Comparing Iraq 2005 with Germany 1945


  • Someone … i think Yanny wondered where the comparison began with these two episodes of History.

    http://world-history-blog.blogspot.com/2005/12/minutemen-of-third-reich-history-of.html


  • Unfortunately it was lost after the hacking attack, but we had given a link to original records of the US-occupational forces, which listed all crimes etc. for quite some time in Germany. It showed that most crimes were hunger- and coldness-related. The people were tired of the fighting and did not continue it. The Werewolves were a plan of the Nazis that failed and did not happen to any significant amount, means they were negligible.


  • Unfortunately it was lost after the hacking attack

    What does this mean?


  • here another chapter in this supporting the correlation:

    http://hnn.us/articles/1655.html

    and this has alot of articles written after the war that have alot to say about how they operated, and the perceptions from our “allies” in France…

    http://thecr.blogspot.com/2003_11_01_thecr_archive.html#106799670552596006

    Remenber:
    Ba’ath party = Nazi with an Arabic accent.
    Saddam= Hitler
    and his party hacks represent the Goebbles factor…

    and this relationship:

    The similiar hatred towards the Jews:
    Why not? In general they hate the jews as much as the Nazis ever did. There have been notable exceptions, particularly before WWII, but there was a significant minority or possibly even a majority who were willing to slaughter the Jewish infidels at the word of any demon, be he an austrian madman or the grand mufti of Jerusalem or his nephew. Granted you have your antisemites everywhere, but only in the Muslim world do you have the religious network to bring them to the point of conflict in vast numbers. How could Hitler pass up an easily manipulated ally that was begging to help with his final solution?

    IN 1941 Iraq was invaded by the british because it began to change toward a pro-axis stance following a change in leadership, the seeds of discontent with the western values and colonial rule began to soldify following the following chapter:

    http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20021126.asp

    This can also serve to draw the relationship of Iraq and Germany ever closer.

    IN 1941 that war was fought for …wait OIL! gee how history sure repeats itself… read this.

    http://www.athensnews.gr/athweb/nathens.prnt_article%3Fe=C&f=13026&t=01&m=A10&aa=1


  • It showed that most crimes were hunger- and coldness-related.

    It’s a shame that Hitler didn’t surrender earlier.  That could have been avoided.  Unfortunetaly, Germany didn’t surrender and brought on itself all the hardships thereafter.

    Although the Marsha plan did restore Germany after the war.  I wonder where Germany would have been without America saving it from total Soviet occupation.Â

    Rune Blade


  • @Rune:

    Although the Marsha plan did restore Germany after the war.  I wonder where Germany would have been without America saving it from total Soviet occupation.

    Newer analyses of economists have shown that he impact of the Marshall plan was minimal apart from a psychological effect. It was more of a propaganda show than real help.

    Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
    I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.

    PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.


  • Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
    I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.

    so now you wish the US hadnt entered the war, so that the Nazis could have won? because if not, then there is no point to this whole thing other than to be an a**hole, which you seem to confirm with:

    PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.


  • Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
    I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.

    WOW this is only the second time i fully agree with Falk… he is not “wishing” Hitler to win, but only pointing out the probable course of what would happen providing certain mistakes werent made on the eastern front. Once they were made its a total fact that eventually the Soviets would have overran all of western Europe and turned it into a vassel of proto- communist states or “buffer states” from the americans/brits.


  • Falk wrote:

    Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
    I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.

    Not try to stir anything up, but why do you consider the US at that time cowards?

    Also, I seriously doubt Germany would have been able to beat Russia had the US stayed out of the war.  The aid the US provided to Russia through lend/lease was minimal and not really needed by Russia.  Before the US/UK were able to open a second front in Italy, Russia was already pushing the Nazi forces back.  Russian production of men and war materials alone (not counting the UK or US) quickly grew to become larger than the production by Germany and the quality of these wasn’t that bad either.  The Germans in fact copied many ideas from the Soviet tanks in the later years of the war.  Considering that an estimated 7/8 of the entire German war effort was put to the Eastern front, I don’t think the full 100% would have made a difference (not that that was even possible considering Germany started the Russian assualt at war with the UK).

    Once Germany failed to enter Moscow in the initial assualt it was all over because Russia was a much larger country… Germany tried to decapitate a sleeping bear and having failed to do so, only enraged it…and Stalin was never known to show much mercy.  Hence the Soviet occupation was guaranteed, only mitigated by the presence of the US and UK troops.  Now had Germany taken Moscow the story could have been different, but this was decided well before the US involvement.

    And finally, I don’t think the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Norway and France, not to mention the holocaust, was not a problem…regardless of the presence or absence of the USA.

    Now I know you are kind of…irritated … by some of the other comments from other posters lately.  But your statements are equally inflammatory.  If you want to sling mud just the same as the other posters that is your right, but it doesn’t make you look very good IMO.


  • Also, I seriously doubt Germany would have been able to beat Russia had the US stayed out of the war.

    I repost one of my earlier ideas on this very same topic:

    Another Pandora’s box to open would be how Germany might have actually defeated the Soviet Union within the time frame of 1941-1942. IMO this would not be possible at any time after this point unless we assume Hitler placed the Reich economy on 'total war" (full mobilization) I assume that the completion of this task would involve the same span of time as when Germany finally accomplished this feat around Dec 1944. So if we take this example we get the factor of 2 years from start to finish, while the Soviets only needed about one year to get at full war making potential.
      So as a consequence Hitler would have to begin around the summer of 1939 to be ready for the summer of 1941. The concept of the Whermacht relied on finishing off nations in quick fashion or “victories on the cheap”. Which could be done against any combatant sake the Soviets who could trade space for time until they were ready to strike back with overwhelming odds. In the course of the actual campaign the balance sheet was quite equal, while German production wasn’t vastly outdone until the beginning of the March- April 1942, which is when Stalin had moved his military industrial complex further east (Urals).
      Of course losing 6 weeks of good weather fighting in the Balkans against Yugoslavia and Greece didn’t help Hitler for preparation for his Barbarossa campaign, but nevertheless Germany had operational possibilities for victory as long as they kept focus on 1) destroying Soviet Armies 2) control of Stalins ability to coordinate his forces north and south of the front, and 3) disruption of the enemies ability to conduct the war.The first point was formulated upon classic envelopment actions by armored pincers, while the slow Soviet logistical system denied the possibility breakout, unless the trap was set too late. From June 22 to August 31st Germany enjoyed unparcelled success and nearly everything proceeded according to plan, but once Hitler saw the Soviet nation buckle under immense pressure he abruptly changed plans and divided his forces to siege Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the center and Rostov/Kiev in the south with the last battles in this area causing much bloodshed for AGS. The Key IMO was to strike only at Moscow severing the “head” and denying Stalin the critical rail lines which he used to shuffle his forces on the north/south axis. Also, there were important industries in the vicinity of Moscow region and they were turning out war materiel right on the front lines, where Germany had to first convert the rail gauge all the way from Poland and slog everything thru mud to the front. This was a considerable advantage for Stalin and a missed opportunity for Hitler. In the north the siege of Leningrad wasted and tied down a sizeable portions of AGN. I believe only a token force should have been used to “hold down” a relatively smaller Soviet force. The worst use of economy of force occurred with army group south (AGS) which was doing quite well until Hitler decided that forces from AGC should have been detached to help with the enveloping of the Kiev pocket. The necessary waste and loss of tempo certainly resulted in the irremediable demise of the 1941 campaign. Had this last straw not been carried out, Moscow would have fallen and Stalin would have to fight with separate lines both north and south. The result would be a much better defensible situation to hold out thru the winter of 1941-42. The roads and access from the east of Moscow and the south is much more difficult to conduct offensive operations, because their is no" logistical staging area" to support a counteroffensive, while losing Moscow would be quite demoralizing to say the least.
        It is quite clear that Stalin was prepared to carry the fight from Kazan and the Urals, while a second army was further south defending the eastern approaches of the don and the area south of Rostov. The spring of 1942 would see a classic mop up campaign whereby now the forces at Moscow could go after Archangel and Leningrad and deny any northern lend lease route to the Soviets. In the south, AGS would not have to cover the northern flank and could spend its time destroying and taking Baku oil center. Even following this scenario its quite clear that Stalin would not give up until he probably lost the Urals due to heavy concentrations of Industry, but in real terms this would amount to no real opposition to a victorious Whermacht in the long term.

    So the trick was if Germany could have done differently and not got involved with america, then the door would have opened for a possible victory, or defeat would certainly have come by the Soviets occuping the whole of continental Europe.


  • @Janus1:

    Without Germany declaring War on the cowardous US which wouldn’t dare to enter the war on their own, we probably would have won. So, you didn’t save us from total soviet occupation, you introduced the threat of total soviet occupation.
    I wonder how many problems the US has solved that would never have been problems had the US not existed the first place.

    so now you wish the US hadnt entered the war, so that the Nazis could have won? because if not, then there is no point to this whole thing other than to be an a**hole, which you seem to confirm with:

    you seem to be using the second quote to guide you in your interpretation of the first. 
    Also - i do disagree with F_alk in that i am not so certain that his statement is true.  I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany, however it would have taken a fair bit more time with brutal results.  At the same time, at the end of these things, there is little doubt that the USSR would have covered the vast (VAST) majority of the third reich’s lands and i imagine the low countries as well.  Still, i do see F_alk’s point in that the Marshall plan looks more like just another way to “contain communism” without having been that effective at much else.

    PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.

    the sad fact that Yanny refers to this type of thinking as commonplace in the US is something that should horrify intelligent USans.  Great pain if continue down this road you do, i see . . . .


  • Quote
    Quote
    PS: If you think that characterising the population of a nation by an adjective with a semi-appropriate reasoning to explain that characterisation is “insulting”, you might wonder what the rest of world thinks of you if one of your kind calls a billion of people “fuckers”.
    Quote
    the sad fact that Yanny refers to this type of thinking as commonplace in the US is something that should horrify intelligent USans.  Great pain if continue down this road you do, i see . . . .

    I strongly agree…


  • you seem to be using the second quote to guide you in your interpretation of the first.

    no, it seems to confirm my interpretation of the first. i dont think he really is supporting Hitler, and wishing that we had stayed out so that the nazis could win. i think he is trying to be inflammatory, in response to ignorant viewpoints. like baker said, its his right if he wants to, but its more than a little hypocritical to be so outraged at the ignorant viewpoints of some, and then purposely post something inflammatory, whether he believes it or not (some of what he says im not entirely convinced he doesnt believe, and some im pretty sure he does believe).

    the sad fact that Yanny refers to this type of thinking as commonplace in the US is something that should horrify intelligent USans.  Great pain if continue down this road you do, i see . . . .

    of course it does. but commonplace or not, i think you cant prohibit this kind of speech just because its inflammatory. yes, i realize that i have argued that inciting a crime is not protected speech. now, im not sure what the legal requirement is for something to be considered “inciting a crime”, but i dont think marine’s comments qualify. thats a judgement call, and i may in fact be wrong, but considering 1) im not sure hes sincere, or whether hes just trying to be inflammatory 2) i dont think he actually intends any action, and 3) im fairly certain that no one on this board, if they did believe him to be sincere will actually take action in the manner he wants. this is opinion, like i said, i dont know the legal requirements for it to be unprotected speech. as to the opinion being commonplace: there are ignorant people everywhere. you can never convince them all. and resorting to their level is dangerous. theres an adage “never argue with a fool. he drags you down to his level, then beats you with experience.” like yanny said, civil discourse, or ignore him. besides, if we start locking every thread in which something inflammatory is said, we will have a lot of locked threads, and people will just start getting frustrated. and marine is not the only perpetrator of this <cough><cough>> Still, i do see F_alk’s point in that the Marshall plan looks more like just another way to “contain communism” without having been that effective at much else.

    perhaps, but that was his point in an earlier post, not the one i was quoting. also, while it may ultimately have had limited success, the marshall plan was certainly intended for more than to simply “contain communism”.</cough></cough>


  • @cystic:

    I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany, however it would have taken a fair bit more time with brutal results.

    What war machine???  The Snowbirds???


  • I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany

    I laugh at this as well… but i dont want to rain on his parade. Canada helped the efforts to fight Hitler, but honestly its just a colony of england and Churchill’s final fall back position if Hitler took out Britain in 1940-41. Other than that they made little difference when compared to UK and America’s efforts. While the western allies made respectively much smaller sacrifices compared to the Soviet Union.


  • @Imperious:

    but honestly its just a colony of england

    Well, since the Head of State for Canada IS the Queen of England…


  • @Imperious:

    I believe that the Canadian war machine would have been enough to help Britain and the USSR to ultimately defeat Germany

    I laugh at this as well… but i dont want to rain on his parade. Canada helped the efforts to fight Hitler, but honestly its just a colony of england and Churchill’s final fall back position if Hitler took out Britain in 1940-41. Other than that they made little difference when compared to UK and America’s efforts. While the western allies made respectively much smaller sacrifices compared to the Soviet Union.

    i was being somewhat facitious, but your knowledge of WWII history is sucking pretty badly.  At the end of the war we had the world’s third largest navy and the 4-5th largest army.  Also you have ignored the impacts of Juno, Dieppe, the RCAF, our part in securing Italy and the low countries in addition to our efforts in France, nevermind the massive mobilization of supplies to a well blockaded island country.


  • CC,

    While I was being facetious in my “snowbirds” comment as well, like it or not, the actions of Canada in WWII are lumped in with the UK and all of the rest of their former Empire that still held the King/Queen of England as their Head of State.

    Sorry, but outside of Canada, that is the reality.

    In India I am sure they read about the brave contribution of India in the fight for Burma, and the Aussies I am sure teach their kids about the powerful Australian forces that pushed Japan back int he days before the US entered the Pacific war.  But outside of those nations, it is still the US, UK, and Russia (perhaps France, but THAT is a joke) against Germany and Japan (and Italy is the joke on the Axis side).

    And don;t blame it on me that when Canada went “independent”, they only went part-way, and still have the UK Royals on their money.


  • @ncscswitch:

    CC,

    While I was being facetious in my “snowbirds” comment as well, like it or not, the actions of Canada in WWII are lumped in with the UK and all of the rest of their former Empire that still held the King/Queen of England as their Head of State.Â

    Sorry, but outside of Canada, that is the reality.

    In India I am sure they read about the brave contribution of India in the fight for Burma, and the Aussies I am sure teach their kids about the powerful Australian forces that pushed Japan back int he days before the US entered the Pacific war.  But outside of those nations, it is still the US, UK, and Russia (perhaps France, but THAT is a joke) against Germany and Japan (and Italy is the joke on the Axis side).

    And don;t blame it on me that when Canada went “independent”, they only went part-way, and still have the UK Royals on their money.

    if you honestly think that the UK could have lasted alone against Germany without Canadian support, you have to give your head a shake.  Also - Juno beach was the only allied position where all objectives were acheived by allied forces.  Do you know anything about D-Day??  Do you know anything aside from the US contribution to the war?


  • but your knowledge of WWII history is sucking

    CC you have no idea how much i know about the military sciences… when i was at UCLA while persuing a diploma in Both Philosophy and History i basically also took every class offered at the ROTC program for officers which studied the entire span of military history and got higher grades than anybody in any of those classes. The only thing i didnt do was drill.

    What you had posted is true for the most part:

    1)Soldiers of the Canadian Army fought in the Battle of Hong Kong in 1941.

    1. Landed for the disastrous Dieppe Raid of 1942

    2. went ashore in 1943 in the Allied invasions of Sicily and mainland Italy (husky) , then fought through the long Italian Campaign. Many of the very first Allied soldiers to enter Rome were Canadian commandos in the Devil’s Brigade.

    3. Canadian troops returned to France in June 1944 on D-Day at Juno Beach in the Battle of Normandy and played a crucial role closing the Falaise pocket, then swung north to clear the Channel ports, liberating Calais, Dunkirk,and  Dieppe.

    5)In several weeks of heavy fighting in the fall of 1944,They cleared the approaches to the vital port of Antwerp in the Battle of the Scheldt. Eventually, the Canadians succeeded in defeating the Germans and liberating the port of Antwerp. The Canadians then turned east and played a central role in the liberation of the Netherlands (Liberation of Holland). By early 1945 Canadian forces had liberated most of the Netherlands and, fighting alongside British and US armies, pushed to the Rhine and across into northern Germany.

    1. YES by the wars end they had the 4th largest Navy and Army

    2. about 1.5 million served

    Now this does not place it as Englands equal in the effort, while clearly all of her colonies fought with equal distinction like India, Austrailia, Poland, and even the free French.They did not as you have posted make up the major portion of that effort… they only helped save the world from the hun. IF you want to talk about who really won the second world war and who’s peoples should be praised for the greatest sacrifice they gave you only need to look at the big nation thats between Poland and China and kiss any Babushka you can find —

Suggested Topics

  • 64
  • 13
  • 39
  • 59
  • 53
  • 72
  • 12
  • 5
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

47

Online

17.0k

Users

39.3k

Topics

1.7m

Posts