Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HITLER TALKS THREE HOURS WITH MOLOTOFF IN BERLIN; ROME SEES SOVIET IN AXIS (11/13/40)
Microfilm-New York Times archives, Monterey Public Library | 11/13/40 | Guido Enderis, C.L. Sulzberger

Posted on 11/13/2010 5:26:40 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson

1

Photobucket

2

Photobucket

3

Photobucket

4

Photobucket

5

Photobucket

6

Photobucket

7

Photobucket



TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: milhist; realtime; worldwarii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: rbg81
rbg81: "It would have been a wise decision for Hitler to ally with the Soviet Union.
If he had done so, Germany might still control Western Europe."

What makes you think Germany does not still control Western and Eastern Europe?

And while we're at it, what makes you think Germany lost the war?

;-)

21 posted on 11/13/2010 8:47:51 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Here here is another emissary whose name is synonymous with something from WWII. In this case- with a cheap, hand thrown explosive.

To think 70 years in the future 99% of the population have no idea who you are - but they know the cocktail - not the man.


22 posted on 11/13/2010 8:53:55 AM PST by Tank-FL (Keep the Faith - Congratulations - Albert - your Old Corps Now!-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

Here here is another emissary whose name is synonymous with something from WWII. In this case- with a cheap, hand thrown explosive.

To think 70 years in the future 99% of the population have no idea who you are - but they know the cocktail - not the man.


23 posted on 11/13/2010 8:54:09 AM PST by Tank-FL (Keep the Faith - Congratulations - Albert - your Old Corps Now!-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
"He might still have won, however, if had taken Moscow in the Fall, instead of diverting his armies South."

Do you think Stalin would have quit even if he had lost Moscow? That loss didn't finish the Russians when Napoleon invaded.

24 posted on 11/13/2010 8:59:47 AM PST by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson

I feel like going to Schrafft’s and springing for the $1.50 “special steak dinner”.

That Page 1 story about the Supreme Court handing the NLRB a rare defeat was interesting. The National Labor Relations Board had demanded that Republic Steel reimburse WPA for wage relief paid to striking workers. In a 6 - 2 decision, the Court told the communists to go pound sand. The NY Times reporter notes that three Roosevelt appointments joined the majority.


25 posted on 11/13/2010 9:46:21 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
Most of the German officers are in slightly different positions.

Reading the caption I see that two of the "German officers" are Ribbentrop and Keitel. Is Ribbentrop a civilian in dress up?

26 posted on 11/13/2010 9:51:39 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson ("Every nation has the government that it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This
That loss didn't finish the Russians when Napoleon invaded.

You're right, it didn't. In fact, that loss finished Napoleon.
Moscow had mostly been abandoned by the Russians and Napoleon's army was killed by the cold.

27 posted on 11/13/2010 9:54:31 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
"Moscow had mostly been abandoned by the Russians and Napoleon's army was killed by the cold."

The Russians in 1941 had already adopted the same "scorched earth" tactics that the Russians in 1812 used against Napoleon. I don't think losing Moscow would have caused Stalin to throw in the towel anymore than that same loss caused Alexander I to quit in 1812. Stalin would have just continued the tactic of trading space for time as he retreated eastward.

28 posted on 11/13/2010 10:05:34 AM PST by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Well, the Nazis certainly lost the war. And, lets not forget, that despite the West German economic success, Germany remained divided for 45 years. It is quite possible that we STILL don’t know who won WWII, because its effects are still being felt. It may be that the ultimate winners of WWII will be the Muslims.


29 posted on 11/13/2010 12:55:40 PM PST by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This

Indeed, Stalin did have plans to move deep into Siberia if he lost Moscow. If so, he might have stayed there for a while, licking his wounds. Also, he would have been effectively cut off from resupply by the West, which is what kept the Soviet Union in the war for a while. If the Germans had managed to isolate him there, then they would have had a much better position.

Of course, its all academic speculation.


30 posted on 11/13/2010 12:59:44 PM PST by rbg81 (When you see Obama, shout: "DO YOUR JOB!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Homer_J_Simpson
Reading the caption I see that two of the "German officers" are Ribbentrop and Keitel. Is Ribbentrop a civilian in dress up?

It's my recollection that Ribbentrop held a more or less honorary senior SS rank.

31 posted on 11/13/2010 4:18:01 PM PST by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: central_va
They were actually quite good tanks - for 1940. They were very slow, and mechanically unreliable, but then so were many contemporary British and French tanks. They were also made out of poor quality armor that tended to shatter when hit by armor piercing shot, rather than deflect it. OTOH, they had a very good gun. Well, better than anything the allies had at the time anyway.

The real problem with the M13/40 is that they were still in front line use by the Italian army three years later, when they were being pitched against Shermans, M10's and Churchills.

32 posted on 11/13/2010 4:33:40 PM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

The alliance with Soviet Russia was always one of convenience, and everyone realised it. They both needed it because they both hated Poland and wanted to dismember her. Later Hitler needed it to protect his rear while he dealt with the French, and Stalin needed it to buy time to rebuild the red army following the purges and the debacle in Finland. There was never any doubt that the two would be at war with one another. They were total idealogical opponents for a start off, and Hitlers grand plan was for “lebensraum” (living space) in the East. Inevitably that meant war with the Russians.


33 posted on 11/13/2010 4:38:07 PM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

The nation that won WW2 was unquestionably the USA.


34 posted on 11/13/2010 4:40:27 PM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
HITLER TALKS THREE HOURS WITH MOLOTOFF IN BERLIN; Over cocktails?

Well played.

35 posted on 11/13/2010 4:41:41 PM PST by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cannonball Bill
even in “Mein Kampf” he told of his plans quite openly for Russia; even still, he had eyes on the vast amount of Ashkenazi jews Russia contained. In the first weeks of the invasion, Stalin was apoplectic in rage over being fooled by Hitler.

Yeah, but part of me thinks, at the end of the war, Stalin was thankful for Hitler taking care of his "Jewish Problem." Stalin was very anti-semitic himself.

36 posted on 11/13/2010 4:43:49 PM PST by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rbg81

Stalin was planning on being ready to attack Germany by 1943.

There would have inevitably been war between the two, the question is, who would throw the first blow.


37 posted on 11/13/2010 4:45:30 PM PST by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

38 posted on 11/13/2010 4:47:33 PM PST by dfwgator (Texas Rangers -Thanks for a great season.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PzLdr

I’ve not heard of that happening. You might be thinking of the Italian L3/L5 tankette (sometimes called the CV-35 and broadly similar to the British Bren gun carrier). They were used extensively in Ethiopia and somalialand and in the opening years of WW2 and were very poorly armored.


39 posted on 11/13/2010 4:49:06 PM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Well, quite.


40 posted on 11/13/2010 4:50:14 PM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson