Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Hitler - Genius or... Genius?


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#101 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4107 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 10:11 PM

Wow, I can't believe I missed arguing in this topic.

Only input I have so far is that History is pretty inaccurate, but so are most of the fun things to debate about. The goal of the game is to debase the building points of the argument, not sling insults.

Let's get it on kids. I want to read about Hitler's childhood, or some more tidbits of info.

#102 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:00 PM

Wow, I can't believe I missed arguing in this topic.

Only input I have so far is that History is pretty inaccurate, but so are most of the fun things to debate about. The goal of the game is to debase the building points of the argument, not sling insults.

Let's get it on kids. I want to read about Hitler's childhood, or some more tidbits of info.



Perhaps next time that you try to start an argument, or join in one, you should remember that. You use insults alot.

#103 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4107 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:14 PM

Perhaps next time that you try to start an argument, or join in one, you should remember that. You use insults alot.

I try only to sling insults after it's been done, or by throwing in a little one liner.

You're an exception though, after a long time around you, there's no game to arguing. I usually just win by posting and have fun with the insults ;)

#104 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:16 PM

I try only to sling insults after it's been done, or by throwing in a little one liner.

You're an exception though, after a long time around you, there's no game to arguing. I usually just win by posting and have fun with the insults ;)

I've seen you insult people way before then used insults, or even after you insulted them and they didn't use insults, still used them.

Of course there is no game in arguing with me. You refuse to ever accept that I might be right, and thus I will always win.

#105 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4107 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:20 PM

I've seen you insult people way before then used insults, or even after you insulted them and they didn't use insults, still used them.

Of course there is no game in arguing with me. You refuse to ever accept that I might be right, and thus I will always win.

You're having difficulty comprehending what I'm writing again.

I'm glad you've seen me do things that I never claimed I didn't do? I said I try, did I say every time?

You won't ever be right on something, unless it's something I'm ignorant about. Unfortunately, I've yet to see something you've posted be something I haven't known about.

#106 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:23 PM

You're having difficulty comprehending what I'm writing again.

I'm glad you've seen me do things that I never claimed I didn't do? I said most of the time, did I say every time?

You won't ever be right on something, unless it's something I'm ignorant about. Unfortunately, I've yet to see something you've posted be something I haven't known about.



You claim you dont insult them, or you just do it as a little one liner. I've seen you insult the person before they did any insulting, and then continue insult them as more then a one liner. This is exactly against what you rclaiming. Please read what you're typing so you remember what you said.

And that last sentence once again proved my point.

#107 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4107 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:26 PM

You claim you dont insult them, or you just do it as a little one liner. I've seen you insult the person before they did any insulting, and then continue insult them as more then a one liner. This is exactly against what you rclaiming. Please read what you're typing so you remember what you said.

And that last sentence once again proved my point.

I claim I try not to insult them, or I do it as a little one liner. If you can find evidence that I don't try to not insult them, then you can debase my claims. Unfortunately, such evidence is impossible for you to find, so attempting to refute any part of my claim merely results in a moot point.

That last sentence didn't prove anything. If that's you're interpretation of such, you'll make a great lawyer! (I didn't know if you could sense the sarcasm, so I threw these little parentheses in) You can't say that A is always B because of C when C is a valid reason as to why A is never B.

#108 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 May 2010 - 12:00 AM

I claim I try not to insult them, or I do it as a little one liner. If you can find evidence that I don't try to not insult them, then you can debase my claims. Unfortunately, such evidence is impossible for you to find, so attempting to refute any part of my claim merely results in a moot point.

That last sentence didn't prove anything. If that's you're interpretation of such, you'll make a great lawyer! (I didn't know if you could sense the sarcasm, so I threw these little parentheses in) You can't say that A is always B because of C when C is a valid reason as to why A is never B.


I'll get you that evidence later, as it does take some digging, as most of them are insults against me.

But if C was never proven, and you try to use that to prove A is right, then it simply proved B.

#109 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4107 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 12:50 AM

I'll get you that evidence later, as it does take some digging, as most of them are insults against me.

But if C was never proven, and you try to use that to prove A is right, then it simply proved B.

You can't get evidence kid, because you don't have a control. How can you base my act of trying on anything when you have nothing to compare it to? My statement can't be refuted, and I don't understand why on earth you think it can.

No, no and definitely not. Here's what I meant.

A= No game of arguing
B= Because I always win
C= Not accepting you're right.

Not accepting that you're right means that you never win and there is no argument. I don't see how you fail to understand that?

#110 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:44 AM

You refuse to ever accept that I might be right, and thus I will always win.

This is bad logic. It could be the case that you are always right. Of course, it could be the case that you are always wrong. Both potentialities are irrelevant, however, when you ignore my argument for a page and a half while posting on other people's minor points. How can you win if you refuse to argue?

#111 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:51 AM

This is bad logic. It could be the case that you are always right. Of course, it could be the case that you are always wrong. Both potentialities are irrelevant, however, when you ignore my argument for a page and a half while posting on other people's minor points. How can you win if you refuse to argue?



Either I didn't notice your post, or I felt arguing with you on it would be going to far. Believe it or not, I am trying to cut back.

#112 Bryan

Bryan
  • 4107 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:09 AM

Either I didn't notice your post, or I felt arguing with you on it would be going to far. Believe it or not, I am trying to cut back.

Or you could've been too stupid to rationally counter.

#113 zzzzzzz

zzzzzzz
  • 71 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:17 AM

Alright, I'll have some fun and keep the debate up.

As this is related to history a lot of shit is based up on opinions so don't just say flat out people are wrong.

In that case, it my opinion that Germany lost the war when their invasion of Mars came to ruin.

Of course history is based on opinions. But only when it comes to questions that are being asked that cannot have an answer based on history. For example, the answer to the question "should Hitler have invade Russia?" is going to be based on opinion. But the questions "did Hitler invade Russia?" and "what effect did this invasion have on the war?" can only provide certain answers regardless of your opinion. We have records about the losses Germany suffered on the eastern front compared to the losses suffered on the western front and these can not be ignored.

And I wouldn't say that is accurate to say the Nazis lost when Russia didn't give up. While it was a major factor and probably the largest as well, it was only one reason for Hitler's downfall in the war. I could think of several other reasons but that's going a tad bit OT.

Britain and America did not have the required force to defeat the Germany of 1941. Even with the majority of Germany's armies on the eastern front, in both 1942 and 1943 they failed to make any serious impact on Europe. So if there are reasons Germany lost besides losing to Russia, I have failed to see them.

When you say Russia had comparable strength to Germany it makes me lol! Look up casualties for either side for any German/Russian skirmishes, I can guarantee at least 3/4 of them Russia would have more casualties. They had shit tactics and Germany fucked them over with supplies. By the sounds of it you seem to be a dirty commy. DIRTY COMMY DIRTY COMMY.

I never said Germany had comparable strength to Russia. I said Russia's army at the end of the war was comparable to Germany's strength at the beginning of 1941. Comparable even after suffering the largest amount of casualties by any nation throughout the war. That if you realize it is incredible. Germany in 1945 was calling up little boys to fight for them but Russia still had no manpower issues. That is why Germany had to knock Russia out in 1941 or it was all over for them.

HOW THE FUCK WAS GERMANY NOT INVADING ENGLAND? Battle Over Britain anyone? If Hitler chose to keep bombing them their air force would have been wiped out and Britain would have been butt raped.

Now we are more into the area of opinion. And indeed the RAF was very close to being defeated in the Battle of Britain before Hitler switched to bombing cities. But, even if Hitler had not switched bombing targets, what effect would the defeat of the RAF had on a possible invasion of Britain? I'm not sure if we really know what would have happened and I haven't looked into the subject enough to really argue it. But the fact remains that Britain had the largest navy and Germany would have had to have knocked it out by air. How long would this have taken? How many planes would it have taken and would Germany still have the required number of plans after defeating the RAF? Would the RAF have rebuilt quickly enough? Even if the British Navy was limited by air, did Germany have enough troop transports to stage an invasion and supply the invasion?

I don't really know... but my guess is England was pretty safe. Regardless, the point still remains that if Germany never invaded a small island across a channel, they certainly weren't about to invade a continent across an ocean.

#114 kuwaz

kuwaz
  • 1181 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:27 AM

Attacking Russia was a mistake, should've just waited till they
finished with England... I think his temper and impatience got the
best of him in the end, and having too many unnecessary enemies.

It's funny how German tanks has gasoline frozen. But even if it was
100% focused attack on Russia, I doubt they would've won, German
soldier just weren't used to fighting in such cold conditions.

#115 Jake

Jake
  • 2701 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:32 PM

Wow, I can't believe I missed arguing in this topic.

Only input I have so far is that History is pretty inaccurate, but so are most of the fun things to debate about. The goal of the game is to debase the building points of the argument, not sling insults.

Let's get it on kids. I want to read about Hitler's childhood, or some more tidbits of info.


His father was relatively wealthy, abused him (I believe an alcoholic) and died when he was early. I forget anything about his mother (LOL WOMEN WHO CARES, RIGHT BOYS?)

Attacking Russia was a mistake, should've just waited till they
finished with England... I think his temper and impatience got the
best of him in the end, and having too many unnecessary enemies.

It's funny how German tanks has gasoline frozen. But even if it was
100% focused attack on Russia, I doubt they would've won, German
soldier just weren't used to fighting in such cold conditions.


As I said it was indeed a mistake Hitler made to invade Russia at the time and it did result in his downfall, although it wasn't completely due to that and if he had done several other key things right Germany could have won against Russia, while still fighting the others.


Britain and America did not have the required force to defeat the Germany of 1941. Even with the majority of Germany's armies on the eastern front, in both 1942 and 1943 they failed to make any serious impact on Europe. So if there are reasons Germany lost besides losing to Russia, I have failed to see them.


Google something along the lines of 'Reasons for Nazi/Hitler's Downfall' etc. I watched numerous videos and went through months of history on Hitler alone but I can't seem to recall this little part lol

To summarize most of the reasons, Hitler should have listened to his generals etc. more, and should have invested sooner and more effectively in a certain weapon. Should of continued bombing attacks on Britain. Shouldn't have killed Rommel.


I never said Germany had comparable strength to Russia. I said Russia's army at the end of the war was comparable to Germany's strength at the beginning of 1941. Comparable even after suffering the largest amount of casualties by any nation throughout the war. That if you realize it is incredible. Germany in 1945 was calling up little boys to fight for them but Russia still had no manpower issues. That is why Germany had to knock Russia out in 1941 or it was all over for them.


I still don't see your point here? Germany had much greater tactics than Russia, if things were planned more they easily could have defeated Russia. For example Russian soldiers (not in all cases, but in most for this war) would be in two man groups, one would carry ammo and the other a gun. Effective so if one died the other would take the ammo/gun. That's just nonsense.

Now we are more into the area of opinion. And indeed the RAF was very close to being defeated in the Battle of Britain before Hitler switched to bombing cities. But, even if Hitler had not switched bombing targets, what effect would the defeat of the RAF had on a possible invasion of Britain? I'm not sure if we really know what would have happened and I haven't looked into the subject enough to really argue it. But the fact remains that Britain had the largest navy and Germany would have had to have knocked it out by air. How long would this have taken? How many planes would it have taken and would Germany still have the required number of plans after defeating the RAF? Would the RAF have rebuilt quickly enough? Even if the British Navy was limited by air, did Germany have enough troop transports to stage an invasion and supply the invasion?

I don't really know... but my guess is England was pretty safe. Regardless, the point still remains that if Germany never invaded a small island across a channel, they certainly weren't about to invade a continent across an ocean.


You are correct in saying an invasion wasn't inevitable, however, you must not forget WWII was the first war planes were really used greatly in. Gunships, transports etc. The effect of defeating RAF? Britain had the greatest air force in the world, comparatively Britain was doing much better, but Germany had many more troops and planes. The reason why Britain did so well (after the bombing) was that the peoples morale was so high after having minimal damages to the city after being bombed for weeks. If the most famed air force in the world was defeated, it would have dealt a huge blow into them. If Germany decided not to invade, Britain would still now be out of transport options, scouting abilities etc.

Without an air force in modern day, an army is practically useless (against one with).

#116 zzzzzzz

zzzzzzz
  • 71 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:01 PM

As I said it was indeed a mistake Hitler made to invade Russia at the time and it did result in his downfall, although it wasn't completely due to that and if he had done several other key things right Germany could have won against Russia, while still fighting the others.

Google something along the lines of 'Reasons for Nazi/Hitler's Downfall' etc. I watched numerous videos and went through months of history on Hitler alone but I can't seem to recall this little part lol

To summarize most of the reasons, Hitler should have listened to his generals etc. more, and should have invested sooner and more effectively in a certain weapon. Should of continued bombing attacks on Britain. Shouldn't have killed Rommel.

Hitler did not listen to his generals when it came to political decisions. He ignored them when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. He ignored them when Germany annexed Austria. He ignored them during the Munich crises. He ignored them when invading Poland. And he ignored them when invading Russia. You could argue he was right, even genius up until he chose to invade Russia. the generals told him it was a bad idea... and it was.

Yet as you've said, Russia was beatable in 1941. But only in 1941. It is conceivable that if Moscow was set as the main objective and that objective was held to during 1941, Germany could have won. The defeat of the Soviet government might have ended all of it. We will never really know. But after 1941 the German army was never the same. It lost so many men and experienced officers it had to replace these men with less-experienced officers and soldiers from Germany's weaker allies (Italy, Romania, and Hungary). If the advances of 1942 had been successful the Soviets would have once again been in a tough spot and perhaps would have seen defeat. I doubt it but you never know, a German victory at Stalingrad might have kept the tide of war with Germany. Again, I think it is doubtful that Russia could have been turned back after it got started, but I will concede that a different result at Stalingrad could have had a massive effect.

But after that? It was over. Germany and her allies simply could not rebound from the loss of 750,000 casualties. Germany's assault in 1943 (Battle of Kursk) was swept away with ease and it was all Soviets after that. Nothing the Germans could have done after 1942 would have had any effect, they were defeated. Rommel, though a great general, was not the best the Germans had and could not have saved them. His death had little effect on the outcome of the war. We in the west just like to think that way because he was the only German general that fought the British with a small force while the main German army was off fighting in the east.

Without an air force in modern day, an army is practically useless (against one with).

Yes, but I do think that the RAF was capable of rebounding from any major defeats quickly. So in order to maintain air supremacy Germany would have had to have diverted planes from the eastern front (the important front) to keep up the attack. This is of course why Germany never should have opened a second front without first defeating Britain, or at least forcing her somehow into an armistice of some kind.

#117 DragonX

DragonX
  • 455 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:08 PM

I disagree with his decisions but he's undoubtely a smart politician. He was a master at controlling and manipulating others. He made his goals seem desirable through all sorts of means including education and fear.

With that being said, there is no doubt that the situation also played a large role in his ability to do what he did. For one, the Treaty of Versailles made it such that the Germans wanted change. The fact that WWI just passed meant that other countries were reluctant to retalliate when he started building up arms.

While he may have made mistakes in military decisions, he also made many right decisions. There is no politician in history that did everything perfectly. Comparitively, I think Hilter was a smart man.

Edited by Ken, 29 May 2010 - 03:11 PM.


#118 Jake

Jake
  • 2701 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:45 PM

Hitler did not listen to his generals when it came to political decisions. He ignored them when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland. He ignored them when Germany annexed Austria. He ignored them during the Munich crises. He ignored them when invading Poland. And he ignored them when invading Russia. You could argue he was right, even genius up until he chose to invade Russia. the generals told him it was a bad idea... and it was.

Yet as you've said, Russia was beatable in 1941. But only in 1941. It is conceivable that if Moscow was set as the main objective and that objective was held to during 1941, Germany could have won. The defeat of the Soviet government might have ended all of it. We will never really know. But after 1941 the German army was never the same. It lost so many men and experienced officers it had to replace these men with less-experienced officers and soldiers from Germany's weaker allies (Italy, Romania, and Hungary). If the advances of 1942 had been successful the Soviets would have once again been in a tough spot and perhaps would have seen defeat. I doubt it but you never know, a German victory at Stalingrad might have kept the tide of war with Germany. Again, I think it is doubtful that Russia could have been turned back after it got started, but I will concede that a different result at Stalingrad could have had a massive effect.

But after that? It was over. Germany and her allies simply could not rebound from the loss of 750,000 casualties. Germany's assault in 1943 (Battle of Kursk) was swept away with ease and it was all Soviets after that. Nothing the Germans could have done after 1942 would have had any effect, they were defeated. Rommel, though a great general, was not the best the Germans had and could not have saved them. His death had little effect on the outcome of the war. We in the west just like to think that way because he was the only German general that fought the British with a small force while the main German army was off fighting in the east.


Yes, but I do think that the RAF was capable of rebounding from any major defeats quickly. So in order to maintain air supremacy Germany would have had to have diverted planes from the eastern front (the important front) to keep up the attack. This is of course why Germany never should have opened a second front without first defeating Britain, or at least forcing her somehow into an armistice of some kind.


I totally agree with that, Hitler felt he knew what he was doing and didn't want to take advice, biggest reason for his downfall.

Now when you say he was going short on manpower... well, I love it. People forget TWO large factors that could totally BOOST it by at least 10 million. Remember what people Hitler killed/captured? Over 10 million Jews and Ukrainians, Jews would have fought for a chance of a life, Ukrainians would have fought because they hated Russians. Hitler thought he would have won so thought 'der heil wit more man POWA'.

Losing Stalingrad definitely could have a changed the course of the war, as losing any major battles or cities definitely slaughters the country's morale. If he listened to his generals, used prisoners as soldiers, stayed to his plans, didn't kill his own people for 'disobedience' and invested in a certain type of aircraft, Germany would indeed have won the war. Obviously I can't guarantee that, but the odds would have been miniscule for the Allies.

I would argue Rommel was one of the best, if not the best generals in the army at the time. He mastered tank warfare and made the British crumble at his feet. If Hitler had of kept supporting him with supplies, troops (and obviously didn't kill him) Rommel would have won in Egypt, thus being able to demoralize the enemies and bringing back the troops to Germany in the eastern or western front. (Moralized)

And I would have to agree, never a smart reason to have two fronts...

#119 DragonX

DragonX
  • 455 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 04:50 PM

Now when you say he was going short on manpower... well, I love it. People forget TWO large factors that could totally BOOST it by at least 10 million. Remember what people Hitler killed/captured? Over 10 million Jews and Ukrainians, Jews would have fought for a chance of a life, Ukrainians would have fought because they hated Russians. Hitler thought he would have won so thought 'der heil wit more man POWA'.



The Jews would have fought for a chance of a longer life, but giving people who knowingly disagree with your ideals firepower may also be a mistake. Who's to say the Jews and Ukrainians won't rebel?

#120 Jake

Jake
  • 2701 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:20 PM

The Jews would have fought for a chance of a longer life, but giving people who knowingly disagree with your ideals firepower may also be a mistake. Who's to say the Jews and Ukrainians won't rebel?


If Hitler didn't openly hate Jews and just forced conscription I'm sure it would have ended fine. The Ukrainians for sure would not have rebelled because as I said, they despised Russians.

#121 DragonX

DragonX
  • 455 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 07:57 PM

If Hitler didn't openly hate Jews and just forced conscription I'm sure it would have ended fine. The Ukrainians for sure would not have rebelled because as I said, they despised Russians.


Why would the Jews have listened? Generally speaking, the Jews held the "wealthier" positions.
Hilter would need a reason to degrade them in order to have a reason that they should listen to him. Killing people may not have been the best decision but it let him proclaim himself as a "better being".

Furthermore, its not as if he just killed the Jews. He did use their labour/take & use their belongings. Speaking from a strategic view, there may have been better decisions, but, regardless, his strategy wasn't totally off the ball park.

#122 Gen

Gen
  • Ye old gen

  • 1871 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 08:28 PM

Bah, I'm way to tired to read the entire topic lol
Anyway:

Hitler became President of germany on a democracy. He took Germany out of a great depression and inflation, but with that he done real disgusting stuff. He started to segregate the jews, and to blame them just because they were wealthy, and probably had a few more reasons o.O ; It was when he turned it in a dictatorial government that it became REALLY crazy. All those blitzkriegs (lightning war, fast and short war) against other countries and the massacre, I think it was terrible and, afterall, he ended up starting the second world war.
My opinion is that Hitler was a genious at certain point, but his inteligence made him crazy and he started to do stuff he shouldn't. Power just grow in his head x.x; And no, I'm not supporting him, I hate Hitler lol. This trully reminds me of that movie "The Wave"(aka "Die Walle", I think), which is a really good movie.

Funny thing that I had WWII classes with a teacher whose mother was a brazilian living in Germany by that time lol



#123 iargue

iargue
  • 10048 posts


Users Awards

Posted 29 May 2010 - 09:46 PM

Bah, I'm way to tired to read the entire topic lol
Anyway:

Hitler became President of germany on a democracy. He took Germany out of a great depression and inflation, but with that he done real disgusting stuff. He started to segregate the jews, and to blame them just because they were wealthy, and probably had a few more reasons o.O ; It was when he turned it in a dictatorial government that it became REALLY crazy. All those blitzkriegs (lightning war, fast and short war) against other countries and the massacre, I think it was terrible and, afterall, he ended up starting the second world war.
My opinion is that Hitler was a genious at certain point, but his inteligence made him crazy and he started to do stuff he shouldn't. Power just grow in his head x.x; And no, I'm not supporting him, I hate Hitler lol. This trully reminds me of that movie "The Wave"(aka "Die Walle", I think), which is a really good movie.

Funny thing that I had WWII classes with a teacher whose mother was a brazilian living in Germany by that time lol


Please. Exit the arena.

#124 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 30 May 2010 - 04:23 AM

Without an air force in modern day, an army is practically useless (against one with).

Tell that to the Mujahadeen.

Please. Exit the arena.

Why? Generati0n is tight, and he's right besides. If you don't know what the Weimar Republic was, look it up. Germany in the '20s and early '30s was democratic. If you're simply poking his grammatical mistakes, piss off. He's from Brazil, English isn't his first language.

#125 Jake

Jake
  • 2701 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 07:51 AM

Tell that to the Mujahadeen.


I would but then they would blow me up with them


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users