Agreed Stefan, and not once have I said I condone any of the crimes Hitler committed, odd how the systematic murder was also used on his own Soldiers/Generals/Politians if his orders werent carried out..

Put youselves in their shoes, what would you do? Follow orders or be shot?

Forget our view on it, to 99% of Germans during WW2 I'm sure they truly saw Nazism being the permanent future for a long time

__________________

True, as I've said literally hundreds of times, it's all very easy to sit in my room at home nice and comfy, criticising these people but would I do any different? I hope so but I just don't know.

That still doesn't make it any less of a crime though.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

Agreed

__________________

Interesting read here about the glorious Soviet forces...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...ticle_continue

__________________

Rather old news that link was, not exactly a revelation the Germans did the same thing. What do you expect it was a bloody brutal front?

__________________
Man of the Year 1942

Regards, Richard

Well, the German record for rapes wasn't particularly high. The whole idea of sullying oneself with 'untermenche' or something like that.

That said, I do seem to remember a Soviet officer commenting along the lines of 'at least it will teach them never to start another war.' It doesn't make it right but the Germans were indeed reaping the seeds planted three years before.

__________________
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.

That's not fresh news, we discussed this already at length here in another thread a few months ago. Shall we go over it again?

__________________

The true shame is the suicidal decisions made by Hitler.
In the beginning of his conquest, he reached his objective without fighting(most skillful according to Sun).
Then he disturbed his enemy's plan with a suprise attack.(second best according to Sun).
After that he ordered his troops to engage a direct assult against his enemy(third best according to Sun).
Finally, he ordered his troops to lay siege on a fortified city(worst according to Sun).

If i may qoute form the Art of War by Sun Tzu, : "When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, the men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength, and if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain. Never forget: When your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted, and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

[ 19. December 2006, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Ironcross ]

Y did u post this twice Ironcross??

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Russia, yes; England, perhaps; America, no. To be succinct.

Funny, the figures I've seen indicate that even disregarding the civilian deaths the Soviet military losses were nearly double the Axis losses on the East Front. Of course, a lot of those deaths were of Soviet POWs in German hands. Removing them from the equation still doesn't bring the military casualties for the two sides into parity. Axis losses on the East Front are estimated at between 3 and 4 and a half million while the Soviets lost more than 6 and a half million kia/mia. (I have seen some estimates that the Soviet military losses were double this number).

We should remember as well that these losses were not evenly distributed throughout the war. The Russian losses were enormous during the first couple of years while German losses, though heavy in 1941 and 1942, skyrocketed in 1943 and became catastrophic only in 1944 by which time the writing was on the wall and the Germans were facing overwhelming odds. It wasn't really until Operation Bagration in summer 1944 that German military losses became greater than Soviet losses.

Here is a little something written by David M. Glantz. A U.S. colonel and one of the leading historians of the eastern front today. This has originally been provided by none other then our very own ZA.

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publica...g-war41-45.pdf

Scroll down to page 14 and read the TOTAL GERMAN PERMANENT LOSSES IN THE EAST..... Something tells me you'll be surprised.

The Germans lost a lot more men then the Soviets in the Battle of Dnieper, which was fought one year before Operation Bagration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_..._Lower_Dnieper

Sorry im a little sick and didnt really feel like looking for a better site then Wiki, as im tired and want to get some rest.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

Thanks for the pdf. Looks like an interesting read. He does seem to provide evidence of a 2:3 ration in German losses to Russian ones.

Good point. I guess after Kursk is when Germany really started to get hammered and was losing more than the Russians. Cheers, and hope you get better soon.

I suppose the losses section on the German side starts to get high during and after Stalingrad when Hitler gets to the Fortress and not a step back policy.

__________________

Personally think that England would never surrender whilst still under the leadership of Churchill even if 100 nuclear bombs were dropped.

Thank you friend, me too.

__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler

I take it you mean Great Britain?

I wonder if he had not misused resources on the disgrace that was the Holocaust if things may have been different?

Worse that that, I remember in the past we discussed here what would be the effects of a radically different policy regarding Jews, instead of genocide using them as normal citizens. What would it be without the loss of know-how, without the intellectual brain drain. Germany with Einstein, Edward Teller, Lise Meitner, etc. Can't find it right now though, but the thread is out there

Hitler's Gift : http://www.arcadepub.com/book/?GCOI=...320&fa=preview

__________________

I think the only mistake Germany made that lost them the war was that they underestimated their enemy. Because of that, they didn’t reach their military production peak until late 1944(under heavy allied bombing). That was why they have almost always been outnumbered. Can you imagine what it would be like if they reached their military production peak during 1940, and moved some of their factories eastward to shorten the supply line in 1941(if needed)? What would the outcome be if one T-34 has to face 5 Tigers? Russian stubbornness is no match for a bullet. If Hitler mobilized all German's industrial potential early in the war, then Operation Barbarossa would end up successful, North Africa would belong to Germany, Battle of Britain would also be successful.

Interesting point Ironcross. It’s my understanding Hitler ended government support of some projects including nuclear, out of anticipation that the war would end soon with their victory.