I've observed a common defence employed by Americans against Europeans mouthing off about the USA's current political karma (Bush et al): the observation that if it hadn't been for the USA, they'd all be speaking German now--suggesting that the critical moment of WW2 was the USA's decision to get involved.
However,
"The critical moment of World War Two – if not of the twentieth century – is generally regarded as Adolf Hitler's decision in 1941 to launch an unprovoked assault upon a hitherto neutral and peaceful Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa, as it was called, is perceived as the great tactical mistake which doomed Nazi Germany to defeat. Icebreaker, by Russian historian Victor Suvorov, exposes this scenario as nonsense. This extensively researched piece of historical revisionism provides compelling evidence that Operation Barbarossa was a reluctant pre-emptive strike against a massive Soviet military machine which was at that time poised to invade not just Germany, but the whole of Western Europe." (http://www.heretical.com/miscella/14days.html)
In the light of this article, would it not be more accurate to say that if it hadn't been for Hitler, we--Americans included--would all be speaking Russian?
Originally posted by zeeblebotJa, ja, but zat iss not ze point.
counterpoint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
sprechen ze deutsche? ...
It is not clear how your article refutes the allegations Paul Ballard's allegations. Please present your case!
Remember, "Lenin and his pupil Stalin never made any secret of their desire for a Second World War to establish a Communist Europe. For the fact that this monstrous plan failed, the pseudo-democrats, simpering priests and court historians have no-one to thank but Adolf Hitler. If it had not been for the man they love to hate, they would have been the first against the wall."
reading the wiki, it seems that although the soviets could rally to defend against the german attack (including the assistance of the weather), they could not have raised an effective first strike against germany and taken over europe. 2/3 of the officer corps and three of the top generals had been purged by stalin. etc. etc. etc.
in fact the russians' poor showing in the winter war (against finland) encouraged the germans.
Yeah, you're right.
I couldn't agree more.
We should have consintrated our manpower on the Japs and dropped the A-bombs on Europe .. Paris would have been a good starting point
It really was a waste of American blood to join in against Hitler .. and the Marshall Plan! .. what a waste of money that was!
Rebuild your enemy .. what a concept .. we should have walked away and left you poor misunderstood people alone. You'd be much better off today without American .. and America would be much better off if Europe WAS ruled by the Krauts .. the trains would run on time for one thing. You'd be truely a European "Union" for another .. speaking Kraut of course.
You'd have been much better off without us .. obviously.
We'll try to remember that the next time the Krauts decide they want to rule the World.
Note to the USA .. screw Europe, they don't like us and they don't want us intruding.
Good luck in your quest to bitchslap America.
Semper Fi
Originally posted by jammerWTF are you talking to? This is about reassessing Hitler's contribution to freedom. Were you responding to a different post?
Yeah, you're right.
I couldn't agree more.
We should have consintrated our manpower on the Japs and dropped the A-bombs on Europe .. Paris would have been a good starting point
It really was a waste of American blood to join in against Hitler .. and the Marshall Plan! .. what a waste of money that was!
Rebuild your enemy .. what a concept .. we should ...[text shortened]... s and they don't want us intruding.
Good luck in your quest to bitchslap America.
Semper Fi
Originally posted by sasquatch672You'd also have spun off the handle on the assumption that somebody in this thread is attacking America? I'm disappointed. This is a purely historical question--did Hitler do the world a favour, and if so, what are the implications of this?
Thank you, Jammer, for saving me the typing.
Semper Fi yourself.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhom ever wrote that article does not know history. The Soviet Union was not hitherto neutral and peaceful. The USSR attacked Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940. Additionally, not taught in classrooms because its not 'politically correct', is the fact that the USSR attacked Poland in September 1939.
"..... unprovoked assault upon a hitherto neutral and peaceful Soviet Union.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIf you're going to sterotype Americans as having a "common defense" against Europeans "mouthing off" .. expect a common reply when you mouth off.
[b]I've observed a common defence employed by Americans against Europeans mouthing off about the USA's current political karma (Bush et al): the observation that if it hadn't been for the USA, they'd all be speaking German now--suggesting that the critical moment of WW2 was the USA's decision to get involved.
I wouldn't want to confuse with the fact that we are 300 million strong .. with 300 million different opinions.
If it occured to you, you'd lose your ability to pidgon-hole us as having a "common defense."
Originally posted by jammerWould it improve things if I added "In this forum" to the beginning of that sentence?
If you're going to sterotype Americans as having a "common defense" against Europeans "mouthing off" .. expect a common reply when you mouth off.
I wouldn't want to confuse with the fact that we are 300 million strong .. with 300 million different opinions.
If it occured to you, you'd lose your ability to pidgon-hole us as having a "common defense."