Man With Hitler Speech as Ringtone Faces Jailtime

[Dirtman73]

Don't bother, Silmarunya. Most of these people you're arguing with have an extremely biased view of America's involvement in WWII due to the crap that's taught in our public education system. According to textbooks, dontcha know, we were singlehandedly responsible for winning the war.

And sorry guys, Stephen Ambrose doesn't count as an authority on WWII history, for obvious reasons.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]Dirtman73[/nom]Don't bother, Silmarunya. Most of these people you're arguing with have an extremely biased view of America's involvement in WWII due to the crap that's taught in our public education system. According to textbooks, dontcha know, we were singlehandedly responsible for winning the war.And sorry guys, Stephen Ambrose doesn't count as an authority on WWII history, for obvious reasons.[/citation]

That's sad, but it sure explains a lot. On the other hand, Russia also claims it was the sole liberator of Europe in WW II. I guess having an oversized ego comes with living in a nation that is/was a superpower.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]gmcboot[/nom]So, you are american and you say that we had little to do with winning WWII? That soldiers are stupid and know little of the war they fought in, but you being a genius know far more than they do because you read it in school. So you know what war is like from a book? Yeah, go up to a veteran, any age 19 to 90 and tell them that. I'd hope the 19 year old who just serve in Baghdad would sit down over a beer and explain that although historians can tell a broader view of a war, it is only those who fought it can tell the in your face truth of the war. Maybe you should find one of the few remaining WWII vets and tell him you know what WWII is like better than he because you read it, hopefully be would sit you on your ass with a right hook to the jaw.[/citation]

So rational knowledge acquired by scholar and based on actual numbers is superior to the personal opinion of a soldier who was in a field and had no idea about the broader war? Someone who is involved can never give an objective analysis of something, put aside a common soldier who landed on a beach, fought a hard battle and thinks he saw hell, without knowing what was happening in the harsh Russian winter.

A veteran is one of the least reliable sources of information about the grand scale of the war. A historian knows things a veteran can't even imagine.

A soldier is an ant running on the ground and seeing a narrow tunnel ahead of him. A historian is a satellite that monitors from a distance, overseeing the broad picture and creating a view supported by a wide range of facts.

 

[Montezuma]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]It's somewhat understandable. For an American, European WW II is a rather far off thing that they didn't get involved in up close (no civilian casualties and the American role in Allied victory is next to nothing - Soviet Russia single handedly destroyed Germany with British air support).But for Germans, Hitler's terror is still very much alive. They dread Nazism. They suffered immensely due to it. And then someone thinks it's funny to play Hitler quotes in public? I'll start reciting the Quran during a Christian meeting. Or shout how America isn't socialist enough at a Tea Party meeting. That's how respectful it is...[/citation]


First off, you are an absolute moron. The United States lost a lot of good troops to the Nazis. I have many family members that served over during WWII(two of who are dead now) and they saw a lot of their fellow soldiers die, so don't give me your nonsensical @#*% or attempt to demean those U.S. soldiers that gave their lives in that war. Your post shows how great a moron you are.

Secondly, you are free to shout about the U.S.'s economic status at a political rally. We have a God-given right to free speech and a ring-tone, just like what this guy had on his phone, would be just as protected as your stupidity.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]It's somewhat understandable. For an American, European WW II is a rather far off thing that they didn't get involved in up close (no civilian casualties and the American role in Allied victory is next to nothing - Soviet Russia single handedly destroyed Germany with British air support).But for Germans, Hitler's terror is still very much alive. They dread Nazism. They suffered immensely due to it. And then someone thinks it's funny to play Hitler quotes in public? I'll start reciting the Quran during a Christian meeting. Or shout how America isn't socialist enough at a Tea Party meeting. That's how respectful it is...[/citation]

No offense, but you're an idiot.

American aid to Britain allowed her to survive the war, even before Germany declared war on the U.S.

U.S. aid to the Soviet Union was enormous as well.

The British airplanes were crap. They had no single-engined fighters that could fly to Germany, or any bombers that could even remotely protect themselves. American B-17s would fly during the daylight, something the Brits couldn't do. After that, the P-39 and P-51 could fly into Germany and escort the bombers.

The U.S. economy dwarfed the Britich, and Soviet economies. The massive damage done by American bombers to German production, as well as the constant provisions made to these countries in material was a very important aspect of the war. You obviously understand nothing about military history, but WW II was an air war. Winning battles with air inferiority was very, very rare, and America won the war in the air. The English had decent fighters, but a puny economy, the Soviets had awful fighters, but could produce them in numbers. America had the best fighters, the best bombers, and an enormous capability to produce them.

More to the point, Hitler was an AWFUL commander. His ineptness costed the Germans many battles. His insight into equipment, however, was often very valuable.

 

[jj463rd]

[citation][nom]jj463rd[/nom]Oh well to a softer note at my mom's house we have a fine Adolf Hitler tapestry in perfect condition as a captured war relic.But I prefer the WW1 Pickelhaube as it fits my head perfectly plus it has a nice case.[/citation]

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]No offense, but you're an idiot. American aid to Britain allowed her to survive the war, even before Germany declared war on the U.S.U.S. aid to the Soviet Union was enormous as well.The British airplanes were crap. They had no single-engined fighters that could fly to Germany, or any bombers that could even remotely protect themselves. American B-17s would fly during the daylight, something the Brits couldn't do. After that, the P-39 and P-51 could fly into Germany and escort the bombers.The U.S. economy dwarfed the Britich, and Soviet economies. The massive damage done by American bombers to German production, as well as the constant provisions made to these countries in material was a very important aspect of the war. You obviously understand nothing about military history, but WW II was an air war. Winning battles with air inferiority was very, very rare, and America won the war in the air. The English had decent fighters, but a puny economy, the Soviets had awful fighters, but could produce them in numbers. America had the best fighters, the best bombers, and an enormous capability to produce them. More to the point, Hitler was an AWFUL commander. His ineptness costed the Germans many battles. His insight into equipment, however, was often very valuable.[/citation]

No offense, but some of your argument are idiot.

British airplanes were crap? The Mosquito bomber was one of the best bombers in the war. It was nearly impossible to catch for the average German plane. The Spitfire was an excellent plane.

True, the American economy absolutely dwarfed the British, but the Soviet war industry was massive as well. And don't forget the Americans were the only who didn't have their factories bombed and attacked...

In the Battle of Britain, the English stood alone and won (although because of Hitler's mistake to divert bombers from bombing airfields to bombing cities).

The Soviets had pretty decent fighters and short range light bombers. There main weakness in the air was their lack of strategical bombers.

Hitler was not only a poor commander, but his insight wasn't that great either. Investing in projects like the Maus Heavy Tank (a tank so heavy it could not even move with current generation engines) was a huge mistake...

 

[ajac09]

to those saying what happened to freedom of speech? not applicable in Germany lol

 

[mackinator]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]No offense, but some of your argument are idiot.British airplanes were crap? The Mosquito bomber was one of the best bombers in the war. It was nearly impossible to catch for the average German plane. The Spitfire was an excellent plane. True, the American economy absolutely dwarfed the British, but the Soviet war industry was massive as well. And don't forget the Americans were the only who didn't have their factories bombed and attacked...In the Battle of Britain, the English stood alone and won (although because of Hitler's mistake to divert bombers from bombing airfields to bombing cities). The Soviets had pretty decent fighters and short range light bombers. There main weakness in the air was their lack of strategical bombers.Hitler was not only a poor commander, but his insight wasn't that great either. Investing in projects like the Maus Heavy Tank (a tank so heavy it could not even move with current generation engines) was a huge mistake...[/citation]

just because the americans didnt have soldiers in the battle of britain doesnt mean we didnt support the british
everyone who posts on this is so stupid, the americans were vital to the victory, no matter wat you say. the russians also were vital too, you cant just say one of the key players did nothing in the war, it was a combination that added up.
about shermans, just because one was a joke doesnt mean those 10 running circles around your heavy tank were
t34 were beasts by themselves though

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]gmcboot[/nom]So, you are american and you say that we had little to do with winning WWII? That soldiers are stupid and know little of the war they fought in, but you being a genius know far more than they do because you read it in school. So you know what war is like from a book? Yeah, go up to a veteran, any age 19 to 90 and tell them that.[/citation]

I actually agree with the other guy... A veteran certainly has first hand horror stories which i will never understand or have anything to even compare to. However, a historian will have studied the war for years. A veteran knows of only his battalion... Of course if said historian is also a vet then perfect!

Google up the human losses in WWII…

Soviets lost a total of 14% of their population!!
USA = .32%

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]mackinator[/nom]just because the americans didnt have soldiers in the battle of britain doesnt mean we didnt support the britisheveryone who posts on this is so stupid, the americans were vital to the victory, no matter wat you say. the russians also were vital too, you cant just say one of the key players did nothing in the war, it was a combination that added up.about shermans, just because one was a joke doesnt mean those 10 running circles around your heavy tank weret34 were beasts by themselves though[/citation]

True. And I never said Americans weren't important. All I said is that when it comes to what American soldiers achieved and had to sacrifice, you're dwarfed by the Soviet Union, that's just a matter of numbers.

Yes, without American material aid Britain wouldn't have held out and the Soviet Union would have had a harder time.

10 shermans were indeed dangerous ('My Tiger can take on 10 American tanks, but there always are 11', as said by a German tank commander). However, in this discussion many people said Russia won through sheer numbers and the US had superior equipment. That's not true, when it came to material Soviets deployed quality stuff and the US had numbers on its side.

 

[eddieroolz]

Since this was a German citizen who committed this "crime", I'd say he deserved it for blatantly ignoring his country's (very) strict laws. If this was say, a foreign tourist, then it might have turned out different.

 

[nforce4max]

And the double standards of expression continues. Europe just gets worse with each and every passing day hell its bad enoug one can't wave the national flag at a football game with out being stormed by police and fined. Its starting to get like this in the US and Canada except it is religious in nature against Jew, Christians, and Muslims. Other much smaller groups are taking heat as well from the commie do gooder liberals, socialist democrats, oil baron republicans, and the marxist nut jobs. :s

What a strange world we all call home.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]And what about the T34? It outperformed the American Sherman by miles and was produced in vast numbers. Or the Sturmovik plane that destroyed entire German military units? Or the JS3 Heavy Tank that was so powerful the British and Americans spent years trying to devise a way they could even stand a grain of chance should Stalin suddenly have turned aggresive on the West? Or the Stalin Organs that threw German forces in disarray? You're referring to supply problems that plagued Soviet forces in the beginning of the war, but please get your facts strait before saying the only advantage the Soviets had were numbers. That's something German propaganda said, but not the German generals (I quote Guderian: "the only way to deal with the T34 would be to copy it")[/citation]

You talk about things you don't understand.

The IS-3 (not JS-3), was not used in WW II. The IS-2 was a fine tank, but had some serious limitations. For one, it had a four man crew, so the commander was overworked. For two, it had two piece ammunition, so was very slow to get off rounds.

In fact, the Germans did not copy the T-34, and created a tank that was vastly superior, the Panther. Even the original Tiger was superior, as the Germans mockingly would say "The T-34 takes its hat off to the Tiger" because of ease in which it would blow the turret of the T-34.

The T-34 was a fine tank, overall, but nothing spectacular like you make it sound. The Sherman wasn't a great tank, being too tall, and not particularly well armored in most configurations, but could go places even the T-34 couldn't go, and had the ability to fire her gun while moving.

The English Firefly, which was based on the Sherman, was easily a match for the T-34, having less armor, but a much more powerful gun (17-pdr).

But, WW II was an air war. If the U.S. didn't pound Germany's economy, how many more Panthers would slaughter the T-34? How many thousands of Focke-Wulfs would butcher the Sturmoviks (which weren't great airplanes anyway - far inferior to American tacs like the A-26 and B-26)?

As it was, by the end of the war, the Soviet Union had been bled white, and was using overage and underage men because they didn't have enough prime men anymore.

Saying the Soviets won WW II is absurd. Even the enormous material aid given to the Soviets disproves that stupid remark.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]No offense, but some of your argument are idiot.British airplanes were crap? The Mosquito bomber was one of the best bombers in the war. It was nearly impossible to catch for the average German plane. The Spitfire was an excellent plane. True, the American economy absolutely dwarfed the British, but the Soviet war industry was massive as well. And don't forget the Americans were the only who didn't have their factories bombed and attacked...In the Battle of Britain, the English stood alone and won (although because of Hitler's mistake to divert bombers from bombing airfields to bombing cities). The Soviets had pretty decent fighters and short range light bombers. There main weakness in the air was their lack of strategical bombers.Hitler was not only a poor commander, but his insight wasn't that great either. Investing in projects like the Maus Heavy Tank (a tank so heavy it could not even move with current generation engines) was a huge mistake...[/citation]

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

Only three Maus were made. And they did move. Prototypes were common for every country. They did not get past that stage.

If Hitler's orders had been followed, Moscow probably would have fell in 1941, but it's hard to be sure. He wanted the L/60 on the Panzer IIIs, not the L/48. When he discovered they were not, it was too late. The L/60 could deal with the T-34.

The Spitfire had no range. It was essentially useless in strategic bombing. Learn something and then talk to me.

The Mosquito was an irritant, not a strategic bomber. It has essentially no effect on the war.

The B-24 and B-17 did.

The English won the battle of Britain for reason you don't understand. The Me-109 only had a short range, and beyond that range bombers could not be escorted. Unescorted bombers were easy prey.

Soviet fighters were crap. They were slaughtered by the German even until the end of the war. German kills on the Eastern front were enormous.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]You talk about things you don't understand.The IS-3 (not JS-3), was not used in WW II. The IS-2 was a fine tank, but had some serious limitations. For one, it had a four man crew, so the commander was overworked. For two, it had two piece ammunition, so was very slow to get off rounds. In fact, the Germans did not copy the T-34, and created a tank that was vastly superior, the Panther. Even the original Tiger was superior, as the Germans mockingly would say "The T-34 takes its hat off to the Tiger" because of ease in which it would blow the turret of the T-34.The T-34 was a fine tank, overall, but nothing spectacular like you make it sound. The Sherman wasn't a great tank, being too tall, and not particularly well armored in most configurations, but could go places even the T-34 couldn't go, and had the ability to fire her gun while moving. The English Firefly, which was based on the Sherman, was easily a match for the T-34, having less armor, but a much more powerful gun (17-pdr).But, WW II was an air war. If the U.S. didn't pound Germany's economy, how many more Panthers would slaughter the T-34? How many thousands of Focke-Wulfs would butcher the Sturmoviks (which weren't great airplanes anyway - far inferior to American tacs like the A-26 and B-26)?As it was, by the end of the war, the Soviet Union had been bled white, and was using overage and underage men because they didn't have enough prime men anymore. Saying the Soviets won WW II is absurd. Even the enormous material aid given to the Soviets disproves that stupid remark.[/citation]

Excuse me for the typo, it is indeed the 2nd Joseph Stalin tank and not the third. Still, it was considered the most advanced tank in the world by the allies at its launch.

The Panther was a formidable tank, but the T34/85 was capable of piercing its hull at 1 km distance, something not easily achieved by any other tank of its time...
Besides, Germany couldn't produce the Panther and Tiger on a large enough scale to matter.

The T34 was great. It was one of the heaviest armed, fastest and most standardized tanks in the world at its launch and the 85mm gun upgrade made it even better.

The Sherman could indeed cross pretty rough terrain, but was prone to catching fire (hence its nicknames like 'Tommy Cooker' and 'Ronson Lighter'), poor engines (they had to implement 4 types of engine, as each type proved faulty), its armor wasn't that heavy and the 75 mm gun was pretty weak by 1994-45 standards. Fortunately it was the most produced tank in the whole of WWII (more Shermans were produced than the entire British and German tank production combined).

Mosquito bombers, Lancasters and many others were already bombing Germany before American intervention. The later bombardments (like Dresden) were simple terror bombardments without any military importance whatsoever.

Actually, even without bombardment German production wouldn't have been as impressive as you make it sound. Many resources, oil for example, were in short supply in Germany (this is why Germany tried so hard to conquer the Caucasus).

Yup, the Soviets went to the verge of destruction - something Americans can't say. The material aid given to Britain was huge, that given to the Soviet Union certainly significant, but not decisive.

 

[Gulli]

I am from the Netherlands and we have similar laws to Germany (though often in a milder form) and I happen to agree with the Americans on this forum who think freedom of speech shouldn't only be for certain chosen ideologies. Communists, Catholics (protestants to a lesser degree, at least in our country) and Muslims are free to preach hate against women, homosexuals, unbelievers and anyone they don't like but nazis are supposed to keep their mouths shut. I think it is very hypocritical that we make this artificial divide between hateful ideologies that have a supernatural element (Islam, Catholicism) and those that do not (nazism, fascism). I think we should treat all ideologies the same (so allow their speech), but if the government wants to restricts some ideologies it should be consistent: that means tackling the Muslims and Catholics as well.

 

[Silmarunya]

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]Again, you don't know what you're talking about.Only three Maus were made. And they did move. Prototypes were common for every country. They did not get past that stage.If Hitler's orders had been followed, Moscow probably would have fell in 1941, but it's hard to be sure. He wanted the L/60 on the Panzer IIIs, not the L/48. When he discovered they were not, it was too late. The L/60 could deal with the T-34.The Spitfire had no range. It was essentially useless in strategic bombing. Learn something and then talk to me. The Mosquito was an irritant, not a strategic bomber. It has essentially no effect on the war.The B-24 and B-17 did. The English won the battle of Britain for reason you don't understand. The Me-109 only had a short range, and beyond that range bombers could not be escorted. Unescorted bombers were easy prey. Soviet fighters were crap. They were slaughtered by the German even until the end of the war. German kills on the Eastern front were enormous.[/citation]

I know the Maus never got beyond prototype stage, but it's just an example of the many crazy and useless ideas Hitler spent precious resources on while Germany could no longer afford to produce proven weapons that actually did matter. They moved, but at such a slug pace it can hardly be considered moving...

The Spitfire was intended as a defensive weapon, so why was it not having range significant?

When the Mosquito was launched, it was the fastest bomber around. It was extremely competent. The only reason it never got beyond being an irritant was because of Britain's lack of manufacturing power (this was America's true contribution to the war).

 

[Silmarunya]

Anyway, I'm going to Italy on a vacation, so I'll call it a day.

 

[grieve]

[citation][nom]Silmarunya[/nom]So rational knowledge acquired by scholar and based on actual numbers is superior to the personal opinion of a soldier who was in a field and had no idea about the broader war? Someone who is involved can never give an objective analysis of something, put aside a common soldier who landed on a beach, fought a hard battle and thinks he saw hell, without knowing what was happening in the harsh Russian winter.A veteran is one of the least reliable sources of information about the grand scale of the war. A historian knows things a veteran can't even imagine. A soldier is an ant running on the ground and seeing a narrow tunnel ahead of him. A historian is a satellite that monitors from a distance, overseeing the broad picture and creating a view supported by a wide range of facts.[/citation]
so very true!
Love the vets, but you are so right.... unless the vet became a historian after the war.