Hitler's plans for Africa?

[phylo_roadking]

I also stated that the NATO nations (for your information NATO was formed in 1949) halted and checked the spread of Communism across Western Europe in the latter half of the 20th century.

Yes, thats what I was originally questioning too - for that is even more wrong!

Quote:
subsequently defeated them in the Cold War were inconsequential I presume.

Unless I have missed something in my youth, we i.e. NATO didn't fight a war with the Soviets, did we??? I think you'll need to dig VERY far until you find out what really won the Cold War, Andre...and I doubt if Paddy knows this one either! Actually, the NATO forces on the ground in the air and at sea were quite inconsequential in the end to the "defeat" of the Soviet Union in the Cold war. But its been alluded to elsewhere, you should be able to find it....

...and this is where I questioned it LOL

You really should go back up all the posts you've written each time you start to type, Andre. I've questioned BOTH your contentions, for they are BOTH wrong.

The Western Allies 1945-49 did not "contain" the Soviets...in fact they were forced to acknowledge Stalin's de facto occupation of Estern Europe and tearing-up of previous agreements on the post-war shape of Europe. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of 1949 and after (with and without France) did not "contain" or defeat the Soviets in any way - even in dictionary terms it was a purely defensive alliance. But it hadn't the strength to defeat or contain anyone on the ground, at sea, or in the air

The eventual "defeat" of not only the Warsaw Pact war machine, the Soviet post-war pattern for the future of Europe, and the collapse of the Soviet regime and subsequently the Communist Party in the former USSR was NOT due to NATO in any way, it was due to the efforts of ONE member of NATO, but not as part of NATO.

(hmm, there's even another clue in there)

[pzrmeyer2]

In Belarus alone over 300,000 thousand people joined the resistance to try and defeat the Nazi occupiers. This is many times the number that signed up for the German Armed Forces as a whole let alone the SS.

we are not talking about the Soviet Union here, we are talking about western Europe and the Baltics. Saying Belarus contributed more to the resistance is like saying Bavaria contributed more to Germany.

If my memory serves me correctly approximately 20,000 French joined the Waffen-SS. I am sure even you would admit the number of resistance fighters massively outweighed this figure. (Although I would agree the resistance figures are often inflated they certainly exceeded the SS recruitment).

And I would dispute that the French resistance "massively outweighed" French collaborators. Again, postwar opportunism made everyone a heroic resistance fighter.

[pzrmeyer2]

Your despair at the state of Western democracies in 2007, may well have some sound foundation, but the alternative under Nazism or Communism would have been incalculably worse. Do you not agree?

worse for whom?

[Cott Tiger]

Your despair at the state of Western democracies in 2007, may well have some sound foundation, but the alternative under Nazism or Communism would have been incalculably worse. Do you not agree?

worse for whom?

Hi PM2,

I was thinking primarily of Western Europe but obviosuly the impact and consequences are global.

Regards,

Andre

[Cott Tiger]

Thought you’d like that one Phylo.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I do not believe the containment and eventual collapse of the Soviet Union could have been facilitated without a strong NATO military presence throughout the later half of the last century. Hence, I believe the NATO alliance and its military capabilities (both conventional and nuclear) were pivotal factors. You obviously disagree.

I do not believe the SS saved Europe form Communism. You obviously disagree.

Regards,

Andre

[phylo_roadking]

I do not believe the SS saved Europe form Communism. You obviously disagree

Pardon me? I never mentioned the SS at all! Believe me - NEITHER of the two guys in the picture were in the SS!!! LMAO! In fact, at one time one was a US Marine officer! But most assuredly NOT when he helped win the Cold War!

And I don't think the other OAP could have matched the SS's racial purity provisions.

They have a MUCH more fun life and career than ever lifting a gun or a weapon! SOME things are mightier....

I believe the NATO alliance and its military capabilities (both conventional and nuclear) were pivotal factors.

Slightly closer, but definitely not in the way you mean....

[Paddy Keating]

Hi Paddy,

Crikey, I think you many have eaten too many chocolates over the long weekend and are feeling a bit down.

The influx of Russian and Eastern European workers into the West today is hardly a victory for Communism, which is what we were discussing.

I think I stated that we lost...which is not the same thing as stating that communism won. I didn't eat any chocolate over Easter.

Your original contention that the Wehrmacht and the SS saved Europe form Communism doesn’t hold up. It was the NATO nations that actually checked and halted the Communist drive Westwards (and eventually facilitated its downfall). Hitler and his heroic Wehrmacht and SS failed.

They failed in their eastern enterprises because they were distracted by a war in the West which they neither started nor wanted. The voluntary engagement in Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS units of tens of thousands of young, quite unpolitical albeit anti-red men from the various regions of North-Western Europe vindicates not just the view that we should have been fighting Stalin alongside the Germans and their allies but also the view amongst many senior people on the Allied side, summarised by George Patton's opinions, that we should not have stopped on the Elbe.

Had we joined with Hitler in 1939 or 1940 instead of engineering a war with his regime, we could have smashed Soviet Russia and introduced the natives to something other than the dystopian nightmare that was life under Tsars and then the Reds. We would have been able to discourage the Nazis' racist excesses and errors and would probably have been able to engineer the replacement of an increasingly unstable Hitler by a safer pair of hands.

Your despair at the state of Western democracies in 2007, may well have some sound foundation, but the alternative under Nazism or Communism would have been incalculably worse. Do you not agree?

I agree in the case of communism. It worked well enough in terms of keeping all sorts of people under control but life under such a system for more developed people would have been nightmarish. Nazism offered the masses something more positive than watered down potato soup and dreary surroundings. Unfortunately, the National Socialist revolution was betrayed by Hitler and his cronies quite early on and hadn't much to do with the founders' original vision by the time war broke out. Italian fascism worked very well, on the other hand, as did Franco's more conservative brand of fascism, bringing stability to countries sorely in need of it. Can you imagine Italy having the same government for twenty months let alone years nowadays?

PS: Please clarify what exactly you mean as “barbarian” and whom it refers to.

No.

PK

[pzrmeyer2]

Your despair at the state of Western democracies in 2007, may well have some sound foundation, but the alternative under Nazism or Communism would have been incalculably worse. Do you not agree?

worse for whom?

Hi PM2,

I was thinking primarily of Western Europe but obviosuly the impact and consequences are global.

Regards,

Andre

worse for who in Western Europe? and why?

and how compared with the present?

[Paddy Keating]

Actually, on second thoughts, let me have a bash as defining "barbarian" for you, in the context in which I mean it. It means anyone who cannot or will not embrace the cultural and societal ideals of the indigenous population of North-Western Europe.

I do not define it on the basis of ethnicity. Western Civilisation works. It is not perfect by any means but it is better than anything anyone else has to offer - with the exception of the Tibetans and Nepalese systems - and I am not alone in deeply objecting to efforts by incomers to subvert and overwrite our civilisation, with the help of traitors from our tribes.

Of course, I accept that we in the EU are governed by a collection of power-crazed, venal swine for whom the genuine improvement of the people's lot is not a priority. They cannot even make things better for us so how can we expect them to put in place initiatives and strategies aimed at making things better for incomers by encouraging them to become Westerners first and foremost?

If I had to hold some people up as a beacon of how human beings should be and how they can live together peacefully if they put their minds to it, I would point to the non-country of Kurdistan or, to be precise, that part of it that falls within Iraqi borders. The only people with anything to fear there are Islamic extremists and terrorists. In the Kurdish region, there is religious and ethnic tolerance. Why? Because people there are Kurdish first and foremost and anyone who rejects this is invited to leave or killed.

If Europe is to stand any chance of survival as part of the civilised world, we need to ensure that political change happens and that people are united by strong but libertarian leadership. If we could persuade the so-called "extreme right" movements to evolve away from the pointless racism of the past and towards standing up in a real way against the European Union mandarins and domestic governments that do their bidding, that would be a start.

PK

[sid guttridge]

Hi Guys,

Nazism introduced Communism to a large part of Central Europe by virtue of its self-induced failure. The western allies and NATO stopped it getting any further west.

Whatever the original intention or the current spin, the Waffen-SS did not act as an anti-Communist combat spearhead. A look at its casualty returns shows that it was actually used more heavily on the Western Front at least until the end of 1944 than the German Army was, and LESS heavily on the Eastern Front than the German Army was. (We only can't be sure of 1945 because German casualties for both fronts were combined).

Yup. That's right. In effect the Waffen-SS was the laggard in the crusade against Communism. It only led the charge against the Western Allies!

All this has been laid out before on Feldgrau before and confirmation can be found in Overmans' book on German casualties.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Paddy Keating]

To say that the Germans were responsible for the westwards expansion of communism is a tad disingenuous. Stalin and his henchmen were bent on expanding their "sphere of influence" and imposing their brand of communist totalitarianism on their European neighbours, to say nothing of the world. Nazi Germany was the sole Western country with the spunk to stand up to the Bolshevik thugs and to try to take Stalin's war back to his own front yard. Nobody else was prepared to stand up to the Bolshies. The Germans did what had to be done sooner or later. They attacked the Bolshies. They were defeated because of the drain on their resources as a result of the war engineered by Britain and France, using the invasion of Poland as a pretext. Had Hitler been left to deal with Stalin, the Wehrmacht would have been in the Kremlin quaffing Champagne in September or October 1941. The British Empire could easily have come to terms with the Reich and the United States could have remained isolationist. The world might be a better place today had this scenario played out. However, the ruling class in Europe had already lost control of the game in terms of who was really in control of events.

PK

[sid guttridge]

Hi Paddy,

It might well have become Stalin's War in other circumstances, but in fact it was Hitler's War.

Nazism didn't begin by attacking Communism. It attacked Poland, which, far from being Communist, was the main glacis against the USSR. Before that it had extinguished an Austrian Nationalist regime that had suppressed its own Communists in fighting in February 1934.

What is more, regardless of the political complexion of the USSR, Nazism had racial and lebensraum motivations for attacking any and all Slav lands to the East.

The world a better place today if Hitler had won? Hardly!

The real result was the best one could reasonably hope for. The two main totalitarian dictatorships exhausted themselves at comparitively little cost in blood to the Liberal Democracies. One collapsed in 1945 and the other in 1990.

Hooray!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Paddy Keating]

I don't think I said that the world would have been a better place had Hitler won! I suggested that a British alliance or treaty with Hitler might have avoided global conflict, Bolshevik domination of much of Europe for almost half a century and consolidated American isolationism, resulting in a better situation than that in which we find ourselves today.

Nuances, Sid, nuances...

PK

[pzrmeyer2]

[quote="sid guttridge"]
The world a better place today if Hitler had won? Hardly!

The real result was the best one could reasonably hope for. The two main totalitarian dictatorships exhausted themselves at comparitively little cost in blood to the Liberal Democracies. One collapsed in 1945 and the other in 1990.

Hooray!
quote]

why was this the best result? and for whom? how was the UK better off for declaring war against Germany and "winning" it?
as I stated in an earlier post: you know, sometimes when I think unconventionally about the millions of lives wasted on drugs and decadent and countercultural lifestyles, the millions more victims of minority crimes, the loss of culture and heritage from the multiculti types, the billions paid out to support and excuse illegal immigrants who steal and usurp, and those who fall victim to the schemes ans scams of predatory capitalists, I'm not so sure that it is the best place it could have been for western civilization.

A western world with cultural institutions and the social contract preserved and one without predatory capitalism, Bolshevism, unrestricted Terd World immigration, high crime, and ghetto "culture" sounds better to me than the current mess.

[Rajin Cajun]

Strong Military Presence? You f*ckin kidding me? We had M60 Pattons against goddamn T-72s! If the Russkies had wanted to they could have rolled all the way to Portugal without meeting real resistance! If you think M60 Pattons could have stopped a modern tank like the T-72 your insane I've listened to tankers who were stationed in Germany who thanked God everyday the Soviets didn't roll across the border!

The only thing that kept the Russkies on their side of the fence was the US Nuclear Threat. If you think for one second the Russkies didn't think they couldn't roll over the Western States your wrong. The Red Army knew they could beat us but they also knew they wouldn't be let off the leash unless the USSR launched a pre-emptive Nuclear Strike in conjunction with Operations.

This isn't even touching on Soviet Air Superiority or their advantage in Attack Helos. If there is one thing we should have learned from Korea is the Soviets can fly...third world Koreans can't!