Axis in WWII

[Morgoth]

I don't get it, but whatever.

[Oner]

I'm kinda lazy to search my notebooks for that particular lesson in school, so I'm not heartbroken.

[Morgoth]

Oh, I think I know what you mean. The processing of the Nazi past. Oh well, I agree, the Germans did a better job there. Well, they always were such...accurate folks. In Austria (as usual), the sit is a bit more twisted (=****ed up). On the one hand, we were supposed to be victims (maybe we were....maybe some were), on the other hands, we produced enough bastards that commited a lot of bad stuff during WW2.

[Calax]

OK, so, the general consensus is that the germans probably couldn't win without hitting the middle east at all.

[Morgoth]

Germans could have win if they didn't listen to Hitlers inane orders. But...

[Oner]

Oh, I think I know what you mean. The processing of the Nazi past. Oh well, I agree, the Germans did a better job there. Well, they always were such...accurate folks. In Austria (as usual), the sit is a bit more twisted (=****ed up). On the one hand, we were supposed to be victims (maybe we were....maybe some were), on the other hands, we produced enough bastards that commited a lot of bad stuff during WW2.

That too, but what I exactly meant was some... I don't know, yearly commemoration or something like that. From how my teacher phrased it, it came off more like having a 'blame the germans of today so they feel bad' instead of 'mourn the victims of the past' feel to it.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Oner

[Nihilus5078]

Germans could have win if they didn't listen to Hitlers inane orders. But...

 

Hitler's only order is like kill the first Jew and be a psychotic dumbass when you get the first chance

[Morgoth]

Oh, I think I know what you mean. The processing of the Nazi past. Oh well, I agree, the Germans did a better job there. Well, they always were such...accurate folks. In Austria (as usual), the sit is a bit more twisted (=****ed up). On the one hand, we were supposed to be victims (maybe we were....maybe some were), on the other hands, we produced enough bastards that commited a lot of bad stuff during WW2.

That too, but what I exactly meant was some... I don't know, yearly commemoration or something like that. From how my teacher phrased it, it came off more like 'blame the germans of today so they feel bad' instead of 'mourn the victims of the past' feel to it.

The thing is, our politicians don't have the backbone to acknoweledge the bad stuff that we contributed. The general consent, when Austria 2nd Edition went green-lit in 1955 was that we were ass raped by the Nazis. Which is actualy true, but it also worked the other way around...somehow. And while Germany took all the blame (after all, the regime was governed from Berlin) and they did a great job at processing the past and hunt down every single last Nazi, Austria didn't quite felt the obligation to do this so scrutinizing, because ya know, we were the victim and all that. Maybe in the past 20 years it has become better, with dealing with the past. But that still doesn't change the fact that folks these days still get lied to and are dishonest to each other about the past. Austria lives very comfty on her own big lie. **** it.

 

Edit: Bad grammar today, blame the beer.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Morgoth

[Oner]

The thing is, our politicians don't have the backbone to acknowledge the bad stuff that we contributed. The general consent, when Austria 2nd Edition went green-lit in 1955 was that we were ass raped by the Nazis. Which is actually true, but it also worked the other way around...somehow. And while Germany took all the blame (after all, the regime was governed from Berlin) and they did a great job at processing the past and hunt down every single last Nazi, Austria didn't quite felt the obligation to do this so scrutinizing, because ya know, we were the victim and all that. Maybe in the past 20 years it has become better, with dealing with the past. But that still doesn't change the fact that folks these days still get lied to and are dishonest to each other about the past. Austria lives very comfty on her own big lie. **** it.

 

Edit: Bad grammar today, blame the beer.

Interesting, though not surprising.

History classes were always focusing on the "big" countries, so thanks for the lesson.

[Aristes]

I think folks should recognize the fact that Hitler was actually quite brilliant in his policies leading up to the war. Clearly his policies in regards to Jews and other ethnic groups was evil. However, Hitler was amazingly successful and, worse for Germany, most of those moves were daring. I think Hitler, and Germany, were undone like most people are in history, by the feeling of invincibility that came as the byproduct of early success. This is something quite different from the slow decay that tends to accompany and eventually undermine folks who carry their initial success into the long term.

[213374U]

I think Hitler, and Germany, were undone like most people are in history, by the feeling of invincibility that came as the byproduct of early success.

Yeah. You tell that to Alexander or Scipio Africanus, though.

[Fionavar]

*Watches

[Monte Carlo]

I think folks should recognize the fact that Hitler was actually quite brilliant in his policies leading up to the war.

 

Hmmm. Hitler was brilliant in manipulating a nation's angst and economic failure into a self-destructive orgy of racist hatred. Corporatism, extensive public works, militarisation and the dismantling of a nascent democracy* isn't brilliant. His policies leading up to the war were nothing but a prelude to war. Hitler viewed war as desirable, essential even. Here's this man in his uniform with skulls on planning a thousand year empire based on racial supremacy and genocide.... it isn't brilliant in any way that I recognise.

 

Clearly his policies in regards to Jews and other ethnic groups was evil.

Yes, and also in the DNA of every other decision the Nazis made. You can't separate one from the other, it's the 'fruit of the poisoned tree' argument.

 

However, Hitler was amazingly successful and, worse for Germany, most of those moves were daring. I think Hitler, and Germany, were undone like most people are in history, by the feeling of invincibility that came as the byproduct of early success. This is something quite different from the slow decay that tends to accompany and eventually undermine folks who carry their initial success into the long term.

 

Hitler was amazingly successful at rendering one of the most cultured and complex European countries into rubble within fifteen years.

 

Maybe the education system ain't what it used to be, but some of you guys need to get your heads around the fact that there's nothing brilliant, remarkable or successful about anything associated with the racist, mechanised slaughter of millions.

 

Cheers

MC

 

* By 1933 German democracy was still very young, in fact 'Germany' had never really known democracy until the 1920's.

[alanschu]

For some reason Hitler really stressed the importance of capturing and holding cities at all costs. It ran into trouble in Stalingrad, as well as Kharkov. I think it did for Kiev as well.

 

Unfortunately those that were his biggest yes men ended up getting the majority of his commands towards the end of the war. Not that I blame him. He had his ideas and he was the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces so you can't really have people that are outspoken against you leading your armies, but as a result it ended up with the replacements of his best generals that had helped garner so much success at the earlier parts of the war.

[Oner]

You're forgetting that Germany wasn't any better off before the second war than after. He rebuilt the country, revived the economy and gave the people a purpose!

 

..THEN reduced everything back to rubble.

[Monte Carlo]

@ Alanschu....

 

Good point, and completely counter-intuitive to German staff college doctrine.

 

The Germans were quite radical in their tactical doctrine. Officers were seldom micro-managed, even at platoon level - they were given an objective and then trusted to carry it out their way (there's a fancy German word for this which escapes me right now).

 

Other European armies, OTOH, espoused more proscriptive doctrine.

 

Example, from an early 20th Century staff college:

 

German orders: Take that Bridge.

 

British orders: Take that bridge. Move 'A' Company to the plateau and give covering fire to 'B' Company who will flank left whilst 'C' Company assault the bridge.

 

The point? Hitler, who had served as a working class NCO in the infantry was inherently suspicious of his officer corps. He consistently went against the grain of what his officers were trained to do. I give you, as an example, the magnificent defence of Normandy by the German army in 1944 - led by Rommel, who was the embodiment of the old-school fluidity of German military thinking.

 

By 1945 Hitler was making decisions about the deployment of tank companies on the Eastern Front. That's just about a colonel's job.

 

@ Oner - Weimar wasn't perfect but it was a democracy and was making all the right noises. Please read some history.

 

Cheers

MC

Edited August 10, 2009 by Monte Carlo

[alanschu]

Hmmm. Hitler was brilliant in manipulating a nation's angst and economic failure into a self-destructive orgy of racist hatred. Corporatism, extensive public works, militarisation and the dismantling of a nascent democracy* isn't brilliant. His policies leading up to the war were nothing but a prelude to war. Hitler viewed war as desirable, essential even. Here's this man in his uniform with skulls on planning a thousand year empire based on racial supremacy and genocide.... it isn't brilliant in any way that I recognise.

 

How do you define brilliant?

 

He took a country that was dirt poor, that had been shat all over by the Treaty of Versailles, during the Great Depression and helped restore it's power and influence in the region in rather short period of time. I don't think anyone here means "brilliant" in the idea of he was a shining example of awesomeness, but rather that he did a very good job of taking advantage of the situation.

 

 

Maybe the education system ain't what it used to be, but some of you guys need to get your heads around the fact that there's nothing brilliant, remarkable or successful about anything associated with the racist, mechanised slaughter of millions.

 

Maybe you need to get your head around the fact that no one here said anything of the sort.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Who p*ssed in your cornflakes?

[Oner]

@ Oner - Weimar wasn't perfect but it was a democracy and was making all the right noises. Please read some history.

Please read my post, and while at it, some history too. I wasn't talking about the government, but a country who lost a world war. You know, bombed, drained and lots of dead?

Weimar was working on rebuilding Germany, but Hitler did too, not just started shouting BLITZKRIEG BLITZKRIEG as soon as he became chancellor.

And please enlighten me on how democracy makes any government superior to another, or how it's existence magically solves every problem a country has, o great pupil of senator Amidala? We get to choose our idiots instead of letting them crowning themselves. Yay.

Scratch that last one, I don't care.

[Monte Carlo]

:: sigh ::

 

There is a fairly credible school of thought that argues that Weimar was going in the right direction. Listen, in the 1920's I'm sure you're aware that THE WHOLE FREAKING WORLD was in the grip of the economic equivalent of bubonic plague.

 

Interestingly, the two powers that fell to extreme totalitarianism were Russia and Germany... which is interesting because they are chalk and cheese.

 

Your argument, unless I've misunderstood, is that a country on it's knees will immediately turn to the nearest wannabe dictator... and that the dictator's ability to get a country back on it's feet by planning imminent world war is some sort of brilliant move (whichever thesauras we are using today to define brilliant).

 

I don't agree. And I detect a move away from the acceptance of the unique evil of Nazism in some of the language used here which for me feels like inadvertent revisionism.

 

As for the democracy thing, I don't think it's in dispute that democracies were less likely in the first half of the twentieth century to kick off wars than the autocracies.

 

We are discussing a big subject, we are going to argue.

 

Cheers

MC

[Llyranor]

Re: Italian blunder in Balkans and German intervention, I just finished reading 'Greece and Crete 1941' by Buckley this week. Enjoyable read, and not too lengthy. Focuses mostly on the British/Anzacs. The critical weeks that delayed the Russian invasion must have been costly.

 

Would the Axis have fared better if Germany didn't attack Russia? I don't have any exact sources, but I remember reading somewhere that Russia was planning on attacking Germany first as well (and at the start of the offensive, many units that were being mobilized to prepare for an attack were caught off-guard or something). In any case, even if that isn't right, once the Non-Aggression Pact is off, I doubt Russia would have just stood idly by. It might have lingered longer before getting involved in the war, but only to bolster its military might.

[Oner]

Just to avoid confusion, I'm talking to MC.

You know, I wrote down twice that I'm neither talking nor caring about the politics here, we're talking economy. You said Hitler reduced Germany to rubble. I pointed out to you, a WW just ended a few years ago, if Hitler reduced Germany to rubble, he first had to rebuild Germany from ground up. And he did just that. If you deny that fact just because he was Nazi, then you're just a nazism obsessed, narrow minded fool.

 

And I detect a move away from the acceptance of the unique evil of Nazism in some of the language used here which for me feels like inadvertent revisionism.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you implying I accept Nazism just because I see more than just NAZI BAAAD, ENGLAND GOOOD?

If not, then I didn't say anything.

 

This though: unique evil of nazism? Don't make me laugh please. When Hungary was a big kingdom, it treated the conquered kingdoms' people like second class citizens, for which we were (rightly) hated. England wasn't any kinder to it's colonies. July 4 remind you of anything? Or that funny little triangle, slaves produce sugar, which gets processed into alcohol, which gets traded for more slaves? Or England's and Eagleland's black is inferior mentality? KKK? Ancient Rome maybe?

Everyone's done it, hardly unique.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Oner

[Guard Dog]

Monte has already spelled out what I think is the most logical scenario that would have led to an axis victory. I think he misses on two big points. The US would have either remained techically neutral (while covertly supporting Great Britian) or would have entered the war on the allied side eventually if Pearl Harbor had not happened. They would not have aided Germany either secretly or openly. The isolationist and anti-eurpopean sentiment in the US was nowhere near as strong as it was during WWI (if not for the Zimmermen incident the US would not have entered that war at all). Plus in 1906 Germany was just another economic power fighting over colonial trade. Hitler was the embodiment of evil and enough evidence what he was doing to jews, balkans, etc would have gotten out that even the nay sayers would have voted for war.

 

 

Here is a different way of looking at it. I think Hitlers mistake was not attacking the Russians it was antagonizing the allies and invading France/Holland/Belgium/etc. Had he invaded Russia immediately after Poland without aggression against France, England, or the low countries does anyone thing the allies would have stopped him. As I understand it the only reason for invading the USSR was to gain control of the oil fields around the Black Sea and northern Persia. Had he done that and bided time to consolidate the conquest and rebuild the army Germany would have been able to counter the Aliies biggest advantage, economic superiority.

 

I do think most of you are dead on in the anlysis that the Axis war was a doomed enterprise from the get go because the ultimate goals of Mussolini, Hitler, and Tojo were different and as an alliance the Axis was not capable of acting in any real cooperative fashion. The Allied powers were and did.

[alanschu]

:: sigh ::

 

There is a fairly credible school of thought that argues that Weimar was going in the right direction. Listen, in the 1920's I'm sure you're aware that THE WHOLE FREAKING WORLD was in the grip of the economic equivalent of bubonic plague.

 

Actually in the 20s, the world was doing quite well. Roaring 20s and all that jazz. The 30s was the Great Depression. It's also when Hitler took power.

 

The Weimar was going in the right direction, as Europe got to experience the second half of the roaring 20s as well.

 

 

According to Wikipedia though, the Weimar leaders started ruling not through parliament, but presidential decree (i.e. they were becoming dictatorial). The Weimar was spinning downwards, and it was through its corruption and increasingly autocratic ways that Hitler was able to obtain total power. When the Great Depression hit in the 30s, suddenly the Americans came calling on all of their debts loaned out to help out an impoverish Germany in the 20s. Coupled with war repayments and other stuff, Germany ended up being absolutely devastated by the Great Depression.

Edited August 10, 2009 by alanschu

[Aristes]

You know, Monte, my supposedly lackluster education aside, Hitler managed to increase the national boundaries of Germany by quite a huge margin. In fact, had he not misjudged Chamberlain and the British people, then he would have had half of Poland still be at 'peace' with his neighbors.

 

I'm not praising Hitler. I'm not calling him a good person or advocating any nazi school of thought. However, nothing argues like success and Hitler was successful. We cannot understand anything in history if we cannot have a frank discussion about the events. Just because Hitler was a wicked man at the head of a terrible ideology does not mean that he was a blithering idiot. Yes, the German high command suggested that he do things differently, but the same high command had been urging caution all along, from his occupation of the rhineland to his occupation of Sudetenland and annexation of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain finally held the line at Poland. I need no lectures from you or anyone else about how I view history. I am somewhat educated in history myself. I've even read a book or two along the way. Perhaps you're more educated as to the facts. Maybe not. *shrug* At any rate, I'd rather have a candid discussion about the event rather than have you try to spin the truth. Hitler was a villain and therefore could not have been brilliant? Ridiculous.

 

Imagine, for a moment, that Hitler had succeeded in taking a great slice of Poland with no outbreak of a larger war and then stopped to consolidate his successes. What if that had been the end of the conflict. What would we call him then? Just because he failed dismally, for which we should all be thankful, doesn't mean his preceding moves were not intelligent. To our chagrin, Hitler was quite crafty.

 

EDIT: And I agree with alan as well. The fact is the Weimar Republic was on shaky ground. Evidence? They ended up with Hitler. I think we should discuss the facts rather than my use of the ****ing word 'brilliant.' Whether you like it or not, I'm going to continue believing that his moves were both daring and brilliant, even if his ideology and goals were evil.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Aristes