|
On December 29 2011 07:01 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2011 06:37 kobrakai wrote:Never have I read so much bullshit collected in one thread. Lets just take an example: Both Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships at the time. They weren't allies of Germany, but they never stood in their way either. To call both Francoist Spain and Estado Novo fascist dictatorships, show that this guy doesn't know at least five different things; i)What a fascist dictatorship is. ii) What the composition of the Nationalist side was during the Spanish Civil War and thus the winning side and how the country was run after the end of the war. iii) What the Estado Novo was. iV) Who the oldest English ally is and what that means. v) What Lajes Field is. Most of the posts in this thread show similar mis-conceptions, lack of understanding or down right lies. This thread is a travesty. Then explain, instead of acting all haughty on your high-horse, after all, that's the whole point of this history thread.
It would take at least a week to accurately describe all the inner workings of the nationalist side during the civil war. There were many different factions, two most important the Falange and the Carlists. Carlists hated anything to do with socialism as they were traditionalists with strong links to the Roman Catholic Church. Carlists distrusted both Hitler and Mussolini. This should help the common view that Franco and Mussolini are to fascism what Hitler is to nazism. Spain was clearly fascist.
The Falange members (a fascist party) never really held important offices during the Francoist era.
Franco certainly had a lot of control over Spain but there was no totalitarian control over the religious/social/cultural aspects of life. Franco also never had the degree of control over the economy categorized by Fascism.
Franco had no set politically agenda he was a pragmatist and Francoist... it is a word and the era of spain is called Francoist Spain.
I mean really, people can quite easily find this information on the net, or shock, horror they could pick up a book and read up on the subject.
Salazar in Portugal (Estado Novo) was an authoritarian regime with elements of corporatism and integralism. Integrlaism is the main defining factor here between fascism and Salazars regime. Again this info is even on wiki! A cursory glance would of been enough to tell anyone that Salazar was not a fascist, but then I guess people can't be bothered to read and just type what ever they were taught in school or saw on same computer game.....
|
On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO. Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes. You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day. Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK. Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ZLlX.png) Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia)
From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them.
The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered.
This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart.
And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight.
Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
|
On December 31 2011 05:34 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO. Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes. You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day. Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK. Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too. Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia) From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them. The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered. This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart. And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight. Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here.
And its not like most of the green nations really fought or helped. Some turkish grandpas told me how they used to smuggle food and weapons to german regiments near the border and so on. The arab nations were mostly nazi friendly and even an indian regiment fought for germany. There are surely alot of examples that I cant even think of but just consider how all the nazis fled to argentine, a nation hostile to germany on your picture. The only real enemies in my opinion were France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Russia and the US. Its not like germany had to invade every country in the world to get peace. A stalemate with the US would have been enough, if all continental main enemies had been defeated. The main problem would have been partisan warfare in conquered areas.
|
On December 31 2011 04:31 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2011 04:06 SilentchiLL wrote:You said they had no chance, well if everything goes the way it went then of course they had no chance because we know how it ended, but if you see it like that don't talk about chances, talk about facts in the real world. Of course nobody will argue with you here if you say that germany lost the second world war, but if we only state facts here this thread is useless and shouldn't exist. And your second sentence hurt my feelings...  - I never said such a thing, not about the "what ifs" anyway. - This kind of idea has little interest since all it does is imagine that one side gets a huge advantage and wins. There is a neverending list of scenarios that would change the outcome of the war. What is interesting is exploring what truly happened. Extrapolating is just like a bunch of teenage kids trying to find out who would win between a Tokugawa samurai and a Frank knight.
Ahh it wasn't you who said that, but if extrapolating is useless why are you even here in this thread?
If you really want to discuss history google could show you a few better places in less than 10 seconds and it's not about a "huge advantage" it's just about the huge advantage if you talk about it in redicilous proportions.
So go ahead and keep on making useless halfsentences or single sentences in discussions others got going, but I don't think I'll reply to such a useless post from you ever again.
What if Hitler had died in WW1? Oh, extrapolating is so fun.
Zero contribution to the thread or the discussion and I can't even thank you for trying because you didn't even try to contribute to it, you just mock others in a less than pleasant tone.
And it wasn't a one time thing for you, right?
If you compare these posts:
+ Show Spoiler +EDIT: On December 31 2011 05:55 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2011 05:34 LaughingTulkas wrote:On December 30 2011 12:16 jello_biafra wrote:On December 30 2011 12:14 Feartheguru wrote:On December 30 2011 02:14 RvB wrote:On December 29 2011 07:46 FecalFrown wrote:On December 28 2011 04:15 Fruscainte wrote: Under the hand of an actually no mentally handicapped leader, Germany would have and, under every category, SHOULD have won World War 2. They had better technology, a better fighting spirit, and all that jazz. It's just...ugh, Hitler made some pretty stupid fucking decisions. Except by the end America had nukes. An absolute trump card IMO. Better technology was only partly true and by the end of the war the allied had the better technlogy. Take for example the spitfire, it was as good if not better than the German planes. You cannot possibly argue that the spitfire was better than Germany's first generation jet aircraft, despite their many drawbacks. Also the Panther cost only 1.5-2x what a Sherman costs and typically 1 Panther = 5 Shermans in combat Unfortunately for them though even though the difference in costs were so little you were still far more likely to have 5 Shermans than a Panther on any given day. Also the RAF had a jet fighter by the war's end too, the jet engine was invented in the UK. Also, to the guy that said Nazi Germany should have won WW2, they had no chance really, just take a look at this map and consider that the allies had control of the oceans too. Dark Green: Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Light Green: Allied countries that entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Blue: Axis Powers and their colonies Gray: Neutral countries during WWII Dark green dots represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR Light green dots represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies Blue dots represent countries that after being conquered by the Axis Powers, became puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies, Croatia) From an economic and pure number standpoint, of course you are correct, the Axis had no chance. What I think you are overlooking to some degree is simply the human factor. The psychology of war is often much more important than the physics of war, and here I believe the Axis had a slightly greater chance than perhaps you are giving them. The blitzkrieg really works not because you blow up everything that the opponent has, but because you paralyze them and defeat them through manuever, and then you win without having to fight (as much). The fall of France is particularly instructive in this. The army of France was thought to be the strongest in the world at the time of the war, and although it performed badly, it was not physically destroyed when France fell. It was; however, soundly beaten psychologically. The French simply lost the will to fight after being out-maneuvered. This same phenomenon could have occurred in Russia, if Hitler had made some different decisions. The Russian counter attack that was so devastating might never had occurred given a swift fall of the capital complete with the capture or rendering ineffective of the major functions of government. The Russian people, instead seeing the mighty German army stall (the one that had just overrun Europe) might have seen its continued and rapid success and lost heart. And without Russia in the War when Pearl Harbor happens, things become a lot more complicated. Africa would almost assuredly be lost, along with the vital Suez Canal connecting Britain to its colonies. Italy's navy might be actually put to decent use. Air power than was used in Russia would now be free for operations in the Mediterranean, or a renewed Battle of Britain. Each success weakens the will of the defenders to fight. Anyway, I think the issue is a little more murky than you suggest simply because economics and "numbers" aren't the only factor at play here. And its not like most of the green nations really fought or helped. Some turkish grandpas told me how they used to smuggle food and weapons to german regiments near the border and so on. The arab nations were mostly nazi friendly and even an indian regiment fought for germany. There are surely alot of examples that I cant even think of but just consider how all the nazis fled to argentine, a nation hostile to germany on your picture. The only real enemies in my opinion were France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Russia and the US. Its not like germany had to invade every country in the world to get peace. A stalemate with the US would have been enough, if all continental main enemies had been defeated. The main problem would have been partisan warfare in conquered areas.
which are filled with what-ifs with your posts, which of those do you think contributed more to the thread and the discussion?
|
I think that Wikipedia is the biggest contributor in this discussion. Did I learn anything here? Well the OP was interesting, stating some facts that one could think and learn about. Other than that, you're better off actually reading a book or Wikipedia articles.
Believing that people can discuss history using Wikipedia as a solid base is just an insult to the work all historians do on archives and testimonies.
This is my contribution to the thread: don't get fooled, you probably have no idea what you're talking about. I know I personally don't. Keep this in mind while crafting "weird what if" scenarios.
|
On December 31 2011 06:12 Kukaracha wrote:
I think that Wikipedia is the biggest contributor in this discussion. Did I learn anything here? Well the OP was interesting, stating some facts that one could think and learn about. Other than that, you're better off actually reading a book or Wikipedia articles.
Believing that people can discuss history using Wikipedia as a solid base is just an insult to the work all historians do on archives and testimonies.
This is my contribution to the thread: don't get fooled, you probably have no idea what you're talking about. I know I personally don't. Keep this in mind while crafting "weird what if" scenarios.
Your assumption that everybody just uses wikipedia here is quite insulting and I think you already made your point on what-if scenarios in several posts clear, no need to keep going at it.
PS: I do think what-if scenarios have their use, as long as nobody redicules the topic by pulling them in gigantic proportions they can show what little difference could've changed, and therefore how important certain things which are often forgotten were.
|
hope this does not offend anyone but I find this hilarious.
![[image loading]](http://www.smittenbybritain.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/scissors-beat-paper.jpg)
|
On December 31 2011 07:03 Lifan wrote:hope this does not offend anyone but I find this hilarious.
Nice one.
Anybody has read Lost Victories by Von Manstein(from my point of view, the top general of the german army with guderian).
Im thinking about getting it but not sure if its good or not.
I read Rommel's papers in high school and i was mind blown by how good it was. However Rommel's paper are generally seen as the cream of the crop in terms of writing by high ranking military personel.
|
Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well
|
On January 02 2012 11:17 ppshchik wrote:
Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well
The difference is that when Allied nations were colonizing countries, they weren't shipping all the "undesirables" to special camps where they could be worked to death or just murdered outright.
|
There are tons of different topics concerning WWII the best read I think is about the Foreign Legion, and how Legion fought Legion:
The digging paid off; General Erwin Rommel first sent in Italian armor. In less than an hour, 33 tanks were blown up in the minefields, blasted almost point blank by Legion gunners (one of the German Legionnaires alone took out seven tanks) or put out of action by Legionnaires shoving grenades through their visors. The stunned Italian commander said after his capture, "We were told we could crush you in 15 minutes." Rommel outnumbered the Free French by over 10-to-1, but it took him almost 15 days to occupy Bir Hacheim. Amilakvari was always in the thick of it with kepi and cape, as the fighting grew as fierce as the 120-degree heat.
Rommel threw in armor, infantry and combined assaults. The Legionnaires in return "opened fire again with undiminished violence," Rommel wrote, then countercharged on foot and in open Bren gun carriers. Messmer destroyed 15 German tanks. Lieutenant Jean Deve, a World War I veteran and former railway man, threw himself at German armor to the very end. On the final day he was last seen with his nearly severed head dangling over the side of his carrier. One philosophic Legionnaire who had been his comrade at Narvik said, "We're the men whose bootprints fill with shells." German artillery kept on shelling Bir Hacheim. Dive bombers flew 1,400 sorties, unloading 1,500 tons of explosives. The defenses the Legionnaires had helped to build were good ones. Only 14 Legionnaires were killed and 17 wounded during the heavy siege. For the Legion, though, Bir Hacheim was a continuation of its private civil war. One of the Afrika Korps units most remorselessly assaulting Bir Hacheim was the 361st Infantry Regiment, composed of German ex-Legionnaires repatriated, many of them willingly, under the 1940 armistice that Adolf Hitler had forced on Pétain.
Source
|
On January 02 2012 11:29 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 11:17 ppshchik wrote:
Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well The difference is that when Allied nations were colonizing countries, they weren't shipping all the "undesirables" to special camps where they could be worked to death or just murdered outright.
Slaves??
|
On January 02 2012 11:29 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2012 11:17 ppshchik wrote:
Is history written by victors? Because imo Nazi Germany indirectly liberated many third world countries from colonialism by weakening many European nations. Nazi Germany sure was bad for invading their neighbors but imo allied nations such as Britain, France, Netherlands etc weren't any better for colonizing other third world coutnries as well The difference is that when Allied nations were colonizing countries, they weren't shipping all the "undesirables" to special camps where they could be worked to death or just murdered outright.
You do know that the British invented the concept of concentration camps by shipping Boer guerillas and their families to "special camps" you mentioned during the Boer War in South Africa?
|
Didn't the U.S. abolish slavery fifty years or more before World War 2? And didn't the British abolish it about 60 years before the U.S. did? Not saying that our colonial history was clean, it certainly was not (see: Native Americans), but at that point the first world countries had abandoned slavery, had they not?
|
Also, the British didn't invent the concept of concentraion camps, the Russians were shipping Poles to Siberia way before the Boer Wars.
|
Not to mention the public outcry against the concentration camps in the Boer Wars, where was the public outcry against the extermination of Jews in Germany? I understand that you're trying to show that Germany is not alone in war crimes and concentration camps, but how can you even compare the two situations?
|
what about the 3 year japanese occupation in singapore?
|
1019 Posts
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
|
Rule of War: Don't attack Russia. Ever. You'll Lose.
|
On January 02 2012 12:06 white_horse wrote:
A lot of westerners focus on the typical atrocities by nazi germany (concentration camps, jews, gas chambers, etc) but the atrocities committed by japan was so much more horrible. Every single thing they did in korea and china was a calculated attempt at humiliating, torturing, or destroying people and their cultures. And the sad thing is that they aren't even sorry for it. The japan that white people know is pretty much anime, gundam, and shiny electronics but theres a reason why so many people hate them..
Also, I don't know if it came up in the previous pages but regarding the debate over the usage of the atomic bomb is one of the most pointless ones in the world. If america hadn't dropped those bombs, they would have had to make d-day style invasions which would have produced thousands of more american deaths and pretty much the entire annihilation of the japanese people because they and their government was basically gone nuts to protect japan to the death.
# of deaths from a-bomb < # of deaths from american land invasion
This, a million times over. What the Germans did was unthinkable, but the Japanese did the same thing with much more ferocity and much less discrimination. They enslaved women to be used by soldiers as sex slaves, forced fathers to rape their own daughters, and murdered anybody who showed an ounce of resistance.The rape of Nanking in itself is one of the most disturbing events in human history, and there were many other incidents just like it all over the Pacific.
As for the atomic bomb dropping, the calculations made by the U.S. military estimated that deaths from the planned "Operation Downfall" might run into the millions, and that's just Allied deaths, the Japanese numbers surely would have been much higher, as there were many more Japanese soldiers killed than surrendered during the course of the war.
EDIT: couldn't find the statistic i had seen to support my figure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
