Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+19
higurashihougi
Walther von Oldenburg
JohninMK
jhelb
Sujoy
kvs
Finty
LMFS
The-thing-next-door
magnumcromagnon
Isos
limb
flamming_python
AlfaT8
Regular
TR1
KomissarBojanchev
GarryB
BTRfan
23 posters

    WW II discussion

    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 25/04/13, 03:42 pm

    The West German government set up the Maschke Commission to investigate the fate of German POW in the war, in its report of 1974 they found that about 1.2 million German military personnel reported as missing more than likely died as POW, including 1.1 million in the USSR[17] The German historian Rüdiger Overmans puts the number of German POWs dead in the Soviet captivity at 1.0 million. Based on his research Overmans believes that the deaths of 363,000 dead POW in Soviet captivity can be confirmed be the files of Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt), he maintains that it seems entirely plausible, while not provable, that 700,000 German military personnel listed with the missing actually died in Soviet custody.[3][18]

    According to the section of the German Red Cross dealing with tracing the captives, 1,300,000 German military personnel are still officially listed as missing, most are believed to have died as POW.[19][20]




    The official figures agreed upon by Soviet officials declare that approximately 14% of all German prisoners died in Soviet captivity. The German estimates are closer to 30-35% but at some point we're just arguing over numbers. It isn't better either way because 14% is unacceptable, 30-30% is certainly unacceptable. They were either neglected or actively left to rot.

    The Soviet death rate in Germany's camps, around 60%, would strongly point to either massive neglect or inability to provide basic care, or deliberate extermination.


    It isn't a game of "we suffered more than you" or "no we suffered the most!"

    War is miserable, everybody suffers, and the most the poor conscripted farmer can hope for is to survive and return to his farm [which he hopes is still there]. Virtually nobody gains in a war except those who are advancing an agenda or producing/selling weapons.

    One wrong doesn't make a right. I don't want civilization to wind up in a game of "you hit us, we hit you" or "you poked my cousin, so I'll poke your cousin."



    Last edited by BTRfan on 25/04/13, 03:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 25/04/13, 03:44 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    The Germans DID wipe out pretty much all of Polish Jewry during Operation Reinhard in 42-43.




    There are today no less than 1.3 million Polish Jews in Israel, which begs a simple question, where did they come from?

    If Polish Jewry was "pretty much all wiped out" in 1942-1943, how did 1.3 million Polish Jews make it to Palestine/Israel?
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  TR1 25/04/13, 03:51 pm

    There were 3.5 Jews in Poland pre-war.
    Somewhere around 100,000 survived.....

    Regarding prisoners, the difference we once again come to, is German prisoners generally died in Soviet POW camps when their medical conditions were terrible combined with spartan camp conditions + lack of supplies to splurge on POWs. The number of Prisoners shot out of hand, was miniscule to how many the Germans shot.
    Not to mention there was absolutely NO equivalent in the USSR to the utterly bare, barbed wire fields in which hundreds of thousands Soviet POWs died, or the Holocaust camps that thousands of POWs died or were experimented on.

    I utterly reject any comparison between POW treatment on the respective sides.
    It is Nazi apologizing at its best.
    The Germans came into the East with the goal of total war and almost total annihilation of the people living there.
    If the USSR was anything like the Germans in WW2, the population in Occupied Germany would have been utterly depleted.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 25/04/13, 04:38 pm

    TR1 wrote:There were 3.5 Jews in Poland pre-war.
    Somewhere around 100,000 survived.....

    Regarding prisoners, the difference we once again come to, is German prisoners generally died in Soviet POW camps when their medical conditions were terrible combined with spartan camp conditions + lack of supplies to splurge on POWs. The number of Prisoners shot out of hand, was miniscule to how many the Germans shot.
    Not to mention there was absolutely NO equivalent in the USSR to the utterly bare, barbed wire fields in which hundreds of thousands Soviet POWs died, or the Holocaust camps that thousands of POWs died or were experimented on.

    I utterly reject any comparison between POW treatment on the respective sides.
    It is Nazi apologizing at its best.
    The Germans came into the East with the goal of total war and almost total annihilation of the people living there.
    If the USSR was anything like the Germans in WW2, the population in Occupied Germany would have been utterly depleted.



    Actually there were about 3 million Jews in Poland and a great many retreated East as the Red Army fell back in 1941.

    Somehow over 1.5 million Polish Jews wound up in Palestine/Israel.


    In the years following WW2, no less than 500,000, and as many 2,000,000 ethnic Germans, were killed during the mass expulsion of nearly 14-15 million ethnic Germans from East Bloc nations.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31030
    Points : 31558
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  GarryB 26/04/13, 02:47 am

    Nobody except Germany had nerve agents at the time. Germany was the only nation to develop nerve agents before/during WW2. Although Germany didn't know that at the time.

    Nerve agents are like any chemical weapon... if you can't deliver it in high enough concentrations quickly it is never as effective and you might think.

    The problem for Germany is that while their nerve agents were potent they simply didn't have the capacity (ie air power) to deliver it in volume, while the Allies had plenty of capacity to deliver it to anywhere in Germany at any time they wanted. It might have only been mustard gas, but it would be far more lethal because they had plenty of it and the capacity to deliver it. Even the Soviets would have been able to deliver dangerous levels of biological warfare agents that would have had a crippling effect on Germany if they had chosen to use them.


    Almost 60% of the Italians who were captured by the Soviets wound up dead.

    Probably couldn't deal with the cold.

    Well they could have pulled back to eliminate Kursk salient by simply falling back and shortening their lines, so there would no longer be a salient jutting into their lines because their lines would have fallen back.

    A straightened line was the payoff, the goal was a victory in the East to turn the "tide", and regain momentum.

    In the eyes of most Americans [and many people anywhere] that would make me a traitor, but I don't believe in the present American system or the way America operates. To serve the present America would mean I'd have to betray my own convictions. If a man stays true to his own convictions then he cannot be a traitor.

    When the Germans entered the Soviet Union a lot of people saw them as liberators from the cruel stalin, but the actions of the German soldiers soon made any chance of a large scale "revolution" against the Soviets very unlikely.

    but sometimes propaganda from west and east just makes me sick.

    I tend to find the US propaganda to be worse, because the Americans have such high ideals and apply those high ideals to everyone they want to criticise, yet they never hold their own actions up to those fine ideals. If you just listen to the words the US sounds like a very good idea, but when you look at its actions, you realise the American Dream is not actually possible for those of us who are awake... cry


    I have much respect and admiration for Russia and the Russian people, but for the Soviet Union and the Soviet system, no.

    That is why I like Putin... he seems to be the most honest politician I know.

    However, on the same token, I believe that the photographs from the camps, with bodies of skeleton thin jews piled up, is not indicative of a German plot to destroy the Jews but is simply indicative of the fact that Germany's supply network completely broke down. Their entire logistics system collapsed after years of relentless Allied bombing.

    There is no question that the death camps were indeed death camps. Their purpose was the "processing of humans" for converting live people into dead people. They were not specifically designed for Jews, but it was Jewish prisoners that were sent there.

    If Germany wanted to obliterate the Jews they would have done it in 1941-1942, it would have been over and done by 1943. They wouldn't have millions in the camps, especially children too young to work, in 1945.

    In 41-42 they thought they had more time.

    Germany did not military lose in the First World War, it did not start the war, and it deserved better than Versailles.

    The main reason for the good relationship between Germany and the Soviet Union before 1933 was because in effect both countries lost WWI, and as you say, Britain and France had as much to do with the start of WWI as Germany did.

    In the years following WW2, no less than 500,000, and as many 2,000,000 ethnic Germans, were killed during the mass expulsion of nearly 14-15 million ethnic Germans from East Bloc nations.

    So.

    Germany started a war of conquest to capture and take possession of land to its east. The Soviets fought a war of defence... are you going to criticise the Soviets for continuing beyond their own borders and fighting all the way to Germany. Over a million Soviet soldiers gave their lives to defeat Germany in foreign countries... the Soviet Union had been liberated and so those Soviet soldiers weren't killed fighting for their motherland, they were fighting for other countries.

    If Germans wanted better treatment then they should have surrendered sooner. If they wanted better treatment then they should have treated the Soviet people and Soviet soldiers with respect. At the end of the day they deserved far worse than they got.

    Regarding the Holocaust, it certainly happened... I don't agree with the figures... 6 million seems like a very round number and some very dodgy maths to back it up, but at the end of the day the Germans did attempt to exterminate the Jews... and the Homosexuals, the communists, the physically and mentally disabled, the Gypsies, and lots of other groups they didn't approve of. Today we hear about the Jews but not the others who suffered... 27 million Soviets for instance.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2432
    Points : 2416
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  Regular 26/04/13, 04:35 am

    Well in Soviet army itself some people died because of illness and disease, injuries and other causes. Sometimes there was lack of food and conditions were bad. And I'm not surprised that it wasn't easy for POWs in Soviet Union. It would be outrage to treat them better than Your own soldiers.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2432
    Points : 2416
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  Regular 26/04/13, 04:38 am

    I can't believe that we are arguing about Holocaust in Russian forum (!!!). I wonder what veteran Russians jews would say about it.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 06:38 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Germany started a war of conquest to capture and take possession of land to its east. The Soviets fought a war of defence... are you going to criticise the Soviets for continuing beyond their own borders and fighting all the way to Germany. Over a million Soviet soldiers gave their lives to defeat Germany in foreign countries... the Soviet Union had been liberated and so those Soviet soldiers weren't killed fighting for their motherland, they were fighting for other countries.




    Hitler said that the violations of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact made war inevitable, particularly the NKVD helping the British and Americans instigate an anti-German coup in Belgrade.


    There was also the Soviet annexation of Bukovina from Romania, which was not covered in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and which Germany saw as a crass betrayal of the pact.

    Molotov had also demanded the right to send a Soviet garrison to Bulgaria and to establish Soviet bases on the Dardenelles.



    I don't think Germany had started to plan for a war with the Soviet Union until early-mid 1941. Almost everything they did was ad hoc. They had no organizations ready to administer occupied areas, they didn't form armies of exiles, they didn't cultivate exiles to form groups to govern or administer occupied areas, they didn't do anything consistent with planning for invasion and conquest/administration of occupied areas. I think the coup in Yugoslavia was what set in motion a wave of "panic" and they made some quick plans, what they thought would work.


    If the talks with Germany to join the Axis had proved successful in late 1940 things would have been very different.


    The massive Soviet losses suffered in the first months of the war in June, July, and August of 1941 did not occur because of cowardice, or poor fighting ability, or lack of rifles, or lack of tanks, or because the Soviet soldiers would not stand and fight. The losses were due to the deployment of the Soviet forces, they were arrayed almost entirely along the border with Germany in their final "jumping off" points for a mass invasion sometime in July-August, and they had no depth for defense. The Germans were able to concentrate in several key areas, blast holes through the Soviet lines, and rapidly encircle enormous numbers of men.




    By May of 1941 I believe both Stalin and Hitler wanted war and both knew it was just a matter of time until war was coming and it was going to be a matter of who struck first. The chance for diplomatic cooperation had passed.

    If Germany had waited and waited and waited, we'd be reading about how the Soviet offensive into Poland began in August 1941.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 06:51 am

    Regular wrote:I can't believe that we are arguing about Holocaust in Russian forum (!!!). I wonder what veteran Russians jews would say about it.


    I can just about guarantee you that almost nobody in America knows a thing about the suffering, misery, and death of millions of Russian, Ukrainian, and other Soviet soldiers between 1941-1945, or what happened with the Serbs at the hands of the Axis [primarily the Croats], or what happened to the Armenians because of the Ottoman Turks just before and during WW1.

    Jews have a monopoly on suffering, real or imagined, and all Americans see are movies about them being butchered.

    The Jews also made dozens of "holocaust porn" movies in the 1970s where concentration camp inmates have sex orgies with the SS guards.





    I could never in my life imagine a Russian making a porn video about a gulag director having orgies with the females [and males] of the gulag. Even if somebody were creepy enough to make such a movie, they would have to realize it wouldn't earn a single ruble, certainly not enough to pay for the cost to produce it... But the Jews have produced dozens of holocaust pornography videos.

    I once made the point, "if your ancestors, your parents and grandparents, your aunts and uncles, really did suffer in camps, how on Earth could you ever bring yourself to exploit their suffering by making a pornographic movie about concentration camps and SS guards?"





    I'd wager less than 1% of Americans have heard of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, much less what he actually wrote about... Perhaps 5% have a vague idea what is meant by the term "gulag" although few know the name of Kolyma. Few know about the "Red Terror" carried out by the Cheka... That's another word "cheka" that if you use, most Americans will think you're talking about a bank cheque, "cheka, you mean a cheque, they don't take cheques in that store."


    Americans have a very narrow and shallow grasp of history... All they really "know" about WW2 is that Japan attacked America *without* provocation [they don't know about American involvement/interference in the Pacific and in China, or American economic warfare against Japan, or the embargoes on Japan, or "neutrality patrols" with gunships on the rivers of China, or the armaments shipped to China, or allowing American "volunteers" and mercenaries to go to China] and that Hitler wanted to take over the world and that the Germans, Italians, and Japanese were absolutely evil and the Americans and British were absolutely good. The Russians/Soviets were good until 1945 and then they immediately switched to absolutely evil. Oh, and Anne Frank was murdered by the Germans.


    That's about what most Americans know about WW2 and the immediate aftermath.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 06:58 am

    Here's an article by American Nationalist/Conservative leader Patrick Buchanan... Please try to excuse his use of the word "hordes" when talking about the Red Army. Keep in mind, he's an American Nationalist, not a Russian Nationalist. I am sure some Russian leaders have used less than friendly language to describe Americans.

    Also Buchanan makes an exaggeration when he says that Germany had "no surface fleet" since they technically had about 2 dozen surface warships... However, they only had 2 battlecruisers [Scharnhorst and Gneisenau], the heavy cruser Admiral Hipper, and the pocket-battleships/heavy cruisers Deutschland, Admiral Scheer, and Graf Spee, two or three light cruisers, and about a dozen or so destroyers. Strictly speaking, it was not much of a surface fleet and the entire German surface fleet would not have been able to withstand a day's combat against a single American carrier-battle group or a British battleship-group.


    The classic British-American line is "Hitler was planning a war from day one, anybody who read Mein Kampf would know this." Well I've read Mein Kampf and I don't know that, because it isn't in there and his actions from 1933-1936 are not consistent with somebody planning a massive war with the world's greatest powers. If Hitler had been planning a war he would have started laying the ground work for a massive surface fleet in 1933 to prepare to challenge Britain... Even if he were not willing to tip his hand and do something as provocative as laying the hulls for a dozen battleships, he would have expanded the capacity of the shipyards so that many capital ships could be built simultaneously. It takes anywhere from 2-4 years from the day you say "lay the hull" and the hull is laid, to the time the ship is commissioned into the navy, for a battleship. If Hitler figured he wanted a war in the near future, he would have expanded the shipyards between 1933-1935 and started producing large numbers of capital ships no later than 1935-1936.

    The total lack of four engine heavy bombers, or really any sort of heavy bombers, also suggests that there was no longer-term plan for a war.

    Germany entered the war with only five panzer divisions and less than 20% of their infantry formations were motorized or mechanized, most marched on foot and their supply trains were moved by horse.

    If Germany had been planning a war, they might have thought about switching from civilian car production and tractor production, to military truck, military half-track, and tank production, around 1934-1936, and producing enough vehicles to motorize at least half or more of their armed forces.


    Britain on the other hand wound up with a fully motorized army by 1940! Yes, that's right! Every British infantry formation was motorized or mechanized. They motorized all of their formations during the 1930s! It was almost as if Britain was planning for a war or counting on war!



    http://buchanan.org/blog/did-hitler-want-war-2068



    On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier. On Sept. 3, Britain declared war.

    Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished. Britain was broken and bankrupt, Germany a smoldering ruin. Europe had served as the site of the most murderous combat known to man, and civilians had suffered worse horrors than the soldiers.

    By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe: Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Berlin. A hundred million Christians were under the heel of the most barbarous tyranny in history: the Bolshevik regime of the greatest terrorist of them all, Joseph Stalin.

    What cause could justify such sacrifices?

    The German-Polish war had come out of a quarrel over a town the size of Ocean City, Md., in summer. Danzig, 95 percent German, had been severed from Germany at Versailles in violation of Woodrow Wilson’s principle of self-determination. Even British leaders thought Danzig should be returned.

    Why did Warsaw not negotiate with Berlin, which was hinting at an offer of compensatory territory in Slovakia? Because the Poles had a war guarantee from Britain that, should Germany attack, Britain and her empire would come to Poland’s rescue.

    But why would Britain hand an unsolicited war guarantee to a junta of Polish colonels, giving them the power to drag Britain into a second war with the most powerful nation in Europe?

    Was Danzig worth a war? Unlike the 7 million Hong Kongese whom the British surrendered to Beijing, who didn’t want to go, the Danzigers were clamoring to return to Germany.

    Comes the response: The war guarantee was not about Danzig, or even about Poland. It was about the moral and strategic imperative “to stop Hitler” after he showed, by tearing up the Munich pact and Czechoslovakia with it, that he was out to conquer the world. And this Nazi beast could not be allowed to do that.

    If true, a fair point. Americans, after all, were prepared to use atom bombs to keep the Red Army from the Channel. But where is the evidence that Adolf Hitler, whose victims as of March 1939 were a fraction of Gen. Pinochet’s, or Fidel Castro’s, was out to conquer the world?

    After Munich in 1938, Czechoslovakia did indeed crumble and come apart. Yet consider what became of its parts.

    The Sudeten Germans were returned to German rule, as they wished. Poland had annexed the tiny disputed region of Teschen, where thousands of Poles lived. Hungary’s ancestral lands in the south of Slovakia had been returned to her. The Slovaks had their full independence guaranteed by Germany. As for the Czechs, they came to Berlin for the same deal as the Slovaks, but Hitler insisted they accept a protectorate.

    Now one may despise what was done, but how did this partition of Czechoslovakia manifest a Hitlerian drive for world conquest?

    Comes the reply: If Britain had not given the war guarantee and gone to war, after Czechoslovakia would have come Poland’s turn, then Russia’s, then France’s, then Britain’s, then the United States.

    We would all be speaking German now.

    But if Hitler was out to conquer the world — Britain, Africa, the Middle East, the United States, Canada, South America, India, Asia, Australia — why did he spend three years building that hugely expensive Siegfried Line to protect Germany from France? Why did he start the war with no surface fleet, no troop transports and only 29 oceangoing submarines? How do you conquer the world with a navy that can’t get out of the Baltic Sea?

    If Hitler wanted the world, why did he not build strategic bombers, instead of two-engine Dorniers and Heinkels that could not even reach Britain from Germany?

    Why did he let the British army go at Dunkirk?

    Why did he offer the British peace, twice, after Poland fell, and again after France fell?

    Why, when Paris fell, did Hitler not demand the French fleet, as the Allies demanded and got the Kaiser’s fleet? Why did he not demand bases in French-controlled Syria to attack Suez? Why did he beg Benito Mussolini not to attack Greece?

    Because Hitler wanted to end the war in 1940, almost two years before the trains began to roll to the camps.

    Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.

    Indeed, why would he want war when, by 1939, he was surrounded by allied, friendly or neutral neighbors, save France. And he had written off Alsace, because reconquering Alsace meant war with France, and that meant war with Britain, whose empire he admired and whom he had always sought as an ally.

    As of March 1939, Hitler did not even have a border with Russia. How then could he invade Russia?

    Winston Churchill was right when he called it “The Unnecessary War” — the war that may yet prove the mortal blow to our civilization.
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2089
    Points : 2084
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 26/04/13, 08:11 am

    OK, now i am getting pissed, can somebody move this discussion to "USSR military history" already, cause if i recall this thread is about Western Propaganda. Mad Mad
    https://www.russiadefence.net/f55-ussr-military-history

    ___
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  TR1 26/04/13, 11:27 am

    This thread has turned into silly borderline Holocaust denial and German apologism.
    Also it runs contrary completely to actually accredited history, where Hitler's intentions in the east were well known from the start.
    Yes, Hitler wanted war, good grief....that article is absolutely terrible.

    By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe:

    What a BULLSHIT premise....rehabilitating the Germans while ragging on the USSR. Mind you, this is inline with some right wingers who try to paint Christian Germany as a defender against teh Eastern subhumans.

    You won't get many people wanting to debate this because quite frankly reading any decent history book already does that, and this is a military, not "alternative history BS" forum.

    By the way, the guy whos article you posted:

    "He believes that Darwinism is a "disastrous theory," calling it faith instead of science.[50] He endorses the concept of intelligent design, and argues that regardless of the science behind creation, this process "implies the existence of a lawmaker"

    hahahaha.....yeah, shows his mindset well.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 11:42 am

    TR1 wrote:This thread has turned into silly borderline Holocaust denial and German apologism.
    Also it runs contrary completely to actually accredited history, where Hitler's intentions in the east were well known from the start.
    Yes, Hitler wanted war, good grief....that article is absolutely terrible.

    By May 1945, Red Army hordes occupied all the great capitals of Central Europe:

    What a BULLSHIT premise....rehabilitating the Germans while ragging on the USSR. Mind you, this is inline with some right wingers who try to paint Christian Germany as a defender against teh Eastern subhumans.

    You won't get many people wanting to debate this because quite frankly reading any decent history book already does that, and this is a military, not "alternative history BS" forum.

    By the way, the guy whos article you posted:

    "He believes that Darwinism is a "disastrous theory," calling it faith instead of science.[50] He endorses the concept of intelligent design, and argues that regardless of the science behind creation, this process "implies the existence of a lawmaker"

    hahahaha.....yeah, shows his mindset well.


    The fruits of Darwinism can be found in communism, atheism, and humanism. Darwinism was a key component to Marxian Materialism.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  TR1 26/04/13, 11:43 am

    It is also has a scientific basis far more valid than the hilariously silly theory of Creationism.
    As does, I would argue, atheism, but that's a whooole nother argument.

    Free advice: disregard anything Buchanan has to say on the matter of world war 2.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  TR1 26/04/13, 11:47 am

    "Germany did not military lose in the First World War, it did not start the war, and it deserved better than Versailles."

    Also, I am sorry but this needs to be addressed. Without putting unnecessary blame on the Germans, we also should not excuse them in totality.
    1.) Germany turned what was a local Balkan war between Russia and Austria, into a European one. Then the French and British turned it into a fully European one. Everyone shares blame here.
    2.) Germany was on the verge of total defeat. Hunderberg and Ludendorf knew this. After their last offensives failed, they were done. Because they did not have the stomach to admit this publicly, we got the silly stab in the back legend that Hitler exploited.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 12:13 pm

    TR1 wrote:It is also has a scientific basis far more valid than the hilariously silly theory of Creationism.
    As does, I would argue, atheism, but that's a whooole nother argument.

    Free advice: disregard anything Buchanan has to say on the matter of world war 2.


    Until earlier today you didn't even know anything about Buchanan...

    He ran for president in the USA and received almost 3 million votes in the Republican Primary in 1992. He ran as a third party candidate in 2000 and received almost 500,000 votes [it is generally agreed that his selection of a black woman as his VP candidate cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, not that he was going to win, but he could have managed 2-4 million votes if he had picked a white male].

    Anyway, he's not some random crackpot that came out of the woodwork.


    He's a respected author and columnist.

    Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 12:15 pm

    TR1 wrote:"Germany did not military lose in the First World War, it did not start the war, and it deserved better than Versailles."

    Also, I am sorry but this needs to be addressed. Without putting unnecessary blame on the Germans, we also should not excuse them in totality.
    1.) Germany turned what was a local Balkan war between Russia and Austria, into a European one. Then the French and British turned it into a fully European one. Everyone shares blame here.
    2.) Germany was on the verge of total defeat. Hunderberg and Ludendorf knew this. After their last offensives failed, they were done. Because they did not have the stomach to admit this publicly, we got the silly stab in the back legend that Hitler exploited.


    Once Russia ordered full/general mobilization it was a defacto declaration of war on Germany. Germany could not afford to sit back and HOPE that the Russian soldiers were only mobilizing to put pressure on Austria to negotiate.


    If Russia had been willing to wait even 8-12 weeks, it might have been enough to allow diplomacy to start to work. I blame the bad advisers and sycophants who surrounded the Tsar and only cared about their own positions and their own agenda.


    When you are Germany and Russia starts to mobilize, you have to go to war or else you get clobbered once Russia is able to bring its full might to bear.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  TR1 26/04/13, 01:45 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    TR1 wrote:It is also has a scientific basis far more valid than the hilariously silly theory of Creationism.
    As does, I would argue, atheism, but that's a whooole nother argument.

    Free advice: disregard anything Buchanan has to say on the matter of world war 2.


    Until earlier today you didn't even know anything about Buchanan...

    He ran for president in the USA and received almost 3 million votes in the Republican Primary in 1992. He ran as a third party candidate in 2000 and received almost 500,000 votes [it is generally agreed that his selection of a black woman as his VP candidate cost him hundreds of thousands of votes, not that he was going to win, but he could have managed 2-4 million votes if he had picked a white male].

    Anyway, he's not some random crackpot that came out of the woodwork.


    He's a respected author and columnist.

    Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill,_Hitler_and_the_Unnecessary_War

    I knew about Buchanan, just not his BS world war 2 views. However, given his political views it fits in perfectly.
    And no one takes his historical views seriously, wonder why.

    Getting votes in a US election is not proof of being sensical.
    TR1
    TR1

    Posts : 5552
    Points : 5560
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  TR1 26/04/13, 01:49 pm

    BTRfan wrote:
    TR1 wrote:"Germany did not military lose in the First World War, it did not start the war, and it deserved better than Versailles."

    Also, I am sorry but this needs to be addressed. Without putting unnecessary blame on the Germans, we also should not excuse them in totality.
    1.) Germany turned what was a local Balkan war between Russia and Austria, into a European one. Then the French and British turned it into a fully European one. Everyone shares blame here.
    2.) Germany was on the verge of total defeat. Hunderberg and Ludendorf knew this. After their last offensives failed, they were done. Because they did not have the stomach to admit this publicly, we got the silly stab in the back legend that Hitler exploited.


    Once Russia ordered full/general mobilization it was a defacto declaration of war on Germany. Germany could not afford to sit back and HOPE that the Russian soldiers were only mobilizing to put pressure on Austria to negotiate.


    If Russia had been willing to wait even 8-12 weeks, it might have been enough to allow diplomacy to start to work. I blame the bad advisers and sycophants who surrounded the Tsar and only cared about their own positions and their own agenda.


    When you are Germany and Russia starts to mobilize, you have to go to war or else you get clobbered once Russia is able to bring its full might to bear.

    Russian troops moved towards Austria only, and the Tsar specifically contacted the Kaiser and told him he had no intentions towards Germany.
    Germany's mobilization is not "unique", but a product of its time...however by no means were they "forced at gunpoint" to mobilize.

    Stop excusing Germany. They did not start WW1, but they are responsible for their own fate after they declared war and invaded the West. If Russia had waited 8-12 weeks, Serbia would have been crushed. The whole point of the mobilization was to deter AUstria from invading Serbia.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 02:44 pm

    TR1 wrote:
    BTRfan wrote:
    TR1 wrote:"Germany did not military lose in the First World War, it did not start the war, and it deserved better than Versailles."

    Also, I am sorry but this needs to be addressed. Without putting unnecessary blame on the Germans, we also should not excuse them in totality.
    1.) Germany turned what was a local Balkan war between Russia and Austria, into a European one. Then the French and British turned it into a fully European one. Everyone shares blame here.
    2.) Germany was on the verge of total defeat. Hunderberg and Ludendorf knew this. After their last offensives failed, they were done. Because they did not have the stomach to admit this publicly, we got the silly stab in the back legend that Hitler exploited.


    Once Russia ordered full/general mobilization it was a defacto declaration of war on Germany. Germany could not afford to sit back and HOPE that the Russian soldiers were only mobilizing to put pressure on Austria to negotiate.


    If Russia had been willing to wait even 8-12 weeks, it might have been enough to allow diplomacy to start to work. I blame the bad advisers and sycophants who surrounded the Tsar and only cared about their own positions and their own agenda.


    When you are Germany and Russia starts to mobilize, you have to go to war or else you get clobbered once Russia is able to bring its full might to bear.

    Russian troops moved towards Austria only, and the Tsar specifically contacted the Kaiser and told him he had no intentions towards Germany.
    Germany's mobilization is not "unique", but a product of its time...however by no means were they "forced at gunpoint" to mobilize.

    Stop excusing Germany. They did not start WW1, but they are responsible for their own fate after they declared war and invaded the West. If Russia had waited 8-12 weeks, Serbia would have been crushed. The whole point of the mobilization was to deter AUstria from invading Serbia.



    But Germany's position was already tenuous at best. If they didn't support Austria they would have been without any allies in Europe, with France to the west, Russia to the east, an outraged Austria to the south, and of course Britain could never be counted on to do anything other than side against Germany.


    I prefer what Hitler suggested in Mein Kampf. Germany should have allied with Russia AGAINST Austria-Hungary because Austria-Hungary was an unworthy ally that dragged Germany into a quagmire without regard for Germany's interests.

    Hitler made it clear, [paraphrase] "if the Great War had begun with a blow struck against Germany, there can be no doubt that the Hapsburgs would have failed to honor their obligations to Germany. The only reason Austria stood by Germany and stuck with the Central Powers was because the Great War began with the death of the Austrian Archduke."

    Hitler thought that Austria-Hungary, under the Hapsburgs, was leading the German element of that artificial union to ruin and it would have been preferrable for Germany to ally with Russia. Russia would receive the Eastern European portions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire [Lemberg/Lvov, surrounding lands], Germany would annex the German portion of Austria, and the rest of the Hapsburgs lands [Hungary, etc] would go their own ways.

    It is clearly spelled out in MK. Hitler had nothing but contempt for the Hapsburgs and he thought that an alliance with Russia should have been pursued by Germany in the late 1800s and early 1900s and that Russia would have been a more valuable and more honorable ally than Austria-Hungary which was [in his view] just a burden on Germany and a nation ready to abandon Germany as soon as it suited them.
    avatar
    BTRfan

    Posts : 373
    Points : 407
    Join date : 2010-09-30
    Location : USA

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  BTRfan 26/04/13, 02:52 pm

    TR1 wrote:

    Russian troops moved towards Austria only, and the Tsar specifically contacted the Kaiser and told him he had no intentions towards Germany.
    Germany's mobilization is not "unique", but a product of its time...however by no means were they "forced at gunpoint" to mobilize.

    Stop excusing Germany. They did not start WW1, but they are responsible for their own fate after they declared war and invaded the West. If Russia had waited 8-12 weeks, Serbia would have been crushed. The whole point of the mobilization was to deter AUstria from invading Serbia.


    Indeed I don't doubt that... But could the Kaiser afford to take the chance that everything would stay the same, that nothing would change? If you are the leader of a nation and the most numerous army in the world is mobilizing to full strength and they assure you, it is only going to be used against another nation, one that borders both your nation and their nation, but not against you, can you afford to take the chance? Would the Kaiser have been doing his duty to his people if he put blind faith in the words of the Tsar and took that chance?


    I believe the Tsar was an honorable man whose word could be trusted, but did the Kaiser know that, did the Kaiser believe that? Did the Kaiser wonder, "what happens if things start to change? He says they are mobilizing against Austria and only Austria, but what if things start to change, will he use the troops he has mobilized against Austria, against Germany?"



    Incidentally, Austria was unable to deal any sort of decisive blow against Serbia. Even without Russian mobilization, Austria would have been hard-pressed to crush Serbia because Austria-Hungary was a paper tiger.

    It wasn't until late 1915 when the Bulgarians threw their forces into the conflict that the Serb position really became precarious and then started to collapse.
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2432
    Points : 2416
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  Regular 26/04/13, 03:20 pm

    Sorry to interfere, but we should rather end this discussion here, lets us stay with our opinions and respect each other. I don't like where it's going :/
    AlfaT8
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 2089
    Points : 2084
    Join date : 2013-02-01

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  AlfaT8 26/04/13, 03:39 pm

    Regular wrote:Sorry to interfere, but we should rather end this discussion here, lets us stay with our opinions and respect each other. I don't like where it's going :/
    Or at least move this discussion to its proper place. Mad
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4987
    Points : 5067
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  flamming_python 08/05/13, 08:31 am

    TR1 wrote:"Germany did not military lose in the First World War, it did not start the war, and it deserved better than Versailles."

    Also, I am sorry but this needs to be addressed. Without putting unnecessary blame on the Germans, we also should not excuse them in totality.
    1.) Germany turned what was a local Balkan war between Russia and Austria, into a European one. Then the French and British turned it into a fully European one. Everyone shares blame here.

    I'll also add that although the situation that occurred in August 1914 that led to the outbreak of WW1 was of course the precise consequence of the network of alliances and obligations in place at the time, the (wrong) reactions of the individual leaders and diplomats of involved countries to a very quickly developing situation, and the actions of a certain group of Yugoslav extremists who assassinated the crown-prince of Austria-Hungary.

    But without taking away from the role that individuals played in these events; nonetheless it has to be seen in a wider context:
    If more was done in those crucial few days then war could have been averted (and there were some serious efforts particularly on the part of Germany to convince Britain not to fulfill its obligations towards guaranteeing Belgian neutrality).
    - If Austria didn't purposely set unrealistic demands on Serbia (all but one of which were accepted by the Serbians)
    - If Germany agreed to Belgian neutrality or Britain agreed to be neutral themselves
    - If Russia wasn't so resolutely backing an increasingly assertive Serbia in the Balkans against Austrian encroachment there
    - If France had agreed to Germany's ultimatum to stay neutral

    But more wasn't done, and war wasn't averted - because for just about everyone; war with one or two of the parties involved - while not necessarily seen as desirable - was nonetheless seen as a means by which to solve certain problems and a jingonistic, pro-war atmosphere quickly took hold over Europe.
    - Britain depended on its fleet for security; its army paled in comparison to Germany's - thus Germany's rapid industrialisation and military shipbuilding which led to the German fleet being radically expanded since the start of the 20th century - was seen as a serious threat by the British
    - Austria-Hungary was an anachronism, a failing empire with a 40-50% Slavic population who by and large were discontent with the Hapsburg's rule over them, it's continuing imperial encroachment in the Balkans made conflict with Serbia and various Yugoslav extremists desirable and inevitable, and naturally made antagonism between Austria-Hungary and Russia inevitable too
    - Bismark was said to be wary about the potential of Russia to become an industrial/military 'collosus' in Europe that would be able to crush Germany, and while German-Russian relations were by no means bad during Bismark's times or later, many of these same old fears and paranoias lay below the surface and there was a certain motive to check Russia's power by 1914 before it became too powerful and back various independence movements in its Western territories
    - France was interested in regaining Alscase-Loraine which it lost to Germany some decades earlier; it's motives for war were very clear-cut in this sense, and was repocriated by the Germans as French-German antagonism had never ebbed down and both nations were diplomatically engaged in trying to isolate each other in the decades leading up to WW1
    - Italy, while neutral at the outbreak of hostilities, was interested in profiting off the war territorially and otherwise and was willing to enter the war on the side of the highest bidder (which turned out to be the Triple Entente)



    Last edited by flamming_python on 09/05/13, 05:51 am; edited 2 times in total
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4987
    Points : 5067
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  flamming_python 08/05/13, 08:37 am

    As to what concerns Germany

    Well no-one's excusing them - it's perfectly clear that they were stirring the pot just as much as everybody else.

    But what's also clear is that they were the only ones blamed for it, and in fact for everything; with all the war-guilt and reparations that drained their economy and everything else. They were given very humiliating and harsh peace terms in 1918 (albeit the terms that Germany themselves gave to the Bolsheviks in 1918 were scarcely any more fair); and it's perfectly reasonable to sympathise with them on these grounds because in fact they were solely blamed and punished for something that in fact was everyone's doing.

    As a modern analogy you can take for example Serbia and the Yugoslav wars, NATO bombings in 1999. Exactly the same sort of thing.

    Sponsored content

    WW II discussion - Page 2 Empty Re: WW II discussion

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 26/10/21, 09:14 pm