Topic: 60 Years of Victory

[Scars]

any word on the irgun?

As far as I know, Irgun never tried to make contact with Nazi Germany or gain any sort of support from them. The Stern Gang though, most definately did.

[Captain Leonidas]

the colapse of the colonials , you might think was a good thing , but it aint.

It is a great event actually. A new beginning which is, while not perfect, opens a chance for other ideologies to compete.

look at the continent of africa which is full of warlords , civil wars and famine , its just dandy that the colonials left the place to deteriorate into chaos.

And under the colonial powers, the colonial powers fight and bicker among themselves too. Examples would be Vietnam (Tonkin war in 19th century not Vietnam war. British Burma vs French Indochina) or maybe how Leopold II administer his colonies. I hope you are not as simplistic or as idealistic to say that their bickering is more 'civilized' than the bickerings of free nations and that colonial powers should have prevailed ?

look at china , the massive communist state who tortures , interrogates and restricts human rights and easily gets away with it because capitialist dont want to risk their profit interests there.....

1. China is NEVER a communist state. If it is, it wont be as it is now. Mao betrayed the revolution near the end. So is Deng Xiaoping (who ordered the Tiannamen rebellion crackdown)
2. Western powers has ALWAYS supports proftable interest. In our history, we have despot LOCAL rulers supported by Western powers simply because the ruler can give concessions.

[Captain Hajime]

Mao never had a true form of communism anyway.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

No-one has ever had a true form of Communism, it is an idealistic system that doesn't work with real, corruptable, imperfect humans.

[alienspokinatcha]

There is no true form of communism. the so called "real" communism tries to break the cycle of the alpha male. while this is most commendable in theory it never works because it must have a power structure where some administer others in order to produce the order of a equal society , in that transition power will always corrupt.

the existing form communism is a way of pushing down the masses and the existing fascism is a way of pushing up the masses (of your selected racial preference) to tower over another.

until we rid the human race of the alpha male/female , it simply aint gonna happen (give it about 40,000-4,000,000 years)

if we were robots communism might work


what ideologies come from an empire falling? an empire is simply a large government , what is the difference beetween that and a small government?

Those empires were the threads that held the cloth of those regions together , regardless of how dominating or exploitive they were at least they maintained stability , now the world is left to pick up the pieces (which no one will bother doing)

[Captain Leonidas]

No-one has ever had a true form of Communism, it is an idealistic system that doesn't work with real, corruptable, imperfect humans.

There is no true form of communism. the so called "real" communism tries to break the cycle of the alpha male. while this is most commendable in theory it never works because it must have a power structure where some administer others in order to produce the order of a equal society , in that transition power will always corrupt.

we can debate about this elsewhere until our mouth run blue. I believe this is not the thread for it. To date,communism had existed throughout history and still is till now (Nepal, rural/West China, Bengal India, Mekong settlement, Pacific islands). Guess how ? without any country nor money. Then humans have nothing to corrupt on but chance on survival itself. Check out the pinned thread.

PS: btw how the hell did it get to communism ? I didn't went far to direct it to communism debate.

[Leonates80]

Hmmm - well, many believed in comunnism, still mano do so - it`s kind of sad. Remeber politbuero and cmrd. Stalin saying in 1940 that "Germany are our loyal friend and national-socialismus is just another version of socialism in USSR" - I know that both powers (Nazis and Soviets) were already planning agressions on each other , though hitler was first to attack. Funny thing is that after Poland benn attacked both by 3rd Reich and USSR in IX.39, France and Brittan quite seriously wanted to take offensive action againts USSR in Finland and send bombers to bomb russian oli depots somewhere near Poesti. The outcome of IIWW is global domination of USA, fall of UK empire, and mental and economical slavery for another 50 years  for 250 millions of Europeans and 3 billions of Asians...
You may forgive but Never Forget...

[Captain Leonidas]

Hmmm - well, many believed in comunnism, still mano do so - it`s kind of sad. Remeber politbuero and cmrd.
...
You may forgive but Never Forget...

Are you arguing about the state of communism (communist ideals) OR the SOCIALIST political entity labelled 'communist' ? remember USSR stands for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. NOT communists.

[Leonates80]

Well  CPSS? Komunitscheska Partia Sowietskowo Sajuza- Comunistic Party of Soviet Union! THey called themselfs comunnists , they were ragarded as communist...

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

Since when has what other people think of you had anything to do with what you are?

[Leonates80]

Ok - they thought about the,mselfs as communist ... that was my point.

[Lomendil]

If you want a positive spin on WWII then just consider the alternative outcomes - a Europe entirely dominated by either the Nazis or by Stalin. Think what that would have meant for the world.

Europe would never and can never be totally dominated as a whole. Even the romans were unable to do that.

The Romans weren't able to, but they lacked the transport and masses of men that Red Russia had. Be under no illusions, the Red Army certainly COULD have overrun Europe and set up Communist puppet states anywhere that it didn't want to occupy permanently.

[Captain Leonidas]

As far as the topic goes I still stand by my opinion;

the 'victory' of the allies over the axis powers also meant the bankruptcy and the collapse of European powers. sure, US and USSR then wrestled in cold war but again, a new era of ideologies spawned since the collapse of colonialism gives this a chance.

The European (former colonial) powers 'win' and 'lose' all at the same time. Victory as in the collapse of enemy regime ? Yes. Victory in terms of economy and political 'integrity' ? Nope. At least not for them. The third world had a great chance to pull it off together and I see that in future third world country would then rise from a 'client state' or 'resource state' status into industrial powers.

The Romans weren't able to, but they lacked the transport and masses of men that Red Russia had. Be under no illusions, the Red Army certainly COULD have overrun Europe and set up Communist puppet states anywhere that it didn't want to occupy permanently.

This is certainly correct. The Russky 'communist' red army preferred to keep their word to the alliance agreement and stop at Berlin rather than another 5-6 years of pummelling the other allies powers which would leave Europe entirely devastated and barely inhabitable. Remember the red army swallowed most of the bitter pill of WW II. More than US and other allied powers certainly.

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

How would a victory by the axis have ushered in a new era of economic prosperity for Europe?

[Leonates80]

Hmmm - you mean allies ? If the axis would win nobody knows wha would happen! But the economical boom after IIWW was natural consequence - public desire for trade goods was enourmous, some large countries like france britan and USA remained untouched by war,(especially GB and USA but France didn`t lost anything significant compared to rest of Europe) combined it with indrustry wich was highly developt by war - it wasn`t very difficult to switch from airplanes to cars, forges and mines working at 200% pre-war efficency - war was a blessing for some - obviously not for 20 million people wich died in the process, not for Russia where western part of a country was devastated,not for Poland wich lost like 20% of its citizens and biggest city was levelled to the ground,not for Czechs, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria,  Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and in some way Finland... Later came The Marshall Plan and very rapid economical development in western Europe (so called italian, german french miracle)   
Leonates80

[alienspokinatcha]

If you want a positive spin on WWII then just consider the alternative outcomes - a Europe entirely dominated by either the Nazis or by Stalin. Think what that would have meant for the world.

Europe would never and can never be totally dominated as a whole. Even the romans were unable to do that.

The Romans weren't able to, but they lacked the transport and masses of men that Red Russia had. Be under no illusions, the Red Army certainly COULD have overrun Europe and set up Communist puppet states anywhere that it didn't want to occupy permanently.

If germany wasnt fighting on three fronts the red army would easily been defeated. if hitler wasnt such an idiot he would of pressed into the urals and into eastern russia and cut off supplies and troops to west russia early in the war colapsing the ussr government.

[Lomendil]

So some claim. You'll find just as many who claim the opposite, pointing out the superior Russian armour and numbers of infantry, and their ability to relocate large-scale industry. 'Tankograd' was created beyond the Urals after Barbarossa, and was churning out T-34s in time for the winter campaign of that year.

We're not talking about a case in which Hitler didn't micromanage strategy, however. He did, and he would have even if he'd already defeated the British.

In any case, even if you are right then that just points to a Nazi-dominated Europe - which is one of the alternatives I spoke of.

[alienspokinatcha]

superior armour?

germany had the most superior and advanced armour in the war and definently outgunned the russians in that department.

the only real advantage the russians had was the effectively cheap tank designs which was pumped out in mass production in the post 42 era.



almost every german weapon was of a superior design to its equalivents.

MG42 = most succesful machine gun design of all time
MP44 = first assault rifle , post war the design was stolen to make the kalashikovs designs

superior parabelium round designs
jet fighters
guided missile systems (V1 , V2)
Tiger I/II = best tank of the war


and above that the average german soldier was better trained , equipped (initially speaking) and didnt have the threat of kommissars behind them

[Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown]

The Russians mass-produced one of the best tanks in history, the T-34. Nothing the Germans had came close to the T-34, and most of their tanks were vastly inferior.

The Tiger was a rubbish tank. Fine it was heavily armoured and had a big gun, but they broke down frequently, and were extremely difficult to repair. They were also incredibly slow, and took a long time and a lot of resources to construct. Both the Sherman and the T-34 were mass-produced, easy to repair, and in the case of the T-34, quite simply a better tank.

German conscripts recruited from annexed countries had sergeants armed with pistols behind them ready to shoot any who showed the slightest sign of being about to desert. And you don't seem to realise a) just how phenonemonally HUGE Russia is, and b) just how big the Red Army was. Both were massive, and required far more resources than Hitler had at his disposal to defeat, even if he was only fighting on one front. I'm not saying he couldn't have won, but doing so would have involved fighting only the Russians, and capitalising on his other advantages.

Once again, the MP44 and the German jet fighters were simply the products of Hitler's desperate need for some kind of war-winning super-weapon, instead of reliance on decet military power. Yes they were good, but there weren't enough of them and there were some crucial design flaws that meant they provided huge vulnerabilities.

V1 and V2? Don't make me laugh. They were never going to win the war, and the V1 wasn't even guided, it was scrapped almost as soon as it was launched and the V2 was designed, which also didn't prove very effective at winning the war. All it did was piss London off, which then caused the Dresden fire-bombings in retaliation.

Hmmm - you mean allies ? If the axis would win nobody knows wha would happen!

No I meant axis, the fact that nobody knows what would happen was more or less exactly my point.

But the economical boom after IIWW was natural consequence - public desire for trade goods was enourmous, some large countries like france britan and USA remained untouched by war,(especially GB and USA but France didn`t lost anything significant compared to rest of Europe) combined it with indrustry wich was highly developt by war - it wasn`t very difficult to switch from airplanes to cars, forges and mines working at 200% pre-war efficency - war was a blessing for some - obviously not for 20 million people wich died in the process, not for Russia where western part of a country was devastated,not for Poland wich lost like 20% of its citizens and biggest city was levelled to the ground,not for Czechs, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria,  Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and in some way Finland... Later came The Marshall Plan and very rapid economical development in western Europe (so called italian, german french miracle)   
Leonates80

The USA benefitted, everyone else got screwed. The USA helped (although mostly out of a need to deny Communism in Europe), but every European coutnry was hit hard economically, and it took a loooong time to sort it out. France and Britain, untouched by the war? Come off it guv- both france and britain had had the crap bombed out of them, by both sides in the case of France (not that they didn't deserve it) and huge numbers of their most productive young men killed in the war.

[Captain Leonidas]

MG42 = most succesful machine gun design of all time
MP44 = first assault rifle , post war the design was stolen to make the kalashikovs designs

Maybe a little out of topic. However;

Though the AK-47 resembles the MP 44 externally, the internal mechanisms of the two are very different. Internally, the AK-47 owes much to the M-1 Garand Rifle. The double-locking lugs, unlocking raceway, and trigger mechanism are clearly derivative of the earlier American design. Where the Kalashnikov rifle differs is in its simplification of those contributing designs and adaptation to mass production by relatively unskilled labor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ak47

To rebuke your claim on 'stealing' MP44 design

As for commissars, the German army have their own 'commissars' in the form of SS political officers accompanying armies.