Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2012, 09:47 PM
 
Location: Richfield, idaho
97 posts, read 180,269 times
Reputation: 144

Advertisements

By the way I checked to make sure that I reememvered correctlly and it turns out that Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland. UH? what did he have a thing against rich chocolate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2012, 10:53 PM
 
9,961 posts, read 17,519,162 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecaridad View Post
By the way I checked to make sure that I reememvered correctlly and it turns out that Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland. UH? what did he have a thing against rich chocolate?
That subject could probably serve as an interesting topic to discuss in itself. From what I've read in the past, Hitler and the Nazis had the proposed Operation Tannebaum, which involved a invasion of Switzerland by both German and Italian troops after which most of Switzerland would be annexed into Greater Germany while the Italian speaking regions to the south of the Alps would be annexed by Mussolini. The Swiss planned on fighting any invasion by attempting to delay the Germans at the lowlands in the border region before retreating most troops to fight a war from more easily defended portion of Switzerland within the Central Alps---destroying most bridges and tunnels into the alpine cantons.

However, the Germans ended up being occupied with the invasions of Russia, Yugoslavia, and Greece, along with the fighting in North Africa, and thus simply didn't have the time or manpower to devote to an invasion.

Though, I'm sure our usual gang of history experts can expand in much more detail regarding this than I can...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 11:19 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,682,136 times
Reputation: 14622
Deezus summed it up pretty well. The Germans viewed the Swiss as wayward citizens and Hitler viewed all of Switzerland as an abhoration given its multicultural heritage. German maps used in schools at the time actually showed Switzerland as part of the greater Germany. The Swiss were nervous over Hitler from as early as 1933 and began ramping up their military spending to defend the country. On august 30, 1939 the Swiss elected (yes they elect them) the general to lead their army during the war, Henri Guisan. Guisan ordered the immediate mobilization of the Swiss Army to defend the frontiers. He later boasted that 10 minutes before the British declared war on Germany for the invasion of Poland, the Swiss Army was already in their positions.

Following the invasion and fall of France, the Germans began drawing up plans for an invasion and the Swiss began to refine their defensive plans and call up more troops (the enlistment age was extended from 48 to 60). Many in Germany thought the Swiss could be conquered through Anschluss similar to Austria or that as soon as military pressure was applied, they would acquiesce. Plans were drawn up that eventually culminated with the formation of Operation Tannenbaum in 1942.

Meanwhile the Swiss had been constantly building up their army and making their own plans. They realized they would need to abandon their cities situated on the northern plains, but planned to relocate the government and fight from a national redoubt deep in the Alps. Their three army corps would fight a delaying action while as many people as possible were moved to the redoubt, from there they would destroy all bridges and tunnels in and hold as long as possible.

For reasons unknown (at least to me) the Germans never invaded. There were a few minor feints towards Switzerland at various times, but no actual attack. Had Switzerland been taken, the idea was to splinter it into its German, Italian and French portions with each being re-assigned to the "parent" country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2012, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Los Awesome, CA
8,653 posts, read 6,131,464 times
Reputation: 3368
Quote:
Originally Posted by RPON View Post
Pat Buchanan is a turd of a man. He is incorrect or misleading in many of his analysis. To start off he is painting Hitler in a flattering way not befitting of his actions. This man was a sociopath with dreams of grandeur that lead to many deaths and his demise as well. He was out to build an evil empire that would last 1000 years; one that would have a foundation of white supremacy, intolerance and trickery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2012, 01:43 PM
 
24,404 posts, read 23,056,554 times
Reputation: 15011
I just saw a B 29 or a B 17 fly overhead for the Reading Pa WW 2 air museum weekend. It was big and I think it was the B 29 with an escort plane in front of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 05:57 PM
 
Location: North Bronx
413 posts, read 437,773 times
Reputation: 269
Pat is a Nazi loving idiot any fair reading of Hitler's book makes it clear that the USSR and Poland should be used for living space and also revenge against France for the first war and the humiliations of the treaty which benefited France and Poland most.....Britain he did respect and probably didn't want any problems with but attacking France or Belgium would have led to conflict with Britain as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,016 posts, read 12,576,379 times
Reputation: 9030
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post
No one is taking anything personal. You post crap, it's going to be called out. That "article" by Buchanan is rife with errors and baseless causal claims. Of course, you don't want to actually discuss it, you just want to post a random article spouting something you agree with and then occasionally come back to stir the pot. You never contribute any of your own thoughts or analysis. This forum isn't a repository for links spouting revisionist history and baseless claims you happen to find interesting.
Buchanan's poison lies are not any different at all than what the extreme right wing in all the European countries were saying all through the 30s. In the USA it continued into the 40s and beyond. You had the "Cliveden set" in England who were all members of the House of Lords. They admired Hitler and the Nazis and did their utmost to keep England out of the war.

In France you had the traitors, "The Two Hundred families", those economic masters of France who had a slogan at the time of, "Better Hitler than Blum". Blum was their progressive and Jewish Premier who of course the right wing hated. Well they got their Hitler and found out how wrong they had been.

Many American big businessmen were pro Nazi and did everything they could do to prevent the USA from war with Germany. Ford, William Randolph Hearst, Charles Lindberg and others were very pro Nazi.

All of them saw Nazism as a good way to re establish the golden age when the economic royalty of the Western world really were just that. No unions or any kind of demands from the workers. No regulations, no taxes and no checks on their power at all. What those RWNJs of the day did not either see or realize was that Nazism was just as dangerous to their position in the society as communism was. All of the German Big business men realized this by the late 30s. BY then it was too late as the regime had total power and to defy them meant death no matter who you were.

The main clash in WW2 was an ideological clash between progressivism on the one side and right wing reaction on the other.

It's an obvious observation that on the allied side progressivism won the day. Most of those European countries who did not come out of the war under Soviet control came out of it as completely transformed in the social aspect of things. A few did not and lived many long years after the war regretting it. Greece, Spain and Portugal still suffered right wing despots for decades.

The war did little to shift political ideology in the USA and in fact the country shifted markedly rightward after the war. In most of the developed democracies of the world the extreme right is pretty much dead and buried but not in the USA where it is alive and well. Buchannan is one very good example of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2013, 10:47 PM
 
4,204 posts, read 4,454,442 times
Reputation: 10154
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecaridad View Post
please forgive me for asking but then why did he invade russia? to "liberate" the germans immigrants from the 1660's? Or was it the bread growing regions and the oil fields that he wanted? I mean it couldn't have been the political reason --fighting communists since he made deals when he wanted their help in rearming. At what point does any group lose its identity with the "mother" nation? If Italy went to war with Romania -would Italian Americans and romanian Americans then attack each other in Cincinnati? -or go back to their respective nations and join the fighting?
The same reason the USA has forces deployed in about 131 nations around the world and cyclically - as the leaders in certain 'resource rich countries' who do not want to engage in lopsided trade and international debt finance (the most used tool) resource control grabs - then somehow 'create situations', whereby USA troops (now more likely 'contractors') -

what did Blackwater change there corporate name to?)

follow the infamous words of USMC General Smedley Butler (see 'War is a Racket') and go in and seize control, a la, 'the muscle', all under the guise of 'promoting democracy' and freeing 'oppressed peoples' of whom they cull and create new enemies. All for the maintenance of hegemony by the current power holders (and it has nothing to do with political parties nor the good of the majority of American people).

All sponsored by......


Network (1976) - Ned Beatty - "The World is a Business" - YouTube

To leave on better note here's Charlie Chaplin as The Great Dictator (Hitler)


Greatest Speech Ever Made Charlie Chaplin The Great Dictator W/Time Inception Full HD Best Version - YouTube

Good night, especially those NSA workers in Bluffdale UT! You, if anyone, can make things 'right'.

[In my best game show host voice]
Now, it's on to that great game show, WAR, where the military contractors who will provide the armaments for destruction...... will also bid on the reconstruction contracts! Who's up for Syria!! Come on Down!!! (Cue the propaganda war drum battle cries)...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2013, 08:56 AM
 
Location: New Mexico
471 posts, read 977,211 times
Reputation: 753
In the most simple regard, Hitler did not want war, and he really didn't expect any sort of real war. What Hitler wanted was to create his version of greater Germany, complete with all the resources from different places he felt they needed. Hitler believed he could just take what he wanted, kind of like shopping in some sort of big European supermarket.. Other countries would grumble or put up a little fight, but afterwards all would be well and things would settle down. He viewed Germany as invincible and that it was her natural destiny to become great again; real hard fought war was not in the original plan; his military might was for deterring others and making sure his dream came true and was sustainable afterwards .....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-11-2013, 09:22 AM
 
7,280 posts, read 10,948,582 times
Reputation: 11491
Hitler did not want war, he would have preferred, like any leader of any country that ever went to war, that their adversaries simply agree to whatever terms were sent their way.

In that respect, Hitler isn't any different than any other leader, dictator or whatever, throughout history. If the opposing side simply surrenders, there is no war, simply a conquest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top