Are they crazy???!! (why did Germany start the war?)

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
cyrill
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 15:14
Location: London / bulgaria

Post by cyrill » 03 Jan 2005 20:56

Doggowitz I absolutely agree you!!!But I am just sorry that my country(Bulgaria) and all other countries in eastern europe has to go through 50 years of communism. Where were the British and the Americans at the end of the war . Instead of ensuring that every contry will be able to decide on its own they granted them to the Soviets. Sorry but i think that both the capitalists the nazist and communist did worse thing at tis years.

User avatar
Doggowitz
Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 20:52
Location: Germany

Post by Doggowitz » 03 Jan 2005 21:35

Yes you definately are right. To say it simply it was the fault of US President Roosevelt, who thought (pretty phantastic) that he and Stalin can together rule the world. Churchill was more realistic, as he recoginized that the West mustn't retreat from the Soviet Union.
I am a lifelong anti-communist and I am sorry for Eastern-Europe, that it was given to communism by the West in 1945-49, but I think it is still better than a manic, ultra-racist Hitler ruling the World. The Soviets and the West defeated him together. That was good. It would have been better, if the West would have taken more influence in Eastern-Europe, instead of giving it for free to Communism. But it turned out quiet good. Nazism is dead, Bolshevism is dead.

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8708
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 12:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 03 Jan 2005 21:37

Just ask the polish ...

And , for that long term down-going of coummunism died million people throughout the years !

One pig they slaughtered , the other one they had fed ...


Jan-Hendrik

User avatar
Doggowitz
Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 20:52
Location: Germany

Post by Doggowitz » 03 Jan 2005 21:46

Yeah thats all right, but honestly would it have been better if Nazi Germany would have defeated Bolshevism and would be the winner? I doubt that. It only would be worse... 50 Years Communism are terrible, but 50 Years Nazism would (at least to me) pure horror.
You said it yourself. LONG-TERM downgoing of Communism did cost Million lifes, but imagine LONG-TERM Nazism. :?

User avatar
cyrill
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 15:14
Location: London / bulgaria

Post by cyrill » 03 Jan 2005 21:53

Yeah especially with his policy about slavs. he would surely try to clear some land .

User avatar
Doggowitz
Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 20:52
Location: Germany

Post by Doggowitz » 03 Jan 2005 22:03

Yes, or at least treated them as working animals... I remember my History teacher who was a Wehrmacht Officer (Major I think). And he was granted to get a HUGE Farm and Land in Romania when the War was won. You can Imagine how Eastern Europe would look like with a victorious Nazi Germany... Germans as "Herrenmenschen"... BRRR!

I just want to remind Poland. The 50 Years under Communism were hard and horrible, but it wasn't as nearly as hard and horrible as 5 Years Nazism.

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8708
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 12:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 03 Jan 2005 22:12

Well , the refugees from Eastern Poland would tell you something else ....

Any National-Socalism and Communism were the horriblst forms of civilisation anyway . Stalin killed nearly 20-25 Mio. People , well Hitlers account reached 15-20 Mio people . So , why was one better than the other ?

Jan-Hendrik

User avatar
Doggowitz
Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 20:52
Location: Germany

Post by Doggowitz » 03 Jan 2005 22:16

Stalin ruled from 1924-53
Hitler ruled from 1933-45 (with the mayority of Killings from 1941-45)

So who was worse?

Hitler killed more people compared in the time he had to do the "work", imagine Hitler would have ruled as long as Stalin...

I think its VERY stupid to say someone was better because he killed 5 Mio less. He still killed MILLIONS!

To me: Communism is bad, Nazism is worse, both were defeated.

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 03 Jan 2005 22:20

Let's get back on topic or this thread will be locked.

/Marcus

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8708
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 12:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 03 Jan 2005 22:20

Sorry , but the heritage of communism we pay even in our days , so your classification is , forgive me please , bullshit ...


Jan-Hendrik

User avatar
Doggowitz
Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 03 Oct 2004 20:52
Location: Germany

Post by Doggowitz » 03 Jan 2005 22:28

Before we get back to topic, a quick respond to your comment.
We also pay for the results of Nazism to this days, so your classifcation is, forgive me, bullshit.
No offense, but I think your lack of argumentation to the FACT that Nazism had a higher death toll compared to its time, doesn't give you the right to be rude. Also I can't see any relation between my arguments and to your comment, so please keep a kind tone and answer with correct statements and arguments.

User avatar
cyrill
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 29 Dec 2004 15:14
Location: London / bulgaria

Post by cyrill » 03 Jan 2005 22:51

Yeah Marcus Wendel is right we are off-topic.

Panzermahn
Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 13 Jul 2002 03:51
Location: Malaysia

Post by Panzermahn » 04 Jan 2005 06:05

Doggowitz wrote:Yes you definately are right. To say it simply it was the fault of US President Roosevelt, who thought (pretty phantastic) that he and Stalin can together rule the world. Churchill was more realistic, as he recoginized that the West mustn't retreat from the Soviet Union.
I am a lifelong anti-communist and I am sorry for Eastern-Europe, that it was given to communism by the West in 1945-49, but I think it is still better than a manic, ultra-racist Hitler ruling the World. The Soviets and the West defeated him together. That was good. It would have been better, if the West would have taken more influence in Eastern-Europe, instead of giving it for free to Communism. But it turned out quiet good. Nazism is dead, Bolshevism is dead.
You must remember that, Hitler, National Socialism (or NAZI for short) and fascism had only designs in Europe and not the world..The Bolshevik and Communist ideological brutality stressed that the world proletarian revolution and that there should be revolutionary idelogical struggle in every nation of this planet..Hence during the 50s, communist revolution was happening in Far East and South East Asia (THe Jungle Bolsheviks of Malaya tried to start an ideological bolshevik proletarian struggle but was finally defeated in 1989 with the assistance of British Commonwealth), then in the 60s and 70s, it was left-wing revolutionarry struggle and resistance against Nazi-fascism in Europe (remember the Red Brigades, ETA and Baader-Meinhof gang?) and then in the late 70s, it was in Africa with the revolutionarry struggle of Communist Africans in Angola, Kenya, Namibia and 80s, it was the communist proletarian struggle and again, "people's" revolution in South & Central America, remember the communist Sandinistas?

National Socialism and Fascism's only mistakes is to engaged Bolshevism and Communism much to early before the capitalists and Western "Democracy" realised that it was Bolshevism and Communism was the biggest threat rather than NAZIsm and Fascism.

SO it is vital too look back why Germany is accused of starting the war (WW1 and WW2)...Because, of all nations, it was Hitler and Germany who had the vision to knew the threat posed by Bolshevism long before America and British realised..And the heroic struggle of volunteers of many nations, but one motto of the world's first international and multinational and multiethnic force, Wehrmacht and Waffen SS.

WHen America and British realised that their mistakes (George Patton correctly believe that it was the Bolsheviks who were the bigger threat), they started to prepared plans to thwart a worldwide bolshevik revolution..Namely with the GLADIO network in Europe and the strategy of tension else where in the world...The entire Korean peninsula would have been bolshevized if not for the timely intervention of UN force under command of Supreme Commander General Douglas MacArthur (5 star General)

User avatar
Ostkatze
Member
Posts: 344
Joined: 06 Oct 2004 03:08
Location: Ohio

Are they crazy?!?!!??!!

Post by Ostkatze » 04 Jan 2005 06:32

Igorn:- Sorry for the late reply as I was offline for a few days. Do not wish to pick a fight with you and I agree with the bulk of your points. However - your quotes of Halder and Guderian from the early part of Aug41 come from the middle of the biggest internal argument in world history. At that point they were screaming to stop the movement of PzGppe2 et al to the south behind Kiev. It was truly the turning point ( no pun ). Part of their argument to avoid the breaking up of AGC were the losses to be sustained in sitting in the Yelyna salient by not quickly resuming a Moscow advance. Guderian himself has been seen as avoiding the shift south by entangling his mobile units during this period instead of resting them for the drive south. Not picking sides in this fight, merely pointing out that your quotes were grinding their own axes, as in tired troops always being short of gasoline. np.

Obserwator
Banned
Posts: 557
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 18:50
Location: Poland

Post by Obserwator » 04 Jan 2005 15:29

Actually Panzermahn the war was started to colonise the eastern Europe in pursuit of Lebensraum(an idea that was born in XIX century), and to exterminate several nations considered subhuman.But I doubt you will admit that.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”