Thoughts on Hitler?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(15-03-2014 03:16 PM)JAH Wrote:  Just a suggestion. Look up the nature of the current controllers of most of the Ukraine if you think fascism is dead.

Hitler is a complex and unusual character. He rose to power on the backs of crazed ex military people and a populace that was hindered by the Versailles treaty. Then capitalists who found him a useful tool for making money (including american capitalists) supported him. Then feeling his early success he started going way overboard. He way over reached and that was his downfall, a well deserved one as seen by a man with a very germanic last name.

You all should also learn a bit of history. Some 20 million Russians died in world war 2. It could be and maybe should be argued that Stalin's handling of the army and the populace actually killed more people than the Nazi's and their death camps.

It is also obvious that Russia did more to win world war 2 that all other allies combined. Read "Stalingrad" by Anthony Beevor, the single most important battle in world war 2. It makes D-Day look like a walk in the park.

American Industry won WWII. It was the only one not affected by the war and against which the Germans had no answer.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2014, 06:32 PM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
Quote:The horrific, shameful events of the 20th century are done, in the past... hopefully we've learned something from it all.

You are far too optimistic.

[Image: Atheismreality_zps62a2c96a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2014, 07:11 PM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(15-03-2014 06:32 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:The horrific, shameful events of the 20th century are done, in the past... hopefully we've learned something from it all.

You are far too optimistic.

That's why I say "hopefully".

A lot of what's going on today makes me very pessimistic for the future.

Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits... - George Carlin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2014, 10:40 AM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
Revenant77, you make an excellent point and one I sometimes forget. American industry and american oil did much to win world war 2. It was the Russians who bore the brunt of the dieing in europe and that should never be forgotten.

I might also remind that the Japanese had no answer for american industry either. And, in all fairness americans bore the brunt of the pacific war, at least for the "allies".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JAH's post
17-03-2014, 11:56 AM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(17-03-2014 10:40 AM)JAH Wrote:  Revenant77, you make an excellent point and one I sometimes forget. American industry and american oil did much to win world war 2. It was the Russians who bore the brunt of the dieing in europe and that should never be forgotten.

Even in the darkest days of 1942 the Soviet Union outproduced Nazi Germany. But it was absolutely lend-lease (primarily American, but with substantial Commonwealth contributions) that led to the Red Army curbstomp in 44-45 all the way to Berlin instead of a slog of attrition back to the pre-war border.

(17-03-2014 10:40 AM)JAH Wrote:  I might also remind that the Japanese had no answer for american industry either. And, in all fairness americans bore the brunt of the pacific war, at least for the "allies".

Indeed. It is easy to forget that WWII was far less evenly matched than WWI had been. The Commonwealth alone outproduced the Axis. And America outproduced the rest of the world combined - though that was mostly due to being oceans away from the fighting!

Perhaps also of note, though, is that the central Pacific campaigns (which I think occupy a disproportionate portion of the American memory) are so prominent because they were the most purely 'American' campaign of the war - even while they themselves represent a very small portion of overall American commitment.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-03-2014, 02:55 AM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(17-03-2014 11:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-03-2014 10:40 AM)JAH Wrote:  Revenant77, you make an excellent point and one I sometimes forget. American industry and american oil did much to win world war 2. It was the Russians who bore the brunt of the dieing in europe and that should never be forgotten.

Even in the darkest days of 1942 the Soviet Union outproduced Nazi Germany. But it was absolutely lend-lease (primarily American, but with substantial Commonwealth contributions) that led to the Red Army curbstomp in 44-45 all the way to Berlin instead of a slog of attrition back to the pre-war border.

(17-03-2014 10:40 AM)JAH Wrote:  I might also remind that the Japanese had no answer for american industry either. And, in all fairness americans bore the brunt of the pacific war, at least for the "allies".

Indeed. It is easy to forget that WWII was far less evenly matched than WWI had been. The Commonwealth alone outproduced the Axis. And America outproduced the rest of the world combined - though that was mostly due to being oceans away from the fighting!

Perhaps also of note, though, is that the central Pacific campaigns (which I think occupy a disproportionate portion of the American memory) are so prominent because they were the most purely 'American' campaign of the war - even while they themselves represent a very small portion of overall American commitment.

Not only that, but it seemed more personal with the Japaneses (for better and worse). Up until the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, we had been negotiating with the Japanese and it was hoped that hostilities could be averted. To have those overt offers of reconciliation and negotiations and the trust therein be so violated with undeclared hostilities, caused the fight in the Pacific to take on another layer that the European and African theaters lacked. With those areas of operation, it was us helping to protect our allies. With Japan, we had been sucker punched in the face.

[Image: 7383cee4d6.jpg]

There's a reason why we pushed forward with the risky Doolittle raid, because we had to let Japan know that we could and would strike the home islands; mainland Japan would not be left unscathed even as we retreated back across the Pacific to regroup. Doolittle even attached to the bombs used in his raid the 'peace medals' that had been received from the Japanese peace negotiators. When we created internment camps to hold Americans (now much to our shame), we did so for those of Japanese descent; but not for German or Italian Americans.

There was also an even greater gulf across the cultures. Before the war fascism had some supporters in the United States, just as there were genuine communists after the war (not just the McCarthy 'Red Scare' Stalinist). But the Japanese code of Bushido and the worship of the Emperor as a god-king? They were the 'other', and it made demonizing them far easier than our European opponents. If it wasn't for their suicide attacks, fight-to-the-last-man tenacity, and suicidal devotion to their Emperor; I don't' think LBJ would have authorized the use of the atomic bombs. Other things were at play, like cowing Stalin, but still; some scientists were afraid the weapons might ignite the Earth's atmosphere.

So the campaign in the Pacific, from the perspective of many Americans, has different connotations and overtones to the ones in Europe and Africa; and for both good and bad reasons.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2014, 03:21 AM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(18-03-2014 02:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-03-2014 11:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Even in the darkest days of 1942 the Soviet Union outproduced Nazi Germany. But it was absolutely lend-lease (primarily American, but with substantial Commonwealth contributions) that led to the Red Army curbstomp in 44-45 all the way to Berlin instead of a slog of attrition back to the pre-war border.


Indeed. It is easy to forget that WWII was far less evenly matched than WWI had been. The Commonwealth alone outproduced the Axis. And America outproduced the rest of the world combined - though that was mostly due to being oceans away from the fighting!

Perhaps also of note, though, is that the central Pacific campaigns (which I think occupy a disproportionate portion of the American memory) are so prominent because they were the most purely 'American' campaign of the war - even while they themselves represent a very small portion of overall American commitment.

Not only that, but it seemed more personal with the Japaneses (for better and worse). Up until the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, we had been negotiating with the Japanese and it was hoped that hostilities could be averted. To have those overt offers of reconciliation and negotiations and the trust therein be so violated with undeclared hostilities, caused the fight in the Pacific to take on another layer that the European and African theaters lacked. With those areas of operation, it was us helping to protect our allies. With Japan, we had been sucker punched in the face.

[Image: 7383cee4d6.jpg]

There's a reason why we pushed forward with the risky Doolittle raid, because we had to let Japan know that we could and would strike the home islands; mainland Japan would not be left unscathed even as we retreated back across the Pacific to regroup. Doolittle even attached to the bombs used in his raid the 'peace medals' that had been received from the Japanese peace negotiators. When we created internment camps to hold Americans (now much to our shame), we did so for those of Japanese descent; but not for German or Italian Americans.

There was also an even greater gulf across the cultures. Before the war fascism had some supporters in the United States, just as there were genuine communists after the war (not just the McCarthy 'Red Scare' Stalinist). But the Japanese code of Bushido and the worship of the Emperor as a god-king? They were the 'other', and it made demonizing them far easier than our European opponents. If it wasn't for their suicide attacks, fight-to-the-last-man tenacity, and suicidal devotion to their Emperor; I don't' think LBJ would have authorized the use of the atomic bombs. Other things were at play, like cowing Stalin, but still; some scientists were afraid the weapons might ignite the Earth's atmosphere.

So the campaign in the Pacific, from the perspective of many Americans, has different connotations and overtones to the ones in Europe and Africa; and for both good and bad reasons.

There was also dueling racist overtones in the Pacific theater.

[Image: Anti-Jap1.jpg]

The fact that a group that had been looked down on would dare to attack America was used in basic to "Fire the men up".

[Image: AntiJapanese.jpg]

I remember seeing a letter written by George H W Bush home complaining about the level of propaganda in basic training but I can't find it online. The Pacific theater was just more personal for Americans.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 08:02 PM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(18-03-2014 03:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 02:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Not only that, but it seemed more personal with the Japaneses (for better and worse). Up until the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, we had been negotiating with the Japanese and it was hoped that hostilities could be averted. To have those overt offers of reconciliation and negotiations and the trust therein be so violated with undeclared hostilities, caused the fight in the Pacific to take on another layer that the European and African theaters lacked. With those areas of operation, it was us helping to protect our allies. With Japan, we had been sucker punched in the face.

[Image: 7383cee4d6.jpg]

There's a reason why we pushed forward with the risky Doolittle raid, because we had to let Japan know that we could and would strike the home islands; mainland Japan would not be left unscathed even as we retreated back across the Pacific to regroup. Doolittle even attached to the bombs used in his raid the 'peace medals' that had been received from the Japanese peace negotiators. When we created internment camps to hold Americans (now much to our shame), we did so for those of Japanese descent; but not for German or Italian Americans.

There was also an even greater gulf across the cultures. Before the war fascism had some supporters in the United States, just as there were genuine communists after the war (not just the McCarthy 'Red Scare' Stalinist). But the Japanese code of Bushido and the worship of the Emperor as a god-king? They were the 'other', and it made demonizing them far easier than our European opponents. If it wasn't for their suicide attacks, fight-to-the-last-man tenacity, and suicidal devotion to their Emperor; I don't' think LBJ would have authorized the use of the atomic bombs. Other things were at play, like cowing Stalin, but still; some scientists were afraid the weapons might ignite the Earth's atmosphere.

So the campaign in the Pacific, from the perspective of many Americans, has different connotations and overtones to the ones in Europe and Africa; and for both good and bad reasons.

There was also dueling racist overtones in the Pacific theater.

[Image: Anti-Jap1.jpg]

The fact that a group that had been looked down on would dare to attack America was used in basic to "Fire the men up".

[Image: AntiJapanese.jpg]

I remember seeing a letter written by George H W Bush home complaining about the level of propaganda in basic training but I can't find it online. The Pacific theater was just more personal for Americans.

There was almost no anti-Japanese propaganda in Britain, despite the very heavy fighting in Burma... For some reason, Britain's involvement in the Pacific/Asian theater is almost forgotten here, to the point where they are often referred to as the "forgotten army".

Its probably because, as you say, the war against Japan wasn't emotionally driven in Britain... Whereas the war with Germany was very much so.

Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits... - George Carlin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2014, 09:46 PM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(20-03-2014 08:02 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  
(18-03-2014 03:21 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  There was also dueling racist overtones in the Pacific theater.

[Image: Anti-Jap1.jpg]

The fact that a group that had been looked down on would dare to attack America was used in basic to "Fire the men up".

[Image: AntiJapanese.jpg]

I remember seeing a letter written by George H W Bush home complaining about the level of propaganda in basic training but I can't find it online. The Pacific theater was just more personal for Americans.

There was almost no anti-Japanese propaganda in Britain, despite the very heavy fighting in Burma... For some reason, Britain's involvement in the Pacific/Asian theater is almost forgotten here, to the point where they are often referred to as the "forgotten army".

Its probably because, as you say, the war against Japan wasn't emotionally driven in Britain... Whereas the war with Germany was very much so.

Also, Japan wasn't bombing London. In the same way that Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2014, 03:44 PM
RE: Thoughts on Hitler?
(20-03-2014 09:46 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-03-2014 08:02 PM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  There was almost no anti-Japanese propaganda in Britain, despite the very heavy fighting in Burma... For some reason, Britain's involvement in the Pacific/Asian theater is almost forgotten here, to the point where they are often referred to as the "forgotten army".

Its probably because, as you say, the war against Japan wasn't emotionally driven in Britain... Whereas the war with Germany was very much so.

Also, Japan wasn't bombing London. In the same way that Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.

That's what I meant...

Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits... - George Carlin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: