In the OoB I found that the SS riflemen are much better than the regular rifles.
I think this is historical not true:
The early SS regiments consisted of volunteers and were under command of civilians who had a high party position. The experience of this units was zero, the experience of the leaders was zero and the combat performance was very bad. Yes, they caused heavy losses to the enemy but they took even bigger ones. The losses were about three times as high as in regular Wehrmacht units. Later in the war the SS formations were filled with conscripts, the training was shortened.
What were the advantages of the SS formations?
a) They got better equipment.
b) The formations were larger.
c) The early SS men were fanatics.
d) The later SS men were in a kind of Guard unit and getting so a "moral bonus".
At all you have to say that the main difference between the German and the Allied forces was the way they were trained and the way they fought:
In the Wehrmacht all degrees of men were trained to do the jobs of their commanders (corporals that of sergeants and so on).
The Wehrmacht didn´t tell their soldiers how they should do their job. The Bn commander said to his A-Kompanie chief take hill 322 and the company chief let his boys do it the way they wanted to do it.
In the Allied forces the Bn commander had to tell all his formations what exactly they had to do.
This leads to a major problem in SPWAW: the C&C rules. This rules are optimal to show how the Allied fought but they do not show how the Germans fought. So I play Germans with C&C rules off, all others with C&C rules on.
Why is SS so much better?
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Why is SS so much better?
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
-
Belaja smert
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Helsinki, Finland
What I miss with the C&C rules (which I find very good anyway, and always use) is that a sergeant commanding a unit not in contact with the platoon commander should be able to get orders to spend "on its own" to simulate own initiative. Early war Germans (and other well-trained troops, commandos etc) should receive this more often. Of course, same for a platoon not in contact with the company commander and so on.
It is not completely realistic that the platoon always tries to perform its former orders no matter how the situation changes around them. Of course, this is a bigger change.. which i don't expect to be implemented
It is not completely realistic that the platoon always tries to perform its former orders no matter how the situation changes around them. Of course, this is a bigger change.. which i don't expect to be implemented
"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.
Having served in S3 positions at both Div and Corp level(Corp Arty only ) the way i saw it done was the highest HQ involved sends the mission down the chain and the execution plan comes up the chain the companies inform the Bn what they are going to do and what they need the Bn distributes Bn assets to the companies and send it's plan up to Bde Bde allocates and send plans to Div ect CO at any level can kick stuff back down for a better plan or override and issue direct orders but that was seldon done ...this was all in training and the teacher was experience for all the echolons Higher HQ would only intervien to prevent repeat mistakes ... Intergrated Corp Artillery Fires are an awesome thing to see on paper never ever saw more than an intregrated Bde fire with attached Div and Corp assets actually shoot .. well Corp additions wasn't that much cuz that was mostly missles so i guess in fact more of a Partial Div shoot with a few extra MLRS from some Arty Bde's attached to Corp .
Not sure how it was in WW2 but we always were way over TO&E Strength with usually 1 addition arty Bde at Div and another "extra" and Corp .... In the 80's i saw "Brigades" with 7 battalions 2 of them Arty ..
by the way being anywhere near MLRS (on the firing end) when it is shooting has to be a suppresion level of 49 minimun.. this may not apply to WW2 command control concepts ..I ain't that old
Not sure how it was in WW2 but we always were way over TO&E Strength with usually 1 addition arty Bde at Div and another "extra" and Corp .... In the 80's i saw "Brigades" with 7 battalions 2 of them Arty ..
by the way being anywhere near MLRS (on the firing end) when it is shooting has to be a suppresion level of 49 minimun.. this may not apply to WW2 command control concepts ..I ain't that old
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
The fact of the matter is that it is unrealistic to believe that any sargeant would have the battlefield awareness that a player would try and give him. The C&C rules as they are now are rudimentary at best, but its better than nothing. Giving more control over smaller units defeats that purpose. C&C is not there to simulate any particular nation's doctrine. It's there to give the player a system that reinforces good planning, and has some consequences when a formation gets disrupted.
Tomo
Tomo
In the OoB I found that the SS riflemen are much better than the regular rifles.
I think this is historical not true:
The early SS regiments consisted of volunteers and were under command of civilians who had a high party position. The experience of this units
[/B]
MindSpy: Was therefore of even greater importance than regular army units.
The NAZI's are not an elected government.
Using Democratic standards to apply to
a Totalitarian government's preferred troops
is not going to produce the best frame
of reference.
Don't forget that the Army has it's Boys
school. It's own set of predjudices.
Asking to be sent without conflicts to an
armed unit that is part of the Governments
assorted weapons and strategic devices is
NOT going to gain you much favouratism.
On the other hand you could apply to
a venerable Army unit and be lauded for it.
So the Army and the civil service fight the
growing powers of an SS unit ... uderstandable!
They can pretty much delay the arrival
of SS units to the category of Elite Armed Forces.
However that is the point of having Party
field officers. The units have a sworn
statement of loyalty to the LEADER. They
are represented at the expense of the army
within the government.
True, when Barbarossa starts the SS are
rigidly held in place by the Army's
chain of command but still manage to
acquire significant postings!
Overall this means that the only measure of
significance of the SS is their loyalty (above and beyond army regular units) and
the roles assigned them (crack units to
restore and attack and be refitted whenever possible).
Evaluating loses is difficult. Did they have the same quality of weapons and numbers as
other Army units? Fielding a unit made up of
volunteers is very difficult at all times.
Were loses to the weaker elements part of the
overall totals - meaning were they as strong
as regular army units or was there a cadre that excelled and produced results.
Definitively was the SS performance also
largely influenced by the Army's frowning down on Political field forces.
After these early performances, further opportunites for better training arose, as well, over time, as the roles
assigned to the SS units grew, the resolve grew to allow them access to the pool of troops and weapons produced ... in essence they became larger to facilitate the roles they were required to fulfill.
By definition most of the elite units promoted commanders with battle field experience only.
And junior officers with better experience or ability are allowed to lead and with less
resistance over senior officers and NCO's.
Throw in party loyalty and you have a unit
that will not only exceed regular line units
they will perform beyond expected Army
predictions.
These units on both the Russian and German
side can pretty much carry their forces
even when significantly outnumbered.
But it takes them time to achieve these roles
and it is even tougher to keep them,
while losing, while being undersupplied,
while losing most of the unit time and time again ... .
Adolf Hitler WAS NOT elected, stop believing the myth. He was appointed chancellor by one man, that being Hindenburg, some time after Hitler lost an election to Hindenburg (this would be something of the equivalent of Bush appointing Gore to a cabinet position, and then Bush dying off, to be replaced by Gore, not exactly what we would call "elected").
If Hitler was elected, then so was Gerald Ford, and noone refers to Ford as having been "elected". BTW, this "Hitler was elected" myth, is often cited as a reason why every vote counts, because they say Hitler was elected by "one vote". It's really pathetic, because not only did Hitler not win an election by "one vote" but he was appointed instead. I don't know technically if Hitler was considered second in line in Germany or not, as long as Hindenburg was alive, but when Hindenburg died (actually when Hindenburg was on his sickbed), Hitler took the presidency for his own. Later, after he had assumed the power, his assuming power was put up to an approval vote (whether he should stay in power) and it was approved. I don't believe that this was what we would call a proper election, for it seems that the only thing to vote for was whether the people approved of his being the president, and not that he was actually running against someone, and certainly he did not win the approval vote by a single vote.
I have a video at home called, "Waffen-SS Hitler's Elite Fighting Force" and here's a quote from a summary on the back of the box:
If Hitler was elected, then so was Gerald Ford, and noone refers to Ford as having been "elected". BTW, this "Hitler was elected" myth, is often cited as a reason why every vote counts, because they say Hitler was elected by "one vote". It's really pathetic, because not only did Hitler not win an election by "one vote" but he was appointed instead. I don't know technically if Hitler was considered second in line in Germany or not, as long as Hindenburg was alive, but when Hindenburg died (actually when Hindenburg was on his sickbed), Hitler took the presidency for his own. Later, after he had assumed the power, his assuming power was put up to an approval vote (whether he should stay in power) and it was approved. I don't believe that this was what we would call a proper election, for it seems that the only thing to vote for was whether the people approved of his being the president, and not that he was actually running against someone, and certainly he did not win the approval vote by a single vote.
I have a video at home called, "Waffen-SS Hitler's Elite Fighting Force" and here's a quote from a summary on the back of the box:
The SS has it's beginnings in the turbulent street politics of the Weimar Republic. It became Heinrich Himmler's personal power-base and under him the SS grew into a vast private army and state-within-the-state.
It was a chaotic, corrupt and often grossly inefficient organisation. But one part of it - the "Waffen" or "Armed" SS, formed initially as a fighting force - achieved worldwide fame and notoriety.
The Waffen-SS won a unique reputation for daring elan and unfailing professionalism in combat. Yet if their courage was unquestioned, so too was the fear and loathing which they elicted - even, eventually, amongst their own people, and in the regular soldiers alongside whom they fought.
In many of the most signal triumphs of German arms they played a conspicuous role, one far disproportionate to their numbers. In the long period of decline and retreat, as the Germans were steadily pushed back from east and west, despite repeatedly sustaining horrendous casualties, their discipline remained unbroken, their fighting ardour unimpaired, almost to the very end.
After the war, the Waffen-SS were burdened with the near exclusive blame for the most hideous crimes of the Nazi regime. It was only unfair insofar as many others were involved as well: and for all their unmatched undoubted bravery, the Waffen-SS bears a reputation which will remain forever stained with infamy
Hello all , as far as I know , the waffe ss had the first choice of everything ( agree with you Drake ) and also had one very good point to their favor , from the mid to the end of the war they were used like firemen on both fronts , they were allways sent to the hotspots along the line to hold it and to hold the line so they had A LOT of exp from constant fighting . Put together very exp soldiers with the latest equipment and you have elite units .
About the SS folklore , remember people that history is writen by the winners , yes the ss had very bay units on their ranks , murderers , sadics , in units that went from town to town killing people and were responsible for the concentration camps all that is true , but that was not all the Waffen ss were . Go to some Waffen SS sites , pick those dedicated to the war ( forget those about the ideals ) and you'll find some good material .
About the history writing part .... who were the units in the concentration ( oops , sorry , detention ) camps for japonese people in the US during WWII ? and what was the soviet unit responsible for the massacre of 10000 polish officers and senior NCOs in the woods ? and by the way the units guarding the siberian ( POW ,enemys of the state, and jews ) concentration camps were ...??? . history is writen by the winners ..........
------------------
A sorte protege os audazes
About the SS folklore , remember people that history is writen by the winners , yes the ss had very bay units on their ranks , murderers , sadics , in units that went from town to town killing people and were responsible for the concentration camps all that is true , but that was not all the Waffen ss were . Go to some Waffen SS sites , pick those dedicated to the war ( forget those about the ideals ) and you'll find some good material .
About the history writing part .... who were the units in the concentration ( oops , sorry , detention ) camps for japonese people in the US during WWII ? and what was the soviet unit responsible for the massacre of 10000 polish officers and senior NCOs in the woods ? and by the way the units guarding the siberian ( POW ,enemys of the state, and jews ) concentration camps were ...??? . history is writen by the winners ..........
------------------
A sorte protege os audazes
A sorte protege os audazes
True there was ba dall over and history is always rewritten even bye the losers many ideas have been shall we say mythed bye the germans themselves. As for Japanese in camps it was bad. my uncle was half cherokee half japanese he was in one till the Nippon where sent to italy. But at least they just had bad food little doctors and no medicine. id drather starve than be gassed tortured and shot . He even has pictures of some of the camps from firends and relatives. But many where near indian reservations is why who contrary to popular ideas used to share there food with them. many will argue over this but its written in the tribal coucil books for those who would like to read them.
One mans hero is another man's terrorist.
One mans hero is another man's terrorist.
Krull
Viriato: Right, and who has written the history of the Waffen-SS in regards to their combat ability? The winners, not the SS. In other words, their enemies were throwing compliments to their fighting elan, but just as justly threw condemnation upon any wrongdoing they may had done.
Unfortunately, what I see going around in society today, is a number of people who for some reason or another want to oversimplify things to the point of stupidity. I see it all the time. I think this not regarding the SS as elite fighting groups fall into that category. Somehow people feel it's accepting and admiring someone by admitting that they did do a few things right in their life, when that person, or the SS in this case, are known to have been looney in other ways. This sort of thing is exemplified in America, and becoming more popular by a number of people in the minority communities, who are dead-set on accusing people of racism just because you were to even infer that one of the members of their race is in the slightest way imperfect. I think it's rather interesting, because for a given race with certain individuals that may feel they are disadvantaged or what not, the peculiar behavior which I described seems more to typify how some in the Master Race behaved. Interesting too because I recall many who believed they were the Master Race, were first led to believe that the world (or another race/races) were out to get them. So, there you have it. Some are so dim, that they conquer racism by just being bigger racists than the people who allegedly were racists to them (not exactly problem solvers - the word 'hypocrite' comes to mind).
Unfortunately, what I see going around in society today, is a number of people who for some reason or another want to oversimplify things to the point of stupidity. I see it all the time. I think this not regarding the SS as elite fighting groups fall into that category. Somehow people feel it's accepting and admiring someone by admitting that they did do a few things right in their life, when that person, or the SS in this case, are known to have been looney in other ways. This sort of thing is exemplified in America, and becoming more popular by a number of people in the minority communities, who are dead-set on accusing people of racism just because you were to even infer that one of the members of their race is in the slightest way imperfect. I think it's rather interesting, because for a given race with certain individuals that may feel they are disadvantaged or what not, the peculiar behavior which I described seems more to typify how some in the Master Race behaved. Interesting too because I recall many who believed they were the Master Race, were first led to believe that the world (or another race/races) were out to get them. So, there you have it. Some are so dim, that they conquer racism by just being bigger racists than the people who allegedly were racists to them (not exactly problem solvers - the word 'hypocrite' comes to mind).
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Several months ago this forum had a topic similar to this one. The solution I adopted back then is still the best solution I know of. You can go into the German OOB and edit the "SS" portion out of the unit identifiers. I used "EL" in place of "SS" where EL meant Elite. Now I don't concern myself about whether an elite unit was SS or not.
VAH
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Charles22:
Adolf Hitler WAS NOT elected, stop believing the myth. He was appointed chancellor by one man, that being Hindenburg, some time after Hitler lost an election to Hindenburg (this would be something of the equivalent of Bush appointing Gore to a cabinet position, and then Bush dying off, to be replaced by Gore, not exactly what we would call "elected").
Well, this is both right and wrong. By the American style of elections, no, he was not elected. However, most - perhaps all - European countries don't use our style of elections.
What they do - and be warned this is majorly gross oversimplification - is that they hold national elections by party. The percentage of votes that each party gets determines how many representatives, from that party, go to the House of Representatives eqivalent. If a party has a clear mahority, it is called upon to form a Government. If none do, then a coaltion government has to be formed.
Note, that in this style of Government, there are no terms, or term limits, as elections can be held at nearly anytime.
What happened in '33, was there was an election, and NSDAP won a clear majority, and, per German law, President Hindenburg offered the Chacellor's Office to NSDAP's head, Hitler. Now, we all know that he misused the office, but, yes, he was elected, just not in the same way we American's do it.
Adolf Hitler WAS NOT elected, stop believing the myth. He was appointed chancellor by one man, that being Hindenburg, some time after Hitler lost an election to Hindenburg (this would be something of the equivalent of Bush appointing Gore to a cabinet position, and then Bush dying off, to be replaced by Gore, not exactly what we would call "elected").
Well, this is both right and wrong. By the American style of elections, no, he was not elected. However, most - perhaps all - European countries don't use our style of elections.
What they do - and be warned this is majorly gross oversimplification - is that they hold national elections by party. The percentage of votes that each party gets determines how many representatives, from that party, go to the House of Representatives eqivalent. If a party has a clear mahority, it is called upon to form a Government. If none do, then a coaltion government has to be formed.
Note, that in this style of Government, there are no terms, or term limits, as elections can be held at nearly anytime.
What happened in '33, was there was an election, and NSDAP won a clear majority, and, per German law, President Hindenburg offered the Chacellor's Office to NSDAP's head, Hitler. Now, we all know that he misused the office, but, yes, he was elected, just not in the same way we American's do it.
"Tonight a dynasty is born." Ricky Proehl, then of the Saint Louis Rams. He was right! Go Pats! Winners of Super Bowls 36, 38 and 39.
-
Scipio Africanus
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Somerville, Ma, USA
I just want to point out something about the English verb "to elect." That is: it carries the same semantic value as Latin "legere" from which it is drawn (the past participle form)- it simply means "to choose."
That being said, we must say that Hitler was elected for his office- of course, we must say the same thing about Caracalla and Julius Caesar (they elected themselves), all monarchs (for they are elected by their birth), Maximinus Thrax (his legion elected him). So too was Alexander the Great elected (by his mother, by an oracle he paid, by the occasion of the murder of his father), and on and on, etc.
The argument on election is moot- all leaders are necessarily elected, yet this reveals neither the manner of election nor the nature of government.
Therefore Hitler (like all other world leaders, even before a concept of nation existed) was elected, which fact evidences nothing.
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
That being said, we must say that Hitler was elected for his office- of course, we must say the same thing about Caracalla and Julius Caesar (they elected themselves), all monarchs (for they are elected by their birth), Maximinus Thrax (his legion elected him). So too was Alexander the Great elected (by his mother, by an oracle he paid, by the occasion of the murder of his father), and on and on, etc.
The argument on election is moot- all leaders are necessarily elected, yet this reveals neither the manner of election nor the nature of government.
Therefore Hitler (like all other world leaders, even before a concept of nation existed) was elected, which fact evidences nothing.
Cheers,
------------------
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus
OK, this is a discussion I have been hesitating to jump into, because there are alot of emotions still attatched to those two letters. However, I cannot stay out of it any longer. Perhaps I should point out that I'm from Sweden, but my dad is German, so I do have some personal ties to this question.
Germany was a democracy in 1933, 1934, 1935 etc. The problem with Nazi Germany that you had the situation where a democracy dissolved itself. This is one of the basic flaws in a democracy, because what happens if the people votes to change the law and suddeny some of the things that are essential in a democracy is gone? Is it still a democracy? After all it was the peoples will to change these laws. Very simplified, what happened was that Hitler was appointed Reichskansler, by the Reichstag, in complete accorance to German law. Then the Reichstag adopted a law that gave the Reichskansler virtually unlimited powers to rule Germany, alone, without the "help" of the Reichstag in times of national chrisis. A state of national emergency was declared (I think it was after the burning of the Reichstag). And after that Hitler ruled Germany alone. Everything that happened in 1933-1945 was within the bounds of law. With that I mean that the law was not broken by all these manuvering to bypass the parlament, and indeed to dissolve the democracy.
This could happen (at least in theory)in every democracy if a party, or a parlament should choose to adopt a law that would dissolve the democracy.
The Waffen SS
I thought their fighting abilities were beyond dispute. But that they have a "reputation forever shrouded in infamy" because of their close ties to the Nazi government.
First, I'm not sure everyone understands the difference between the various "entities" of the SS.
The organisation "SS" had 3 major bodys. The Allgemeine, or General SS. The Waffen, or armed SS, and the Totenkopfverbande, or the deaths head units.
The allgemeine SS had various organisations under its command. Among these were the RSHA, a parent organisation for the SD (sicherheitsdienst, or security service), Gestapo (Geheimesstatspolizei, or the secret police) and the Kripo (the "regular" police). Under the SD you had the Einzatsgruppen that operated in the east, murdering pretty much anybody who came in their path. But you also had the Bundesmädel (Young womens organisation). The female switchboard operators in the Reichstag was also organised under the allgemeine SS. You had hotells, health retreats, and even the department of health were a part of the allgemeine SS.
The Totenkopfverbande were responsible for the running of the concentration camps. Enough said about them.
And then, the third entity of the SS, was the Waffen SS. These 3 organisations had pretty much nothing to do with each other, with some important exceptions.
First, there were no troop rotations between Waffen SS units and the Totenkopfverbande, with one exception. There were regular troop rotations between the Waffen SS division Totenkopf, and the Totenkopfverbande. This because that division originally was created from members of the Totenkopfverbande.
Second, a member of the Waffen SS could be transferred to the SD or the Totenkopfverbande as a diciplinary action if that soldier had severely neglected his duties as a soldier (falling asleep on his post etc.) This would give a good indication on how the Waffen SS regarded the Totenkopfverbande, it was a punishment.
At the Nurnberg trials the SS was declared a criminal organisation, and membership of the SS was considered a war crime. In my opinion this was a bit too hard. After all it meant that the female phone operators in the reichskanslei shared the same guilt in the war crimes as the members of the Einzatsgruppen that operated in the east.
There are a thousand things more that can be said about the Waffen SS, but this will have to do for now, otherwise this post will be way too long.
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
Germany was a democracy in 1933, 1934, 1935 etc. The problem with Nazi Germany that you had the situation where a democracy dissolved itself. This is one of the basic flaws in a democracy, because what happens if the people votes to change the law and suddeny some of the things that are essential in a democracy is gone? Is it still a democracy? After all it was the peoples will to change these laws. Very simplified, what happened was that Hitler was appointed Reichskansler, by the Reichstag, in complete accorance to German law. Then the Reichstag adopted a law that gave the Reichskansler virtually unlimited powers to rule Germany, alone, without the "help" of the Reichstag in times of national chrisis. A state of national emergency was declared (I think it was after the burning of the Reichstag). And after that Hitler ruled Germany alone. Everything that happened in 1933-1945 was within the bounds of law. With that I mean that the law was not broken by all these manuvering to bypass the parlament, and indeed to dissolve the democracy.
This could happen (at least in theory)in every democracy if a party, or a parlament should choose to adopt a law that would dissolve the democracy.
The Waffen SS
I thought their fighting abilities were beyond dispute. But that they have a "reputation forever shrouded in infamy" because of their close ties to the Nazi government.
First, I'm not sure everyone understands the difference between the various "entities" of the SS.
The organisation "SS" had 3 major bodys. The Allgemeine, or General SS. The Waffen, or armed SS, and the Totenkopfverbande, or the deaths head units.
The allgemeine SS had various organisations under its command. Among these were the RSHA, a parent organisation for the SD (sicherheitsdienst, or security service), Gestapo (Geheimesstatspolizei, or the secret police) and the Kripo (the "regular" police). Under the SD you had the Einzatsgruppen that operated in the east, murdering pretty much anybody who came in their path. But you also had the Bundesmädel (Young womens organisation). The female switchboard operators in the Reichstag was also organised under the allgemeine SS. You had hotells, health retreats, and even the department of health were a part of the allgemeine SS.
The Totenkopfverbande were responsible for the running of the concentration camps. Enough said about them.
And then, the third entity of the SS, was the Waffen SS. These 3 organisations had pretty much nothing to do with each other, with some important exceptions.
First, there were no troop rotations between Waffen SS units and the Totenkopfverbande, with one exception. There were regular troop rotations between the Waffen SS division Totenkopf, and the Totenkopfverbande. This because that division originally was created from members of the Totenkopfverbande.
Second, a member of the Waffen SS could be transferred to the SD or the Totenkopfverbande as a diciplinary action if that soldier had severely neglected his duties as a soldier (falling asleep on his post etc.) This would give a good indication on how the Waffen SS regarded the Totenkopfverbande, it was a punishment.
At the Nurnberg trials the SS was declared a criminal organisation, and membership of the SS was considered a war crime. In my opinion this was a bit too hard. After all it meant that the female phone operators in the reichskanslei shared the same guilt in the war crimes as the members of the Einzatsgruppen that operated in the east.
There are a thousand things more that can be said about the Waffen SS, but this will have to do for now, otherwise this post will be way too long.
Steve
------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-
The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..
victorhauser: That's an interesting approach. At first, I didn't mind buying SS infantry, but now it's different, and your idea is an alternative. I may object to buying SS units, but it's not because they aren't elite, as sort of a protest, although, as the game seems to be laid out, I cannot buy Panther platoons without it being SS, I will forego my reluctance, if in fact the SS will continue to be the only formations with them (there are alternatives to SS infantry).
Alexandra: Good points, but still, we weren't talking about electing parties, and even Hitler's party didn't win by one vote. As far as I can see, people over here seem to believe that Hitler ran for president and won by one vote - what a farce.
I don't know though, I'm not sure just why Hindenburg 'appointed' Hitler in toto, but I do recall having the impression, through the documentaries I've seen, that Hitler actually ran for 'president' and lost to Hindenburg (in a very American sort of election in that sense, which is the only place that their "Hitler won an election by one vote" argument would make 1/2 sense [though he lost it], while the fact that he was "appointed", not elected, in the American sense. When Hindenburg appointed him, it really wasn't even a vote, nor was it in any form an 'election'. You have to remember that it is Americans who are saying that he won by one vote, thereby, you have to apply an American understanding, and for the life of me the "he won the election by one vote" is erroneous no matter how you look at it) in a very distant second place. It does seem however that the Nazis had the strongest party in the Reichstag, but didn't have a majority. They others seemed to think they could make their government civilised by taking the maniac to be appointed chancellor, but it only gave Hitler momentum when it came to Hindenburg getting deathly ill.
Scipio Africanus: Perhaps you do not understand common American. In order for your comments to be valid you must have this data. I'm not saying, that knowing what "to elect" means isn't important, it's just that when Americans say that, that's not what they mean. Did you know that we VERY DISTINCTLY differentiate between "elected" and "appointed"? It may seem unimportant, but an "appointed" person, is NOT one who's been elected "by the people". Somehow, people aren't comforted by 'one person' picking someone out and then calling that a fair election, especially if you're not privy to the viewpoint of the appointer. So. understand context here. We, in America, are commonly told, that our vote counts, and the reason we're told that, is in the context of millions of votes, people get the feeling their vote doesn't matter. So, you see the context. The context is that you are 'one vote' among millions. So, when they tell you that Hitler won by one vote, what they aren't telling you is that Hitler's getting elected (actually appointed) wasn't put into the same circumstances of millions of other voters. If every vote I cast, was of the appointment nature, only a dumbbell would think their vote doesn't count. It's only when your vote is being made with millions of others that one may get that feeling. So you see how deceptive it is to tell us how Hitler won by one vote? I hope I make sense.
Panzerjaeger Hortland: I agree, only we hadn't gone that far into Hitler's election/appointment aftermath. When people in America say Hitler won by 'one vote' they are talking about Hindenburg's appointment, right or wrong, because I can't see where anywhere else it would match the 'one vote' criteria (BTW, try to ask someone here what they mean by Hitler winning by one vote, and prepare to see them get hysterical, because: A) they don't know why and don't know the history of Germany or are getting caught in something of a lie, or B) Since their fabrication involves a 'sacred cow' believed very widely around here and how voting is such a 'sacred cow' for them, they're liable to explode). This 'one vote' appointment is so focused on, because of what some people might regard as the inevitability of Hitler succeeding, later, as you described, because Hitler had lost the election for president very decisively. In other words, his goose was cooked, but not the party's, after he lost that election. Of course the same people would've probably said Richard Nixon would've never recovered from losing to Kennedy either. Hitler was such a mainiac, and their armies so successful for so long, that people in America, and indeed Europe, have commonly always looked at the points where the madness could've stopped very easily (such as going to war with Germany when they crossed the Rhine, early on) and certainly one of those key points was Hindenburg giving him life, by appointment, when it looked like his goose was cooked.
Alexandra: Good points, but still, we weren't talking about electing parties, and even Hitler's party didn't win by one vote. As far as I can see, people over here seem to believe that Hitler ran for president and won by one vote - what a farce.
I don't know though, I'm not sure just why Hindenburg 'appointed' Hitler in toto, but I do recall having the impression, through the documentaries I've seen, that Hitler actually ran for 'president' and lost to Hindenburg (in a very American sort of election in that sense, which is the only place that their "Hitler won an election by one vote" argument would make 1/2 sense [though he lost it], while the fact that he was "appointed", not elected, in the American sense. When Hindenburg appointed him, it really wasn't even a vote, nor was it in any form an 'election'. You have to remember that it is Americans who are saying that he won by one vote, thereby, you have to apply an American understanding, and for the life of me the "he won the election by one vote" is erroneous no matter how you look at it) in a very distant second place. It does seem however that the Nazis had the strongest party in the Reichstag, but didn't have a majority. They others seemed to think they could make their government civilised by taking the maniac to be appointed chancellor, but it only gave Hitler momentum when it came to Hindenburg getting deathly ill.
Scipio Africanus: Perhaps you do not understand common American. In order for your comments to be valid you must have this data. I'm not saying, that knowing what "to elect" means isn't important, it's just that when Americans say that, that's not what they mean. Did you know that we VERY DISTINCTLY differentiate between "elected" and "appointed"? It may seem unimportant, but an "appointed" person, is NOT one who's been elected "by the people". Somehow, people aren't comforted by 'one person' picking someone out and then calling that a fair election, especially if you're not privy to the viewpoint of the appointer. So. understand context here. We, in America, are commonly told, that our vote counts, and the reason we're told that, is in the context of millions of votes, people get the feeling their vote doesn't matter. So, you see the context. The context is that you are 'one vote' among millions. So, when they tell you that Hitler won by one vote, what they aren't telling you is that Hitler's getting elected (actually appointed) wasn't put into the same circumstances of millions of other voters. If every vote I cast, was of the appointment nature, only a dumbbell would think their vote doesn't count. It's only when your vote is being made with millions of others that one may get that feeling. So you see how deceptive it is to tell us how Hitler won by one vote? I hope I make sense.
Panzerjaeger Hortland: I agree, only we hadn't gone that far into Hitler's election/appointment aftermath. When people in America say Hitler won by 'one vote' they are talking about Hindenburg's appointment, right or wrong, because I can't see where anywhere else it would match the 'one vote' criteria (BTW, try to ask someone here what they mean by Hitler winning by one vote, and prepare to see them get hysterical, because: A) they don't know why and don't know the history of Germany or are getting caught in something of a lie, or B) Since their fabrication involves a 'sacred cow' believed very widely around here and how voting is such a 'sacred cow' for them, they're liable to explode). This 'one vote' appointment is so focused on, because of what some people might regard as the inevitability of Hitler succeeding, later, as you described, because Hitler had lost the election for president very decisively. In other words, his goose was cooked, but not the party's, after he lost that election. Of course the same people would've probably said Richard Nixon would've never recovered from losing to Kennedy either. Hitler was such a mainiac, and their armies so successful for so long, that people in America, and indeed Europe, have commonly always looked at the points where the madness could've stopped very easily (such as going to war with Germany when they crossed the Rhine, early on) and certainly one of those key points was Hindenburg giving him life, by appointment, when it looked like his goose was cooked.
First of all, nobody was any harder on the Nazi's than the Nazi's were on some of there "subjects". You want to talk about stereo-typing??? I'd rather not and say we did!
And as for the winners writing history, you are correct, but not in a 1,000 years has such an questionably motivated nation been so praised for their elitism in the military field of battle. So we need to stop crying about that.
I don't know a whole lot about the SS, I do know about the "Death's Head" stuff and that should be enough for people to ask no further.
My German grandfather was a pilot in the Luftwaffe and he was not a Nazi or an SS. He was simply a German, and he didn't need to be apart of any organization to be the best he could be. Most of the folks that joined the Nazi's were cowards that feared Hitler, today they would be called ass-kissers!
Of course, my American grandfather was a navigator on a B-17 and did much futher damage in the end.
And as for the winners writing history, you are correct, but not in a 1,000 years has such an questionably motivated nation been so praised for their elitism in the military field of battle. So we need to stop crying about that.
I don't know a whole lot about the SS, I do know about the "Death's Head" stuff and that should be enough for people to ask no further.
My German grandfather was a pilot in the Luftwaffe and he was not a Nazi or an SS. He was simply a German, and he didn't need to be apart of any organization to be the best he could be. Most of the folks that joined the Nazi's were cowards that feared Hitler, today they would be called ass-kissers!
Of course, my American grandfather was a navigator on a B-17 and did much futher damage in the end.