It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why didn't the Nazis win WW2?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Ok, whether you believe or not. Just a question or two....

Assume that both sides during WW2 were controlled by the same group for purposes of creating a new world order.

Wouldn't letting Germany win, help that? Couldn't America/Britian just have tried to not do a good job in defeating Germany?




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
If we assume that both sides were being controlled by the same group, then I'm sure that the ensuing Cold War was far more beneficial to their cause that Germany winning would have been.

A big question for me when doing research about NWO and other conspiracies has been "why don't they just go ahead and do it?" You know, if Bush and the global elite want the US to be a totalitarian regime, why don't they just go ahead and do it and quash any attempts at rebellion through force? I've been researching these topics for years, but I've never personally been able to grasp the incredibly slowness with which these supposed "grand plans" are implemented.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by el_topo
If we assume that both sides were being controlled by the same group, then I'm sure that the ensuing Cold War was far more beneficial to their cause that Germany winning would have been.

???
Huh?

If you want an NWO, and you control both the allies and the axis, then, clearly, you'd want the axis to win out, because the axis was a totalitarian state, and the NWO idea is that the world will become a totalitarian state.
Failing that, you'd want the soviets to win out, because they too were a totalitarian state.
Failing that, you'd want islamo-fascists to win out, because they can use religious terror and fanaticism to create a totalitarian state.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I believe that Hitler once under control of the brotherhood in fact spun himself off and that is what led to the war in the first place, that and the fact that world wide Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I believe that Hitler once under control of the brotherhood in fact spun himself off and that is what led to the war in the first place, that and the fact that world wide Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933.



Do you mean that Hitler quit the group- or maybe was removed? That does make sense. If that's what you meant... what led you to believe that?


Originally posted by el_topo
A big question for me when doing research about NWO and other conspiracies has been "why don't they just go ahead and do it?"


Me too. I heard a theory that when there are few controlling many, they need the people to police themselves.

Thanks for your input. But, don't things that happen in a cold war, happen in a war (besides...war)? Both sides try and advance technolgy, threats are abounding, etc..



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Right. Hitler lost it when he entered Russia, going against the plans (or hopes!) laid out by the ones who financed his efffort, who wanted him to occupy Great Britain. Funds where cut off after Stalingrad if memory servers me right.

Good thing Hitler lost it, or is it?



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 04:52 PM
link   
"Right. Hitler lost it when he entered Russia, going against the plans (or hopes!) laid out by the ones who financed his efffort, who wanted him to occupy Great Britain. Funds where cut off after Stalingrad if memory servers me right."

I agree with the above. Besides financial problems his troops were spread to thin after he went into russia and lost their they moved into eastern Germany and began invading. Combine this with allied forces invading from the west and depleting troop numbers on hitlers side of things the war was lost. IUt was funny how the Germans went into russia where a lot of them froze to death and never even dies in combat. Russia waited for german forces to weaken in the western part of Russia then began conquest of eastern Germany.

Besides econimical restraints Germany was just to out numbered by the end of the war and spread to thin. It was a bad strategy on the part of the Nazi's some master race they were.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Hitler, like Napoleon before him, was swallowed up in the snows of Russia. The Third Reich was dead the moment it opened up the second front.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:03 PM
link   
What is this crazy talk about the allies and axis being controlled by the NWO!? The Nazis lost becasue they were to ambitious and were led by a madman they refused to confront. They clearly should of invaded the Uk as soon as they possibly could after the fall of France, then they could of turned on Russia safe in the knowledge it would be almost impossible for the US to attack fortress Europe.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Germany spread it's effort in too many directions. Basically came down to three major blunders.

1. Failure to have a realistic plan to take Great Britain.
No amphibious assault was ever really considered and the Air Battle of Britain was a lost cause. Without control of Britain a Western front was always there sucking resources.

2. Failure to take Malta and Gibraltar in the Mediterranean. People always seem to underestimate the importance of Malta in WWII.

Malta was a thorn in Rommel's supply chain. Without the lost supplies and troops, he probably would have overran Egypt entirely, thus changing the war immensely. Imagine a two pronged assault on the Caucasus by Germany.

3. Attacking Russia without taking care of other fronts first. Once Germany committed to a multi front war by attacking Russia, the handwriting was on the wall. Even then, if Germany had managed to stay focused on one main objective in Russia (Moscow) rather than three, they probably would have succeeded before winter hit.

Those are my big three boo boo's.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I tend to ask the question, was Germany meant to lose? I find three key areas that just don't make sense.

1. economy- Germany was not on a war time economy until around Sept 1944. Before this thier factories were still producing many civilian made goods like furniture and toilets. On the contrary within weeks after Pearl Harbor the US was on a complete war time economy with just about everything being produced was for military use. Germany did not do this until late in the war, which amazes me. If I were going to fight the entire world wouldn't I want as many weapons as possible. An example of this is when many people think of a German tank, the "tiger" often comes to mind. Well there were only about 1,350 made during the course, compared with about 50,000 Shermans and 50,000 Russian T-34's.

2. troop deployment- The biggest example I can give on this is Norway. Which was taken by Germany in 1940 and was never fought over again for the duration. It is said that there were around 300,000 German troops in Norway even as Berlin was beind surrounded. Hitler had ordered a no retreat policy that was just plain nuts, this had left the destruction of army group center (about a million men) in June 1944. Certain areas of france along the ocean were surrounded by allied troops because they weren't allowed to retreat and Crete was still in German hands by the time of the German surrender, again with thousands of troops sitting idle while they were despriately needed elsewhere. Thousands of men were tied up with air defenses which could have been defended by women and Hitler youth troops. Since there was not much of a navy after 43, those saliors could have went to Russia instead of sitting idle. There was a story in 44 between Hitler and Rommel in which Hitler said "if i could only have a million extra men, I could defeat the Red army" Rommel responded ypui have an extra million men, they are spread around Europe rounding up Jews. Hitler did not like that response.

3. technology production- first thing that comes to mind here is the mp43 or mp44 sturmguwer (assult rifle). This weapon could have been the greatest battle implement of the entire war, increasing german firepower perhaps 10 fold. Just imagine red army wave attacks against germans armed with assult rifles as opposed to mauser 98 bolt actions. Such firefower could have bled the allies dry. Did Hitler want to mass produce this weapon, yes in 1945, not in 1943 when it came out. If first had to be produced in secret, because Hitler only wanted submachine guns (mp40's). I don't think I need to get into wonder weapons like jets, rockets, missles and the rest.

To me it seems that Germany did just about everything to lose the war, was Hitler the ultimate patsy?



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I believe that Hitler once under control of the brotherhood in fact spun himself off and that is what led to the war in the first place, that and the fact that world wide Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933.

There is no such organization as 'world wide jewry", and germany didn't loose the war or suffer because of "the jews"


Hitler lost it when he entered Russia

The germany economy itself was dead from within. Even without the russian debacle, the nazis would've lost the war, it just would've taken longer.Hitler was able to re-arm the country by nationalizing all industry and private property and dedicating it to the military and cultural brainwashing. This meant that he was able to build up a lot of power. However, he, apparently, bought into that aryan BS, and beleived that they'd win the war like a lightening flash, even not bothering to stockpile strategic resources for the long haul. Once the war became a Long War, he lost it, because he had no materials, and his economy was dead.


They clearly should of invaded the Uk as soon as they possibly could

If Nazi germany was going to survive, it would've had to sue for peace immediately after taking France. Much longer after that, and they might've had to concede some territoriy and assasinate Hitler. The onyl one in the regime that could've done that was probably Goering.
And then things would've gotten REAL nasty.


To me it seems that Germany did just about everything to lose the war, was Hitler the ultimate patsy?

To accomplish what? Germany had ALREADY been invaded, occupied, and given a made up government by the allies. What purpose was served by building up a german war machine, destroying most of europe, ripping apart russia, bombing england into senselessness, and then rebuilding it all again?
To do what? Have the US facade and the Soviet facade build up massive stockpiles of nukes while occupying part of germany??? And then not use them and reunite Germany?

If this was done by teh NWO, then they're not dangerous, because they can't make up their minds or stick to the plan!



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   


You have voted Fighting Kentuctian for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.


Since you look new to the board and are a fellow WWII buff, why not.

You bring up valid points: the Destruction of Amry Group Centre was really the final nail in the coffin, not that the end result was in doubt. Played way too many wargames in my youth, it really was a major turning point. I think that battle really broke the back of the German Generals from then on, They kney it was a matter of when, not if.

No offence to D-Day and all that the Western Front did but..................





Operation Bagration pitted over 2.3 million Soviet soldiers in 200 divisions and large formations with almost 6,000 tanks and massed artillery against the 34 German divisions of Army Group Centre. The defeat of this force resulted in the death or capture of nearly 350,000 German troops



Just plain astounding when you think about it.


The technology and economy go hand in hand. It's scary to think "what if" when you think of Germany in WWII.

Imagine 262's produced earlier and in numbers to actually matter, Tigers, Panthers and Super Tigers were superior to anything out their with an even battlefield. If they would have really geared up for the invasion of Russia, it probably would have been scary.


Like you said they just got plain outproduced, sorta like I do sometimes in C&C Generals. You can have the best army and plan in the world but still lose to a swarm of army ants.
external sourceen.wikipedia.org...[



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Why Nazism lost the war? That's easy. While the equipment and training of the German Wehrmacht was far far superior to both the Soviets and Allied forces (like the above poster said- Panthers, V-2s, and so forth, way above the time) the Economy was in ruins. The overpowering of the Luftwaffe by the RAF meant that German industry would be threatened, and it was. Hitler attempted to build facilities underground, but you couldn't really compete against 5 Shermans for each Panther tank, or 10 Stalin tanks for each soldier with a bummed up little rifle and anti-tank device. I believe there was even a quote by a German General, it went something like "It's useless to fight- for every 10 Soviet tanks we smash, 20 more appear, we lost". Economy folks, that's what wins a war of atrition.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Nazis lost because the bodies of more than 10 million Russian soldiers got in thier way.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Hitler wanted to invade Russia from the start. This was his first priority, and he would have made it too if it weren't for "the first front". He never wanted a war with UK. He hoped that the UK would not go to war against Germany despite his invasion of Poland. The war would have ended differently if Germany have had just Russia to focus on. I don't think he would have started a war against UK/France after winning a war against Russia. Also keep in mind that Russia was not so popular in the west and in Scandinavia after Russia attacked Finland.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
The reason the Nazis lost is because of perhaps the worst military move in history- Invading the Soviet Union. Though their is some indication that Stalin was planning to invade Nazi territory (or at least thats what Hitler thought.

Hitler thought of the Soviets were "Sub-human" so non-aggression pact wasnt going to last. He also never wanted to fight the UK and US. If his sequel to Mein Kampf is real he knew the US would become a major threat in the future but related to the US much more the Russia since it had such a large German population at the time. 1/4 of the US was German at the time I think. So personally I dont think he wanted war with the US at that time.

I personally dont know why he declared war on the US. The pact he had with Japan only made him declare war on a country if Japan was attacked first. If Japan was the aggressor Germany was not obligated to come to her defense.


Fighting two fronts of that size was foolish and he lost when he did that. He might have had the resources to win if he was fighting a single side US+UK or Soviets. But splitting his forces and resources he was doomed. Its true that the Soviets did the majority of the ground fighting with the Nazis and lost millions in the process, but without the Massive amounts of bombs British and US bombers were dropping on Germany it wouldnt have been so easy. Also if Hitler didnt have to split his forces and waste so many resources on the Western front preparing for the comming invasion he might have been able to take the Soviets.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Two other posters agreed that financing was cut off when Germany entered Stalingrad. Does any one have any more information on this? I believe it is key, and maybe el_topo is not that far off if that is the case. Maybe the NWO Bankers didn’t control both sides, but they did have a large influence on both sides.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
The nazis thought that they were fighting AGAINST the NWO, they viewed the NWO as an orgnaization of Anglo-American capitalist international bankers, and beleived that nationalism was the answer to the excesses and abuses of the free market.

Helmet, i don't know about Hitler not wanting to attack the UK. The communists in russia were, of course, the traditional enemy of the nazis and other fascists, but I wouldn't under-estimate their hatred for free trade, capitalism, and anglo 'mongrelization'. At the very least, if they didn't want war with teh UK, they might've stoped bombing the heck outta it!


Also, and this is controversial and disputed, but apparently there is a "Second" book of Hitler, unpublished until recently, wherein he details the logic for an ultimate war with America and the global capitalists, which, of necessity, would include war with britain. I haven't read the book myself, and its authorship is in dispute, but it does make 'sense' in the nazi world-view to have a long plan to eventually go against the capitalists. I don't know if hitler planned on taking both the capitalists and the communists on at once though, and most people seem to agree that his own plans were less for conquering the globe and more for making europe into a "Greater Germania", but perhaps it was the intent to have a future leader (son of himmler?
) take care of that.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

To me it seems that Germany did just about everything to lose the war, was Hitler the ultimate patsy?

To accomplish what? Germany had ALREADY been invaded, occupied, and given a made up government by the allies. What purpose was served by building up a german war machine, destroying most of europe, ripping apart russia, bombing england into senselessness, and then rebuilding it all again?
To do what? Have the US facade and the Soviet facade build up massive stockpiles of nukes while occupying part of germany??? And then not use them and reunite Germany?

If this was done by teh NWO, then they're not dangerous, because they can't make up their minds or stick to the plan!



Depending upon what version oh history you wish to believe will result in 2 different answerws. You answered the revisionist version quite well, now I will atempt the conspiratorial view.

Like much of history, white is black and black is white. World War 1 was used to justify world gov't, via league of nations just as the panic of 1907 was used to justify a central bank, the federal reserve. This was proven in the 1950's by gov't investigators who researched the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. They discovered that this group had hoped to involve the US into a major war to set the stage for world gov't. This was before WW1.

The League of Nations which was devised by Col Edward Mendell House (President Wilson's advisor) in his 1913 novel "Philip Dru Administrator", was part of Wislon's famous 14 points at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Wilson was a big time servent of the global elite. At the conference we saw the same old global elite faces like Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch (when ever these type of people gather it is never good news)

The United States Senate did not ratify the Versailles treaty, thereby keeping us out of the League on Nations. Without America's involvment in the League it was kind of useless and just a stepping stone to something better. But something must create that something better.

The global elite, upon hearing of America's decline to enter the League gathered in Paris and decided that something must be done to change the political climate of freedom loving Americans into what we would today call sheep. They met at the Hotel Majestic on May 30, 1919 and created the "Institute of International Affairs" of which would have 1 branch in Britian called "RIIA" and the more common branch in America called the "CFR".

To make the rest of history short and sweet, the CFR spent vast capital trying to persuade the people into joining the League of Nations/world gov't, but knowing all along the the people would have to be scared into it, and again by war. Only this next was had to be much bigger than the first war and a lot more bloody.

And what was the result of WW2, why the United Nations of course! The UN was the sole purpose of a certain conflict we know as WW2. And that is why Germany lost, because they were the patsy, the created bad guy who had to be defeated by the good guys, the allies. Lee Harvy Oswald might as well have been the Furhur instead of Hitler.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join