Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: Hitlers War on America
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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?
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.
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'.
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! ] 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.
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...
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?
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
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
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 .
As to the poor mistreated Japanese, I suggest you read a few books on the Burma Railway pal.
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?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
] 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...?
