How 85 Jews captured 9000 Italian troops in Bardia, Libya in WWII

[Solomon2]

Let me know if ever any such incident took place in which 9,000 of the feared Waffen SS or even Wehrmacht troops were captured by small band of Jews.

Well, I do have the knife one of my great-uncles in the U.S. Army took from an SS officer who surrendered troops to the company he commanded, but I don't know how many Germans that was. Towards the end German divisions were really decimated. More than decimated, even.

The Soviets made a very interesting movie about how, close to the end of the War, a Nazi Army HQ fell to a Soviet infantry squad commanded by a corporal: "I was only seventeen..." were the first and last lines of the movie.

 

[Desert Fox]

Absurd article.

Elder of Ziyon is a well-known right-wing and extremist Zionist "news" outlet. Not to be taken seriously by any measure.

Aside from that then Jews and military achievements are oxymorons.

@Desert Fox

Just out of complete curiosity. Is there any reason for your fascination and great interest of Nazi Germany? I never expected Pakistanis let alone Pashtuns to have such an interest.

It's not a criticism I just came to think about it when I saw you in this thread.
Italians were historically not that bad warriors. The Roman Empire is clear evidence of that although foreigners had a significant role to play in that.

Well, for one, Hitler was the reason why the British occupiers withdrew from the Subcontinent and thus Pakistan formed as a independent country. Although there were many positive aspects of the British rule in the Subcontinent, they did commit terrible atrocities and used the local men as cannon fodder in their expansionist wars.

Secondly, Hitler had no expansionist views towards the Muslim world. In fact he held positive views of most Eastern peoples, in particular the Chinese and Japanese (which is why he opposed Japanese occupation of China).

Thirdly, Hitler opposed International Communism and Interest based Capitalism, both ideologies which put Materialism above Human worth. He established his own system of Socialism and Economy which was based on human productivity:

"The people were not put here on earth for the sake of the economy, and the economy doesn't exist for the sake of capital. On the contrary, capital is meant to serve the economy, and the economy in turn to serve the people."

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions"

• Speech of May 1, 1927 as quoted in John Toland (1976), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, p. 224

People may say whatever they want about Hitler and the Nazis and what they did DURING WW2, Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and Truman have equally, if not more blood on their hands, you just don't hear or read about it because they won the war.

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." - Winston Churchill

 

[MOHSENAM]

Oooooops !

 

[al-Hasani]

@Desert Fox

Thanks for that clarification. What is your take on his views of non-Europeans?

Do you believe that he would have tolerated Islam or left the natives in peace if he for instance conquered modern-day Pakistan back in his time? I mean like with any conqueror I doubt that he would have acted much differently from the Brits and other conquerors before them.

But that's just my take.

I have a dislike for communism as well and Nazi Germany had an impressive growth on many fronts which was admirable. Nazi Germany was by no means only a negative entity. The military at that time is also a chapter for itself. Likewise the nationalism that was created although it went overboard and ultimately proved to fail.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well, I do have the knife one of my great-uncles in the U.S. Army took from an SS officer who surrendered troops to the company he commanded, but I don't know how many Germans that was. Towards the end German divisions were really decimated. More than decimated, even.

The Soviets made a very interesting movie about how, close to the end of the War, a Nazi Army HQ fell to a Soviet infantry squad commanded by a corporal: "I was only seventeen..." were the first and last lines of the movie.

That doesn't prove heroism or courage when faced with untrained, under equipped teenagers.


During the end of the war when Hitler Youth (14, 16, and 17 years old teenagers) were fighting with sticks, sling shots, and poor quality weaponry, that too after Berlin was overrun by the Red Army and Hitler was dead and the war was all but lost, obviously from a Kids POV he will surrender when faced by Battle Hardened enemy Soldiers (all grown up men) in their intimidating Tanks and carrying their big rifles.

 

[Solomon2]

That doesn't prove heroism or courage when faced with untrained, under equipped teenagers.

The theme of the movie was that the soldier was coming of age yet capturing and commanding enemy troops much older than he was. My great-uncle said that the guy he captured had fought in World War I as well.

During the end of the war when Hitler Youth (14, 16, and 17 years old teenagers) were fighting with sticks, sling shots, and poor quality weaponry -

I recall reading that the Hitler Youth's weapons were excellent but of course they didn't have sufficient training or logistical support. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an autobiographical novel about the bombing of Dresden that was turned into a pretty good movie.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox

Thanks for that clarification. What is your take on his views of non-Europeans?

Do you believe that he would have tolerated Islam or left the natives in peace if he for instance conquered modern-day Pakistan back in his time? I mean like with any conqueror I doubt that he would have acted much differently from the Brits and other conquerors before them.

He had no intentions of going farther than the Ural mountains of Russia. He opposed conquest of Muslim lands and deeply regretted the mistreatment of North African Muslims by his Italian Vichy French allies , which he believed led to their defeat in North Africa. He had plans for relocating the Jews in Palestine to Madagascar and evicting the occupying British authorities in Palestine and returning it to the Arabs, of course that was no longer possible once the US of A entered the war.

Can't say how he would have treated Muslims if he did occupy Muslim territory. The region of Pakistan has already seen many a ruthless invasions and occupations in the past.

But i can judge from past historical facts. I do know that Czechoslovakia immensley benefited economically under German occupation , so did parts of occupied Russia and Baltic states.

But that's just my take.

I have a dislike for communism as well and Nazi Germany had an impressive growth on many fronts which was admirable. Nazi Germany was by no means only a negative entity. The military at that time is also a chapter for itself. Likewise the nationalism that was created although it went overboard and ultimately proved to fail.

Hitler lost the war because his Economy was not focused on total war production until 1944, but by that time Germany was losing the war, so the excuse of many people here that Hitler's economic miracle was all due to his rapid rearmament is completely false. Like you said, German industrial and economic growth under Hitler was truly impressive and the world has never seen such a growth before nor since.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Zionists and their Superman Complex.....

 

[Desert Fox]

Italians were historically not that bad warriors. The Roman Empire is clear evidence of that although foreigners had a significant role to play in that.

Well, Italian Fascist Regime under Mussolini had the dreams of rebuilding Italy to the glory of the Roman Empire, but the Italians under Mussolini were not in the spirits of fighting a long drawn out war.

Which is why they overthrew him and he ended up being rescued by the Germans while under imprisonment:

Gran Sasso raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[al-Hasani]

He had no intentions of going farther than the Ural mountains of Russia. He opposed conquest of Muslim lands and deeply regretted the mistreatment of North African Muslims by his Italian Allies and Vichy French allies , which he believed led to their defeat in North Africa. He even had plans for relocating the Jews in Palestine to Madagascar and evicting the occupying British authorities in Palestine and returning it to the Arabs.

Can't say how he would have treated Muslims if he did occupy Muslim territory. The region of Pakistan has already seen many a ruthless invasions and occupations in the past.

But i can judge from past historical facts. I do know that Czechoslovakia immensley benefited economically under German occupation , so did parts of occupied Russia and Baltic states.


Hitler lost the war because his Economy was not focused on total war production until 1944, but by that time Germany was losing the war, so the excuse of many people here that Hitler's economic miracle was all due to his rapid rearmament is completely false. Like you said, German industrial and economic growth under Hitler was truly impressive and the world had never seen such a growth before nor since.

Well my only objection was his racial fixation. It's hard not to believe that he would NOT have treated the average South Asian in the same manner as he treated the Gypsies in Europe who ironically originate in that same region. India/Punjab if I am not mistaken. His support for the Arabs (Muslim as Christian) in the Levant and Northern Africa was due to those regions fighting for their independence against Britain and France who were the biggest colonial powers at that time and obviously at war with Nazi Germany.

Was Hitler's end goal not world domination or have I missed something? He surely wanted to rule all of Europe.

I don't know about the numbers compared to previous ages but Japan had a pretty amazing growth as well in recent times. What I am saying is that nationalism is fine but the version in Germany during Hitler went a bit too far and ultimately helped create the dismiss of Germany. Hitler simply became too ambitious and wanted too much as his people who were completely mesmerized by his rule due to the progress they experienced especially in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the miserable 1920's and before that the humiliating defeat of Germany in WW1.

That's my take on it. I am bit familiar about the WW2 as well due to having a European grandmother but I have never truly studied it notoriously albeit it being extremely interesting.

 

[Solomon2]

Zionists and their Superman Complex....

A good topic for study is the contrast between the "Nazi superman" (based on the "God-is-dead" writings of Nietzsche) and the comic book Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster - two Jews in Cleveland, Ohio, - in explicit opposition to Nietzsche's vision.

 

[Desert Fox]

The theme of the movie was that the soldier was coming of age yet capturing and commanding enemy troops much older than he was. My great-uncle said that the guy he captured had fought in World War I as well.

Most likely from the Volksturm which was made up of WW1 vets.

I recall reading that the Hitler Youth's weapons were excellent but of course they didn't have sufficient training or logistical support. Kurt Vonnegut wrote an autobiographical novel about the bombing of Dresden that was turned into a pretty good movie.

Yeah, i read that book (Slaughter house 5) and seen the movie. But the weapons weren't all that qualitative anymore since arms production halted once the industrial regions fell to Allies and Soviets.

 

[Pakistanisage]

A good topic for study is the contrast between the "Nazi superman" (based on the "God-is-dead" writings of Nietzsche) and the comic book Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster - two Jews in Cleveland, Ohio, - in explicit opposition to Nietzsche's vision.

Thanks Bro, that was just " tongue in Cheek " comment....

 

[al-Hasani]

Well, Italian Fascist Regime under Mussolini had the dreams of rebuilding Italy to the glory of the Roman Empire, but the Italians under Mussolini were not in the spirits of fighting a long drawn out war.

Which is why they overthrew him and he ended up being rescued by the Germans while under imprisonment:

Gran Sasso raid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at Italian history after the end of the Roman Empire you would notice that most of Italy was ruled by foreigners. Either early Germanic Kingdoms, later the French and Spanish. From North to South. Obviously the Habsburg's (Austria) as well. Italian nationalism was also a new thing since Italy as a united entity first was founded in 1860 and back then it had much clearer regional differences than even today where they are very visible still. Northern Italians often proclaim that "everything South of Rome" is Africa.

Italy did not have the industrial know-how or fierce loyalty to fascism and Mussolini that the Germans had towards Hitler. Defending Italy from foreign attacks is not an easy task either. My grandmother is French but of partial Italian and Spanish ancestry so I am familiar of Southern Europe and it's history. Speaking about Spain then I think that Franco was more clever than Mussolini and his rule proved to last all the way until 1975. Even becoming a staunch ally of the victorious Allies (NATO) later on despite being closer to Nazi Germany/Fascist Italy politically than to the Allied countries.

As I see it then you can only mobilize such a huge percentage of a population like seen in Nazi Germany if you rule with a harsh hand and that's also why the Soviets were so successful militarily. Either you fought until your last breath or you received a bullet through your head. That obviously helps a big deal. Having a defined ideology next to that usually works really well. This would be unthinkable today anywhere outside of North Korea and a few other states.

 

[Desert Fox]

Well my only objection was his racial fixation. It's hard not to believe that he would NOT have treated the average South Asian in the same manner as he treated the Gypsies in Europe who ironically originate in that same region. India/Punjab if I am not mistaken. His support for the Arabs (Muslim as Christian) in the Levant and Northern Africa was due to those regions fighting for their independence against Britain and France who were the biggest colonial powers at that time and obviously at war with Nazi Germany.

Was Hitler's end goal not world domination or have I missed something? He surely wanted to rule all of Europe.

Of course, he did have a racial fixation, but one has to try and see it from his POV to understand, and that requires plenty of research with a clear and unbiased mindset.

Gypsies are looked down upon throughout Europe, not only Germany. Even Eastern European Slavs and Russians (whom Hitler considered "sub-human") have a very low view of Gypsies, but that is mostly because Gypsies are known to be involved in criminal activity like organized crimes, robbery, prostitution, gangs, etc. One can easily understand his view of Gypsies. But a lot of Europeans today share the same view of Muslim immigrants in Europe today in France (mostly North African Muslims) and England (mostly South Asian Muslims) and Germany (Mostly Turks).

So how would he have treated South Asians? Not really sure because average South Asians don't behave like gypsies neither he had any aspiration to conquer or annexe South Asia. One cannot really deduce a clearly established perspective here.

I don't know about the numbers compared to previous ages but Japan had a pretty amazing growth as well in recent times. What I am saying is that nationalism is fine but the version in Germany during Hitler went a bit too far and ultimately helped create the dismiss of Germany. Hitler simply became too ambitious and wanted too much as his people who were completely mesmerized by his rule due to the progress they experienced especially in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the miserable 1920's and before that the humiliating defeat of Germany in WW1.

That's my take on it. I am bit familiar about the WW2 as well due to having a European grandmother but I have never truly studied it notoriously albeit it being extremely interesting.

Hitler before 1939 only wanted back all Ethnic German territory taken from Germany before WW1 and his second desire was to create a Pan-European alliance against the Communist Bolshevik threat posed by the Soviet Union.

Similar to how Putin today desires all of ethnic Russian Eastern Ukraine annexed into Russia.

Me personally, i don't see anything wrong with that. Everyone is Nationalistic and racist, every one has expansionist ambitions, its always been that way in history from Alexander to Genghis Khan. Its a world of struggle.