Operation Barbarossa: The Biggest Military Adventure in History

[Gomig-21]

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.

And I realize and appreciate the dichotomy in the points you're making. My point, which triggered this entire conversation and actually took it to another dimension that became more of a tit-for-tat argument as to who committed more crimes and who's more evil and if Hitler's legacy is wroth of such chastisement and the label of "ultimate evil" etc.,..............when all my point was from the very start was this quote here way back in post #97

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.

And I repeated it in post #101.

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 the biggest point you made that has really stuck -- and many should really take note of that -- was the fact that he lost. He doesn't get to write any part of the history from then on and like I added to your point; to the victor go the spoils of war and this is true in every case.

So I just wanted to reiterate that point to you before we get back into the tit-for-tat discussion, and with regards to that speech video of Hitler you posted. Which BTW, I always love to hear but always pick the funny stuff out of them, like the name issue with Stalingrad.

But let me get back to that map you posted of Stalingrad and how hindsight is always 20/20.

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.

So while I agree it's much easier to look at the German debacle after the fact with great detail from the comforts of our living rooms and point our fingers in criticism, but if you listen to his speech in that last video you posted, he says "and we have to stop, to make adjustments and to get reinforcements and those who are not familiar with military things would not understand that but we do, we had to stop for a while to regroup -- something alone those lines (I'm paraphrasing) and that stood out to me. I think that was just another excuse because if that really was the reason and he was such a military guy, he couldn't realize from all the messages and intelligence coming in from Stalingrad that the situation was not only going downhill, but that the red army was encircling the city? Where was the ability to change strategy to avoid the eventual disaster? Was the city's name really not an obsession in this case? And that's where I have an issue. That obsession cost him and Germany the 6th army and essentially marked the turning point of Barbarossa. His insistence and stubbornness that they die like men in the city after the miserably failed promise to restock and supply them to break out. The insistence to not allow Paulus to withdraw and promote him was absolutely ridiculous, Fox. The endless counts of strategic mistakes where they could've managed the battlefield so much better during the war and with all the information he had, yet his stubbornness led to perhaps the greatest military loss of the 19th century, not to mention the millions of soldiers and people who lost their lives because of HIS and only his terrible and selfish decisions.

They had recon ability to look at the entire city and the two choke points of the Volga and granted, both northern and southern points had critical splits which is an amazing natural design to the Volga that would've made a choke point at the north and the south much more difficult, I agree, than if the Volga didn't split like that. It had the same splits right at the north and south but it was still doable even if they choked only the northern sector. And with that choke point and constant bombardment of the city, they could've had it. That would've also alleviated the pressure on the Luftwaffe. Even if it was just a siege that lasted forever, cutting off the Volga and freeing up what, 600,000 men that could've went south to the much more important Caucasus and Crimea would've been a much better and sounder military strategy. But I think there was that unavoidable obsession with he name of the city (and if there was any morphine involved) that the latter might've had a big part of the terrible decision making.

Let me ask you, was Hitler having his physician main-lining him with morphine, or was he shooting up some delicious cocktail?

Another question for you here about the below comment that stood out to me like a tree in the middle of the Sahara!

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?

Alleged? Really? Is it still not proven that they gassed not only Jews, but other races and other people that they simply didn't like because of their "inhumanity," or just because they were different and didn't fit with the ever so pure Aryan race? Gassing never happened, or we're not sure? Those who made it out in the end and told these horror stories were either lying or saw something different or were confused? There was never any Zyklon B gas? There was never any notorious gas chambers in crematoria I, II, III, IV, and V?
I'm interested in your view on this. And I promise you I will get back to you about the comparisons to the US using napalm in Vietnam and those terrific comparisons you made. Just got a boat to launch today and running out of time!

 

[Desert Fox]

And I realize and appreciate the dichotomy in the points you're making. My point, which triggered this entire conversation and actually took it to another dimension that became more of a tit-for-tat argument as to who committed more crimes and who's more evil and if Hitler's legacy is wroth of such chastisement and the label of "ultimate evil" etc.,..............when all my point was from the very start was this quote here way back in post #97

Well, for one I don't believe this to be a tit for tat argument. You made statement and I posted my responses.

And I repeated it in post #101.

Right, but that was a tangent and an emotionally charged comment that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand about Op. Barbarossa from military standpoint and prevents an objective view of history. In actuality the same can be said about any other country today or in history. See below examples:

Creation of America has reaped us many great advancements, but let's not forget it was built by evil people on the ethnic cleansing and slavery of those who were considered savages (natives) and sub-humans (Africans)

Or

British empire brought technological development to many places, but let's not forget they were one of the most evil oppressors and enslavers of mankind.

Or

Roman empire contributed alot to civilization, but let's not forget they were some of the most evil people for such and such crimes they committed.

Or.......

I can go on forever.

So my point being from historical standpoint Hitler's evilness is not unique and I'm not sure what point it proves in our discussion at hand about Op. Barbarossa and Stalingrad from a military standpoint

he was such a military guy, he couldn't realize from all the messages and intelligence coming in from Stalingrad that the situation was not only going downhill, but that the red army was encircling the city?

Not only him, but also American and British military intelligence also believed Soviet Union to be on the brink of collapse and unable to recooperate from the losses of 1941-42.

So what does that say about them??

he couldn't realize from all the messages and intelligence coming in

That's an oversimplification and in reality it does not work like that.

There were contradictory intelligence reports before the battle of the Bulge when the Americans got caught with their pants down because Eisenhower refused to believe that the German army was capable of launching a major offensive after having suffered major defeats both in the east and the West. Does that make Eisenhower a moron in your books too?

His insistence and stubbornness that they die like men in the city after the miserably failed promise to restock and supply them to break out.

First tell me how an army of hundreds of thousands of men without vehicles and food can breakout on to the open steppe in the middle of winter across feets of snow where they are easy picking for T-34's and Soviet aircraft?

And yes, better to die fighting on your feet than being marched to your slow deaths toward Siberia.

The insistence to not allow Paulus to withdraw and promote him was absolutely ridiculous, Fox

Withdraw where though?

Withdraw out into the open steppe and allow the Axis armies in the Caucasus to be trapped and destroyed too?

Then not only do you lose the 6th army but also the 600,000 troops in the Caucasus and your entire southern front collapses.

No wonder Hitler ordered the 6th Army to stay put and a sound decision indeed considering the circumstances.

Those who made it out in the end and told these horror stories were either lying or saw something different or were confused?

Depends on how many times they altered their story and if physical forensic evidence substantiates their claims. Scrutinize it just like any other crime.

And with that choke point and constant bombardment of the city, they could've had it.

One needs a large physical presence to guard the entrance of the Caucasus. Mere bombardments would have done very little.

Even if it was just a siege that lasted forever, cutting off the Volga and freeing up what, 600,000 men that could've went south to the much more important Caucasus

But why would they concentrate all 1.2 million soldiers in the Caucasus and leave their Northern flank completely exposed only with token artillery bombarding Stalingrad?

Let me ask you, was Hitler having his physician main-lining him with morphine, or was he shooting up some delicious cocktail?

That's a good question, maybe FDR can answer that for you since he was snorting crack-cocaine.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1179791

There was never any Zyklon B gas?

Why do you say that?

I will get back to you about the comparisons to the US using napalm in Vietnam

Okay, cool. Don't forget to also address:

• America taking Texas/Southwest from Mexico vs. Hitler taking Danzig from Poland (which was a 97% German city).

• How dropping Napalm on civilians is morally justified compared to alleged gassings.

• How wiping out entire Native tribes is morally superior compared to invading Soviet Union

• How putting sanctions and trade embargoes on countries and converting them into giant death camps because they're governments or people live or function a certain way is morally justified compared with anything the Nazis would have done because the Nazis would have supposedly "dominated the world" even though Americans/West has been already doing that for centuries (colonialism/imperialism).

Just got a boat to launch today and running out of time!

Have fun

 

[vostok]

Germany after May 1945 The End of Germany

@Desert Fox what do you feel when watching this video? I am totally enjoyed.

 

[Desert Fox]

Germany after May 1945 The End of Germany

@Desert Fox what do you feel when watching this video? I am totally enjoyed.

I see history for what it is. Am I supposed to feel something else?

 

[vostok]

I see history for what it is. Am I supposed to feel something else?

Something different from what? For example - I am very pleased to see Nazi totally ruined as they deserved.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox what do you feel when watching this video?

I think you want to know my personal opinion on Germany's defeat in WW2?

Well, I'm neither a German nor a Westerner (White/European origin).

However, if I had to look at it from a Westerners perspective then Germany's defeat was a major loss for Western civilization. And it is funny to see the very countries who fought Germany being internally decayed by the modern Liberal political world order they fought to establish (you reap what you sow).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Britain-fought-say-unknown-warriors-WWII.html

Charles De Gaulle Statue being vandalized by French Communists (LOL)

​

"General Charles de Gaulle, made crystal-clear his contempt for the majority of the present elected representatives of the French people: “The wave is launched. . . . I can only be sorry for those who don’t want to understand it. If they want to fight against this force, which recalls certain analogous forces that at times during our history . . . have swept away all before them . . . very well, they will be swept away! And if they want to stand on the shore hopelessly wailing . . . their criticisms and curses will no more matter than spitting in the ocean.” Adding a few further remarks on the need for dissolving the French Communist party and controlling the trade unions, he stalked off back into his momentary retirement at Colombey-les-Deux-Églises."

"People to whom such statements sounded like a nightmare echo of the declarations of Hitler around 1931 and 1932 began to have the jitters. They asked: Is this a new fascist leader? Will he come to power? Does it mean anti-Jewish persecutions in France? And above all, they asked in tones of hurt surprise: How could this happen?"

Source: Charles de Gaulle, The New Fascist Leader?

 

[Gomig-21]

Okay, cool. Don't forget to also address:

Forgive me for not getting back to you on this discussion, my friend. Things are chaotic ATM with so much going on during our short summers, but I promise you I will eventually. Hopefully you'll still be interested in continuing this great discussion!

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

Well he was right about the i ternational finance jewry part and probably was in bed with them too

If International Finance Jewry within and outside of Europe succeeds in plunging the nations once again into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the world and the victory of Jewry, but rather the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”

 

[vostok]

I think you want to know my personal opinion on Germany's defeat in WW2?

Well, I'm neither a German nor a Westerner (White/European origin).

However, if I had to look at it from a Westerners perspective then Germany's defeat was a major loss for Western civilization. And it is funny to see the very countries who fought Germany being internally decayed by the modern Liberal political world order they fought to establish (you reap what you sow).

Well, actually European countries did not fight Nazis. They worked for Germans untill Russians and Americans did not come. However, I share your disgust with the liberal perverted worldview.
But there are more non-liberal ways - Hungarian way, Russian way, Chinese way, Turkish way and so on. You do not have to be Nazi to solve problems.

 

[Desert Fox]

But there are more non-liberal ways - Hungarian way, Russian way, Chinese way, Turkish way and so on.

If by Russian way you mean philosophers like Alexander Dugin and Ivan Ilyin then yes I agree and I am interested in studying their material for developing an anti-Liberal worldview (I have read Dugin's Fourth Political Theory and some of Ilyins work too).

But if you also mean Communism, then I have to disagree because both Liberalism and Communism are materialist & democratic ideologies born from the French Revolution that attacked the Church (religion/spirituality) and tradition (monarchy, old estate system) and thus laying the foundation for the modern democratic materialist worldview at who's center is the economy and pursuit of worldly utopia rather than any kind of spiritual and superior purpose.

Fascism, in comparison (not Nazism, which is only one branch of Fascism) had religious and spiritual branches like Rexism, Falangism and Rumanian Orthodox Christian Iron Guard, but the common theme was Life as a continuous struggle for improvement whether on the individual level as well as societal/national level

You do not have to be Nazi to solve problems.

Well, I'm not a Nazi, I cannot be a Nazi because I'm not German or White and neither do I desire to be a Nazi because that ideology had a major inherent flaw in extreme biological racism which caused Nazi downfall.

I'm mostly interested in history & philosophy.

But I do find certain branches of Fascism to be interesting and practical (Nazism is just one branch of Fascism, not all Fascism is Nazism).

For example the Belgian Catholic Rexist movement led by Leon Degrelle, or the Spanish Falange, the Rumanian Christian Iron Guard movement, or even Italian Fascism of Benito Mussolini which worked well between 1922-1943. Fascism has a philosophical as well as practical basis that offers a non-materialist alternative to Liberalism, but unfortunately one has to dig deep to uncover the historical material because what is most commonly available is propaganda material that prevents an honest interpretation of history.

Well, actually European countries did not fight Nazis. They worked for Germans untill Russians and Americans did not come.

But what of men like Charles de Gaul who led the anti-Nazi French resistance? Why did French media and press call him a Fascist and compare him to Hitler? And why did French Communists vandalize his statue.

It is the same thing in America too where George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are also called Nazis, which is funny considering that neither man was even alive during WW2?

Abraham Lincoln statue defaced​

Forgive me for not getting back to you on this discussion, my friend. Things are chaotic ATM with so much going on during our short summers, but I promise you I will eventually. Hopefully you'll still be interested in continuing this great discussion!

It is no problem. Take your time.

 

[LeGenD]

@Desert Fox

Your knowledge amazes me, bro. I would like to meet you in person some day.

Do you think that liberalism will destroy USA? Or American institutions will hold?

 

[Nilgiri]

Do you think that liberalism will destroy USA? Or American institutions will hold?

It is very close, but I have to hope the institutions will prevail. Trump presidency is the litmus test most likely.

 

[Desert Fox]

@Desert Fox

Your knowledge amazes me, bro. I would like to meet you in person some day.

Do you think that liberalism will destroy USA? Or American institutions will hold?

Well honestly speaking I think "destroy" is too strong a term, unless we know for certain that will happen, which nobody knows the future for certain. One cannot make a definitive prediction that such and such will happen for certain, but rather only a generalized prediction based on current trends.

We are witnessing social and political changes within the internal politics of all Western countries due to various reasons, most notably the political correctness and suppression of dissenting views, the rampant promotion of social degeneracy along with the demographic changes which hitherto were gradually taking place but have become increasingly difficult to ignore because of their increasingly large impact in other sections of everyday life like culture and politics. The way things stand, anti-Liberalism is growing, while in some respects Liberalism is cannabilizing itself in a struggle to maintain it's hegemony, like suppressing "hate-speech" when it once touted free speech in it's classical form, etc.

The polarization between the different groups that are emerging from this environment will continue to increase.

Alexander Dugin's book Fourth Political Theory is an excellent read on this subject.

Regarding American institutions, they have already been corrupted a long time ago (if by institutions we are talking about media, academia, judiciary, arts, etc.).

Look at how these institutions have been attacking Trump and his voter base non-stop since his victory in the 2016 Presidential election, or rather since the primaries. But this will be their own undoing.

Now, these institutions can be recovered through a Right-wing version of the Leftist Long March, and it will take time but it is doable.

 

[Nilgiri]

 

[Quasar]

for sure Russian numerical advantage was overwhelming. However, stil it is not enough to belittle the Russian ingenuity. We should not forget the fact that for a long time Germans had no aswer to T-34 and KV -2 tanks! and thats why Germans came up with the tiger and T 34 had direct influnce on the German tank design i.e panther. Russians introduced some iconic weapons from T-34 to Shturmovík, Katyusha.............