US forces did not start until late '43, IIRC. Long after Stalingrad an Kursk.
85% of all German military casualties were on the Eastern front. I will concede that the Battles of Britian cost a lot of Luftwaffe resources... irreplaceable resources as it soon turned out.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

More than half of all LL sent to the SU came through the East. If the Uk was not in a position to facilitate it, the Americans would have simple used the East for everything.

What is controversial however that a lot of the material according to Soviet manifests later gave them the bomb.

Nevertheless half came through the Arctic convoys and Persian corridor with British assistance.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Watch out guys. Stab here has hard core friends in VladiKavkaz that he'll get after you. He's also got friends in Nigeria. Apparently with rockets he tells me. Better not upset him. :):)

I doubt that a female former work colleague of mine who now lives in Vladi is going to scare you RussiaStrongSpetsnazWannabees too much - but I could be wrong rofl

[RIPTIDE]

I doubt that a female former work colleague of mine who now lives in Vladi is going to scare you RussiaStrongSpetsnazWannabees too much - but I could be wrong rofl
Can she throw a hatchet? Can she throw a hatchet while doing a back flip? :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I thought you were just joking before but apparently you weren't. And you just ignored everything I said about the land lease and it's so called contribution to the Soviets haven't you ?



Congratulation Sir ..I think you are the biggest buffoon I've come across thus far.

Looks like I was right about the Nazi sympathizing angle- you seem a little sensitive about it ;-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Can she throw a hatchet? Can she throw a hatchet while doing a back flip? :)

I think you're safe on that score

[RIPTIDE]

Nevertheless half came through the Arctic convoys and Persian corridor with British assistance.
What you now need to do is lobby the Russia Strong Crew for a joint official declaration of thanks and an acknowledgement from them, in no uncertain terms, that their mere existence is owed 100% to the British. :D

Hint: You might have to change tact.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

What you now need to do is lobby the Russia Strong Crew for a joint official declaration of thanks and an acknowledgement from them, in no uncertain terms, that their mere existence is owed 100% to the British. :D

Hint: You might have to change tact.

Hmm I think I will pass on that particular kind of time wasting opportunity thank you.:)

[Sada]

Yesterday in the spanish newspaper ABC it was published an interview with Anthony Beevor about his Normandy´s book. One thing he clearly talked about was the peripherical approach of war of Winston Churchill and in his own words, he said that Churchill was reluctant to the american plan(he said that americans, although newcomers, learnt faster than british how to fight germans) of concentrating allied forces in France after the landings because he was affraid that a frontal fight with Germans, like that of IWW(or like that of the current east front), could cause to the british huge cassualties and they would be too weak in the post war to be of some influence, those were the words of Beevor, not mines, but that´s the same opinion of many people I spoke before about this things. It´s a fact that Churchill jumped of joy after Germany invaded soviets, even more after Pear Harbour because he did know the victory was possible, but as years passed he arrived to Yalta knowing that he only was to be a respected spectator at best, even Stalin mocked of him and the dying Roosevelt laughed Stalin antics at Churchill: Many artic convoys can´t hide the fact that Churchill evited always he could a definitive fight with germans: it was always about organizing expeditions to everywhere with huge naval resources and small infantry on board that in case of neccessity could be evacuated: Norwege, France but near the channel, Greece mainland, Creta...and it couldn´t be in Singapur.
If I were a british of that time I would kiss Churchill feet, because he fought for the good of his people with intelligence and many weren´t sent to the bonfire because he let to others doing the big fight, but I wouldn´t dare to say loudly that "we defeated the nazis and you are free thank to us".

[scandinavian_armor]

double post... sorry

[scandinavian_armor]

nice thread. Although the discussions here deviates from the thread title, i would like to give my opinion also.

During WWII, i give my vote to the Germans (and yes, I admire the German fighting machine at that time. minus Hitler of course). Well, hes great because with his ideaology, Germany was reunited and 'prospered' (after the bitter lost of WWI).

the SS, the Panthers, Tigers, V1/V2, jet fighters...

I mean, these are innovations. Look at the SS not on their 'wrongdoings' but the ideas behind it. The idea of SS is be an elite soldier... a group who undergone special training...

[Domen]

The idea of SS is be an elite soldier... a group who undergone special training...


Nazi Germany had got such a good soldiers from several reasons.

Stefan Mossor wrote in 1938 in his book (see below):

"At present physical training of German officers contains mainly boxing and diving from high springboards, and it is done in order to develop blind courage. A Leutnant must attack his enemy like fox-terrier attacks wild boars - with predominant desire of hand-to-hand combat, eagerly".

So the first aspect of training was blind courage (they were trying to turn humans into "machines").

At the same time Nazi Germany adopted old Prussian tradition called "Auftragstaktik", which means "command directed towards the task." According to this tactics (which was described in "Heeres Dienstvorschrift" in 1936), tasks and goals to achieve should be explicitly specified, but the way of executing these tasks and achieving goals, should be free, whichever and depending on the own will and own designs / ideas of subordinates.

In other words, German soldiers were being taught how to make important decisions on the battlefield and how to think on their own on the battlefield, instead of completing orders thoughlessly. So German soldiers were receiving tasks / objectives to complete, not orders (in the conventional meaning of this word).

This differs so much from the Russian way of command, where soldiers were often being treated like herds of rams by their commanders - "run there, up the hill, no step back or you will be shot". Russian soldiers usually had got exact instructions what they should do (and what will happen if they fail), but at the same time they often didn't even know what was the main purpose / goal of their sacrifice - "we must run there, towards this German MG, but we don't know why".

The third aspect of high combat value of German soldiers of that time, is of course Nazi ideology. Minds of German soldiers were contaminated and blinded by nonsensical Nazi ideology. Thanks to Nazi ideology many Germans lost their individuality as humans and were turned into "machines" being part of one, huge "collective body". They didn't have individual lives. The Reich, the Fuehrer and his "cause" were their entire lives. Thus they were not afraid of death "for the Fuehrer". By the end of the war this belief in justness of their "cause" became weaker, and here a considerable difference can be seen - in 1945 Germans on the Western Front were no longer eager to fight and were surrendering in thousands to the Americans or to the British almost without resistance, while on the Eastern Front they were often fighting to the last bullet and grenade, because their enemy was similarly ruthless to them and they knew about it.

Another German principle - connected with "Auftragstaktik" (which was favouring good team work), was the principle of "density of units", according to which soldiers should feel in their companies / battalions / regiments / divisions like in their own homes. And it should be said that the brain-washing Nazi ideology turned out to be very helpful in achieving this goal. For example former Hitlerjugend after being incorporated to Wehrmacht or Waffen SS didn't have any special problems with treating their companies like their own homes, because since childhood they were being brought up by their Nazi state, as part of paramilitary organization ("collective body").

One more aspect is superior (longer and better) training, than for example this of Russian soldiers (especially during the first phase of the Great Patriotic War).

And finally the last aspect is simply better equipment and better tactics, also better infantry equipment and infantry tactics. German infantry squad was concentrated around firepower of the excellent MG 34 / MG 42, while in vast majority of all other armies infantry squads were not equipped in heavy machine gun but only in one light machine gun and they were relying more on individual soldiers than on the whole infantry squad as a close team, the main weapon of which was their MG 34 / MG 42 and all other soldiers were only "supplements" necessary to protect and support the machine gunners. As you can see once again everything is based on good team work.

Another feature of the German army was - contrary to some false believes - respect for the lives of soldiers (of course not from any humanitarian motives but simply from reasonable, chilly calculation - Germans knew that their human reserves were limited) and efforts to minimize human casualties where only it was possible. For example yet on 22.09.1939, before the German general assault of Warsaw, general Johannes Blaskowitz wrote in his order concerning preparations to the assault:

"The matter is to develop the assault with maximal possible usage of technical means of combat in order to spare our infantry divisions unnecessary casualties during street combats."

By the end of the war this tendency to avoid unnecessary casualties decreased and more often Germans started to send their soldiers to pointless slaughters (similar to these characteristic of the Red Army during the entire war), but this took place mainly because of growing desperation in the face of - yet inevitable - defeat. And such pointless slaughters were common practically only on the Eastern Front, where Germans rather prefered to die than to be captured.

But the Soviets didn't have to spare their men because for example in late 1944 / early 1945 Soviet possibilities of replacing human casualties were 6 times bigger than German possibilities of replacing casualties on the Eastern Front. For the Soviets equipment was much more important than soldiers.

------------------------------

One of my favourite quotations from Stefan Mossor's book:


"War operation is coming into being in a similar way like a precious tapestry, because it also consists of three components: keen operational composition, colorful silk tactical yarn, and - at last - gray, thick and solid warp of proper performance, on which the whole beautiful picture is stringed. Let's unpick from the tapestry this gray, strong warp of material war reality, and only colorful cloud of silk will remain. This mist will be dispersed after any gust of combat misfortune, leaving only a feeling of momentary illusion and permanent disappointment."


Stefan Mossor, "Sztuka wojenna w warunkach nowoczesnej wojny" ("The art of war in conditions of the modern warfare"), 1938, p. 618.

[Connaught Ranger]

There is not much point of developing "elite" troops, if you are going to waste them with blind frontal assaults on heavily fortified positions. The German were just as guilty of this method especially on the Eastern Front, as other countries military formations in their course of the war.

The problem with developing a belief and believing you are Elite and Invincible is after a while you begin to believe it to much, so when you do get a serious set back it comes as quite a shock.

[Vandervahn]

...Look at the SS not on their 'wrongdoings' but the ideas behind it. The idea of SS is be an elite soldier... a group who undergone special training...

Um, the "idea" of the Waffen-SS was to wrestle power from the old Reich and Weimar Rep. Army and build a parallel army strongly founded in the Nazi ideology. The Leadership knew that the Army was not politically reliable and would not tow the party line 100%; thus the Waffen-SS was formed which in time probably would have replaced the old army in many essential functions, domestic and in the "dominions".

There was nothing especially elite about it in general, that was only the selling point for the young people and to create a public reason for existence vis-a-vis the regular army.


...
"At present physical training of German officers contains mainly boxing and diving from high springboards, and it is done in order to develop blind courage. A Leutnant must attack his enemy like fox-terrier attacks wild boars - with predominant desire of hand-to-hand combat, eagerly".

So the first aspect of training was blind courage (they were trying to turn humans into "machines").

Far from it. The goal was to build confidence, independent thought and competence in swift decisionmaking. The Auftragstaktik especially required officers to be the opposite of "machines".


At the same time Nazi Germany adopted old Prussian tradition called "Auftragstaktik", which means "command directed towards the task."

It also was no prussian tradition, it was merely founded on principles of the prussian army command. But it was only fully developed following World War 1 which saw a shrink of the strategic unit from Corps and Divisions to Brigades and regiments.



Thanks to Nazi ideology many Germans lost their individuality as humans and were turned into "machines" being part of one, huge "collective body". They didn't have individual lives.

Please stop taking your impressions on what life in the 3rd Reich was about out of pulp magazines. Do you know why the gas chambers were invented? Because the leadership, Mr Himmler at the forefront, were aware of the strong psychological toll the early mass killings had on the perpetrators, and the gas chambers were a way to reduce this burden on the personnel.

The Nazi ideology aimed at rerouting the culture into a faux traditionalism and strong national unity - in no way did this aim at turning the people into worker or soldier ants respectively. The German state, economically and militarily, was absolutely dependent on the creativity of its people. And even socially the 3rd Reich was a fountain of new ideas, with awesome films, music and other culture being created - of course framed by the strict code of conduct, but great pieces of art nonetheless. That aspect however was thoroughly suppressed following the Nazi era.



Another German principle - connected with "Auftragstaktik" (which was favouring good team work), was the principle of "density of units", ...

These two aspects have no connection.

[Domen]

But it was only fully developed following World War 1 which saw a shrink of the strategic unit from Corps and Divisions to Brigades and regiments.


Mainly thanks to this shrink and limited number of posts Germans were able to make their army (especially officer corps) elite.



Please stop taking your impressions on what life in the 3rd Reich was


Why? I don't think you know more about it than me - you didn't experience it either, did you?



the 3rd Reich was a fountain of new ideas, with awesome films, music and other culture being created - of course framed by the strict code of conduct, but great pieces of art nonetheless.


De gustibus non est disputandum - for me this was just profanation and ugly, sick megalomania, not "great art".

This "fountain of new ideas" - as you called it - forced huge part of its best scientists (including Albert Einstein) to leave their homeland forever.



The Auftragstaktik especially required officers to be the opposite of "machines".


Being a machine doesn't mean being stupid, turning people into "machines" doesn't mean turning them into workers / soldier ants. Being a machine in this case means working for the "system" - all "incompatible" individuals were being eliminated. You were allowed to think, but only in the "right", "programmed" way.


The German state, economically and militarily, was absolutely dependent on the creativity of its people.

Creativity, but not individuality - this "creativity" was fully submitted to the Nazi ideology and controlled by the state, everything contradictory was hostile.

If everything which is not in agreement with the "collective body" (or - the state ideology) is hostile, we cannot speak about existence of individuals.

So, indeed - Germans were like ants. They were allowed to think on their own, but only one way of thinking was "correct" and allowed.


The Nazi ideology aimed at rerouting the culture into a faux traditionalism and strong national unity


The Nazi ideology aimed at destroying all the culture which was not in agreement with the Nazi ideology - and this kind of culture was generally without any real cultural value, it was just some kind of disgusting megalomania, not culture.

Remind yourself how much culture, how many books, were destroyed by the Nazi Germany before the war (yet in 1933 they started to burn books, destroy culture) and during the war. This destroyed culture was being replaced by some worthless, poor Nazi substitutes of culture - necessary for the masses.

[Domen]

may be i should torn a legend but heavy fights occured around Dunkirk

yes Hitler decision to stop the PzDs won a lot of precious time for the brits (as well as the "stupid" claim of Goering that his planes alone can take care of the troops on the beach)
but fighting resumed as soon as it was clear that the troops were beginning to properly evacuate
fight were heavy
around 11 000 to 15 000 allied troops were killed (including a lot of french rear guard troops that have initiated a delay action) and the same number for the germans (some sources say up to 20 000 german soldiers but it is astonishly high for me ....)

PS : a ver ex stab was quicker than me .....


May I guess - these are some British sources?

How could 11,000 German soldiers be killed near Dunkirk alone if entire Fall Gelb: 10.05.1940 - 05.06.1940 (including combats in Belgium and the Netherlands, not just France) cost the Germans 10,252 dead, 8,463 missing and 42,523 wounded according to "Die Tatsachen in der Ubersicht, Zwei", July of 1940.

[L J]

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_13255005?nclick_check=1
Some points (from memory:the quote function does not work:oops: )
1)the author overlooked a very important point :the British decision in june 1940 to go on with the war; if Britain had accepted Hitlers'compromise peace offer' ,the war was over and Hitler had won .
2)I disagree with the following'the odds were all in favour of the Axis Powers in december 1941 ':the opposite is true :in september operation Barbarossa had failed and Typhoon (the desperate attempt by the Germans to win before the winter )failed end november .Every day the war between the US and Germany was nearing .
3)The author writes :'in 1944 the allies had the best tanks,artillery and aircraft ' I should like to see some proof:the Soviet tank and aircraft losses were much higher than the German ones ;were the US and British tanks,artillery and aircraft better than the Germans ?
4)About the allied generals beying 'most adept ' here also,I should like see some proof
5)The same for Churchill,Roosevelt and Stalin beying the best wartime leadership
Cheers

[matthew.manhorn]

Why do people think WW2 started at 1939 when Japan and Italy invaded China and Ethiopia during the early 30's?

[L J]

Why do people think WW2 started at 1939 when Japan and Italy invaded China and Ethiopia during the early 30's?
Because the invasion of Ethiopa was 'only 'a colonial war and the invasion of China was no WW .:)
Besides ww II did not start in 1939 :it was an European war,between European countries .

[matthew.manhorn]

Because the invasion of Ethiopa was 'only 'a colonial war and the invasion of China was no WW .:)
Besides ww II did not start in 1939 :it was an European war,between European countries .

The largest battles in WW2 occured in the Front Soviet Union and China. France and Poland didn't put up much of a fight against Germany while Britain was just an island away from the Eurasia continent.

[Ordie]

The Sino Japanese war merged into World War 2.

It was a bad situation for China. As soon as they finished fighting the warlords, the civil war with the Communist started, during which time the Japanese went on the offensive.

By the time Americans arrived, China was considered low priority and given enough to keep the Japanese busy and drain resources.

But this was not the case as the Japanese went on the offensive as late as 1944. With operation Ichigo.

The priority has been

1) Europe
2) Pacific
3) India-China-Burma

[L J]

Um, the "idea" of the Waffen-SS was to wrestle power from the old Reich and Weimar Rep. Army and build a parallel army strongly founded in the Nazi ideology. The Leadership knew that the Army was not politically reliable and would not tow the party line 100%; thus the Waffen-SS was formed which in time probably would have replaced the old army in many essential functions, domestic and in the "dominions".

There was nothing especially elite about it in general, that was only the selling point for the young people and to create a public reason for existence vis-a-vis the regular army.



Far from it. The goal was to build confidence, independent thought and competence in swift decisionmaking. The Auftragstaktik especially required officers to be the opposite of "machines".



It also was no prussian tradition, it was merely founded on principles of the prussian army command. But it was only fully developed following World War 1 which saw a shrink of the strategic unit from Corps and Divisions to Brigades and regiments.



Please stop taking your impressions on what life in the 3rd Reich was about out of pulp magazines. Do you know why the gas chambers were invented? Because the leadership, Mr Himmler at the forefront, were aware of the strong psychological toll the early mass killings had on the perpetrators, and the gas chambers were a way to reduce this burden on the personnel.

The Nazi ideology aimed at rerouting the culture into a faux traditionalism and strong national unity - in no way did this aim at turning the people into worker or soldier ants respectively. The German state, economically and militarily, was absolutely dependent on the creativity of its people. And even socially the 3rd Reich was a fountain of new ideas, with awesome films, music and other culture being created - of course framed by the strict code of conduct, but great pieces of art nonetheless. That aspect however was thoroughly suppressed following the Nazi era.



These two aspects have no connection.
About the idea that the Waffen SS were elite units and thus better than the 'ordinary ' divisions of the army :was this true ? And in which year ?
Did the waffen SS in 194O perform better ? Did they in 1941 ? And in 1942 ?.....Was the Leibstandarte better in 1944 than a PD of the army ?
Fundamentally:I have objections against the idea of elite units,in all armies there was a shortage of NCO and officers .And in the 'elite units ' men apt to serve as NCO were used as ordinary soldiers .

[Ordie]

About the idea that the Waffen SS were elite units and thus better than the 'ordinary ' divisions of the army :was this true ? And in which year ?
Did the waffen SS in 194O perform better ? Did they in 1941 ? And in 1942 ?.....Was the Leibstandarte better in 1944 than a PD of the army ?
Fundamentally:I have objections against the idea of elite units,in all armies there was a shortage of NCO and officers .And in the 'elite units ' men apt to serve as NCO were used as ordinary soldiers .

Despots throughout history usually relied upon a loyal Praetorian Guard to protect themselves from coup attempts from the regular military.

The SS, Iraqi Republican Guards, Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Saudi National Guard, Presidential Guards in African countries, Venzuelan National Militia, the Romanian Securitate were and are examples of modern day Praetorian Guards.

[Domen]

One more thing:


the 3rd Reich was a fountain of new ideas, with awesome films, music and other culture being created.

"Created" culture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-9M0TyXbUs



The largest battles in WW2 occured in the Front Soviet Union and China. France and Poland didn't put up much of a fight against Germany.


Well, intensivity of combats was much greater in Poland and France than in China. In Poland for example some 4-times greater if basing on the number of engagements fought on average per month and some 6-times greater if basing on casualties per each month of the conflict (on average).

The only difference is that the 2nd Sino-Japanese war lasted for 97 months and the Polish Campaign for 1 and 1/4 months.

Most of historians agree that combats in Poland and later in France were intensive in comparison with their time-frames and forces involved.

German memoirs also don't describe the campaign in Poland as a "Sunday walk" - inversely - most of German divisions had to fight hard in order to complete their tasks and encountered determined resistance. Considering what forces Poland had and what the USSR had, the campaign in the USSR was much easier.

The speed of advance of German forces in Poland / France / Balkans / Russia during the first stage of Fall Barbarossa only confirms this (in Poland this speed of advance was the slowest, despite heavy terrain conditions in Yugoslavia / Greece and very bad roads in Russia).