Would you have liked Hitler to win the war

humberklog

Dinter wrote: »

Funny how in both World Wars, parts of the British Government were ready to hand over Northern Ireland quick as a flash.

The British government can do what they want, that doesn't mean the Unionists would've went along. Surely our recent history has told us that much about unionism.

TomCo

Wait a sec, Hitler DIDNT win the war?

motherfunker

The question was "Would you have liked Hitler to win the war", I gave an answer and an explanation, I am sorry if I dont base all my views on what happened between 1939 and 1945. The underlying causes and politics of WW2 all stem from a long time before 1939, can ww2 be discussed properly without talking about the pre war years, they are what caused it after all.
Just becuase you dont agree with my views dont come up with crap reasons to say they are not valid on this forum.
Honestly, I dont spend much time thinking about if I would have liked Hitler to win the war, never even thought about it before this thread, not in much detail anyway. Who cares, it dident happen.
Time to get back to the real world people, somebody start a decent thread about something that actually happened in ww2.

Lockstep

Dinter wrote: »

Not necessarily.

The Irish army were to dump arms, i.e. bury them. That could allow them to carry out a long term resistance. They were then to break into flying columns and continue from there.

Actually this is probably not a bad idea for a thread rather than hijacking this one?

Ammunition, deaths, loss, desertion etc.


Burying arms can only last for so long. Hardly long term resistance.


This is dragging too much off topic. We'll all agree the British weren't the best for Ireland, however, this thread is about WWII. If anyone wishes to start a thread about the British Empire in WWII feel free, but this needs to get back on the topic at hand.

For serious.

Dinter

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ammunition, deaths, loss, desertion etc.

Garrison standard troops, troops stretched far too thin, logistical and strategic importance probably placed on more strategic / aggressive areas such as Eastern Europe/Middle East. Language problems. Usual jockeying between Wehrmacht and SS. Probable civil disobedience amongst Germans.

Definite possibility of internal revolution or coup d’etat will lead to troops widely dispersed and / or elite troops held in the Reich proper.

A desperate resistance fully prepared to carry out executions, arson and assorted crimes against traitors, informers, real or imagined to keep the “public” in line.

Probable secret governments Europe wide in hiding with good connections to other resistance movements.

A history of resistance movements purchasing weapons at their own behest. A la Peninsular War, war of Independence, civil war, any of the wars in Asia in sixties or seventies, etc.

The history of a population amongst which there has always been and always will be a section ready to carry out guerrilla warfare of some kind or another.

Release of POWs in due course.

The actual historical evidence that Hitler was unwilling to invade the Republic making this issue redundant.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Burying arms can only last for so long. Hardly long term resistance.

Ignore Iraq at the moment.
Ignore the Afghans against America.
Ignore the Afghans against Russia.
Ignore the Viet Minh against the French. Many of whom were armed with weapons gained from Japanese.
Ignore the Algerian National Liberation Front.
Ignore the Forest Brothers.
Ignore the Cursed Soldiers.
Ignore the Polish Home Army.
Ignore the Yugoslav partisans.
Have to ignore the Czechoslovakian population that carried on its resistance despite 15000 Czechs being murdered in retaliation for operation Anthropoid.

And many, many other examples.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

This is dragging too much off topic. We'll all agree the British weren't the best for Ireland, however, this thread is about WWII. If anyone wishes to start a thread about the British Empire in WWII feel free, but this needs to get back on the topic at hand.

In the context of whether or not I’d have “liked” Hitler (Germany) to win WWII it does beg the question of what Ireland would be like. I'm referring to the Irish ability to sustain a guerrilla campaign against a German occupation.

Obviously the only example of where something similar has occurred before is against the British and that is the only reason I mention them. For context, as is right and proper. If we cannot draw conclusions from past events then our threads are going to be severely limited. It’s like being asked to trace the rise of Hitler without being able to mention World War 1.

As I said before I don’t engage in jingoism and I’d prefer if my posts were debated on their validity rather than whether I’ve “oh my gosh” mentioned the British Empire in a completely appropriate context.

marcsignal

I have this movie on DVD, it's about exactly the possible scenario(s) of Hitler invading England, and tells the story of an Irish nurse who gets mixed up in the pro fascist puppet Government that was set up.

Well worth a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Happened_Here

available new on ebay

http://cgi.ebay.com/It-Happened-Here-New-DVD-BRAND-NEW_W0QQitemZ370052848755QQihZ024QQcategoryZ617QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Lockstep

Dinter wrote: »

Garrison standard troops, troops stretched far too thin, logistical and strategic importance probably placed on more strategic / aggressive areas such as Eastern Europe/Middle East. Language problems. Usual jockeying between Wehrmacht and SS. Probable civil disobedience amongst Germans.

Definite possibility of internal revolution or coup d’etat will lead to troops widely dispersed and / or elite troops held in the Reich proper.

A desperate resistance fully prepared to carry out executions, arson and assorted crimes against traitors, informers, real or imagined to keep the “public” in line.

Probable secret governments Europe wide in hiding with good connections to other resistance movements.

A history of resistance movements purchasing weapons at their own behest. A la Peninsular War, war of Independence, civil war, any of the wars in Asia in sixties or seventies, etc.

The history of a population amongst which there has always been and always will be a section ready to carry out guerrilla warfare of some kind or another.

Release of POWs in due course.

The actual historical evidence that Hitler was unwilling to invade the Republic making this issue redundant.

Eh? What does that have to do with the fact that buried equipment would eventually run out?

Dinter wrote: »

Ignore Iraq at the moment.
Ignore the Afghans against America.
Ignore the Afghans against Russia.
Ignore the Viet Minh against the French. Many of whom were armed with weapons gained from Japanese.
Ignore the Algerian National Liberation Front.
Ignore the Forest Brothers.
Ignore the Cursed Soldiers.
Ignore the Polish Home Army.
Ignore the Yugoslav partisans.
Have to ignore the Czechoslovakian population that carried on its resistance despite 15000 Czechs being murdered in retaliation for operation Anthropoid.

And many, many other examples.

I believe you'll find that in some of those cases (Afghans against soviets etc) they were being funded by a foreign power, going back to my point of groups like the French resistance relying on organisations like the SOE (Agents were parachuted over France carrying vast amounts of currency for example)

Others you mentioned such as the Polish home army manafactured their own weapons (such as the Błyskawica submachine gun)

The idea of guerrilas using buried arms for "long term resistance" is hardly a good analogy.

Dinter wrote: »

In the context of whether or not I’d have “liked” Hitler (Germany) to win WWII it does beg the question of what Ireland would be like. I'm referring to the Irish ability to sustain a guerrilla campaign against a German occupation.

Obviously the only example of where something similar has occurred before is against the British and that is the only reason I mention them. For context, as is right and proper. If we cannot draw conclusions from past events then our threads are going to be severely limited. It’s like being asked to trace the rise of Hitler without being able to mention World War 1.

As I said before I don’t engage in jingoism and I’d prefer if my posts were debated on their validity rather than whether I’ve “oh my gosh” mentioned the British Empire in a completely appropriate context.

Debating this is fine. However, you brought in British rule over the past few hundred years. That isn't. THis is the WWII forum.

Dinter, I understand your points here as regards to the British (members of my family fought in the war of Independance) but we need to get back to WWII.

motherfunker

kickoutthejams wrote: »

THe Irish were conquered by Cromwell in the 17th century and there were always opponents to him.

I think you'll find it was you who brought up ancient history first, yet you are quick to criticise others for doing as you did.

Lockstep

What is being discussed now is fine:how Irish resistance would go as regards to WWII.

Bringing up references to how the Irish would fare as shown in history is fine, it's better than merely saying statements.
Bringing in modern day Derry is not.


Dinter's last post was fine. Nothing off-topic about it. The thread has gone on to talk about how the Irish would fare under WWII. I was making the point that we need to be careful as regards to WWII turning into another discussion which could have happened on this thread. Luckily it didn't.

motherfunker

I think the title of this thread is "Would you have liked Hitler to win the war", has anybody actually answered this question in the last few pages? Why not start a thread about possible Irish resistance during world war 2, or even better why not forget all the "what if" crap and discuss stuff that actually happened in the war. I am sure there is a fantasy forum online somewhere, there is already a what if thread on this forum, dont drag the whole bloody thing down.

humberklog

motherfunker wrote: »

I think the title of this thread is "Would you have liked Hitler to win the war", has anybody actually answered this question in the last few pages? Why not start a thread about possible Irish resistance during world war 2, or even better why not forget all the "what if" crap and discuss stuff that actually happened in the war. I am sure there is a fantasy forum online somewhere, there is already a what if thread on this forum, dont drag the whole bloody thing down.

Surely to answer the OPs question with a simple yes or no wouldn't be very interesting (My answer is an emphatic NO). To give reasons as to your answer does lead to hypothesising the results that this would have in the future of world politik and therefore this country. It's not "what if crap", it's what makes it interesting for discussion (and informative).
If however, on the other hand, your answer was based on some sort of levelling of historical grievances then that does indeed put a whole different dynamic on the thread and would (and has) lead it to going way off topic.

Back to OT...German National Socialism under Hitler's spell would have been disastous for the whole of mankind. Humans a better free. Free to draw what they like, free to vote for a changes of government, free to sleep with whoever they love, free to practice their religion (personal or organised), free to make films and write books that question our society and free to challenge the beliefs held within it, free to choose a career and where to practice it. Free to choose to live.
Nazism was a potent force that even to this day their propoganda can still be heard echoing, even in our society (a neutral country), in present day. It may not be loud, it may not be blatant but there is still residual trace elements of this dark, destructive cancer that rose not only against its invented enemies but also its own people.


PS. There is a 'start new thread' button if you are interested in starting a thread about irish resistance. It's as simple as that.

motherfunker

So it was me who brought the discussion off topic becuase i gave a reason why I wouldent have minded if Germany had won the war, but everybody else who is now talking about a completely different subject is actually on topic.
If you want to discuss Irish resistance during WW2, then hit that "Start new thread" button.

humberklog

motherfunker wrote: »

So it was me who brought the discussion off topic becuase i gave a reason why I wouldent have minded if Germany had won the war, but everybody else who is now talking about a completely different subject is actually on topic.
If you want to discuss Irish resistance during WW2, then hit that "Start new thread" button.

Check your psot no.35. You never did pin your colours to the flag. You said that you'd have liked the Nazi's to beat Britain and something about a negotiated peace. That's not really saying you'd have liked hitler to win the war. Also in your post no.83 you say that, if kept in the context of '39-'45, then Hitler did deserve to lose the war. So..y'know...lotta ambiguity there. In fairnes mother that post no.35 starts with a way off topic 1st paragraph and from that you'd cast the dye. As has been said...to discuss wether one would have liked Hitler to win war is to lead into hypothesising the outcome and the results of that outcome and why you would either like that outcome or not. That's not off topic.

And,No I don't want to start a new thread regarding Irish resistance during WW2. As there was nothing to resist(we, sadly imo, weren't involved) and nor have I shared an interest in starting a post regarding an imagined Irish resistance movemant after WW2 as this thread is easily capable of accommodating such flights of fancy. Twice 94 and 101 you said about starting a thread. I was being helpful as you doing that not once but twice I thought maybe you thought it was a more complicated affair to start a thread.
I am curious as to how you'd perceive this country, europe and the world after a Hitler victory and in what respect that would make you happy in the present day. Surely this was also on the ops mind starting this thread.

Belfast

Would you have liked Hitler to win the war ? probably not

Stalin winning was not a good idea either.

Depends on how it would work out in practice, how much of the Soviet union get could control over in a peace deal with Stalin.
How much of the oil in the middle east could Rommel have conquered before the armistice.

In practice the Germans could not have invaded Britain or Ireland. It might forced Britain to withdraw from the war by blocking British shipping lanes with the type XXI U-Boat.

The American Atomic bomb would have been delay as they would not have captured large amounts of German U235.

Communism wanted to take over the world.

Nazis wanted to take over eastern Europe up to the Urals.

Either way there would be a cold war.

A Russian asked about the German invasion of Russia said that the Russian people had a choice between dictators.

They chose the one that spoke Russian.

Hitler or Stalin surviving the war or both ?

none of these are good out comes.

motherfunker

The reason I said to start a new thread about irish resistance was becuase people seemed to want to discuss that topic, I dident, I have no interest talking about something that dident happen. My point was that if they want to discuss it, start a thread about it, this thread is clearly called "Would you have liked Hitler to win the war". You will find that after post 94 I did start a new thread, based on actual WW2 events, and I dident even need your help.
You will also find that my original post contained a detailed reason for my wanting the Germans to win, this was far from a yes or no answer. Maybe I retracted a little by mentioning a negotiated peace but as you will see in one of my other posts I also said I dident spend much time thinking about if Hitler had won the war, I dont loose much sleep over it. I am very sorry if my posts contain some slight irregularities.
The reason for post 83, was becuase I was told to keep the reasons for my answers strictly between 1939 and 1945, but as I then said the reasons for my beliefs stem from a long time before 1939, it was also agreed by others that it was ridiculus to limit our considerations about ww2 to events between 1939 - 1945.
I dont even care that much what people write here, the reason I am a bit put out is becuase I gave my reasons, then was told my posts were off topic as my views were based pre 1939, yet the people who said this have continued to discuss even more off topic fantasy.

Lockstep

motherfunker wrote: »

I have no interest talking about something that dident happen.

motherfunker wrote: »

yet the people who said this have continued to discuss even more off topic fantasy.

"What if" questions are perfectly valid, when this forum was being set up this was one of the reasons put forward for a WWII forum: the discussion of hypothesis as to what could have happened.

If you dislike the fantasy questions then ignore them and stick only to the topics you consider serious.

motherfunker

Alright, I apologise for calling it "what if crap", it is up to each person what interests them, its not my cup of tea but to each their own. I preferr discussions about actual events, their causes and their repercussions, but as i said that is just my preference.
My main problem here is that seemingly just becuase I went against popular opinion and said I would like Germany to have won the war that any points I made after that I was told that they were just anti british off topic crap. I am as entitled to my opinion as the rest of the people on here, just becuase they are not the same as yours I should not be treated differently.

humberklog

Belfast wrote: »

Hitler or Stalin surviving the war or both ?

I think there's quite a difference here though Belfast. Stalin surviving the war, as he did, and for all his abysmal human failings and paranoid ravaged brain acted within a political manefesto that didn't originate from him. So on his death he didn't leave the USSR with a road map for further objectives as he foresaw mother russia's advancement into the future (or none that was taken notice of by the party after his death). The party could always revert back to marx and lenin etc.for their guidance.
Hitler on the other hand was the embodiment of the German National Socialist ideal with a very clear road map of the Aryan races place in society (top of the heap). Had Hitler died of natural causes, after some form of settled victory, his ideals would have been carried on, with fervour, within that region. Hitler's prophicysing, to the Aryan peoples (now in command of the regions gained) would be vindicated and Hitler's belief of the Will of the german nation would allow the people to continue Hitlers beliefs in Aryan purity within regions gained and without the excesses of war to take their eye off the ball.

Lockstep

Motherfunker PMd

If you have issues with the way you were treated please bring it to feedback or PM me, or one of the other moderators.

I might as well make the position clear here for future reference.

Dinter

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Eh? What does that have to do with the fact that buried equipment would eventually run out?

Buried arms gives you the opportunity to get more through ambush and raids.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

The idea of guerrilas using buried arms for "long term resistance" is hardly a good analogy.

You may remember that working Mausers thought to be from the Asgard were handed over during the IRA decommissioning.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I believe you'll find that in some of those cases (Afghans against soviets etc) they were being funded by a foreign power, going back to my point of groups like the French resistance relying on organisations like the SOE (Agents were parachuted over France carrying vast amounts of currency for example)

I believe you’ll find that in these cases the “boots on the ground” were natives. As regards supplying weaponry to the Afghans, for example, it was usually very technical stuff such as stingers etc. The vast majority of Russian conscripts killed in Afghanistan were shot by weapons that were in the possession of the Mujahideen before the Ruskies rolled in.

Who do you think is supplying the Taliban at the mo?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Others you mentioned such as the Polish home army manafactured their own weapons (such as the Błyskawica submachine gun)

Well necessity is the mother of all invention!!

And yet most of the pictures and documentary footage I’ve seen on the Warsaw uprising shows the Home Army running around with captured Kar 98s etc.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Debating this is fine. However, you brought in British rule over the past few hundred years. That isn't. THis is the WWII forum.

This is a World War Two forum within which a thread was posed asking “Would I have liked Hitler to win”. Sorry but to answer that you have to place yourself in a situation were Ireland was ruled from Berlin. Would we be living through a long-term resistance movement or would we have gone quietly into the night? Would we even consider ourselves Irish? To get even an idea of that you have to look to what happened before. Otherwise this thread would be just a collection of people saying yes or no.

I’m not complaining about the moderation or anything like that but I do think threads that can have no definite answer should be allowed a little leeway. Sure you can see that from my contributions to the “What If” thread.

Personally I'd consider what life would be like as the crux and indeed the whole point of this thread.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Dinter, I understand your points here as regards to the British (members of my family fought in the war of Independance) but we need to get back to WWII.

Actually you don’t. I’m not being funny but I’m not on here to throw insults around about what happened years ago. Some of my family served in the British Army during both World Wars as well as runners during the war of Independence.

Fair enough I may not like what the British Empire stood for or the actions it condoned or allowed but that has not coloured my perspective. To talk to me, I’m the quintessential “West Brit”. I don’t even like fiddles, banjos and nasally voices singing songs about peat. However I definitely don’t see why reference to the British Empire should lead to honest discussion should be stymied.

marcsignal

.

jakedixon2004

If the Irish government could achieve as much as Hitler Germany back in the 1940s i would strongly dissagree with the statement but with the state of Ireland's (and for that matter the world economy) i would like some EXTREME change and just look at what the German economic masterminds did for the German economy just after the Great Depression .For Gods sake its economy was the envy of the world

jmayo

jakedixon2004 wrote: »

If the Irish government could achieve as much as Hitler Germany back in the 1940s i would strongly dissagree with the statement but with the state of Ireland's (and for that matter the world economy) i would like some EXTREME change and just look at what the German economic masterminds did for the German economy just after the Great Depression .For Gods sake its economy was the envy of the world

Ahhh modern Ireland and the only thing that matters is the economy.
That's why we fought for so long to have our freedom to give it away, so we might have another foreign holiday and new BMW.

The only achievement that Hitler managed in the 1940s was to bring death and destruction to millions of people (including his own) all over Europe and to as far a feild as Australia, Asia and Africa. Yep very notable achievement indeed.

When you say "Extreme change" do you mean it's ok to pick on an ethnic, religous or other grouping, remove their freedoms, conviscate their assets and force them to work in labour camps just because the economy is going alright ?
If that is your measure of a society then I don't want to live in it.
Hell with that logic we could remove the mental health budget and the mentality disabled teaching budget with a stroke of Fuhrer Cowan's and Reich Marshall Matte Harney's pens.
What am I saying, afaik those budgets are already gone :rolleyes:

Their economy might have been envied, but the only ones that envied their country would probably have been members of the KKK.

Sod'o swords

Obviously not because of a fair few things.
I admire how Hitler brought germany to what it was, i also admire the German army and certain parts of the SS.
Obviously don't admire all the atrocities committed, but when i'm watching something battles, even though i know the outcome I'd still be up for the Germans.

ojewriej

Sod'o swords wrote: »

I admire how Hitler brought germany to what it was,

You admire how Hitler brought Germany to a complete colapse, how because of him it was occupied by 4 foreign powers, and how it was split in two fvor the next 45 years?

jakedixon2004

Well if Hitler had not taken control of the army then threre was a big chance that Germany could have won the war

ojewriej

1. But hi did.

2. There wasn't really. Wehrmacht wasn't prepared for anything much more than blitzkrieg.

the_syco

ojewriej wrote: »

You admire how Hitler brought Germany to a complete colapse, how because of him it was occupied by 4 foreign powers, and how it was split in two fvor the next 45 years?

He brought it from nothing to something. WW1 f**ked it over more than WW2 did, IMO.

ojewriej

the_syco wrote: »

He brought it from nothing to something.

He brought it to what exactly?

Sod'o swords

ojewriej wrote: »

You admire how Hitler brought Germany to a complete colapse, how because of him it was occupied by 4 foreign powers, and how it was split in two fvor the next 45 years?

Well the small amount of time before that bit...
what i mean was bringing it from post ww1 germany to germany in the height of it's power, doesn't mean i admire what he did with it.