Author Topic: Hitler as military strategist... (Read 11975 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **on:** June 02, 2012, 05:12:40 AM »

A lot of people talk about Hitler's supposed failures of military strategies during World War II, citing his declaration of war on the U.S. and his 1941 invasion of Russia. However let us talk about these two supposed 'blunders' of military strategy.

First of all, considering that FDR was already going to war against German U-boats in the Atlantic in 1940 Hitler was fully within the right to declare war on America. Secondly, FDR was given by British intelligence a supposed map of "nαzι plans" in this hemisphere, all lies cooked up by British intelligence to lure America into war. Hitler would later cite this map as an American provocation in his declaration of war. The point of mentioning this is that FDR and his cabinet was fully prepared to go to war against Germany by any means necessary so Hitler was actually just accepting the inevitable.

To the second point of the 1941 invasion of Russia Hitler did not invade Russia for Lebensraum or to crush ʝʊdɛօ-Bolshevism but to knock out the one country (besides America) Britain had the most hope in. Britian still clinged onto the hope that Russia would crush Germany from the east which is why Britain largely continued the war against Germany. Hitler's invasion of Russia was to crush the nation so that Britain would also surrender. Hitler offered Britain peace twice, both times she refused, and so Hitler hoped that by crushing Russia Britain would finally accept surrender.

Hitler's biggest blunder in my opinion of strategy was his constant rescuing of Mussolini in Italy, by use of German troops, wasting time and resources.

Sigismund · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2012, 09:05:35 AM »

Hitler's biggest blunder was rejecting the Catholic faith, embracing a Satanic pseudo-paganism, and murdering the innocent. Next to that, military strategy pales into insignificance.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2012, 03:57:14 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Hitler's biggest blunder was rejecting the Catholic faith, embracing a Satanic pseudo-paganism, and murdering the innocent. Next to that, military strategy pales into insignificance.

Well can we have a rational discussion of Hitler without someone shouting out, "Hitler's evil! Hitler's a madman!" Or are we all too irrational for that? :rolleyes: And who the hell thumbed down my post except the liberal ilk that blab on this forum?

Sigismund · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2012, 09:15:52 PM »

There really isn't much to say beyond that.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2012, 09:51:10 PM »

More praise of Hitler I see.

This site is starting to get a lot of rubbish posted on it lately. From new members.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #5 on:** June 03, 2012, 01:47:31 AM »

Quote from: Sigismund

There really isn't much to say beyond that.

There is plenty to say beyond that but I see I'm wasting my time here with you and braininglitch.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #6 on:** June 03, 2012, 01:49:18 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

More praise of Hitler I see.

This site is starting to get a lot of rubbish posted on it lately. From new members.

Yeah I see a rational discussion is not possible with liberals.

LaramieHirsch · « **Reply #7 on:** June 03, 2012, 10:49:31 AM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

Quote from: Sigismund
There really isn't much to say beyond that.
There is plenty to say beyond that but I see I'm wasting my time here with you and braininglitch.

A colleague of mine who is atheist--and who is starting to see a negative issue in regards to the Judaic folks who run this country--recently commented that people are often having knee-jerk reactions to Hitler, that he is automatically considered evil, and no one critically thinks about WHY nαzι Germany was reacting to the Jєωs of their time.

Basically, my friend says that the German people were getting robbed and plundered by the Judaic bankers, the same way America is getting eaten alive by them--and that the Germans understood this, unafraid to confront the truth of it. And for this reason, they had no problems with the nαzι Party's persecution of them. In this way, we might be able to relate to the average German of those days. Now, death and torture, I'm sure is not the way to go with solving the dilemma.

If Hitler wasn't such an occultist, and if only he were to turn to the Catholic Church for guidance on the matter, he would have found in history that the Church already set up rules for dealing with subversive Judaic traitors. There is a latin term for the policy that the Church instituted...a term that I do not have at the moment. If I find it, I'll post it.

- - - - -

I am not so sure that people are beginning to praise Hitler, so much as they are starting to understand what was going through the German people's minds at that time.

Sigismund · « **Reply #8 on:** June 03, 2012, 04:33:05 PM »

If you think Spiritus Sanctus is any kind of liberal, you either have not been reading his posts or are really out of communion with reality.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2012, 07:15:53 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

If you think Spiritus Sanctus is any kind of liberal, you either have not been reading his posts or are really out of communion with reality.

No I just know you are a philo-Semite Sigmund Freud. :smoke-pot:

Accusing someone of praising Hitler is the tell-tale sign of a liberal.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #10 on:** June 03, 2012, 07:45:59 PM »

I deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst yet I still have enough sense not to praise Hitler.

alaric · « **Reply #11 on:** June 03, 2012, 07:53:18 PM »

Hitler's biggest military blunder was not going for the throat against England when he had the chance after chasing them back across the channel early in the war.

He actually thought he could be merciful and reconcile with them lousy limey Masonic, anti-Catholic bastards. He should've buried them and the frogs when he had them on the ropes instead of turning and attacking the sleeping Russian bear.

Big mistake.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #12 on:** June 03, 2012, 08:09:34 PM »

Most of us have been history buffs at one point or other, but alternative history, trying to employ hindsight quickly becomes counter-productive.

WWII and its aftermath had disastrous consequences for everyone: including the Catholic Church.

As Leon de Poncins explains in his State Secrets, the European states in the aftermath, whatever material gains might have been made in the postwar period, were a ruin of their former selves. Particularly so far as political power was concerned.

As the old Time Bombs of Vatican II stated, there was a great deal of moral and spiritual destruction wrought by the wars. When the last generations raised before WWI died, the anchor to the past was removed.

I think the correct attitude to WWII is to recognize it's long over and that what happened does not invalidate opposition to Jєωιѕн and Leftist influence. This is of course the opposite of h0Ɩ0cαųstianity, for which WWII takes on cosmic significance and supposedly means the end of Christianity. Which is the take of the Jєωs and the modernists.

What happened in WWII was a chastisement.

If the the Jєωs and conciliarists believed in God, they would be afraid to so self-righteously refer to the war as some sort of justification for their collaboration in the destruction of western society. On the contrary, they would recognize it was the very efforts of the Left to bring about revolutionary change that created conditions that made war inevitable.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #13 on:** June 03, 2012, 10:28:16 PM »

Quote from: alaric

Hitler's biggest military blunder was not going for the throat against England when he had the chance after chasing them back across the channel early in the war.

He actually thought he could be merciful and reconcile with them lousy limey Masonic, anti-Catholic bastards. He should've buried them and the frogs when he had them on the ropes instead of turning and attacking the sleeping Russian bear.

Big mistake.

Well Hitler respected the British Empire and thought it should remain preserved. That is why the Battle of Britain was used to bring down Churchill, not cause the destruction of Britain. And that is why he attacked Russia instead, thinking that Britain would surrender if Germany defeated Russia, considering Britain placed its hopes in Russia and America to defeat Germany. In fact Hitler explained his own stop-order at Dunkirk that spared British lives was so that "there could be no irreconcirable breach between our two peoples." To him the British were a superior race and more fit partner for the Germans, preferable even to his Asian ally Japan.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 03, 2012, 10:31:49 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I deny the h0Ɩ0cαųst yet I still have enough sense not to praise Hitler.

No one is praising Hitler. We are having a rational discussion of him as military strategist.