Started by GuerrillaUnReal, August 01, 2016, 02:49:39 PM
Quote from: theONE on November 17, 2016, 06:47:40 PMisn't there some ugly secret about US generals knowing that Japan will attack Pearl Harbor but they waited and sacrificed American lives ?? I'm sure U.S. could enter WWII sooner to help suffering European friends - as you know there was hidden agenda not omittingthe fact that American companies were making huge profits supplying Nazzi Germany with "stuff" so they can be well equipped taking over Europe and rest of the World.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 06:56:21 PMthe usa had planned to stay out of the war, and we did supply russia and the uk with arms , but no if it wasnt for the japanese the usa would have stayed out of it.
Quote from: Value Of Pi on November 17, 2016, 07:20:30 PMI think we would have gotten in sooner or later, even if there was no Imperial Japanese Army rampaging through the Pacific. Our ships were getting sunk by U-boats trying to stop U.S. arms and supplies getting to Russia and England. Eventually, the U.S. would have been forced to fight or submit to the Nazis and their genocidal agenda. Some Lusitania type incident would have been the trigger, as with World War I.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 07:22:31 PMi do wonder what went on thru hitlers head when he was forced to declare war on us after the pearl harbor attack.
Quote from: Value Of Pi on November 17, 2016, 07:41:05 PMNothing actually forced him to do that but I think he saw the U.S. as inevitably his enemy, an enemy he would end up fighting. He wanted that to happen on his initiative, mostly as a propaganda tool and it's just more evidence of his maniacal global ambition.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 08:17:12 PMthats my point, it uped his time tables to the point where he wasnt ready, and i do think he was forced since he had to show a united front with his main allies of japan and italy.
Quote from: Value Of Pi on November 17, 2016, 08:46:53 PMYeah, I see your point in terms of the Axis alliance, but to the extent that this motivated him to declare war on the U.S. when he did, it shows a real lapse of strategic judgment. That, of course, goes to his personality weaknesses as a wartime leader.Hitler very patiently plotted his betrayal and invasion of the Soviet Union and then, at a time when Barbarossa was succeeding, assumed he would quickly be victorious. If he could have anticipated even the possibility of Stalingrad, he would have waited for six months or so before deciding to take on another formidable enemy like the U.S. I'm sure Tojo and Mussolini would have cut him some slack if Hitler wanted to finish with Russia before taking on the Americans.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 08:59:01 PMhitlers main problem was that he never listened to his proven generals, and he should have taken care of the UK before even launching Barbarossa. he proved his imcomptence again when he would send his panser divisons to reinforce normandy after dday begain.
Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 17, 2016, 09:11:52 PMI seem to recall Hitler had to delay Barbarossa six weeks because he used forces and stores allocated for the invasion of Russia in Greece and Yugoslavia.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 09:13:02 PMwasnt he bailing out the italian forces ?
Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 17, 2016, 09:16:12 PMIn Greece, yes. Yugoslavia was the result I think of the pro-German government being overthrown. The German attacks into both countries were almost simultaneous.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 09:18:13 PMleave it to hitler to always over extent his forces.
Quote from: GravitySucks on November 17, 2016, 09:20:59 PMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_ZG6tRGMYk
Quote from: albrecht on November 17, 2016, 09:22:55 PMThere also were a number of logistical problems; trying to fight on so many fronts and in regions without fuel/parts resupply, differently gauged tracks, supply line problems, etc. You can't refuel, replenish, move equipment/troops/materiel you are done for.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 09:25:48 PMhe alone was to blame for that, since he always insisted to take full control of military ops
Quote from: theONE on November 17, 2016, 09:30:34 PMhahaha, reading some of your posts I hope you guys are not disappointed that Hitler lost , are you ?? , LOL
Quote from: Value Of Pi on November 17, 2016, 09:29:04 PMRight. He always thought he knew better than his generals and advisors (not that there were too many who dared to disagree with him), even after they turned out to be right and him wrong. This is a problem even with heads of state with limited power, but with absolute power and the world's most powerful military, as with Nazi Germany in 1939, you're looking at a very high death toll.There are lots of lessons here, even for a very different country like the U.S., which now has a bold new leader who also seems to have total faith in his own judgment no matter what the experts say. No false equivalency there with Hitler, but they both have personality and character issues which can and have gotten the world into big trouble.
Quote from: albrecht on November 17, 2016, 09:30:49 PMNo disagreement here.
Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 17, 2016, 09:33:15 PMNo more than I am Stalin won.
Quote from: albrecht on November 17, 2016, 09:36:22 PMHey Uncle Joe is our friend! To that point I will say that Russia beat Germany and suffered worse from the war, and their government, than anybody else (arguably at least) in the war. But leaders and system was worse than the NAZIs at least in terms of sheer body-count.
Quote from: Uncle Duke on November 17, 2016, 09:44:16 PMYes the Soviet Union suffered horribly, but we were more of a friend to Stalin than he was to us. Take a look at the lend lease equipment we sent Russia, the sheer magnitude of what we provided is staggering. Much of it was misused and poorly maintained by the Russians, and therefore effectively wasted.
Quote from: albrecht on November 17, 2016, 09:34:29 PMI'm a bit surprised that more "reporters" and activists (or at least librarians and teachers) haven't mentioned Upton Sinclair's work in light of the election. Roth also wrote a "what if" type of book also but Sinclair's is better. (There also has been quite a few more "popular" revisionist fiction books about the Axis winning or a populist like Huey Long/Wallace type winning.)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_HereI don't think Trump is like this (his daughter is married to a Jew and he "opened" up a country-club in Florida to the chagrin of the rich folks there) but still always be vigilant and it is a good book.
Quote from: norland2424 on November 17, 2016, 09:47:41 PMdid they ever pay us back for that?