PDA

View Full Version : The inside history of WWII



gabosaurus
08-25-2014, 06:51 PM
I'd love to have this discussion with you if you. Start another thread so we don't hijack Kathianne's.
Most Americans are not taught accurate history and I've watched it change so much that what is taught now in public school is watered-down, PC BS. I applaud any teacher that takes the time out to teach the truth. THAT is what they are there for.

Fair enough, Mr. Gunny. Feel free to share your thoughts here. Having relatives on both sides of WWII makes this a source of rabid interest for me. My paternal grandfather was stationed in the Far East during the waning months of the war. My maternal grandfather was a 17-year-old German soldier who fought the Russians on the Eastern Front.
Everyone who has interest is welcome to join in.

Kathianne
08-25-2014, 06:59 PM
I think this an interesting topic, though your implication on other thread is that American students don't know enough European history. So I figured I'd drop this post here too:


All are covered sufficiently. I prefer to study them in greater depth. My favorite subject is WWII from the opposing point of view. How exactly did Germany get sucked into WWII? How did the everyday German live during the war years?

Most history books do not cover any of the American conflicts adequately. How many history books tell the correct story of the Spanish-American War, which was started by the U.S. Or how the U.S. lost the Viet Nam war due to inept leadership.




Which European characters then should be studied more 'in depth' than they are by American curriculum?

Lloyd George? Hitler? Von Bismarck? Clemenceau? Mussolini? Atlee? Stalin? Churchill?

Which and why?

gabosaurus
08-25-2014, 07:09 PM
More like Chamberlain, Goering, Himmler, Donitz, Speer and Bormann. Most misrepresented is Goebbels, the master of propaganda.

Want to know who is more responsible for WWII than just about anyone? Neville Chamberlain. This cowardly wimp allowed Hitler to grab territory in Europe without protest. If Chamberlain would have stood up to Hitler instead of trying to pacify him, there would not have been a war. The German military at that time was not ready for conflict. Hitler was all bluster at that time, making threats he knew he could not fulfill.
Chamberlain actually believed the British could be on friendly terms with Hitler. Give him what he wants and he will go away. Instead, Hitler knew Chamberlain was a coward and would not block any of his conquests.

Gunny
08-25-2014, 07:33 PM
Fair enough, Mr. Gunny. Feel free to share your thoughts here. Having relatives on both sides of WWII makes this a source of rabid interest for me. My paternal grandfather was stationed in the Far East during the waning months of the war. My maternal grandfather was a 17-year-old German soldier who fought the Russians on the Eastern Front.
Everyone who has interest is welcome to join in.


Well, thank you very much. So your vast knowledge is based on one person's story? Germany didn't get sucked into anything. I will give you that WWII was unavoidable for may reasons, mostly political. The WWI allies DID create the environment to foster Hitler and WWII with the Treaty of Versailles.

The people however were villains who built their entire regime around controversy, hatred, intolerance and the myth of racial superiority. They were a gang of murdering thugs with power. Because they made promises and the people blindly followed. They wanted hope. The Treaty of Versailles, an inept government and world-wide depression gave them none. So along comes Hitler and his crew making promises. There was hope. Not hard to follow. Typical political ploy.

That doesn't make the pack of thugs that got power any less the criminals than they were.

gabosaurus
08-25-2014, 08:30 PM
Well, thank you very much. So your vast knowledge is based on one person's story?

I've been to Germany more than once. I have conversed with relatives and multiple other people. I have read multitudes of books from all perspectives. I have also conversed with those of English, French and Russian ancestry. One of my great aunts survived the Dresden bombings. Another relative kept a huge diary and scrapbook of her family's life during the war.
It's not just history to me. It's part of my ancestry.

Kathianne
08-25-2014, 09:18 PM
More like Chamberlain, Goering, Himmler, Donitz, Speer and Bormann. Most misrepresented is Goebbels, the master of propaganda.

Want to know who is more responsible for WWII than just about anyone? Neville Chamberlain. This cowardly wimp allowed Hitler to grab territory in Europe without protest. If Chamberlain would have stood up to Hitler instead of trying to pacify him, there would not have been a war. The German military at that time was not ready for conflict. Hitler was all bluster at that time, making threats he knew he could not fulfill.
Chamberlain actually believed the British could be on friendly terms with Hitler. Give him what he wants and he will go away. Instead, Hitler knew Chamberlain was a coward and would not block any of his conquests.

Wow, deep insight there, Gabby. Who'd ever think Chamberlain shouldn't have chosen appeasement? You discovered that, eh?

So it's only German history American kids should be studying, with Chamberlain thrown in? No discussion of Hitler youth or how he came to power with many Germans behind him? Nothing about The Treaty of Versailles or any of that stuff, like the 'stab in the back' that resonated so well?

Kathianne
08-25-2014, 09:20 PM
I've been to Germany more than once. I have conversed with relatives and multiple other people. I have read multitudes of books from all perspectives. I have also conversed with those of English, French and Russian ancestry. One of my great aunts survived the Dresden bombings. Another relative kept a huge diary and scrapbook of her family's life during the war.
It's not just history to me. It's part of my ancestry.




Nearly everyone has skeletons in their closet. If they claim not to, they just don't know or lie.

Gunny
08-25-2014, 09:32 PM
I've been to Germany more than once. I have conversed with relatives and multiple other people. I have read multitudes of books from all perspectives. I have also conversed with those of English, French and Russian ancestry. One of my great aunts survived the Dresden bombings. Another relative kept a huge diary and scrapbook of her family's life during the war.
It's not just history to me. It's part of my ancestry.




Me too. Minus the scrap book. Next.

gabosaurus
08-25-2014, 10:02 PM
Wow, deep insight there, Gabby. Who'd ever think Chamberlain shouldn't have chosen appeasement? You discovered that, eh?
So it's only German history American kids should be studying, with Chamberlain thrown in? No discussion of Hitler youth or how he came to power with many Germans behind him? Nothing about The Treaty of Versailles or any of that stuff, like the 'stab in the back' that resonated so well?

Wasn't saying that American kids should be studying German history. I was stating that it was what I am interested in.
To figure out how Hitler came to power, you have to study what happened between the end of WWI and the rise of the Nazi party. It's quite intricate and involves a lot of political infighting, a lot of money being invested in the right places (in strategic areas that had nothing) and a lot of deception. People supported Hitler in the beginning because he offered improved living conditions. The one question many Germans had was why they lost The Great War. Hitler told them what they wanted to hear (as opposed to telling them the truth).
Why did the German people follow Hitler so blindly? First and foremost, he was a ruthless dictator. Those who opposed him were usually eliminated. You curried favor or you didn't eat. You didn't have a place to live.
You should watch a few vintage German propaganda films. Americans and English were portrayed a bloodthirsty warriors who wanted to rape your daughter and butcher your infant children. The Germans believed it because they knew nothing else.
Right up to the end of 1944, the German people thought they were winning the war. They thought the concentration camps were work areas which produced armaments. Hitler was always portrayed playing with children and giving people money and jobs. Germans had no clue how the war was actually going.

When WWI ended, the Allies left Germany in rubble. There were serious internal repercussions. The Western powers made sure not to repeat that mistake at the end of WWII.

red state
08-25-2014, 11:11 PM
HHhhmmmmm....sounds as though we could repeat history. We have a ChamberLAME within OUR White House who gave a few of the WORSE enemies our Nation could have in exchange for a traitor. Would to God that our ChamberLAME would have (at least) traded one of those terrorists for that reporter they beheaded. Of course, the reporter had a brother who effectively killed muSLUMS (ISIS) and the traitor he actually traded for was a muSLUM wanna-be. And folks say that this piece of crap in OUR White House isn't a muSLUM himself or an enemy sympathizer. Both are traitors in my opinion. Both should be found guilty and SHOT. If I'm out of line or wrong, I'll gladly back off but it'll take the likes of Gunny or someone of his standing to correct me and if that should happen, I'll gladly admit that I was out of line and back off.

gabosaurus
08-26-2014, 12:53 AM
HHhhmmmmm....sounds as though we could repeat history...

We are attempting to seriously discuss WWII here. Your lame attempt to link Obama with Hitler belongs elsewhere. Perhaps in The Cage.

Gunny
08-26-2014, 02:02 AM
We are attempting to seriously discuss WWII here. Your lame attempt to link Obama with Hitler belongs elsewhere. Perhaps in The Cage.



The comparison is there. Not necessarily with Obama. And any military person that has cognitive reasoning can tell you, at some point, we question just what the Hell we are serving. Correct me if I am wrong, but your point is that the German people followed a government blindly. So now, I'll question you. Isn't that what you accused conservatives of doing from 2000 - 2008? But when the question is turned around, it's not so cool, is it?

Party politics aside, I'm not blaming the German people. They didn't have a choice. Speak against the government and you and your family disappear? I feel EXACTLY the same about US citizens now minus the diversion of party politics. We live ina police state that has gotten progressively worse since the 1970's.

And I understand being in the military and following orders. Most of the military hierarchy hated Hitler, knew what he was doing, and even tried to kill him. Goebbels was beneath contempt. About what I think of our media today. He purposefully lied to the people and knew what he was doing. He was NOT military personnel. He was a politician, plain and simple. He had a choice the average citizen and soldier did not.

Anyone in the hierarchy of the 3d Reich that was complicit in the murder of millions of non-Germans is a criminal. Period. Guilty of cold blooded murder.

Your ancestor was a ground troop, right? He didn't know shit but what he had to face. I can understand that.

You can say Germany got sucked into WWII but the fact is, Germany did as much or more to cause WWII as they were victims of the Treaty of Versailles. And. Germany could have won WWII if not for Hitler. For all his ability to manipulate and mesmerize, he was a strategic and tactical idiot. Should have left the war up to those that know what they're doing.

Jeff
08-26-2014, 06:39 AM
We are attempting to seriously discuss WWII here. Your lame attempt to link Obama with Hitler belongs elsewhere. Perhaps in The Cage.

Imagine that someone posting something you don't want :rolleyes: doesn't feel good does it ;)

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2014, 10:05 AM
HHhhmmmmm....sounds as though we could repeat history. We have a ChamberLAME within OUR White House who gave a few of the WORSE enemies our Nation could have in exchange for a traitor. Would to God that our ChamberLAME would have (at least) traded one of those terrorists for that reporter they beheaded. Of course, the reporter had a brother who effectively killed muSLUMS (ISIS) and the traitor he actually traded for was a muSLUM wanna-be. And folks say that this piece of crap in OUR White House isn't a muSLUM himself or an enemy sympathizer. Both are traitors in my opinion. Both should be found guilty and SHOT. If I'm out of line or wrong, I'll gladly back off but it'll take the likes of Gunny or someone of his standing to correct me and if that should happen, I'll gladly admit that I was out of line and back off.

Hoss, you ain't out of line for freely expressing your views here. That is if you are not breaking board rules when doing so.
That's the strength and beauty of this board--It has far, far more freedom allowed than the other sites! Which does give Jim a lot of grief at times! But IMHO is always worth it. Just sayin'..
As a member in somewhat good standing I heartily agree with your post my friend... - :beer:-Tyr

Gaffer
08-26-2014, 10:25 AM
In regards to Germany dragged into war, lets look at the facts.

Hitler annexed Austria.
Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia.
Hitler formed the Axis power block.
Hitlers signed a non aggression pact with the soviets.
Hitler invaded Poland. Officially starting WW2.

So exactly where is the dragging into war here?

Oh, and two days after the US declared war on Japan Hitler declared war on the US. As did Mussolini.

Dragged kicking and screaming they were.

namvet
08-26-2014, 10:45 AM
In regards to Germany dragged into war, lets look at the facts.

Hitler annexed Austria.
Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia.
Hitler formed the Axis power block.
Hitlers signed a non aggression pact with the soviets.
Hitler invaded Poland. Officially starting WW2.

So exactly where is the dragging into war here?

Oh, and two days after the US declared war on Japan Hitler declared war on the US. As did Mussolini.

Dragged kicking and screaming they were.

Hiter used these annexations to see if the west would stand up and intervene. if we had he was prepared to run for home. his own military told him they needed 4 or 5 more years to ready for war.

gabosaurus
08-26-2014, 11:03 AM
Hiter used these annexations to see if the west would stand up and intervene. if we had he was prepared to run for home. his own military told him they needed 4 or 5 more years to ready for war.

You are exactly correct. If Chamberlain had stood his ground and called Hitler's bluff, he would have stood down. There is a good chance that the loss of face would have caused Hitler's opposition to force him from power.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2014, 11:05 AM
Hiter used these annexations to see if the west would stand up and intervene. if we had he was prepared to run for home. his own military told him they needed 4 or 5 more years to ready for war.

I was taught as a six year old child that the thing to do with bullies is knock the hell out of them sooner rather than later! Has worked for me 54 years and running!!
Appeasement, I once thought that was surname of every coward...
Hell, I still do.. :laugh:

Son my dad said, "times are hard and the world is evil. Anybody--anybody hits you , you hit them back harder. If they hit you again you have my permission to stomp their ass! In fact , I insist that you do.
A man must pull his own wagon"....

Hitler was a typical cowardly bully that caused the death of tens of millions because his sorry ass WAS NOT HIT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!!!
We now have dem/libs (appeasement masters) running this nation.
A very good chance that they will cause millions to die yet again IMHO..-Only this time the millions could be AMERICAN CITIZENS! -Tyr

gabosaurus
08-26-2014, 11:18 AM
Anyone in the hierarchy of the 3d Reich that was complicit in the murder of millions of non-Germans is a criminal. Period. Guilty of cold blooded murder.

Your ancestor was a ground troop, right? He didn't know shit but what he had to face. I can understand that.

You can say Germany got sucked into WWII but the fact is, Germany did as much or more to cause WWII as they were victims of the Treaty of Versailles. And. Germany could have won WWII if not for Hitler. For all his ability to manipulate and mesmerize, he was a strategic and tactical idiot. Should have left the war up to those that know what they're doing.

You make outstanding points. The truth is, very few common citizens were members of the Nazi party.

My maternal grandfather believes the Nazi propaganda that the Russians were coming to kill his family. So he went to war. And found that poorly equipped and trained common citizens were no match for the Russian army. So he fled west, like so many others.

Hitler was a deranged psychopath who trusted no one. He had brilliant advisers and field generals who could have won WWII in less than two years. Hitler's tactical mistakes are legendary. His advisers had chilling plans that would have had England ready to negotiate surrender.
Have you ever seen the plans to occupy Newfoundland and use it as a base to attack the U.S.? There were also plans to negotiate a treaty with Mexico that would have allowed the Germans to attack from the south.

Gunny
08-26-2014, 11:52 AM
In regards to Germany dragged into war, lets look at the facts.

Hitler annexed Austria.
Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia.
Hitler formed the Axis power block.
Hitlers signed a non aggression pact with the soviets.
Hitler invaded Poland. Officially starting WW2.

So exactly where is the dragging into war here?

Oh, and two days after the US declared war on Japan Hitler declared war on the US. As did Mussolini.

Dragged kicking and screaming they were.

All exactly correct. You left out Hitler's brilliant decision to invade Russia while fighting on another front.

I'm seeing a couple of different POV's here. One, the criminals at the top, vs 2, the soldiers and citizens being led by a screwball government. What happens in the US if you get drafted and refuse to serve? You go to jail. But if Johnson says you're going to Vietnam, or Bush says you're going to Kuwait .... we went. If you buck what the US gov't tells you is right to this day, it will take care of you one way or the other.

I'd say all the average German knew back then was Hitler brought them out of the dust of WWI and they had at least a modicum of prosperity. Racism was world-wide, especially anti-semitism. The US turned away a ship full of Jews and sent it back because we didn't want them here. The Holocaust was hidden by both the US and UK governments for the fear of the appearance of making the war "about Jews". Not saying it's right. How did blacks have it in this country during those same years?

From the POV of the guy humping the pack, there's little choice, and you suffer the consequences of what happens.

Throw in another caveat. The German army felt betrayed by the government with the Treaty of Versailles. They hadn't actually lost the war. Politicians gave it away. They get completely humiliated and emasculated by the allied powers. Along comes a politician who actually WAS one of them, and re-arms them. Makes Germany a world power again, with the most modern military of the day. Who's going to complain? Anyone in the military who opposed his ideas "disappeared".

Gunny
08-26-2014, 11:59 AM
I was taught as a six year old child that the thing to do with bullies is knock the hell out of them sooner rather than later! Has worked for me 54 years and running!!
Appeasement, I once thought that was surname of every coward...
Hell, I still do.. :laugh:

Son my dad said, "times are hard and the world is evil. Anybody--anybody hits you , you hit them back harder. If they hit you again you have my permission to stomp their ass! In fact , I insist that you do.
A man must pull his own wagon"....

Hitler was a typical cowardly bully that caused the death of tens of millions because his sorry ass WAS NOT HIT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!!!
We now have dem/libs (appeasement masters) running this nation.
A very good chance that they will cause millions to die yet again IMHO..-Only this time the millions could be AMERICAN CITIZENS! -Tyr

True. But look at the environment in which they lived. WW I devastated Europe. And WW I was a meat grinder. Modern weaponry using Napoleonic tactics. Everyone wanted to avoid a repeat at all costs. Everyone blames Chamberlain, but the French were just as wuss as he was and right behind him (they're usually behind someone :) ) Hitler WAS prepared to back down. Hindsight's 20-20.

NightTrain
08-26-2014, 12:08 PM
Right up to the end of 1944, the German people thought they were winning the war. They thought the concentration camps were work areas which produced armaments. Hitler was always portrayed playing with children and giving people money and jobs. Germans had no clue how the war was actually going.

The German populace knew they were losing.

You can't have waves of American and British bombers darkening the skies over all your major cities, carpet bombing and fire bombing without knowing how the war was going. Besides that, the German soldiers told their families how it was really going, nevermind what they were hearing over the official radio channels.

The Luftwaffe was decimated and the wonderweapons were too little, too late to make any difference. When you give up air superiority, you've lost the war - because now you've got major problems in transportation of fuel and war materials (like ball bearings) that can't go where they're supposed to because your railways and highways are being beat up by bombers bombing and fighters strafing even if the factories are still intact and producing.

If Hitler had stepped back and allowed his Generals to run the war like it should have been, it would have been a much different war. Operation Barbarosa was a catastrophe and opening the Russian front was monumentally stupid. If he had waited until Operation Sea Lion was complete and taken out Britain first, the odds would have vastly improved.

The development of the ME-262 was a game changer, but again Hitler interfered and ordered them to change that fighter into a bomber which severely delayed introduction of it.

There are a lot of IFs, but the common denominator is that Hitler was over his head and kept interfering where he shouldn't have. Generals like Rommel should have been given an objective and then unleashed without any second-guessing.

namvet
08-26-2014, 12:10 PM
they did attack all our coastlines during operation drumbeat jan - aug 42. just a month after Pearl Harbor, the unrestricted warfare against American merchant marine ships off our coastlines. and they were successful. Dönitz and Hitler combined for this attack.
but drumbeat was compromised before it began. in 40 or 41 an RN destroyer forced a uboat to the surface and recovered its enigma machine. so now the the brits were reading everything Dönitz was sending to his uboat fleet. and they had it all here. dates, departures, number of uboats. the whole ball a wax. and they issued a warning in advance to one ADM Ernest J King who ignored the warning because he didn't like or trust the brits.

former uboat ace Rinehard Hardegen thanks King for not interfering


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kKyrjgOUXM

Gunny
08-26-2014, 12:14 PM
You make outstanding points. The truth is, very few common citizens were members of the Nazi party.

My maternal grandfather believes the Nazi propaganda that the Russians were coming to kill his family. So he went to war. And found that poorly equipped and trained common citizens were no match for the Russian army. So he fled west, like so many others.

Hitler was a deranged psychopath who trusted no one. He had brilliant advisers and field generals who could have won WWII in less than two years. Hitler's tactical mistakes are legendary. His advisers had chilling plans that would have had England ready to negotiate surrender.
Have you ever seen the plans to occupy Newfoundland and use it as a base to attack the U.S.? There were also plans to negotiate a treaty with Mexico that would have allowed the Germans to attack from the south.

Hitler actually wanted no part of the US. He didn't even want to fight Great Britain in the beginning. His generals didn't want any part of any of it. But you don't question the commander in chief. The entire alliance between Hitler and the German army was tenuous at best. Until Bismark died, Hitler was a lap dog.

They had plans to occupy Ireland as well, in collusion with some Irish who hated Brits more than Germans.

Germany could easily have won WWII but for Hitler. What happens when politicians control the most powerful army on Earth.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2014, 06:56 PM
True. But look at the environment in which they lived. WW I devastated Europe. And WW I was a meat grinder. Modern weaponry using Napoleonic tactics. Everyone wanted to avoid a repeat at all costs. Everyone blames Chamberlain, but the French were just as wuss as he was and right behind him (they're usually behind someone :) ) Hitler WAS prepared to back down. Hindsight's 20-20.

You will get no argument from me on that. After WW1 Germany had a bad go of it because of the Treaty its politicians signed.
Hitler delivered them a way out of that.. Hitler promised and delivered at first. He also raised the standard of living early on but all that went out of the window when kept playing general and lost the war by doing so.
Had Hitler abandoned the plan to turn on and attack Russia we would have most likely lost.
He damn sure should have never turned on Russia until after Britain was conquered!
The French, white flag warriors , the lot of them.
Charles De Gaulle marched back into France as if he single handedly liberated it. France was liberated by combined efforts of American, Brit, Canadian forces, but primarily it was USA might and planning that did it.. -Tyr

Gunny
08-26-2014, 08:05 PM
You will get no argument from me on that. After WW1 Germany had a bad go of it because of the Treaty its politicians signed.
Hitler delivered them a way out of that.. Hitler promised and delivered at first. He also raised the standard of living early on but all that went out of the window when kept playing general and lost the war by doing so.
Had Hitler abandoned the plan to turn on and attack Russia we would have most likely lost.
He damn sure should have never turned on Russia until after Britain was conquered!
The French, white flag warriors , the lot of them.
Charles De Gaulle marched back into France as if he single handedly liberated it. France was liberated by combined efforts of American, Brit, Canadian forces, but primarily it was USA might and planning that did it.. -Tyr

Opening a second front without the means and will to usually ends in disaster. He thought he had Britain isolated and out of it. Had it not been for Roosevelt and Lend Lease, they would have been. He kept taking stuff without securing it. Had he just waited, he could have had everything.

NightTrain
08-26-2014, 08:12 PM
Opening a second front without the means and will to usually ends in disaster. He thought he had Britain isolated and out of it. Had it not been for Roosevelt and Lend Lease, they would have been. He kept taking stuff without securing it. Had he just waited, he could have had everything.


Yep, the RAF was on the ropes and were almost finished... but the Germans didn't know that. It was looking very bleak for Britain and then Hitler backed off the raids and cancelled the invasion.

namvet
08-26-2014, 08:19 PM
he launched the Russian invasion in June 1941. anticipating being in Moscow before winter. and that's what stopped him. the Russian winter. within site of Moscow.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YmHgnwRBlP8/UUhIgavacsI/AAAAAAAAH44/7dXkQoO46xg/s640/Hitler-Napoleon-Russia-003.jpg

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/images/german%20retreat.jpg


http://www.ozytive.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/index.jpg

the Russian counter attack was on 7 Dec 1941

namvet
08-26-2014, 08:25 PM
Yep, the RAF was on the ropes and were almost finished... but the Germans didn't know that. It was looking very bleak for Britain and then Hitler backed off the raids and cancelled the invasion.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjz8pAGRvsg

gabosaurus
08-26-2014, 09:05 PM
Yep, the RAF was on the ropes and were almost finished... but the Germans didn't know that. It was looking very bleak for Britain and then Hitler backed off the raids and cancelled the invasion.

I have always considered this the turning point of the war. Hitler got too greedy. He somehow felt the air attacks on London would force a surrender. When it didn't happen immediately, he decided to attack Russia. Which Stalin pretty much anticipated.
If the German navy and Luftwaffe had blockaded the U.K., the Brits would have been forced to negotiate. For some reason, Hitler didn't want that. He wanted outright surrender, which was not coming.
The cat and mouse game between Hitler and Stalin on the Eastern Front makes for fascinating and horrifying reading. How both of them used their own people as pieces on a giant chess board.

gabosaurus
08-26-2014, 09:08 PM
Incredible song by Al Stewart about the German invasion of Russia:


http://youtu.be/TVGtG-ZnF0g

namvet
08-26-2014, 09:55 PM
of course the retreating Germans were obligated to slaughter and murder thousands of Russian civilians

atrocities. funny I still remember a man who served in France. told me he witnessed a retreating German who grabbed a French kid by the ankles. then whipped it around smashing the head into a brick wall

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2014, 10:55 PM
Opening a second front without the means and will to usually ends in disaster. He thought he had Britain isolated and out of it. Had it not been for Roosevelt and Lend Lease, they would have been. He kept taking stuff without securing it. Had he just waited, he could have had everything.

So damn true!!!!!
The typical overreach of bad leader , bad commander. Had he dedicated all forces to defeating Britain , then he could have forced USA TO NEGOTIATE A PEACE, solidify his absolute control over Europe, reorganize to hit and conquer Russia. Instead he made the Napoleonic mistake of trying to conquer Russia in one deep long swoop, the Russia winter got his ass just like it did Napoleon Bonaparte!! The Russians just repeated the same tactics that crash Napoleon's attack. And Hitler was far from being the brilliant military mind of a Napoleon. Even Napoleon was not immune from making a major blunder!
Learn from history or be doomed to repeat it is the old saying and it so aptly applies in this case too .-Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-26-2014, 11:11 PM
I have always considered this the turning point of the war. Hitler got too greedy. He somehow felt the air attacks on London would force a surrender. When it didn't happen immediately, he decided to attack Russia. Which Stalin pretty much anticipated.
If the German navy and Luftwaffe had blockaded the U.K., the Brits would have been forced to negotiate. For some reason, Hitler didn't want that. He wanted outright surrender, which was not coming.
The cat and mouse game between Hitler and Stalin on the Eastern Front makes for fascinating and horrifying reading. How both of them used their own people as pieces on a giant chess board.






When it didn't happen immediately, he decided to attack Russia. Which Stalin pretty much anticipated.
^^^^^^^^ Gabby , do try to bone up on this will you?? -:laugh:
Sorry, had to laugh at that statement. Stalin was clueless, he had executed one of his own deep undercover spies that rushed from Germany back to Russia to report of the coming German invasion!!
How is that for ANTICIPATION!!!!

Here is proof listed below, but I got my information back in 60/70's from reading books, war books. I studied wars, great battles, great military leaders/generals as a hobby for 50 years now.. -Tyr


“You have only to kick in the door,” said Hitler confidently, “and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.” Two tons of Iron Crosses were waiting in Germany for those involved with the capture of Moscow. This was always going to be the most brutal war, one which could not be “conducted with chivalry,” as Hitler told his generals, but “conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful, unrelenting harshness.”

Two years earlier, on August 23, 1939, the Nazis and Soviets had signed a non-aggression pact. But both sides knew it was never more than a postponement of hostilities. For the Soviets, it gave them time to build up their defences (in the event little was achieved); and for Hitler the pact gave him time to concentrate on the West (the defeat of France, Britain and elsewhere) before turning his attention eastwards.

May God Bless Our Weapons

Now, in June 1941, with his Western objectives achieved (with the exception of Britain), the time had come.

On the eve of attack, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister for Propaganda, wrote in his diary, “One can hear the breath of history… May God bless our weapons!”

Stalin’s spies had forewarned him time and again of the expected attack but he refused to believe it, dismissing it all as ‘Hitler’s bluff’. When warned of the imminent German invasion from a highranking Luftwaffe spy, Stalin responded, ‘Tell your “source” to go fuck his mother.’ He ordered another shot for spreading ‘misinformation’.

Stalin strenuously forbade anything that might appear provocative to the Germans, even insisting on the continuation of Russian food and metal exports to the Germans, as agreed in the Pact. He prohibited the evacuation of people living near the German border and forbade the setting up of defences.

So when, at 4 a.m. on June 22, 1941, Operation Barbarossa was launched, progress was rapid. (Barbarossa was the nickname given to Frederick I, 1122-1190, king of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor). At first, more frightened of Stalin’s prohibition of ‘provocative’ acts than the German armies, Soviet soldiers didn’t dare fire back. When one desperate Soviet border guard signalled, ‘We’re being fired on. What do we do?’, the response came back, ‘You must be mad; and why isn’t your signal in code?’


(June 22 was not the most auspicious date on which to launch an attack on the Soviet Union. It was on June 22, exactly 129 years before, that Napoleon started his ill-fated invasion of Russia.)
- See more at: http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/06/22/operation-barbarossa-summary/#sthash.ucjaAyic.dpuf

NightTrain
08-27-2014, 12:30 AM
From all accounts I'm aware of, Stalin was caught completely by surprise with Operation Barbarossa.

Gunny
08-27-2014, 05:05 AM
From all accounts I'm aware of, Stalin was caught completely by surprise with Operation Barbarossa.

He was. He thought he and Hitler were going to be buds and divide everything. Hitler was too dumb to let it stay that way. Had he not attacked Russia, the outcome of WWII would have been VERY different. It was the game changer.
Stalin was as big a psycho if not worse than Hitler. But truth be told, Russia bore the brunt of ground fighting in WWII. From 41-43/44, they WERE the boots on the ground. Not until Operations Torch and Overlord did Western allied troops engage on the ground in Europe.

But Hitler's first dumbest mistake was trying to bail out Mussolini in Africa. You can't over-extend your lines, put armies in the field you can't support and expect to win.

NightTrain
08-27-2014, 11:15 AM
He was. He thought he and Hitler were going to be buds and divide everything. Hitler was too dumb to let it stay that way. Had he not attacked Russia, the outcome of WWII would have been VERY different. It was the game changer.

Yep. Churchill was appalled when he learned of Hitler and Stalin's little agreement - he recognized that with Russia out of the picture, England was about to bear the full brunt of Germany's aggression.


Stalin was as big a psycho if not worse than Hitler. But truth be told, Russia bore the brunt of ground fighting in WWII. From 41-43/44, they WERE the boots on the ground. Not until Operations Torch and Overlord did Western allied troops engage on the ground in Europe.

I'd say Stalin was much worse than Hitler on the psychopath scale. Hitler generally gets top honors because he was the common enemy, and we all know that Victors get to write the history books.... it's a nice perk of winning.

There were many instances where Russian troops were being shot by their commanders as they tried to retreat in the face of a German assault, and those orders came directly from Stalin. One thing Stalin was rich in was millions of peasants and he had no reluctance to use them as cannon fodder. The losses were staggering, but there were millions more where those came from.


But Hitler's first dumbest mistake was trying to bail out Mussolini in Africa. You can't over-extend your lines, put armies in the field you can't support and expect to win.

Mussolini was a cartoon character... completely inept in almost every way, but especially when it came to war. Rommel and his troops had a special hatred for their incompetent allies in North Africa because they were constantly bailing them out.

It's a testament to Rommel's brilliance that he did as well as he did in North Africa with the constant shortage of fuel and supplies that plagued that theatre. The Italian Navy could not keep the shipping lanes open despite Mussolini's assurances that they could & would.

Gunny
08-27-2014, 11:38 AM
Yep. Churchill was appalled when he learned of Hitler and Stalin's little agreement - he recognized that with Russia out of the picture, England was about to bear the full brunt of Germany's aggression.



I'd say Stalin was much worse than Hitler on the psychopath scale. Hitler generally gets top honors because he was the common enemy, and we all know that Victors get to write the history books.... it's a nice perk of winning.

There were many instances where Russian troops were being shot by their commanders as they tried to retreat to retreat in the face of a German assault, and those orders came directly from Stalin. One thing Stalin was rich in was millions of peasants and he had no reluctance to use them as cannon fodder. The losses were staggering, but there were millions more where those came from.



Mussolini was a cartoon character... completely inept in almost every way, but especially when it came to war. Rommel and his troops had a special hatred for their incompetent allies in North Africa because they were constantly bailing them out.

It's a testament to Rommel's brilliance that he did as well as he did in North Africa with the constant shortage of fuel and supplies that plagued that theatre. The Italian Navy could not keep the shipping lanes open despite Mussolini's assurances that they could & would.

What can't be forgotten here is Mussolini was Hitler's idol. He had the first successful 20th century fascist regime. The shortage of fuel and supplies was because Hitler over-extended his lines. Hitler should never have tried to bail Mussolini in Africa. He should have concentrated more on the resources Germany needed than conquering political but useless territory. A lesson any good e-3 knows but is still a mystery to our politicians to this day.

Mussolini WAS a cartoon character. His own people hated him. The smart guy in the whole group was Franco. He took Mussolini and Hitler's help then bailed on them and Spain sat out the war.

Stalin. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Not a whole lot more can be said about that. That dude was a megalomaniacal fruit loop.

Coming back around to where this thread started. From what I have heard and read over the years, the front line Russian combat troops weren't the problem. It was the idiots that came after them. The same can be said for US troops. Combat troops are on a mission. The Occupiers that follow are just that .. followers.

artur axmann
09-15-2014, 09:04 PM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.

Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.

The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

NightTrain
09-15-2014, 09:07 PM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.

Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.

The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

Interesting.

Okay, sport, let's see your sources.

artur axmann
09-15-2014, 09:39 PM
Interesting.

Okay, sport, let's see your sources.

you first.. if you disagree.. what other choices then?

BoogyMan
09-15-2014, 10:20 PM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.

Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.

The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

Once, just once, post your sources for this commentary. If you want to have a big-boy discussion you have to prove your assertions, Sparky.

aboutime
09-15-2014, 10:28 PM
Interesting.

Okay, sport, let's see your sources.


Arthur doesn't believe in using sources. We're all expected to simply BELIEVE everything he says, because he says so.

namvet
09-15-2014, 11:02 PM
the avatar artur axmann

Artur Axmann (18 February 1913 – 24 October 1996) was the German Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) national leader (Reichsjugendführer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsjugendf%C3%BChrer)) of the Hitler Youth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth) (Hitlerjugend) from 1940 to the war's end in 1945. He was the last living Nazi with a rank equivalent to Reichsführer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsf%C3%BChrer).

gabosaurus
09-16-2014, 12:34 AM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.
Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.
The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

Dude, I guarantee that I have read more books and done more research than you have. Whether Stalin had plans to attack Germany had been debated by Russian historians for many years. But there is no credible evidence that Stalin ever negotiated with the British about anything prior to the German invasion.
And to think that Germany was facing defeat in 1941 is ludicrous. Hitler was a lot closer to winning the war than losing it.
In the future, you are advised to refrain from spouting BS about subjects that you obviously know little about.

Gunny
09-16-2014, 07:30 AM
I have always considered this the turning point of the war. Hitler got too greedy. He somehow felt the air attacks on London would force a surrender. When it didn't happen immediately, he decided to attack Russia. Which Stalin pretty much anticipated.
If the German navy and Luftwaffe had blockaded the U.K., the Brits would have been forced to negotiate. For some reason, Hitler didn't want that. He wanted outright surrender, which was not coming.
The cat and mouse game between Hitler and Stalin on the Eastern Front makes for fascinating and horrifying reading. How both of them used their own people as pieces on a giant chess board.

Stalin was actually caught completely off guard. He thought he and Hitler were going to divide Europe between them.

Blockading The UK would not have worked, as evidenced by two world wars. Hitler's strategic downfall was switching from going after the RAF to going after population centers. The RAF could not have sustained even two more months of being targeted. It wasn't that they weren't good. Attrition was their enemy.

Gunny
09-16-2014, 07:35 AM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.

Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.

The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

:smoke:

Gunny
09-16-2014, 07:39 AM
you first.. if you disagree.. what other choices then?

Don't know about the bunk you're posting but I can make an observation. Your tactics suck. This is two threads you've made a baseless statement then demanded others disprove it. Most assertions come with some form or evidence, argument, or opinion at least, not a schoolyard challenge.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-16-2014, 09:19 AM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.

Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.

The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

You are clueless as hell. It is verified fact that Hitler had drawn up plans years before to use Russia as an ally then turn to conquer Russia at an opportune moment. Would not matter if your post was true or not about the 42'43 accusation... It was in the German/Nazi plan all along. God, you ignorant of history people irk me to no end!!
Damn , dude do you not know that top German leaders, military and otherwise survived the war and wrote books and articles about all this over the decades since ?
Additionally that we and the Russians seized massive amounts of Nazi government documents that revealed the strategy and plans Hitler used!
Here is a hint, buy some WW2 history books or else do a competent Google search on this. -Tyr

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-16-2014, 09:33 AM
Stalin was actually caught completely off guard. He thought he and Hitler were going to divide Europe between them.

Blockading The UK would not have worked, as evidenced by two world wars. Hitler's strategic downfall was switching from going after the RAF to going after population centers. The RAF could not have sustained even two more months of being targeted. It wasn't that they weren't good. Attrition was their enemy.

Dead on accurate..
Churchill's book - Closing The Ring- confirms all of that .--Tyr

Closing the Ring: The Second World War, Volume 5
One of the most fascinating works of history ever written, Winston Churchill's monumental book The Second World War is a six-volume account of the struggle of ...



https://archive.org/details/closingring00wins

NightTrain
09-16-2014, 10:24 AM
Hitler had no other choice in 41 but to attack the Soviets. Confirmed reports indicated Stalin had agreed with the Brits to invade from the east no later than summer of 42 or 43.

Resources were critical and for the Reich it was a matter of gaining new oil supplies or facing defeat.

The Fuhrer had no other choice. that was it!

It's been a long time since we've had a Nazi stop by the board!

That explains the low intelligence, education level and hatred of Israel.

Gunny
09-16-2014, 11:03 AM
It's been a long time since we've had a Nazi stop by the board!

That explains the low intelligence, education level and hatred of Israel.

The Nazi's would have been well-served to have an Israel. They could just ship all the Jews there and dump them rather than what they actually did about the Jews and the ramifications they faced for it.

artur axmann
09-16-2014, 05:26 PM
The Nazi's would have been well-served to have an Israel. They could just ship all the Jews there and dump them rather than what they actually did about the Jews and the ramifications they faced for it.

We did actually try doing exactly that; not to israel but Palestine under british occupation then. the brits wouldn't have it.

Gaffer
09-16-2014, 05:40 PM
We did actually try doing exactly that; not to israel but Palestine under british occupation then. the brits wouldn't have it.

So when did you try doing that to the pals?

artur axmann
09-16-2014, 07:54 PM
So when did you try doing that to the pals?

1936 ... that was when we started to train the zionists as per their requests and even provided them with weapons and farming implements ,not to mention their first uniforms. next..

is that what you wanted to know ?

NightTrain
09-16-2014, 07:58 PM
So, Artur, how long have you been a Nazi?

I really didn't think there were any left to speak of these days. They kinda have a less-than-desirable reputation, what with the whole fascism and genocide thing.

artur axmann
09-16-2014, 08:08 PM
I wouldn't take Churchill's word for anything . When Drunk or Sober..

While it's true that the Fuhrer had at one time dreams of expanding the reich into slavic held territory under soviet control, ;all these dreams were abandoned by 41-42

The lack of resources and the inability to compete with the Brit navy convinced the fuhrer to drive south eastward toward Iran .
To cut the brits off from the canal and to acquire oil from Iran.

it was all ad hoc after that especially when Rommel couldn't hold on to bengazi .. you've heard of bengazi haven't you..

This led the fuhrer to decide the only other course which was, to level a knockout punch to the soviets in light of the fact that war with stalin was inevitable.

namvet
09-16-2014, 09:38 PM
1936 ... that was when we started to train the zionists as per their requests and even provided them with weapons and farming implements ,not to mention their first uniforms. next..

is that what you wanted to know ?

yeah sure they did. then murdered as many as possible. your just another a jew hater

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
09-16-2014, 09:45 PM
Dead on accurate..
Churchill's book - Closing The Ring- confirms all of that .--Tyr

Closing the Ring: The Second World War, Volume 5
One of the most fascinating works of history ever written, Winston Churchill's monumental book The Second World War is a six-volume account of the struggle of ...


I assume your reply quoted below was to me .-Tyr


artur axmann is offline
Member

artur axmann
I wouldn't take Churchill's word for anything . When Drunk or Sober..

While it's true that the Fuhrer had at one time dreams of expanding the reich into slavic held territory under soviet control, ;all these dreams were abandoned by 41-42

The lack of resources and the inability to compete with the Brit navy convinced the fuhrer to drive south eastward toward Iran .
To cut the brits off from the canal and to acquire oil from Iran.

it was all ad hoc after that especially when Rommel couldn't hold on to bengazi .. you've heard of bengazi haven't you..

This led the fuhrer to decide the only other course which was, to level a knockout punch to the soviets in light of the fact that war with stalin was inevitable.


While it's true that the Fuhrer had at one time dreams of expanding the reich into slavic held territory under soviet control, ;all these dreams were abandoned by 41-42

^^^^ Obviously not since he did exactly that!!--:laugh:-Tyr



I wouldn't take Churchill's word for anything . When Drunk or Sober..

^^^^ Yet obviously you are taking somebody's word on it and that word is dead wrong as historic evidence reveals. Evidence from multiple sources not just Churchill..--Tyr

aboutime
09-16-2014, 10:17 PM
I assume your reply quoted below was to me .-Tyr





^^^^ Obviously not since he did exactly that!!--:laugh:-Tyr




^^^^ Yet obviously you are taking somebody's word on it and that word is dead wrong as historic evidence reveals. Evidence from multiple sources not just Churchill..--Tyr


Tyr. I am convinced Artur would proudly salute this.....http://icansayit.com/images/SWATFLAG.JPG

gabosaurus
09-17-2014, 01:19 AM
I wouldn't take Churchill's word for anything . When Drunk or Sober..
While it's true that the Fuhrer had at one time dreams of expanding the reich into slavic held territory under soviet control, ;all these dreams were abandoned by 41-42
The lack of resources and the inability to compete with the Brit navy convinced the fuhrer to drive south eastward toward Iran .
To cut the brits off from the canal and to acquire oil from Iran.
it was all ad hoc after that especially when Rommel couldn't hold on to bengazi .. you've heard of bengazi haven't you..
This led the fuhrer to decide the only other course which was, to level a knockout punch to the soviets in light of the fact that war with stalin was inevitable.

I don't know about anyone else, but my head hurt while attempting to comprehend such insanely convoluted logic.
I can't wait for your Holocaust Denial thread. It ought to be a doozy.

artur axmann
09-17-2014, 05:01 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but my head hurt while attempting to comprehend such insanely convoluted logic.
I can't wait for your Holocaust Denial thread. It ought to be a doozy.

I can't wait for you to tell me with what you disagree on.

or do you enjoy making childish blather .. still in your comic book phase. ?

Gunny
09-17-2014, 05:11 PM
I can't wait for you to tell me with what you disagree on.

or do you enjoy making childish blather .. still in your comic book phase. ?

Try addressing the topic instead of the people (am I actually defending Gabby? :wtf99: )

You're not even a good troll.

artur axmann
09-17-2014, 06:31 PM
The order to stand and hold was the correct order .Despite the debacle at Stalingrad. .. An order to retreat would've led to a snowball effect all along the caucuses .. and eventually the entire eastern front would have felt the landslide.
Good order Fuhrer.

aboutime
09-17-2014, 07:02 PM
I can't wait for you to tell me with what you disagree on.

or do you enjoy making childish blather .. still in your comic book phase. ?


Artur. Look at how disgusting you really are when EVERYONE ELSE is trying to imitate, and emulate you.

artur axmann
09-17-2014, 07:05 PM
Artur. Look at how disgusting you really are when EVERYONE ELSE is trying to imitate, and emulate you.

more childish nonsense..

aboutime
09-17-2014, 07:08 PM
more childish nonsense..


Thanks for the compliment. It seems imitation (in your case) really is the sincerest form of whatever you think YOU are.

Gunny
09-17-2014, 07:25 PM
The order to stand and hold was the correct order .Despite the debacle at Stalingrad. .. An order to retreat would've led to a snowball effect all along the caucuses .. and eventually the entire eastern front would have felt the landslide.
Good order Fuhrer.

So you're flunking History, too?

Newsflash: The Eastern Front DID collapse. Falling back and consolidating forces on a defensive perimeter would have been the wisest course of action. Instead, your Hero, the strategic and tactical moron, lost an entire Army.

artur axmann
09-17-2014, 07:30 PM
So you're flunking History, too?

Newsflash: The Eastern Front DID collapse. Falling back and consolidating forces on a defensive perimeter would have been the wisest course of action. Instead, your Hero, the strategic and tactical moron, lost an entire Army.

I don't think so. Falling back and consolidating was an option but was regarded as unfeasable by the General Staff. While an army was lost ,the front held ,and that was what we hoped to do under some very difficult set of circumstances.

namvet
09-17-2014, 07:45 PM
Artur. Look at how disgusting you really are when EVERYONE ELSE is trying to imitate, and emulate you.

http://i61.tinypic.com/2cmqbee.jpg

certainly !!!!

revelarts
09-17-2014, 08:46 PM
to take this on another turn.

The inside history of WWII

I tend to be interested in background, motives, politics, concepts, backing, spys and money, more than the battles.
along that line recommend a couple of Books
Nazi Nexus: America's Corporate Connections to Hitler's Holocaust
by Edwin Black
It's a follow up and broader than his previous
IBM and the Holocaust.
In each he documents, with thick paper trails, the financial and industrial support of the various NAZI programs.

Nazi Nexus is the long-awaited wrap-up in a single explosive volume that details the pivotal corporate American connection to the Holocaust. The biggest names and crimes are all there. IBM and its facilitation of the identification and accelerated destruction of the Jews; General Motors and its rapid motorization of the German military enabling the conquest of Europe and the capture of Jews everywhere; Ford Motor Company for its political inspiration; the Rockefeller Foundation for its financing of deadly eugenic science and the program that sent Mengele into Auschwitz; the Carnegie Institution for its proliferation of the concept of race science, racial laws, and the very mathematical formula used to brand the Jews for progressive destruction; and others.

While his research makes clear the U.S. corporate complicity in the rise of Nazi war machine but it's covered, maybe more forth rightly, by Anthony Sutton in Wall Street & the Rise of Hitler
again well documented


...This book demonstrates how "American" multinational corporations, who entered into cartel agreements with I.G. Farben, German General Electric, and a few other firms allowed the Nazis to greatly increase the ability of Germany to wage war. Without many of the processes developed by American firms being given to the Germans, there is NO WAY that the Nazis could have fought as long as as hard as they did.
Many Wall Street firms floated the loans to the German firms, allowing them to build their cartels which would later cost Americans and their allies many billions of dollars and millions of lives. The fact that there were Americans, some of them Jews like the Warburgs, on the Board of Directors of these same cartels that formed the Nazi war machine is mentioned. Sutton asks the obvious question. Why weren't the American members of these firms brought up on war crime charges like their German colleagues? I guess the obvious answer is that their American counterparts had influence in the conquering governments.
Sutton also shows how ITT(International Telephone and Telegraph), G.E., Ford, and Standard Oil had no problem supplying both sides of the war. International financiers, of course, had no problem floating loans to both sides either. I guess that this should come as no surprise. Businessmen are motivated by profits first and patriotism second, if at all.
This book is yet another demonstration of what Carroll Quigley meant by the close-knit ramifications of international financial capitalism. For critics of foreign aid and other such pracitces, here is another example of how it can come back to haunt the citizens of the lending country, while the elites laugh their way to the bank.

Some here may dismiss this out of hand , but check the docs they use.
Internal records of the corps themselves, congressional records and investigations, German corporate files, and Nazi records. news reports of the day of American corporate leaders IN Germany receiving awards for helping Nazi industry. the Head of IBM even got the Highest award that a Non-German could get from the Nazi Gov't.

Chamberlain may have been able to stop Hitler by fighting earlier , but Germany would never have had the war machine to fight or the tech to track the Jews if it had not been for American businesses financial/industrial support and often political agreement.

sigh, let the denials begin, "i never heard to his it can't be true... how did they get these so-called docs... you conspiracy theorist... i can't even imagine this is true so i won't look at it at all... and i don't want to know that the world is like that.... Is this info left or right wing so i can know if it's ok for me to consider this..."

NightTrain
09-17-2014, 09:14 PM
I don't think so. Falling back and consolidating was an option but was regarded as unfeasable by the General Staff. While an army was lost ,the front held ,and that was what we hoped to do under some very difficult set of circumstances.

Wrong.

Hitler's commanders begged him to allow them to retreat, and he refused, ensuring defeat when they became encircled at Stalingrad. Had they been allowed to retreat and consolidate, the situation may have been salvaged. Hitler even promoted Friedrich Paulus to Field Marshal under some sort of mystical belief that it would change the course of the battle, because no German Field Marshal had ever been captured. Paulus surrendered the next day.

He was an idiot and it's a testament to his military commanders that they did as well as they did considering his continual meddling in affairs that were way beyond his understanding.

It also didn't help that he was addicted to amphetamines and had syphilis. Nothing like having an STD riddled drug addict running a world war!