[Smilin' Dave]

and yes I did name a cat after him.

Why did you name your cat after a paedophile rapist?

[Rei Murasame]

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

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

Adolf Galland and Walter Krupinski, two of the actual competent people that the Nazis had, which of course meant that ultimately no-one in high command actually listened to them.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Why did you name your cat after a paedophile rapist?

Why not? I name all of my cats after evil people. My latest one is called Josef Stalin (Uncle Joe) and I had another called Ted Bundy (Teddy).

[MB.]

John Rabe

[Quantum]

Oskar Dirlewanger was a perverted bastard even by Nazi standards and they had no problem butchering 6,000,000 Jews. It shows what a sick man he was by taking the virginity of a 13 year old maiden. My favourite Nazi is Hans-Ulrich Rudel because he was a succesful Stuka pilot who flew over 2,500 missions and destroyed many tanks, trains and 2,000 other vehicles. He even destroyed a Soviet battleship and several bridges, aircraft and cruisers, which demonstrates the awesome flying prowess of this man.

[killim]

I don't think that Rudel, Galland and Krupinski were members of the NSDAP, but you can correct me if you want...

[Siberian Fox]

Hans-Ulrich Rudel [...] destroyed a Soviet battleship

Just out of curiosity, which ship?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

On 23 September 1941, he and another Stuka pilot sank the Soviet battleship Marat, during an air attack on Kronstadt harbor in the Leningrad area, with hits to the bow using 1,000 kg bombs.[

From wiki so treat it as you please.

[MB.]

The Marat was an interesting case but a forgone conclusion in harbour versus dive bombers.

[fuser]

It will be Erwin Rommel : The great military strategist, Under his command "afrika corps" unlike other third Reich army is not known for any monstrous war crimes....

[Siberian Fox]

Erwin Rommel never joined the Nazi party.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Reinhard Heydrich - one scary motherfucker. And you have to be hardcore to chase after one of your assassins on foot who had just mortally wounded you.

[Nattering Nabob]

What? No one mentioned Hermann Göring?

He was a cross between a Roman consul and a cheap whore...

[Italo Balbo]

Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini's son-in-law and foreign minister, was intelligent and an often very sensible counter-weight to his boss's blustering.

I disagree. It was Ciano that pushed for Italy's involvement with Spain and their invasions in Albania and Greece. He convinced Mussolini that if Greece be invaded from Albania it could be taken within weeks. Ciano was not keen to enter the great war, but neither was the Duce. Mussolini, if anything, was more intelligent than Ciano. He may have presented himself to his crowds of fans as a superman figure of brute force, like a bull dog, but don't forget that behind the macho figure his personality cult propagandized he was a very smart intellectual.

[Jackal]

I disagree. It was Ciano that pushed for Italy's involvement with Spain and their invasions in Albania and Greece. He convinced Mussolini that if Greece be invaded from Albania it could be taken within weeks. Ciano was not keen to enter the great war, but neither was the Duce. Mussolini, if anything, was more intelligent than Ciano. He may have presented himself to his crowds of fans as a superman figure of brute force, like a bull dog, but don't forget that behind the macho figure his personality cult propagandized he was a very smart intellectual.

Mussolini also had an obsession with invading Albania and Greece and did so even though Hitler advised against it. Sure, Ciano pushed for Italy's involvement but surely Mussolini would have to take most of the blame for that one (at least out of the two). Further, in my research I have come to the conclusion that Ciano was more interested in spreading Fascism while Mussolini was more interest in spreading Italy. Do not get me wrong, however, for Ciano felt that spreading Italy was one of the best tools for spreading Fascism. Further, was is wrong for pushing for Italy's involvement with Spain? It set up the second longest lasting Fascist regime ever (Portugal's Estado Novo being the longest). I bet Ciano would consider that a success in his quest to spread Fascism.

[Italo Balbo]

Mussolini also had an obsession with invading Albania and Greece and did so even though Hitler advised against it. Sure, Ciano pushed for Italy's involvement but surely Mussolini would have to take most of the blame for that one (at least out of the two). Further, in my research I have come to the conclusion that Ciano was more interested in spreading Fascism while Mussolini was more interest in spreading Italy. Do not get me wrong, however, for Ciano felt that spreading Italy was one of the best tools for spreading Fascism. Further, was is wrong for pushing for Italy's involvement with Spain? It set up the second longest lasting Fascist regime ever (Portugal's Estado Novo being the longest). I bet Ciano would consider that a success in his quest to spread Fascism.

Yes, Mussolini as well as Ciano wanted to invade, but Ciano was the one who really pushed Mussolini and his circle into wanting to go into Greece. As for Albania and Spain, he wanted it as much as they did.

Ciano was more interested in spreading Fascism while Mussolini more interested in spreading Italy? I don't know... Ultimately Ciano voted to restore the king's power, and helped Mussolini get arrested. Ciano helped end Fascism, giving power back to the monarch that embodied Italy at the time (remember, Italy never had a democracy before this point, Fascism was the introduction of capitalism to Italy). That's how he died, he was executed for treason- put on trial before Mussolini himself. It's easy to point the blame in all that happened to Mussolini, however his inner circle that he began surrounding himself as he got closer with the Germans and tied into the axis that dragged the nation down nearly, if not equally, as much as did Mussolini himself. Throughout his career as Duce, Mussolini always conceded to what the people in power wanted, and it is arguable that at times he broke his own political beliefs to support his political allies. I remember reading a quote from Mussolini to Margherita Sarfatti, his Jewish lover, that he must pretend to hate the Jews for political reasons. Mussolini followed his crowd, and Ciano was the big player in that crowd when things started really going downhill. Not only did Ciano help bring the nation down with bad leadership decisions, but he also proved to be a traitor to his own cause.

Was it wrong for pushing Italy's involvement with Spain? Well it depends on what standpoint you're asking me that question from. Whether I think they should have become involved, as a means of spreading the Fascist cultural revolution, then I would agree with you. However becoming involved from the beginning was a mistake made out of the regime's getting too caught up in their own dream, their own fantasy of power. After Ethiopia, the regime was at it's prime. They felt like now, having conquered Ethiopia, the Italians were a grand imperial force. They were delusional. The Italians were always weak, and extremely so. Sending troops into Spain was something that they couldn't afford, and hurt them in the second great war. When WWII came the average Italian soldier did not have boots, hardly any tanks were manufactured, the air force was a joke, their submarines were antiques that leaked poisonous gases out of their engines, their muskets produced in the 1890s, and their naval units were not equipped properly with anti-air weaponry. I don't think sending in more troops to Spain, Albania, Greece, hell even when they went and took Egypt from the Brits they just couldn't afford it. But I wouldn't peg Egypt on Ciano.

Not even Germany sent in their troops to Spain, and their war machine was swelling rapidly at the time. The Germans stuck to air raids.

Also, when WWII came Franco didn't even get involved, after all his allies had done for him. It was clearly not a good investment, so far as personal gain goes.

[Jackal]

Yes, Mussolini as well as Ciano wanted to invade, but Ciano was the one who really pushed Mussolini and his circle into wanting to go into Greece. As for Albania and Spain, he wanted it as much as they did.

Ciano was more interested in spreading Fascism while Mussolini more interested in spreading Italy? I don't know... Ultimately Ciano voted to restore the king's power, and helped Mussolini get arrested. Ciano helped end Fascism, giving power back to the monarch that embodied Italy at the time (remember, Italy never had a democracy before this point, Fascism was the introduction of capitalism to Italy). That's how he died, he was executed for treason- put on trial before Mussolini himself. It's easy to point the blame in all that happened to Mussolini, however his inner circle that he began surrounding himself as he got closer with the Germans and tied into the axis that dragged the nation down nearly, if not equally, as much as did Mussolini himself. Throughout his career as Duce, Mussolini always conceded to what the people in power wanted, and it is arguable that at times he broke his own political beliefs to support his political allies. I remember reading a quote from Mussolini to Margherita Sarfatti, his Jewish lover, that he must pretend to hate the Jews for political reasons. Mussolini followed his crowd, and Ciano was the big player in that crowd when things started really going downhill. Not only did Ciano help bring the nation down with bad leadership decisions, but he also proved to be a traitor to his own cause.

Was it wrong for pushing Italy's involvement with Spain? Well it depends on what standpoint you're asking me that question from. Whether I think they should have become involved, as a means of spreading the Fascist cultural revolution, then I would agree with you. However becoming involved from the beginning was a mistake made out of the regime's getting too caught up in their own dream, their own fantasy of power. After Ethiopia, the regime was at it's prime. They felt like now, having conquered Ethiopia, the Italians were a grand imperial force. They were delusional. The Italians were always weak, and extremely so. Sending troops into Spain was something that they couldn't afford, and hurt them in the second great war. When WWII came the average Italian soldier did not have boots, hardly any tanks were manufactured, the air force was a joke, their submarines were antiques that leaked poisonous gases out of their engines, their muskets produced in the 1890s, and their naval units were not equipped properly with anti-air weaponry. I don't think sending in more troops to Spain, Albania, Greece, hell even when they went and took Egypt from the Brits they just couldn't afford it. But I wouldn't peg Egypt on Ciano.

Not even Germany sent in their troops to Spain, and their war machine was swelling rapidly at the time. The Germans stuck to air raids.

Also, when WWII came Franco didn't even get involved, after all his allies had done for him. It was clearly not a good investment, so far as personal gain goes.

While I almost completely agree with you I do not think it is fair to pin down Ciano due to his treason against the Mussolini regime. Since this was towards the end of the regime Ciano, in my opinion, was just trying to cover his ass when things went really sour. I also believe that I have read that Ciano was not a big fan of the Germans, but I could be mistaken. On Spain, it was not a good investment, no. I am not so sure, however, that even Italy wanted to get involved with the war. Mussolini attempted to contact Churchill several times right before he bounded the Italian state in an alliance with the Nazis. Had Italy never gotten involved and remained much like Spain and Portugal, I do not doubt that things would have went a bit differently for both Mussolini and Ciano. Would you agree to this?

[Italo Balbo]

While I almost completely agree with you I do not think it is fair to pin down Ciano due to his treason against the Mussolini regime. Since this was towards the end of the regime Ciano, in my opinion, was just trying to cover his ass when things went really sour. I also believe that I have read that Ciano was not a big fan of the Germans, but I could be mistaken. On Spain, it was not a good investment, no. I am not so sure, however, that even Italy wanted to get involved with the war. Mussolini attempted to contact Churchill several times right before he bounded the Italian state in an alliance with the Nazis. Had Italy never gotten involved and remained much like Spain and Portugal, I do not doubt that things would have went a bit differently for both Mussolini and Ciano. Would you agree to this?

It's true, when Ciano voted against Mussolini he was going with the popular vote. At that point fascist discipline in Italy was dissolved in many, and in some places people could publicly denounce Mussolini, pegging him for all the mistakes the regime led the nation through, beginning with Ethiopia. And they where right to blame him, because he let all the invasions happen and led them into the worst conflict, however many things that his regime went through were not what he would have originally chosen to do had not his inner circle and the general bourgeoisie class had aspirations he wanted to tend to. Ciano was the leading man in the imperialist drive.

You are correct, Italy did not want to get involved in WWII. When the war came they had already gotten sucked into the axis snare, and the allies were no longer their friends. Mussolini was viewed by the world as the most evil dictator for his use of mustard gas in Ethiopia (Stalin and Hitler's crimes had not come to surface and haven't fully occurred at this point in time). When the war initially began, the Italians were simply not ready to fight, and stood on the sideline while Hitler brought down western europe within a matter of weeks. It seemed, at this early stage in the war, that Hitler was about to win the war, having conquered France and made a pact with the Soviet Union. It was Mussolini who wanted to enter the war, and many in his circle appeared to have doubts about it. You are correct about Ciano and the war, he did not trust Germans.

If Mussolini had not entered Ethiopia he could have stood as a mediator between Nazism and Italian Fascism to the world. As you mentioned, he did have deals with Churchill and even wanted to sign a pact with Britain and France. Going into Ethiopia is what set Mussolini into the Nazi trap, eventually aligning Italy with the axis and the signing of their pact. His use of mustard gas terrified the western world, and impressed Hitler. Hitler actually supplied the Ethiopian resistors guns, and when Mussolini came to Berlin for the first time Hitler told his generals to act really nice to him and pretend to think he was some sort of military genius. If Ethiopia had never occurred, and Mussolini listened to Dino Grandi and sided with France and Britain then maybe they could have come out of it, but only maybe. There was a good chance Hitler would have taken him out. What happened to Dino Grandi was he got sent as an ambassador to London so he wouldn't become too powerful (just as Italo Balbo was sent to Libya).

I do not think Mussolini could have stayed neutral through the war and survived after having invaded Ethiopia and aligning himself with the Nazis. The Nazis called Italy their first ally and expected them to fight alongside. If Mussolini had remained neutral there was a good chance Hitler would have invaded Italy and killed Mussolini, or turned him into a puppet leader as he eventually did. Hitler would have been enraged by Mussolini's betrayal. Mussolini feared a bloody conflict with the Germans, one he knew he could not claim victory in.

Mussolini was in a corner to enter the war. Although it was the opportunistic thought of looting areas of France that pushed him to join the war, Mussolini was backed into a corner by Hitler- knowing the Führer's wrath if he did not join the fight.

[Smilin' Dave]

Stalin and Hitler's crimes had not come to surface and haven't fully occurred at this point in time

... Stalin's crimes were in fact well publicised at the time they were committed, including the great famine and the purges. Similarly, Hitler's Kristalnacht received a lot of coverage by contemporary media.

[Potemkin]

Stalin's crimes were in fact well publicised at the time they were committed, including the great famine and the purges.

Which most Westerners didn't care about. Stalin had begun his policy of 'socialism in one country', which meant that the Soviet Union was regarded as less of a threat to the West than it had been under Lenin's and Trotsky's rule. The demonisation of Stalin in the West only really got off the ground during the Cold War, from 1947 onwards.

Similarly, Hitler's Kristalnacht received a lot of coverage by contemporary media.

True, but Hitler's crimes up that point in time had been relatively minor (by the standards of the time) and largely confined to Germany itself.