If the Nazis won WW2...

duffysfarm

if germany had won the war i think you wold have seen a lot more colonial expanison in Africa as the European countries woudl have been running out of space (rather than Africa colonising Europe these days)

FTA69

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a trend in recent years to say "Russia won the war", as if it was some great military or tactical victory. The Germans were not faced with any strong opposition in terms of an army or brilliant generals on the Eastern Front. They simply faced a country that was as contemptuous of human life as their own regime, willing to see 25 million soldiers and citizens die as human life became cheaper than bullets. They also faced Russian weather. If anything should get credit, it's not Russia as a country or a people, but the sub arctic climate.

It was also the tremendous sacrifice and effort by the Russian people who repulsed an army that openly regarded them as slaves. You've swung the other way now, saying it was a simple matter of the weather and ignoring the millions of Soviet citizens who gave their lives and suffered far more at the hands of the Nazis than other Allied countries.

tritium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a trend in recent years to say "Russia won the war", as if it was some great military or tactical victory. The Germans were not faced with any strong opposition in terms of an army or brilliant generals on the Eastern Front. They simply faced a country that was as contemptuous of human life as their own regime, willing to see 25 million soldiers and citizens die as human life became cheaper than bullets. They also faced Russian weather. If anything should get credit, it's not Russia as a country or a people, but the sub arctic climate.

Thats a rather large oversimplification though. The russian strategy initially was based on the idea of using their own strengths to buy time. Russia didnt have the organisational or technological superiority over the nazis but they did have the same problems that brought down Napoleon- bodies and weather.

Its also wrong to say there was nothing strategic in the Soviet approach, in many cases the losses acheived an intended overall strategic gain that proved decisive. Kursk was a fine example of this. More importantly battles like Kursk turned the tide and when the Soviets had their chance to inflict real pain on the nazis, as in operation Bagration, they took it ruthlessly

Zebra3

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The Russians advanced on Berlin in the end and behaved like dogs.

They raped and pillaged like Vikings.

They never faced any consequences for their ground forces vile actions.

You talk about Brits and Yanks being dishonourable, well the Russians were on a different plain altogether.

They were a two timing, war crime committing disgrace. They even attempted to lay blame on the Nazis for some of their antics. Most notably the Katyn Massacre.

Utter scum.

Yes, the Russians behaved as shockingly as they had suffered under the Germans.

But this idea that the Brits or Americans were somehow morally superior is laughable.

During WWII the British starved millions in India. Winston Churchill, a fanatical racist, who the Brits worship pretty much said they deserved it.

After WWII, the Brits were still using concentration camps in Africa. And sure why not? After all it was from the British that Hitler was inspired to build his own camps. And you know all that agent orange that the lovely Amricans dropped on Vietnamese civilians during their barbaric wars in SE Asia? Inspired by the British dropping agent orange in Malaysia.

Have you ever seen the effects of agent orange on humans? :mad:

And lest we forget the genocide the Americans carried out against the native Americans. Murdering millions of them. Even mocking their slaughter to this day with their Thanksgiving holiday. Twisted evil scum.

The British and Americans were every bit as evil as the Germans and Russians. But the never ending propaganda machine goes on. There's countless documentaries on the final solution. Hard to find any on the genocide in the Americas or Australia, or Britain's crimes in Africa and Asia.....

Not many people even know about the Belgian genocide in the Congo.

FTA69

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yes, the Russians behaved as shockingly as they had suffered under the Germans.

But this idea that the Brits or Americans were somehow morally superior is laughable.

During WWII the British starved millions in India. Winston Churchill, a fanatical racist, who the Brits worship pretty much said they deserved it.

After WWII, the Brits were still using concentration camps in Africa. And sure why not? After all it was from the British that Hitler was inspired to build his own camps. And you know all that agent orange that the lovely Amricans dropped on Vietnamese civilians during their barbaric wars in SE Asia? Inspired by the British dropping agent orange in Malaysia.

Have you ever seen the effects of agent orange on humans? :mad:

And lest we forget the genocide the Americans carried out against the native Americans. Murdering millions of them. Even mocking their slaughter to this day with their Thanksgiving holiday. Twisted evil scum.

The British and Americans were every bit as evil as the Germans and Russians. But the never ending propaganda machine goes on. There's countless documentaries on the final solution. Hard to find any on the genocide in the Americas or Australia, or Britain's crimes in Africa and Asia.....

Not many people even know about the Belgian genocide in the Congo.

You can throw in French actions in Algeria as well, ten years after WW2. Wasn't much liberté, egalité and fraternity for them.

Del.Monte

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yes, the Russians behaved as shockingly as they had suffered under the Germans.

But this idea that the Brits or Americans were somehow morally superior is laughable.

During WWII the British starved millions in India. Winston Churchill, a fanatical racist, who the Brits worship pretty much said they deserved it.

After WWII, the Brits were still using concentration camps in Africa. And sure why not? After all it was from the British that Hitler was inspired to build his own camps. And you know all that agent orange that the lovely Amricans dropped on Vietnamese civilians during their barbaric wars in SE Asia? Inspired by the British dropping agent orange in Malaysia.

Have you ever seen the effects of agent orange on humans? :mad:

And lest we forget the genocide the Americans carried out against the native Americans. Murdering millions of them. Even mocking their slaughter to this day with their Thanksgiving holiday. Twisted evil scum.

The British and Americans were every bit as evil as the Germans and Russians. But the never ending propaganda machine goes on. There's countless documentaries on the final solution. Hard to find any on the genocide in the Americas or Australia, or Britain's crimes in Africa and Asia.....

Not many people even know about the Belgian genocide in the Congo.

Do you find living on the moral high ground lonely? :rolleyes:

Yourself isit

Del.Monte wrote: »

Do you find living on the moral high ground lonely? :rolleyes:

Probably much of the world agrees with that position.

Panimorph

Operation Paperclip!

Teaser from Wikpedia:

"Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German, later American, aerospace engineer[3] and space architect credited with inventing the V-2 rocket for Nazi Germany and the Saturn V for the United States.[4][5] He was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Nazi Germany, where he was a member of the Nazi Party and the SS."

FTA69

Del.Monte wrote: »

Do you find living on the moral high ground lonely? :rolleyes:

It isn't moral posturing; it's just the truth. A few short years after WW2 supposedly fought on behalf of freedom and democracy et al, many Allied countries were balls deep in suppressing those concepts in their colonies for their own selfish gain often using extremely brutal and bloody methods in order to do so.

That should always be brought up whenever someone tries on this narrative of "goodies v baddies" in global politics.

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yes, the Russians behaved as shockingly as they had suffered under the Germans.

But this idea that the Brits or Americans were somehow morally superior is laughable.

During WWII the British starved millions in India. Winston Churchill, a fanatical racist, who the Brits worship pretty much said they deserved it.

After WWII, the Brits were still using concentration camps in Africa. And sure why not? After all it was from the British that Hitler was inspired to build his own camps. And you know all that agent orange that the lovely Amricans dropped on Vietnamese civilians during their barbaric wars in SE Asia? Inspired by the British dropping agent orange in Malaysia.

Have you ever seen the effects of agent orange on humans? :mad:

And lest we forget the genocide the Americans carried out against the native Americans. Murdering millions of them. Even mocking their slaughter to this day with their Thanksgiving holiday. Twisted evil scum.

The British and Americans were every bit as evil as the Germans and Russians. But the never ending propaganda machine goes on. There's countless documentaries on the final solution. Hard to find any on the genocide in the Americas or Australia, or Britain's crimes in Africa and Asia.....

Not many people even know about the Belgian genocide in the Congo.

Wow!

You dragged in the Boer War, the Indian Wars, Vietnam...looks like you keep a list of that stuff!

9or10

Comes to mind

Jayop

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not sure you can compare the British superiority complex with that of the maniacal force that was the Nazis.

Just saying.

Why not?

Zebra3

Del.Monte wrote: »

Do you find living on the moral high ground lonely? :rolleyes:

It's called living in the real world.

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow!

You dragged in the Boer War, the Indian Wars, Vietnam...looks like you keep a list of that stuff!

I have an interest in history. There is a debate about the evils of various empires.......

Zebra3

Panimorph wrote: »

Operation Paperclip!

Teaser from Wikpedia:

"Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German, later American, aerospace engineer[3] and space architect credited with inventing the V-2 rocket for Nazi Germany and the Saturn V for the United States.[4][5] He was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Nazi Germany, where he was a member of the Nazi Party and the SS."

Even inspired a movie!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM

Zebra3

Zebra3 wrote: »

I have an interest in history. There is a debate about the evils of various empires.......

And then you would surely appreciate that the is a vast difference between deliberate actions to wipe out millions, like Germany's Holocaust and the Soviet Union's Holodomor, and conflicts like the Vietnam War. Or the concentration camps of the Boer War, where thousands died of disease and malnutrition, and those of the Nazis, where gas ovens were used to eliminate huge numbers. They are not all the same.

A Little Pony

EndaHonesty wrote: »

The Palestinian's would be free, there would be no Zionist state destabilising the middle east and America would not be a puppet bully fcuking up the world for everyone else.

In short, globally speaking, we could not possibly be in a worse state than we are now.

Yeah, except the elimination of Jewish people, disabled people, people with poor mental health, democracy completely killed, it would just be fine. A rather incredible post from yourself and absolute drivel.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

And then you would surely appreciate that the is a vast difference between deliberate actions to wipe out millions, like Germany's Holocaust and the Soviet Union's Holodomor, and conflicts like the Vietnam War. Or the concentration camps of the Boer War, where thousands died of disease and malnutrition, and those of the Nazis, where gas ovens were used to eliminate huge numbers. They are not all the same.

In the Vietnam War, the Americans deliberately dropped chemical weapons to cause maximum damage to vast numbers of civilians. And like the slaughter of the native Americans (which you have ignored), it was genocide.

As for the camps the British had in Africa, disease and malnutrition were the weapons, not some sort of accidental byproduct of the mass kidnapping of innocent civilians.

No two genocides are the same, but the intentions of the various empires we have discussed were all pretty much the same.

Arytonblue

Deleted User wrote: »

And then you would surely appreciate that the is a vast difference between deliberate actions to wipe out millions, like Germany's Holocaust and the Soviet Union's Holodomor, and conflicts like the Vietnam War. Or the concentration camps of the Boer War, where thousands died of disease and malnutrition, and those of the Nazis, where gas ovens were used to eliminate huge numbers. They are not all the same.

A vast difference? Ultimately it's the same factors that have caused these horrific events, complete and utter disregard of human life. The Nazi and Soviet genocidal actions were as mechanised and orchestrated with intent as the actions of the U.S., U.K. and other brutal empires were.

The U.S. bombarded, massacred and chemically destroyed a third world country for nearly a decade with no regard for civilian casualties and in the end still had to run away with their tail between their legs, all in the name of some pointless ideological conflict. The British systematically killed, starved and oppressed millions across dozens of colonial holdings, including their very own island neighbour, all to steal and pillage resources and consolidate power, and they did it all in the name of 'civilising' backward peoples. Other European empires did the same, the French in Africa and South East Asia, the Belgians in the Congo, Spanish in the Americas, Italy in Ethiopia, Austria in the Balkans, the Ottomans to countless ethnic minorities, the list goes on to a ridiculous degree.

There is no moral superiority here, the second World War was the most destructive and disturbing event in human history and to try and paint anyone involved as 'good' or 'bad' on some twisted compass is ridiculous in my opinion. The Japanese massacred the Chinese, yet the U.S. dropped the only atomic bombs in a war and effortlessly and purposefully killed millions of Japanese civilians. The Germans brutalised the Soviets, the Soviets returned the favour. The Germans bombarded British cities, bomber Harris returned the favour. There can be debate over blame and fault for causing these events of course, but there is no moral standing when you're talking about millions of innocent civilians being killed.

At least that's what I think.

Irish Praetorian

FTA69 wrote: »

It isn't moral posturing; it's just the truth. A few short years after WW2 supposedly fought on behalf of freedom and democracy et al, many Allied countries were balls deep in suppressing those concepts in their colonies for their own selfish gain often using extremely brutal and bloody methods in order to do so.

That should always be brought up whenever someone tries on this narrative of "goodies v baddies" in global politics.

But the problem remains if your assessment of events such as WW2 is without nuance and goes no deeper than 'sure weren't they all terrible' then you forgo the significant moral distinctions which remain. It's one thing to say that the Allies committed a number of war crimes which tend to get brushed aside in our modern recollection, but if you cannot muster up enough intellectual fortitude to discern between the scale and scope of those actions and the actions of the Axis forces, then you're doing little more than weaving a kind of moral equivalence.

Irish Praetorian

Arytonblue wrote: »

A vast difference? Ultimately it's the same factors that have caused these horrific events, complete and utter disregard of human life. The Nazi and Soviet genocidal actions were as mechanised and orchestrated with intent as the actions of the U.S., U.K. and other brutal empires were.

The U.S. bombarded, massacred and chemically destroyed a third world country for nearly a decade with no regard for civilian casualties and in the end still had to run away with their tail between their legs, all in the name of some pointless ideological conflict. The British systematically killed, starved and oppressed millions across dozens of colonial holdings, including their very own island neighbour, all to steal and pillage resources and consolidate power, and they did it all in the name of 'civilising' backward peoples. Other European empires did the same, the French in Africa and South East Asia, the Belgians in the Congo, Spanish in the Americas, Italy in Ethiopia, Austria in the Balkans, the Ottomans to countless ethnic minorities, the list goes on to a ridiculous degree.

There is no moral superiority here, the second World War was the most destructive and disturbing event in human history and to try and paint anyone involved as 'good' or 'bad' on some twisted compass is ridiculous in my opinion. The Japanese massacred the Chinese, yet the U.S. dropped the only atomic bombs in a war and effortlessly and purposefully killed millions of Japanese civilians. The Germans brutalised the Soviets, the Soviets returned the favour. The Germans bombarded British cities, bomber Harris returned the favour. There can be debate over blame and fault for causing these events of course, but there is no moral standing when you're talking about millions of innocent civilians being killed.

At least that's what I think.

Yeah I've got to call nonsense on some of this, especially in light of my previous post.

The Nazi regime undertook a perhaps unique process of industrial extermination on an enormous scale - the grounds upon which one might be targeted being as immutable and irrelevant as the faith of an ancestor in 1871, or belonging to the wrong 'racial' group.

The Soviet regime perpetuated mass starvation, operated a repressive police state and in war-time oversaw a callous policy toward POWs of invading armies. Grounds for being targeted could be little more than an imagined disloyalty or voicing the wrong opinion.

The United States over the course of two hundred years displaced native American populations, often through warfare and violence, herding them onto reservations and depriving them of their property.

- If you cannot understand or appreciate the distinctions between the three cases, in moral, in material or simply in practical terms, then you're grossly oversimplifying the issues, again, apparently in order to weave some kind of moral equivalence or confusion. This brand of moral relativism which seems to have so much purchase these days appears to be little more than a misguided effort by some to atone for the imagined offences of their own nations, and for others a means to castigate states better off than their own.

jimmytwotimes 2013

The Man in the High Castle would be about the Allies winning the war.

ScumLord

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Some of the greatest scientific, medical, pharmaceutical and engineering breakthroughs were made under the Nazi regime.
Would Neil Armstrong have walked on the moon, if it wasn't for them.

It was a technological race against time. There's no reason why America couldn't have produced rockets on their own eventually, they just got a major boost by taking all the German research which was ahead of everybody else.

Zebra3 wrote: »

Russia knocked the shyte out of Germany. Killed something like 3,600,000 German troops compared to 200,000 or so killed by US/Britain.

If the Germans had an actual military general in charge they may not have lost so badly. Hitler sent his armies in to die.

A Little Pony

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

FTA69 wrote: »

It isn't moral posturing; it's just the truth. A few short years after WW2 supposedly fought on behalf of freedom and democracy et al, many Allied countries were balls deep in suppressing those concepts in their colonies for their own selfish gain often using extremely brutal and bloody methods in order to do so.

That should always be brought up whenever someone tries on this narrative of "goodies v baddies" in global politics.

But the problem remains if your assessment of events such as WW2 is without nuance and goes no deeper than 'sure weren't they all terrible' then you forgo the significant moral distinctions which remain. It's one thing to say that the Allies committed a number of war crimes which tend to get brushed aside in our modern recollection, but if you cannot muster up enough intellectual fortitude to discern between the scale and scope of those actions and the actions of the Axis forces, then you're doing little more than weaving a kind of moral equivalence.

Anyone who makes such a case should not talk about WW2 or anything historical to be honest. The National Socialists attempted to ethnically cleanse an entire ethnicity via the most sophisticated and systematic murder ever seen. Without doubt the most evil act committed in the history of mankind, not because of the numbers but the whole system behind it and the unbelievably dark tone to it.

Ah seriously lads, the idea that the aim of America was to wipe out the Vietnamese people is simply...nuts.

It was in no sense comparable to events like the Holocaust or the Holodomor.

Capt'n Midnight

duffysfarm wrote: »

if germany had won the war i think you wold have seen a lot more colonial expanison in Africa as the European countries woudl have been running out of space (rather than Africa colonising Europe these days)

If you remember Italy had taken over Abyssinia by then. So 99.7% of the continent was colonised. The other bit was Liberia which was a protectorate of the US.

Look up the whole Scramble for Africa.

One of the crazier plans was to settle all the jews in Uganda.

BalcombeSt4

Internal probably would have been a bit like Franco's Spain, external probably would have been like LBJ & Nixon's USA.

BalcombeSt4

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah seriously lads, the idea that the aim of America was to wipe out the Vietnamese people is simply...nuts.

It was in no sense comparable to events like the Holocaust or the Holodomor.

There would not have been any attempt to wipe out the entire Vietnamese population but there would have been many comparable massacres like Tulles & Oradour sur Glane by the Nazis to Mi Lai & No Gun Ri by the Americans.

The_Valeyard

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If you remember Italy had taken over Abyssinia by then. So 99.7% of the continent was colonised. The other bit was Liberia which was a protectorate of the US.

Look up the whole Scramble for Africa.

One of the crazier plans was to settle all the jews in Uganda.

Thought it was Madagascar?

BalcombeSt4

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

There would not have been any attempt to wipe out these Vietnamese population but there would have been many comparable massacres like Tulles & Oradour sur Glane by the Nazis to Mi Lai & No Gun Ri by the Americans.

Oh I agree, no denying there were horrific war crimes and massacres. But not genocide, not planned attempts to eliminate entire people and races as Germany and the Soviet Union tried.

BalcombeSt4

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I agree, no denying there were horrific war crimes and massacres. But not genocide, not planned attempts to eliminate entire people and races as Germany and the Soviet Union tried.

I agree with that.

I would say the reason you have similar kinds of massacres carried out by different armies in different places is not because one army is any more brutal than another but this is what you get when young men occupy places that are strange and hostile to them, its almost like a natural reaction. We've seen this on small scales in Ireland in Croke Park, the Bogside & Ballymurphy.