pontalba
Well-Known Member
The rank blindness and shortsightedness of this post is absolutely stunning to me.
There is no possible polite answer.
-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich
- Thread starter DATo
- Start date
The rank blindness and shortsightedness of this post is absolutely stunning to me.
There is no possible polite answer.
Răspunsul
Member
Having read extensively on the subject it is the majority opinion of historians, that a united Germanic Empire would have been far more effcient than the ponderous beast that is the European Union. Which suffers from the xenophobia of the French. Not only that, but eastern Europe would not have been subjected to the domination of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics following the end of WWII. As a person who lived for many years in Romania, I would have been much better off under the axis especially as Romania was on the same side.
No regime is all good, nor all bad and to say so is over simplyfying.
While Hitler was indeed venomous to those he considered foreign and inferior to ayrian races at least he was intensely patriotic and looked after his own. In this respect Stalin and Mao were much worse.
Also Britain had it's Empire and invented concentration camps, first used in South Africa. While America got itself involved in Korea, Vietnam and Central America, so there really is not a nation who has not had it's Hitler in another guise. He just wore smarter clothes!
One should only really reply if one is an authoity of the subject.
The beauty of a forum is that one can air diametrically opposing beliefs without resorting to personal comments, what ever the acronym troll means, it does not apply to me. I am just a reader and adult, with opinions of my own and do not insult others if they do not agree with me.
No regime is all good, nor all bad and to say so is over simplyfying.
While Hitler was indeed venomous to those he considered foreign and inferior to ayrian races at least he was intensely patriotic and looked after his own. In this respect Stalin and Mao were much worse.
Also Britain had it's Empire and invented concentration camps, first used in South Africa. While America got itself involved in Korea, Vietnam and Central America, so there really is not a nation who has not had it's Hitler in another guise. He just wore smarter clothes!
One should only really reply if one is an authoity of the subject.
The beauty of a forum is that one can air diametrically opposing beliefs without resorting to personal comments, what ever the acronym troll means, it does not apply to me. I am just a reader and adult, with opinions of my own and do not insult others if they do not agree with me.
I have to disagree.
If the axis had won, the UK would exist in eternal fear of a German invasion. An Axis victory would have meant the Germans as an Atlantic and Mediterranean naval power and a complete naval blockade of the UK would have been possible. The UK might be self-sufficient, but it's not self-sufficient enough to withstand a siege against a superpower.
Of course, there are varying degrees of an Axis victory. Namely, where Russia would stand: defeated and occupied or a peace treaty with Germany been made.
Alt-history is fun.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Well then, I apologize for thinking you were a troll. I see now that you actually believe what you say. So, I hope you do not find it personally insulting if I say that your opinions are indescribably offensive to me. That is accurately my opinion, with no insult intended.
If you find her opinions that indescribably offensive, there is an ignore function you can use so you can shield your eyes from her opinions.
I'm hoping she'll explain why she believes the UK would be better off with an axis victory.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Well, Sparky, thank you for your incredibly helpful suggestion.
I do hope you achieve your objective in the discussion. My posts upthread with DATo should provide insight for you regarding my reaction to the turn this discussion has taken.
Nah, I feel her post was on topic. Enough anyway.
I was watching some documentary on the History Channel years ago and there was a snippet of a Hitler speech subtitled in English and dammit if he didn't have a point (the context was about a small village with a few dozen inhabitants being represented by even more political parties and how that was just plain crazy) so I can see how he captivated an entire nation, or enough of one. Monster? Yes. Gifted public speaker? Yes.
I was watching some documentary on the History Channel years ago and there was a snippet of a Hitler speech subtitled in English and dammit if he didn't have a point (the context was about a small village with a few dozen inhabitants being represented by even more political parties and how that was just plain crazy) so I can see how he captivated an entire nation, or enough of one. Monster? Yes. Gifted public speaker? Yes.
Sneezy
Well-Known Member
Stalin won. He killed more people. I often think about how the world would be different if Stalin had lost.
I don't know why a thought experiment about historical events and what-ifs should be indescribably offensive. Offering it as a solution or path to be taken, sure. Had Stalin lost, it could be argued that the Ukraine could be in better or worse shape today that it is. Neither opinion means that I in any way endorse his methods.
I don't know why a thought experiment about historical events and what-ifs should be indescribably offensive. Offering it as a solution or path to be taken, sure. Had Stalin lost, it could be argued that the Ukraine could be in better or worse shape today that it is. Neither opinion means that I in any way endorse his methods.
Does an Axis victory imply defeat of Russia? Given Hitler's hate of Communism and Stalin, I say ja wohl!
Sneezy
Well-Known Member
Aye. If Stalin lost, then I generally assume Nazi Germany defeated them. Had he had half a military brain or listened to his competent Generals instead of the other Nazi crazies he appointed it is actually a very plausible scenario.
As to the betterment or worsening of the lot of the inhabitants of the continent or the island, it is debatable along many lines.
As to the betterment or worsening of the lot of the inhabitants of the continent or the island, it is debatable along many lines.
I have a hard time envisioning how an Axis victory would have been achieved. Once Germany started a two-front war, it was all over.
Sneezy
Well-Known Member
Agreed. There is no plausible scenario that gives them a victory in Europe as long as the island wasn't under Nazi control. We would have continued to fight a holding action in the Pacific and dedicated everything to keeping the bastard from having GB if necessary.
In the end, the sheer weight of numbers would have led to the same end result, but what would Europe have looked like in 1962 had Barbarossa actually worked in the short term? If the Soviets hadn't gotten their claws into eastern Europe and held it as a buffer against nearly continual invasion from the West? Moot? Perhaps, but still an interesting thought experiment.
In the end, the sheer weight of numbers would have led to the same end result, but what would Europe have looked like in 1962 had Barbarossa actually worked in the short term? If the Soviets hadn't gotten their claws into eastern Europe and held it as a buffer against nearly continual invasion from the West? Moot? Perhaps, but still an interesting thought experiment.
Peder
Well-Known Member
This perhaps sounds like the winding down of the discussion, and a period of relative calm in the thread. So, at the risk of sounding like a monomaniac, I have a question:
Just how do you, or any of you, factor considerations of the Holocaust into your ideas of "interesting" alternative experiments?
Well, for starters no Israel and all that goes with that. Germany would have North Africa and most of the Middle East. The U.S. would be in an interesting spot.
And I thought you weren't coming back.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Only in your fondest dreams, Sparky.
Nightmares is more like it. BAR without Peder would be like eggs without bacon.
Sneezy
Well-Known Member
I think he was referring more to the emotional impact of millions of dead people. There were 50 million of them, minimum, as a result of this war. I think the Mongol invasions killed 35 million over the course of 100 years. We have no idea how many died during the Chinese revolution, but it is almost certainly up there in tens of millions as well and that is just a few examples of the butchery we inflict upon one another.
But wait, this is the systematic extermination of one particular group, so we can't discuss it from any viewpoint except that of the righteous victorious, because it has never happened that way before and never will again. Somebody please inform the Tutsi that they are not permitted to think about how things could have evolved differently had they been able to defend themselves. Bad form.
But wait, this is the systematic extermination of one particular group, so we can't discuss it from any viewpoint except that of the righteous victorious, because it has never happened that way before and never will again. Somebody please inform the Tutsi that they are not permitted to think about how things could have evolved differently had they been able to defend themselves. Bad form.