Terrorist in 1940?

M

MADISON

New member
Here is something to think about....
If there had been Terrorest like Osoma Bin Ladin in the late 30's and 40's, what would Adolf Hitler done if they had struck Germany. His "Final Solution" might not have been against the Jews but "terrorest. The middle east might be a un-occupied, today.
 
"Terrorist" is a widely used term, Madison. A white man who blows up the IRS building is a terrorist the same way that a Muslim extremist who flies a plane into a skyscraper is a terrorist. Either way, each is using violent tactics to meet a political goal. An person who sets fire to a building to collect insurance money is not a terrorist; he's an arsonist.

So that being said, if a "terrorist" struck Germany, before WWII that is, then German forces would have definitely answered the attacks. However, Hitler's psychology would not have been altered, as he would continue to view the "non-aryans" as a threat.

However, Muslim terrorism, as we see it today, would not have even existed pre-WWI, as there were only 100,000 Jews living in Palestine at the time. After Britain enacted the first boundaries between Jewish and Arab areas in 1936, Arab resentment towards Jews grew at an alarming rate. In 1941, The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem declared a Jihad against the Allied powers and allied himself with Germany, et al, because it was the Palestinians' belief that an Axis victory would lead to the liberation of their homelands from the onslaught of Jewish immigration. His troops, and those of the Bosnian Muslims, were even transformed into Nazi SS. Hitler might have considered Arabs to be less than aryan, but he would have never turned down an ally.

Arab Terrorists would never have attacked Germany, as their goals were, more or less, one in the same.
 
Well, I doubt Hitler would have changed anything. The vast majority of wars throughout history, including the mid-20th-century imperialism of Germany and Japan, are about LAND and therefore MONEY and therefore POWER of the ruling regimes. LAND gets you MONEY if the LAND has RESOURCES - either natural or human, particularly natural such as oil, timber, fertile farmland, iron ore, other minerals, etc. Europe to Germany is much easier to conquer, due to its proximity to Germany, easier to defend, due to Europe being surrounded by water and mountain ranges for the most part, and much richer in resources, both natural and human, than the middle east. Yes the middle east has oil to be sure (some parts of it have oil anyway), but you can rest assured that Hitler and Hirohito made their decisions on what to conquer FIRST based on what was in their best interests overall, in terms of resources, ability to protect the conquered lands, and usefulness as a stepping stone to future conquest. You can bet that Iraq would have fallen before Poland if its resources had been higher overall. Doubt it would have anything to do with terrorism, had that occurred. Now it's doubtless that Hitler WOULD HAVE, if allowed to, gone on to conquer the entire world (if we would have let him), or at least divi'ed it up between him and Japan (they met and discussed as much, Hitler and Hirohito or whatever the Emporer's name was). Now, would the middle east have been the NEXT to fall had the Allies stood idly by? Yes, the USSR with its very large hydrocarbon and other natural resources and the middle east would have been the next targets. USSR was in fact the next target of invasion once the continental European mainland was shored up, including scandinavia. Had that succeeded - had the Germans not been defeated on the eastern front, doubtless Hitler's next move would have been to march on into the middle east to conquer the vast oil resources. But USSR made much sense both geographically and resource-wise. Great Britain made much sense as a dangerously close staging point for enemy invasion, which as it turns out, was in fact Germany's main downfall, with the invasion causing him to fight on two fronts, leading to defeat on both. Hitler should probably have conquered GB first, and only then moved on to Russia. But Japan pissed in his soup by bombing the US and waking us up, and he underestimated how hard it would be to fight those tenacious Russians, esp. in the winter. I forget when exactly Hitler invaded Russia, but it was before the allied invasion. Had Hitler invaded and conquered GB first, and only then moved on to USSR, the third reich might be in charge of the world right now. But I suppose he was tempted by the vast oil and other resources of USSR - I'm not sure - I'm not that great a student of history.

Our war on terror (so-called) is the exception to the rule of wars being fought for money/land/power/conquest. Remember, one man's "terrorist" is always the other man's "freedom fighter."
 
Probably not, the Nazi's were never quite effective against those they would have viewed as terrorists. Despite the wholesale butchery of villages like Lidice and etc. The Russian partisans, in 1941 and until they were liberated/absorbed into the Red Army (or executed by Stalin) took appalling losses, but German intelligence and counterforce, where never able to fully control the raids and sabotage. Same for Greece, and the Balkans.
Also, although the Brits were being pushed back, in 1940 they had a substantial presence in Egypt and Palistine. They were largely despised and disliked, but enough memories remained of the abortive arab independence, partially sponsored by Britian in ww-1...that they might have had some of those old ties to use as terrorist organizations against the Nazis. Ironically, the country which had the most experience in terrorist interdiction at that time, were the Brits. Actually aerial interdiction against terrorists/insurgents was a British tactic, used in the 20's. Nazi's really lacked that type of long term experience outside of Germany/Europe.
Also, the Russians and Brits, both had substantial interests in the mid-east...and by '42 had arranged an overland route through Persia, to ensure some supplies to the USSR. Churchill and Stalin, hated each other, but if the Germans had controlled enough of the mideast in 1940 to really cut them off...the alliance would have come sooner.
And also, assuming the Africa Korps, would have been under the same leadership, the type of wasteland alluded to, probably wouldn't have been possible under Rommel. Rommel at that time was Nazi, but he was by no means a Heydrich.
Anyway, the Nazis had to effectively abandon the Africa Korps when the locals/Brits pushed back. A sustained Nazi operation in the mideast, wouldn't have been sustainable. Especially when the attack on Russia absorbed the majority of Wehrmacht resources.
 
Everybody about summed up my thought. More coherently that I would have too. Not the great feat that it may appear to be.
The Final Solution was a way to harness the hate. Anti-semitism has always been in the background in Europe. During hard economic times Jews made a convenient scapegoat. The irony here is that the reason Jews were more educated (on average) and were bankers was because of laws preventing them from owning land, and laws preventing Christians from usury.
Anyways, the road to power for the Nazi regime was to pick on the group everybody hated.
 
Well, don't forget that Nazi Germany wasn't just executing Jews-they were murdering gypsy's, Poles, homosexuals, people with birth defects and all that. Whether the muslims had made a terrorist attack against Hitler's Germany is sort of academic-he would have gotten around to killing them too.

For the most part, the terrorists are attacking countries with primarily open, democratic governments. Saudi was attacked merely because they let us infidels in.

I believe if the Muslim extremists had attacked Germany, it would have served only to speed up their own destruction. I also believe that if Hitler had been successful in his domination, that it would have been just a matter of time before he turned his sights on Japan.
 
Whether or not the middle east would be occupied today would not be determined by some event in the earlier part of the last century. The middle east has been through many wars and is still quite occupied.
 
"If there had been Terrorest like Osoma Bin Ladin in the late 30's and 40's, what would Adolf Hitler done if they had struck Germany. His "Final Solution" might not have been against the Jews but "terrorest. The middle east might be a un-occupied, today."

There was one, actually.
 
The Middle East was still largely a colonial possession/strongly under the influence of France and Britain until after WW II.

It's very doubtful that Germany would have been able to do anything in the Middle East without setting off a war with Britain and/or France.
 
Here is something to think about....
If there had been Terrorest like Osoma Bin Ladin in the late 30's and 40's, what would Adolf Hitler done if they had struck Germany. His "Final Solution" might not have been against the Jews but "terrorest. The middle east might be a un-occupied, today.
Click to expand...

Nah... Hitler and Himmler would have taken notice of their capacity for butchery and recruited them into the SS Handschar, Skanderbeg, or Ost Musselmanisches divisions. Psychos would find pathological talent like that too valuable to go to waste... :rolleyes:
 
For the most part, the terrorists are attacking countries with primarily open, democratic governments. Saudi was attacked merely because they let us infidels in.
Click to expand...
It can also be said that they are recruiting from the poorer countries and attacking the richest economies, much like the Crusades.
While the Crusades may have started as a religious war and certainly used religious rhetoric, it devolved into something els.
 
If there had been Terrorest like Osoma Bin Ladin in the late 30's and 40's, what would Adolf Hitler done if they had struck Germany. His "Final Solution" might not have been against the Jews but "terrorest. The middle east might be a un-occupied, today.
Click to expand...

It's true the Nazis would have gone after any terrror organization, but only because they would represent a challenge to the Nazi's power. The Nazi party had no qualms about using terror tactics themselves. They didn't object to the concept.
 
However, Muslim terrorism, as we see it today, would not have even existed pre-WWI, as there were only 100,000 Jews living in Palestine at the time. After Britain enacted the first boundaries between Jewish and Arab areas in 1936, Arab resentment towards Jews grew at an alarming rate.

Yeah, and I guess this explains the Hebron Massacre of Jews by Muslims in 1929, the massacre of the Banu Qurayza Jews or the expulsion and later massacre of Nadir in the seventh century, the massacre of 6,000 Jews in Fez in 1033, the massacre of all the Jews in Granada in 1066, forced conversions & expulsions in Tunis in 1145, the massacre of Marrakesh Jews in 1232, etc, etc, etc.

What you don't seem to realize is that Muslims have been slaughtering Jews since nearly the moment Islam came into existence, and the British Mandate or the UN partition are merely two more in a centuries-long list of Islamic justifications for slaughtering every Jew that any of the bloodthirsty curs among them can lay their hands on, no matter where they live, be it in Israel or anywhere else.

Hitler was just the latest in a long-line of Jew-haters to take up the cause of slaughtering Jews, the fires of which were stoked and sustained for the preceeding centuries by Islam.

Did you know that the King of Persia renamed his nation the Persian word for "Aryan," as a shout-out to his good friend Hitler, a fellow Jew-murderer? The nation of Iran retains that name to this day.
 
Mvpel, I meant specifically in Israel / Palestine, there would have not been terrorism towards Jews before WWI in modern history. The Hebron Massacre doesn't count, because it took place after WWI.

But those are all good historical references, in any case, pointing out the chronic hatred the Muslims have of "infidels"
 
mvpel, isn't that a selective reading of history? Mass slaughters have been going on since people had the technology to kill and the agricultural resourses to have large concentrated populations.
The Crusaders had mass slaughters and there are very many recorded slaughters of Christian on Christian. The Thirty Years War mean anything? When the nomads of the steppes congregated in large amounts and conquered the "civilized" world, they killed tens of thousands to make sure their flank wasn't threatened. Check out Tamberlane, or the Mongol invasion of Russia and Poland.
 
Considering that this thread was started with a post about Osama bin Laden and Adolph Hitler, the Hutus and Tutsis, Communists & Bourgeousie, or Chinese & Tibetans, aren't really germane to the topic of the thread.
 
Considering that this thread was started with a post about Osama bin Laden and Adolph Hitler, the Hutus and Tutsis, Communists & Bourgeousie, or Chinese & Tibetans, aren't really germane to the topic of the thread
Click to expand...

Yes, let us ignore history when it suits our purposes....
 
Sure, it is very relevant. I didn't even bother to mention the times when Christians killed and repressed Jews.
I didn't make it relevant, you did.

You are right, Muslims have been killing Jews throughout history. Just like every group, religious or political, kills anybody who gets in the way. This is not exclusive to Islam. Christians also have a long and distinguished history of doing the same, to Jews, each other, and anybody else. In that respect we are all just as bad.
 
What Cool Hand Luke said.

The burning of the Reichtag and the so-called "kristallnacht" rampage using hired thugs are two examples of the Nazi Party's state "terrorism".

Nothing new under the sun.
 
Well, there are always interconnections, as noted.
Osama and Hitler, are both linked to an obscure Czarist security officer, who wrote an appalling book all about "Elders".
And the Crusades, a thousand years past, still drive behaviors. Hitler in his propaganda had himself shown as a Tuetonic Knight.Osama and company, eqaute themselves to Saladin. I imagine that both the knights and Salidin would be disgusted.
The history of the mideast, has trapped those who live there, and mired the thoughts of many who don't. For many Moslim's the massacres at Acre and Jerusalem, are still remembered, but in the west, the "horns of Hattin" have tended to be forgotten. Bush the 2nd, has alluded to 'crusades' in his speeches, thereby grating the teeth of our more progressive Islamic Allies. Symbols with very different meanings, to those on either end.
The closest analogy we have here, would be events like Wounded Knee, or Sherman's March to the Sea...and those weren't that long ago. But consider how much emotion they provoke still...
All the massacres, typical human tendancies....both to cause them, and to recall them as symbols, long after the names and actual causes, for those who died, have died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top