Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I brought some of the facts and called unit which fought in the French and Spanish, and many other names of executives. Check them.If you are interested.propaganda is not being.
The problem is that you are taking well known things like Vichy troops fighting against the Allies or French volunteers fighting for the Germans on the Eastern Front and French factories being taken over by the Nazi's and applying it as some sort of "proof" of your theory that the west engineered Hitler and supported his war against the Soviet Union.
This is like me pointing to the Russian Liberation Army (aka Vlasovs Army), Ukrainian Liberation Army, Ostlegions, SS Sturmbrigade RONA (aka Kaminski Brigade), the Russian Corps and the 1st Cossack Division and then calling WW2 a Russian/Soviet civil war...
As for your posts being propaganda...well...they're pretty much this...
The problem is that you are taking well known things like Vichy troops fighting against the Allies or French volunteers fighting for the Germans on the Eastern Front and French factories being taken over by the Nazi's and applying it as some sort of "proof" of your theory that the west engineered Hitler and supported his war against the Soviet Union.
This is like me pointing to the Russian Liberation Army (aka Vlasovs Army), Ukrainian Liberation Army, Ostlegions, SS Sturmbrigade RONA (aka Kaminski Brigade), the Russian Corps and the 1st Cossack Division and then calling WW2 a Russian/Soviet civil war...
As for your posts being propaganda...well...they're pretty much this...
Mixed with this...
Speaking of factories, and so on, I pointed out the omission of Europe in the fight against Germany and the occupation. Yes, you 're right on the side of the Germans were traitors and Russian and Ukrainian as well . I wanted to point to this when he spoke of the French in the first post. I wanted to show how Europe has given his country's factories and the Germans without a fight , and later as they were in the occupation of Germany had to work on . Because the Europeans knew that the Germans had not touched them . Germans also thought when almost gave up without a fight when the Americans opened a second front. In Poland, the above was a different situation . As the Poles wanted a piece of Germany itself , they knew that Hitler was not of regret. As for the Soviet Union , the Nazis did not consider for Russian people and so on. So it is natural that . People preferred to die in battle than to surrender.
Latest photo fun!
Speaking of factories, and so on, I pointed out the omission of Europe in the fight against Germany and the occupation. Yes, you 're right on the side of the Germans were traitors and Russian and Ukrainian as well . I wanted to point to this when he spoke of the French in the first post. I wanted to show how Europe has given his country's factories and the Germans without a fight , and later as they were in the occupation of Germany had to work on . Because the Europeans knew that the Germans had not touched them . Germans also thought when almost gave up without a fight when the Americans opened a second front. In Poland, the above was a different situation . As the Poles wanted a piece of Germany itself , they knew that Hitler was not of regret. As for the Soviet Union , the Nazis did not consider for Russian people and so on. So it is natural that . People preferred to die in battle than to surrender
I still don't know how you can claim that there was "western support" for Hitler against the Soviets based solely on the fact that the French didn't burn their entire country to the ground and fight until every last man, woman and child was dead.
Your view of WW2 is very slanted into not just a pro-Soviet stance, but a pro-Soviet anti-West stance.
I still don't know how you can claim that there was "western support" for Hitler against the Soviets based solely on the fact that the French didn't burn their entire country to the ground and fight until every last man, woman and child was dead.
Well there is this, fascist movements were not unheard of in Western Europe and even the U.S. in the 1930's so it wasn't exactly like there weren't a significant number of western Europeans happy to not only welcome the Nazis but to fully cooperate with them during the occupation. Now to argue that these movements represented the majority of the governments and people of western europe would be quite a logical stretch of the imagination but they do add to the complexity of the story.
By the way, I have long given up trying to make heads or tails of Grey's comments, apparently you have the secret decoder ring. I don't.
I still don't know how you can claim that there was "western support" for Hitler against the Soviets based solely on the fact that the French didn't burn their entire country to the ground and fight until every last man, woman and child was dead.
Your view of WW2 is very slanted into not just a pro-Soviet stance, but a pro-Soviet anti-West stance.
I never said that! (There was no western support(I said that it was not significant as the soldiers who fought)). It was generally is material only after '44 physically. Despite the fact that all efficient armies and divisions were transferred to the eastern front. The Allied forces met little resistance. Especially when it came to Berlin. When the Allies were not firing a single shot,walked to Berlin. They stopped only because fuel is over. At this time in the Eastern part Berlin of Red Army lost by 3,000 people a day.As for Europe - of course all the factories were occupied, and they worked for the Third Reich. Or do you disagree? Do not you agree that the Europeans could destroy strategic plants to prevent the production of weapons for the Reich? Instead, they welcomed Hitler and not resisted. The British general hid on their islands. They even destroyed the French fleet to Germany not used this flotilla. So my statement logical and truthful.
Last edited by GreyKarast; 10-24-2013 at 08:56 PM..
By the way, I have long given up trying to make heads or tails of Grey's comments, apparently you have the secret decoder ring. I don't.
Maybe the fact that you know and understand the worse the story as opposed to NJGOAT?
Нe, knows the good history there is no doubt.I largely agree with him, but not with everything.
I'm not going to impose my views, I just express it. Everyone has their point of view.The truth is manifested in disputes!!!
Last edited by GreyKarast; 10-24-2013 at 09:10 PM..
I never said that! (There was no western support(I said that it was not significant as the soldiers who fought)). It was generally is material only after '44 physically. Despite the fact that all efficient armies and divisions were transferred to the eastern front. The Allied forces met little resistance. Especially when it came to Berlin. When the Allies were not firing a single shot,walked to Berlin. They stopped only because fuel is over. At this time in the Eastern part Berlin of Red Army lost by 3,000 people a day.
The scale of the fighting on the western front was nowhere near the eastern front, but it is incredibly disingenuous and yes, insulting to say that the western allies basically walked to Berlin in 1944 without firing a shot. The fighting was lower scale, but just as intense. No, it did not have the extreme intensity of the earlier eastern front battles, but the western allies didn't land on the beach and just stroll to Berlin looking at the flowers along the way.
It is true that the western allies ran out of fuel, but that was in late 1944 and stopped the rapid advance across France after the Falaise Pocket was collapsed. The western allies could have taken Berlin before the Soviets, but the Soviets wanted that honor for themselves and men like Eisenhower didn't see the necessity of wasting more lives trying to dash across Germany.
Quote:
As for Europe - of course all the factories were occupied, and they worked for the Third Reich. Or do you disagree? Do not you agree that the Europeans could destroy strategic plants to prevent the production of weapons for the Reich? Instead, they welcomed Hitler and not resisted. The British general hid on their islands. They even destroyed the French fleet to Germany not used this flotilla. So my statement logical and truthful.
I do not generally disagree with your facts, I disagree with your interpretation of the facts. When France surrendered after only several weeks, they didn't know what was going to happen longterm. There was no "do or die" aspect to that battle as there was on the eastern front. There was a large and active resistance in France, but no, the French did not engage in scorched Earth tactics to destroy their nation. They didn't see that as a necessary move in 1940. I will attribute your comments of "welcoming and not resisting Hitler" as an issue caused by the translator...
French "welcoming" the Germans to Paris:
French "welcoming" Allied troops to Paris:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreyKarast
Maybe the fact that you know and understand the worse the story as opposed to NJGOAT?
Нe, knows the good history there is no doubt.I largely agree with him, but not with everything.
I'm not going to impose my views, I just express it. Everyone has their point of view.The truth is manifested in disputes!!!
Somehow I doubt ovcatto "agrees" with your interpretation and view of things. Most people simply don't have the patience to decode what you are saying as the translator you are using is nowhere near perfect. Couple that with your general tendency to post pages and pages of text and most people simply ignore you. Do not take the lack of replies from others as acceptance of your views.
NJGOAT,As for Berlin, the Allies met not resistance and the Germans surrendered without fighting. Was a personal order from Hitler who ordered not to resist the Americans and the British, as Hitler wanted behind the conclude separate peace. Hitler sent all combat-ready army in the eastern part of Berlin where the to fight red army. The Red Army lost every day for 3,000 people. The Allies were not included in the first Berlin because they thought that the Soviet Union will lead the offensive only after a month.Yes, I think you're right.But, as you can give your country and let it do anything? On what they hoped for? (I do not generally disagree with your facts, I disagree with your interpretation of the facts. When France surrendered after only several weeks, they didn't know what was going to happen longterm. There was no "do or die" aspect to that battle as there was on the eastern front. There was a large and active resistance in France, but no, the French did not engage in scorched Earth tactics to destroy their nation. They didn't see that as a necessary move in 1940. I will attribute your comments of "welcoming and not resisting Hitler" as an issue caused by the translato).
Yes, I understand that. I'm sorry, I have only a high school English and technical knowledge (terminology).I learned two other languages, I speak them very well from at least conversational.
Last edited by GreyKarast; 10-27-2013 at 06:34 AM..
NJGOAT,As for Berlin, the Allies met not resistance and the Germans surrendered without fighting. Was a personal order from Hitler who ordered not to resist the Americans and the British, as Hitler wanted behind the conclude separate peace. Hitler sent all combat-ready army in the eastern part of Berlin where the to fight red army. The Red Army lost every day for 3,000 people. The Allies were not included in the first Berlin because they thought that the Soviet Union will lead the offensive only after a month.Yes, I think you're right.But, as you can give your country and let it do anything? On what they hoped for? (I do not generally disagree with your facts, I disagree with your interpretation of the facts. When France surrendered after only several weeks, they didn't know what was going to happen longterm. There was no "do or die" aspect to that battle as there was on the eastern front. There was a large and active resistance in France, but no, the French did not engage in scorched Earth tactics to destroy their nation. They didn't see that as a necessary move in 1940. I will attribute your comments of "welcoming and not resisting Hitler" as an issue caused by the translato).
Yes, I understand that. I'm sorry, I have only a high school English and technical knowledge (terminology).I learned two other languages, I speak them very well from at least conversational.
Grey, it was not Hitler that ordered the Germans to stop resisting the western allies, it was Doenitz. In the very last days when Hitler was in the bunker, Goering tried to sieze power, was stopped and removed from the succession. Himmler then made an attempt to negotiate a surrender with the western allies, but this was rebuked by the western allies and Himmler was removed from the succession. Hitler then appointed Doenitz to lead the country just as he killed himself.
Doenitz setup a government and fearful of Soviet reprisals against German soldiers, chose to try and hold off the Soviet advance as long as he could while sending every unit he could spare to surrender to the western allies. This went on for a couple of weeks. Eventually Doenitz surrendered to the western allies in the presence of a Soviet witness and then his government surrendered again in Berlin to the Soviets and allies as the "official" instrument of surrender.
PS I assure you that your English is much better than my Russian.
The French were crushed similarly to 1871. There was no need for Hitler to invade Great Britain. He did not have the capacity anyway. The British could not invade mainland Europe on their own. The USA would continue to be neutral. All Hitler had to do was to forget about Lebensraum and keep the USSR neutral and fortify his positions in Europe against future attack. Hitler and his Italian, Romanian, Hungarian, Finnish,Croatian, Spanish and Bulgarian allies could have had a long domination of Europe. I'm surprised historians have not talked more about this.
Basically, if Hitler's peace terms would have been much more moderate (Germany controlling half of France? Really?), and if Hitler was not a rabid anti-Semite, and if he wasn't crazy, and if his party wasn't full of crazies, and if he ended his alliance with Japan before Pearl Harbor, then WWII could have probably ended in 1940.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
