Random Discussion #2

[Avatar]

Was bored, wanted to write something.

I'm tired of hearing accusations that Germany had no chance of winning the war, either against the West or against Russia. They are completely false, and most have little basis with reality. This is NOT a pro-german-theyresuperior-we'renot subject, but simply written to make all you who are not aware at how close the world was to changing. Superior german tactics won them time, but the war was lost on a series of dumb high-level decisions.

- Poland: Had Germany stopped there and not gone on to invade any other countries, it is most likely hypothesised that the western allies (france, uk) would have had to eventually make peace, as offensive actions into Germany were unsuitable, and arguably unattainable. In essence, Germany would already have 'won' had they stopped.

- Dunkirk: Hitler's and Runstedt's mistake of letting the B.E.F. slip away is arguably THE biggest mistake of the war. Those men were the cream of the U.K. and went to fight on every front for the remainder of the war. If the BEF was destroyed, the UK, after such a catastrophic loss, would surely have sued for peace.

- Sealion: Many books have been written on the subject that Germany had no chance succeeding with Sealion. Well, I've read many other books which contend that Germany had a reasonably good chance of succeeding. Many claim the Battle of Britain was 'won' by the British, but the fact is, Germany changed tactics mid-battle, and eventually withdrew most air units to other theaters in the early spring. At no point did the British own the skies above them. What they did is prove to the Germans that they would resist, and keep on resisting. Air Marshal Dowding contended that had the Luftwaffe pressed in destroying the remaining RAF airfields, there would be little to no Air resistance in a cross-channel crossing. Only the RN would be there, and losses to them were expected to be extremely high. Britain had lost most of it's stock in heavy equipment/tanks on the Dunkirk beaches, and the Panzer divisions would have a field day in the plains of southern britain.

- Russia shouldn't have been invaded, but even that they were, many times during the invasion itself were opportunities presented for the capture of Moscow. Guderians diversion to Kiev certainly cost the Axis the prize of Moscow. Stalingrad should never have happened. 4th Panzer Armee could have captured it in July had it not been diverted south. the double-objectives of Caucasus and Stalingrad should never have happened.

- North Africa. With 2-3 more divisions, Rommel would have won in 41-42. No problem. UK was hanging on a thread before they came back for vengeance. Taking Malta/Gibraltar=huge. Backdoor open to Caucasus, threatening India, making Turkey even more Pro-Axis.

- US entry into the war should never have happened. Hitler declared war on them, not vice-versa.

- Peace with the USSR in 1942-43 could have easily happened, and Stalin was considering it until the disastrous Axis losses at Stalingrad, and then Kursk.

- Arguably getting Spain on the Axis side could also have been decisive. The fall of Gibraltar would have made the British situation at Malta and the Suez almost untenable. This wasn't alone enough to win the war, but if the war was limited to UK alone, it would have been.

- The Jewish Question: Complete nonsense, this un-called for and barbaric systematic destruction of the jewish race ensured not only a braindrain from germany/german occupied lands, but also created a logistical nightmare in the later war years. Trains that were needed for war material were diverted, personnel to man camps, and terror squads to roam the country side. Also, this goes along with treating citizens of occupied countries like sub-humans, which caused equal harm.

We should be thankful that Hitler was not as bright as Manstein, Zeitzler or Rommel, because any could see the folly in his massive, grave mistakes that certainly cost germany the war.

[ September 04, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Avatar ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Well, now for the counterpoint:

1) Germany couldn't sue for conditional peace with anybody after a few samll gains, their strategy was Blitzkreg, not Sits-Kreg. Panzers & planes must attack.

2) The RAF stopped the Gerries cold. Goering got his planes butchered because of radar & technology. Fighting in the Air & Water is a little different than killing sleeping farmers with tanks. The UK has more than just a little experience in defending their homeland. The Sun never sets on their Empire, well, now it does. The United States was shipping massive amounts of planes, parts, & pilots soon after war was declared. Guys like Ben Afflick took care of business.

3) Fighting Americans is different than fighting Commies, Royal Navy, & the French. We are a more spiritual people who depend on morale too much. The Yanks need beliefs to win. This is both a strength & weakness. Our loss in Vietnam wasn't a military loss, it was a loss by the definition between our ears. Back to WW-2: The USA was a "chillin'" country in the 30's, early 40's. Jesse Owens showed Adolf what a brother from the States is all about. Once the Japs & Gerries started all the murdering crap, it just took a little time to crank out the assembly lines, enlist the troops, & kick some butt. Once the US is motivated, look out! Forget Manstein, give me Patton in charge. He would have punched thru the Siegfred line in October '44, except for Eisenhower.

4) Africa? Who cares? Egypt is a wasteland, has been ever since Moses took the Choosen People out & God urinated them with the plagues. Rommell never should have step foot there.

5) Spain? Whatever, just another Italy.

6) What's the real reason Germany wasn't going to win? Simple: God Almighty. Going after The Jews just ain't a good idea. The Germans were just a bunch of bullies picking on little old ladies & their shops. Nothing but a bunch of Nazi thungs, worshipping Devil objects. What is this Fatherland stuff? blood = land. Hitler was demon possessed freak...the whole country was.

My favorite lines in Band of Brothers:

"Couldn't you smell the bodies, don't tell me you didn't know."

"What were you thinking? What did you do this? Why did you make us come all the way over here? Haven't you ever heard of General Frickin' Motors!!!"

Avatar --- You're welcome to your opinion, that's fine. The reason Rommell, Manstein, & the rest of the German killers didn't get control is because Hitler was in charge. Nobody sane would be chopping people up, thus, Rommell wouldn't be calling the shots.

[Avatar]

Actually, Goering did order the Luftwaffe to concentrate on Radar Towers for part of the BoB. The strategy worked very well in fact. The Brits were in the dark whenever their towers went down. However, 2 things in their favor, 1, Goering (and the high command) were not aware at how much damage they were actually doing (a lot), and 2, they were going after the wrong targets. The towers themselves were quite difficult to pinpoint bomb, but the huts where the personnel running the radar towers, were not. Nobody thought to bomb them, and they were far more difficult to train/replace than a tower.

At the end of September, the Brits had much fewer pilots left, and could not continue replacing them. Same problem Germany had at the end of the war, enough planes, not enough pilots. It was the darkest hour of the battle, and moral was very low among british pilots. It came close.

[TCPilot]

"- Poland: Had Germany stopped there and not gone on to invade any other countries, it is most likely hypothesised that the western allies (france, uk) would have had to eventually make peace, as offensive actions into Germany were unsuitable, and arguably unattainable. In essence, Germany would already have 'won' had they stopped."

The Allies would never have just stopped the war after a few months of inaction.

- Dunkirk: Hitler's and Runstedt's mistake of letting the B.E.F. slip away is arguably THE biggest mistake of the war. Those men were the cream of the U.K. and went to fight on every front for the remainder of the war. If the BEF was destroyed, the UK, after such a catastrophic loss, would surely have sued for peace.

Indeed, a truely disastorous decision by Hitler. Of course, if Belgium hadn't suddenly surrendered without informing the Allies, that might have helped.

- Sealion: Many books have been written on the subject that Germany had no chance succeeding with Sealion. Well, I've read many other books which contend that Germany had a reasonably good chance of succeeding. Many claim the Battle of Britain was 'won' by the British, but the fact is, Germany changed tactics mid-battle, and eventually withdrew most air units to other theaters in the early spring. At no point did the British own the skies above them. What they did is prove to the Germans that they would resist, and keep on resisting. Air Marshal Dowding contended that had the Luftwaffe pressed in destroying the remaining RAF airfields, there would be little to no Air resistance in a cross-channel crossing. Only the RN would be there, and losses to them were expected to be extremely high. Britain had lost most of it's stock in heavy equipment/tanks on the Dunkirk beaches, and the Panzer divisions would have a field day in the plains of southern britain.

The Germans would never have gotten past the Royal Navy without complete air supremacy. Germany had no landing craft the Kreigsmarine consisted of so few actual warships, that it would costs millions of German lives to subdue England.

"- Russia shouldn't have been invaded, but even that they were, many times during the invasion itself were opportunities presented for the capture of Moscow. Guderians diversion to Kiev certainly cost the Axis the prize of Moscow. Stalingrad should never have happened. 4th Panzer Armee could have captured it in July had it not been diverted south. the double-objectives of Caucasus and Stalingrad should never have happened."

And here in lies the catch. If Germany didn't invade the USSR, Stalin would have attacked Germany when the Soviets were finally ready for a war. Either way, Germany was doomed to lose against the Soviets. The diversion to Yugoslavia put Barbarossa off by several weeks. The Japanese's refusal to fight the Soviets was also critical to Moscow's survival in 1941-1942.

"- North Africa. With 2-3 more divisions, Rommel would have won in 41-42. No problem. UK was hanging on a thread before they came back for vengeance. Taking Malta/Gibraltar=huge. Backdoor open to Caucasus, threatening India, making Turkey even more Pro-Axis."

Hardly. Rommel could barely keep in supply what he had. How do you suppouse he could do it with another 30,000.

"- US entry into the war should never have happened. Hitler declared war on them, not vice-versa."

Again, the same thing with the USSR. The U.S. was fighting a German ally, the U.S. was weak, it's industry wasn't up to the state it was by 1945, and Germany was easily outproducing it.

"- Peace with the USSR in 1942-43 could have easily happened, and Stalin was considering it until the disastrous Axis losses at Stalingrad, and then Kursk."

Stalin wasn't going to give Germany peace.

"- Arguably getting Spain on the Axis side could also have been decisive. The fall of Gibraltar would have made the British situation at Malta and the Suez almost untenable. This wasn't alone enough to win the war, but if the war was limited to UK alone, it would have been."

Franco would never join the Axis.

[guinty1]

Hindsight is a great thing and all these arguments have plus and minus points BUT the main fact is that the USA would still have developed the atomic bomb before any other nation and therefore made conventional *total* war obsolete,...what good is 30 panzer divisions if 3 b29s can take them out ?

[TCPilot]

No anti-semitism, no U.S. a-bomb What good is Patton and his tanks against a nuclear V-2?

[kurt88]

If, If, If,...

If I were a German VXXIV super mouse... now I could eat the cheese from between JerseyJohn's toes!!

JJ, don't mean to imply you got bad hygienic habits or anything!

Now what do you think? Could Hitler been able to gather enough virgins to lure the unexpecting GI to the brothel of doom in Karlsruhe!?

And would he have been able to assemble enough vodka to bribe the Russians into a false sense of security so he could attack in the middle of the night with his "Kleinen Toth Panzer" ?

Nah, don't think so!!

[JerseyJohn]

"Go nibble at your own toes crazy flying mouse!"

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Avatar:

Was bored, wanted to write something.

I'm tired of hearing accusations that Germany had no chance of winning the war, either against the West or against Russia. They are completely false, and most have little basis with reality.

=== (JJ) -- I ignore nonsense comments like those. I grew up during the fifties and sixties, when there were plenty of WWII Vets running around, and none of them believed either Germany or Japan had to lose. Most of the ones I knew felt they'd only failed to win because of mistakes made by their leaders. ===

This is NOT a pro-german-theyresuperior-we'renot subject, but simply written to make all you who are not aware at how close the world was to changing. Superior german tactics won them time, but the war was lost on a series of dumb high-level decisions.

(JJ) See opening remark, exactly the way American Veterans used to talk when it was all comparatively fresh in their memories.

- Poland: Had Germany stopped there and not gone on to invade any other countries, it is most likely hypothesised that the western allies (france, uk) would have had to eventually make peace, as offensive actions into Germany were unsuitable, and arguably unattainable. In essence, Germany would already have 'won' had they stopped.

(JJ) A hard point to establish. Unlike WWI, Germany didn't need to worry about being blockaded as it had trade routs through the USSR, Italy (still neutral) and the Balkans.

The French had no intention of being hurried into an across the Rhine offensive and, if Hitler had chosen to do so, there's little doubt that he could have built the Siegfied Line into a legitimate devensive obstacle, especially using the Rhine as an additional barrier.

I'm sure Hitler would have also taken both Denmark and Norway before long.

It's possible that a deadlock may have developed and that there could, in time, have been a negotiated peace, especially if the U-boats, operating out of Norway, had become a real menace to Allied shipping.

But as Rambo said earlier, Hitler never wanted that. Once he saw how quickly he'd smashed Poland he wanted to go forward with more conquests. But regarding the original point, I'd have to agree that it might well have happened -- though it might have taken about three years and Stalin would have been doing things in the East.

- Dunkirk: Hitler's and Runstedt's mistake of letting the B.E.F. slip away is arguably THE biggest mistake of the war. Those men were the cream of the U.K. and went to fight on every front for the remainder of the war. If the BEF was destroyed, the UK, after such a catastrophic loss, would surely have sued for peace.

(JJ)Agreed. Not so much because those men were Britain's elite as because the shock value would have been too great for the British people to recover from, expecially so after France had been conquered, if the two countries hadn't offered a peace treaty first, probably ceding to Germany all that it had conquered up to that point, Western Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. Presumably the various colonial possessions would have become independent.

- Sealion: Many books have been written on the subject that Germany had no chance succeeding with Sealion. Well, I've read many other books which contend that Germany had a reasonably good chance of succeeding. Many claim the Battle of Britain was 'won' by the British, but the fact is, Germany changed tactics mid-battle, and eventually withdrew most air units to other theaters in the early spring. At no point did the British own the skies above them. What they did is prove to the Germans that they would resist, and keep on resisting. Air Marshal Dowding contended that had the Luftwaffe pressed in destroying the remaining RAF airfields, there would be little to no Air resistance in a cross-channel crossing. Only the RN would be there, and losses to them were expected to be extremely high. Britain had lost most of it's stock in heavy equipment/tanks on the Dunkirk beaches, and the Panzer divisions would have a field day in the plains of southern britain.

(JJ) Mixing two related but different subjects here. Yes, I believe the Luftwaffe could have dominated Southern Entland if the campaign had been conducted properly. Yes, I believe, with the sky under their control, Germany could have used paratroops to secure a Channel Port and from there it would have been comparatively simple to ship troops in using captured freighters in French, Dutch and Belgian ports. The landing craft barge idea was hopeless. Goering completely mishandled the air battle. On the day Germany had it's highest air losses Goering ordered a reduction in fighter plane production!

- Russia shouldn't have been invaded, but even that they were, many times during the invasion itself were opportunities presented for the capture of Moscow. Guderians diversion to Kiev certainly cost the Axis the prize of Moscow. Stalingrad should never have happened. 4th Panzer Armee could have captured it in July had it not been diverted south. the double-objectives of Caucasus and Stalingrad should never have happened.

(JJ) You're right, the invasion of Russia was a masterpiece of mistakes from start to finish. Germany could have won it at least twice. It could at least have conquered all of European Russia, including the Caucasus. It's possible the USSR would have continued fighting but the only thing in their favor at that point would have been inaccessable terain beyond the Urals.

- North Africa. With 2-3 more divisions, Rommel would have won in 41-42. No problem. UK was hanging on a thread before they came back for vengeance. Taking Malta/Gibraltar=huge. Backdoor open to Caucasus, threatening India, making Turkey even more Pro-Axis.

(JJ) I can only agree if we're talking about Germany and Italy taking Malta before Rommel advanced into Egypt. Kesselring and the General Staff wanted to do it that way but Rommel, flushed with victory at Tobruck, talked them out of it.

He moved to El Alemain largely dependent upon captured stores of petrol, when that ran out, the supply line stretching back to Tripoli was too long to be feasible (Benghazi and Tobruck were too damaged to be of much use).

Germany's original war plan had greatly hinged upon Spain joining the Axis and enabling it to take Gibraltar. In many respects, Spain's remaining neutral was one of the great pivital events of WWII.

- US entry into the war should never have happened. Hitler declared war on them, not vice-versa.

(JJ) Agreed, the United States would probably never have entered the European War if Hitler hadn't stupidly declared war. He thought it would induce Japan to declare war on the USSR, but that never happened.

- Peace with the USSR in 1942-43 could have easily happened, and Stalin was considering it until the disastrous Axis losses at Stalingrad, and then Kursk.

(JJ) True. Envoys in Sweden were working toward that goal. Hitler nixed the idea and even ignored possible chances for this after Kursk!

- Arguably getting Spain on the Axis side could also have been decisive. The fall of Gibraltar would have made the British situation at Malta and the Suez almost untenable. This wasn't alone enough to win the war, but if the war was limited to UK alone, it would have been.

(JJ) Undoubtably true. See my earlier points regarding the North African Campaign. Amazingly, Hitler sent Admiral Canaris ahead to pave the way and it was Canaris who convinced both Franco and Salazar of Portugal that they should remain neutral!

Franco feared a German invasion and Canaris assured him that Hitler had already moved all his offensive forces east so he was safe.

Hitler, when invading Poland, took it for granted that both Italy and Spain would join him if the war became protracted.

- The Jewish Question: Complete nonsense, this un-called for and barbaric systematic destruction of the jewish race ensured not only a braindrain from germany/german occupied lands, but also created a logistical nightmare in the later war years. Trains that were needed for war material were diverted, personnel to man camps, and terror squads to roam the country side. Also, this goes along with treating citizens of occupied countries like sub-humans, which caused equal harm.

(JJ) Yes, absolutely true. It's the sort of thing that happens when a country is run by a madman who is good at finding minions without scrupples.

This is an outstanding point you've made. I personally think it did more to lose the war for Germany than any other factor or even combination of factors.

We should be thankful that Hitler was not as bright as Manstein, Zeitzler or Rommel, because any could see the folly in his massive, grave mistakes that certainly cost germany the war.

(JJ) Amen Brother. -- A well thought out and Outstanding Thread.

[ August 17, 2004, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Jersey John, many thanks for your insightful and most relevant comments.

[JerseyJohn]

Edwin,

Thanks, appreciated.

But the real credit goes to Avatar for putting together such a fine list and filling it with his own reasons, which were also very good ones.

[Curry]

Only comment I have on the subject which is so large is about JJ's statement

[quoteI'm tired of hearing accusations that Germany had no chance of winning the war, either against the West or against Russia. They are completely false, and most have little basis with reality.

=== (JJ) -- I ignore nonsense comments like those. I grew up during the fifties and sixties, when there were plenty of WWII Vets running around, and none of them believed either Germany or Japan had to lose. Most of the ones I knew felt they'd only failed to win because of mistakes made by their leaders. ===

]

[Curry]

Kurt

GREAT STUFF

[SeaMonkey]

This is a great thread, thanks to all contributors and I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusions.....hmmm. Kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it....so many coincidences....so many twists of fate, that easily could have gone the other way....but didn't....I wonder why? And as these events played out in WW2, were the participants contemplating the lessons, either in part or whole, as the subtle illusions of grandeur collapsed or were realized? Now that we look back in hindsight it is easy to predicate the turning points of that struggle, but what of our struggle now.....do we have the clarity of vision to ascertain the chivalrity of our deeds? Let us hope that as we do now, the succeeding generations look back upon our time and say "It must be so, the Almighty was with them".

[ August 17, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Yep, I believe God was on the side of the Americans in this war.

[TCPilot]

Strange that he'd be on the same side as the atheists of Russia. But I suppouse it's better than the satanist cults of the SS and Gestapo.

We could just as easily say that Germany should have won WW1. But frankly, any side of any war could have won if they didn't make mistakes. But, people do make mistakes. They don't have the same information as we do or the knowledge of what happened and why. Leaders were plagued with uncertainty and the repurcutions of their decision. I doubt any leader was completely certain of victory.

Plus, leaders, such as Hitler, were influenced by their own past experiences and opinions, as well as their personalities and their connections and their personal well-being.

[Liam]

My question about Germany winning and losing always comes down to how many Divisions were pointed Westward ? How valuable would they have been before December of 1941 in breaking through in Russia? hard to say, that's a big front, another Small Army Group may have been all they needed? After USSR Fall who was going to fight the Germans the USA Alone?

[Desert Dave]

Yep, I believe God was on the side of the Americans in this war.

Tempting to believe it so.

However, unlikely that God takes sides, unless

You are talking about... being "on the side"

Of...ALL Life.

Whether it be that animating spirit

In your fingernail,

Or, in the refined feelers of a butterfly,

Or - those leaves - now falling - from a tree.

And sure, a dull dumb stone, even.

Though... VERY likely (to me, at least) that God

Is somehow "pleased"

When "Evil" is... defeated.

But, what is... Evil?

That which destroys life?

If that were true, then "nature" would be "evil."

[... some rudely believe this IS so, else

you wouldn't have the Environment NOW

on the verge of ruination, would you?]

Nature creates AND destroys every instant

Of every day.

So.

It's Evil... ONLY when humans Destroy? :confused:

Many think so, since humans have sentient capacity

And should know better, but, alas,

Mostly they don't.

Maybe they never will, who knows?

Just as in WW2-era when the GErman "leaders"

(who had brutely usurped ordinary

quasi-democratic State power) actively

ENCOURAGED "lizard-brain" behaviors. :eek:

That can happen ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, even now.

There are "fundamentalists" happily

Campaigning for MORE glory in war... in every

Corner of the globe.

Some are "freedom fighters" and some are deemed

"terrorists" and some are called... Jane & Joe.

History is rife with examples of

Gathered groups - taking by FORCE

What "righteously" belongs to... ALL of Life.

Greatest mistake made by the GErmans?

PRESUMING, with half a back-brain,

That the rest of "polite society" would NOT

Finally say - all right, enough is enough,

You are mad, too bad, and need to be put down

Like some rabid animal.

Same way it was always done, in all tribes,

Whenever a "psychotic killer" was on the loose

And mindlessly preying on... "the innocent."

Damn them!

Hunt 'em down.

No mercy, no relief.

They won't EVER change, it's "in the blood."

(... best to be absolutely CERTAIN

about... WHO is mad, and who isn't; however,

in the case of the Nazi and Soviet leaders, there

wasn't much doubt, IMHO... nor, for those in command of the bombers, including the Allied side, that deliberately "terror bombed" civilians)

No sense in wondering or rationalizing or

Complaining about... evil.

Standing up against "mad destroyers" is required

For the common survival.

Only, might we always appreciate that there IS

Truly... "God-gifted life"...in a fingernail,

An insect feeler

Or, a recently fallen leaf.

[... hey, just call me... "sensitive"

I don't mind! :cool: ]

[Liam]

Dear Dave, I find your eloquent Research of the Theory of Mother Nature an intrigueing thought indeed. She's a violent beast and she likes to torment but if you believe in just science and no Artistic point of view the world is a bit bland.

Lets create a Fantasy for the Men and Woman alike. Hitler was Satan and Joe was his Brother, <Tojo was a Demon NoShow, quickening the pace of his Evil Father's Demise>. Churchill was a Sinner but FDR seemed like a Saint<I guess we'll never know> Two evil men locked in a Power struggle, a God Defining Moment we won the day with Courage and Bravery, and when things got bad we prayed. Whether to a Hindu God or a Muslim one, it wouldn't matter the Higher Power felt it was our time of need and blessed us with Excalibur to strike down the Evil Foe. We drove into the heart of the beast and so far through half a century more there has been Peace. But what few don't know is that the Evil still Lurkes, and it's in the heart of men<not in some Book or in some Country> and that is the concept that we'll never comprehend and why we repeat the past again and -- again..

[Desert Dave]

Way to go!

Laurels!

For you Liam,

You have said it far better than I.

So true about the "artists" allowing us

A TINY glimpse

Of the transcendental,

The almost sublime.

Perhaps... perhaps,

FINALLY,

One brilliant be-bop-along day!

The artists and the scientists

MIGHT... reach... a gracious accord?

Or, O/W stated... WE might

Realize the twinned-nature in each?

[... one being momently ascendant, the other being briefly sublimated, and so it is... each of our CHOICE... which might be which, and when! :cool: ]

_________________________

... meanwhile, given the basic "nature" of Life as REALLY lived... where did I put my Bowie knife?

[jon_j_rambo]

Desert Dave --- YOU'VE got to be kidding me or you're brain lives in a desert, Desert Dave. You can't figure out that God just might be against Germany, Adolf Hitler & his murderous plan? Well, it's the sign of the times not to have an opinion, not to "have a take", & hide behind your coke bottle & computer.

We (USA) don't kill in God's name, rather..."We are suppose to defend those who can't defend themselves, we were suppose to defend Willy" --- Harold from the classic movie, A Few Good Men.

The world revolves on beliefs, religion, & politics. Not having "a belief" is a "belief". If you actually read the Bible, it would tell you about "people killing in His name", has nothing to do with His name. It also allows for self defense, the death penalty, & being a friend to the Jew.

[Sergei]

Give up, JJR. In WW2, USA was fighting for Stalin. That's a fact. Whether USA was fighting for God, that's an opinion.

[Avatar]

Thanks Jersey Actually, I would have made the thread more detailed than it was, but it's a long topic indeed. One can discuss a topic like this for endless hours. WW2 IS the most documented subject to-date.

Ok, wanted to clarify the point about North Africa. I didn't write as much as I would have liked, so I'll say it now.

There was a plan to invade Malta, a very good idea, however, this plan was not a necessary prelude to taking Suez in my opinion. Rommel wished to pursue the Brits into Egypt while they were in dissarray, a solid idea for sure. However, he could not imagine the supply problems that he would have. He begged Hitler for more men, but most of all, more supplies, replacements etc. In much material i've read, Hitler claimed it was impossible to supply Rommel properly in 41-42 when Malta was for much of the time neutralized. These problems, however, were easily overcome once the Americans landed in Algeria. Suddenly, 200000 germans and 120000+ tons of supply became available, along with the newest batch of Tiger tanks. All this of course during a time of decline. Rommel wrote that he didn't understand the High Commands decisions and unwillingness to help him. Like he and many others said, Hitler had to but give the OK for all this. The Italians were finnicky, but again, if Hitler ordered Mussolini to obey, they would have followed. More supplies, and another 2-3 divisions (should be panzer, or motorized), and perhaps another Luftflotte would have made all the difference. The benefits of this small increase in support would have paid ten times the dividends in the future. One item I didn't mention was that USSR was being heavily supplied with equipment through Iran by the West. This being cut-off, and the whole of the Mid-east occupied, the Brits would be in a very dire position, even with American support. In effect, the meditteranean would be a one-front war instead of 2 (west med/gibraltar/Algeria/Tunis), east med/suez/Egypt,Libya). Italy might never have been invaded, and a much stronger Axis position in North Africa.

Was it pivotal? No, not in my opinion. Doing the above would only have bought the axis more time. However, it might have put them in position where a negotiated peace would have been possible.

Oh, and religion and war have zero to do with each other. Ppl like Osama use God to their advantage. God is not on their side, and neither was He on the Americans side. God imo, does not interfere with such things.

[jon_j_rambo]

Sergei --- My Uncle J., Great Aunt, & several immediate relatives were conducting business in Europe when they were thrown in a concentration camp.

My Uncle K. fought in the Battle of the Atlantic in the U.S. Navy. He sure wasn't fighting for Stalin.

Avatar --- Religion has nothing to do with it? The entire war's roots is about religion. Hitler came to power with a "kill the Jew plan". Himmler brought all that "voodoo religion ruins symbol stuff" from mystism & India. How do you think "the evil spirit of Germany" got the whole country into a frenzy? Religion is about beliefs, political plans are about beliefs, Stalin's Communism is a belief system. The entire Bible is a war between good & evil. There's war in heaven, all kinds of war in the Old Testament, spiritual warfare, etc.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Sergei --- My Uncle J., Great Aunt, & several immediate relatives were conducting business in Europe when they were thrown in a concentration camp.

And the relevance is?

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

My Uncle K. fought in the Battle of the Atlantic in the U.S. Navy. He sure wasn't fighting for Stalin.

US Navy escorted weapons to Stalin for crushing Finland, the most successful democracy ever and the beacon of Christianity.