-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
World War II |OT|
- Thread starter GTP_Daverytimes
- Start date
- Status
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
This may sound crazy but does anybody think that it may have been not so bad if Hitler won the war? I mean if he did Communism never would have spread and would have killed a lot less than "80-100 million people".
Think about it:
- No Great Leap Forward starvations
- No Pol Pot
- etc.
Think about it:
- No Great Leap Forward starvations
- No Pol Pot
- etc.
Ya, I am sure Hitler just would have stopped and created a perfect society and would have stopped killing Jews and everyone else that didn't fit his idea.
Well, Austria-Hungary was obviously the country that declared war, but they never would have done so without the full knowledge that Germany would have their back against Russia. Germany gave the Austrian war party their full backing and throughout the July crisis pushed them towards war (though the kaiser did briefly want to stop things after Serbia's almost-acceptance of the ultimatum). And of course the war guilt clause itself uses the phrase "Germany and her allies."
I am as staunch an opponent of Communism as anyone and I think that many people today don't grasp quite how awful it was, but no. The Nazis want to rule the world and make non-aryans their slaves, things weren't going to end well if they won (there would probably just be another World War sometime in the future with an even stronger Germany). It was never very likely that Germany would win the war though, precisely because of how black and white their worldview was.
The Nazis had some incredible minds when it came to symbolism (think the torchlit parades, Triumph of the Will, even the flag), but man their taste in architecture was awful.
Well, it's simply true, Italy's army was a complete and total joke.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I mean couldn't Hitler due to racist fascist dictatorships to what the USSR did to Communism?
As in fight to put up power from tyrants of war broken nations. Think Pol Pot but with no Communism.
Also the Italian army is one of the most laughable militaries during the war. I love how Germany managed to rescue them in a matter of days (or something like that) just by sending a fraction of their troops.
As in fight to put up power from tyrants of war broken nations. Think Pol Pot but with no Communism.
Also the Italian army is one of the most laughable militaries during the war. I love how Germany managed to rescue them in a matter of days (or something like that) just by sending a fraction of their troops.
King Tiger tank.
Heaviest tank to ever see combat in human history.
Inflatable decoy tank
Para bailar La Bomba
Banned
Imagine if Hitler's plans for Berlin had come to fruition:
dat dome
Apparently, if it was ever built, it would magnify people's voice to such a degree that it would be impossible to hear and prolonged exposure would cause deafness. Also, in cold weather the water vapor and perspiration from 200,000 people would create its own atmosphere and possibly rain....indoors.
Advance_Alarm
Member
Another book recommendation is The Dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia
Goes all the way from the end of WWI and the early military and political careers of both Hitler and Stalin through WWII. For anybody that is unclear on what exactly sets the regimes apart (i.e. one is "facist" and the other "socialist") the book contains an in depth dissection of of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP or Nazi) as well as the CP in Russia/USSR. Germany after WWI was still a modern state, its military kept alive after Versailles by huge veteran's organizations, and its civil and executive bureaucracies functional and staffed by professionals. After being voted in, Hitler's NSDAP had a huge bureaucracy that mirrored the civil service and was eventually integrated so that they did the same thing by the late 30's and into the 40's (aka Reich Courts staffed by party members, party militias paid by the government and sanctioned for armed conflict abroad). Something that definitely effected the poor performance of the Red Army and Soviet government in the early war years and was touched on in this thread were the CP's almost cyclical purges and the non-existence of state functions after the Tsar's abdication and brutal civil war. As the state was rebuilt by the party, necessary functions were filled by party-men that were loyal but not necessarily able or who were able for the job but not willing to bring to attention any negative reports or deficiencies. Stalin had an intelligence chief executed in early 41 for passing on reports that Soviet field units had seen Germans massing just across the border (talking like 100-200 yards away). As someone else said, its wasn't until Zhukov was given additional power and only be 1943 was the Soviet army able to stand its ground against a German spring offensive.
Goes all the way from the end of WWI and the early military and political careers of both Hitler and Stalin through WWII. For anybody that is unclear on what exactly sets the regimes apart (i.e. one is "facist" and the other "socialist") the book contains an in depth dissection of of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP or Nazi) as well as the CP in Russia/USSR. Germany after WWI was still a modern state, its military kept alive after Versailles by huge veteran's organizations, and its civil and executive bureaucracies functional and staffed by professionals. After being voted in, Hitler's NSDAP had a huge bureaucracy that mirrored the civil service and was eventually integrated so that they did the same thing by the late 30's and into the 40's (aka Reich Courts staffed by party members, party militias paid by the government and sanctioned for armed conflict abroad). Something that definitely effected the poor performance of the Red Army and Soviet government in the early war years and was touched on in this thread were the CP's almost cyclical purges and the non-existence of state functions after the Tsar's abdication and brutal civil war. As the state was rebuilt by the party, necessary functions were filled by party-men that were loyal but not necessarily able or who were able for the job but not willing to bring to attention any negative reports or deficiencies. Stalin had an intelligence chief executed in early 41 for passing on reports that Soviet field units had seen Germans massing just across the border (talking like 100-200 yards away). As someone else said, its wasn't until Zhukov was given additional power and only be 1943 was the Soviet army able to stand its ground against a German spring offensive.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Source?
How was Hitler supposed to stop that?
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
He would have conquered much of the Soviet Union thus making it nowhere near as powerful.
EDIT - Actually the Great Leap Forward might have still happen. Mao was inspired by the Soviet Union before the war.
I literally just finished watching The World at War 10 minutes ago, having begun it back in December. I was utterly enthralled during every minute of the 22+ hour running time. I learned far more about the conflict that I ever did in school, and it really should be required viewing.
So who are the top 5 commanders of WWII in your opinion?
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
WTF?
weekend_warrior
Banned
I don't think you've thought this through.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
So if Hitler occupied Western Russia, he would have likely killed all of the Russians there?
weekend_warrior
Banned
Er, yeah. Hitler didn't want anything but pure blood Germans in Germany.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
So he would have killed like what 70 million people or so?
Many, many millions more would have died in wars trying to stop this German cleansing.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
That's not 100% true.. But he likely would have killed the Russians
On the other hand. If Japan had been victorious as well I doubt China as an independent state would exist afterwards thus communism there wouldn't have happened.
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
I mean to me what ever equals more death is worse. And if Hitler winning would have prevented the spread of Communism and would have resulted in less casualties it would have been the better ending for history. "The Lesser Evil".
I would agree but the U.S. dominated Japan so yeah.
I would agree but the U.S. dominated Japan so yeah.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Because you have no idea how many people the Nazi would have killed to fit their ideology, so you less death theory isn't very well thought out of.. They killed so many is a very small window...
Also Japan got dominated by a lack of resources... In fact they gave America a lot to handle with limited arms and resources..
weekend_warrior
Banned
I would take a Communist-Marxist USSR over a Facist-Tyrannical Germany any day. For all the terrible shit Stalin did the USSR was generally a level-headed nation.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Pfft...
Pre-Nazism Germany was one of the most progessive countries in Europe... All it takes is a leader like Stalin or Hitler to mess it all up...
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Stalin was inevitable in the Soviet Union's political system. So Trotsky takes place? So what? 30 years from now you could very well have another tyrant on your hands. When the government owns everything its a pretty ugly thing.
Nazi Germany's horridness is also inevitable going to continue. It was no longer Germany but Nazi Germany. Hitler led a revolution. Even if Hitler won and died his legacy would have likely carried on.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
And so how can you say Nazi Germany would have killed "less" people?
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Trotsky would probably have been just as bad or worse than Stalin, unless he decided to give up. Lenin was a paragon of oppression and mass murder for the few years he was in power. A good work that touches on this is Robert Gellately's "Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe" (I disagree with some of his conclusions, but he is quite convincing on this topic).
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
Could you please share more on this.
How would Trotsky or Lenin be worse than Stalin?
Everyone needs to watch Apocalypse: The Second World War document. It's masterfully directed, informative and includes hours of never-seen footage from WW2 that has been remastered in color.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyYN6zBd34g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyYN6zBd34g
for trotsky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country this debate should explain it well enough- trotsky wanted to export communism to other countries as soon as possible. on domestic policy, much of what stalin was most criticized for was what lenin was doing from the beginning.
for stalin, stalin rose to where he did by aping lenin's positions whenever possible. the main difference was that lenin was in control during only the initial period.
Para bailar La Bomba
Banned
The thing about having its own atmosphere is written in Albert Speer's (the architect's) autobiography . I can't recall whether he also discussed the acoustic issue, but the Wikipedia article discusses both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkshalle#Possible_architectural_problems
Razgriz-Specter
Member
Man the thought of Japan with 100% equal resources, etc with their style of fighting would have been a scary thought.
well, it's worth remembering that the japanese generally took much higher losses in men than the americans in island battles even though they were defending fortified positions and knew the terrain better. their tactics were well suited to delaying, but not so much to winning. and of course resources weren't *that* huge of a problem until the later years of the war when the ring started to close around the mainland.
Pretty awesome that Patton himself is feared as an entire army.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Resources were a problem going into the war.
One of their reasons behind attacking was that the US staged ecomnical warfare on them by issuing embargoes. They bought steel almost exclusively from the states. Of course if they would have left China alone they would have been free to do whatever else they wanted to do..
oh, certainly. i'm just talking about the early years of the war, during which japan had quite good access to resources as a result of the conquests it had made in the months after pearl harbor.
There's something to said for aerial and equipment superiority.
Patton is an army?
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
By the time the were in the island battles Japan had very limited resources.. meaning limited air and naval support.
Actually Japanese navy pilots were considered to be way more skilled than their American counterparts...
Japan lost pilots and had no skilled replacements.. and no resources to make too many new aircrafts..
shadyspace
Banned
What was Hitler's endgame? Did he really want to control the entire world like some shitty comic book supervillain? Was there anywhere he didn't have an interest in controlling?
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
He wanted hold most of Europe. If not all.. after that who knows. I mean he had no idea that his attack on Poland would work as well as it did, he thought the UK would attack then but they didn't. He was literally making up his endgame as he went
Pretty much. Europes desire to avoid war made things worse in the long run
Rule/dominate continental Europe, with Britain being the other major world power except one with a colonial empire was his initial dream.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked