Hitler Won Us The War

[greenyb118 0]

It's true. The First World War was of course eventually won by a combined allied force, which after four years of war finally overcame the German Wermacht. The Second World War on the other hand had nothing to do with pioneering alliances or winning tactics. For starters the French tied their underpants to sticks and surrendered at the first sign of trouble which immediately took one of the members of the triple entente out of action. This left the British, the Russians and the Italians. Great. Let's not forget that Italian tanks at the time had more gears for reverse than they did forward...The Italians didn't like fighting and the British and Russians didn't get on, they were only united as they disliked the Germans even more than they disliked each other.So, the French were out, the Italians switched sides and the Russians, being Russians, had a revolution. It's kind of their thing. Amidst this Hitler commanded the most powerful army in the world and the second largest industrial nation; furthermore his army commanders had pioneered the devestating Blitzkrieg method of war. Things didn't look good. But fear not! Adolf was around to save us...However much you may hate the man, be glad in a way, had one of his military advisors been in charge then we may well be speaking German right now.How so you may ask. Well, it was Hitler's mistakes that allowed the Allies to capitalise and win the war. His two biggest mistakes. Firstly there was the blitz. Over a two year period Hitler systematically sent over the entire Luftwaffe to Blighty to get shot down in return for a few brummies and a couple sheep. Well done Adolf.Secondly of course, when all seemed well, he decided to go to war with Russia. near winter. Napoleon had already tried this, as had countless Teutons and they had all failed. Hitler, however did have the means. But he attacked too near winter with one coat per platoon of men. That's not very many coats. Finally, once in Russia he had the chance to attack Moscow and bump off Joe Stalin, but instead he went south, seemingly for kicks and as we all know got a good rollocking in St. Petersburg.So there you have it. Don't thank Winston, certainly don't thank William Haig. Thank Hitler. But then again, he started it all in the first place...

[shadowx 0]

Now call me patriotic but i dont care the people of mainly Britain won that war... in fairness the Americans only joined in when things got nasty on their shores they didnt want anythin to do with it before then. But i agree, Winston nor any leader has EVER won ANY war, the people of the country win the way, their passion for their cause, their determination in the face of adversity and their inability to accept any outcome except victory. I dont understand how you can say Hitler won the war for us...and the blitz done a lot more than make some sheep keel over... In fact im sure some people would take offence to that statement for the people they love died so that i could write this very text in English.

[cangor 0]

Actually, greenyb118 is kinda right, but, hey, it's all war anyways, and, yeah, people might win wars, but it's always the leaders that benefit. So war is bad, in any case. The people always lose - their lives or whatever. I like how you made the allusion to Napoleon attacking the Russians, and, hey, I think it's a lesson everyone should learn before they go to war - don't attack the Russians, because nobody's every really fought them successfully.

[greenyb118 0]

Well I am sorry to anyone I have offended, which I suspect is nobody...Either way, it is all very well to say that it was the passion of the people that won the war - but do you not think that German soldiers felt the same way? At the end of the war, when the army ahd been pushed back beyond the Russo-German border and Russian troops were rampaging towards Berlin. The Russians were pissed off, the Germans were desperately trying to save their families. And it's all very well saying that the British alone toppled the evil tyrant, yet think about it: they were fighting on foreign soil for a country that couldn't even be arsed to defend itself. Where's the zeal there?Now I'm not saying these people shouldn't be honoured, of course they should - I mean, we couldn't have fought at all without them. Yet, ahd the German army had a sane commander chances are we would have lost.When you think about, who would want Russia anyway?

[kasm 0]

.....

The Second World War on the other hand had nothing to do with pioneering alliances or winning tactics. For starters the French tied their underpants to sticks and surrendered at the first sign of trouble which immediately took one of the members of the triple entente out of action. This left the British, the Russians and the Italians. Great. Let's not forget that Italian tanks at the time had more gears for reverse than they did forward...

 

The Italians didn't like fighting and the British and Russians didn't get on, they were only united as they disliked the Germans even more than they disliked each other.

 

...... Well, it was Hitler's mistakes that allowed the Allies to capitalise and win the war. His two biggest mistakes. Firstly there was the blitz. Over a two year period Hitler systematically sent over the entire Luftwaffe to Blighty to get shot down in return for a few brummies and a couple sheep. Well done Adolf.

Secondly of course, when all seemed well, he decided to go to war with Russia. near winter. Napoleon had already tried this, as had countless Teutons and they had all failed. Hitler, however did have the means. But he attacked too near winter with one coat per platoon of men. That's not very many coats. Finally, once in Russia he had the chance to attack Moscow and bump off Joe Stalin, but instead he went south, seemingly for kicks and as we all know got a good rollocking in St. Petersburg.

 

So there you have it. Don't thank Winston, certainly don't thank William Haig. Thank Hitler. But then again, he started it all in the first place...

1. I don't understand your headings. How Hitler won us? in some place you spoke about two Hitler's mistakes allowing the allies to win the war.

 

2. What your meaning of winning you have?

 

3. My definition and I think many will agree. The winning is achieve your objective. Hitler at the end hasn't ac hive his/ He loss the last Battle and departure [we will not argue how he died].

 

4. In 1956, Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt. The objective of Britain and France was re-size Suez Canal and return it after Egypt nationalized it. France has another objective that remove Nasser regime from Egypt because Egypt was intensively helping Algeria in its independent war. Despite that Britain and France occupied Suez Canal but at the end they withdrew after 2 months under the pressure of Russia and USA. The result is the Egyptian continue own and manage the Suez Canal and the Egyptian regime strengthen for years. Then who won in that war?. Egypt received slaps , occupied but at the end strengthen what it want. Britain and France haven't achieve their declared or hi den objective.

 

5. You are sitting in your comp fort place and distribute your attitude on or funny description and characters of different nations and their reader. History will not formulate that method. Of course Britain was the rare country that not occupied by Hitler. Winston Churchill make a great effort to lead his country in their determination despite the daily air attack. Scientist in Britain and Russia established the mathematical methods to minimize or maximize what was named "Operation Research" to tactile problems as Transportation and diet and assignment , queue theory etc.But you accused them with lacking strategy. People in Leningrad [now st Peters-burg] under 4 years of siege eat the cats, dogs and may be as some claimed the human dead.and the bread make from the used flower in blasting the wall papers.

 

6. "he decided to go to war with Russia. near winter.". Whenever he start he passed all the seasons since he was there four years.

 

7. Hitler has to be defeated because he attack the others and occupied many areas and people . It is matter of time that things settle at the end.

[Laos 0]

Its true, if hitler KEPT the non aggressional agreement with russia and in return allied them and provided a seat and other things in return for needed oil and troops, he eaily would have won the war.however the factot breaking the non agression and making a front on all sides caused his demiseand i am glad

[garbage 0]

thank you for the history lesson, next time i think you should post this in the educational areas right next to the other posts that other folks really dont need to read.. whats sthat area called... oh yeah the trash can...

[greenyb118 0]

Hey garbage nothing like a bit of spam eh? I do realise that the 1900's haven't reached you over there in Texas yet so this 'modern history' stuff doesn't mean much to you, but just to try to keep in that little pin you a call a mind that some people have brains.

Anyhoo, Kasm:

1. I don't understand your headings. How Hitler won us? in some place you spoke about two Hitler's mistakes allowing the allies to win the war.
2. What your meaning of winning you have?

3. My definition and I think many will agree. The winning is achieve your objective. Hitler at the end hasn't ac hive his/ He loss the last Battle and departure [we will not argue how he died].

4. In 1956, Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt. The objective of Britain and France was re-size Suez Canal and return it after Egypt nationalized it. France has another objective that remove Nasser regime from Egypt because Egypt was intensively helping Algeria in its independent war. Despite that Britain and France occupied Suez Canal but at the end they withdrew after 2 months under the pressure of Russia and USA. The result is the Egyptian continue own and manage the Suez Canal and the Egyptian regime strengthen for years. Then who won in that war?. Egypt received slaps , occupied but at the end strengthen what it want. Britain and France haven't achieve their declared or hi den objective.

5. You are sitting in your comp fort place and distribute your attitude on or funny description and characters of different nations and their reader. History will not formulate that method. Of course Britain was the rare country that not occupied by Hitler. Winston Churchill make a great effort to lead his country in their determination despite the daily air attack. Scientist in Britain and Russia established the mathematical methods to minimize or maximize what was named "Operation Research" to tactile problems as Transportation and diet and assignment , queue theory etc.But you accused them with lacking strategy. People in Leningrad [now st Peters-burg] under 4 years of siege eat the cats, dogs and may be as some claimed the human dead.and the bread make from the used flower in blasting the wall papers.

6. "he decided to go to war with Russia. near winter.". Whenever he start he passed all the seasons since he was there four years.

7. Hitler has to be defeated because he attack the others and occupied many areas and people . It is matter of time that things settle at the end.

1. Yes, Hitler's mistakes meant that we won the war. We won the war because of Hitler's mistakes.

2. By winning I mean the Allies didn't lose.

3. Yes. Hitler lost. That is the whole point of my post...

4. Well yes Egypt came off better there, but the second world war finished in 1945. Hitler was dead by 1956. Similarly, while everybody celebrated America 'winning' the Cuban Missile Crisis they in fact lost when you think about it.

5. Well yes I do realise that without the very involved strategy of eating dogs and cats there would have been trouble...That's not a tactic. Let's not forget that Sir William Haig was commanding the British forces and he was incompetent to a level matched only by Nicholas II.

6. He was not in Russia for four years. He was there for one and only meant to be there for a few months.

7. This seems to be suggesting that everything would have been alright anyway becaus the good guys always win? The second world war wasn't, unfortunately, a tv show. It really happened.

[kasm 0]

........

6. He was not in Russia for four years. He was there for one and only meant to be there for a few months.

 

7. This seems to be suggesting that everything would have been alright anyway becaus the good guys always win? The second world war wasn't, unfortunately, a tv show. It really happened.

1. The exact times for the Nazi's army in the Soviet Union was 3 years and three months. It started by the invasions in June 1941 and ended August 1944 in the Balkans [ Russian victory over the Germans]. See please

a) the battle of Minsk , Ukraine and the Balkan battles in Battles of World War II (1939 - 1945) : http://ehistory.osu.edu/search/ehistory?search_api_views_fulltext=wwii%20battles%20cfm .

in BBC ON THIS DAY | 22 | 1941: Hitler invades the Soviet Union: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

2. The exact times of Leningrad's Siege is 900 days [from 20th of August 1944 till the 20th of October 1945. See please:

 

(i): BBC ON THIS DAY | 27 | 1944: Leningrad siege ends after 900 days in :http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/27/newsid_3498000/3498330.stm with summary:

A successful Soviet offensive drives German troops away from the Leningrad which has been besieged since 8 th of September 1941.till 27 Jan 1944

ii) Siege of Leningrad -- Encyclopaedia Britannica :https://www.britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Leningrad with summary:

also called 900-day siege (Sept. 8, 1941Jan. 27, 1944), prolonged siege of the city of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) in the Soviet Union by German and Finnish armed forces during World War II. The siege actually lasted 872 days.

After Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, German armies by early September had approached Leningrad from the west and south while their Finnish allies approached to the north down the

iii) in Page 18 / History / Petersburg CITY / Official guide to St. Petersburg [ http://petersburgcity.com/city/history/page18/ ]

World War II and the 900-day Siege of Leningrad

This was certainly the most tragic period in the history of this city. It was full of suffering and heroism. For everyone who lives in St. Petersburg, the blockade (siege) of Leningrad is an important part of their heritage, and for the older generation it brings out memories that they will never forget. Less than two and a half months after June 22, 1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked by Nazi Germany, German troops were already approaching Leningrad. The Red Army was outflanked and on September 8, 1941 the Germans had fully encircled Leningrad and the siege began. It lasted for about 900 days, from September 8, 1941 till January 27, 1944.

Two million 887 thousand civilians (including about 400 thousand children) plus troops didn't even consider any calls for surrender. Food and fuel supplies were very limited (enough for 1 or 2 months only). All public transportation has stopped. By the winter of 1941-42 there was no heating, no water supply, almost no electricity and very little food. In January 1942, in the middle of an unusually cold winter, the lowest food rations in the city were only 125 grams (about 1/4 of a pound) of bread per day. In just two months, January and February, 1942, 200 thousand people (!!!) died in Leningrad of cold and starvation. But a portion of the war industry continued to work and the city did not surrender. Several hundred thousand people were evacuated from the city across Lake Ladoga via the famous "Road of Life" ("Doroga zhizni") - the only route that connected the besieged city with the mainland.

3. I was in Leningrad 5 years and the father of my girlfriend there was soldier who participated in the Liberation of Berlin.. Also I met many veteran. Moreover, I have met the woman that was model to the statute in the park named after Leningrad Siege.

 

4. Nothing in what I posted can suggest that I said that everything was alright. War is bad. But what if other attack you. You have no choice but react. The results of the attack depend on the surprise, tricks and many other factors. Japan surprised USA. Hitler surprise the Soviet Union who was in agreement with him. Poland and France and others was fallen in one day. But we can not blame and criticize them. Hitler was with plans and surprise. The others were not ready.

[electriic ink 1]

Was Hitler ever going to keep his alliance? No. Far-right and far-left wing parties will only ally for so long, especially when one of the two allying countries wants all the land they can get. The Soviet Union spanned miles and the thought of getting it was probably too tantalising for Hitler. He had to give in.

I also argue that we were always going to win. When America made two nuclear bombs and dropped then on Japan, we would have bought a few bombs/the equipment to make them off the USA and dropped it on Germany. With this new super-weapon, Germans would almost be forced into surrender.

Don't thank Winston

That's a bit harsh. He did his bit. We could have had a Tony Blair as a Prime Minister, then where would we be?

[greenyb118 0]

Heh true, Tony would probably just not have gotten involved. Until America did that is... Let's not forget that the key scientist on the Manhatten project was in fact a German. The Germans were themselves working on a nuclear weapon, were it not for the untimely intervention of losing the war they most likely would have gotten one. Either way, if Hitler had not of made his mistakes then it wouldn't have mattered if old Blighty got hold of a few bombs, Germany would have been so enormous they couldn't have made enough to bomb him into submission. Besides the early nuclear bombs were delivered by air, Hitler's first msitake was frittering away the Luftwaffe killing puppies. Had he not done that then he would have had an airforce to shoot down any attempted bomber.I suppose I stand corrected about Russia, but nevertheless Hitler was advised by his generals that the war in Russia should be over before winter and he certainly intended that. He diverted to the Caucasus iol fields in the south rather than make an attack on Moscow and the Kremlin, which Joe had refused to abandon - they got so close they could see faces peering over the city wall!3 is very nice but I don't see the relevance...Ok firstly, Poland was ready they had their army on full alert. Unfortunatly the two men and their yak couldn't stand up to the blitzkrieg. France was ready. Hell, army units had been training along the border for months to be able to raise the white flags at the same time. Actually the French military budget had gone on building a series of forts along the Alsace-Lorrain border with Germany. Of course the Wehrmacht just went around this and the French thought bugger it and gave up. Britain was the only country unprepared because Lloyd George was an idiot. 'peace in our time' and such nonsense.The other countries did not fall because they were unprepared, they simply lost because the German army was better.