Who started both World Wars?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My Uncle harold called tanks 'targets'. A Rocket from a typhoon didn't even need a direct hit. A close miss could flip a panther onto it's lid.

The 5" rocket was hell on wheels. Same diameter warhead as we used on our destroyers.

 

[dafydd]

Maybe if you'd start posting something besides fiction?

We're just filling in time until 911Naziboy actually posts a fact,and I don't think that this ''new understanding'' will have one fact in it. He is getting rather tedious.

 

[dtugg]

It looks that I can come to a preliminary answer to the question entailed in the title of the thread. Tomorrow I will give a summary of the new understanding of WW1 and WW2.

Let me guess. It was da jooooos.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Let me guess. It was da jooooos.

I think tomorrow will be the first day of PseudoHistory 101.

 

[Belz...]

No, the real reason the Germans lost was hubris.

This.

I remember reading in a Nuremberg trial book about Hitler and his generals disbelieving the Americans' ability to mass produce war equipment. I can't for the life of me find the reference and the book itself is at my folks' home. Anyway, it seems the Nazis were in the business of overestimating themselves and underestimating their enemies.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This.

I remember reading in a Nuremberg trial book about Hitler and his generals disbelieving the Americans' ability to mass produce war equipment. I can't for the life of me find the reference and the book itself is at my folks' home. Anyway, it seems the Nazis were in the business of overestimating themselves and underestimating their enemies.

In both WWI and WWII the Germans chose to go with unrestricted submarine warfare based on the same assumption, that it would help insure victory before the Americans could get into the war.

 

[Belz...]

I think you are smart enough to deduce why these tanks were not designed for Russian winter. You can accuse the Germans of a lot of things, but not of stupidity.

The only thing that you have to do is jump over decades of brainwashing.

You know you don't actually have to disagree with everyone about everything, here.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You know you don't actually have to disagree with everyone about everything, here.

He doesn't have to, but he likes to, so he does.

 

[Belz...]

You support the hypothesis that Hitler invaded Russia by choice. In that context the invasion was an ill-prepared matter. A stupidity so-to-speak.

There is an alternative hypothesis

And you support THAT hypothesis because you don't WANT the germans to sound stupid ?

namely that the invasion was not a war by choice but forced upon Hitler, just like he was forced to invade Western Europe, after Britain started to prepare the invasion of Norway. This Icebreaker theory says that Stalin was on the verge of invading Europe. Therefore Hitler was forced to act with the means het had at his disposal, even if ill prepared.

So Hitler was forced to invade Russia because he thought Stalin would invade ? From where I come from we call that a choice.

 

[Belz...]

Your arguments are, as usual, devastating.

 

[Belz...]

Or the time spent on the Maus. Could use the bridges, couldn't cross the streams. Rather like Christopher Lee in those Hammer films.

That's an unfair comparison. Christopher Lee can do anything.

 

[Belz...]

The history of WW2 needs a total overhaul, everything was different then we were led to believe:

What an amazing coincidence: it was ALL a lie, down to the photographic evidence, the testimonies, and the physical evidence; and the real history of world war 2 coincides with your own personal worldview! Phew! You must be so relieved.

 

[Belz...]

I have selected following quotes from this review. Mind you, this review refers to books from the nineties. An updated version have been published ca. 10 years later, now with moresupport than before.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n4p30_Michaels.html

Gee, perhaps if you actually read the thing you could discuss it properly.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator
The history of WW2 needs a total overhaul, everything was different then we were led to believe:

please, define "everything".

 

[Corsair 115]

My Uncle harold called tanks 'targets'. A Rocket from a typhoon didn't even need a direct hit. A close miss could flip a panther onto it's lid.

Hmmm, I recall reading about how, in the aftermath of the Normandy campaign and the closing of the Falaise Gap, Allied investigators went in and looked for all the tanks claimed destroyed in tactical airstrikes. They found far less than expected. Indeed, it seemed the number of tanks definitively destroyed in aerial attacks was relatively small.

That is not to say Allied air supremacy wasn't important; it surely was, as it greatly hampered the ability of the Germans to move their forces by day and keep them supplied. But knocking out tanks may not have happened anywhere near as often as the pilots claimed. (Which, really, isn't any different than the number of enemy aircraft being shot down being constantly overestimated by aircrews, and the tonnage of Allied shipping sunk by U-boat commanders being overestimated.)

 

[aggle-rithm]

To prove that it was Stalin, and not Hitler, who was really prepared for war, Suvorov compares German and Soviet weaponry in mid-1941, especially with respect to the all-important offensive weapons systems -- tanks and airborne forces. It is a generally accepted axiom in military science that attacking forces should have a numerical superiority of three to one over the defenders. Yet, as Suvorov explains, when the Germans struck on the morning of June 22, 1941, they attacked with a total of 3,350 tanks, while the Soviet defenders had a total of 24,000 tanks -- that is, Stalin had seven times more tanks than Hitler, or 21 times more tanks than would have been considered sufficient for an adequate defense. Moreover, Suvorov stresses, the Soviet tanks were superior in all technical respects, including firepower, range, and armor plating.

Even more lopsided was the Soviet superiority in airborne forces.

The offensive-superiority axiom was temporarily rendered invalid by Germany's Blitzkrieg tactics. This had already been proven in the battle of France, in which the Allies had a substantial numeric superiority.

If Germany was able to take France as easily as it did, then there was no reason to believe that the Soviets, who had struggled with Finland, would be any more of a challenge.

Also...the confusion and hesitation on the part of the Soviets is well-documented. Stalin's catastrophic insistence that the attack wasn't really happening and that the forward troops therefore should not fight back...where did this come from? If Stalin was prepared to attack, why would he refuse to defend? What possible benefit would be derived from fabricating this story, which made the Russian leader look like a complete idiot?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Never been an armour guy, personally. I'm more of an aircraft and ship fan—and with aircraft carriers, I get both wrapped in one!

Same here. I probably should have chosen SeafireIII as my nick.

 

[9/11-investigator]

My Uncle harold called tanks 'targets'. A Rocket from a typhoon didn't even need a direct hit. A close miss could flip a panther onto it's lid.

That's why the face of the war has changed forever. Tanks, ships, all hardware from the past. A low IQ goat shepperd can eliminate a multi-million dollar tank by simply waiting for the moment that a tank comes along, pushes the button of his mobile phone, produces some excellent filet americain of the would-be imperialists, and goes back to his goats with a smile on his face.

The party who has the strongest beliefs/religious fervour wins, not some bunch of low-moral soldiers who have no clue why they fight. That is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan and was the case in Vietnam.

Ships are basically an asset of the enemy, completely outdated. We already saw during the Falklands war that those party with the most exocet missiles would have won. That was 30 years ago. Today missiles with mach-2/3 exist that can be launched from a 2000 miles distance. There is no defence against them. It will be a heart lifting sight when an American carrier will go belly up in the vicinity of the Gulf, when Iran will be attacked and America will shoot itself in the foot by giving Iran the excuse to simply shut off the Gulf by sinking one or two oil tankers, bringing the entire West to it's economic knees.

Again, the winning asset is belief/ideology/religion, not hardware. The 'backward' Taliban will always win from Americans who only believe in consumerism and consider war a video game (just walk through the last 2-3 pages in this thread before they will be cleared by a moderator, to understand the Anglo mind). Heck, even Somalians will beat Americans any time.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So Hitler was forced to invade Russia because he thought Stalin would invade ? From where I come from we call that a choice.

Again the example I used earlier. Weaker woman in parking garage is approached in straight line by big silent man of undefined color. He probably wants to rob her. As soon as he has her wrists in his grip she has lost. She has one means of defense, that is strike first by grabbing the pepper spray from her purse and use it (preventive war) before he can grab her wrists. Fine 'choice' she has!

Perfect analogy of the German-Russia/France/Britain situation in 1914, the German-Britain/France situation in 1940, the German-Russian situation in 1941.

 

[Baylor]

Again the example I used earlier. Weaker woman in parking garage is approached in straight by big silent man of undefined color. He probably wants to rob her. As soon as he has her wrists in his grip she has lost. She has one means of defense, that is strike first by grabbing the pepper spray from her purse and use it (preventive war) before he can grab her wrists. Fine 'choice' she has!

Perfect analogy of the German-Russia/France/Britain situation in 1914, the German-Britain/France situation in 1940, the German-Russian situation in 1941.

Stundie.