I respect what Hitler accomplished

[John99]

I'm sorry, T, there's no way a war was waged, and a genocide attempted because a guy was hopped up on amphetamines. Have you ever known anyone using? C'mon.

If you want to make a case for what effect they had on him, perhaps they made him more reckless later in the war. But to argue WWII would not have happened without them? Really? I hope this is a joke. Hitler knew exactly what he was doing.

And I'm sorry, but to say that one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed might not have happened if the perpetrator wasn't high just so happens to be "the clincher".

You dont know what your talking about. I can say with certainty that you take away that drug and you have no war. I am not going to go into a big drawn out debate though because google will give you the answers. Do your research and you will see where it really makes sense. If you have anything specific to address i will discuss it.

Before people get all bent out of shape about the drug issue, bear in mind that hitler had other problems but i believe this drug just pushed him to do things that were entirely irrational. few people will ever have the ability or means to do what he did so this is not to just be anti drug or anti methamphetamine but we need to be realistic and look at this from a medical and psychological perspective.

Its like takinf pieces of a puzzle and putting them together to form an image. you remove one piece and the image is not complete.

 

[Balerion]

You dont know what your talking about. I can say with certainty that you take away that drug and you have no war. I am not going to go into a big drawn out debate though because google will give you the answers.

That's all it took--three sentences--to completely discredit yourself.

You are talking out of your ass. Even if you wanted to argue the merits of the idea that Hitler's actions were, in part, shaped by his drug use, then I'd be with you, and I'd likely agree, as I previously did, to some degree.

However, to say with certainty that the war would not have occurred without his drug use is absolutely ridiculous and an argument with no merit whatsoever. And if Google gave you the answer, I think you need to study further. In true scientific fashion, you just said "Yeah, Hitler was deeply damaged in many, many ways without the drugs, but forget all that, it was the drugs that caused the war."

Wrong. And a ridiculous argument. You don't want to get into anything "long and drawn out" because you have no argument to begin with. You simpy want to make an outrageous claim, feign certainty, and run away, hoping people won't catch on that you're talking shit.

 

[leopold]

WW2 happened because the causes of WW1 were never addressed nor settled.
the marshall plan was a direct result of addressing those causes.

 

[Balerion]

WW2 happened because the causes of WW1 were never addressed nor settled.
the marshall plan was a direct result of addressing those causes.

You should elaborate.

 

[Jethro Tull]

I personally think everything he did was destructive, but it doesn't matter, because it all happened. It's not possible for me to respect what he accomplished (a better word would be 'destroyed'). The only reason I can appreciate what he did is because there are valuable lessons to learn from his actions.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

I personally think everything he did was destructive, but it doesn't matter, because it all happened. It's not possible for me to respect what he accomplished (a better word would be 'destroyed'). The only reason I can appreciate what he did is because there are valuable lessons to learn from his actions.

As an accomplishment, that what you accomplished was so bad that you provide an example to future people wanting to accomplish more, is not much of an accomplishment, but I would accept it.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

WW2 happened because the causes of WW1 were never addressed nor settled.
the marshall plan was a direct result of addressing those causes.

That's interesting. ( I hasten to say that I am not being sarcastic) Most people say the the cause of WWII was the ineffectual resolution of WWI. What do you think?

 

[Balerion]

I personally think everything he did was destructive, but it doesn't matter, because it all happened. It's not possible for me to respect what he accomplished (a better word would be 'destroyed'). The only reason I can appreciate what he did is because there are valuable lessons to learn from his actions.

I think we could have done without it. I think his actions are so much more far-reaching than most people imagine. I personally don't think Israel is created without the holocaust, and without Israel I do not see the US being quite the enemy to the Arab world that we are today. The attacks on 9/11 might not have occured, even.

But even if you don't prescribe to all that (I could very well be a loon, for all you know!) I tend to agree with you, Jethro, that everything he did was destructive. I say that because I don't think he would have acheived the short-term benefits for non-Jewish Germans that he did without his expansionist mindset.

 

[swarm]

No body needs drugs to be crazy.

 

[Cybernetics]

Drugs causing wwII is unfounded. Beyond htat I think Hitlor did incredible things particularly early in his political career. He Pulled Hitler out of the ecanomic slump years before all the other countries and made germany a fenominal superpower. In todays ecanomic crisis would he be able to pull a similar trick out of the hat? He managed to unite 99% of the population behind him and created a modern society from the ashes of a revolutoin and a broken country.

He brought germany to a haresbreadth of controling all of europe for a second time. I personaly have no understanding of the reasons behind the "Final solution". thought on the otherhand i have been fordced into anti-semitism by the actions of Israel.

Hitler Created a country which was working perfectly with the lowist unemployment of any country ever since. As for going to war he had fenominaly advanced tackticks and militry technoligeas some of which were not seen in proper use until 30 years after the end of the war. I belive that even in his loss he was only defeated by pure numbers. The communist rsuhia on one side and the masses of america on the other poth puring men into the meatgrinder which is an unwinable position. without america the war would have been an easy german victory and they would have formed a new empire but they lost and as has been proved so many times:

THE VICTORS WRITE HISTORY

 

[Oli]

As for going to war he had fenominaly advanced tackticks and militry technoligeas some of which were not seen in proper use until 30 years after the end of the war.

Untrue, I do wish people would stop spouting this sort of nonsense.

 

[Cybernetics]

oli, please back up statment, near the end of the war hitler had gfreat advances in radar and sonar, whicle britain had also maid advances int hese areas they were along different lines. More examples include the Jet engine which could have revolutionsde the war if it had lasted any longer. THe German tnaks were far more advanced than those of the americans or rutians who relied on weight of numbers. they had more efficient projectiles, advanced mechanical targeting and superior armour technoligeas. They were failry unreliable but not as bad as those of the allies.

 

[Oli]

oli, please back up statment, near the end of the war hitler had gfreat advances in radar and sonar, whicle britain had also maid advances int hese areas they were along different lines. More examples include the Jet engine which could have revolutionsde the war if it had lasted any longer. THe German tnaks were far more advanced than those of the americans or rutians who relied on weight of numbers. they had more efficient projectiles, advanced mechanical targeting and superior armour technoligeas. They were failry unreliable but not as bad as those of the allies.

Here we go: the Germans did not invent the jet engine, we've been through this in other threads, they did not have "superior armour technologies" they essentially had nothing better than the allies for armour manufacture.
Sonar was introduced into the Royal Navy in WWI - called ASDIC at the time...
Radar? Hmm amazing how so many of the German radars were tuned mostly to K band - the only frequency of radar that is absorbed by atmospheric moisture... the Allies had more adaptable radar systems and more of them.
Efficient projectiles? Oh yes, they used APCR (armour piercing Composite Rigid) rounds - a dense core in a lighter outer sheath. All the disadvantages of APDS* while in the barrel and and all the disadvantages of a lousy sectional density while in flight, with a godawful velocity drop.
Unreliable but not as bad as those of the allies? Er, each individual Panther was virtually hand-built - no exchange of parts from one to another and disastrous unreliability, the same for Tiger and Tiger II.
More advanced than Russian tanks? Oh that would be why the Germans started a crash programme when they encountered the T-34 (in service from 1940) then? And eventually ended up with the Panther.
The perceived advantage in German tanks was that they were heavier than Allied tanks, and carried more armour** - a factor that eventually led to the acceptance of M26 Pershing (but the continued use of M4 Sherman was a logistical decision - four Shermans could be shipped in place of 2 Pershings).
They didn't have "advanced mechanical targeting" they used stereoscopic rangefinders - which are superior, but take far longer to train a user on and are not usable by 100% of crewmen.

* Introduced by the British in 1942 - it made the 17 pdr one of the best "hole punchers" of the war.
** In general: the Churchill and late marks of Cromwell carried at least the same frontal armour as a Tiger.

 

[Cybernetics]

On tank warfare while costing more to manufacture the Tiger and Panthers had far Higher kill to loss ratio than the allies which was sutible to the germans crack divisions of more elite but less mased troops. Their Guns out fired all allied oponents and could anialate shermans far before the shermas even got close to a range of their owne weapon. The Germans managed to create the tank ace.

I belive that the germans use of elite forces maid their choice of quality over quantity corect concidering the form their army had taken. I admit the russian T-34 was a remarcable veichal but this was only particularly prevalent becasue theyt were fielded in such mases that by that stage in the war germany could not compete with. They were running out of Men and resources.

 

[Oli]

On tank warfare while costing more to manufacture the Tiger and Panthers had far Higher kill to loss ratio than the allies

Uh huh, because the German tanks, in general had thicker armour and/ or better guns than were fielded by the Allies.
Note that this does NOT equate to to superior technology at all, merely a logistical decision. There were many Allied projects (and prototypes) that were better armoured/ gunned, but shipping them across the Channel/ Atlantic was essentially a non-starter. The overall picture dictated what could be used, not some hypothetical technology inferiority.
Oh yeah, IIRC most Panther losses were attributable to mechanical breakdown - they were so unreliable they had to be abandoned by their crews.

which was sutible to the germans crack divisions of more elite but less mased troops. Their Guns out fired all allied oponents and could anialate shermans far before the shermas even got close to a range of their owne weapon. The Germans managed to create the tank ace.

Because "crack divisions" were more suitable to the Nazi mind-set (and largely mythical anyway). And yes Wittman was celebrated as a tank ace, it doesn't mean that there were no Allied ones simply that we didn't bother making national heroes of them

I belive that the germans use of elite forces maid their choice of quality over quantity corect concidering the form their army had taken.

Nope, Germany couldn't afford quantity early on but had a lot of time for training. "Elite" forces were in use by ALL powers.

I admit the russian T-34 was a remarcable veichal but this was only particularly prevalent becasue theyt were fielded in such mases that by that stage in the war germany could not compete with. They were running out of Men and resources.

By that stage of the war?
Er, T-34 was in service BEFORE Germany invaded Russia
It was better armoured, faster, better gunned and more easily produced than German tanks. And it was improved throughout the war.
Also don't forget that it was the Russians that came up with the IS-3 (during the war), the tank that caused a new "arms race" for the Allies after WW2 ended. The Germans had nothing to compare with that either.

 

[Cybernetics]

I meant that most german troops were well trained by atleast the begining to mid war before major conscription, not just particular units. Germany Began running out of people, somthing the Americans and Russians never found. I already admited the t-34 was remarcable, THe american use of the sherman was throwing away lives against a good germanm tank divison. thogh I reaturn this post to its origional intension and discus hitler not the techneaques of the whole country at war and chalenge you to name a single american (or russian, though im not sure there may be some) tank ace.

 

[Oli]

I meant that most german troops were well trained by atleast the begining to mid war before major conscription, not just particular units.

Granted, but again, that is not a technological nor any other "superority" it's merely a logistical / national decision factor.

I already admited the t-34 was remarcable, THe american use of the sherman was throwing away lives against a good germanm tank divison.

In one sense yes, in another (the logistical one), no. We didn't have the resources to ship heavier tanks into Europe, the Germans simply had the advantage of fighting on the same continent as their tanks were built and moving them by rail. Again, hardly a superiority due to Hitler or anyone else.

chalenge you to name a single american (or russian, though im not sure there may be some) tank ace.

Staff Sergeant Lafayette Pool? http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_lafayette/pool_ordnance1.htm

Russian tank aces:
1. Guards Capt. Samokhin Konstantin, 4th Tank Brigade, BT-7, T-34 died in 1942 69 + 13 other AFVs, 82 guns, 117 motor vehicles
2. Lt. Lavrinenko Dmitry (T-34, 4th Tank Brigade), Hero of the Soviet Union (1985!), died in Nov. 1941 52 incl. StuGs, + some guns, mortars and cars. In October of 1941 his T-34 destroyed 16 German tanks in a single combat. Scored 52 victories in 28 engagements before he was killed defending Moscow in 1941
3. Sr. Lt. Kolobanov Zinovy (KV-1, 1st tank division) 23 + 3 ATGs; destroyed 22 tanks + 2 ATGs on 19 August 1941 for 3 hours! KV withstood 135 hits.
4. Guards Lt. Maksakov Vladimir (T-34-85, 45th Guards tank brigade) 18 Including three Tigers!
5. Jr.lt. Kashnikov P.M. (T-34, 6th Guards mech corps) 17 inc. StuGs
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=67191&start=0
Any more questions?

 

[oiram]

Well what’s so odd is that 60+ years after his death we are still discussing him, his accomplishments, his failures and everything about what he did and how he affected the world and for that I respect him because I know 10 years after my death nobody will talk about me much less argue over what they respected or didn’t respect about me.

I think there are some interesting points on both sides of this debate.

 

[Oli]

People still talk about Jack the Ripper too.

 

[Cybernetics]

and i think he was an incredibly skilled person who outsmarted the authorityes and showed all the holes in the system so i think ol' jack has the right to be a little pleased