Right Wing Discussion Thread XIV: Join the Friendkorps

[Confederate States of German America]

you seem completely incapable of understanding the infrastructure in North Africa was not up to the task.
Obviously no Italian operations in the Balkans would have freed up some additional ships.
But not enough. And what good are ships if you do not have ports to land them in? Roads and rails to get the supplies to the troops in the field?

There was six divisions being supplied in October of 1940 alone, then 10 in December.

The Soviet Army had serious command issues as well.
Especially at the beginning. Thanks to Stalin’s purges the Soviet command structure and higher level officers were often very poor, but they had some much better commanders latter on.

It was not just that, however.

In North Africa the forces were led by Germans. The Italians in supporting roles.

Rommel was in overall command, yes, but that doesn't deny the overwhelming majority of his force was Italian. Nor does it refute the issues I cited that came directly from said position for Rommel.

And in the Soviet operations they were under the German Command via Army group B and certainly a supporting force for that group. Also they did fight well in a few battles but they were still defeated and the ARMIR completely destroyed by February 1943.
In the cases you cited they still answered to German officers, not the (largely useless) Italian General staff.

They were overall a part of the Army Group B, yes, but still had their own commander and in effect acted as their own command as they had their own sector of the front. To also claim they did good in just a few battles shows you don't understand what you're talking about.

They, with the Romanians defeated a major Soviet offensive in October; this was the precursor to Little Saturn, and they did it without German aid. When the main attack came, even after the forces on their flanks gave way, they held firm despite their exposed nature. It then took the cream of the Soviet army 11 days to overrun them despite their logistics being cut (and barely existent before), a dearth of armor and air support, and again, being mountaineers exposed out on the Russian steppe. In many cases they fought until the Soviets were literally using tanks to run over their positions to kill them. To make this tenacious defense even more impressive, the Italians were able to stage a partly successful breakout, something 6th Army failed to do even despite WINTER STORM under von Manstein.

Lay off the pop history memes and start reading some real history books.

[Confederate States of German America]

The One Holy and True Apostolic Church.....The Southern Baptist Convention.

I love how you refrained from using the C word...the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

Catholic deriving from the Greek "Katholiko" meaning "Universal"... Essentially both the Orthodox and the Papists (oops, I mean Roman Catholics) seek to claim the mantle of " Catholic "

I made a joke, nothing more.

[Confederate States of German America]

Well, my point is that if Indian-Americans who believe in arranged marriages have kids then they’re more likely to pass on and impose that particular cultural norm onto those kids just like Christian Americans are more likely to pass on and impose their Christian norms onto their kids. So arranged marriages, shared by certain particular cultures and their experiences with it can’t be used as representative of how the rest of the nation of would feel if those specific cultural norms were imposed on the rest of the nation.

Which brings us back to the genetics thing. These studies were on Indian-Americans, so this shows there is nothing about American culture that necessarily means you can't have our said culture adapt to have this as a facet.

[Novus America]

I've wanted to ask something important to the right audience. Which is: Is antisemitism ever justifiable enough or is there enough logic for it to stand on its own merits? I believe that people who're against Arab and Jewish influence in the majority Gentile nations can do so, without being too obnoxious or malicious about it and without condoning the Holocaust.

People can perhaps be in favor of most of the entire world's Jewish population returning to Palestine, given that it is the closest area which exists to a Jewish homeland, even if the Arabs object.

The main reason I'm reluctant to fully embrace antisemitism is because I recognize most if not all Ashkenazi Jews as being White (if the European part of their ancestry is enough) and because it is probably the Roman empire's fault that Jews migrated towards Europe to begin with. The Temple shouldn't have been destroyed and the Jews didn't attack first, like might've been the case with the Arabs attacking Europe first just to spread Islam.

As it stands now, I'm more against the Roma people broadly speaking, because of the experiences relayed to me by this Hungarian I've been in communication for years. Zsolt from Budapest has always advised me on how bad it can be to have Roma as neighbors, given their lack of respect for private property and other problems too numerous to count. But I can understand now, why different national states in Europe take action against Roma on occasion.

Absolutely not. Antisemitism falsely treats Jews as some hive mind.
There are bad people who are Jews. But there are bad people amongst any group.
The Jews are not any worse than any other groups. And arguably on the average better than most, based on pretty much all statistical indicators.

Jews made and continue to make huge contributions to our technological development, treating them badly or removing them would be harmful.

Without US Jews, and German anti Semitism the US might not have gotten nuclear weapons first.

If anything it would be better for the US if most of the Jews in Israel moved to the US, but obviously they do not want to leave their historic homeland.

Roma are treated in Europe like the US treated African Americans in the 1930s.
Hungary something like Alabama.
I bet if you asked a white Alabaman from the 1930s about African Americans it would largely be racist, and unreliable.

Also when you segregate people into bad areas with bad education and bad infrastructure you should expect them to do badly.

Roma in the US are not a problem, they have for the most part easily integrated as Americans.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Well, my point is that if Indian-Americans who believe in arranged marriages have kids then they’re more likely to pass on and impose that particular cultural norm onto those kids just like Christian Americans are more likely to pass on and impose their Christian norms onto their kids. So arranged marriages, shared by certain particular cultures and their experiences with it can’t be used as representative of how the rest of the nation of would feel if those specific cultural norms were imposed on the rest of the nation.

Which brings us back to the genetics thing. These studies were on Indian-Americans, so this shows there is nothing about American culture that necessarily means you can't have our said culture adapt to have this as a facet.

Culture isn’t even dependent on genetics though.

[Confederate States of German America]

Which brings us back to the genetics thing. These studies were on Indian-Americans, so this shows there is nothing about American culture that necessarily means you can't have our said culture adapt to have this as a facet.

Culture isn’t even dependent on genetics though.

Indeed, and that's my point. The only plausible argument to be had is that Indians are genetically different, given these studies/tests were performed on Indian-Americans who have grown up here and been exposed to American culture all their life.

[Saiwania]

The Jews are not any worse than any other groups. And arguably on the average better than most, based on pretty much all statistical indicators.

Adolf Hitler is a genius in my view, so I'm tempted to think that he had his reasons for being antisemitic. That it had a logic, it just eludes me for the most part. I recognize Nazi Germany as the greatest police state that ever existed. There is no doubt in my mind that if there was only peacetime circumstances, that Germany would've been content with maintaining emigration as the objective for Germany's Jews.

I can't verify it as true that Hitler complained to Rommel that Churchill and Roosevelt were just "Jewish puppets" and that the "Jewish Bolsheviks from the East and the Jewish plutocrats from the West" ganged up to destroy Germany, so I lean towards this being myth. But it wouldn't be far off the mark to conclude that Hitler genuinely believed in all that his regime was doing.

I can understand Hitler's motives for being anti-Slavic. He basically wanted to steal all of their land in a manner similar to how the US government stole native American lands. But I don't understand the purpose of the antisemitism other than to steal Jews' material wealth/assets and to solidify political power early on during his rise.

[Novus America]

you seem completely incapable of understanding the infrastructure in North Africa was not up to the task.
Obviously no Italian operations in the Balkans would have freed up some additional ships.
But not enough. And what good are ships if you do not have ports to land them in? Roads and rails to get the supplies to the troops in the field?

There was six divisions being supplied in October of 1940 alone, then 10 in December.

The Soviet Army had serious command issues as well.
Especially at the beginning. Thanks to Stalin’s purges the Soviet command structure and higher level officers were often very poor, but they had some much better commanders latter on.

It was not just that, however.

In North Africa the forces were led by Germans. The Italians in supporting roles.

Rommel was in overall command, yes, but that doesn't deny the overwhelming majority of his force was Italian. Nor does it refute the issues I cited that came directly from said position for Rommel.

And in the Soviet operations they were under the German Command via Army group B and certainly a supporting force for that group. Also they did fight well in a few battles but they were still defeated and the ARMIR completely destroyed by February 1943.
In the cases you cited they still answered to German officers, not the (largely useless) Italian General staff.

They were overall a part of the Army Group B, yes, but still had their own commander and in effect acted as their own command as they had their own sector of the front. To also claim they did good in just a few battles shows you don't understand what you're talking about.

They, with the Romanians defeated a major Soviet offensive in October; this was the precursor to Little Saturn, and they did it without German aid. When the main attack came, even after the forces on their flanks gave way, they held firm despite their exposed nature. It then took the cream of the Soviet army 11 days to overrun them despite their logistics being cut (and barely existent before), a dearth of armor and air support, and again, being mountaineers exposed out on the Russian steppe. In many cases they fought until the Soviets were literally using tanks to run over their positions to kill them. To make this tenacious defense even more impressive, the Italians were able to stage a partly successful breakout, something 6th Army failed to do even despite WINTER STORM under von Manstein.

Lay off the pop history memes and start reading some real history books.

Those 10 divisions were not supplied adequately, and were clearly not enough to win.
Especially if they advanced further. The further you advance the more stretched your supplies become.
Infrastructure in Libya was bad. Which was a major problem.
And the further they moved towards Egypt the worse it got. Loss of strength gradient is a thing.

And you have yet to give an example of the Italian’s fighting well under the Italian general staff.
Nor explained why they had so many spectacular military failures.

You cherry pick a few examples to try to make that representative.
The simple fact is when Italy fought in France it performed horribly, when it fought in Greece it fought horribly. When it fought in North Africa (before Rommel and the arrival of large German forces) it fought horribly. Overall Italy did very poorly in the war. A few exceptions does not change the fact they clearly lost, and lost badly.

Sure Rommel made sure the limited supplies went more towards his Germans.
But you also ignore that they got so heavily trounced before he got there.

Had he given them more supplies his own troops would not have enough.
There was not enough supplies to go around. Again the infrastructure to support them fully simply was not there.

“Tobruk was pressed into use in June 1942 but the long approach route and Allied bombing led the effort to be abandoned in August. The German army assumed that the maximum distance a motorised army could operate from its base was 200 mi (320 km) but about an average of a third of Axis lorries were unserviceable and 35–50 percent of the fuel delivered was consumed moving the remainder to the front. Fuel oil shortages in Italy, the small size of the ports in Libya and the need to meet civilian demand, meant the inefficient dispatch of large numbers of small convoys. Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH, German army high command) concluded that German forces in Libya could not be supplied sufficiently for a decisive offensive, unless Italian forces were withdrawn to Italy, which was a politically impossible condition.[11]”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Desert_Campaign

Also fighting tenaciously on the defensive when you have no choice (most Italians captured by the Soviets died) is different than being able to carry out a successful offensive. Notice how the cases you cite are primarily defensive operations.

There simply was not enough infrastructure, and the Italian command not capable of successfully commanding a successful invasion of Egypt.

Italy simply was not up to the task of reaching the canal.

[Kowani]

The Jews are not any worse than any other groups. And arguably on the average better than most, based on pretty much all statistical indicators.

Adolf Hitler is a genius in my view,

I’m sorry, what?

so I'm tempted to think that he had his reasons for being antisemitic.

Yeah, a great deal of jealousy, resentment and generally failing at life gets you to seek a scapegoat.

That it had a logic, it just eludes me for the most part.

If something doesn’t exist, can it really count as evasion?

I recognize Nazi Germany as the greatest police state that ever existed.

If by greatest y’mean most effective, than probably. If you meant as a morally good place, fuck no.

There is no doubt in my mind that if there was only peacetime circumstances, that Germany would've been content with maintaining emigration as the objective for Germany's Jews.

Not only am I going to need a source for that claim, it’s absolute bullshit. You may have no doubt, but that doesn’t make it true.

I can't verify it as true that Hitler complained to Rommel that Churchill and Roosevelt were just "Jewish puppets" and that the "Jewish Bolsheviks from the East and the Jewish plutocrats from the West" ganged up to destroy Germany, so I lean towards this being myth. But it wouldn't be far off the mark to conclude that Hitler genuinely believed in all that his regime was doing.

He did blame the Jews for Germany’s ruin, so... He probably did believe in what he was doing...up until he went insane.

[Novus America]

The Jews are not any worse than any other groups. And arguably on the average better than most, based on pretty much all statistical indicators.

Adolf Hitler is a genius in my view, so I'm tempted to think that he had his reasons for being antisemitic. That it had a logic, it just eludes me for the most part. I recognize Nazi Germany as the greatest police state that ever existed. There is no doubt in my mind that if there was only peacetime circumstances, that Germany would've been content with maintaining emigration as the objective for Germany's Jews.

I can't verify it as true that Hitler complained to Rommel that Churchill and Roosevelt were just "Jewish puppets" and that the "Jewish Bolsheviks from the East and the Jewish plutocrats from the West" ganged up to destroy Germany, so I lean towards this being myth. But it wouldn't be far off the mark to conclude that Hitler genuinely believed in all that his regime was doing.

Hitler was an insane lunatic. He was brilliant at certain things, but horrible at many things.
And certainly completely mentally unstable and prone to massive errors of judgement.

He probably genuinely did believe in what he was doing, but so what?
He clearly was incorrect in his beliefs. The end results prove it.

You do realize he brought Germany to ruin, correct?

And maybe he would have been content with emigration of German Jews, (but most of the victims of the Holocaust were from occupied Poland and Soviet territories).

His idiotic decision to attack Poland made the emigration route impossible.
Hitler started the war! He was RESPONSIBLE for conditions not being peacetime conditions!

But emigration would have required somebody to take them (unfortunately the US was not willing to take in enough) and that still would have greatly weakened Germany as many of the best German scientists and doctors were Jewish.

[Saiwania]

Hitler started the war! He was RESPONSIBLE for conditions not being peacetime conditions!

But emigration would have required somebody to take them (unfortunately the US was not willing to take in enough) and that still would have greatly weakened Germany as many of the best German scientists and doctors were Jewish.

Hitler was probably too dead set on fulfilling Mein Kampf. He wanted a war in the East but especially against the Soviet Union. But didn't want war against either the UK or France. But was elated to have France vanquished when that happened because it was sufficient revenge for WWI.

The UK didn't have to declare war just to help Poland out, but I understand if the British didn't want to do any more appeasement.

If fulfilling Mein Kampf wasn't the objective. I think a limited German invasion annexing just the Polish corridor could've been sustained with Germany being able to get an eventual armistice in their favor, if it were clear that Germany was limiting itself to only reversing WWI losses as opposed to going on a spree of conquest.

[Novus America]

Hitler started the war! He was RESPONSIBLE for conditions not being peacetime conditions!

But emigration would have required somebody to take them (unfortunately the US was not willing to take in enough) and that still would have greatly weakened Germany as many of the best German scientists and doctors were Jewish.

Hitler was probably too dead set on fulfilling Mein Kampf. He wanted a war in the East but especially against the Soviet Union. But didn't want war against either the UK or France. But was elated to have France vanquished when that happened because it was sufficient revenge for WWI.

The UK didn't have to declare war just to help Poland out, but I understand if the British didn't want to do any more appeasement.

If fulfilling Mein Kampf wasn't the objective. I think a limited German invasion annexing just the Polish corridor could've been sustained with Germany being able to get an eventual armistice in their favor, if it were clear that Germany was limiting itself to only reversing WWI losses as opposed to going on a spree of conquest.

Him being dead set on an insane plan did not make it less insane. Or less stupid. Or lesss ruinous.

The British did not have to, but they were right to do so. They were allied with Poland.
And yes had Hitler been less greedy, only gone for the Polish corridor, (or not gone after Poland at all) kept and actually supported keeping Poland and the Baltics as a buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union (so no invasion of the Soviet Union) obviously things would have gone better for Germany.

But Hitler did NOT do the smart, sane thing!

The point is he unjustifiably and unnecessarily started the war that made the emigration route impossible, and he would still be expelling many of his best scientists and doctors even with the emigration route.

It would not have been good for Germany and good for whoever took them in.

No matter what the anti Semitism would still have been harmful, just less harmful.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

The UK didn't have to declare war just to help Poland out, but I understand if the British didn't want to do any more appeasement. […]

The British had pledged itself to Polish independence, and both countries had signed mutual assistance pacts. The British had a moral and legal obligation to declare war on Germany.

[…]If fulfilling Mein Kampf wasn't the objective. I think a limited German invasion annexing just the Polish corridor could've been sustained with Germany being able to get an eventual armistice in their favor, if it were clear that Germany was limiting itself to only reversing WWI losses as opposed to going on a spree of conquest.

The Germans had already demonstrated that restoring WW1 loses wasn’t their goal by annexing Austria. Besides, the Allies had no reason to trust in Germany after all of the agreements they had violated.

[Confederate States of German America]

Italy simply was not up to the task of reaching the canal.

Your arguments and refusal to listen grow tiresome, so let me go straight to the experts. The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College looked at this in the 1990s, and came to the completely opposite conclusion. The entirety of the working paper is here, but the highlight(s) is thus:

The Italian Army developed a new and revolutionary doctrine of combined arms warfare in 1938 based on the lessons learned from their experiences of the 1930s. The success from the use of Italian combined arm teams in Spain and in Ethiopia proved the concept of motorized forces and the natural follow-on of mechanization for the Italian Army. This doctrine was called the War of Rapid Decision. With this doctrine the Italian Army had developed a new and dynamic operational art of war. The Italian military in Libya had all the necessary elements to be successful utilizing this new doctrine. In addition it had a commander that already successfully used and demonstrated an applied motorized doctrine in the Italo-Ethiopian war where it proved victorious to him. Marshal Graziani didn’t utilize this new doctrine. The operational plan Marshal Graziani and his staff did execute was an advance in mass for the invasion of Egypt.

The operational plan Marshall Graziani and his staff should have developed was for a two-phase invasion, utilizing Italian mechanized doctrine, based on the forces available to him. This plan would have called for the stripping of all the trucks from the Italian 5th Army and using the just-arriving Italian M.11 medium tanks as the main mechanized striking force. The Italian army should have formed a mechanized force to invade Egypt, only followed by garrison troops to maintain the lines of communication. Based on the amount of transport available in Libya, his staff estimated they could have fully motorized two divisions and a brigade of Libyan troops (Knox 1982, 156). Combined with the available armor and motorized artillery forces, he would have had a potential mechanized force to invade Egypt with in August of 1940. The only realistic motorized formation that could have been formed is with the Comando Carri Armati della Libia, possibly three or four artillery Regiments, and one motorized infantry division.

The first phase of the operation would have been the Italian Army occupying the city of Sollum. This first phase would see them crossing the wire and occupying Sollum with the available infantry and artillery formations. This force would stay and garrison the city, protect the line of communication, and act as a reserve. This phase of the operation would see the Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions advance along the coast and attack through Halfaya Pass and occupy Sollum. This would have allowed the Italian army to control this strategic terrain and use it has the starting point for the second phase of the operation.

The second phase of the plan would see two primary forces advancing on two separate axes of advance to Mersa Martuh. Two separate forces attacking on two separate axes of advance would make this attack. The slow moving foot infantry could advance along the coastal road. This would allow the Italian binary nonmotorized infantry divisions to utilize the only road network available to them and have some use in the campaign. The Metropolitan Italian nonmotorized divisions would advance along the coast and continue forward to an intermediate objective of Sidi Barrani and then on to the final objective Mersa Martuh. The southern column consisting of the Libyan Divisions and the armored Comando Carri Armati della Libia would advance on the Dayr al-Hamra–Bir ar Rabiyah–Bir Enba track to flank the escarpment, and the enemy, with the ultimate objective of Mersa Martuh. In this manner, the Italian army could have met the British at Mersa Martuh utilizing the non motorized Italian formations in a suitable role, and the motorized formations to flank their defense and cut the British line of communications defeating, them at Mersa Martuh.

This plan would have been an example of Italian mechanized doctrine utilizing the available forces. The combination of the advance of forces moving along the coast, pinning the enemy, and the Italian mechanized forces operating to turn the enemy’s flank followed Italian mechanized doctrine. This plan would have the Italian mechanized elements making long flanking movements through the desert. Such employment would have been ideally suited for the mechanized forces, according to Italian doctrine. Only under this concept and applying their mechanized doctrine would Italian forces have had a reasonable chance for success against the British. Since Marshal Graziani failed to apply Italian doctrine he was defeated in detail by a significantly smaller British force in the western desert.

Had the Italian Army and Marshal Graziani struck early in the desert campaign and in strength utilizing their new doctrine it is doubtful that the British could have stopped them short of the Nile river. Instead of pursing that goal the Marshal Graziani asked for more resources to accomplish that mission instead of acting. When Marshal Graziani was forced into action, the Italian Army in North Africa didn’t adopt a plan of an attack in depth but reverted to a plan utilizing an attack in mass. This failing caused the Italian army to be defeated during its invasion of Egypt. One can only speculate on the reasons for Graziani’s failure to employ the rapid decision doctrine. Surely one key factor was the Italian Army’s deficiency in the areas of the army leadership, training level of the different organizations, leadership of the organizations, unit cohesion, logistics, and armored vehicles. A combination of these factors made the Italian Army less effective then it could have been in the campaign.

[Frievolk]

Hitler was probably too dead set on fulfilling Mein Kampf. He wanted a war in the East but especially against the Soviet Union. But didn't want war against either the UK or France. But was elated to have France vanquished when that happened because it was sufficient revenge for WWI.

The UK didn't have to declare war just to help Poland out, but I understand if the British didn't want to do any more appeasement.

If fulfilling Mein Kampf wasn't the objective. I think a limited German invasion annexing just the Polish corridor could've been sustained with Germany being able to get an eventual armistice in their favor, if it were clear that Germany was limiting itself to only reversing WWI losses as opposed to going on a spree of conquest.

Honestly, the basic idea that WW2 was "in order to restore the losses of WW1" is one that isn't historically supported. The annexation of Austria in the first place, not to mention Sudetenland (which was also not Reich territory prior to the first World War) make a picture that it would be more a continuation of the German Unification than a war of revanchism. Had Germany wanted to take back the Polish Corridor (+other lost territory), there were easier (and probably less bloody) ways of doing that than going back against almost every single treaty it had signed after the Treaty of Versailles.

[Confederate States of German America]

The Austrian and Sudeten issue isn't valid as a counter-point to his argument, as the Treaty of Versailles specifically had a stipulation forbidding such as the Republic of German-Austria had been attempting to be annexed to Germany prior to the aforementioned Treaty. Annexing them was just as valid as taking the Polish Corridor was.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

A bit too many fundamentalist conservatives and white supremacists in the RWDT for my liking, not gonna lie...

[FelrikTheDeleted]

A bit too many fundamentalist conservatives and white supremacists in the RWDT for my liking, not gonna lie...

They’re the only ones left.

[Dumb Ideologies]

A bit too many fundamentalist conservatives and white supremacists in the RWDT for my liking, not gonna lie...

Just wait a minute or two and reality will surely shift and warp to accord to your whims.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

A bit too many fundamentalist conservatives and white supremacists in the RWDT for my liking, not gonna lie...

Just wait a minute or two and reality will surely shift and warp to accord to your whims.

I'd take an unironic Strasserist or a NatSyn anyday.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Just wait a minute or two and reality will surely shift and warp to accord to your whims.

I'd take an unironic Strasserist or a NatSyn anyday.

Pls don't take me. I have a family.

[Grenartia]

A bit too many fundamentalist conservatives and white supremacists in the RWDT for my liking, not gonna lie...

That's basically the right wing in a nutshell.

Its like complaining that water is wet.

[Painisia]

Ok, where is all the distributists? And we need to summon the great wise Rei!

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I'd take an unironic Strasserist or a NatSyn anyday.

Pls don't take me. I have a family.

Swiggity swooty

I'm comin' for ya, Syndie

[El-Amin Caliphate]

A bit too many fundamentalist conservatives and white supremacists in the RWDT for my liking, not gonna lie...

That's basically the right wing in a nutshell.

Its like complaining that water is wet.

Well dang, thanks for the stereotyping.