PODs for Leningrad in 1941

[historygeek2021]

When you can't argue the substance, just distort when the other person said and make snide comment.

Are you serious? Exactly what is the substance in 'It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away'?

Is it normative or descriptive? Both? Do you actually think it is a correct representation of the world over the last couple centuries?

If you feel I've distorted your words, clarify them. Because right now I don't think I'm distorting anything.

We're discussing Hitler's weaknesses as a ruler. He was literally a homeless person before WWI. His opponents in the west were members of families that had been part of the ruling class for at least decades. They were born and raised to rule wisely. Hitler was a crazy homeless person who wanted to find extra farmland for a supposedly master race.

[daveshoup2MD]

And in 1941, the Germans invaded the USSR with the UK still in the fight, and then made a point of ensuring the US would bring its main strength to the war in Europe.

Well, in 1941 the Germans really had two choices:

1. Remain focused on Britain, with no immediate prospect of ending the war and with ever-increasing U.S. support for London, which risked, in time, to confront Berlin with an active Anglo-American war coalition... While having the Soviets in your rear, thus being de facto at their mercy.

2. Eliminate the USSR while Britain was prostrate, then turn back to face Britain and, if it came to pass, the Anglo-American war coalition. But face them in control of a well-resourced continental empire, with no further prospective threats within the international system.

3. Make peace, you fools.

[KDF33]

We're discussing Hitler's weaknesses as a ruler. He was literally a homeless person before WWI. His opponents in the west were members of families that had been part of the ruling class for at least decades. They were born and raised to rule wisely. Hitler was a crazy homeless person who wanted to find extra farmland for a supposedly master race.

...

He was literally a homeless person before WWI.

That's quite the oversimplification. Besides, are homeless persons like... Bad?

They were born and raised to rule wisely.

Heh? They were just politicians. They were not Plato's philosopher kings.

I mean, Churchill spent his youth reporting - and fighting in - minor colonial wars. How did this prepare him to 'rule wisely'?

Here's one of his wise quotes: 'I hate people with slit eyes and pigtails. I don't like the look of them or the smell of them – but I suppose it does no great harm to have a look at them.'

Hitler was a crazy homeless person who wanted to find extra farmland for a supposedly master race.

Hitler's goals have been well and succinctly described on this thread by Cult Icon: '(H)e was not necessarily interested in "surviving". The high risks and poor odds were obvious. He wanted himself- and his country to go down a certain "heroic/romantic" path. He found it intolerable that Germany would be just a medium-sized power, and he had to act fast, even if the chances were slim. This was related to their view that the US and SU were soon to dominate world affairs. This was his mindset in the 30s.'

[KDF33]

3. Make peace, you fools.

How?

[daveshoup2MD]

When you can't argue the substance, just distort when the other person said and make snide comment.

Are you serious? Exactly what is the substance in 'It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away'?

Is it normative or descriptive? Both? Do you actually think it is a correct representation of the world over the last couple centuries?

If you feel I've distorted your words, clarify them. Because right now I don't think I'm distorting anything.

We're discussing Hitler's weaknesses as a ruler. He was literally a homeless person before WWI. His opponents in the west were members of families that had been part of the ruling class for at least decades. They were born and raised to rule wisely. Hitler was a crazy homeless person who wanted to find extra farmland for a supposedly master race.

Again, fair, although more like centuries, actually.

Churchill's British ancestors, the Spencers and Churchills, had been members of the nobility and parliament going back to the 1400s; his mother's family were millionaires, when that meant something.

Roosevelt's ancestors, on both sides, were New York wealth going back to the 1700s (if not the 1600s), and was kin to two presidents.

Hitler was the son of a bastard (in the traditional sense) whose mother was a peasant and who (the bastard, not the mother) rose to the exalted station of customs inspector. It's an open question whether Hitler or Stalin had more formal education; Mussolini had more than both, of course.

[daveshoup2MD]

3. Make peace, you fools.

How?

With or without AH as head of state?

[historygeek2021]

When you can't argue the substance, just distort when the other person said and make snide comment.

Are you serious? Exactly what is the substance in 'It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away'?

Is it normative or descriptive? Both? Do you actually think it is a correct representation of the world over the last couple centuries?

If you feel I've distorted your words, clarify them. Because right now I don't think I'm distorting anything.

We're discussing Hitler's weaknesses as a ruler. He was literally a homeless person before WWI. His opponents in the west were members of families that had been part of the ruling class for at least decades. They were born and raised to rule wisely. Hitler was a crazy homeless person who wanted to find extra farmland for a supposedly master race.

Again, fair, although more like centuries, actually.

Churchill's British ancestors, the Spencers and Churchills, had been members of the nobility and parliament going back to the 1400s; his mother's family were millionaires, when that meant something.

Roosevelt's ancestors, on both sides, were New York wealth going back to the 1700s (if not the 1600s), and was kin to two presidents.

Hitler was the son of a bastard (in the traditional sense) whose mother was a peasant and who (the bastard, not the mother) rose to the exalted station of customs inspector. It's an open question whether Hitler or Stalin had more formal education; Mussolini had more than both, of course.

Exactly. Families like the Churchills and Roosevelts had centuries of experience in how to deal with rabble-rousers like Hitler.

[KDF33]

With or without AH as head of state?

With Hitler as head of state.

[KDF33]

Exactly. Families like the Churchills and Roosevelts had centuries of experience in how to deal with rabble-rousers like Hitler.

This makes no sense.

[TheMarcksPlan]

Exactly. Families like the Churchills and Roosevelts had centuries of experience in how to deal with rabble-rousers like Hitler.

This makes no sense.

I think he's talking about wise men like Oswald Moseley, son of the 5th Baronet, or Edward Windsor?

[KDF33]

Yes. Ask the Germans...

Multiple factors contributed to German defeat - switching from Chamberlain to Churchill barely registers.

[daveshoup2MD]

When you can't argue the substance, just distort when the other person said and make snide comment.

Are you serious? Exactly what is the substance in 'It's supposed to be classist because the world is classist. One class rules and has ruled for centuries. Occasionally the lower classes spit up a pest that the ruling class has to swat away'?

Is it normative or descriptive? Both? Do you actually think it is a correct representation of the world over the last couple centuries?

If you feel I've distorted your words, clarify them. Because right now I don't think I'm distorting anything.

We're discussing Hitler's weaknesses as a ruler. He was literally a homeless person before WWI. His opponents in the west were members of families that had been part of the ruling class for at least decades. They were born and raised to rule wisely. Hitler was a crazy homeless person who wanted to find extra farmland for a supposedly master race.

Again, fair, although more like centuries, actually.

Churchill's British ancestors, the Spencers and Churchills, had been members of the nobility and parliament going back to the 1400s; his mother's family were millionaires, when that meant something.

Roosevelt's ancestors, on both sides, were New York wealth going back to the 1700s (if not the 1600s), and was kin to two presidents.

Hitler was the son of a bastard (in the traditional sense) whose mother was a peasant and who (the bastard, not the mother) rose to the exalted station of customs inspector. It's an open question whether Hitler or Stalin had more formal education; Mussolini had more than both, of course.

Exactly. Families like the Churchills and Roosevelts had centuries of experience in how to deal with rabble-rousers like Hitler.

Or Kaiser Bill, for that matter...

[TheMarcksPlan]

Perhaps a better option would have been to do Vyazma-Bryansk, then stop, set-up a winter line for Heeresgruppe Mitte, transfer mobile forces to Heeresgruppe Nord and strike for Tikhvin and the Svir in November, with Leningrad Front being 'digested' in the early winter.

If possible it's an excellent plan. The Ladoga-Svir portal to Leningard is the only place on the Eastern Front where geography allows a Kessel absent any rapid maneuvers. You don't even need mechanized mobility, necessarily, just a persistent drive of a few miles a day towards the Svir.

[daveshoup2MD]

With or without AH as head of state?

With Hitler as head of state.

Napoleon managed it in 1802, by offering a prisoner exchange and various territorial swaps and recognitions. Given the stalemate in the West and the threat the Axis posed to British interests in the Mediterranean, absent bringing the Soviets into the war, was there a possibility of a settlement?

Possibly...

[daveshoup2MD]

Yes. Ask the Germans...

Multiple factors contributed to German defeat - switching from Chamberlain to Churchill barely registers.

Churchill kept Britain in the fight from 1940 to 1941 and the US alliance; would Chamberlain? Possibly not.