Could Tolwyn Be Compaired to Hitler?

[Zarathustra]

Since we are talking about mass murderers, why doesn't anyone mention the English. They have had so many mass murderers in power, but no one says anything about them b/c we are a country founded by English settlers. However, they had murdered and raped the Irish in Munster Leinster, and Connacht for seven hundred years, and continue to do so in ulster. They also did the same in Scotland, India, and well almost everywhere they go.
They murder the people and try to murder the culture.
Maybe Tolwyn should be compared to Edward I, or Henry VII or Elizabeth I (she killed more Catholics that "BLoody" Mary killed Protestants)? why does no one mention the limeys?
26+6=1 (26 counties in republic of ireland+ulster=one united nation).
"I would live but one day and one night, if my deeds would live forever"-Cuchulainn, the Hound of Ulster

 

[pygmypiranha]

Originally posted by Zarathustra
Since we are talking about mass murderers, why doesn't anyone mention the English...

We are comparing Tolwyn to Hitler... try to keep things on the ball...

Originally posted by Ender
Tolwyn can be compared to Hitler. So can any other mass murderer.

Keep in mind mass murderers killed because of different reasons that Tolwyn all together. Some didn't even have reasoning behind their actions.

 

[Skyfire]

Originally posted by Quarto
Skyfire, firstly, Afghanistan certainly never was a part of the Soviet Union.



Yes, I realize that-I'm talking about the battles/pure military attempts at occupation.



Secondly, the satellite countries did have their own militaries (ironically, these forces participated in crushing the other countries' attempts to get out of the Soviet bloc), but they did not choose their own form of government. In all those countires, the Soviets promised free and fair elections in 1946-48 to determine the new government. Being the occupiers, however, it wasn't difficult for them to rig the elections.



Um, I don't know where your getting your sources-but I'll assure you they're wrong. While it may be true that the Soviets promised the 'free and fair elections'-they DID choose their own governments. After WWI-most countries in E. Europe chose to become dictatorships, after democracy failed there. As the facist governments began failing, the other countries began to turn to the new "power" on the block-the Soviets. They modelled themselves after the Soviet governments-but were they're own governments. (After all, how do you think they were able to break away so easily at the end of the Cold War? All their citizens didn't just decide, "Hey! Let's break away now, after all this time!" Their governments did.) And while they may have had their own militaries-they were more like militias than anything. They were poorly equipped, and usually got the cast off stuff from the Soviets.


Thirdly, you are assuming that Hitler intended to permanently occupy the rest of Europe. There is no evidence to support this assumption. While it's difficult to guess what his exact intentions were, it's most likely that had the war ended with German victory, Germany would have set up Vichy-like governments in pretty much all of Western Europe - the places that Hitler wanted to directly attach to Germany were mostly in Eastern Europe.

That may be true-but we're not talking about what Hitler was going to do (your wrong in assuming that's my point) I'm talking about what Hitler DID. He set up governership places within other countries-I didn't say he wouldn't turn them into semi-independent governments themselves later. Your right in that point.

Originally posted by junior


Um...
What?
That's one I haven't heard before. The Soviets and the Nazis did not get along until just before the invasion of Poland (when they secretly signed a non-aggression pact). I've never heard that the Soviets trained the German army, and I have a heard time believing something like that was even suggested.
And given the importance of battlefield tactics developed by Guderian, I think the evidence pretty heavily suggests that the Germans did their own thing.

Since the German's couldn't, legally, begin rebuilding their military-they did it within the Soviet Union. They trained there, began building equipment, etc. Actually, they did. They did sign a secret peace treaty before the major German offenses-so that Germany didn't have to worry about the Eastern Front. It wasn't until Hitler's suprise attack on the USSR that the treaty was called off. And there's a difference between taking training, and putting your own twist on it-and not having any experience with training with other people.

 

[pygmypiranha]

Originally posted by Quarto
Skyfire, firstly, Afghanistan certainly never was a part of the Soviet Union.

Exactly, the Soviet Union fought a standstill war in Afghanistan for years and never won, now we are there (yippee). They finally left after a long drawn out war that could certainly be compaired to our cold war.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps you were thinking of Vietnam.

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Skyfire


Actually, they did. They did sign a secret peace treaty before the major German offenses-so that Germany didn't have to worry about the Eastern Front. It wasn't until Hitler's suprise attack on the USSR that the treaty was called off. And there's a difference between taking training, and putting your own twist on it-and not having any experience with training with other people.

Reread my post. Yes, I mentioned the secret treaty between Nazi Germany and the USSR. But what I pointed out, and what you seem to be missing, is that the treaty was signed, at the earliest, a year before the invasion of Poland (and actually probably even closer to the invasion date than that).
Hitler HATED the communists. The Weimar Republic may have carried out some training in the USSR, but considering the distance between Germany and the USSR, I strongly suspect that your information is a little off.
And there is no way that the Nazis themselves would have ever allowed such a thing to happen.
Post WWI, Germany rebuilt her army pretty much in defiance of the treaty, and everyone ignored the fact, both in order to keep the peace, and in acknowledgement of the fact that the treaty was flat out ridiculous in a number of its provisions.

 

[Ladiesman^]

Originally posted by pygmypiranha


Exactly, the Soviet Union fought a standstill war in Afghanistan for years and never won, now we are there (yippee). They finally left after a long drawn out war that could certainly be compaired to our cold war.

err..compared to Vietnam...the USSR was a part of the Cold War...

And it's not compared to Vietnam by some stroke of luck...the US wanted to give the Soviet Union their own Vietnam, since they helped the N. Vietnamese, the US helped the Muhjadeen (NOT the Taliban as some think...the Muhjadeen is among the Northern Alliance)

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Ladiesman^

the US helped the Muhjadeen (NOT the Taliban as some think...the Muhjadeen is among the Northern Alliance)

Er...
The Mujahideen (sp?) was the blanket name for the various guerilla organizations that fought against the Soviet backed Afghani government (which took power during a Soviet backed coup). There were a number of different groups within the Mujahideen, and each of them had their own various agendas. When the fighting was over, some of the guerillas went elsewhere to fight against other non-Islamic governments (including the US), while others stayed in Afghanistan in an attempt to help their particular faction gain power. Osama bin Laden was apparently engaged in various construction projects in support of the Mujahideen, although iirc, the US denies having provided direct support to him during this time period.
The Taliban were a group that did not become involved in any fighting until after the Communist government had fallen. When the country descended into civil war, with various warlords fighting each other for power, the Taliban took advantage of the situation, and managed to take control of most of the country.
While there were many "Mujahideen" among the Northern Alliance, it would be inaccurate to portray the Mujahideen as a cohesive group. They were a composite of a number of different groups, and once the Soviets were removed from power, they fought against each other almost as readily as they had faced the Soviets.

 

[Skyfire]

Originally posted by junior


Reread my post. Yes, I mentioned the secret treaty between Nazi Germany and the USSR. But what I pointed out, and what you seem to be missing, is that the treaty was signed, at the earliest, a year before the invasion of Poland (and actually probably even closer to the invasion date than that).
Hitler HATED the communists. The Weimar Republic may have carried out some training in the USSR, but considering the distance between Germany and the USSR, I strongly suspect that your information is a little off.
And there is no way that the Nazis themselves would have ever allowed such a thing to happen.
Post WWI, Germany rebuilt her army pretty much in defiance of the treaty, and everyone ignored the fact, both in order to keep the peace, and in acknowledgement of the fact that the treaty was flat out ridiculous in a number of its provisions.

But...that's one of the premises of Fascism...to hate communists...I don't see how I'm missing that point...

I assure you that Germany trained there-under Hitler, in an effort to semi-hide their rearmament. (After all, they didn't just blatantly say, "Hey! We're rearming now!" They did have to worry about France at the time, although I couldn't say how they could be a problem .) And while they may have rebuilt in defiance of said treaty, the opportunity to train with battle hardend people-and then have the option of taking the USSR out of the war (for a time at least) is too good to pass up. Your assuming that Germany just decided to rebuild, that's wrong. They still had fears of the Western powers involving themselves-they didn't know at the time that they wouldn't for political reasoning.

 

[t.c.cgi]

I thought it was more along the lines of an exchange/aide program, the similar to what we did with Southern Vietnam (before we sent in troops). It was my understanding that the soviets sent a *few* key personell to Germany to give tips, pointers, etc to the German personell. And saying that "ohh but they didn't use russian tactics!" is a bad way to prove against it. It just says they prefered to do things their own way. I doubt it was a large scale training operation like it seems to be potrayed here, but I've heard a bit about a sort of program the Soviets and Germany had used together before they openly fought each other. That brings me to my next point: since from what I remember the few key Soviets that went to Germany were feared to have picked up "loyalty" to the enemy by being around them in a friendly environment. While it was probably far from the truth, Stalin's paranoia could only be soothed with execution of any under suspicion...

P.S. We actualy had a small exchange program with the Soviets during WW2 as well. Tought them how to fire our guns, how our technology worked, etc. Distance is no matter when you're sending a handful of people and not a whole company.

 

[junior]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
P.S. We actualy had a small exchange program with the Soviets during WW2 as well. Tought them how to fire our guns, how our technology worked, etc. Distance is no matter when you're sending a handful of people and not a whole company.

We sent the Soviets a lot more than just advisors.
*chuckle*
They received huge quantities of equipment from us, and although the US tanks weren't as high quality as the Soviet T-34 (although they were a LOT more reliable), they did help free up Soviet equipment for the main fronts.
As an interesting aside, according to the information in the ASL Soviet OB, in some areas peasants thought that the stenciled USA (which was apparently still on a lot of the trucks and other vehicles) stood for what translates into "Kill that sonofab***h Adolf".

 

[pygmypiranha]

Originally posted by Ladiesman^


err..compared to Vietnam...the USSR was a part of the Cold War...

And it's not compared to Vietnam by some stroke of luck...the US wanted to give the Soviet Union their own Vietnam, since they helped the N. Vietnamese, the US helped the Muhjadeen (NOT the Taliban as some think...the Muhjadeen is among the Northern Alliance)

Exactly, I wasn't saying that it was Vietnam. I said it was like Vietnam.

 

[Ladiesman^]

Originally posted by junior


We sent the Soviets a lot more than just advisors.
*chuckle*
They received huge quantities of equipment from us, and although the US tanks weren't as high quality as the Soviet T-34 (although they were a LOT more reliable), they did help free up Soviet equipment for the main fronts.

We sent huge quantities of equipment to all our allies...Britain seemed particularly fond of our DUCKS...

 

[pygmypiranha]

Originally posted by Ladiesman^
Britain seemed particularly fond of our DUCKS...

Ducks?

 

[junior]

Originally posted by pygmypiranha


Ducks?

Either an acronym or slang for some piece of military equipment. I can't remember what this particular one was off the top of my head, although it does sound familiar. It was probably some specialized vehicle.

 

[t.c.cgi]

You mean this?

http://my.voyager.net/~dukw/dukwpage.htm

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Skyfire
That may be true-but we're not talking about what Hitler was going to do (your wrong in assuming that's my point) I'm talking about what Hitler DID. He set up governership places within other countries-I didn't say he wouldn't turn them into semi-independent governments themselves later. Your right in that point.

Very well, then... but if we're going to compare what Hitler did, then we should only look at what Stalin did until May 1945, because if we ignore Hitler's post-war plans, then we must also ignore Stalin's post-war actions. In this case, Hitler ends up looking a lot better than Stalin, because he, at least, allowed Vichy France to exist as long as they weren't a security risk, while the Soviets simply assimilated everything.


A few notes about the other subjects raised here...

I have heard, (but do not know any books that would confirm this) that Stalin had also been planning to attack Germany in 1941. Apparently, this is why the Germans swept through the Soviet lines so easily - the Soviet forces were deployed for an offensive, and this made any sort of coherent defense impossible.

Germany, when re-arming, was still running a huge risk. We now know that the West was unwilling to do anything about it, but the Germans did not know this in the 1930s. Furthermore, the Germans faced danger from the east, too. Until around 1936-37, Poland was still capable of defeating the German forces, and had on several occasions considered attacking Germany in a war of prevention. Amongst other things, it was the ambiguous attitude of the Soviets that made such a war impossible - Poland was incapable of fighting a war on two fronts.

Finally, I have read somewhere that apparently, the Soviet T-34 tank was an evolved version of a tank designed by an American designer (some time in the 1920s, I think). He tried to get the US to buy it, but they didn't want it, so he sold the design to the Soviets. Would be nice if any WWII buff could either confirm or deny this, because I'll be damned if I remember any details about it .

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Quarto

I have heard, (but do not know any books that would confirm this) that Stalin had also been planning to attack Germany in 1941. Apparently, this is why the Germans swept through the Soviet lines so easily - the Soviet forces were deployed for an offensive, and this made any sort of coherent defense impossible.

That's a new one to me. Stalin had a highly placed mole in the Nazi government, and knew that Hitler was planning on attacking him, but he thought that Hitler would follow the same pattern that had taken place with every other country that Hitler had declared war on (France and Great Britain don't count, since they declared war on Germany before Germany returned the favor), and act as if he planned on negotiating before launching a full-scale invasion.

Originally posted by Quarto

Germany, when re-arming, was still running a huge risk. We now know that the West was unwilling to do anything about it, but the Germans did not know this in the 1930s. Furthermore, the Germans faced danger from the east, too. Until around 1936-37, Poland was still capable of defeating the German forces, and had on several occasions considered attacking Germany in a war of prevention. Amongst other things, it was the ambiguous attitude of the Soviets that made such a war impossible - Poland was incapable of fighting a war on two fronts.

According to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich -
1.) Czechoslovakia could have done VERY well against Germany in the rough terrain found on the German/Czech border, and probably would have humiliated Germany if Chamberlain and his French counterpart hadn't pretty much placed the blame for any war on the Czechs.
2.) Britain and France both wanted the USSR to declare war on Germany in the event Poland was attacked. Poland refused to allow Soviet troops entry into Poland in the event Poland was attacked by Germany. Stalin's response was basically, "So what the hell am I supposed to do to support Poland?", and told the Allies to come up with a better plan. Then Hitler approached him, and they signed the secret non-aggression pact that split up Poland between the two of them.

Originally posted by Quarto

Finally, I have read somewhere that apparently, the Soviet T-34 tank was an evolved version of a tank designed by an American designer (some time in the 1920s, I think). He tried to get the US to buy it, but they didn't want it, so he sold the design to the Soviets. Would be nice if any WWII buff could either confirm or deny this, because I'll be damned if I remember any details about it .

No clue, but considering the US attitude toward the military pretty much from the end of the Revolutionary War right up until Pearl Harbor, it wouldn't really surprise me. Probably the best tank in the war until the introduction of the Panther.
On a related side note, I recently had a humorous thought about the US and the international community. Many members of the international community howl about US unilateralism, but the only reason that the US isn't weak and isolationist is because those same howlers once howled for the US to come help them out.
Just a stray thought.

 

[Quarto]

Originally posted by junior
2.) Britain and France both wanted the USSR to declare war on Germany in the event Poland was attacked. Poland refused to allow Soviet troops entry into Poland in the event Poland was attacked by Germany. Stalin's response was basically, "So what the hell am I supposed to do to support Poland?", and told the Allies to come up with a better plan. Then Hitler approached him, and they signed the secret non-aggression pact that split up Poland between the two of them.

All true - Poland was at least as paranoid about the Soviets as it was about Germany, and understandably so, since Poland fought a major war with the USSR right after WWI (not to mention that slight detail of 134 years of Russian/Austrian/Prussian occupation of Poland). However, you're describing the situation in 1939, when Poland was almost willing to consider the USSR an ally. In the early-mid 30s, we considered the USSR a far bigger threat than Germany.

 

[Ladiesman^]

Originally posted by t.c.cgi
You mean this?

http://my.voyager.net/~dukw/dukwpage.htm

Yeppers....that's it....the British military was quite fond of those ducks, of which the US provided many.