Heil Hitler (1 Viewer)

[fleepbasding]

Have you ever heard of the Yalta conference?

The occupation of Germany as stated at this conference was to:

"destroy German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world"

Other terms:

The Soviets reaffirmed their intention to fight Japan and in return expected to occupy areas in the East. The secret Yalta agreement was signed on February 11, 1945 by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin in which Russia agreed to declare war on Japan "in two or three months" after the surrender of Germany, in return for: (1) Preservation of the status quo in Outer Mongolia, (2) return of Southern Sakhalin and adjacent islands, internationalization of Dairen, restoration of Port Arthur as a leased naval base, joint Chinese-Russian operation of the Chinese Eastern Railroad and the South Manchurian Railroad, which provides an outlet for Dairen ("China shall maintain full sovereignty in Manchuria"); (3) Kurile Islands to be "handed over" to Russia. In this agreement, the United States and Britain also agreed to support Ukraine and White Russia as separate states in the UN. Moreover, the United States, Britain and Russia gave themselves "supreme authority" to take any steps deemed necessary to prevent future German aggression, including "dismemberment" of Germany.

Does this seem as though it was a containment strategy? Ofcourse it wasn't, the Allies were fooled.

Wasn't containment only a formal US policy under Truman a few years after the war?

How were the allies fooled?- they had to make the agreement regardless of suspicions concerning the USSR because they needed their support to win the war against Germany.

 

[Husayn]

If the Allies had not been fooled from day 1 (Tehran Conference) and from then on, they would have realised Stalin's intentions (by referring to his tyrannical past), and only have given him sufficient help to expel Germany. They would have raised a much larger army (the Americans) then they did for the 2nd front and would have captured most of Germany themselves, not to mention some of the Balkans.

The fact that Stalin was given a freehand in Eastern Germany, the Balkans and the Far East illustrates how much the Americans were fooled - Churchill was suspicious from day 1 until the Potsdam conference where he failed to be re-electd.

 

[fleepbasding]

If the Allies had not been fooled from day 1 (Tehran Conference) and from then on, they would have realised Stalin's intentions (by referring to his tyrannical past), and only have given him sufficient help to expel Germany. They would have raised a much larger army (the Americans) then they did for the 2nd front and would have captured most of Germany themselves, not to mention some of the Balkans.

The fact that Stalin was given a freehand in Eastern Germany, the Balkans and the Far East illustrates how much the Americans were fooled - Churchill was suspicious from day 1 until the Potsdam conference where he failed to be re-electd.

hmmm, don't you think that's all a bit too speculative? I don't know how you can justify it, I'm still not convinced that the americans were "fooled" as such. I doubt they were such the military jugernaught, that you make them out to be, as to be able to disregard the demands of Stalin at Yalta.

 

[Husayn]

It's either that or we say that the Americans planned all along that the countries behind the Iron Curtain would be there, which I doubt was the case.

 

[Husayn]

Whether or not they had the capability to fight Russia is different from whether or not they expected Russia to be an enemy, which they clearly didn't.

 

[fleepbasding]

Husayn: "It's either that or we say that the Americans planned all along that the countries behind the Iron Curtain would be there, which I doubt was the case."


Or the Americans would rather have left the hard-work of capturing Berlin to the Russians.

 

[ManlyChief]

Have you ever heard of the Yalta conference?

Please do not try to insult my intelligence with these sort of quips. I could come back with ones of my own if I were so inclined, such as: "Have you ever heard of the principles of scholarly argument?"

The occupation of Germany as stated at this conference was to:

"destroy German militarism and Nazism and to ensure that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the world"

Other terms:

The Soviets reaffirmed their intention to fight Japan and in return expected to occupy areas in the East. The secret Yalta agreement was signed on February 11, 1945 by Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin in which Russia agreed to declare war on Japan "in two or three months" after the surrender of Germany, in return for: (1) Preservation of the status quo in Outer Mongolia, (2) return of Southern Sakhalin and adjacent islands, internationalization of Dairen, restoration of Port Arthur as a leased naval base, joint Chinese-Russian operation of the Chinese Eastern Railroad and the South Manchurian Railroad, which provides an outlet for Dairen ("China shall maintain full sovereignty in Manchuria"); (3) Kurile Islands to be "handed over" to Russia. In this agreement, the United States and Britain also agreed to support Ukraine and White Russia as separate states in the UN. Moreover, the United States, Britain and Russia gave themselves "supreme authority" to take any steps deemed necessary to prevent future German aggression, including "dismemberment" of Germany.

Does this seem as though it was a containment strategy? Ofcourse it wasn't, the Allies were fooled.

Again, I repeat my call for you to distill your argument into a series of points (as I paid you and others the courtesy of so doing) that will clarify your thesis and provide a basis for scholarly engagement.

Furthermore - will you please address my argument as I clarified it:

A. The post-war occupation of the BDR by the British and Americans was primarily a measure to check Soviet expansion into Western Europe.

B. That the post-war occupation may have been pre-arranged with the Soviet leadership does not suggest that the British and Americans did not view the Soviets as a significant political threat.

C. That the British and Americans did not capture Berlin does not, when taken with an holistic view of the conflicts in Europe and the Pacific, prove that the British and Americans wanted the Soviets to take it per se. Rather the failure to capture and hold Berlin can be seen as a manifestation of the military stresses placed on the British and Americans by the continuing war in the Pacific, which stress was not, at that time, placed on the Soviet forces to the same degree.

 

[kiteblood]

Regardless of my views on the severity of Hitler's role as a fascist dictator, he was pretty damn attractive pre WWII. Come on people, the guy had a mustache and his best friend was a dog. Beneath that tyrannical, totalitarian facade I'm sure he was quite a reasonable, devilishly handsome fellow.

The person who created this thread has an inability think within a specific social context/ is a moron.

 

[Husayn]

B. That the post-war occupation may have been pre-arranged with the Soviet leadership does not suggest that the British and Americans did not view the Soviets as a significant political threat.

This is something that YOU have to dis-prove. All the evidence (Tehran/Yalta - Failure to anticipate an Iron Curtain) points to it being a fact of history.

C. That the British and Americans did not capture Berlin does not, when taken with an holistic view of the conflicts in Europe and the Pacific, prove that the British and Americans wanted the Soviets to take it per se. Rather the failure to capture and hold Berlin can be seen as a manifestation of the military stresses placed on the British and Americans by the continuing war in the Pacific, which stress was not, at that time, placed on the Soviet forces to the same degree.

Military stresses placed on the Americans!?!

What stresses? A handful of suicidal defenders surrounded in Okinawa and the Phillipines?

The Americans came to a HALT in the West, in order to allow the Soviets to surround and capture Berlin. They had it easy, Stalin complained numerous times that German resistance "seemed" to be heavier in the East than in the West. He probally didn't realise that the German army was doing all it could to allow as many people to escape to the West.

The Western front on the other hand utterly collapsed after the failed Ardennes Offensive, the Allies waltzed through after that.

There were many opportunities in which the Allied advance was slowed for no conceivable reason - like when Patton urged his superiors to allow him to capture the Siegfried line before the Germans could reinforce it.

The fact of the matter is, it wasn't the Americans who were suffering 20,000 casaulties a day, the stresses placed on their War Machine were minimal. Victory was assured in every theatre.

The capture of Berlin was organised before the invasion of Europe even began, it was always understood that the Russian's should have the honour - because they were viewed as heroic friends not back-stabbing enemies.

 

[fleepbasding]

This is something that YOU have to dis-prove. All the evidence (Tehran/Yalta - Failure to anticipate an Iron Curtain) points to it being a fact of history.

I'm pretty sure it is not a "fact of history"- it's quite hotly debated last time I checked. So why don't you present a historical argument so that people can argue using a bit more than your innacurate assumptions that your position is universally supported by historians.

The capture of Berlin was organised before the invasion of Europe even began, it was always understood that the Russian's should have the honour - because they were viewed as heroic friends not back-stabbing enemies.

The allied invasion of Western Europe was already an attempt to check Soviet ambitions in Europe-

By this time the Soviet steamroller had become so powerful that some historians argue that the U.S. and British landing at Normandy was more to prevent a coast-to-coast Soviet block than to fight Germany. In all, 80% of all German casualties were suffered on the Eastern front, and Europe became divided along Germany. Some believe that had the U.S. not invaded the sparsely defended Western Front, Stalin would have controlled all of Europe..

just because they didn't capture Berlin first doesn't mean they weren't suspicious of the Russians. Your delving into the mindsets of the US leaders hasn't yet gone beyond speculation. Why do you assume that the only reason the US "let" (debatable in itself) Russia take Berlin and Eastern Europe, was that they were fooled? Other possible factors- avoidance of casualties by leaving the majority of fighting to Russian armies; east Germany and the states behind it (Poland etc) were a necessary compromise for Russia's help in winning war; the Russians actually deserved to capture Berlin as they had suffered the brunt of the war and had significantly weakened Germany; at the time of the Yalta conference the US hadn't yet assured victory against Japan- proven to a large extent by the fact that at Yalta the Soviets agreed to intervene in the war with Japan within three months of the German surrender.

I think your being simplistic- there was clearly more to it than just being fooled, although the reluctant trust placed in Stalin may have been foolish.

 

[Husayn]

the Russians actually deserved to capture Berlin as they had suffered the brunt of the war and had significantly weakened Germany;

Yeah, refer to:

it was always understood that the Russian's should have the honour - because they were viewed as heroic friends not back-stabbing enemies.

 

[fleepbasding]

Quote:
"the Russians actually deserved to capture Berlin as they had suffered the brunt of the war and had significantly weakened Germany;"


Yeah, refer to:

Quote:
"it was always understood that the Russian's should have the honour - because they were viewed as heroic friends not back-stabbing enemies."

If you look closely, you'll see that what is different about what I said as compared to yours is the reasoning behind the decision: you say the Russians "were viewed as heroic friends not back-stabbing enemies"- as though the reason behind letting them capture Berlin was out of deluded love and loyalty (you trying to further your theory that the allies were fooled). I put forward that it had more to do with Russia having rightful claim to conquering Germany, due to their role in weakening Germany throughout the war- the allies acceptance, however reluctant, of Russias right to conquer Germany- nothing to do with veiwing the Russians as "heroic friends".

 

[fish fingers]

This criticism of the Allies advance is entirely unjustified. There were many reasons for their comparatively slow advance. Such as:
1. There supply lines were much longer and drawn out then those of the USSR. It could take as long as four months for equipment to reach France from America, and that was of course where most of the supplies came from, due to the British having much fewer supplies after the hitherto War effort, and France having been destroyed basically by the Germans, and then Allies. the rapid advance of the Allies through France at the point meant that the armies then had to slow as they approached Germany. Patton's army was forced to stop for five days at the end of August, 1944 due to lack of supplies.
2. The train tracks which supplies would usually be transported with had been destroyed by the Allied bombing, and had to be rebuilt. Hence trucks were all that could be used for much of the offensive.
3. Due to there being two significant forces in the Allied military, there was also significant conflict between the commanders, in particular Montgomery, Patton and Eisenhower. The single force of the Soviets did not have this problem.
4. The Siegfried Line had been constructed well before the beginning of the war, and was extremely difficult to pass. The Germans were able to concentrate forces here, and as a result the allies were stalled. These incredible fortifications were lacking in the East.
5. The fact that the British and American forces were split in the North and South, and hence the Battle of the Bulge.
6. The natural geography of the area, such as the River Rhine, meant that advances were extremely slow and hard for the Allies, and provided excellent terrain for the Germans defence, such as the Destruction of all but one of the bridges, that of Remagen, crossing the Rhine. The diffulcity of crossing the Rhine can be seen from the fact, that the last army to cross the Rhine into Germany, was that of Napoleon.
7. Finally though, Eisenhower decided not to advance to Berlin, but to finish the Germans off in the west, much to the chagrin of the British, as Churchill and Roosevelt had already conceded an occupation zone in Berlin to Stalin, so beating the Red army would not have affected control of the city. Given that political reality he preferred to let the Soviets bear the brunt of the fighting, and the casulaties in capturing Berlin. As the Americans had a slightly different approach to their soldiers then Stalin, which was their massacre wasnt acceptable, and they were to be maintained alive. This can be seen from the casualty figures,
USSR: 13,600,000 military deaths,
USA: 295,000 military deaths.

 

[fish fingers]

The original plan was to ship them all out of Europe. As long as the Nazis were winning that was always going to be the plan.

The 'Final Solution' only came about after the Nazis knew Germany was going to lose - and wanted to kill as many of them as possible.

I am not condoning it ofcourse.

However, you can blame the damn Allies for beating Germany back and forcing it to adopt this measure. They should have allowed Germany to conquer the world!

/sarcasm

Actually he planned to kill the inferior races from the beginning, the beginning being, around 1911, his Vienna Period, when the Jewish question first occured to him. The sucess of the German people could only be achieved through the extermination of the Jewish and Marxist plague, as he wrote in Mein Kampf.
If the Allies had of left Germany, or allied with Germany, then the world would truly be different, as his goal was to ally with Britain, and then with a protected flank attack the Soviets etc. and eliminate the inferior races.

 

[fish fingers]

lol its good that people are talking about him....we as a society can see what has happened and unlike hitler, who did not learn from previous mistakes (napoleon invading russia) we can learn from the mistakes that were made by the weinmar republic to let a man such as hitler into power

btw hitler even himself found an error of his interpretation of darwin's theory, he argued that since the german race was one of the last races to become civilised, it would be the master race as it had learned to survive with out civilised comforts....what he later admitted that the russians were most likely superior, as they were much later than the germans in coming to civilisation.

my personal ideas on these interpretations of darwin's theory.....rubbish

Actually Hitler did learn from the past, if you read his work you would realsie he learnt from the mistakes of the Habsburg Monarchy, and Bismarck and the Kaiser and many more. He was actually very well learned in the past and its mistakes, and you cant say that because he invaded Russia he had not learned from the past. Hitler was anything but a coward, and the racial question had to be adressed, which meant the plagued USSR had to be destroyed.

Hitler did not think that way at all about Darwinism. Hitler believe that the Aryan race, which was best preserved in the German people, however there were a few other nations that still preserved it to an extent, such as Britain, was the world's culture creating race, and was as determined by Nature, the strongest race. Hitler believed that Russians were also of the Aryan race, and were thus great as well. However the Russians had been contaminated and reduced by inferior races, and its culture was being destroyed by Jews. Hitler defined a nations people by its blood, and hence Russians were the white culture creating Aryans. He did not believe that the Jews, Slavs, Negroes, Asians etc. were Russian at all, but rather people who were presiding in Russia so as to destroy Russia and its greatness, hence the USSR, and these were the people he wished to exterminate. The lateness of Germany and Russia's civilising as compared to Greece and Rome(both being Aryan themselves) etc. was due to the environment and outer factors influencing the race, however the culture creating ability and strength were always present among the people. If you wish for a detailed account of his theories, you best read his work as it is very long, and difficult to explain over the internet.

 

[fish fingers]

Yeah, and if he wasnt such a fuck and didnt open up a front with the fucking largest army in the world; Russia, maybe he might have won. But remember that great men don't commit suicide.

Actually China had the largest army in the world at the time, and it was useless. If you read anything about war, you would realise numbers confer little advantage. It is the quality and mind of the troop that matters, along with the technology to support them. Germany was superior in all fields, so Hitler was not a 'fuck' as you claim.
By the way, I'm very interested to see how you justify such a claim as great men dont commit suicide, if indeed you can, which is extremely unlikely. Of course you must then remember that there is also much ambiguity around the nature of Hitler's death.

 

[fish fingers]

Hmmm...no. I suggest you actually study the battles between Japan and the USA. It will be quite clear that the Japanese were more than worthy opponents for them. In fact, thay had three chances to beat USA in WWII (but they blew them all due to complacency and stupidity).

Care to elaborate?

 

[ManlyChief]

This is something that YOU have to dis-prove. All the evidence (Tehran/Yalta - Failure to anticipate an Iron Curtain) points to it being a fact of history.

A serious student of history who has examined the subject matter and historiography at higher levels would not use such experssions.

I grow tiresome of this thread ... the lack of clarified argument and the clumsy assumptions drawn from 'evidence' irritates me.

Clarify your point, express it in scholarly terms and let's get on with it. Please.

 

[wannapass]

wow, people actually asmire hitler? thats sick (in a bad way) survival of the fittest, that is absulute rubbish! survival of the fittest is only eliminting competition in order to survive (hense the survial part) hitler though, was just a crazed maniac who had serious issues, i mean the way he killed people because of there race, its sick, he might have been a good leader, but his cause was definatly not worth leading...

 

[KFunk]

For one can not say that Hitler was wrong, in fact Hitler was good according to Aristotle's ethics. Nietzsche certainly would have viewed him highly, with his overman like ability, and his diregarding of slave mentality, which you who have commented here all suffer under.

A random interjection concerning your mention of Nietzsche. I though I might add that Nietzsche was very much aposed to anti-semitism and also nationalism in general (the former being more apparent in his personal relations and the latter in his works). Elizabeth Nietszsche did a good job of promoting her brother's work, after his mental collapse, in the light favoured by the Nazi Party. In any case I'm not sure that Nietzsce would have regarded him so highly; his notions of 'conquering' were likely meant to imply overcoming oneself rather than other nations. Just thought I'd add that .