MovieChat Forums > Der Untergang (2005) Discussion > How did the Germans do it?

How did the Germans do it?


Germany is a relativity small country - 80 million population. Yet, it took almost the entire rest of the world, as well as luck, to defeat them. Germany could have (maybe even should have) won the war. How did they do it?

reply

Before the war started. Germany had allies to help them out. But as the war dragged on. Those allies left Germany.

Some like Italy over threw their leaders and joined the western allies to fight Germany. Some like Finland abandoned Germany and made their own peace with the Soviet Union. Finland never declared war on Great Britain and America. They only joined the Germany side to fight the Russians. And Romania defected when the Red Army was about to invade them.

At the end Germany was alone.

The same can be said for Japan. During the war, they held more territory then Germany. But they lost.

In the BBC show the World at War, they had a Japanese officer who was on the USS Missouri during the surrender signing. He said he was wondering why was Japan the only country that was here surrendering. Where was Japan's allies? Then he looked at all the uniforms of all the other nations that where there. Then he realized that all of Japan's allies had been defeated and surrendered. Japan was the last nation fighting. Japan was alone. How could Japan win the war when more then half the world is fighting you. And the other half has been defeated.

reply

Germany's allies barely helped Germany in the war. Arguably they were more of hindrance to Germany than a help. The best example is Italy.

Germany wanted to avoid war in the Mediterranean (Southern Europe and North Africa) as well as the Balkans / Greece. Italy was neutral until 1940, when it looked like they had something to gain by joining the war on the side of Germany. However, because Italy was now a belligerent nation the war was brought to Libya / Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea- key territory for the British. Italy thought it was militarily strong enough to take on the British in Egypt, and made some early end roads but then started losing ground. Germany would eventually have to divert soldiers to North Africa to help bolster the Italians. The war in North Africa was an abysmal failure for Italy, helped divert much needed German soldiers (including Erwin Rommel) from the main war on the Eastern Front, and after suffering defeat after defeat the British finally had a moral boost from their victories in Africa and the Middle East. Later, when the Allies invaded Sicily, and then Italy from their new found springboard in North Africa, Italy decided it wanted out of the war. When it looked like Italy was trying to back out of the war and about to be invaded, German soldiers were sent to Italy to pretty much keep the Italians in line. Again, this diverted much needed soldiers from the defenses in France and from the fighting on the Eastern Front. After a while the Italians ended up joining the Allies, except for small partisan addled areas in northern Italy still under Mussolini. If Italy had remained neutral, but leaned more towards the Axis cause, like Franco's Spain, then the whole Mediterranean theater of war would have been avoided.

But then one could argue that the British and possibly the Americans would have used Greece or perhaps the Middle East as a launching point to open up a new front (this is what Churchill originally wanted, before the Italy 'soft underbelly' approach) and or join forces with the Soviet Union in that region (while trying to avoid Turkey).

The Italians also caused the whole fiasco in the Balkans / Greece. Because Italian forces bit off more than they could chew in the mountains of Albania and Greece, this caused Germany to divert soldiers meant for the buildup of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany invaded Yugoslavia which was pro-Allies, and then invaded Greece forcing the British out. The Germans won these battles (although a Partisan War would be waged in the hinterlands of the Balkans). Arguably these diversions in the Balkans caused a month long delay in the execution of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. The rest is speculative, but if Germany's advances stayed the same as it happened in history, but was only a month earlier, then the Germans could have had an extra month of relatively decent weather before the cruel Russian winter set in, grinding the German advances to a halt. This extra planned for month could have led to fighting in Leningrad and possibly fighting in Moscow. who knows? Italy's involvement in the war was more of nuisance to Germany than it was an ally of any real substance.

Romania was Germany's second most important ally. Romania provided oil for Germany and did help Germany the most militarily on the Eastern Front. However, Romanian troops, like the Italians, were under-equipped with antiquated weapons and few light tanks to fight against the Soviets, and Romanian troops tended to flee in terror when confronted with any form of stiff opposition. Stalingrad is the best example of this. After that Romania pretty much withdrew their troops back home / to the territories they had reconquered from Ukraine. Then of course later on Romania joined up with the Soviets, because they figured this would save them from occupation (it did not), and because they had territorial interests in the neighboring countries (Hungary mainly).

Hungary was also a Germany ally. Hungary's soldiers were better equipped and had better morale than the Romanians. Hungary received more weapons / tanks from Germany than Romania (mostly Czech equipment, but still superior to Romanian and Italian equipment). However, Hungary really did not see why they were involved in the war. Hungarian officials pretty much wanted to curry favor with the Germans in hopes of gaining territory - in Romania. The Romanians and Hungarians did not get a long. They have been off and on again enemies for centuries. Hungary's only real territorial ambitions were to regain control of Transylvania and some Czech areas. Hungary in battle provided to be decent fighters, but they were often directly supported by German units. Later on when Hungary was invaded by the Soviets, Hitler wanting to support his last real ally / wanting to keep Austria out of harms way, pulled several divisions (including some well equipped crack Waffen SS Panzer / Panzergrenadier units) from various fronts (manly the crumbled Vistula-Oder Front) where they were badly needed. Hitler then launched his last offensive of the war, in March 1945, in a bid to liberate / retake Budapest. This diverted mass amounts of soldiers away from Germany as it was being overrun. Of course this offensive is not well known / documented in the west, because we all consider the Battle of the Bulge to be the last major offensive, but it technically was not. The German units and Hungarian units fought well, but were still overwhelmed. Eventually Hungary was propped up with a puppet government and changed sides.


Slovakia and Croatia, and other Central Europe / Balkan areas provided soldiers for the Russian front, and supposedly they fought decently. However, they were always backed by German units (if not outright incorporated into German divisions). Or they acted as partisan hunters within their own countries, the various parts of Yugoslavia, or Belorussia. They also only contributed minimally in terms of man power / resources. The Croatians supposedly fought very bravely in and around Stalingrad.

Vichy France was a defacto German Ally (by force / treaty). Many people, especially the French, view Vichy France as collaborative evil traitors. Many Vichy French did willingly and openly support the Germans and the Holocaust. However, Vichy France for two years kept the Southern part of France and almost all of France's Imperial territory out of Germany's control, and once Vichy was out of the war all the territory went to the Free French. However, even though they were neutral, the British and the Vichy French did have some scuffles in Africa and the Middle East. Otherwise, Vichy France was neutral and did not play a huge role as Germany's ally. Once North Africa was invaded, and the Vichy French were about to switch sides back to the allies, Vichy France was invaded and occupied by the Germans. Although, the Vichy French did 'allow' the Japanese to use their air fields and harbors in French Indochina (Vietnam) to invade Malaya (under British control). Occupied France, and eventually Vichy France did have some recruits that joined the Waffen SS Charlemagne unit, which oddly enough helped defend Berlin during the Battle of Berlin. But otherwise Occupied / Vichy France as an ally provided very little military aid (the Germans didn't really want to arm too many Frenchmen) to Germany, but many French citizens were either hired or forced into providing labor for German industry and infrastructure.

Finland was Germany's best quasi-Ally in terms of bravery and fighting ability. Finland did help put pressure on Leningrad, and in the arctic. Finland offered stiff resistance against the Soviets. Finnish soldiers were also tough as nails, generally, and fought with great bravery. But Finland and Germany had a relationship more acin to Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend, rather than actual full on support. They were Germany's best quasi-ally. However, Finland refused to send troops anywhere else on the Eastern Front, and refused to advance into Russia further than the regions that they had lost to Russia in the Winter War. Some Finish soldiers joined German Units, especially the Waffen SS, but that was highly frowned upon. Finland was the only German ally of the war to come out of it virtually unscathed. All the territory that they had lost to Russia in the Winter War, which they then regained in the Continuation War (WWII Eastern Front) was given back to Russia after Finland decided / was forced to become a neutral country in 1944. Finland's change of heart (after much pressure by the Soviets) required the Finns to kick out the German units. This resulted in some minor skirmishes as the bulk of the German forces retreated towards the arctic in order to cross into Norway. Finland was the only German ally to come out of the war virtually unharmed. Finland was the only German allied belligerent nation that did not take part in the Holocaust and had a freely controlled democracy running its country. Finland became a buffer between the West and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and did lose a large chunk of their territory to Russia, but remained unoccupied.

Like Finland, the Baltic states were invaded by the Soviet Union / incorporated into the USSR in 1940. When the Germans invaded these small Baltic states in the summer and fall of 1941, they welcomed the Germans as liberators; because they had suffered under Soviet control. Many would soon realize what sort of ally / liberator Germany really was. The Baltic states willingly propped up German sympathizing governments and became allied with Germany. All of the Baltic provided their own armed forces (but were mostly used within their own countries) and many joined the Waffen SS. However, they had little impact on the Russian front.

Almost every other country in Europe provided man power to the German Wehrmacht and the SS. From Norway to Italy, from Spain (the Blue Division) to the Caucuses, almost every area of Europe had volunteers / press-ganged manpower fighting for the Reich.

Probably the largest non-German contributor to the German forces, but controversial, is former Soviets (Russians and Ukrainians mostly) who either defected to the German cause from the Red Army, were local volunteers, or former POWs. These Slavic soldiers were used mostly as auxiliaries and non-combat related roles (interpreters, ammunition carriers, cooks etc...). Later, they were allowed to form their own fighting units (under German observation), oftentimes these units would be broken down into different regions / ethnicity / religion. The Germans referred to them as 'Hiwis' (short for Hilfswillige = Willing Help [Volunteers]). These former Soviet soldiers proved to be a mix bag for Germany. Many truly hated Communism and fought doggedly against it. Others, were opportunist and many could not fire on their own countrymen. Some of these units were transferred to Western / Southern Europe and surrendered to the Western Allies at the first opportunity. Some units openly fought the Germans such as a Ukrainian unit over threw its German officers and NCOs in the summer of 1944 when France was invaded, and they helped the local resistance forces fight against the retreating Germans until the Americans showed up. Another example is the Georgian units on a small island in the Netherlands overthrew their German offices and NCOs and occupied the island and waited for liberation. It was the end of the war, and they thought that the British and Canadians would quickly show up. However, that did not happen, and the Germans soon retook the Island and executed almost all of the Georgian mutineers. Many Eastern European units made there way to allied lines, not wanting to be taken prisoner and shot on sight by the Red Army or Communist Partisan forces. However, for the vast majority of Eastern European soldiers surrendering to the Americans and British they would eventually be turned over to the Soviets, and from there interrogated and executed, or sent to a Gulag. Weirdly enough, the Soviet union provided Germany with the largest volunteer / press-ganged manpower during World War II.

Almost every country in Europe was also forced to provide forced labor to Germany's war machine.

Japan brought the U.S.A. into the war. Te USA was already supplying the UK and USSR with armaments, munitions, and food stuff, but not with physical troops. Japan attacking Pearl Harbor brought U.S.A. into the war. Germany and their European allies stupidly declaring war on the U.S. caused the U.S.A. to be at war with the entire Axis powers. While Japan and Germany were allies in name, and did provide each other with intelligence and some war materials, they otherwise were fighting two different wars. Japan was not at war with the Soviet Union, but was at war with Germany's other enemies the Western Allies. They were all in one big war, but were operating practically independently from each other.

While Germany's European allies did help Germany in battle and helped on minor scale, their blunderings and low troop morale caused a lot of problems for Germany.

Just my two cents.

reply

@Will1988, nice post. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

reply

Nicely written! Good read.

reply

Thank you!

reply

The Italians also caused the whole fiasco in the Balkans / Greece. Because Italian forces bit off more than they could chew in the mountains of Albania and Greece, this caused Germany to divert soldiers meant for the buildup of the invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany invaded Yugoslavia which was pro-Allies, and then invaded Greece forcing the British out. The Germans won these battles (although a Partisan War would be waged in the hinterlands of the Balkans). Arguably these diversions in the Balkans caused a month long delay in the execution of Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of the Soviet Union. The rest is speculative, but if Germany's advances stayed the same as it happened in history, but was only a month earlier, then the Germans could have had an extra month of relatively decent weather before the cruel Russian winter set in, grinding the German advances to a halt. This extra planned for month could have led to fighting in Leningrad and possibly fighting in Moscow. who knows? Italy's involvement in the war was more of nuisance to Germany than it was an ally of any real substance.


as you have said, this is all speculative - but german intervention in the balkans would have happened at the same time anyway regardless of italy's invasion of greece, because of the coup in yugoslavia which deposed the pro-axis government and replaced it with a pro-british one.

anyway, the germans would have certainly lost the war at any rate, no luck was required to defeat them when they were fighting a two-front conflict (although they probably still would have lost against the soviet union alone).

baby can you dig your man?
he's a righteous man.

reply

And great instruction for some of our younger friends who are not acquainted with the history of WWII. Excellent work. I hope everyone reads it.

reply

Thank you!

reply

But thanks to IMDB's big big big mistake of closing the discussion boards, this great post will be lost.

reply

@Feologild.

Thanks for the correction.

reply

Luck had absolutely nothing to do with Germany's defeat, but it did play a large part in helping them win the battles that they did win. The countries they defeated were all weaker than Germany (and Austria) and when they took on more powerful opponents, they lost. Stalin's habit of slaughtering his own people and insistence that military reality conform to his political dictates gave Germany their biggest victories of the war. Once he started acting rationally, Germany was finished.

Basically, Germany (and Japan) took on stronger opponents, won some victories whilst the opponents geared up for war and then endured crushing and absolute defeat.

reply

aryan instinct

reply

germany was the first military to understand how tank warfare is most effective, then they took on a succession of opponents one at a time to maximize that effectiveness. in the long run they only defeated one major power, when they had to beat four.

reply

Yes. To be more precise it was integration of mechanized and mobile units, from trucks, to armored vehicles, to tanks to trucks, also integrated with tactical air power, and unique advantage of interior lines.

And working together with their first real ally during their major victories, the Soviets was not exactly trivial either.

The first military opponent the Germans faces was Poland. Germany and the Soviets worked together and coordinated their attacks on Poland

reply

I head that, with 1 more month, they'd have a better aviĂŁo flying.

But I wonder what would happen if they had allied with URSS, or at least kept truce with them and focused on western countries, and at the same time kept truce with USA too.

But it's also clear to me that Hitler deeply wanted to rule Russia. If he had taken Russia, he'd have joined Japan, and they could fight together. They could take the rest of Europe and some more of Asia, then the war would be very different from what it is.

reply

Germany did not nearly take over the "rest of the world". Where do you get such nonsense? Germany's only territorial ambition was in Eastern Europe. They got involved in the West only because England and France declared war on them, and they had no involvement in Asia or the Americas at all.

reply

there was also a war in north afica.i think europe was his first step

reply

Better don't think then. Germany's ally Italy was interested into North Africa and other crap, also the British were they who declared war on Germany, so then they were helping the Italians there against the British.

reply

How did they do what? Get their asses handed to them two times in a row by starting fights they couldn't win? Easy. By being weak and stupid.
That's how convoluted people who believe in a master race's thinking is. Lose two wars that you started back to back, have your country split in half and ruled by your enemies for over fifty years, and that's somehow a win or indicative of greatness.

It's not. It shows you're stupid because you started a fight you couldn't win.

It proves your theory of superiority is wrong because there are lots of examples in military history of numerically inferior numbers defeating superior numbers. It just didn't happen for the Nazi's because they were inferior not just in terms of number, but in terms of intelligence, spirit, and prowess.

And if I go into a room and start a fight with ten people, say, go in there and slap them all in the face and spit on their girlfriends and they all kick my ass, it doesn't mean that it took ten guys to beat me up. It just means that I pissed of ten guys and they all kicked my ass. It doesn't suddenly make me this superman that only ten guys could defeat. Any one of them on their own might have done it but I pissed them all off and they all wanted their pound of flesh. Same thing with the Nazis.

The Nazis were weak and pathetic. Stupid, each of them to a man a failure and all they did was humiliate Germany and fall before their now proven superiors.

reply

@jswans01-1: not really, no. They were actually quite brilliant and top notch in many fields. Still are, much to some delusional people's denial.

BTW, your WW2 causal analysis is oversimplified and dumb - they didn't go to war just for kicks, instead they responded to certain circumstances.

Like it or not, Nordics are highly intelligent, so the master race thing is more true than not. The Germanic peoples are part of the Nordics [which include Scandinavians].

reply

LOL. the best students in school have been from Asia, Africa and the middle east. Most of the so called Nordic peope in my country are like this guy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149839/Man-killed-alligator-Texas-mocked-beast-jumped-marina.html

the Germans acted very foolishly. It was dumb to follow Hitler, an art school reject. It just ended up with Germans being killed.

Probably the mjaority of people that I have known in my life are "Nordic" and they are not anymore brilliant than anyone. When I spent time in Sweden I wasn't gobsmacked with how brilliant everyone was. The best student in the neuro science department in Uppsala was Albanian (whose family had been persecuted by Serbs) and the best MD was straight up black African.

Northern Europeans had a nice, extremely short run in history that has already peaked. The Ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Greeks and Romans were not Northern Euro and Northern Europe wasn't anything to write home about until recently. Most of Northern Europe was extremely poor. Ireland was only something to write home about in the last few decades. Taking the best thing from Southern European cultures and benefiting from resources from outside of Europe helped build it. The new cultural dominance will be Asian in this century.

reply

That's because they send their very best. Go to Asia, Africa and the Middle East if you want to see how they do as a people.

Of course you weren't godsmacked. You already live in a Nordic country. Everybody else though are, as they should be. Even the Finns are impressed, and they're pretty Nordic themselves.

Nordic blood is not exclusive to Northern Europe. That part of the world has been "poor" because of technological reasons. Simply ain't that much farmland to support civilizations before the industrial age. But Nordics were still contributing in other parts of the world. They spawned the Indian culture. They created what we know as Greeks. Later they ruled as Caesars in Rome.

reply

I have lived in many countries around the world and speak half a dozen languages with various degrees of fluency. I have lived on every continent with the exception if Anartica. Your last paragraph is simply romantic poppycock. Actually do some academic rigorous work on history and culture instead of ridiculous race mythos off of Stormfront. But if that is the propoganda you wish to gobble up to feel better about yourself then so be it.

reply

Thank you, I have. Do you have any specific points to contest instead of just ad hominems?

reply

I have made no ad hominems but I am not surprised that you would make that claim since you don't understand what that means. I never attacked you, only your silly ideas. And ad hominem would be calling you a shut in, single loner who wanks off about a race war. Some ideas are poppycock and there is nothing to contest or debate if people have *beep* ideas like the tooth fairy.

The facts are that no such biological group called of "Nordics " exist and you would be laughed out of any area of academia. The idea of a golden era glorious Nordic civilization is a fantasy. You are spouting the same racist blather that peaked in popularity at the beginning of the last century which still retains popularity with uneducated bigots. It is nothing that hasn't been seen for 100 years and is even kind of crappy to more modern interpretations of racism. Even someone like Richard Lynn, though full of it, can do a better job than this. You might as well believe in Atlantis or Santa Claus. There is nothing substantial to entertain. Good day and good luck. You are going to believe what you want so go ahead. Or use what you believe to be your wildly high IQ Nordic Genes to actually invent something or make lots of money instead of trolling IMDB.

reply

I see. I'll offer my civilized conversation to somebody else then.

reply

[deleted]

Of course you weren't godsmacked. You already live in a Nordic country. Everybody else though are, as they should be. Even the Finns are impressed, and they're pretty Nordic themselves.


Finnish people are NOT Nordic people, they are Baltic people, specifically Ugric-Altaic, related to Estonians and Hungarians. Please do not lie. They are Scandinavians since they inhabit the Scandinavian peninsula and have admixture with Sweden, but that is as far as it goes. Only Danmark, Norge and Svenka are Nordics up there (not including Iceland since Iceland has a large Celtic and Slavic population as well as Nordics).

RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/

reply

Celts, Slavs, Balts, Nordics are descendants of Aryans. Just take a look at them. Their features are the same, and clearly distinct from everything else. Their slight differences are due to admixture and gene isolation.

reply

Celts, Slavs, Balts, Nordics are descendants of Aryans

Sorry to disappoint you but the ONLY Aryans are Persians, not Europeans. When different sub-species (yes we are that, not races) of humans started to migrate out of Africa, the first were the Pygmies and the Veddahs . Aryans (Persians) at some point migrated out of Africa, the Euro type migrated later, BUT they are not the same people. The Persians did conquer and mixed with people from the Indian peninsula but not the Europeans, they are a completely different group of people, with different features sorry if you do not like the answer. Stating Nordics is correct, stating Aryans and you are insulting Persia.


The above mentioned you stated (Celts, Slavs, Balts, Nordic) are probably descendants of Satan, however, Satan's spawns is not Aryans. PERSIANS = ARYANS ONLY.

No more then these Euro- Jewish people who claim to be Semitic people, they are not, they just follow the religion. True Semitic people do not look like these Euro-Jewish people at all, admixture or no admixture.

RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/

reply

Sorry to disappoint you but the ONLY Aryans are Persians, not Europeans. When different sub-species (yes we are that, not races) of humans started to migrate out of Africa, the first were the Pygmies and the Veddahs . Aryans (Persians) at some point migrated out of Africa, the Euro type migrated later, BUT they are not the same people. The Persians did conquer and mixed with people from the Indian peninsula but not the Europeans, they are a completely different group of people, with different features sorry if you do not like the answer. Stating Nordics is correct, stating Aryans and you are insulting Persia.


The above mentioned you stated (Celts, Slavs, Balts, Nordic) are probably descendants of Satan, however, Satan's spawns is not Aryans. PERSIANS = ARYANS ONLY.

No more then these Euro- Jewish people who claim to be Semitic people, they are not, they just follow the religion. True Semitic people do not look like these Euro-Jewish people at all, admixture or no admixture.


The Aryans spread all over the world. Yet I don't see any Middle Eastern looking peoples in N Europe. I do see Nordic features, though slim, in Iran.

As I said, the oldest remains of Aryans are found in Central Asia, so that place was once inhabited by Nordics. Not anymore, obviously. Immigration took care of that.

The Vedda is strikingly similar to the Norse Edda. Coincidence? The Veda talk about the midnight sun. Where did they get that idea? Certainly not from India.

Modern Iranians are not Aryans. They are hybrid of Middle Eastern peoples. Are they great warriors? No. Are they great rulers? No. Do they create great civilizations? No. So not Aryan.

Descendants of Satan? We are not Jews.

But keep denying it as much as you want. We know it is true with how your people always are looking to find an Aryan girl to marry. You know who the real Aryans are. Everybody does, which is why the entire world is trying to exterminate the white male Nordic.

reply

They created what we know as Greeks.


Very late to the conversation but in the future please backup your statement with some facts.
That the Greeks are originally Nordic is entirely speculative and not based in fact, simply a theory of certain academics, yet you spout it as fact.
I will not further this discussion, as I have read your posts and you are unwilling to deviate from your "facts", you just keep throwing out more of them.

I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.

reply

more "highly intelligent nordic" nonsense.

actually, there was a european group that was statistically more intelligent than any other group in the world. the nazis killed millions of them....

don't believe it? guess which group has won the most nobel prizes (or at least had by the 1950s or so)

reply

Nordic countries almost completely dominating the best countries to live in indexes is nonsense?

Strange that Israel has a lower IQ than N Europe then. And they did not kill millions.

Who has made all the practical discoveries? More or less everything in your house was created by Nordic blood. Brits, Scandis, Germans, French, Italians, Dutch etc. Nobel Prizes are popularity contests for the most part. Obama won one for Christ sake.

reply

sure, the scandinavian countries usually rank very highly as great places to live - assuming you don't mind the cold. most european countries are industrialized and have a high standard of living - but that has less to do with intelligence than with the natural advantages of europe.

strange that israel doesn't have a lower average iq than northern europe - but facts are often slippery things for you holocaust deniers.

like the greeks and italians being "nordic" people...that's comedy gold! if you're going to claim india as nordic, you're going to have to concede that the nordics are africans.

the nobel prizes in the sciences (chemistry, physics) aren't popularity contests. who wins the nobel prizes? yeah, disproportionately those guys (who haven't been known historically for their popularity) - .2% of the world population, 23% of all nobel prizes (37% of usa nobel winners)

reply

sure, the scandinavian countries usually rank very highly as great places to live - assuming you don't mind the cold. most european countries are industrialized and have a high standard of living - but that has less to do with intelligence than with the natural advantages of europe.


What natural advantage? N Europe didn't get rich until they invented the technology to become so.

strange that israel doesn't have a lower average iq than northern europe - but facts are often slippery things for you holocaust deniers.


http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

like the greeks and italians being "nordic" people...that's comedy gold! if you're going to claim india as nordic, you're going to have to concede that the nordics are africans.


Why is it comedy gold? Italians still have 20%+ light eyes, much higher in the north. Most of the early Roman Emperors had fair traits. A pure Greek in 400 AD was described as "tall, light eyed and light to medium light hair". India was conquered by light peoples. Their mythology is based on the Northern Sun. They still have a caste system in place trying to preserve that faint genetical heritage.

the nobel prizes in the sciences (chemistry, physics) aren't popularity contests. who wins the nobel prizes? yeah, disproportionately those guys (who haven't been known historically for their popularity) - .2% of the world population, 23% of all nobel prizes (37% of usa nobel winners)


Of course they are. Every award is. What decides what trumps one discovery over the other? Unless it's obvious, popularity. Most of our big discoveries have been made by Nordic men or men with their blood.



reply

What natural advantage? N Europe didn't get rich until they invented the technology to become so.

a fairly moderate climate, plentiful rivers & natural resources, no tropical diseases. much friendlier to human habitation than the tropics. over the last couple hundred years the usa has been much better at inventing and developing technology than europe, also.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

since it's on the internet it must be true, right? you clearly don't have a clue how iq scores work, do you? 100 is defined as average. it's mathematically impossible to have the scores in that table. an individual with an iq of 59 is practically incapable of caring for himself - and to have that as the average for an entire country? more comedy gold!
Why is it comedy gold? Italians still have 20%+ light eyes, much higher in the north. Most of the early Roman Emperors had fair traits. A pure Greek in 400 AD was described as "tall, light eyed and light to medium light hair". India was conquered by light peoples. Their mythology is based on the Northern Sun. They still have a caste system in place trying to preserve that faint genetical heritage.

this is comical because...light eyes mean nothing! your description of a "pure greek" is made up nonsense, where did you get that from? oh yeah...probably another random internet site spouting propaganda. if the romans, greeks and indians were so blond, how'd they end up so non-blond now?
Of course they are. Every award is. What decides what trumps one discovery over the other? Unless it's obvious, popularity. Most of our big discoveries have been made by Nordic men or men with their blood.

you don't quite get the numbers here, do you? if there are 100x as many of one group as there are of another, yet the smaller group wins the same number of times, then the smaller group is far superior to the larger one. basic math.

but obviously you'll believe whatever propaganda you want to.

reply

a fairly moderate climate, plentiful rivers & natural resources, no tropical diseases. much friendlier to human habitation than the tropics. over the last couple hundred years the usa has been much better at inventing and developing technology than europe, also.


Yet civilization started in those "tropics", and remained so until the industrial revolution. What is stopping those areas from doing what the North is doing today? They have the money, they have the tech, all the blue prints. What's stopping them? What's stopping any country?

The USA is still about 50% Nordic. It was founded as a Nordic country. Starting to struggle now though.

since it's on the internet it must be true, right? you clearly don't have a clue how iq scores work, do you? 100 is defined as average. it's mathematically impossible to have the scores in that table. an individual with an iq of 59 is practically incapable of caring for himself - and to have that as the average for an entire country? more comedy gold!


Oh I don't know, the chart seems to make sense when you visit those countries. Turkey 90? Sounds about right. And you are absolutely right, they can't take care of themselves. We do that for them.

this is comical because...light eyes mean nothing! your description of a "pure greek" is made up nonsense, where did you get that from? oh yeah...probably another random internet site spouting propaganda. if the romans, greeks and indians were so blond, how'd they end up so non-blond now?


Light eyes mean a lot. It shows most of your forefathers was from the original blue eyed race. I got it from history books. People who were actually there. Why do you think so many of their Gods are blondes?

Same way you always lose blondness. Race mixing. Millions of slaves from the colonies introducing dark features. Immigration also, and invasion. Those areas have been ripe with conquest, migrations and intermingling for millenia. And hair and eyes are the first to go. They still have the Caucasian phenotype, but other features have dissipated from their populations.


you don't quite get the numbers here, do you? if there are 100x as many of one group as there are of another, yet the smaller group wins the same number of times, then the smaller group is far superior to the larger one. basic math.

but obviously you'll believe whatever propaganda you want to.


Keep on clinging to the Nobel Prize. All the while here in the real world I'll keep enjoying my Nordic inventions.

reply

Oh I don't know, the chart seems to make sense when you visit those countries. Turkey 90? Sounds about right. And you are absolutely right, they can't take care of themselves. We do that for them.

heh - this stuff just gets funnier all the time. given your dubious grasp of history and science, i doubt you're bright enough to take care of yourself, much less an entire nation or twenty.

reply

Of course they are. Every award is. What decides what trumps one discovery over the other? Unless it's obvious, popularity. Most of our big discoveries have been made by Nordic men or men with their blood.

Historically most of today's technology has been created by one country and one country alone, Ancient CHINA. You are not only a bigot InternationaleClique, you are also clueless. W/O China, this world would be in very poor shape. The list is too long but I will name some:
COMMERCIAL BANKING
PAPER WRITING and language (logograms to be exact)
BALISTIC MISSILES
FIREARMS
COMPASS
MECHANICAL CLOCK
CALCULATOR (ABACUS)
METAL SMELTING

Italians are NOT Nordic people, they are Latin people who "civilised" Europe by introducing the alphabet, among other things, (w/o the Italians, the Nordics would still be living in caves like they existed until The Latin Rome come knocking) except those from the extreme North, no more than Indians are "Aryans", the only Aryans are Persians. Full stop, Not Indians, and certainly not Nordics. The name name Iran literally means "land of the Aryans". Hitler was a fool who certainty did not know his own people (based upon a British DNA several years ago, his linear Ydna and Mdna originated partially from Africa and Jewish). Since DNA testings can only test linear ancestry, you can imagine his non - linear ancestry would be, he certainty was not Aryan (Persian) at all.

I am not Chinese nor Italian, however, I give credit to where it is due. Nordics' main contribution has been creating war, conquering other countries and exterminating people wholesale (that includes the British as well). Latin counties also engaged in this like Portugal and Spain so it must be a European sickness.

This world would had been a better place to leave if Europe and men never existed, they both suck (I am a man to inform you). Maybe in the afterlive, the creator can do what should had been established centuries ago, insure people like you are erased and forgotten from history.

RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/

reply

[deleted]

Inger Stensland? Another self hating Scandi I gather.

I am not Nordic

You've been reading too much Jew history. Nordic elements have been present in Italy for thousands of years. Where do you think they get their blue eyes and fair hair? Certainly not indigenous to the Mediterranean race.

Romans originated from Greece and both of these were NOT Northern Europeans, The area of South Tryrol and Northern Italy are mixed with Northern European, the traditional Italy, including Roma never was, they are the true Italians unless you include the Etruscans who were genocide when the Italo group migrated to the Italian Peninsula from Greek. Wonder why the Greeks and Italian had similar empires. The Vikings are to blame for people in the Mediterranean and Some part of Northern African having Nordic features but they were not there in a majourity setting.

Genghis Khan and his descendants also have fair hair and eyes, so we've been over there as well. Fair hair and eyes belong to the Aryan race alone. No other has them in abundance. Where you find that, you find our blood.

Atilla the Hun and Genghis Khan have genetically and historically been proven to be Asians from Turkic group and Mongolia, no matter what you state, that is the truth and you know it

The Hitler research is obvious propaganda. Not even mainstream historians take it seriously anymore. From what we know Hitler came from a long line of Austrian farmers. Rest is wishful thinking. He for sure had foreign blood given his features (all of us has), but he was predominately Nordic.

False, British scientists followed Hitler's grand Nephews, one of the Stuart-Houston brothers in New York and illegally obtained his biological data knowing he would never consent, that and Hitler's relatives in the Waldviertal region of Austria all by proved what historians already knew, after all, he demolished the small town where his parentage originated from and destroyed all records, why if he was 100% Germanic engage in this, eh? You already know the answer so I will not insult you.

Without Europe and its people the world would still be living in the stone age. Every civilization can be traced back to an Aryan influence. The ancient Persian didn't look like modern Iranians. Every history text from those times will tell you that.

The indigenous people of the Americas, Siberia (yes, those Russian genocide the Siberians and took their land as well), Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand would still be alive and well today, the Europeans would had starved to death, should had happened but I guess that was not in the Creator's mind. The Creator may have a more exacting fate for those Euro types. Ancient China was the power that made the difference in this world, not Europe as I explained before, all your Euro type did was to show the planet the true meaning of "evil" in humanity.

On the contrary, here is what authors WHO WERE PRESENT described a "proper Greek". Light eyes, blond to light brown hair, straight noses and tall stature. Does this sound like a modern Greek? No. What does it sound like? You know the answer to that.

Same answer of the Vikings' plundering they went as far into Muscony (Russia).

RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/

reply

Romans originated from Greece and both of these were NOT Northern Europeans, The area of South Tryrol and Northern Italy are mixed with Northern European, the traditional Italy, including Roma never was, they are the true Italians unless you include the Etruscans who were genocide when the Italo group migrated to the Italian Peninsula from Greek. Wonder why the Greeks and Italian had similar empires. The Vikings are to blame for people in the Mediterranean and Some part of Northern African having Nordic features but they were not there in a majourity setting.


The majority of Roman Emperors had light features. Sulla, blonde hair and blue eyes. Augustus, blonde hair and blue eyes. Commodus, blonde hair and blue eyes. These genes are not native to Meditteraneans. They are Aryan genes.

So how did all these aristocrats have clear Nordic features if they weren't Nordic? These were the Patricians, the original inhabitants of Rome. At first, the only legitimate citizens. Clearly they had a large Nordic element.

Atilla the Hun and Genghis Khan have genetically and historically been proven to be Asians from Turkic group and Mongolia, no matter what you state, that is the truth and you know it


Genghis had red hair. His grandson had green eyes. Clear evidence of Aryan/Mongolian interbreeding. The oldest Aryan remains are found in Central Asian graves.

Genetic research can prove nothing about Genghis since they don't have his DNA. But it does prove that Europeans and Asians have genes in common. I've said nothing about Atilla.

False, British scientists followed Hitler's grand Nephews, one of the Stuart-Houston brothers in New York and illegally obtained his biological data knowing he would never consent, that and Hitler's relatives in the Waldviertal region of Austria all by proved what historians already knew, after all, he demolished the small town where his parentage originated from and destroyed all records, why if he was 100% Germanic engage in this, eh? You already know the answer so I will not insult you.


I have never said Hitler was 100% Germanic. Even he didn't say that. The Nazi's estimated quite openly that Germans were only about 50% Aryan on average.

It is obvious that Hitler had foreign elements in his blood with the dark hair and average height. As do all Europeans who aren't tall blue eyed blondes. Even those are pretty certain to have degrees of foreign DNA.

That's not to say it is recent or abundant. There is no reason to believe Hitler's grandfather was a Jew. His mixture is moderate, likely there are no full blooded foreigners in his ancestry. Only fractions coming in from the sides. As with the majority of Europeans who share his features.

Thousands of old, abandoned towns in Germany and Austria were demolished. This was a normal practice at the time as the industrial age had left many countrysides ghost towns. Hitler had no qualms about his ancestry and released a full family tree going back generations.

The indigenous people of the Americas, Siberia (yes, those Russian genocide the Siberians and took their land as well), Caribbean, Australia, New Zealand would still be alive and well today, the Europeans would had starved to death, should had happened but I guess that was not in the Creator's mind. The Creator may have a more exacting fate for those Euro types. Ancient China was the power that made the difference in this world, not Europe as I explained before, all your Euro type did was to show the planet the true meaning of "evil" in humanity.


The great indigenous peoples who slaughtered innocents by the millions for their strange Gods. Who warred incessantly about trivial issues. If this was still going on today you would likely be one of the many calling for war and intervention to put a stop to it.

Today all these areas reap the rewards of western technology and good will. Yeah some people died, but how many people do you think died in Northern Europe due to Southern and Eastern aggression? The Catholic Church alone has untold millions on their conscience. Entire counties were cleansed with blue eyed blondes. There's not a Hugenot left in France. Saxons murdered, half their population, because they wouldn't submit to Catholicism. There is but ONE historical document preserved about Nordic culture. Written in far away Island. Everything else has been burnt. Nobody is innocent.

Same answer of the Vikings' plundering they went as far into Muscony (Russia).


Vikings are a good thousand years after the Greeks. How would Aryan plundering anyway account for Greeks and Romans themselves thinking THEY were the original inhabitants of their own race? Does that make any sense to you?

reply

Who has made all the practical discoveries? More or less everything in your house was created by Nordic blood. Brits, Scandis, Germans, French, Italians, Dutch etc. Nobel Prizes are popularity contests for the most part. Obama won one for Christ sake.

CHINA did, not Europe, Not Africa, ancient China is what all humans use (excluding un-contacted people) and benefit from today. I am not Asian but give credit to where credit is due.

RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/

reply

95% of everything in your house was created by a white man. TV, stereo, electricity, telephone, internet, the machinery used to build the whole thing.

Yeah sure, the Chinese came up with some stuff way back. Credit where credit is due. But what happened? The Aryan creativity is still going strong. Could it be that early admixture drying up? Civilizations don't just go numb by themselves.

reply

Yeah sure, the Chinese came up with some stuff way back


Some? If the Chinese did not invent the backbones of the same inventions centuries ago, improved by Europeans, the Europeans would never had been this advance and that is a fact. All you state are directly or indirectly attributed to ancient China no matter how you attempt to spin your words. So the next time you go to a bank, use alternative medicine, write a written language on paper, send a rocket up into outer space, use your compass in your mobile phone, use your calculator for example thank not Europe, thank China. It does not make a different that they did not create the technology we use today, they created the foundation of the technology we use today, something people tend to forget.

And why do you try to visit Persia and tell them that you and other Euro types are Aryans or descendant of Aryans, they will probably behead you for blasphemy. They will teach you very quickly that you not.

RIP actress Inger Stensland (1934 -1970)
http://www.ingerstevens.org/

reply

That would be the Scots then?

reply

[deleted]

And this, people, is what happens when you don't understand history, but act as if you do.

Implying how Germany started WW1 already blew your cover, only a complete imbecile would make that claim. The situation in Europe was completely nuts in 1914 and EVERYBODY wanted the war to end all wars, especially France and Britain.
Good 'ol Wilhelm II was just stupid enough to sign a blanco-check for Austria and that's when *beep* hit the fan...

As for WW2, Germany didn't want to go to war with Great Britain and especially not the USA, but how would you ever know that.
The plan was solid and rather simple, from 1930s Germany's perspective also very understandable considering how Germany got *beep* after WW1, but again - how would you ever know that?

Come back when you see more than black and white and when you finished that 3rd grade history book. Before that, stay silent, you only hurt yourself each time when you open your mouth...

reply

Soviet Union allied with Germany guarranteeing that the only real threat was from the Western Front which is relatively easy for Germans to defend at Rhein river line at least. Alliance with Soviet Union guarranteed Germany with infinite fast supplies of oil, steel, raw materials that rendered the so effective Maritime blockade Great Brittain had used in WWI practically useless.

The only problem with Soviet Union was that it was the main enemy and conquest target of Hitler's vision of Germany. Germany wanted control over it as it was dependent on Eurasian resources ie. Soviet Union. So having anything but client state to east was a threat to German hegemony.

Soviet Union also knew this. Stalin had hoped Germany and Western democracies would be worn down by a long war. Instead he ended up alone with a very well supplied German wehrmacht. Stalin had planned to turn-coat and invade Germany in 1942 especially if war was still going on in West.

Germany invaded first. They were ready first.

reply

Exactly. Modern kids go through their education ending up thinking that WWII in the European theater was all about a) the Soviets and Germans fighting each other; d) Normandy (if you are Americans) or the RAF and the battle of Britain (if you are Britiish) and c) the Holocaust.


I would geuss 1/100 udnertand that during hitler's major political and military victories he was essentially an ally of Stalin

reply

The Germans failed to defeat the British empire in the early part of the war, and then as its allies deserted or defected, it was only a matter of time until Germany lost. It was crucial for Germany to defeat Britain (to defeat any western invasion possibility) and to keep Russia on-side. Instead, Germany lost to Britain in 1940 despite massive air superiority and attacked Russia which could have swatted the Germans away like insects.

In reality the only thing that could have won Germany the war was if they had kept their best scientists and developed the bomb first.

I think some people have this romantic idea of German efficiency (which is half true) but they totally exaggerate it. Hitler was an incompetent moron and the Germans made most of their territorial gains by storming into capital cities with huge numbers before any defence could be organised.

reply

Instead, Germany lost to Britain in 1940 despite massive air superiority
If they had had air superiority, they would not have had to try to fight to gain it. They barely had air parity over England and by the end of the summer, had lost that during daytime.
In reality the only thing that could have won Germany the war was if they had kept their best scientists and developed the bomb first.

Not possible for two reasons. One being that if the Nazis weren't Nazis, there may not have been a war. The other, and more important one, is that the Western Allies could put far more resources into nuclear weapons research than Germany ever could.

reply