Printable View
Damn I wish I could figure out how to make a poll here.
Anyway two questions. If instead of attacking Poland Germany and Russia had attacked eachother either then or later on when the actually did
A Who would have won?
B Who would you have wanted to win?
I ll throw in a
C And why?
This may turn out to be backroom stuff ~;)
How they could attacked each other if they had Poland in the middle ?
Trying to make sense of your unique style of typing is quite a challenge, Gawain...
A... I think that it would have been a prolonged harsh war, which Germany would have lost.
B... I would have wanted Germany to win
C... to A, for the same reason they lost in WW2, because of their inability to cope with the winter. to B, because Communists are evil and want to take away my (parents') well-earned money
Very hard question Gawain.In this hypothetical scenario you mean that it would have been one vs. one.Or would have Russia invaded Finland too.I asked that only because in order to make mind on whos side i would have taken i need to know how biased my opinion would be. ~;)
It would be one on one. If they both had to invade Poland in order to fightt or any other small nations got involved lets assume the major allied powers stayed out of it.
One of my points is I dont believe the people of the US thought any better of Russia then they did of Germany before the war started. In fact Id say they liked the Germans far better.If in 1936 you had asked most americans if war broke out between these two nations who would you favor I think Germany wins hands down.
Il throw in another question.
If you were an average citizen which system would you choose to live under,Hitlers Germany or Stalins Russia?
Why ? why ? why ? :embarassed: :embarassed: :embarassed:
On second thought - in the winning side...
Ok.One vs. One I think that in 1939 Germany could have crushed the Soviet army,but i dont think they could have occupied whole of the Soviet Union.My personal wish for the outcome would have been that they would have exhausted eachother and fought to an standstill.I believe that the outcome would have been a negotiated peace, because French and British would have attacked Germany on her back if it would have seemed that The Soviet Union would have collapsed.
Gawain you have some tough questions today.I wouldnt have liked either system.That is just a terrible question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Both systems had deep moral issues when it came to politics and ethnicity, but if it boiled down to standard of living I would have to choose Germany. As to who would have won, Germany would certainly have had a fighting chance if they weren't engaged on two fronts as was actually the case, but whether they'd have held Russia for any period is doubtful.
In reality isnt this pretty much what happened? Basicly we didnt like either side so we suppilied the Ruskies with weapons to make it more even so that they would destroy eachother. When it was clear Russia would win we stepped in to stop them from taking over more terrirtory. The only difference is without the allies Russia would have suffered a lot more and I think the Germans would have occupied the whole place and that Japan would have carved up a slice of Russia for herself as well.Quote:
Ok.One vs. One I think that in 1939 Germany could have crushed the Soviet army,but i dont think they could have occupied whole of the Soviet Union.My personal wish for the outcome would have been that they would have exhausted eachother and fought to an standstill.I believe that the outcome would have been a negotiated peace, because French and British would have attacked Germany on her back if it would have seemed that The Soviet Union would have collapsed.
I have no problem choosing being a blond haired blue eyed man. ~DQuote:
Gawain you have some tough questions today.I wouldnt have liked either system.That is just a terrible question.
I have no doubt that the average German was far better off than the average Russian in 1932 or that matter anytime in history ~D But I do believe Stalin was worse than Hitler. The only reason we went with Russia is Germany was closer ..
But i am blond haired man,(Ok.I have green eyes). ~D But to chooce from those to be a slave of the Government in Russia or to wait what would be the next grazy thing that Hitler would come up for Nations self destruction.I would choose to be a German also but i would do anything to get that psycho Hitler of power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Point A -- Early
Germany and the Soviets attack each other over a dying Poland, Fall 1939.
Probable Result: Soviet victory with conquest up to, but likely not beyond, the Elbe before their offensive capabilities were blunted.
Russia would have struck only after Germany had suffered significant casualties in Poland (which is when they did attack Poland). Germany's Panzercorps were not the scalpel they were 6 months or a year later and her economy was poorly geared for war. Soviet casualties would have been vastly higher than Germany's, but they had 20,000 tanks to the German 1800 AND Germany had no Panzer 3's or 4's. The German Air Force would have obtained air superiority and held it. This, combined with a rush to arms in Germany would have halted the Soviets prior to complete victory.
Point A -- 1941/42
Germany Attacks Russia (June 1941).
Germany should have won. Hitler stopped the Panzers from pursuing a strike on the Moscow plateau. With 18% of Soviet Industry concentrated in Moscow, this was strategically stupid. The tactical successes in the Ukraine and the North were not a worthwile trade. Read "Panzers East" -- they really DID have the ability to break Russia before the Siberian troops came West.
Russia attacks Rumania and Germany Intervenes (Spring 1942)
Part of the reason Germany did so well in '41 is that the Russians were building up for a strike into the Balkans and had too much of their Air Force and Armor too far forward and too far South for propoer defense. Had Russia launched its strike, Germany's counter might have been even more effective than the original assault, but would have had to contend with an unsurprised and more coordinated Soviet Army. Probably a modified repeat of what actually happened would have ensued.
Point B:
Neither. Both regimes were evil in a way that few have ever achieved. Even the Opium wars and the horrors of the Belgian Congo weren't quite this bad. The Turks never got close to the scale of either of these monsters with their efforts against the Armenians and the Chaldeans. Hitler and Stalin represent humanity at its worst.
Point C:
I'd have been even happier if we had invaded the Balkans and Scandinavia in the Fall of '44 (while preparing a rescue force to land in France upon the collapse of Germany. These incursions would have sapped Germany's strength less slowly, allowing more Russian and German casualties. Strategically, we would have done better if they bled each other even more.
SF
How so ?Quote:
But I do believe Stalin was worse than Hitler
A - In 1939, the Germans weren't on top yet, but the Russians sucked quite badly. Just as during Barbarossa, they would have get hammered first, but the Germans would have lost to winter, or would have been outnumbered, since Stalin would have sent every single russian to death to win the war.
B - The Russians, because Hitler would have killed every single russian after his victory and would have USSR in a giant extermination camp.
C - See above.
He killed far more of his own and other people than Hitler did.Quote:
How so ?
I disagree. If we go that way, Hitler killed *at least* 60 millions of people, including ~20 millions of russians, ~7 millions of germans, ~7 millions of poles, and so on.Quote:
He killed far more of his own and other people than Hitler did.
He invented extermination camps, decided to kill millions of innoncent people because of their religious beliefs, of their so called races.
Stalin *might* have killed 60 millions of people (very unlikely), including a lot of innocent sent to the Gulags, but he never created a whole industry system whose aim was to turn human beings into soaps.
Don't turn your hate of socialism and communism into a mere revisionism of history.
A
I think that Russia would have won the war eventually, but I think that it would have been so exhausted that the Cold War might not have happened. Germany would probably have reached Moscow, but it is doubtful that it would have held on the end.Russia was simply too huge for anyone except the Russians to rule.
B
Being half German and having several relatives who had served on the Easter Front, I am biased towards Germany. I do regard both regimes to be as horrendous as the other. With the Communists anybody could be targeted, but no specific ethnic group. With the Nazi regime, if one wasn't belonging to any of the targeted groups one was relatively safe.
In 1939 Germany could not have taken the Soviet Union on. Their entire army was just below 2 million in all, far too little to be able to overpower the SU. They would have won spectacular victories as the Russians simply hadn't learned the tough lessons of Finland, and they were even close to the purges in time. So tactically it would have been a massacre, but getting beyond a very large bulge in Soviet territory would have been impossible. So it would have been a limited war perhaps. But perhaps both would have tried a buildup in a very problematic state.
Since Germany was nowhere as far in as in late 41 the SU would have more industrial power to dish out destruction. Meanwhile Germany was far weaker in military matter (and it wasn't as if her industry was ready for major military contracts at the time).
If we have a case of 41, where the Soviet Union didn't get the allied supplies, then you can be certain that Moscow would have been taken. And with it the absolute rail hub in western Russia. There would be close to no traffic north/south anymore.
Meanwhile the SU wouldn't be able to arm new divisions as fast, and in December 41 the pre-war stocks of ammunition had quite simply run out. And with no Allied help there, there would be far too little ammo for the troops for a long while.
Further, it is likely that the Mongolian divisions would have been deployed to the west earlier, and possibly ended up as the rest.
It would not have been a pretty sight.
Hitler versus Stalin:
Both are the dregs of humanity, existing solely for power and having nothing of what we would call decency.
Gulags v. Final Solution:
Stalin sent millions to the gulags on the slightest -- or no -- provocation. An estimated 30 million never returned from these gulags, starved when the farms were forcibly collectivized or were killed outright in purges and disappearances. No accurate count can be made, since records were not kept of many of the latter. This occurred throughout the Stalin era over a period of more than 20 years.
Hitler killed between 14 and 16 million in his "final solution" to the Jews, Gypsies, Queers, etc. This number probably exceeds 20 million if Russian POWs and others who were worked to death are counted. Hitler managed this total in less than 12 years, so his average was higher.
These numbers EXCLUDE the dead resulting from wars of agression launched by both nations. Many moralists would include those as well and the numbers become staggering.
To argue who was worse is to compare turds -- the essential subject matter has not changed.
Murmansk:
Western supplies did not have a decisive effect on the '41 campaign. Though convoys began by August of 1941, serious tonnage did not arrive until 1942. The soviets rebuilt faster because of these supplies, but they themselves -- and Hitler's military ineptitude -- saved them in 1941.
Though the russians did love the thousands of trucks we sent, and were partial to the Ma Deuce (who wasn't!), they preferred Soviet equipment for almost everything else.
The Estimated Death toll of Stalin's cruelty was 54 million, not 30. And he was worse.
It's been a while since I read particulars on this. I defer to you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Sorry, I don't buy it. Either would have done the world a signal service by geting killed during WW1. To say that Dhaugazvili was worse because his 54 million innocents slaughtered to assuage his paranoia are more numerous than Hitler's 25 million butchered to serve some false racist utopia is inane. Both of them were/are minions of evil and utterly despicable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
And Saddam and Arafat?Quote:
Both of them were/are minions of evil and utterly despicable.
Ok, when talking about the two evils, you guys talk about how Hitler was following a deranged ideal, and Stalin was a ruthless and paranoid despot. That is true. I'm not going to contend it.
But then people argue that Stalin killed more, that is true as well. But that is the case of the SU winning. Can you even imagine how many Russians would have died in German camps or from starvation if they had won? It would have been absolutely horrible. And I would say that numbers would have been as high if not higher than the 54 million mentioned.
It was part of the plan that the east would have been depopulated to a great extent (and couldn't have the rump SU getting a lot of displaced and angry people). The Germans would need the lower population figures to easier control the country, also this way it could have been repopulated by Germans (the good old plan of many children, remember?).
So to use the figures as a sort of proof, is simply faulty as we don't know how many Hitler would have killed withhis regime had he won. We only know that he managed pretty well in what areas he did have. If that is extended to the Urals it becomes very disgusting to think about.
Again I believe he killed more Russians than Germans.Quote:
But that is the case of the SU winning.
Timing is the most important factor. Had Hitler not needed to be concerned about the West, he would have finished off the Russians, but not in '39.
I still see Hitler's big strategic mistake as in not finishing off Britain first. Had he done so he would have eliminated the Western threats for the time being. Being able to shift more resources East, and perhaps not needing to worry about lend-lease, he would have overrun the entire Eastern half of Russia. He would have added a substantial part of the industrial output of at least two large nations to his efforts against the Russians.
Wouldn't want either of them to win. They were both monsters and both of their systems were a setback to the modern world. Fortunately, they went to war with one another.
My answer:
Assuming that the war was started in 1939. The Red Army would reach as far as Odra/Oder, because it was several times bigger, because the Germans would need to cover its western border as well, because the suffered serious casaulities in Poland ( 1000 tanks and armoured cars - about 300 were destroyed completely, 300 airplanes and 50% of bombs for Luftwaffe) and because they had too many rubbish tanks ( PZ I and II still dominated) and ineffective units ( so-called light divisions were disbanded after 1939, many more ideas were re-thought).
Still Red Army suffered high losses after 17th September ( almost 500 tanks were lost - 50 permanently to Polish forces of less than 2 weak divisions) and it was before the Finnish war, so their capabilities were not sufficient to advance too far.
Regards Cegorach :book:
P.S. Don't blame Hitler for all killed during the 2nd WW - the war was started by the Third Reich TOGETHER with the SU, so the losses cannot be credited to this bad painter.
both were terrible people. Hitler killed millions out of paranoia, and systematically. Stalin killed millions without prejudice, but his life, and growing up were quite different from Hitler, his father made him a Tyrant.... Hitler became a Tyrant. I'd say Hitler was the worse of the two evils. I can't imagine how a cold war scenario between the US and Allies vs the 3rd Reich would've turned out. My guess would be nuclear holocaust.
The USSR ruled Eastern Europe for 45 years - poverty , distress , political persecutions , tyranny , no freedom etc' but they lived where they were .
Now imagine Nazi Germany to rule Eastern Europe - genocide !!! deportations , experiments on humans - pure evil
Give Roosevelt a little credit...he fought Nazi Germany without provocation , why ? he was anti communist and he helped them , why ?
he saw the danger of a Satanic regime in Europe and the hell with Communism-Capitalism conflict .
Between pure evil and a cruel opponent , I (as Roosevelt did) choose the second .
Both were evil. Both used extermination and other means you have mentioned, both should never appear...Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
And about living in eastern Europe under Stalin - are you serious - do you know about Moldavia, Poland, Baltic States, Chechenya, Ukraine etc ??? ~:confused:
I would like to add my slightly differented opinion. Please do not think of me as a neo-nazi or a stalin-lover, for I am neither:
A Brief Debate on the Nature of Evil
1) Were Stalin and Hitler humen? Or were they simply an incarnation of Evil? Most people like to consider these two fellas as a deviation of the human nature, meaning not humen, but something else, an evil unique and without precedent in human history.
Truely, Stalin ordered more deaths than any other individual EVER and Hitler commited his killing in the most proffessoinal, calculated way (the guy used logistic services, for God's sake, for his death camps...). But, in murder, size doesn't, or shouldn't matter.Ordering the death of 1 is as despicable as ordering the death of 1 million, cause the value of human life cannot be measured.
2)They were both humen.Neither they were paranoid nor crazy, nor jumped out of a pitt from hell, nor were beaten by their mothers or fathers in order to devevlop into monsters. If we deny them their "humanity", if we put them in the side of human history, we will be commiting a terrible mistake. We will be unable to explain WHY they commited their crimes. Hitler was the sub-product of a great but humiliated nation that was kicked around like a pile of s**** and Stalin was the sub-product of a system that was struggling to survive while beaten from all sides. In historical comparison terms, Stalin reminds me of the Mameluks and Hitler of the Boxers. Same pattern.
3)My conclusion is this: History is not created by monsters, it is created by people. And as my great ancestor Thoukidides wrote "men change but what motivates men remains the same" (the peloponessian war)
Your great ancestor Thoukidides...ahaQuote:
Originally Posted by Advo-san
Your argument is good (heard it before and I agree with it) .
Who said under Stalin ? said 1945 to 1990 , the guy diad in 1953 (8 out of 45)Quote:
Originally Posted by cegorach1
Again , what about Roosevelt , ha ?
Thank you for your kind words! ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
Well in my opinion both sides would be very evenly matched but in different ways. Russia having the endless amounts of manpower and Germany having the better technology I beleive. I would have thought it would have been an very long war with both sides winning and losing at different times however I think that Germany would have lost because of the harsh Russian winters.
As minons of evil? Yes and Yes. There MIGHT have been some moral difference if Arafat had stuck to military/government targets, but this was never the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Interesting. My labeling of Stalin and Hitler as minions of evil did NOT, in my mind, make them any less human. The greatest monsters are humans who acquire great power and turn to evil. There is a moral difference between the wife who kills her husband and his lover in a passionate rage upon discovering them in flagrante delicto and the Rwandan officer who lines up members of the "bad" tribe and machine guns them. There is no difference, morally, between that Rwandan and Hitler or Stalin, there is only the question of scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advo-san
As for the other argument, I can see some of the links between the Harmonious Fists and the early days of the NSDAP, though keeping the parallel up is tougher since the Boxers never became the state as did the Nazis. I have a tougher time buying the parallel between the Mameluke uprising and kingdom with the Bolshevik revolution and Stalin's conquest of that revolution from within -- I'd like to hear/read you flesh that one out a bit.
SF
In 1939, ussr's was very weak due to Stalin's purges, but Hitler's army was not what it became : conscription and rearmament started only in 1935 in Germany.
There would have been a huge difference between a weapon factory country with a poorly managed army - ussr - and a motivated but very undertrained and under equiped army - germany.
Moreover, in 1939 Germany would not have had the experience and confidence they gained in France, nor would it have formalized and tested it's military doctrine of bliezkrieg that was the main factor in it's summer 1941 great victories.
So, on a purely military point of view and one against one i think the odds would have been against Germany.
But things would have been very different on an international point of view.
If you except the few european countries into which communist parties where legal, all other nations had a very strong anti-bolchevist background.
Even into democratic countries such as France and Great Britain, all political parties, wether conservative or progressists saw communist dictature as an horror to be fought.
If you observe european political life in the 1930's, you can notice that the authoritative and fascist regimes were seen neutraly or even friendly by coonservatives in democratic countries.
The situation of Germany in the case of an attack against ussr would have been much better than what it was in 1941 : France would have remained neutral or maybe friendly and Great Britain probably friendly.
This would have permitted Germany to cancel what was it's greatest weakness, petroleum, and to develop a fully mechanized army, without having to guard itself on two fronts.
In the end i think Germany would have won wether by completely shattering ussr or by another brest-litovsk's treaty.
Anyway i think it would have been better for ussr to win in this scenario.
This country, although a major trouble generator in europe, never show any serious intention of invasion of it's neighbors without having a very good opportunity to realize it.
On another hand Hitler's Germany was necessary offensive and could not survive without martial activities, the army beeing, with the nazi party, the main support of the regime.
Something else that must be taken in account is the attitude of other european countries in case of a soviet victory.
The German fantasmagory in 1944 and 1945 of a changement of alliance against the soviets was absolutely impossible but in your scenario things would have been totaly different and i think in the case of a soviet invasion, Germany would have been actively supported by all other european countries, leading to a no winner.
In those situations, a German victory would have meant a very aggressive super power and another world war even bloodier than what it was, while a soviet victory would have meant a situation comparable to what it was before WWII, without WWII.
Hence my choice in your scenario is in favor of a soviet victory.
The parallel consists on the fact that a nation/regime that is under an attack in all fronts tends to hand power in brutal and savage men, in order to defend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The mameluks:They showed up at the most difficult time of islamic history. Outremere and Byzantium were still around and were still attacking islamic sultanates. The crusaders kept on coming strong (remember Saint Louis king of France) and the Mongols already razed Bagdat and Ankara to the ground. There was no time for chivalric-Saladin type leaders. There was the time for the bloodthirsty mameluks to get in charge of the situation. There was time for blood.
Stalin:when Lenin died, the never-ending hostility of the West towards the soviet regime was an every day reality. The new soviet regime didn't only have to face the remains of the old regime, didn't only have to get over the in-party factions' wars, but also had to defend against a West that was ready to intervene (once more), if they had the chance. Plus, a hostile international environement, with dictators pumped out like mushrooms. The soviets didn't need just a good steward or a gentle philosopher. They needed-just like Egypt in 1250- a leadership that was ready and happy to shed blood all over the SU and all over the world.
Well as an average citizen germany, but if I was Jewish, Russia would definately been better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Much clearer on that rendition. I might argue that all Russian history evokes that level of paranoia and has resulted in several brutal rulers, but Stalin I think goes beyond the level of that framework by a few orders of magnitude. Still, your paralell is not without value, better sense of it here. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advo-san
Without 2 other fronts, Germany would have certainly defeated Russia - especially without the allied aid aswell.
I of course would choose to live under the German system. Im pure German and not of the Jewish religion, so I would have relatively little to fear under the Nazis and could probably make a good life for myself.
Under the soviets however, there were no rules. If you looked at someone the wrong way, or even if your neighbor just disliked you, you could be put on some list somewhere and end up dead.
I don't know where you get your estimate, but either they are severely biased, or taking into account people who died during WWII, and thus, whose death is Hitler's fault.Quote:
The Estimated Death toll of Stalin's cruelty was 54 million, not 30.
If it's not taking account of WWII casualties, then it's screwed up, cause a country like USSR couldn't have lost 54 + 20 + 20 = 94 millions of people in a few decades and achieved to become a major technological and military power in the meanwhile.
Anyway, if you got that way, 54 millions is still lower than the total of 60 millions killed during WWII (once again, that's Hitler's fault. Stalin would probably have invaded Eastern Europe later, but who knows ?). And Hitler's reign was shorter than Stalin's one.
Totally agree, and that's why I think Hitler was far worse than Lenine, Stalin or Mao. As soon as he decided to launch the final solution and to create extermination camps, he became worse than anyone who lived on this planet.Quote:
But, in murder, size doesn't, or shouldn't matter.Ordering the death of 1 is as despicable as ordering the death of 1 million, cause the value of human life cannot be measured.
As long as average mean 'no socialist, no gay, member of the NASDAP and of german origin', yeah that would have been alright. But replace german by Slave, and here we go.Quote:
Well as an average citizen germany
As if it didn't happen in Germany :rolleyes:Quote:
Under the soviets however, there were no rules. If you looked at someone the wrong way, or even if your neighbor just disliked you, you could be put on some list somewhere and end up dead.
No way. Germany was France and UK ideological opponent, much more than USSR. Both countries were trying to form an alliance with USSR in 1938 (before the germano-soviet pact). As soon as the Munich treaty was signed, everyone knew war would start at some point, and *if* Hitler would have decided to invade USSR before France, France and UK would have declared war on Germany at some point.Quote:
The situation of Germany in the case of an attack against ussr would have been much better than what it was in 1941 : France would have remained neutral or maybe friendly and Great Britain probably friendly.
And fascist countries weren't seen as neutral by conservatives from France and UK, except if conservative means 'fascist'...
So, basically, you admit that operation Overlord was just a way to stop USSR, and not to kick the Germans out of Western Europe ? It kinda kills the 'We saved you althought it was contrary to our interests' arguing you use each time you're speaking about France, heh ~DQuote:
When it was clear Russia would win we stepped in to stop them from taking over more terrirtory.
IMHO Stalin appears as the worse of the worse because his days and works are more recent than others'. I believe that the size of terror unleashed by Ivan the Terrible (not to mention Rovespier during the French Revolution) was even greater, but these events have faded away for noone lives to remember.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Nice debate mate
That is where you are wrong in my opinion.Quote:
Totally agree, and that's why I think Hitler was far worse than Lenine, Stalin or Mao. As soon as he decided to launch the final solution and to create extermination camps, he became worse than anyone who lived on this planet.
The final solution and the death camps were not thought up by Hitler, only approved by him. It was his underlings, like Himmler, who really drove the massacre of the Jews. Now of course signing off on, or approving, such things makes him evil beyond evil, but..
Stalin took time every day to complile lists of hundreds of thousands of people, many he knew personally, to be killed. Every single day he personally chose people to be killed with no rhyme or reason.
Hitler's genocide was more clinical. A percieved problem - the Jewish population - had to be taken care of, and it was in the fastest, most efficient way. In a way, Hitler was removed from his genocide, in my opinion.
Stalin's genocide, on the other hand, was very much a personal endevour. The level at which he drove it, and personally contributed in it, was much greater than that of Hitler.
I personally believe that Hitler truly believed the Jews were bad. In that way it can be said that Hitler acted in what he thought was the best interest of Germany, although in the most evil of ways. Stalin killed purely to preserve his own power, and often simply because he didnt trust certain groups of people.
Both were evil, but I dont agree that Hitler was worse than Stalin.. it isnt logical.
There’s a wonderful undercurrent going on in this thread about how it would be possible to live a life of happiness in Nazi Germany. Some comments (To my untrained political ears) make it sound like the Third Reich was an enlightened western democracy that just so happened to have a thing against Jews.
I suppose what I want to say is that Nazi Germany did not have a system of judgement by your peers. There were people in the extermination camps who had won the Iron cross for bravery in the first world war. If you were living in Nazi Germany and your neighbour went to the Gestapo and said “I’ve Heard this guy say's that Adolf Hitler is a nutter who wants to take over the world” what do you imagine your life expectancy would be? Even if you hadn’t said that?
And if you avoided the purges of the various political parties (ie: the communists burnt down the Reichstag!!! And hes a communist) then you had the problem that you would have been conscripted and sent to fight on the eastern front. Imagine you avoided that and for medical reasons you were posted to the garrison divisions on the western front. Then your only problem is that the Royal Navy/USN is dropping 3000lb shells on you whilst allied armies are storming ashore.
If you had avoided being called up and where at home then your problem would be that at night the RAF were dropping bombs on you, and during the day the USAAF were dropping bombs on you
And suppose that you have avoided all this nasty violence my point is that Nazi Germany only ever offered the world one thing - WAR. WAR to stop its rabid expansionism.
I’m not saying Stalin wasn’t a horrendous man, and I’d never introduce him to my grandma, but comparisons between him and Hitler are to my mind like asking would you rather be killed by Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan.
You are wrong. No one says they would want to live under Hitler . Only that you have a better chance of a normal life under him than Stalin. Its not like your being given much of a choice here. ~;) I think Panzer pretty much hit it on the head. Also Hitler wasnt exactly the racist he was made out to be. Look at all the men he recruited from other countries who werent German. There were only certain races he despised. Of course thats not acceptable.Quote:
There’s a wonderful undercurrent going on in this thread about how it would be possible to live a life of happiness in Nazi Germany. Some comments (To my untrained political ears) make it sound like the Third Reich was an enlightened western democracy that just so happened to have a thing against Jews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I can understand (?) your hatred about anything related to communism , but to make Hitler and the Nazi regime something like a legitimate factor in the battle against communism ??? there is nothing , that is , nothing that can justified their actions , not Stalin no Shmalin ! Hitler called himself an anti-christ in his idiotic book...he wanted to launch a bio' bombs on NY .
Again I say - ask Roosevelt why he declared war on him with out real provocation , ha ? he saw him and his evil and cruel regime more dangerous than the Soviet regime , why ?
Well , I am glad to be on the same side with Roosevelt here...
I think who would have won would depend on who attacked.
If Germany had attacked it would haven been almost like it was in the war except that if we don't include the allies sending them supplies then the germans might have won the war. But if the soviets had managed to move everything far to the east(which they actually did, except the regime ofcourse) they would still have had a chance against the germans.
If the Soviets had invaded Germany it would have been a different matter, that I am sure of, first the soviets would be better prepared to fight, plainly because they had then been ordered to fight, lots of russians didn't dare offer the germans any resistance because they had not yet got the order from Stalin to do so, and Stalin did not like people taking initiative without his approval. The soviets would still have suffered lots of casualties due to their many incompetent commanders who had no real experience or knowledge of commanding(many had just been NCOs and not officers), and ofcourse their poorly trained, and often underequipped, soldiers(which was because Stalin had killed all the men responsible for the training of the russian soldiers).
In this scenario I am pretty certain the Soviets would have won the war.
As to who I would support, I think I would root for the Soviets because, to quote Churchill "If Hitler had invaded hell I would have sided with the devil"
Exactly. As Kissinger said on learning that Saddam's Iraq had attacked Khomeini's Iran, "Pity they can't both lose."Quote:
To argue who was worse is to compare turds -- the essential subject matter has not changed
Arguments that it would be better to live in Germany "because I'm German" are a bit gross IMHO. "I'd rather live under this murderous regime rather than that one because its only the Jews that will get killed." Nice.
Personally I'd "rather" live under Stalin because if you have to live in a psychopathic regime its probably marginally better that its an inefficient one rather than an efficient one.
Don't ask me why, Big G, but in some ways I do have a grudging respect for you. It was probably roadieing for Pink Floyd. Otherwise that little classic would have been sigged for sure. Its also an odd ground to pick to fight on since Hitler was unquestionably far more racist than Stalin, niot that that makes Stalin a better person.Quote:
Also Hitler wasnt exactly the racist he was made out to be.
Realize that picking between two evils doesnt mean someone is making one any less evil. Besides, its a historical hypothetical!Quote:
Arguments that it would be better to live in Germany "because I'm German" are a bit gross IMHO. "I'd rather live under this murderous regime rather than that one because its only the Jews that will get killed." Nice.
Note: I'm baaack. I'll post about Germany and Dutchiestan later.
Just had to comment on this.
This summer, I talked to an elderly man that served on the Eastern Front. There's a very clear reason he doesn't like to talk about his experiences; because he committed what we would call war crimes, listening blindly to his commanders, with the belief of the inferiority of people he never heard about, much less seen. This old man believed what he did, because Adolf Hitler's government brainwashed him. What Hitler did was deliberately ruin the lives of not only an entire generation of his own people, he took it upon himself to ruin the lives of as many people as he could, under the excuse that they were "inferior". This is what made Hitler worse than Stalin, the fact that he wasn't just content with purging his own people like Stalin, he had to destroy millions of other lives and throw the entire world into turmoil to satisfy his blood and powerlust while Stalin's purges never affected anyone living outside of the Soviet Union.
I never said that. ~:confused:Quote:
but to make Hitler and the Nazi regime something like a legitimate factor in the battle against communism ??? there is nothing , that is , nothing that can justified their actions , not Stalin no Shmalin !
Thats a pretty good analogy. If I said Id rather live under Saddam because his government was secular though some people here would accuse me of backing Saddam. ~DQuote:
Exactly. As Kissinger said on learning that Saddam's Iraq had attacked Khomeini's Iran, "Pity they can't both lose."
You might want to ask the Lithuanians, Finns, Estonians, Latvians, Romanians, and Poles if Stalin had any effect on their nations prior to June 22, 1941. And since the Russians and Germans were allies in the invasion of Poland in 1939 why doesn't Stalin get his share of the blame for the outbreak of World War Two?Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
Beat me to it sharrukin.. Lets not forget the Soviet Union attacked Poland aswell, not to mention Finland.
Quote:
but to make Hitler and the Nazi regime something like a legitimate factor in the battle against communism ??? there is nothing , that is , nothing that can justified their actions , not Stalin no Shmalin !
I never said that.
Hhhhhmmmmm...
Also Hitler wasnt exactly the racist he was made out to be. Look at all the men he recruited from other countries who werent German. There were only certain races he despised. Of course thats not acceptable
More -
If in 1936 you had asked most americans if war broke out between these two nations who would you favor I think Germany wins hands down.
But I do believe Stalin was worse than Hitler. The only reason we went with Russia is Germany was closer ..
He killed far more of his own and other people than Hitler did.
Again I believe he killed more Russians than Germans
Well , there is some sympathy to the guy here , don't you think ?
Prior to the outbreak of war, Germany had re-militarized the Rhineland (didn't change the economic picture but proved to Hitler that France, in particular, had no 'nads), absorbed both Austria and Czhechoslovakia [sp?], and developed an alliance with Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. These were crucial to German armarment given the importance of Romanian oil, and the industrial power of Vienna, Leipzieg, Prague, and Budapest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Had war occurred with Russia occurred then, Germany would have been operating with fewer resources, but would have rationalized and prioritized production much sooner -- a step they did not take until '42 and which wasn't complete until late '43.
The key distinction of war with Russia in 1939 is that it probably would not have occurred under conditions of strategic and tactical surprise such as Germany enjoyed at the outset of Barbarossa -- and that would have made a profound difference.
Seamus
Sympathy? You must take the comments in context - choosing between two great evils. To justify your choice, you must try to rationalize your decision in choosing between two irrational (excuse the expression) "human beings" in an irrational scenario.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
On this subject, there are the people of Russia in areas conquered by the Germans who had this very choice: live under Hitler or Stalin. Judging by the partisan activities in the occupied territories, many chose Stalin.
Its important to note that the eastern Europeans and russians that were against Stalin had a venue to fight him besides resorting to partisan attacks. There were so many anti-communists in the occupied countries that the SS was able to recruit many divisions soley from those countries. In fact, at one point the SS was officially only allowed to recruit in the occupied nations, while the wehrmacht drew from Germany.
[QUOTE=Gregoshi]...To justify your choice, you must try to rationalize your decision in choosing between two irrational (excuse the expression) "human beings" in an irrational scenario...
Sorry , but I can't .
Perhaps a bit late in this conversation to bring this up, but Hitler declared war on America after Pearl Harbour.Quote:
Originally posted by caesar44
Again I say - ask Roosevelt why he declared war on him with out real provocation , ha ? he saw him and his evil and cruel regime more dangerous than the Soviet regime , why ?
Well , I am glad to be on the same side with Roosevelt here...
However It should be also pointed out that Roosevelt did a lot to help the UK before war was declared with the Lend Lease program.
Despite his help of the UK in the early years of the war however Roosevelt constantly obstructed Churchills attempts to try and make sure Russia did not dominate Eastern Europe after the second world war. For some reason Roosevelt seemed more afraid of British Imperialism than Soviet Imperialism (Cos' Soviet Imperialism wasn't called Imperialism).
[QUOTE=caesar44]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
I was not clear in my meaning. I did not mean "you" caesar44, I meant "you" as in those who tried to answer the question one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
A number of historians put this down to Roosevelt's desire to get Russia into the war against Japan in order to minimize U.S. casualties. Remember, Trinity was not yet complete. Plus, Roosevelt was dying at the time of Yalta, and not at his best.Quote:
Originally Posted by RabidGibbon
Seamus
PJ, I can see your point of view, and I agree that Hitler likely launched the Holocaust for the good of Germany, and not only for himself.
Yet, saying that Hitler did not thought of the extermination camps, or that he was not aware of what was happening is just wrong. Hitler agreed when the SS decided to use gas chambers, and I'm fairly sure he heard of the so called medical experimentations led by this good old Mengele.
And Stalin did not have his word on all the deaths that happened in USSR. Sure, he condamned personnally some of his friends, of his family, but it was what ? At best 0.05% of the people killed.
[QUOTE=RabidGibbon]
However It should be also pointed out that Roosevelt did a lot to help the UK before war was declared with the Lend Lease program.
Indeed ! just what I have said...