pegasos
New Member
The One from the Source
Posts: 23
|
Post by pegasos on Jan 28, 2006 9:41:32 GMT -5
The World Wars put an end to European supremacy and allowed the US to become a superpower, as well as communist Russia. Actually yes, America and Russia "somehow" managed to divide Europe between them in two.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 28, 2006 13:06:14 GMT -5
This is a silly and inconsequential question. The better question is: was the destruction of Europe along with 50 million lives worth the city of Danzig?
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 28, 2006 14:01:32 GMT -5
Hitler's future plans for Europe probably would have been impossible to realize. Europe would probably become a National Socialist bloc, not unlike the Soviet bloc. Once Slavic nationalism could be converted to pan-National Socialism, then the Germans would cease their assault on the Slavic peoples; although Western Slavs would probably be re-settled eastward. England would have sued for peace to keep its worldwide possessions, and once fully integrated, National Socialist forces would invade Japan and force its surrender. Africa would become the prime German colony, while England retained its other possessions in the name of the Third Reich. Eventually, Hitler's Europe would have disintegrated as the Soviet bloc and USSR did. The United States would be paralyzed by pro-Fascists within, and Fascist encirclement beyond its borders. There would be numerous skirmishes, but otherwise the USA would remain intact. Canada would declare armed neutrality as would Australia and New Zealand. There was no "Slavic nationalism". Pan-slavism bit the dust before it even began. Poles think they are the best, Russians think they are the best. None were willing to submit to the other, like say all the German states under Prussia. In the war there was Polish nationalism, meager rations of Russian nationalism, same as from other nations, these nationalists, were coincidingly staunchly anti-Bolshevik and for that reason usually conformed with the Germans [Ustashi, Chetniks, UPA, Finns, Slovaks et al.,] Because at the same time there were communist factions and elements already in their societies, and in large many of the eastern partisans were composed of communists. So in a sense, for many of the nations in the East, the fighting had the dynamics of a civil war rather than a decisive Us vs. Them context. Polish nationalism, at the time, being by far the most potent, like always. Representative of the super complex underground movement and also the willingness to engage a far more powerful enemy. Which was a tactic that proved deadly, Like the Warsaw Uprising, or even the September war, where no doubt they were under the pretense that the French and English would be there to help defeat Germany within two weeks. Just like the Russians were going to help them in Warsaw, not let them be massacred, then enter the city and arrest any anti-communist [everyone]. This type of nationalism was completely unique though, most other eastern nationalist were willing to fight against the Bolsheviks under the Nazi banner as hilfsfreiwilligen troops. Many in units like Totenkopf or Leibstandarte panzer divisions, but if there was enough volunteers they created independent SS-brigades, but there were also regular Heer units composed of Russians, Ukrainians, etc.,. Some of the hastily created units are notorious for war crimes, like the notorious Kaminski brigade, whom were only rivaled in terribleness by Dirlewangers brigade of convicts, himself a convicted child molester! SS-galicia are also accused of many crimes in the vohyn area they also accuse poles as well. But like I say, "slavic nationalism" was non existent.
|
|
pegasos
New Member
The One from the Source
Posts: 23
|
Post by pegasos on Jan 28, 2006 16:31:49 GMT -5
Yes..."slavic nationalism" was non existent.....we should more correctly call it as it really is called.....PANSLAVISM..
|
|