Hitler was a runner.#12 wrote:Yes he did... They say his experience with chemical weapons back then kept him from using then (at the front)
But forget the nazi thing for a moment...#12 wrote:Definitely... The guy was a madman drunk with power...
His generals were actually quite capable - but didn't dare to oppose him...
It's for the better though
#12 wrote:Oh yeah, I "skipped" that "executed" - it was in fact kind of a suicide...
I don't agree with you though Hardrade... He is still held in high regard in Germany - in fact he was against the plan to hold back tank units behind the front before the Allied landing in Normandy... They were of no use there later because of the blatant superiority of the Allies in air...
ramsej84 wrote:But forget the nazi thing for a moment...#12 wrote:Definitely... The guy was a madman drunk with power...
His generals were actually quite capable - but didn't dare to oppose him...
It's for the better though
Who knows what would have happened...
Churchill was a war criminal as much as Stalin Hitler and Roosevelt... and to certain extent the Jap leader (not sure if it was the Emperor in command)
There are many stories which confirm that he too was a fat bastard...
You may know what I am referring to.
Stalinno comments...
Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk
ramsej84 wrote:Imo had it been another one in charge or hitler left it in the hands if his generals today we would be studying a different outcome.
'It's called 'The Grasshopper something?'
'The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. That's a quote from the Bible.'
'And Japan is defeated because there's no Pearl Harbor. Listen. Japan would have won anyhow. Even if there had been no Pearl Harbor.'
'The U.S. fleet — in his book — keeps them from taking the Philippines and Australia.'
'They would have taken them anyhow; their fleet was superior. I know the Japanese fairly well, and it was their destiny to assume dominance in the Pacific. The U.S. was on the decline ever since World War One. Every country on the Allied side was mined in that war, morally and spiritually.'
With stubbornness, the girl said, 'And if the Germans hadn't taken Malta, Churchill would have stayed in power and guided England to victory.'
'How? Where?'
'In North Africa — Churchill would have defeated Rommel finally.'
Wyndam- Matson guffawed.
'And once the British had defeated Rommel, they could move their whole army back and up through Turkey to join remnants of Russian armies and make a stand-in the book, they halt the Germans' eastward advance into Russia at some town on the Volga. We never heard of this town,
but it really exists because I looked it up in the atlas.'
'What's it called?'
'Stalingrad. And the British turn the tide of the war, there. So, in the book, Rommel never would have linked up with those German armies that came down from Russia, von Paulus' armies; remember? And the Germans never would have been able to go on into the Middle East and get the
needed oil, or on into India like they did and link up with the Japanese. And — '
'No strategy on earth could have defeated Erwin Rommel,' Wyndam-Matson said. 'And no events like this guy dreamed up, this town in Russia very heroically called 'Stalingrad,' no holding action
could have done any more than delay the outcome; it couldn't have changed it.
ramsej84 wrote:what strikes me the most is that there is no sign of any collective memory about how evil the Red army and Stalin were... and also their war crimes...(which some were revealed not a long time ago) Why it seems that only the Germans were the evil? Maybe cause certain people were affected the most? Just asking...
Churchill too qualifies as a war criminal ... with all the refugees he sent back to stalin (Read Satan)
FCBayernMunchen wrote:ramsej84 wrote:Imo had it been another one in charge or hitler left it in the hands if his generals today we would be studying a different outcome.
Coincidentally I am currently reading The Man in the High Castle which is about an alternate history where the Axis won the war. There's also a series with the same name which I haven't yet watched.
In the book there's a book which describes an alternate history where the Allies win the war. It's similar but I think not entirely like the actual history.
Here's an extract, thought it might interest you'It's called 'The Grasshopper something?'
'The Grasshopper Lies Heavy. That's a quote from the Bible.'
'And Japan is defeated because there's no Pearl Harbor. Listen. Japan would have won anyhow. Even if there had been no Pearl Harbor.'
'The U.S. fleet — in his book — keeps them from taking the Philippines and Australia.'
'They would have taken them anyhow; their fleet was superior. I know the Japanese fairly well, and it was their destiny to assume dominance in the Pacific. The U.S. was on the decline ever since World War One. Every country on the Allied side was mined in that war, morally and spiritually.'
With stubbornness, the girl said, 'And if the Germans hadn't taken Malta, Churchill would have stayed in power and guided England to victory.'
'How? Where?'
'In North Africa — Churchill would have defeated Rommel finally.'
Wyndam- Matson guffawed.
'And once the British had defeated Rommel, they could move their whole army back and up through Turkey to join remnants of Russian armies and make a stand-in the book, they halt the Germans' eastward advance into Russia at some town on the Volga. We never heard of this town,
but it really exists because I looked it up in the atlas.'
'What's it called?'
'Stalingrad. And the British turn the tide of the war, there. So, in the book, Rommel never would have linked up with those German armies that came down from Russia, von Paulus' armies; remember? And the Germans never would have been able to go on into the Middle East and get the
needed oil, or on into India like they did and link up with the Japanese. And — '
'No strategy on earth could have defeated Erwin Rommel,' Wyndam-Matson said. 'And no events like this guy dreamed up, this town in Russia very heroically called 'Stalingrad,' no holding action
could have done any more than delay the outcome; it couldn't have changed it.
Hardrade wrote:Well, now we are kind of blurring the lines, aren't we? Shouldn't we establish a benchmark for what being a Nazi means in this context?
1) Being a member of the NSDAP?
2) Partaking in the war effort in any capacity? (bearing in mind that moral foundations of the war are deeply rooted in ideology!)
3) Supporting Hitler?
4) Being part of the regime in any capacity?
5) Supporting the idea of innate superiority of the german people?
6) Ordering, or carrying out commands that are directly inspired by Nazi ideology, but not instrumental for the war effort?
7) Assuming or maintaining a position of authority to carry out commands, or give orders that are in favour of securing victory of Nazi Germany, therefore providing a geopolitical platform for enforcing its ideology?
8.) And finaly, conspiring or planning to put Nazi ideology to practice?
...
If we take Heydrich for example, he fits the list perfectly. Rommel obviously does not fit into some of these categories, but he stands firm in the others. Which ones are more crucial? It's hard to tell, frankly.
I understand that there is a need to be favorable and apologetic to Rommel. It was a particulary dark period of european history and there is a sense of guilt that still lingers on, therefore a different figure is needed, one that was influential and that opposed the horrific nature of those times. Rommel was a good candidate because he did, on occasions, openly defy Hitler, the evil figure.
ramsej84 wrote:what are your views on Goering ? I am really liking this mature conversation.
FCBayernMunchen wrote:Yeah, I thought Stalingrad didn't have Brits involved.
To my knowledge the Malta and North African campaign part is accurate though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests