Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 141 of 141
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: Could Hitler win war with Russia if he captured Moscow?

  1. #101  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,380
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If America hadn't gotten involved, Russia still would have owned Germany. If Germany had defeated Russia/Russia hadn't got involved, America still would have won but it would have taken a while, (albeit largely because of the bombing pressure Britain had put up for the whole war.) The primary reason we would have won was the number of planes/tanks/cars we were producing a day once our war machine got rolling. Not having your factories bombed daily does wonders for your productivity. So even if he had defeated Russia, Hitler still would have lost.

    If you mean Russia could have beat Germany without America formally joining the war, then yeah that's probably true. Russia provided more troops than anyone else did.

    But if America had played no role at all, Germany would have mopped the floor with Russia. They just plain didn't have enough factory production up and going at the start of the war to have held the Germans off.


    Everyone has heard about the soldiers charging the machine gun nests at Stalingrad, one man with a rifle, and the guy behind him with just a clip of ammo - expected to pick up the rifle off of his comrade when (not if) he goes down. That was Russia in the early stages of the war. Later on, after they'd pressed the Germans off of their immediate borders, then they started to get their factories going better.

    WW2 was either the first or the second war in human history ever to be fought in a manner where it would be totally impossible for an underdeveloped nation to win. Regardless of determination. WW1 might have been the first. It's debatable.
    I have to completely agree here, it seems unlikely at best that the Russians alone could have held out against the onslaught of the Nazi war war machine, indeed in the intial stages of Barbarossa the germans were so dominant on the battle fields that all the Russians could do was fall back. They were losing almost every engagement and were barely managing to slow the German advance at all. They simply didn't have the military disipline to counter the German tactics, nor did they have sufficient concentration of resources.

    Whilst it's true that it has long been a Russian tactic to fall back into their vast country and wait for invading armies to get bogged down by terrible weather conditions and stretched supply lines it's also the case that Germans were making vast in roads into their country and that slash and burn policies by the Russians to deny the Germans from capturing supplies on route were proving ineffective.

    The Germans did actually get as close as within 12 miles of Red Square when they reached Krasnaya Polyana. We'll never know if they could have actually captured Moscow if history had played out slightly differently because it never happened, perhaps one major reason being that Hitler ordered resources diverted from the Moscow campaign to support the effort to defeat the Soviet Armies holding out around Kiev, so on September 26 665,000 men, more than 3,000 artillery pieces, and almost 900 tanks that could have been used to help take Moscow were busy fighting in Ukraine.

    What's clear though with is without allied support and resources the Russians just couldn't and wouldn't have held out against the Germans, indeed in several major engagements it was British tanks and equipment being used be the Russians against the Nazi's, this being as high as 75% of the tanks being used at one stage, thanks to the Arctic convoys the British & Americans were able to get supplies to the Russians.

    America was helping to keep Britain going, even before it officially entered the war, this Atlantic support combined with supplies coming in from across the Empire was allowing Britain to stay in the war but also to crucially supply and keep Russia in the war until it could stand on it's own feet.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    If America hadn't gotten involved, Russia still would have owned Germany. If Germany had defeated Russia/Russia hadn't got involved, America still would have won but it would have taken a while, (albeit largely because of the bombing pressure Britain had put up for the whole war.) The primary reason we would have won was the number of planes/tanks/cars we were producing a day once our war machine got rolling. Not having your factories bombed daily does wonders for your productivity. So even if he had defeated Russia, Hitler still would have lost.

    If you mean Russia could have beat Germany without America formally joining the war, then yeah that's probably true. Russia provided more troops than anyone else did.

    But if America had played no role at all, Germany would have mopped the floor with Russia. They just plain didn't have enough factory production up and going at the start of the war to have held the Germans off.


    Everyone has heard about the soldiers charging the machine gun nests at Stalingrad, one man with a rifle, and the guy behind him with just a clip of ammo - expected to pick up the rifle off of his comrade when (not if) he goes down. That was Russia in the early stages of the war. Later on, after they'd pressed the Germans off of their immediate borders, then they started to get their factories going better.

    WW2 was either the first or the second war in human history ever to be fought in a manner where it would be totally impossible for an underdeveloped nation to win. Regardless of determination. WW1 might have been the first. It's debatable.
    I have to completely agree here, it seems unlikely at best that the Russians alone could have held out against the onslaught of the Nazi war war machine, indeed in the intial stages of Barbarossa the germans were so dominant on the battle fields that all the Russians could do was fall back. They were losing almost every engagement and were barely managing to slow the German advance at all. They simply didn't have the military disipline to counter the German tactics, nor did they have sufficient concentration of resources.

    Whilst it's true that it has long been a Russian tactic to fall back into their vast country and wait for invading armies to get bogged down by terrible weather conditions and stretched supply lines it's also the case that Germans were making vast in roads into their country and that slash and burn policies by the Russians to deny the Germans from capturing supplies on route were proving ineffective.

    The Germans did actually get as close as within 12 miles of Red Square when they reached Krasnaya Polyana. We'll never know if they could have actually captured Moscow if history had played out slightly differently because it never happened, perhaps one major reason being that Hitler ordered resources diverted from the Moscow campaign to support the effort to defeat the Soviet Armies holding out around Kiev, so on September 26 665,000 men, more than 3,000 artillery pieces, and almost 900 tanks that could have been used to help take Moscow were busy fighting in Ukraine.

    What's clear though with is without allied support and resources the Russians just couldn't and wouldn't have held out against the Germans, indeed in several major engagements it was British tanks and equipment being used be the Russians against the Nazi's, this being as high as 75% of the tanks being used at one stage, thanks to the Arctic convoys the British & Americans were able to get supplies to the Russians.

    America was helping to keep Britain going, even before it officially entered the war, this Atlantic support combined with supplies coming in from across the Empire was allowing Britain to stay in the war but also to crucially supply and keep Russia in the war until it could stand on it's own feet.
    Germany attacking Russia when it did was their downfall. The US hadn't been directly involved for that long yet. But the 'German War Machine' was never able to really get going because of constant harassment. By the time Russia got going, the US could have pulled out all European interests and become total isolationists. The outcome would be the same. Once Russia really started, there was no stopping it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Germany attacking Russia when it did was their downfall. The US hadn't been directly involved for that long yet.
    Uh, what?
    The German attack on Russia was June '41, the US didn't become directly involved in the war until December that year - 5 months later.

    But the 'German War Machine' was never able to really get going because of constant harassment.
    Germany certainly "got going" to start with, and then lost momentum as Russia recovered. Same ol' same ol': trade space for time - something at which Russia/ the Soviet Union excelled.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Germany attacking Russia when it did was their downfall. The US hadn't been directly involved for that long yet.
    Uh, what?
    The German attack on Russia was June '41, the US didn't become directly involved in the war until December that year - 5 months later.

    But the 'German War Machine' was never able to really get going because of constant harassment.
    Germany certainly "got going" to start with, and then lost momentum as Russia recovered. Same ol' same ol': trade space for time - something at which Russia/ the Soviet Union excelled.
    Oh, okay. I new it was in the same year. Germany wasn't able to pump out the planes and tanks and such it should have because of constant bombing. The US, on the other hand, built up tons of momentum because we weren't being bombed. I don't think Germany would have been able to defeat Russia even if the US hadn't attacked. That the German/Russia war started before we were even involved enhances that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Oh, okay. I new it was in the same year. Germany wasn't able to pump out the planes and tanks and such it should have because of constant bombing.
    Probably overstated though. Germany didn't even switch to a war economy until rather late and production continued to increase until about 1944...way after their Eastern Front was already decided.


    The US, on the other hand, built up tons of momentum because we weren't being bombed. I don't think Germany would have been able to defeat Russia even if the US hadn't attacked. That the German/Russia war started before we were even involved enhances that point.
    The US also, by than, had been the largest economy in the world for over fifty years. I think there's a vast underappreciation of this by many Europeans.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Oh, okay. I new it was in the same year. Germany wasn't able to pump out the planes and tanks and such it should have because of constant bombing.
    Probably overstated though. Germany didn't even switch to a war economy until rather late and production continued to increase until about 1944...way after their Eastern Front was already decided.


    The US, on the other hand, built up tons of momentum because we weren't being bombed. I don't think Germany would have been able to defeat Russia even if the US hadn't attacked. That the German/Russia war started before we were even involved enhances that point.
    The US also, by than, had been the largest economy in the world for over fifty years. I think there's a vast underappreciation of this by many Europeans.
    The US was capable of defeating Germany, but Russia did more than we did to hurt Germany. Even if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, though, yeah, the US probably could have won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Germany wasn't able to pump out the planes and tanks and such it should have because of constant bombing.
    Er... German arms and military production in WW2 from 1939 - 1945.
    Fighter aircraft, for example, climbed from 605 in '39 (getting ready for the war) to 25,285 in '44 while the bombing campaign was ongoing. Likewise tanks rose from 962 to 7,983. In fact in the 2-3 months of 1945 they produced nearly as many tanks (956) as they had in a whole year in '39.
    Strategic bombing had an almost negligible effect of war production.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Germany wasn't able to pump out the planes and tanks and such it should have because of constant bombing.
    Er... German arms and military production in WW2 from 1939 - 1945.
    Fighter aircraft, for example, climbed from 605 in '39 (getting ready for the war) to 25,285 in '44 while the bombing campaign was ongoing. Likewise tanks rose from 962 to 7,983. In fact in the 2-3 months of 1945 they produced nearly as many tanks (956) as they had in a whole year in '39.
    Strategic bombing had an almost negligible effect of war production.
    Really? I was taught that that was the reason the US war machine was able to outpace everyone else. By the end of the war, we had more planes and stuff than Germany.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Really? I was taught that that was the reason the US war machine was able to outpace everyone else. By the end of the war, we had more planes and stuff than Germany.
    The US had a larger population and a much larger industrial base 1 - that's why it outpaced everyone else.
    Plus it had "perfected" mass production: aircraft and tanks rolled off the lines at a rate of around one per hour - economies of scale helped vastly.

    IIRC even during the inter-war depression 1 machine tools were produced more in the US than anywhere else: anyone wanting to make compex machines - aircraft, tanks, etc bought them from America.

    1 And the US was helped/ boosted out of that depression by orders for planes and other military equipment from France and the UK - that meant that, even though America wasn't in the war it still had factories running that made equipment for war: ready to make stuff for US use when the time came.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    Germany attacking Russia when it did was their downfall. The US hadn't been directly involved for that long yet. But the 'German War Machine' was never able to really get going because of constant harassment. By the time Russia got going, the US could have pulled out all European interests and become total isolationists. The outcome would be the same. Once Russia really started, there was no stopping it.
    Yeah. The USA's direct involvement was only a minor part of the role it played.

    WW2 was really a "who can produce the most tanks and airplanes?" contest. The soldiers themselves were secondary to the effort. Since the USA had more factories and better overall production, whoever they sided with was virtually guaranteed to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Germany wasn't able to pump out the planes and tanks and such it should have because of constant bombing.
    Er... German arms and military production in WW2 from 1939 - 1945.
    Fighter aircraft, for example, climbed from 605 in '39 (getting ready for the war) to 25,285 in '44 while the bombing campaign was ongoing. Likewise tanks rose from 962 to 7,983. In fact in the 2-3 months of 1945 they produced nearly as many tanks (956) as they had in a whole year in '39.
    Strategic bombing had an almost negligible effect of war production.

    Yeah. A lot of Germany's factories were underground and/or well defended.


    It's not so much a matter that Germany lost production ability. It's more that, once they lost North Africa, they didn't have any fuel. They were having to shale coal to get fuel for all those tanks and airplanes.

    Once you've got military commanders having to cut back on air patrols, and pull tanks back to keep for use in special situations - the war is already over. Mechanized warfare is basically the whole fight. In that war, you had to be pounding the enemy constantly with everything you had if you didn't want them to advance to your position. Without that constant barrage, the soldiers would have just been falling back again and again until they were surrounded in Berlin.


    Honestly, Germany should have surrendered the exact moment they lost those fuel supplies. Hitler should have just immediately got on the phone called Churchill and FDR (might not get a very friendly answer from Stalin) - and asked about terms.

    I'm betting Hitler didn't want to be remembered as a "stab in the back" Kaiser Willhelm clone, by the public. And the public was busy romanticizing the "bravery of Germany's soldiers" over the "bravery of Germany's pilots and tank commanders." They probably wouldn't want to hear they'd lost until they were totally beaten.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Ascended View Post


    What's clear though with is without allied support and resources the Russians just couldn't and wouldn't have held out against the Germans
    I don't believe the fact the Germans failed to capture Moscow was of decisive importance.
    I do believe that if this war was simply a straight contest between the two totalitarian powers (Russia and Germany) the Germans would have won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Moscow would not have been a walk in the park and even then, I think as many do, that Germany/Axis could not ultimately win a war against the combination of 3 major powers that were Russia and British Empire and United States.

    Other scenario; What if Germany never goes to war against Russia(and Russia doesnt start war against Germany either), and Germany concentrates on invasion of England (and consolidating a Berlin-Bagdad, to project forces in the middle east after if/when mainland England is under occupation)?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I do believe that if this war was simply a straight contest between the two totalitarian powers (Russia and Germany) the Germans would have won.
    Er...
    Tanks:
    1941 Germany: 3790 Russia: 6590
    1942 Germany: 6180 Russia: 14500 - 24660 (sources vary)
    1943 Germany: 12063 Russia: 19994 - 24089 (-"-)
    1944 Germany: 19002 Russia: 16923
    1945 Germany: 3932 Russia: 8730

    Aircraft:
    Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
    Germany 8,295 10,826 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,871
    USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,218

    Artillery: Russia produced over half a million artillery pieces during the war, Germany managed <160,000.

    In other words, not only did Russia have a much larger population (= available as military personnel), it also comfortably outproduced Germany.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not so much a matter that Germany lost production ability. It's more that, once they lost North Africa, they didn't have any fuel. They were having to shale coal to get fuel for all those tanks and airplanes.

    Once you've got military commanders having to cut back on air patrols, and pull tanks back to keep for use in special situations - the war is already over. Mechanized warfare is basically the whole fight. In that war, you had to be pounding the enemy constantly with everything you had if you didn't want them to advance to your position. Without that constant barrage, the soldiers would have just been falling back again and again until they were surrounded in Berlin.


    Honestly, Germany should have surrendered the exact moment they lost those fuel supplies. Hitler should have just immediately got on the phone called Churchill and FDR (might not get a very friendly answer from Stalin) - and asked about terms.

    I'm betting Hitler didn't want to be remembered as a "stab in the back" Kaiser Willhelm clone, by the public. And the public was busy romanticizing the "bravery of Germany's soldiers" over the "bravery of Germany's pilots and tank commanders." They probably wouldn't want to hear they'd lost until they were totally beaten.
    Hitler's offensive into what is now the Ukraine was to secure the Balkan oilfields. England and Russia had already denied Germany access to the Iranian oilfields by replacing the old Shah with the new Shah.
    Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    See also
    Anglo-Iraqi War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday View Post
    I do believe that if this war was simply a straight contest between the two totalitarian powers (Russia and Germany) the Germans would have won.
    Er...
    Tanks:
    1941 Germany: 3790 Russia: 6590
    1942 Germany: 6180 Russia: 14500 - 24660 (sources vary)
    1943 Germany: 12063 Russia: 19994 - 24089 (-"-)
    1944 Germany: 19002 Russia: 16923
    1945 Germany: 3932 Russia: 8730

    Aircraft:
    Country 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
    Germany 8,295 10,826 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,871
    USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,218

    Artillery: Russia produced over half a million artillery pieces during the war, Germany managed <160,000.

    In other words, not only did Russia have a much larger population (= available as military personnel), it also comfortably outproduced Germany.
    The Soviets had huge advantages over the Finns, in terms of military resources, in the Winter War starting late 1939.
    They suffered massive losses against a much weaker neighbour altho' they did win pretty much what they wanted in the end.
    Also the Germans had large forces tied down in the West which they could have used if the War had simply been between the two nations.
    If the War had been between the two of them, and one considers the political systems of both, the real tragedy was that it was likely one of them would win.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's not so much a matter that Germany lost production ability. It's more that, once they lost North Africa, they didn't have any fuel. They were having to shale coal to get fuel for all those tanks and airplanes.

    Once you've got military commanders having to cut back on air patrols, and pull tanks back to keep for use in special situations - the war is already over. Mechanized warfare is basically the whole fight. In that war, you had to be pounding the enemy constantly with everything you had if you didn't want them to advance to your position. Without that constant barrage, the soldiers would have just been falling back again and again until they were surrounded in Berlin.


    Honestly, Germany should have surrendered the exact moment they lost those fuel supplies. Hitler should have just immediately got on the phone called Churchill and FDR (might not get a very friendly answer from Stalin) - and asked about terms.

    I'm betting Hitler didn't want to be remembered as a "stab in the back" Kaiser Willhelm clone, by the public. And the public was busy romanticizing the "bravery of Germany's soldiers" over the "bravery of Germany's pilots and tank commanders." They probably wouldn't want to hear they'd lost until they were totally beaten.
    Hitler's offensive into what is now the Ukraine was to secure the Balkan oilfields. England and Russia had already denied Germany access to the Iranian oilfields by replacing the old Shah with the new Shah.
    Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    See also
    Anglo-Iraqi War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I see.

    And researching this further, it seems I had this backwards. The goal of the North Africa campaign was to attempt to cut off Britain and America's access to oil in the Middle East, not to secure that oil for Germany. In all practicality, probably it would have been impossible for Germany to even get at that oil.

    Military Operations in North Africa

    I guess at least we know why Hitler had to declare war on the USSR.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,103
    Even if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, though, yeah, the US probably could have won.
    Maybe with help of nuclear weapon only. Otherwise it would cost many millions of looses among U.S. soldiers and majority of Americans would be harshly against of war on such conditions.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Even if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, though, yeah, the US probably could have won.
    Maybe with help of nuclear weapon only. Otherwise it would cost many millions of looses among U.S. soldiers and majority of Americans would be harshly against of war on such conditions.
    It's true the people of the USA didn't really want to send a sufficient number of troops to their death. That is a lot of the reason the nuclear bomb was used on Japan.

    In the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese forces demonstrated a willingness to dig in and fight to the last man even though they were horribly outnumbered and outgunned They only managed to kill about 14,000 American soldiers, at a cost of 77,000 of their own men, but the idea of having to fight battles like that one again and again and again would still mean millions of American soldiers would have to die before they could successfully occupy the main island of Japan.

    Battle of Okinawa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    So, if Russia didn't enter the war, then while I still don't think Germany would have managed to conquer Britain, I do think they might have been able to hold onto Poland and France, and then make a treaty to end the war there.

    That is... if Hitler were reasonable enough to accept that. That's the trouble with letting a mad man be in charge.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Even if Hitler hadn't attacked Russia, though, yeah, the US probably could have won.
    Maybe with help of nuclear weapon only. Otherwise it would cost many millions of looses among U.S. soldiers and majority of Americans would be harshly against of war on such conditions.
    It's true the people of the USA didn't really want to send a sufficient number of troops to their death. That is a lot of the reason the nuclear bomb was used on Japan.

    In the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese forces demonstrated a willingness to dig in and fight to the last man even though they were horribly outnumbered and outgunned They only managed to kill about 14,000 American soldiers, at a cost of 77,000 of their own men, but the idea of having to fight battles like that one again and again and again would still mean millions of American soldiers would have to die before they could successfully occupy the main island of Japan.

    Battle of Okinawa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    So, if Russia didn't enter the war, then while I still don't think Germany would have managed to conquer Britain, I do think they might have been able to hold onto Poland and France, and then make a treaty to end the war there.

    That is... if Hitler were reasonable enough to accept that. That's the trouble with letting a mad man be in charge.
    Once the U.S. was in the war there was no chance that the allies would accept anything other than unconditional surrender from Germany.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    What would have happened do you think if Japan had not attacked the USA (probably not a good idea to ever attack a sleeping Giant Lion) - If the US had stayed out of the war - pursuing a Lassez-Faire policy? How different may the world be today?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What would have happened do you think if Japan had not attacked the USA (probably not a good idea to ever attack a sleeping Giant Lion) - If the US had stayed out of the war - pursuing a Lassez-Faire policy? How different may the world be today?
    The US would have found another way to get into the war. There were already US ships trying to provoke an international incident with shoot on sight orders against the Germans and other ships assigned to get into trouble in the Pacific in the months leading to Pearl Harbor.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    What would have happened do you think if Japan had not attacked the USA (probably not a good idea to ever attack a sleeping Giant Lion) - If the US had stayed out of the war - pursuing a Lassez-Faire policy? How different may the world be today?
    The US would have found another way to get into the war. There were already US ships trying to provoke an international incident with shoot on sight orders against the Germans and other ships assigned to get into trouble in the Pacific in the months leading to Pearl Harbor.
    This may be correct, but those were just protective measures. Everything changes when you get attacked in your own home.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This may be correct, but those were just protective measures. Everything changes when you get attacked in your own home.
    Not really. A shoot on sight was not protective...it was deliberately provocative, as was cutting off Japan from fuel. The US had been preparing for a war with Japan since 1908; visit Pearl Harbor to see the shore batteries. The "attacked in your own home," is just a matter of spin, just as it had been to get the US into several other wars.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,040
    The fact remains that the USA was physically attacked and attacked back and helped the allied forces to beat Hitler and end that world war. Since then, Japan has bloomed as well as Germany, and former advisaries have now become our friends.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayflow View Post
    This may be correct, but those were just protective measures. Everything changes when you get attacked in your own home.
    Not really. A shoot on sight was not protective...it was deliberately provocative, as was cutting off Japan from fuel. The US had been preparing for a war with Japan since 1908; visit Pearl Harbor to see the shore batteries. The "attacked in your own home," is just a matter of spin, just as it had been to get the US into several other wars.

    Roosevelt really wanted a war, while the American public was all but deadset against it. But Roosevelt was commander in chief, so he used his position to try and set it up.

    If Japan hadn't made the foolish mistake of thinking they could actually win against the USA by making a "decisive" sudden surprise attack (which might not have even been a surprise to Roosevelt), then maybe FDR wouldn't have gotten his way.

    I wonder how deep the Japanese would have been willing to push into Russia's east?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I avoid being judgmental on issues I haven't researched, and couldn't (having not been there). From the documented history I have been exposed to, I would stand by my admiration of the man. No person is without fault, but from my perception, I believe we all should be happy that that man was in that place, at that time.
    I honestly believe had the axis powers left the US completely alone, the germans would have developed a nuclear force, that may very well have resulted in a very poison planet.
    After defeating the soviets and exterminating the jews, they surely would have turned on their non Arien, Japanese alleys. In the meantime we would be listening to ozzy and Harriet on the radio.
    Japanese-American Internment [ushistory.org]

    Premature death in the Japanese internment camps was double what it was outside. It wasn't a genocide in the way the holocaust and the Native American genocide was. But it was massive, purely racist oppression that enslaved many thousands of Americans and caused many of their deaths/mental illness. You know the US government even released propaganda that conditions in the camps were great and Japanese people happily engaging in physical labor to help the war effort? Sound like any other 1940s regime you know of?

    I can appreciate he make some good calls in the war, but I can't respect such a man. I can overlook racism in leaders to some degree if it was the cultural thought of almost everyone. What I can't overlook is actively making the oppression worse and furthering initiatives even more racist and oppressive than what already exists. Which is also my problem with George Washington.

    History will never reveal things which did not come to pass. I would like to surmise that the internment of the ethnic Japanese may very well have saved nearly as many of them from the vigilantes in the society of the time. Surely if the tables where turned, Americans on Japanese soil, survival rates would have been much lower.
    FDR was by far the greatest leader this country will ever know, and possibly the world. When assessing that remark, make judgement on the values of the times. Also consider that internment allowed the government to control popular opinion as to them being productive participants to the war effort, thereby making them easier to reintegrate into the post war society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post

    .....FDR was by far the greatest leader this country will ever know, and possibly the world (my bold). When assessing that remark, make judgement on the values of the times.
    I respectfully disagree with the thought that Roosevelt was a greater statesman or person than Churchill.

    My study of WWII is biased by the writings of John Lukacs primarily because I was a student in one of his classes way back in 1970. Otherwise, he is considered a world class historian on WWII.

    His Wikipedia write up says:

    "By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization."


    John Lukacs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Two of his books, "Five Days in London" and "The Duel: 10 May–31 July 1940: the Eighty-Day Struggle between Churchill and Hitler" clearly demonstrate how Churchill and the UK stopped Hitler.

    Russia contributed blood and the US contributed arms but that was only possible after the UK stopped the 3rd Reich.

    Churchill realized that half of Europe under Stalin's control was better than all of Europe under the 3rd Reich.

    A visionary, Churchill understood Hitler better than anyone else and on 3 occasions (late 40s - early 50s) predicted the Soviet Union would
    not survive the 1980s.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    I avoid being judgmental on issues I haven't researched, and couldn't (having not been there). From the documented history I have been exposed to, I would stand by my admiration of the man. No person is without fault, but from my perception, I believe we all should be happy that that man was in that place, at that time.
    I honestly believe had the axis powers left the US completely alone, the germans would have developed a nuclear force, that may very well have resulted in a very poison planet.
    After defeating the soviets and exterminating the jews, they surely would have turned on their non Arien, Japanese alleys. In the meantime we would be listening to ozzy and Harriet on the radio.
    Japanese-American Internment [ushistory.org]

    Premature death in the Japanese internment camps was double what it was outside. It wasn't a genocide in the way the holocaust and the Native American genocide was. But it was massive, purely racist oppression that enslaved many thousands of Americans and caused many of their deaths/mental illness. You know the US government even released propaganda that conditions in the camps were great and Japanese people happily engaging in physical labor to help the war effort? Sound like any other 1940s regime you know of?

    I can appreciate he make some good calls in the war, but I can't respect such a man. I can overlook racism in leaders to some degree if it was the cultural thought of almost everyone. What I can't overlook is actively making the oppression worse and furthering initiatives even more racist and oppressive than what already exists. Which is also my problem with George Washington.

    History will never reveal things which did not come to pass. I would like to surmise that the internment of the ethnic Japanese may very well have saved nearly as many of them from the vigilantes in the society of the time. Surely if the tables where turned, Americans on Japanese soil, survival rates would have been much lower.
    FDR was by far the greatest leader this country will ever know, and possibly the world. When assessing that remark, make judgement on the values of the times. Also consider that internment allowed the government to control popular opinion as to them being productive participants to the war effort, thereby making them easier to reintegrate into the post war society.
    I call total bullshit on the "The Japanese were enslaved for their own good" argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    305
    It was a stupid idea to fight a war on two fronts, it was stupid enough in the first world war and to do it again was, well just stupid. For a self-described pan German nationalist who loved history (Mein Kampf) he sure knew nothing about military warfare in his own country. Assuming Hitler did capture Moscow (which would never have happened) how would he maintain it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I call total bullshit on the "The Japanese were enslaved for their own good" argument.[/QUOTE]

    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    I bet they had better medical care then the American prisoners that the Japanese marched through Bataan, or the Chinese prisoners from Nanking....oh wait, guess they didn't take many prisoners. I suppose the American public of the time were preoccupied with kissing daisies and sending arms to baby seals to fight off the Eskimos. Do you think the average American forwent any medical or other sacrifices to benefit the war effort? Do you really feel comfortable placing judgement? Have you, in your own heart considered all that was at stake?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    I bet they had better medical care then the American prisoners that the Japanese marched through Bataan, or the Chinese prisoners from Nanking....oh wait, guess they didn't take many prisoners. I suppose the American public of the time were preoccupied with kissing daisies and sending arms to baby seals to fight off the Eskimos. Do you think the average American forwent any medical or other sacrifices to benefit the war effort? Do you really feel comfortable placing judgement? Have you, in your own heart considered all that was at stake?
    So is pointing towards a worse moral atrocity to justify another moral atrocity no longer a fallacy, now?

    And sorry, enslaving a race of people is not justified by, "it was desperate times." I've heard all your exact arguments to justify what the German's did during WWII. Every single word, basically, is the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    I bet they had better medical care then the American prisoners that the Japanese marched through Bataan, or the Chinese prisoners from Nanking....oh wait, guess they didn't take many prisoners. I suppose the American public of the time were preoccupied with kissing daisies and sending arms to baby seals to fight off the Eskimos. Do you think the average American forwent any medical or other sacrifices to benefit the war effort? Do you really feel comfortable placing judgement? Have you, in your own heart considered all that was at stake?
    So is pointing towards a worse moral atrocity to justify another moral atrocity no longer a fallacy, now?

    And sorry, enslaving a race of people is not justified by, "it was desperate times." I've heard all your exact arguments to justify what the German's did during WWII. Every single word, basically, is the same.
    Really?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    I bet they had better medical care then the American prisoners that the Japanese marched through Bataan, or the Chinese prisoners from Nanking....oh wait, guess they didn't take many prisoners. I suppose the American public of the time were preoccupied with kissing daisies and sending arms to baby seals to fight off the Eskimos. Do you think the average American forwent any medical or other sacrifices to benefit the war effort? Do you really feel comfortable placing judgement? Have you, in your own heart considered all that was at stake?
    So is pointing towards a worse moral atrocity to justify another moral atrocity no longer a fallacy, now?

    And sorry, enslaving a race of people is not justified by, "it was desperate times." I've heard all your exact arguments to justify what the German's did during WWII. Every single word, basically, is the same.
    Really?
    To clarify, I've heard the argument to justify why what the nazis did was less bad. Not that what they did wasn't bad at all. But yes, I've heard it several times. It's a dangerous mentality. And the 'we hurt their people but their people hurt ours even more' is an incredibly short path to racism and dehumanizing an enemy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    I bet they had better medical care then the American prisoners that the Japanese marched through Bataan, or the Chinese prisoners from Nanking....oh wait, guess they didn't take many prisoners. I suppose the American public of the time were preoccupied with kissing daisies and sending arms to baby seals to fight off the Eskimos. Do you think the average American forwent any medical or other sacrifices to benefit the war effort? Do you really feel comfortable placing judgement? Have you, in your own heart considered all that was at stake?
    So is pointing towards a worse moral atrocity to justify another moral atrocity no longer a fallacy, now?

    And sorry, enslaving a race of people is not justified by, "it was desperate times." I've heard all your exact arguments to justify what the German's did during WWII. Every single word, basically, is the same.
    "It was desperate times" is at least an honest argument. We all aspire to be the best we can be, but we can't expect to always succeed.

    Someday someone will make the same argument about Guantanimo Bay, and all the people who've been held there without trial, and sometimes tortured.

    I wonder which one is/was worse?


    Quote Originally Posted by ClarenceF1 View Post

    Churchill realized that half of Europe under Stalin's control was better than all of Europe under the 3rd Reich.

    .
    In retrospect, I wonder if he was right about that?

    I'm sure if you were a member of one of the ethnic groups Hitler intended to wipe out then you'd agree with Churchill, but the Communists committed their fair share of genocides also, against the people over whom they ruled.

    Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Crimean Tatars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If Germany controlled Eastern Europe throughout the 20th century, there would likely be economic prosperity throughout those territories. Instead, the Soviets created widespread grinding poverty.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by keeseguy View Post
    Enslavement, interment. Compared to the way the Japanese society treated their enemies country club might be a better choice, random discrimination was not the precept. Only a fool would think that word from the conflict did not reach the ears of the citizens of this country. I am sure it wasn't done to save those people, but, in the end I would bet it saved a few.
    Completely irrelevant. One could make the argument that Native Americans were ultimately benefited by the genocide of their people because even more would have died throughout history if they hadn't been shown modern medicine and European science. It doesn't make what happened any less evil, and it is probably false, regardless. The conditions in some of the internment camps were monstrous. I don't even believe they were safer inside camps where they did not receive adequate medical care.
    I bet they had better medical care then the American prisoners that the Japanese marched through Bataan, or the Chinese prisoners from Nanking....oh wait, guess they didn't take many prisoners. I suppose the American public of the time were preoccupied with kissing daisies and sending arms to baby seals to fight off the Eskimos. Do you think the average American forwent any medical or other sacrifices to benefit the war effort? Do you really feel comfortable placing judgement? Have you, in your own heart considered all that was at stake?
    So is pointing towards a worse moral atrocity to justify another moral atrocity no longer a fallacy, now?

    And sorry, enslaving a race of people is not justified by, "it was desperate times." I've heard all your exact arguments to justify what the German's did during WWII. Every single word, basically, is the same.
    "It was desperate times" is at least an honest argument. We all aspire to be the best we can be, but we can't expect to always succeed.

    Someday someone will make the same argument about Guantanimo Bay, and all the people who've been held there without trial, and sometimes tortured.

    I wonder which one is/was worse?


    Quote Originally Posted by ClarenceF1 View Post

    Churchill realized that half of Europe under Stalin's control was better than all of Europe under the 3rd Reich.

    .
    In retrospect, I wonder if he was right about that?

    I'm sure if you were a member of one of the ethnic groups Hitler intended to wipe out then you'd agree with Churchill, but the Communists committed their fair share of genocides also, against the people over whom they ruled.

    Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Crimean Tatars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If Germany controlled Eastern Europe throughout the 20th century, there would likely be economic prosperity throughout those territories. Instead, the Soviets created widespread grinding poverty.
    No way. Hitlers economic model was every bit as unsustainable. It was a war economy, never designed to last after Germany won.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post

    No way. Hitlers economic model was every bit as unsustainable. It was a war economy, never designed to last after Germany won.
    The regime itself was also unlikely to last after Germany won. Hitler's primary claim to power was his position as commander in chief. The abuses of the SS against ordinary German people and even Hitler's own frequent abuses of power were beginning to annoy the population already, but nobody was really willing to do anything about it while the country was entrenched in war.

    War presidents often do poorly during peacetime. Hitler wasn't exactly a jovial, friendly type of guy. Someone more cheerful, less insane, and a bit more endearing would probably have gotten the vote from him.

    Why do you think Hitler kept overextending? Clearly he had realized that his own political power grew proportionally as the nation's circumstances became more desperate. He could have stopped after capturing Poland and France, negotiated peace with Britain and history would have remembered the whole war as an amazing victory.

    But then what? Are the people going to keep him on as Fuhrer, and continue hang on his every word once the public debate has switched from survival over to the World Cup?
    Last edited by kojax; September 9th, 2014 at 06:25 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    27°20'06.53"N 82°32'48.35"W
    Posts
    176
    I am not a person prone to prejudice. I however, find need to defend Roosevelt, due to the admiration I have to that generation and the leader who led this country into possibly the most pivotal era of this young nations history. What they did , the preparations that allowed our fathers to defend not only our nation, but, Britain, and the world, on 2 coasts. Please don't disrespect their memories. Authority was given to military commanders, the safety and survival of the young troops took priority.
    Perhaps some of the festering racism that seemed to be embedded in Canada, pertaining to those of oriental descent,carried over to the the men who made those choices. I do know, in any war there are many bad choices made. A conflict as huge as that was, perfection has no harbor. The decisions of field commanders under the control of the commander and chief were not all perfect, but, they did what they had to do.
    I am not a historian, but, I have family roots from that time. I wrestled with my father in life to overcome the discrimination he carried to the grave. I, however, always respected him for the sacrifices, and service he rendered. We can't be proud of what happened to the citizens who's lives were distorted. Many people of this nation had their lives destroyed. I am sure the entire country of Japan holds those as dark times. The point is, we all served and suffered, and we all emerged united.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post


    Why do you think Hitler kept overextending? Clearly he had realized that his own political power grew proportionally as the nation's circumstances became more desperate. He could have stopped after capturing Poland and France, negotiated peace with Britain (my bold) and history would have remembered the whole war as an amazing victory.
    Hitler could not have negotiated a peace settlement with Britain. That was impossible after May 1940. Hitler wanted to make peace with Britain and Churchill would not negotiate, although he, Churchill, was under pressure to do so in May 1940.

    Hitler knew he could not win the war unless Britain made peace with him. Hitler, believing Britain was banking on Russia, invaded Russia so that Britain would lose hope and make peace terms with him.

    May 1940 War Cabinet Crisis

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1940_War_Cabinet_Crisis

    "
    Churchill began his remarks by emphasising the seriousness of the military situation, and went on to say

    I have thought carefully in these last days whether it was part of my duty to consider entering into negotiations with That Man [Hitler]. But it was idle to think that, if we tried to make peace now, we should get better terms than if we fought it out. The Germans would demand our – that would be called disarmament – our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Government which would be Hitler's puppet would be set up – under Mosley or some such person. And where should we be at the end of all that? On the other side we have immense reserves and advantages. And I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground."
    Last edited by ClarenceF1; September 9th, 2014 at 09:47 PM. Reason: Insert Wiki link & quote
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    It actually makes sense that a lunatic would have believed that.

    Hitler: " I know!!! I'll go conquer Russia!! That ought to make the British surrender!"

    Hitler's Advisors "Umm.... you know that attempting to invade Russia was Napolean's downfall, right? And nobody has ever successfully invaded them since the Mongols? "

    Hitler: "But the German war machine is invincible!! I'll give you 6 months to complete the invasion."

    Hitler's Advisors " Umm..... not wanting to contradict you sir, but if the German war machine is invincible then why haven't we conquered Britain yet?"

    Hitler : "Because the people of Britain are aryans, of course. Duhhhh!!!!"

    Hitler's Advisors " Oh yeah. Right. Sorry. We forgot. It's only a matter of being more aryan than them. Or wait.... why did France fall so quickly then? Aren't they aryans too?"

    Hitler : " You know what? Why don't you lead the invasion personally? I'm reassinging you to the Eastern front!! Any other advisors have an issue with my logic????? Huh? Anyone?"""

    Hitler's Advisors "................"

    Hitler : "That's what I thought. Now, if you all play your cards right, and quit trying to contradict me when I'm ranting, I'll keep you here in Berlin with me."
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Legalizing Drugs to Win The War on Drugs
    By arKane in forum Politics
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 13th, 2011, 10:13 PM
  2. Obama -> Smart = Win; Black = Huge Win
    By Golkarian in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 9th, 2009, 03:22 AM
  3. Unseen for 112 years, dwarf cloud rat captured
    By hitechwave.com in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 8th, 2008, 02:19 PM
  4. Embryonic Star Captured with Jets Flaring
    By Dr. Spitzer in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 18th, 2007, 07:28 PM
  5. Hitler
    By thevignesh in forum History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 30th, 2006, 06:11 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •