Guest Capt_Manieri Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 The einsatzengruppen, is a part of the SS. I know. But, I say, whack'em all out, the rat bastards!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The einsatzengruppen, is a part of the SS. I know. But, I say, whack'em all out, the rat bastards!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, I certainly hope that was ment in jest. I have a couple of friends who fought in the Waffen-SS, and don't particularly like the tone of your post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 Delta Charlie: 2 things: first, read some books about Stalingrad. The way Hitler sacrificed 6th army for prestige. The soldiers fought under horrible condition for their comrades, for their families and trusted in the "Fuehrer" to save them up to the end, without knowing that Hitler had already forgotten about them. 2nd: when you are in Germany visit the KZ in Dachau, it's now some kind of memorial, and take a good long look at the barracks, the gas chambers and the photo material spread all over the place. It's... I have no words. It puts your opinion on Adolf Hitler in perspection really fast. ...and yes, he was a POLITICAL genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Capt_Manieri Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 The former members of the einsatzengruppen should definetly have something done to them, I think, if there wasn't already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The former members of the einsatzengruppen should definetly have something done to them<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No arguement. My point is that there is a world of difference between them and the Waffen-SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scurlock Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 My two cents: 1st The Taking of the promised land. God waited until the complete corruption of the people occupying Hebron before he moved to have the Jews take the land and exterminate it's occupants. A quick list of a few of the crimes against God that the occupiers of Hebron practiced on a society wide level: Sodomy, insest, human sacrifice, child molestation. Bones found in the diggings of the ancient city of Jericho revealed that even small children suffered from various venerial diseases for instance. BTW the Jews weren't real enthusiastic about destroying the inhabitants of the land. The Jews saved many people that God had ordered the destruction of. You'll have to read for yourselves the concequences of their dissobediance. Second: Hitler as a genious: Social and political genious - yes, military genious - not even close. Every military success the Germans had during WWII was engineered by brilliant generals. Guderian's my favorate, but there were many others instrumental to Germany's initial successes. On the other had EVERY millitary dissaster the German army suffered can be dirrectly attributed to the incompetent, foolhardy, and yes murderous orders inflicted on the army and the people of Germany by Hitler himself. Their has never been a greater traiter to Germany than Hitler. 3rd, Genocide of the Gews, Slaves, Gypsies: Three Bible verses to ponder (excuse me if I don't quote them ver battem): 1st "The Devil was a theif, a liar, and a murderer from the beginning"; 2nd - Satan talking to Jesus " All these kingdoms I will give thee if you but bow down and worship me, for they are mine to give to whom it pleases me". Note that Jesus did not refute Satan's authority to do this. Lastly: "We strugle not against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers." Ponder these quotes and you may gain insight into the unseen hands that stoke the flames of war and murder in this world, and why someone such as Hitler who was so in tune with those unseen forces forced the wrath of almost the entire world against him in an act of self preservation. ------------------ Eric Scurlock "He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulR Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 OK..fess up. Which one of you guys is really John Rocker. C'mon..you can tell us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Capt_Manieri Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 I'm jewish.....I'll admit to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 Post deleted. I thought better about bringing in politics to the board. Back to gaming. [This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 01-26-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lindan: The soldiers fought [...] without knowing that Hitler had already forgotten about them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's not quite true. Hitler had not forgotten about the soldiers on the eastern front. Hitler had two goals: 1. gain territory (by winning the war), 2. kill the Jews. At the beginning of the war, he tried to do both at the same time. But after his attack against Russia had been stalled, he knew very well that he would not be able to win the war anymore. So he switched to goal 2 and used the army to delay his enemys, ie. to buy him the time he needed to carry out the assassination of the Jews in the territory he controlled. He needed every man on the eastern front to do this, and that's the reason he ordered them not to surrender. If you want to read a book that covers Hitler well, I recommend "Anmerkungen zu Hitler" by Sebastian Haffner. (the English translation is called "The Meaning of Hitler" IIRC) Excellent read. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 26, 2000 Share Posted January 26, 2000 Guys, this thread as about <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No CM release for at least 2 weeks (good guess)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Could you please start your own thread to debate polisci? Thanks, DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wehrmacht Posted January 27, 2000 Share Posted January 27, 2000 A fair analogy here? HITLER is to GERMANY is to WORLD WAR II **as** JOHNSON is to UNITED STATES is to VIETNAM. The truth of matter of fact is that Germany could have easily won the War hadn't Hitler used his overwhelming ego to blunder the grand strategies of warfare THAT Pres. Johnson did in running the Vietnam War politically for the U.S. It was said once that, "Our boys over there can't bomb an outhouse without the President's say so." Hitler screwed up so many times by jumping in a river of **** without a paddle. If he would have let his generals run the war they could have defended the invasion by bringing in those Panzer Divisions that Hitler wanted to reserve for the "real" invasion at Calais Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted January 27, 2000 Share Posted January 27, 2000 While I rarely post on this board, I often enjoy reading posts here. It is never hard to find intelligent discourse about a wide range of WW II related topics. While I often disagree with some points of view, I respect the thought that goes into them. That is why I am absolutely appalled by the level of ignorance displayed by some people on this post. Subtle excusing the most inexcusable of acts, the slaughter of millions of people for no other crime than being born, is a common tactic of revisionist historians and outright hate mongers. Comparing acts of unimaginable evil to see which is worse, or which is more justified is madness. Read The Holocaust by Leni Yahil to learn more about what genocide really means. Steve, please close this thread. It poisons the entire board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PanzerLeader Posted January 27, 2000 Share Posted January 27, 2000 "Steve, please close this thread. It poisons the entire board." Closing this thread will only make some people feel very bitter. You can't make others shut up when such an important and potentially dangerous topic is being debated. That is not the solution. BTW, I don't see many people here "excusing the most inexcusable of acts". Only one in fact. And the topic of this discussion has changed a lot, too. I found Dschugaschwili's post very interesting. It opened up a whole new point of view for me when considering Hitler's military blunders in WW2. Just my thoughts...No offense intended obviously, Josh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted January 27, 2000 Share Posted January 27, 2000 The Germans could have EASILY won WWII? really.... It is true that Hitler did cripple the planning at OKW,and seriously botch some operations,but,the war was WON by the U.S, Britan,and the Russians(perhaps deserving more credit than the anglo-americans) The Germans effectively LOST the war in 1941, BEFORE Hitler assumed OK OKW. The Germans did not have the manpower,or the industrial power to win the multi front war they became involved in. Did any of Hitlers "overwhelming ego"cause the destruiction of the Luftwaffe during the big week? There was a saying on the west front popular with the Germans:"We don't shoot at Americans anymore,because every one we kill, they replace with ten"..Hitlers doing?NO! Furthermore:Hitler,the Nazi party,and OKW KNEW the war was unWINable at the beginning of 1942.The decisions made by OKW reflect this.in '44 you have a good example,the Ardennes.Antwerp was an Impossible objective, but it was the ONLY one that would do any good!The OKW knew all too well that,had they turned north and chewed up V Corps,Yhe U.S. would just raise another.Should we cite the Ardennes as another example of Hitlers"overwhelming ego",nope,nope,nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 Again.. It's fun to look at production figures. by 1944,the the Germans had produced 24,630 tanks. the British 24,843 the U.S. 88,410 It seems that even in tanks alone(not to even mention trucks!)Detroit was more a factor in the war than Hitlers blunders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werfer Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 Whermacht: Your post should have read more like "Hitler was to Germany as Napolean was to France", as both of them were bloodthirsty and started their own undoing while Johnson merely inherited a bad situation from the get-go and tried to do the best he could with it. werfer ps wow, how could you even begin to compare Johnson with Hitler?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 P.S.S.S.: I read above that Hitler held back those Panzer Divisions that could have stopped the Invasion 1)The only PzDiv that was alerted early enough(and near enough)to do any good was the 21st. 2)Invasion?should read invasions!stop them where?Utah?Omaha?Gold?Sword?Juno?St.Mere-Eglise?(or give the 21st an assault frontage of 100+Km?) The Prospect of PzDivs counterattacking the allies on D-Day is verry interresting,but, It's hardly the kind of thing to have changed the outcome of the war(or the D-Day Invasions for that matter,)As it turns out, by NOT commiting,the 21st Pz kept the British from Caen.(thus preventing a premature end t the battle of normandy) P.S.:sorry,but the whole "the germans would have won wwii,they only lost because of hitler"thing is a long standing pet peeve of mine.It's simply not true.Eisenhower made mistakes,Stalin made mistakes,and yes,Hitler made mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wehrmacht Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 Oh come now! I merely stated one blunder in a series. Had Hitler really pressed the Invasion of Britain (Sea Lion) instead of dickin' with Russia, and probably at some time became successful, I ask you, "Where would the Normandy Invasion have com from?". What I'm saying is, had Germany won the Battle of Britain, all of Europe would be speaking German right now. There would have been no African campaign, no Invasion of Italy, etc... Hitler blundered in strategic decisions in going after London when he had the RAF in serious disarray and then allowing them to regroup. All because a lone He-111 accidently dropped their load on London. Operation Barbarossa was perhaps the biggest blunder. Hitler didn't finish the job on his western flank! And remember, the U.S. didn't join the War until *JAPAN* gave FDR an excuss. The Battle of Britain was in '40, we didn't join until almost '42. For the record, I only related Johnson to Hitler because Germany's military leaders couldn't do anything without Hitler's permission. So leave wars up to the generals and not the politians. Gulf War is another example. Pres. Bush limited our objective and so ten years later we're still dickin' around with Saddam!! Thank you very much. ------------------ Wars are not won by dying for your country; Wars are won by making the other poor bastard die for his country.--George S. Patton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 Wehrmacht, there is a GREAT deal of difference between <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hitler really pressed the Invasion of Britain (Sea Lion) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>and <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>at some time became successful<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In other words, just Hitler pressing the button on Sea Lion would in no way have guaranteed a successful invasion, with the consequences you described. There still would have been an awful lot of fighting to do between a German Army not set up for amphib operations backed by an air force not set up for long-range power projection, and a HIGHLY motivated and well trained Royal Army (even without the equipment they lost at Dunkirk) backed by the RAF and RN using home field advantage to its fullest. It is inaccurate to lay the failure of Sea Lion entirely at Hitler's feet, because we don't know (and I do not believe) that the Germans would have conquered England. DjB [This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 01-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 Read a book about the hypothetical invasion of Britain following both the British and German plans. Ended up in German victory, but, I don't think it included the British tenacity of fighting on their home ground and many other factors. The book had them fighting EXACTLY the same as they did in France, which is unrealistic. There was the 1st and soon to arrive 2nd Canadian Divisions which were at full strength. The 52nd Lowland Division, albiet territorial was also at practically full strength. There was also an ANZAC force, equivalent to a division. Let alone the surviving British formations which retreated in good order and were around at 50% strength and a multitude of Territorial divisions. The 1st Armoured division, combined with the 1st Army Tank brigade had around 300 tanks (Cruisers, Mk VI, and Matilda II's), let alone the 2nd Armoured of 200 tanks (Mk VI), plus numerous Tank Brigades. The Germans had to somehow cross the English channel, breaking past the 60 or so Destroyers, 5 Battleships and multiple cruisers. With this they had 2 Pre-Dreadnaughts, 1 Heavy Cruiser and a few destroyers. They did not have any real landing craft and were relying on Barges. It would be extremely hard to get enough landing craft together to move over a Panzerkorps on its own, let alnone an entire army (which would have been needed to take the Island). The RAF was still in good showing (There were 500+ Bombers in 1940, German fighter range could not result in complete coverage of the beachead). The British also had many MTB's and coastal submarines which would have played havoc with the transport. If indeed the Germans were successful in landing an army, the cost of the operation would have been horendous, and with little chance of success. If indeed a force was able to land in strength they still have to rely on the sea for supply. Cut off that supply lane with the Royal Navy and you have an entire army in POW camps. Admiral Raeder was hard pressed to come up with a plan (seeing most of his already small fleet was shot up in the Norway debacle), and didn't see much chance in success. PS. the first post was posted 7 days ago, ergo, new title, "No CM release for at least 1 week (good guess)" [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 This whole discussion about "could Germany have won the war if Hitler had done something different?" is kind of academic. True, if he had stopped after overrunning France, he probably would have been able to keep Western Europe for Germany. But that's not the point. He had long before decided to conquer Russia to gain the Germans room to live (his "Lebensraum" idea). It was not the interferrence with his generals that cost him the war. This was only a logical consequence of his two long term goals: 1. conquer Russia to gain "Lebensraum" 2. exterminate the Jews With these goals in mind you can understand why he did most things the way he did them. His ultimate failure was caused because these goals were wrong. The "Lebensraum" idea was wrong even economically because industry nations don't need to be large in size (a large size can in fact be a disadvantage). For the second plan, I don't think anybody knows where his fanatic hate for the Jews came from, and even if you leave the ethics of this topic aside (I don't have words for this anyways) it was a mistake because he made enemies out of good friends for no other reason than his hate. I don't think you can blame him for his other mistakes that were direct consequences of these two big mistakes. Those were inevitable. Just my 2 cents, Dschugaschwili PS: I hope I made my points clear. Of course, if you want a much better and more detailed analysis on this, I again recommend the book I mentioned earlier in this thread. [This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 01-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 .... Let me check ...I might have clicked on the wrong topic...let me see....I could have swore the topic was about Cm's release date! ------------------ ------------------ CCJ BLITZ_Force My HomePage -----> www.geocities.com/coolcolj/ Check out my Tweaked Textures for the CM Beta Demo and my Saving Private Ryan Sound Set mod! Oh Yeah - Have a listen to some of my music too! When i get my record deal...you may have to pay for it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 One thing to consider: I believe, if Germany had done better job at the western front all europe would be speaking russia by now! Eastern front was where the real big fighting took place, and that war was lost for germany by '43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted January 28, 2000 Share Posted January 28, 2000 Here's some more fun little historical variants 1)What if the coup in Yugoslavia hadn't taken place?(this would have given the germans 3+ extra months for Barbarossa) 2)What if SHAEF had agreed to Pattons "big Solution" in Normandy? P.S.:as regaurds "Sea Lion":The thing you should look at is landing craft.The Germans had only towed barges made for RIVER transport!The few that were tested in the channel SANK immediately!The Germans had a better chance of getting to the MOON in 40-41 than to England."sea Lion" was looked at by the OKW as more of a wargame than a possibility.Also,Alot of folks seem to forget that England had RADAR and ULTRA. those two ALONE would have made "Sea Lion" little more than a daydream. In reality,the Whermact in WWII COULD NOT have done better than they did HISTORICALLY. it's not as simple as"well,if they'd only ...." I've come to the conclusion that the Whermacht is,without a doubt,the most, in the mind of the public,OVERRATED army of all time!(including DS U.S.Air Force!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts