| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jodogohoo
Canada2533 Posts
you can find the book online if you look hard enough o; as it is semi-expensive, or at your library but regarding the topic itself.. i feel pretty bad that such terrible things could actually happen. specifically stuff on the eastern front. of course im not surprised by the variability in human behavior, from peaceful people into pretty not so peaceful people... but ahh, it's disappointing to be part of humanity when I think of what's happen in the past | ||
|
Ph4ZeD
United Kingdom753 Posts
On December 28 2011 08:09 jodogohoo wrote: ohhhh i just read an awesome book on WWII called All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings, I highly recommend it as it gives a pretty awesome account of a lot of things already discussed in this thread. Such as operation barborossa, a very detailed account of the eastern front. the fighting in the pacific as well. and also reasons for pearl harbor. you can find the book online if you look hard enough o; as it is semi-expensive, or at your library but regarding the topic itself.. i feel pretty bad that such terrible things could actually happen. specifically stuff on the eastern front. of course im not surprised by the variability in human behavior, from peaceful people into pretty not so peaceful people... but ahh, it's disappointing to be part of humanity when I think of what's happen in the past If most people really knew what happened on the Eastern Front, it would change their perspective on humanity. It even can put the Holocaust in perspective. However, the westernised, Call of Duty brigade have made D-Day the star of the show, and the Allied invasion too. No one knows about the terrible loss of life in Russia. | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
I really had nice and interesting conversations with him about WWII. First there was like a barrier approaching this theme because I can understand that you wouldn't like to talk about this, but then he gave me some insight. All in all he just tried to live through the war (he was lucky though to live in a smaller town with an harbor which wasn't bombed because there were neutral swedish ships) without getting involved in anything that might be harmful. He didn't shoot a man or sth. like that. After that I feel like we should respect these people more, most of them weren't evil or only did evil things after being manipulated over years. My brother once asked my grandpa wether he "bumped off a Russian" in war. I felt so terrible hearing that question. | ||
|
Cinim
Denmark866 Posts
Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege. They probably couldn't ever take control of the sea, but they had too much control of the air, so it didn't really matter. This was never a joke attack... Even Nazis doesn't joke with bombs | ||
|
SilentchiLL
Germany1405 Posts
On December 28 2011 08:29 Cinim wrote: about the operation seelöwe(the actual name!!) Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege. They probably couldn't ever take control of the sea, but they had too much control of the air, so it didn't really matter. This was never a joke attack... Even Nazis doesn't joke with bombs I'd suggest that you read your post and then teh post it was directed to again. | ||
|
Geosensation
United States256 Posts
On December 28 2011 08:29 Cinim wrote: about the operation seelöwe(the actual name!!) Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege. They probably couldn't ever take control of the sea, but they had too much control of the air, so it didn't really matter. This was never a joke attack... Even Nazis doesn't joke with bombs What I got from this - America was just a huge decoy. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On December 28 2011 07:08 5ukkub wrote: Let me tell you what my grandmother experienced. (she was 14 when the war began). It's not about gunfights, frontlines. It's about life at war from common people's perspective. When germans came, life in the village didn't change almost at all. Only the land owners and people like mailman, teacher, priest chaged. German soldiers were clean, polite, never tried to steal. My grandmother even said "gentelmen" when describing their behaviour towards villagers. She was even recieving flowers from one of the officers. The only thing that indicated it was an occupation, was that they had to work for 2 hours a day building railroad and children were tought german songs in school. When the russian army came "liberating", it was a whole another story. My grandmother had to hide in chickencoop for two weeks to avoid rape! There was no property whatsoever. Soldiers slept where they want, eat what they want. Any resistance could mean shot in the head. Officers themselves rather encouraged hatred towards villagers instead of disciplining their comrades. They were like animals. They smelled on a mile. There were louses everywhere... My grandmother said, what best describes them: "Ruskies were cooking in chamberpots and shitting in cooking pots! There was no difference for them whatsoever!" That was the best teaching about WWII i've ever got. While we're at sharing stories from them grandparents... My grandfather (born 1937) told me more than once about how it was regular business for the american fighter planes to shoot them on their way to school. Yes, we're talking about 6-7 year old kids. Part of this experience was the reason for him becoming a pilot later in his life. What he learned is: The height at which he was shot from when he was a kid is a height at which the pilot was 100% aware that he was shooting children, not grown men. A story from my great-grandmother (born 1911, she owned a bakery in nuremberg during the war) was that at one point shortly before the war ended (1944ish) a black GI came into her house with some kind of MP in his hand shouting "EGGS. GIB EGGS." while pointing the gun at her - from what she remembered he looked as if he hasn't eaten since days. Once she figured out what he was on about she threw him about 10 eggs into a pan, and gave him some bread on top of it. He sat in the kitchen, eating his eggs with the MP next to him, finished, said "Danke Fräulein" and left. War isn't always what it looks like afterwards. Whoever claims that one side was all evil or all good is most likely pretty damn wrong. | ||
|
Deleted User 183001
2939 Posts
On December 28 2011 07:57 Ph4ZeD wrote: That depends on your perspective on freedom. Large areas of the USSR hated Stalin and the Kremlin - they had their own identities and hated the Soviet policy of stamping it out. Just like Libyan/Syrian citizens hoped for foreign intervention, many cultures within the USSR wanted to see an attack on Russia. I assume you refer to the Baltic countries that hold parades in honor of the Nazis to this day as far as national freedom goes. But Stalin was mostly hated because he tore down the Soviet system, and made it authoritarian. This is why Lenin warned against Stalin, and why Lenin to this day is considered a superhero while Stalin, even in Russia, is meh, despite his achievements being greater than Lenin's. Character counts.. Still, we have to evaluate what's the best there could be. With Lenin with a stroke, there came the Trotsky-Stalin power struggle, so for certain we know the Soviet parliamentary/council and republican system was going to go bye bye. Between those two, Stalin is easily far more competent a leader. We can see in little more than a decade, Russia went from a highly agrarian country to a highly advanced industrial powerhouse. If that didn't happen, the Germans would have walked over the Soviet Union, and then the rest of Europe, and would have their planned conquered territory meet-up with the Japanese somewhere in central Asia. So given the circumstances, there really wasn't anything better. That said, the Soviets could have taken the approach others before them have taken, and which we have taken, which means practically exterminating native minority cultures that are rowdy. Good thing they didn't. Also, the administration in Moscow is responsible for bringing these other Soviet countries and also the Warsaw Pact bloc into the modern era. I don't think many people realize this, but a century ago in Europe, only the big European powers like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia (maybe one or two others) were modernized by the standards of a century ago. The rest of Europe was really, really far behind, and the Balkans and eastern Europe (excluding Russia) were in the worst state. Germany did initially completely dominate Britain, Herman Görring controlled Britain completely, because they had military targets. But after a while, they took civilian targets. While this sound horrible, it's probably 1 of the most deciding factors in the war, because sure, USA came into the war, but fact is they weren't well trained and generally not very beneficial in winning. But this, this allowed british troops to get in the air and fight the german pilots(before they couldn't even get into their plains) Churchill is very famous for a quote on this, saying ''Never has so few, did so much for so many'' about the RAF. Without this change in tactics, Britain could have never joined the battle, because they would have been under siege. Hitler was a very weird man. On the one hand, he brutally hated socialists, Slavs, and Jews. On the other, when it came to Americans and western Europeans, he was the most humane leader in the war. German generals sternly advised it was necessary to terrorize the British through attacks on civilian targets, even important ones (power generation, production, etc.), and the British would have most certainly surrendered. However, he furiously refused such an action, until the very last days of the BoB. Also do note that the British bombed Germany before the Battle of Britain... Also, if the British were so pummeled and beaten they couldn't do anything, then the "change in tactics" by the Germans would not have "turned" the battle for the British, and the Germans were still almost completely concentrating on military targets, but diverting some to attacking critical strategic civilian targets as well, so it's not like they completely ignored British forces. From the military standpoint, the Germans should have done that from the outset. Destroy every power plant, industrial zone, and other structures required for a country to function, and they would have won outright without a boot on the ground. But like on many occasions, Hitler had to fuck up. Also, in those days, it was stupid to fight only with aircraft against aircraft AND air defenses. However, if they really had to go with attacking military targets only strategy most of the battle, then had the Axis not had most of their military on the Soviet border, they could have coupled it up with an amphibious and paratrooper assault (especially the famous Fallschirmjaeger) and Britain wouldn't have stood a chance. My grandfather (born 1937) told me more than once about how it was regular business for the american fighter planes to shoot them on their way to school. Yes, we're talking about 6-7 year old kids. Part of this experience was the reason for him becoming a pilot later in his life. What he learned is: The height at which he was shot from when he was a kid is a height at which the pilot was 100% aware that he was shooting children, not grown men. I'm aware of many Allied atrocities, even if practically all of them are really swept under the rug, but this is really fucked up coming from the "good guy" in the war, and I've actually never heard of it. Just goes to show how things work. I don't think there's a chance in hell I'd ever accept an order to attack beyond a critical non-military strategic targets, which will still always kill tons of civilians, but being told to outright kill civilians is monstrous, especially at the time in a war when such things are not in the least necessary for victory. | ||
|
sjperera
Canada349 Posts
The Nazis: A Warning from History (6 parts) War of the Century (not sure how many parts)... | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh this guy has a lot of great pod casts discussing WW2 and other events in history. He has a very good series on the Eastern front for anyone that's interested. | ||
|
Flik
Canada256 Posts
Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7953 Posts
On December 28 2011 08:50 Endymion wrote: war is glamorous until you're the one holding the rifle under a hail of gunfire. Well, yeah. I would even say that war is glamorous until you get a brain and start thinking. Then you realize it's not glamorous at all to be reduced to pieces of meat or have your intestines out of your belly. That it's not glamorous to have your kids, brothers or husband being slaughtered because people are too dumb to realize the value of human life. The closest I get to war without feeling disgust is Starcraft. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
When the bear beats the wolf, you still lose. Let's not forget that the Soviets were more than happy to invade Poland, slaughter innocents, ignore human rights, and basically be just as big a group of assholes as the Nazis were. Also, they were funded by the West. That point is almost never brought up either by people who portray the West as inconsequential to the outcome of the war. Which is a hilarious attitude considering the later assertion that the Nazi's couldn't even hope to invade Britain, much less the United States. This revisionist history of the West as a bunch of bumbling idiots who just happened to be in the right place at the right time while the Soviets were the unstoppable world powers that single-handily won the war, it's just downright insulting to everyone involved. Could the Japanese have won the war? Depends on what you mean by "won". Do you mean "get away with Pearl Harbor"? Then no. As soon as they managed to fall all over themselves giving FDR the excuse he wanted they were as screwed as a hen in a fox house. And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I don't think FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen. But he was looking for a way to get into that war, and was more than happy to oblige the Japanese when they came a-knocking. If they hadn't been so eager to conquer themselves, and stuck to crapping on China's day... I don't know. Maybe they could; probably not. Evil regimes like that have a way of eating themselves Soviet Union style. The Battle you mentioned. I had never heard about that, which is surprising. So I looked it up. It wasn't exactly a "battle" (IMO), nor did it happen quite how it was described in the OP. Things were not going well for the Japanese, true, they were sorely lacking in supplies while the Soviets were doing alright in that dept. The Japanese also had less armor, and smaller weapons. They still managed to keep it at a stalemate, until the Soviets built up a much larger force with much better supplies under the man who would become the most highly decorated Soviet general in the entire war and led a surprise attack to expel the Japanese from where they had invaded. I understand the point being made here,and I kind of agree, but let's be honest with ourselves. Let's put it this way: a lot of Russians donned German uniforms to try to destroy the Soviet Union. More people were killed by the Soviet Union than either Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Keep things in context here. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On December 28 2011 08:55 Flik wrote: Wasn't Britain almost completely starved out? Wasn't the Atlantic u-boat blockade still in effect when Hitler decided to attack Russia? Im not 100% sure of all the facts but I remember reading an opinion that if Hitler actually waited a little longer before attacking Russia, Britain probably would have surrendered. Im sure that the civilian bombings had an impact but wouldn't the bigger impact be if you didn't have the raw materials to supply the industry? Hitler fucked up a lot of things. Germany, for all intents and purposes, under a competent leader, should have won the war. | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
On December 28 2011 09:02 Fruscainte wrote: Hitler fucked up a lot of things. Germany, for all intents and purposes, under a competent leader, should have won the war. we should be happy that Hitler wasn't competent then. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On December 28 2011 09:06 wBsKillian wrote: we should be happy that Hitler wasn't competent then. Indeed. Although it is interesting to think IF he was. Would he have broke his treaty with Italy, taking them over? Spain? If America stayed out of the war, would he have eventually tried to invade the States? Just how far would he go, I wonder? | ||
|
atwar
57 Posts
| ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On December 28 2011 09:12 atwar wrote: lol at kidz saying russia didnt it all , ill give you an example russia was like the deathball coming to kill you and US was like the marine drops coming to kill a few drones and annoy you for germany. Both sides would have been fucked if it were not for the other. Stop trying to quantify "who did more" | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
On December 28 2011 09:08 Fruscainte wrote: Indeed. Although it is interesting to think IF he was. Would he have broke his treaty with Italy, taking them over? Spain? If America stayed out of the war, would he have eventually tried to invade the States? Just how far would he go, I wonder? There were (completely unrealistic) plans of invading the states, dont know much about Spain/Italy though. I don't like thinking of the posibilities Hitler had or how much he could've conquored and how much more suffering he could've caused. WWII was good for Germany in an economic way though. The loser of the war (Germany) managed to get up economically from nothing after the war while the winner (Great Britain) still had some struggles economically. Of course it was possible by the help/ dispence of war debts by the winners, but it still is an interesting fact... | ||
| ||
|
|
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
