Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 168
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Why Did Hitler Fail?

  1. #1 Why Did Hitler Fail? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Hitler at one stage, he conquered much of Western Europe. Though Churchill opposed him, but in the start, Churchill's opposition of Hitler did not gain much support in Britain, so Churchill did nothing much to stop him in the beginning, other than watching Hitler gaining more power in Germany.

    FDR at that time might be observing where the tide may go. Hitler wanted to dominate the whole of mankind, but perhaps, his biggest mistake was his invasion of USSR. In the beginning, Hitler might think it was easy to win a war against the Soviets, but during winter times, the strange snowing weather of USSR where Europeans were not used to, made the German tanks not smooth and perhaps the poor vision during the foggy weather plus the trouble of getting the food supply from Germany to Soviet Union since it was so far away with poor weather condition, perhaps, led Hitler to defeat.

    Do you agree?

    But if Hitler did not attack USSR, the question is, would the Nazi Party still survive even to this day? If Hitler did not make a mistake by attacking USSR, would his party survive?

    Perhaps, Hitler thought that if he could conquer USSR, then, he could conquer Britain and USA. Because it might be harder to conquer USSR than conquering Britain or USA, because of the poor weather conditions of Soviet Union that many Europeans were not used to. Do you agree?

    So do you think that Hitler lost against the Soviets, not because the red army was stronger than the SS, but rather, because of the weather conditions of USSR helped the red army rather than the SS was weaker than the Soviets, do you agree?

    Finally, we are living in a period of social instability. Perhaps, the war in Europe might be the major cause of the social instability around this earth. If there is no world war one, then, there will be no world war two. When the Europe is in war, Japanese will want to attack China and other parts of Asia, and then, other places such as Middle East and Africa were poured into war because of the conflict in Europe.

    The Gulf War and the following of 911 might have connection with all the conflicts before it. The wide spread of depression or unhappiness today may have connection with the situation we live in: Political instability, where many people do not feel emotionally secured. So this period we live in may be a period of social instability, where what the society today has more or less of the shadows of the conflicts from the last century, right?


    westwind and webmaster like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I think Hitler attacked the USSR because he didn't want the war to end. As things stood, he held France, and England was almost certainly going to fall to him soon.

    Then what happens? My guess: most likely the German people would say "Hey good job Hitler. We won!!! Now let's stop fighting." And of course, the Nazi regime couldn't sustain its power if the country wasn't at war.

    Hitler was a megalomaniac. He needed to be needed. You shouldn't go thinking that he was a good leader who cared about his country. He'd have wiped his nose (not wanting to say what else) with Germany if it served his purposes. He didn't care what happened to his soldiers. He just wanted to be an important celebrity with people praising him, and free to domineer over whom he willed.


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think Hitler attacked the USSR because he didn't want the war to end. As things stood, he held France, and England was almost certainly going to fall to him soon.

    Then what happens? My guess: most likely the German people would say "Hey good job Hitler. We won!!! Now let's stop fighting." And of course, the Nazi regime couldn't sustain its power if the country wasn't at war.
    I think Hitler attacked the USSR because he believed Germany needed extra living space (Lebensraum) and raw materials. He also believed an eventual clash, between the two totalitarian ideologies of Fascism and Communism, was inevitable.
    Also, I am far from convinced by your statement "the Nazi regime couldn't sustain its power if the country wasn't at war". What reasons can you put forward, as a justification, for that argument?
    I don't admire Hitler, or Fascism, but I don't believe he can be dismissed in a few sentences such as "he just wanted to be an important celebrity------".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Nazi regime is an expression of the anger or dissatisfactions of what is happening at Germany in that time, after Germany lost the first world war and the traity of versail created Germany lost over maybe one million square miles of land. Germany had to pay back 123 billion RM. They could only pay 50 billion RM. Depression began.

    So there were angry or dissatisfied Germans at that time, and Hitler came along to express the dissatisfaction of certain Germans at that time and the economical depression.

    So there was bursting energy in Hitler's speech, where the SS said: "Hitler is Germany. Germany is Hitler.' And because of the anger or dissatisfaction that Hitler is pumping up which his supporters loved to hear, this might eventually lead to war or conflict and so on.

    But I feel if he did not attack USSR, maybe his regime would not fall very quickly. Maybe the USSR had more foot soldiers than Nazi. But was Nazi's military technology better than the Soviets? I do not know.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Kojax said: "Hitler attacked USSR because he did not want the war the end. As things stood, he held France and England ws almost certainly going to fall to him soon."

    Well, I am unsure about that, because if Hitler attacked Britain, then, USA is going to team up with Britain to fight against Hitler. And if that happens, Hitler is fighting Britain and USA at the same time, which the chance for Hitler to win will decrease, because he is fighting against two countries at once.

    But if Hitler attacks UK, while USA ignores giving assistance to UK, then, maybe Hitler may win a war against England. But I do not feel that if UK is under attacked by Hitler, USA is going to watch England sink without giving assistance. Why?

    Because if UK falls into the hands of Hitler, then, maybe USA is in danger.

    So politically, USA would want to help Britain if Britain is attacked by the Axis.

    While USSR wanted to support the Allies not because the Soviets like the British, but because if Hitler can unify Europe under the forces of Nazi Party, then, Stalin felt that may weaken the power of the Soviet Union itself, even if Hitler does not launch a war against the Soviets.

    Because Stalin would want Europe to be divided rather than unified with the power of Hitler.

    And to me, Hitler's thinking is this. Hitler thinks whoever can make the first surprising aggressive move will win.

    But for Stalin, his thinking is this: Stalin thinks that whoever makes the first wrong move will be likely to lose.

    So perhaps, Stalin is waiting for Hitler to make a wrong move, which he did, and Hitler lost and if Hitler lost, then, Stalin could have a piece of meat; he could have a piece of Germany, which was what he wanted and Roosevelt could do nothing about it, which was what really happened after world war two, where west Germany became part of the Soviets.

    Perhaps, Hitler felt that if he attacks Britain, then, he might not win easily because there is USA. So he ended up attacking USSR, which was also a mistake, because firstly, of the poor weather conditions and secondly, UK and USA might join the Soviets to fight against Hitler.

    But that is only because Hitler was losing the war. If Hitler could win the war against USSR easily, then, perhaps, this would be a big threat to America, and at this time, perhaps FDR would still be observing, rather than declaring a war against Germany.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    There seems to be a little confusion about the events between the fall of France and the attack on the USSR. Hitler very much wanted to defeat the UK, but he failed. The German air force kept bombing England daily (except for weather) over a period of several months. However, the RAF inflicted enough damage on the German air force to the point they had to give up. Hitler then invaded the USSR to fulfill his primary objectives, kill the Jews and enslave the Slavic peoples so that in the long run Eastern Europe could become ethnically German.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    His biggest mistakes weren't necessarily the attack on USSR, but some of the horrible logistical and strategic mistakes they made during the invasion. Underestimating the negative effect of the log supply lines and low manueveribility of going through deep muds during the first fall; the lack of winter equipment such as light oils, winter jackets etc through the first winter..and finally with Moscow still in their grip, turning thier entire campaign to take the South which allowed the Russians to continue to trade miles for time and compounded the German supply problem.

    --
    "But was Nazi's military technology better than the Soviets? I do not know." Not by much and fading a couple years into the war as the Soviets developed some very good mainstay weapons such as the T34 variants. I think the German advantage came mostly down to extremely good leadership, especially compared to the Russian Army that have just wiped out most of its field grade officer corp just before the war, and of course German combined maneuver tactics that no other country could match even towards the end of the war.
    westwind likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Lynx_Fox said: "The German advantage came mostly down to extremely good leadership, especially compared to the Russian Army that have just wiped out most of its field grade officer corp just before the war."

    Well, Hitler used the most extreme form of tyranny, brutality and aggression to force the Germans to fight with dedication, and the Soviets were not as ruthless as Hitler, and so the Germans were nearly forced to act like Hitler, which was efficient, while other power who was not as ruthless as Hitler, might lack common agreement as well as proper discipline, and although he managed to force all Germans into such efficiency, but because there was only one idea and one voice in Germany which was Hitler, so his consideration might be limited to him alone, while other power might have more voices to talk before action, and so if Hitler made a mistake, then, he would fall really quickly, but if the war was on his side, then, he would win quickly as well because of the efficiency.

    Because we are living in a period of social political instability, where within a country, there may be more than one voice and no common agreement and perhaps, even internal conflict. Hitler because of his extreme brutality which increased efficiency by wiping out all the voices that were against him, but at the same time, if he made a mistake, then, he would also fall very quickly, where there was no balance of power in his party.

    This period we live in is really not a period of peace, where before, I heard message such as a person said: "The world would end very soon." Or people sometimes say that third world war can happen in any time.

    Perhaps, a person cannot believe how insane modern politicians are acting. I do not really understand the history of Europe. But maybe there are many wars in Europe before WW1, because WW1 does not come out of no where.

    But at least, if the Western powers did not try to attack Japan, China or other part of Asia, then, the conflict in Asia might not happen during second world war where Japanese wanted to attack China and other parts of Asia aggressively. And if that did not happen, the rise of communists throughout Asia except Japan would not happen.

    And perhaps the same to the conflict in Middle East and in Africa happening right now. Because in the past, the British and other European countries wanted to colonise Africa. Then after that, there are coutries in Africa wanted to rebel against the colonisation, which might lead to the war in Africa right now, where there is no political stability.

    Even in South Africa, where after Nelson Mandela wanted to free the nation, but then, after that, the country is in a very desperate situation, politically, lacking common agreement.

    And in central Africa, where other power wanted to use that area for mining, which may lead to cheap labour and maybe even certain disputes.

    And in Middle East, where the USA used to try to support Bin Laden to oppose the Soviets, and after that, USA ignored Bin Laden, and as well as the US involvement in Gulf War and the event 9/11.

    So if the war in Europe did not happen, maybe the international war and the conflict right now would not happen.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    The Germans were not forced to fight the Russians by Hitler. The german people had been seduced by Hitler into believing that the Russians were sub-human and that Germany needed lebensraum.

    You claim Hitler suppressed those who disagreed with him. True, but the suppression lacked the scope of Stalin's. LF has already pointed out that the officer class of the Soviet military had been more than decimated by Stalin's purges only a few years before the outbreak of war.

    The Russian practice of throwing masses of men at the germans with scant regard for survival rates is one example of how their approach was more brutal than that of the germans. Shooting any of their own soldiers who tried to retreat is another example. Equally, such brutality as the germans did use acted against them. For example, brutal treatment of civilians in occupied territories meant that not only were there supply lines long, but they passed through a continually resistant population.

    You suggest the attack on China by Japan was precipitated by the West's attack on Japan. The Japanese invaded China in 1937, four and a half years before the West attacked Japan - although I can't quite see how assembling a conveniently placed naval fleet in Hawaii, where it could be bombed, constitutes an attack by the West.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    Hitler at one stage, he conquered much of Western Europe. Though Churchill opposed him, but in the start, Churchill's opposition of Hitler did not gain much support in Britain, so Churchill did nothing much to stop him in the beginning, other than watching Hitler gaining more power in Germany.
    One of Churchill's favoutite statements certainly seems apropriate here "I will leave judgments on this matter to history – but I will be one of the historians." What I think this shows is that he was a man that was concerned by how history would remember him and that he, as he usually did, thought he was right and should be remembered as being so.

    But I think if you were to read Churchill's "The Second World War" the first volume "The Gathering Storm" may give some insight into the way Churchill felt about what was happening in Nazi Germany and the then British Governments attitudes towards it at the time. He shows how he spent much of the late 1930's warning of the danger that Hitler posed and went to great lengths to point out just how unprepared Britain was to deal with him. Whilst it's worth noting that this was certainly his perspective on what had happened and of his warnings that went unheeded, it has generally been accepted and that has had a profound influence on foreign policies around the world as a direct result. The central idea that Churchill was the 'only' one to voice such concerns though does perhaps seem possibly a strech of truth. Whilst it's certainly fair to say the prevailing policy, prior to the the Nazi invasion of Poland and subsequent British declaration of war on Germany, had been one of appeasement towards Hilter, born mostly from a sense of fear in not wanting to repeat the devastating loss of life seen during the first world war and the misguided hope that Hitler could be talked down, it seems unlikely that Churchill would have been the only person aware of the growing threat.

    That being said though Churchill did indeed go beyond just making warnings on the dangers, in 1938 he forth a plan to British Government for a 'Grand Alliance' consisting of Britain, The United States and The Soviet Union as counter balance to the strength of Nazi Germany. However the plan Churchill put forth at the time didn't appear credible to the Government, in some circles the then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has received considerable criticism for at the time not taking Churchill's plan seriously. The reality however is that Chamberlain did give it serious consideration but was advised it was flawed as at the time the United States was perceived as not having an army capable of intervening in Europe and no major political will to create one. Also the advice to Chamberlain was that the Soviet Union was a bigger problem than potential solution. So ultimately Churchill's plan was rejected but on practical grounds not because of ideology.

    References:

    The Second World War by Winston Churchill
    Churchill on the Home Front by Paul Addison
    Churchill's Grand Alliance: the Anglo-American Special Relationship 1940-1957 by John Charmley
    Churchill as Warlord by Ronald Lewin
    The People's War: Britain 1939-1945 by Angus Calder
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Many people wanted Hitler die, even his own people (like in movie Valkyrie (2008)) want Hitler die. There are at least 40 attempted assasination on Hitler but he survived (he survived soo much such that he delusioned to think he's destined to win). -If people seriously wanted Hitler to fail, then Hitler will fail eventually, this apply to all people IMHO.

    He's a dictator, always forcing his ruling over the military (inefficient system where everyone must answer to him first) and he even design for building?? (why do you need a castle-like structure for flak gun??). One day he visited the V2 test site (the first liquid fuel rocket, which eventually sent man to moon 26 years later. Same man; Von Braun) and says something like: "terrible.." -With this inefficient ruling, no wonder he fail eventually.

    Why did Allies react too slow? because of democracy... But did Allies fail? no..
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I think Hitler attacked the USSR because he didn't want the war to end. As things stood, he held France, and England was almost certainly going to fall to him soon.

    Then what happens? My guess: most likely the German people would say "Hey good job Hitler. We won!!! Now let's stop fighting." And of course, the Nazi regime couldn't sustain its power if the country wasn't at war.
    I think Hitler attacked the USSR because he believed Germany needed extra living space (Lebensraum) and raw materials. He also believed an eventual clash, between the two totalitarian ideologies of Fascism and Communism, was inevitable.
    I'm kind of taking the question to the next step, and wondering: why didn't he wait until he had secured the UK, before taking on a new enemy?

    One possibility is he knew Stalin was building up his manufacturing, so he wanted to hit Russia preemptively while their army would still be poorly equipped.

    Another possibility is that he knew the desire of the German people to go on fighting would wane after they finally took the UK (or brought the UK to a peaceable conclusion - while still holding France and Poland.) Think about it. If the Nazis had stopped while they held what they held, they probably could have kept it. Poland would have been totally absorbed into Germany. Maybe France would be granted autonomy again - I don't know. The USA would never have entered the war at all.


    Also, I am far from convinced by your statement "the Nazi regime couldn't sustain its power if the country wasn't at war". What reasons can you put forward, as a justification, for that argument?
    I don't admire Hitler, or Fascism, but I don't believe he can be dismissed in a few sentences such as "he just wanted to be an important celebrity------".
    Other posters have pointed out that the dissatisfaction of the German people was largely behind his rise. How dissatisfied would they be continue to be after a fairly swift, categorical win?

    And what about Hitler's war crimes? Speaking about them in time of war could be considered treason, because it was sowing chaos at a time when total cooperation was needed. What about in time of peace? Remember most Germans didn't know about the concentration camps yet.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I'm kind of taking the question to the next step, and wondering: why didn't he wait until he had secured the UK, before taking on a new enemy?
    No good way to take the UK is one reason--an insufficient Navy, no real landing force, nor a strategic bombing force to speak of. All Germany really had is their sub force.

    Some speculate he got his Parkinsons desease death sentence pretty early in the war as well--so knew he had limited time to achieve all his objectives. The released vid with his shaking strongly support this view and explain a lots of things--another year or two would have likely made a big difference to the final outcome. Germany would have had time to build a Navy, Italy would have been much better prepared for the war as well.
    westwind likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I'm kind of taking the question to the next step, and wondering: why didn't he wait until he had secured the UK, before taking on a new enemy?
    No good way to take the UK is one reason--an insufficient Navy, no real landing force, nor a strategic bombing force to speak of. All Germany really had is their sub force.

    Some speculate he got his Parkinsons desease death sentence pretty early in the war as well--so knew he had limited time to achieve all his objectives. The released vid with his shaking strongly support this view and explain a lots of things--another year or two would have likely made a big difference to the final outcome. Germany would have had time to build a Navy, Italy would have been much better prepared for the war as well.
    Ultimately he didn't conquer Britain in 1940 because Hermann Goering failed to destroy the RAF. If Britain had been on mainland Europe it would have been a different story. The problem the Germans had was getting their tanks and troops across the Channel. They needed aerial superiority to be sure of a getting them across safely. Goering in his role as head of the luftwaffe (German airforce) was given the task of destroying the RAF so that Britain would have then been incapable of bombing the ships carrying the German army. He came within and a hairs breath of succeeding but was ultimately defeated by his own change in tactics. At the time the luftwaffe out numbered the RAF nearly 5 to 1 and had one of the best fighter planes of it's era in the messerschmitt 109, as a result Goering was over confident and told Hitler he would "crush" the RAF. However what Georing had not bargained for was that Britain had radar and could spot enermy planes in time to intercept them also that the British had a new plane the Spitfire, although the bulk of the RAF was made up of the older less able Hurricanes, it would prove to be that the combination of the Spitfire and radar would turn the tide in the battle for the skies.

    It got to a point in what is know known as "The Battle of Britain" when the constant bombardment from German bombing sorties had nearly crippled every RAF airfield in southern England, but it was then when Goering made the fatal mistake of switching the bombing raids towards London, it is widely regarded that because of this change in German tactics it allowed the RAF the time it needed to rebuild the airfields and as result manage to the keep the planes in the air.

    Since Goering had failed to destroy the RAF Hitler cancelled his plans for the invasion of Britain and concentrated only on city and industry bombing raids to try and demoralise the British into surrender.

    Now if Hitler had succeded in ending the war in Europe in 1940 it's been widely speculated by historians that he would not have bothered then invading The Soviet Union, as the reason many historians believe motivated that invasion was to get more resources for the war against Briatin, and instead supported it's allie Japan in a joint attack on the United States.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Kojax said: Hitler was a megalomaniac. He needed to be needed. You shouldn't go thinking that he was a good leader who cared about his country. He'd have wiped his nose (not wanting to say what else) with Germany if it served his purposes. He didn't care what happened to his soldiers. He just wanted to be an important celebrity with people praising him, and free to domineer over whom he willed.


    To me, Hitlers love of Germany is sincere. If he didnt, he would not become a Fuhrer and one could not fake it, because if he faked it, then, it is impossible for Germany to gain so much dedication to build or to create.


    Hitler was from Austria, a place where it is very close to Germany. Perhaps, Hitler was sympathetic towards the Germans defeat of the first world war.


    And nationalism is very attractive feeling especially in war time, or when a country is oppressed by another country. Gandhi tried to use nationalism trying to drive away the British. Nelson Mandela also wanted to use nationalism to kick British out of South Africa. So it is nationalism that is a pouring feeling in desperate situation, not the ideal of brotherhood of mankind.


    Hitler was very friendly to those who are standing on his side. He was friendly to soldiers who were dedicated to him. If he was hostile even to his friends, then, who would love him? Who would die for Germany?


    So to me, Hitler did love Germany very sincere, where he would listen to music made by Wagner. Where Hitler would speak in a very German way. And towards the end of the war, he would rather die than to surrender; he would rather fight to his death rather than giving up, even if he felt he was losing towards the end of the war. And not all politicians are like that. There are people who betray ones country. There are politicians who escaped to another country when they lost a war. Hitler was not like that. His love of Germany was sincere.


    Of course, maybe the British and American and French will not like Hitler. But perhaps, there are Germans who like him. Even if a German does not agree with Hitler, at least, he might feel sympathetic of his patriotic feeling.


    Personally, I dislike capitalism; I dislike communism; I dislike President Bush. To me, capitalism will destroy the feeling of nationalism, where one tries to use money to betray a country. Marxism also destroys the feeling of nationalism, because according to Marxist doctrine, Marx was against nationalism, imperialism and capitalism and religious sentiment.


    Maybe Hitler opposes capitalism, communism, socialism and Stalinism because he felt all of these might destroy the German patriotic feeling, and yes, Hitlers patriotic speech and his oratory and his dedication did stir up the German nationalist feeling.


    I feel even if a German did not agree with Hitler in his time, perhaps, he would feel a bit sympathetic towards him, because of the Germans defeat of the war and the traity of versail which Hitler was the person who spoke the nationalist feeling and the dissatisfaction of the unequal treaty.


    Now, I do not love Hitler. I do not hate Hitler. But at least I feel he died for what he believed in, which not all people are like that. But the question is whether or not such a death is worthwhile?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Hitler treat his girlfriend like she is an idiot. Hitler says this is fitting for an uneducated women like her. My point is: this reveal how skewed his brain were...

    To be more precise:
    Hitler doesn't seems to understand the distinction between fact & ideas. The Nazis (for example) took the eugenic idea too serious; they even have this extremist idea about breeding a superior race thru trait selection, and his justification of how he treat his girlfriend is worse than freudian theory of psychology (like freud's indirectly justification of some behaviour to one desire to have sex with mother or something) but worse because it more like racist and he kind of taking this stuff too serious.

    What Hitler was is a person that somehow took "science" (as tho psychology and eugenics were actually a science. NOT, they aren't!) too seriously. And make crazy decision.
    Last edited by msafwan; October 15th, 2012 at 07:49 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Churchills word. Churchill once said: One may not agree with Hitlers system but yet, one cannot deny his patriotic achievement.


    So there is no question that Hitlers love of Germany and dedication were sincere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Of course he want german to be superior and awesome for 1000 years... But he is crazy.

    P/S: ok, also blame the person who start WW1, because that's what made WW2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Well, Hitler was a bit extreme. But the traity of versail was not soft to the Germans, and when depression was near that time or at that time.

    Because during the time of German philosopher Kant, where Kant advocated peace and the idea of brotherhood of mankind. Some people feel that it is because of the feeling, that the Germans lack that nationalist feeling, and where the British and French were trying to expand power, while German remained neutral because Kant advocated peace and the idea of brotherhood of mankind.

    Maybe German philosopher Hegel, who was a dedicated nationalist felt Germany would be in danger, and Hegel was a nationalist, where he did not think too highly of Eastern thinkers. But his love of Germany was sincere.

    However, because British was trying to expand power, and India was struggling for independence, and then, the Germans was slower than the British in industrial revolution. And the lost of first world war where Germans did not speak loudly about their dissatisfactions, and one man came along, which was Hitler, who spoke about the feeling of nationalism and the dissatisfaction Germans feel, and which gained support by some Germans.

    But sometimes, I feel Hitler was a funny person, because before, I read an article where one person said: "When Hilter was preparing for his campaign, it was like a dedication of fire where he would do anything if he could get it. Where he even said 'whoever vote for me, no German women would have no trouble in finding a husband."

    I am unsure whether or not this is true, but it is really funny.

    To me, the feeling of nationalism was not strange when Germans lost the first world war. However, it is how a person loves a country and this is the question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    To summarize, Hitler failed because he was greedy and impatient. If he would have taken smaller bites and chewed slower he could have eaten the entire elephant, but as it were he got choked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    But Hitler's failure might led to the Western power imbalance, because after the fall of Hitler, then, Soviet Union and USA were two different political nations. Where there is no power balance in Europe. If Hitler could have power balance with Britain, then, it would not lead into the Cold War. Now, after the fall of Soviet Union, where USA seemed to be cheering out aloud to the West, where there is no power balance in West, if USA made a wrong move, then, the mankind is in unhappy stage.

    And after the death of JFK, USA is making more and more moves that many countries are not satisfied, and what Bill Clinton is doing and what Bush is doing lead to many hatred around the earth.

    Because there is no power balance in the West, where US's arrogance, like the involvement in the wars in Middle East, which might not totally be a wise one, led to many hatred.

    And 9/11 might be connected to what Clinton or Bush is doing.

    If Germany could power balance with UK, then, at least USA would not be so arrogant making such a unwise move, such as Gulf War and 9/11 might be connect to the US particpation of what happened before it.

    Personally, I feel Clinton or Bush was worse than JFK. JFK is not perfect, but at least, he wanted a little bit of balance.

    Those who become supportive of Hitler or the communists because they are not satisfied with what British or Americans are doing things.

    JFK once said: "Now, the communists may say that we are Western imperialists, perhaps, the way to democracy is not through war, but through education."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Galt said: “You suggest the attack on China by Japan was precipitated by the West's attack on Japan. The Japanese invaded China in 1937, four and a half years before the West attacked Japan - although I can't quite see how assembling a conveniently placed naval fleet in Hawaii, where it could be bombed, constitutes an attack by the West.”


    It is connected, because either Britain or USA was trying to force Japanese to sign unequal treaty. If you see the film ‘Last Samurai,’ you will know that before Japanese warriors carried two swords. And there were some peace during the last shogunate. But when the America went in, US wanted Japanese to sign unequal treaty. The warrior shogunate felt that there was a war coming. And the internal war within Japan, where Emperor Meiji changed Japanese where they now carried guns.


    But because the Japanese wanted to avoid war with West, so the Japanese did sign unequal treaty and at least sided with Western nations against China. And then, when there is second world war, Japanese felt that they need to be either on the side of Allies or on the Axis, where Japanese went on the side of Axis, and so there is war.

    But if the Americans did not come into Japan to try to force the unequal treaty, the Japanese at that time lived peacefully as the shogunate society, where there was no starvation or war. But it was when Americans went in, that the shogunate felt there was a war that may come, and then, an internal war follows where Emperor Meiji felt that swords are not good enough towards the modern times, and gradually, Japanese military nationalism increased and the tension in the West and the desperate situation in that time, where then, after that, there was war in Asia during second world war.

    And many nations in Asia turned into communists as a reaction against the Western powers trying to colonise Eastern nations, Vietnam was reacting against the colony of the French.

    Now, I am not a fan of communists, but I am saying that because of what UK and USA are doing lead to many dissatisfactions in Asia, so the communists rise up against it.

    If the Western powers did not try to colonise Asia, perhaps, it would not lead to such a wide spread of communists throughout Asia.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Because U.S. got nuclear bomb first, Hitler didn`t have chance to win WWII (even if he would destroy USSR),unless U.S. and England would allow him to keep all the occupied territories and end war in peace (what is unlikely).I guess it would be enough Hiroshima and Nagasaki for Hitler and he was not crazy enough to enforce U.S. through A-bomb on German cities.As a result World would become mostly pro-American with Stalin`s USSR remnants may continue to exist somwhere in Siberia...
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    It's true to say there were many key events of significance during the war, the hard part though is to know whether the overall outcome would have been changed if specific events had played out differently. One thing seems clear though and this is that there are many different opinions on just why Hitler failed and why the allies won the war.

    With this in mind perhaps it might be interesting to look at what Hilter himself thought was the reason for his failure and subsequent downfall. Towards this end we can look at a account from Joachim von Ribbentrop. Ribbentrop was Hitlers foreign minister and whilst in a prison cell during the Nuremberg war crimes trials wrote a short memoir in which he himself examined the reasons for the Nazi's defeat. In his account he attributed the defeat to the unexpected "power of resistance" of the Soviet Red Army , the vast supply of American armaments, and finally to the success of Allied air power. Perhaps though more interestingly is the account of a meeting with Hitler in his Berlin bunker a week before the fuhrer's suicide. During the meeting Ribbentrop recounts how Hilter told him "the real military cause of defeat was the failure of the German Air Force".

    So it seems clear that Hitler accepted no responsibility himself for his own failed military stratergy again preferring to place the entire blame squarely on the shoulders of Hermann Gring.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Americans should apologise and make up with US involvement in the war in Middle East, President Bush should apologise and so as Tony Blaire who supported Bush, and they should make up to the people in Middle East if they want to advocate for more autonomy for the Tibetans from the forces of communists, otherwise it will be hypocrisy.


    But did Americans apologise? Did President Bush apologise to the people in Middle East? Did Tony Blaire apologise?

    They didn't.

    And not only they did not apologise, they keep on blaming Muslims.

    So this is why Muslims dislike USA.

    They should apologise and make up otherwise there is going to be more hatred.

    And what makes Muslims angry is that not only Americans did not want to apologise, some of them even think they are right.

    And yet, they blame the communists treatment of Tibetans and they blame what is going on in Africa right now.

    This is not sincere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post

    Now if Hitler had succeded in ending the war in Europe in 1940 it's been widely speculated by historians that he would not have bothered then invading The Soviet Union, as the reason many historians believe motivated that invasion was to get more resources for the war against Briatin, and instead supported it's allie Japan in a joint attack on the United States.
    To quote myself above, but anyone interested in reading about an alternative version of history may find the 1973 book 'The Ultimate Solution' of interest. The work by Eric Norden is a work of fiction in which he explores how the world might have become if the axis powers had won the war, without giving to much away it sets a scenario in which the former war time allies of Germany and Japan are now engaged in a 'cold war' of their own.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    If Americans do not apologise for the increase of hatred in Middle East, third world war may happen, and USA may be a cause of this if this happens.

    USA is a lie. USA is hypocrisy. Bush lied. Bill Clinton lied. The Americans who not the US government is lying have no courage to speak loud. It is really disappointing.

    A Muslim woman said: "To the Arabs, USA is worse than Hitler, because Hitler did not attack Iraq, but Bush did."
    Last edited by John Galt; October 16th, 2012 at 03:13 AM. Reason: Merge three related, sequential posts
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    32
    Hitler did fail because he was not a good painter to begin with. He did fail because he did not take Napoleon serious. He did not take anyone seriously but himself and Speer, his architect pet. He failed because he totally misinterpreted the Fabian Socialists when referring to Friedrich Nietzsche. I hope Hitler failed because people worldwide do not want to be part of a 1000 year reich of suppression and stupid american like obedience to a flag.

    When a person is free to do what he wants, sometimes a person who wants to fuck every other human being alive, thinks he is free to fuck every other human being alive, carte blanche.
    So beware of so called democrats who say " the past will redeem us"

    Nobody needs or needed Hitler except for people who do not know what to do with their lives but join the army of become humble slaves of a junta.
    Hitler did not realize that Einstein was not a jew anymore, but was a cosmopolitan without religion. Hitler is not a monster, it is just a human being who failed in romantic art, and compensated for that in romantic Voltaire annihilating of an entire race of religion. I dont know what jews want to be today. Are they israelites, jews, or both?

    The very fact is, that usa jews did not come to the rescue of the european jews. And even in concentration camps jews from different countries fucked each other over a shoelace. Perhaps we should put Greek tax dodging people in concentration camps like that. I do not believe in forgiveness. I only believe in assholes and good people.
    This ditochomy works. There were good people in nazi-uniforms and there were bad nazi jews in jew-uniforms.

    The biggest mistake to make is to think that germans are evil by nature. Not that they are not totally obedient to powersick asshole dictators. But are we not all?
    Jews believe in God. He is even worse than Hitler for making him and letting him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Steve555 giving you a day off for incivility and f-bomb as a gentle reminder to please find a more eloquent way to express strong emotions.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; October 16th, 2012 at 08:25 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve555 View Post


    Nobody needs or needed Hitler except for people who do not know what to do with their lives but join the army of become humble slaves of a junta.


    In bad enough economic times, that's exactly what people want. It just comes down to a paying job. In time of war, the military is one of the few places where there is no cap on the practical number of workers. Each additional person contributes.

    In a factory or on a farm that isn't true. After you reach a certain number of workers, each new one you add contributes less and less until they start to get in each others' way, and the next worker actually subtracts from productivity.


    The biggest mistake to make is to think that germans are evil by nature. Not that they are not totally obedient to powersick asshole dictators. But are we not all?
    Jews believe in God. He is even worse than Hitler for making him and letting him.
    Most Germans thought those trains full of Jews were carrying them out of the country. They wanted them deported, not killed. Even among those who knew about the work camps, hardly any knew about the gas chambers, or under fed emaciated skeletons.

    Just goes to show you should never trust a government that doesn't want to be transparent. If they won't open their doors to reporters, then there's no way to know what kinds of horrors you may later find they have been doing in your name.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman pogomutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern Colorado, 8000' up.
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I think Hitlerattacked the USSR because he believed Germany needed extra living space(Lebensraum) and raw materials. He also believed an eventual clash, between thetwo totalitarian ideologies of Fascism and Communism, was inevitable.
    Totalitarianism has no ideology other than the concentration of absolute power in the hands of a single despot. What Stalin practised was hardly a social blueprint as layed out by Marx & Engels. He was arguably the most powerful man who ever lived, because he concentrated nearly all power in the Soviet Union into his own hands...plus he was tethered to an inventory of hydrogen bombs for at least three years before his death.


    His was a slave state ruled by terror. Political ideology was only an illusion in the Soviet Union. So too did Hitler concentrate power for himself in Germany. He abolished all political parties save National Socialism, then to the gushing approval of the German people, became dictator for life. There is no "left" and "right" in such dystopias, there's only a single God-like icon in a cult of personality.

    George Orwell was aware of this characteristic of totalitaranism. Totalitarianism is the central theme of "1984". The hostile states in his famous polemic are dictatorships constantly at war with one another. These societies may have started out touting left or right ideologies, but they almost always evolve into absolute dictatorships. Orwell illustrated very succintcly that there isn’t two cents worth of difference between absolute dictatorships regardless of their ephemeral left and right political proclamations. That was the whole point of his book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Hitler had lots of charisma and his words can give people courage in difficult times, and so even today, there are still people who like Hitler.

    Where Hitler's charisma surpassed Bill Clinton or President Bush.

    I do not like Bill Clinton and I do not like Bush. I feel Clinton lacks charisma and Bush also lacks charisma and Obama has not charisma.

    Even JFK had more charisma than Clinton or Bush.

    And Winston Churchil never denied what Hitler had, such as courage, charisma, dedication, and willing to to fight to death and so on, which not all politicians have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Because before, I read a lists of people who had personal charisma, and Hitler was one of them. Others may include Martin Luther King Junior, Dalai Lama, JFK and so on: These are people who had charisma.

    And Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama are not in the lists.

    So, maybe there are still people who like Hitler.

    Just like there are still people who like JFK's charisma.

    And perhaps, I myself have more charisma than President Bush.

    Bush entered presidency because his father was rich, not because he had charisma, or his words can give people courage and so on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by pogomutt View Post


    Totalitarianism has no ideology other than the concentration of absolute power in the hands of a single despot.
    Totalitarianism may often lead to a situation where absolute power is "in the hands of a single despot" but that is not inevitable. After the death of Josef Stalin the General Secretaries of the CPSU, such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, did not have complete, or absolute, power but were considered to be "first among equals". (primus inter pares)
    To a certain extent, within the Soviet Union, the ideology was a veneer, but the economy was organised according to the Soviet version of Marxist- Leninist ideology. It was also this utopian ideology, with its eventual aim of creating a society morally superior to any other, that supplied the justification for the periods of terror and lack of basic freedoms common to all totalitarian political systems.
    Can I add that I do not believe I am as charismatic as some individuals who have become members of this forum fairly recently!
    Last edited by Halliday; October 18th, 2012 at 04:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Chrisgorlitz said: One of Churchill's favoutite statements certainly seems apropriate here "I will leave judgments on this matter to history but I will be one of the historians."


    This is because at the present moments, there are politicians, gangsters, police and military forces and journalists who are hiding certain documents or not showing it to public, because at least, there must be documents like who shot JFK, but it was not shown to public, and perhaps there must people who have the documents but who wanted to hide the documents.


    And secondly, is that we are too close to the last century, where there are still many social instabilities and emotional hatred, and if there is emotional hatred, perhaps, what is reported may not be all the words by all people, but maybe, just some words by some people.


    And I do not know how long will it take to release those documents and I do not know how long can the emotional hatred decrease, where people are given the freedom to express what they want to express, and it is just not happening at this moment, where both the USA and the communists are trying to give pressure to people, and so in this situation, maybe this is why Churchill said what you wrote above.


    And even in this forum, I feel the moderator wanted to give me pressure, where I question about how much freedom can I express myself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Kojax said: Hitler needed to be needed. You shouldn't go thinking that he was a good leader who cared about his country.
    To me, there were Germans who were unhappy about the Treaty of Versailles at that time, and Hitler expressed their dissatisfactions. But the question is: Is the German going to act? If Hitler wants to act, what is he going to do: Is the question?

    And I feel if there are people who are angry or dissatisfied, there are kinds of speech that one can make: One speech may seem to encourage more hatred, while the other may be a speech that is telling people to have more compassion, where if there is more compassion, then, hatred may decrease.


    What Hitler did was that he wanted to act out the hatred or anger. But is USA really fair?

    To me, the Americans should perhaps show compassion to the Germans, and not been too harsh to the Germans losing the war. And what about the Germans, should Germans show compassion to Americans?

    To me, Americans should have compassion to Germans and Germans also should have compassion to Americans. If a society does not have compassion, I am unsure whether or not are we going to have no anger or no hatred.

    And even today, I feel there are Muslim women who may be angry at USA or what US government is doing in the past. And I feel there may be prejudice in USA, even though I never been there. And Obama does not talk about it, which before, I felt disappointing.

    Maybe Obama wanted to avoid or pretend that there is no prejudice, because he felt it might bring more hatred.

    But to me, it is how one talks about it. If one talks about there is prejudice happening in this earth, and then, he goes on saying that so we need to have more compassion and if we can have more compassion, then maybe hatred can decrease.

    Maybe this is kind of speech that will not create more hatred, like right now, maybe there are hatred between Jews and Arabs. Or the hatred between a White student and an African student!

    And so I feel if the society can have more compassion, then, hatred may be able to decrease.

    So to me, pretending as if there is no prejudice or there is no hatred may not be a way to peace, but to me, to talk about that the prejudice may be happening and then, if we can have more compassion, then, hatred can decrease, maybe this can make this society more peaceful.

    And not only Obama, perhaps Clinton and Bush did not talk about it or want to pretend as if prejudice does not happen. So to me, more compassion may be able to reduce hatred, and if hatred can decrease, then, maybe this earth can have more peace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    This is because at the present moments, there are politicians, gangsters, police and military forces and journalists who are hiding certain documents or not showing it to public, because at least, there must be documents like who shot JFK, but it was not shown to public, and perhaps there must people who have the documents but who wanted to hide the documents.




    Do you have any evidence?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    In relation to OP, the following is what I've considered:

    Well, Hitler treated the Soviet population worse than Stalin had - if he hadn't been so horrible to them there is a possibility they would've helped his efforts over Stalin's. I believe all he'd have to do is treat them better than Stalin ever had, and then they might have seen it as liberation over occupation - much like several Ukrainians at the initial Nazi occupation.

    He also shouldn't have wasted so much time and effort on taking Stalingrad. The Nazis bombed the hell out of Stalingrad - it's ability to aid the Soviets in the war effort was crippled. Taking Stalingrad was all about the city being Stalin's namesake - had he have left the city alone (since it no longer had any strategic value) he might've been able to ruin more of the Soviet war effort's capabilities before the Soviets got onto the offensive. This also could've meant a getting a reliable source of Uranium - which would've made the Nazi Nuclear Program stand a chance, and get more support from the government. That, alongside the V3, spells utter devastation for anyone opposing the Nazis - even if the V3 lacked accuracy.

    Hitler should not have had the Luftwaffe go head-to-head with the RAF in Britain. Fighters were unable to escort bombers for sustained periods because they had to refuel on mainland Europe. The results of the Battle of Britain took away the best and most experienced of Nazi pilots. If the Nazis effectively closed all activity on the Western Front, many pilots would've been available for the Eastern Front - and Africa, where the British were in control of the Suez Canal, which the Nazis could not utilize, and allowed supplies from Africa to get into Europe.

    By the time D-Day would've come around, the Nazis would've had respectable air capabilities to help defend the Western Front. If the they were to have beaten the Allies in Normandy, it would've been a very long time before another assault would be organized - placing less pressure on the Nazi Regime.

    As far as even bothering to invade the Soviets? I think it was Hitler's best choice. I believe that regardless of whether or not the strike was pre-emptive, sooner or later the Soviets would have done the same thing. As it turns out, Operation Barbarossa occured at the best possible moment for the Nazis to have a huge advantage over the Soviets - I believe this advantage was squandered because of the aforementioned reasons.

    Edit: And by V3, I most certainly mean V2.
    Last edited by stander-j; October 18th, 2012 at 08:50 PM.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,094
    Totalitarianism has no ideology other than the concentration of absolute power in the hands of a single despot.
    Not necessarily.Sometimes it could be an oligarchy.I even think that oligarchy is more advanced form of totalitarianism.Because if all the power concentrated in hands of one (imperfect) person it could easily get inefficient.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    mathman said: "Where is your evidence?"

    Oh, not again.

    If I am the person making the forum, I will make this as a rule:

    No nerd will be allowed into the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    mathman said: "Where is your evidence?"

    Oh, not again.

    If I am the person making the forum, I will make this as a rule:

    No nerd will be allowed into the forum.
    So what you're saying is that you have no evidence, and your statements are simply conjured out of thin air, or pulled from your ass.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Your assumption again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    mathman said: "Where is your evidence?"

    Oh, not again.

    If I am the person making the forum, I will make this as a rule:

    No nerd will be allowed into the forum.
    Moderator Request:

    Fortunately you are not the person making this forum. When non-mainstream assertions are made it is the rule of this forum that you should provide evidence or argument to justify those assertions. Please provide mathman with the evidence he has requested.

    This has nothing to do with being a nerd. This has to do with proper, logical conduct on a science forum. You are welcome here. You are welcome to express opinions here, but when you make assertions you are required to back them up.
    dmwyant likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree dmwyant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    456
    I think the main cause of Hitler's failure primarily was a result of poor tactics and mismanagement. Hitler's R&D could have made for certain victory early on IF Hitler had A) Put the resources they needed into the projects. B) Waited a few more years to begin his attack when he could have a larger stocpile of advanced weaponry. Just my opinion.
    Ascended likes this.
    Not all who wander are lost... Some of us just misplaced our destination.

    I would rather be a superb meteor, every atom of me in magnificent glow, than a sleepy and permanent planet. The proper function of a man is to live, not to exist.
    -Jack London
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Moderator,

    What I have read about JFK was from youtube or from some interr-net sites. I am unsure whether or not those writings are right, and it is not my fault if they are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    What I have read about JFK was from youtube or from some interr-net sites. I am unsure whether or not those writings are right, and it is not my fault if they are not.
    It is your fault that you didn't check the accuracy of the information. (Clue: youtube is not, generally, a good source for reliable information.) It is your fault if you are gullible enough to believe that nonsense without questioning it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Yes, they are not accurate. Do you know why?

    Because they do not want us to know who shot JFK.

    But at least, those who want him dead must be his political enemy.

    Moderator, there are many cover ups and you keep on asking: "Where is your evidence?"

    Can't you think?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    Yes, they are not accurate. Do you know why?

    Because they do not want us to know who shot JFK.

    But at least, those who want him dead must be his political enemy.

    Moderator, there are many cover ups and you keep on asking: "Where is your evidence?"

    Can't you think?

    There are actually very few coverups--except in the minds of suspicious people. Yes evidence is required and expected to conduct reasonable conversation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    Yes, they are not accurate. Do you know why?

    Because they do not want us to know who shot JFK.

    But at least, those who want him dead must be his political enemy.

    Moderator, there are many cover ups and you keep on asking: "Where is your evidence?"

    Can't you think?

    There are actually very few coverups--except in the minds of suspicious people. Yes evidence is required and expected to conduct reasonable conversation.
    If we're over to talking about JFK, then of course there was a cover up. Lee Harvey Oswald was shot, almost certainly to keep him quiet. That meets the criteria for a "cover up".

    Was it a cover up by the government? Nobody knows. Clearly it was a cover up by the Mafia, since the man who shot him was mafia. The only question is whether they were doing it for someone else or just themselves. (Please don't tell me you honestly believe Jack Ruby was just really mad and decided to get himself thrown in jail for life by publicly executing a person in police custody - just to make himself feel better.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Totalitarianism has no ideology other than the concentration of absolute power in the hands of a single despot.
    Not necessarily.Sometimes it could be an oligarchy.I even think that oligarchy is more advanced form of totalitarianism.Because if all the power concentrated in hands of one (imperfect) person it could easily get inefficient.
    This would probably describe the Nazi party better than anything. Hitler was just a figure head. The shameless pillaging of Jewish property, pulling out their gold teeth and pocketing the money seized - that probably didn't fit into Hitler's ideology. He hated the jews, but he wouldn't have lowered himself to petty theft.

    The real power of the Nazi party was the people who funded Hitler's rise. He did the talking, and got the people all riled, and his backers figured out all the details and set up the machinery to transfer all the wealth around. I think Hitler knew he was just a monkey in a stylish suit. The military took orders directly from him, but the SS could have him killed at their convenience if he tried to interfere in their plans/operations/etc. Himmler wielded more real power than Hitler ever did.

    Heinrich Himmler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Stalin differs from Hitler in that Stalin really was both the power and the figure head. He payed a terrible price in terms of his sanity, though, living every day in the worst kind of paranoid precaution.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    If we're over to talking about JFK, then of course there was a cover up. Lee Harvey Oswald was shot, almost certainly to keep him quiet. That meets the criteria for a "cover up".
    To a suspicious mind :-) Seriously Oswald shot one of the most popular figures in 20th century history; it's more surprising that he was even captured alive then it is someone who was a strong supporter and emotional broken up about the assassination capped him during a prison transfer. Even 50 years later there's no credible evidence for a conspiracy whatsoever.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    There have been some gems of wisdom expressed in this thread but it seems to me much is missed. Hitler failed for multiple reasons. Attacking the USSR was a tacticle error, but he might have still won if the USA had remained neutral. The fact of the USA as a vast industrial power who's homeland was not being bombed or invaded and was thus able to continue pouring men and material into the war effort is the critical factor. Thus Hitler's failure was a politcal/dipolmatic one. He failed to put sufficient effort into the diplomatic efforts to keep the USA appeased, and unthreatened. Also he failed to understand the inportance of winning the propaganda war in America. The american people were not sold on getting into the war. There was a strong isolationist sentiment in the USA. Even after Pearl Harbor he might have salvaged his war if he had made common cause with the USA and abandoned his Japanese allies. He could have appealed to the, then strong, racist element in America.
    Where he made solid diplomatic and propaganda efforts he was most successful. The reason for the rapid collapse of France was as much a factor of the fifth column as it was the Panzers. Norway fell easily for the same reason. Sweden stayed out of the war. These were successes of essentially non military actions.
    But Hitler was was a totalitarian and he was German. By virtue of both of these he was arrogant. Dictators have to believe that they have the best ideas, they can't be humble. Germans really did believe they were the master race. They dispised other nationalities. Thus the lands he concoured did not add to German strength but became "occupied territory" that had to be held by force. If you want to swallow and digest captured territory you either have to replace the native population with your own people or you have to make the concoured people your own. To do the latter trick you have to actually respect them and give them a fair shake. He would have had to sell the French, Belgian, Danish, Polish and Norwiegan people on being part of a united Europe and have actually been willing to forge such a thing, giving the recently concoured nations an equal voice in the affairs of the new nation.
    Dictators want to win it all in their own life time. Successful empire builders have a national goal of expansion and a national ideology that makes expansion a goal that is good for everyone in the country. Thus a succession of leaders can carry the goal forward. Can you even imagine Hitler sitting quietly in retirement letting someone else lead his empire forward?
    Contrast the British Empire's technique for grow to Germany's.
    kojax likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by dmwyant View Post
    Hitler's R&D could have made for certain victory early on IF Hitler had A) Put the resources they needed into the projects. B) Waited a few more years to begin his attack when he could have a larger stocpile of advanced weaponry. Just my opinion.
    I 100% agree with your opinion here.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman Headdresser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Germany
    Posts
    70
    Hi there...
    I dont think that the main reason for Hitlers defeat was the poor weather condition. It was a part of the main reason, which was Hitler himself and his allys.
    It was Mussolini who begged Hitler to wait with his war until he conquered Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. Hitler waited but Mussolini spent to much time with defeating his enemies. Hitler planned to attack russia in spring or earlier...so that the fight would have been finished before winter came. What is so obnoxious about Hitler is that he knew that he wasnt winter-equipped and instead of not attacking or take some time to prepare or to wait until next spring he send his troops in an artctilike winter, KNOWING that they are not prepared and KNOWING that thousands of them will die without an enemy is doing a thing.
    It was Hitlers hybris and is overestimation of the german army that make him think that he could still win.
    He though he could handle a "Zweifrontenkrieg" (Fighting in the east and in the west)
    He also underestimated his opponents. It was kind of easy to conquer poland...but not as easy as Hitler thought. He never expected the others to fight that brave and that hard. So all of his miscalculation all of his losses that have happend in the time of Hitlers Victories summed up and I think that they are one big factor. He needed much more troops than he though to keep the invaded countries.
    Another thing that shows us his unprofessionality as a commander is his miscalculation of what stalin would do. I guess he expected Stalin to send all his army. But the russians went back and back...and instead of wondering...where are my enemies...shouldn't I somehow be prepared if they attack...he thought that the russian are fleeing. He also underestimated the russian scientists. At the war started the germans had the better tanks, planes, guns...but at least the tank and gun thing changed during the german attack.
    Hitler philosophy (that was strongly opposed by most of his generals) was not...act and react but to make a plan and stick to that plan because that plan must be right because he pictured himself as the Grfaz (Greatest commander of all times). Most generals warned him about Stalingrad but he ignored it. As his man where trapped he couldn't accept that he made a mistake and sticked to his plan. As the red army came for him he refused to step back and regroup (what probably would have been the best tactic) he ordered everybody to stay where he is because it was against his ideology to give a way a piece of "german" ground. He was like a soccer capitain that ordered everybody to A) attack or B) stay where he is...even if the other team is in front of his goal. This caused great pain amongst the german soldiers and civilians. Both of my grandfathers fought in that useless war and according to them everybody had to exactly obey the orders from Berlin...but Berlin (or better to say Hitler) totally ignored everything he was told about, what was happening at the front.
    One of my grandfathers reacted by putting himself into a sick bay...because he always said, 1943 that this war is lost. I also think that Stauffenberg and many other militaries did what they did because they though hitler was a lame commander.
    So...even if this would have been the warmest winter in russian history...I think the Nazis would have been defeated.
    And even if Hitler never attacked the Soviet Union I think the Americans and Britains. (if they kept fighting) would have won. Of course it is the big question IF they kept fighting.
    If Hitler or the NS-Regime would be still in charge in germany is an intersesting question. (Especially for me because I'am german and live in germany). I think that the Regime at least would have existed to the 60ies or 70ies and maybe until today.
    Germans are not good at revolting.
    And of course every conflict have a connection to a former conflict but I dont think you can directly connect 911 with WW2. 911 and the iraq war is about the US involvement in the middle east. They have shown much interest for this part of the world before. They negotiated with the Saudis till 1938 (not because of Hitler or Palestine but because of the oil). O.B.L. was once a contra in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban are also not connected to WW2. Of course you can find connections...between WW2 and everything that happend after WW2 but you cant hold Hitler responsible for that. What I think IS directly connected to WW2 is the founding of the european union and the end of military approaches of european countries to rule over europe. The main reason the EU was founded was of course money...but at least the second biggest reason was to prevent happenings like WW2 and whenever there is a debate about the justification of europian union...people use this argument. Before the Nazis came democracy was a very discussable matter in the western world. It think that the idea of a western world as a free world (it is still just an idea) just came up after WW2, where all western countrys stood united against the communist countries. I never heard the expresseion "the west" like we use it today prior to the 50ties.
    So...even if WW2 was one of the baddest happenings in human history...it had more good than bad results.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    32
    All Germans that mattered in them days knew jews were travelling on a one way ticket to Auschwitz, Mauthausen whatever the fuck.
    I wonder if they knew that they were washing not their conscience clean, but their bodies with soap made out of jew body fat.
    Germans started 2 world wars so far out of 2 world wars. Is this not proof that people should not believe in a national flag and leader.
    Become very, VERY suspicious, when a certain person calls himself the messiah.
    This is where the jews were right when this Jesus figure suddenly appeared and claiming to be the son of JHWH.

    I say: fuck all religion and nuke all monotheistic cultures. They are going to kill the secular scientists and they abuse latter's inventions to do so.

    Realize Pakistan, a nuclear power, who fucked the usa over bin laden......Pakistan being donated annually a large sum of money by the usa tax paying people to hunt down al-quada arseholes.....instead of doing so, they harbor muslim intifada, mullahs, suicide virgin terrorists to obtain promised virgins in heaven.

    USA pays $3 billion each year to Pakistan to guard the islamists who go ballistic. And they screw the usa over like the catholic church raped preteens in decades gone by.

    No other country BETRAYED the usa as Pakistan did.
    NUKE PAKISTAN!!! it is only a islam enemy part of india. India is our ally.

    NUKE IT FOR GOOD. CHINA AND RUSSIA do not mind. THEY HATE moslims


    Pakistan is not the fulcrum of the world peace. They pretend to be that deemed important nation. They do not hold the key.

    USA is only swallowing the precum of Pakistan because they are afraid some mullah arsehole is going to press the red button on India.



    I tell you now.....just press the button, because I grew weary postponing the fate of something that will happen to be brought about anyhow.
    Moslims wanna die, maybe we should help them a wee bit.

    nullification of the islam religion is something the entire world hopes for, including the islam world.
    Last edited by Steve555; October 28th, 2012 at 10:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Warning:
    Steve if you cannot moderate your language and rein in your passion you will find you are taking a holiday from the board. Your post is dangerously close to hate-speech and has quite possibly already crossed the line. End that now.

    If you disagree with this warning then pm me or one of the admins, or report this post. Do not respond in the thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Warning:
    Steve if you cannot moderate your language and rein in your passion you will find you are taking a holiday from the board. Your post is dangerously close to hate-speech and has quite possibly already crossed the line. End that now.

    If you disagree with this warning then pm me or one of the admins, or report this post. Do not respond in the thread.
    I risk being banned for asking you about why I could be banned for replying to your post asking why I was not banned for my first message in the first place.
    How can my reply to your warning ban me, when my prior statement only resulted in you warning me? Can you please tell my readers as to WHY? Then I am more than happy to say goodbye to this North-Korean censorship. Oh, Heavenly Operator. Please safe a wee leverage for sarcasm and irony for sake of liberty.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve555 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Warning:
    Steve if you cannot moderate your language and rein in your passion you will find you are taking a holiday from the board. Your post is dangerously close to hate-speech and has quite possibly already crossed the line. End that now.

    If you disagree with this warning then pm me or one of the admins, or report this post. Do not respond in the thread.
    I risk being banned for asking you about why I could be banned for replying to your post asking why I was not banned for my first message in the first place.
    Sarcasm and stupidity do not make attractive bedfellows. So, yes you risk being banned for raising questions, within this thread, about my warning to you in this thread. Why? Because such discussion derails the thread. I have chosen to reply to you within the thread in the hope that other members will benefit from the explanation. (i.e. you have already derailed the thread; let's try to gain something from that.)

    You have three ways of asking that question and I have pointed these out to you as part of the warning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve555 View Post
    How can my reply to your warning ban me, when my prior statement only resulted in you warning me? Can you please tell my readers as to WHY? .
    Certainly. There is a general reason and their is a specific reason:
    The general reason: in order to help the forum function as smoothly as possible we have rules. One of the rules prohibits questioning moderator action within the thread. Breaking rules can lead to a suspension.
    The specific reason: your posting behaviour is unacceptable. The mod team has become increasingly concerned by it. We need to see some indication that you are going to modify that behaviour if you are to be allowed to continue posting here. Ignoring any of the rules will be taken as a deliberate act of disregard for the forum. That merits a suspension.

    Then I am more than happy to say goodbye to this North-Korean censorship.
    This is a private forum to which you and I are guests. The owner of the forum expects certain standards to be met in the posts made here. The owner grants considerable latititude in what is acceptable. Your expleteive laden, angst ridden hate speech does not fall within those bounds. Shape up or ship out.

    I see you have been given a one week 'holiday'. I suggest when you return you find a more mature way of expressing your ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    New Member groucho_marxist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    A recent book by WW2-historian and Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw called Fateful Choices, actually digs in into the logic and assessment of Germany's decision to attack the USSR at the point it decided to do it, and who was mainly responsible for it.

    Also, in Niall Ferguson's Virtual History: Alternatived and Counterfactuals, Michael Burleigh proposes what might have happened if Germany had managed to conquer the Soviet Union. In this book, a multitude of theories are put forward, from the treatment of the peoples of the Caucasus to the development of the Third Reich in the East.

    In my opinion, postulating theories about virtual history can be intriguing, but one should not start compounding all of the events of the last half century, and certainly not use this to amplify his or her - in this case, completely displaced - anti-Americanism.

    It is not clear at all, and it a point of contention among historians, what the goal of Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union was. Many (incuding Hugh Trevor-Roper and Eberhard Jckel) insist Hitler was a 'continentalist' with a final objective consisting of the acquisition of Lebensraum in the East and the resolution of the 'Jewish question', while others (notably Gnther Moltmann, Milan Hauner and Meier Michaelis) have insisted that he was a 'globalist' and that the attack on the USSR was merely a prelude to complete world domination. Note that these two positions can overlap in some way, but the stress is on the emphasis.

    Hitler certainly knew how to market himself to an economically desperate people and knew exactly how to play the cards in order to awaken deep-rooted prejudices (such as the anti-Semitic element, which the Catholic Church had nurtured for over a millenium) and the general disdain Germans had for the people of the East. His 'sincere love of Germany' certainly cannot be denied, but I think a 'sincere love for himself' is backed by a much stronger case. His narcissistic tendencies reached immense heights and what some overhere called his 'great leadership' is certainly put to the question, when he wanted the entire German people to commit suicide or to be destroyed with him when his end was near.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
    I would like to become like Hitler…
    What? Dead. And reviled as one of the most evil figures in history? Good luck with that.

    Or are you thinking of Bob Hiltler, who I gather was quite a nice guy?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
    Hello,
    I have very much respect and honor about Hitler. He has got the magnificent willpower man his imagination was great. He is very popular for his discipline. I would like to become like Hitler…
    Do you also wish to be an anti-semite and to kill persons of low IQ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    to kill persons of low IQ?
    In which case he would be obliged to commit suicide.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by webmaster View Post
    Hello,
    I have very much respect and honor about Hitler. He has got the magnificent willpower man his imagination was great. He is very popular for his discipline. I would like to become like Hitler…
    Each and everyone of us has both good and bad points, and I think we would all admit that Hitler was a great orator, this was certainly one of his good points. But he was a flawed man driven by his own ego and megalomania. I think it is always possible to admire possitive qualities in even the worst of people, but to actually admire the person is like admitting to admiration of the whole balance of that persons actions, in Hitler's case plunging the world into war, creating fear and terror across Europe and not forgetting the execution of millions of Jews, homosexual and disabled. I find it some what odd that anyone could really admire such actions, it seems more likely to be a very weak attempt to be provocative. So I question whether you would really want to be like Hitler, to be riviled thoughout the rest of history as an evil man responsible for unspeakable crimes on a epic scale.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I think he just means he wishes he could string a few words together.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Some people will do anything for attention, but the 'I admire Hitler' line is somewhat cliche if you ask me, surely these people should think of something new for their controversy.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    I wouldn't mind learning more about the Nazis and Hitler without feeling like i'm being anti sematic.

    I suppose that for whatever reason... theres something you just can't talk about, not even on a debate site.

    Religion and politics, the two things we'r taught not to discuss at dinner parties.

    I never condone war or violence... yet still im worried about speaking of nazis for fear of being thought an anti semite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I wouldn't mind learning more about the Nazis and Hitler without feeling like i'm being anti sematic.

    I suppose that for whatever reason... theres something you just can't talk about, not even on a debate site.

    Religion and politics, the two things we'r taught not to discuss at dinner parties.

    I never condone war or violence... yet still im worried about speaking of nazis for fear of being thought an anti semite.
    I find the Nazis downright fascinating - that doesn't mean I glorify them, I doubt anyone would assume that of you - have at it, there's no shame in knowledge.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Headdresser said: And of course every conflict have a connection to a former conflict but I dont think you can directly connect 911 with WW2. 911 and the iraq war is about the US involvement in the middle east. They have shown much interest for this part of the world before. They negotiated with the Saudis till 1938.


    Perhaps, Bush underestimated Iraq, where he thought it would be an easy war, which turned out to be the opposite. But maybe the Cold War was connected to WW2, because after WW2, because of Germans defeat, the Allies within, where on one side was Britain and USA and on the other the Soviets, and where the Soviets also want more power, and USA did not want to lose, and there was Cold War.


    Now, President John Kennedy was friendly to the Arabs, because at that time, the Arabs were struggling to move away from the rule of Soviets. There was even a picture of John Kennedy wearing Arabic uniform sitting next to Arabs when I read Wikipedia. But it was George H.W.Bush who betrayed the Arabs, where he began to send US army to Middle East, and Bill Clinton went on trying to praise George H.W.Bush, which was not really wise to me.


    Maybe George H.W.Bush felt that it would be hard to win the war in Iraq so he wanted to quit. But his son, continued what his father was doing, and when Americans opposed what Bush was doing, he still continued and secondly, he did not have a law to stop what is going on in the stock market that caused the economical depression.


    Because it did not happen once, before, do you remember in maybe 1930, there was economical depression in USA, and FDR said that the unhealthy dealing in the stock market contributed to the economical depression, and so FDR tried to came up with what he called The new deal. Secondly, FDR was trying to help the jobless and the poor people. To me, Bill Clinton did not have a policy that is the interest in different kinds of people, and Bush was only interested in war and ignoring the voice of those who oppose the war.


    So if it wasnt Bush, perhaps, there would not be so much hatred between the Arabs and Americans. And Bush and Clinton did not have a policy that will help the weak in the American society. While JFK, he tried to pass the Civil right legislation, hoping that it will give African American a better future and he even took a photo with Martin Luther King Junior.


    But Bush and Clinton did not even try to do all these.


    While Obama, he did not make things worse, but he did not make any improvement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I wouldn't mind learning more about the Nazis and Hitler without feeling like i'm being anti sematic.
    I find the Nazis downright fascinating - that doesn't mean I glorify them, I doubt anyone would assume that of you - have at it, there's no shame in knowledge.
    I thank you for your reassurance.

    However I fear if I learn why Hitler wanted to do what he wanted to do, then I might end up agreeing.

    Also I think discussing it in public is going to trample on the feelings of some. I'm particularly interested in why he disliked the Jewish religion.

    The stuff I was taught about Hitler in history at school was propergander, the stuff I read in the paper always focusses on the crimes of the nazis, not the ideologies. Discussing the ideologies impartially might come across as supportting or propergating them...

    History is written by the victor so i'm not sure we (the plebs) will ever find out what was going on, in this generation.

    There maybe no shame in knowledge... But also, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil seems a good philosophy for a little monkey like me who wants to be happy.

    I tend to be against sects in todays world, including national sects and religious sects. But I'm not sure its wise to go into details about any of them in public, I know a lot of people have strong feelings and opinions.

    On the other hand maybe the time is ripe for open public discussion and re-evalution of the entire matter of the Nazi and Jew ideologies... before we forget the lessons of the last time. I doubt there are many who know whats going on, and who will come forward with the information here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    question for you said: "On the other hand maybe the time is ripe for open public discussion and re-evalution of the entire matter of the Nazi and Jew ideologies."

    Maybe not, because we are still too close to the WW2, and the social instability right now, and perhaps there are still people who you know......

    Where I am unsure whether the Jews can talk about Hitler without hatred. When I was talking to a guy from England, he keeps on saying: "Hitler is evil."

    And so when I say that Hitler may be charismatic speaker, he thought that I am supporting Hitler. I did not support Hitler and so maybe this is why Churchill said: "I will leave this judgment to history."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    Where I am unsure whether the Jews can talk about Hitler without hatred. When I was talking to a guy from England, he keeps on saying: "Hitler is evil."
    Well exactly, I never heard of a Jew who doesn't hate Hitler. I never heard of a Nazi who doesnt hate the Jews.

    But hatred is surely a lot less than it was as the memory of the unecesary conflict is still fresh with the majority. Give it 100 yrs and maybe another group will question the Jews in the same way that Hitler did, but the public won't be so aware of the horrors of WW2. At least if it's discussed now, we all know to avoid the extreme violent tactics that were employed in recent history. Anyway, thats just a vague possibility. I doubt the time will ever be right to discuss Hitler as far as the Jews and Brits are concerned as we will still be educated to hate the man, espeially the Jews.

    Anyway... why the fuck would a national leader have such a problem with one religion? Thats the question I want answered. We've heard enough about the violence, the fanatacism. How about the motives? The reasons? That gave birth to that fanaticism.

    Theres a lot of injustice in the world, a lot of people who have gone through a lot of suffering and pain. Nobody else and no other sunject is treated with such kid gloves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Huang View Post
    And so when I say that Hitler may be charismatic speaker, he thought that I am supporting Hitler. I did not support Hitler and so maybe this is why Churchill said: "I will leave this judgment to history."
    Churchill said that (not that I heard what context he said it in) because he knews the victor writes the history. If you ask me it sounds like a major cop out, he sent a nation to war without making a judgement? He must have been drunk again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Anyway... why the fuck would a national leader have such a problem with one religion? Thats the question I want answered. We've heard enough about the violence, the fanatacism. How about the motives? The reasons? That gave birth to that fanaticism.
    Tone down the language. (mod comment).

    To a large degree antisemitism was fueled by Christianity--a position that the Jews killed Jesus and did not follow him and often interpreted to be thePharisees that Jesus referred to as the children of the devil and other unkind words --a double whammy, reinforced by Martin Luther and explicitly mentioned by Hitler in his writings and speeches to stir up crowds. It had also been exploited by late 19th century German writers to drive cultural and economic divisiveness and scapegoating Jews for much of Germanic people's problems.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    To a large degree antisemitism was fueled by Christianity--a position that the Jews killed Jesus and did not follow him and often interpreted to be thePharisees that Jesus referred to as the children of the devil and other unkind words --a double whammy, reinforced by Martin Luther and explicitly mentioned by Hitler in his writings and speeches to stir up crowds. It had also been exploited by late 19th century German writers to drive cultural and economic divisiveness and scapegoating Jews for much of Germanic people's problems.
    My apologies for my language... I just wanted to enthasise my amazement that the answer to that question is not well known (by me at least)

    So was Hitler a christian? it seems unlikely. I have long suspeted that christianity, or the new testament was created as a deliberate division within what is fundamentally the same monotheistice beleif system. What with christianity have the old testament which is the jewish Torah.
    One the onehand it's a division, on the other hand it's two sides of the same coin.

    Jesus was a Jew for goodness sake. I heard a rumour about st paul being a jew, i'm not sure.
    When Jesus went into a church and condemned the trading of goods within it... was that a Jewish church? Or a roman church? (what was the roman beleif system of the time called?)
    Did the Jewish church kill Jesus or was it the Romans?

    Why is it that being jewish has a hereditary aspect? ok, so people can study and learn to become Jews, but thats completely different from any other religious I expect.
    There is this hereditary aspect to Judaism, a true Jew being born from a Jewish mother etc... And whats with the stuff about Jewish people being descended from the tribe of Dan is it?
    In Jewish culture their is a very strong desire in mothers to get there children paired up with other Jews, as seen on recently aired programs (yes there seems to be at least 5 or 6 programs about modern Jews running at the minute, not noticed any about christians or muslims). This seems to me to be a very 'inward', exclusive culture of sectarianism, which contradicts a 'one world' philosophy that I heard was held by the Jewish religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't really wish to get into the particulars of the religious debate, other than to say there's a huge difference between early 21st century views on Christianity and that which pervaded German Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Hitler and most of his inner circle considered themselves Christian, particularly early in accent to power (1920s) (It not just mentioned in their writings and speech, it's to a large degree, at the heart of them)--as did most Germans in one of the most Christian nations on Earth. The strong antisemitism was a conflation of religious views (with very deep roots going back to the NT) and German cultural views of the time.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Question for you said: Churchill said that (not that I heard what context he said it in) because he knews the victor writes the history. If you ask me it sounds like a major cop out, he sent a nation to war without making a judgement? He must have been drunk again.


    Well, Churchill did not get much support in UK when he first opposed Hitler, and at that time, maybe there were people who do not want another international war, so in the start, Churchill was opposing Hitler alone. It was in 1941, where Hitler began to fall because of his error in attacking Soviet Union, and at that time was the time Churchill was elected as British PM.


    Maybe there are Jews felt they were used by the British firstly for opposing Hitler and secondly, for trying to maintain the balance of power in Middle East.


    And before the Second World War, UK was stronger than USA but after the Second World War, USA was stronger than UK.


    But to me, Churchill did try to make Middle East more peaceful, well at least he tried, while Bush did not make an effort, even though I do not fully agree with Churchill.

    And a lot of things that happened were not what Churchill did. Churchill did no colonise India. But he opposed Gandhi for trying to make India independent nation, which Churchill opposed, and that was the time where UK was losing land.

    Secondly, Churchill did not oppose Treaty of Versailles, so whatever the British did which he felt was unwise, he did not oppose publicy, maybe he did not want the British to look bad in the international society.

    Now, I do not fully agree with Churchill, but to me, he did hope that Middle East will be more peaceful, but maybe you will say that he is doing it because he did not want British to lose control over the Arabs. But whatever it is, his policy towards the Middle East is still less aggressive than Bush.

    But I do not fully agree with him.

    Secondly, regarding to the conflict in Middle East, I hope that the Jews and Arabs can have more peace there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    And before the Second World War, UK was stronger than USA but after the Second World War, USA was stronger than UK.
    Not really true. The US probably passes UK in economonic power not long after the American Civil War. It was nearly 3 times larger at the start of WWII, and as we both should know, didn't really assert its huge advantage until the Suez Incident in the 1950s. image008.jpg

    Not sure really true what it has to with reasons for Hitler's failture, other than he seemed to severely underestimate US potential contributions to the Allies.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't really wish to get into the particulars of the religious debate, other than to say there's a huge difference between early 21st century views on Christianity and that which pervaded German Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th century. Hitler and most of his inner circle considered themselves Christian***, particularly early in accent to power (1920s) (It not just mentioned in their writings and speech, it's to a large degree, at the heart of them)--as did most Germans in one of the most Christian nations on Earth. The strong antisemitism was a conflation of religious views (with very deep roots going back to the NT) and German cultural views of the time.
    I think they are more of an anti-religion cult. They wanted to revert germany to worshipping pagan gods. The issues with Jew is that they believe Jews is preventing their gene-pool from being pure and this prevent them from becoming a superior race.

    In the end of the war they tried to kill as many Jew as possible as the solution.**

    **Assuming what I heard from this documentary is correct "History Channel - Nazi Gospel" About - Secret Stories on History

    ***they are christian because it is the default religion before the war. I suspect they need political support to make the party won the election.
    Last edited by msafwan; November 4th, 2012 at 04:50 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Senior bill alsept's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    386
    [QUOTE=question for you;364015] I'm particularly interested in why he disliked the Jewish religion.
    QUOTE]

    Its politics 101. Create someone for the majority to hate and blame and you gain political power. The fact that your even considering that something with the Jewish religion may have have been the cause for genocide is idiotic and pitiful.
    Headdresser likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    It's a pretty simple link fromThessalonians 2:14-16 to Martin Luther's words:

    "Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against the Jews, who, as you discover here, are consigned by the wrath of God to the devil, who has not only robbed them of a proper understanding of Scripture, but also of ordinary human reason, shame, and sense, and only works mischief with Holy Scripture through them. Therefore they cannot be trusted and believed in any other matter either, even though a truthful word may drop from their lips occasionally. For anyone who dares to juggle the awesome word of God so frivolously and shamefully as you see it done here, and as you also noted earlier with regard to the words of Jacob, cannot have a good spirit dwelling in him. Therefore, wherever you see a genuine Jew, you may with a good conscience cross yourself and bluntly say: "There goes a devil incarnate....

    First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch;....


    Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country. They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and doctrine are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father."Martin Luther. Well you get the idea.


    His declaration widely accepted even 400 years after the fact: "I seek the welfare and salvation of you Germans, as I am the Prophet of the Germans, I will act as a faithful teacher and warn my staunch Germans of the danger in which they stand. I have been born for my beloved Germans, for them will I die!"

    People like Wilhelm Marr, added fuel decades before Hitler with his antisemtic phamplets about Jews taking over the German banking and being dangerous to German peoples.

    Hitler would pick up that hate mantle and add to it the deep German distrust for not only Jews, but also Marxism, which he able to claim was Jewish invention because Marx was Jewish. He lit the flame to existing Christian antisemitism and extreme nationalism and added more of his own. And he didn't do it alone, Protestant religious leaders, such as Bishop Martin Sasse, republished Martin Luther's antisemitic writings and contributed to the destruction, stealing Jewish property, and general ethnic cleaning that started in the late 30s'.
    ,
    --
    I don't plan to comment further on this. but find is a bit frightening that some people deny the link--acknowledging it is the best inoculation against something similar in the future.

    I don't think is was ultimate responsible for Hitler's failures though. Moral objections to his German viewpoints seems to play 2nd fiddle to the war effort.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 4th, 2012 at 07:40 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Hitler and most of his inner circle considered themselves Christian, particularly early in accent to power (1920s) (It not just mentioned in their writings and speech, it's to a large degree, at the heart of them)--as did most Germans in one of the most Christian nations on Earth. The strong antisemitism was a conflation of religious views (with very deep roots going back to the NT) and German cultural views of the time.
    This is just thoroughly incorrect. Hitler was contemptuous of Christianity, but saw it as a useful vehicle to achieve some of his aims. Even a cursory examination of his life demonstrates this very clearly. If you require chapter and verse to justify this I shall provide it.

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    question for you likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Steve555 said: CHINA AND RUSSIA do not mind. THEY HATE moslims.


    Many Chinese do not hate Arabs and perhaps, many Russians do not hate Muslims and I cannot find any reason for the Russians to hate the Arabs.


    Because if you can read historical books, there is not much war between Arabs and Russians and there is not much war between Chinese and Arabs.


    Geographically, the Chinese or the Russians are not in direct competition with Arabs, so I cannot find a good reason for China or Russia to hate Muslims.


    But Christian may be different case, because in the past, the Christians were politically competing against the Muslims and the Muslims also try to conquer India, and I was surprised when I saw there were Islamic building in India, until I read a bit more about India, that after the fall of Buddhists in India, the Muslims were trying to dominate India and so there were Muslims buildings in India.


    Because between Middle East and China there is India, and so the Muslims feel they need to attack India before they can come to China. And so this is why there is not much war between the Chinese and the Muslims in the past, because of the geographic location, where India is in between China and Middle East, which perhaps, this is a good location for China where there is India to block the attack from the Arabs.


    Because Middle East is in a position surrounded by different nations, so geographically, it may be in war with the nations near by it, and Muslims fought with Christians and with Hindus, but not much war with Chinese because it is not her neighbouring country.


    Genghis Khan, who was a Mongolian, maybe he marched all the way to Persia and Alexander the Great did not have an empire larger than Genghis Khan. The Mongolians were nomads living in tents and he even wanted to attack Japan, but failed, because the few earthquakes in Japan saved Japan from the attack from the Mongolians.


    Because China was very far away from many countries in Europe and it was not a neighbouring country with Arabic nations, so, in the past, the Chinese did not have much ruthless wars with Arabs. And before the time of Newton, perhaps many British had never heard of China.


    It was when the Christian missionaries in Europe going to China, where the Christian missionaries brought back some Chinese texts, where German thinker such as Leibniz was interested in reading the Book of Changes. Perhaps, that was the time when German thinkers started to read about the Chinese texts, thinkers such as Leibniz and Hegel.


    Perhaps, it is because of history, where the Christians felt they were competing with Muslims in the past, so that Churchill felt that if he was unfriendly to the Arabs, it might lead to more wars between British and the Muslims. So Churchill tried to be friendly to Arabs, where maybe he thought his political strategy of trying to use friendly cooperation before ruthless attack to prevent more sufferings from both sides, but president Bush going to an unwise end, where he wanted to attack rather than peaceful cooperation.


    Maybe Bush lacked historical mind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    [QUOTE=bill alsept;364173]
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I'm particularly interested in why he disliked the Jewish religion.
    QUOTE]

    Its politics 101. Create someone for the majority to hate and blame and you gain political power. The fact that your even considering that something with the Jewish religion may have have been the cause for genocide is idiotic and pitiful.
    I don't see how considering every possibility is idiotic and pitiful. Guess that must be because i'm idiotic and in your mind, pitiful. Just a hunch here, are you jewish?

    Organised religion seems to have been created for political reasons in the first place. So the fact that christianity has a hated group is purely so that it can rise to power over the more established Jewish religion? Did the Jewish religion always have figures of hate? I heard about the man who was stonned to death for collecting firewood.

    They certainly have a figure of hate now. So hypothetically speaking, Hitler might have been reared as somebody who the majority of Jews could all hate... therefor allowing the Jewish religion to gain more political power?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    883
    You could argue that Hitler failed for any number of reasons but most obviously he attempted to fight a war on 2 fronts and then got sucked into another. His generals such as Rommell and Manstein made some sound decisions, while he behaved like some sort of raving lunatic who never went anywhere near danger. He was a man who had probably never had a paid job in his life, but worked his way up from the dosshouse to be the German Fuhrer.
    So what inspired him? Well he liked German opera and the occult works of Richard Wagner in particular. Further evidence of his love for occult came with the Nazi adoption of the svastika, a symbol of solar power. The Nazi salute was adapted from that of the Roman emperors. He dreamed of reviving the Holy Roman Empire as the Dritte Reich which would last for 1000 years, but then only lasted 12. At the Anschluss he immediately appropriated the Spear of Destiny which was lying in the Vienna Museum. This relic from the Crucifixion was supposed to give great power to anyone who owned it. A few years ago it was dated from about 700 years after Christ, so no magical powers there. Although few historians are prepared to discuss it, I think that Hitler's connection with the occult probably was one reason for his failure. He believed in supernatural powers that do not exist. Being at least a nominal Catholic he also believed that God was on his side. Don't they all. The Reich and the Vatican were basically on the same side and yet the Vatican still survives. Strange.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I don't see how considering every possibility is idiotic and pitiful.
    So, would you consider the possibility that Hitler was installed by aliens as part of a large entertainment scheme that allowed them to watch and be amused by global carnage? If considering that possibility is not idiotic then it must be sensible. do you actually think that is sensible? Do you think that we should admire you for giving such an idea consideration, or shouldwe feel somewhat sorry for you?

    Just checking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The Reich and the Vatican were basically on the same side and yet the Vatican still survives. Strange.
    Theres always a scape goat to take full resposibility for the actions of a higher power. We never ever get the the crux of these problems it seems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    I don't see how considering every possibility is idiotic and pitiful.
    So, would you consider the possibility that Hitler was installed by aliens as part of a large entertainment scheme that allowed them to watch and be amused by global carnage? If considering that possibility is not idiotic then it must be sensible. do you actually think that is sensible? Do you think that we should admire you for giving such an idea consideration, or shouldwe feel somewhat sorry for you?

    Just checking.
    I beleive it should be considered. I don't beleive it is sensible and therefor IMO doesn't deserve more than a very fleeting consideration. A consideration none the less. The fact you mentioned it shows you have given it a consideration of sorts which is more than I ever did. Well done to you.

    The idea that there might be a problem with the Jewish religion (and every other religion) deserves far more consideration than the idea it was aliens, correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    His generals such as Rommell and Manstein made some sound decisions, while he behaved like some sort of raving lunatic who never went anywhere near danger.
    On this point there is no evidence that Hitler was a coward. During the First War he was a dispatch runner and was awarded several medals for this dangerous work.
    In 1916 he was wounded and then, after making a recovery, volunteered to go back to the Front. During this period he was awarded the Iron Cross ( First Class). This was a great honour for any German soldier.
    Last edited by Halliday; November 7th, 2012 at 05:41 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    1,910
    Hitler might have had syphilis, but this isn't certain. A diagnosis of Parkinson's is more likely, and methamphetamine use is almost certain. Any one of these could contribute to poor command decisions.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If we're over to talking about JFK, then of course there was a cover up. Lee Harvey Oswald was shot, almost certainly to keep him quiet. That meets the criteria for a "cover up".
    To a suspicious mind :-) Seriously Oswald shot one of the most popular figures in 20th century history; it's more surprising that he was even captured alive then it is someone who was a strong supporter and emotional broken up about the assassination capped him during a prison transfer. Even 50 years later there's no credible evidence for a conspiracy whatsoever.
    And the guy just happens to be mafia. Sure. Consider which of these two motives to go and shoot a man in public is more plausible:

    1) - You're so angry you don't care what the consequences are, so you go shoot a man who is already in police custody and will already very likely suffer the death penalty.

    2) - A close family member of yours owes a lot of money to a mob boss. You've killed for the mob before, but never got caught. You can do this one job, and all their debts will be cleared, or you can refuse and they'll be sleeping with the fishes.

    The reason I want to entertain this tangent is because there was once a time in Germany when you would be considered a "conspiracy theorist" if you suggested that human beings were being cooked in kilns in order to make soap out of the fat from their bodies.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    10
    If Hitler hadn't attacked the USSR they probably would have returned the favour somewhere between 6 and 12 months later, and they could have gotten far off a mad rush in that case you could see Germany falling earlier, the problem on that front was that they overextended themselves right before the extreme winter and with the speed they were moving they left a lot of guerillas behind ready to strike back.
    Another problem was that the british had naval superiority and no matter what, any Operation Sealion-esque operation would most likely have failed even without the Battle of Britain ensuring British Air superiority, the Royal Navy and the industrial capacity of the dominions was too much for Hitler.
    When Hitler won the mainland, what it meant was that his blitzkrieg tactics, which were great for offence, were going to be replaced by defensive barriers which would be susceptible to the British doing their own Blitzkrieg.
    The allies also had an enormous industrial capacity, Canada was producing ships at an incredible rate for the Battle of the Atlantic, the Americans had plenty of fancy new toys they were eager to test out, and overall they were ready for a war time economy in the west once the war had gotten under way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Hitler could not legitimate his rule. There were tons of double agents working for the British and others. Hitler would not have lasted long.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Hitler's big mistake with the USA was picking a fight with someone who had a (virtually) impregnable castle/base to launch attacks from. He couldn't hope to touch the American mainland. Hell, he could barely attack the UK and it was nearby.

    The USA basically had unlimited retreat options. You can't beat an enemy that has that advantage. The moment things start going bad for them, they're free to just stop fighting and call "time out" until they're ready to come back and do something.

    Come to think of it, that's probably also why the USA won't be able to totally smash the Taliban. Every time we start to get the upper hand they'll just lay low in Pakistan until they can rebuild their forces.


    Quote Originally Posted by willbell View Post
    When Hitler won the mainland, what it meant was that his blitzkrieg tactics, which were great for offence, were going to be replaced by defensive barriers which would be susceptible to the British doing their own Blitzkrieg.
    Good point. He could take territory but he couldn't hold it. Maybe that's another part of why he lost Russia. He'd take territory, but he couldn't just wipe out all the citizens (not for want of trying I'm sure.) Unlike France, people in the East territories wouldn't just give up as soon as their local official army had been defeated. They joined Stalin's army and went on fighting.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    Though thoroughly shameful that so many Jewish refugees were denied sanctuary during the second world war I would like to believe that it was because the leaders of the major countries did not know the true extent of the 'final solution', rather that it was thought that most Jews ended up as part of the Nazi's slave labour force. Evidence exists that suggests anti-semitism did indeed exist in both the US and Europe leading up to the war and during it. But it should also be noted that from the moment the Nazi's came to power they led a propaganda campaign to blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems. They were very good at disseminating this propaganda and naturally it spread well beyond Germany's borders. So it could well be said that the levels of anti-semitism were artifically high, not just a product of the economic problems of the era. Also it wasn't just jews that were attracting ill feeling, it was a time of general discontent and anger towards anyone seen as different across many countries.

    So again I would certainly like to believe that the leaderships of the major countries had no real hatred towards Jews and simply misunderstood the sheer magnitude and gravity of what was actually taking place, also bearing in mind that countries like Britain were struggling to survive the war and feed it's own population, being very dependant on food and supplies from the Atlantic convoys which were dwindling from U boat attacks. As for the US it was only in 1943 that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, presented a report to President Roosevelt in 1943 providing details about the Final Solution, after which the President established the War Refugee Board as an independent agency to rescue the civilian victims of the Nazis. It was not really until the actual liberation of the Nazi concentration camps that the sheer horror of what had gone on was revealed and even then it took time for to sink in and for people to believe that anyone could treat other human beings so horrifically. So again I think this is further evidence against anti-semitism being the real motivation behind refugees being denied sanctuary.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    You are correct that anti-semitism was rampant in Germany. You need to add that it was a powerful force in the rest of Europe and in the Americas too. One of the reasons six milliion Jews died in WWII was that the rest of the world was disinclined to accept refugees.

    question for you, keep in mind the warning of George Santayana: ""Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Studying how Hitler evolved his thinking and rose to power is a good thing.
    Though thoroughly shameful that so many Jewish refugees were denied sanctuary during the second world war I would like to believe that it was because the leaders of the major countries did not know the true extent of the 'final solution', rather that it was thought that most Jews ended up as part of the Nazi's slave labour force. Evidence exists that suggests anti-semitism did indeed exist in both the US and Europe leading up to the war and during it. But it should also be noted that from the moment the Nazi's came to power they led a propaganda campaign to blame the Jews for all of Germany's problems. They were very good at disseminating this propaganda and naturally it spread well beyond Germany's borders. So it could well be said that the levels of anti-semitism were artifically high, not just a product of the economic problems of the era. Also it wasn't just jews that were attracting ill feeling, it was a time of general discontent and anger towards anyone seen as different across many countries.
    The Jews were always strongly associated with the concept of what we now call "Wall Street". It was just as easy to blame them then as it is to blame Wall Street for America's problems today. The only difference is that now we don't extend a profession to being only one race's profession.

    Germany lost most of its best scientists because it stereotyped them as though they were bankers.


    So again I would certainly like to believe that the leaderships of the major countries had no real hatred towards Jews and simply misunderstood the sheer magnitude and gravity of what was actually taking place, also bearing in mind that countries like Britain were struggling to survive the war and feed it's own population, being very dependant on food and supplies from the Atlantic convoys which were dwindling from U boat attacks. As for the US it was only in 1943 that U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, presented a report to President Roosevelt in 1943 providing details about the Final Solution, after which the President established the War Refugee Board as an independent agency to rescue the civilian victims of the Nazis. It was not really until the actual liberation of the Nazi concentration camps that the sheer horror of what had gone on was revealed and even then it took time for to sink in and for people to believe that anyone could treat other human beings so horrifically. So again I think this is further evidence against anti-semitism being the real motivation behind refugees being denied sanctuary.
    How many people from Bosnia did we allow into the USA during the Bosnian holocausts? How many Tootsie or Hutu from Rwanda?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Hitler might have had syphilis, but this isn't certain. A diagnosis of Parkinson's is more likely, and methamphetamine use is almost certain. Any one of these could contribute to poor command decisions.
    Lol now come on... somebody tell me this is in the official records?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The Jews were always strongly associated with the concept of what we now call "Wall Street". It was just as easy to blame them then as it is to blame Wall Street for America's problems today. The only difference is that now we don't extend a profession to being only one race's profession.

    Are you saying the Jews are a race of people?


    So that's a race of people some of whome are blond and blue eyed, some are dark haired and dark eyed, who knows some are probably black.

    And thats a race you say? Like a distinguishable varient of the species? I'd like to know the scientific reason for calling Judaism a race...?

    It seems like a religion, or a cult, not a race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Hitler might have had syphilis, but this isn't certain. A diagnosis of Parkinson's is more likely, and methamphetamine use is almost certain. Any one of these could contribute to poor command decisions.
    Lol now come on... somebody tell me this is in the official records?
    Much of it.
    New documents offer rare look at Hitler's medical history | GlobalPost
    Adolf Hitler's medical care. [J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI

    --
    Are you saying the Jews are a race of people?
    Race as a word is pretty hazy definition for any groups of people. That being said, Jews do tend to cluster around several genetic groups.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    The Holy Land is everywhere Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    That's amazing... How can a powerfull leader such as Hitler a) have a doctor who probably sent him mad? and b) allow that doctor to make notes about it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Are you saying the Jews are a race of people?
    Race as a word is pretty hazy definition for any groups of people. That being said, Jews do tend to cluster around several genetic groups.
    How many of these genetic groupings within the species Homo Sapien are known to science?

    Is there a tree for them all with probable evolutionary diversions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    The reason Hitler kicked off WW2 was mainly because of the finacial shinanigins of the capitaists in Germany, if you check it out, you will find that Gremany at that time was ravaged by not just inflation but by hyper inflation which he believed was caused by Jewish Capitalists. Adolph Hitler was mistaken, the inflation was caused by the Zionists as a weapon to cripple and destroy Germany financially.

    He attacked Russia becuaus he had to, if Hitler had not attacked russia, Russia would have attacked Germany as soon as they were ready, as soon as they had built up their forces to match or even surpass Germanies. Russia needed to be top dog in the area and Hitler knew it.

    Hitler lost the war because the great Russian winter came earlly, German troopps still wore light summer clothing, many of them died of hypothermia in their sleep. Others starved to death because Germen transport had frozen also, add to that the Russian scortched earth retreat where they burnt everything they had to leave behind. ie: food and buildings, leaving German troops no food to eat and no buildings to shelter in. German tanks had only summer coolents and warm weather oil in them, they obvioiusly froze up in the freezing winter that hit them well befor they had converted to winter running, hence the great defeat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Zundap View Post
    . Adolph Hitler was mistaken, the inflation was caused by the Zionists as a weapon to cripple and destroy Germany financially.
    It is good to see a clear signature statement that lets us know how much attention to pay to any future posts you make.
    willbell likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    77
    Kojax said: And the guy happens to be a mafia.

    JFKs father had a long history of connection with the mafia. Some people even say that the gangsters helped the JFK when he was running for presidency. But later on, there are people who say that JFK wants to wipe the gangsters out. So perhaps, some gangsters are unhappy with JFK, and Hoover seems to be a close friend with some gangsters, and together, with JFKs political enemy, then, JFK falls to the ground.


    There is a book History of the Mafia, and in the book, it has picture such as Al Capone and a picture of JFK and in the book, it even talks about a gang that has strict code, where if the member disobeys, then, the finger will be chopped off and presented to the big boss.

    DaBOB said: Hitler could not legitimate his rule. There were tons of double agents working for the British and others. Hitler would not have lasted long.

    Hitler was not good at spying or at least, Hitler was never focusing on spying during the time he was in office. It was the communists that were interested in the spying, perhaps, the Americans did use the spying agency, but USA tried to rely on technology such as the strange aeroplanes that look like UFOs while the communists in the past relied more on people as spies.



    Question for you said: Are you saying the Jews are a race of people?

    Modern biologists said that there is no such thing as race or race never existed. Biologists say that humans are just animal species. The idea of race may be just a deluded concept invented by the confused human and this concept is a flawed concept according to modern biologists, and often misused by confused politicians.

    Zundap said: He attacked Russia becuaus he had to, if Hitler had not attacked russia, Russia would have attacked Germany as soon as they were ready.

    No, I do not think Stalin will attack Hitler if Hitler did not start a war against USSR. Because the communists in the past were not using direct attack as a political policy, because the communist revolution was a revolution using small numbers to win over larger numbers, guerrilla warfare, and the communists did not invent the guerrilla warfare, rather, maybe they learn this type of fighting from looking at history. Because of the communists were good at guerrilla warfare, they were always looking for a mistake of what a non-communist may make rather than a direct attack. And since Hitlers thinking is that whoever makes the first attack will likely to win, then, Stalin will observe whether or not is there an error in Hitlers strategy and if there is, then, Stalin may not need to use any soldier to fight Hitler, rather, Hitler will fall in the hands of his own error.

    Now, Bin Laden learned the guerrilla warfare as he was fighting against the Soviets. President Bush really made a mistake when he tried to fight against the Iraq, because he neglected all the effort that Kennedy was trying to build between the Arabic nations during the Cold War and USA was trying to support Bin Laden in the start by opposing the Soviets, but later on, Bush started a war against Iraq, which was a mistake because it seemed to betray what Kennedy was doing in the past.

    Bush did not know that Bin Laden had learnt a lot from the communists in guerrilla warfare, where numbers and technology may count only a small portion in a war. He underestimated the patriotic feelings of the nationalist Arabs. And his domestic policy may be problematic, like he did not have a policy to stop the unwise dealing in the stock market. And also his relationship with other nations so and so on, which leaves Obama in a disadvantaged situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Some of us fail to see our memories or hear our thoughts etc ...
    By JackMonedula in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 16th, 2012, 08:41 AM
  2. Is multiculturalism doomed to fail?
    By Latin_of_delight in forum Politics
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: March 26th, 2011, 12:44 AM
  3. Failing to Fail
    By Learner Chemist in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: February 15th, 2011, 05:30 PM
  4. Why do most religions fail?
    By ox in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: December 17th, 2010, 10:54 AM
  5. so has the lhc fail again?
    By luxtpm in forum Physics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 21st, 2010, 12:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •