The Worst Miscalculation Of World War II

Started by tbone0106, June 24, 2012, 09:52:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TboneAgain

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 12:16:29 AM
Hitler never wanted to crush Britain, he wanted Britain to remain strong and continue to have its empire. He always lamented that Britain was under the control of Churchill and that the sympathetic wing of the aristocracy of Britain was not in power. Sycophantic but equally occult Rudolf Hess went to Britain to broke a peace treaty in a move to save Hitlers wish in this regard.

As for the Soviet Union it was a necessary part to make "lebensraum" for their deurbanization plans and germanization of eastern europe after the war.

It really annoys me that people think the Nazis were warmongers, because they were not, they wanted peace but on their terms not Treaty of Versailles terms. I.e Study the Hitler Youth, they preached hippie nonsense about pagan spirituality. They wanted lebensraum to make possible the race purification in their perfection of man and to regain the lost Aryan powers such as telekenisis. They also wanted to prepare for their next war, which they believed would be an invasion from the east.

If you really want to understand the Nazis then I recomment actually reading their works and philosophy instead of just historical accounts of the war.

Hitler is often quoted as believing that the British were the "natural allies" of Germany. He is not quoted as wanting a "strong" England, which could only be a thorn in his side. Hess was a nutcase.

Now let's see... why would we think that the Nazis were warmongers? Could it be Czechoslovakia? How about Poland? Austria? Maybe Belgium? Perhaps France? But of course Hitler had only nice thoughts about England, which is why he sent Goering's Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place every day and every night, and why he assembled the troops and landing craft for Operation Sealion along the north coast of France.

Since they were in actual fact the primary initiators of the greatest war in the history of mankind in their quest for lebensraum, I'm pretty darn sure we're just gonna have to call the Nazis warmongers. Sorry if that annoys you, but hey, it is what it is.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Mountainshield

#76
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Hitler is often quoted as believing that the British were the "natural allies" of Germany. He is not quoted as wanting a "strong" England, which could only be a thorn in his side. Hess was a nutcase.

Read Mein Kampf, you are factually wrong. Hitler wanted Britain to continue having its fleet, its colonies and power. Germany did not have any conflicting interests with Britain when it came to sphere of influence.

During the progression of the conflict it was clear germany had to bring Britain to submission however, mostly because of Churchill ability to inspire the british people and keep the national unity together.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Now let's see... why would we think that the Nazis were warmongers? Could it be Czechoslovakia? How about Poland? Austria? Maybe Belgium? Perhaps France? But of course Hitler had only nice thoughts about England, which is why he sent Goering's Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place every day and every night, and why he assembled the troops and landing craft for Operation Sealion along the north coast of France.

Austria was peacefull annexation, the austrian national socialist party accepted unification.
Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war.
Poland and Czechoslovakia was part of the lebensraum strategy.
Hitler did respect England, he wanted the British Race to continue ruling its white empire, he sent the Luftwaffe to force a fast a surrender because he didn't think they would endure the terror bombing. This is the reason he hated Churchill, , many families in the british aristocracy wanted peace with Hitler and it was them Rudolf hess wanted to conspire with.
Rudolf Hess was a true national socialist, they were all nutcases.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 12:37:47 AM
Since they were in actual fact the primary initiators of the greatest war in the history of mankind in their quest for lebensraum, I'm pretty darn sure we're just gonna have to call the Nazis warmongers. Sorry if that annoys you, but hey, it is what it is.

Yes, but that many people call nazis warmongers still doesnt mean its fact. The german state after 1918 was a revisionist state that needed to have a war to change the balance of power to its side or on more equitable terms. War was inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_State

EDIT: I understand that people call nazis warmonger because of the perception of the nazis we have, just like those Donald Duck Cartoons the nazis are portrayed as "industrialist Expansionalist Authoritarians" but this is not the case when it came to National Socialist Doctrine and their philosophy, so it is a wrong perception when it comes to objectively understanding National Socialism.

TboneAgain

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 01:16:42 AM
Read Mein Kampf, you are factually wrong. Hitler wanted Britain to continue having its fleet, its colonies and power. Germany did not have any conflicting interests with Britain when it came to sphere of influence.

During the progression of the conflict it was clear germany had to bring Britain to submission however, mostly because of Churchill ability to inspire the british people and keep the national unity together.

Austria was peacefull annexation, the austrian national socialist party accepted unification.
Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war.
Poland and Czechoslovakia was part of the lebensraum strategy.
Hitler did respect England, he wanted the British Race to continue ruling its white empire, he sent the Luftwaffe to force a fast a surrender because he didn't think they would endure the terror bombing. This is the reason he hated Churchill, , many families in the british aristocracy wanted peace with Hitler and it was them Rudolf hess wanted to conspire with.
Rudolf Hess was a true national socialist, they were all nutcases.

Yes, but that many people call nazis warmongers still doesnt mean its fact. If 100% of humanity claimed that thunder and lightning is a result of mytholigical gods, it would still not make it true.

The german state after 1918 was a revisionist state that needed to have a war to change the balance of power to its side or on more equitable terms. War was inevitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revisionist_State

I had to read to the end to find something I could agree with: "War was inevitable." That is true, largely because of the Treaty of Versailles and associated mandates.

The Nazis had been in power only about six months when agents of the SS assassinated Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, who adamantly opposed reunification with Germany. Over the next four years, a constant political and propaganda battle took place between Berlin and Vienna. In the final event, on March 12, 1938, in order to preclude a plebiscite scheduled for the following day which the Nazis feared would nix a proposed unification, Germany's Eighth Army invaded Austria. Within a few days, 70,000 opponents of unification had been arrested. Nothing about the Anschluss was "peaceful."

Blaming Britain and France for the subjugation of Belgium and France is lunacy.

Yes, Poland and Czechoslovakia were part of the lebensraum strategy. So what? Does that somehow make Germany's unilateral and unprovoked war on them more acceptable or less aggressive?

Hitler did express respect and admiration for Great Britain in his writings. But nevertheless, exactly as I stated before, he sent his Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place day and night, and assembled an invasion task force for the express purpose of conquering England. Hitler may have said at some point in time that he wanted England to continue its mastery of the seas, but he did not build Tirpitz and Bismarck and several hundred U-boats for shits and giggles.

Hess was no more a "true Nazi" -- something that cannot even be defined -- than was anyone else in Germany at the time. But he WAS screwy, and his flight to Scotland was a bat-shit crazy thing to do.

You can claim that the Nazis weren't warmongers, but claiming the sky ain't blue don't make it so. For such a peaceful bunch, they sure waged a lot of war in a very short time. I'd be interested to learn who you might think WOULD be classified as warmongers.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Mountainshield

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
I had to read to the end to find something I could agree with: "War was inevitable." That is true, largely because of the Treaty of Versailles and associated mandates.

The Nazis had been in power only about six months when agents of the SS assassinated Austrian Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, who adamantly opposed reunification with Germany. Over the next four years, a constant political and propaganda battle took place between Berlin and Vienna. In the final event, on March 12, 1938, in order to preclude a plebiscite scheduled for the following day which the Nazis feared would nix a proposed unification, Germany's Eighth Army invaded Austria. Within a few days, 70,000 opponents of unification had been arrested. Nothing about the Anschluss was "peaceful."

Blaming Britain and France for the subjugation of Belgium and France is lunacy.

Yes, Poland and Czechoslovakia were part of the lebensraum strategy. So what? Does that somehow make Germany's unilateral and unprovoked war on them more acceptable or less aggressive?

Hitler did express respect and admiration for Great Britain in his writings. But nevertheless, exactly as I stated before, he sent his Luftwaffe to bomb the living shit out of the place day and night, and assembled an invasion task force for the express purpose of conquering England. Hitler may have said at some point in time that he wanted England to continue its mastery of the seas, but he did not build Tirpitz and Bismarck and several hundred U-boats for shits and giggles.

I do concede to most of these points, but the bombing of Britain by Germany was to force Britain to accept a peace treaty as fast as possible. And the invasion of Britain was to force Britain to accept these terms, when the bombing did not work, for the nazis this is was a sad necessity and not part of their original plan.

I didn't blame france, belgium or even Britrain for the war, Hitler was gambling that they would not act on the independence guarantee too Poland just as the British and French did nothing when the germans annexed Czechoslovakia.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
Hess was no more a "true Nazi" -- something that cannot even be defined -- than was anyone else in Germany at the time. But he WAS screwy, and his flight to Scotland was a bat-shit crazy thing to do.

This is part of the general ignorance people have about origins of the NSDAP, people simplify the nazis in order to comprehend them because they lack knowledge about philosophy. Your statements here prove beyond a doubt that you have no comprehension about Theosophy and this part of esotericism even though you have broad indepth knowledge about the historical accounts of the war and germany.

Individual inability to define a term due too that individual lack of knowledge does not render a term indefinable. Again please read the books before making assumptions based on ignorance on this aspect of NSDAP, I know you have alot of historical knowledge on the timeline, material facts and events but what you clearly lack is knowledge about the metaphysical foundations of NSDAP which seems you claim do not exist which is ludcrious if that is the case.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 01:59:47 AM
You can claim that the Nazis weren't warmongers, but claiming the sky ain't blue don't make it so. For such a peaceful bunch, they sure waged a lot of war in a very short time. I'd be interested to learn who you might think WOULD be classified as warmongers.

And claiming that thunder is caused by mythological beings doesnt make it so either. You have to define your terms if you want to play semantics with me.

The term warmonger should in my experience be defined to the culture of the nation or cultural group you are describing, or individual leaders if that is the case. I.e the Mongolians had a warmonger culture because they relied on continual warfare for their standard of living, same with the vikings. Gustav II Adolf and Frederick II of Prussia was warmongers because they believed in continual maximiation of power through expansionism. Hitler however did not believe in continual endless territorial expansion and neither did the other nazis. Many nazis such as Artur Axmann and Martin Bormann was in fact very shocked and sad that Hitler attacked Poland and that war had started. They believed in a Greater Germany and a spiritual expansion through race purification.

JustKari

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 28, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
Tbone is back. Sorry you missed him.  :rolleyes:

I posted that a full month before you came back, sorry it bothered you.

TboneAgain

Quote from: JustKari on March 29, 2013, 06:39:38 AM
I posted that a full month before you came back, sorry it bothered you.

Bothered me? Hardly. It's kinda nice to be missed.  :blush:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Solar

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:44:43 AM
Bothered me? Hardly. It's kinda nice to be missed.  :blush:
That is until our aim improves. :biggrin:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

TboneAgain

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AM
I do concede to most of these points, but the bombing of Britain by Germany was to force Britain to accept a peace treaty as fast as possible. And the invasion of Britain was to force Britain to accept these terms, when the bombing did not work, for the nazis this is was a sad necessity and not part of their original plan.

The bombing of England by Germany was a unilateral act of war. The reasons Hitler may have had for taking those steps aren't really relevant. Sure you can argue that Germany was merely reacting to England's teaming with France in defense of Poland, but Germany's treatment of Poland was ANOTHER act of war, premeditated and planned as a partitioning action with Stalin. Hitler knew for a certainty when he sent his troops over the Polish border that both England and France were bound by treaty to defend Poland. In truth, he responded to his own act of war with another act of war. The invasion of the British Isles -- Operation Sealion -- was absolutely not "plan B." It was Plan A from the start, and what became known as the Battle of Britain was initiated unilaterally by the Germans with the sole intent of killing the RAF; German strategists considered air supremacy a prerequisite to a successful seaborne invasion.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMI didn't blame france, belgium or even Britrain for the war, Hitler was gambling that they would not act on the independence guarantee too Poland just as the British and French did nothing when the germans annexed Czechoslovakia.

What you said was "Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war." I did not say that you blamed any particular country or government for the war. What I said was that to blame Belgium and France on the British and the French is lunacy. Yes, Hitler was gambling that especially England would just sit there while he had his way, as they had when he took Czechoslovakia -- ANOTHER unilateral act of war.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMThis is part of the general ignorance people have about origins of the NSDAP, people simplify the nazis in order to comprehend them because they lack knowledge about philosophy. Your statements here prove beyond a doubt that you have no comprehension about Theosophy and this part of esotericism even though you have broad indepth knowledge about the historical accounts of the war and germany.

Individual inability to define a term due too that individual lack of knowledge does not render a term indefinable. Again please read the books before making assumptions based on ignorance on this aspect of NSDAP, I know you have alot of historical knowledge on the timeline, material facts and events but what you clearly lack is knowledge about the metaphysical foundations of NSDAP which seems you claim do not exist which is ludcrious if that is the case.

We are posting in the War Forum. It is not the theosophy forum or the esotericism forum. You are free to petition the managers of the board to establish either or both.

As you have noticed, I have a fairly broad and deep understanding of the history of the period. The mysterious dark makeup of the Nazi party has always been a favorite subject of mine. And guess what -- there ain't much "there" there. I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of books about that 12-year period (and the development beforehand). If I were to recommend one book above the rest, it would be Heinz Hohne's The Order of the Death's Head: The History of the SS. Heaping helpings of theosophy, esotericism, hocus-pocus, Arthurian roleplaying, mass murder, political education -- depending on the educator's politics -- and extermination, all in a jack-booted parade led by a chinless chicken farmer who couldn't raise chickens. It's the best account I've found of the utter chaos that actually was the Nazi world. There is simply no such thing as the "typical Nazi."

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMAnd claiming that thunder is caused by mythological beings doesnt make it so either. You have to define your terms if you want to play semantics with me.

Oh now, I'd never play semantics with you, sir.  :wink:

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 29, 2013, 03:20:16 AMThe term warmonger should in my experience be defined to the culture of the nation or cultural group you are describing, or individual leaders if that is the case. I.e the Mongolians had a warmonger culture because they relied on continual warfare for their standard of living, same with the vikings. Gustav II Adolf and Frederick II of Prussia was warmongers because they believed in continual maximiation of power through expansionism. Hitler however did not believe in continual endless territorial expansion and neither did the other nazis. Many nazis such as Artur Axmann and Martin Bormann was in fact very shocked and sad that Hitler attacked Poland and that war had started. They believed in a Greater Germany and a spiritual expansion through race purification.

The Nazis were not warmongers, you claim? In the twelve years they ruled Germany, they committed military aggression against Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Finland, England, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Greece, Luxembourg, Scotland, Ireland, Romania, every western soviet republic, Canada, and the United States. I won't count the endless incursions into neutral and "friendly" territories, especially in North Africa. And I'm sure I left a few out. In their brief tenure, they directly caused the deaths of 20-30 million civilians and millions more in battle.

Not one of the "warmonger" cultures you cite can match that record of... warmongering.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Mountainshield

#83
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
The bombing of England by Germany was a unilateral act of war. The reasons Hitler may have had for taking those steps aren't really relevant. Sure you can argue that Germany was merely reacting to England's teaming with France in defense of Poland, but Germany's treatment of Poland was ANOTHER act of war, premeditated and planned as a partitioning action with Stalin. Hitler knew for a certainty when he sent his troops over the Polish border that both England and France were bound by treaty to defend Poland. In truth, he responded to his own act of war with another act of war. The invasion of the British Isles -- Operation Sealion -- was absolutely not "plan B." It was Plan A from the start, and what became known as the Battle of Britain was initiated unilaterally by the Germans with the sole intent of killing the RAF; German strategists considered air supremacy a prerequisite to a successful seaborne invasion.

And during all these operations Hitler tried serveral times to broke a peace treaty with Britain, none of the facts you have stated here counters the fact that the Nazis wanted Britain to remain strong and out of the war. That they had contingency plans and were prepared for the worst case scenario with Britain from the start does not deny this.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
What you said was "Belgium and France happened after Britain and France declared war." I did not say that you blamed any particular country or government for the war. What I said was that to blame Belgium and France on the British and the French is lunacy. Yes, Hitler was gambling that especially England would just sit there while he had his way, as they had when he took Czechoslovakia -- ANOTHER unilateral act of war.

Yes, and as you said yourself Hitler thought Britain would just sit there. The reason was he did not want a new war with Britain if it could be avoided.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
We are posting in the War Forum. It is not the theosophy forum or the esotericism forum. You are free to petition the managers of the board to establish either or both...
You stated that national socialist are indefinable, but as stated previously they are not. I did not go in depth into their philisophy because it is not relevant to this discussion, but I corrected your argument that Rudolf Hess was not just bat shit crazy, he actually had a creed he followed and so did every other nazi as well. Now we can say that made them bad-shit crazy, but they are still not indefinable just because someone can't define them.

Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
As you have noticed, I have a fairly broad and deep understanding of the history of the period. The mysterious dark makeup of the Nazi party has always been a favorite subject of mine. And guess what -- there ain't much "there" there. I have read dozens, perhaps hundreds of books about that 12-year period (and the development beforehand). If I were to recommend one book above the rest, it would be Heinz Hohne's The Order of the Death's Head: The History of the SS. Heaping helpings of theosophy, esotericism, hocus-pocus, Arthurian roleplaying, mass murder, political education -- depending on the educator's politics -- and extermination, all in a jack-booted parade led by a chinless chicken farmer who couldn't raise chickens. It's the best account I've found of the utter chaos that actually was the Nazi world. There is simply no such thing as the "typical Nazi."

By that logic one can say there is no such thing as a typical conservative, typical communist or typical khmer rouge. That chinless chicken farmer was a highly educated agronomist who decided to try and be a farmer because he had ridiculous notions of farming being the only pure germanic occupation and too distance himself from urban life. That you try to simplify Heinrich Himmler into a some random failed farmer who stumbled upon the job as leader of the SS just proves to me that you are not serious and that all your boasting about reading history is either not true because you did not know this fact, or more likely it is because you are after simplifying national socialism. You are cherry picking facts to paint the picture of national socialism as something simple. And that book you recommend is not even written by nazis themselves... That would be the same as using a modern day review of das kapital instead of reading the actual marxist books yourself when trying to understand marxism. You claim there is nothing yet base your assumption on books written by non nazis.


Quote from: TboneAgain on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
The Nazis were not warmongers, you claim? In the twelve years they ruled Germany, they committed military aggression against Poland, France, Belgium, Holland, Norway, Finland, England, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Greece, Luxembourg, Scotland, Ireland, Romania, every western soviet republic, Canada, and the United States. I won't count the endless incursions into neutral and "friendly" territories, especially in North Africa. And I'm sure I left a few out. In their brief tenure, they directly caused the deaths of 20-30 million civilians and millions more in battle.

Not one of the "warmonger" cultures you cite can match that record of... warmongering.

Oh really now?

Mongolia:
Dai Viet, Champa, Khmer, Taiyo, Changmai, Goryeo, Sukhotahai, Republic of Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Riga, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Persia, iraq, Hungary, Bohemia, Antioch, Trebizond, Sakhalin, Malays, Mamluks, Nickhs, Oroks, Chinese Kingdoms and even Khublai Khan also invaded Japan though he failed.

As for the proportion of deaths, if you were to calculate the percentages of total population that was exterminated by Mongol invasion too the Nazi invasion then it would be greater, you can't compare total number of deaths when the parameters are so different.

As for the Vikings they attacked every single european coastal nation and nation with large enough rivers for longboats.

You completely avoided the definition, after NSDAP had reaced it war goals they wanted to have a 1000 years of peace. None of the Vikings or Mongolians wanted that and that makes them warmongering :wink:

Edit:
I'm wholly against the simplification of national socialism, one of the result is that most people today don't even know that nazi stands for national socialism because too pop culture today the nazis were capitalist fascist and not socialist. And simplyfing Hitler, Himmler, Goerhing, Goebbels and all these others monsters into people of with little or a modicum of intelligence is falling into the elitist perspective that intelligent highly educated people can't be evil and can't have insane ideas, thereby giving creedence to the notion today that as long as we have highly educated technocrats in charge of government then tyranny will not happen. But as seen with both national socialism and communism the leaders of these movement are not people of low education or intelligence.

Mountainshield

#84
I can't modify my statement, I just want to say sorry that I lost myself for a moment there and wrote that I didnt think you knew all you proclaimed to do, but I do acknowledge your knowledge about this topic, except for part I disagree with you

TboneAgain

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 30, 2013, 03:52:36 AM
I can't modify my statement, I just want to say sorry that I lost myself for a moment there and wrote that I didnt think you knew all you proclaimed to do, but I do acknowledge your knowledge about this topic, except for part I disagree with you

Man, as I was scrolling down through your latest screed ( :tounge:), I was thinking, "Hey, this idiot just called me a liar! I may just have to resort to fisticuffs!"

I do NOT claim to be THE authority on any of this stuff, but it happens to be an interest/hobby of mine, as it seems to be for you. I admittedly don't have your European point of view, being an Ohio boy, but I'm always willing to listen, and I understand that new insights are often found at the end of a club. Actually, I would welcome hearing more of your point of view; it is rare here. (You are Scandinavian, yes?)

I think you and I have both spent a lot of time studying what happened in Europe in the early and mid-20th century. Your study has leaned this way, mine a bit more that way. I was not a participant in WWII, though my father was. I don't know what your background is, but clearly you have strong feelings about that time and those events.

Your apology is accepted. As they say in New Jersey, "fuhgeddaboudit."
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

TboneAgain

And here's a question.

If we're talking about warmongering and those who do that, aren't we talking also about the period in which they live?

All of your examples are, I'm sure, valid, but the discussion at hand, at least by the flimsy limitations of the OP, is the WWII era. It's hard for me to imagine that you or anyone could come with an example of warmongering equal to Nazi Germany during the mid-20th century. (Although Imperial Japan -- a treaty-bound ally of Nazi Germany -- comes close.)

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong... but be prepared when I think I ain't......
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington

Mountainshield

#87
Yes I'm Norwegian so I have a tendency to get too emotional when discussing this sometimes resorting to "master technique" rethoric as I did in my last post forgetting we are not political debate but historical  :blushing: And I had to wonder what "fuhgeddaboudit" meant for a few minutes  :tounge:

I think the only point we really disagree on is to the extent Nazi Germany wanted Britain out of the war and the lenght it was willing to go to force Britain out of the war. With Vergeltungswaffen 3 ready to turn London into a total graveyard I concede they were willing to go far, but I think the eventual peace deal would be one benefitial for Britain, especially sense Hitler would have installed the British Union of Fascists in power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists

Regarding the definition of nazi its a metaphysical one and not historical in the sense that we can judge the written works from blavatsky too guido von list up too the wannabe chicken farmer but we can't make a conclusion based on historical events. So I don't think we can come to a agreement there, and as you see I have an overall agenda in pushing my point of view on this as well which makes it hard for me to compromise on that point.

As for the warmongering discussion, the definitions I read does mean that you are right regarding Hitler, he was a warmonger according to wiki definition. But my point is that the nazis as a collective were not really warmongering, they just saw war as a short time means to an end. And that a typical nazi even though not a pacifist in the modern sense was a environmentalist spiritual hippie, advocated vegetarianism, nudism, notions of meditation unlocking aryan race powers such as telekinisis and collectivist agrarianism. I.e the Hitler Youth camping outside the radio station where the nazi faked a polish attack were having a Peace Rally camping :tounge:

Edit:
And thanks to your father and all other americans like him for liberating my country, if the Soviets had gotten the time to been able to "liberate" Norway then the labor party officials would never have joined NATO and contined to stay in the COMINTERN instead and Norway would look like Hungary today.

simpsonofpg

Pearl Harbor gets my vote.  If we don't enter the war then Hitler only has to fight on one front.  With us in thebattle he has two front line and after we blew up most of his manufacturing capacity it was down hill.
The Golden Rule is the only rule we need.

TboneAgain

#89
Quote from: simpsonofpg on April 03, 2013, 09:46:27 AM
Pearl Harbor gets my vote.  If we don't enter the war then Hitler only has to fight on one front.  With us in thebattle he has two front line and after we blew up most of his manufacturing capacity it was down hill.

Oh, for sure, from the Japanese point of view, PH in the long run was stupid. But it was planned to give them the short time they thought they could use to consolidate their "Southeast Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Say that twice and go gargle.

Yamamoto knew, though the quote about "awakening a sleeping giant" is apocryphal. But he had a singular advantage over his peers -- he was educated in, and had vast experience of, the US. He understood the monumental differences between Japanese culture and society and the same things American. He also had a deep appreciation for the simple geographic SIZE of the United States, and an understanding of our natural and technological resources.

His own prediction was six months of free rein for the Japanese in the South Pacific. In fact, his prediction came true almost to the day -- that day being the Battle of Midway, just a day or two short of six months after PH. The loss of four precious aircraft carriers in the waters off that nearly worthless island gutted the Japanese Imperial Navy, and underlined the inability of Japan to produce replacements for them.

I think one paradox about Pearl Harbor that is seldom commented upon is the (to me) obvious fact that the Japs showed up with aircraft carriers (the same ones they lost six months later at Midway) and proved for all the world to see that the age of battleships was over. And they did so by sinking... battleships. There were three carriers attached to our Pacific Fleet at the time, and despite continuous, real-time intelligence provided by Japanese agents and sympathizers in Hawaii, the attack went in KNOWING that no carriers were in the harbor.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE. -- George Washington