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.
Nope. If (!) any country was most responsible, it was Austria-Hungary.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
his 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.
IMG
dat dome
It is rather hilarious to read youpeople with American comments talk like this.
King Tiger tank.
Heaviest tank to ever see combat in human history.
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.
How was Hitler supposed to stop that?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.
How was Hitler supposed to stop that?
the best armies of world war 2 were germany and the soviet union. patton wouldn't even be in the top 5.
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.
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.
You think about it.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.
So if Hitler occupied Western Russia, he would have likely killed all of the Russians there?
So he would have killed like what 70 million people or so?
Er, yeah. Hitler didn't want anything but pure blood Germans in Germany.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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...
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.
And so how can you say Nazi Germany would have killed "less" people?
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.
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).
Could you please share more on this.
How would Trotsky or Lenin be worse than Stalin?
Source?
Man the thought of Japan with 100% equal resources, etc with their style of fighting would have been a scary thought.
the best armies of world war 2 were germany and the soviet union. patton wouldn't even be in the top 5.
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.
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..
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.
the best armies of world war 2 were germany and the soviet union. patton wouldn't even be in the top 5.
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.
Aircraft proved to be a decisive weapon during the Pacific War. However, no weapon can be better than the men who use it. The Japanese had a clear edge in pilot skill when war broke out, but the Pacific War was characterized by a steady improvement in Allied aircraft pilot skills and a steady degradation in Japanese pilot skill.
The Japanese Navy began the war with superbly trained pilots. None of the Japanese pilots involved in the attack on Pearl Harbor had logged less than 600 hours of flying time, and many flight leaders had over 1500 hours experience. Flying the excellent Zero, Japanese fighter pilots were able to sweep opposing aircraft out of the skies of the southwest Pacific in the early months of the war.
Japanese naval pilot training emphasized quality over quantity. Selection criteria were so strict that no more than 100 pilot candidates were accepted in some years. The training course took more than two years and was brutally demanding. Emphasis was placed on aerial maneuvers appropriate for dogfights, such as the characteristic hineri-komi or turning-in maneuver that many Allied pilots described as a falling-leaf maneuver. Navy fighter pilots were trained to work in the three-plane shotai, and this training continued after assignment to operational units, so that the pilots in a shotai developed a sixth sense for each others reactions. This helped compensate for the very poor radio equipment in most Japanese aircraft. (The radios were apparently spoiled by unshielded ignition systems.)
When war broke out, the average Japanese Navy pilot had 700 hours' flying time while Army pilots averaged 500 hours' flying time. This had dropped to 275 hours in the Navy and 130 in the Army by 1 January 1945, reflecting a precipitous decline in the level of training of replacement pilots. By late 1944, a new Japanese Navy pilot graduated with just 40 hours flying time, while his American opponent had at least 525 hours flying time. Relative losses in combat were correspondingly disproportionate: The U.S. Navy lost just two dive bombers and five torpedo planes in aerial combat in the last eight months of the war. The Japanese Army was likewise forced to reduce pilot training to 60 or 70 hours' flight time by 1945, while the U.S. Army held firmly to its requirement of at least 200 hours' flight time to the end of the war.
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?
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
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?