Close Combat Series :: View topic - Hitlers War on America

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Hitlers War on America Author: pvt_Grunt, Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:33 am
—
I just watched a great documentary about Hitler's planned attcks on America. He was an evil madman, no doubt but some of the ideas were incredible. The Me-264 bomber, supposed to fly all the way from Germany to New York. Commando squads landed at NY and Florida by U boat. And the bomber which carried 5 suicide jets under it, to be launched into New York buildings. Soung familiar?

Any one else seem this show?

#2: Author: Searry, Location: Finland

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:35 pm
—
Evil madman? He was a great politician. He was just a little too ambitious. Taking back old prussia and bohm should have been enough. In just 6 years he recovered german army and industry with reforms and made the morale of germans high.

About america, yes the plans were too ambitious, i think if the war against soviets would have been victorious, the british and americans would have negotiated a peace, and germany would have left Japan alone to be defeated.
Then Germany would give the rest of france to the vichy france, and installed a Nazi government to replace Petain and his government. Then there would be the Germany as the #1 power of europe controlling whole europe, byelorussia/weissruthenien, Ukraine, and the european russia Russia and caucasus. The Rest of the USSR would be controlled by a non puppet USSR. That means Siberia Mongolia and the eastern Soviet Union.
This is a little OT, but i love what ifs and especially this one.

#3: Author: CSO_Talorgan,

Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:56 pm
—
No, the Western Allies would not have negotiated peace with the Nazis; they would have nuked them!

#4: Author: Imnotme,

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:17 am
—

Searry wrote:

Evil madman?.

Dude he tried to wipe out the Jews, the Slavs and the gypsy’s because he thought that they some how lost Germany the war and he thought that Aryans were the master race.
On top of that apparently he wanted to invade America, I have to say that yeah he was more then a little insane. Rolling Eyes

#5: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:19 am
—

Quote:

Evil madman? He was a great politician. He was just a little too ambitious. Taking back old prussia and bohm should have been enough. In just 6 years he recovered german army and industry with reforms and made the morale of germans high.

Hm, I would say he was a good propaganda man, and a big fraud.
We seem still today believe in his economic wonder, though it don’t stand up to a close look. The economic crisis -grate depression- made many European democracies to dictators, German was not alone in that and Hitler just came to power just short of that economic turnaround had started.
They all seeked the strong man, something radical to fix the misery.
Hitler was… just that and some more.
But the turn around in Germany came at the same time as it did in most west Europe democracy’s, ie he dint do anything most other succeeded with, and if we look at Sweden and some others it turned around before.
The tool used to do it in both Germany and West democracies was the Keynesian idea with a national twist, public build projects etc, but in West we got something useful for the money, in Germany they got much death tools.
But the west did not use the dirty tricks in the economy as Hitler did, sending women home and dint take em up in unemployed figures, jews…
Further, the salary of the working man slightly decreased, and the living expense rice with some 25%, so basically the workers paid for the “new employed” as well.
Hitlers economic fraud on big scale in the ‘mefo’-bills system payment, I don’t know maybe it would be the national economic –Enron- equivalence sort of..

So if to look with admiration of the turnarounds in economic at the time, I would look at the democracy’s who managed to do it without the mentioned methods.
IMO, Hitler was good or rather excellent at propaganda, we still today believe in it.

Stalk

#6: Author: Searry, Location: Finland

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:12 pm
—

Imnotme wrote:

Searry wrote:

Evil madman?.

The genocides were needed, for use in propaganda.

#7: Author: Searry, Location: Finland

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:13 pm
—
At Stalky

This is one of the opinions, that is yours and i have my own.

#8: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:38 pm
—

Searry wrote:

Imnotme wrote:

Searry wrote:

Evil madman?.

The genocides were needed, for use in propaganda.

Searry wrote:

AT Stalky
This is one of the opinions, that is yours and i have my own.

No doubt

Stalk

#9: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 8:13 am
—
Yes everybody is entitled to an opinion, after all there like arseholes eveybodys got one..i can see Searys point he would have been happy with a "quisling" goverment controlled by a Dictator...which brings me back to my point .. Hitler as a " politician" sure he contested a few elections, but after realising that he would never come to power that way, he used his own private army( the sd) to intimidate his opponents by using brutal force, murder, bashings, out and out lies about there morals (of which he had none ) to come to power, once he had achieved that he quickly got rid of any opposition to become the chancellor (dictator) so the people then had no say at all (the death of democracy). Then we have his annexing of Prussia as Seary likes to call it... the rest of the west would call it the rape of Austria.. from 1937 Austrian nazis financed and egged on by Berlin stepped up their campaign of terror. Bombings and violent demonstrations took place every day, plans were uncovered disclosing that nazi thugs were preparing to bump off Schusching (the Austrian chancellor) . Then in January 1938 in a police raid on a office of the illegal german underground documents were found initialled by Rudolf Hess, which made it clear that the Austrian nazis were to stage an open revolt in the spring of 38 and that when Schusching attempted to put it down, the German army would enter Austria to prevent "German blood from being shed by Germans ". According to Papen (the German attache to Austria) one of the documents called for his own murder or that of his military attache by local nazis so as to provide an excuse for German intervention... so there you have it Hitler was prepared to kill his own man to have an excuse... sound familiar with Poland ? and myraid other small nations he invaded ? lies to find an excuse to invade ? this was his m.o. so polatician... a far cry i think... power mad dictator.. of course just read mein kampf.. if you can get thru the dribble...so on to point B.. economic wizard ? Between 1924 and 1930 Germany borrowed seven billion dollars from American investors.. Industry which had wiped out its debt in the prior inflation period borrowed to retool and to rationalize its production processes. Its output which in 1923 had dropped to 55 percent of that in 1913, rose to 122 percent by 1927. For the first time since the first world war unemployment fell below a million in 1928. That year retail sales were up 20 percent over 1925 and the next year real wages reached a figure 10 percent higher than four years before... so general prosperity was well on its way BEFORE Hitler made his debut to power so economic genius... no i dont think so...so to point C.. the west making peace with the nazis... hehe Churchill sold an Empire to defeat him.. maybe you should read Never Surrender,Seary after all the commonwealth was a much bigger foe then Germany and its Allies(if you could call them that ) and America withs its burgeoning industry and finaciall power would not have taken second place to a madman and his evil deeds,, as it did not against Russia thru the cold war.. so tho your entitled to your oppinion.. History has walked right around you because you have failed to understand it..

#10: Author: HistoryTeaches, Location: Germany

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:12 pm
—
i guess you ment the "SA - Sturmabteilung" and not the "SD - Sicherheitsdienst" right stump ?

#11: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:01 pm
—
ya got me there teach... do i still get 9 outa 10 ?

#12: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:25 am
—
For my 2c on this Hitler or no Hitler I'm always marvelled by what the German Army achieved in the early stages of the war.

I'm not a fan of Hitler but I have no doubt that history is told by the victors and in Australia I grew up being taught a narrow interpretation of history in relation to WW2. Even today 50+ years after the war we are not allowed to even consider Hitler as anything other than a butcher or mad-man without fear of reprisals by the brain washed masses (and even the less brain washed).

Further to that, after I matured and continued my research about the war did I come to think that maybe the allies practiced their own version of race-based mass execution. Care to dispute that? Hummmmm, let's think, heard of the A BOMB?! Heard of this little ol' place called Dresden?

It is impossible to tell the stories of these places in any other way than as the killing of civilians to advance military ends. It gets muddy after that but surely on that point alone it's not a world different to what Hitler was doing or the SS was doing or what any army in the history of the world has done! They kill to win, and not just soldiers.

And don't give me any bs about saving american/allied lives in the pacific. They killed civilians for military ends, they cooked them only not in ovens, they used napalm and A bombs. But they are the 'good guys' right? Hard to claim a moral high ground with hipocracies like that. I think it's outrageous that so few people actually realise that yes the *good ol'* allies killed civilians to pursue their military objectives. They (we) ... that is the 'good' guys caused tremendous amounts of suffering.

What I'm saying here is not that I support Hitler just that the Allied attempts to claim the high ground are morally bankrupt and forgive my aggression but consider it warning in advance to those who feel the A Bomb or Dresden was anything other than the literal cooking of civilians to serve political and military objectives. I don't care to debate the finer points of it, perhaps creating a firestorm in a city and cooking people in their homes is more sanitary than hearding them off in filthy trains and making them suffer for years before finally cooking them. Perhaps instantly vaporising people is the right way as opposed to hearding them together and machine-gunning them.

Perhaps.

In my book both are wrong, very wrong. And I for one am sick to fuck of the story being told any different. I don't blame the terrorists. I love the free west and hate it and I was born here, imagine if you'd grown up with a different education, a more one eyed-one like the one I received grown up it the 'free' west in relation to world war two? There's a lot of reasons to hate the allies (us).

This became a bit more than my 2c and I could be preeching to the converted here, maybe not, and forgive me but I couldn't be f-ed making the post diplomatic or making my point with sugar on top... when it comes to cooking people I like to call a spade a spade. Call that my justification. The allies had theirs, hitler had his, we have ours, doesn't make it right does it?

#13: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:36 pm
—
RAF bomber - etc:
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=2405

----

I to burn books, in my boiler. But for heat and for the book sux, not for what the government say is allowed literature.

The winner makes the history?
In Nazi Germans occupied territory the Nazi said what book that was allowed and what was not.
They had the final say what was to be in the books and in the press.
If one had a problem with that one was closed down and the editors sent to camps, and it was not caravan camps.
So comply with the Nazi idea and one is fine. (That is if one is race pure enough..)

Slightly different from most democracy’s where the freedom of speech, writing, publishing and press is strong in the constitution.
Non have stopped any books that say Hitler was a nice guy or what ever, we have ppl were I come from who publish such books and music.
I might even wright how nice Hitler was, but then It would be fantasy and fiction so someone else has to do it, but one never know,
for what I wright is my decision not the governments.

Stalk

#14: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:16 am
—
Afterthought: listen to people like Bill Hicks and have a good laugh at the same time instead of reading my rant below. He's a comedian, dead now (1994) but did great stuff on first gulf war and American politics for example which is basically in line with my points below. I agree with almost everything he says... You can download his stuff with P2P programs you'll learn and laugh (at least I always do) great stuff.

-------

Stalky are you in politics? You've completely avoided the point I was making and responded to something else entirely.

You've talked mostly about what I call 'thought policing' and completely avoided A Bomb or Dresden... you are conducting a clear and absurd demonstration of exactly my above point.

Namely that the A Bomb and Dresden and other matters are 'inconvenient truths' that are entirely incompatible with the allies (and your) attempt to take the moral high-ground over World War 2 and see that allies as the 'good-guys'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

You want another point of view on bombing of Dresden read that? If that's not enough I can throw a life time of reading material at you but what would that prove? They'll always be more material to the contrary, why? Because history IS written by the victors...

Allow me to demonstrate: I'm reading a book at the moment... "World War Two - The Untold Story" by Phillip Warner. I normally tell people to actively avoid it, but you may like it... A highlight moment for me was when he discusses Pearl Harbour and goes so far as to say the Allies 'successfully fought back' during the bombing of pearl harbour... A curious comment for which the only justification he provides is fact that the Japanese lost 29 planes and 2 midget subs ... (in comparison to their loss of ~300 Allied planes to say nothing of the ships and other damage!). His one-sided emotional commentary runs throughout this 'history' book by this self-professed high-class historian but his Pearl Harbour comment was certainly a highlight for me.

Heck Stalky, while you’re reading that, you might also enjoy the Hollywood blockbuster 'Pearl Harbour' starring 'headline talent and heart-throb' Ben Affleck ('at a video store near you!').

I'm sure that for many their most vivid (if not only) engagement with the subject of Pearl Harbour. On that basis they could be forgiven for thinking the Americans won that 'battle' (quote marks indicate sarcasm - a battle is when 2 forces are fighting).

You know while I'm thinking on this point I remember in a Philosophy tutorial about 5 years ago an American student (yup, a *university* student) actually said during a talk on Vietnam, "You know, I don't understand what all the fuss is about with Vietnam... I mean, we won that one right?!" Yup he was serious and actually said it just like that. How does ANYONE grow up thinking America won Vietnam?

Perhaps movies like Pearl Harbour and books like Philip Warner's have got something to answer for here? And what motivates the ideas that create this garbage? It's precisely THIS kind of crap, these ideas and those that espouse them that gets to me. And it is endemic in so much of our history and present not only in relation to WW2. Tell me wise ol' Stalky how does a film like Pearl Harbour get made? How can you see it as anything other than a shameless piece of propaganda created by people who seek to fill the world with bile and garbage instead of truth? It's ultimately just another version of the thought police. What's the difference between though police in Germany and thought police in the modern west or ww2 era west?

How can anyone hope to change such cemented attitudes? You say you could write a book talking about Hitler's good points. Really?! How many people are willing to hold up such an unpopular view and the litany of public persecution that goes with it? Even less controversial what about the idea that the allies aren't so squeaky clean in comparison to Nazi Germany etc? You don't think the thought police exist?! Well Stalky I challenge you to honestly and publicly try saying something like the Allies had a lot in common with Hitler! Just as an experiment. Try it and see what comes back. I know you'll have a rude awakening and you'll find yourself ridiculed, silenced and punished in a variety of ways. The new anti-Terror laws are very similar and the restrictions on criticising the president etc. From my point of view your statements are absurd.

The above article gets it wrong demonising one man but that's something I read this week and the closest thing to hand... at least he doesn't shameless toe the line of 'allies-as-good-guys'.

In relation to your reference to the bombing of cities... How did the bombing of cities start in WW2 start in the battle of britian? ... A German bomber bombed London by *mistake*. England seized the opportunity to engage their propaganda machine to make it ok in the eyes of the English public for them to retaliate by bombing Berlin with a full blown strike.

Anyone think this sounds familiar? Heard of Iraq? What's changed?! Who ultimately benifits?

Even though Berlin declared the bombing of London (by one or a scattered few planes - reports vary) and the Allies *knew full well* that all German pilots were specifically instructed not to bomb London/English cities at the time. It was in retaliation to the bombing of Berlin that Hitler (thankfully) made the decision that constituted his single greatest mistakes in the Battle of Britain (imho), diverting his bombers from their campaign against the RAF and instead against British cites. Again, how many years worth of reading material would you like on this ?!

Do you still want to dispute the fact that history is written by the victors? Do you still want to give me some ill-conceived rant about how we have free speech in the west? I've worked in the media in Australia, I know a how the news is 'made' and there is very little 'freedom' about it. News about the neighbours dog is more likely to make the 6pm bulletin than any address of the question '*why* did terrorists bomb the twin towers?'. In the years since I have never ever seen any mainstream media go anywhere near asking the simple and obvious question of why in relation to the terror attacks of September 11. Does no body else find that strange?! Perhaps Americans and the rest of the western world simply aren't interested in the question *why* someone might want to kill their civilians.

On that point what’s the difference between a modern day terrorist who attacks the twin towers and the American/Allied governments/people dropping an A Bomb on Japan? Targeting 'innocent' civilians, exactly and specifically with a campaign designed to terrorise the population and shock the government to advance military and political goals RIGHT!?

I noticed on the day of the S11 attacks and since that question of why is not asked in the mainstream. But certainly it is the one of (if not the) single most important question. It is addressed out there but you have to dig to find it which means that, as usual, the great majority of people accept what they're spoon fed and spend their nights at home watching 'reality' TV. Talk about hipocracy ... like it or not Stalky thought police are everywhere.

More than anything else hypocrisies make me livid... I ask you this... if Axis won the war do you think that *maybe* (all perceived sarcasm intended) 999 out of 1000 documentaries produced on WW2 might show B&W still pictures of Truman/Churchill (as opposed to Hitler) with foreboding music and slow zoom-in pans on his eye-ball pronouncing him a mad man?!

How many documentaries have you seen about world war 2? Have you ever seen a single one that addressed the most famous man of the war, Hitler, and really sought to impartially understand/assess him? Is he allowed to be understood? Not in my experience. Why? Don't for a second think that the thought police are not alive and well in the western democracies just because they don't wear a 'gestapo' insignia doesn't mean they're not out there.

The correlation between Nazi Germany and a 'Total War' England are all too real, same as the 'anti-Terror laws' and the way that allows for total power to the 'state'. Shit, I know I'm wasting my breath and probably going to be called a Nazi lover or something... You know we all 'know' that Hitler killed 6mil Jews. I want to know why? What problem did he have with the Jews? I've read 100 times more than the average person about the war [which for most people probably means I've read one 100 page book on it! Smile

] and I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps I have to read Hitler's manifesto. Perhaps the fact I can get my hands on it does mean that there are very real differences between the west and Nazi Germany, maybe the fact that if I borrow that from the library I'll probably show up on some NSA red flag list... maybe the fact that our security agencies monitor all emails and telephone correspondence and probably flag debates such as this one...?

My point is about what passes for truth and how far from the truth it often is. And yet people argue blindly to protect their own unfounded ideas not because they're right or wrong but because they are their own. Or they do worse than argue.

All sides, Russia, Allies, Axis committed atrocities. The Allies sweep their atrocities under the rug either actively or by not telling the whole story in the same way you're not engaging the real point in your post. I think the motivation for this are two fold. One the Allies don't want to be seen as 'bad guys'. Two they don't want comparisons to be drawn between their actions and those of the 'bad guys'. And by Allies I mean every one of us who considers ourselves a member of an 'allied' nation or a supporter of theirs.

Look I do have to apologise for my post in advance of your reply. As Oscar Wilde once said, 'I don't have time to write a short letter so I will write you a long letter.' I've written a long hostile post because I'm not going to spend the time on getting it all tidy with sugar on top. It's probably all in vain regardless so I've already spent way too much time.

I don't know how seriously you've looked into things but I know of many people who've looked very long and hard at WW2 who agree with you. I'm not one of them. From my point of view it is exactly and more than anything your brand of us-and-them mentality and all the nationalism, one-eyed views of history, anger and bitterness and all the ignorance that goes with it that enables things like Nazi Germany and it's modern day equivalents to come into being.

Not that I'm a religious man but I'm sure that's why Jesus preeched understanding, and 'judge not lest you be judged'. I know with absolute certainty that Allies do not look anything like the squeeky clean image they portray of themselves when subjected to the same kind of judgement and conditions they would impose on their enemies.

Consider for example that ww2 isn't the only conflict in history. You think England/allies are the good guys? Have you heard of a place call Ireland? What do you know about England's program of 'colonisation'?

All in all I consider the Allies to be the good guys comparatively speaking but more in a lesser-of-two-evils sense than as knights in shinning armour as many people see them and want us to see them.

#15: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:50 am
—
We have got of the original topic a bit here Mik, my rant was at Seary saying he like the "what ifs , and Hitler was a good politician and that the genocides were good propergander, but in reply to your words, ide like to ask you this , especialy as your Australian, how would have your life turned out under the benevolent Tojo regime ? and how would have europes democracies have survived the "good politician" Hitler ?... have a good think about it,, and you will hopefully understand why millions died stopping them... and dont forget that every measure was takin to try and appease these situations before they both went to war.. all i can say is if you dance with the devil by the pale moon light...Dresden the A bomb and many others where war crimes...total war involves everybody... as it turns out europe has its monarchies and democracies.. Japan is a model of decency and production.. the rest of us are still here.. not speaking either language thank god and the brave men who died...

#16: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:00 am
—

Quote:

Stalky are you in politics? You've completely avoided the point I was making and responded to something else entirely.

Yes... And so seem you have done...

My post was on you statement “Winner makes the history”…

I’m afraid you total missed the point. Well, you got it right that I dint mention Dresden, Ireland, Pearl harbour and A bombs, so you then cant figure out my view on them so stay away from draw conclusion that you cant make.

My point was simple; you can Wright anything you like in most democracy’s, that’s why you are reading critic books or books with facts about them events. Ever thought of that?

And you your self, can here express your thoughts on them event and not fear any brown shirts bashing in your door in any minute. Some what different from dictatorship totalitarian states, or?

Stalk

#17: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:34 am
—
Thats exactly right Mik.. you can stand outside your door and tell the world what you think of our Prime Minister.. thats what men like my father guaranteed.. try doin that under Hitler or Tojo

#18: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:53 am
—

mikwarleo wrote:

More than anything else hypocrisies make me livid... I ask you this... if Axis won the war do you think that *maybe* (all perceived sarcasm intended) 999 out of 1000 documentaries produced on WW2 might show B&W still pictures of Truman/Churchill (as opposed to Hitler) with foreboding music and slow zoom-in pans on his eye-ball pronouncing him a mad man?!

How many documentaries have you seen about world war 2? Have you ever seen a single one that addressed the most famous man of the war, Hitler, and really sought to impartially understand/assess him? Is he allowed to be understood? Not in my experience. Why? Don't for a second think that the thought police are not alive and well in the western democracies just because they don't wear a 'gestapo' insignia doesn't mean they're not out there.
.

Na, why would anyone who is interested in WW2 turn to TV as a source, or what was the name of the movie you watched?

There are some books available as for example W. Warlimont’s book, who was in OKW during most of war as second under Jodl, in it is also personal diary’s from some Nazi top people. Ever read that?
Stalin after the war wanted a close look at Hitler and orders an investigation and “interviews” some of Hitler’s closer persons, they are printed after Russian open there archives, and have you read em?
OKW:s diary’s was printed in 1960 th, have read em?
And ofcose the STENOGRAPIC RECORDS of the OKWs mil Situations conferences printed by H. Heilbe and David Glantz, it’s a must read I believe, have you read em?
The Germans and Swedish relations during this era can be read in archives and all of the most critical moments have been printed.
Further, Sweden desifter and read the telegrams from OKW and AA to Norway and Stockholm and Finland, they showed some to.

But then, why read this, read HITLERS OWN book and have a look into his brain. But I guess you have read that one. Or don’t read any of them and just watch TV and continue to complain how biast it all is.

Your choice, not you governments.

Stalky

PS: I have still not given my view on anything but Hitler and freedom of wrighting and publishing, so don’t do what totalitarians do, say what my though and believes are.
PS2: This is a thread about “Hitler the mad man”, not FDR, Truman, Churchill, Stalin, Quean Victoria, the evil Commonwealth, Nuclear bombs, Pearl harbour, Dresden, Catholic Priest, Gorge Bush I or II, or whom was the most evil man during WW2, though feel free to start such threads im pretty sure Mooxe will not censorship them.

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:33 pm; edited 1 time in total

#19: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:28 pm
—
In relation to your reference to the bombing of cities... How did the bombing of cities start in WW2 start in the battle of britian? ... A German bomber bombed London by *mistake*. England seized the opportunity to engage their propaganda machine to make it ok in the eyes of the English public for them to retaliate by bombing Berlin with a full blown strike.

I think mate you really need to read your books a bit better.
What do you think happened to Warsaw? was that an act of God? and how about Rotterdam? was that maybe another trick of the wicked Brits? done with mirrors and smoke was it...........Nothing to do with the Luftwaffe, which had only been practising this kind of thing since the Spanish Civil war!

Explain the 'Terror' bombing of those cities which, unfortunately for the Nazis, happened before the Battle of Britain, or is this another deception by the evil Brits, did we change the dates?

As for the ........full blown strike LOL... on Berlin, care to tell us all how many bombs actually fell anywhere near Berlin in that raid? 5 miles radius will do Smile

.

As to the poor mistreated Japanese, I suggest you read a few books on the Burma Railway pal.

Cheers
Ronson

#20: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:12 pm
—

Blackstump wrote:

in reply to your words, ide like to ask you this , especialy as your Australian, how would have your life turned out under the benevolent Tojo regime ? and how would have europes democracies have survived the "good politician" Hitler ?... have a good think about it,, and you will hopefully understand why millions died stopping them... and dont forget that every measure was takin to try and appease these situations before they both went to war.. all i can say is if you dance with the devil by the pale moon light...Dresden the A bomb and many others where war crimes...total war involves everybody... as it turns out europe has its monarchies and democracies.. Japan is a model of decency and production.. the rest of us are still here.. not speaking either language thank god and the brave men who died...

So the ends justify the means, is that it?

What's the point?

In reply to Ronson: read what you've quoted again sir, 'Battle of Britian', *not* invasion of Warsaw, *not* Spanish war, *not* king arthur of the round table or gumby the green plasticine man and his trouble with his friend pooky the horse (I think it's pooky, I forget it was a *long* time ago)...

In reply to Stalky. Again you've missed the point, but, again, it's futile and we've all got better things to do, right?

sericel-gumby&pokey.jpg

Description:

Gumby and 'PoKey'

Filesize:

11.51 KB

Viewed:

8439 Time(s)

#21: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:35 pm
—
http://www.gumbyworld.com/memorylane/histpok1.htm

Smile

#22: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:33 am
—
Whats the point Mik ? Does the end justify the means ? Is that it ?
My answer to that is, A the point is your sitting here in a free country saying that the good guys (allied) where just as responsible for atrocities as the bad guys (axis).. yes agreed.. if you tried to fight a war with one armed tied behind your back while your opponent is kicking you in the balls, your going to lose..Point B does the end justify the means... yes... your sitting here complaining about the allied tactics, your not a slave , you can do want you want, Germany is still with us, England is still with us, Russia is still with us, Japan is still with us, France is still with us, etc etc you get my point ? The term total war wasnt coined by England, but they certainly know how to fight it... thats why the Commonwealth is still around after all these years..
Point C .. is that it ? Yes i think so, other than to say that Gumby sucks.. but im willing to defend your right to access him because after all we do live in a free world... well most of us... think about that when you next defend the good politician Hitler or his eastern counterpart the benevolent Tojo ( next time your feeling guilty about the A bomb read Sandakan the death march or Surviving the sword or maybe Weary Dunlops diaries)

#23: Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:36 am
—
BTW Mik those three books i mentioned are about " our boys" in japanese pow camps, not to many made it home...

Shot at 2007-07-23
these blokes did they were a few lucky ones, the bloke reading the paper is my mothers brother, my uncle, guess what hes reading about ? a damn war atrocity called the A bomb, maybe you can see the tear in his eye ?

#24: Author: Badger-Bag,

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:54 am
—
I CAN see the tear, and i know what he is saying too, can read lips.

"Shit fellas, why, I'd a given my OTHER testicle, to see that!".

Smile

Some of the points you make are a trifle gungho Blackstump, a trifle ott, but

"Germany is still with us, England is still with us, Russia is still with us, Japan is still with us, France is still with us".

YEP. Pretty much does the people talking about allied war crimes, in the eye. We took the fascistic barstards down, and WHEN they were down, did we stamp on their throats?. Did we herd them into concentration camps?. Did we "offer" their women jobs as "Comfort women"?.

Hell, we didn't even make them pay their debts left unpaid from the PREVIOUS war!.

"If you'll fight the British Isles, well, you'll fight the British Race". Even the black sheep of the family turns up eventually!.

Wink

#25: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:19 am
—
What's the point = well you didn't take my advice, you shoulda listend to Bill Hicks and not read my post...

But What's the point also = I can see that without a long and frustrating debate I'm probably not going to be understood. So I can't see the point ...

With sincere respect Stump you're putting many words in my mouth and, again, I don't 'see the point' responding to that.

Though, you've touched enough of a nerve for me to point out that you absolutely do not know the first thing about how I feel in relation to those that fought and the society that I live in or those that have fought for it. I've not touched on this in what I've written and any implication to the contrary is all manner of wrong.

In relation to 'ends and means' I think your response unwittingly provides further example and proof of my former point. Namely that there *often* isn't that much difference between good and bad. You're no doubt an 'ally' and yet the kinds of rhetoric you're using are glaringly similar to those used by the Nazi's and other 'bad guys' to gain and maintain power. If you can't see that, repectfully I have to shrug and leave it at that... In my reckoning all of the big 'evils' of history are predicated to a significant extent on 'ends justifies means' ...

Feel free to point out what a fool I am but I can't see a huge difference in Hitler's rhetoric for a 'final solution' and the allied justification for dropping TWO A bombs or indeed even targeting a single civilian. I think we *want* to see a difference and I think as the victors we have the luxury of deciding to choose our point of view. It doesn't make it any less wrong.

THIS is the question:
Killing civilians to pursue military and political goals. Is that right for anyone in any circumstances? For me the answer is categorically no. But that's not the point! The point is: Why is it ok for us 'good guys' and not ok for those 'bad guys'... ?

It seems your objections are two fold. One you want to say that we weren't 'that' bad. And also you want to say we had just cause (ends justify means)... Well, without getting to far into it, it's interesting to note that if it wasn't for the *good ol'* allies oppression of the German people post WW1 that WW2 *may* never have happened. Kind of like beating up on a tired angry dog and then blaming it when it bites you.

But how dare I suggest that 'we', the good guys, are anything less than justified and good? And I'm sorry but appeals to the memory of those that fought and suffered is just not a good reason to toe the line. And that doesn't devalue them in any way because it doesn't change what they did or the reasons why.

But on that point ... why should we draw the line at WW2? We have been *benevolently* 'fighting' to protect our "freedom" for centuries right?

Of course what I call benevolence others may look back through history and call oppression and murder ....

A case in point: How happy are the natives from our own country (particularly those from Tasmania - if you can find any!) with their *freedom* and *security* ?

Ask yourself and be honest, from their point of view how different are WE from a Nazi Germany? We rounded them up into camps, slaughtered non-combatants, and worse, we stole their children...! On the contrary how do we earn the right to suppose ourselves right and just? Actually, we are the decendents and/or the legacy of occupiers.

How's that moral high-ground going?

I seem to remember saying something about the lesser of two evils, but it's evil nonetheless and again what shits me is all the holier than thou BS that gets about.

The first step to getting anything right is honestly accepting the mistakes, realising and accepting how you got it wrong. That doesn't detract from those that did it right for the right reasons, it just tells the truth. It's not complicated. And IIRC that was pretty much the basis of my original point...

#26: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:10 am
—

mikwarleo wrote:

Feel free to point out what a fool I am but I can't see a huge difference in Hitler's rhetoric for a 'final solution'

What rhetoric would that be? When did Hitler or anyone talk about 'final solution' in public or in media? It was not official, it was forbidden to use cameras there or talk about it, though some did anyway. It was rumours that circulated, not rhetoric.
The papers and records from the conference that settled the 'final solution' should have been destroyed, most where..

mikwarleo wrote:

Killing civilians to pursue military and political goals. Is that right for anyone in any circumstances? For me the answer is categorically no. But that's not the point! The point is: Why is it ok for us 'good guys' and not ok for those 'bad guys'... ?

Never right, but the one who punch first better be prepared for the reaction, one only have 2 cheeks.. And as for Jews and other.... How do one justify or even comprehend such evilness, or may I say madness? Bombing a town, is horrible, but to shuff man, women and children into gas chambers and crematory’s, is a level higher. Next train... We have a schedule to keep

mikwarleo wrote:

But on that point ... why should we draw the line at WW2? We have been *benevolently* 'fighting' to protect our "freedom" for centuries right?

Yes, why should we, it’s a thread about "Hitler the mad man", turn it into whatever, or plastic donkys... None have stopped you so far, though I have recommended you to start such SEPARATE threads.
You know one may talk of how evil my dog was without bringing up the whole worlds evil in a comparison. Wink

(The dogs mother was second cousin to his father so no wonder he was mad and finally shot, do I feel bad about that?)

There are ofcose much evil in the world.

mikwarleo wrote:

Ask yourself and be honest, from their point of view how different are WE from a Nazi Germany? We rounded them up into camps, slaughtered non-combatants, and worse, we stole their children...! On the contrary how do we earn the right to suppose ourselves right and just? Actually, we are the decendents and/or the legacy of occupiers.

This is a subject in whom I know little or nothing about, but..
Right and just? Do you advocate collective punishment, or rather "inherited collective punishment" and "inherited collective guilt"?
So, how come none persecute or punish the children of the Nazy and war criminals? Because its wrong maybe?
Are you suggesting that the one with no "inherited guilt" should be the only or first one to through the stone?
Are there any Human to say anything at all if we use your line of thinking, humans probably helped killed of the Homo neanderthalensis and possibly also (suspicion) Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu, think about it?
If so, We are all "inherited guilty" from our ancestors of "evil people". So shall we all shut up then? Im sorry im lost, I thought it was a thread about Hitler the mad man.

I be silent now Mik, I just don’t have your highly developed morale.

#27: Author: mikwarleo,

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:51 pm
—

mikwarleo wrote:

I can see that without a long and frustrating debate I'm probably not going to be understood. So I can't see the point ...

you're putting many words in my mouth and, again, I don't 'see the point' responding to that.

#28: Author: Pzt_dragoon47, Location: Hayward, CA, USA

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:34 am
—
I can kindof understand where both of these arguements are going.

One is about allied oppression.

Internment camps, the treaty of Versailles, and many other things could be used against the allies. There are even many books on allied crimes before after and during the war. I read one recently about a German unit searching through a canadian detachment's dead and finding direct orders not to take any prisoners at all or it would "delay the advance." Or the Battle of Crete where many German Fallschirmjagers were brutally killed by the partisans, found cut to pieces or their testicles chopped off, which may be just as justifiable as the German defense of Berlin but that does not make it right and that may have led to Germany's harsh occupation. Or American airborne troops also ordered to not take prisoners on D-Day because they are too small a unit to keep them under watch. Or the sinking of a Japanese carrier with orders from an American General told the planes to drop bombs on an already sinking ship and "leave none living." Or even better, Russian troops being outfitted with explosive ammunition, which is against Geneva to quote, "see where their rounds were hitting." used in the war in Finland and later against German troops.The bombing of Dresden, was there really any point to bombing a town that makes toys? Was there a point to the Atomic bomb? Wasn't Japan's leader held against his will because of fear that he may announce a surrender? Weren't SS troops executed anyway if they surrendered? (not to say that it wasn't for good reason but still, there were a lot of SS troops). British Airborne captured in Holland said their hosts followed strict Geneva code, then captured men from the same unit and killed them on the side of a road.

There are many atrocities in war that everyone must deal with, but it's ironic that men that had commited war crimes on the allied side roamed free as we tried the Germans at Nuremburg. Of course the Germans executed the biggest war crime in history, the Holocaust. But did the ENTIRE German army participate in the killing of Jews? That's just like calling every German in the German army a Nazi. Were every single one of the Germans volunteers? No, so that just rules out a good portion of them already. You want to know what else in interesting? Many of the citizens of Berlin didn't even know about what Hitler was doing to Jews, he was taking them away, maybe he was just deporting them? You don't always know what someone in power can do, and I definetly wouldn't have thought a single human can be so cruel. You can also try most of the Russian army for counter-war crimes for vengeful actions. The Russians raped every woman and child they could find, not even the elderly were spared, ages 70+, and there are many reports of Russians raping girls as young as 15- to death. And please stop with the political cliche American dream stuff, it just makes it sound extremely corny and it makes it sound way too nationalist. Hitler was a nationalist, you don't want to be like Hitler do you?

The main point of my post is that there are never any good or bad guys in a war, war is hell, and everyone does bad things in a time of war. It can bring out the best and the worst of the human race and it's flaws, and we just have to learn from it and take the arguements from both sides and combine them into a linear unbiased story about a war that changed the world.

#29: Author: Pzt_dragoon47, Location: Hayward, CA, USA

Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:07 am
—

Badger-Bag wrote:

I CAN see the tear, and i know what he is saying too, can read lips.

"Shit fellas, why, I'd a given my OTHER testicle, to see that!".

Wink

Well that's pretty wrong to say in a few ways but whatever.

Back on topic, Hitler was a great politician, he brought Germany out of the worst depression in history very quickly. The rest of Europe and America were in a depression but they weren't forced to lick dirty oily water of the ground to survive, ours wasn't as bad in comparison, also Germany was in that depression longer, due to the treaty of Versailles. He couldn't use genocides as propaganda in some cases because they were kept secret as his own people would go against him.

His plan to invade America would have been very ambitious. If he had won in Russia and taken Sweden in the planned Sverige offensive, he would have had more than enough supplies to finish off Britain (no offense but logistically he would have) due to access to the expansive oil fields of Asia, and he would have linked up with the Japanese and MAY have helped them against us after taking Britain out of the picture. Taking Russia would also give him even more working men to make tanks, ammunition and desperately needed aircraft to mount such an ambitious invasion. He may even have built up a navy o.O (Multiple Bismarcks anyone?). And also, I almost forgot, by taking Britain out of the picture I mean Africa also, which would again, give him more oil. He could also draft many Russians or actually train them and use them to occupy the countries so nothing gets out of hand. And by then, the offensive would be in 1946 give or take. And America would not use the Atom bomb because if they did, it would have led to another world war with Germany again no doubt. We maybe would use them if Germany started to gain the upper hand on American armed forces but it would drastically change relations and as we've seen in history, Hitler has no problems with mass murder either. Hitler was also working on a dirty bomb himself wasn't he? Tell me if I'm wrong there because that would have greatly tipped the scales in his favor by this time. But he also had V2 rockets being worked on so the entire fate of the war, in my opinion, which Churchill overlooked saying that massive land armies were bad and only predicting Russia lasting for a month, fell on Russia's shoulders and thank god they prevailed, otherwise this entire what-if would have been possible.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1