Would Hitler Have Succeded if... - Page 6

June 13th, 2004  
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Well you could see he is a mad man by his look and actions. He made a little civil war. And another thing, Hitler said all those things back on 24th February 1920 in Vienna about anti-semitism, Aryan supremacy, extreme nationalism, contempt for liberal democracy, and the principal of leadership..... What do you say on that? That it was too early or some other not very bright and very dubious reasons?
I'm not reacting to your comments anymore, you don't seem to know how to adress someone that doesn't completely agree with you.
June 13th, 2004  
O.K. , well you wanna quit it because you know you're wrong.
Well I brought up the facts, AND YOU are the one who doesn't wanna listen!
June 13th, 2004  
Chill out guys,this isn't "60 minutes"
June 13th, 2004  
Originally Posted by Gunner13
I must respectfully disagree with the above.

How much more effective would the Red Army have been if fully trained leaders were in control form the start of the war and if the Party and NKVD agents inside the Red Army had not disrupted the chain of command so completely Both of these were direct results of the purge of the Red Army's leadership. When the Germans lauched Operation Barbarossa, the commanders of many units were junior officers who had been recently promoted 2 and 3 grades almost overnight and were unready to command the larger formations they found themsleves in charge of. The Soviets were just beginning to rebuild the Red Army when the Axis attacked.

Moreover, even after Stalingrad, which was a tremendous defeat, the Wehrmacht still retained the strategic initiative and did not loose it until after the defeat at Kursk.
Fair enough, the Red Army would have been more effective had the Stalinist purges not taken place. But it still would not have affected their static positoning along the border and Stalin likely still would have ignored all the evidence being presented to him that Hitler was about to launch a pre-emptive strike. The Red Army's static positioning and the surprise element of attack were 2 main reasons why Barborossa was initially so successful, the other 2 being the destruction of most of the Soviet air force on the ground within the first 24 hours and of course Blitzkrieg itself.

I agree the Red Army might have reacted better but I still think the outcome of the first part of Barbarossa would have been the same. It's often forgotten that the Red Army fought incredibly bravely and put up stubborn resistance at many points that were simply bypassed by the Germans. This still would have happened even had the Red Army had better unit commanders and communication in place. Blitzkrieg was an entirely new concept that the Soviets did not really begin to grasp until later. When they did they learned it well, although still relying on massed numbers and sheer brute power than tactics, which they never truly matched the Germans at.

The reason why Stalingrad was such a turning point was because it repesented a loss of manpower and equipment that the Germans just could not afford. Hitler was well aware that the only way that Germany would beat the Soviet Union was to try and knock them out of the war before their superior manpower became decisive. It was still possible for Germany to sue for a stalemate before they launched Zitadelle but after losing yet more manpower and equipment that they could ill afford to lose it was basically just a matter of time before the Red Army drove into Berlin.

So the difference to me is that before Stalingrad Germany had a chance to win the war in 1942. Before Kursk they only had the chance to settle for a draw.

Keep it coming though. It's good to debate with someone who at least has some good knowledge about this era.

June 13th, 2004  
Im locking this down, and you guys should think about learning some discussion skills.
June 15th, 2004  
Mark Conley
Just putting this in its proper place sherman...then Im re-locking it

Hitler was never elected to anything in germany. read the following, and you'll understand why.

When the Nazis were elected the largest party in the Reichstag (July, 1932), Hindenburg offered Hitler a subordinate position in the cabinet. Hitler held out for the chief post and for sweeping powers. The chancellorship went instead to Kurt von Schleicher , who resigned on Jan. 28, 1933. Amid collapsing parliamentary government and pitched battles between Nazis and Communists, Hindenburg, on the urging of von Papen, called Hitler to be chancellor of a coalition cabinet, refusing him extraordinary powers. Supported by Alfred Hugenberg , Hitler took office on Jan. 30.

Germany's new ruler was a master of Machiavellian politics. Hitler feared plots, and firmly believed in his mission to achieve the supremacy of the so-called Aryan race, which he termed the ³master race.² Having legally come to power, he used brutality and subversion to carry out a ³creeping coup² to transform the state into his dictatorship. He blamed the Communists for a fire in the Reichstag on Feb. 27, and by fanning anti-Communist hysteria the Nazis and Nationalists won a bare majority of Reichstag seats in the elections of Mar. 5. After the Communists had been barred, and amid a display of storm trooper strength, the Reichstag voted to give Hitler dictatorial powers.

He came in by appointment: he seized power when it was given to him by the reichstag. The only time he ran for anything in Germany, such as the presidency, he was defeated.

thats the way it went. The democratic process, controlled by the vote of people, would have kept him out of power had there been one bone of integrity in the officials the people elected. It was the actions of a select few, far from a democratic process, that put him in the position of dictator:

And as far as the notion that he was the product of a democratic process i say nay: his power and rise was the byproduct of fear: Fear from elected officials of his power, and their appeasment attempts to placate him. Its sucks, but thats it. Democracy may have allowed him to survive and fluorish, with the attempts at freedoms from the republic that allowed him to spread his "truths" but it did not put him into power. PM me if you think im wrong.


go here if you want a concise history.