Albert Schweitzer

??!! my english is limited. Please construct sentences with subject...verb..object! What do you mean with long face? Thanks Tex, now I got it!!

3--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 20 2002,023)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Albert that interview seemed very provocative. I cant imagine any politician in their right mind saying that kind of stuff.<span id='postcolor'> I agree, it is so provokating that I cant hardly believe it too. But fact is that it is dicussed in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, in DIE ZEIT and in SUDDEUTSCHE ZEITUNG which are the 3 most reputed daily newspaper Germany has. (You dont know the I guess, you got good newspapers yourself in the UK). Right now not many question the origin and authenticity of this interview. I is considered as a trustworthy source! BTW: Now I am a OP fan too! Got ya! Take this as an indicator of success for the german soccer team for the world-cup. Oh did I forget to hurt the dutch? YOU ARE OUT!!!

No, sorry Scout, that was very inpolite of me! I didnt mean to call your postings spam! I read every line of it and I am grateful that at least one Israeli (or two) face the discussion. Only arguments and discussions can bring us forward! My apologies!

Hey you lazy bastards! when a discussion goes into debth you all surrender. You old pieces of sirloin steak, you fake pieces of "made in China" in a BMW, you dogs that are afraid of cats, you people that buy shoes with fake leather, you people that sympathise with girls.. Provokation usually always works good to get responses! Or am I just destroying my reputation? (which reputation?)

Please post it in the thread it belongs. No need to open another thread with basically the same comment! This only difuses the mental sweat we invest!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 20 2002,01:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Im still recovering, havent seen such mighty spammage for a looong time. Couldnt you have just posted links? Oh and back on topic, as an Israeli, how will you feel if it is eventually revealed that Jenin was the place of a massacre, after all of the justification forattackign Jenin and such. I ahve spoken to loads of Israelis (no palestinians) and they always have the same answers for everything (no offence)<span id='postcolor'> I have the impression SCOUT wants to overspam my posting! So it is lost in the crowd of words! Please KingBeast read my comment on page 84, I post a lot of bullshit (dont we all) but this is realy worth reading. Read the interview and judge yourself!

Scout, my question now of course is: did you read the interview with sharon, I must say I was shocked and he clearly states the intentions he had and has. They are terrifying! Â and they realy (i dont like to say that) remind me of lines in the famous german book of the 1940ies. The similarities are there, whether you question them or not! And dont go out of my way with counterattacks. I mean if you dont see this, how dangerous this man is, then I dont know what is gonna open your eyes?

OUCH!!! I found an article which shows the terrible truth about Sharon. No it is not a questionable source, it is an interview held on the 17.12.1982 in the DAVAR.And I must say I am slightly shocked! I never read long posts cause they often are a waste of time. But this interview is troubeling the german press now for days. READ IT; I KNOW IT IS LONG; BUT BELIEVE ME I IT IS WORTH EVERY LINE! The following is a reprint of an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon by Amos Oz as originally published in the Israeli daily Davar on 17 December 1982. The man referred to as C. is Sharon. Â Please note: The article is kept for archive purposes, but that the identity of the interviewee has since come into doubt (see errata at the end). "You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. Just note that I don't hate Arabs. On the contrary. Personally, I am much more at ease with them, and especially with the Bedouin, than with Jews. Those Arabs we haven't yet spoilt are proud people, they are irrational, cruel and generous. It's the Yids that are all twisted. In order to straighten them out you have to first bend them sharply the other way. That, in brief, is my whole ideology. "Call Israel by any name you like, call it a Judeo-Nazi state as does Leibowitz. Why not? Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint. I don't care whether I am like Ghadafi. I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don't need their love. I don't need to be loved by Jews like you either. I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don't care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won't kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law. Â "Even if you'll prove to me by mathematical means that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care. Moreover, even if you will prove to me that we have not achieved and will not achieve any of our aims in Lebanon, that we will neither create a friendly regime in Lebanon nor destroy the Syrians or even the PLO, even then I don't care. It was still worth it. Even if Galilee is shelled again by Katyushas in a year's time, I don't really care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more , until they will have had enough. And do you know why it is all worth it? Because it seems that this war has made us more unpopular among the so-called civilised world. "We'll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn Hilwe (and it's a pity we did not wipe out that hornet's nest completely!, the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the bullshit talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance." " I personally don't want to be any better than Khomeini or Brezhnev or Ghadafi or Assad or Mrs. Thatcher, or even Harry Truman who killed half a million Japanese with two fine bombs . I only want to be smarter than they are, quicker and more efficient, not better or more beautiful than they are. Tell me, do the baddies of this world have a bad time? If anyone tries to touch them, the evil men cut his hands and legs off. They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don't suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear me instead of feeling sorry for me . Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear my madness instead of admiring my nobility. Thank god for that. Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East! If anything would happen to your child, god forbid, you would talk like I do. Let them be aware in Washington, Moscow, Damascus and China that if one of our ambassadors is shot, or even a consul or the most junior embassy official, we might start World War Three just like that !" ......We are talking while sitting on the balcony of the pretty country house belonging to C. which is situated in a prosperous Moshav. To the west we see a burning sunset and there is a scent of fruit trees in the air. We are being served iced coffee in tall glasses. C. is about fifty years old. He is a man well known for his (military) actions. He is a strong, heavy figure wearing shorts but no shirt. His body is tanned a metallic bronze shade, the colour of a blond man living in the sun. He puts his hairy legs on the table and his hands on the chair. There is a scar on his neck. His eyes wander over his plantations. He spells out his ideology in a voice made hoarse by too much smoking: "Let me tell me [sic] what is the most important thing, the sweetest fruit of the war in Lebanon: It is that now they don't just hate Israel. Thanks to us, they now also hate all those Feinschmecker Jews in Paris, London, New York, Frankfurt and Montreal, in all their holes. At last they hate all these nice Yids, who say they are different from us, that they are not Israeli thugs, that they are different Jews, clean and decent. Just like the assimilated Jew in Vienna and Berlin begged the anti-Semite not to confuse him with the screaming, stinking Ostjude, who had smuggled himself into that cultural environment out of the dirty ghettos of Ukraine and Poland. It won't help them, those clean Yids, just as it did not help them in Vienna and Berlin. Let them shout that they condemn Israel, that they are all right, that they did not want and don't want to hurt a fly, that they always prefer being slaughtered to fighting, that they have taken it upon themselves to teach the gentiles how to be good Christians by always turning the other cheek. It won't do them any good. Now they are getting it there because of us, and I am telling you, it is a pleasure to watch. "They are the same Yids who persuaded the gentiles to capitulate to the bastards in Vietnam, to give it in to Khomeini, to Brezhnev, to feel sorry for Sheikh Yamani because of his tough childhood, to make love not war. Or rather, to do neither, and instead write a thesis on love and war. We are through with all that. The Yid has been rejected, not only did he crucify Jesus, but he also crucified Arafat in Sabra and Shatila. They are being identified with us and that's a good thing! Their cemeteries are being desecrated, their synagogues are set on fire, all their old nicknames are being revived, they are being expelled from the best clubs, people shoot into their ethnic restaurants murdering small children, forcing them to remove any sign showing them to be Jews, forcing them to move and change their profession. "Soon their palaces will be smeared with the slogan: Yids, go to Palestine! And you know what? They will go to Palestine because they will have no other choice! All this is a bonus we received from the Lebanese war. Tell me, wasn't it worth it? "Soon we will hit on good times. The Jews will start arriving, the Israelis will stop emigrating and those who already emigrated will return. Those who had chosen assimilation will finally understand that it won't help them to try and be the conscience of the world. The 'conscience of the world' will have to understand through its arse what it could not get into its head. The gentiles have always felt sick of the Yids and their conscience, and now the Yids will have only one option: to come home, all of them, fast, to install thick steel doors, to build a strong fence, to have submachine guns positioned at every corner of their fence here and to fight like devils against anyone who dares to make a sound in this region. And if anyone even raises his hand against us we'll take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil. We might use nuclear arms. We'll go on until he no longer feels like it... "...You probably want to know whether I am not afraid of the masses of Yids coming here to escape anti-semitism smearing us with their olive oil until we go all soft like them. Listen, history is funny in that way, there is a dialectic here, irony. Who was it who expanded the state of Israel almost up the boundaries of the kingdom of King David? Who expanded the state until it covered the area from Mount Hermon to Raz Muhammad? Levi Eshkol. Of all people, it was that follower of Gordon, that softie, that old woman. Who, on the other hand, is about to push us back into the walls of the ghetto? Who gave up all of Sinai in order to retain a civilised image? Beitar's governor in Poland, that proud man Menahem Begin. So you can never tell. I only know one thing for sure: as long as you are fighting for your life all is permitted, even to drive out all the Arabs from the West Bank, everything. "Leibowitz is right, we are Judeo-Nazis, and why not? Listen, a people that gave itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children and lamp shades from the skin of its women is a worse criminal than its murderers. Worse than the Nazis...If your nice civilised parents had come here in time instead of writing books about the love for humanity and singing Hear O Israel on the way to the gas chambers, now don't be shocked, if they instead had killed six million Arabs here or even one million, what would have happened? Sure, two or three nasty pages would have been written in the history books, we would have been called all sorts of names, but we could be here today as a people of 25 million! "Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don't care. And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are large and healthy. What you lot don't understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don't grasp things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids. Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets really dark. So I am an anti-Semite ? Fine. So don't quote me, quote Lilienblum instead [an early Russian Zionist - ed.]. There is no need to quote an anti-Semite. Quote Lilienblum, and he is definitely not an anti-Semite, there is even a street in Tel Aviv named after him. (C. quotes from a small notebook that was lying on his table when I arrived:) 'Is all that is happening not a clear sign that our forefathers and ourselves...wanted and still want to be disgraced? That we enjoy living like gypsies.' That's Lilienblum. Not me. Believe me. I went through the Zionist literature, I can prove what I say. "And you can write that I am disgrace to humanity, I don't mind, on the contrary. Let's make a deal: I will do all I can to expel the Arabs from here, I will do all I can to increase anti-semitism, and you will write poems and essays about the misery of the Arabs and be prepared to absorb the Yids I will force to flee to this country and teach them to be a light unto the gentiles. How about it ?" It was there that I stopped C.'s monologue for a moment and expressed the thought passing through my mind, perhaps more for myself than for my host. Was it possible that Hitler had not only hurt the Jews but also poisoned their minds? Had that poison sunk in and was still active? But not even that idea could cause C. to protest or raise his voice. After all, he said to have never shouted under stress, even during the famous operations his name is associated with. Â Errata 18th April 2002 We picked up the interview and checked as far as possible that it was authentic; the interview was published in the Davar paper as stated, and we took the assurances of people who know Amos Oz, the journalist who conducted the interview, that the person identified as "C" was Ariel Sharon. There has since been a lively discussion that some of the descriptions of the interviewee do not fit with Sharon, even though the opinions mentioned match his thinking. Many journalists took the claim that it was Sharon at face value, as did for example the editor of Rocky Mountain News who just issued the following statement:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ April 19 2002,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 19 2002,08:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">October Fest sucks, Bavarians suck! Â <span id='postcolor'> I celebrate Scotchtober Fest. -=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'> well Scotch Whiskey defiently tastes better than bavarian beer! And it is more classy than Weissbier! What can you expect from a bunch of mountain-farmers?

Making money with desasters? Well you have to live with it! I have a little Aquarium with different species of fish on the outscirts of Tschernobyl. You wont believe it but the Japanese pay millions for my fish with three eyes, two heads, four brains and one tooth!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wreck-It @ April 19 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Was there ever a time in wich Germans have actually lived in an uncensored manner? No wonder you guys invented oktoberfest... Â <span id='postcolor'> October Fest sucks, Bavarians suck! Â We have pretty much freedom of press instead! And we got boobies on TV 24hours in all public channels. Make love not war Â

Hehe, I found a thread in a different forum which discusses the same issue. Actually there are some smart comments to be found! Have a look, it is fun Skalman.mv forum on THE BEST GENERAL OF WWII

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 19 2002,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, you talk about Patton like some idiot brought off the street could have done as well as he did.... Finally, I have found no evidence to suggest that Patton was mentally unstable. Quick tempered? definitely. Crazy (or fucked up brain, as you put it)? No. A commander has to be able to send troops to their death; especially Generals. Hell, thats why they give em so many stars; to make the tough decisions.<span id='postcolor'> Well nice exageration! I remember that this discussion is actually about the greatest war-heroes. My point was that I dont consider Patton as one of the greatest war heroes (neither Rommel) because there are some points which darken his image and because he doesnt fit into my picture of a man who turns the table through brilliant strategy or heroic deeds! But I see you are getting emotionally involved otherwise you would not try to put my arguments into the 'extreme opinion' corner. But maybe you should look deeper into this character! Just analyse him seperate from the whole WWII issue! Then you will find out the following (I guess those things don appear in the History Class in the US-Army but they do in books of historical scientists) Not only did Patton needlessly sacrifice the lives of his men to beat Montgomery to Messina, Patton caused more unnecessary deaths and injuries in March of 1945 when he attempted to free his son-in-law from a prisoner of war camp deep in enemy territory. This endeavor, motivated by personal concerns, was unsuccessful, reckless and foolhardy. Patton's son-in-law was seriously wounded in the raid but not freed. (2) Patton was anti-Semitic. (3) After the war Patton failed to implement the de-Nazification program as military governor of Bavaria. (4) Patton thought that General Dwight Eisenhower (who was his friend and who often intervened to protect him) was "yellow." (5) Patton's expressed hatred of the Russians (at that time our ally and the country which had suffered far more casualties and greater destruction from Nazi aggression than any other) caused serious diplomatic problems. (6) Patton would subject his troops to ranting tirades. One historian who reviewed this film (US film for teaching purposes) had been a junior officer in Patton's command. Upon being subjected to a "vainglorious Patton harangue," he remembers remarking, "What an ashley!" If subordinates say this maybe then Patton has been slightly over-gloryfied in the US, cause soldiers who served Rommel always spoke positively about 'their leader'. Furthermore, in my consideration does a War-hero not need to be a direct general on the front. My warhero of WWII was Churchill, the man with nerves made of steel!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 18 2002,21:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">satchel: read what albert wrote. nice numbers on papers, but the ability to conduct such op were existant. BTW. remember that northern englad and irland were outside the range. so actually the brits could maintain a pretty orderly buildup there, which they did. the main factories were also there. there was no real way to gain airsupiriority without aircraft carriers. no matter how u twist it, the german ability to gain air supiriority over englad was non-existant without bases in england, which couldnt be done without REAL navy, and air cover, which couldnt be done.......... what was important for the invasion wasnt the  bombers. it was all those fighter bombers, and the dive bombers that didnt have the range to support the invasion. without an ME-109 and Stukas, there wouldnt be any way to make use of the air supiriority.<span id='postcolor'> Satchel, I must admit I am pretty confused by your numbers. I watched a long series a few days ago (called "history" / what else) and there they showed nothing about the great invasion. The germans did have pretty much air superiority. They were kicked badly at the beginning and once during their attacks of london. Especially due to the fact that the brits (the germans called them indians, and the brits called the german pilots bandits) had a very sophisticated system of pre-alarming once german planes arrived on the borders of the island. So afterwards they decided only to bomb at night. But they did bomb everynight, without exception. The fighters (Stukka I think) did in fact have a big problem, they couldnt defend the bombers the whole way because the fuel not sufficient! Hitler however did order them to stay with the bombers until they petrol was used up and until the motor of the plane turns off. Many goos pilots died because of this stupid order! England was very important for the Americans and the germans could not take with the planes. Their plan simply was, bomb untill England surrenders, cause an invasion appeared impossible!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 18 2002,23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 18 2002,20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ouch! Â <!--emo& Â I guess I stepped on someones national pride there! If I have learned something here in this forum then it is: Never discuss WWII with Americans (beautyful generalisation, isnt it). There is too much emotion involved. I respect your point of view. I just think that Patton without all this ideological bla bla of US-ARMY and stuff was a mad-brain and he was eager to invest soldiers just to beat Montgomery. Now "if" a guy like this would have fought on the other side, you would probably call him now a Nazi who dreamed his fanatic dream! BTW: Rommel did a great mistake, he left his division in the wrong moment to go on vacation in Germany! In such a moment it is definetly mistake!<span id='postcolor'> So if I disagree with you, I am being blinded by nationalistic pride? That isnt a very good way to approach a discussion about military commanders. If you want to get down to it, because I was not there, I try to view military leaders from an objective viewpoint. Yes, Patton was a prima dona, but just because you dont like his attitude is no reason to disagree that he was a great commander and student of armored tactics. I have an equal amount of respect for any soldier of any nation who proves they can revolutionize the way they do their job. Heinz Guderian was one. He was a Nazi. Carl Doenitz did the same thing for submarine warfare. He was a Nazi. I cant condone their very unfortunate political views, but you cant tell me that they werent great soldiers. Interestingly enough Patton was less concerned with out shining Monty than with living up to the great military commanders of the past. It would be unfortunate to turn this thread into a "Bloodn'Guts"vs."Monty" thread, because you can easily argue the merits and demerits of both without bringing the other into the picture. Patton succeeded on many accounts; to say he does not deserve credit for his successes is to judge history from a biased viewpoint.<span id='postcolor'> Just because they were comanders on the german side doesnt mean they were nazis (of course if they were wearing an SS sign with pride and forbid the soldiers to play american jazz, well then then they were Nazis). No, ,maybe what I said sounds a bit too harsh! Â I dont care if a general has a fucked up brain as long as his performance convinces. But for me a great general is somone who beats facts. Something like the battle of Troja! History knows many commanders that won with less material and less manpower against an iron enemy. Patton for me is spoiled commander, he got what he ordered and I think he even got it in time. When Patton moved into France Germany wasnt some kind of imortal tiger, but a confused crowd of leftovers. There were not only problems with supplies but the soldiers were lead by terribly opposing commanders. Some highly fanatic Nazis; some willing to give up and safe lifes. It sounds pretty naive what I write, I know but I dont have space here to realy go into debth. So for me Patton was playing for the strong side and he played against a side which was getting weaker every day, and finally: he wasnt playing alone against Hitler. I which time he reconquered france is of no importance to me to judge him!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (scout @ April 18 2002,20:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">well wobble, in order to make a succesful invasion u need amph ships, and in order to invade britain u need alot of them, air supieriority wont do, and the germans didnt have the ability to sustain an aircover over britain 24 hrs a day. in short, the surface navy of the germans was a joke. they didnt even manage to control the med!<span id='postcolor'> No, the germans never intended to invade England with ships! They didnt have many of those anyway. They simply wanted to bomb out all english courage and make them sign a treaty! All the ships the germans had were a few fishing-boats which had been transformed into landingships! And those ships were never realy used, they just wanted to make the impression as if the GREAT GERMAN INVASION was just a couple of seconds to go!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ April 18 2002,20:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> his 3 grandest mistakes were A: fucking with russia.. despite them being darkaged compared to germany (for the most part) stalin was so callous he didnt mind simply outnumbering bullets with men "if you do not have a rifle follow a man who does, when he is killed, take his rifle" B: declaring war on US and bring it and its industrial system into the war.. Â cost him most all of his u-boats too.. C: laying off the RAF to attack london.. this gave the RAF time to recoop and smashed any chance he may of had of taking it out... and if he had and germany had uncontested air superiority over britian.. I dont see how it could have sustained regardless of troop numbers..<span id='postcolor'> Simple said but I agree. Â ; How mad must one be, to continue doing war after you have beaten your greatest opponent for centuries and owning half of europe!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ April 18 2002,20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm, is that an anti tank weapon or something naaah j/k That's an OICW, right? Very nice guns, but it isn't the one i saw in France, they looked more like the Famas...<span id='postcolor'> Hey DarkLight, in the new Counterstrike Condition Zero you will have a Famas! I want to learn more about that gun too

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tydium @ April 18 2002,20:31)</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"> well, what do u want. hitler was a corporal, and as i recall from my service, every corporal thought himself a genius! <span id='postcolor'> Hitler wasn't a corporal. He was a lance corporal.<span id='postcolor'> The yoke from Scout still was funny. And you cant do anything against it !

I still didnt pay about 20003040040030020202 mio parking tickets from the time I lived in Switzerland. If they catch I will definetly be sent to a war-tribunal

Are you sure it wasnt this gun you saw in France? Â

Some are and some arent!

You are absolutely right! I copy pasted the two pictures! They probably wanted to show a comparison between old G3 and new G36 as can be see below Of course this is a night scope. It is simple to find out you just have to go to HKpro.com (cool images) There are three (I dont realy know) versions of the G36, the one below I have never seen before .... But definetly a sexy new standard weapon for the germans

I agree with some of the points. But the mayor fucker who is to blame for losing in Russia was stupid Hitler himself. He thought he would know more about war than all the generals together, so he didnt listen to them but simply ordered. I dont know how often he commanded his generals: your soldiers must fight to the last bullet and the last drop of blood! And so it was! I am happy that this war was lost, but it was an expensive bill the germans had to pay in Russia! Being slightly arrogant I may say that the ones of you who havent seen films like Winterwar or Stalingrad have absolutely no idea how cruel life was on the Eastern-front. Figures and Facts dont quite help! Therefore all those strategic advices and analyses you give may work maybe for the Poland offensive or whatever, but please dont be smart-ass and apply them to battles like Stalingrad. When I was 13 I got a slap from my oncle, who is a Stalingrad veteran, because I dared to tell him my idea of how some of the battles could have been won. "Silly me"

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 18 2002,18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ April 18 2002,17:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But dont give him the credit to be a great tactitian. I mean a man who holds his afternoon sleep while his soldiers are involved in a great battle where hundreds died must be off reality. Especially if you later on hit one of your soldiers in hospital because he is wounded and cannot fight! All this glory because he went on so fast to push back the Germans (a production-giant like the US against an outpowered, tired Germany lead by fanatics) Â was nothing else than his competition with Montgomery. And sure you lost a couble of good men because of his aim to be first!<span id='postcolor'> Patton was one of the most brilliant armor tacticians the US has ever produced. His actions in Sicily and later in France are textbook examples of armored advances. The soldier he slapped was not wounded. He was shellshocked, and was experiencing what is known as combat fatigue. It doesnt make what he did right, but it is unfair to say that he hit a wounded soldier. He was visiting wounded men when he came across the shellshocked soldier. Im not sure I know what you are talking about, when you talk about him sleeping through a battle... could you be more specific? You talk about the US's industrial capacity for combat as if our generals merely fed our troops into a meatgrinder, a la Soviet tactics. If this was so, how come more casualties and losses in armor materiel, support vehicles, KIA, MIA, etc, were inflicted on German armed forces in all phases of America's combat actions than the losses inflicted on American forces. By contrast, although the Soviets inflicted more losses on the Germans, they paid a much larger cost in soldier's lives and war materiel than did the Germans. The Germans gave back more than what they got from the USSR, its just that the USSR had much much more to give. You say Patton is only famous because he was in the right place at the right time. He was in the right place because he was the right man for the job, and Eisenhower realised it.<span id='postcolor'> Ouch! I guess I stepped on someones national pride there! If I have learned something here in this forum then it is: Never discuss WWII with Americans (beautyful generalisation, isnt it). There is too much emotion involved. I respect your point of view. I just think that Patton without all this ideological bla bla of US-ARMY and stuff was a mad-brain and he was eager to invest soldiers just to beat Montgomery. Now "if" a guy like this would have fought on the other side, you would probably call him now a Nazi who dreamed his fanatic dream! BTW: Rommel did a great mistake, he left his division in the wrong moment to go on vacation in Germany! In such a moment it is definetly mistake!