James will never be a Laker and actually nobody good wants to be a Laker.
Rewrite history…
-
Jefe had an interesting post…
Good ole kentucky. The people down here in TN love to make jokes about them. Inbred, dumb, blah blah blah. Like Nashville is athens or something lol. They base thier assumptions (or stereotypes) on the reality of the situation that they live in. Nothing wrong with that, it is not racist. I have only lived here for a year and a half (lived the rest of my life in IL). To me, all of you southeners are banging sheep and your sister. Not a fair way to look at it, but hell, it’s funny so I like to joke about it (although living here I have seen why there is that stereotype, I live in the boonies now - deliverance country).
My point is that the stereotypes are not always some huge insult to the people who recieve them. They can be taken with a grain of salt and be seen as being funny. When I go home to Chicago they joke with me about leaving my GF for some livestock. Funny. I think the over-sensitive way some people are is just being entirely too serious.
Where is the line between insulting and funny? Depends on the person I guess, or the society to be more specific. I saw a movie last night “Guess who” about a white guy with a black girl. He meets her family and they egg him on to tell some racist jokes. He tells a few, and they laugh thier asses off, till the last one where he crossed a line (btw, I have known a lot of black people in my life, and one of the jokes from the movie I can’t wait to tell a guy I know. Funny is funny).
All I am saying is just use tact, AND don’t let the overly sensitive people of the world dictate how you conduct yourself. They are the minority. And if we all had to worry about not saying something offensive to the degree that these people are like… we might as well be mute.
-
Ya, you’re right. But what difference does it make? Argue the point, don’t nit pick over irrelavent facts.
Slander, on the other hand, such as saying that Joe Blow raped someone when he obviouslly did not, is ethically and morally wrong. So there is a fine line you have to tread. But saying something like … the German’s elected a racist sshle to lead their country! It’s true, as they did elect Adolf Hitler in the 30’s and 40’s.
I did argue the fact: By showing that you have to keep your facts correct when oyu talk of other nations. …
It is not “splitting hairs” to say the truth like that Iraq had no WMDs. It is the truth. And if you want to accuse a country of something, then don’t use things that are incorrect:The USA have lost the Vietnam War.
The USA are the most belligerent nation that still exists on the planet.
The USA appear to be a right wing christian fundamentalist, militaristic, ignorant and arrogant society to many of the rest of the world.
Hitler was never voted into office by a majority of Germans. -
6 germany doesnt declare war on the u.s.
I know this is an old thread, but rather interesting.
The above sub-point of a variant in WWII history is probably the single biggest change that could be made. Without a declaration of war by Germany against the US, the US would likely have TRIED to stay out of Europe. There were incredibly strong pressures in the US in 1941 to sit out WWII (which is why we stayed clear from '39 to '41). Hell Roosevelt BARELY got approval for Lend-Lease. Those pressures to stay out of a war in Europe were NOT breached by Pearl, but only by Germany declaring war on US first.
Now, if Germany had not declared war, the US would have faced 1 opponent in WWII: Japan. We would have fortified the west coast, and started to build Navy and Air Force in massive quantities. In particular, all of those B-24 Mitchels and other US bombers used in the early years of the CBO in Europe would have instead been flying missions out of Midway, Hawaii, the Aleutians… Without the assistance of the night-time bombing by the US, the daylight raids by the UK would have quickly ended their ability to maintain an air campaign in Europe. Also, the demands of a US build up in the Pacific would have reduced the materials available to UK under Lend-Lease. Without US forces being added to the mix in Africa, Germany could have reinforced Rommel, taken Malta, and secured North Africa and the oil supplies in the middle east. A steady supply of oil for Germany, combined with a near elimination of industrial loses due to a defeated UK air campaign over Europe, and well I would say that Germany would have won in Europe.
Of course there is one glitch to that variant… unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany.
Even if Germany had not declared war on the US shortly after Pearl, it would only have been a matter of time before another “Lusitania” style incident dragged the US in the European war, especially since Roosevelt WANTED the US in that war.
-
I disagree. President Roosevelt knew that we had to go to war with Germany before Brition fell and if Hitler had chosen not to declare war on us, we would have still declared on him. We’d most likely use the excuse that they were allied with Japan who was our enemy.
-
Yep After a time following Japans defeat (presuming the attack at Hawaii and our total commitment on a pacific campaign finishing up in mid 1944) we would eventually be ready to get the American public the accept our involvement in the European conflict. The trick is If Germany (Hitler) listened to Admiral Reader and pursued a Mediterranean strategy, then UK would have been stripped of all her African colonies and India and the middle east would have been under control of the Hun.Most likely in 1943 at the latest the Whermacht would have accumulated enough landing craft and planes to support a cross channel attack with total overwhelming odds. If Hitler used Stalin as a active partner in his goals ( not very plausible) their would be no power on earth strong enough to stop both of them.This was admittedly completely contrary to the character of what Hitler set out to accomplish for his future. But it can also be argued with equal vigor that their was no way Hitler would not allow his partner in the east upstart a war with the “lazy Americans” who Hitler himself had no conception of their warmaking capabilities. So the trick was to finish off england and consolidation of his conquests before the next stage in German bid for Hegemony could occur. That presumably would be left to future generations and Hitler would go down as the greatest military leader since Bismarck.
Remember, that the Soviet Union really won WW2 as much as i hate to admit that fact, but after the Failed Typhon attacks in early DEC 1941 passed, the Whermacht had to be increasingly selective as to where they focused the offensive and the final failure to push at Moscow in favor of a southern campaign to capture Stalins namesake and the POSSIBILITY of securing the Baku oil center was the final curtain for Hitlers thousand year Reich. -
@Imperious:
… Hitler would go down as the greatest military leader since Bismarck.
Bismarck is not remembered as a military leader.
-
He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great wihout victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasnt only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939. -
As far as the Hitler peacetime era is concerned, I think the Czechs might disagree…but this is merely a minor point about the acual dates.
What I think is fascinating is the possibility of Japan sending its navy to assist Great Britian in the atlantic in return for the oil Japan needed. I am sure that GB, being desperate to protect their merchant marine, would have made this deal (though it would not have pleased the USA). Remember that Japan fought against Germany in WWI. So instead of the USA bailing out the UK, it would be Japan.
Then Pearl Harbor would not have happened, as Japan only did so to enable their capture of the oil rich Dutch East Indies. Japan being unimpeded, would have eventually consolidated control over Korea and China and today would be the worlds superpower.
-
What I think is fascinating is the possibility of Japan sending its navy to assist Great Britain in the Atlantic in return for the oil Japan needed. I am sure that GB, being desperate to protect their merchant marine, would have made this deal (though it would not have pleased the USA).
I am quite sure that Churchill was not the kind of man that made deals with totalitarian regimes under any circumstances. Japan had cast her destiny with the European axis by signing the anti-commiterm pact further delineating what form of government they wanted to rule the world. They despised the English and any other “colonial power” that made any claim to any part of Asia. That “pact” as you call it would have to include guarantees from the British government to basically stay out of India, south east Asia, and probably some claim for Australia allowing the Empire of Japan to outright annex these areas and put it under “Asian” control. The return of the Bushido society had vary harsh view of outsiders and as such no accommodation could possibly be forthcoming by anybody from 16 downing st.
as an aside… I didn’t forget about the Hitlers bloodless conquests consisting of :
1936 Rhineland re-militarized
1936 helping fight for franco’s Spain and the nationalists
1938 Austria, Sudetenland, CheckoslovakiaBut they didn’t lead to a general war during Hitlers first 7 years in power. That was pure Brinkmanship and power politics on Hitlers part.
-
I am quite sure that Churchill was not the kind of man that made deals with totalitarian regimes under any circumstances.
Uncle Joe?
-
Thanks for your support!
-
IL:
I doubt Pres. Roosevelt would have waited for Japan even if Germany had not declared war on us first. Seriously, we KNEW that if Brition fell before we entered the war we’d loose almost any chance of victory in Europe. Furthermore, we knew that Japan was hardly in a position to invade en-masse which would allow us to fight a holding war (much like we did) while we focused primarily on Germany.
I hold to my contention that if Hitler had not declared war on us, Roosevelt would have declared war on him.
-
I think the whole point was a scenario where Japan is not alligned with Germany and decides to attack Hawaii and germany stays out of the war. The concept was addressed in terms of the US fighting a war in the pacific first and finishing off Japan by mid 1944. In the mean time yes i too aggree that eventually FDR would convince the US public to fight in the european conflict. HOWEVER, during those years of 1941-1944 (which i do not think that war in europe involving the US to be likely) the German Reich would have other plans than to wait for daddy to land in France et al.
During this time germany would have taken out UK (since they were now “partners” with Stalin) and shared some of UK’s colonies. Preparing for UK from june 1940-1944. I am quite sure that herr Hitler would have had time to invade UK and deny a stageing area for the american forces. SO i am saying their is no way for UK to hold out against germany during this period. THe occupation of England would allmost undoubtedly be met with some emergency invasion by american forces somewhere in europe to help fill the void but it would not have been deprived of any close base to sustain it all the way from the east coast. Something along thse lines was addressed in “It happened here” movie about the same concept. AS far as Stalin in the mix as well, you can only imagine how he probably distrusts America and England even more than Hitler. He would be willing to have a accomodation with Hitler if it meant expansion and a “warm water port”
In any case America could not cope with a revitalized German economy and a huge Soviet war machine ready to defend and prepare for 4 years against this invasion. -
@Imperious:
He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great wihout victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasnt only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939.He was no military leader at all. He was no general, no marshal, no nothing. He was a diplomat. A pure statesman.
He was the Chancellor that stayed home and let others fight the wars that were “inevitable”. He did do nothing in the war, no planning no strategy.
He is not remembered as a military man.And Jennifer:
Britain
…or does USA stand for “Uniformed Sluts of America”?
(yes, this is low… but this the second thread i read, and the second time that people mis-spell names. That is purest disrespect. I hope that my “counter-example” shows why.)**** -
He is remembered as a stateman
Falk…Please read what i write then post. I posted exactly the way you just illiterated. You are the only person who can do this:
He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great without victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasn’t only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939.He was no military leader at all. He was no general, no marshal, no nothing. He was a diplomat. A pure statesman.
He was the Chancellor that stayed home and let others fight the wars that were “inevitable”. He did do nothing in the war, no planning no strategy.
He is not remembered as a military man.Hmmm i think we are saying the same thing? And my previous comparison of Hitler and Bismarck is only to demonstrate the ability of both leaders to unite their nations thru adversity. It can be argued that Kaiser Wilhelm wasn’t a military leader either since he didn’t run any campaigns either.
-
Another Pandora’s box to open would be how Germany might have actually defeated the Soviet Union within the time frame of 1941-1942. IMO this would not be possible at any time after this point unless we assume Hitler placed the Reich economy on 'total war" (full mobilization) I assume that the completion of this task would involve the same span of time as when Germany finally accomplished this feat around Dec 1944. So if we take this example we get the factor of 2 years from start to finish, while the Soviets only needed about one year to get at full war making potential.
So as a consequence Hitler would have to begin around the summer of 1939 to be ready for the summer of 1941. The concept of the Whermacht relied on finishing off nations in quick fashion or “victories on the cheap”. Which could be done against any combatant sake the Soviets who could trade space for time until they were ready to strike back with overwhelming odds. In the course of the actual campaign the balance sheet was quite equal, while German production wasn’t vastly outdone until the beginning of the March- April 1942, which is when Stalin had moved his military industrial complex further east (Urals).
Of course losing 6 weeks of good weather fighting in the Balkans against Yugoslavia and Greece didn’t help Hitler for preparation for his Barbarossa campaign, but nevertheless Germany had operational possibilities for victory as long as they kept focus on 1) destroying Soviet Armies 2) control of Stalins ability to coordinate his forces north and south of the front, and 3) disruption of the enemies ability to conduct the war.The first point was formulated upon classic envelopment actions by armored pincers, while the slow Soviet logistical system denied the possibility breakout, unless the trap was set too late. From June 22 to August 31st Germany enjoyed unparcelled success and nearly everything proceeded according to plan, but once Hitler saw the Soviet nation buckle under immense pressure he abruptly changed plans and divided his forces to siege Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the center and Rostov/Kiev in the south with the last battles in this area causing much bloodshed for AGS. The Key IMO was to strike only at Moscow severing the “head” and denying Stalin the critical rail lines which he used to shuffle his forces on the north/south axis. Also, there were important industries in the vicinity of Moscow region and they were turning out war materiel right on the front lines, where Germany had to first convert the rail gauge all the way from Poland and slog everything thru mud to the front. This was a considerable advantage for Stalin and a missed opportunity for Hitler. In the north the siege of Leningrad wasted and tied down a sizeable portions of AGN. I believe only a token force should have been used to “hold down” a relatively smaller Soviet force. The worst use of economy of force occurred with army group south (AGS) which was doing quite well until Hitler decided that forces from AGC should have been detached to help with the enveloping of the Kiev pocket. The necessary waste and loss of tempo certainly resulted in the irremediable demise of the 1941 campaign. Had this last straw not been carried out, Moscow would have fallen and Stalin would have to fight with separate lines both north and south. The result would be a much better defensible situation to hold out thru the winter of 1941-42. The roads and access from the east of Moscow and the south is much more difficult to conduct offensive operations, because their is no" logistical staging area" to support a counteroffensive, while losing Moscow would be quite demoralizing to say the least.
It is quite clear that Stalin was prepared to carry the fight from Kazan and the Urals, while a second army was further south defending the eastern approaches of the don and the area south of Rostov. The spring of 1942 would see a classic mop up campaign whereby now the forces at Moscow could go after Archangel and Leningrad and deny any northern lend lease route to the Soviets. In the south, AGS would not have to cover the northern flank and could spend its time destroying and taking Baku oil center. Even following this scenario its quite clear that Stalin would not give up until he probably lost the Urals due to heavy concentrations of Industry, but in real terms this would amount to no real opposition to a victorious Whermacht in the long term. -
No he wasn’t only a military leader,
He was no military leader at all.
Hmmm i think we are saying the same thing?
I think you should be careful in who you call “illiterate”.
-
@Imperious:
… the Hun…
-
@F_alk:
And Jennifer:
Britain
…or does USA stand for “Uniformed Sluts of America”?
(yes, this is low… but this the second thread i read, and the second time that people mis-spell names. That is purest disrespect. I hope that my “counter-example” shows why.)It made it past the “Spell Check” button and that’s how I’ve always seen it spelled.
Also, I’d prefer it if you could refrain from name calling. I didn’t return from my break immediately attacking you, CC or Mary. I request you return the respect I’m trying to show you, please.****
-
I still contend that FDR wouldn’t have waited for Japan to fall without a German DOW. He would have gotten the Congress to declare war on both Japan and Germany (as Japan’s most powerful ally) then stripped Japan of that ally before defeating them. It would have been the only way to save BritAIn (better F_alk?) from a successful, future German invasion. He must have known the predicament Britain was in at that time because he was shuffling “volunteers” and weapons over as fast as he could to help them before the attack on Pearl. Furthermore, we basically ignored the Japanese until Europe fell even after Pearl - the only excuse for this would be to save the Brits.
Could Germany have defeated Russia? Yes, if the Brits and French had kept attempting appeasment instead of war, I think Germany could have successfully conquered the Russians, then turned on the French.
Suggested Topics
