- 11 Jan 2014 08:00
#14351542
It came from Hitler? That's your argument because we all know what a military Genius Hitler was. You yourself are saying that German logistics was in deep trouble (even before invading Egypt) specially because of British forces present in Malta. But still with constrained supply lines, invading Egypt was a better option? Also, fyi British navy didn't had total supremacy in Mediterranean at this point of time, reinforcements for axis were able to make their way from Europe, similarly RM was still alive and Germany had managed to achieve local air superiority over malta and that's precisely why Paratroopers were assembled by German general staff but they were used by Rommel in his disastrous drive towards Egypt.
I am not your bud and try to read more carefully next time. I never claimed anything like that and for the last time there was no German resources and supplies on malta because it was in British hand. German supply lines were stretched in North Africa because Rommel foolishly disregarding the General Staff's better wisdom chose to go on offensive stretching the German lines.
I don't generalize a nation like this, I seriously have no idea what a russian or german or french or korean way is, you seem to be expert on that.
Neither I ask or provide bullshit evidences like this.
Almost same deal was prepared for Germany too but Soviet occupation zone in Germany became commie but Soviet occupation zone in Austria didn't. Oh, and even if this is true and there was no such deal for Germany, this very example (regardless of any reason) makes your assertion false that soviet occupation de facto meant that nation becoming communist. For the fourth time apart from Austria Finland was also defeated once again by USSR in ww2 but didn't forced them to become commie.
And finally for the 7th (or its 8th?) time, you still haven't provided one single shred of evidence that Soviet Union was planning to force communism on Finland. I am sure if its so obvious to you, there must be some sort of evidence.
Oh god! Malta certainly was not easier in light of the strength of the British navy! The decision to pull out from Malta came from Hitler. Why?
It came from Hitler? That's your argument because we all know what a military Genius Hitler was. You yourself are saying that German logistics was in deep trouble (even before invading Egypt) specially because of British forces present in Malta. But still with constrained supply lines, invading Egypt was a better option? Also, fyi British navy didn't had total supremacy in Mediterranean at this point of time, reinforcements for axis were able to make their way from Europe, similarly RM was still alive and Germany had managed to achieve local air superiority over malta and that's precisely why Paratroopers were assembled by German general staff but they were used by Rommel in his disastrous drive towards Egypt.
Get with the program bud...You appear to have an expectation that Rommel was supposed to single handedly defeat the Allies while ignoring how stretched German military resources and supplies were in Malta.
I am not your bud and try to read more carefully next time. I never claimed anything like that and for the last time there was no German resources and supplies on malta because it was in British hand. German supply lines were stretched in North Africa because Rommel foolishly disregarding the General Staff's better wisdom chose to go on offensive stretching the German lines.
Haha. Well pray tell what was the Russian way post WW2 occupation? Democracy? Were all the countries I showed you democratic after Russia finished with them? Stop obfuscating the issue, a simple yes or no will suffice, but you wont answer, because you know you cant.
I don't generalize a nation like this, I seriously have no idea what a russian or german or french or korean way is, you seem to be expert on that.
Neither I ask or provide bullshit evidences like this.
Fail.
AGREEMENT ON CONTROL MACHINERY IN AUSTRIA;
according to this agreement, the Governments of the USA, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the UK and the Provisional Government of the French Republic decided that after the liberation from the nazis, Austria would be free to organize election for a new government in a "free and independent state".
Almost same deal was prepared for Germany too but Soviet occupation zone in Germany became commie but Soviet occupation zone in Austria didn't. Oh, and even if this is true and there was no such deal for Germany, this very example (regardless of any reason) makes your assertion false that soviet occupation de facto meant that nation becoming communist. For the fourth time apart from Austria Finland was also defeated once again by USSR in ww2 but didn't forced them to become commie.
And finally for the 7th (or its 8th?) time, you still haven't provided one single shred of evidence that Soviet Union was planning to force communism on Finland. I am sure if its so obvious to you, there must be some sort of evidence.
"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form." Karl Marx