ChickenHawk 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Was there ever any real alternative to Chamberlin's policy of appeasing the European Dictators? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aculaud 0 Posted June 12, 2002 not fighting and just submit? Thats the only alternative to WWII i can think of. Hittler was taking over Europe, the Japanese were taking over the pacific which lead right to the US. It comes down to just one question: Democracy or Fascism? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauryThorn 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Me and my friends have a lot of times talked about this, this being one "subject" of discussion: A.Hitler was a frontline soldier in WW1, as a lance corporal. It was kind of likely that he would have died, but he didn't. But what if he had died? Anyway, the conclusion to this kind of discussions has always been, that there was too much "tensions" or whatever in Europe, so the WWII wasn't just about some "crazy" leader. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted June 12, 2002 "There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe." - Winston Churchill, "The Sinews Of Peace", March 5, 1946, Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri, USA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted June 12, 2002 WW2 would've happened no matter what!!! And people are pretty lucky that Hitler was the one responsible for it (well not really) if somebody smarter than him was leading it, world would've been screwed already! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hilandor 1 Posted June 12, 2002 yes it could have all been different just think if USA had started war and succeded we could all be seeing Mcdonalds on the corner of every street on the planet and all subjected to countless episodes of hill street blues and friends Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauryThorn 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">somebody smarter than him was leading it, world would've been screwed already<span id='postcolor'> I think that Hitler was a genius, although a crazy and evil one. And he made pretty close screwing us all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
habdoel 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Hitler could defeat england in Duinqerke. He told his army to stop and he was hoping england would ally with him. Some say he lost the war there and 500.000lives saved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud van Nistelrooy 0 Posted June 12, 2002 If Hitler didn't invade Russia, then they would've won the war. If The germans developed the alliance with russia, they would've done even better in the war taking over asia. Whats more america would probably make little or no difference, and they probably wouldn't even have joined the war realising they wouldn't have a chance against a russia/Germany alliance. I think Hitlers real mistake was invading russia and thats the only reason that germany lost the war, even if you did chuck a few yanks at him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauryThorn 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Or if he had invaded Russia first, and invaded russia only, I mean not opening other front to the west. Although if he hadn't made alliance with the Reds, then maybe they would have been more alert. But this is where Hitler's craziness and over-ambitiousness (is that a word) saved the world.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChickenHawk 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Hitler didn't invade Russia,<span id='postcolor'> The whole point of ww2 was Russia, there was no chance of Hitler having Russia as an allie because he wanted their land as Lebersraum. (living space) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Hitler was a genius,<span id='postcolor'> As for Hitler being a genious, I wouldnt describe him as that as far as military strategy goes. He had his moments, but it was the Generals who made the German army, not him. He was cunning as a fox though. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">not fighting and just submit?<span id='postcolor'> Thats what we tried to do up until Munich, thats when we realised he was a nutter. We could have allied with a load of other countries in Europe such as Greece, Poland, Romania, Russia, Yugoslavia and France. We also had a chance to allie with the USA but Chamberlin said no. The problem was that Chamberlin thought he could go over to Germany and talk Hitler down man to man, too bad that didnt work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChickenHawk 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or if he had invaded Russia first, and invaded russia only,<span id='postcolor'> Germany didnt border with Russia before world war 2, if Hitler wanted to invade Russia he would have had to march through countries like Poland to get there. Thats what made the allies declare war on him. But I agree that Hitler might have beaten Russia if he had concerntrated all his forces on the Eastern Front. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ruud van Nistelrooy 0 Posted June 12, 2002 True, lets just say if Hitler had to fight on only one front (Russia or France/Britain) then they would've won. Hitlers idea when he invaded russia was to capture the caspian oil wells and basically scare russia into a ceasefire. After a few years he would invade again after exploiting the oil. I think that was it anyway, or it was at least an objective at one point. Hitler being a dumbass went for stalingrad instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LauryThorn 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for Hitler being a genious, I wouldnt describe him as that as far as military strategy goes.<span id='postcolor'> I wasn't talking about his military strategy skills.. That's where things went wrong; he should have left the strategy to the generals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Espectro (DayZ) 0 Posted June 12, 2002 U guys never played Red Alert?! So yes, there was an alternative... and his name was Stalin... muahahaha Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Antichrist 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Drugs are bad!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted June 12, 2002 Oh, come on people. Even the russians admit nowadays that if Hitler did not attack them first, russia would have attacked Germany. Then we would have been really fucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prune 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Hitler was indeed a genius, but only in certain ways. He managed to get almost an entire country to believe in his cause when he was public enemy #1 only a few years earlier. He was also an economic genius and turned Germany’s fortunes around after the depression. When it came to the military, as has been said before, he was a fool. He didn't finish us at Dunqerke because he liked the British and wanted peace with us. Operation Sealion was a scam and he probably never intended invading as he was too tied up in the east. Also, he ruined any chance the axis had of beating off the allied invasion by keeping the Panzer divisions under his control and not the Generals. The final point is that Hitler gave massive resources (including elite SS troops) to the Final Solution. If he had had any sense he would have sent these to the eastern front where they were much needed. Thus he was a genius but a fool. Which probably makes him mad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Antichrist @ June 12 2002,09:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if somebody smarter than him was leading it, world would've been screwed already!<span id='postcolor'> Um, no offense, but hitler wasn't dumb at all, not everybody can do what he did. I'm not saying i admire him, i'm just saying that he was pretty smart, actually he was a genius. I'd really love to say why but i'll have to use too much hard words then and i don't know 50% of them Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Prune @ June 12 2002,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hitler was indeed a genius, but only in certain ways. He managed to get almost an entire country to believe in his cause when he was public enemy #1 only a few years earlier. He was also an economic genius and turned Germany’s fortunes around after the depression. When it came to the military, as has been said before, he was a fool. He didn't finish us at Dunqerke because he liked the British and wanted peace with us. Operation Sealion was a scam and he probably never intended invading as he was too tied up in the east. Also, he ruined any chance the axis had of beating off the allied invasion by keeping the Panzer divisions under his control and not the Generals. The final point is that Hitler gave massive resources (including elite SS troops) to the Final Solution. If he had had any sense he would have sent these to the eastern front where they were much needed. Thus he was a genius but a fool. Which probably makes him mad.<span id='postcolor'> And he thought it would be easy to invade Russia, this probable was one of his biggest mistakes ever. Operation Barbarossa failed as hell!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prune 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Especially when you don't equip your troops with winter clothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WKK Gimbal 0 Posted June 12, 2002 Yeah well, Russia was only meant to last a couple of months at max - there was no way the germans expected to fight until winter in Russia. Poor research made Hitler believe that he could blitzkrieg his way through it. That failed pretty bad. He wouldn't have chosen to ignore any east block countries, as his whole goal was to level them and get rid of all the "sub-humans" and then move germans into them. So I think he didn't care about the strategic arguments for where to attack. I think his biggest mistake was to overestimate the power of the german armies and his own strategic abilites (by taking decisions he should have left to his legendary generals). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 12, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ChickenHawk @ June 12 2002,10:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that Hitler was a genius,<span id='postcolor'> As for Hitler being a genious, I wouldnt describe him as that as far as military strategy goes. He had his moments, but it was the Generals who made the German army, not him. He was cunning as a fox though.<span id='postcolor'> You'll notice that the German army in Russia really started gettting screwed when Hitler took over. He was tired of what he percieved as his generals "hesitiation" and took over ALL command decisions of the Army. Like ordering the incircled Army at Stalingrad to fight to the last, and ordering all his units in Russia to NOT retreat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites