DISCUSSIONS
hitler wasn't playing millitary strategist.
hitler was playing making history. with real people. and he failed.
stupid question of the day: does that make hitler a noob?
i believe stalingrad was germany's biggest mistake (after electing hitler)
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
warman45 said
i believe stalingrad was germany's biggest mistake (after electing hitler)
Actually, electing Hitler was one of the best things the Germans did during that time. He some how managed to bring their country out of it's terrible economic position (granted he took it over) and brought Germany back to a world power. But what he did after that... it was terrible.
"I am not your son"
~JPS
- cavetroll1304
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 1260
cavetroll1304 said
warman45 said
i believe stalingrad was germany's biggest mistake (after electing hitler)
Actually, electing Hitler was one of the best things the Germans did during that time. He some how managed to bring their country out of it's terrible economic position (granted he took it over) and brought Germany back to a world power. But what he did after that... it was terrible.
And not only improving the economical situation he also stabilised the society: before 1933 there even were street fights between the communists and the right wing.
If we want to find a mistake, we should go deeper than just individual battles or such. Germany was politically and legally essentially the same as it had been under Weimar Republic. Allowing Hitler to suspend the constitution to get autocratic powers can be considered a mistake by the Germans. Without that Germany might have been a bit weaker but, many of the attrocities would have not happened.
Winter War 70 years
30 November 1939 - 13 March 1940
- SL
- location: Finland
- joined: Oct 14, 2009
- posts: 200
Stabilizing the political situation by killing everyone that doesn't change their support to your party is hardly an positive improvement
And there is no one mistake to be found, there were hundreds if not thousands of mistakes on every side of the war
The elections of Hitler, Chamberlain, and F.D.R. would be one of the biggest ones though....
Which you really can't blame the people for though, people very rarely ever elect quality people
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Eh, Chamberlain gets a bad rap. More recent readings of his 'appeasement' policy have presented more as a pragmatic policy to buy time for Britain to rearm, which it did do rather than blind idealism in the face of Nazi aggression.
- Light-Infa
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 212
Carl said
Stabilizing the political situation by killing everyone that doesn't change their support to your party is hardly an positive improvement
And there is no one mistake to be found, there were hundreds if not thousands of mistakes on every side of the war
The elections of Hitler, Chamberlain, and F.D.R. would be one of the biggest ones though....
Which you really can't blame the people for though, people very rarely ever elect quality people
You're kidding, right? America's electon of FDR was one of the biggest mistakes of the war? That's a pretty big stretch. I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for this stance.
I'm fueled by gasoline, alcohol and nicotine
I'm an honest hypocrite imploding modern idiot
I'm irrational I'm illogical hypocritical a bleeding heart liberal
"Watch Me As I Fall" - Pennywise
- sgtpoliteness
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Sep 17, 2009
- posts: 222
sgtpoliteness said
Carl said You're kidding, right? America's electon of FDR was one of the biggest mistakes of the war? That's a pretty big stretch. I'm interested in hearing your reasoning for this stance.
A few reasons
1.) The New Deal deepened the Great Depression in the US. Add to that absurd wartime economic decisions like the salvage rubber from garbage dumps rather than create synthetic rubber plants. Slower economic recovery-> longer to rearm
2.) The doctrine of unconditional surrender on a national scale was FDR's brainchild. Everyone else from Churchill to Eisenhower thought the idea was ridiculous.
This doctrine prolonged the war in Europe by at least 1.5 years, which ended up costing millions of lives.
Sadly Truman wanted to win the war the way FDR would have wanted.......But thats Truman's fault
3.) FDR's racist views of asians led to poor initial defense strategies in the Pacific.
4.) FDR was actually gullible enough to believe the USSR was going to reform into a democracy. This led to absurd foreign policy decisions related to the USSR
Thankfully some of FDR's other ideas were not implemented like the disarmament and occupation of France and Italy for collaborating with Germany. Or the internment of every Japanese person in Hawaii
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
The Problem with FDR is that some many people put him on a pedestal that we actually become over critical of him when we find a flaw. FDR can be asses from two main points of view:
From a Nationalist American point of view FDR was a perfect leader. You cant dispute that he successfully made America the most powerful nation in the world.
However from a more worldly point of view (also what i believe), FDR made a long list of mistake and in several incidents demonstrated racism against both Asians and Jew's. but we also have to ask whether or not anyone else could have done the job better? now obviously with your 20/20 hindsight you might think you could have done the job better, but honestly would you rather that Hebert Hoover's complete ignorance and buffoonery had led us through the thirties? or that in 1936 Alf Landon or Huey Long (who was practically a fascist in his own right) had won in 1936?
so yea FDR wasn't always such a great guy; BUT that doesn't make him a mistake
- Sword_Beach
- location: Unknown
- joined: Sep 06, 2009
- posts: 125
true. if all you needed to become a "mistake" is be a dumb ass then we'll three quarters of the world's human population is an accident.
and the reason why i cited hitler's election as a mistake is because if he were to have been elected and then died just after reforming germany into a world power. then some other phsycotic Nazi would have taken his place (and probably do a better job at it too.) the only reason why Germany got out of the depression is because it was arming for war (something that you can't undo or avoid once started) and the political reforms were basically (he looked at me funny. KILL HIM!)
i think you should now I don't call these things improvements. 1 you've forced yourself to go to war (or at least appear warlike) and 2 you've killed a bunch of innocent people who only have a tendancy to stare funny. and that's not cool.
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
Sword_Beach said
The Problem with FDR is that some many people put him on a pedestal that we actually become over critical of him when we find a flaw. FDR can be asses from two main points of view:
From a Nationalist American point of view FDR was a perfect leader. You cant dispute that he successfully made America the most powerful nation in the world.
However from a more worldly point of view (also what i believe), FDR made a long list of mistake and in several incidents demonstrated racism against both Asians and Jew's. but we also have to ask whether or not anyone else could have done the job better? now obviously with your 20/20 hindsight you might think you could have done the job better, but honestly would you rather that Hebert Hoover's complete ignorance and buffoonery had led us through the thirties? or that in 1936 Alf Landon or Huey Long (who was practically a fascist in his own right) had won in 1936?
so yea FDR wasn't always such a great guy; BUT that doesn't make him a mistake
America won WW2 because it was the most powerful nation in the world. The US could have won with practically anyone as President. The only scenarios that include the US not winning are those in which the US doesn't enter the war.
With any other President, the Italy campaign would have been almost bloodless. But thanks to unconditional surrender, Italy did not surrender right away (Badoglio was willing to surrender conditionally in July 1943) and Germany was allowed enough time to garrison Italy.
No other President would have solved Germany's massive resistance movement problem for them.
(There's more examples of the benefits of keeping FDR out of the war, but you are better off reading about it in a quality history book)
And come to think about it, can you really think of any idea that FDR himself thought of (that noone else would have made) that made a concrete positive difference in WW2?
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
I have learned that it WOULD have been a mistake if Staufenberg had managed to kill Hitler! If the plot against the nazi government had been success full, then first of all they had tried o make peace with the Allies! And the Allies would had sad no! Then Germany could act against the Russians and the Allies without ask Hitler or listen to Hitler " military advice "! As a British politician said: " With Hitler alive, we are going with profit! So it is better if Hitler is right now alive in his little bunker! "
Hitler destroyed all opportunity to retreat, or counter-attack! In northern France in 1944, 155 000 German troops defended different big France port citys, instead of helping in the defense of Germany later that year! And Hitler order to attack both Stalingrad and Caucasus at the same time was a big mistake to! So the war could have ended much later or very much different!
Though Hitler ordered terrible things and was brutal leader, he kind of unaware helped the Allies militarily with all his big mistakes!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
if claus von staufenberg killed hitler germany would have offered unconditional surrender. russia would have said no and the allies yes. then russia would look like the bad guy, and either russia would back down and accept the surrender, or there may have been a conflict with russia.
- warman45
- location: Unknown
- joined: Aug 22, 2009
- posts: 288
There were 42 known assassination attempts on Hitler. The July 1944 one is only the most famous one, and most significantly the one that led to the remaining German resistance major players being executed for treason
Stalin was much more likely to be willing to make a separate peace with Germany (Germany wasn't willing). Of course by 1944, the tide had turned for the USSR so Stalin would not accept a separate peace whether or not Staufenberg succeeded.
The western allies were not willing to negotiate with any German. German Resistance made several contacts with the allies offering such things as bloodless openings into Western Europe. After every contact, the response was the same. We don't negotiate with Germans. Churchill and Stalin advocated taking advantage of the situation, but for whatever reason did it FDR's way (my guess is FDR had the say in how much lend lease is sent).
Of course if FDR met a earlier death, then Henry Wallace the natural lackey would probably be able to be persuaded by Churchill to change the US policy on the war
In summary, TGM is right that a July 1944 assassination success would have been a mistake from a allied perspective as it wouldn't have shortened the war. Hitler's incompetency as a military commander was always a asset to the allies. Plus it ended up killing a lot of Germans that wouldn't have died otherwise
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Britain was actually planning to send in highly trained sharpshooters to parachute into Bavaria near the eagle's nest, disguised in German uniforms. They were to assassinate Hitler in his eagle's nest by sniper. The alternative was a bazooka attack on his car.
Both assassination attempts were in the end both cancelled though, as the Allies believed Hitler was destroying Germany faster than they were, and were better off with Hitler in power.
Yep. I believe if Hitler were to be killed, he wanted Goering to take over. Goering may have been even more dangerous.
I won't lose Africa for long. I need it for slaves. - SANAND
dizzle229 said
Yep. I believe if Hitler were to be killed, he wanted Goering to take over. Goering may have been even more dangerous.
Didnt Himmler tell Hitler that he should have full control of the Reich? I read that in my new book that they arrested Himmler for "High Treason". Sad thing that Hitler had to also accuse Guderian of "High Treason".
warman45 said
if claus von staufenberg killed hitler germany would have offered unconditional surrender. russia would have said no and the allies yes. then russia would look like the bad guy, and either russia would back down and accept the surrender, or there may have been a conflict with russia.
First of all, the new government that would come to power if Hitler were killed, and the nazis that wold had been arrested, they wanted to recreate the second reich! Never unconditional surrender! The allies had Berlin as goal, as Stalin, the allies had pushed in to Germany even if the new government had offered a peace offer! Read Antony Beeevors new book abot the D-Day!
Second, When the war had continued with Rommel as highest commander for the armed forces of Germany, the war had ended later and harder. With better choices and a more moving army Germany would had been much harder to beat! But in the end the allies would have won! But maybe in April 1946! But just MAYBE!
"Idea becomes real" - Nordic Battle Groups motto
"A mans success isn't based on how high he can reach at the top ... only how high he bounces up when he have hit the bottom" - General G.S Patton
- thegeniusmartin
- location: Sweden
- joined: Aug 13, 2009
- posts: 987
There are many possibilities of what would happen if Hitler died, and there's really no way to know who would take power and what he or they would do with it.
Lets take the example if Himmler took power. Himmler said he wanted to make a separate peace with the allies and continue fighting the USSR. That's not a realistic option as the allies were never interested in a separate peace. So what would he do after finding out that would never happen? We don't really know, and anyone saying otherwise is guessing. The only thing we could say is that he would stop the "uncivilized" genocide as we know he was against it.
You could probably go down the line and guess what every major Nazi would do if he took power, but its all speculative, and practically irrelevant as the end result would be the same (at least in the July 1944 scenario, earlier attempts could have changed history).
There was a 0% chance of Germany winning or getting a separate peace from July 1944-1945. If the allies and USSR did not succeed in overrunning Germany by the end of July 1945, the US would have nuked Germany until unconditional surrender. The exact events and how many nukes are impossible to determine, but its pretty clear the war would end in 1945 no matter who was the Fuhrer (barring timeline changes earlier than 1944)
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
Carl said
We don't really know, and anyone saying otherwise is guessing. The only thing we could say is that he would stop the "uncivilized" genocide as we know he was against it.
LOL, are you serious (or just ignorant) the main architect of the holocaust was against it LOL maybe in your own upside down world , i'm surprised you didn't put there also that they were folllowing orders. WOW
- Bigmak5
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 77
I'm fully aware that he was the architect of the Holocaust
And no, I'm not saying he liked Jews or was "just following orders". He hated Jews. Possibly more than any other Nazi
In 1944 he blamed Hitler's wasteful and "uncivilized" genocide agenda as one of the problems that led to their defeat
What he felt about in 1941, 1942, or 1943 is irrelevant as far as a post July 1944 plot is concerned
Himmler was even more of a hypocrite than Hitler
My source for believing that is my notes compiled from reading about articles about the 1944 failed Hungarian Jews transfer plan
Let me see if I can find the original source without driving to my old university's library
- Carl
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 241
