And the communists never would have controlled the East. The positive is that it was a final kick in the teeth to Hitler. The negative (which far outweighs the positive) is that half of our country and the rest of Eastern Europe languished under Soviet oppression for so long.
And those were the top two choices in Germany in 1933.
Exactly. And we paid the price of that error, both our soldiers at the time (some of whom may well have killed with relish, but the majority of whom were utterly disgusted), and our population afterward (as well as the rest of Eastern Europe).As it was, under Hitler, German troops stood no chance under this insane leadership, these morale problems, and those endless diversions into inflicting misery against unarmed civilians.
That being said, in response to your earlier comment, the Wehrmacht was really very good in terms of military prowess, which is why it has students from all across the political and military spectrum. Or it was very lucky.
This is true, but if I may say something here, I'd like to say this:Edit: It's the common logical error of revisionists and Hitler lovers*. In reality, the one, and only one, thing that stood between Germany and the defeat of Bolshevism, was nazism.
*(to be clear: by which I don't mean you, EMFM)
I know what you mean by revisionism, but I think we have to distinguish between legitimate revisionism, or the reexamination of facts done in a professional and historically minded light, and revisionism done for a purpose, namely by the Nazi and Soviet lovers you mentioned. One is good, necessary, and probably makes up for a majority of the history we study, and one is a pure evil to anyone who takes their history seriously.
Some people did, some didn't.
Bookmarks