130 replies · 2,378 views
EdelBrock wrote: [Hitler] and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...
The problem with every European leader who was the most powerful of his time is that they wanted to rule London and Moscow. And as soon as they rushed forward Russia, it was the beginning of the end for them... whatever political régime is in Moscow.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Jiphy wrote:
NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.
Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.
Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?
I think from memory, devaluing the mark was the masterstroke. Renaming it the deutschmark etc at 10x. Thankfully, subsequent world economic law will never let that happen again.
As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.
It wasn't devalued, quite the opposite and it was the Reichsmark well that really already happened in the Weimar Republic when the Rentenmark was introduced. The whole NAZI system of public works re-armament etc was built on debt, that had to be repaid sooner rather than later.
NOOLigan wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Jiphy wrote:
NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.
Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.
Make the others starve to keep the system going despite the costs of war. I agree on that point. In fact, this is what he did. I remembered some figures... 30% of his husband's salary given to a British woman, when he was on the front. In Germany, it was 80%. So, where the money was coming from ?
I think from memory, devaluing the mark was the masterstroke. Renaming it the deutschmark etc at 10x. Thankfully, subsequent world economic law will never let that happen again.
As Mr Taylor said, if Germany had stopped in 1938, it would be a different more Germanic world today, one suspects.
It wasn't devalued, quite the opposite and it was the Reichsmark well that really already happened in the Weimar Republic when the Rentenmark was introduced. The whole NAZI system of public works re-armament etc was built on debt, that had to be repaid sooner rather than later.
ok ya fecker.. its difficult to devalue something 10x. You know what i meant. 
Burt Reynolds wrote: Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.
Surprised to hear this from an Anglo-saxon. You are completly right. Without Stalin and even with the help of America, Britain's future would have been incertain. And also thanks Goering. I always wonder why he gave up bombing British airfields to bomb civilians. Doing so, he let the RAF take superiority and lost many skilled pilots. Back to USSR, we can say that they made it. If you read newspapers by 1945, war was mainly won thanks to the Soviet Union. In the last surveys (two/three years ago), war was won by Americans. History is rewritten.
Here's another little known snippet. Those ever so neutral swiss were very happy to just move the gold supplies from whichever country had just been overrun by the Germans into the German bank vault most central banks held some if not all of their gold stock in Switzerland. Often the gold did not even have to leave the actual bank building.
Just think how much longer that loot kept the war going.
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.
Surprised to hear this from an Anglo-saxon. You are completly right. Without Stalin and even with the help of America, Britain's future would have been incertain. And also thanks Goering. I always wonder why he gave up bombing British airfields to bomb civilians. Doing so, he let the RAF take superiority and lost many skilled pilots. Back to USSR, we can say that they made it. If you read newspapers by 1945, war was mainly won thanks to the Soviet Union. In the last surveys (two/three years ago), war was won by Americans. History is rewritten.
I think the only reason Americans get this 'prestige' is because we were a wild card for half of the European part of the war. Stalin was as well (as he was an opportunist in chosing sides), but he didn't do much outside of Russia. If Hitler's cabinet had not lied to him and not let the army die in the Russian snow, Stalin may not have played such a large part in Nazi defeat. The Americans did help get the other countries out of occupation, allowing them to recover and fight back.
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.
Surprised to hear this from an Anglo-saxon. You are completly right. Without Stalin and even with the help of America, Britain's future would have been incertain. And also thanks Goering. I always wonder why he gave up bombing British airfields to bomb civilians. Doing so, he let the RAF take superiority and lost many skilled pilots. Back to USSR, we can say that they made it. If you read newspapers by 1945, war was mainly won thanks to the Soviet Union. In the last surveys (two/three years ago), war was won by Americans. History is rewritten.
I've always been taught that Russia did the most damage. But then they lost more than all of us put together. I was taught all this in a Cold War pro-US climate too, so it must be true.
On a basic media level, if you watch Downfall, (a monumental film, made by Germans, with a hell of a lot of pain and accuracy), the film says more or less the same thing. Tom Hanks eat your heart out.
EdelBrock wrote: I think the only reason Americans get this 'prestige' is because we were a wild card for half of the European part of the war. Stalin was as well (as he was an opportunist in chosing sides), but he didn't do much outside of Russia. If Hitler's cabinet had not lied to him and not let the army die in the Russian snow, Stalin may not have played such a large part in Nazi defeat. The Americans did help get the other countries out of occupation, allowing them to recover and fight back.
Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.
Burt Reynolds wrote: I've always been taught that Russia did the most damage. But then they lost more than all of us put together. I was taught all this in a Cold War pro-US climate too, so it must be true.
On a basic media level, if you watch Downfall, (a monumental film, made by Germans, with a hell of a lot of pain and accuracy), the film says more or less the same thing. Tom Hanks eat your heart out.
Some chapters of history are the same in English and French books ? And we were taught this in "a Cold War pro-US climate too", so you are right, it must be true.
I have also seen that film. German made, surely closer to the truth than a Hollywood film.
De Gaulle turned Churchill crazy many times. As France could not supply USSR as the British did via Murmansk, he sent pilots there, some serving already in the RAF. All witnessed that war in the East had nothing to do with the one in the West, even from an airplane. In Russian cold, snow, mud, a lot of them missed England and its rain, the local pub by the airfield and - quite weird for a Frenchman, the British gastronomy.
Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.
If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...
No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.
If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...
No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.
Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.
If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...
No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.
Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.
Don't ferget we were fighting on both fronts, as it was only the US that fought the other Axis across the globe, upkeeping the embargo placed on Japan by all the Allies.
Britian was hanging on by a thread, France was taken over and Russia only wanted to be in the winner's circle. Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis, which would have also spelled our doom as then Japan could have gotten its oil through Russia/China. Russia may have been a keyplayer, but the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.
Burt Reynolds wrote: I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.
This thread is hilarious.
EdelBrock wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Aye.. not knocking the US involvement at all. They lost as many troops as we did nearly, and in half the time. I dont think UK was ever particularly close to invasion, but US injection deffo helped out France quickly, and made it impossible for Germany to fight on two fronts. Russia was the constant bugger though, throwing millions of kids after millions into the battlefield, and above all, into the winter. Just think the Russian involvement has been underplayed in the subsequent Cold War stand-off. I truly believe, that even though he was as bigger a cnut as Adolf, Stalin won it far more than Churchill or Eisenhower.
If I only coud say these words quicker than you think them...
No doubt about US involment. The plus was that they were out of range of any bombings, with an industry set on "full ahead" and not completly devoted to war. A lot of French people died in bombings... the most deadly being the American ones. But they gave us chocolate bars after their bombs... in the East, with the Soviets, it was nichivo.
Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.
Don't ferget we were fighting on both fronts, as it was only the US that fought the other Axis across the globe, upkeeping the embargo placed on Japan by all the Allies.
Britian was hanging on by a thread, France was taken over and Russia only wanted to be in the winner's circle. Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis, which would have also spelled our doom as then Japan could have gotten its oil through Russia/China. Russia may have been a keyplayer, but the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.
As I said, not knocking US contribution at all. Just think that in those 'not so distant' days, wars were more about numbers on the ground, rather than obvious later ideas such as 'intelligence' and 'diplomacy'.
I am under no illusions at all as to what actually won it; a contribution of many factors did it, but for me the final factors that pushed it over the edge were firstly the absolutely doggedness of Mr Stalin, painful though it is to acknowledge, and secondly the US re-igniting a push from the other end.
Just always interested as to how Hollywood and US history books portray it. Hell ... as a Brit, our basic history books say WE won it on our own, with a bit of help, but if you dig a little deeper....
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: I dunno. They made Hitler angry. Arguably wound up. Perhaps he would have channelled his anger elsewhere, rather than trying to create a master race.
This thread is hilarious.
Yeah. I posted that with a little ironic chuckle. Five hours later, not so sure.
EdelBrock wrote:
Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis... the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.
Joining the discussion... I reckon this passage is a sheer speculation. I don't know if Stalin felt betrayed either by Hitler or by his own narrowmindedness, but I find it hard to imagine how after such a shocking German raid and destruction, Stalin would have dared to sign a separate peace: after June 22 1941 he would never trust any party of the Axis anyway. Not to mention the awakened mass of millions who fought and who lost almost everything.
I mean, there was no way back whatsoever. Signing a secret treaty with Hitler wouldn't secure anything, especially when such a treaty was indeed signed not long time before the war and was broken by Hitler. Thus there was only one possible way - to completely destroy the enemy (i.e. storm back up to Berlin).
As for the USA, Stalin actually did beg the USA to start a war against Germany as soon as possible and it was the States that hesitated.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
...I don't think so. Perhaps all that Special Brew is affecting your reading...
Then later..
Burt Reynolds wrote: ...AJP was an economic historian.
1st off I've not drank alcohol for years I don't use substances that cloud the brain; only ones that open the mind. 
2nd I know damn fine who AJP Talyor was! Many history books do you own mate? At at rough estimate, I own about 100-200 and that's just those in the house at present. I've spent more money on history books than is feasible, and must've read thousands.
When the idiot lay preacher that taught me both English & (O) History told me I'd fail the test I passed with the highest possible grade. The H tutor told me that I wasn't taking a degree, my degree tutor told me that I wasn't doing a post-doc...
As for Auld AJP admiring Adolf...
As he called himself a socialist all of his life He'd probably be as offended by the idea as I am.
But then I'm still utterly disgusted by that murdering bastard Crassus lining the Via Appia with the crucified bodies of six thousand slaves. And history remembers only one.
(And that was by no means the only time the bastards used mass crucifixion.)
But then you've probably been told that Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, or even Xerxes or Darius if you know who they are, or Richard The Lionheart (or some other dickhead of an English King: "Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled, Scots, wham Bruce has aften led"), or maybe you even admired Lenin or Uncle Joe.
The "Great Man" theory of history went out of fashion a longtime ago, along with other theories like the "sunspot" theroy of history. As for men like the above: Murdering savage ruthless utter utter bastards the lot of them,and the leaders around today are no better.
PS Don't know how long this thread's went since I last read it, anyway I'm outta here like a fart through the forrset...
BYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis... the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.
Joining the discussion... I reckon this passage is a sheer speculation. I don't know if Stalin felt betrayed either by Hitler or by his own narrowmindedness, but I find it hard to imagine how after such a shocking German raid and destruction, Stalin would have dared to sign a separate peace: after June 22 1941 he would never trust any party of the Axis anyway. Not to mention the awakened mass of millions who fought and who lost almost everything.
Stalin actually did request the USA to start a war against Germany and it was the States that hesitated.
Yup. Agree again. Stalin wasnt going to change sides. In the end Germany invaded them. Made joining sides easy.
NOOLigan wrote: I always thought that Hitler's economic policies consisted of ignoring the actual economics. War was the inevitable outcome to keep the system going, with conquered loot of course.
Hum this sounds vaguely familiar.
Sorry. Back after saying I was away.
Thank You Ron. 
Obviously a man who knows his history.
I'm deffo on that next plane.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Without US involvement, Russia would have signed a treaty with the Axis... the US convinced Russia to 'join' the Allies.
Joining the discussion... I reckon this passage is a sheer speculation. I don't know if Stalin felt betrayed either by Hitler or by his own narrowmindedness, but I find it hard to imagine how after such a shocking German raid and destruction, Stalin would have dared to sign a separate peace: after June 22 1941 he would never trust any party of the Axis anyway. Not to mention the awakened mass of millions who fought and who lost almost everything.
Stalin actually did request the USA to start a war against Germany and it was the States that hesitated.
Yup. Agree again. Stalin wasnt going to change sides. In the end Germany invaded them. Made joining sides easy.
Stalin wasn't on the US's side... you have to remember Japan and Germany were linked to each other, and both knew their fates were linked together. Japan had a treaty almost signed by Stalin around Japan's collapse... Germany was also pushing for this as Hitler was tired of fighting on both sides... the only reason Stalin signed with us was because he wanted ALL of China and Japan was only going to give them half the amount, where we offered the whole damn pie. Stalin almost changed 'sides', though he never chose an actual side until the end of the war. He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....
MIMX wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
...I don't think so. Perhaps all that Special Brew is affecting your reading...
Then later..
Burt Reynolds wrote: ...AJP was an economic historian.
1st off I've not drank alcohol for years I don't use substances that cloud the brain; only ones that open the mind.
2nd I know damn fine who AJP Talyor was! Many history books do you own mate? At at rough estimate, I own about 100-200 and that's just those in the house at present. I've spent more money on history books than is feasible, and must've read thousands.
When the idiot lay preacher that taught me both English & (O) History told me I'd fail the test I passed with the highest possible grade. The H tutor told me that I wasn't taking a degree, my degree tutor told me that I wasn't doing a post-doc...
As for Auld AJP admiring Adolf...
As he called himself a socialist all of his life He'd probably be as offended by the idea as I am.
But then I'm still utterly disgusted by that murdering bastard Crassus lining the Via Appia with the crucified bodies of six thousand slaves. And history remembers only one.
(And that was by no means the only time the bastards used mass crucifixion.)
But then you've probably been told that Julius Caesar, or Alexander the Great, or even Xerxes or Darius if you know who they are, or Richard The Lionheart (or some other dickhead of an English King: "Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled, Scots, wham Bruce has aften led"), or maybe you even admired Lenin or Uncle Joe.
The "Great Man" theory of history went out of fashion a longtime ago, along with other theories like the "sunspot" theroy of history. As for men like the above: Murdering savage ruthless utter utter bastards the lot of them,and the leaders around today are no better.
PS Don't know how long this thread's went since I last read it, anyway I'm outta here like a fart through the forrset...
BYeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
LOL. I dunno what this is all about, but you might as well go back to the days of Special Brew, MATE.
Have a re-read. There's agreement in the camp.
As for AJP. confine an economic lecturer to a period, and ask his opinion, you get a refined and honest answer. I think I said he shocked me with his opinions. IN FACT, I took off the little moustache and stopped goose-stepping around. Even in my local, I stopped describing the local chavs as 'untermenschen', and saw past the idea of chicks with blonde hair and blue eyes.
El Jarvo wrote: Smokers are to blame, shirley?
It's one thing heating up the inside of a boozer for warmth but sticking up heaters outside of pubs now is just plain crazy. Heating up the outdoors, whatever next?!
Very true, but they were there before the smoking ban...
Myself? I just wear a fleece/warm coat when I light up outside! :)
Burt Reynolds wrote: Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.
Another sad statistic is that France had more casualties than UK and US and that some of the civilians killed from 1939 to 1944 were missing to welcome you and be brothers in arms in a regular army. And I do not know whether someone from the Résistance is to be counted as civilian or military casualty. But as far as I remember, they gave a great help while UK/US pilots were trying to go back to England or to cut Nazi supply chains and communications from opération Overlord. These people were tortured as terrorists, if lucky shot at home, if not, sent to the camps. There is something you miss I think, that is that you have not been a devastated occupied and spoilt country for four years.
On another hand, I do not know if the ones who commited with nazis are in the statistics.
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Unfortunately, these are the casualties of war. One thing that is always a sad statistic is that the UK and the US lost more troops than the French did on French soil, fighting the Nazi hun. C'est la vie.
Another sad statistic is that France had more casualties than UK and US and that some of the civilians killed from 1939 to 1944 were missing to welcome you and be brothers in arms in a regular army. And I do not know whether someone from the Résistance is to be counted as civilian or military casualty. But as far as I remember, they gave a great help while UK/US pilots were trying to go back to England or to cut Nazi supply chains and communications from opération Overlord. These people were tortured as terrorists, if lucky shot at home, if not, sent to the camps. There is something you miss I think, that is that you have not been a devastated occupied and spoilt country for four years.
On another hand, I do not know if the ones who commited with nazis are in the statistics.
LOL.. its been covered before Gentleman Jiphy, but as you know De Gaulle was exiled to the big fuck-off house at the end my road, and was constantly whining in a big annoying French accent in my local pub, about his ration allowance, even though it was double what normal Brits got.
Burt Reynolds wrote: LOL.. its been covered before Gentleman Jiphy, but as you know De Gaulle was exiled to the big fuck-off house at the end my road, and was constantly whining in a big annoying French accent in my local pub, about his ration allowance, even though it was double what normal Brits got.
The général was only 1cm smaller than me and a double ration is a minimum for people like us...
A last fag to contribute to the global warming, let's go back to the subject (and I am no Jew by the way) and bedtime. It is 4 and a half here...
EdelBrock wrote:
As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...
Thank you John this is without doubt the stupidest thing I've heard since 1990 (Fuck 17 years no bad going.)
Go and find out about Rosa Luxembourg Karl Liebknecht the Freikorps, and the Nazi's fight against the German communists, you deeply silly man!
(And when the pact between the Soviets/Nazi's was signed both parties knew it would be broken!)
EdelBrock wrote: He just kept jumping on the bandwagon of the winning side, or who could offer him more....
I think it's hard to lead a war if you keep jumping on the bandwagon... Plus there's a contradiction: the winning side was actually Stalin's army (after the turning point in 1943), he couldn't choose here. While Romania and Italy were indeed on the bandwagon and closer to the end denounced their ties with Berlin.
I don't know about Japan. They didn't attack the USSR, so technically there was no reason to start a war with them (although the military potential of Japan was a threat to the USSR, no doubt). But, as far as I remember, Stalin agreed to start a war against Japan 3 months after the victory over Germany, as part of the deal he had with the States in Yalta in 1944.
WTF, indeed. If ya'll want to talk about WW2, start a separate thread on that. Everything's way off topic. :)
Burt Reynolds wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
As for Hitler "hating" the Reds more than the Jews (noted by MIMX), that just silly. He and Japan were vying strongly to get Russia (Stalin) part of the Axis... this main failure led to the destruction of both Nazis and Imperial Japan...
Totally agree. Possibly totally off topic, but it was Stalin and his country's steadfast opposition to Hitler that led to Germany's destruction. Far more than either US or UK's contribution.
Might have known you'd agree with that but...
Least we agree on something Burt it was without doubt The Red Army and their tanks that saved us.
