NationStates Jolt Archive

How do you view Hitler purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocaust" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hitler to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.

Yeahh I'm sure this has been done a zillion times.

Hitler as a leader, let's seee...

*murdered political opponents, including the man who helped bring him to power (i.e. Rohm via the SA)
*manipulated his alleged supporters (smart but devious)
*stirred up racial hatred

Hitler as a statesmen:

*makes agreements he has no intention of keeping (Ribbentrop-Molotov pact)
*knows only the gun in dealing with other states

Whatever it is you're smoking...yada yada yada...

Nonsense.

He led it to ruinous destruction and division.

He was a brilliant orator and a half-decent painter, but a shitty leader and an even shittier human being.

So yeah, as a leader, I'd give him a 0.

If you include mentally unstable a good trait of a leader. I'm sure that works out real well

He led it to ruinous destruction and division.

Not before making it a great power out ruins.

If you include mentally unstable a good trait of a leader. I'm sure that works out real well
I do, any one worth noticing is mentally unstable. The sane ones just sit around and play Scrabble or read.
Hitler was also one of the last great oraters, a hold-out from the age when people actually threw themselves into their speeches, as opposed to this modern-day, boringly passive crap that you get from anyone. Further points for cunning and ruthlessness.
On the other hand, the man had no eye for the long-term, and very quickly set Nazi Germany on the path to a total burn-out.

From a sheer objective viewpoint, he did pretty well for a while. Made Germany a world power, and converted millions to a senseless ideology that still occaisonally lingers more than 60 years later. That takes some charisma, I'm thinking.

Not before making it a great power out ruins.

So?

Not before making it a great power out ruins.

At what cost?

Not before making it a great power out ruins.
He made the same mistake Napoleon did. At first glance he appears to be a genius, and in the end he was a complete failure.

As a leader, Hitler was brilliant. The grandeur, the way he spoke. Maybe when people went home after the rallies, they thought to themselves that maybe the Nazis were a bit extreme, but then they thought about all the people who had been around them who seemed, at the moment, to be absolutely enthralled just as they had been. All that mass appeal though, was directed towards one of the most negative ideologies in the history of the world, but imagine if it hadn’t been.
Hitler was also one of the last great oraters, a hold-out from the age when people actually threw themselves into their speeches, as opposed to this modern-day, boringly passive crap that you get from anyone. Further points for cunning and ruthlessness.
It’s not just that they are incapable of being passionate, though many in fact are. It’s that when they are, they are mocked by a media hungry for negative news. A good example of that is Howard Dean’s infamous speech when he was trying to win the Democratic nomination for president.

Not before making it a great power out ruins.

At what cost?

It wasn't exactly sustainable, was it.

Hitler had a magnificent vision, but the means didn't justify the end, as the Allied forces showed Nazi Germany when they crushed it completely.

And putting Holocaust in quotation marks doesn't exactly look too sharp.

And putting Holocaust in quotation marks doesn't exactly look too sharp.
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cgo0129l.jpg

Hitler had a magnificent vision, but the means didn't justify the end, as the Allied forces showed Nazi Germany when they crushed it completely.

Yes, and now they have more money that three of the four major Allies. In their face, losers.

Yes, and now we have more money that three of the four major Allies. In their face, losers.
You do? I thought that your country owed like 8 Trillion bucks?

You do? I thought that your country owed like 8 Trillion bucks?

And the US owes more money than currently exists on Earth. Your point?

And the US owes more money than currently exists on Earth. Your point?
I guess I mistook you as an American?

I guess I mistook you as an American?

I guess you did.

I guess you did.
So sorry my apologies!! :)

If my nationality matters...no, he was the worst leader Germany has ever had.

Not only did he impose a war on the country that it couldn't win, but he then proceeded to make the loss especially painful with stupid decisions. He is not responsible for the economic upturn after the depression, all he did was turn Germany's economy into a war machine.

Before him, Germany was a healthy if politically somewhat unstable country with a lot of potential. After him, the country was reduced to rubble, and he shot himself saying that the German people deserved what he had done to it, because they didn't win the war he started.

And that is not even mentioning the many millions whose death he directly or indirectly caused.

I guess I mistook you as an American?

He's actually Australian, but sees himself as German.

Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.

Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I don't think it's as cut & dried as you like to think.

Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.
That is a "what if" that no one really knows the answer to, nor will they ever know the answer to.

I sure don't look at it as Germany taking one for the world.

No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.
The Red Army couldn't beat Finland after Stalin purged its leaders, let alone the combined resistance of France, Britain and Weimar Germany.

Plus, without a great patriotic war to defend their homes, I don't think the Red Army could've been motivated to follow orders at all, even ten years later.

That is a "what if" that no one really knows the answer to, nor will they ever know the answer to.

Of course we know the answer. Stalin was a sociopath, but he wasn't stupid. Without a strong Germany, Europe would have been free for the taking.

The Red Army couldn't beat Finland after Stalin purged its leaders, let alone the combined resistance of France, Britain and Weimar Germany.

Yeah, three old guys with sticks and a cow. It was a fucking powerhouse. And don't get me started on France. Britain was the only country that came CLOSE to being able to resist the Soviets.

Plus, without a great patriotic war to defend their homes, I don't think the Red Army could've been motivated to follow orders at all, even ten years later.

I think Stalin could have found a way.

Of course we know the answer. Stalin was a sociopath, but he wasn't stupid. Without a strong Germany, Europe would have been free for the taking.
Yet, that is not what happened. You cannot re-write history. You can try but it won't work.

Hitler was genius, except when he was on the drugs and in Bormons pocket.

Yeah, three old guys with sticks and a cow. It was a fucking powerhouse.
The Reichswehr was limited in equipment, but excellent in tactics and training. And don't forget the Freikorps and other paramilitary organisations.

And don't get me started on France.
France was beaten due to superior German tactics. The Russians had absolutely nothing that compared. Equipment and training-wise, the French would have owned the Red Army.

I think Stalin could have found a way.
Just look at the performance of the Red Army throughout its existence:

It's militias won against the Whites in the civil war, then got their arse kicked against the Poles. Then they got their arse kicked against Finland. Then they successfully defended their home country, and coming off that high was the only time they had a serious shot at winning.

After about 1950, there would have been very few times in which it could have won a conventional invasion of continental Europe, and that chance was getting smaller by the day until 1990, at which point they would barely have been able to cross the border into Germany.

The Reichswehr was limited in equipment, but excellent in tactics and training. And don't forget the Freikorps and other paramilitary organisations.

Yes, I'm sure all 110,00 men that Germany could muster really terrified 50 million Red Army troops.

France was beaten due to superior German tactics. The Russians had absolutely nothing that compared. Equipment and training-wise, the French would have owned the Red Army.

The Maginot Line would have been overrun by Soviet swarms.

After about 1950, there would have been very few times in which it could have won a conventional invasion of continental Europe, and that chance was getting smaller by the day until 1990, at which point they would barely have been able to cross the border into Germany.

Actually, in wargames, the Soviets almost always won.

The Maginot Line would have been overrun by Soviet swarms.
http://www.creepcolony.com/ss26.jpg

http://www.creepcolony.com/ss26.jpg

That was exactly what I was thinking when I read that quote.

I'm surprised no one is playing Devil's Advocate here.

Wai......
You're talking about Hilter not Hitler...
Hilter sucked, damn Furniture traders.

Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.

Oooohhh... This will be fun to tear apart.
Let's count the countries that would have stood in Russia's way, apart from Germany:

1) Finland: As said above, the Russians couldn't beat these guys without their leaders. They got the **** kicked out of them in the winter assault

2)Britain: A major power at the time, would have been compeltely untouchable due to the fact that Russia's sea and air power was laughable.

3) France: As said above, only beaten by superior German tactics. The zerglingesque tactics of the Russians would have kept them bogged down at the Maginot line for months if not years.

4) The Czechs: A highly organised and militarised nation, screwed over because Germany seized the Sudetenland, containing much of their industrial resources.

5) Hungary: Okay, maybe not major but I am Hungarian :cool: . Besides, look at the damage we did during 1956!

And besides all of this:

1) Russia was poorly equipped. The only reason they got their assess into gear was because they were scared of Germany.

2) Russian soldiers suffered from poor morale, poor training and poor equipment. It was only when Germany was on their doorstep that the fiery patriotic adrenaline rush kicked in and they actually started winning

It was only when Germany was on their doorstep that the fiery patriotic adrenaline rush kicked in and they actually started winning

Agreed. If it wasn't for the Second World War it's hard to imagine the Soviet Empire becoming as powerful as it did become. Stalin was only allowed into Europe because he was needed to overthrow the Third Reich, an invasion at any other time would have been suicide.

He made the same mistake Napoleon did. At first glance he appears to be a genius, and in the end he was a complete failure.

Yep. Russia (climate alone) screwed everyone over... except the Mongolians, but they drank their horse's blood as a pre-battle snack and launched dead cows into cities and stuff like that. They were the best conquerers... primarily because they were not an agriculturally-based (and thus rooted) society.

Oooohhh... This will be fun to tear apart.
Let's count the countries that would have stood in Russia's way, apart from Germany:

2)Britain: A major power at the time, would have been compeltely untouchable due to the fact that Russia's sea and air power was laughable.

The Blitz.
If Germany did it...so could have Russia, that would have held most of Europe.


3) France: As said above, only beaten by superior German tactics. The zerglingesque tactics of the Russians would have kept them bogged down at the Maginot line for months if not years.

Superior tactics?

They simply went around the damn thing.

The Maginot line was a foolish idea.

Great!
Secure and fortify the hell out of a big stretch of border!

Wich will work....only if the enemy chooses to invade from that particular direction.

Russia would have gone around it as well.

Russia invaded Germany, and took Berlin.
You dont think they could have taken Paris?

How do you view Hilter purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocuast" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hilter to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.If (and this is ignoring the holocaust, the internment of opposition, and the corruption within the Nazi party) you believe Hitler was a good statesman, you don't know what he was like at all.

He was brash and did things how he wanted to and refused to listen to dissent. This made him look like a great statesman as long as what he did was working. Near the end of the war, his generals had to lie to him about how things were going because he would have ripped their heads off if he hadn't. Hitler was an opportunist and grabbed some very big opportunities. He was by no means a good statesman.

How do you view Hilter purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocuast" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hilter to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.

No. Hitler was only good in delivering speeches. That's what made his rise to power. His abilities as a leader were limited, though. But the leaders in the military and militias needed him as a public figurehead. The reason for the assassination attempt by von-Stauffenberg (when the war was about to turn) was Hitler's weak leadership, especially as a military commander and strategist.

1) Russia was poorly equipped. The only reason they got their assess into gear was because they were scared of Germany.

2) Russian soldiers suffered from poor morale, poor training and poor equipment. It was only when Germany was on their doorstep that the fiery patriotic adrenaline rush kicked in and they actually started winning

Actually the day the red army began winning was when Stalin got enough sense to actually listen to his generals,instead of trying to run the war himself.

plus 3/4 million german troops were tied up in France/Italy either awaiting invasion or fighting the other allies.

As for Hitler... was he a good leader?
Well he banned fox hunting in 1935

As for Hitler... was he a good leader?
Well he banned fox hunting in 1935The hunting laws are mainly Goering's work (and incidentally are still in effect today).

The Blitz.
If Germany did it...so could have Russia, that would have held most of Europe.



Superior tactics?

They simply went around the damn thing.

The Maginot line was a foolish idea.

Great!
Secure and fortify the hell out of a big stretch of border!

Wich will work....only if the enemy chooses to invade from that particular direction.

Russia would have gone around it as well.

Russia invaded Germany, and took Berlin.
You dont think they could have taken Paris?

You, my friend are giving the Russians WAY too much credit. They would never have been able to come up with Blitzkreig, being, as I said poorly trained and poorly equipped. Heck, if they ever had have come up with the tactic, they wouldn't have had enough tanks to pull it off.

You have also completely ignored my final two points, instrumental to my argument. The only reason Russia had the firepower it did was because it was scared of Germany. Heck, Stalin actually allied with Hitler so he could buy time, because he was worried they didn't have enough. Without a strong German threat, the russians would never have had enough firepower to even make it to France.

Legions of men mean nothing when you don't have the firepower. World War one proved that. Russia's steamroller came at a time of sheer desperation. German forces had almost made it to Moscow.

Without a strong German threat, the following can be concluded:

1) Russia would probably never have had the forces or equipment to undertake any major operation, as there was no threat to force them into gear.

2) Should Russia have been stupid enough to try an invasion, they might have gotten as far as Eastern Europe before superior organisation and firepower cut them down (and that's saying something. Compared to a number of European nations, the armies of Eatern Europe were shocking).

3) Finally, by some tactical miracle, had the Russians actually made it to France, the British would mop the floor with them with superior air power.

Actually the day the red army began winning was when Stalin got enough sense to actually listen to his generals,instead of trying to run the war himself.

plus 3/4 million german troops were tied up in France/Italy either awaiting invasion or fighting the other allies.




There was of course, those reasons.

2) Should Russia have been stupid enough to try an invasion, they might have gotten as far as Eastern Europe before superior organisation and firepower cut them down (and that's saying something. Compared to a number of European nations, the armies of Eatern Europe were shocking).

Dude, there was ONE nation between Western Europe and the Soviet Union. Poland. And they managed to take half of that IRL.

How do you view Hilter purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocuast" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hilter to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.
Hilter, eh? If you're trying to troll, at least get the names straight... Otherwise it'll make you look like an illiterate fool!
If my nationality matters...no, he was the worst leader Germany has ever had.
Not only did he impose a war on the country that it couldn't win, but he then proceeded to make the loss especially painful with stupid decisions. He is not responsible for the economic upturn after the depression, all he did was turn Germany's economy into a war machine.
Before him, Germany was a healthy if politically somewhat unstable country with a lot of potential. After him, the country was reduced to rubble, and he shot himself saying that the German people deserved what he had done to it, because they didn't win the war he started.
And that is not even mentioning the many millions whose death he directly or indirectly caused.
100% agree.
Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.
I seriously doubt that, especially because it was Russia which took one for the world... Germany was the one dishing out.
That is a "what if" that no one really knows the answer to, nor will they ever know the answer to.
I sure don't look at it as Germany taking one for the world.
Nobody with a sense of history would actually think that way.
Yes, I'm sure all 110,00 men that Germany could muster really terrified 50 million Red Army troops.
110 men, eh? Having a standing army of 100,000 doesn't mean all the rest doesn't know which direction to point a rifle. Hell, the restrictions on who could join that army were so strict, they wouldn't even let anyone with a scar in, who were otherwise completely capable.
Actually, in wargames, the Soviets almost always won.
Actually, in wargames, the results mean nothing.
If (and this is ignoring the holocaust, the internment of opposition, and the corruption of the Nazi party) you believe Hitler was a good statesman, you don't know what he was like at all.
He was brash and did things how he wanted to and refused to listen to dissent. This made him look like a great statesman as long as what he did was working. Near the end of the war, his generals had to lie to him about how things were going because he would have ripped their heads off if he hadn't. Hitler was an opportunist and grabbed some very big opportunities. He was by no means a good statesman.
100% agree.
Dude, there was ONE nation between Western Europe and the Soviet Union. Poland. And they managed to take half of that IRL.
Yeah. And the other half went to Germany, as it had been decided in the Geheime Zusatzprotokolle (secret protocol) of the Nichtangriffspakt (non-agression pact): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

100% agree.Reading my post as a quote, I just realized that someone that doesn't know me could construe "corruption of the Nazi party" in a way I wouldn't want it...

Reading my post as a quote, I just realized that someone that doesn't know me could construe "corruption of the Nazi party" in a way I wouldn't want it...
Knowing you, that never occured to me...

110 men, eh? Having a standing army of 100,000 doesn't mean all the rest doesn't know which direction to point a rifle. Hell, the restrictions on who could join that army were so strict, they wouldn't even let anyone with a scar in, who were otherwise completely capable.

And they still wouldn't stand a chance against the Red Army.

Actually, in wargames, the results mean nothing.

Wargames are intended to simulate real warfare. If the Soviets win on paper, they can win IRL.

Yeah. And the other half went to Germany, as it had been decided in the Geheime Zusatzprotokolle (secret protocol) of the Nichtangriffspakt (non-agression pact): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact

I know that. I'm just saying that the Soviets could easily have made it to the German border.

Wargames are intended to simulate real warfare. If the Soviets win on paper, they can win IRL."They didn't fight like we simulated they would!"

Famous last words.

And they still wouldn't stand a chance against the Red Army.

Wargames are intended to simulate real warfare. If the Soviets win on paper, they can win IRL.

I know that. I'm just saying that the Soviets could easily have made it to the German border.
The Red Army during the 20ies was a joke.

Right... Just like the U.S. altered their wargames so that they could win (when the opposing U.S. general used small boats and stuff and made the rest look really foolish). Nu-uh. Simulations don't mean anything.

You seem to forget that the German Wehrmacht was in the other half of Poland, eh?

and he shot himself saying that the German people deserved what he had done to it, because they didn't win the war he started.
Did he really say that? If so, I'd like a source so I can use this against people who dont share the same....realistic...views on Hitler that we do.;)

If my nationality matters...no, he was the worst leader Germany has ever had.

Not only did he impose a war on the country that it couldn't win, but he then proceeded to make the loss especially painful with stupid decisions. He is not responsible for the economic upturn after the depression, all he did was turn Germany's economy into a war machine.

Before him, Germany was a healthy if politically somewhat unstable country with a lot of potential. After him, the country was reduced to rubble, and he shot himself saying that the German people deserved what he had done to it, because they didn't win the war he started.

And that is not even mentioning the many millions whose death he directly or indirectly caused.

Healthy? Healthy? Germany wasn't anything approaching healthy before Hitler came to power. A dollar was worth four trillion marks. Germany's economy, and the people's confidence, had totally collapsed. Germany was rocked by putsches and handicapped by a weak and ineffectual government. Hitler's transformation of Germany's economy to a war economy brought unemployment to a virtual zero. The value of Germany's currency stabilized. The German people had their confidence in the government revitalized. Germany could have defeated England had they stuck to one front at a time and challenged each of the great powers one at a time, and with the help of a Japan not tied down in a war with the US, and had Hermann Goring made some better tactical decisions in the Battle of Britain (i.e. Using the extra fuel tanks available for the Me-109s that would have given them decent flight time to Britain, kept bombing radar stations and airfields instead of London, not sending his Stukas unescorted to be massacred). In fact, Goring does deserve a great deal of the blame for Germany's defeat. His aforementioned decisions during the Battle of Britain led to Germany's defeat. His boast that the Luftwaffe could sustain the Sixth Army at Stalingrad led to Hitler's decision not to have it break through to safety. His boasts that the Luftwaffe alone could stop the strategic bombing offensive led Hitler to believe that strong air defense networks were not necessary to halt the bombers. Besides World War II and the Holocaust, Hitler left some other, more productive legacies: the first wildlife preserves in continental Europe, Germany's autobahns, and the concept of the Volkswagen. Hitler was a great orator and statesman, but was handicapped by his incompetent subordinates such as Goring, had poor long-term planning, and was no military leader.

Did he really say that? If so, I'd like a source so I can use this against people who dont share the same....realistic...views on Hitler that we do.;)Albert Speer.

He was a brilliant orator and a half-decent painter, but a shitty leader and an even shittier human being.

So yeah, as a leader, I'd give him a 0.

Like Franz Liebkind says, Hitler was an excellent painter, "He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon, two coats!"

Albert Speer.

Yeah, Hitler was a little bitter about losing the war, and blamed the Germans for everything.

How do you view Hilter purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocuast" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hilter to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.
He started a war which led to defeat and the partition of his country amongst his enemies. That's pretty much as bad as you can get as a leader.

Kreynoria;11774726']Healthy? Healthy? Germany wasn't anything approaching healthy before Hitler came to power.Actually, the German economy would have gone up shortly after Hitler came to power without him, too. The global economy was getting better at the time.
Germany was rocked by putsches and handicapped by a weak and ineffectual government. Hitler's transformation of Germany's economy to a war economy brought unemployment to a virtual zero. That's because all the jews that were unemployed weren't taken into the calculation.
The value of Germany's currency stabilized. The German people had their confidence in the government revitalized.Which it would have anyway.
Not until France was defeated.
Germany could have defeated England had they stuck to one front at a time and challenged each of the great powers one at a time, and with the help of a Japan not tied down in a war with the US, and had Hermann Goring made some better tactical decisions in the Battle of Britain (i.e. Using the extra fuel tanks available for the Me-109s that would have given them decent flight time to Britain, kept bombing radar stations and airfields instead of London, not sending his Stukas unescorted to be massacred). So, basically, he made bad decisions. Speaks against him being a good leader, don't it?
In fact, Goring does deserve a great deal of the blame for Germany's defeat. Yup. Interestingly enough, he was one of the people that didn't want to go to war in the first place.
His aforementioned decisions during the Battle of Britain led to Germany's defeat. His boast that the Luftwaffe could sustain the Sixth Army at Stalingrad led to Hitler's decision not to have it break through to safety. His boasts that the Luftwaffe alone could stop the strategic bombing offensive led Hitler to believe that strong air defense networks were not necessary to halt the bombers. Besides World War II and the Holocaust, Hitler left some other, more productive legacies: the first wildlife preserves in continental Europe, Germany's autobahns, and the concept of the Volkswagen. If you're willing to put the blame for the Battle of Britain solely on Göring, put the credit for the wildlife preserves solely on his shoulders too.
Hitler was a great orator and statesman, but was handicapped by his incompetent subordinates such as Goring, had poor long-term planning, and was no military leader.Orater, yes. Statesman, no. Killing anyone who disagrees is not a very statesmanlike form of debate.

Yeah, Hitler was a little bitter about losing the war, and blamed the Germans for everything.Thank goodness Albert didn't follow his orders to completely dismantle German infrastructure.

Kreynoria;11774726']Healthy? Healthy? Germany wasn't anything approaching healthy before Hitler came to power. A dollar was worth four trillion marks. Germany's economy, and the people's confidence, had totally collapsed. Germany was rocked by putsches and handicapped by a weak and ineffectual government. Hitler's transformation of Germany's economy to a war economy brought unemployment to a virtual zero. The value of Germany's currency stabilized. The German people had their confidence in the government revitalized.
The German economy had already picked up again after the disastrous events that followed the decade of Black Friday, even before Hitler came to power.
Kreynoria;11774726']Besides World War II and the Holocaust, Hitler left some other, more productive legacies: the first wildlife preserves in continental Europe, Germany's autobahns, and the concept of the Volkswagen. Hitler was a great orator and statesman, but was handicapped by his incompetent subordinates such as Goring, had poor long-term planning, and was no military leader.
I don't think the nazis deserve any credit for the "good" things they established "besides" WW2 and the Shoa/Holocaust. That's bad enough and pretty much as bad as it can ever get, so it forfeits anything "good" that has happened during those brief 12 years.
Besides, while Hitler took the credit for the Reichsautobahn, he didn't make the plans for'em, nor was he the one who started them...
And surrounding oneself with an incompetent freakshow doesn't really make one a great leader, either, eh? Besides, his military decisions were more than questionable. I might go as far as to say, as long as he led his generals make the decisions things didn't go as bad as later in the war.
Thank goodness Albert didn't follow his orders to completely dismantle German infrastructure.
Something that cannot be stressed enough time and again!

he was a great leader (how he accomplished this and his policies don't matter)and possibly the best orator of all time...a miltary idiot who if he interfered and let his generals run the war Germany may have won...as human being he was a failure, an evil tyrant, one of the most vile in recorded history...

There is ALOT of false information floating around about the Red Army here.

At the outset of WW2, Russia's army was considered one of the most powerful in the world. Truth was that had it not been in the middle of a major re-organization in terms of both leadership (ie the purges) and logistically it would have provided a much better initial showing against the Wehrmacht. The only two nations who were adopting the massive armoured formations the Blitzkrieg relied so heavily upon were Germany (duh) and Russia. Germany was years ahead of Russia as Guderian and other theorists and tacticians were the first to really put into practice what would later become the Panzer division. That said, Russia was years ahead of the French and British in terms of how they used (or were going to use) their armoured formations.

As for equipment, that is another blatant lie. The T-34 was essentially the world's most powerful and effective tank at the outset of WW2 and was still in service, albeit modified, at war's end. Soviet weaponry was of a high quality in general, although maintenance in the field and a lack of parts, ammunition, and fuel led much of it to a state of disrepair or being abandoned. There is a reason why German factories outfitted many armour designs with captured Soviet 76.2mm cannons - they were outstanding and at that time superior to German weaponry. Penetration was not far behind that of the rightly feared 88mm until continued advancements in German engineering gave the 88 an even stronger kick (longer barrel, higher velocity, improved shells).

At the same time, it is a major what if when considering how quickly and thoroughly the Soviets would have upgraded and developed their forces if Germany had not attacked them during WW2. War spurs development, and the same can be said of all the armies.

Nevertheless, by war's end the refinement in tactics (Operational Art proved superior to Blitzkrieg in the end), equipment, quality, quantity, and logistics made the Red Army the most powerful army in existence. Soviet tanks were matched only by the most powerful Allied designs and of course outnumbered them by ridiculous percentages.

Had Stalin decided to wage war there was no chance the other Allied forces could stop them in a conventional land war. Continental Europe would have been thoroughly controlled by the Soviet warmachine. The only possibilities the Allies would have had at the time to stem the tide was naval and air power (which was not as lopsided as you may be led to believe) and of course access to America's nuclear weaponry.

Regardless, I have no doubt that the Soviets would not have been driven back by these things, only contained.

2 cents.

So as for the many many German defeats threwout the war, many of them were caused by Hitler's personal influence. Esspecaily at the most crititical points in the war. If a more compotent military mind lead the Germany, Germany would've had a much better chance at winning the war, and probably at least would've been able to hold on to Europe for a much much longer time. The Errors he made were some of the most drastic in all of military history. As a military leader he gets a -10. But as a statesmen, and as a succsesful control freak, he gets about +1000. He was extremely good a controlling people and forcing others to side with him, and under him. But after that, taking his power the the next level by trying to conquer others militarily, he was a mere fool.

There is ALOT of false information floating around about the Red Army here.

At the outset of WW2, Russia's army was considered one of the most powerful in the world. Truth was that had it not been in the middle of a major re-organization in terms of both leadership (ie the purges) and logistically it would have provided a much better initial showing against the Wehrmacht. The only two nations who were adopting the massive armoured formations the Blitzkrieg relied so heavily upon were Germany (duh) and Russia. Germany was years ahead of Russia as Guderian and other theorists and tacticians were the first to really put into practice what would later become the Panzer division. That said, Russia was years ahead of the French and British in terms of how they used (or were going to use) their armoured formations.

As for equipment, that is another blatant lie. The T-34 was essentially the world's most powerful and effective tank at the outset of WW2 and was still in service, albeit modified, at war's end. Soviet weaponry was of a high quality in general, although maintenance in the field and a lack of parts, ammunition, and fuel led much of it to a state of disrepair or being abandoned. There is a reason why German factories outfitted many armour designs with captured Soviet 76.2mm cannons - they were outstanding and at that time superior to German weaponry. Penetration was not far behind that of the rightly feared 88mm until continued advancements in German engineering gave the 88 an even stronger kick (longer barrel, higher velocity, improved shells).

At the same time, it is a major what if when considering how quickly and thoroughly the Soviets would have upgraded and developed their forces if Germany had not attacked them during WW2. War spurs development, and the same can be said of all the armies.

Nevertheless, by war's end the refinement in tactics (Operational Art proved superior to Blitzkrieg in the end), equipment, quality, quantity, and logistics made the Red Army the most powerful army in existence. Soviet tanks were matched only by the most powerful Allied designs and of course outnumbered them by ridiculous percentages.

Had Stalin decided to wage war there was no chance the other Allied forces could stop them in a conventional land war. Continental Europe would have been thoroughly controlled by the Soviet warmachine. The only possibilities the Allies would have had at the time to stem the tide was naval and air power (which was not as lopsided as you may be led to believe) and of course access to America's nuclear weaponry.

Regardless, I have no doubt that the Soviets would not have been driven back by these things, only contained.

2 cents.

early in the war the Soviets did not use massed armour, the Soviets had superior tank technology but poor tactics hence the German mass attacks succeeded in spite of Soviet technology. Soviets switched to massed armour after observing early impressive German success.

There is ALOT of false information floating around about the Red Army here.

At the outset of WW2, Russia's army was considered one of the most powerful in the world. Truth was that had it not been in the middle of a major re-organization in terms of both leadership (ie the purges) and logistically it would have provided a much better initial showing against the Wehrmacht. The only two nations who were adopting the massive armoured formations the Blitzkrieg relied so heavily upon were Germany (duh) and Russia. Germany was years ahead of Russia as Guderian and other theorists and tacticians were the first to really put into practice what would later become the Panzer division. That said, Russia was years ahead of the French and British in terms of how they used (or were going to use) their armoured formations.

As for equipment, that is another blatant lie. The T-34 was essentially the world's most powerful and effective tank at the outset of WW2 and was still in service, albeit modified, at war's end. Soviet weaponry was of a high quality in general, although maintenance in the field and a lack of parts, ammunition, and fuel led much of it to a state of disrepair or being abandoned. There is a reason why German factories outfitted many armour designs with captured Soviet 76.2mm cannons - they were outstanding and at that time superior to German weaponry. Penetration was not far behind that of the rightly feared 88mm until continued advancements in German engineering gave the 88 an even stronger kick (longer barrel, higher velocity, improved shells).

At the same time, it is a major what if when considering how quickly and thoroughly the Soviets would have upgraded and developed their forces if Germany had not attacked them during WW2. War spurs development, and the same can be said of all the armies.

Nevertheless, by war's end the refinement in tactics (Operational Art proved superior to Blitzkrieg in the end), equipment, quality, quantity, and logistics made the Red Army the most powerful army in existence. Soviet tanks were matched only by the most powerful Allied designs and of course outnumbered them by ridiculous percentages.

Had Stalin decided to wage war there was no chance the other Allied forces could stop them in a conventional land war. Continental Europe would have been thoroughly controlled by the Soviet warmachine. The only possibilities the Allies would have had at the time to stem the tide was naval and air power (which was not as lopsided as you may be led to believe) and of course access to America's nuclear weaponry.

Regardless, I have no doubt that the Soviets would not have been driven back by these things, only contained.

2 cents.


whata ya know, someone who actually knows about ww2, I must give you high credit for this post. most western brain washed morons who claim to know about ww2 know nothin about warthe eastern front. When that was the MOST important front of the war. The battles, loss of life, equipment, and shear carnage outnumber ANY western front battle 10 fold. allot of people simply assume germany was defeated by the russian winter. Greatest misconseption in all of ww2 history. And I suggest anyone who beleives so, go back and read an actuall book about the events. Instead of ryling on tv, movies, and video games, to tell them history.

early in the war the Soviets did not use massed armour, the Soviets had superior tank technology but poor tactics hence the German mass attacks succeeded in spite of Soviet technology. Soviets switched to massed armour after observing early impressive German success.

Partially true.

They were in the process of re-organizing their armoured formations. The goal of this re-organization was a form similar to the Panzer division. When the Germans attacked much of the re-organization was unfinished and in other cases, barely begun.

Nevertheless they had the idea before they saw the Germans use it against them.

Edit:

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

That sums it up.

whata ya know, someone who actually knows about ww2, I must give you high credit for this post. most western brain washed morons who claim to know about ww2 know nothin about warthe eastern front. When that was the MOST important front of the war. The battles, loss of life, equipment, and shear carnage outnumber ANY western front battle 10 fold. allot of people simply assume germany was defeated by the russian winter. Greatest misconseption in all of ww2 history. And I suggest anyone who beleives so, go back and read an actuall book about the events. Instead of ryling on tv, movies, and video games, to tell them history.

Well, I won't comment about the brainwashing bit. Perhaps a bit inflammatory (if at times correct).

Otherwise, thanks. WW2 is a particular interest of mine and stacks of books sit beside my bed, love to brush up on it before I nod off each night.

I know that. I'm just saying that the Soviets could easily have made it to the German border.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-soviet_war

They tried once. They failed. They only got as far as they did into Poland because Germany allowed them to. Germany could have taken all of Poland and the USSR wouldn't have been able to do anything to stop them.

Well, I won't comment about the brainwashing bit. Perhaps a bit inflammatory (if at times correct).

Otherwise, thanks. WW2 is a particular interest of mine and stacks of books sit beside my bed, love to brush up on it before I nod off each night.

well I didn't mean brainwashing Literally, its more like, hey yeah everyone else believes that I'll beleive it to, its pretty close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-soviet_war

They tried once. They failed. They only got as far as they did into Poland because Germany allowed them to. Germany could have taken all of Poland and the USSR wouldn't have been able to do anything to stop them.

This proves nothing. A war 20 years earlier in vastly different times.

Furthemore, the war was fought with almost equal parity in numbers, especially considering the lack of weaponry on the Soviet side.

Well done for giving us worthless information considering the current discussion and trying to make it not only relevant but definitive.

having done a lot of coaching I'm a fan of Guderian tactics, brilliant mind...sports and war are closely linked, Guderian would have made a great coach I used his tactics often with success...yup I'm wierd, but it works...

This proves nothing. A war 20 years earlier in vastly different times.

Furthemore, the war was fought with almost equal parity in numbers, especially considering the lack of weaponry on the Soviet side.

Well done for giving us worthless information considering the current discussion and trying to make it not only relevant but definitive.

Alright.

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

After the beginning of WWII. The Soviet Union displayed a complete lack of competance in waging war until Stalingrad. The numerical superiority present in the Winter War was exponentially greater than the one they would have had facing the entire continent, and they were still unable to meet even the most conservative of their objectives. What makes you feel as though the USSR would be able to "steamroll" continental Europe, much less the United Kingdom, if they were unable to conquer Finland? This line of reasoning makes little sense.

As for equipment, that is another blatant lie. The T-34 was essentially the world's most powerful and effective tank at the outset of WW2 and was still in service, albeit modified, at war's end. Soviet weaponry was of a high quality in general, although maintenance in the field and a lack of parts, ammunition, and fuel led much of it to a state of disrepair or being abandoned. There is a reason why German factories outfitted many armour designs with captured Soviet 76.2mm cannons - they were outstanding and at that time superior to German weaponry. Penetration was not far behind that of the rightly feared 88mm until continued advancements in German engineering gave the 88 an even stronger kick (longer barrel, higher velocity, improved shells).
Ah, but that is pretty much what happened with the Panthers and Tigers as well - superior equipment with a failure-prone gear-cage(-thing).
The T-34 was indeed a great if not the greatest tank (when comparing cost and utility, and numbers built, it sure was) - but it wasn't used effectively until 1943.

As for Addi messing with the military - just look at his decision to make the Me262 a bomber(!).

Their operations against Finland were simplistic, poorly utilized their strengths, and allowed the capable Finnish to punch holes where they could. They could have subdued Finland in time, even with these poor strategies.

As a side note, I think Finland was brilliant in that short lived war.

They did not utilize the doctrines and strategies that they used in "The Great Patriotic War". Go back and check the link I provided about Deep Operations.

By your line of reasoning the Wehrmacht should have put Russia down as Hitler predicted, but they didn't. What makes you think, if you believe what you posted, that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans?

Not only did they beat the Germans, they thoroughly trounced them. Do you think the western Allies could have defeated the German armies the Soviets did? If not, then how could they hope to stop the Soviets who did defeat those German armies? And if so, how would they defeat the German armies arrayed against them? They had trouble in Italy and in various parts of Western Europe against a much smaller force.

Ah, but that is pretty much what happened with the Panthers and Tigers as well - superior equipment with a failure-prone gear-cage(-thing).
The T-34 was indeed a great if not the greatest tank (when comparing cost and utility, and numbers built, it sure was) - but it wasn't used effectively until 1943.

As for Addi messing with the military - just look at his decision to make the Me262 a bomber(!).

It was used effectively in 1942 and even the end of 1941. If not they would never have stopped the German advances. It wasn't used to its maximum effect until the full brunt of Soviet industry and operational art was put into use.

At any rate, I am off now to... clean my house. Enjoy!

Alright.

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

After the beginning of WWII. The Soviet Union displayed a complete lack of competance in waging war until Stalingrad. The numerical superiority present in the Winter War was exponentially greater than the one they would have had facing the entire continent, and they were still unable to meet even the most conservative of their objectives. What makes you feel as though the USSR would be able to "steamroll" continental Europe, much less the United Kingdom, if they were unable to conquer Finland? This line of reasoning makes little sense.Finland was much different situation...1-it wasn't the higest on the soviets list of priorites,the Germans were...2-Finns were well prepared in area they knew very well, advantage always goes to the defender, attacker needs overwhelming supperiority to defeat a well prepared defense...3-Finns were defending their homeland,added incentive not to give up...in the end the Finn's were defeated once the soviets applied themselves..

Their operations against Finland were simplistic, poorly utilized their strengths, and allowed the capable Finnish to punch holes where they could. They could have subdued Finland in time, even with these poor strategies.

As a side note, I think Finland was brilliant in that short lived war.

They did not utilize the doctrines and strategies that they used in "The Great Patriotic War". Go back and check the link I provided about Deep Operations.

By your line of reasoning the Wehrmacht should have put Russia down as Hitler predicted, but they didn't. What makes you think, if you believe what you posted, that the Soviets could have beaten the Germans?

No, my line of reasoning is that without a powerful Germany to spurn the Soviets into developing those doctrines and strategies, the USSR would never have been a threat to Europe. Potato Factory stated that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have conquered all of Europe. I'm stating that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have never been able to conquer a damn thing. Without Germany, the USSR would never have developed into such a war machine. Germany created a Soviet Union that could conquer Europe; they did not prevent the Soviet Union from conquering Europe.

Finland was much different situation...1-it wasn't the higest on the soviets list of priorites,the Germans were...2-Finns were well prepared in area they knew very well, advantage always goes to the defender, attacker needs overwhelming supperiority to defeat a well prepared defense...3-Finns were defending their homeland,added incentive not to give up...in the end the Finn's were defeated once the soviets applied themselves..

I don't see how points two and three would not apply to the Soviet Union invading other nations in Europe.

No, my line of reasoning is that without a powerful Germany to spurn the Soviets into developing those doctrines and strategies, the USSR would never have been a threat to Europe. Potato Factory stated that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have conquered all of Europe. I'm stating that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have never been able to conquer a damn thing. Without Germany, the USSR would never have developed into such a war machine. Germany created a Soviet Union that could conquer Europe; they did not prevent the Soviet Union from conquering Europe.
I agree. Rarely have there been made technical advancements (if only militarily) insuch a short period of time as those 6 years.

I don't see how points two and three would not apply to the Soviet Union invading other nations in Europe.european nations military organizations were destroyed by the Germans so they would be unable to resist for long against the overwhelming soviet numbers...against the allied armies of UK. USA and Canada that's a different matter to speculate on. How long would they have been willing to battle the battlehardened Soviets, the allies had fought a very spent force in the Germans who still gave them a very difficult time? How long could the Soviet war industry have kept up without the USA's industrial support?

I personally hold Hitler in the highest level of detestation. However, I must also recognize that he was a highly skilled politician and charismatic leader, and that he had a couple redeeming qualities - love for animals (he put some pretty strong laws against animal cruelty into effect) and courage (recieved the Iron Cross in World War I) among them. That said, he was nevertheless a thoroughly evil man who deserves his place in history.

But Hitler was NOT, contrary to some claims, a MILITARY genius. What he had were military geniuses under his command, and THEY led the German military to victory early in the war. But no military genius would ever concieve of attacking Russia in the autumn, which made the Germans vulnerable to the Russian's unstoppable superweapon, affectionately known as "General Winter".

How do you view Hitler purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocaust" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hitler to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.

hitler himself was nothing more than a fiery orator. It was the nazi party which effectively lead the German people. Hitler was their posterchild. The only reason that Nazism worked then was because the government foreced the people to follow their will. once they were in power there was no difficulty leading the people at all. "You listen or we shoot you."

Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.

Not necessarily. Russia was quite backwards compared to other, more industrialized nations at the time just before they enterred the war. Germany's attack on Eastern Poland, and eventual push into Russia, gave him ample propaganda to encite the people for his personal causes. It also gave the need for Russia to become industrialized quickly, causing it to gain its post-war power, which it may not have gained until much later.

The world would be completely different, of course.

hitler himself was nothing more than a fiery orator. It was the nazi party which effectively lead the German people. Hitler was their posterchild. The only reason that Nazism worked then was because the government foreced the people to follow their will. once they were in power there was no difficulty leading the people at all. "You listen or we shoot you."Not really. Hitler was in control of the "Hitler Party" as it was also called, and not some secret puppet of a bunch of them.

This proves nothing. A war 20 years earlier in vastly different times.


Proves nothing? The fact that the Soviets had more troops and better weapons? The final battle included Poles charging with pitchforks....


Furthemore, the war was fought with almost equal parity in numbers, especially considering the lack of weaponry on the Soviet side.

Well done for giving us worthless information considering the current discussion and trying to make it not only relevant but definitive.

Impressive Sdaeriji. Didn't think many people knew that campaign. :)

No, my line of reasoning is that without a powerful Germany to spurn the Soviets into developing those doctrines and strategies, the USSR would never have been a threat to Europe. Potato Factory stated that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have conquered all of Europe. I'm stating that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have never been able to conquer a damn thing. Without Germany, the USSR would never have developed into such a war machine. Germany created a Soviet Union that could conquer Europe; they did not prevent the Soviet Union from conquering Europe.


Nicely put.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. I don't think it's as cut & dried as you like to think.

I don't know. A fellow by the name of Tieke mentioned in his book "The Tragedy of the Faithful" that recent records showed that Stalin was planning to attack but Hitler beat him too it.

Don't know the full details but the author seemed credible from his wittings about the 3rd SS Panzer....

That is a "what if" that no one really knows the answer to, nor will they ever know the answer to.

I sure don't look at it as Germany taking one for the world.

As mentioned, it might be true:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11777439&postcount=90

The Red Army couldn't beat Finland after Stalin purged its leaders, let alone the combined resistance of France, Britain and Weimar Germany.

Plus, without a great patriotic war to defend their homes, I don't think the Red Army could've been motivated to follow orders at all, even ten years later.

And yet they managed to keep Eastern Europe for many years.

The problem assumes that France and Britain would have stopped fighting Germany.

No, my line of reasoning is that without a powerful Germany to spurn the Soviets into developing those doctrines and strategies, the USSR would never have been a threat to Europe. Potato Factory stated that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have conquered all of Europe. I'm stating that without Germany standing in the way the USSR would have never been able to conquer a damn thing. Without Germany, the USSR would never have developed into such a war machine. Germany created a Soviet Union that could conquer Europe; they did not prevent the Soviet Union from conquering Europe.

I disagree. The Soviets always had the ability to crush Europe. Hell, even WITH the power of Nazi Germany, the Soviets would have won; the only reason the Soviets didn't actually conquer Europe is because Hitler attacked first, and because by the time they got to Germany, the Americans were there too.

The problem assumes that France and Britain would have stopped fighting Germany.

They wouldn't be fighting Weimar Germany, would they?

As for equipment, that is another blatant lie. The T-34 was essentially the world's most powerful and effective tank at the outset of WW2 and was still in service, albeit modified, at war's end.


Effective? Yes. Most Powerful? No. The JSII beats them at that.


Soviet weaponry was of a high quality in general, although maintenance in the field and a lack of parts, ammunition, and fuel led much of it to a state of disrepair or being abandoned. There is a reason why German factories outfitted many armour designs with captured Soviet 76.2mm cannons - they were outstanding and at that time superior to German weaponry. Penetration was not far behind that of the rightly feared 88mm until continued advancements in German engineering gave the 88 an even stronger kick (longer barrel, higher velocity, improved shells).

Penetration? The Panzerfaust took out many T-34s. You sure your not thinking of the JSII?


Had Stalin decided to wage war there was no chance the other Allied forces could stop them in a conventional land war. Continental Europe would have been thoroughly controlled by the Soviet warmachine. The only possibilities the Allies would have had at the time to stem the tide was naval and air power (which was not as lopsided as you may be led to believe) and of course access to America's nuclear weaponry.

Soviet Navy would not have survived the US and GB.

Airwise? Doubtful. England and the US were toying with Jets by wars end.

I don't think they had anything to match US fighters alone.


Regardless, I have no doubt that the Soviets would not have been driven back by these things, only contained.

2 cents.

whata ya know, someone who actually knows about ww2, I must give you high credit for this post. most western brain washed morons who claim to know about ww2 know nothin about warthe eastern front. When that was the MOST important front of the war. The battles, loss of life, equipment, and shear carnage outnumber ANY western front battle 10 fold. allot of people simply assume germany was defeated by the russian winter. Greatest misconseption in all of ww2 history. And I suggest anyone who beleives so, go back and read an actuall book about the events. Instead of ryling on tv, movies, and video games, to tell them history.

And for people that wag fingers at people telling them they should read books; it helps if you suggest titles all knowing one.

hitler himself was nothing more than a fiery orator. It was the nazi party which effectively lead the German people. Hitler was their posterchild. The only reason that Nazism worked then was because the government foreced the people to follow their will. once they were in power there was no difficulty leading the people at all. "You listen or we shoot you."

Actually he was a little more then that. My great-aunt met him once. Said he was very personable. You liked him.

They wouldn't be fighting Weimar Germany, would they?

Well the timelines are jumping back and forth. I assumed it was a slip.

I don't think the Soviets would have attacked at that time after the beating they got from the Poles. Germany fighting England and France was a good time.....

Well the timelines are jumping back and forth. I assumed it was a slip.

I don't think the Soviets would have attacked at that time after the beating they got from the Poles. Germany fighting England and France was a good time.....

I'm assuming that Hitler never comes to power, and Germany remains as the weak Weimar Republic.

You, my friend are giving the Russians WAY too much credit. They would never have been able to come up with Blitzkreig, being, as I said poorly trained and poorly equipped. Heck, if they ever had have come up with the tactic, they wouldn't have had enough tanks to pull it off.


You mistook the London Blitz, for Blitzkrieg, lightning war.

You were attempting to make Britian sound invulnerable.
The Blitz showed everyone, they are not.


You have also completely ignored my final two points, instrumental to my argument. The only reason Russia had the firepower it did was because it was scared of Germany. Heck, Stalin actually allied with Hitler so he could buy time, because he was worried they didn't have enough. Without a strong German threat, the russians would never have had enough firepower to even make it to France.

and without that same German presence to scare them, Britian would have never had the military to defend itself against an invader, either.
It was Churchill who urged Parliament to increase production of tanks and ships.
He did so, becuase he rightly feared Germany's hostile intentions.

Now you propose a Russia, bent on conquer, and intend to say they would not have done so, properly equipped?
I think not.

Keep in mind, this is a hypothetical situation,but remember Russia did manage to invade Germany, and take Berlin, and share equal credit, with the US for Germany's ultimate defeat.

Stalin was many things, but a fool is not one of them.

After taking Europe, he would have had all the time he needed to mass a large enough force to easily take, the unprepared Britian.
If you were to remove America from the equation, Britian would have been defeated.
Remember, we are talking about a Britian, that did not begin churning out spitfires and tanks, due to Churchill's prompting.

As mentioned, it might be true:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11777439&postcount=90
It very well may be true but it is all still hypothetical because it did not in fact happen, and God only knows what the outcome would have been.

The proof is always in the pudding. Nobody bothered making the pudding, therefore only speculation can abound.

and without that same German presence to scare them, Britian would have never had the military to defend itself against an invader, either.
It was Churchill who urged Parliament to increase production of tanks and ships.
He did so, becuase he rightly feared Germany's hostile intentions.

Now you propose a Russia, bent on conquer, and intend to say they would not have done so, properly equipped?
I think not.

Keep in mind, this is a hypothetical situation,but remember Russia did manage to invade Germany, and take Berlin, and share equal credit, with the US for Germany's ultimate defeat.

Stalin was many things, but a fool is not one of them.

After taking Europe, he would have had all the time he needed to mass a large enough force to easily take, the unprepared Britian.
If you were to remove America from the equation, Britian would have been defeated.
Remember, we are talking about a Britian, that did not begin churning out spitfires and tanks, due to Churchill's prompting.


So you're saying that while Germany constituted enough of a threat for Churchill to advocate massive arms build up, this almighty Russia you have been portraying would not have? Especially with the lack of a German threat?

If there was truly a great Russian threat, in the same way Germany was a threat, Britain would logically start "churning out spitfires and tanks". As a matter of fact, they would probably do it to a greater degree. Whereas the British pre-Churchill government wanted, until the last minute to remain friends with Germany, the British were only maintaining cordial relations with the Russians out of necessity.

Anyone heard of this jingle?

"We don't want to fight the bear, but by jingo if we do
We've got the ships, we've got the men, and we've got the money too"

While the Russians did manage to get all the way to Berlin, they were facing a flagging German army.


It is also foolish to suggest the US would be out of the equation. They had already proven their willingness to oppose communism during the Russian revolution, and an all out attack would spell heavy US involvement.

It very well may be true but it is all still hypothetical because it did not in fact happen, and God only knows what the outcome would have been.

The proof is always in the pudding. Nobody bothered making the pudding, therefore only speculation can abound.

One does not speculate by referencing records as Tieke has done. He mentions the opening of the Soviet archives as mentioned in the book "Der Wortbruch--Hitler, Stalin und der Zweite Welkridg"(Breach of Promise -- Hitler, Stalin and the Second World War by Werner Maser:
...how Hitler and Stalin simultaneously bargained with the Western allies and why Stalin resloved on a pact with Hitler and how, from then on, both dictators conceived and prepared measures that changed more then just Europe under the screen of their unholy alliance.

Tieke mentioned: The research into and presentation of the Soviet plans for an attack on Germany is especially explosive Maser's conclusion:
Hitler's "Operation Barbarossa" forstalled Stalin's strategic concentration in 1941 for the planned attack on Germany by only a few hours.

As mentioned, I have not seen the book myself. Only found it mentioned in the a book.

How do you view Hitler purely as a leader of Germany. I know most on here will try to villify him for the "holocaust" but this isnt what this is about. I personally find Hitler to be a smart and good leader of Germany. I think he made a good statesman as well.
*incinerates Soviestan*

Effective? Yes. Most Powerful? No. The JSII beats them at that.

Outset of the war means the start. In addition, the Iosef Stalin II was bested by the Iosef Stalin III by war's end.


Penetration? The Panzerfaust took out many T-34s. You sure your not thinking of the JSII?

What does the Panzerfaust have to do with the penetration of Soviet armour in 1941 and 42? They weren't even in the developmental stage until 1942. Furthermore, it was an infantry weapon. You couldn't exactly arm a tank with Panzerfausts and put it into combat.

Look up the designs of the German tank destroyers in the early years of the war. They often utilized, as I explicitly stated, captured Soviet guns.

I have no clue where you misunderstood or mistook what I said, but you aren't even on the same page.


Soviet Navy would not have survived the US and GB.

Airwise? Doubtful. England and the US were toying with Jets by wars end.

I don't think they had anything to match US fighters alone.

As for these bits, I didn't exactly say anything to the opposite. As a matter of fact, I also explicitly stated that the western Allies' advantages over the Soviets were in naval and air power. I added as an aside that the airpower issue was far easier for the Soviets to overcome and quite likely they would have had Stalin pushed the war after Germany's capitulation. Speaking in terms of navy it is unlikely they would have ever been able to catch up to the western Allies and so, as I stated, would have been contained from assaulting North America or even the UK.

I disagree. The Soviets always had the ability to crush Europe. Hell, even WITH the power of Nazi Germany, the Soviets would have won; the only reason the Soviets didn't actually conquer Europe is because Hitler attacked first, and because by the time they got to Germany, the Americans were there too.

Based on what? Two wars with marginal powers at best where the USSR was unable to achieve even the most conservative of objectives? Wholesale invasion of their nation that they were unable to repulse for two years? When Germany invaded the USSR, the Soviets were entirely unprepared to resist. It took the invasion for Stalin to ramp up wartime production. Now, without the impetus of an invasion of the motherland to drum up patriotic support to create the Soviet juggernaut, how would the USSR occupy all of Europe? You offer nothing than your German chestbeating. No facts. Not even any opinions based in logic. Just "because I say so".

Based on what? Two wars with marginal powers at best where the USSR was unable to achieve even the most conservative of objectives? Wholesale invasion of their nation that they were unable to repulse for two years? When Germany invaded the USSR, the Soviets were entirely unprepared to resist. It took the invasion for Stalin to ramp up wartime production. Now, without the impetus of an invasion of the motherland to drum up patriotic support to create the Soviet juggernaut, how would the USSR occupy all of Europe? You offer nothing than your German chestbeating. No facts. Not even any opinions based in logic. Just "because I say so".
I think that you stated that quite eloquently and I concur. ;)

Hitler is a lolicon http://209.85.12.231/1424/192/emo/banana.gif

Based on what? Two wars with marginal powers at best where the USSR was unable to achieve even the most conservative of objectives? Wholesale invasion of their nation that they were unable to repulse for two years? When Germany invaded the USSR, the Soviets were entirely unprepared to resist. It took the invasion for Stalin to ramp up wartime production. Now, without the impetus of an invasion of the motherland to drum up patriotic support to create the Soviet juggernaut, how would the USSR occupy all of Europe? You offer nothing than your German chestbeating. No facts. Not even any opinions based in logic. Just "because I say so".

Listen, the Soviets had a population, like, 5 times larger than any European nation. If they wanted to win wars, they could.

Hitler as a leader?

Great at talking not so great diplomatic skills.

People are forgetting that the invasion of Finland was poor planned and a lot hurried plan. Hitler acted before the date he gave to soviets and his generals to grab a bigger piece of pie for himself and Stalin had to start acting too.
In the original plan Hitler would have had nukes and completed fleet etc. before beginning the war. At the start of war most of the german wehrmacht wasn't even fully mechanized!
As for Soviets&Allies the only thing kept the Russians from crushing allies was the nukes. The destruction in Japan had a second role of threathening Soviets to stop at Berlin, which they weren't intending to do. In only 5 years soviets managed to make their own nukes but the time between gave allies oppurtunity to set the stage for cold war, dig in to half of germany.
As for Germany's role against Soviets, the Nazi expertise on intelligance-espionage, technology etc. were the main pushing force in the cold war. Even the CIA was formed by Germans for gods sake!'

Listen, the Soviets had a population, like, 5 times larger than any European nation. If they wanted to win wars, they could.

World war one proved that numbers don't mean squat if your enemy is ready for you.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cgo0129l.jpg

Am I sick for laughing at this?

Listen, the Soviets had a population, like, 5 times larger than any European nation. If they wanted to win wars, they could.

But they didn't win wars. Not the Russo-Polish war and not the Winter War. And definitely not the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Without the Nazi invasion, what would have motivated the Soviet Union to act?

World war one proved that numbers don't mean squat if your enemy is ready for you.

They do if there's 50 million of them.

But they didn't win wars. Not the Russo-Polish war and not the Winter War. And definitely not the beginning of Operation Barbarossa. Without the Nazi invasion, what would have motivated the Soviet Union to act?

The same thing that motivated German troops to march through Paris.

Based on what? Two wars with marginal powers at best where the USSR was unable to achieve even the most conservative of objectives? Wholesale invasion of their nation that they were unable to repulse for two years? When Germany invaded the USSR, the Soviets were entirely unprepared to resist. It took the invasion for Stalin to ramp up wartime production. Now, without the impetus of an invasion of the motherland to drum up patriotic support to create the Soviet juggernaut, how would the USSR occupy all of Europe? You offer nothing than your German chestbeating. No facts. Not even any opinions based in logic. Just "because I say so".
I agree with your post, but please consider that the chest The Potato Factory is beating is not German, for he's not a German citizen...

The same thing that motivated German troops to march through Paris.
The Pariser Einzugsmarsch (http://gustave.club.fr/Musiques/prusse/pariser_einzugsmarsch.mp3) of 1814? I somehow seriously doubt that!

The Pariser Einzugsmarsch (http://ringtones.ez-tracks.com/previewPop.html?songid=27060) of 1814? I somehow seriously doubt that!

Nationalism, you m00b.

Nationalism, you m00b.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Bush_O_RLY.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/33/51968898_2fd1e661d8_m.jpg

People are forgetting that the invasion of Finland was poor planned and a lot hurried plan. Hitler acted before the date he gave to soviets and his generals to grab a bigger piece of pie for himself and Stalin had to start acting too.
In the original plan Hitler would have had nukes and completed fleet etc. before beginning the war. At the start of war most of the german wehrmacht wasn't even fully mechanized!


The original plans mean nothing.

Even the Russians weren't fully equiped.

As for Soviets&Allies the only thing kept the Russians from crushing allies was the nukes. The destruction in Japan had a second role of threathening Soviets to stop at Berlin, which they weren't intending to do.


Actually some have aregued that was the purpose of the bombing of Dresdan. It should the massive damage the allies could.


In only 5 years soviets managed to make their own nukes but the time between gave allies oppurtunity to set the stage for cold war, dig in to half of germany.

Don't forget they had grabbed up German scientists to do that.


As for Germany's role against Soviets, the Nazi expertise on intelligance-espionage, technology etc. were the main pushing force in the cold war. Even the CIA was formed by Germans for gods sake!'

The OSS was formed by Germans?

1.He ruined german scientifical research and made people like Einstein flee to the US, just because they were jews. Same happened with Enrico Fermi in fascist Italy, he was an "aryan" italian with a jewish wife. Also it was forbidden to teach relativity because it was a "jewish" theory. Note that it was people like Einstein, Fermi and Bohr (danish refugee) who enabled the US to build the atom bomb.

2.He thought he could beat SIMULTANEOUSLY:
-the British Empire (the largest empire ever existed, and with the best navy, and also spread over the 5 continents)
-the Soviet Union (the state with the greatest territory and the largest army)
-the United States (the most inaccessible country, defended by 2 oceans, and with the greatest industrial capability).
And his allies were Italy (unable to invade Greece by itself) and Japan (in 1943, they still believed battleships were better than carriers)... come on...
And he invaded Russia (who had a fully motorized army) with horse-powered logistics... what an idiot, he was bound to lose. Did he think he was a better strategician than Napoleon?

3.Invading and ruling with an iron fist countries like Czekoslovakia, France or Jugoslavia only grants you an uprising and an armed resistance.

4.Germany devouted its economy entirely to war only in 1943 (well after the defeat at Stalingrad, and some weeks before the battle of Kursk). What was Hitler waiting for? Sorry, too late.

They do if there's 50 million of them.

And they had 20 million dead.

Numbers mean nothing.

Effective? Yes. Most Powerful? No. The JSII beats them at that.


Penetration? The Panzerfaust took out many T-34s. You sure your not thinking of the JSII?


Soviet Navy would not have survived the US and GB.

Airwise? Doubtful. England and the US were toying with Jets by wars end.

I don't think they had anything to match US fighters alone.

Yeah, the JS-II was a hell of a heavy tank, even better than the Koenigs. Plus, the Soviets had that monstrouos tank-killers armed with 122 and 152 mm guns. And the Sturmoviks were a huge support against tanks.
As for airpower, the main problem for US and GB would have have been the supply lines.

anyway, that's history. the worst thing about it is that many people still think germans are nazis (or fat bavarians w/ a big maas of beer :D) which isn't true. still the NPD got lots of votes in east germany :mad:
we have to prevent another adolf-hitler-like rulership all over the world.

but as a political leader he was ok, exept being a megalomaniac and murdering hundreds of people just cause they were jews or had an own oppinion.

Yeah, the JS-II was a hell of a heavy tank, even better than the Koenigs. Plus, the Soviets had that monstrouos tank-killers armed with 122 and 152 mm guns. And the Sturmoviks were a huge support against tanks.
As for airpower, the main problem for US and GB would have have been the supply lines.

Well the Koenigs did have some problems but on the battlefield, neither claimed superiority.

The big difference was the Russians had built 3900 and the Germans only built 500.

The SU-152 was indeed a great tank killer. I think it was nicknamed animal hunter.

The Americans had one interesting one. Ever see the T-28?
---
As to supply lines? True. But I don't think they would have set out to conquer the USSR. More like restore the old boundries and offer a truce......

The same thing that motivated German troops to march through Paris.

The Treaty of Versailles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles)?

The Soviets had nothing with which to inspire nationalism prior to the "Great Patriotic War". The Soviets had just 20 years earlier emerged victorious in a war that had left the nation crippled and destroyed and its people battered and broken. They had nothing like the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles to inspire the people; most of the problems of the early USSR were caused by the civil war the Soviets created.

Again, bring some more enlightened analysis. I tire of your lame ass one sentence responses. I've yet to see anything more than "because I say so".

4) The Czechs: A highly organised and militarised nation, screwed over because Germany seized the Sudetenland, containing much of their industrial resources.

Militarised nation?!?!
Magyar propaganda!

BTW Screwed over because Germany recieved the sudetes as a form of appeasing in Monaco. He never had to seize it, he was just given it by UK and France with the silent approval of the U.S..

Hey, listen, if it wasn't for Hitler, you'd all be speaking Russian right now. Face it; Germany took the fall for the rest of the world. No strong Germany, no resistance to Stalin, Soviet Union conquers Europe. End of story.
In fact, it's no Hitler => no WW2 => no Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Stalin was as mad, homoicidal and maniacal as Hitler, perhaps even more so, but he was not an expansionist mad homicidal maniac.

still the NPD got lots of votes in east germany :mad:

The irony is spectacular.

still the NPD got lots of votes in east germany :mad:
Not as many as the FDP though, and that's the important thing. Even in the braindrained east, there are still more good people than knobheads.