[noir]

Shrub jr and his neocon screwballs are ultimately to blame for that.

They may started snowball, but Obama, the radical culturally-Muslim, is ultimately responsible. His intention is to preserve Muslim power in the world, but in the end his refusal to let America to be proactive only served the complete Muslim destruction. This prolong situation led to migrant crisis which will destroy Europe as well. He is responsible.

His pastor

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremia ... ontroversy

[Paul Sanderson]

Italy has been a clusterfuck of epic proportions for centuries now. Mussolini and his band of merry fascists seemed to be the solution to some of those problems, but it turned out to be a false dawn. Still, what is remarkable is that Italy is still a unified nation and is still reasonably successful by European standards (the northern half at least), despite its deep-rooted political and social problems.

Do you not think there was an improvement under the fascists? It was the fact they brought order and stability to the country that makes me think there was. Didn't the economy stabilise?

[noemon]

The good things I can say about fascism under the Metaxas regime is that, the 40-hour week and universal healthcare were established in Greece, the economy was doing very well and Metaxas beat Mussolini on the battle-field and his armies resisted the Germans so fiercely that Hitler took his hat off and released the officers with their pistols.

[Zamuel]

Obama, the radical culturally-Muslim, is ultimately responsible. His intention is to preserve Muslim power in the world, but in the end his refusal to let America to be proactive only served the complete Muslim destruction. This prolong situation led to migrant crisis which will destroy Europe as well. He is responsible.

Bullshit ... Obama was elected on his promise to HONOR the American publics wishes and bring home American troops ... Blame the American people if you want, but WE are all happy they are no longer reading the Names of that days American dead every night on the news. As for Europe's refugee problem ... WE didn't send them, you invited them ... and YOU are going to have to kick them out too. Once this election is done and over, we may help with a progressive resettlement program. -IF- you think you can work with Hillary, who's a VERY strong Obama supporter.

Zam

[starman2003]

This doesn't mean Germany didn't make any advances in military technology.

Of course it did. But the nazi regime often proved inimical to technical progress. Shirer noted the serious decline of technical colleges and education.

Maybe not, but the country was weaker before.

The fascist regime made some improvements but should've done much better.

[fuser]

Just a quick point and I will be away as per technological progress go among major nations during ww2, Germany was most wasteful and least efficient country.

[Rich]

Just a quick point and I will be away as per technological progress go among major nations during ww2, Germany was most wasteful and least efficient country.

The great problem with assessing Hitler is that he got away with his most reckless gambles, but was brought down by his invasion of the Soviet Union. His belief that he only had to "kick the door in", was a widely shared prejudice and not unreasonable after the Finnish fiasco. If Hitler had died in the second half of 1940 he would probably be remembered as Germany's greatest leader.

[starman2003]

The great problem with assessing Hitler is that he got away with his most reckless gambles, but was brought down by his invasion of the Soviet Union.

It says something that Hitler never faced real competition until he tried to tackle another totalitarian power. Britain did OK at sea and in the air but had it not been for the English channel....

His belief that he only had to "kick the door in", was a widely shared prejudice and not unreasonable after the Finnish fiasco.

Well, it did reflect poorly on German intelligence--shown to be "fantastically faulty" after the start of the Russian campaign.

If Hitler had died in the second half of 1940 he would probably be remembered as Germany's greatest leader.

Right. It is true, though, that technologically the reich was wasteful--its vast investment on type XXI construction was egregious.

[Rich]

It says something that Hitler never faced real competition until he tried to tackle another totalitarian power. Britain did OK at sea and in the air but had it not been for the English channel....

That's a most important point Starman. There's often a kind of blind faith economic determinism in Liberal circles. I'm not sure that Adam Tooze is a crude economic determinist, but many seem to use his book for that cause and argue that a victory in Russia would only have delayed the inevitable fall of Nazi Germany. I disagree. The defeat of France by Nazi Germany in 1939 was impossible, but even so it happened. The economic balance of forces made an allied victory inevitable but still they lost. This is surly the lesson for today.This surly is the real lesson of the Nazis: The vulnerability of Liberal Democracy to seemingly weak illiberal forces. With both the Nazis and in the Cold War we came damn close to losing despite a huge economic advantage. Similarly we see the remarkable survival of the Islamic state despite their pitiable resources and terrible economic management.

Right. It is true, though, that technologically the reich was wasteful--its vast investment on type XXI construction was egregious.

I'm no fan of Nazi economics. Germany was already riding the beginning of the upswing when Hitler took power. He took credit for others policies and the natural rebound of the German economy. If the Nazis had got peace in 1940 they would only have given Germans prosperity through the impoverishment and exploitation of everyone else they controlled. There economy was highly inefficient. However if your overriding goal, your primary measure of success was the overturning of the Versailles treaty then those first seven and half years of Nazi rule was an incredibly efficient use of Germany's limited resources.

[Potemkin]

Well, it did reflect poorly on German intelligence--shown to be "fantastically faulty" after the start of the Russian campaign.

Of course, it didn't help that the head of the Abwehr, Admiral Canaris, was himself a British double agent.

[fuser]

Of course, it didn't help that the head of the Abwehr, Admiral Canaris, was himself a British double agent.

Was he though? I don't think there is still any conclusive proof for it although there is a strong chance.

The defeat of France by Nazi Germany in 1939 was impossible, but even so it happened. The economic balance of forces made an allied victory inevitable but still they lost.

I have told you before (and you have always failed to back this claim), no it was not impossible neither the forces on paper made it look like as if allied victory was inevitable, that's nonsense. To give just one factor (rather than going full length again), Germany had almost double the aircrafts than allies during French campaign, how the hell can that concludes an inevitable allied victory is beyond me.

[starman2003]

That's a most important point Starman. There's often a kind of blind faith economic determinism in Liberal circles. I'm not sure that Adam Tooze is a crude economic determinist, but many seem to use his book for that cause and argue that a victory in Russia would only have delayed the inevitable fall of Nazi Germany. I disagree.

So do I.

The defeat of France by Nazi Germany in 1939 was impossible, but even so it happened. The economic balance of forces made an allied victory inevitable but still they lost.

I'd put it this way: given the far greater economic resources of the British Empire and France etc they should've won easily but lost.

This is surly the lesson for today.This surly is the real lesson of the Nazis: The vulnerability of Liberal Democracy to seemingly weak illiberal forces. With both the Nazis and in the Cold War we came damn close to losing despite a huge economic advantage.

Exactly. As I've written before the democracies had better thank their lucky stars Adolf didn't have a third of their resources. The totalitarian states compensated for their paucity of resources through individual sacrifice. Had it not been for nuclear weapons after WWII the democracies would've been overrun by the huge conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact. Nuclear weapons saved the skins of the democracies by providing a substitute for adequate conventional forces, which sacrificial (e.g. guns before butter) societies could better build in peacetime.

Similarly we see the remarkable survival of the Islamic state despite their pitiable resources and terrible economic management.

ISIS might ultimately crack and go--which wouldn't be bad as they're screwballs--but their local enemies would be in awful bad shape without US airpower.

If the Nazis had got peace in 1940 they would only have given Germans prosperity through the impoverishment and exploitation of everyone else they controlled.

All empires throughout history acquired territory in order to exact tribute and enrich themselves. But it needn't be a zero sum game, especially not in the long run, as the Pax Romana demonstrates.

However if your overriding goal, your primary measure of success was the overturning of the Versailles treaty then those first seven and half years of Nazi rule was an incredibly efficient use of Germany's limited resources.

Sure they had to emphasize armaments, and it paid off very well at first.

[Rich]

I have told you before (and you have always failed to back this claim), no it was not impossible neither the forces on paper made it look like as if allied victory was inevitable, that's nonsense. To give just one factor (rather than going full length again), Germany had almost double the aircrafts than allies during French campaign, how the hell can that concludes an inevitable allied victory is beyond me.

For starters Britain had a huge investment in its strategic bomber force. That did little to stem the German knock oout of Poland, Benelux, Norway and France. Britain and France had a huge combined Navy, which failed to stop Swedish ore supplies and the German occupation of Norway. France had a huge investment in the Maginot line whose strategic value proved limited. So yes the resources hugely favoured the allies. The expectation at the beginning of September 1939 was for a grinding war of attrition which the German's would almost certainly lose. Yes in May 1940 the Germans deployed twice as many aircraft, but this was not an expectation. Germany was heavily outnumbered overall in terms of numbers planes. It was even more outnumbered by weight of planes or total aircrew of planes.

No one not even Manstein expected such a quick knock out but Germany didn't have the ammunition reserves, let alone the replacement equipment or the production capacity to support a sustained campaign.

[fuser]

For starters Britain had a huge investment in its strategic bomber force. That did little to stem the German knock oout of Poland, Benelux, Norway and France.

And how strategic bomber force were supposed to do that on their own?

Britain and France had a huge combined Navy, which failed to stop Swedish ore supplies and the German occupation of Norway.

If not for France, Germany would had lost Norway, the allies had to redeploy from Norway because of German invasion of France and while gloating over this supposedly great German success you completely failed to notice the geography of the region which meant that German navy was always in cover of Luftwaffe and friendly mines and even then it was a big failure for kms which still managed to loose half of her invasion fleet (and 1/3 of her total surface fleet) to allied action. Yeah, some success.

France had a huge investment in the Maginot line whose strategic value proved limited. So yes the resources hugely favoured the allies.

lol, what? This doesn't follow at all, among all major things related to war-materials (except oil) be it coal, steel, aluminium, Germany was ahead of GB and France and either ahead of them combined (marginally) or behind but only marginally.

The expectation at the beginning of September 1939 was for a grinding war of attrition which the German's would almost certainly lose.

Yes, everyone expected a long grinding war but no it was not expected that Germany would certainly lose. Do you really think so low of Germans that they went to a war knowing that they will lose?

Yes in May 1940 the Germans deployed twice as many aircraft, but this was not an expectation.

Whose expectations you are talking about now? Allies or Germans or everyone? If only allies then believe me Germans also didn't expected many things they faced in field of battle during French campaign.

Germany was heavily outnumbered overall in terms of numbers planes. It was even more outnumbered by weight of planes or total aircrew of planes.

Completely and utterly false. You have any source for that at all? The fact is that Luftwaffe superiority in numbers was so complete that she also acted as artillery detachment of the army and even then during BoB maintained superiority in numbers while taking almost double the causality, only at the end of BoB did Britan started to gain parity in numbers.

No one not even Manstein expected such a quick knock out but Germany didn't have the ammunition reserves, let alone the replacement equipment or the production capacity to support a sustained campaign.

Oh, no one expected such quick result and Germany did had the production capacity as you know the big bloody eastern front shows.

Finally your claim that everyone thought that German victory was impossible or that it was some sort of miracle is laughably wrong.

[starman2003]

even then it was a big failure for kms which still managed to loose half of her invasion fleet (and 1/3 of her total surface fleet) to allied action. Yeah, some success.

It sure helped the allies that German torpedoes didn't work properly. Or German crews opted for magnetic instead of contact detonators.

[Rich]

If not for France, Germany would had lost Norway, the allies had to redeploy from Norway because of German invasion of France and while gloating over this supposedly great German success

Why do I bother? Gloating? The whole point of my argument is that Hitler took an insane gamble in September 1939, that he was incredibly lucky. When I say that if Hitler had died in between the fall of France and the start of Barborassa he would be remembered as the greatest German History, I'm not suggesting that he would have deserved that accolade. No the reverse. If you could actually read my posts, before replying to them. This is why I say assessing Hitler as a leader is complicated because he is given credit (as a strategist) for things he didn't deserve credit for, but is hammered for things: "kicking in the door and ..." a widely held prejudice and mistaken analysis", turning South in August 41, the correct view in my opinion and his gambles late in the war where the only hope was to pray for a miracle. I would add that the capture of Crete was also very lucky.

The Allies not sweeping through to the Rhine in September 1939, the speedy victory in Poland, Keeping his Swedish iron ore supplies, capturing Norway, knocking out France and Belgium and Holland in a few weeks and the capture of Crete were altogether an incredible run of luck.

Do you really think so low of Germans that they went to a war knowing that they will lose?

The German Generals were ready to overthrow Hitler in September 1938, but because he got away with it and the occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 adding to his rearmament, the occupation of the Rhineland, the Annekteirung of Austria and the seizure of Memel, it made it impossible for the Generals to stop Hitlers lunacy in September 1939. So demented was Hitler as a military strategist that he regretted not getting war in Autumn September 1938.

[fuser]

Why do I bother? Gloating? The whole point of my argument is that Hitler took an insane gamble in September 1939, that he was incredibly lucky. When I say that if Hitler had died in between the fall of France and the start of Barborassa he would be rememberer as the greatest German History, I'm not suggesting that he would have deserved that accolade. No the reverse. If you could actually read my posts, before replying to them. This is why I say assessing Hitler as a leader is complicated because he is given credit (as a strategist) for things he didn't deserve credit for, but is hammered for things: "kicking in the door and ..." a widely held prejudice and mistaken analysis", turning South in August 41, the correct view in my opinion and his gambles late in the war where the only hope was to pray for a miracle. I would add that the capture of Crete was also very lucky.

Yes you were gloating, sorry for pointing the obvious. Anyway this entire post is irrelevant drivel and doesn't addresses any of my point or backs up your original point at all.

The Allies not sweeping through to the Rhine in September 1939, the speedy victory in Poland, Keeping his Swedish iron ore supplies, capturing Norway, knocking out France and Belgium and Holland in a few weeks and the capture of Crete were altogether an incredible run of luck.

lol, so now you are going with "luck" rather than it was "impossible" and yet happened. Everything is explainable, there was no chance in hell for allies to sweep Rhine in September 1939 and you can't back up that by anything at all (as usual), in this very post you failed to back up your claim about "overall" superior numbers of allied planes during French campaign and aftermath. And now you are making up this?

The German Generals were ready to overthrow Hitler in September 1938, but because he got away with it and the occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 adding to his rearmament, the occupation of the Rhineland, the Annekteirung of Austria and the seizure of Memel, it made it impossible for the Generals to stop Hitlers lunacy in September 1939.

Yes, everyone (well most anyway) be it British French or German was wary of war in that period because memories of first ww1 was still alive, so what's your point? Anyway Munich was most certainly a gamble, I agree and Germany was much stronger in 1940 than 1938, true but that doesn't mean at all that German victory in France was impossible, a fluke, luck or whatever as you originally claimed.


To reiterate my main point which is that no in 1939-40, it was not clear at all that allies (of 39-40) will most definitely win on the continent and Germany lose, some judgments can be made but only with hindsights.

[starman2003]

there was no chance in hell for allies to sweep Rhine in September 1939 and you can't back up that by anything at all

But at the time the vast bulk of the German army was fighting in Poland, and France had 100 or so divisions in the west facing a much smaller German force. From what I've read the French could have overwhelmed the Germans then.

[fuser]

Where are you getting that 100 division from? This was surely not the case, France was still mobilizing and in 1939 was lacking any large scale armored formation. Most of the Inf div were not even regular. Hell, not even in may 1940 they had 100 division and merely 3 armored division. Total numbers of allies reach parity with Germany only when we add British, Dutch and Belgian army (which was quite large) components to it, without them France is outnumbered and outclassed in every way.

Another problem with allies was that Belgium and Netherlands were not with them from start but only came in fold at the last moment, so there was an utter lack of a combined plan.

[starman2003]

Where are you getting that 100 division from?

Shirer IIRC.

This was surely not the case, France was still mobilizing and in 1939 was lacking any large scale armored formation. Most of the Inf div were not even regular.

Still had to have been a much bigger and stronger force than what Germany had available in the west at the time. IIRC Shirer also wrote that an all-out bombing of the Ruhr might've proved disastrous to the Germans. IIRC he wrote: "This was the one great worry of the German generals in September as many of them admitted later."