Why were the Nazis Not More Socialist? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14346499
This time Brits will invade Iran without soviets then, if they got a hint that German troops could be invited in Iran, that would be a direct threat to India for British Empire.
#14346502
Fasces wrote:At the same time, one should remember that it is likely that in the event of a capture of Persian oil fields, American and British efforts in Burma and China over the Himalayas would have been redirected to obstruction of the oil export trade, Rei - it wouldn't have been a guarantee.

True. It's basically basically logistical whack-a-mole.
#14346505
Or.... it could have maybe worked if Rommel would have broken through to the Suez Canal and (as a result) if the Japanese would have sufficiently bogged down British efforts in Asia. And if half the Royal Navy happened to sink by accident. But then Stalin would have to be an idiot not to attack himself.
#14346513
That's because its the only plausible way it could have happened with out invading the SU. Yes in hindsight he lacked the men, equipment and logisitcs (could make the same case for Barbarossa). But if he would have broken through to the Suez the British empire would be pretty fucked.
#14346590
In What way was the Suez a strategic point in ww2? The British didnt ship anything through it. And the Axis couldn't (lack of shipping and escorts) It was a logistical terminus for the British. There is no oil there. Just how does the capture of Suez hurt the british War effort (other than morale) or make the German war effort better?
#14346592
pugsville wrote:In What way was the Suez a strategic point in ww2? The British didnt ship anything through it. And the Axis couldn't (lack of shipping and escorts) It was a logistical terminus for the British. There is no oil there. Just how does the capture of Suez hurt the british War effort (other than morale) or make the German war effort better?


Really? . Wheren't there several Axis air operations specifically targeting the Canal and its shipping of oil? Well besides that you capture the Suez and then you have the, Mediterranean and the Arabs and Persia with their oil at the palm of your hand and the world's trade routes. That and yes it would also demoralize the British war effort probably enough to knock out Churchill's government. That's why it was their goal to capture it in the first place.
#14346603
The Nazis and Strategic Objectives, well wouldn't be the first time their settings of strategic objectives was pointless. As Strategic Thinkers in ww2 German High Command stunk. The Battle of Britian/Sealion, just because the Nazi Germans planned an undertaking is no reason to think it's at all possible. They were Strategic Idiots.

What shipping of Oil? All British Oil came across the North Atlantic from the Americas. (this was a shipping decision it was just less shipping than middle eastern all, and remember that almost all British shipping went around Africa not through the med)

What Trade Routes? There was very very little going through the Seuz at the time.

Persian Oilfields are what 1,500 kms from the Suez it's a long long way, and again a worse logistical nightmare than the axis problems in North Africa. Suez isnt even halfway to the Persian Oil.

Getting The Persian Oil Back. Impossible. Germans didnt have the tankers, and the Royal Navy would have sunk them if they did. Sea transport would be impossible. That Leaves Rail, and even with the complete cooperation of Turkey there are massive problems, the Rails dont run all the way, it would take years to get a decent railway built as local railways in the region were extreme poor, very slow, very low volume. German was critically short of rail engines and rolling stock. Building the rail, and putting enough engines/rolling stock into service woul dbe a massive long term investment taking years.

So the Suez has no strategic resources or is particular near strategic resources and was not been used for allied shipping to transit at all. All British Oil came from the Americas, Suez is a long diffacult way from Persian Oil, which even if the the Germans had managed to getto was impossible to move back to Germany.


So Yes Really taking the Suez would have gotten the Germans very very very very little indeed.
#14346733
Rei Murasame wrote:After that happened, Hitler should have realised that Britain was going to be his enemy and that there literally nothing he could do other than to wait for the war to be inevitably declared. But since Hitler was a sentimental man - most men are like that it seems - he couldn't just say, "oh fuck it, and fuck them, prepare to fight", instead he had to waste time imagining about things that obviously were no longer possible on the eve of war.

This is where I think the analysis on Christianity fails. A big aspect of Christianity is the sort of sentimental caring for others. Biologically, that's a necessary aspect of humanity. We don't expect babies to change their own diapers, for example. Additionally, we gain wisdom from the elders. Christianity persists, in my opinion, because it mirrors that fundamental human tension between conflict and solidarity. I look at Prisoner's Dilemma versus Iterative Prisoner's Dilemma as a show on why Christianity works in terms of forgiveness--otherwise, you'd have nothing but perpetual war and you'd likely never be able to build any enterprise of scale. When arguing against the political left and their penchant for solidarity and world peace, I frequently mention that there is solidarity within the ranks of a military and competition between militaries. They rarely like that analysis, because they see cooperation as inherently peaceful and competition as inherently war like--where peace = good and war = bad.

Having said that, it strikes me that a bigger problem for Hitler was a tension between racism and nationalism. By appealing to a German Reich, rather than a pan-European Reich, his propaganda fell on deaf ears in Britain.

Rei Murasame wrote:Every British soldier ought to have been captured or shot that day, but because there was a little bit of mercy in Hitler's heart in the middle of a war, they escaped, the entire heart and brain of the British Army's leadership escaped with them, and many many people in Axis died at the hands of the Allies later because he showed mercy to those British enemies at Dunkirk.

I would argue that it was materiel from the United States and soldiers from Russia that ultimately won the war for the allies. Russia suffered huge casualties--and that could have been part of America's calculus. Because of communism, Russia was unable to recover economically.

Rei Murasame wrote:German and Japanese children burned to death in their homes because Hitler maintained affectionate feelings for his opponents even after hostilities had commenced. It would have been very nice if someone had pointed this problem out to him so he would stop exhibiting that behaviour, but I assume no one noticed this error until it was manifesting as an incoherent and confusing order at Dunkirk.

Dunkirk was a stroke of luck for the British, but I doubt that would have been the end of it. The Battle of Britain didn't rely on ground troops. It was an aerial campaign that Hitler ultimately lost. These are aspects that I think your military analysis doesn't take into account. The German offensive in Poland was militarily speaking absolutely brilliant. In the first Gulf War, Schwarzkopf ultimately used elements of Blitzkrieg when pushing the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. The problem is that the combination of fast air and ground operations was never going to work militarily against the British. It worked amazingly well against the Polish and the French, because blitzkrieg ultimate depends on the type of terrain you are fighting on. One problem with it is that Germany never built long range bombers with sufficient capacity to destroy allied industry, whereas the British and the Americans did exactly that with the B-17 and Lancaster bombers. Stukas were brilliant for Poland, but a disaster for the Battle of Britain. The British still swoon over the Spitfire as though it were the greatest plane of the war. On the contrary, I'd argue that its strength with its wing design was great lift and rate of climb, which made it ideal as an air defense of Great Britain. As a bomber escort, it was shit. Bomber attrition was appalling until the American's fitted the P-51 with a super-charged Merlin engine and external tanks for range.

That's why I say that limiting the invasion of Poland to Silesia--effectively repeating the process in Sudetanland--would make the case for war much more difficult. The Germans could much more reasonably argue for annexing German speaking territories. Consider the North American equivalent. It'd be hard to argue for a Union of the United States and Mexico. Yet, it would be rather easy to argue for the Union of the United States and Canada.

Rei Murasame wrote:Regarding Hitler's waffling about Japanese innovation - or lack thereof - he would be proven wrong to his face on that, during the war itself. His wrongness would be demonstrated by the fact that Japanese aerospace engineers eventually overtook their German counterparts. It should've only been expected that this could happen, but for some reason Hitler didn't expect it.

What do you mean by this? I've never heard of anyone comparing Japanese aerospace as superior to German. Would love to hear more. Japan did build the Betty (Mitsubishi B4M), but even on this plane they didn't incorporate self-sealing fuel tanks and armor. This was a major failure of Japanese aerospace, since Japan's best pilots inevitably were killed whereas America's got rescued and redeployed. Bush I was actually shot down over Chichi-jima and rescued. It's an amazing story, but was actually a lot more common than people realize.

Rei Murasame wrote:Then he would've just lost everything automatically. Metternich ultimately was revealed to have been a complete waste of everyone's time, and Bismark as well.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I would agree with you on Metternich, because he did not believe in German unification and ultimately opposed it. Hitler was right about the bastardized nature of the Austro-Hungarian empire. However, Bismarck was instrumental in unification. He just wasn't as militaristic as Kaiser Wilhelm II. Realpolitik is still widely read to this day.

Rei Murasame wrote:Adolf Hitler sees America as a wayward child that has been seized by Jews and black people. Hideki Tojo sees America as Anglo-Saxon schemers deliberately in league with Anglo-Saxon and Jewish financiers who run the country. Tojo is correct.

I agree. I think the Antisemitism actually clouded Hitler's thinking.

Rei Mursame wrote:Well, if he had waited until later, then Britain would have been even more ready for him, and the USSR would have actually been able to finish re-organising their army in time to meet him.

Britain was ready--defensively. They were not capable offensively. This was also true of the USSR. That's why I think seizing contiguous German-speaking territories and then suing for peace would have been smarter policy. The Russians didn't win because of their superiority. They won because like Enver Pasha's forces, or Napolean's forces, the Germans basically stalled out and then froze to death on the Russian frontier. Had the Russians had to maintain long supply lines in winter attacking Germany--with no long range bombers and a superior German Luftwaffe not spread so thin, Germany could have survived the onslaught. Hitler didn't need to beat Great Britain. He needed to weaken it. Hitler actually did very well in France. The fact that he was able to put together a Vichy regime suggests that there was a lot of sympathy for Nazism in France. The problem, though, is that it created a two front war for the Germans. An unwinnable situation. He understood America's strength before the war, which makes his choices kind of puzzling.

Rich wrote:Really this obsessive focus on Dunkirk is ridiculous. Britain actually re-landed large numbers of troops in France. Most of which successfully got away a second time. Hitler's big mistake in 1940 was underestimating the strength of the Soviet Union. In a way he was unlucky in this as most observers in the West expected the Soviet Union to collapse in the Barborossa campaign. Given Hitler's (far from unique) assumption that all he had to do was kick in the door, his strategy of attacking the Soviet Union was quite reasonable. Defeating the Soviet union would give him access to oil and other raw materials he desperately needed. Britain would have to sue for peace.

Recognising the true strength of the Soviet Union and under Trotsky Soviet capabilities would have undoubtedly been far superior, would have undermined Hitler's whole world view.

An excellent analysis. However, in light of Russia's development now, I still think they'd have been too weak to completely defeat the Germans. When Putin invaded Georgia, it was almost sad to see how ramshackle the Russian Army had become compared to NATO forces.

Far-Right Sage wrote:I would not say his personal dislike for Russia or the Russian people was greater than that held by any German nationalist, and as Fuser mentioned, anti-Slavic attitudes as a component of German nationalist thought really predate the advent of German fascism (National Socialism) and go back centuries.

Spot on.

Far-Right Sage wrote:One can date that outgrowth past the Battle of Grunwald and the almost mythic need in the German consciousness to avenge the defeat of 1410 at the hands of the Polish and Lithuanian forces long after the matter was thought settled by the Germanisation of Prussia (as a consequence of the Livonian Crusade of the 13th century) and eventually when the German nation was, in addition to being so divided pre-unification, being squeezed between the Tsarist Russian Empire to the east which was a hegemon and a powerful French state to the west.

Wow. Never thought of that before. Poland-Lithuania didn't last too long though; although a map of it is impressive.

Far-Right Sage wrote:This is of course not only done by Germans, but all of humanity, and in Western Europe, Germans have been such the target of a dehumanization campaign over the centuries by the same British and French imperialists (now liberal-capitalist surrogates of the U.S. project in Europe) who first sought to subjugate Germany by military means and occupation (as the French did straight through the Napoleonic era) and later by financial means; and then had the supreme gall to later not only harangue but demonize the vital attempt by Germany to liberate herself from this paradigm by any means necessary. Yes...to fucking hell with that and three centuries of British and French cowardly moral hypocrisy. Nothing would be more satisfying than to see another shot taken at it in my lifetime, if not to win than just to hurt and do damage and harm to the very same people who did so much damage to the heroic German people.

I completely agree on the moral hypocrisy aspects. America, in its age of political correctness, has become a self parody. It's just a very ridiculous country.

starman2003 wrote:Western civilization yes, but democratic civilization? No way... Btw the reich should've tried to seize the oilfields in the Persian gulf instead of going into Russia. Probably would've been a heck of a lot easier and, if some of the oil taken by late '41 was offered to Japan, to replace lost imports due to the allied embargo, it might've obviated pearl harbor and US entry into the war.

Why not Baku with a Turkish alliance? Fighting in Russian winters is the bane of any army.

Far-Right Sage wrote:It's a supreme shame the war was lost and much must be done to wipe clean that historical failure in the future, but it was the right fight at the right time.

I still think the Poland invasion screwed it up and gave a lot of pseudo-moral support for attacking Hitler. Had the Germans spent time building long range bombers so that they could defeat the Russian war machine, they could have prevailed on defense and then used pushing back against the Russians as a morally justified excuse for taking territory with better results. They needed the national equivalent of Wellington's defensive squares to defeat the extended Russians, while bombing their supply lines. It takes guts to be willing to be attacked though.

Far-Right Sage wrote:were disproportionately represented among the Bolsheviks, the KPD, and other communist factions throughout the interwar period. The biggest and most prominent faces and voices of European communism, were often Jewish and if not perceived to be Jewish (with the notable exception of Stalin himself), so it was a quite reasonable response and the terminology was reasonable.

Yeah, I just got through a rebuttal to criticism of the US Tea Party as being primarily from liberal (US definition) Jews, and got called quite a few names for that too. However, I also noticed antipathy to the Tea Party that came disproportionately from liberal Jews in the United States. I think the problem with Hitler labeling it as all Jewish is that he ended up killing people a lot of people who weren't his enemies. That's the peculiar thing about the Nazi legacy. If you read American history, it's as if everything was hunky dory, and along came Hitler and sold everybody a bunch of racism. Not only was Germany already very much racist, so was Britain and the United States.

Travesty wrote:If they would have broken through the Caucuses and Stalingrad then with their armies there they would have easily crushed the Soviet/British puppet in Iran and re- installed the Shah who was a very firm supporter of their cause. I doubt that a large scale occupation would be necessary and they would have had support from other Arab states as well who would immediatly topple their colonial puppets if the Nazi's would have broken through the Caucuses.

This is a very good point, but it also illustrates the strategic failure. Why invade Poland BEFORE Iran was secure? The fact that the British and Russians were able to install his son suggests that they had not thought that the British would have figured out this weak point. Reza Shah was already pro-German as he was getting squeezed by both Britain and Russia--classic Great Game scenario. Much like Turkey in WWI, Germany could simply have bought time and instead of invading Persia, merely sold them panzers--the delivery crew being very capable German tank drivers who then join their military...

pugsville wrote:They were Strategic Idiots.

They were hasty. Far too hasty.

pugsville wrote:Getting The Persian Oil Back. Impossible. Germans didnt have the tankers, and the Royal Navy would have sunk them if they did. Sea transport would be impossible. That Leaves Rail, and even with the complete cooperation of Turkey there are massive problems, the Rails dont run all the way, it would take years to get a decent railway built as local railways in the region were extreme poor, very slow, very low volume. German was critically short of rail engines and rolling stock. Building the rail, and putting enough engines/rolling stock into service woul dbe a massive long term investment taking years.

That's the failure in my opinion. The peaceful penetration strategy had the potential to work. Otherwise, Germany was limited to defense and smaller enemies that didn't precipitate in the larger conflict. Fisher-Tropsch, though expensive, would have been a way to keep a defensive tank fleet well fueled, while bombing the crap out of Russian supply lines. The Germans did work on the British supply lines via the U-boat campaigns, but heavy bombers were a problem for the Germans.
#14346801
Rei Murasame wrote:Pretty much. But NS Germany was never able to get Persia, so it wasn't able to be done. Someone had suggested abandoning the drive into the USSR to go to Persia instead, but then all that would have happened would be that the USSR would attack NS Germany while they were deployed in Persia.


Did the USSR attack nazi Germany while it were fully engaged fighting the French and British in May-June 1940? Khruschev recalled how Stalin was afraid of Hitler, "like a rabbit in front of a boa constrictor." He most likely wouldn't have fought unless the Germans attacked him. As for the British, they were barely able to contain just the three divisions of the DAK in Libya. I very much doubt they could've stopped half the forces earmarked for barbarossa, invading the Near East and Iran, via Turkey. If they seized Iraq, and the saudi and Iranian oilfields, Churchill might've fallen and the war ended around the fall of '41. In a letter to Roosevelt, Churchill warned that if the near east were lost, "continuation of the war would be a long, hard and bleak proposition..."
#14346810
blackjack21 wrote:A big aspect of Christianity is the sort of sentimental caring for others.

Only Christianity extends that behaviour to people who have taken up arms against you. Which is where it becomes completely ridiculous.

Once they start fighting you, the time to care about them is over.

blackjack21 wrote:Having said that, it strikes me that a bigger problem for Hitler was a tension between racism and nationalism. By appealing to a German Reich, rather than a pan-European Reich, his propaganda fell on deaf ears in Britain.

Both types of propaganda existed, but that was not where the organisational failure came up. The failure came from the fact that Oswald Mosley was unable to tap into the feelings of the working class, because the liberal state outmanoeuvred him earlier on because of liberal Beveridge-ite social welfare reforms.

He was never able to find a way around that, and he was also never able to gain a hold inside industrial and urbanised areas of the UK, which, because of UK demography being different from that of Germany and France, was precisely where he needed to gain a hold if he was to have any hope of growing his movement enough to get into power.

Basically, Britons were not having it, and he wasn't able to present a narrative that would make enough of them want to have it, and thus organisations that ought to have been formed were not formed, enough sponsors were not gained and some even pulled out their money from loss of confidence, and so political power was not attained.

German propaganda from outside the UK actually had much less impact than you think it did.

blackjack21 wrote:I would argue that it was materiel from the United States and soldiers from Russia that ultimately won the war for the allies.

And I wouldn't deny that.

blackjack21 wrote:Dunkirk was a stroke of luck for the British, but I doubt that would have been the end of it.

I didn't say that it would have ended, I only was saying that it was a significant factor in British survival because what escaped from there were skilled people whose knowledge was of use in all theatres.

blackjack21 wrote:What do you mean by this? I've never heard of anyone comparing Japanese aerospace as superior to German. Would love to hear more. J

I was going to give a big explanation, but then History channel has an overview and so I'll be lazy and post that:

1/3 Secret Japanese Aircraft of WWII
[youtube]PGS8bvHAr_s[/youtube]

2/3- Secret Japanese Aircraft of WWII
[youtube]ipsEYKRFsFw[/youtube]

3/3- Secret Japanese Aircraft of WWII
[youtube]_zvnrps0MRU[/youtube]

Leaving aside the history channel, I would focus on a few things.

Of particular note would be the Nakajima Kikka (aka 'Imperial Weapon No. 2'), which was a small jet aircraft that looked loosely like the Me 262, except it was only 66% as large and had folding wings. The jet engines were Ishikawajima Ne-20, a design created by Technical Naval Commander Eichi Iwaya based on him having merely looked at a cutaway drawing and a photograph of a BMW 003 engine prototype (which would be destined for use on the Heinkel He 162 Volksjaeger). The Kikka flew on 07 Aug 1945, and was slated for mass production.

Another one to note is the Kyushu J7W, which was a radical - for its time - attempt to have a push-configuration plane with the wings positioned in the rear and the stabilisers at the front, which is to say, a canard design. The propeller was later intended to be switched for a jet engine, but even as a propeller plane it was a very agile interceptor and would have done well. Its prototype flew successfully on 03 Aug 1945.

And then of course in the standard fare of propeller-driven planes, there was the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, which was easily one of the best planes in the entire war, because it was equal to any other fighter out there and could be produced at a remarkably low cost, and could be flown even by a complete idiot. It was faster than the NAA P-51D Mustang and the Republic P-47D Thunderbolt at almost all altitudes. At mid-altitude it quite literally could not be intercepted by anything. It could reach 16,400 ft in 5min 54sec, making it more agile than any allied aircraft. It's maximum range was 1347 miles. 1670 of them were built and used during 1944, to significant effect.

The production quality of the Ki-84 slowly decreased as allied efforts to cut off Japan's raw materials, disrupt its parts supply network, and as skilled factory workers increasingly found themselves having to take up arms. Thus, the performance of Ki-84s in the final months of the war changed as ingenious (and often horrendous) attempts were made to get that model of plane into the air no matter what.

The Ki-84R was supposed to be a super high-altitude version of that same plane, using a turbocharger, but the prototype for that was not finished before the end of the war.

Another one worth mentioning was the Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko, which was actually a disastrous failure at what it was originally designed to do. Originally designed as the J1N1-C, it was supposed to be an escorter, which would engage Chinese fighters to defend Japanese bombers. It was a laughable concept. Since that failed, the infamous Lieutenant Commander Yasuna Kozono of the Atsugi Airbase, decided that it should be re-made into a night-interceptor, the J1N1-S. It was a stroke of genius, and it was responsible for wrecking lots of American B-17s and B-24s, before things went downhill in late 1944 and the B-29 was everywhere and significantly harder to stop. This is because the B-29 was so fast that J1N1-S crews would only be able to make a single pass at them. Had it been possible to build the J1N1-S in larger numbers - only 486 were built, many more were required - then they would have been more effective.

Okay, that's enough examples, I think. I won't belabour the point. Japanese people knew how to build a freaking plane.

blackjack21 wrote:I agree. I think the Antisemitism actually clouded Hitler's thinking.

It's not that antisemitism clouded his thoughts, it's that he simply kept ignoring the fact that the Americans actually love Jews. FDR's entire government was basically FDR, old white Christian people, and Jews. The Americans had some antisemitic banter, but when push came to shove, they love them, they love everything about them.

blackjack21 wrote:Britain was ready--defensively. They were not capable offensively.

They would have been if they had kept waiting.

blackjack21 wrote:This was also true of the USSR.

I disagree, for the third time.

Read this, and decide what you think is most likely: [Link]

starman2003 wrote:Stalin was afraid of Hitler, "like a rabbit in front of a boa constrictor."

Well, no, it seems he really actually wasn't.
#14346825
Andropov wrote:The issue is that Lebensraum was from the very beginning an insane idea. First of all, it was unnecessary- Germany has no colonies today, yet it's doing pretty well for itself.



It could be a superpower had barbarossa worked. As for Stalin not being afraid of Hitler, in the spring of 1941 he was eager to avoid conflict. Notwithstanding great preparations to withstand attack, Stalin was very reluctant to have to face the nazis in battle. I very much doubt he would've initiated a war with Germany, if for example it went into Iran. In early 1941 he kept the soviet press under strict restraint to avoid provoking Germany. After the attack began he was so depressed he secluded himself for a few days.
#14346835
Andropov wrote:The issue is that Lebensraum was from the very beginning an insane idea. First of all, it was unnecessary- Germany has no colonies today, yet it's doing pretty well for itself.

Depends on how you look at it. The world model is different, since Germany's access to resources in the global south is presently guaranteed by the United States intervention against anyone who closes or diverts the flow of resources and shipping. The liberal-capitalist world order is headed up by the Unites States, with USD as the reserve currency, backed by American military power.

Commander Yasuna Kozono and Captain Mitsuo Fuchida held the position that 'peace is a lie'. They were right. Basically, peace narratives in a world like this, are fundamentally a lie, because an imperfect world striving toward a perhaps not-quite-attainable perfection must inherently involve conflict which must inherently involve pitting different teams of people against each other which will inherently result in killing people.

Any pause in the struggle is only a moment to prepare for another struggle someday again.
#14346996
The main issue is that the Soviets would never surrender. Partisans could survive in the forest for years, so unless Hitler was willing to nuke half of the former Soviet territory and render it useless forever there would be a guerrilla war and insurgency lasting decades.
#14347004
there would be a guerrilla war and insurgency lasting decades.

Which is precisely what the Nazis planned for.
#14347019
Andropov wrote:The main issue is that the Soviets would never surrender. Partisans could survive in the forest for years, so unless Hitler was willing to nuke half of the former Soviet territory and render it useless forever there would be a guerrilla war and insurgency lasting decades.


All empire builders faced revolts of various kinds. The Romans had to overcome many. Remarkably, even the nazis were generally able to maintain their rule despite near zero ideological appeal and support in most areas and minimal forces available to deal with resistance movements because of frontline commitments. Even after all the disastrous losses of mid 1944, they fairly easily crushed the Polish rebellion.
#14347064
The rulers united will never be defeated!

Really as long as you're willing to use a reasonable level of terror its not that hard to maintain an occupation. Now this is one area where I agree with the Libertarians, you don't need big government you just get the locals to police themselves. Someone shoots at you from a village, you take hundred hostages, if the perpetrators aren't handed over promptly you shoot them. most people's appetite for resistance rapidly crumbles when faced with the execution and torture of their children and other loved ones. Overall the resistance movements were chronically ineffective. They often spent more time fighting each other or preparing for the show down after the allied and soviets had liberated them. Even Tito was incapable of liberating his country without Soviet support even with the Germans in head long retreat. Soviet partisans were the most effect, but they would not have lasted long if the Soviets ceased hostilities. The Germans can hardly have been said to have lacked fanaticism but he Werewolves proved to be a completely damp squid once the Nazi regime had been eliminated.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]