Posts made by Zooey72

I have always held some fascination with this man. He poses a philosophical question, that while uncomfortable should be addressed. “Is justice more important than advancement?”

Braun was a war criminal, there is no doubt of that. The estimates I have seen is that he was responsible for at least 10k deaths building his rockets. Whether he believed the whole Nazi dogma is not important. He may have thought that killing ‘inferior’ races was a great thing, or if he would have liked to have a beer with Einstein and talk science isn’t really the point. He was a murderer.

That being said, he was also the most scientifically influential of his generation (I would argue multiple generations). Einstein is great, but other than building a bomb he had no practical application for his work. Braun brought the first human made thing to space (albeit for the Nazis), and the first person on the moon. Some of you reading this may be doing it on your phone. Whatever your opinion is on the matter the reason you can do it is because of Von Braun (I am speaking of the satellites that we have in space now would be about 20 years behind if not for this man).

This man ran the rocket program in Germany in his TWENTIES. He was 33 when the war ended, and we snatched him up and made him as American as apple pie. Was that the right thing to do? Should he have been swinging from a rope at Nuremberg at the cost of the rest of us just now getting our first flip phones?

And even if you back not delivering justice to Braun for his war crimes, where do you draw the line? Imagine if Hitler was the one who had this knowledge. Do we as a society say to Hitler “You have been naughty, but we forgive you - now go build us a rocket”. The only difference I see between the two is that of degree. Hitler killed around 50 million, Braun 10k of that. If you equate all human life being equal than the difference between 50 million and 10k is just semantics.

I honestly don’t have an opinion on this. I can see the argument from both sides and both sides are compelling. If I had to choose one I would side on not delivering justice to Braun (he is probably roasting in hell now anyway). The reason I say that is because of his advancements he has probably saved more lives than he took.

Anyhow, food for thought.

I am going to be slightly political about this by stating an obvious fact. Liberals and SJWs dominate Hollywood. The only reason I mention it is because with so many movies that have a left leaning agenda I am mystified that a movie about the Nisei has never been done. It has all the elements that Hollywood would love to push. A racist America that threw Americans into internment camps based off of their race, but the brave minority loves America so much that they fight for her anyway. They eventually become the most highly decorated Americans in US history.

Why has this movie not been made? You can’t watch a mainstream movie any more w/o not so subtle left wing politics coming into it. This story line matches that agenda, and has the added benefit of being true; so why has it not been written? Are they just plain ignorant that it ever happened?

Other than ignorance the only thing I can come up with is that the Nisei didn’t ‘fight the system’, they adapted to it and that is where their heroism comes in. A story on Rosa Parks or Malcolm X is about how they had to fight the system and that is what makes them historic figures. Hell, Joe Frasier was a better boxer than Cashus Clay… but he was called an Uncle Tom, and Mohamad Ali was ‘the greatest of all time’ for evading the draft. They call him a hero for refusing to fight for his country.

I would love to see a movie made about the Nisei, and I think it is an injustice that their story is not better known. Outside boards like this I would guess 99% of Americans don’t even know who they were, and that is tragic when you consider those were the finest Americans this country has ever produced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQFbgmayQ-E

I just got the HTC vive and picked up this game, and I must say it really is amazing (esp. for us WW2 geeks).  You are in a U-boat during WW2.  It can be single or multiplayer up to 4 people (some ship features like loading torps. can be put on auto if you don’t have a full crew).  I must say the realism is amazing.  The game does not assign you a role, but to be efficient the people playing need to split up resp. to complete the mission.  You are talking to these people, and running all over the ship to get the job done.  It is so realistic the other day when I was playing I had a bit of flatulence and my first thought was “can’t do that here, will stink up the ship”, just to remember a couple seconds later “uh, I am in my living room!”.

It is not just the underwater stuff.  You can go above deck and fire the 88 to take down merchant shipping, or fire the AA to knock down enemy aircraft.  When the boat is getting depth charged you have to seal the leaks and pump out the excess water.

I am not big into gaming systems.  XBOX and the playstation were not a big deal, and although I owned an xbox I almost never played it.  VR is different.  20 years from now people are going to look at the present gaming systems the same we look at 1970s ‘Pong’.

While devastating I don’t think Stalingrad was the final nail in the Nazi coffin.  It was over after Kursk, about 6 months later.

Something that I think people forget about the Soviet Union under Stalin is that it was as bad, if not worse than Hitler.  I can not remember his name, but there was an admiral in the British navy who said (after he found out that Germany invaded the U.S.S.R.) “It is a pity they both can’t lose”.

Many more people died in gulags than in concentration camps; but the winners write the history books.

Do you think the A-bombs did it?  The U.S.S.R. joining the war?  Or a combination of both?

For my part I lean towards Russian invasion.  The Germans would have given anything at the later stage of the European war to have been able to surrender to the west.  In terms of WW2, A-bombs are horrible, but in the long term Nagasaki and Hiroshima are first world cities now.  Everything that the former U.S.S.R. has ever touched has turned into garbage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1aGH6NbbyE

At 12:50 during this video it gives a translation of what the German soldiers were saying to the American soldiers who shot them (or murdered them) at Normandy.

The whole “Look, I washed for supper” line.

While what was portrayed in the movie was a war crime, when you hear the translation it is even worse.

Stalin would not have surrendered, and while the psychological impact of losing the capital sucks… that would not have won the Germans the war.  The biggest impact from losing Moscow would be that it was the central hub of the railways for the USSR.  That in and of itself may have caused Russia to collapse.  It would be like the U.S. losing Chicago.  While Chicago is an important US industrial city, the biggest ramification of its loss would be to cut the US in 2.

I think it would have taken a one, two punch from losing Moscow and Stalingrad to force a Russian surrender.  Loss of its major rail hub and the Volga would have split up the Russians too much and Germany could have divided and conquered.

http://www.beyondbandofbrothers.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhbOhjKTN2AIVF79PCh3tpQotEAEYASAAEgIed_D_BwE

Stumbled onto this and thought you guys would find it interesting.  It scares me to think how much some of these would cost (32 day tour?), but when I retire and crack open the 401k it may be something worth looking into.

There was no way for Japan to win the war, but there was a way for Germany to win it… and hence Japan would win as well.

I think the only way they could have gotten a victory would have been to attack the USSR.  I know many on this board disagree with that, but most would agree that a major turning point in the German/Russian war was Stalingrad.  If the USSR had not been able to drain troops from the East they would not have had the men to counter-attack at Stalingrad and thee major German defeat there could have been avoided.  Would a German win at Stalingrad changed the war?  No one can say for sure, but if a win there led to the fall of the Caucus and a huge influx of oil to the German war machine an argument can def. be made.

Despite the vast numerical and manufacturing advantages the Americans had the biggest factor to me is a cultural one.  I read a story where a platoon of Japanese soldiers were told to man their machine gun at a certain point to hold off the American’s charge.  Once the machine gun was set up (and the Jap machine guns sucked, they made a huge target of the person firing) the first guy went to man it and was shot by a sniper.  They moved his body and the next guy manned it and was shot by the same sniper.  This went on until the entire platoon was dead.  You can’t win a war like that.

Now if you look at the Japanese Americans who fought you see a completely different kind of soldier.  The same bravery and willingness to die for their country was there, but they did not behave like… well idiots.  Sacrificing your life for your country is the ultimate expression of patriotism.  Throwing your life away for no good reason is the ultimate expression of stupidity.

@Caesar:

@CWO:

The British landings at Gallipoli in WWI and the British landings in Norway in WWII were botched operations with uncomfortable similarities.  Both were advocated by Churchill; both reflected Churchill’s inclinations (which were also demonstrated in other places, such as Italy) to hit the enemy in distant secondary areas rather than head-on at the front; and both failed because they were improvised and poorly planned.  More specifically, they reflected the simplistic view that a successful amphibious landing on a hostile shore merely required Britain to send in its fleet and disembark its troops.  This may have worked fine back in the eighteenth century, against light or nonexistent opposition, but the concept was already looking questionable at the time of the Crimean War in the mid-19th century when relatively modern industrial-age weapons were becoming the norm, and it had become dangerously obsolescent in 1940, when air power had become a major factor in warfare.

I never understood the point of the allied landings in Norway anyways? Was it simply to just remove possible bombing threats against UK? Norway was always a weakness for Germany anyway and I am not surprised the allies never again invaded Norway after 40.

Because of a planned English/French invasion of Norway.  Norway itself was not a big deal, but it bordered Sweden and the Germans got most of their Iron Ore from Sweden.  The thought process is that if they could stop Swedish iron ore shipments to Germany than Germany would have to capitulate.  So instead of fighting a long protracted war against Germany they figured they could win a couple of quick wars against Norway and Sweden and end the war.  The Altmark incident showed that England had no intention of honoring Norway’s neutrality.

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

And the quick response to the German invasion with the French and British own “rescue” attempt shows that they were planning the same thing.  Germany just beat them to the punch.  I think Germany should have let them invade to get Norway on their side, but either way the result would have been the same.  Norway was doomed one way or another.

@Karl7:

All interesting points, and I will only add this:

It seems odd to me that Germany would not have driven a harder position regarding a negotiated settlement with the UK after the fall of France.  I know there were some tepid efforts that went nowhere.  But what if Germany delivered an “inverted ultimatum” in which Germany declared it was going to unilaterally conclude a final peace treaty with France and then withdraw from France. (Albeit France would be under a right-wing, Vichy-ish government.),

What would UK have done?  Said no?  The UK people would have continued supporting a war government that was going to “reinvade” France?  The US would have been off-footed too.  The UK would no longer been under threat, taking the wind out of the US interventionist sails.

I think such a deft move would have thrown the UK off balance.  Why go on fighting after a bruising loss when the enemy is ostensibly giving up its gains?

True Italy would have been a problem to get to go along given they were losing their colonies, but if I were Hitler I would have said, “tough luck.”

My understanding was the Hitler never intended to “conquer” the west, just defeat them so as Germany could move eastward without a potential 2nd front in the rear.

I like your point here.  Perhaps more of an effort to end the war in 40 would have been the best way to go.  I am not sure if Hitler would have turned unoccupied France into a Vichy like system.  I think Vichy was created because France was Germany’s west flank and it had to be protected.  Because Hitler was so into revenge for WW1 I think he would have set up reparations for France to pay and limit their military had Britain agreed to end the war.

While I agree that is the least intrusive as far as German/Nazi mentality during the war, Hitler was a stupid gambler.

It is a dumb game show, but if you have ever watched “Deal or No Deal”, you would know it is a game of chance about really dumb people (usually) going for the big money even though the math does not add up.  Their greed gets in the way, and they fail.  I don’t think Hitler had it in him to stop in 40.  He was just too dumb.

@Wolfshanze:

@Imperious:

All Hitler would need to do is after finishing off France, be the best of friends with Stalin and even use him to take the UK colonial assets within reach with the spoils going to each party in a fair way. Make peace with UK or bomb them into rubble and never get allied with Japan or DOW USA. After this just let the holdings percolate for at least 20 years.

Not the dumbest thing Hitler could have done to be sure… there is merit here…

Uh, no.

The basic premise of the question was what could Germany have done that was relatively minor that could have influenced the war.  Saying that Hitler could have joined forces with Stalin is absurd.  The ability of Hitler to have a legit alliance with Communist Russia is like saying the war would have ended up differently had Hitler converted to Judaism.  The non-aggression pact was about 2 gangsters dividing turf, and at the soonest op. one of them made a grab for the other’s turf (Barbarossa).  Had France not been conquered so quickly and trench warfare started up again the U.S.S.R. would have attacked in the same land grab that Germany did in 41.

The idea of a real German/Soviet alliance is about as real as an American/Soviet alliance during the cold war.

@Wolfshanze:

@Zooey72:

For my part, I think based off of cost to the German war effort with the least impact on German policy during the War the easiest thing they could have done to benefit themselves would have been to get Spain involved in the War.

Had Hitler gotten Spain involved in the war it would have changed almost nothing, certainly not the outcome… Spain was no super power, they had no massive military, even the most beneficial thing getting Spain involved in the war could do, possibly take Gibraltar, would have been nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Spain was militarily and emotionally depleted after the long Civil War… they were in no-condition to take on America, the US and Russia alongside Germany. If anything, adding Spain would have actually weakened Hitler’s position, as adding the entire Spanish coastline as a possible landing spot for Allied forces in continental Europe would have been yet another further manpower drain on Germany.

Nope, sorry… there’s many things you can argue that would have given Hitler a better chance at winning the war, major or minor… getting Spain to join-in is not one of them.

I never said that Spain’s military was going to change the war, I said their location to Gibraltar would.  Spain’s military may not have been much for the reasons you stated, but it probably could have taken out Gibraltar, and even if it couldn’t the Germans could have attacked it by land and it would have fallen.  Or even if the Germans didn’t want to commit the troops to seize it they could have lined the the coast with 88’s and aircraft to destroy British supply to Africa, which would have seen Africa/Suez fall (IMO).

To me Spanish entry into the war means the fall of Gibraltar, and an argument could def. be made that had Gibraltar fallen not only would Africa have fallen, but the Battle of Britain would have ended up differently.  All of that just for forgiving some debt that Spain incurred during their civil war, which eventually they never paid back since Germany lost.  That’s a bargain.

While I do agree with you, you also have to remember some times Hitler was right.  None of his generals wanted to attack France, but Hitler insisted and France fell in 6 weeks.  Hitle was famous for his “No retreat” policy, but that probably was a good policy in the winter of 41.

I think Hitler was a fool, but some times he got it right.  Not from any great military thinking of his own, but because he just ‘wanted something’ and his generals found a way to get it for him.

I kind of look at him like how Steve Jobs was.  A jerk who had no real talent other than yelling at people demanding that they do better.  But ultimately Jobs created the largest company on earth despite his lack of personal ability.

Ultimately though I do agree.  Hitler should have shut the hell up and let his generals do the planning.

From what I have read about it Stalin had no intention of honoring the pact.  He figured Germany would get bogged down in a war against France and England, and than he would attack/make a land grab.  When the battle of France lasted 6 weeks and saw the German military mostly intact he abandoned ideas of ‘poking the bear’.  He had been eyeing Romania and backed off when it came under German protection.

The thing that gets lost in H.S. history classes is how horrible Stalin (and communism) was.  There was not much of a difference in Nazi thinking and Soviet thinking.  The main part was the idea of a ‘master race’.  But Stalin had Gulags in the same way the Nazis had concentration camps (and Stalin killed more in his Gulags than the Nazis did), and both were authoritarian governments.  But other than racism, the Soviets were just as bad if not worse.  The Nazis may kill you if you are a Jew or a Homosexual, Stalin was an equal opp. murderer who just killed everyone.

I can not remember his name, but there was an admiral in the Royal Navy who stated it best when he found out that Germany and the U.S.S.R. were at war.  “It is a pity they both can’t lose”.

We have talked to death about what the biggest mistakes were that Germany made, but they are rather macro in size.  “Don’t attack the Soviet Union”, “Don’t waste resources on the Holocaust”… stuff like that.  And while those things may be true, it does change the whole context of the war had they not happened.  My question is what relatively minor thing could the Germans have done that would have had the most impact but failed to do.

For example saying don’t do the Holocaust fundamentally changes the war, but saying ‘Treat the Ukranians better’ is more minor, and would have cost the Soviet Army 4.5 million troops.

For my part, I think based off of cost to the German war effort with the least impact on German policy during the War the easiest thing they could have done to benefit themselves would have been to get Spain involved in the War.  Spain wanted the debt forgiven from their civil war, and a bit of territory.  That is a small price to pay IMO to get them involved.  Even w/o the Spanish military the Germans would have had access to attack Gibraltar by land, and that would have been huge. You could even argue that move may have gotten England to surrender had it happened right after the fall of France.  Between the Blitz and the U-boats, the fall of Gibraltar may have broken them, and if not that getting supplies to N. Africa would have been even more of a nightmare than it already was and could have led to the fall of the Suez Canal.

Something just does not seem right here.

I think intent should be the key here.  Lets say you are at a public park wanting to see the fireworks.  You obviously do not have the right to view the fireworks, but I do think you have a right not to be harassed.  If someone in front of me is tall and I can’t see… too bad for me, life sucks get over it.  However if I am there and my ex-wife’s new husband is following me around and getting in front of me… that’s harassment.  Same is true with the signs IMO.  If someone has a sign that is blocking you too bad, move.  But once you move and they follow you with the intention of blocking you… that’s not right.

And if it is ok to do that than can I get keep jumping in front of the camera of “Bad Boyz 3”, or keep hitting a blow horn every time they are trying to film?  How about if it is a news organization?  Can these jerks shut down the press?

Perhaps phrased as a first amendment right was not the way to look at it.  Are people allowed to harass others with this kind of behavior?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwrZhLDsV2Y

Double post on an edit.

I posted this as a question… because yes I did not know.

However what you are saying does not have limits. �Instead of bringing a camera the man brought 2 blow horns and every time the speaker tried to speak he blew them?(which I have seen happen) �Or what if he stepped to the front of the line of people trying to see the speaker, except he carried a huge sign with a base that would obscure the view of the hundreds of people trying to view the speech?

The law is the law, but the law is supposed to be equal. �I defy you to give me an example of how they can legally obscure this man’s view and not infringe on his rights, but that he is infringing on their rights if he responds in kind.

I know of no ‘size limit on signs’, nor a prohibition of using a base to hold said sign. �So if your argument is that it is their right to do that, he than in turn has the right to obstruct their view as well.

Us having this argument right now is why you are seeing so much rioting and what not. �Where does one person’s rights start and someone else’s begin? �Please tell me how a large sign done just by him to obscure the protesters view (or him and his buddies come and block all their views with many signs) is any different than what the protesters did to him?

And if you want to play the game you are playing with ‘a good view’ is not a right.  Fine, lets say the speaker is using props or the viewer is blind and reading lips.  The legal game you are playing with this is a bit absurd.  Free speech is not speech if someone is talking to themselves because people can’t get access to that speech by the deliberate actions of others.  Your argument is more one of government censorship.  “We let people write what they wanted, we just didn’t let anyone read it”.

The fact that it was deliberate is what bothers me.  Taking out the entire 1A than.  I do not have the right to stand up in a movie theater and block someones view.  They will throw me out.  The speech given there was no fee to listen to, so deliberately blocking the recorders view point seems wrong, if not illegal.  Now the protesters did have a permit, but if they wanted privacy they should have rented out a hall or something and not gone to a public place.  He has as much right to be there as they do.

I was asking a legal question, and while the law may not make sense it is still the law.  However it seems really disorderly and can lead to this kind of mob mentality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZSoJDUD_bU