If you were Hitler what would you do?

[tanzanos]

One cannot claim victory until one wins over the hearts and minds of the people. Otherwise one best be prepared for the worst kind of enemy; that of the Guerrilla's hell bent on sending you home at all costs while screaming "Liberty or death"!

 

[Cooch]

One cannot claim victory until one wins over the hearts and minds of the people. Otherwise one best be prepared for the worst kind of enemy; that of the Guerrilla's hell bent on sending you home at all costs while screaming "Liberty or death"!

Tanzanos.

The number of people of have suffered quiet oppression rather attempting hopeless rebellion - right across recorded history - argues that you are mistaken.

That it can happen, does not prove that it will.

 

[tanzanos]

Tanzanos.

The number of people of have suffered quiet oppression rather attempting hopeless rebellion - right across recorded history - argues that you are mistaken.

That it can happen, does not prove that it will.

On the contrary! History has shown that when people gladly give their lives in order to fight for liberty; then the conquering Armies are doomed to fail. Time is not a factor in Guerilla wars. In fact the longer they last the better chance the Guerillas have of winning!
Hitler stood no chance of holding on to his conquests! The constant guerilla wars would have sapped the German army's abilities to keep up morale and cohesion! Once morale goes then kiss good bye your army!

 

[Cooch]

On the contrary! History has shown that when people gladly give their lives in order to fight for liberty; then the conquering Armies are doomed to fail.

Tanzanos.

Did you not notice the qualifier in your own statement? You say "when", but then ignore the cold, hard historical fact that it does not always happen.

We're still waiting for the Saxons to kick the Normans out of England...... When do you anticipate this happening?

 

[Gracchus]

Tanzanos.

Did you not notice the qualifier in your own statement? You say "when", but then ignore the cold, hard historical fact that it does not always happen.

We're still waiting for the Saxons to kick the Normans out of England...... When do you anticipate this happening?

Probably right after the Anishinabe kick the white-eyes out of Minnesota.

 

[tanzanos]

Tanzanos.

Did you not notice the qualifier in your own statement? You say "when", but then ignore the cold, hard historical fact that it does not always happen.

We're still waiting for the Saxons to kick the Normans out of England...... When do you anticipate this happening?

Exactly my point! Hitler's regime and policies would most definitely have antagonised the conquered peoples to the point where they would have fought a guerilla campaign. Have the Americans not learned anything since Vietnam?

 

[Yahya Snow]

Let's ignore the racist agenda of Hitler and the Nazis and the whole Jewish/Non Arian holocaust and focus specifically on the war.

Let's look at the war in terms of strategy... Risk!

If you were Hitler what would you have done to defeat your enemies and essentially take over the world?

Clearly the back-stabbing invasion of Russia was a mistake. Germany and Russia were essentially allied. He should have taken advantage of this and focused his efforts on Africa and the Middle East to secure resources.

I would have also risked a land invasion of Great Britain, which if successful, would have made any American foothold in Europe all but impossible.

So... what would you do?

The land invasion of Great Britain (my country) would have been impossible as we are an island, separated from the rest of Europe. Howver, if Hitler attempted to take this country via his nave and then a subsequent land invasion it would have been extremely tough as Great Britain had the most skilled navy in the world (imo) at that time.

Securing Africa and Asia would have been tough for him due to the climate and also the British colonies. I know this is an American centric forum but I do feel many americans down-play the role of the UK against Hitler. This country stood alone against Hitler for a while, the Americans came into 'play' late. Americans, in my view, generally miss the contribution ogf the Russians and the UK.

I find it cringeworthy when I hear Americans claiming they won the war.

Personally, I feel Hitler took on the impossible as their was an insurgency against Hitler's forces all over European countries which were taken over by Hitler. Hitler's only way of taking over the world would have been by winning over hearts and minds; this was never going to happen due to the Nazi ideals which were and still are repulsive to mankind.

Thanks

Peace

 

[Kalevalatar]

This country stood alone against Hitler for a while, the Americans came into 'play' late. Americans, in my view, generally miss the contribution ogf the Russians and the UK.

I find it cringeworthy when I hear Americans claiming they won the war.

Dear friend, you seem a bit "guilty" of the same selective memory. Your country "stood alone" against Hitler -- except for those Australians, Canadians, Indians, New Zealanders, Poles, South Africans, all these allies from across the world who stood by your country from the very start of the war and whose contributions helped to defend the UK during the Battle of Britain.

But I agree with you and tanzanos. Hitler wasn't winning the war when he couldn't even win the hearts & minds of his own people, the church, the military officers who were plotting against him. None of the Allied leadership had to fight such a persistent internal resistance movement on top of the external enemy.

 

[Cooch]

Exactly my point! Hitler's regime and policies would most definitely have antagonised the conquered peoples to the point where they would have fought a guerilla campaign. Have the Americans not learned anything since Vietnam?

What's this got to do with Vietnam?

Vietnam - for the record - was a conflict in which one nation (Nth Vietnam) invaded another (Sth Vietnam). Many of the Sth Vietnamese who cooperated with the invaders did so precisely because the Nth Viets were so damned brutal if they didn't.

Hitler's occupation forces were no more brutal than many other invaders throughout history, and anyone who thinks that guerilla campaigns are either the universal response, or are universally successful, is unfamiliar with history.

 

[tanzanos]

What's this got to do with Vietnam?

Vietnam - for the record - was a conflict in which one nation (Nth Vietnam) invaded another (Sth Vietnam). Many of the Sth Vietnamese who cooperated with the invaders did so precisely because the Nth Viets were so damned brutal if they didn't.

Hitler's occupation forces were no more brutal than many other invaders throughout history, and anyone who thinks that guerilla campaigns are either the universal response, or are universally successful, is unfamiliar with history.

The US did not fight a conventional army in Vietnam. It lost because the Guerilla campaign sapped the economy, the will, the morale, and most of all any international public support for the war to the point where the only way out for the US was to retreat!

I agree with you that basically all conquering armies are brutal. This is not the point I was making but rather the oppressive politics of the Nazi party would have caused mass uprising. Remember that the Racial foundation of Nazi philosophy; excluded most of the human race from supporting and participating in building the 3rd Reich. Why support or submit to a regime that considers you SUBHUMAN?

 

[Gracchus]

Vietnam - for the record - was a conflict in which one nation (Nth Vietnam) invaded another (Sth Vietnam). Many of the Sth Vietnamese who cooperated with the invaders did so precisely because the Nth Viets were so damned brutal if they didn't.

For the record, it was a conflict where one country, Viet Nam, was conquered by a colonial power, France. When France was driven out a conference of foreign powers temporarily divided the country in two, pending a popular election.
Then another foreign power, the U.S. stepped in to prop up the colonial puppet regime in the south, which called off the election, which they knew would bring the country together under Ho Chi Min.

Viet Nam is one country.

But that is another thread.

 

[Cooch]

The US did not fight a conventional army in Vietnam. It lost because the Guerilla campaign sapped the economy, the will, the morale, and most of all any international public support for the war to the point where the only way out for the US was to retreat!

I agree with you that basically all conquering armies are brutal. This is not the point I was making but rather the oppressive politics of the Nazi party would have caused mass uprising. Remember that the Racial foundation of Nazi philosophy; excluded most of the human race from supporting and participating in building the 3rd Reich. Why support or submit to a regime that considers you SUBHUMAN?

To the contrary, a considerable proportion of the fighting in Vietnam was against the NVA and Main-Force VC. Same army that beat the French , at Dien Bien Fu with a capacity for conventional military assault that the French did not expect them to possess. It is vastly oversimplifying things to claim that Vietnam was a purely guerilla war.

It is also worth considering the the US achieved a negotiated settlement in which it was the North Vietnamese who retreated. Not the US. It was only after the US had left Sth Vietnam that the Nth Vietnamese broke the treaty and reinvaded the Sth.

As for the Nazis.
You don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that when faced with a brutal regime, many people choose to live as slaves rather than to die fighting.... especially when the retaliatory strategy of the conqueror is to obliterate whole communities.

If you really think that a succesful insurrection is inevitable under such circumstances, and will always be succesful, than tell me when the following will happen.
(1) The Saxons will drive the Normans out of England (940 years and counting)
(2) The multiple races and ethnic groups that make up the Chinese Empire will eject the han.
(3) The Jews will drive the Romans out of Palestine...

Those alone should show that insurrections don't always happen and that a few generations of interbreeding often trump ethnic divisions.

 

[Cooch]

For the record, it was a conflict where one country, Viet Nam, was conquered by a colonial power, France. When France was driven out a conference of foreign powers temporarily divided the country in two, pending a popular election.
Then another foreign power, the U.S. stepped in to prop up the colonial puppet regime in the south, which called off the election, which they knew would bring the country together under Ho Chi Min.

Viet Nam is one country.

But that is another thread.

Yeah, and Austria was a part of Germany......
... and East and West Germany were one country post 1945....

Neither the mechanism that led up to that situation, nor the corruption of the RVN Government negate the fact that there were two sovereign, self-governing states at the time that the NVA invaded the RVN.

Back to topic.
Do you agree with me that not all invaded peoples react by undertaking a succesful insurrection?

I recall a classic comment that the French Resistance achieved "more than expected, but far less than popularly believed." This with the considerable assistence supplied by the British and Americans.

 

[tanzanos]

As for the Nazis.
You don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact that when faced with a brutal regime, many people choose to live as slaves rather than to die fighting.... especially when the retaliatory strategy of the conqueror is to obliterate whole communities.

If you really think that a succesful insurrection is inevitable under such circumstances, and will always be succesful, than tell me when the following will happen.
(1) The Saxons will drive the Normans out of England (940 years and counting)
(2) The multiple races and ethnic groups that make up the Chinese Empire will eject the han.
(3) The Jews will drive the Romans out of Palestine...

Those alone should show that insurrections don't always happen and that a few generations of interbreeding often trump ethnic divisions.

You fail to understand what I am saying. Not all peoples have the courage to up rise! It all depends on the upbringing and social circumstances. Hitlers philosophy would have eventually forced many into guerilla war and the German army would eventually loose. A conventional army is no match to a determined guerilla army. The Saxons, Normans, Angles, Danes etc did not have the Nazi philosophy and assimilated into the conquered society. Afghanistan is a very good example of a peoples who will not sit idly while a foreign power is running their country. Cypriots on the other hand have done nothing more than use just politics since their nation was partly conquered by Turkey. So this means that depending on the upbringing and social demands is what will make one fight back. Fear is not an option to one who will die for his cause.

Did the Americans win in Vietnam? NO
Did they win in Iraq? NO
in fact no conventional army has won against a guerilla opponent in the last 100 years.

I do agree that nothing is guaranteed; but I can assure you that when you have a civilian willing to die for his cause and he is part of a guerilla army; all willing to die, and they have support umongst the people; then there is little a conventional army can do.

Look at Israel, Afghanistan; The governments of both nations simply cannot win unless they bring into talks the opposing forces.

By the way Greece kicked the Turks out after 400 years of occupation and the Serbs did the same after 500 years. Both did not loose their national identities nor their language.

 

[Gracchus]

Yeah, and Austria was a part of Germany......

With the overwhelming consent of the Austrian people.

... and East and West Germany were one country post 1945....

And when the soviets left they re-affirmed it by pulling down the wall.

Neither the mechanism that led up to that situation, nor the corruption of the RVN Government negate the fact that there were two sovereign, self-governing states at the time that the NVA invaded the RVN.

There was one sovereign, self-governing state and a colonial puppet government that was emplaced in direct contravention of the Geneva agreement.

If I steal your car, does that make it mine? If I rape your daughter, ist that the equivalent of marriage? The mechanism that led to the situation is pertinent.

Many of the "North Vietnamese" were native to the south, and had left to escape religious and political persecution, until the French withdrew, and the agreed upon plebiscite had been held.

Back to topic.
Do you agree with me that not all invaded peoples react by undertaking a succesful insurrection?

Yes.

 

[Quasicentennial]

As Hitler I would have mad scientists experiment on a new virus called HGV - mercurial virus. Once scientists have manipulated the virus gene for poisonous liquid mercury, the virus can carry mercury as a "back-pack" and then, when excited by heat, open the "back-pack" to release the mercury as vapour. Each virus will be carefully inserted in light-bulbs used for homes, factories and airliners.

 

[tanzanos]

As Hitler I would have mad scientists experiment on a new virus called HGV - mercurial virus. Once scientists have manipulated the virus gene for poisonous liquid mercury, the virus can carry mercury as a "back-pack" and then, when excited by heat, open the "back-pack" to release the mercury as vapour. Each virus will be carefully inserted in light-bulbs used for homes, factories and airliners.

You just missed having a well paid Government job; unfortunately Bush lost the election. Perhaps you can wait 4 years?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I'm going to have to side with those who say it was a mistake to attack Russia.

One military expert I read (forgot who) noted that the farther east you proceed from Germany, the land area increases exponentially. To control the battlefield in Russia would have required 400 divisions. Judging by the number of German and Russian casualties on the East Front, you cannot avoid the fact the it was THE war theater in Europe.

But, having taken the fateful decision to attack Russia, he should have started sooner, but felt compelled to deal with Yugoslavia first. His forces were not ready to deal with 'General Winter'.

The decision to split his forces on the drive to the Volga was also a mistake. If Hitler could have driven a wedge between Russian forces in the north and the oil fields of the south...well, who knows?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Interesting video with Ambrose on the outcome of WWII.

 

[Mahammad]

I would become an ally with the Russians, Hitler's biggest mistake.