A thought about hitler....

[TejasMk3]

Unlike Hindous who were totally subdued by British colonization, and went as far as to fight for them.
Muslims who have been colonized, or came under a protectorate (Colonization in disguise), have organized armed resistance and won their independence through armed resistance and hellish life for the invaders, the same means by which they were colonized.
One can see the same things happened in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times.

So Zia ul haq is one those Hindus who fought for the British and Subhash Chandra bose was one of those muslims who fought against them

 

[nForce]

No one denies the holocaust, since the gas chambers were there, but most people denies the number of Jews that have been executed there, since the 6 million figure should include all the people that Germans considered as inferior races.

I have met a few who do deny that.But, then, since you can speak about your point of view only, so its alright.

Some of the Muslims that liked Hitler were colonized by England, and the natural way was to stand with England's enemy, since as the saying goes, the enemy of one's enemy is a friend, So, Hitler as a person was irrelevant, it was the idea of the saying that was fundamental.

Stalin, in later stage also turned out to be an enemy of the British. He does not get the same popularity somehow.

Unlike Hindous who were totally subdued by British colonization, and went as far as to fight for them.
Muslims who have been colonized, or came under a protectorate (Colonization in disguise), have organized armed resistance and won their independence through armed resistance and hellish life for the invaders, the same means by which they were colonized.
One can see the same things happened in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times.

That statement has just so, so many holes in it...You seem to have missed the entire history of armed struggle in Indian independence.
Also, who do you think Ayub Khan and Niazi were fighting for during Second World war ? As a matter of fact, in one specific case, Niazi, at that time under General Slim(went on to be Knighted in later stages), was fighting in the same front, but in the opposite side of the Indian National Army, led by Subhas Chandra Bose.

@Joe Shearer Watch this..Its going to be amusing.

 

[The SC]

Stalingrad was a very strategically located city on the River Volga through which passed thousands of tons of aviation fuel and other raw material that supplied the Soviets from the Caucasus. The other purpose of capturing the city was to guard the main flank of the 800,000 Axis troops in the Caucasus. Hitler wasn't obsessed with it because of the name of the city, but rather due to its Strategic location.



That is incorrect actually. Hitler since the beginning of Operation Barbarossa insisted on keeping Army Group Center on the defensive near Moscow while thrusting his Army Group North towards Leningrad and Army Group South towards the Caucasus Oil Fields. It was Hitler who gave more priority to Army group South during the Battle of Kharkov when he ordered the transfer of Panzer Divisions from Army group center to Army group South in order to speed up the progress towards the Caucasus.

His Generals at first went along but later opposed the plan and decided that since the Red Army had already lost a major chunk of its material resources and manpower in the early phases of Barbarossa they had nothing left to defend Moscow with and thus the Soviet Capital was open for the taking. They were however bitterly proven wrong when the weather turned against them and the Red Army brought in reserves from Siberia.







I would disagree. Hitler united Germany and turned the once tattered Nation into the most power European country at a time when all of the worlds industrialized nations were stuck in the depression. Hitler saved Germany from communist takeover and he alone had the capability of defeating Communism in Europe.

Every fact you are stating is correct, but you are talking tactics while I was talking strategy, you should revise my posting in this context. It was stated by historians.
About hitler and what he brought to germany before WW2 is correct, but in my view he was surrounded with some geniuses in all fields, who have devised everything while he used his popular power to implement their thoughts.
The same happened after the begining of the war, and his ego got too inflated, that is why he made fatal decisions.
I hope you have read about Rommel and the like, every general and marshal of his ended up disliking him. Usually there is a long way before disliking someone you just sheered and obeyed almost blindly, but in Hitler's case this happened in about 2-3 years time.
German soldiers and the main component of the German armed forces the elite SS fought bravely throughout the war till the fatal end, it is very rare that you have such a dedicated armed forces, they deserve respect.
Given the right decisions and orders they would have won the war against all odds. most of them were lost to cold bites on the eastern front, as 3 million soldiers they were a very huge force, but the Russians scarified 12 million soldiers and 8 million civilians, plus the cold that has killed over a million German army men to overwhelm them.
In brief, Hitler made mistakes like all humans make, but he made fatal mistakes while holding power, so, was not worthy of his place.
Stalingrad was one of these fatal decisions.
Can you please explain why he didn't go for Moscow, the capital, eventhough it was open to him.

 

[The SC]

I have met a few who do deny that.But, then, since you can speak about your point of view only, so its alright.


Stalin, in later stage also turned out to be an enemy of the British. He does not get the same popularity somehow.

That statement has just so, so many holes in it...You seem to have missed the entire history of armed struggle in Indian independence.
Also, who do you think Ayub Khan and Niazi were fighting for during Second World war ? As a matter of fact, in one specific case, Niazi, at that time under General Slim(went on to be Knighted in later stages), was fighting in the same front, but in the opposite side of the Indian National Army, led by Subhas Chandra Bose.

@Joe Shearer Watch this..Its going to be amusing.

All I know is that most Indian muslims refused to fight for the Brits, ( I am not talking about individual cases), they kinda have gone "on strike", inspiring Ghandi"s policies to oust the Brits from India.
so, please call on all you friends to be amused here, or may be abused...

 

[nForce]

All I know is that most Indian muslims refused to fight for the Brits, ( I am not talking about individual cases), they kinda have gone "on strike", inspiring Ghandi"s policies to oust the Brits from India.
so, please call on all you friends to be amused here, or may be abused or in a worst case to be depressed by the truth.

What are you talking about ? All the princely states of British India, including those being ruled by Muslim rulers came under the British dominion of India.
All of them, directly or indirectly helped the British to fight the war. The name of two generals, who later went on to occupy high offices in Pakistan, were not individual cases.They were examples.

What exactly is your point ?

Try to read "Freedom at Midnight" by Dominique Lapierre. He has given a very interesting account of the princely states of British India.

 

[NACIONALISTA]

Every fact you are stating is correct, but you are talking tactics while I was talking strategy, you should revise my posting in this context. It was stated by historians.

No, i am talking strategy and not tactics. Tactics come into play during battles. Strategy comes into play during campaigns. The overall Strategy was to deprive the Soviet war machine of raw material, but the German high command (OKW) was fooled by the heavy material and manpower losses of the Red Army thinking they were weakened beyond recovery and wanted to use the chance to take Moscow, but they were proven false.

It was stated by historians.

And which historians are those?? The same ones who say that Soviet Union was peaceful while Hitler was the aggressor?? But Stalin was invading eastern Europe while Hitler was fighting Britain and France. Stalin invaded the Baltic States (including my country Estonia) and massacred hundreds of thousands, but Historians say Stalin was unprepared?? How so when he was invading Eastern Europe and this caused Hitler to attack Soviet Union before Stalin could attack Germany.

Historians are supposed to be politically correct.

About hitler and what he brought to germany before WW2 is correct, but in my view he was surrounded with some geniuses in all fields, who have devised everything while he used his popular power to implement their thoughts.

No, that is false. Before Hitler all of these men were unknown. They couldn't formulate a plan to expand their party. They were dwarfed by the Communist party that had six million members and the right wing militias with their thousands of members. They lived under constant fear of Communist attacks. It was Hitler who completely changed that through his oratorical skills and leadership skills, and above all through his will. Before Hitler the party was known as The German Workers Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei), Hitler increased its membership significantly and changed the name to Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP).

The same happened after the begining of the war, and his ego got too inflated, that is why he made fatal decisions.

No, rather to the contrary, it was the ego of his Generals that had gotten inflated. They wanted to capture Moscow to prove their military genius and have their name written in history, when in reality Moscow served no significance militarily compared to the capture of the Caucasus. They thought they had it when Hitler kept insisting to strike southward and keep on the defensive in the center, but they were too high on victory to clearly see the stupidity of their decision.

And during the Stalingrad battle, they repositioned most of the Panzer divisions to fight in the city when Hitler ordered that the Panzer divisions be sent to reinforce the Italian held sectors on the flank of the sixth Army in Stalingrad to prevent Red Army breakthrough and encirclement of the Sixth Army, and yet again his Generals disobeyed him. They didn't like taking orders from a Austrian corporal after all, since they themselves were from the aristocracy and went to expensive military schools thus they took it as an insult when a Austrian corporal gave them orders. Though, not all of them felt that way.

I hope you have read about Rommel and the like, every general and marshal of his ended up disliking him. Usually there is a long way for disliking someone you just sheered and obeyed almost blindly, but in Hitler's case this happened in about 2-3 years time. German soldiers and the main component of the German armed forces the elite SS fought bravely throughout the war till the fatal end, it is very rare that you have such a dedicated armed forces, they deserve respect.
Given the right decisions and orders they would have won the war against all odds. most of them were lost to cold bites on the eastern front, as 3 million soldiers they were a very huge force, but the Russians scarified 12 million soldiers and 8 million civilians, plus the cold that has killed over a million German army men to overwhelm them.
In brief, Hitler made mistakes like all humans make, but he made fatal mistakes while holding power, so, was not worthy of his place.
Stalingrad was one of these fatal decisions.

Most of Hitlers Generals didn't despise him, but quite a few of them did for many reasons, including that he was a corporal and he was a socialist who wanted to break the social barriers in German society that divided German people based on wealth and status. This was a threat to the aristocratic Generals. And many of these generals were secretly feeding the British intelligence German war plans, who then passed these plans on to the Soviets.

Can you please explain why he didn't go for Moscow, the capital, eventhough it was open to him.

Moscow was of no major military significance to Hitler. Already Stalin and Soviet government officials were retreating to a new capital further East, so no point in capturing Moscow. Hitler wanted to capture the Caucasus because that was where the oil for the Red Army and Red Air force as well as raw material for the soviet war machine was coming from. To capture that region was to cut off 90-95% of Soviet oil supplies, and without that oil Soviet Tanks can't move and planes can't fly.

The battle for Moscow was a waste of time, manpower, and resources for the Germans. It allowed the Soviets enough time to recover and the Germans lost their window of opportunity to take the Caucasus without facing any major Soviet threat.

 

[The SC]

The German invasion of the Soviet Union contributed significantly to the Nazi's ultimate defeat as the front consumed vast amounts of manpower and material. Over 80% of the Wehrmacht's World War II casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. Likewise, the invasion eased pressure on the other Allies and gave them a valuable ally in the east.

World War II Europe Eastern Front - Operation Barbarossa on the Eastern Front - Soviet German Battles on the Eastern Front

 

[Marshmallow]

No one denies the holocaust, since the gas chambers were there, but most people denies the number of Jews that have been executed there, since the 6 million figure should include all the people that Germans considered as inferior races.

Some of the Muslims that liked Hitler were colonized by England, and the natural way was to stand with England's enemy, since as the saying goes, the enemy of one's enemy is a friend, So, Hitler as a person was irrelevant, it was the idea of the saying that was fundamental.
Unlike Hindous who were totally subdued by British colonization, and went as far as to fight for them.
Muslims who have been colonized, or came under a protectorate (Colonization in disguise), have organized armed resistance and won their independence through armed resistance and hellish life for the invaders, the same means by which they were colonized.
One can see the same things happened in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times.

dont know why i always read your nick as The Supreme Court

 

[The SC]

Most fatal hitler's blunders

Fails to Take Moscow
The first of those blunders came soon after Operation Barbarossa was launched. From the outset, Hitler’s military leaders knew that speed was of the essence: they were after a quick contest, not a protracted war. And their initial prospects of winning that race against time were promising: after smashing through the Soviet forward divisions, Army Group Center won a hard-fought battle at Smolensk. At its conclusion, more than 200,000 Soviet prisoners were marched into already overcrowded holding pens, and the road to Moscow was laid bare. Now was the time for a strong, direct thrust at the Soviet capital.
More than just a political objective, Moscow was the nerve center for the Communist Party, a major industrial center, and, most important, the nexus for almost every major rail line in the Soviet Union; if Moscow fell, lateral movement of Soviet forces would become impossible. Moreover, the defeat of Moscow would help cut western Russia off from the eastern armies, which were already beginning their move to the city’s aid. In 1812, Russia could give up Moscow to Napoleon and suffer few military consequences. Losing Moscow in 1940 would have been catastrophic to the Soviet cause.

But then Hitler shifted Germany’s strategic emphasis: rather than send his forces on to Moscow, at the end of August Hitler ordered General Heinz Guderian to take his Second Panzer Army south to assist the slow-moving Army Group South. By way of explanation, he pointed to the natural resources of the Ukraine and the oil in the Caucasus, both of which he saw as vital to the German war effort. When his generals persisted in protesting this shift in strategy, Hitler exclaimed, “My generals know nothing of economics!” Reluctantly, Guderian took his panzers south, netting another 600,000 prisoners in the Kiev pocket. It was the greatest tactical victory of war, but it was not without cost.
When the advance on Moscow—Operation Typhoon—was renewed on October 2, a precious month had been lost. A combination of stubborn Russian resistance, German overextension, and abysmal weather soon stalled the German offensive just short of its ultimate objective. In late November, when Typhoon was called off, lead German elements were less than 20 miles from Moscow. Only two weeks later, the Russians launched a crippling winter counteroffensive. Unlike Napoleon’s Grande Armée, which was shredded after its victory by both the Russians and the winter, Army Group Center did not disintegrate. It did, however, suffer horrific losses and was never again in a position to threaten Moscow. Hitler’s chance for a quick and decisive outcome in the East dissolved.

Overvalues Stalingrad as a Target
All hope for victory was not lost, however. In the spring and summer of 1942, a restored Wehrmacht launched a new offensive to secure the Caucasus oil fields. It was at this point that Hitler made a series of misjudgments that doomed a German field army and had dire effects on the overall war effort.

After chastising his generals about Moscow being a mere political target of little military consequence, Hitler, remarkably, allowed himself to be drawn into a battle of prestige for control of Stalingrad. Instead of focusing on the oil fields, he divided his force, sending one to head south toward Baku, the other to take Stalingrad. It was a battle he waged ferociously, long after the city had lost any military utility. Division after division was fed into the Stalingrad maelstrom, where whole battalions were virtually obliterated 24 hours after their commitment. For almost three months, the German Sixth Army pounded at the city until only a small sliver remained in Soviet hands.

Myopically focused on capturing the city named for his mortal enemy, Hitler took no notice of the buildup of Soviet reserves on Sixth Army’s weakly held flanks. When the Soviets launched an attack to encircle Sixth Army—Operation Uranus—in mid-November, they quickly shattered first the Romanian and later the Italian and Hungarian armies flanking the city. Two days later, Soviet pincers met at the nearby town of Kalach, entrapping the Sixth Army. For several months the doomed army slowly starved, before finally surrendering on February 2, 1943.

Hitler’s maniacal insistence on seizing and holding Stalingrad had cost over 750,000 causalities, and the loss of an irreplaceable field army. It was, up to that point, the greatest single disaster the German army endured.

Gambles All at Kursk
Eventually, the Soviet Stalingrad offensive petered out, and the Germans were given breathing space to consolidate a new defensive line and restore their depleted forces. If they were to have any chance of negotiating a favorable peace, now was the time to fortify in depth, build mobile strike forces for counterattacks—such as Erich von Manstein’s successful counteroffensive at Kharkov in February–March 1943—and husband their strength to meet the next Soviet offensive.

Instead, Hitler became fixated on a massive summer offensive aimed at an enormous bulge in the Soviet line around the city of Kursk. Ordering simultaneous thrusts from the north and south, he hoped to trap the Soviet forces within the bulge, or salient, and to tear a gap in their line, allowing the offensive to continue to the east.

If it was the Battle of Stalingrad that decided Hitler would not win the war, it was the Battle of Kursk that decided he would lose it. Aware of the massive preparations the Russians were making around Kursk, many German generals were reluctant to attack; even Hitler had doubts, admitting that the thought of the attack made him feel ill. Despite his foreboding, Hitler eventually ordered it to go forward.
It is a testament to German tactical ability that for 10 days the Wehrmacht pushed doggedly ahead. And for one brief moment, it even seemed as if the horrific losses inflicted upon them would not be in vain. The final defensive belt was breached and the armor of the Fourth Panzer Army massed for the final push. It was at this moment that the Russian commander, General Georgi Zhukov, unveiled his final surprise. The Soviet reserve, comprising the 5th Guards Tank Army, was ordered forward to seal the breech. Near the village of Prokhorovka, the Soviet tanks collided headlong with the onrushing Germans. In what became known as the “Death Ride of the Fourth Panzer Army,” both sides fought a close-quarters knife fight with tanks. When it was over, German offensive power in the east was extinguished. The panzer divisions, reconstituted at great cost in the first half of 1943, were shattered. With them went Hitler’s hopes of victory.

Adolph Hitler | Facts Summary Information

 

[Joe Shearer]

All I know is that most Indian muslims refused to fight for the Brits, ( I am not talking about individual cases), they kinda have gone "on strike", inspiring Ghandi"s policies to oust the Brits from India.
so, please call on all you friends to be amused here, or may be abused...

Most Indian Muslims helped the British cause during the war, and held back from INC resistance to the war.

I suggest you do a long course of reading before printing such utterly ignorant statements in public.

 

[Koovie]

I would disagree. Hitler united Germany and turned the once tattered Nation into the most powerful European country at a time when all of the worlds industrialized nations were stuck in the depression. Hitler saved Germany from communist takeover and he alone had the capability of defeating Communism in Europe.

1.) He never united Germany, he used faults in the German constitution to use emergency rights to assume more and more power and to eventually destroy any opposition with fear, violence and propaganda, even in his own ranks.

2.) Hitler reduced unemployment, he built infrastructure and brought growth.

But how and why?

Everything was meant for war from the very beginning. By taking insane amounts of debts, he was able to pull off so many projects and all this spent money was meant to be recovered by plundering other nations.

Small size businesses to steel giants like Krupp were forced to eventually serve Hitler as war factories.

Of course such moves bring employment and growth for some years, but in the end it only made sure that allied bombers had enough reason to bomb one German town after the other back into the stone age.

 

[Pakistani E]

All I know is that most Indian muslims refused to fight for the Brits, ( I am not talking about individual cases), they kinda have gone "on strike", inspiring Ghandi"s policies to oust the Brits from India.
so, please call on all you friends to be amused here, or may be abused...

Well then, you need to restudy the history of British Indian army. According to some estimates, as much as 1/3 of the British Indian army consisted of Muslims. Jinnah specifically stated that he wanted the Muslims to help the British to win the war so I really don't know how you can say that most Indian Muslims refused to fight for the Brits.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well then, you need to restudy the history of British Indian army. According to some estimates, as much as 1/3 of the British Indian army consisted of Muslims. Jinnah specifically stated that he wanted the Muslims to help the British to win the war so I really don't know how you can say that most Indian Muslims refused to fight for the Brits.

A Daniel come to judgement.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

No one denies the holocaust, since the gas chambers were there, but most people denies the number of Jews that have been executed there, since the 6 million figure should include all the people that Germans considered as inferior races.

Some of the Muslims that liked Hitler were colonized by England, and the natural way was to stand with England's enemy, since as the saying goes, the enemy of one's enemy is a friend, So, Hitler as a person was irrelevant, it was the idea of the saying that was fundamental.
Unlike Hindous who were totally subdued by British colonization, and went as far as to fight for them.
Muslims who have been colonized, or came under a protectorate (Colonization in disguise), have organized armed resistance and won their independence through armed resistance and hellish life for the invaders, the same means by which they were colonized.
One can see the same things happened in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent times.

Sir punjabis never fight someone as long as they are left alone in their lands and taxes are fair Punjabis quickly joined British forces soon after 1850. Pakistanis in general are most peaceful people ever starting from IVC to Gandhara.

 

[SafShikan]

Only thing I like about Hitler is that he was a great war planner...killing Jews was his biggest mistake
I think it is merely propaganda what makes him feel so bad to us...I mean have you ever cursed Roosevelt and Truman for Hiroshima And Nagasaki ?? How many of you have heard about Camps of Japanese within USA during WW2 ??
he also didn't started WW2 it was France who attacked first...for Germans it was only revenge and if u ask me that is a pretty good cause

we don

I wonder why some of the Muslims, the redneck types, like Hitler and deny holocaust.Something to do with the Jews ?

We don't hate Jews...it is just the improper representation of Hitler and Germans what we hate about media of the hour

and It also does not mean that we like him...we dont