What mistakes do you think Hitler made?
What mistakes do you think Hitler made?
What mistakes do you think Hitler made? - Would Germany have won if he did not make those mistakes?
My friend, the list would be so long we'd all fall asleep before reading it all.
Your second question, however, denotes you give it for granted that Germany was at war and you wonder about the final outcome.
To answer that question you should set a well defined scenario, that is
give clear indications about the overall (strategic) situation, politically and
militarily, whether Hitler was the supreme commander and he simply was
smart enough not to make all the blunders he made, or he was simply not there (maybe killed or dead due to any other possible event) and, if so,
give a picture of who was the leader, how the leadership was organized (chain of command and basic ruling principles that is Fuehrerprinzip or
team-work as in most western states) and then set a number of sufficiently clear parameters concerning the starting date of such a scenario, the kind of policy towards enemy soldiers and the population of
the conquered countries, active alliances, etc.
Presuming your second question refers to a practically identical overall
situation to the historical one, purely and simply ridden of what one might
consider Hitler's mistakes, well, then anyone might give his contribution to
reach a solution, but even so it would still be far from easy for the inevitable variables that should be analysed to reach a conclusion.
Just to give you an idea. One of the less complicated what if's would be
to leave things as they were exactly before the start of Operation Barbarossa (Invasion of the Soviet Union) and let it start 1 full month
ahead than it was actually started.
At first thought one would say that if nothing else happened that might have created an unexpected complication, Moscow would have possibly
fallen in German hands.
Why ? Well, simply considering that if "general winter" wasn't in the way,
those German formations which reached the outskirts of the Russian capital and could see the Red Square through their binoculars, would have
reached that square instead. That is still debatable, of course, but I'm
convinced it would fall into a highly potentially true happening and not just
a futuristic chance unlinked to any reasonable and existing background.
This specific "what if" had been already proposed in a poll, but I just mentioned it as an example.
Lacking the above clarifications, I guess nobody will engage in visualizing
hundreds and thousands of variables connected to the multiple interactions
of the different elements composing the hypothetical situation.
To exemplify some more: basing on the questions, as posed, here's what
might happen.
a) Was it a mistake to let most of the BEF get back home to England, even though without their heavy equipment ? And also, should I start from
there or should I let that go and wonder about the inconclusive attack on
the island by bombing raids ?
b) regardless of where I start from, a whole lot of "what if's" come up to
surface and if I'm serious I must examine each one....
It may well be that by next Christmas I'm hoping Santa will drop one of
those thousand billion operations capable puters so that it will take care of
it all and let me share a little happier scenario with my folks.
An easy way out ? He won the Battle of England, got to Moscow for the
New Year's Party, had Alexandria and the Canal under full control, and his
Jap comrades made it at the Midway's turkey shot... Well, he would have had a hell of a time, maybe, to invent some mistakes which might prevent him from being the Supreme and sole Judge at Nuremberg...
My 1 eurocent.
Regards.
Angelo
Your second question, however, denotes you give it for granted that Germany was at war and you wonder about the final outcome.
To answer that question you should set a well defined scenario, that is
give clear indications about the overall (strategic) situation, politically and
militarily, whether Hitler was the supreme commander and he simply was
smart enough not to make all the blunders he made, or he was simply not there (maybe killed or dead due to any other possible event) and, if so,
give a picture of who was the leader, how the leadership was organized (chain of command and basic ruling principles that is Fuehrerprinzip or
team-work as in most western states) and then set a number of sufficiently clear parameters concerning the starting date of such a scenario, the kind of policy towards enemy soldiers and the population of
the conquered countries, active alliances, etc.
Presuming your second question refers to a practically identical overall
situation to the historical one, purely and simply ridden of what one might
consider Hitler's mistakes, well, then anyone might give his contribution to
reach a solution, but even so it would still be far from easy for the inevitable variables that should be analysed to reach a conclusion.
Just to give you an idea. One of the less complicated what if's would be
to leave things as they were exactly before the start of Operation Barbarossa (Invasion of the Soviet Union) and let it start 1 full month
ahead than it was actually started.
At first thought one would say that if nothing else happened that might have created an unexpected complication, Moscow would have possibly
fallen in German hands.
Why ? Well, simply considering that if "general winter" wasn't in the way,
those German formations which reached the outskirts of the Russian capital and could see the Red Square through their binoculars, would have
reached that square instead. That is still debatable, of course, but I'm
convinced it would fall into a highly potentially true happening and not just
a futuristic chance unlinked to any reasonable and existing background.
This specific "what if" had been already proposed in a poll, but I just mentioned it as an example.
Lacking the above clarifications, I guess nobody will engage in visualizing
hundreds and thousands of variables connected to the multiple interactions
of the different elements composing the hypothetical situation.
To exemplify some more: basing on the questions, as posed, here's what
might happen.
a) Was it a mistake to let most of the BEF get back home to England, even though without their heavy equipment ? And also, should I start from
there or should I let that go and wonder about the inconclusive attack on
the island by bombing raids ?
b) regardless of where I start from, a whole lot of "what if's" come up to
surface and if I'm serious I must examine each one....
It may well be that by next Christmas I'm hoping Santa will drop one of
those thousand billion operations capable puters so that it will take care of
it all and let me share a little happier scenario with my folks.
An easy way out ? He won the Battle of England, got to Moscow for the
New Year's Party, had Alexandria and the Canal under full control, and his
Jap comrades made it at the Midway's turkey shot... Well, he would have had a hell of a time, maybe, to invent some mistakes which might prevent him from being the Supreme and sole Judge at Nuremberg...
My 1 eurocent.
Regards.
Angelo
It would be a challenge just to list the major mistakes in chronological order. Then again, who among us has not made mistakes?
Though I am no fan of Hitler, asking what mistakes he made is way to broad to answer.
However, to pick one, I'd say invading the Soviet Union in June 1941 without first solving the problem of Britian and a two front war.
Though I am no fan of Hitler, asking what mistakes he made is way to broad to answer.
However, to pick one, I'd say invading the Soviet Union in June 1941 without first solving the problem of Britian and a two front war.
If I remember correctly, I read there was an order in 1942 for the eastern front to hold positions captured & fortify, which effectively ended the wehrmacht's successful forward moving initiative and put them on the defensive, which is when the germans started to lose to the russians. if maybe they could have not recieved that order from Hitler, they may have stayed one step up on russian readiness. so I consider that probably the mistake which broke the inertia of german victory most totally
The German surge forward was stopped before the stand and fight order. Basically, the Germans had gone too far with inadequate supplies. When the Russian winter hit with all its fury, German advances slowly ground to a halt. Then the Russians coutner attacked along virtually the whole front and German troops started to be pressed backwards, at this time, Hitler issued his stand and fight orders.
do you really think Alfred Hugenberg could have done better? he certainly wasnt less reactionary... feudal times may have awaited europe... no matter what "bad" Hitler did, his extreme polices caused a ripple reaction anti-nazi policy that lasts to today, forming the the basics of international law & a campaign of world tolerance. which wouldnt have come through with less fanatical, more right-wing conservative, monarchist tactics. the likes of which were implemented by any other candidate besides Hitler in those troubled times. I dont like the world today, but I do believe this is a much better situation for a catalyst into a tangible future, than could have been without what germany yielded 60 years ago.His mother made a big mistake of giving birth to him instead of having an abortion. The rest was consequences.
Yeah, I do. Any Germany leader would be a better choice who would not exterminate entire nations. But I forgot that I roamed into little nazi revisionist asylum.
Your thinking is very strange. History always repeats itself and people never learn from previous civilizations. Even today there are voices (including this forum) that Hitler led a noble cause.
Do you really believe that the world had to go through all this ordeal 60 years ago to benefit in the future? What about this extreme right wing leader in Austria or French parliamental elections? Europeans are ignorant enough to bring another brown scare.
Your thinking is very strange. History always repeats itself and people never learn from previous civilizations. Even today there are voices (including this forum) that Hitler led a noble cause.
Do you really believe that the world had to go through all this ordeal 60 years ago to benefit in the future? What about this extreme right wing leader in Austria or French parliamental elections? Europeans are ignorant enough to bring another brown scare.Hi Isu,
Your points are substantially good and most should agree. Let me add, though, that even the side which used the ISU tanks did not give the
world a champion of fairness and sincere devotion to truly democratic
ideals.
But the fact remains that the so-called right wing extremism holds, in my
opinion, the greatest responsability for the past woes of mankind.
Why ? When one conjugates the hot line of race superiority with that of
a total disregard for even the most elementary principles of a civil evolution of one's own nation in relation with the rest of the world and
embraces the idea that only through the use of sheer violence he will
finally be in a position to rule over what remains of his initial "enemies",
well, it is just too obvious we end up with tragedies of that magnitude.
It's not a question of "he had his own reasons" ... that's simply funny, before anything else. The point is that, aside few exceptions where you
are urged to defend yourself from an ongoing violent attack against your
country, you should not be allowed to follow that path, that is waging wars
to implement your goals of expansion and domination. If we don't agree
on this, any further discussion is just meaningless since we are railing
down opposite tracks with no chance they will ever converge.
Look, if we adopted that view we should agree that Ben Laden did nothing
but rightfully shoot back at a system which didn't care about impoverishing a whole lot of peoples (whether Muslims, Arabs, Third- or
Fourth world realities -- and let me stress I'm talking about peoples, not
leaders or governments) to make it easier for the relatively few who have got, to get even more at almost zero interests. And even though such a
charge is far from being fictitious, my clear answer is that such an approach is essentialy wrong as it gives the guilty the chance to strike
back just on grounds of that very approach. Let me add, too, that no innocent victims should ever be the target of any attack or retaliation.
That's why I say that Hitler's bestiality is not to be measured only on
the obvious results of his legalized violence -- be it against inner political opponents, racially targetable communities, etc. as well as against those nations he considered as worth of being erased from the map -- but on
the perverted premises that all should be attained through violence and
the most merciless imposition of his criminal ideas on all those who
would not bend to his will.
But, yes, mankind never learns ... Right! The terrorists didn't learn, the
new Super-Sheriff(s) looks like he/they didn't care either and the world
has again taken a drift that doesn't look any good at all.
We're only human ? No, we're only always ready to lick the boots of any
one with enough guts to tell us to do that. We're just not educating our
children (any one still producing a few of them in our supercivilized Western hemisphere ?) with all kinds of excuses and idiocies, but too
many times out of mere egotism. Mothers have to selfmake their own
careers to feel emancipated, LOL, and daddies, well they have a lot more
reasons to forget about being one, they are even worried now to catch up
with their wives before it's too late and they'll have to kindly ask "may I?"
not to make some poor sex, but just to go to bed... Wow! What a wonderful world!
It's high time we change these attitudes if we really care to stay.
Mistakes ? Most of the times, just a ridiculous excuse for our idiotic philosophy, but the old adage is still there: to err is human, to keep on
erring is devilish. Problem with the theological categories ? Ok, let's
adjust it: ...to keep on erring is beastly.
Angelo
Your points are substantially good and most should agree. Let me add, though, that even the side which used the ISU tanks did not give the
world a champion of fairness and sincere devotion to truly democratic
ideals.
But the fact remains that the so-called right wing extremism holds, in my
opinion, the greatest responsability for the past woes of mankind.
Why ? When one conjugates the hot line of race superiority with that of
a total disregard for even the most elementary principles of a civil evolution of one's own nation in relation with the rest of the world and
embraces the idea that only through the use of sheer violence he will
finally be in a position to rule over what remains of his initial "enemies",
well, it is just too obvious we end up with tragedies of that magnitude.
It's not a question of "he had his own reasons" ... that's simply funny, before anything else. The point is that, aside few exceptions where you
are urged to defend yourself from an ongoing violent attack against your
country, you should not be allowed to follow that path, that is waging wars
to implement your goals of expansion and domination. If we don't agree
on this, any further discussion is just meaningless since we are railing
down opposite tracks with no chance they will ever converge.
Look, if we adopted that view we should agree that Ben Laden did nothing
but rightfully shoot back at a system which didn't care about impoverishing a whole lot of peoples (whether Muslims, Arabs, Third- or
Fourth world realities -- and let me stress I'm talking about peoples, not
leaders or governments) to make it easier for the relatively few who have got, to get even more at almost zero interests. And even though such a
charge is far from being fictitious, my clear answer is that such an approach is essentialy wrong as it gives the guilty the chance to strike
back just on grounds of that very approach. Let me add, too, that no innocent victims should ever be the target of any attack or retaliation.
That's why I say that Hitler's bestiality is not to be measured only on
the obvious results of his legalized violence -- be it against inner political opponents, racially targetable communities, etc. as well as against those nations he considered as worth of being erased from the map -- but on
the perverted premises that all should be attained through violence and
the most merciless imposition of his criminal ideas on all those who
would not bend to his will.
But, yes, mankind never learns ... Right! The terrorists didn't learn, the
new Super-Sheriff(s) looks like he/they didn't care either and the world
has again taken a drift that doesn't look any good at all.
We're only human ? No, we're only always ready to lick the boots of any
one with enough guts to tell us to do that. We're just not educating our
children (any one still producing a few of them in our supercivilized Western hemisphere ?) with all kinds of excuses and idiocies, but too
many times out of mere egotism. Mothers have to selfmake their own
careers to feel emancipated, LOL, and daddies, well they have a lot more
reasons to forget about being one, they are even worried now to catch up
with their wives before it's too late and they'll have to kindly ask "may I?"
not to make some poor sex, but just to go to bed... Wow! What a wonderful world!
It's high time we change these attitudes if we really care to stay.
Mistakes ? Most of the times, just a ridiculous excuse for our idiotic philosophy, but the old adage is still there: to err is human, to keep on
erring is devilish. Problem with the theological categories ? Ok, let's
adjust it: ...to keep on erring is beastly.
Angelo
Last edited by Angelo on 12 Dec 2002, 17:06, edited 1 time in total.
things are always moving forward, we still arent cavemen, are we? with the UN, nothing like WWII could ever happen again. if so, it would be totally different... it cant repreat itself for historical reasons. just like a bunch of guys with swords and arrows dont plan to meet one day, and march toward one another in a straight line until one side or another runs away. basically our thinking is always changed, infact, I am posed to say history NEVER repeats itselfYour thinking is very strange. History always repeats itself and people never learn from previous civilizations
the single reason why people always say "history repeats itself" is because strife and contention always come to bear... you could just as well say, because you are breathing all the time, that anything anybody does is only breath... we see things as degrees of 'good' or 'bad', when we yearn for the good, we see the world as always doing bad because it must exist for there to be good, but we only distinguish the bad. this doesnt mean the bad is always the same condition or thing.. strife must exist for their to be calm, its a function, not an immutable factor that keeps returning; it in itself is always something else.... its all in how broad you make your definitions
The side which used ISU TD's fought for a noble cause in that war and that cause was to exterminate fascism. However, you will not find me hailing "NKVD troops are the best in the world" with the parrot cry and I am not a fan of "Uncle Joe" either.Angelo wrote:Hi Isu,
Your points are sbstantially good and most should agree. Let me add, though, that even the side which used the ISU tanks did not give the
world a champion of fairness and sincere devotion to truly democratic
ideals.
Sometimes democrasy has nothing to do with fighting a just war, don't you think? :roll:
I did not get this post. You blame it all on Hitler :roll: ?Angelo wrote: But, yes, mankind never learns ... Right! The terrorists didn't learn, the
new Super-Sheriff(s) looks like he/they didn't care either and the world
has again taken a drift that doesn't look any good at all.
We're only human ? No, we're only always ready to lick the boots of any
one with enough guts to tell us to do that. We're just not educating our
children (any one still producing a few of them in our supercivilized Western hemisphere ?) with all kinds of excuses and idiocies, but too
many times out of mere egotism. Mothers have to selfmake their own
careers to feel emancipated, LOL, and daddies, well they have a lot more
reasons to forget about being one, they are even worried now to catch up
with their wives before it's too late and they'll have to kindly ask "may I?"
not to make some poor sex, but just to go to bed... Wow! What a wonderful world!
Best regards,
Sergei
Angelo, please take my advise. Come to Ukraine to choose your woman and you will never regret it. Our chicks go crazy for Italian guys. The likes of Francesco Totti and Paolo Maldini. They haven't been tainted by this "emancipation" sort of crap. Sorry for off-topic!Angelo wrote:
We're just not educating our
children (any one still producing a few of them in our supercivilized Western hemisphere ?) with all kinds of excuses and idiocies, but too
many times out of mere egotism. Mothers have to selfmake their own
careers to feel emancipated, LOL, and daddies, well they have a lot more
reasons to forget about being one, they are even worried now to catch up
with their wives before it's too late and they'll have to kindly ask "may I?"
not to make some poor sex, but just to go to bed... Wow! What a wonderful world!
Before that there was a League of Nations yet it did not do a thing to stop the WWII.Nagelfar wrote:things are always moving forward, we still arent cavemen, are we? with the UN, nothing like WWII could ever happen again. if so, it would be totally different... it cant repreat itself for historical reasons.Your thinking is very strange. History always repeats itself and people never learn from previous civilizations
You want more examples? How about air strikes on Yugoslavia in heart of Europe back in 1998? What was UN doing back then? Chewing a bubble gum? If they wanted Milosevic for war crimes, fine hand him over to us, but to bomb the entire country knowing that unaware civilians will be killed, don't you think UN should have done something here?
Hi Isu,
Yes, I think more than "sometimes" democracies have done wrong,
but in my opinion hey never reached the abyssal shame that has
characterized Hitlerism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
Angelo wrote:
be valued as the necessary and complementary counterpart of men is
only obvious and should be reciprocal too. But that has nothing to do
with roles which are eminently feminine and others which are connatural
to the masculine gender is just as plain and easy to admit. Going against
this, no matter the reasons, is showing a demential attitude. That has nothing to do with equal opportunities, it has to do with general idiocy.
But rather than beating the rusty antifeminist drum, I would put the blame
on those "men" who did accept such a trend simply because they had to
"git back to mama", if only once in a weak! And how could you get mama
to be sweet and gentle if you oppose her views and goals ? I know I'm
touching a beehive, but I don't care. That's how it is and once in a while
MasterMind Adolf is not even subject to investigation
As to your hint about Ukrainian would-be-brides, thank you very much,
but I have one, a real angel, who knows quite well what being emancipated means, but never fell into the idiotic category of those who
pretend to impose their rights by stretching them out the boundary line
that nature itself set for both sexes. And she didn't do that just for the
love of good old Angelo, but for the intelligent approach she chose in
evaluating such an issue. Oh we have a lot to argue about, when we feel
like that (though it doesn't happen that often), but it has nothing to do
with our respective and natural roles. I wouldn't change her for all the gold
in the world and she has proved she shares this feeling after 38 years of
marriage. Yep, thirty-eight, not just three months and eight days
I was not really surprised a month ago when a tv report said that close to
80 % of the current American males are flatly refusing the idea of marrying their idolized "all American" girls, just for the above reasons. And that report said most of them are oriented towards Eastern Euro
girls. No wonder, but just an advice: watch out, buddies, after a few months stay in the "new" environment, they might get infected... I did no
researching on whether an anti-virus of that kind is available or not, but
it looks like you might do well to subscribe to a consistent insurance policy
covering such an event, just in case, of course .... At least you'd get some money back in place of a dream gone bad
Angelo
Yes, I think more than "sometimes" democracies have done wrong,
but in my opinion hey never reached the abyssal shame that has
characterized Hitlerism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
Angelo wrote:
Isu wrote:But, yes, mankind never learns ... Right! The terrorists didn't learn, the
new Super-Sheriff(s) looks like he/they didn't care either and the world
has again taken a drift that doesn't look any good at all.
We're only human ? No, we're only always ready to lick the boots of any
one with enough guts to tell us to do that. We're just not educating our
children (any one still producing a few of them in our supercivilized Western hemisphere ?) with all kinds of excuses and idiocies, but too
many times out of mere egotism. Mothers have to selfmake their own
careers to feel emancipated, LOL, and daddies, well they have a lot more
reasons to forget about being one, they are even worried now to catch up
with their wives before it's too late and they'll have to kindly ask "may I?"
not to make some poor sex, but just to go to bed... Wow! What a wonderful world!
Not at all! I'm blaming it on ourselves and I'll be more specific. That women should have same rights as men is only natural. That they shouldI did not get this post. You blame it all on Hitler ?
be valued as the necessary and complementary counterpart of men is
only obvious and should be reciprocal too. But that has nothing to do
with roles which are eminently feminine and others which are connatural
to the masculine gender is just as plain and easy to admit. Going against
this, no matter the reasons, is showing a demential attitude. That has nothing to do with equal opportunities, it has to do with general idiocy.
But rather than beating the rusty antifeminist drum, I would put the blame
on those "men" who did accept such a trend simply because they had to
"git back to mama", if only once in a weak! And how could you get mama
to be sweet and gentle if you oppose her views and goals ? I know I'm
touching a beehive, but I don't care. That's how it is and once in a while
MasterMind Adolf is not even subject to investigation
As to your hint about Ukrainian would-be-brides, thank you very much,
but I have one, a real angel, who knows quite well what being emancipated means, but never fell into the idiotic category of those who
pretend to impose their rights by stretching them out the boundary line
that nature itself set for both sexes. And she didn't do that just for the
love of good old Angelo, but for the intelligent approach she chose in
evaluating such an issue. Oh we have a lot to argue about, when we feel
like that (though it doesn't happen that often), but it has nothing to do
with our respective and natural roles. I wouldn't change her for all the gold
in the world and she has proved she shares this feeling after 38 years of
marriage. Yep, thirty-eight, not just three months and eight days
I was not really surprised a month ago when a tv report said that close to
80 % of the current American males are flatly refusing the idea of marrying their idolized "all American" girls, just for the above reasons. And that report said most of them are oriented towards Eastern Euro
girls. No wonder, but just an advice: watch out, buddies, after a few months stay in the "new" environment, they might get infected... I did no
researching on whether an anti-virus of that kind is available or not, but
it looks like you might do well to subscribe to a consistent insurance policy
covering such an event, just in case, of course .... At least you'd get some money back in place of a dream gone bad
Angelo