no one can be THAT lucky :?Face it...the guy was very very lucky
Darkmb101 said:Correct if im wrong, but "In WW1 a US soldier had Hilter in his crosshairs, but didnt shoot him because Hilter was only a private then."
Well i gues that that guy killed milions of peopleCorrect if im wrong, but "In WW1 a US soldier had Hilter in his crosshairs, but didnt shoot him because Hilter was only a private then."
I object! :evil: There's no reason to call Germany "the most important country in Europe" I'm not making any claims to which country would earn that title, but I don't think we should use that phrase to describe Germany.Doppleganger said:You just don't gain control of the most important country in Europe
And he wasn't all that bad a strategist. Many of his ideas were supported by the top military minds of the time. He 'got' what Blitzkrieg could do and what combined arms could do and that is more than you can say for respected Generals like Von Rundstedt and Von Kluge
the swastika looks kind of like four leaf clover :lol: :mrgreen:IrishWizard said:I have heard that story to darkmb101. But the one that has stuck with me while reading some books about Hitler was in an assault he was in during WWI he tripped and fell onto the ground and as he fell a bullet passed through his top, right shoulder uniform and hit the man behind him. He then stood up and ran about 10 feet and 2 seconds later a shell hit exactly where he had been. Face it guys, he was a LUCKY man. He survived a mustard gas attack also. Man hes a lucky bastard! He must of had a few 4-leaf clovers
sherman105 said:And he wasn't all that bad a strategist. Many of his ideas were supported by the top military minds of the time. He 'got' what Blitzkrieg could do and what combined arms could do and that is more than you can say for respected Generals like Von Rundstedt and Von Kluge
Well, thats one way to look at it....But I think that he was a radical man and therefor leaned towards the new and radical military minds in germany...He was prone on radical solutions, and towards he end of the war supported some of the most redicules development plans in weaonery history.
As to his strategic thinking, he invaded russia for pits sake, thats the worst blunder you can make.
the thing is that swastika was a peace sign before hitler took it for insigniaPosted: Thu May 27, 2004 21:21 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IrishWizard wrote:
I have heard that story to darkmb101. But the one that has stuck with me while reading some books about Hitler was in an assault he was in during WWI he tripped and fell onto the ground and as he fell a bullet passed through his top, right shoulder uniform and hit the man behind him. He then stood up and ran about 10 feet and 2 seconds later a shell hit exactly where he had been. Face it guys, he was a LUCKY man. He survived a mustard gas attack also. Man hes a lucky bastard! He must of had a few 4-leaf clovers
the swastika looks kind of like four leaf clover
If Hitler was the lucky one, then you could argue that there probably were more people that could have done what he did in the 1930s an 40s, but didn't because they didn't survive wwI.IrishWizard said:I have heard that story to darkmb101. But the one that has stuck with me while reading some books about Hitler was in an assault he was in during WWI he tripped and fell onto the ground and as he fell a bullet passed through his top, right shoulder uniform and hit the man behind him. He then stood up and ran about 10 feet and 2 seconds later a shell hit exactly where he had been. Face it guys, he was a LUCKY man. He survived a mustard gas attack also. Man hes a lucky bastard! He must of had a few 4-leaf clovers
At first it looked like Germany was doing better, but that was mainly because Hitler was printing new money on a 24/7 bases. The inflation skyrocketed, which Hitler blamed on the Jews, and than the only thing he could do was to go to war. He had the German population working again, but the money wasn't worth :cen: .Mark Conley said:In reality...the whole of europe was sunk pretty down with an economic depression and all..just like the USA was during the 30s. I think France and Germany were the first to come out of that economic disaster.
I still don't agree (I'm a stubborn man, if I want to be ) The central position of Germany has it's bad sides too. World economy wise, they where in a bad position back then. The best way to ship cargo was by boat. (It still is for large amounts.) Now France, Belgium and the Netherlands all had the upper hand when it came to harbours. And don't forget, back then these countries still had their colonies, so they weren't as small as they appear. And Germany still was suffering under sanctions placed upon them after losing the first WW. No, Germany wasn't at all the important country you say it was.Doppleganger said:BTW to answer what I meant by Germany being the most important country in Europe at that time. That is not to say other countries weren't important (I am British after all). But being at the centre of Europe, it's population size and industrial and engineering might, all make it the most important country in Europe in terms of its influence on it's neighbours and the wider world at large.
Granted, but I wasn't being nationalistic, I just didn't agree with you..Doppleganger said:Let's not get all nationalistic here. Some countries are clearly more important than others in terms of the influence they have on others. That's a fact of life.