Happy D-Day
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
And Hitler might never have seized power if the British and the French hadn't insisted that war reparations from WWI be maintained while Germany was facing the Depression.
Have we forgotten that many British, including members of the Royal Family, including the much-beloved Queen Mum, actively supported Hitler?
Germany was the one that declared war on the US. THey had also been attacking and sinking American ships before the US entered the war.
I think Hitler probably could have taken everything west of the Urals. Really thats all he'd need. Most of the resources were there. Stalin refused to leave Moscow even when the Germans were on the outskirts. If Stalin was killed or captured its possible the whole thing would have collapsed. He had set up the system in such a way that made the state totally dependant on him. The "fractious rebellions" you refer to were not very big. Some small bands of partisans all over the place but not enough to seriously take on the German army alone. The only reason the Warsaw uprising happened when it did was because they expected the Soviets to help. They didnt. They just sat back and watched. All of the major uprisings happened when the allies were nearby.
I agree with the point on the reparations. The allies after WW1 were after revenge. I guess they realized the whole thing had been for nothing and wanted someone to blame. That war I would definitely call completely pointless and a total waste for all involved. Its unfortunate that none of the leaders of that time had to deal with the long term consequences of their actions. Instead the generation that was being born while that treaty was formed would have to. The old start the wars, the young fight them and the unborn pay for them. Thats sadly the way it goes.
And no I dont think anyone has forgotten about the people who supported Hitler in the UK. The Nazis would have put Edward back on the thrown if they had had the power to. He was very much a supporter of Hitler. Its a good thing he abdicated before the war started.
Big whoop. They declared war. What capability did they have to strike the U.S.?
And you think the Germans could have held on to all that?
Hell, the British couldn't even hold on to Ireland, which they outnumbered ten to one, had an absolute lock on the power centers, and the full and enthusiastic support of the Catholic church.
Yeah, but about 60 years too late! -
The Soviet union after Stalin was not that bad compared to when Stalin was in control. Not as crazy either. Stalin became a villain in the Soviet Union not long after his death. The rest of the decay was slow, but it eventually caved in. Gorbechev's Soviet Union was nothing like Stalin's.
Gorbachev's? Kinda skipped Krushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, din'cha?
Ah, it's only 32 years. No biggie.
They attacked and sunk American ships. Not a big loss for the US as a whole but there is no way any American government would let that stand without a challenge. That goes back as far as Jefferson and the pirates in the Mediterranean. When they attacked and kidnapped a few American ships he sent off a force to fight and beat them. Thats how the War of 1812 started as well.
The Germans didnt have much of a problem holding on to all of Europe. If they didnt have to fight the allies in the west or the Soviets in the east I doubt they would have lost it. Definitely not within a few years. Rome held all of Europe and part of Africa for centuries. Its not that hard if you are well equipped and well trained, even if outnumbered.
The Brits had Ireland for centuries. The only reason they "lost" it was because WW1 broke out and gave them bigger problems to deal with. By the end very few cared about holding on to it.
Until quite recently I thought Hitler was responsible for more innocent deaths than anyone else ever, but apparently Stalin was responsible for up to 20 deaths.
Spare me your Rome. Rome's "hold" on much of its empire was tenuous indeed. Cherry-picking does you no credit. I assume you'll concede that for every successful imperial "hold" you can cite in European history, I can cite ten conquests that didn't last a year.
Pardon me? The Irish War of Independence was 1918-1921. How did WWI "break out" in that period?
They also were nothing compared to Stalin when it comes to how dangerous they are or how many people they killed. They were also relatively reasonable. If they hadnt been nuclear war would have happened. Stalin was more than likely crazy enough to have launched another war and probably would have if he had lived a little longer.
Ah, it hardly matters. I just think it's amusing that the same people who bellow about how Nazism was the quintessential evil that had to be stopped fail to explain how we blithely allowed Stalinism to kill ten times as many people without lifting a finger against it.
Course, that would make patting ourselves on the back a little harder. More fun to live in a John Wayne fantasy of moral rectitude.
By the way, this has been fun. I appreciate your civility, and it's fun to wrangle over what might have been. I am, of course, not saying I'm right. We'll never know.
I realize my first response to you was rude and dismissive, and I'm in your debt for the calm and reasonable reply, sir.
Last edited:
That's easy. People were war weary. There simply was no willingness to do it all over again. There was also the whole nuke issue that could make armed conflict all that more dicier.
You seem to be cherry picking as well. You picked out Rome, then ignored everything else said. Perhaps you could name 10 failed conquests for every successful one. This is speculation anyway. The Germans showed no signs of weakness with their hold on Europe from the inside. It all came from the outside. I'll admit that the Germans posed very little direct threat to people on this side of the ocean but I'd also say that is irrelevant. Sitting back and watching Europe fall and millions of innocent people die was not and should never be an option.
There was the rising in 1916 and the deals the Irish tried to make with the Germans that fell through. The British were debating home rule before WW1 even started. Why do you think the Irish chose to start the war in 1918? The British were relatively weak at that point compared to any other time when they had Ireland. They were also pretty tired after 4 years of constant fighting on their front doorstep. By WW2 they were even weaker and at one point in the war were willing to give up Northern Ireland in exchange for Ireland joining the war. If that deal had gone through its possible the "troubles" wouldnt have happened.
Actually, it doesn't but there really isn't any point in getting into a history lesson with you as you already have your mind made up.
Well tell the rest of us.
Guess that tag is a no. What is the problem. Scared?
I don't believe anybody else thinks going up against the USSR after WWII is the same thing as a UN police action in Korea. If you do, just say the word and I can explain the difference to you. Maybe you can even start a thread.
Stop being so silly.
I have. My Dad was in Korea. He'd probably be the first to tell you that it probably was nothing like trying to invade the Soviet Union. Do you think it was?
As much as I enjoy making fun of you Goob, I have a meeting tonight so I gotta run. TTYL