Hitler

[Sachinism]

You talking about The Pacific?

I think its that

[flamy]

Lizzy' date=' have you seen Idi i smotri(Come and See)?[/quote'] have u seen idi i skotri come come... come and suck :finger:

[Zelig]

No :((

..do watch. Very depressing though:((

have u seen idi i skotri come come... come and suck :finger:

:lollypop:

[Riley's Girl]

I think its that

They started airing it in March (in the US). Another 10-part miniseries, kicking off just after the attack on Pearl Harbour. Some of the same people involved & apparently Stephen Ambrose's (writer of the BoB novel) son, Hugh Ambrose was one of the consultants. Worth investigating.

[Riley's Girl]

..do watch. Very depressing though:((

Will check it out.

[Gunner_Mania]

I think The Pacific is now showing in the UK on Sky Movies

[Riley's Girl]

I think The Pacific is now showing in the UK on Sky Movies

Wonder when we will have it...

[Sooda]

The Pacific is supposed to be a very good show. BoB is excellent excellent viewing, very powerful stuff. And as you say the death camps episode is awesome. To be fair -Hitler being a great orator and tactician is quite different from him being a monster and SoB...he was probably both those sets of things...?

[Guest Gunner]

The Pacific is supposed to be a very good show. BoB is excellent excellent viewing, very powerful stuff. And as you say the death camps episode is awesome. To be fair -Hitler being a great orator and tactician is quite different from him being a monster and SoB...he was probably both those sets of things...?

I suggest you actually listen to his speeches from 1932-33 and read the book Mein Kampf (banned in Europe), you will see that he was ranting most of the time. Hitler was brought to power mainly because of the demise of the Weimar republic, humiliation of the german people after the First great war and the pope. His populist speeches on German superiority found takers among the population who felt humiliated by the treaty of versailles. Thats about it, there was never any greatness in Hitler.

[EnterTheVoid]

Greater Orator and Tactician ? Sooda, you too ?

[Gunner_Mania]

I suggest you actually listen to his speeches from 1932-33 and read the book Mein Kampf (banned in Europe)' date= you will see that he was ranting most of the time. Hitler was brought to power mainly because of the demise of the Weimar republic, humiliation of the german people after the First great war and the pope. His populist speeches on German superiority found takers among the population who felt humiliated by the treaty of versailles. Thats about it, there was never any greatness in Hitler.

Is it banned in the whole of Europe? I thought it was just in Germany. I have a copy of it somewhere. I read throught the first few chapters around his childhood but then lost interest. May be will try and read again, if I find it.

[dev.goswami]

I have to say i agree with b555....no matter how cruel he was he indeed was a great millitary man....just look at it through a military point of view and you will see the point...he lost in the end but he did win n=may wars before that....its like no matter how much you hate :punter: for his bad attitude you have to appreciate his cricket.

[Guest Gunner]

I have to say i agree with b555....no matter how cruel he was he indeed was a great millitary man....just look at it through a military point of view and you will see the point...he lost in the end but he did win n=may wars before that....its like no matter how much you hate :punter: for his bad attitude you have to appreciate his cricket.

Can you please tell me what you find tactically brilliant about nazi invasion of England or Russia? All his major campaigns were a failure. he just managed to roll over peasants like Czechoslovakia and Poland. He got into France because the french were both ill prepared and arrogant, hell they didn't even fight.

[Clarke]

just remembering the best military tactician and the most awesome orator according to me :hatsoff:

I have to say i agree with b555....no matter how cruel he was he indeed was a great millitary man....just look at it through a military point of view and you will see the point...he lost in the end but he did win n=may wars before that

Military tactician my bottom .. he was the biggest bimbo to fight a two front war to begin with, other than being a crazy f**k. The victories of his were either over the small weak countries in Europe or due to brilliant tacticians like Rommel, Von Manstein & Model, coupled with the high quality German infantry and weaponry/armor.

[dev.goswami]

Can you please tell me what you find tactically brilliant about nazi invasion of England or Russia? All his major campaigns were a failure. he just managed to roll over peasants like Czechoslovakia and Poland. He got into France because the french were both ill prepared and arrogant' date=' hell they didn't even fight.[/quote'] You attribute to all his wins to the other side's failure and all his losses to him....if he would not have been such a threat the WWII would not have taken place....there are many dictators but only he is one such who was one of the reason to start a WW thats what makes him a brilliant dictator(not a better one) that others. PS: Do not mistake me for a nazi/hitler sympathizer...i totaly agree that he was a cruel and bad guy....what he did was wrong but i just respect his skills which would have been hailed by all if he would not have been what he was. His loss proves the saying 'The good always wins' :icflove:

[dev.goswami]

Military tactician my bottom .. he was the biggest bimbo to fight a two front war to begin with, other than being a crazy f**k. The victories of his were either over the small weak countries in Europe or due to brilliant tacticians like Rommel, Von Manstein & Model, coupled with the high quality German infantry and weaponry/armor.

But he knew where to apply the right men....if he would have been a crazy f**k..the other countries should have recognized his threat before he defeated the 'weak' countries. BTW read the PS of my above post.

[Guest Gunner]

You attribute to all his wins to the other side's failure and all his losses to him....if he would not have been such a threat the WWII would not have taken place....there are many dictators but only he is one such who was one of the reason to start a WW thats what makes him a brilliant dictator(not a better one) that others. PS: Do not mistake me for a nazi/hitler sympathizer...i totaly agree that he was a cruel and bad guy....what he did was wrong but i just respect his skills which would have been hailed by all if he would not have been what he was. His loss proves the saying 'The good always wins' :icflove:

I am sorry but you don't know anything about European history. First you have to understand the socio-economic and military background and the major European powers of the early 20th century to enter this debate. I surely don't have the time to educate you. I will give you a simple task, find a book about operation Barbarossa and particularly read about the Nazi winter campaign, battle of stalingrad and the siege of leningrad. Hitler didn't make a single intelligent military decision. Which campaign makes you say that Hitler was a master tactician, point it out to me and I will debate you. Pick anything the North African capmpaigns, bombardment of London, the russian campaign - everything was a failure. The only battles he won were over weak countries and like clarke pointed out through the tactical nous of his Generals like Rommel.

[dev.goswami]

I am sorry but you don't know anything about European history. First you have to understand the socio-economic and military background and the major European powers of the early 20th century to enter this debate. I surely don't have the time to educate you. I will give you a simple task, find a book about operation Barbarossa and particularly read about the Nazi winter campaign, battle of stalingrad and the siege of leningrad. Hitler didn't make a single intelligent military decision. Which campaign makes you say that Hitler was a master tactician, point it out to me and I will debate you. Pick anything the North African capmpaigns, bombardment of London, the russian campaign - everything was a failure. The only battles he won were over weak countries and like clarke pointed out through the tactical nous of his Generals like Rommel.

Yes you are right..i really do not actually know the history..i was saying what i said based on whatever knowledge i had....i will certainly educate myself more and then debate you!!!

[Clarke]

But he knew where to apply the right men....

Most of his Generals/Field Marshals were experienced veterans of WWI, he did not go on a talent hunt as such. And he knew how to override their decisions and expected them to shoot themselves in the head if they did not bring honor (lost battles). For instance: - Focusing on Stalingrad (because it had Stalin in its name) instead of the oil rich Caucasus to cut off the Russian War Machine's energy supply. - Delaying the Kursk offensive by months in search of wonder weapons, allowing the Red Army to set up massive defenses and negate blitzkrieg, the most successful German war tactic. - Going for Antwerp instead of encircling the Allied forces in the Ardennes. These are just few of the f**k ups where he forced his view over his best tacticians.

if he would have been a crazy f**k..the other countries should have recognized his threat before he defeated the 'weak' countries.

Times were different .. most were already wary of WWI and the depression and hardly had the sort of focus on international issues. Infact the invasion of Poland itself was illegal and Britain/France were supposed to come to the rescue but they didnt.

BTW read the PS of my above post.

Fair enough.

[Guest Gunner]

Yes you are right..i really do not actually know the history..i was saying what i said based on whatever knowledge i had....i will certainly educate myself more and then debate you!!!

Fair enough. But Hitler's tactical abilities are vastly over rated by Nazi sycophants. History really says otherwise.