Scotland to join euro

[shaunbhoy]

the huge number of people in concentration camps

Nope. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the number of people in concentration camps by 1939 can in no way be described as "huge". (Unless of course you are using the same odd logarithmic algorithm you use to describe your intellect as "huge")

Epic Fail................again!

[sasguru]

Nope. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the number of people in concentration camps by 1939 can in no way be described as "huge". (Unless of course you are using the same odd logarithmic algorithm you use to describe your intellect as "huge")

Epic Fail................again!

I've told you before there's no need to sign off your posts. We know you're a gurning winker.

[shaunbhoy]

I've told you before there's no need to sign off your posts. We know you're a gurning winker.

If that were the case, I would just sign them off as "sasguru".

HTH

[JamJarST]

Wrong and Wrongish in context.

1. Concentration camps had been going for 6 years by 1939
www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?ModuleId=10005263

2. Your resources are relative to your enemy. In the end Germany did not have the men, oil or productive capacity to overcome her enemies. That would have been obvious to them if they hadn't brainwashed themselves into a mythic belief that their innate superiority would overcome such prosaic obstacles.

1. The fact that they had concentration camps from 1933 does mean the populations of such were "huge".
2. Their failure to win was not primarily due to resources though was it.

[sasguru]

Numbers of conc. camp victims (interned or murdered) by 1939 are hard to come by but by 1939 Germany had several large camps:

The Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies

They had imprisoned and/or killed Gypsies, gays, the mentally handicapped, some Jews already, German antinazis etc etc.

Of course to gurning morons like SB, that is irrelevant.

[sasguru]

2. Their failure to win was not primarily due to resources though was it.

Many historians would say that is exactly what it was. Once America was in Germany could not compete resource wise (whether men or materiel). Her lack of oil led to the production of synthetic alternatives etc. etc.

[shaunbhoy]

Numbers of conc. camp victims (interned or murdered) by 1939 are hard to come by

Of course, a complete lack of statistics is not something that normally prevents a gurning moron like you from putting two and two together and drawing your own unlikely conclusions.
What a c0cks0cket!!

[shaunbhoy]

Many historians would say that is exactly what it was.

Yes, and a great many more would have put the blame down to poor stategic planning on the part of Hitler in overruling many of his more capable Generals so regularly.
But hey, since when did you ever let facts get in the way of your rather retarded one-dimensional logic?

[JamJarST]

Many historians would say that is exactly what it was. Once America was in Germany could not compete resource wise (whether men or materiel). Her lack of oil led to the production of synthetic alternatives etc. etc.

It was their failure to carry out operation sealion and end the war in the West that allowed the US to enter the war. Had they succeeded in Ending the war with Britain they could have used the resources they had to fight in the East.

[shaunbhoy]

It was their failure to carry out operation sealion and end the war in the West that allowed the US to enter the war. Had they succeeded in Ending the war with Britain they could have used the resources they had to fight in the East.

WHS.

No point alerting sasguru to the facts though, his frazzled butterfly brain will have flitted off onto some other arena of discussion that he fails to understand by now.