PDA

View Full Version : Why did Hitler have to attack Russia? I'm mad at him for doing that.



Austin
05-03-2010, 08:10 AM
'Everything I undertake is directed against the Russians. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with the Russians, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces. I need the Ukraine so that they can't starve us out, as happened in the last war.' -Adolf Hitler


Why couldn't Hitler have just not attacked Russia? What a horrible decision. Germany with all its strength would have beat the West with no Russian front I'm sure of it. When I read history and look at it from a different more realistic perspective, not the perspective I'm 'supposed' to look at it through...I get the sense that the wrong sides won.

The more and more I look at national socialism the more and more I realize how much I dislike capitalism and communism and what they stand for.

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 08:17 AM
Because if Hitler didn't, Stalin would've attacked Germany anyhow.

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 08:21 AM
The more and more I look at national socialism the more and more I realize how much I dislike capitalism and communism and what they stand for.

Don't fool yourself, national socialism is no different from communism other than it is nationalist.

Austin
05-03-2010, 08:21 AM
Because if Hitler didn't, Stalin would've attacked Germany anyhow.

Well now but we don't know that for sure, perhaps before Stalin had been able to he would've been shot or some internal conflict might have occurred and prevented him from attacking, one can never know if he actually would have ended up attacking.


Eh no I think there are differences between Communism and National Socialism. I know they have basic similar concepts but they are not one in the same exactly, they have differences due to the differences of a nation and or culture especially.

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 08:22 AM
Well now but we don't know that for sure, perhaps before Stalin had been able to he would've been shot or some internal conflict might have occurred and prevented him from attacking, one can never know if he actually would have ended up attacking.

It was Stalin's goal to spread communism throughout all of Europe and he was in fact building up an army to do just that. Hitler attacked Russia preemptively in hopes he would be able to knock his army out of action... but who can beat the Russian bear?

Austin
05-03-2010, 08:27 AM
It was Stalin's goal to spread communism throughout all of Europe and he was in fact building up an army to do just that. Hitler attacked Russia preemptively in hopes he would be able to knock his army out of action... but who can beat the Russian bear?

Yes yes I know Stalin intended to do that, but the reality is Russia was hit first by the Nazis, if only that had not occurred, who is to really say Russia would have ended up attacking Germany at that time, if not waiting to see the result of their fighting the West?

Lulletje Rozewater
05-03-2010, 08:31 AM
Ukraine is important to world energy markets because it is a critical transit center for exports of Russian oil and natural gas to Europe, ... and Hitler wanted Ukraine

Austin
05-03-2010, 08:34 AM
Ukraine is important to world energy markets because it is a critical transit center for exports of Russian oil and natural gas to Europe, ... and Hitler wanted Ukraine


Yes but why couldn't he have waited, as he stated in the quote, and finished off the West THEN hit Russia? What was he thinking? Hit the monster Russia with the West openly plotting against him?

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 08:38 AM
Yes yes I know Stalin intended to do that, but the reality is Russia was hit first by the Nazis, if only that had not occurred, who is to really say Russia would have ended up attacking Germany at that time, if not waiting to see the result of their fighting the West?

Do you really want to wait for Stalin to unleash his tens of millions men upon Europe? In fact Hitler prevented communism from overtaking the rest of Europe. Hitler gave the Allied forces enough time for them to take the western half since the Russians were advancing slowly after the turn in 1944. If Hitler waited for Stalin to attack then he would've absolutely devastated Hitler's army. Hitler attacked Russia with its armies not at full strength and he was defeated... try to imagine the Russian bear at its full strength. The Wehrmacht was good but it simply couldn't compare to Russia if her armies were fully mobilized.

Austin
05-03-2010, 08:42 AM
Well Yes I know this but I still am not fully convinced that, had Hitler not attacked Russia, that Stalin would have ended up completing the massing of the Russian forces with no immediate threat. The reason Russia had to amass to the level it did was because it was attacked by a zealous Germany, and it knew the West was not going to help it, least not at first, which indeed was the case, so Russia HAD to mobilize ASAP, whereas if Hitler had not hit Russia perhaps the full mobilization that Stalin intended to achieve might have never occurred for whatever reason.

Lulletje Rozewater
05-03-2010, 08:45 AM
Yes but why couldn't he have waited, as he stated in the quote, and finished off the West THEN hit Russia? What was he thinking? Hit the monster Russia with the West openly plotting against him?


As early as 1925, Hitler suggested in Mein Kampf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) ("My Struggle") that he would invade the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union), asserting that the German people needed Lebensraum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum) ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_material)) and that these should be sought in the east. Nazi racial ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany) cast the Soviet Union as populated by "Untermenschen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untermensch)" ethnic Slavs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs) ruled by their "Jewish Bolshevik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism)" masters.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#cite_note-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa#cite_note-24) Mein Kampf said Germany's destiny was to turn "to the East" as it did "six hundred years ago" and "the end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a State.
Hitler did not trust Russia and its treat was more urgent than the West.
He did not count on America coming into the war as he had Western Europe by their short and curlies.

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 08:48 AM
Well Yes I know this but I still am not fully convinced that, had Hitler not attacked Russia, that Stalin would have ended up completing the massing of the Russian forces with no immediate threat. The reason Russia had to amass to the level it did was because it was attacked by a zealous Germany, and it knew the West was not going to help it, least not at first, which indeed was the case, so Russia HAD to mobilize ASAP, whereas if Hitler had not hit Russia perhaps the full mobilization that Stalin intended to achieve might have never occurred for whatever reason.

No you got it all backwards. Stalin was mobilizing his armies in preparation to attack Germany. He was in talks with Allied powers about opening up a second front by invading Germany. So do you think Hitler should've just sat there, and waited for Russia to mobilize her armies and attack Germany or attack Russia when her armies weren't ready to fight? You tell me.

Austin
05-03-2010, 08:49 AM
Well if he really didn't think the U.S. wouldn't succumb to pressure and join the war then that was his biggest mistake I suppose..

Austin
05-03-2010, 08:51 AM
No you got it all backwards. Stalin was mobilizing his armies in preparation to attack Germany. He was in talks with Allied powers about opening up a second front by invading Germany. So do you think Hitler should've just sat there, and waited for Russia to mobilize her armies and attack Germany or attack Russia when her armies weren't ready to fight? You tell me.

No I know that is why Stalin was slowly amassing his forces, to hit Germany, I understand that, but what I am saying is perhaps the massing would never have been completed for whatever reason had Hitler left Russia alone and focused on the West.

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 08:53 AM
No I know that is why Stalin was slowly amassing his forces, to hit Germany, I understand that, but what I am saying is perhaps the massing would never have been completed for whatever reason had Hitler left Russia alone and focused on the West.

Lol so are you suggesting that Stalin would've just stopped mobilizing his armies... for absolutely no reason? He was going to fully mobilize his armies to attack Germany. It doesn't matter if Hitler had moved all of his armies to the western front and kept his asshole open for fucking on the eastern front... Stalin would've attacked Germany one way or other.

Lulletje Rozewater
05-03-2010, 09:31 AM
Well if he really didn't think the U.S. wouldn't succumb to pressure and join the war then that was his biggest mistake I suppose..

Was the Monroe doctrine not in force in those days.????????

Austin
05-03-2010, 09:49 AM
Was the Monroe doctrine not in force in those days.????????

The U.S. was under massive pressure from the British and French to declare war on Germany it wasn't like the U.S. just up and said okay we changed our mind. Anyways U.S. had been aiding the allies financially anyways before actually joining in the fighting and some U.S. fighter pilots actually were in Britain already fighting before the U.S. even officially joined the war.


I wish the U.S. hadn't joined personally.

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 09:53 AM
He had almost no choice at all. First of all, its was a preventive measure, because he expected an attack in the next months and the intelligence services showed more and more concentrations of the Red Army at the border lines. When the Germans attacked, they found many material which was rather for an offensive punch than a defensive stance.

Now thats one theory which has many merits, but thats not all, you too have to consider that the Bolsheviks wanted to control even more of Europe. Germany and Soviet Russia already had split their sphere of interests in the East, with Germany having a quite small access to a very important ressource, namely the Romanian oil.

The Soviets thought of themselves being in a dominant position tried to blackmail Germany and demanded even more free countries of the East, including access to the Romanian oil. Obviously that was totally inacceptable, because Germany had already not enough ressources, now even losing the most important source would have been deadly. Seriously the lack of oil was one of the MAJOR reasons for Germany losing the war.

The Soviets would have had their hands on all of Europe, if the Germans would have agreed, that was simply inacceptable and because he thought about possible preparations of the Soviets for an attack, he made the plan for destroying the Bolsheviks in one huge attempt - and it almost worked out.

Problems were among others:
- Yugoslavia. The coup d'etat there caused serious troubles in the South East, Germany had to secure its flank and for that object many units had to be deployed, even after the successful elimination of the major threat. Also the weeks lost then were crucial because of the horrible climate in Russia.

- No plan with Japan, they didnt attack the Soviet Union, didnt pin down the Eastern divisions which were crucial in the fight for Moscow.

- Lack of ressources - Germany had a constant lack of ressources, which became even worse when the USA fully supported the Soviet Union with all it needed to fight on the war successfully.

In the end, if you look at the facts, you can discuss that Hitler wanted the lands in Eastern Europe and for sure he wanted to destroy Bolshevism, but that he really did it, especially at this time, was primarily caused by the pressure in the situation, the fear of a major Soviet attack which might have ruined Europe as a whole and the blackmailing of the Soviets, which didnt wanted to attack Britain in India instead, which was a German offer, but weaken Germany and non-Bolshevik Europe by taking away even more free countries than they already did in the Hitler-Stalin pact.

The USA and the plutocratic Oligarchy were the puppet masters in the background, letting to potential opponents fighting it out and finally getting in easily, taking away the price for almost nothing in Europe and making up their post war, finally Neoliberal rule over the world.

Austin
05-03-2010, 10:02 AM
He had almost no choice at all. First of all, its was a preventive measure, because he expected an attack in the next months and the intelligence services showed more and more concentrations of the Red Army at the border lines. When the Germans attacked, they found many material which was rather for an offensive punch than a defensive stance.

Now thats one theory which has many merits, but thats not all, you too have to consider that the Bolsheviks wanted to control even more of Europe. Germany and Soviet Russia already had split their sphere of interests in the East, with Germany having a quite small access to a very important ressource, namely the Romanian oil.

The Soviets thought of themselves being in a dominant position tried to blackmail Germany and demanded even more free countries of the East, including access to the Romanian oil. Obviously that was totally inacceptable, because Germany had already not enough ressources, now even losing the most important source would have been deadly. Seriously the lack of oil was one of the MAJOR reasons for Germany losing the war.

The Soviets would have had their hands on all of Europe, if the Germans would have agreed, that was simply inacceptable and because he thought about possible preparations of the Soviets for an attack, he made the plan for destroying the Bolsheviks in one huge attempt - and it almost worked out.

Problems were among others:
- Yugoslavia. The coup d'etat there caused serious troubles in the South East, Germany had to secure its flank and for that object many units had to be deployed, even after the successful elimination of the major threat. Also the weeks lost then were crucial because of the horrible climate in Russia.

- No plan with Japan, they didnt attack the Soviet Union, didnt pin down the Eastern divisions which were crucial in the fight for Moscow.

- Lack of ressources - Germany had a constant lack of ressources, which became even worse when the USA fully supported the Soviet Union with all it needed to fight on the war successfully.

In the end, if you look at the facts, you can discuss that Hitler wanted the lands in Eastern Europe and for sure he wanted to destroy Bolshevism, but that he really did it, especially at this time, was primarily caused by the pressure in the situation, the fear of a major Soviet attack which might have ruined Europe as a whole and the blackmailing of the Soviets, which didnt wanted to attack Britain in India instead, which was a German offer, but weaken Germany and non-Bolshevik Europe by taking away even more free countries than they already did in the Hitler-Stalin pact.

The USA and the plutocratic Oligarchy were the puppet masters in the background, letting to potential opponents fighting it out and finally getting in easily, taking away the price for almost nothing in Europe and making up their post war, finally Neoliberal rule over the world.


Ya see that is what I have always found interesting is that Japan and Germany never really did anything together, they were just allies in name...
I think Japan just allied with Germany for strategic opportunistic regional reasons not out of some actual shared interest between them.

Absinthe
05-03-2010, 10:09 AM
A country allied with an other country just for strategic opportunistic regional reasons and not out of genuine love and mutual respect between the two?! :shocked: Now there's something new! :lmao

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 10:10 AM
Ya see that is what I have always found interesting is that Japan and Germany never really did anything together, they were just allies in name...
I think Japan just allied with Germany for strategic opportunistic regional reasons not out of some actual shared interest between them.

What do you think? For the very same reasons Germany had a war with England, which most of it leaders considered close kin. Almost everybody in Germany would have preferred an alliance with the English over that with Japan. Thats why they were much too soft with them as well.

But unfortunately, they all missed to see that the Anglo-Jewish legacy, the Plutocrats, controlled the English people for centuries already and made them dependent stock. They counted on a people, an ethnic kin group, saw the greatness of their achievements, but failed to see, like in an apple with one nice side, while the other is foul and there moves the worm, the rotten character behind it, even then. That there was no chance of an alliance with this people - or better political leadership.

Japan and Germany shared therefore the common enemies, a somewhat similar collectivist approach, which they admired in a mutual way and of course, Communism was a threat and enemy to both of them.

Thats why the alliance was called the Anti-Comintern Pact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact

Actually the Hitler-Stalin pact was somehow an infraction of the pact, Japan wasn't fully informed in time. Of course, that would have been problematic considering the time and intelligence/espionage problem, but still.

Japan just acted the wrong way for the common geostrategic interests, but in an understandable way otherwise, because it had little to win in the Soviet Union, but a lot to lose, as the first encounters proved too and their land force was always weak in comparison.

So they would just have helped Germany, with nothing but losses and one more big enemy in return in Siberia.

Also they too, like Germany, had the great ressource problem, which again led to the blackmail-ultimatum of the USA, which resulted in the war with that nation.


A country allied with an other country just for strategic opportunistic regional reasons and not out of genuine love and mutual respect between the two?! :shocked: Now there's something new! :lmao

Of course, it was just love and mutual respect which brought this people together in Yalta:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~finnegam/war/images/yalta_conference_b.jpg

Austin
05-03-2010, 10:27 AM
Well Japan had control over Manchuria I don't see why they couldn't have given the Russians some trouble for the Germans.

Saruman
05-03-2010, 10:35 AM
Well Japan had control over Manchuria I don't see why they couldn't have given the Russians some trouble for the Germans.

They were occupied with other campaigns obviously. At the end of war after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Soviets attacked and defeated the Kwantung army, which was still even then a potent force.
So yes they had the means to harm the Soviets, and seriously harm them as you know the battle of Moscow was won by the divisions allocated from the border with Japan only 2 days before Pearl Harbour attack, had they not prepared an assault on Pearl Harbour, but instead wanted to create troubles for USSR, USSR would have been in a very bad situation probably.

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 11:03 AM
They were occupied with other campaigns obviously. At the end of war after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Soviets attacked and defeated the Kwantung army, which was still even then a potent force.
So yes they had the means to harm the Soviets, and seriously harm them as you know the battle of Moscow was won by the divisions allocated from the border with Japan only 2 days before Pearl Harbour attack, had they not prepared an assault on Pearl Harbour, but instead wanted to create troubles for USSR, USSR would have been in a very bad situation probably.

They could only have pinned them down, rather than win in my opinion, but its being explained here f.e.:


However, the much vaunted reputation of the Kwantung Army was severely challenged in battle against the Soviet Union's Red Army at the Battle of Lake Khasan in 1938 and subsequent Battle of Nomonhan in 1939, during which time it sustained heavy casualties. After the Nomonhan incident, the Kwantung Army was purged of its more insubordinate elements, as well as proponents of the Hokushin-ron doctrine who urged that Japan concentrate its expansionist efforts on Siberia rather southward towards China and Southeast Asia.

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

So that was considered by the Japanese, but unfortunately they were too stupid to see the geostrategic options. The US-people were largely against the war, just think about how the big liar Roosevelt won the election, yet he played a double game and tried to provoke a reason, a legitimation for his actions. That was Pearl Harbor and its comparable to the "9/11 incident" in various ways.

Saruman
05-03-2010, 11:34 AM
They could only have pinned them down, rather than win in my opinion, but its being explained here f.e.:



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

So that was considered by the Japanese, but unfortunately they were too stupid to see the geostrategic options. The US-people were largely against the war, just think about how the big liar Roosevelt won the election, yet he played a double game and tried to provoke a reason, a legitimation for his actions. That was Pearl Harbor and its comparable to the "9/11 incident" in various ways.

Yes, they could have hardly won, those transferred divisions from Siberia were very good winter troops, and that gave Soviet counterattack an edge, but they were not by a long shot the only troops used. And even in early 1942 Soviets had even more divisions on the border with Japan than at the beginning of Barbarossa.

Yes, Japan could have helped Germany a great deal , it could have been done but it required a planned and coordinated effort by both Germany and Japan. And Japanese government being a military junta had many different strains in it, different ideas what to do, so that wasn't easy.
But having been delayed at balkans, OKW, Hitler should have foreseen the possible consequence of that and approached the Japanese then before the June 1941. Though, there are so so many variables, what if Hitler concentrated on Moscow first instead of trying to grab the south quickly.

Murphy
05-03-2010, 11:37 AM
You're angry at the man for the one good action he took? Jesus Christ.

Tabiti
05-03-2010, 11:42 AM
The biggest mistake Hitler made in Russia was the bad attitude towards some of the locals. If he made good anti-communist politics among peasants without violation, he certainly would have more followers.

Matritensis
05-03-2010, 11:48 AM
I'm just quite glad that Nazism was smashed,and very happy about the disappearance of Communism in Europe.And for that we owe much to the United States of America,a country that may not be perfect but that has BIG BALLS when they're needed.

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 12:00 PM
The biggest mistake Hitler made in Russia was the bad attitude towards some of the locals. If he made good anti-communist politics among peasants without violation, he certainly would have more followers.

Actually what Germany really needed was a bigger industrial output and ressources. Yes, soldiers and happy followers in the East would have been nice too, but that wouldnt have made it.

Additionally the Germans needed ressources from the occupied areas to fuel their war machine, so they might have been not always nice to the Eastern peasants, but that was for a good reason, they had not too much of a choice.

Also the occupation was not always the same, some were simply Chauvinist idiots or racist bigots, others nice ones which tried their best. You can hardly generalise on that.

Most of the cruel actions which took place were the result of the partisan war anyway and if you look at the partisan war, that was a huge problem. I once heard an interview of a soldier who said after they found his dead comrade, mutilated, they went into the village in which it happened and killed everyone they found.

That might not be nice, fair or legal, but I can completely understand it, even more so, because thats part of the partisan warfare: Being cruel in a very Barbaric way and provoking repressive actions by the occupants, so alienating the people from the soldiers.

If you want to take a fairly realistic look at how such wars work out, I would strongly recommend the French movie "Intimate Enemies":
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0825248/

There are even orders of Stalin to go for attacking villages and being very cruel there, so that they fear the Partisans more than the Germans - and there are constant stories and some orders (some doubt them) that say Soviet agents should use German uniforms when punishing villages, so that the population thinks its a German action.

That was a very cruel and barbaric partisan war, made up by the Bolshevik fanatics mostly and it caused the German army serious troubles, even more so because they had less ressources, not as much motorised vehicles for the terrain (the USA gave the USSR hundreds of thousands) and long distances for the supply routes - which were vulnerable to partisan attacks obviously, similar to other forces operating in Russia before (Swedish, French etc.).

W. R.
05-03-2010, 02:12 PM
Most of the cruel actions which took place were the result of the partisan war anyway and if you look at the partisan war, that was a huge problem. I once heard an interview of a soldier who said after they found his dead comrade, mutilated, they went into the village in which it happened and killed everyone they found.

That might not be nice, fair or legal, but I can completely understand it, even more so, because thats part of the partisan warfare: Being cruel in a very Barbaric way and provoking repressive actions by the occupants, so alienating the people from the soldiers.The Soviets were to blame for provoking cruelties. But the occupants were to blame for readiness to be provoked. :icon_no: The soldier you have just written about in fact just increased the readiness of local people to join guerilla squads. His and his colleagues' cruelty was not just unfair (what was the point in killing civilians, who themselves were often afraid of Soviet guerillas?), it was senseless and had the opposite effect. His rage can be "completely understood", his cruelty can't.

Copypasta:
Another counter-productive policy which the Germans used in fighting partisans in Europe and the USSR was the tactic of Kollektive Gewaltmassnahmen (collective punishment) and of summary executions of innocent civilians in retribution for the actions of the guerrillas. If ever there was a recruiting poster for guerrillas, this insane policy fit the bill perfectly. In fact, it was so successful that Soviet partisan forces would often times capture and mutilate some German soldiers, then position them in a grotesque manner in order to derive just exactly the kind of angry and bestial reaction that would bring about a German execution of the local populace. A few days later the local guerrilla unit would swell with recruits – often times these men were not true communist believers but simply peasants too afraid to stay in their villages anymore for fear of being killed in a reprisal shooting.
The war against the partisans therefore, was lost before it was ever started. The idea of Kollektive Gewaltmassnahmen (collective punishment) failed miserably since it gave the peasants no choice but to flee to the woods. Threatened by death if he were to collaborate with the Germans, threatened by death if he were to assist the partisans, threatened by death if he aided any Jews, threatened by death through reprisal if a partisan attack occurred near him, threatened by death if conscripted into the local police, threatened by conscription for slave labor in Germany, and threatened with starvation because his crops were confiscated, the average Byelorussian krestyanin (peasant) had very few options which would help him to live out the war unscathed. His ultimate and best choice turned out to be to join the guerrillas in the woods, where he had a better chance to survive the war.
Some Germans were astute enough to realize that this type of warfare would only lead to the complete alienation of the native population and the eventual increase in partisan strength through recruitment of willing volunteers. Heinrich Lohse, the German Reichskommissar für den Ostland und Weissruthenien, wrote the following comments in a letter to Alfred Rosenberg:

“To lock men, women, and children in barns and then set fire to them does not appear to me to be a suitable way of combating partisans, even if one’s objective were the extermination of the population.”
Many scholars have argued that the German anti-guerrilla struggle in Russia was a success because it kept the front line troops supplied with a relatively acceptable number of men and materiel. However, in my opinion the anti-partisan struggle ultimately proved to be a failure since it neither destroyed the partisan movement nor did it manage to halt its growth. Quite the contrary, harsh Nazi policies seem to have accelerated the downward decline of their control in Byelorussia. It was only a matter of time before the Germans would have lost near total control in the rear areas. The expulsion of German forces from most of the Soviet Union in the summer of 1944 prevented this from happening but the writing was on the wall.Antonio Munoz, "How to Lose a Guerrilla War" (http://revolution.lharrison.net/system/files/How+To+Lose+A+Guerrilla+War+German+Anti-Partisan+Warfare+-+Antonio+Munoz.pdf)

antonio
05-03-2010, 02:19 PM
The more and more I look at national socialism the more and more I realize how much I dislike capitalism and communism and what they stand for.

I understand your feelings: I reject many decisions taken by III Reich (even condemn some), but I have the (let's call it historical intuition) that it would be better that it won the war, not only for German or Europe, but for the whole humankind. Am I a fucking Nazi for thinking so? Well, for sure (if I were not considered so I would be not living in Western Europe 2010, would be another space-temporal frame) ! :D

Ps. BTW anybody thinking that 10,20...60 years ago the hypothetical Wermacht victory we'll be (jews including) sociologically as if we were in Berlin'36 it's plain stupid...and in addition a leftist fucking SOB.

Jarl
05-03-2010, 02:26 PM
I understand your feelings: I reject many decisions taken by III Reich (even condemn some), but I have the (let's call it historical intuition) that it would be better that it won the war, not only for German or Europe, but for the whole humankind. Am I a fucking Nazi for thinking so? Well, for sure (if I were not considered so I would be not living in Western Europe 2010, would be another space and time frame) ! :D

Ps. BTW anybody thinking that 10,20...60 years ago the hypothetical Wermacht victory we'll be (jews including) sociologically as if we were in Berlin'36 it's plain stupid...and in addition a leftist fucking SOB.

While I totally do not think it would be better for the humankind, I think it's no use whinnig about the past and Nazi politics. Nazis did what they did, and the whole picture has to be taken into account. Speculative "IF" questions might be interesting, but remain largely irrelevant. The government of the Reich took the decision to attack Russia, to invade some of the Western countries, and declare war on US, and it did not have any problems nor regrets about it. It was well prepared for a total war, and indeed its main aim was global supremacy, not just restoration of the pre-Versailles statues (which woudl be impossible anyway without gaining unrivalled supremacy in Europe, in the first place).

antonio
05-03-2010, 02:37 PM
I'd usually agree with you in dispising a typical IF historical digresion. But this case is not a typical one, why? Because I think that current Western european "democratic" way of thinking and making Politics (the way to disaster for Europe as a whole) are based on the nuclear axioma of the absolute evilness of Nazi regime. If many people were sharing my stand that things would be better in a medium-long term after a Nazi success than after the Western-democracy victory, what would left of current Western european politics and their castrati ideas of being Europeans in the global time?

Svanhild
05-03-2010, 03:02 PM
The government of the Reich took the decision to attack Russia, to invade some of the Western countries, and declare war on US, and it did not have any problems nor regrets about it.
My country was shoved into a cornered situation by the insufferable treaty of Versailles. The peace conditions provoked the rise of a man like Hitler. What do you do if you're cornered and if you're not a weakling? You try to break the chains, disable your tormentors and regain freedom of movement. That's what Germany did in the 30ies and there's nothing to regret. I don't approve later war crimes but the basic direction was right. England and France declared war on Germany and I doubt Hitler wanted to take up arms against England, France or the USA. Again my country was forced to fight. The matter of fact is that Great Britain, USA and USSR didn't wanted to accept a strong and confident Germany, that's the main background reason for all the mess. Fortune wasn't on our side at the very end. But at least we tried. Now we're all victims of the same global elitists. My country wanted to avoid that. Your country was the torch bearer for those elitists. Congratulation, I hope you feel fine.


It was well prepared for a total war, and indeed its main aim was global supremacy, not just restoration of the pre-Versailles statues
I'm afraid that Germany wasn't prepared for total war in 1939. The schedule was to reach full readiness for duty in 1942 or even 1947. :wink And that the aim was global supremacy is rather a Polish feverish dream than an actual truth.

RoyBatty
05-03-2010, 03:18 PM
Many of you appear to be confused about the difference between Russia and The Soviet Union. :rolleyes2:

The Soviet Union was created with GERMAN and BRITISH (amongst others) connivance when they supported and sponsored Trotsky, Lenin and the Communists against the Tsar in the early 1900's.

Hitler always wanted to attack the Soviet Union for the same reasons that the British Empire has always sought to attack and undermine Russia and the USA + Britain + NATO is attempting to attack and undermine Russia today. It was all about resources, raw materials and land. Greed rules this world.

Soviet Russia and contemporary Russia had / has little reason to attack Europe. There's not much worth grabbing so what's the point?

The only reason for the Soviet Union to attack Germany first would have been to destroy it before Nazi Germany could attack and destroy the Soviet Union. It was therefore inevitable that the two countries would eventually be at loggerheads.

RoyBatty
05-03-2010, 03:24 PM
My country was shoved into a cornered situation by the insufferable treaty of Versailles. The peace conditions provoked the rise of a man like Hitler. What do you do if you're cornered and if you're not a weakling? You try to break the chains, disable your tormentors and regain freedom of movement. That's what Germany did in the 30ies and there's nothing to regret.


There is nothing to regret about this, the conditions were unfair and Germany was cheated at the peace negotiations. The French especially got what they deserved.

Also, the Polaks were also busy invading other countries territories so they can hardly complain about being crushed by Germany and the USSR. What goes around comes around.

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 03:47 PM
The Soviets were to blame for provoking cruelties. But the occupants were to blame for readiness to be provoked. :icon_no: The soldier you have just written about in fact just increased the readiness of local people to join guerilla squads. His and his colleagues' cruelty was not just unfair (what was the point in killing civilians, who themselves were often afraid of Soviet guerillas?), it was senseless and had the opposite effect. His rage can be "completely understood", his cruelty can't.

Copypasta:Antonio Munoz, "How to Lose a Guerrilla War" (http://revolution.lharrison.net/system/files/How+To+Lose+A+Guerrilla+War+German+Anti-Partisan+Warfare+-+Antonio+Munoz.pdf)

Well, I dont say it was right, I can just understand it, thats all.

Obviously they should have get and tortured the partisans which did that, but thats partisan war and they were hard to get obviously.

In my personal opinion, there is only one real option to win such a war in a good way: To concentrate the people of the region in secure areas, protected and controlled places and then killing EVERYTHING which runs around in the area. Doing that step by step, from one area to the next.

So all common people which come to the secure places and being ready to organise themselves in supportive and protective units secured, all others eliminated.

You never win a partisan war, especially not one like this, if the structures are alive and the partisans can always move back to the civilian structures.

But still I say you can't blame the Germans primarily, since they reacted just in a normal and understandable way to such cruelties of filthy Bolshevik bastards which then got their medals for their cowardly and inhumane actions.

Germans at least didnt mutilate and torture as often, which is a huge difference, especially not "just like that", like the Bolsheviks did.

I completely agree that the German actions were often uncoordinated and not justified against the local people, I wouldnt question that. Things simply got wrong in this brutal partisan war the Bolsheviks staged. And again, the Bolsheviks often commited crimes which they showed to their naive population and soldiers as something the Germans made.

As for Poland in particular and the Western nations: Germany made very generous proposals which were all neglected and Danzig simply was a German city, many territories in the corridor and which Poland took away treacherously as well. Yet the only reason why Poland didnt agree on this very generous proposals was that they thought their army is stronger and the West will invade Germany in time, so that they can get even more land from Germany, which they finally got, even as war losers...

I dont say Germany was innocent, because it wasnt, but the one sided view on the historical events is just ridiculous, brainwashed propaganda to keep all Germans and finally Europeans, even whole world down against the "property rights" and manipulations of the plutocrats. Its all about that, because if these historical teachings wouldnt help the plutocratic Oligarchy, they wouldnt be taught in our corrupted system, simple as that.

Cato
05-03-2010, 04:01 PM
It's a little too late to be angry at Shitler for anything that he did and, from what I understand, the Nazis simply beat the Reds to the punch and attacked them first- before they themselves were attacked:

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html

antonio
05-03-2010, 04:13 PM
In my personal opinion, there is only one real option to win such a war in a good way: To concentrate the people of the region in secure areas, protected and controlled places and then killing EVERYTHING which runs around in the area. Doing that step by step, from one area to the next.

So all common people which come to the secure places and being ready to organise themselves in supportive and protective units secured, all others eliminated.


And what country was pionneer on such a policy? Spain during Cuban War of Independence...and with a great success, unfortunatelly it was followed by Spanish-American war...with the result that you know (or you easily guess)

Valeriano WEYLER was the general ruling Cuba as governator which stablish such measure. Unfortunatelly infectious diseases heavily affected concentrated people, so American press steadly named him as Butcher Weyler (if I not bad remember).

Svanhild
05-03-2010, 04:20 PM
And again, the Bolsheviks often commited crimes which they showed to their naive population and soldiers as something the Germans made.
One example: Katyn. Sovjets told the world that the Germans did it. Till 1989.

Cato
05-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Many of you appear to be confused about the difference between Russia and The Soviet Union. :rolleyes2:

The Soviet Union was created with GERMAN and BRITISH (amongst others) connivance when they supported and sponsored Trotsky, Lenin and the Communists against the Tsar in the early 1900's.

Hitler always wanted to attack the Soviet Union for the same reasons that the British Empire has always sought to attack and undermine Russia and the USA + Britain + NATO is attempting to attack and undermine Russia today. It was all about resources, raw materials and land. Greed rules this world.

Soviet Russia and contemporary Russia had / has little reason to attack Europe. There's not much worth grabbing so what's the point?

The only reason for the Soviet Union to attack Germany first would have been to destroy it before Nazi Germany could attack and destroy the Soviet Union. It was therefore inevitable that the two countries would eventually be at loggerheads.

Hmmm, wasn't the Red revolution partly, or completely, financed by Jews from Jew York City? :eek:

The Lawspeaker
05-03-2010, 04:23 PM
Hmmm, wasn't the Red revolution partly, or completely, financed by Jews from Jew York City? :eek:
By the same people that funded both sides of the war and grew rich while European, Asian and African men and boys were dying in their hundreds of thousands.

Saruman
05-03-2010, 04:31 PM
Sorry, but in my view neither of the extreme positions people often hold when discussing this, is correct here. Some say essentially that the attack was some altruistic attempt to liberate Russia from Bolsheviks, and that there was no animosity towards Russia or imperialist desires on Germany's part while others claim the opposite. Both are incorrect, and partially correct IMHO, as usual in life a grey variant is more correct than black/white. Empires and peoples expand, they assault each other, always have historically, so yes, such desires on Germany's part were present, while the desire to eliminate the Bolsheviks was also there.

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 04:41 PM
One example: Katyn. Sovjets told the world that the Germans did it. Till 1989.

Actually they even sentenced officers to death for that "German crime" and if the Germans wouldnt have had their commission in war times, nobody would have know it to this day probably, still blaming the Germans.

These are the names of those which were murdered by the Allies for a crime of the Soviet Bolsheviks:

Karl Hermann Struffling

Heinrich Remmlinger

Ernst Böhm

Eduard Sonnenfeld

Herbard Janicke

Erwin Skofki

Ernst Geberer

3 more were sentenced to 15 to 20 years forced labour.

There is a good movie about the massacre of Katyn out there, you can even watch it online now, here is part one, other's linked then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM1zyQ_zffM

And thats just one were no one can deny that the Germans didnt do it, in many other cases the proofs will never be available to the public, if they even exist now, because they might be destroyed.


Sorry, but in my view neither of the extreme positions people often hold when discussing this, is correct here. Some say essentially that the attack was some altruistic attempt to liberate Russia from Bolsheviks, and that there was no animosity towards Russia or imperialist desires on Germany's part while others claim the opposite. Both are incorrect, and partially correct IMHO, as usual in life a grey variant is more correct than black/white. Empires and peoples expand, they assault each other, always have historically, so yes, such desires on Germany's part were present, while the desire to eliminate the Bolsheviks was also there.

Germany had its plans, Soviet Bolsheviks theirs, thats correct. However, that the war started at that time and that way wasn't really planned for a longer time by Germany, thats the point, but many "historians" claim the opposite and many other things which aren't true the way they being taught to the mass.

poiuytrewq0987
05-03-2010, 06:09 PM
The U.S. was under massive pressure from the British and French to declare war on Germany it wasn't like the U.S. just up and said okay we changed our mind. Anyways U.S. had been aiding the allies financially anyways before actually joining in the fighting and some U.S. fighter pilots actually were in Britain already fighting before the U.S. even officially joined the war.


I wish the U.S. hadn't joined personally.

FDR wanted war with Germany, the government wasn't under any pressure. FDR declaring an oil embargo on Japan is enough proof that he wanted war.

RoyBatty
05-03-2010, 06:51 PM
Hmmm, wasn't the Red revolution partly, or completely, financed by Jews from Jew York City? :eek:

They were certainly helped by elites (and Governments) from the UK and Germany. It's quite likely Rothschild money was in their pockets. By extension Wall Street finance was quite likely also involved since it involves the same mafia with the usual suspects.

Jarl
05-03-2010, 06:52 PM
My country was shoved into a cornered situation by the insufferable treaty of Versailles.


1. The treaty has never been fully implemented and all its major points were abandoned within years.

2. Why was the treaty imposed? Are you assuming Germany was mistreated or do you know it, because you studied the causes of WW I? Give me an honest answer.



The peace conditions provoked the rise of a man like Hitler. What do you do if you're cornered and if you're not a weakling? You try to break the chains, disable your tormentors and regain freedom of movement. That's what Germany did in the 30ies and there's nothing to regret.


Peace conditions? Which ones? Why in 1934, and not in 1924? Sorry Svanhild, but I am gettin an impression that you repeat some mantra which you have learnt from some nationalist forum or other source without giving it really a second thought. And I do not blame you. Being a patriot, one automatically assumes good faith of ones own people. However, I really strongly advise you to study the subject of WW I and Paris peace treaties a bit more throroughly.

Obviosuly it was not easy for Germany to lose. However why did it go to war in the first place? Certainly for young Germans brought up in militaristic Imperial Germany, Europe's strongest power were deeply disenchanted with he defeat of their homeland.They believed they were tricked by the evil Entente. However, its not all that simple. But definitely the defeat contributed to the surge of nationalism. It was hard to accept for the Germans they were no longer the Empire. It was hard for them accept that some domains they occupied for a 100 years or so had their own rights and the people living there, their own will.


I don't approve later war crimes but the basic direction was right. England and France declared war on Germany and I doubt Hitler wanted to take up arms against England, France or the USA. Again my country was forced to fight. The matter of fact is that Great Britain, USA and USSR didn't wanted to accept a strong and confident Germany, that's the main background reason for all the mess. Fortune wasn't on our side at the very end. But at least we tried. Now we're all victims of the same global elitists. My country wanted to avoid that. Your country was the torch bearer for those elitists. Congratulation, I hope you feel fine.

I am not feeling fine about that and I do not think pre-WWII Poland was a "torch" for globalists and capitalists. Quite the opposite.


However, I only dared to say I do not believe the Nazi top elites would serve humanity well. I think they were a murderous gang ready to kill anyone who did not share their policy.

And it is easy for Germans to believe Nazis were good. After all they wanted a German domination. People never care to look at the issue from the other side.


I'm afraid that Germany wasn't prepared for total war in 1939. The schedule was to reach full readiness for duty in 1942 or even 1947. :wink And that the aim was global supremacy is rather a Polish feverish dream than an actual truth.

Then she did exceedingly well for a unprepared country ;)

RoyBatty
05-03-2010, 06:58 PM
And thats just one were no one can deny that the Germans didnt do it, in many other cases the proofs will never be available to the public, if they even exist until now.



Germany had its plans, Soviet Bolsheviks theirs, thats correct. However, that the war started at that time and that way wasn't really planned for a longer time by Germany, thats the point, but many "historians" claim the opposite and many other things which aren't true the way they being taught to the mass.

Agrippa, I'm interested to read more about what happened to German POW's who were captured by the Western Allies (we already know few of the ones who ended up in the East survived) and the period just after WW2 when there was (from what I understand) starvation in Germany.

Is it true that the Westerners were deliberately starving parts of Germany and that an unusually high number of German POW's in Western captivity died after the war or during captivity?

Depending on who one speaks to or who's "history" versions you choose to believe this either happened or didn't happen?

W. R.
05-03-2010, 07:28 PM
In my personal opinion, there is only one real option to win such a war in a good way: To concentrate the people of the region in secure areas, protected and controlled places and then killing EVERYTHING which runs around in the area. Doing that step by step, from one area to the next.

So all common people which come to the secure places and being ready to organise themselves in supportive and protective units secured, all others eliminated.

You never win a partisan war, especially not one like this, if the structures are alive and the partisans can always move back to the civilian structures.Well, I think I know another good way: to make local population trust and support you and to give people the right to organise themselves into self-defence units, which could defend the local population from Bolshevik provokers.

When the "German-fascist invaders" who were responsible for the policy in the East came to similar conclusions it was already far too late. :shrug:

P.S. For some of them it was obvious long before that (for Wilhelm Kube, for example) but not everything depended on them.

Agrippa
05-03-2010, 07:58 PM
Then she did exceedingly well for a unprepared country

Germany was not more prepared than France, Poland or the Soviet Union, especially not than the latter. It had just innovations, military and technical, which other's hadnt and a very good army.

Germany was "in preparation" so to say, so not totally unprepared, but "not ready yet" by itself.

Especially if its about the Soviet Union, the Bolsheviks had a huge program which came into full life during the war and if they would have had more time, especially after the military purge by Stalin, it would have simply overrun all of Europe.


Agrippa, I'm interested to read more about what happened to German POW's who were captured by the Western Allies (we already know few of the ones who ended up in the East survived) and the period just after WW2 when there was (from what I understand) starvation in Germany.

Is it true that the Westerners were deliberately starving parts of Germany and that an unusually high number of German POW's in Western captivity died after the war or during captivity?

Depending on who one speaks to or who's "history" versions you choose to believe this either happened or didn't happen?

It happened and there is no real dispute about the facts, that the starvation of the Germans was a fact.

The only thing which people discuss is the reason and some "politically correct" Western-Allies-Liberal-Jewish-Plutocratic apologists say it was "the circumstances", "the supply was a problem" and so on, but in fact it was deliberately.

They did it in a phase in which they thought about the future of the German people, whether they should ruin the whole country or use it as a colony, like they do to this day with the vassal of the FRG.

Well known for POW's are the Rheinwiesenlager, here you can read something about it:
http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de/zustaende.htm

But not just soldiers which surrenderes to the Americans in the hope to be treated like they treated them as POW's were starved to death, humiliated, executed, tortured and had to live in open fields where thousands and thousands died from hunger and infectious diseases, but also the common population, already ruined by the destruction of the Allied terror from the air were starving and nothing was done.

There are many thousands of documents which show Germans in the same state as the prisoners from concentration camps - which often had various diseases too, many actually worse than what the average KZ#camper looked like.

This was almost an experiment of starvation in a modern context with a shrinking body height, harris lines, various diseases because of malnutrition etc.

Of course, during and after the war many people suffered and starvation was a general problem, but in Germany it was a huge problem over very wide territories and while Germany in its occupied territories often HAD NOT enough ressources to feed all sufficiently, it was done deliberately because the future of Germany was at stake - total degradation or build it up as an economic powerhouse and colony, political vassal of the Western plutocracies.

The destruction plans were all around the Morgenthau plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan


On 10 May 1945 President Truman approved JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff policy) 1067 which directed the U.S. forces of occupation in Germany to "...take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [nor steps] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy".

No structures rebuild, no help coming, thats a starvation plan in reality!

That was done, with huge credits which build up the "Wirtschaftswunder", because now and then, a lot of the economic success depends on the money flow - even the best people can't be successful without and this supply depends on the US-system then and now too, which will lead to the next political change or catastrophy soon, after this financial-interest rate-economic cycle being finally over.

Such plans like that of the Jew Morgenthau made the German fight for survival so desperate, at the end of the war and after it. Many would have surrendered earlier, tried to make peace with the West various times, just with more dignity and in fairness, that was rejected.

Here some more informations from Wikipedia about the Morgenthau plan and the reality in occupied Germany, which for sure is no "pro-German propaganda source (!)":


In 1947 the U.S. Congress warned that the continuation of the present policies

...can only mean one of two things, (a) That a considerable part of the German population must be "liquidated" through diseases, malnutrition, and slow starvation for a period of years to come, with the resultant dangers to the rest of Europe from pestilence and the spread of plagues that know no boundaries; or (b) the continuation both of large occupying forces to hold down "unrest" and the affording of relief mainly drawn from the United States to prevent actual starvation

Conditions in Germany reached their lowest point in 1947. Living conditions were considered worse in 1947 than in 1945 or 1946. At an average ration of 1040 calories a day, malnutrition was at its worst stage in post-war Germany. Herbert Hoover asserted that this amount of rations was hardly more than the amount which caused thousands in the Nazi concentration camps to die from starvation



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Partial_rejection_of_the_plan

Then they decided to make brainwashed robots out of the German people, they started the "Umerziehung" - re-education, which was not successful at start, but became more successful later.

This re-education was the base of the Western cultures final decline, because it was largely influenced by the same destructive minds, which Germany got rid in 1933, the "Frankfurt School".

Here a small introduction in the "Frankfurt School", Cultural Marxism and "political correctness".

The History of Political Correctness

(3 Parts)

YouTube- The History of Political Correctness pt 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwO5ZwF41iQ&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube- The History of Political Correctness pt 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVAfa1wyJUg&feature=player_embedded)

YouTube- The History of Political Correctness pt 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKDT7O7jg5A&feature=player_embedded)

These are excellent videos about how "political correctness", the practical translation from Cultural Marxism came up in the Western world.

Obviously, I might add that this wouldnt have been impossible, if those "great intellectuals" like Marcuse, Horkheimer & Co. wouldnt have been supported by some parts of the American mainstream and finally the plutocratic Oligarchy. Because being pushed, they would have been forgotten and lost in history, never became that influential.

It doesnt matter whether they were directly supported from the start, but they or better their concepts were pushed on later and abused exactly by the system they claimed fighting against at start: Capitalism, resulting in Neoliberalism.

Brutal Capitalism, a financial imperium of the plutocratic Oligarchy combined with political bondage thanks to "political correctness" of the Cultural Marxist kind, made up by those criminals.

Worth to watch!

They said: Destroy the German family, destroy the German man's authority in it and in society, destroy the group spirit, spread Pseudoindividualism, make them corrupt, make let them work for us like they did in the 3rd Reich...

Well, it worked out so far...

And of course the full dependence on the FED-system, the dollar based financial system controlled by the plutocracy since 1913.

Here is a good movie about the "history of money", Money Masters:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

Germany and continental Europe was a threat, so they ruined it, and now the Europeans going down the drain, Euro-Americans too of course, because its not about this or that nation, but which ideas and systems form the people in the end. The German approach was wrong in many ways, but sustainable and the failures could have been corrected, the current system is a mess, it doesnt work for the people on the longer run.

That doesnt mean everything has to be changed, but there are some crucial aspects, among these "political correctness", the race and Eugenic issue, social, economic and financial policy.

Svanhild
05-03-2010, 08:00 PM
Is it true that the Westerners were deliberately starving parts of Germany and that an unusually high number of German POW's in Western captivity died after the war or during captivity?

I'm not Agrippa but that's true. Allied forces allowed the starvation of a lot of German soldiers in the Rheinwiesenlager after the end of WW2. Up to 20.000 or more death German soldiers.

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

http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de/ (German)

Kanasyuvigi
05-03-2010, 09:08 PM
Hitler had no choice. His fate and the fate of Europe were decided on 03.09.1939. Chamberlane, the great defender of Poland declared war on Germany, but he didn't do the same on the USSR two weeks later. Millions of Russians, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians died in the following six years, but we all know which are the "innocent" victims now
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/jew-bwa-ha-ha.gif

Loddfafner
05-03-2010, 10:13 PM
They were certainly helped by elites (and Governments) from the UK and Germany. It's quite likely Rothschild money was in their pockets. By extension Wall Street finance was quite likely also involved since it involves the same mafia with the usual suspects.

Wall Street is, or at least was at that point, about as WASP as you could get, and very happy to see the blame deflected to the Jews.

RoyBatty
05-03-2010, 10:47 PM
Wall Street is, or at least was at that point, about as WASP as you could get, and very happy to see the blame deflected to the Jews.

The WASP overlords and Jew / Zionist overlords often cooperate and collude with one another. Most likely they did the same thing when it came to sponsoring the Communists. At the time they reasoned that it would be a handy bit of business to get rid of the Tsar and turn Russia / Soviet Union into another Africa to plunder.

I'll have to do more research on who controlled who and who owned who around this time but I'd be extremely surprised if prominent European Banks (including Jewish dominated ones) didn't have extensive interests in Wall Street.

Jarl
05-03-2010, 10:51 PM
Hitler had no choice.

Nonsense.

Austin
05-03-2010, 11:32 PM
Yeah I have to say, while I understand all your arguments to the effect that Hitler hit first before getting hit by Russia, I get that and understand that, however I still disagree that Hitler had to hit Russia when he did.

When Hitler hit Russia none of you deny that Russian forces were not ready, so my argument that had Hitler not hit Russia that Russia might have never achieved full mass and actually hit Germany is a possibility, after all obviously when you are hit you then go all out, but what if they had not been hit by Germany at all...



Like in a strategy game, if you are teching (Russia) and your forces are at half capacity and then you are hit by a player with full forces (Germany) you immediately stop teching and mass to defend/counter the attack, whereas if you are never hit to begin with you continue teching and perhaps fight another player altogether as is many times the case.

Osweo
05-03-2010, 11:32 PM
Well, I think I know another good way: to make local population trust and support you and to give people the right to organise themselves into self-defence units, which could defend the local population from Bolshevik provokers.

Absolutely, and this is the crux of the matter. What a disgusting missed opportunity. :mad: Hitler was a stupid fucking arsehole for letting this one slip by, and thereby ruined everything for everyone. There's really no excuse whatsoever; he had people near him trying to tell him differently, but no - blind megalomania made him think that alienating the largest European people of all would not foil his selfish plans for Germany. And what a fool he was proven. :rolleyes2:

This is just so infuriating for me, I can't express it! Folly and madness! He lived a Wagnerian opera, forgetting that the rest of us have to struggle on with the consequences when his final curtain goes down.

:rage

Hitting Russia, in Austin's terms, wouldn't have been a problem, had he done it in an intelligent way. Stalin entered that war hated by most of his subjects, but emerged from it as a God-King. All thanks to idiotic Hitlerian Slav-policy.

Brynhild
05-04-2010, 04:47 AM
There's no avoiding the fact that the decisions made by the megalomaniacal few turned out to be the detriment for the world at large, regardless of who ordered the pre-emptive strikes, and why.

As for Japan, their agenda was quite clear - Australia and the South East.

Guapo
05-04-2010, 04:58 AM
Hitler just wanted to be the Napoleon of the 20th century.

Austin
05-04-2010, 05:37 AM
Hitler just wanted to be the Napoleon of the 20th century.

Well yea gotta be honest to the people who say Hitler wasn't out to control the world.... yeah he was and there are numerous places where he says so, was his world domination view shared by every German probably not but all the same Hitler himself evidently desired that, not that I hold that against him, gotta give the guy an A+ for ambition. Funny you never hear people in motivational speeches say 'just think what that Hitler guy managed to do'...:D

Arrow Cross
05-04-2010, 07:07 AM
Hitler didn't attack "Russia". He attacked the Soviet Union, with white Russian liberational forces and international anti-Bolshevik volunteers from all over Europe fighting alongside him.

If not for
A, his treatment of Slavs
B, his often-disastrous interference in the work of his generals - some of whom were military geniuses
C, Japan's treacherous absence from the invasion
...the world would be a better place today.

Turkophagos
05-04-2010, 08:55 AM
Why did Hitler have to attack Russia?

Oil. Hitler would gladly exchange all the countries he had occupied till 1942 with the Caucasus region.

Germany became the largest industrial power of the world at the end of the 19th century thanks to coal mining in Ruhr. When oil started replacing coal Germans were becoming desparate for lacking any wells in their lands. WWI started when Germany came to an agreement with the Ottoman empire about the Mosul oil (through builing the Berlin to Baghdad railway) and Hitler couldn't stop the war before his army reaches either caucasus or the middle east, his real objectives.

Germany had to gain access to modern energy resources or become a secondary world power, thus Russia would have been attacked by any german leader at that point, Hitler included.

Agrippa
05-04-2010, 09:52 AM
Oil. Hitler would gladly exchange all the countries he had occupied till 1942 with the Caucasus region.

Germany became the largest industrial power of the world at the end of the 19th century thanks to coal mining in Ruhr. When oil started replacing coal Germans were becoming desparate for lacking any wells in their lands. WWI started when Germany came to an agreement with the Ottoman empire about the Mosul oil (through builing the Berlin to Baghdad railway) and Hitler couldn't stop the war before his army reaches either caucasus or the middle east, his real objectives.

Germany had to gain access to modern energy resources or become a secondary world power, thus Russia would have been attacked by any german leader at that point, Hitler included.

But as I said, the Bolshevis blackmailed Germany with the ressources and wanted even the Romanian fields under their control, which would have left Germany helpless. That was totally inacceptable, as inacceptable as the ultimatum of the USA for Japan.

The difference is just, that Stalin thought Hitler wouldnt start the war yet and he can go on with his offensive preparations, since Britain was in Germany's back, while Roosevelt & Wallstreet knew what will happen, but wanted an incident for legitimating their war.

Lulletje Rozewater
05-04-2010, 02:25 PM
A country allied with an other country just for strategic opportunistic regional reasons and not out of genuine love and mutual respect between the two?! :shocked: Now there's something new! :lmao

Hold it:D Austin has a point.
There is no love lost between a slit eye and a round eye;) or between Banzai and Sieg Heil or between 10.000 years and a 1000 years.
To the Jap a German is like a Dutch,both were thrown into the concentration camp and later the German was released "Sieg Heil to the rising sun":D

Lulletje Rozewater
05-04-2010, 02:54 PM
Agrippa, I'm interested to read more about what happened to German POW's who were captured by the Western Allies (we already know few of the ones who ended up in the East survived) and the period just after WW2 when there was (from what I understand) starvation in Germany.

Is it true that the Westerners were deliberately starving parts of Germany and that an unusually high number of German POW's in Western captivity died after the war or during captivity?

Depending on who one speaks to or who's "history" versions you choose to believe this either happened or didn't happen?


Chief US prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials), in October 1945 told US President Harry S. Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman) that the Allies themselves:
"have done or are doing some of the very things we are prosecuting the Germans for. The French are so violating the Geneva Convention in the treatment of prisoners of war that our command is taking back prisoners sent to them. We are prosecuting plunder and our Allies are practicing it."[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#cite_note-58)[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#cite_note-59)

[/URL]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#cite_note-59"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#cite_note-59)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_of_war#cite_note-59)

Lulletje Rozewater
05-04-2010, 03:08 PM
Well yea gotta be honest to the people who say Hitler wasn't out to control the world.... yeah he was and there are numerous places where he says so, was his world domination view shared by every German probably not but all the same Hitler himself evidently desired that, not that I hold that against him, gotta give the guy an A+ for ambition. Funny you never hear people in motivational speeches say 'just think what that Hitler guy managed to do'...:D

It's unlikely that he wanted to dominate the world. But he did want to create a large German Empire in Europe.

Hitler believed that Germany had far too little territory. He believed that it should have more 'Lebensraum' (Living Space), in other words land. Once he had conquered this land he intended to colonize it and make it German.

Hitler believed that the area including Poland, Ukraine and Russia was the best place to create this empire. Hitler's territorial ambitions were related to his racial beliefs. He believed that the Slavs (East Europeans) were racially inferior to the Germans. According to his theory, superior races should rule over the inferior ones.

Hitler was also influenced by the First World War. He refused to believe that the German army had lost the war, so he blamed the defeat on a lack of economic resources. By conquering the resources of Ukraine and Russia, he believed Germany would have enough resources to ensure its long-term security.

Kanasyuvigi
05-04-2010, 03:28 PM
Nonsense.

He had no choice... but to attack the USSR in 1941. I'm not talking about Poland. Attacking Poland was his biggest mistake. It's obvious that he didn't want a world war in september 1939. It was just another local conflict.

Svanhild
05-04-2010, 04:37 PM
2. Why was the treaty imposed? Are you assuming Germany was mistreated or do you know it, because you studied the causes of WW I? Give me an honest answer.
Pardon my French, but every individual with at least two working braincells recognizes the unfair and oppressive treatment of Germany in the treaty of Versailles by default. Have you read it? The cause for WW1 was rather an abstruse and overdone alliance policy on every side. Germany wasn't the sole perpetrator. It was a chain effect.


Peace conditions? Which ones? Why in 1934, and not in 1924?
Germany was too weak to break the chains in 1924. It took time to regenerate after WW1.

Sorry Svanhild, but I am gettin an impression that you repeat some mantra which you have learnt from some nationalist forum or other source without giving it really a second thought. And I do not blame you. Being a patriot, one automatically assumes good faith of ones own people. However, I really strongly advise you to study the subject of WW I and Paris peace treaties a bit more throroughly.
I'm not repeating any mantras, I'm posting my opinion. As you may know German students are steadily flooded with informations about WW2 and other facts of our history. Let me assure you that I've developed an own opinion after almost 15 years of ceaseless influx of truths or lies. :wink Being the granddaughter of two "evil Nazi soldiers" gives and gave me the opportunity to receive first-hand informations, unaffected by Zeitgeist and modern authentic language. Other family members experienced expulsion from their homes very physically. Hence "Yes", I feel proficient enough to expose my views on the matter.



Then she did exceedingly well for a unprepared country ;)
But we couldn't cope with half of the world fighting us contemporaneously. No wonder.

julie
05-04-2010, 04:59 PM
'Everything I undertake is directed against the Russians. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with the Russians, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces. I need the Ukraine so that they can't starve us out, as happened in the last war.' -Adolf Hitler


Why couldn't Hitler have just not attacked Russia? What a horrible decision. Germany with all its strength would have beat the West with no Russian front I'm sure of it. When I read history and look at it from a different more realistic perspective, not the perspective I'm 'supposed' to look at it through...I get the sense that the wrong sides won.

The more and more I look at national socialism the more and more I realize how much I dislike capitalism and communism and what they stand for.
Hitler was wrong on everything in my views

Austin
05-04-2010, 05:37 PM
Hitler was wrong on everything in my views

As a German American I like Hitler. It is undeniable even if you hate him that he more than anything put Germany forever in history in the minds of all. Even though my family has been in America for long before WW2 and my great-grandmother lost a brother in WW2 to the Nazis I still like Hitler because when I say that I am German the first thing someone thinks in their mind is 'oh the people that almost took over the entire Western world with that Hitler guy'. My grandfather would always say about Hitler 'In Nazi Germany the trains always ran on time' and I think what he meant in saying that was correct.

That and German-made items are of high quality, much more so than other countries goods.

Groenewolf
05-04-2010, 05:41 PM
Why couldn't Hitler have just not attacked Russia? What a horrible decision. Germany with all its strength would have beat the West with no Russian front I'm sure of it. When I read history and look at it from a different more realistic perspective, not the perspective I'm 'supposed' to look at it through...I get the sense that the wrong sides won.

I have not read trough the other replies. However what in my opinion was the mistake here lay more in the way it was done and prepared. Not in the decision to attack it self. The USSR was planning it's own offense at least since Lenin, in order to spread the communist revolt to Europe trough military means, so it was a matter of who would attack who first. In my opinion this attack had lett to the destruction of a lott of the offensive material prepared by the red army.

Consider this they had swarmed over half of non-USSR Europe after Barbarossa, imagine how far they could have pushed if they where they ones who assaulted first :coffee: .

Austin
05-04-2010, 05:48 PM
I have not read trough the other replies. However what in my opinion was the mistake here lay more in the way it was done and prepared. Not in the decision to attack it self. The USSR was planning it's own offense at least since Lenin, in order to spread the communist revolt to Europe trough military means, so it was a matter of who would attack who first. In my opinion this attack had lett to the destruction of a lott of the offensive material prepared by the red army.

Consider this they had swarmed over half of non-USSR Europe after Barbarossa, imagine how far they could have pushed if they where they ones who assaulted first :coffee: .

Well why did Hitler not just do as his quote stated. Why did he not defeat the West quickly with all his forces then hit Russia? I'm talking about early on, like instead of having hit Russia at all. I think that if the U.S. had attacked and tried to stop this all out attack on the West of which I speak that the allies might have been defeated by all Hitlers forces being in Western Europe, and have been forced to withdraw and return later perhaps for another attempt, and then Hitler would have been able to hit Russia with the U.S. out of the picture and maybe Britain holding on although to be honest I do not think Britain would last if the U.S. initial force was defeated in this scenario.

Jarl
05-04-2010, 06:41 PM
He had no choice... but to attack the USSR in 1941. I'm not talking about Poland. Attacking Poland was his biggest mistake.

Yes. I only realised it after I replied. I agree with you. In 1939 a an avalanche was set on motion and the clock started ticking. Nothing could have stopped it.


He had no choice... but to attack the USSR in 1941. I'm not talking about Poland. Attacking Poland was his biggest mistake. It's obvious that he didn't want a world war in september 1939. It was just another local conflict.

Not a world war, but he and the general staff took into account possible confrotation with Poland's allies - France and Britain. And they prepared for it. This did not happened because France was not yet ready for an invasion and did not want to commit herself without England. Consequently, Hitler had the time to reorganise and struck France the very next year.









Pardon my French, but every individual with at least two working braincells recognizes the unfair and oppressive treatment of Germany in the treaty of Versailles by default. Have you read it? The cause for WW1 was rather an abstruse and overdone alliance policy on every side. Germany wasn't the sole perpetrator. It was a chain effect.

OK. WW I causes put aside, let's get it right shall we? Let's take reparations first:



1. Reparations - set at 269 billion gold marks.



- The 1924 Dawes Plan modified Germany's reparation payments. The Ruhr area was to be evacuated by Allied occupation troops. Reparation payments would begin at “one billion marks the first year, increasing to two and a half billion marks annually after five years". The Dawes Plan did rely on money given to Germany by the US. The German economic state was one in which careful footing was required, and the Dawes plan was of the nature that only with the unrelated help of loans from the US could it succeed.


The Dawes Plan provided short term economic benefits to the German economy. It softened the burdens of war reparations, stabilized the currency, and brought increased foreign investments and loans to the German market. However, it made the German economy dependent on foreign markets and economies, and therefore problems with the U.S. economy (e.g. the Great Depression) would later severely hurt Germany as it did the rest of the western world, which was subject to debt repayments for loans of American dollars.



- In May 1929, the Young Plan reduced further payments to 112 billion Gold Marks, US $28,350,000,000 over a period of 59 years (1988). In addition, the Young Plan divided the annual payment, set at two billion Gold Marks, US$473 million, into two components, one unconditional part equal to one third of the sum and a postponable part for the remaining two-thirds.



- Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression resulted in calls for a moratorium. On June 20, 1931, realizing that Austria and Germany were on the brink of financial collapse, U.S. President Herbert Hoover proposed a one-year world moratorium on reparations and inter-governmental debt payments.



- 1932 - the Lausanne Conference, which voted to cancel reparations. By this time Germany had paid one eighth of the sum required under the Treaty of Versailles.


The treaty opted out of payments. Meant to reduce indebtedness by nearly 90% and require Germany to prepare for the issuance of bonds. This provision was close to cancellation, reducing the German obligation from the original $32.3 billion to $713 million.

When the moratorium expired, the situation returned to the terms of the Young Plan, but the system had collapsed. Germany did not resume payments and once the National Socialist government consolidated power, the debt was repudiated. After Germany’s defeat in World War II, an international conference decided (1953) that Germany would pay the remaining debt only after the country was reunified.




CONCLUSION:


Reparations were paperwork and they were abandoned in 1932 altogether! Germany actually was receiving active financial support from the US at that time! Which other country received so much aid after WW I and the Wall Street Crush?

You are forgettin one important thing. WW I Western theatre was in France - and it was France who suffered most, not Germany. Reparations were not all that injust as Germany waged war on Belgium and France on their own territory. Western France was completely devastated by 1918.


By 1932 only 12.5%reparations have been paid - and all of that under careful supervision of caring Uncle Sam who would look after German economy like for no other one in war-wrecked Europe.

Jarl
05-04-2010, 07:03 PM
2 Rheinland occupation -


This was mostly means of checkin Germany in by the Entente. Germany could use its resources.

Following the Armistice of 1918, Allied forces occupied the Rhineland as far east as the river with some small bridgeheads on the east bank at places like Cologne. Under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles of 1919 the occupation was continued. The treaty specified three occupation Zones, which were due to be evacuated by Allied troops five, ten and finally 15 years after the formal ratification of the treaty, which took place in 1920, thus the occupation was intended to last until 1935.

But alread by 1924 - after Locarno the policy was abandoned and troops started leaving Germany with the last French zone being left in 1930 in a good-will reaction to the Weimar Republic's policy of reconciliation in the era of Gustav Stresemann and the Locarno Pact.

Rheinland was meant to be demilitarised, yet in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the spirit of the Locarno Pact, Nazi Germany remilitarized the Rhineland on Saturday, March 7, 1936. Noone dared to say anything.


3 Saarland -


The province of Saarland was to be a under the control of the League of Nations for 15 years, after which a plebiscite between France and Germany, was to decide to which country it would belong. During this time, coal would be sent to France. The region was then called the Saargebiet (German: Saar Area) and was formed from southern parts of the German Rhine Province and western parts of the Bavarian Palatinate under the Saar statute of the Versailles Treaty of 28. 6. 1919 (Article 45–50).


This was not entirely unfair either as France lost her coal mining industry to Germany during war in Nord Pas de Calais and Normandy. By 1918 it was estroyed.

Annexing Saarland was harsh, however it was meant to be temporary and resolved by plebiscite after 15 years - which, with the vast German majority, would definitely mean Germany was going to get it back. And it got Saarland back!


I am not certain if Germany was also obliged to pay coal reparations from Rheinland? That would be something worth checking.

Jarl
05-04-2010, 07:30 PM
4 Posen, West Prussia and Silesia - these were the domains which Germany has gained through forceful occupation of Polish, or Austrian Habsburg territory.




West Prussia had always had a substantial Polish (Kashubian majority) shown on every ethnic/linguistic map - whether German or Polish. By early XXth century the ratio of Germans to Poles reached about 50:50% (according to German censuses). West Prussia was until 1306 called "Pomorze" and was either an independent principality, a Polish fief, or integral an part of Poland.

Because of the betrayal of a local family ruling Pomorze in the name of the king of Poland, it got occupied by to the Teutonic Order between 1308-1466. Poland would never accept this occupation and after the defeat of the Teutonic Order it was ceded back to Poland at the Treaty of Thorn. It remained part of Poland until 1772, with Danzig/Gdansk until 1793.

In fact it were mostly the local Germans who actively supported Poland in the 13year war (1454-1466). German and Polish-German citiez like Danzig, Tczew and Elbląg hired mercenaries to fight for Poland. Then Danzig was a free city 1807-1814. It joined Prussia in 1815.


The Germans never accepted the will of these Polish Pomeranians. They were subjected to Kulturkampf and germanisation. Kashubians and Poles were relegated to second class and Westpreussen was subjected to most intensive German colonisation and land grabbing under Bismarck.

Was it harsh that these areas were given independence and handed back to Poland after 130-100 years of germanisation? I think yes. Particularly that Poland got mostly the rural bit inhabited by Poles. Danzig, predominantly German, was left out.



West Prussian Polish-Kashubian majority:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Polska1912.jpg





Greater Poland (Wielkopolska), or Posen was the historical heartland of Poland and one of its key provinces. Posen was occupied by Prussia in 1795, but remained independent (Duchy of Warsaw) or autonomous until 1848 (Duchy of Poznan). The population there was always predominantly Polish and it actively participated in anti-Prussian/German uprisings in 1846, 1848 and in 1918.


The return of Greater Poland and West Prussia was particularly soft anyway, as many border areas with large Polish minority were retained by Germany anyway as "Grenzmark Posen-Westpreussen".

Osweo
05-04-2010, 07:55 PM
Hitler didn't attack "Russia". He attacked the Soviet Union,
He attacked the Russian people. Its very right to exist on its own lands in peace and independence. 'Anti-Bolshevism' was a paper thin disguise over the foulest imperialism seen on our continent. As soon as that became clear to the Russian narod, nothing on Earth could have saved that Schwein.

You may know this song;
Вставай, страна огромная,
Вставай на смертный бой
С фашистской силой темною,
С проклятою ордой!

Пусть ярость благородная
Вскипает, как волна!
Идет война народная,
Священная война.

It sums up the feeling very well;
Arise, vast country,
Arise to a fight to the death
With the dark fascist power,
With the Damned Horde!

Let your righteous fury
Boil over like a wave!
This is a people's war,
A HOLY WAR.

Svyashchennaya Voyna.

Has anyone ever sown and reaped such a whirlwind?

with white Russian liberational forces
Who? Desperate men, already assured of their own murder back home in Russia. NOT a popular uprising, like Hitler could so easily have stirred in the east to eliminate the Bolshevik threat.

If not for
A, his treatment of Slavs
B, his often-disastrous interference in the work of his generals - some of whom were military geniuses
C, Japan's treacherous absence from the invasion
...the world would be a better place today.
At the price of the dignity and very existence of enormous sections of, if not entire, European nations. Not an honourable deal to make at all, and I would have wanted no part of it.

And it didn't have to be like that at all. :(

Jarl
05-04-2010, 08:00 PM
- Upper Silesia


This is a more complex issue as Silesia was one of the Polish domains in XIII-XIV century, however in the process, it got fragmented into a dozen tiny principalities that were too weak to stand alone and quickly yielded to the influence of the Czech Kingdom. Poland at that time was divided into several separate duchies-principalities, a bit like Germany. Silesia failed to undergo re-unification in XIV-XVI century, quite unlike Masovia. Only certain border principalities were either sold or ceded to Poland.

Lower Silesia became intensly colonised by Germans. Upper Silesia on the other hand retained its Polish character. Polish element was so strong there that it actively colonised neigbouring Moravian and Slovakian lands (highlanders from these countries speak in fact Polsih dialects although not always consider themselves Polish). Silesia was ruled by the Piasts until XVII century. Gradually one by one, the principalities were taken over by the Czech Crown (Habsburgs).


Part of it was ceded to Prussia after 1742. And it was the earliest of the Polish domains to be subjected to germanisation and forced colonistation (under Frederic the Great) - already in XVIIIth century. So unlike Posen or Westpreussen which suffered mostly after Germany's unification during Kulturkampf era, Silesia had been exposed to germanisation for much longer.

The effect was that by early XX century, Poles and Lusatians were a tiny minority in the part now called "Lower Silesia", however in the Upper Silesia and in the Austrian part they remained a majority with strong sense of Polish national identity.

After WW I Austrian Silesia whose inhabitants had a very strong Polish identity was given to Poland. In Prussian Silesia things were complicated owing to its mixed character and German minority. This resulated in the plebiscite and the conflict between local Germans (and pro-German Silesians) and Poles and in the three Silesian Uprisings.

At the end, Germany retained majority of Upper Silesia, and the territories retained by Poland were inhabited predominantly by a pro-Polish majority.

SwordoftheVistula
05-04-2010, 08:22 PM
Was the Monroe doctrine not in force in those days.????????

That only applied to the western hemisphere.


Soviet Russia and contemporary Russia had / has little reason to attack Europe. There's not much worth grabbing so what's the point?

Only the main center of industry and technology, as well as skilled workers, and a powerbase to expand control. Throughout its history the USSR constantly tried to expand its territory and ideology with military conquest, such as the invasion of Finland shortly before the outbreak of hostilities with Germany.



The destruction plans were all around the Morgenthau plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

That was never put into in effect, instead replaced with the Marshall plan to rebuild West Germany with massive amounts of foreign aid, in response to the souring of relations with the USSR. Immediately after the war, there was some mistreatment of Germans, but all or mainly by the French occupying forces.


They said: Destroy the German family, destroy the German man's authority in it and in society, destroy the group spirit, spread Pseudoindividualism, make them corrupt

That was done by ideologies domestic to Germany, marxism/socialism and the romantic movement. The main goal of the western occupying forces was to eliminate 'Prussian militarism' and the 'military-industrial complex' and 'racism/anti-semitism'


When Hitler hit Russia none of you deny that Russian forces were not ready, so my argument that had Hitler not hit Russia that Russia might have never achieved full mass and actually hit Germany is a possibility, after all obviously when you are hit you then go all out, but what if they had not been hit by Germany at all.

That seems very unlikely. They were building up their military, and had already a history of military expansionism by then.


Well why did Hitler not just do as his quote stated. Why did he not defeat the West quickly with all his forces then hit Russia? I'm talking about early on, like instead of having hit Russia at all. I think that if the U.S. had attacked and tried to stop this all out attack on the West of which I speak that the allies might have been defeated by all Hitlers forces being in Western Europe, and have been forced to withdraw and return later perhaps for another attempt, and then Hitler would have been able to hit Russia with the U.S. out of the picture and maybe Britain holding on although to be honest I do not think Britain would last if the U.S. initial force was defeated in this scenario.

When Germany invaded Russia, the US was not yet in the war. France had surrendered, and Britain's forces were pushed out of continental Europe, and there was basically a stalemate with Germany having secured its western borders for the foreseeable future.

Cato
05-04-2010, 08:24 PM
I often wonder if Hitler could tell the difference between commies, Jews, and Slavs. The guy was seriously fucked-up.

Zyklop
05-04-2010, 08:24 PM
I wonder how much worth the Polish/British analysis of the Treaty of Versailles has. What matters is that the German people back in the day saw it as a big deal and its consequences paved the way for Hitler's popularity and success.


He attacked the Russian people. Its very right to exist on its own lands in peace and independence.You mean the same lands the Russians only shortly before annexed from the Poles or the peace and independence they showed towards the Finns?

Jarl
05-04-2010, 08:30 PM
To say Russia has no interest and nothing to gain from Europe is simply not worth commenting.


Only the main center of industry and technology, as well as skilled workers, and a powerbase to expand control. Throughout its history the USSR constantly tried to expand its territory and ideology with military conquest, such as the invasion of Finland shortly before the outbreak of hostilities with Germany.

Its still holding a tight grip on Euro-zone through its Stasi-KGB-GRU network composed of Prodis Schroeders and co.


Since the dissolution of the Soviat block, ex-Soviets are a real political/economical force which "Europe" has to count with. It would be foolish to assume after 50 years of Cold War, they suddenly lost their interest in global politics and send all their agents on a fishing holiday in Siberia.

Osweo
05-04-2010, 08:34 PM
You mean the same lands the Russians only shortly before annexed from the Poles or the peace and independence they showed towards the Finns?
Ja ja, like Hitler would have stopped at taking just THESE lands... :rolleyes:

I'd like to see some real decent versions of his Ostpolitik, actually. I know there's a lot of shit on the net, but are there any more or less realistic and genuine proposals known for it? Do any of these NOT envisage treating Russian peasants like shit?

Jarl
05-04-2010, 08:41 PM
I wonder how much worth the Polish/British analysis of the Treaty of Versailles has. What matters is that the German people back in the day saw it as a big deal and its consequences paved the way for Hitler's popularity and success.


The Treaty contains clear terms whose realisation, or lack of it, is well documented by historical facts. Everyone can evaluate the treaty's "harshness" for themselves. If it was hard for Germans to accept that Poles had the right to independence after a century of occupation and germanisation, then it was much harder for Poles to accept occupation and germanisation for another century.



You mean the same lands the Russians only shortly before annexed from the Poles or the peace and independence they showed towards the Finns?

Was Barbarossa, the largest land operation ever, launched to gain Pripiyat marsches of Polesie and forests of Lithuania? :)

Laudanum
05-04-2010, 08:43 PM
It wouldn't have mattered a lot. If Hitler didn't attack Russia, then Russia would attack Hitler sooner or later. ;) The Russian army was bigger, so probably Germany would have lost the war in both situations.

W. R.
05-04-2010, 08:46 PM
You may know this song;
Вставай, страна огромная,
Вставай на смертный бой
С фашистской силой темною,
С проклятою ордой!

Пусть ярость благородная
Вскипает, как волна!
Идет война народная,
Священная война.

It sums up the feeling very well;
Arise, vast country,
Arise to a fight to the death
With the dark fascist power,
With the Damned Horde!

Let your righteous fury
Boil over like a wave!
This is a people's war,
A HOLY WAR.

Svyashchennaya Voyna.

Has anyone ever sown and reaped such a whirlwind?For the first time that song was performed on 27.VI.1941. Quite a lot of people believed at that time that Addie was quite a good alternative to Uncle Joe. Many of them were bitterly disappointed later.

Where is the youtube video, by the way? Everybody would love such an epic song! Even a most hard-core Hitlerite! ;)

bWwE56y-THM

RoyBatty
05-04-2010, 08:52 PM
Throughout its history the USSR constantly tried to expand its territory and ideology with military conquest, such as the invasion of Finland shortly before the outbreak of hostilities with Germany.


Finland used to be part of the old Russian Empire so it's debateable whether the wars with Finland were part of some larger "let's invade Europe strategy" or a more regionalised tiff.

History generally shows that European powers have expended more efforts in invading Russia / Soviet Union than vice versa.

Jarl
05-04-2010, 08:54 PM
I'd like to see some real decent versions of his Ostpolitik, actually. I know there's a lot of shit on the net, but are there any more or less realistic and genuine proposals known for it? Do any of these NOT envisage treating Russian peasants like shit?

Ostplan?






Poland:

GPO envisaged differing percentages of the various conquered nations undergoing Germanisation (for example, 50% of Czechs, 35% of Ukrainians and 25% of Belarusians), extermination, expulsion and other fates, the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would be Germanized. In ten years' time, the plan effectively called for the extermination, expulsion, Germanisation or enslavement of most or all East and West Slavs living behind the front lines in Europe.

The "Small Plan" was to be put into practice as the Germans conquered the areas to the east of their pre-war borders. In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November 1939 and is probably responsible for much of the WWII expulsion of Poles by Germany. After the war, under the "Big Plan", GPO foresaw the eventual expulsion of more than 50 million non-Germanized Slavs of Eastern Europe through forced migration, as well as some of the Balts (especially almost all Lithuanians) through "voluntary" migration, beyond the Ural Mountains and into Siberia. In their place, up to 8-10 million Germans would be settled in an extended "living space" (Lebensraum) of the 1000-Year Empire (Tausendjähriges Reich).

In 1941 it was decided to destroy the Polish nation completely and the German leadership decided that in 10 to 20 years the Polish state under German occupation was to be fully cleared of any ethnic Poles and settled by German colonists.[4] A majority of them, now deprived of their leaders and most of their intelligentsia (through human losses, destruction of culture, and the ban on education above the absolutely basic level), would have to be deported to regions in the East and scattered over as wide an area of Western Siberia as possible, according to the plan resulting in their assimilation by the local populations which would cause the Poles to vanish as a nation. By 1952, only about 3-4 million non-Germanized Poles (all of them peasants) were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland. Those of them who would still not Germanize were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles would cease to exist.

Widely varying policies were envisioned by the creators of GPO and/or employed by Germany in regards to the different Slavic territories and ethnic groups. For example, by August-September 1939 (Operation Tannenberg followed by the A-B Aktion in 1940), Einsatzgruppen death squads and concentration camps had been employed to deal with the Polish elites while the small number of Czech intelligentsia members were to be allowed to emigrate overseas. Parts of Poland had already been annexed by Germany early in the war (leaving aside the occupied General Government and the areas previously annexed by the Soviet Union), while the other territories were officially occupied by or allied to Germany (for example, the Slovak part of Czechoslovakia became a theoretically-independent German puppet state, while the ethnic-Czech part became a "protectorate"). It is unknown to what degree the plan was actually directly connected to the various German war crimes and crimes against humanity in the East, especially in the latter phases of the war (the time the Germans were withdrawing). In any case, the majority of Germany's 12 million forced laborers were abducted in Eastern Europe, mostly in the Soviet territories and Poland (both Slavs and local Jews).

Among charges listed in the indictment presented at the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the SS officer responsible for transportation part of the Final Solution, one was that he was responsible for the deportation of 500,000 Poles. Eichmann was convicted on this count, too, and the sentence assumed he had been motivated by his intention to destroy the intelligentsia class of Polish society.[5]



All Poles were to be expelled into the General Governorate, and from there further East. Those left were to become gradually germanised.

It was German policy that a small number of Poles, like other Slavic peoples, were to be reduced to the status of serfs, while the rest would be deported or otherwise eliminated and eventually replaced by German colonists of the "master race." Various plans regarding the future of the original population were drawn, with one calling for deportation of about 20 million Poles to Western Siberia, and Germanisation of 4 to 5 million; although deportation in reality meant that the population wouldn't be removed but all of its members put to death as happened to other groups in execution of similar plans.[5] In the General Government, all secondary education was abolished and all Polish cultural institutions closed.


On 26 October 1939, Hans Frank was appointed Governor-General of the occupied territories. In March 1941 Hitler made a decision to "turn this region into a purely German area within 15-20 years." He also explained that "Where 12 million Poles now live, is to be populated by 4 to 5 million Germans. The Generalgouvernement must become as German as Rhineland."[2]

Overall, 4 million of the 1939 population of the General Government area had lost their lives by the time the Soviet armed forces had entered the area in late 1944. If the Polish underground killed a German, 50—100 Poles were executed as a punishment and warning.[3]

In 1943, the government selected the Zamojskie area for further German colonisation. German settlements were planned, and the Polish population expelled amid great brutality, but few Germans were settled in the area before 1944. See Generalplan Ost for more information about this.




Lithuania:

The Nazis prepared three versions of the Generalplan Ost as it pertained to Lithuania. According to the first version, the majority of the Lithuanian population would be deported to Siberia and the rest Germanized. The second plan envisioned 235,000 German colonists settling in the country over a period of 15 years. The third version judged Lithuanians to be a non-Aryan race; therefore, 85% of the population was to be deported or exterminated and the remaining few Germanized. In either case, Lithuania was to become a German-populated area within 20 years after the war.



It was hoped that the Germans would reestablish Baltic independence. Such political hopes soon evaporated and Baltic cooperation became less forthright or ceased altogether.[35] A growing proportion of local population turned against the Nazi regime as Germany turned the Baltic states (except for the Memel (Klaipėda) region reclaimed by Reich in 1939) and most of Belarus into the Reichskommissariat Ostland, a colony in which the four constituent nationalities were governed by a German administration. Hinrich Lohse, a German Nazi politician, was Reichskommissar until the Soviet re-occupation.

German policy in the area was harsh, not only involving the local population in the Holocaust but also subjugating local populations. One of the Nazi plans for the colonisation of conquered territories in the East, referred to as Generalplan Ost, called for the wholesale deportation of some two thirds of the native population from territories of the Baltic states in the event of a German victory. The remaining third were either to be exterminated in situ, used as slave labour or Germanised if deemed sufficiently Aryan, while hundreds of thousands of German settlers were to be moved into the conquered territories.



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


The political objectives, as defined by Alfred Rosenberg, were the removal of the Großrussische (Great Russian) threat to the Reich for the next centuries. The long-term plans for Ostland differed from those for Ukraine, Caucasus or Moscow region. The Baltic lands were to be organised as one "Germanised" Protectorate, prior to union with Germany. Rosenberg said that these lands had a "European" character, resulting from 700 years of history and should provide "Lebensraum". There was also a need to establish a buffer against Bolshevik ideology. This could be achieved by the racial assimilation of the Baltic population and White Ruthenia (Belarus) into a unified population.

The regime planned to encourage post-war settlement of Germans to the region, seeing it as a region traditionally inhabited by Germans (see the Teutonic Order) that had been overrun. In Pskov province ethnic Germans were resettled from Romania with some Dutch. The settlement of Dutch settlers was encouraged by the "Nederlandsche Oost-Compagnie", a Dutch-German organisation.

Conquered territories further to the east were under military control for the entirety of the war.

Zyklop
05-04-2010, 09:09 PM
Ja ja, like Hitler would have stopped at taking just THESE lands... :rolleyes: What does it matter? Your portrayal of peaceful Soviets whistling merry songs while cultivating their fields until they get raided by bloodthirsty Germans is just pathetic given the record of Stalinist expansion and massacres in the decades before Operation Barbarossa. Why do you think so many Europeans in East and West saw Hitler as a liberator and gladly joined the German forces?

I'd like to see some real decent versions of his Ostpolitik, actually. I know there's a lot of shit on the net, but are there any more or less realistic and genuine proposals known for it? Do any of these NOT envisage treating Russian peasants like shit?The stupid occupation policy was rejected by several high ranking ministers such as Joseph Goebbels and especially Alfred Rosenberg, the "chief ideologists" of the NSDAP.

Osweo
05-04-2010, 09:32 PM
What does it matter? Your portrayal of peaceful Soviets whistling merry songs while cultivating their fields until they get raided by bloodthirsty Germans is just pathetic given the record of Stalinist expansion and massacres in the decades before Operation Barbarossa.
Stop the knee-jerk reflexes, Zyklop. I already said that Hitler was presented with a wonderful opportunity to pose as a liberator to peoples groaning under foul murderous Judeo-Bolshevik tyranny.

Why do you think so many Europeans in East and West saw Hitler as a liberator and gladly joined the German forces?
And WHY, as White Ruthenian has just mentioned, were so many of these to end up so bitterly disappointed?????

The stupid occupation policy was rejected by several high ranking ministers such as Joseph Goebbels and especially Alfred Rosenberg, the "chief ideologists" of the NSDAP.
Educate me, mein Kamerad. What would have been executed in its stead? Something that more appeals to my notions of human decency? I doubt it.

What Jarl posts above is utter EVIL. That is why you lost the war, and that is why we are now ALL FUCKED. Maybe. Touch wood! :p

I am not a sworn Germanophobe. I recognise the foul crimes committed against your people from 1918 to the present day. I would just like to see some humility and regret from your side about the shit your heroes did too.

RoyBatty
05-04-2010, 09:36 PM
Both World Wars were basically driven by greed, idiocy and Bankster profiteering. It was a tragedy for all the White Nations, no matter which side / ideology they held and yes, as Osweo mentioned thanks to this folly we're all worse off for it today.

It's pointless blaming one another or claiming the moral high ground. It was a collective f*** up.

Osweo
05-04-2010, 09:52 PM
For the first time that song was performed on 27.VI.1941. Quite a lot of people believed at that time that Addie was quite a good alternative to Uncle Joe. Many of them were bitterly disappointed later.
I just read an interesting thing about the 'premiere' of the song, actually. :) Worth translating:

http://samuraev.narod.ru/music/sov/sv001.htm

Еще до вероломного нападения гитлеровской Германии на Советский Союз известный поэт В.И.Лебедев-Кумач под впечатлением кинохроник о бомбежках Мадрида и Варшавы занес в свою записную книжку строчки:

Не смеют крылья черные
Над Родиной летать...

И сразу после начала Великой Отечественной войны поэт развернул этот образ в свое знаменитое стихотворение, которое уже 24 июня 1941 года было опубликовано сразу в двух газетах - "Известии" и "Красной звезде". Там их и прочитал руководитель Краснознаменного ансамбля песни и пляски Красной Армии А. В. Александров. В тот же день он положил их на музыку. И через два дня (предельно сжатые сроки) вечером состоялась премьера "Священной войны" в зале ожидания Белорусского вокзала, заполненного бойцами, отправлявшимися на фронт. Когда начали петь второй куплет шум в зале прекратился. По требованию бойцов артисты тогда исполнили "Священную войну" пять раз подряд.
**************************
Even before the treacherous attack of Hitlerian Germany on the Soviet Union, the famous poet V. I. Lebedev-Kumach had, upon watching watching newsreels of the bombing of Madrid and Warsaw, written the following lines in his notebook:

The black wings will not dare
fly over the Motherland...

And immediately after the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War the poet turned this image into his remarkable verse creation, published on the 24th of June in two newspapers - Izvestiya and Red Star. THere they were read by the leader of the Red Army's 'Red Banner' song and dance ensemble, A. V. Aleksandrov. The very same day he set them to music. Two days later (an incredibly short time for this), 'Sacred War' received its premiere in the waiting hall of the Belorussian Railway Station in Moscow, full of soldiers waiting to be sent to the front. As the second couplet began, the hall fell silent. On the demand of the soldiers, the performers sang 'Sacred War' five times in a row...
**************************

Just imagine that...

:suomut:

Where is the youtube video, by the way? Everybody would love such an epic song! Even a most hard-core Hitlerite! ;)

bWwE56y-THM
Good Man! :thumb001:

Jarl
05-04-2010, 09:57 PM
Stop the knee-jerk reflexes, Zyklop. I already said that Hitler was presented with a wonderful opportunity to pose as a liberator to peoples groaning under foul murderous Judeo-Bolshevik tyranny.

They could pose as liberators as long as the occupied population would support the Nazis and fight for them. But the plans for the East and Ukraine were laid down irrespectively. There would be no Baltic or Ukrainian independence, but exploitation of the resources and making place for the Lebensraum. Talking of some "liberation" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Austin
05-04-2010, 10:01 PM
For the first time that song was performed on 27.VI.1941. Quite a lot of people believed at that time that Addie was quite a good alternative to Uncle Joe. Many of them were bitterly disappointed later.

Where is the youtube video, by the way? Everybody would love such an epic song! Even a most hard-core Hitlerite! ;)

bWwE56y-THM

oooooo I like that video thank you!:thumb001::thumb001::thumb001:

Zyklop
05-04-2010, 10:05 PM
Stop the knee-jerk reflexes, Zyklop. I already said that Hitler was presented with a wonderful opportunity to pose as a liberator to peoples groaning under foul murderous Judeo-Bolshevik tyranny. If you look at German propaganda leaflets and posters spread in the eastern regions as well as the recruitment efforts to gain local volunteers fighting against Bolshevism this goal was certainly pursued. There's a lot of reasons why these approaches failed, though, one of them being the problematic logistics and supplies for German troops and the impossible sufficient accommodation of Russian POWs.


Educate me, mein Kamerad. What would have been executed in its stead? Something that more appeals to my notions of human decency? I doubt it. Rosenberg was eye witness to the October revolution in Moscow and the treatment of the Baltic peoples by the Bolsheviks. He always proposed a collaboration with the East Europeans, albeit under German dominance. I may write more on him and Goebbels when I'll have more time.

What Jarl posts above is utter EVIL. Finally someone acknowledges it. I'll say a prayer for him.

That is why you lost the war,No shit. I thought we lost the war because we did everything right.

and that is why we are now ALL FUCKED. Your British arrogance shows through again. Germans fought against the world we now are living in, your lot fought for it. You got what you asked for.

I am not a sworn Germanophobe. I recognise the foul crimes committed against your people from 1918 to the present day. I would just like to see some humility and regret from your side about the shit your heroes did too.Our heroes didn't do any shit. Whatever happened did so because of the failings of individuals, some of them in key positions. If you like to see humility and regret you better should have a look at the German education system and mass media propaganda focusing on the Third Reich. After being fed with it since Kindergarten you one day won't give a shit about it anymore either.

Kanasyuvigi
05-04-2010, 10:08 PM
As far as I know, the Soviet Union also changed it's anthem in 1941/42 from The International to what we know today: "Союз нерушимы....". And if we exclude the Lenin and the Party stuff, it doesn't sound communist at all. What kind of equality between the different republics and peoples in the Union one could expect, when singing about "Velikaya Rus" (Great Russia)?
It really was a Sacred war for the Russians.

Osweo
05-04-2010, 10:20 PM
If you look at German propaganda leaflets and posters spread in the eastern regions as well as the recruitment efforts to gain local volunteers fighting against Bolshevism this goal was certainly pursued. There's a lot of reasons why these approaches failed, though, one of them being the problematic logistics and supplies for German troops and the impossible sufficient accommodation of Russian POWs.
That is what we should be discussing here, exactly.


Rosenberg was eye witness to the October revolution in Moscow and the treatment of the Baltic peoples by the Bolsheviks. He always proposed a collaboration with the East Europeans, albeit under German dominance.
I know that, but I always heard he got kind of shunted aside in the little power games at the Fuehrer's court. SUch petty squabbles often based more on personality than policy are yet another reason to condemn the Nazi's and laugh at anyone who tries to show them as 'saviours of Europe'. OR - I may be wrong! Is this just the Spiel we've been fed from our propaganda ministries? Please educate me!

I may write more on him and Goebbels when I'll have more time.
:thumb001:

Your British arrogance shows through again. Germans fought against the world we now are living in, your lot fought for it. You got what you asked for.
No no! You half-heartedly fought against it. What you were really fighting for was the chance to brutally rule it over slaves, no?

Our heroes didn't do any shit. Whatever happened did so because of the failings of individuals, some of them in key positions.
Right.... We're almost getting somewhere now. There was too much scope for human fallibility and baser instincts within the NS power structure. Something to learn lessons from. And something to make us wary of knee jerk reactions in defending this system.

If you like to see humility and regret you better should have a look at the German education system and mass media propaganda focusing on the Third Reich. After being fed with it since Kindergarten you one day won't give a shit about it anymore either.
I'll tell you one thing. Germans have to wake up and realise what's been fed them for the last sixty years. The English, on the other hand have to look a LOT further back, and might face something harder than that which faces your people. We've been on the wrong track for even longer, and have an even more fundamental task to rethink what we're about.

Osweo
05-04-2010, 10:36 PM
As far as I know, the Soviet Union also changed it's anthem in 1941/42 from The International to what we know today: "Союз нерушимы....". And if we exclude the Lenin and the Party stuff, it doesn't sound communist at all. What kind of equality between the different republics and peoples in the Union one could expect, when singing about "Velikaya Rus" (Great Russia)?
It really was a Sacred war for the Russians.
Absolutely. Stalin as good as scrapped the internationalist aspect, in favour of his own doctrine of 'Socialism in One Country. That's why it's wrong of people to talk of Stalinist Russia as wanting to 'spread its ideology all across Europe'. Stalin gave up on that legacy, which was only dear to the hearts of the Jewish cosmopolites like Trotsky who he pushed out of power.

China adopted Stalin's ideas on nationality. That is why the People's Republic of China has a policy of Han dominance, and limited autonomy for the 50-odd other 'official nationalities' within China, and does not waste effort on 'spreading world revolution'.

I'll translate the words of the anthem you refer to as replacing the International;
Unbreakable Union of free republics,
Forged for all time by GREAT RUS'

This sort of thing is why people in Russia now even discuss canonising the man! Before his rule, it was almost a capital offence to talk about 'Russian' things. He turned that around, and made the Russians officially a privileged people in the Soviet Empire - a recognised 'state-building nation'. If you can read Russky, read this, for example, by an Orthodox priest;
http://nnm.ru/blogs/dusty74/otec_dimitriy_dudko_o_staline/
Obviously, Dzhugashvili didn't do all this out of the goodness of his heart, but mostly for cynical power-politics reasons, but even so, he saved the Russians from some of the worst excesses of Marxism.

This is why the Russian mind (and that of many other peoples from behind the Iron Curtain) has emerged from Communism in a much better state ethnically than here in the west...

RoyBatty
05-04-2010, 11:05 PM
Rosenberg was eye witness to the October revolution in Moscow and the treatment of the Baltic peoples by the Bolsheviks.

The irony here is that some of those Baltics (Estonians in particular) supported the Bolsheviks against the Whites.

Many Latvians (Inese of course will take exception to this claim) were initially enthusiastic participants in the Bolshevik project but this of course came to an end after Stalin's executions and purges started getting out of hand. Interestingly enough he also had many of the original Bolsheviks erased so it wasn't all a bad thing. :thumb001:

Jarl
05-04-2010, 11:27 PM
;) I do not think the British fought for the world that we are living in now.

And I do not think the Nazis fought for the better world. Unless German domination at the expense of other nations, even at the cost of their existence, means "better world", of course.


The irony here is that some of those Baltics (Estonians in particular) supported the Bolsheviks against the Whites.

Many Latvians (Inese of course will take exception to this claim) were initially enthusiastic participants in the Bolshevik project but this of course came to an end after Stalin's executions and purges started getting out of hand. Interestingly enough he also had many of the original Bolsheviks erased so it wasn't all a bad thing. :thumb001:

Latvia was rather anti-Bolshevik. It fought together with Poland against the Red Army in 1920. Overall there was a strong nationalist revival in the Baltikum which did not favour Bolshevik ideology. For most people in the East, Bolshevik invasion was yet another Russian attempt to dominate this part of the continent. Surge of nationalism was evident. I know that that mostly from the example of Lithuania. The Balts finally got the chance to live in their own countries.

However, in the Baltic states, there was a problem growing up between the landed gentry and the poor rural folk, which was of course "indigenous".

Osweo
05-05-2010, 12:04 AM
Latvia was rather anti-Bolshevik. It fought together with Poland against the Red Army in 1920. Overall there was a strong nationalist revival in the Baltikum which did not favour Bolshevik ideology. For most people in the East, Bolshevik invasion was yet another Russian attempt to dominate this part of the continent. Surge of nationalism was evident. I know that that mostly from the example of Lithuania. The Balts finally got the chance to live in their own countries.

However, in the Baltic states, there was a problem growing up between the landed gentry and the poor rural folk, which was of course "indigenous".

What's your analysis of the famous 'Latvian Riflemen' of the Revolution and subsequent Red Terror? I'm hazy on the details, but they were employed wherever Lenin suspected Russians would be 'too soft'... :(

I read a bit on Comintern's efforts to spread communist ideas among British sailors a while back, and Latvian individuals were prominent there again.

My (Scotch) history teacher at school said it was basically a case of just wanting to hurt Russians, never mind the ideology, but that doesn't fit the latter case especially. :confused:

I wonder what the social background of the Bolshevik Latvians was, on the whole... Anyone know much on this?

Jarl
05-05-2010, 12:40 AM
Latvian Socialist (Latvijas Sociāldemokrātiskā Strādnieku Partija) movement was established in the early XXth century and it had a strongly national character. Its supporters demanded independence from Russia. In this they did not differ from Polish socialists.

They opposed one-party policy and Russian Bolshevism and opted for Latvian socialism in one state and democracy. Its leaders and politicians recruited mostly from the peasantry, like Pauls Kalniņš or intelligentsia Marģers Skujenieks or Kārlis Ulmanis. They opted for cooperation with Estonia, Lithuania and Poland as well as good relations with the USSR. These people were later arrested or shot by the Russian communists.


At the same time there emerged a Bolshevik Party of Latvia, with ppl like Pēteris Stučka, Jānis Kalnbērziņš, Arvīds Pelše, Augusts Voss, Boriss Pugo, Jānis Vagris, Alfrēds Rubiks. These people opted for annexation Latvia into socialist USSR. Many of them fought against Denikin with the Red Army. Many of them were of poor peasant background and studied in Moscow and St Petersburg where they established links with the Russian communists and actively supported the Bolsheviks in 1917.

The movement was however, a minor force in Latvia and counted 7500 members in 1920. After 1920, the end of Polish-Soviet war and the Soviet defeat (the treaty of Riga), its members were banned and expelled to USSR. I am not certain if they even formed any regular Red Army units. I have not heard of any.

Great Dane
05-05-2010, 02:57 AM
I think Germany could have won the war against the Soviet Union. But instead of trying to conquer the entire Soviet Union they should have concentrated on key areas. Like taking Moscow and not attempting to take Stalingrad. Stalingrad was the gateway to the Baku oilfields but in the unlikely case that the Germans reach Baku, Stalin would have blown up the wells. Also Germany should not have declared war on the United States. World War Two was essentially two wars. Pearl Harbor pulled the United States into the Pacific War but it need not have caused the United States to enter the war in Europe. I have heard that Germany was obligated to declare war on the United States because of its alliance with Japan but if that is so why did Japan never declare war on the Soviet Union.

Lulletje Rozewater
05-05-2010, 07:35 AM
I often wonder if Hitler could tell the difference between commies, Jews, and Slavs. The guy was seriously fucked-up.

Oh ,he did know the difference.
I wonder though, whether we have paid less attention to the German point of view--like Svanhild.
Let's face it, 1918 Versailles treaty was a shambles and directed on the extermination of the German nation.
Typical revenge method.
Bear in mind that Germany had not lost the war,it was a stalemate,but through chicanery of the Western Allies,Germany gave in.
I have Prussian ancestry and when you consider that the Prussians(The best soldiers on the continent) were but wiped out and the struggle between the Hapsburg and Prussian faction plus many other factors,had Europe shivering with fear. Versailles was a revenge factor (France on the forefront).(Now I understand why my French aristocratic mother married my Prussian father---revenge of the nerds)

The unification of the many German states into the German Empire (1871-1918) followed Prussian-led victories over Denmark in 1864, Austria in 1866, and France in 1870-71. Prussia's aggressive policies were masterminded by Otto von Bismarck, who became united Germany's first chancellor. Following unification, -----the legendary Prussian General Staff became the German General Staff-----. Clausewitz's dictum that civilians should control the military was ignored, and the General Staff became a power center in the highly militaristic regimes of Kaiser Wilhelm I (1858-88) and Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1918)
Is it any wonder that Germany wanted revenge.
Yes,in the war Hitler did not listen to his generals.
One should not forget that the army tried about 47 times to assassinate him.
Prussian/German generals did not allow a direct breach of :"Befehl ist Befehl.

Hitler's SS was the main culprit for most of the 'unwanted' murder not the German Army.
If Hitler was a mad man(there is a fine line between sanity and madness),what was Attila or Alexander the Great?
Hitler was not the only one seeing Communism as despicable. The West did too after the war.

Madness:Tiny Germany at war against the world or massive America losing against a shitty country like Vietnam :)

Svanhild
05-05-2010, 04:28 PM
He attacked the Russian people. Its very right to exist on its own lands in peace and independence. 'Anti-Bolshevism' was a paper thin disguise over the foulest imperialism seen on our continent. As soon as that became clear to the Russian narod, nothing on Earth could have saved that Schwein.
Pardon my French, but I'm afraid that your palpable affinity for Russians confuses your sight for the truths. :wink If Germany wasn't at war against half of the world simultaneously, nothing and nobody could have prevented Germany to be victorious in the war against USSR. My country had to split the forces everywhere in Europe: Western front, Balkan region, Scandinavian region and North African region. With all forces united at the Eastern front, a promenade in Moscow Kremlin or a marching-trough to Kamchatka was the simplest exercise. Truth be told, Russian army is entirely overrated and magically glorified. They came in quantities and fell in quantities. I've seen a stat that for every killed German soldier at the Eastern front almost 10 to 15 Sovjet soldiers had to die.

Again, the crux was that my country had to split forces and to fight against half of the world at other places on the continent. That, and only that, was the reason for the tight victory of USSR. And not some superhuman-like Russian heroes beyond nature. Russian culture is a culture full of myths and glorifications. That's beneficial, myths can give strength in rather dark times and something to adhere on. But to use them to idealize history is a fallacious idea.


It sums up the feeling very well;
Arise, vast country,
Arise to a fight to the death
With the dark fascist power,
With the Damned Horde!

Let your righteous fury
Boil over like a wave!
This is a people's war,
A HOLY WAR.

Svyashchennaya Voyna.
You want to intone some speeches of Ilja Ehrenburg now?

Is this just the Spiel we've been fed from our propaganda ministries? Please educate me!
The winner writes the history and decides what's history and what's evil.

;) I do not think the British fought for the world that we are living in now.
I would imagine that the British are responsible for the system we're suffering on. Britain won the war and has problems. The same problems as my country. And we had to took their system and not they ours.

Jarl
05-05-2010, 05:55 PM
Pardon my French, but I'm afraid that your palpable affinity for Russians confuses your sight for the truths. :wink If Germany wasn't at war against half of the world simultaneously, nothing and nobody could have prevented Germany to be victorious in the war against USSR. My country had to split the forces everywhere in Europe: Western front, Balkan region, Scandinavian region and North African region.

Again, the crux was that my country had to split forces and to fight against half of the world at other places on the continent. That, and only that, was the reason for the tight victory of USSR. And not some superhuman-like Russian heroes beyond nature. Russian culture is a culture full of myths and glorifications. That's beneficial, myths can give strength in rather dark times and something to adhere on. But to use them to idealize history is a fallacious idea.


"What if Germany fought USSR alone"? Perhaps she would win. Yet this is a totally abstract situation. Germany and USSR were never insulated systems. It is true that Russians were send supplies from Britain and the Germans had to keep troops in the West, send Afrikakorps to aid the Italians, but do not forget that Russians also had a vast Empire and had to secure Caucasus, Central Asia and, most importantly, keep the Far Eastern Army on guard against the Japanese.

And it was mainly the shipping of the Far Eastern Army to the frontline that stopped Operation Barbarossa.


With all forces united at the Eastern front, a promenade in Moscow Kremlin or a marching-trough to Kamchatka was the simplest exercise.

But concentrating all the forces was absurd right from the beginning. Wars are not fought and won in an abstract experimental arena, but in the real setting, in reality.


Truth be told, Russian army is entirely overrated and magically glorified. They came in quantities and fell in quantities. I've seen a stat that for every killed German soldier at the Eastern front almost 10 to 15 Sovjet soldiers had to die.

What else would you expect from underequipped peasants most of whom never saw warfare nor decent training in ther lifetime? And commanded by a cadre of officers selected on the basis of their political obedience (with substantial part of competent imperial officers purged by Stalin)?

In those conditions they did exceedingly well. You might boldly talk of marching through to "Kamchatka"... but the reality is Russian manpower was by far superior to the German. Russians fought on their own territory while the Germans had to stretch the supply lines and maintain order in the backyard constantly disrupted by Polish, Ukrainian and Soviet partisans. Germany was simply not fit for that war at the cost of the mistakes she commited. And the talk of "concentrating every unit" in one place can be dismissed outright (as if every other power was to stand by and let Germany take global domination).


I would imagine that the British are responsible for the system we're suffering on.


This is some magical romantic vision devoid of reality. To this I can only reply with what Osweo said. WW II was not fought for "a better world". Neither the Germans fought for "a better Europe", nor the British fought for the Europe we are living now. The Nazi government embarked on a campaign for European hegemony, and the British fought precisely against it. Coz it meant securing their influence, and their empire.

Don't tell me the Allies fought for EU (Germany's invention) and immigration. The system invented today was mainly created by the US, coz it was mainly US who dictated the terms on which the post-war "West" (including West Germany) was reconstructed.

The world we are living in, particulalry the EU, is much more a creation of the Germans than the British. And Turks in Germany were not shipped there by the evil Allies. Germans themselves decided they needed cheap workforce.


Britain won the war and has problems. The same problems as my country. And we had to took their system and not they ours.

And so? You believe it would be better if Brits lost the war, got occupied and ruled by the Nazis?

Osweo
05-05-2010, 08:45 PM
Pardon my French, but I'm afraid that your palpable affinity for Russians confuses your sight for the truths. :wink If Germany wasn't at war against half of the world simultaneously, nothing and nobody could have prevented Germany to be victorious in the war against USSR. My country had to split the forces everywhere in Europe: Western front, Balkan region, Scandinavian region and North African region. With all forces united at the Eastern front, a promenade in Moscow Kremlin or a marching-trough to Kamchatka was the simplest exercise.
The more danger Russia is in, the more Russians would stop at nothing to save her. Russia was hard pressed in the War, but could have been pressed harder, and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The level of self-sacrifice would have been all the greater, and the Wehrmacht would have learnt to fear it all the more.

Truth be told, Russian army is entirely overrated and magically glorified.
WHERE is it overrated and magnified? I'll tell you; in the Russian mind. And that is exactly the reason that this became a real danger to the Invader. Thanks to these myths, realities were made possible. The psychological impact of such ideas is powerful indeed, and cannot be left out of military calculations.

They came in quantities and fell in quantities. I've seen a stat that for every killed German soldier at the Eastern front almost 10 to 15 Sovjet soldiers had to die.
If it had required a hundred, it would have been done.

Again, the crux was that my country had to split forces and to fight against half of the world at other places on the continent. That, and only that, was the reason for the tight victory of USSR. And not some superhuman-like Russian heroes beyond nature. Russian culture is a culture full of myths and glorifications. That's beneficial, myths can give strength in rather dark times and something to adhere on.
See! You say it yourself!

But to use them to idealize history is a fallacious idea.
People alive in the War idealised their own present, and it made them grimly steadfast in resisting any amount of brute force. That's the power the Germans were fighting against.

You want to intone some speeches of Ilja Ehrenburg now?
He was an utter shit, and directly responsible for untold suffering of the German civilian population. But the song I referred to was not the product of Jewish agitprop. Its roots were far more organic, in the Russian soul.

Let's look at morale. What pushed on the German soldier at Stalingrad? His sense of duty to his comrades, primarily, I should imagine. Next we might have more politicised notions of fighting for his country's honour. His sense of pride in the German Army, for the more professional soldiers, maybe. The desire to aggrandise Germany? I can't see it, really. My ex-almost-mother-in-law from the Ukraine told me how Germans had told her relatives back then that they were confused and annoyed to be leaving the Ukraine, pushing on into less hospitable terrain in the north and east. They didn't understand the point of it. THey looked around at the good land they had won, and weren't particularly motivated to fight on into bog, taiga and steppe, merely for Hitler's glory.

What motivated the Russian soldier? Everything. The very future of his loved ones, his friends, his very country, language and blood. No contest. If Germany had thrown everything it had at Russia, it would have been NO easy walkover, whatsoever. Have you seen the Russian landscape? I know it well. Germany could never have held on to that.

Need another example? Look at the Winter War in Finland. Russian soldiers away from home thinking 'What the FUCK are we doing here?' Finns knowing that their whole country's fate rested on their shoulders. No contest. It was the other way round for the Wehrmacht in Russia.

The winner writes the history and decides what's history and what's evil.
I look around and see no victors, except for some universally despised parasites behind the scenes. We've all lost. I asked for what would have happened, and what was already starting to happen, to the Slavonic population in occupied areas. Only Jarl has provided any detail. Can you give me anything else? Anything that does not involve foul mistreatment of natives? Anything that wouldn't have caused immense popular hatred of the Germans? Look at high-tech armies today in third world countries; popular anger can topple an occupation. And Hitler ensured this with his mad policies.

Austin
05-05-2010, 09:00 PM
I had always been told that USSR generals would make their battle plans then hide them and lay out pretend ones for Stalin so he wouldn't ruin everything due to him having no sense of strategy...

I also heard Hitler was also considered a strategic disaster in the planning room...who was better? In the U.S. one is told Hitler was better and that Stalin was an oaf but I never was sure once I realized the U.S. version of Russia in WW2 happens to leave out pretty much all their accomplishments.

The U.S. has an anti-Communist slant in its history/media this is why Germans were considered 'honorable soldiers' and the Soviets considered beasts.

Agrippa
05-05-2010, 09:02 PM
And Hitler ensured this with his mad policies.

Again I insist on the realities of war and the situation, just the supply problem, the drastic Partisan war of the Bolsheviks etc. Its wrong, in my opinion, to say everything which happened in the East was planned by the government in detail, thats completely impossible. And looking at the units of volunteers from various groups, it wasnt all that a clear case.

In the Ukraine, you probably know, where many partisan groups, some even changed the sides more than once, it was a mess, but a quite interesting one...

By the way: One thing we can blame the German leadership definitely for is not planning carefully for the terrain, the winter and supply, not making a war economy LATEST when the war with the Soviets started.

One reason why Germany lost this war was that Hitler cared too much for his people and their mood. Stalin didnt, he didnt cared for them at all and without the Allies ressource help many millions more would have died. Really no mercy for the soldiers, workers, families - nothing. Talking about Soviet losses, many were lost completely senseless, just because he didnt cared for them. Like whole battalions being sent into battle, an attack even without sufficient material, leadership or supply, just machine guns and the political officers in the back.

Germany should have started with the full scale war economy much earlier.

Coming back to the terrain and climate, they should have learned from the Swedes and the French in particular. The Russians were the same when French came - they came in a relatively civilised manner, but the Russian leadership and priests said Napoleon is the devil and all his soldiers therefore menials of the devil.

The cruelties were then unbelievable, I might just remind on the French soldiers which were left back in Moscow or those captured on retreat.

But it seems, Germany learned little from that and one of the reasons surely was Hitlers experience from the 1st WW, in which the Russians were no real match for the German forces. So he surely still underestimated the true capacities of the Soviet Empire, actually did so almost to the end, because he still couldnt believe what the intelligence officers told him about the T-34 and airplane production - which was almost unbelievable indeed, and wouldnt have been possible without the US-help...

poiuytrewq0987
05-05-2010, 10:18 PM
I see Slavs on here calling the poor treatment of Poles, Russians and Ukrainians as being "anti-Slav". This is absolutely untrue and you are only repeating Allied propaganda of Germans being anti-everything.

It just happened to be the Poles who occupied West Prussia, once a part of the German State of Prussia and later the German Empire in which the empire lost control after the Versailles Treaty. It was only with Britain's empty promises to Poland that the world were thrown into another world war. Poland was about to give up the Danzig corridor however with Britain guaranteeing her sovereignty, the Poles became emboldened and refused to give the corridor up in the belief that Britain would come and help them should Germany declare war on them... this clearly wasn't the case.

The Russians? Hitler had one good reason to dislike the Russians and it wasn't with them being Slavs but rather them being the revolutionary arms of Communism. If it weren't for the Russians fighting for men like Lenin, Trotsky, and other major propagandists of Communism then Russia would've not been swayed under Communism. It isn't any more complicated than that, Hitler was not anti-Slav but rather anti-Communist. People are being babies and calling such things "anti-Slav".

Please tell me, why your great wisdom has declared Hitler to be anti-Slav when he allied with Bulgaria and pressed Bulgaria to be more involved on the Eastern Front? Bulgaria is a Slavic state, if Hitler was so anti-Slav, please enlighten me why didn't Hitler just bomb Bulgaria with all his fury unleashed by the great Luftwaffe to satisfy his bloodthirsty hatred of Slavs? :rolleyes:

Jarl
05-05-2010, 10:44 PM
I see Slavs on here calling the poor treatment of Poles, Russians and Ukrainians as being "anti-Slav". This is absolutely untrue and you are only repeating Allied propaganda of Germans being anti-everything.

Nonsense. Read what Nazis wrote about Slavs, their history and culture.


It just happened to be the Poles who occupied West Prussia, once a part of the German State of Prussia and later the German Empire in which the empire lost control after the Versailles Treaty.

Don't be an ingnorant please. Pomorze/Pomerelia was Polish until 1306, and then 1466 - 1772/1793. Almost 600 years. It had always had a Polish majority. It was renamed West Prussia at the end of XVIII century when Prussia occupied these territories.

Look at any ethnic map of the corridor and see that it had a substantial Polish majority.

It was taken by force from poland in 1773/1793 germanised and subjected to German colonisation.



It was only with Britain's empty promises to Poland that the world were thrown into another world war. Poland was about to give up the Danzig corridor however with Britain guaranteeing her sovereignty, the Poles became emboldened and refused to give the corridor up in the belief that Britain would come and help them should Germany declare war on them... this clearly wasn't the case.

The Russians? Hitler had one good reason to dislike the Russians and it wasn't with them being Slavs but rather them being the revolutionary arms of Communism. If it weren't for the Russians fighting for men like Lenin, Trotsky, and other major propagandists of Communism then Russia would've not been swayed under Communism. It isn't any more complicated than that, Hitler was not anti-Slav but rather anti-Communist. People are being babies and calling such things "anti-Slav".

;) Again. Read what the Nazi doctrine on Slavs was.


Please tell me, why your great wisdom has declared Hitler to be anti-Slav when he allied with Bulgaria and pressed Bulgaria to be more involved on the Eastern Front? Bulgaria is a Slavic state, if Hitler was so anti-Slav, please enlighten me why didn't Hitler just bomb Bulgaria with all his fury unleashed by the great Luftwaffe to satisfy his bloodthirsty hatred of Slavs? :rolleyes:

Bulgaria was a tertiary state at that time meaningless. Bulgarians were the dupes of German imperialism, so they got away with that. Just like the Cossacks.

Osweo
05-05-2010, 10:47 PM
I see Slavs on here calling the poor treatment of Poles, Russians and Ukrainians as being "anti-Slav".

VOID; Lebensraum. End of story. Organised elimination of Slavonic culture on vast territories, a policy that was with Hitler from the very beginning.

I'm sorry, but Bulgaria is as good as irrelevant here. Far from Germany, so not on the priority list for being Germanised. Pragmatism said let the Bulgars fight for us - great, let a few less Germans get killed! Maybe even cook up some half-hearted 'scientific racial' excuse for their Slavness, who cares? Same goes for the Croats.

Agrippa
05-05-2010, 11:14 PM
VOID; Lebensraum. End of story. Organised elimination of Slavonic culture on vast territories, a policy that was with Hitler from the very beginning.

I'm sorry, but Bulgaria is as good as irrelevant here. Far from Germany, so not on the priority list for being Germanised. Pragmatism said let the Bulgars fight for us - great, let a few less Germans get killed! Maybe even cook up some half-hearted 'scientific racial' excuse for their Slavness, who cares? Same goes for the Croats.

Really, that wasnt the attitude of most Germans anyway, but not even the leadership. It was little hatred, when there was no real reason for it, but just a fight of interests so to say.

And its wrong to state they wanted to erradicate Slavs as such, just where they were "in the way" to victory and plans for settlements - things were thought through, many still not decided before the end of the war, what they would have really done we dont really know, especially because some "documents" might be faked or at least false interpreted.

Also there were disputes among the National Socialist leadership about various measurements, f.e. divisions between Rosenberg and others about the treatment of Slavs in the East.

poiuytrewq0987
05-06-2010, 12:17 AM
VOID; Lebensraum. End of story. Organised elimination of Slavonic culture on vast territories, a policy that was with Hitler from the very beginning.

I'm sorry, but Bulgaria is as good as irrelevant here. Far from Germany, so not on the priority list for being Germanised. Pragmatism said let the Bulgars fight for us - great, let a few less Germans get killed! Maybe even cook up some half-hearted 'scientific racial' excuse for their Slavness, who cares? Same goes for the Croats.

Lebensraum? You mean the living space thingy he talked about in his book published in the 1920s? :D

If he had planned to do the whole Lebensraum thingy then why did he create new Belarusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_Central_Rada) state? Wouldn't that in a way contradict with Hitler's plan for Lebensraum? Since such state was created for the Belarusians, I don't think it's too unrealistic for us to expect similar thing to happen for the Ukrainians and the Russians if the USSR was defeated.



I'm sorry, but Bulgaria is as good as irrelevant here. Far from Germany, so not on the priority list for being Germanised. Irrelevant? Bulgaria was a potent force, and it was only with our impotent German leader, Tsar Boris III that Bulgaria continued its irrelevancy in her role during the war. So what if some people are Germanised? It's nothing new and it has been going on ever since the Teutonic era.

Jarl
05-06-2010, 12:25 AM
Lebensraum? You mean the living space thingy he talked about in his book published in the 1920s? :D

If he had planned to do the whole Lebensraum thingy then why did he create new Belarusian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusian_Central_Rada) state? Wouldn't that in a way contradict with Hitler's plan for Lebensraum? Since such state was created for the Belarusians, I don't think it's too unrealistic for us to expect similar thing to happen for the Ukrainians and the Russians if the USSR was defeated.


....:rolleyes:

The Belarusian Central Rada:

was nominally the government of Belarus from 1943–44. It was a collaborationist government established by Nazi Germany within the occupation and colonial administration of Reichskommissariat Ostland.




A colonial "new state" for the Belarusians, before deportation and germanisation! Yaaayyy!!!!




Irrelevant? Bulgaria was a potent force, and it was only with our impotent German leader, Tsar Boris III that Bulgaria continued its irrelevancy in her role during the war.

Bulgaria a potent force in WW II? I mean... are you ACTUALLY serious???




[u]So what if some people are Germanised? It's nothing new and it has been going on ever since the Teutonic era.


O...K... Germanise yourself then, your children and your nation...


Having read this, I think I got no further questions.

poiuytrewq0987
05-06-2010, 12:27 AM
A New State for the Belarusians! Yaaayyy!!!!


It is with the existence of such state means the same would've happened for the Russians and the Ukrainians.

Jarl
05-06-2010, 12:40 AM
I mean... are you bloody joking me? What was the size of the so called "Bulgarian Army"???




All territorial gains of Bulgaria were achieved by the Germans and the German army! "Bulgarian Army's" task was to assist the Nazis in their invasion of Yugoslavia and fight guerillas or fish out the partisans from the woods:



Faced by an invasion, Bulgaria drifted into World War II under Filov's government. On 7 September 1940, Bulgaria was bribed by the return of southern Dobruja from the Kingdom of Romania. This was done on the orders of German dictator Adolf Hitler and implemented by the Treaty of Craiova.


A article in a Ustasha journal explaining the participation of Axis Bulgarian soldiers in the battles against Tito's Partisans in Montenegro.On 1 March 1941, Bulgaria formally signed the Tripartite Pact, becoming an ally of Nazi Germany, the Empire of Japan, and the Kingdom of Italy. German troops entered the country in preparation for the German invasions of the Kingdom of Greece and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia and Greece were defeated, Bulgaria was allowed to occupy all of Greek Thrace and most of Macedonia. Bulgaria declared war on Britain and the United States, but resisted German pressure to declare war on the Soviet Union, fearful of pro-Russian sentiment in the country.

In August 1943 Tsar Boris died suddenly after returning from Germany (possibly assassinated, although this has never been proved) and was succeeded by his six-year old son Simeon II. Power was held by a council of regents headed by the young Tsar's uncle, Prince Kirill. The new Prime Minister, Dobri Bozhilov, was in most respects a German puppet.


As soon as the tide turned in favour of Russians, the Bulgarians were hastily trying to fins a way out:


Resistance to the Germans and the Bulgarian regime was widespread by 1943, co-ordinated mainly by the Communists. Together with the Agrarians, now led by Nikola Petkov, the Social Democrats and even with many army officers they founded the Fatherland Front. Partisans operated in the mountainous west and south. By 1944 it was obvious that Germany was losing the war and the regime began to look for a way out. Bozhilov resigned in May, and his successor Ivan Ivanov Bagrianov tried to arrange negotiations with the western Allies.




When the Soviets were approaching the Bulgarians were shitting their pants and begging that the Germans, their benefactors who graciously gave them Greece and Macedonia, would leave:



Meanwhile, the capital Sofia was bombed by Allied aircraft in late 1943 and early 1944, with raids on other major cities following later. But it was the Soviet army which was rapidly advancing towards Bulgaria. In August Bulgaria unilaterally announced its withdrawal from the war and asked the German troops to leave: Bulgarian troops were hastily withdrawn from Greece and Yugoslavia. In September the Soviets crossed the northern border. The government, desperate to avoid a Soviet occupation, declared war on Germany, but the Soviets could not be put off, and on September 8 they declared war on Bulgaria - which thus found itself for a few days at war with both Germany and the Soviet Union. On September 16, the Soviet army entered Sofia.

How big was Bulgarian Army? How many aircrafts, tanks it had? Let us see how "potent" it really was... Shall I give you the figures???


It is with the existence of such state means the same would've happened for the Russians and the Ukrainians.

What state? Reichskommissariat Ostland? What are you taling about???


Just cut the bullshit and read what people from SS-Ahnenerbe and NSDAP wrote about the Slavs (expressis verbis), their culture, history and what plans they had for the future of the Slavs...


But of course following your logic:


So what if some people are Germanised? It's nothing new and it has been going on ever since the Teutonic era.

... that was great! Right??? I propose you remove the monument of the victory at Stalingrad from your avatar.

poiuytrewq0987
05-06-2010, 12:43 AM
You're an idiot, Jarl. You're so blinded by hate to the point where you can't even see things clearly.

Jarl
05-06-2010, 12:52 AM
You're an idiot, Jarl. You're so blinded by hate to the point where you can't even see things clearly.

No Void. I am not an idiot. It is your obsession with Bulgaria that distorts your view of the Nazis = Bulgaria's allies, overlords and main benefactors. You unjustly ascribe Nazi diplomatic and military gains to the Bulgarians. You lie about West Prussia and Belarus... and you call me an idiot? You are a conceited Bulgarian desperately craving for admiration, which you are not getting enough in here. Do you think it is so difficult to see?


And do not get emotional. Your glorification of nazism fits well into your childish delusions about some "potent" Bulgaria that never existed. Which was in fact a weak Nazi puppet state that could not do a shit nor gain a shit without Hitler's approval. I would not give a damn about your hilarious antics if not for the fact that you are an ignorant. You pretend to know things which in fact you do not have a clue about. You write something about West Prussia or Belarus, while in fact you got no clue what you're talking about.



So go on Void. Glorify the Nazis my dear Bulgarian. After all they were your best buddies, right? Your puppet Bulgarian state could not survive on its own. It needed Hitler to gain Dobrudja, Macedonia and bits of Greece. And it was cowering by the end of WW II when the Red Army approached, just as it was cowering by the end of WW I grovelling to the victorious ENTENTE.




So for the sake of justice please remove the Mortherland Call monument from your avatar because those people did not die so that a Nazi apologete and Nazi-collaborator can now write:


So what if some people are Germanised? It's nothing new and it has been going on ever since the Teutonic era.


It was not your victory. Bulgarians were on the other side collaborating with the Nazis, and what you wrote in here only proves it.

poiuytrewq0987
05-06-2010, 01:22 AM
No Void. I am not an idiot. It is your obsession with Bulgaria that distorts your view of the Nazis = Bulgaria's allies, overlords and main benefactors. You unjustly ascribe Nazi diplomatic and military gains to the Bulgarians. You lie about West Prussia and Belarus... and you call me an idiot? You are a conceited Bulgarian desperately craving for admiration, which you are not getting enough in here. Do you think it is so difficult to see?
Lol, we fought on the side of the Axis because it was the side that would benefit Bulgaria the most. Everything we have today is the result of the victorious Allieds. So I hope Poland will gain an economy as strong as Britain because that means Poland will be filled with the same immigrant plague that currently plagues Britain. That wouldn't have happened if Axis had won the war.


And do not get emotional. Your glorification of nazism fits well into your childish delusions about some "potent" Bulgaria that never existed. Which was in fact a weak Nazi puppet state that could not do a shit nor gain a shit without Hitler's approval. I would not give a damn about your hilarious antics if not for the fact that you are an ignorant. You pretend to know things which in fact you do not have a clue about. You write something about West Prussia or Belarus, while in fact you got no clue what you're talking about.
Hah, lying? I did not lie at all, Belarus was in fact an independent state while they answered to Germany but it goes to disprove bullshit Allied propaganda you swallow so willingly. I bet you think the Nuremberg trials were just and fair? :coffee:


So go on Void. Glorify the Nazis my dear Bulgarian. After all they were your best buddies, right? Your puppet Bulgarian state could not survive on its own. It needed Hitler to gain Dobrudja, Macedonia and bits of Greece. And it was cowering by the end of WW II when the Red Army approached, just as it was cowering by the end of WW I grovelling to the victorious ENTENTE.
Glorifying?? Lol, you're hilarious, please do tell me where I have glorified the Germans. By the way the Bulgarians won every single battle (excluding the last battle which was a coalition of Brits, Frenchies and Serbs against Bulgarians) in WW1 until the Germans decided to gave up in which we signed an armistice with the Entente. :thumbs up



So for the sake of justice please remove the Mortherland Call monument from your avatar because those people did not die so that a Nazi apologete and Nazi-collaborator can now write:

It was not your victory. Bulgarians were on the other side collaborating with the Nazis, and what you wrote in here only proves it.:yawnee20:

Guapo
05-06-2010, 01:38 AM
great, let a few less Germans get killed! .

That was their whole point except the Germanophile Slavs(you know who!) think they were chosen because of some so-called superiority( basically stupidness and naivity) over the stubborn Slavs.

Guapo
05-06-2010, 01:48 AM
Irrelevant? Bulgaria was a potent force

Montenegrin Highlanders would have been a potent force but they were just too manly and Slavic for Himmler's taste.

Agrippa
05-06-2010, 02:11 AM
That was their whole point except the Germanophile Slavs(you know who!) think they were chosen because of some so-called superiority( basically stupidness and naivity) over the stubborn Slavs.

In the end its quite simple: The National Socialists had no interest in just hating and killing other people, they had however interests for which other people might have been a threat or obstacle.

F.e.: The Poles got more than one very fair offer for almost nothing, just giving back what belonged to Germany and the Germans and making an alliance.

But the Poles were stubborn and wanted more German lands, even though there would have been no free Poland without Germany after WW1. That was an inferiority complex and of course, there were two different groups in Poland:
Poles hated both, the Germans and the Russians, but there was one group saying that the Germans are the bigger threat, the others the Russians. So they had to decide against which one they want to make up their primary alliance, considered Germany being stronger, the potential territorial gains greater, security too and allied with the West against it.

Simple as that, there was no compromise possible, nothing.

Thats why Poles became enemies, not because Hitler in particular hated the Poles. He actually had less of negative feelings than some Prussian generals had for the Poles...

In a similar way, Germany needed a secure backyeard in the South East, the British intelligence and some Serbian nationalists managed a coup d'état and the Italians, once more, had their activities in the region.

Thats why Germany had to invade Yugoslavia and Greece, because British troops would have landed and threatened its flanks together with Yogoslavs and Greeks, that was a similar move as into Denmark and Norway. Nothing more.

Nobody in Germany wanted that, if the old Yugoslavian government would have stayed in power and kept its treaties with Germany, Italian-Greeke problems not escalating, no German soldier would have been sent there.

After they were there they renewed the traditional Croatian-German friendship and tried to ally with them.

Also for the attack on the Soviet Union I already explained the reasons.

Its no big mystery actually, those were all reasonable decision in the political context of the time.

Obviously you want to have allied soldiers to support you, Americans not? To say that was different with Germany is also idiotic, as if they had great prejudices or the like which they had to overcome or something...

If they made good experiences with allies, Germans kept their words and treated them good too. At least various states had more independence and political freedom than before - for many centuries at least, since they were suppressed nations for quite some time.

As for administration of occupied areas: Well, those were fighting places and France was equally occupied to a large part, so were other areas. That doesnt say too much about future plans in itself, regardless of how the ministry was called.

Actually Poles, Czechs and Serbs were more special because they had direct conflicts with the Germans and were seen as traitors and sneaky. Looking at the actions during and after WW1, this didnt came from nothing, nor was it that baseless if looking at the events before, in and after WW2.

In the Serbian case Hitler & Co. were somewhat "Chauvinistic" though, because they blamed that nation for the 1st WW, again not totally absurd, but not really fair to the people.

Guapo
05-06-2010, 03:52 AM
In the Serbian case Hitler & Co. were somewhat "Chauvinistic" though, because they blamed that nation for the 1st WW, again not totally absurd, but not really fair to the people.

True. Serbs were always a thorn in the side for Germany and Germanics in general. Blame it on the Montenegrin Highlanders that always ruled Serbia. There was collaboration on that side as well. I was being a tad sarcastic :p

Lulletje Rozewater
05-06-2010, 07:11 AM
.
The cruelties were then unbelievable, I might just remind on the French soldiers which were left back in Moscow or those captured on retreat.

But it seems, Germany learned little from that and one of the reasons surely was Hitlers experience from the 1st WW, in which the Russians were no real match for the German forces.
The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler, historian claims


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038453/The-French-Fuhrer-Genocidal-Napoleon-barbaric-Hitler-historian-claims.html#ixzz0n8B69TO6


Hitler did learn from Napoleon---- apparently.

Lulletje Rozewater
05-06-2010, 07:15 AM
Really, that wasnt the attitude of most Germans anyway, but not even the leadership. It was little hatred, when there was no real reason for it, but just a fight of interests so to say.

And its wrong to state they wanted to erradicate Slavs as such, just where they were "in the way" to victory and plans for settlements - things were thought through, many still not decided before the end of the war, what they would have really done we dont really know, especially because some "documents" might be faked or at least false interpreted.

Also there were disputes among the National Socialist leadership about various measurements, f.e. divisions between Rosenberg and others about the treatment of Slavs in the East.

Bear in mind that the PRUSSIANS are of Slav heritage

The Lawspeaker
05-06-2010, 07:25 AM
The French Fuhrer: Genocidal Napoleon was as barbaric as Hitler, historian claims


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038453/The-French-Fuhrer-Genocidal-Napoleon-barbaric-Hitler-historian-claims.html#ixzz0n8B69TO6


Hitler did learn from Napoleon---- apparently.

Today we remember Napoleon for the introduction of last names, a centralized civil registry, the draft and the cadastre. And there is even is a hamlet (where a river crossing used to be) named after him: Keizersveer. And of course the roads (the socalled Napoleonswegen (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonsweg) (plural).) that were build by him.

Who knows we will one day remember Hitler for child support, several traffic rules, the cooperate tax, the compulsory health insurance (in essence the old ziekenfonds) and that during the occupation Vlieland and Terschelling were transferred to Friesland.

Just a thought :)

Austin
05-06-2010, 07:32 AM
Hitler is responsible for most of the autobahn yes?

The Lawspeaker
05-06-2010, 07:33 AM
Hitler is responsible for most of the autobahn yes?
Not in the Netherlands. Although he can be considered responsible for a section of the present motorway A12.

SwordoftheVistula
05-06-2010, 08:12 AM
The policy on the slavs seems to be based on simple old-style geopolitics. Countries occupying land which had been traditionally German (Poland and Czechoslovakia) were enemies, and in Yugoslavia the government which had signed a treaty was overthrown. The Serbs dominated Yugoslavia at the time, so became enemies and all the minority groups in those countries which wanted independence (Slovakia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc) thus became allies of Germany. Likewise Belarus, Ukraine, and Chechnya in the USSR.

Jarl
05-06-2010, 08:43 AM
Lol, we fought on the side of the Axis because it was the side that would benefit Bulgaria the most. Everything we have today is the result of the victorious Allieds. So I hope Poland will gain an economy as strong as Britain because that means Poland will be filled with the same immigrant plague that currently plagues Britain. That wouldn't have happened if Axis had won the war.

Glorifying?? Lol, you're hilarious, please do tell me where I have glorified the Germans. By the way the Bulgarians won every single battle (excluding the last battle which was a coalition of Brits, Frenchies and Serbs against Bulgarians) in WW1 until the Germans decided to gave up in which we signed an armistice with the Entente. :thumbs up

:yawnee20:


:rolleyes: Bulgaria was a "potent" force, Bulgarians won every single battle and people getting germanised is nothing bad... The Nazis loved the Slavs and the Allies (particularly the evil British who "destroyed Bulgaria") were fighting for immigration and the present world... It is all their fault. Holy Germany had no part in WW II.


Hah, lying? I did not lie at all, Belarus was in fact an independent state while they answered to Germany but it goes to disprove bullshit Allied propaganda you swallow so willingly. I bet you think the Nuremberg trials were just and fair?

Yes... Belarus was independent, graciously freed by the Nazis just like every other state they freed was fully independent, including France, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, and of course their little sidekick -the mighty "potent" Bulgaria. And West Prussia belonging for 600 years to Poland, stolen by Prussia, but with a Polish majority was just simply German. And occupied by the bad Poles. Sure.


Sorry Void, but I am not here to discuss fiction, things which did not happen. Go boo hoo with your Bulgarian complexes to someone who will buy that Bulagrian-pro-Nazi bullshit ;)

poiuytrewq0987
05-06-2010, 11:19 AM
Jarl, do you want some cheese with that whine?

Äike
05-06-2010, 01:24 PM
The irony here is that some of those Baltics (Estonians in particular) supported the Bolsheviks against the Whites.

Oh yes, the Estonians loved the Bolsheviks so much that they did drive them out of Estonia, liberated Latvia from the Reds and supported(several naval assaults, etc) the White offensive towards St. Petersburg. :rolleyes:

You're either trolling, or you have never read any historical books about this topic.


Many Latvians (Inese of course will take exception to this claim) were initially enthusiastic participants in the Bolshevik project but this of course came to an end after Stalin's executions and purges started getting out of hand. Interestingly enough he also had many of the original Bolsheviks erased so it wasn't all a bad thing. :thumb001:

The Latvian Reds gave fierce resistance to the advancing Estonian army, but the majority of Latvians didn't support the Bolsheviks.

jerney
05-06-2010, 02:42 PM
I'm sure Hitler cares.

Lulletje Rozewater
05-06-2010, 03:31 PM
Today we remember Napoleon for the introduction of last names, a centralized civil registry, the draft and the cadastre. And there is even is a hamlet (where a river crossing used to be) named after him: Keizersveer. And of course the roads (the socalled Napoleonswegen (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonsweg) (plural).) that were build by him.

Who knows we will one day remember Hitler for child support, several traffic rules, the cooperate tax, the compulsory health insurance (in essence the old ziekenfonds) and that during the occupation Vlieland and Terschelling were transferred to Friesland.

Just a thought :)

Never knew that.tks
He is also the only person who brought unemployment down form about 80 percent to about 4 percent in just one year--they told me

The Lawspeaker
05-06-2010, 03:37 PM
Never knew that.tks
He is also the only person who brought unemployment down form about 80 percent to about 4 percent in just one year--they told me
Seyss-Inquart did the same thing here according to NPS De Oorlog (http://deoorlog.nps.nl/page/aflevering/4/Welvaart,+beroving,+honger). The German Army placed massive orders and dragged the country out of the Great Depression --- and diminished our supplies (while paying with worthless "money").

Jarl
05-06-2010, 07:49 PM
Jarl, do you want some cheese with that whine?

Let me introduce you to some "potent" Bulgarian history:



1. First Balkan war - The peacetime army of 60,000 men was expanded during the war to 370,000,[9]


2. Second Balkan war - There is a dispute over the strength of the Bulgarian Army during the Second Balkan War. According to the Bulgarian command the Army had 7,693 officers and 492,528 soldiers in its ranks on the 16th of June (...) The army was experiencing shortages of war materials and had only 378,998 rifles at its disposal - NEARLY 25% of soldiers in the "potent" Bulgaria DID NOT HAVE RIFLES! and 248 machine guns...


3. World War I - How big was Bulgarian Army at any given time? By the end of September 1915 just before the Serbian campaign the army mobilised 15 908 officers and 600 772 soldiers out of total population of about 4 700 000 people. So for the size of the country it was a large army and bigger then the armies of Serbia and Greece and as big or a little bit bigger then the army of Romania. However it is true that the army was nor fully prepared for the war in 1915 and there were shortages of war materials. Prior 1915 the army had 372 603 rifles insted of the required number of 521 509 so orders had to be made from Austria and Germany but they were not fulfilled on time.





Shortage of rifles, shortage of guns, shortage of artillery, and no tanks whatsoever... "mighty potent" ;)

Jarl
05-06-2010, 08:00 PM
More Myths... now on the glorious "Bulgarian victories":


Serbia - attacking from two sides with Austria-Hungary the Serbs who were outnumbered 2:1.




Bulgarians entered the war on the side of Central Powers. With the Allied loss in the Battle of Gallipoli and the Russian defeat at Gorlice, King Ferdinand signed a treaty with Germany and on September 23, 1915, began mobilizing for war.


Against Serbia were marshalled the Bulgarian Army and two Austro-Hungarian armies, all under the command of Field Marshal Mackensen, totalling more than 682,000 soldiers.


The Germans and Austro-Hungarians began their attack on October 7 with a massive artillery barrage, followed by attacks across the rivers. Then, on the 11th, the Bulgarian Army attacked from two directions, one from the north of Bulgaria towards Niš, the other from the south towards Skopje (see the map). The Bulgarian Army rapidly broke through the weaker Serbian forces of the Vardar front, that tried to block its advance. With the Bulgarian breakthrough, the Serbian position became hopeless; either their main army in the north would be surrounded and forced to surrender, or it would try to retreat.




Greece - marching into undefended, demobilised country and taking advantage of the civil unrest within:



On May 26th Bulgarian forces advanced into Greece and occupied Fort Rupel, with the acquiescence of the Greek Government.

Venizelos, who at all times was strongly friendly to the Allies and who was the one great Greek statesman who not only believed in their ultimate victory but who saw that the true interests of Greece were in Anatolia and the Islands of the AEgean, was strongly opposed to King Constantine's action. The Allies showed their resentment by a pacific blockade, to pre-vent the export of coal to Greece, with the object of preventing supplies from reaching the enemy. This led to a certain amount of excitement and the Allied embassies in Athens were insulted by mobs. The governments, therefore, presented an ultimatum commanding the demobilization of the Greek army, the appointment of a neutral Ministry, and the calling of a new election for the Greek Chamber of Deputies, as well as the proper punishment of those who were guilty of the disorder.

In substance, the Greeks yielded to the Al-lied demand, but before a new election could be held an attack by the Bulgarians on the 17th of August changed the situation. The Bulgarian armies entered deep in Greek territory in the eastern provinces and captured the city of Kavalla without resistance from the armies of Greece. A portion of the Greek army at Kavalla surrendered and was taken to Germany as "guests" of the German Government.

This action of the Greek army led to a Greek revolution which broke out at Saloniki on the 30th of August. The King pursued a tortuous policy, professing neutrality and yet constantly bringing himself under suspicion. The Revolutionists organized an army and finally M. Venizelos, after strong efforts to in-duce the King to act, became' the head of the Provisional Government of the Revolutionists. The Allies pursued a policy almost as tortuous as that of King Constantine. They could not agree among themselves as to the proper policy, and took no decided course. King Constantine apparently had the support of Russia and of Italy.

Meantime the fighting against Bulgaria was still proceeding. The main force of the Allies was directed against the city of Monastir, which, after considerable fighting, was captured on November 19th. This gave the Serbians possession of an important point in their own country and naturally proved a great stimulus to the Serbian armies.

From that time on, and during the year 1917, little was done.




The true victor and the commander of the Austro-Hungarians and Bulgarian forces at Serbian and Macedonian Campaigns:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Mackensen.jpg

Anton Ludwig August von Mackensen (6 December 1849 – 8 November 1945), born August Mackensen, was a German soldier and field marshal.[1] He commanded with success during the First World War and became one of the German Empire's most prominent military leaders.

Svanhild
05-06-2010, 08:02 PM
A Polish trying to tutor others about military success...Situation comic. Do you want to inform Void about the mighty and potent Polish army, Jarl? :wink Or how West Prussia wasn't taken away from Germany?

Jarl
05-06-2010, 08:21 PM
Macedonia and Greece again:



The Austro-Hungarian Army attacked Serbia's ally Montenegro. The small army of Montenegro offered strong resistance in the Battle of Mojkovac that greatly helped the withdrawal of the Serbian Army, but soon faced impossible odds and was compelled to surrender on January 25. The Austro-Hungarians continued advancing down the Adriatic Coast, attacking into Italian-controlled Albania. By the end of the winter, the small Italian Army had been forced out of nearly the whole country.

At this point, with the war in the Balkans effectively lost, the British General Staff wanted to withdraw all their troops from Greece, but the French government protested strongly. Since the French divisions were staying, the British also stayed, with undisguised antipathy. The Allied armies entrenched themselves around Thessaloniki, which became a huge fortified camp, earning themselves the mocking nickname "the Gardeners of Salonika". The Serbian Army (now under the command of General Petar Bojović), after rest and refit on Corfu, was transported by the French to the Macedonian front.


Fighting along the Greek border, 1916 In the meantime, the political situation in Greece was confused. Officially, Greece was neutral, but King Constantine I was pro-German, while Prime Minister Venizelos was pro-British. At first, Greece supported the French-British military activity in saving the Serbian army, but after the Allies occupied Thessaloniki gradually changed policy. With the Venizelos' resignation, the royalist government settled for officially condemning it, but was unable to oppose the superior Allied armies that had landed in Thessaloniki. The Germans, trying to keep Greece neutral, were careful not to cross the Greek border.


Frenchman instructiong Serbian in Use of Trench Mortar, 1916-1917.In May 1916, General Sarrail demanded that the Greek Army demobilize. Although the Greek government complied this action further pushed them to side with the Central Powers.

With certain knowledge that Romania was about to join the Allied side, General Sarrail began preparations for an attack on the Bulgarian Armies facing his forces. The Germans, with excellent intelligence from Greek supporters, made plans of their own for a "spoiling attack". The German offensive was launched on August 17, just three days before the French offensive was scheduled to start. In reality, this was a Bulgarian offensive, as the Austro-Hungarian Army was in Albania and only a single German division was on the Greek border. The attack achieved early success thanks to surprise, but the Allied forces held a defensive line after two weeks. Having halted the Bulgarian offensive, the Allies staged a counterattack starting on September 12. The terrain was rough and the Bulgarians were on the defensive, but the Allied forces made steady gains. Slow advances by the Allies continued throughout October and on into November even as the weather turned very cold and snow fell on the hills. The Germans sent two more divisions to help bolster the Bulgarian Army, but by November 19 the French and Serbian Army captured Kaymakchalan, the highest peak of Nidže mountain and compelled the Central powers to abandon Bitola to the Entente.





1. Bulgarians hesitated until 1915, when they finally side with Austria Hungary. Both countries attack Serbia from two sides outnumbering Serbian Army 2 to 1.


2. Austria-Hungary crushed Serbia, mopped up Monenegro, and lined her forces in the captured Albania. And only then do the Bulgarians attacked the Greeks!


3. Bulgarians with the help of Austria-Hungary's and Germany's divisions (yet again!) marched into a demobilsied Greece, taking most cities without any resistance!



And you call that a victory of the "potent" Bulagrian Army???

The so called Bulgarian Army was never standing alone against any of its opponents. It was aided by the Austrians, instructed by the Austrians and strategically commanded by the Austrians. The Bulgarians were opportunistic sidekicks of the Central Powers - attacking when they outnumbered their enemies and when aided by the Austrians and Germans, taking the scrapps that fell from the table...






@ Svanhild


A Polish trying to tutor others about military success...Situation comic. Do you want to inform Void about the mighty and potent Polish army, Jarl?


Not at all. Do I feel any urge to brag about the Polish army, posting useless threads on it??? No. Do I bullshit about Poland "winning every single battle"??? No.



:wink Or how West Prussia wasn't taken away from Germany?

Of course West Prussia was taken from the Germans. Coz the Prussian Germans took it from the Poles first. It belonged to Germany for 50 years. And for about 600 to Poland. It had a Polish majority that had every right to live in their own country. Without forced germanisation, without forced land grabbing, and organised forced German colonisation on their own soil. Danzig the biggest, major centre of German population, with German majority, was not given to Poland.


Actually Bulgaria ever since its emergence in XIX century has been occupying Thrace that has always been Turkish and Byznatine-Greek. I think the Bulgarians should return these lands and go to where they came from - steppes of the Gok-Turk Empire.

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 12:39 AM
The so called Bulgarian Army was never standing alone against any of its opponents. It was aided by the Austrians, instructed by the Austrians and strategically commanded by the Austrians. The Bulgarians were opportunistic sidekicks of the Central Powers - attacking when they outnumbered their enemies and when aided by the Austrians and Germans, taking the scrapps that fell from the table...Oh please, as if the Greeks or the Serbs fought on their own. You're a stupid asshole. Please tell me about the all mighty Polish army! Oh wait, in WW2, Poland was conquered in only three weeks. :coffee:

When I was talking about potent Bulgarian military, in no way did I compare my country's army to other bigger countries' armies :rolleyes:. Bulgaria, compared to other Balkan countries, it was the most powerful. Do we still have to listen to your whining platitudes?

The Bulgarian military achieved many great feats and I certainly don't need your nod to make it true.

Serbian Campaign

Morava Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morava_Offensive_Operation) (145,000 Bulgarians v. 200,000 Serbs), a Bulgarian victory (yes, the 1st army was led by a Bulgarian).

Ovche Pole Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovche_Pole_Offensive_Operation), again, the Bulgarians win.

Kosovo Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Offensive_Operation_%281915%29), the Bulgarians finish off the Serbs

Romanian Campaign

Battle of Turturcaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Turtucaia), a German and Bulgarian coordinated victory

Battle of Dobrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dobrich), we took on the Romanians and the Russians all by ourselves, and despite their numerical advantage we still beat them.

Flamanda Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C4%83m%C3%A2nda_Offensive), the Germans and Bulgarians fight together again and defeats the Romanians.

Battle of Bucharest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bucharest), the Germans and Bulgarians take the Romanian capital.

Macedonian Front

Battle of Doiran, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Doiran_%281916%29) Bulgarian victory

Second Battle of Doiran, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Doiran_%281917%29) the Bulgarians win again

Third Battle of Doiran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Doiran), the Bulgarians win once again... and despite their greater numerical advantage, we won anyhow.

Battle of Bitola, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Red_Wall)the Bulgarians win decisively

And that's for a country just emerging from 500 years of Ottoman occupation and total devastation of the country by the Ottomans.

Guapo
05-07-2010, 02:45 AM
(145,000 Bulgarians v. 200,000 Serbs), a Bulgarian victory (yes, the 1st army was led by a Bulgarian).

Serbia was attacked from three sides. Those 200,000 Serbs were fighting 300,000 Germans and Austrians as well, not just Bulgarians.


Oh please, as if the Greeks or the Serbs fought on their own.

Serbia did up until the Salonika Front in 1918, when a Franco-Serb Army defeated the Bulgars, unlike Bulgaria.

Austin
05-07-2010, 03:04 AM
I'm sure Hitler cares.


I'm sure he does since he is undoubtedly on the universal council of exalted humans who have passed into the nether no doubt.:tongue

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 03:10 AM
Serbia was attacked from three sides. Those 200,000 Serbs were fighting 300,000 Germans and Austrians as well, not just Bulgarians.

We attacked with inferior forces and still beat you, sorry brother.




Serbia did up until the Salonika Front in 1918, when a Franco-Serb Army defeated the Bulgars, unlike Bulgaria.The fact you had to have the help of the French to beat us speaks volume. And unlike what?

Entente soldiers:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Entente_on_the_Balkans.jpg

The Entente using foreigners, non-Europeans to help bolster their forces also speak volumes.

Guapo
05-07-2010, 03:21 AM
We attacked with inferior forces and still beat you, sorry brother.

"We?" I didn't know you were personally there. Can you read? 145,00 Bulgarians did not take on 200,000 Serbs alone. Serbia was attacked on three sides. Serbia's Army was the inferior one.

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 03:31 AM
"We?" I didn't know you were personally there. Serbia was attacked on three sides. Serbia's Army was the inferior one.

Yeah, Serbia's position in WW1 was pretty unfortunate but shit happens, eh? I think things would've been pretty interesting if the Germans didn't stop the Bulgarians from invading Greece out of hopes that Greece would join the Central Powers.

The Lawspeaker
05-07-2010, 10:20 AM
We attacked with inferior forces and still beat you, sorry brother.


The fact you had to have the help of the French to beat us speaks volume. And unlike what?

Entente soldiers:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Entente_on_the_Balkans.jpg

The Entente using foreigners, non-Europeans to help bolster their forces also speak volumes.
The Germans used colonial troops too.. in Africa though:

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/highres_30025722.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Bundesarchiv_Bild_105-DOA3056,_Deutsch-Ostafrika,_Askarikompanie.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Askari_German_East_Africa.jpg

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 01:43 PM
That they did but at least they didn't bring them over to Europe like the British or the French did.

The Lawspeaker
05-07-2010, 01:46 PM
That they did but at least they didn't bring them over to Europe like the British or the French did.
Because they couldn't. They didn't have enough colonies and the Entente basically controlled the world's waterways. So the colonies and the German homeland were pretty much blocked off from each other at the outbreak of war.

Agrippa
05-07-2010, 04:21 PM
Because they couldn't. They didn't have enough colonies and the Entente basically controlled the world's waterways. So the colonies and the German homeland were pretty much blocked off from each other at the outbreak of war.

The French and British had huge colonies with a lot of ressources, including human ressources. Germany mostly got the "colonial rests" and had a quite short period of colonisation. Additionally those colonise were not really what we could call military strongpoints. Actually they would have needed more supply, even human one, from the motherland to stand a chance. Only rather small "Schutztruppen" were active in the colonies and the only thing they could achieve was to pin down enemy forces, f.e. with Guerilla warfare in East Africa.

So even if there would have been a connection with the motherland, a large human ressource support from the colonies was no real issue.

Jarl
05-07-2010, 06:50 PM
"We?" I didn't know you were personally there. Can you read? 145,00 Bulgarians did not take on 200,000 Serbs alone. Serbia was attacked on three sides. Serbia's Army was the inferior one.

Of course! Bulgarians with their underequipped Army were sheer opportunists that did not want to face Serbia alone.

They hesitated until 1915 and then they attacked simultaneously with two armies of Austria-Hunagry. Outnumbering the Serbians by at least 2:1.




Oh please, as if the Greeks or the Serbs fought on their own. You're a stupid asshole. Please tell me about the all mighty Polish army! Oh wait, in WW2, Poland was conquered in only three weeks. :coffee:


Quit with ad personams and start using arguments. That's my polite request.



When I was talking about potent Bulgarian military, in no way did I compare my country's army to other bigger countries' armies :rolleyes:. Bulgaria, compared to other Balkan countries, it was the most powerful. Do we still have to listen to your whining platitudes?

The Bulgarian military achieved many great feats and I certainly don't need your nod to make it true.

Serbian Campaign

Morava Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morava_Offensive_Operation) (145,000 Bulgarians v. 200,000 Serbs), a Bulgarian victory (yes, the 1st army was led by a Bulgarian).

Ovche Pole Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovche_Pole_Offensive_Operation), again, the Bulgarians win.

Kosovo Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Offensive_Operation_%281915%29), the Bulgarians finish off the Serbs



Let me ask you one thing. Do you understand a simple truth that the Serbian campaign was not a "Bulgarian achievement", but a Austro-Hungaro-Bulgarian one?


Small Serbia was fighting Austria-Hungary from 1914. Then, in 1915, Bulgaria joined in. Two Austro-Hungarian armies pushed deep into Serbia and tied two out of three main armies of Serbia, while the Bulgarians attacked from the other side facing mainly Serbian 2nd Army. Have a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia-WW1-3.jpg


And NO. Contrary to what you wrote, in 1915, Serbia was fighting on her own. The Entenete send two divisions but they did not join the Serbian campaign on time. Their role was mariginal and by the time they reached frontline, Serbia had to evacuate its armies. So:



Serbia = 250 000 troops

Austria-Hungary + Bulgaria = 680 000 troops



A truly spectacular victory! Serbians were coping pretty well agains the Dual Monarchy. However, once Bulgaria joined in, they became numerically far inferior and had to evacuate the front as Bulgarians were pushing into their backyard. And the commander of the front and the campaign was an Austrian - Field Marshal Mackensen, not Kliment Boyadzhiev. So read the story and cut your nationalist propaganda crap...

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 06:54 PM
Of course! Bulgarians with their underequipped Army were sheer opportunists that did not want to face Serbia alone. They hesitated until 1915 and then they attacked simultaneously with two armies of Austria-Hunagry. Outnumbering the Serbians by at least 2:1.

I'm amazed that you've not ran out of tissue yet... or have you?

Jarl
05-07-2010, 07:15 PM
I'm amazed that you've not ran out of tissue yet... or have you?

Why not some more ad personams, Void?



1. 420 - 680 000 troops (most of which were well equipped Austro-Hungarians) versus 250 000 troops is not a great victory.


2. Attacking a country thats been eroded by 1 year of war with fresh troops is not a great victory.


3. Attacking one Serbian Army and some poor militia rag-tags with two fresh numerically superior Armies, while the bulk of Serbian forces are tied up fighting two Austro-Hungarian armies, is not a great victory.


4. Siding with a stronger country, one of European Empires, and attacking a small country from the backyard is not a great victory.


5. Campaign designed and commanded by a Austrian Marshal is not a great Bulgarian victory.



This is the true face of the "Bulgarian victory" in 1915. Just bear that in mind when you start braggin about Bulgarian victories again.




Serbian Campaign

Morava Offensive (145,000 Bulgarians v. 200,000 Serbs), a Bulgarian victory (yes, the 1st army was led by a Bulgarian).

200 000??? This is utter BULLSHIT - you took that from Wikipedia didn't you? Check the discussion.


By 1915 Serbian forces, consisting of 3 Armies (and militias) numbered 255 000 troops in total. Each Serbian Army (1st, 2nd, 3rd) numbered about 60 000 - 80 000 troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Army_(Serbia)


Serbian 2nd Army could not count more than 80 000 troops. Plus some poor Macedonian militias. At the Balkan wars the numbers were:


- The First Army (132,000 men) was commanded by General [[Petar Bojović]], and was the strongest in number and force, forming the center of the drive towards Skopje.


- The Second Army (74,000 men) was commanded by General [[Stepa Stepanović]], and consisted of one Serbian and one Bulgarian (7th Rila) division. It formed the left wing of the Army and advanced towards [[Stracin]].


- The Third Army (76,000 men) was commanded by General [[Božidar Janković]] and, being the right-wing army, had the task to liberate Kosovo and then join the other armies in the expected battle at the Ovče Polje





Thus the Bulgarians had numerical superiority since they used TWO armies (1st and 2nd - about 145 000 troops) against Serbian one (2nd Army). Serbs were outnumbered 2:1 again! Start evaluating your sources and stop relying on wikipedia to bolster your bullshit. It won't help much.

Jarl
05-07-2010, 10:00 PM
But I am not yet done with those myths.



I already revealed the true face of the Serbian campaign in 1915, when Austria Hungary attacked Serbia assisted by Bulgaria and where the largest invading force belonged to Austria. I als dispelled the wikipedia bullshit on the battle of Morava, Serbian-Bulgarian disparity of forces (one Serbian Army - 70 000 vs two Bulgarian Armies - 145 000). Now, I will proceed to the splendid "Romanian Campaign".




The Romanian government signed a treaty with the Allies on August 17, 1916 and declared war on the Central Powers on August 27. The Romanian Army was quite large, over 500,000 men in 23 divisions. However, it had officers with poor training and equipment; more than half of the army was barely trained. Meanwhile, the German Chief of Staff, General Erich von Falkenhayn correctly reasoned that Romania would side with the Allies and made plans to deal with Romania. Thanks to the earlier conquest of the Kingdom of Serbia and the ineffective Allied operations on the Kingdom of Greece border, and having a territorial interest in Dobrogea, the Bulgarian Army and the Ottoman Army were willing to help fight the Romanians.




On the night of August 27, three Romanian armies (First, Second and Northern), deployed according to the Romanian Campaign Plan (The "Z" Hypothesis), launched attacks through the Carpathians and into Transylvania. Initially the only opposing force was the Austro-Hungarian First Army, which was steadily pushed back toward Hungary. In a relatively short time, the towns of Braşov, Făgăraş and Miercurea Ciuc were captured and the outskirts of Sibiu were reached. In Romanian populated areas, the Romanian troops were warmly welcomed by the population, which provided them considerable assistance in terms of provisions, billeting or guiding. However, the rapid Romanian advance alarmed the Central Powers, and sizable German forces began arriving at the scene. The Austro-Hungarians also sent four divisions to reinforce their lines, and by the middle of September, the Romanian offensive was halted. The Russians loaned them three divisions for operations in the north of Romania, but otherwise very few supplies.

While the Romanian Army was impetuosly advancing in Transylvania, the first counterattack came from General August von Mackensen in command of a multi-national force composed of the Bulgarian Third Army, a German brigade and two divisions of the Ottoman VI Army Corps, whose units began arriving on the Dobrudja front after the initial battles.[10] This army attacked north from Bulgaria, starting on September 1. It stayed on the south side of the Danube river and headed towards Constanţa. The Romanian garrison of Turtucaia, encircled by Bulgarian troops (aided by a column of German troops) surrendered on September 6 (see: Battle of Turtucaia). The Romanian Third Army made further attempts to withstand the enemy offensive at Silistra, Bazargic, Amzacea and Topraisar, but had to withdraw under the pressure of superior enemy forces. Mackensen's success was favoured by the Allies' failure to fulfil the obligation they had assumed through the military convention, by virtue of which they had to mount an offensive on the Macedonian front, and the conditions in which the Russians deployed insufficient troops on the battlefront in the south-east of Romania.

On September 15, the Romanian War Council decided to suspend the Transylvania offensive and destroy the Mackensen army group instead. The plan (the so-called Flămânda Maneuver) was to attack the Central Powers forces from the rear by crossing the Danube at Flămânda, while the front-line Romanian and Russian forces were supposed to launch an offensive southwards towards Cobadin and Kurtbunar. On October 1, two Romanian divisions crossed the Danube at Flămânda and created a bridgehead 14 kilometer-wide and 4 kilometer-deep. On the same day, the joint Romanian and Russian divisions went on offensive on the Dobruja front, however with little success. The failure to break the Dobruja front, combined with a heavy storm on the night of October 1/2 which caused heavy damages to the pontoon bridge, determined general Alexandru Averescu to cancel the whole operation. This would have serious consequences for the rest of the campaign.

Russian reinforcements under General Andrei Zaionchkovsky arrived to halt Mackensen's army before it cut the rail line that linked Constanţa with Bucharest. Fighting was furious with attacks and counterattacks up till September 23.




Basically 500 - 600 000 Romanian Army had to hold out against joint forced of German Empire and Austria-Hungary (3 armies including Alpen Korps), Bulgaria (1 army) and the Ottoman Empire (2 divisions), attacking from all sides.

They fought until September when the Russians arrived and held Germano-Austrian-Bulgaro-Ottoman advance under German general Mackensen... not bad?




End of 1916 brought German victories:


Overall command was now under Falkenhayn (recently fired as German Chief of Staff) who started his own counterattack on September 18. The first attack was on the Romanian First Army near the town of Haţeg; the attack halted the Romanian army advance. Eight days later, two German divisions of mountain troops nearly cut off an advancing Romanian column near Nagyszeben (modern day Sibiu). Defeated, the Romanians retreated back into the mountains and the German troops captured Turnu Roşu Pass. On October 4, the Romanian Second Army attacked the Austro-Hungarians at Brassó (modern day Braşov) but the attack was repulsed and the counterattack forced the Romanians to retreat here also. The Fourth Romanian army, in the north of the country, retreated without much pressure from the Austro-Hungarian troops so that by October 25, the Romanian army was back to its borders everywhere.


(...)



The Russians were forced to send many divisions to the border area to prevent an invasion of southern Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Army, after several engagements, was fought to a standstill by the middle of January 1917. The Romanian Army still fought, but about half of Romania was under German occupation.



Then came 1917 and Russo-Romanian counter offensive (Kerensy offensive), which broke the Austro-Hungarians at Mărăşeşti and Oituz.

Unfortunately for Romanians, the Bolsheviks signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty with the Germans, and the Russians withdrew leaving Romania alone. Romania had no choice and was forced to sign a treaty of Boucharest:

- Romania had to return Southern Dobruja (the Cadrilater) and to cede the southern part of Northern Dobruja (see the map) to Bulgaria, while the rest of the province remained under the joint control of the Central Powers.

- Romania had to give Austria-Hungary control of the passes of the Carpathian Mountains.

- Romania had to lease its oil wells to Germany for 90 years.

- The Central Powers recognized the Union of Bessarabia with Romania


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/French_caricature_on_the_Romanian-German_Peace_Treaty.jpg

That is the face of the Romanian campaign where most of the fighting was done by the Germans and Austro-Hungarians (on the Central Powers' side) who were aided by Bulgarians and Turks!


Together these veteran armies outnumbered the Romanians (who only saw military action as late as 1916) in troops, training and equipment!

Bulgaria, who again opportunistically joined the attack on Romania, was allowed to keep Dobrudja only thanks to the German generosity at Boucharest.

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 10:10 PM
200 000??? This is utter BULLSHIT - you took that from Wikipedia didn't you? Check the discussion.

lol @ the guy who also uses wiki saying this. http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif

Jarl
05-07-2010, 10:18 PM
lol @ the guy who also uses wiki saying this. http://www.smileyhut.com/laughing/rofl.gif

I quote it coz its got nice summaries but only when I check it with other sources. I dont sell bullshit about one Serbian Army numbering 200 000 troops!





Ready for more action???


Let's go!


Romanian Campaign

Battle of Turturcaia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Turtucaia), a German and Bulgarian coordinated victory


Romanians:

- the garrision had 23.100 soldiers and NCO, 440 officers, 4250 horses, 144 guns and 66 MGs at the start of the battle.

- Romanian troops defending the fortress were almost untrained second-rate conscripts and only 3 battalions were part of the active army. They used obsolete weapons and their artillery was compared to a "museum" by witnesses.

- 16 000 reinforcements



Bulgarians + Germans: 55 000





Battle of Dobrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dobrich), we took on the Romanians and the Russians all by ourselves, and despite their numerical advantage we still beat them.


WoW! 23 battalions? That's like 20 000 troops??? 25 000???



What a BATTLE!!! Was that Bulgarian Somme or Verdun? ;)



Flamanda Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl%C4%83m%C3%A2nda_Offensive), the Germans and Bulgarians fight together again and defeats the Romanians.


What did the Bulgarians do there???



The attack commenced on 29 September on a 50 miles (80 km) wide front from Flămânda to Zimnicea in the direction of Mackensen's western flank, with the Romanian forces enjoying superiority in numbers of infantry personnel and artillery equipment. However, the Romanian struggle to cross the Danube was slowed by the Austro-Hungarian Navy's Danube Flotilla.[1]

On October 1, two Romanian divisions crossed the Danube at Flămânda and created a bridgehead 14 kilometer-wide and 4 kilometer-deep. On the same day, the joint Romanian and Russian divisions went on offensive on the Dobruja front, however with little success. In the night between 1/2 October a heavy storm caused heavy damages to the pontoon bridge Romanian forces were using to pass the Danube. The failure to break the Dobruja front, culminating with the heavy infantry fighting in the vicinity of Flamanda on 3 October, led General Averescu to cancel the whole operation and concentrate its forces to counter the Central Powers offensive from Transylvania.



Again - Romanians fighting on two fronts, versus Austrian, German and Bulgarian forces...



Battle of Bucharest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bucharest), the Germans and Bulgarians take the Romanian capital.

250 000 Germans and Bulgarians versus 150 000 Romanians... awesome!



Why don't you mention Mărăşeşti where 218 000 Romanians won against 248 000 Germans and Austrians?

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 10:22 PM
How exactly is it my fault that the Germans and Austrians also attacked Romania? :mmmm:

Guapo
05-07-2010, 10:28 PM
Why don't you mention Mărăşeşti where 218 000 Romanians won against 248 000 Germans and Austrians?

The first victory of the Entente happened in August 1914 when battle was waged in the area of Mt. Cer, in which around 200,000 Austro-Hungarians fought against 180,000 Serbs. The main battle at Cer lasted from August 16 to August 19. The Serbian Army was victorious, pushed the Austro-Hungarian Army back across the Drina, and completely thwarted their war plan. They needed Bulgaria to join in. There was no other way to defeat Serbia, I'll give them that at least.

Jarl
05-07-2010, 10:33 PM
How exactly is it my fault that the Germans and Austrians also attacked Romania? :mmmm:

It is not your fault. Just don't go around braggin about some invincible potent Bulgarian army that "won every single battle"... took everyone on and single-handedly deafeted them all without one fart.




Since, apart from certain unquestionable victories, you did not win those campaigns alone. You were merely assisting the Powers - the Austrians and the Germans, doing dirty secondary job in the backgarden.

This was so in 1915 when main Serbian forces (two regular armies) were tied North of Belgrade fighting Austrians and you faced only one army and militia with your fresh two armies. This was so in 1916, when you fought in Dobrudja, while the Romanians had to tackle the Germans and Austrians across the Carpathian passes. They had to hurry off their troops from Dobrudja to face the Alpen Korps and the Central armies. And this was so in 1917 when the bulk of the fighting was done by the Germans and Russians.

At any single time during these campaigns Bulgarians numbered 150 to 200 000 troops. The battles they fought often involved less than 50 000 Bulgarians. I recommend you read some stuff on the battles that took place in Western and Eastern front to get a nice comparison.


And what Bulgarians got was granted to them by the Central Powers. So cut the crap that "Bulgaria took" Western Outerlands, Dobrudja and Greece. No. Bulgaria did not just take Outerlands, Dobrudja and Greece. She was GIVEN them. HANDED THEM over by the Austro-German superiors at the treaties which were signified by the German or the Austrian commanders.


And one more thing - mighty "potent" Bulgaria never dared to face Serbia or Romania on her own in the first place. She only joined in to backstab them when the main invasions were launched by the Central Powers.


What is more - on EACH of these occasions the joined Central forces outnumbered the Serbians and the Romanians. And were always commanded by an Austrian or a German.

Jarl
05-07-2010, 10:50 PM
And thank the good Lord that this fellow:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Brusilov_Aleksei_in_1917.jpg

...pulled out nearly 1 000 000 Imperial troops from Mołdawia, coz without the Germans at your side your asses would be on fire.

Kanasyuvigi
05-07-2010, 10:56 PM
It is not your fault. Just don't go around braggin about some invincible potent Bulgarian army that "won every single battle"... took everyone on and single-handedly deafeted them all without one fart.




Since, apart from certain unquestionable victories, you did not win those campaigns alone. You were merely assisting the Powers - the Austrians and the Germans, doing dirty secondary job in the backgarden.

This was so in 1915 when main Serbian forces (two regular armies) were tied North of Belgrade fighting Austrians and you faced only one army and militia with your fresh two armies. This was so in 1916, when you fought in Dobrudja, while the Romanians had to tackle the Germans and Austrians across the Carpathian passes. They had to hurry off their troops from Dobrudja to face the Alpen Korps and the Central armies. And this was so in 1917 when the bulk of the fighting was done by the Germans and Russians.

At any single time during these campaigns Bulgarians numbered 150 to 200 000 troops. The battles they fought often involved less than 50 000 Bulgarians. I recommend you read some stuff on the battles that took place in Western and Eastern front to get a nice comparison.


And what Bulgarians got was granted to them by the Central Powers. So cut the crap that "Bulgaria took" Western Outerlands, Dobrudja and Greece. No. Bulgaria did not just take Outerlands, Dobrudja and Greece. She was GIVEN them. HANDED THEM over by the Austro-German superiors at the treaties which were signified by the German or the Austrian commanders.


And one more thing - mighty "potent" Bulgaria never dared to face Serbia or Romania on her own in the first place. She only joined in to backstab them when the main invasions were launched by the Central Powers.


What is more - on EACH of these occasions the joined Central forces outnumbered the Serbians and the Romanians. And were always commanded by an Austrian or a German.

1. Bulgaria faced Serbia one on one in 1885. We were badly equiped, without any high rank officers (the Russian generals left the country just before the war). The whole Bulgarian army was on the south border (with the Ottoman Empire) and Serbia attacked us in the back. But we've crushed the Serbian army and actually it was Austro-Hungarian diplomacy who saved the Serbs.

2. In 1913, in the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria fought alone against Serbia, Greece, Romania an Turkey (not bad, eh :P ). Of course we've lost the war, but the united Serbo-Greek forces didn't manage to defeat fully our forces in Macedonia. They've agreed to the Bulgarian peace offer after our successful counter-attack.

3. My country has never entered a war with horses against tanks :D

Jarl
05-07-2010, 11:04 PM
1. Bulgaria faced Serbia one on one in 1885. We were badly equiped, without any high rank officers (the Russian generals left the country just before the war). The whole Bulgarian army was on the south border (with the Ottoman Empire) and Serbia attacked us in the back. But we've crushed the Serbian army and actually it was Austro-Hungarian diplomacy who saved the Serbs.


2. In 1913, in the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria fought alone against Serbia, Greece, Romania an Turkey (not bad, eh :P ). Of course we've lost the war, but the united Serbo-Greek forces didn't manage to defeat fully our forces in Macedonia. They've agreed to the Bulgarian peace offer after our successful counter-attack.


That is true. Bulgaria kicked Serbias arse in the Second Balkand War and Serbia sucked. Coz that is life. Once you kick ass, and once you suck.


But goddamit one needs to be just and depict the image realistically. Bulgaria was a moderately small country with 4-5 mln ppl and though they were experienced and fought the Serbians, the Turks and nearly every other nation they bordered on, they could only afford a moderate army (moderate in comparison to the multimilion war effort of France, Prussia, Austria or Russia).

So why to sell the crap about "every single Bulgarian victory"... "potent Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian Tsar taking Dobrudja and Outlands", when Bulgarians had the whole Central Power's machine behind their asses and only joined in when Austria and Germany attacked first? Why?



WHY???



To make Bulgaria look like a fokking SUPER-MEGA-POWER that it had never been? To get a better self-esteem? To feel more admired? WTF?!


3. My country has never entered a war with horses against tanks :D

Lucky you. We had our own tanks too in 1939. But they were too few... unfortunately ;)

poiuytrewq0987
05-07-2010, 11:10 PM
To make Bulgaria look like a fokking SUPER-MEGA-POWER

Because it is. Now suck my dick, bitch.

Kanasyuvigi
05-07-2010, 11:12 PM
That is true. Bulgaria kicked Serbias arse in the Second Balkand War and Serbia sucked. Coz that is life. Once you kick ass, and once you suck.


But goddamit one needs to be just and depict the image realistically. Bulgaria was a moderately small country with 4-5 mln ppl and though they were experienced and fought the Serbians, the Turks and nearly every other nation they bordered on, they could only afford a moderate army (moderate in comparison to the multimilion war effort of France, Prussia, Austria or Russia).

So why to sell the crap about "every single Bulgarian victory"... "potent Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian Tsar taking Dobrudja and Outlands", when Bulgarians had the whole Central Power's machine behind their asses and only joined in when Austria and Germany attacked first? Why?



WHY???



To make Bulgaria look like a fokking SUPER-MEGA-POWER that it had never been? To get a better self-esteem? To feel more admired? WTF?!



Lucky you. We had our own tanks too in 1939. But they were too few... unfortunately ;)

Yeah, here you are right. May be that's just the complex of the small ones. I'm sure that the things are similar in Serbia, Greece, Romania... But, hey, I don't think it's so bad. May be these are myths, but we all need national mythology ;)

Jarl
05-07-2010, 11:36 PM
Yeah, here you are right. May be that's just the complex of the small ones. I'm sure that the things are similar in Serbia, Greece, Romania... But, hey, I don't think it's so bad. May be these are myths, but we all need national mythology ;)

I think those things are the same everywhere - no matter if its Greece or Germany. Like you said - everyone needs the myth. Wisely spoken for someone your age. Yet it is also good to look for the broader context and evaluate things more critically, particularly when discussing things among other ppl.

SwordoftheVistula
05-08-2010, 06:09 AM
:D:D

W. R.
05-10-2010, 06:46 AM
For the first time that song was performed on 27.VI.1941. Quite a lot of people believed at that time that Addie was quite a good alternative to Uncle Joe. Many of them were bitterly disappointed later.I'll just leave it here. :curtain:

rw8f_wHn1zo

The Ripper
05-10-2010, 10:40 AM
The irony here is that some of those Baltics (Estonians in particular) supported the Bolsheviks against the Whites.

I was just browsing this thread and this jumped up. Which Estonians? The Estonian War of Independence was won by the Whites, fighting against Russian Bolsheviks...

Äike
05-11-2010, 08:12 PM
I was just browsing this thread and this jumped up. Which Estonians? The Estonian War of Independence was won by the Whites, fighting against Russian Bolsheviks...

I already replied (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=206813&postcount=132) to the most idiotic post in this thread. The truth was actually the opposite to what Roybatty claimed, even brainwashed Russian Commies know that the Estoninas were strongly anti-Bolshevik and helped the Whites on the offensive towards St. Petersburg. We also liberated our weaker southern neighbour from the Reds... and the Germans.

The Ripper
05-11-2010, 08:59 PM
I already replied (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=206813&postcount=132) to the most idiotic post in this thread. The truth was actually the opposite to what Roybatty claimed, even brainwashed Russian Commies know that the Estoninas were strongly anti-Bolshevik and helped the Whites on the offensive towards St. Petersburg. We also liberated our weaker southern neighbour from the Reds... and the Germans.

Don't forget it was the impetuous Finnish volunteers (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjan_Pojat) that first stormed into northern Latvia - against their orders. :D