Operation Barbarossa: The Biggest Military Adventure in History

[Desert Fox]

@Gomig-21 @Desert Fox @Nilgiri

Interesting video. Thanks for the tag. Once again, goes to show how Hitler's generals screwed up the entire Eastern campaign with their short-sightedness. But here I believe the fault lies mostly with German military thinking that still dominated the general staff: short and decisive campaigns to knockout the enemy's armies on the battlefield. This is a sound strategy when up against Western European powers or even the Russia of the Czarist era (Prussia's traditional enemies) but the Soviet Union was an entirely different animal.

Hitler, to his credit understood this and therefore switched to a strategic approach to the Soviet Union while his generals were still stuck in the tactical approach.

The ability to adapt to a changing environment is very important and Hitler proved himself capable despite his modest background (many Soviet generals also had modest backgrounds but no one uses that against them unlike in Hitler's case). His generals failed to adapt and again this was mostly due to the doctrine they learned in accordance with the Prussian tradition and experience of past wars where Prussia had to fight against multiple numerically superior enemies.

 

[Nilgiri]

@Gomig-21 @Desert Fox @Nilgiri

Enjoyed the analysis immensely, thanks for bringing this guy to my attention, I thumbed up and subbed and will be checking out more of his content.

I really found his comparison between chess and Go in context of what worked in Western Europe w.r.t Russia to be an apt one....being a player myself of both (though I prefer and am better at chess).

Also struck me that things would have turned out way different if the German generals didn't listen to Hitler when it came to Dunkirk (i.e his somewhat personal tactical intervention)...and listened to him w.r.t Barbarossa strategy (i.e focus on drive for the resources in the south, set up salient there, energize and sustain the rest of war effort and see where things go from there).

Hypothetically Guderian should have been tasked with spearheading one massive formation to get to Ukraine Wheat and then Don/Volga River (for salient defense + harrass soviet river logistics from caspian sea to centre etc) and then reroute one or two complete armies to get the oil in the caucus area quickly and minimal fuss (given there is a within reach limit to USSR boundary there compared to Eastward direction).

I feel (of course with hindsight) potentially some deal should have been also been worked out with the Turks and Rommel should have been deputed there to get the logistics and southern flank on caucus there ....to act as better pincer concert with the grander immediate resources in mind, rather than be assigned to North African theater to support the floundering Italians (should have assigned a bunch of other German Generals, like the ones that messed up everything in Eastern Theatre, and lesser formations/resources there to raid/harrass as needed the Allied armies to keep them occupied away from the hypothetical thrust through Anatolia/southern Black sea front by Rommel (or equivalent).... rather than commit so much to Libya/Tunisia with a natural aptitude like Rommel but with British navy still dominant in the Mediterranean imho).

Anyways I digress...but the strategy as implemented in the end, quite different to Hitler's vision on it.... was horrid (thanks for nothing Halder and co) and a lot of men, material and time (and Guderian spearhead aptitude too) were squandered for in the Belarus area for example. At most a northern push to get to Leningrad (and Finns are there to help with that there so you are not too stretched) to cut off the baltic sea access was enough outside of the proposed southern resource-driven theatre.....never before or after was the best army on Earth by far at a current time used so recklessly and stupidly.

@AUSTERLITZ good watch this video if you have time.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yesterday was the 77th aniversary of Op. Barbarossa.

@Nilgiri @Psychic @Konigstiger

 

[Nilgiri]

Yesterday was the 77th aniversary of Op. Barbarossa.

@Nilgiri @Psychic @Konigstiger

Really great speech, I had never heard this one before completely. Thanks!

 

[Gomig-21]

Yesterday was the 77th aniversary of Op. Barbarossa.

@Nilgiri @Psychic @Konigstiger

Funny how he goes out of his way to say Stalingrad was very important not because of its name, but because of its strategic purpose. Yeah, ok, dude! lol

I'd say the name was just as important. That was good to listen to, though.

 

[vostok]

Funny how he goes out of his way to say Stalingrad was very important not because of its name, but because of its strategic purpose. Yeah, ok, dude! lol

I'd say the name was just as important. That was good to listen to, though.

The name was not so important, it is one of the fairy tales about how crazy USSR leader was that even sacrifed soldiers lifes for his name. Donetsk was called Stalino in those days and nobody tried to defend it just beacause of the name.

 

[Gomig-21]

The name was not so important, it is one of the fairy tales about how crazy USSR leader was that even sacrifed soldiers lifes for his name.

In this case I'm talking specifically about Hitler, ma bro. That was no fairy tale when it came to Stalingrad, sorry to strongly disagree with you. There are many obvious illustrations that show how the Volga could've been blocked from moving oil and all sorts of traffic to the north from various other strategic points including strictly surrounding the city and specifically interdicting the Volga from outside the city skirts in the north and the south. Not wasting an eventual 800,000 soldier's lives and be the turning point of the entire war and invasion. To be that stubborn about destroying a city and controlling it that you lose the entire war as a result of it screams selfishness. And if the name didn't have equal importance to taking the industrial city to Hitler, then it was clearly much more important than any other strategic or military objective.

And let's not put a gold disc around Stalin's head, either. That guy was a brutal, murdering, hacksaw himself! And I disagree with you completely that his efforts to push the Red Army and Russian people into holding Stalingrad at any cost didn't have just as much to do with the name of the city. This was no myth.

I fear that in the grand scheme of awarding Hitler and the Germans all sorts of accolades for much of their incredible achievements and military prowess and battlefield strategy and great-looking uniforms......we lose sight of not only the major mistakes and the ridiculousness of some of the things they did, but the fact that these were some of the most murderous thugs and barbarians of the highest order in our recent history. Let's not lose sight that the grandmama of propaganda was one of Hitler's main men in Goebbels, perhaps the inventor and super innovator of 20th century propaganda. These were sly, mischievous, murderous criminals who wrote a fancy propaganda machine and got the entire Germanic population (or almost all) to love them and follow them blindly.

That would've been fine if their objective was strictly to make Germany a great nation again, but clearly their objectives were much bigger and self imposing than that.

Talk about propaganda; if you listen to some of that crap Hitler was saying besides the name of Stalingrad (which BTW, had it not meant anything to him, he would've NEVER said "not because of its name"! He wanted to make sure he got that point out because he had to say something to counter the obvious) was some of the other super obvious propaganda that he was lurching in that speech, specifically the parts about cultivating Soviet lands after essentially invading and looting and destroying them. What? LMAO. They cultivated jack frost is more like it and watch the video when he says that part then they show horses pulling SNOW PLOWS through the brutal 5ft of snow on the ground lol. These people were the greatest at making the best out of their successes, which also made them the best at deception when failure was smacking them in the face.

 

[vostok]

In this case I'm talking specifically about Hitler, ma bro. That was no fairy tale when it came to Stalingrad, sorry to strongly disagree with you.

Ok, you are right. From German point it was true, but from Soviet point the main reason was pure strategy.

 

[Desert Fox]

Funny how he goes out of his way to say Stalingrad was very important not because of its name, but because of its strategic purpose. Yeah, ok, dude! lol

I'd say the name was just as important. That was good to listen to, though.

Honestly, I would like to know how much truth there is to this myth that Stalingrad became a battle of egos between Hitler and Stalin purely because of the name of the city.

From what I have read in Hitler's Table Talks (his private conversations with his close circle of party officials/staff) around the period of the battle for Stalingrad he does not mention the significance of the city because of its name from the German standpoint, but rather from the Soviet standpoint due to a similar stubborness on the part of the Soviets to give up Leningrad due to its symbolic significance in Soviet history and given its name.

But this is not for their personal ego, but rather for propaganda and morale boosting purposes. From a propaganda standpoint the symbolic significance in the name is there, but that is mostly for public/foreign consumption. I don't think from a military stand point either leader would squander men and material over the name itself because there were countless towns and cities named after Lenin and Stalin.

In the case of Stalingrad the strategic value for both sides was immense.

"If the Russians had not decided to make a stand at Stalingrad, they would have done so else-where; but it does prove that a name can give to a place a significance which bears no relation to its intrinsic value. For the Bolsheviks it would have been an evil omen to lose Stalingrad
and so they still hold Leningrad ! For this reason I have always refused to allow my name, or that of any of my colleagues, to
be given to anything exposed to the hazards of war—be it a town or a battleship. It is precisely in time of war that people become most superstitious. The Romans, including Julius Caesar, were a superstitious people; although it is quite possible that Caesar (himself) was not really superstitious, but simply bowed to public opinion. I myself would never launch an attack on the thirteenth, not because I myself am superstitious, but because others are. Dates play no part in my life. I have frequently had setbacks on days deemed propitious, and successes on days condemned as unlucky." - Hitler's Table Talks, by H.R.T. Roper

@Psychic @Nilgiri

 

[Desert Fox]

these were some of the most murderous thugs and barbarians of the highest order in our recent history. Let's not lose sight that the grandmama of propaganda was one of Hitler's main men in Goebbels, perhaps the inventor and super innovator of 20th century propaganda. These were sly, mischievous, murderous criminals who wrote a fancy propaganda machine and got the entire Germanic population (or almost all) to love them and follow them blindly.

I would have to disagree.

Rather, I would like to put things into better perspective:

If according to modern interpretation of History, which is infact a political interpretation of history just like everything else, Hitler was/is the personification of pure evil, then logically the influences which formulated his world-view are also evil.

We must look into the influences that developed his world-view and thus made the evil personification of Hitler.

We all know that without colonization and Menifest Destiny there would be no America or Canada, the country in which many today reside and reap the benefits of this colonization and wiping out of the native inhabitants.

In Mein Kampf Hitler mentions America, it's founding fathers, manifest destiny and the way in which White European settlers wiped out the millions of natives and put them on reservations where many of them now shoot up with drugs and drink themselves into Oblivion despite the "privileges" they might enjoy from the American federal government.

For example, Madison Grant, a man who had the ear of President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt and who is still held in high esteem by many in America and after whom many schools have been named, wrote a book called The Passing of the Great Race, which Hitler called his "Bible".

So the historical presedence for Hitler's world view already existed centuries before Hitler was even born in the form of America as a European colonial expansionist project as well as America the political entity since its inception as a independent country on July 4, 1776.

In fact, Hitler further goes into more depth in Hitler's Second Book (that's the literal title) regarding America.

So SJW's and leftists technically aren't wrong to call America's founding fathers "Nazis" because Hitler's worldview was influenced by the forces that created America.

Is it not one of the greatest ironies of history that the post war virus of political correctness and guilt that was created for the Germans to guilt them into their own self-destruction (which we see today) for their alleged and actual crimes during WW2 is now also tearing down every Western country that fought Germany in WW2?

America founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

Britain founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

France founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

Netherlands founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

Thus, from the Leftist perspective logically following and consistent with history these nations must also face a similar fate as Nazis and Germany.

Therefore if Hitler was purely evil for his world-view and the Nazis were rightfully punished for their unprecedent evil, then it logically follows to also dissolve France, Britain, America, and the entire West because these nations too were built on the same evil foundation that inspired the Nazis.

_________________________


Secondly, it is argued that the crimes of the Nazis were "uniquely evil", but how is the alleged gassing of Jews any different from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or using radioactive depleted uranium on Iraqis?

How is executing suspected partisan collaborators in a village in occupied Soviet Union different from Americans Napalming a Vietnamese village for supplying/harboring Vietcong or the Soviets/Russians flattening a village in Afghanistan/Chechnya for harboring Mujahedeen?

The political tint aside, Hitler's evilness was average at best when we compare him to Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

Hitler is only considered uniquely evil because he lost the war. And war is politics and politics is war and modern interpretation of WW2 is tainted by politics.

So moral of the story: don't lose a war.

That would've been fine if their objective was strictly to make Germany a great nation again, but clearly their objectives were much bigger and self imposing than that.

If by this you mean Germany's expansion then every country today is guilty of this, especially the ones who claim a moral high ground.

Which nation has not sought expansion? In fact, expansionism is considered a sign of vitality in all organisms, regardless of the false image of "Democracy & equality" it doesn't stop Uncle Sam from bombing weddings in Afghanistan using drones, because ostensibly those evil Talibans want to take away American freedoms.

The British conquered and colonized, some might consider this evil but many more yet praise the English for the development that followed, regardless that they starved millions in famines in India, Africa and North America or enslaved millions more.

The Russians expanded too and took Islamic lands in central Asia, not with love, I'm sure you're aware too. When will Russia relinquish Islamic lands in Chechnya and stop meddling in the internal affairs of central Asian Muslim countries and take back all of the ethnic Russians that were moved into those lands to Russianize them?

Or how America expanded. Trail of tears? Marching Indian tribes to their deaths and misery? Expanding further West because God ordained it? Manifest Destiny?

Puerto Rico. Taino Indians no longer even exist.

Or China today wiping out Uighur culture and imposing Han culture on them, forbidding Muslims from practicing their religion if they hold government jobs, etc...

Mantra of "human rights" and "equality" is only propaganda for the masses.

That was no fairy tale when it came to Stalingrad, sorry to strongly disagree with you. There are many obvious illustrations that show how the Volga could've been blocked from moving oil and all sorts of traffic to the north from various other strategic points including strictly surrounding the city and specifically interdicting the Volga from outside the city skirts in the north and the south. Not wasting an eventual 800,000 soldier's lives and be the turning point of the entire war and invasion. To be that stubborn about destroying a city and controlling it that you lose the entire war as a result of it screams selfishness. And if the name didn't have equal importance to taking the industrial city to Hitler, then it was clearly much more important than any other strategic or military objective.

It is much more nuanced than that.

Because what if Hitler knew exactly what me and you both know today about the actual strength of the Red army, then of course he would have thought exactly along the lines of what you stated.

But then same can be said about so many other events in history which would have been different too had the key players knew what me and you know today.

Yes, if Hitler's Abwehr and Foreign Armies East (intelligence) along with his Generals who also believed that the Red Army was not able to recuperate from the losses of 1941-42, had instead magically been updated with the actual strength of the red army then maybe they would have went about the situation differently.

Also, cities like Stalingrad which was a major production center in Soviet industry tend to be hubs of transportation and communications and thus serve as strategic objectives. It is better if they are captured. If not then destruction is sufficient too.

 

[Gomig-21]

I would have to disagree.

And I didn't expect anything different from the Fox himself!

Therefore if Hitler was purely evil for his world-view and the Nazis were rightfully punished for their unprecedent evil, then it logically follows to also dissolve France, Britain, America, and the entire West because these nations too were built on the same evil foundation that inspired the Nazis.

The issue to me is not whether the punishment -- or in this case -- the world view should be similar to American or British imperialism as it should be applied the way it is to evil Naziism, but to not ignore the fact that indeed, the Nazis were of a brutal and most certainly evil brand and we should not lose sight of that within the context of the other side of the coin, their great achievements. That was my point.

But to your point, it does take us to the hypocrisy of the other side of the argument, the victors, by comparison. While I don't disagree with you, I do make certain distinctions in the comparisons. Do these distinctions vindicate the others such as America, for example (and I'll just stick with that example for now to keep it simple) against the crimes of the Nazis? In many cases yes, in some no. But there are huge considerations to take in order to make it an even playing field and be able to judge as fairly as possible.

So one of these distinctions is the building of nations on the basis of evil foundations that you mentioned. Was Germany founding a nation in the case of the Nazis? Or was it seeking expansionism for the sake of imperialism and ambitions of world (in their case and luckily for us it was relegated strictly to Europe for now) dominance?
I think you would have to agree, founding a country -- as bad and as evil as that might have been in the US' case -- is a bit different than what the Nazis were doing. Yes the US had an native population, but no one can attest to it being a nation among world nations, at least not at the time of the settlers to Plymouth Rock. People who came here to seek a new life and country is vastly different than the Nazis blitzkrieg into France and particularly into Russia because they had a bug up their asses due to the unfairness of the treaty of Versailles, killing millions upon millions of that country's local inhabitants and citizens. Throw in the Holocaust while we're at it and the there is a stark contrast.

Secondly, it is argued that the crimes of the Nazis were "uniquely evil", but how is the alleged gassing of Jews any different from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or using radioactive depleted uranium on Iraqis?

I would say dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is vastly different than gassing not only millions of Jews, but millions of gypsies, homosexuals and people who were different than the Aryan race simply because they were different. Who on earth ever gave that bastard Himmler the right to decide who is worthy of living and who isn't, based simply on who or what they were?

Hiroshima & Nagasaki, while absolutely abhorrent were a product of war that the Japanese had started. They were given a chance to surrender after the first bomb and still didn't, then were handed the 2nd and that finally convinced them. That was war. What the Nazis did to the Jews and the others that they simply didn't like was nothing short of pure, evil genocide. I think that's a fairly easy distinction, in this particular case.

How about the crimes of the Japanese?

Iraq, I'm with you 100%. It's important to make those distinctions and in this case, yes, the US is guilty 100%. Being Muslims notwithstanding, did the Iraqis suffer the same level of punishment as the all the victims of Nazi Germany combined?

How is executing suspected partisan collaborators in a village in occupied Soviet Union different from Americans Napalming a Vietnamese village for supplying/harboring Vietcong or the Soviets/Russians flattening a village in Afghanistan/Chechnya for harboring Mujahedeen?

It's not. In this case I don't disagree with you, either. But what I will add is that Vietnam was the product of essentially capitalism vs communism (I know it's MUCH more complicated than that but to keep it simple) and the fact that the US saw a vital danger in the expansionism of communism and saw to it that it was a legitimate goal to stop that spread of communism. And the interesting part of that is despite the military result of that war, the goal was actually achieved. Communism was abruptly halted immediately and as a result of that war and that was a good thing. Can we compare that to the overall goal of the Nazis? I don't think it's even close.

The political tint aside, Hitler's evilness was average at best when we compare him to Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

Yep, I agree. We aren't reminded of the atrocities of Mao as much as we should because they aren't necessarily as relevant to us today as those of Hitler and the Nazis. This is the mere truth. Brutal honesty is a must and this is what it is. But we are very cognizant of Hitler's atrocities because it has profoundly shaped our lives as they are today, and the results have greatly affected many of us, hence why he shines evil much moreso than Roosevelt or even Churchill.

So moral of the story: don't lose a war.

To the victors go the spoils of war. No question.

It is much more nuanced than that.

Because what if Hitler knew exactly what me and you both know today about the actual strength of the Red army, then of course he would have thought exactly along the lines of what you stated.

But then same can be said about so many other events in history which would have been different too had the key players knew what me and you know today.

Yes, if Hitler's Abwehr and Foreign Armies East (intelligence) along with his Generals who also believed that the Red Army was not able to recuperate from the losses of 1941-42, had instead magically been updated with the actual strength of the red army then maybe they would have went about the situation differently.

Also, cities like Stalingrad which was a major production center in Soviet industry tend to be hubs of transportation and communications and thus serve as strategic objectives. It is better if they are captured. If not then destruction is sufficient too.

No question hindsight is almost always 20/20, but can you really say that the name Stalin-grad didn't influence Hitler to almost a fault in the case of that specific battle? Is it even possible to fathom Hitler not giving it one ounce of thought, let lone being completely obsessed by it apart from strategy? And by the same token, while I agree with @vostok that it was much more a matter of strategy and survival for Stalin than it was for Hitler than the name was, there still is no doubt that there was a strong sense that the name of not only STALINgrad was of HUGE importance to Stalin, but so wasn't LENINgrad and that he was prepared to sacrifice the entire population of the Soviet Union if necessary to defend the city from falling into Hitler's hands.

 

[Psychic]

I would have to disagree.

Rather, I would like to put things into better perspective:

If according to modern interpretation of History, which is infact a political interpretation of history just like everything else, Hitler was/is the personification of pure evil, then logically the influences which formulated his world-view are also evil.

We must look into the influences that developed his world-view and thus made the evil personification of Hitler.

We all know that without colonization and Menifest Destiny there would be no America or Canada, the country in which many today reside and reap the benefits of this colonization and wiping out of the native inhabitants.

In Mein Kampf Hitler mentions America, it's founding fathers, manifest destiny and the way in which White European settlers wiped out the millions of natives and put them on reservations where many of them now shoot up with drugs and drink themselves into Oblivion despite the "privileges" they might enjoy from the American federal government.

For example, Madison Grant, a man who had the ear of President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt and who is still held in high esteem by many in America and after whom many schools have been named, wrote a book called The Passing of the Great Race, which Hitler called his "Bible".

So the historical presedence for Hitler's world view already existed centuries before Hitler was even born in the form of America as a European colonial expansionist project as well as America the political entity since its inception as a independent country on July 4, 1776.

In fact, Hitler further goes into more depth in Hitler's Second Book (that's the literal title) regarding America.

So SJW's and leftists technically aren't wrong to call America's founding fathers "Nazis" because Hitler's worldview was influenced by the forces that created America.

Is it not one of the greatest ironies of history that the post war virus of political correctness and guilt that was created for the Germans to guilt them into their own self-destruction (which we see today) for their alleged and actual crimes during WW2 is now also tearing down every Western country that fought Germany in WW2?

America founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

Britain founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

France founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

Netherlands founded on imperialism = literally Nazi/Fascist

Thus, from the Leftist perspective logically following and consistent with history these nations must also face a similar fate as Nazis and Germany.

Therefore if Hitler was purely evil for his world-view and the Nazis were rightfully punished for their unprecedent evil, then it logically follows to also dissolve France, Britain, America, and the entire West because these nations too were built on the same evil foundation that inspired the Nazis.

_________________________


Secondly, it is argued that the crimes of the Nazis were "uniquely evil", but how is the alleged gassing of Jews any different from dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or using radioactive depleted uranium on Iraqis?

How is executing suspected partisan collaborators in a village in occupied Soviet Union different from Americans Napalming a Vietnamese village for supplying/harboring Vietcong or the Soviets/Russians flattening a village in Afghanistan/Chechnya for harboring Mujahedeen?

The political tint aside, Hitler's evilness was average at best when we compare him to Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.

Hitler is only considered uniquely evil because he lost the war. And war is politics and politics is war and modern interpretation of WW2 is tainted by politics.

So moral of the story: don't lose a war.


If by this you mean Germany's expansion then every country today is guilty of this, especially the ones who claim a moral high ground.

Which nation has not sought expansion? In fact, expansionism is considered a sign of vitality in all organisms, regardless of the false image of "Democracy & equality" it doesn't stop Uncle Sam from bombing weddings in Afghanistan using drones, because ostensibly those evil Talibans want to take away American freedoms.

The British conquered and colonized, some might consider this evil but many more yet praise the English for the development that followed, regardless that they starved millions in famines in India, Africa and North America or enslaved millions more.

The Russians expanded too and took Islamic lands in central Asia, not with love, I'm sure you're aware too. When will Russia relinquish Islamic lands in Chechnya and stop meddling in the internal affairs of central Asian Muslim countries and take back all of the ethnic Russians that were moved into those lands to Russianize them?

Or how America expanded. Trail of tears? Marching Indian tribes to their deaths and misery? Expanding further West because God ordained it? Manifest Destiny?

Puerto Rico. Taino Indians no longer even exist.

Or China today wiping out Uighur culture and imposing Han culture on them, forbidding Muslims from practicing their religion if they hold government jobs, etc...

Mantra of "human rights" and "equality" is only propaganda for the masses.


It is much more nuanced than that.

Because what if Hitler knew exactly what me and you both know today about the actual strength of the Red army, then of course he would have thought exactly along the lines of what you stated.

But then same can be said about so many other events in history which would have been different too had the key players knew what me and you know today.

Yes, if Hitler's Abwehr and Foreign Armies East (intelligence) along with his Generals who also believed that the Red Army was not able to recuperate from the losses of 1941-42, had instead magically been updated with the actual strength of the red army then maybe they would have went about the situation differently.

Also, cities like Stalingrad which was a major production center in Soviet industry tend to be hubs of transportation and communications and thus serve as strategic objectives. It is better if they are captured. If not then destruction is sufficient too.

View attachment 482251​

That deserves a +ve rating.

 

[Desert Fox]

And I didn't expect anything different from the Fox himself!

not yet. Maybe in the future.

Was Germany founding a nation in the case of the Nazis?

After independence the thirteen colonies were already a nation in themselves. Expanding further westward into lands already inhabited by tribes (which technically were nations in themselves) was no different from Hitler expanding an already existing Germany further east.

According to the Nazis they were expanding an already existing nation, no different from America's westward expansion (Manifest Destiny).

Why couldn't Americans just be content with the Eastern protion of North America? Why did they conquer Lebensraum in Western parts of North America?

In fact Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf that Germany's expansion towards the east is it's destiny, one which already was a policy of early Germanic kingdoms.

This is not very different from early American pioneers and imperialists viewing White settlers as the tamers of the "Wild West" where "savages" roamed without law and order and needed to be "civilized".

Or was it seeking expansionism for the sake of imperialism and ambitions of world (in their case and luckily for us it was relegated strictly to Europe for now) dominance?

Things like "world dominance" are just propaganda catch phrases, because let's be honest, which country has been dominating the world since the defeat of the evil Nazis?

Which country turns other nations into giant concentration camps through measures like trade embargoes and economic sanctions, thus resulting in mass deaths of non-combatants? Not Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany has been long since defeated, but the world domination is being done by the ostensibly "good" guys.


As evil as the Nazis were (though still lagging behind Western powers), at least they were honest and did not slaughter in the name of "freedom", "democracy" and "equality" and starve entire populations resulting in the deaths of 500,000 children like in Iraq during the 1990's.

People who came here to seek a new life and country is vastly different than the Nazis blitzkrieg into France and particularly into Russia because they had a bug up their asses due to the unfairness of the treaty of Versailles, killing millions upon millions of that country's local inhabitants and citizens.

In the case of France they, along with Britain declared war on Germany.

But you are suggesting that the native Americans should fit a specific definition in order to be classified as a nation? Otherwise it's not as evil to take their lands vs. the Nazis taking land from what you might consider to be legitimate nations because they fit a certain definition?

Also, how is Hitler invading Poland to take back Danzig (was a part of Prussia/Germany for 700 years) worse than America invading Mexico and taking Texas?

Just because Americans used muskets and canons to take Texas from Mexico doesn't make their conquest any less "evil" to Germans who used Stukas and tanks to take Danzig, which mind you unlike Texas, was German for 700 years until it was severed from Germany in Versailles treaty.

Or Putin invading Ukraine and taking the Crimea?

But with regards to USSR, the Nazis did not consider it a legitimate nation anymore than the American pioneers and settlers considered the various Indian tribes as legitimate nations. Sure, today the US government does classify Indian tribes as nations after having relegated them to reservations, but in the past they were uncivilized savages.

So in this regard there is no difference between the founding forces of America and Nazism because the parallels are there and this is where modern Leftists/Liberals who want to tear down every Presidential monument and open America's borders base the crux of their argument on, that America was built on genocide, slavery, Jim Crow and imperialism and must atone for it's guilty past just like Germany has been doing for the Holocaust since 1945.

People who came here to seek a new life and country is vastly different than the Nazis blitzkrieg

It is still imperialism and genocide regardless of the methods employed.

Because the fact remains that one completely alien group of people displaced and wiped out an indigenous population, thats genocide according to the United Nations charter which ironically US and other allied nations created at the end of WW2.

So Blitzkrieg or not, it's still genocide and imperialism and Leftists are not incorrect when they call it out as such.

I would say dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is vastly different than gassing not only millions of Jews, but millions of gypsies, homosexuals and people who were different than the Aryan race simply because they were different.

How is deliberately dropping radio active explosives on civilian populations, who's after effects will slowly kill people for generations, vastly different and justifiable compared to the alleged gassings of people?

I think that's a failed dichotomy.

In both cases civilians were deliberately targeted, and if killing Innocents qualifies Hitler for evilness than America and the rest of the West is right up there with him.

Who on earth ever gave that bastard Himmler the right to decide who is worthy of living and who isn't

But I think Churchill will beg to differ with you because he thought Indians bred like rabbits and thus could afford to die here and there since there were already "more than enough of them"

http://www.ibtimes.com/bengal-famine-1943-man-made-holocaust-1100525


Later at a War Cabinet meeting, Churchill blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying that they “breed like rabbits.”

His attitude toward Indians was made crystal clear when he told Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

And surely, America's number one ally and the "only democracy in the middle East" commemorates him with a statue:

https://www.haaretz.com/churchill-bust-unveiled-in-jerusalem-1.5196101



Now if I were to post the quotes of America's early Presidents who lead the Westward expansion I'm afraid they'll even put Hitler and Himmler to shame.

In this case I don't disagree with you, either. But what I will add is that Vietnam was the product of essentially capitalism vs communism (I know it's MUCH more complicated than that but to keep it simple) and the fact that the US saw a vital danger in the expansionism of communism and saw to it that it was a legitimate goal to stop that spread of communism.

Throwing burning liquid-gell on women and children and burning them alive is not justifiable, regardless of how pertinent it was to stop Communism.

If the Nazis were Napalming people there would be no excuses for their behavior, so why is there for America?

Communism was abruptly halted immediately and as a result of that war and that was a good thing. Can we compare that to the overall goal of the Nazis? I don't think it's even close.

In fact, the Nazis goal was to destroy Communism in a war against USSR (while the US actively armed and built up Soviet arms industry), except that they also believed in keeping the land their soldiers died fighting for. Not very different from all nations that have expanded their borders historically, this includes America.

Now you might argue "but they used Blitzkrieg so that makes them worse". Then does using Napalm on villages make America even more evil? Because the Nazis didn't have Napalm, or atomic bombs.

Because somehow the Nazis are alot worse than American colonists only because they used tanks and planes?

Then are American colonists & pioneers more evil than Ghengis Khan because they used muskets, rifles and canons?

But we are very cognizant of Hitler's atrocities because it has profoundly shaped our lives as they are today, and the results have greatly affected many of

I think that is relative. For me, Hitler at best was just another European imperialist. There is nothing exceptional about Hitler in his "evilness". In fact he's an average in that regard, and we can agree to disagree.

I have no reason to hate Hitler because he never colonized my part of the world, and rather did a big favor for us by demolishing Britain and French empires (albeit after they declared war on him first).

Do Israelis hate Churchill for what he did to my part of the world? No, they build his statues.

Do Americans hate Stalin for what he did to Chechen Muslims? No, they could care less.

Similarly, I too could care less how "evil" Hitler was or what he did to whom.

And if I must consider him evil on the basis that he killed innocent civilians during a war, then his chief adversaries surpass his "evilness" because they have killed far more people during peace time, let alone during war (for example, America has not declared war on any of the countries it has intervened in since WW2, or Stalin murdering millions of his own people, or Mao murdering millions of his own people).

This exceptionalizing of Hitler is mostly due to a powerful propaganda machine that even Goebbels could only fantasize about, nothing more.

Genghis Khan was a ruthless man and murdered millions in greater proportion to the weapons of his time, but Mogonolians are not guilted for their history only because Genghis Khan is not a useful propaganda tool for today's political movers.

No question hindsight is almost always 20/20, but can you really say that the name Stalin-grad didn't influence Hitler to almost a fault in the case of that specific battle? Is it even possible to fathom Hitler not giving it one ounce of thought, let lone being completely obsessed by it apart from strategy? And by the same token, while I agree with @vostok that it was much more a matter of strategy and survival for Stalin than it was for Hitler than the name was, there still is no doubt that there was a strong sense that the name of not only STALINgrad was of HUGE importance to Stalin, but so wasn't LENINgrad and that he was prepared to sacrifice the entire population of the Soviet Union if necessary to defend the city from falling into Hitler's hands.

Well, again based on his private conversations where he spoke his mind openly with his close circle of staff, he clearly states that the name is not significant to him on a personal level but only as a propaganda tool should the Germans capture the city. So I have no reason to believe that the name of the city was significant to Hitler on a personal level.

Did the name Stalingrad matter to Hitler on a personal level? One cannot say for certain and if to then to what extent. Most of the sources that claim so base it on assumptions hearsay. I myself have never come across any reliable source.

Hitler was saying besides the name of Stalingrad (which BTW, had it not meant anything to him, he would've NEVER said "not because of its name"! He wanted to make sure he got that point out because he had to say something to counter the obvious)

I believe he stated that to counter Anglo-American propaganda intended to foster doubts within the German population about their leadership. Just standard protocol of all the pariticipants in that war. Propaganda and counter propaganda.

For example, here Hitler is responding to American propaganda that Hitler wants to take over Palestine, among other nations, while he points out the hypocrisy of the allies when in fact Palestine was occupied by the British:

So I doubt he pointed out Stalingrad's namesake insignificance out of some kind of personal insecurity.

 

[Nilgiri]

not yet. Maybe in the future.



After independence the thirteen colonies were already a nation in themselves. Expanding further westward into lands already inhabited by tribes (which technically were nations in themselves) was no different from Hitler expanding an already existing Germany further east.

According to the Nazis they were expanding an already existing nation, no different from America's westward expansion (Manifest Destiny).

Why couldn't Americans just be content with the Eastern protion of North America? Why did they conquer Lebensraum in Western parts of North America?

In fact Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf that Germany's expansion towards the east is it's destiny, one which already was a policy of early Germanic kingdoms.

This is not very different from early American pioneers and imperialists viewing White settlers as the tamers of the "Wild West" where "savages" roamed without law and order and needed to be "civilized".


Things like "world dominance" are just propaganda catch phrases, because let's be honest, which country has been dominating the world since the defeat of the evil Nazis?

Which country turns other nations into giant concentration camps through measures like trade embargoes and economic sanctions, thus resulting in mass deaths of non-combatants? Not Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany has been long since defeated, but the world domination is being done by the ostensibly "good" guys.


As evil as the Nazis were (though still lagging behind Western powers), at least they were honest and did not slaughter in the name of "freedom", "democracy" and "equality" and starve entire populations resulting in the deaths of 500,000 children like in Iraq during the 1990's.

In the case of France they, along with Britain declared war on Germany.

But you are suggesting that the native Americans should fit a specific definition in order to be classified as a nation? Otherwise it's not as evil to take their lands vs. the Nazis taking land from what you might consider to be legitimate nations because they fit a certain definition?

Also, how is Hitler invading Poland to take back Danzig (was a part of Prussia/Germany for 700 years) worse than America invading Mexico and taking Texas?

Just because Americans used muskets and canons to take Texas from Mexico doesn't make their conquest any less "evil" to Germans who used Stukas and tanks to take Danzig, which mind you unlike Texas, was German for 700 years until it was severed from Germany in Versailles treaty.

Or Putin invading Ukraine and taking the Crimea?

But with regards to USSR, the Nazis did not consider it a legitimate nation anymore than the American pioneers and settlers considered the various Indian tribes as legitimate nations. Sure, today the US government does classify Indian tribes as nations after having relegated them to reservations, but in the past they were uncivilized savages.

So in this regard there is no difference between the founding forces of America and Nazism because the parallels are there and this is where modern Leftists/Liberals who want to tear down every Presidential monument and open America's borders base the crux of their argument on, that America was built on genocide, slavery, Jim Crow and imperialism and must atone for it's guilty past just like Germany has been doing for the Holocaust since 1945.


It is still imperialism and genocide regardless of the methods employed.

Because the fact remains that one completely alien group of people displaced and wiped out an indigenous population, thats genocide according to the United Nations charter which ironically US and other allied nations created at the end of WW2.

So Blitzkrieg or not, it's still genocide and imperialism and Leftists are not incorrect when they call it out as such.


How is deliberately dropping radio active explosives on civilian populations, who's after effects will slowly kill people for generations, vastly different and justifiable compared to the alleged gassings of people?

I think that's a failed dichotomy.

In both cases civilians were deliberately targeted, and if killing Innocents qualifies Hitler for evilness than America and the rest of the West is right up there with him.


But I think Churchill will beg to differ with you because he thought Indians bred like rabbits and thus could afford to die here and there since there were already "more than enough of them"

http://www.ibtimes.com/bengal-famine-1943-man-made-holocaust-1100525


Later at a War Cabinet meeting, Churchill blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying that they “breed like rabbits.”

His attitude toward Indians was made crystal clear when he told Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery: "I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

View attachment 482476​

And surely, America's number one ally and the "only democracy in the middle East" commemorates him with a statue:

https://www.haaretz.com/churchill-bust-unveiled-in-jerusalem-1.5196101



Now if I were to post the quotes of America's early Presidents who lead the Westward expansion I'm afraid they'll even put Hitler and Himmler to shame.


Throwing burning liquid-gell on women and children and burning them alive is not justifiable, regardless of how pertinent it was to stop Communism.

If the Nazis were Napalming people there would be no excuses for their behavior, so why is there for America?


In fact, the Nazis goal was to destroy Communism in a war against USSR (while the US actively armed and built up Soviet arms industry), except that they also believed in keeping the land their soldiers died fighting for. Not very different from all nations that have expanded their borders historically, this includes America.

Now you might argue "but they used Blitzkrieg so that makes them worse". Then does using Napalm on villages make America even more evil? Because the Nazis didn't have Napalm, or atomic bombs.

Because somehow the Nazis are alot worse than American colonists only because they used tanks and planes?

Then are American colonists & pioneers more evil than Ghengis Khan because they used muskets, rifles and canons?


I think that is relative. For me, Hitler at best was just another European imperialist. There is nothing exceptional about Hitler in his "evilness". In fact he's an average in that regard, and you are free to disagree.

I have no reason to hate Hitler because he never colonized my part of the world, and rather did a big favor for us by demolishing Britain and French empires (albeit after they declared war on him first).

Do Israelis hate Churchill for what he did to my part of the world? No, they build his statues.

Do Americans hate Stalin for what he did to Chechen Muslims? No, they could care less.

Similarly, I too could care less how "evil" Hitler was or what he did to whom.

And if I must consider him evil on the basis that he killed innocent civilians during a war, then his chief adversaries surpass his "evilness" because they have killed far more people during peace time, let alone during war (for example, America has not declared war on any of the countries it has intervened in since WW2, or Stalin murdering millions of his own people, or Mao murdering millions of his own people).

This exceptionalizing of Hitler is mostly due to a powerful propaganda machine that even Goebbels could only fantasize about, nothing more.

Genghis Khan was a ruthless man and murdered millions in greater proportion to the weapons of his time, but Mogonolians are not guilted for their history only because Genghis Khan is not a useful propaganda tool for today's political movers.


Well, again based on his private conversations where he spoke his mind openly with his close circle of staff, he clearly states that the name is not significant to him on a personal level but only as a propaganda tool should the Germans be able to capture the city. So I have no reason to believe that the name of the city was significant to Hitler on a personal level.


I believe he stated that to counter Anglo-American propaganda intended to foster doubts within the German population about their leadership. Just standard protocol of all the pariticipants in that war. Propaganda and counter propaganda.

For example, here Hitler is responding to American propaganda that Hitler wants to take over Palestine, among other nations, while he points out the hypocrisy of the allies when in fact Palestine was occupied by the British:

So I doubt he pointed out Stalingrad's insignificance out of some kind of insecurity.

Excellent post again buddy. It is indeed shocking the dbl standards in groupthink play when analysing/judging the Nazis.

They are expanding this now though (compared to say cold war days where there was a perceived existential threat that bought some time of post WW2 goodie/baddie status quo), because literally everyone not on the far left is now some form of or outright a Nazi increasingly.

The expansion of the same process for same goals....definitely exposes how it was setup originally as well....well to those that look back and can analyse and discern with a neutral, single-standard mind.

 

[Desert Fox]

because literally everyone not on the far left is now some form of or outright a Nazi increasingly.

The expansion of the same process for same goals....definitely exposes how it was setup originally as well....well to those that look back and can analyse and discern with a neutral, single-standard mind.

The West shot itself in the foot with this whole anti-Hitler propaganda.

Because now even George Washington is considered a Nazi who owned Black slaves whom he considered to be less than human (as the famous Three-Fifths Compromise shows, founding fathers did not consider Blacks to be fully human but rather sub-human).

If things continue the way they are now every American historical monument will be torn down. They're already calling for defunding Presidential monuments and it's only a matter of time before they face a similar fate as the Confederate monuments.

Because after all, "there is no place for Fascists and Nazis in this new and progressive America", and "America was never great to begin with" because it was "built on the backs of slaves and on the corpses of Native Americans" (the average Liberal/Leftist college professors favorite talking points).


But seriously speaking either one of two things will have to happen:

1) The guilt complex will continue until full civilizational suicide is achieved

Or

2) Hitler's image will have to be revised into something more objective, positive even.

Because today's religion in the West is Holocaustianity, evils of slavery and colonialism, evils of White privilege, how the founding fathers were literally Nazis. Etc... And the devil incarnate is Hitler.


BTW, completely related to this topic, a book written by R.H.S. Stolfi who is a former United States Marine Corp Colonel and professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, the title of which is Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny, which I have to say is perhaps the only book in existence that takes a objective and devoid-of-cliche-propaganda (for the most part at least, still contains some of it but the book might not have been published otherwise I guess, and other than David Irving's book Hitler's War) analyses of Hitler within the context of history and one particular quote reminds me of the present situation all across the West:

"Adolf Hitler was clearly the man of the 20th century, whose shadow grows taller as the sun of the West sinks ever lower."

Excellent post again buddy. It is indeed shocking the dbl standards in groupthink play when analysing/judging the Nazis.

They are expanding this now though (compared to say cold war days where there was a perceived existential threat that bought some time of post WW2 goodie/baddie status quo), because literally everyone not on the far left is now some form of or outright a Nazi increasingly.

The expansion of the same process for same goals....definitely exposes how it was setup originally as well....well to those that look back and can analyse and discern with a neutral, single-standard mind.

Indeed. And honestly @Gomig-21 my posts are not in defense of Hitler. I'm not here to defend the negative aspects (from my POV) of Hitler or Nazism.

I'm merely pointing out that I am highly disappointed in Hitler's "evil"ness. He has failed to match his adversaries in terms of being decietful (bombing and starving nations in the name of "peace", "liberation" and "freedom", that's a level of sadism unmatched by anyone in history).

And this is what makes Hitler different from all of the imperialists in history, the amount of propaganda focused on him and honestly it's an overkill when you take into consideration the context and circumstances and the vested interests and the actuality.

If only those who push the current propaganda against Hitler would give equal coverage to Churchill for his racism against people of the Indian Subcontinent and punish Israelis for erecting statues of him.

If only people could be tossed in jail for 3 years for denying the famines in Bengal when Churchill deliberately diverted the food and rice grain to save White English people at the expense of Indians because one white person is worth more than 4 millions Indian lives.

But clearly Hitler deserves preference for some odd reason and denying the Holocaust can land people in jail. It would be fine if every other genocide in history was given the same status, but I guess not all genocides are equal. Some victims are more worthy of tears (and million$ of dollar$ too) than others I guess.