Would the killing of Hitler have changed the War

[SeaWolf_48]

I'm reading a book "The German Army 1933-1945" by Michael Cooper. He points out that Hilter did three things in 1934 that made the German Army, and the German Generals loyal to him. First that by putting the German Eagle clutching the swastiga on the uniform (the National Socialist party symbol) the Army and the party became one. Like putting the Democratic donkey on the US Army uniform.

Second, that only aryians could serve in the army, and last, that they were to sware a death oath to Corporal Shickelgrubben, their fuhrer.

This bound them to Hitler as their Master and Lord. The Corporal took over all command of the German Army after the Polish campaign, and began to muck up the whole strategy of German command after that.

What would have happen if the German Generals would have killed Hitler before he started Barbarrrosa? before Stalingrad? before Kursk? Would that have changed the war? They did have three major attemps to kill him, and one almost did in Sept of 44, way to late!

What if we had the option in SC to kill Hitler in 1941, and not attack Russia until England was beat. What if German spys had killed Churchill, or Stalin during the march on Moscow. What ifs.

What say ye....

[jon_j_rambo]

What if the German people found out Hitler was a cross-dresser?

Hey, can we add that to SC? Would this change the graphics of Adolf on the Main Menu page?

[ April 04, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Liam]

It was impossible when Hitler was popular to have a coup. Later in the War, there was anti-Hitler sentiment amongst his Generals. Rommel was forced to commit suicide or his family would be executed... He was indicated in a conspiracy. Suprisingly enough I heard a story of Brit Spies having filled Wine bottles with plastic explosives on a plane Hitler was on and they never went off He survived two attempts... He was lucky

[ April 04, 2003, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Liam]

We almost did it!

General Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg

Claus von Stauffenberg was born November 15th, 1907 at Jettingen, Germany. After an uneventful childhood he entered the Army in 1926. Stauffenberg gained distinction in the campaigns against Poland and France. After his transfer to the eastern front however he became disillusioned with the brutal policies toward Slavs and Jews. He was transferred at his own request to North Africa where he was severly wounded losing his right hand, two fingers of the left hand and right eye in April 1943.

During his convalescence Stauffenberg had a lot of time to think about Germany's future and he came to the conclusion that Hitler must be eliminated. He assumed the leadership of a ever-widening circle of army officers opposed to Hitler and reserved for himself the task of carrying out the proposed assassination. In July of 1944 the time came to carry through his plan. After two attempts he was able to place a bomb in Hitler's Rastenburg headquarters but it failed to kill the dictator. A coup to take place simultaneously in Berlin failed and Stauffenberg and a few co-conspirators were summarily executed on the night 20 July 1944. They were the lucky ones. Those who were suspected and later arrested suffered many tortures before being put out of their misery. They were the first of some five thousand, many completely innocent, who would die in the bloody aftermath of the conspiracy...

Would it make a difference, check this informative website out:

http://www.joric.com/Conspiracy/WorldReaction.htm

[SeaWolf_48]

That was a good one Rambo, how about Hitler, Goering, and J. E. Hoover meeting secretly in pink submarines in the North Atlantic, and having a Transvestite extravaganza.

Yes Liam Staffenberg was one of the most brave germans ever. I think that they have a day set aside for his effort in Modern Germany. Did you notice that the German Chanceller is now backing the US in Iraq, Germany don't owe us much, just defending there ass from the Berlin Airlift in 1948 thru the Berlin wall being torn down in 1989. Not to mention kicking the Nazi out!

I know that this is just an hypotheses, but it'd fun too have what if's!

[SeaWolf_48]

argh...

[ April 04, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[JerseyJohn]

SeaWolf

Fine Topic.

No doubt before much longer it will end up beside my own in the General Forum but before that happens let me get my two cents in (the changing value of currency is demonstrated by the absense of a cent sign on the current keyboards -- it used to always be on typewriters).

Concerning the original point, I think Hitler did a great job of running the war through the fall of France. Even his Vichy idea was good, he was exchanging direct control of southern France for the nullification of the Global French Empire as an Allied Asset -- signs of Chancellor Bismarck!

He began veering off a bit during the Battle of Britain when he switched from hitting the RAF to hitting the cities. Of course, part of that was having the cross-dressing Goering (I put great faith in things my fellow posters pass on ) assured him that the British Air Force was Kaputt!

From that point on his decisions became steadily worse.

So I guess he would have needed to have been bumped off immediately after signing the peace treaty with France for Germany to have gotten the most benefit. Assuming, of course, that a better leader took his place.

The succession was always kept a bit cloudy. Until his flight to Scotland, Rudolf Hess would have been Hitler's successor. Afterwards it would have been Hermann Goering . Heinrich Himmler always saw himself in the succession but Hitler never mentioned his name in that context. Among the others, Martin Borman lurked in the background as Party Secretary and in the end Admiral Karl Donetz was named by default when there was virtually no Third Reich to be leader of.

Looking at this assortment of candidates, the only realistic wartime successor would have been Goering.

For all his shortcomings I think he'd have been a better military and wartime leader than Hitler. If he'd succeeded him at the Reich's highwater mark he would probably have followed the more logical course and intensified the war against British commerce then the war against Britain itself, forcing her out of the war before turning east. Though an anti-semite himself, I doubt he'd have allowed the Holocaust to proceed as it did, effectively getting underway after the Wansee Conference of early 1942. If nothing else, his distrust and personal dislike of Himmler would have led to a greatly curtailed SS program. Likewise, though the architect of Russia's rape under Hitler, I don't believe he'd have done it that way if he'd been in complete control.

None of which is to say he would have been a great war leader, only an improvement on the ever deteriorating manic-depressed, delusional and nuerotic Adolf Hitler.

If Hitler had died prior to the flight of Rudolf Hess then it would have been Hess who'd taken over.

Hess was the real architect of the Nazi Regime. He typed Mein Kampf for Hitler in Landsburg prison and inserted his own thoughts and those of his mentor, Professer Househoffer (not sure of the spelling) with his geo-politics theory.

I believe the first thing Hess would have done was gone all out to make peace with Britain. He might well have returned some of the conquests in order to achieve this. Perhaps he'd have gone as far as pulling completly out of France, Belgium and Holland; keeping Denmark, Norway and Western Poland.

There is no documented basis for that view, only my own speculation from what I've read. I think Hess would have felt they'd fought a very successful and profitable war and getting back to a peaceful status was the first priority. Like Hitler, he would have been eager to expand east, into Russia. Unlike Hitler, I don't believe he'd have initiated the rampant murder of millions to achieve "racial cleansing."

Aside from the famous 1944 attempt on Hitler's life, there were numerous others starting in the late '30s, few of them by the military, and several came equally close to succeeding -- one saw Hitler leaving an aircraft after a long flight with a malfunctioning bomb in the baggage area; another saw Hitler make a speech and leave the hall only to have some lingering party faithful blasted into the wallpaper.

Interestingly, Hitler issued direct orders to his subordinates forbidding the assassination of Allied War leaders and their generals.

[ April 04, 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Getting to the other point you were making, concerning the current world.

It seems odd to me that Europeans are so quick to forget not only the Marshall Plan but also the myriad other social programs the United States extended not only to feed the starving populations but also to help rebuild them into viable nations. During recent years we've been helping the former Soviets in similar ways and have consistently gotten messages like, is that all you can give us, we're a big country, give us more!

The French are the greatest ingrates of the lot. Aside from saving their sorry butts twice, we rebuilt them, kept the French Empire in existence and were even drawn into the Vietnam War because of lingering French stupidity.

Enough already. It turns out the only country on planet Earth that appreciates what the U. S. has done for them is Japan. Nobody ever accused them of being stupid.

I hope world opinion everywhere turns to hatred for America. Let's bring back our factories and end this world's savior bull****. Enter the Pax Americana. Let's be the bastards we're made out to be anywhere. Syria wants to be asinine, fine, help them change regimes while we still have troops over there. Germany and France want to boycott us, great, we'll boycott them and see how well their economies hold up. As for Russia, all we need to do is say screw it, go commie again, who cares, and pull their allowance. Hope they have a fun depression.

No doubt this sounds ignorant to many, but it's the path the rest of the world is pushing the United States into. Just browse through the General Forum threads and read some of that stupidity -- Bush biggest butcher in history, Germany and Japan were unsung liberators. I'm getting very tired of these conveniently rewritten world histories by supposedly educated people.

I think we're going to see a succession of very hardnosed American presidents with a view to economically controlling South America and Africa while releasing alternate energy technologies that will make oil ever less important. The net result will be for the U. S. to cut loose from it's deadwood European ties and deal with the emerging Asian powers as our true partners in the future.

I think we've about had it with the UN. As I've said before, maybe they should set up a new HQ in Baghdad, operating right out of the region where they're really needed, and vacate that den of corruption they've created in Manhattan. Make that silly looking thing into low income housing; something that's needed much more urgently than a meeting place for the world's conspiratorial vipers.

Fine. There are too many self-serving maggots running countries out there, the sooner we distance ourselves the better.

Let the attacks come, I could care less.

[santabear]

Wow. This topic really hits a nerve with me. I'm really not a military history person; my real field of interest is the topic "why nations go to war" and particularly the diplomatic and psychological dynamics that cause wars and that make them so hard to stop. And of course WWII is my favorite topic.

I can offer that there is no historical evidence that I am aware of to support the notion that the Allies would have settled for anything less than the unconditional surrender of Germany. There is a lot of speculation and opinion (including some interesting ones on the website Liam mentions), but no documentary evidence of this. In fact, I think there is some evidence that the possiblity of "regime change" was discussed between Churchill and Roosevelt (I don't know if Stalin was ever consulted), and they had agreed that they would never make peace with an anti-Nazi government unless it was on the basis of unconditional surrender.

OK. Now here are some of my opinions based on the reading I've done:

1. The Americans and British were waging war on Germany, not on Hitler or Nazism. If the real enemy was Hitler and not the Germans why purposely bomb cities to cause massive civilian casualties and disruption? The Allies were out to kill as many Germans as they could; and they were well aware that not all Germans supported Hitler. Clearly the raids on Berlin, Hamburg, Dresden, etc. were not the work of people who thought of Germans in human terms. Hitler or no Hitler, the Allies were determined to give the Germans a lesson in war they would never forget. It worked.

2. No American presidental candidate could ever have been elected (especially not after D day) on a platform of "peace with Germany." It would have been too easy for their opponents to brand them as defeatist. -- Even American presidental candidates who ran on a "peace now" platforms during the Vietnam era got killed in the elections. Nixon's election-winning slogan was "peace with honor" (Woo. Now I've really dated myself!)

3. What the American or British people would have thought is a matter for speculation, but I think the real hatred for Germans and Germany (felt by Americans at least) is easy to underrate 70 years later.

4. Changes of government during a war do not typically make enemies willing to negotiate, those kind of events are an indication of weakness and therefore often lead to a more vigorous prosecution of the war. No one wants to stop a war when they're winning it. The Allies continued to make war on Italy after the overthrow of Musso until Italy agreed to switch sides, for example. There wasn't going to be any peace for Italy short of outright surrender even with a new government.

5. One of the chief devils in the minds of the Allies was "German militarism," and particularly the dreaded "General Staff." A government composed of German generals wasn't going to win any sympathy points from the Allies.

6. Many German generals were war criminals or were heavily implicated in war crimes (including Guderian and Manstein). Again, German generals were not in a position to negotiate with the Allies. The Russians probably hated the German army more than Hitler (though that would be a close call), and after the shooting of British officers at Sagan and the killing of American POWs in the Ardennes (though that was after July, 44) the British and Americans also regarded the German General Staff as a criminal organization (indicted at Nuremberg). The Allies accepted an unconditional surrender from Doenitz, Keitel and Jodl; they never negotiated with them. Keitel and Jodl were unquestionably war criminals. Doenitz probably was, but he got a raw deal based on the case his attorney presented. Otto Kranzbuehler did a great job defending him.

7. One real missed opportunity was the plot of some German generals to overthrow Hitler during the Munich crisis in 1938 (this was screwed up by the British, mostly). If Hitler had been overthrown then there would likely have been ways for Germany to reverse course and still keep a fair amount of her 36-38 gains.

I could go on for hours, but I think everyone knows that the "kill Hitler now" button could be left off my copy of SC. (Well, I might push it just for fun sometimes...) But thanks for the opportunity to vent a bit.

SB

A quick PS after reading Jersey John's posts (how did he sneak them in so fast?): Hitler had syphillis. Check out Robert Conot's Justice at Nuremberg for more details (the damn book is at home where I can't get it, but at least I remember this citation)

PPS I've been living in Europe for some time now. Europeans, for the most part, like Americans. They tend to get frustrated with our government sometimes, that's all...but then, so do some Americans.

[ April 04, 2003, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: santabear ]

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

Great Post. Agreed with everything you've said. On my end of it I was thinking more in terms of which German leader might have been more effective in leading Germany to either victory or a mutual exhaustion forcing an armistace.

After the U. S. entry FDR and Churchill insisted upon a hardline of Axis surrender. That was their stated policy, but if the USSR would have collapsed in mid '42 and Britain suddenly started becoming truly isolated and destroyed by efficient use of U-boat and Blitz/rocket tactics, I think the remaining Allies might have given serious thought to reassessing their position.

Of course, by July 1944 nobody was going to negotiate with Nazi Germany, regardless of it's leader. It used to be often said that if Hitler had been killed his replacement would probably have been more effective and the war would have dragged on into 1946. I think that view is essentially correct.

[Shaka of Carthage]

If Hitler dies, doesn't it amount to which of two groups gains control afterwards? SS or Military.

The path Germany would take would then depend on which group was in power and if France had been conquered yet. If France had not fallen, there is a possiblity that UK/France alliance could have come to terms with Germany (though it would have meant abandonment of Poland). After all, what the UK/France alliance really wanted was for the Germans and Russians to turn on each other.

Current World

While it is much more complicated than this, part of the reason why the European Govt's are "anti-american" is due to the birthing process of the EU. National Governments will not give up control unless there is a greater threat that they alone cannot handle. I believe the people who want to see a EU are the same one's who are using the actions of the US as a reason why the EU should exist.

If Japan ever found an alternative way of solving its economic problems, then you would see it cutting its ties to the US. But they have no reason to do so now.

[nonsuch]

There was in fact another plot to kill Hitler in 1944 besides the one we all know about. It was drawn up by the SOE in Britain and sanctioned by Churchill but shelved because it was decided that it was more advantageous to let him continue with his disastrous course. This has only recently come to light after the 50 year expiry of the official secrets act.

In a documentary shown this week a group of historians were asked to examine the plan and assess it's merits. Their conclusion was that it could well have worked - it involved a sniper taking him out at the Berghof. Apparently a flag was always flown in the nearby town when he was in residence and he always took a morning walk down a track unattended by guards.

They also concluded that had it been successful Germany would have surrendered within two months and as a result about ten million lives would have been saved!

Information on Operation Foxley can be found at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/foxley_report_01.shtml

[ April 04, 2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: nonsuch ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Actually, there were three groups: Military, SS and Nazi Party.

Prior to his flight to Scotland, Rudolf Hess would have been considered a Party Leader. I think the two main scenarios would have been Party and Military. After 1944 the SS begins edging out the military, but by then it was becoming more of an academic issue.

[ April 04, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[JerseyJohn]

Nonsuch

There were bits and pieces about that plot floating about as far back as the fifties with the speculation being that the Allies were best off facing Hitler himself. I'm glad you provided the link, till now I've never seen documentation on it. Thanks for posting it.

Agreed that the best thing would have been to assassinate him even in mid or late 1944. Any successor other than Himmler would have sued for peace (Goering didn't think of himself as a war criminal). Even if Himmler had gained control I don't believe he'd have retained it very long; the German people would not have shown the same devotion to the SS leader that they showed to their Fuhrer. By allowing Hitler to remain in power, regardless of whether or not it shortened the war militarily, it meant allowing the Final Solution to continue unabetted. A successor, even a nazi lunatic, would have changed that genocidal apparatus over to the war effort itself; the constructive use of rolling stock in itself would have greatly improved Germany's military performance.

[santabear]

I'd like to point out that Nosuch's information is another bit of historical data that corroborates the idea that the Allies were not interested in just beating (killing) Hitler. They wanted to take down Germany completely.

Two other things:

1. As long as Japan has to float stuff on the Pacific ocean to support its economy, it has to be friends with the US. (If you can't beat 'em, join 'em...)

2. Shaka's point about the EU is very insightful, I think. It explains a lot. (No doubt Jacques Chirac would like to be the first Emperor of the EU)

[xwormwood]

Jersey John

Getting to the other point you were making, concerning the current world.

JerseyJohn, i can understand that you are angry/tired of the dump european masses.

BUT don't let your heart be hardened while writing about the Iraq. There are MANY germans who do NOT support Schroeder / Fischer.

Come on, you can post much better entries.

Writing in anger isn't the best way to create a good, clear, sharp or cunning post.

Even a lousy german government placed some special tanks in kuwait, placed 5000 soldiers to afghanistan (more than any other nation) etc.

:mad: Schroeder :mad: won the last election by only 7000 votes (not much compared to 80 milion germans...), and the loser party would have supported the us today. :cool:

[JerseyJohn]

xwormwood

First off, let me apologize to every German, Frenchman and Russian; none of my negative remarks were intended to be directed at the people of those countries, only the politicians.

You're right, I did post that entry in anger and it doesn't really represent my true feelings about any of the national groups involved -- as a matter of fact I have no ill feelings against ethnic groups at all.

What's happened with me is I've just grown completely sick of all this anti-U. S. rhetoric going around.

Maybe it's the news coverage, too many images of burning U. S. flags and too much emphasis on Palestinian demonstrators. I find that particularly irksome because I've been saying since the sixties that Israel's treatment of those people was ludicrous and I'm absolutely certain there are millions of Americans who feel the same way, yet we're all lumped together in some big ball of hatred for America!

I was tempted to go back and edit that post, but too much of it does represent my current view, though, as stated, none of it is intended as a slight to the people, only the leaders involved.

What amazes me is that we Americans became the villains for driving out of existence two psychotic regimes that were an open menace to the rest of the world. I don't think anyone, not even that imbecile Frenchman, believes it's a better world with the likes of Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein weilding power, fortunes and influence over deluded followers.

To me Hussein was the greater evil because he learned well the lessons of Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tsi Tsung. Unlike those others, he had no agenda whatever other than his own whims; and those whims were decidedly dark. Amazingly, even now with more and more of his horror being revealed, there is still a lunatic fringe out there screaming that he ought to be kept in power. Sure, the world needs a man who drafts 6 year olds into life-long military service. Presumably he read a book on the Hitler Youth and figured he go one better and bring back the Jannisaries.

Personally I hope Europe does unite. I hope Russia straightens itself out and the Gordion Knot we call the Middle East somehow finds the path to sanity. I think Asia is already making it's way past the worst with South America and Africa following suit.

I don't particularly trust any country to responsibly use absolute power. The United States is in the most perilous predicament of it's existence. Being an uncontested superpower is not a good position to occupy; the only worse possibility is watching another country occupy that slot. The nation is becoming less concerned with World opinion and more satisfied with it's own warlike actions.

This is not good. There's no guarantee that the wrong man won't step into the Oval Office and suddenly we're talking about a nightmare for the entire world.

Something needs to be done to restore the international balance, and I don't mean handing Hydrogen Bombs out to other countries so we can all spend another fifty years reliving the MAD philiosophy, only this time with a dozen lethal nuclear powers instead of just two with a couple of more nuclear limited allies. The balance I'm talking about is one of economic and political balance. If it goes too far the other way the consequences can become as bad as any of the Cold War nightmares we grew up with.

It's becoming a very small, very complicated planet and there's ever less room for this sort of tribal nonsense.

Anyway, my friend, thanks for calling me out to reexamine those views in a less angered moment. The occasional heated entry can serve a purpose and, even if it doesn't represent the person's writing at it's best, has a place as expressed feelings. Hopefully those who read that one will read this one and get the real point I've been trying to make.

[ April 04, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

JerseyJohn

I was lumping the SS and Nazi Party together.

[Liam]

Well, in SC2 the other thing that would really matter would be the random factor:

A General's health, unnatural death, and or assassination. Patton never faced the Desert Fox personally in N.Africa. What do you think would have happened differently in Normandy with the presence of the Field Marshall? Not a bad job in flooding most of the good terrain to land in! Wasn't Rommel also wounded in his car and unable to coordinate things properly any further to help prevent and make landings more costly for the Allied Forces? Hitler was certian Calais would be the landing area and there were sufficient forces to push the Allies back into the Sea<a whole panzer division> just never moved in! Do you think that after the loss of a few hundred thousand men that the Allies would had the iniative to break out and really dedicate freeing France and other Western Occuppied territories?

In SC we're taking the place of ultimate dictator. Many of the original Generals defied orders as did the men. Perhaps we should allow for room for surrender when a Corps or Army reaches a certian strength level and furthered by being cut off<feeling no retreat> and maybe have a Manpower bonus<if Unit Limitations are made> for the Russians. As it was impossible for the Germans to kill or capture enough Russian troops to stop reorganization later.

The Poles are wimps, we didn't fight for the rest of Europe until them because of the twisted politics of the time. They gave Hitler so much perhaps he himself didn't figure there'd be a war at all or a very longterm one with the West. In fact he wanted peace with the Brits we all know this. Hess was part of this Grand Scheme... Didn't succeed very well though from what History shows. He thought lets fight Communism we'll rally Capitolist support. Then move into Russia and make it's people slaves for the German Oppressors.

Whatever the thought it's not so out of sync with history. We made millions of Africans and Native Americans slaves to develop the Americas for Farming and to mantain these lands. To rape these lands dry of gold and silver back to the Old World. Hey it's an old thought just in 20th century we were supposed to be humans, nolonger heathens. The old days were slowly supposed to be comming to an end. Hitler represented the old and twisted German Son. A country facing a bad defeat with a recession looking to put the finger at any race or country who had contributed in any way<or not>. Place blame, get the people rallied, and turn a powerful country into a military machine. German Nationilism is not a new thing, it still exists!

[ April 04, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[JerseyJohn]

Shaka

Hitler did a great job of creating a modern feudal state. I don't think any of his underlings knew what their relations were with the others. There was actually a lot of antagonism between the Nazi Party and the SS, which became more and more a party unto itself as the war progressed. The military always pretended to be non-political though, in fact it wasn't and never really had been. Behind all that there were legalists and a whole variety of others who could have attached themselves to any of the vying contenders.

Liam

Patton vs Rommel, one of those eternal questions we'll never know the answer to. If put out on a patch of desert with equal numbers and equal equipment, training of troops on the same level, etc., I think they'd have beaten each other to a pulp without a clear winner. In the end it might well have gotten down to Patton's idea of having a persoanal joust between the two generals, they would have been using the last two tanks!

I don't think any general could have saved them in France. Certainly not after St. Lo and the quick following Fallaise Pocket.

In discussing Rudolf Hess I was speculating on him being able to bring peace as the Leader of Germany; naturally he couldn't have done anything with Hitler still in control. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume he'd have offered to return sovereignty to France and the Low Countries, returning all their territory on the condition that Germany keep Poland, Denmark and Norway. It sounds a bit unrealistic at first, but even with Churchill as PM those terms might have been seen as preferable to an uncertain battle against such a powerful Germany; also, it would have provided a second chance from the English point of view to establish an effective Western Alliance.

[ April 04, 2003, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Sir Jersey --- You are a Legend! Incredible amount of post. You can guess which one is my favorite But why did you go back on what you said? Comprimise is a bitch. God shall judge the nations too.

"You know what I like" --- The Big Bopper

[ April 05, 2003, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[JerseyJohn]

General Rambo

Great to be on the same side as the Original Legend. Glad I didn't edit that entry.

I don't feel I went back on it, what I was trying to do is say I don't blame the German, French or Russian people, only their leaders. There's too much double dealing in the world. Too much haggling over markets and control of economic regions. It's like something an Arab said in a recent documentary; that for fifty years the United States has been treating the Middle East as though it were a gas station, not caring who owned it as long as America was able to fill it's tanks there. And he's right.

Americans need to be concerned about how other countries are being run. If you heard the screams beaten children coming from your neighbors house you'd call the police; at one time it would have been considered none of your business, but outlooks have changed. A country that mistreats it's own people won't care very much about anyone living in another country.

It came to a point where any lunatic fringe that took over a country was free to do anything it wanted and look at the result -- at first only internal oppression, then the financing of international terrorists and eventually calls for so called Jihads -- a farce if every there was one! -- against any country they have a gripe with; usually the United States. There's no reason to tolerate it. Deposing these sick regimes is not aggression, it's performing a good deed. The hard part isn't defeating them, it's helping the liberated population rebuild and making sure they have a government that truly represents it's people in a positive way. That was the mistake we made in Afghanistan. Our only interest there was in seeing the Soviets defeated.

Once that was done we left a ruined country behind for any crackpot with money to buy and at a bargain price. So we created the Taliban, ignored it's transformation into a deranged government, then, like fatted morons looked on in disbelief when they attacked us -- not the country, but the entire society! Somewhere along the line we forgot that we'd promised to help them rebuild. Just as somewhere along the line we forgot that we promised to help the Iraqis when they rose up against Hussein (1991). What a national disgrace. Is it any wonder the United States is distrusted today even by those who don't necessarily hate us?

I think the future has to be for the people of the world to work with each other and make it a better place for everyone. It can be done, but first the national leaders have to be more honest. The dying Iraqi regime is a fine example of a government without respect for honesty -- even death every word they said every day was an outright lie!

Sure the United States manipulates countries and does things in it's own interests, in the past there was no shortage of instances where the U. S. actually played cloak and dagger games to bring down governments. That has alwasy been wrong and it needs to stop. No more Salvadore Allendes.

But if that's going to be brought up, it also has to be mentioned that no country on earth has ever rebuilt it's enemies. Not once or twice but after every damn war -- we even rebuilt Vietnam, a country that sent us packing with one of the most incredible failures in history.

If the United States had truly wanted to become a World Wide Colonial Empire we could easily have created something that would have made the Union Jack at in it's heyday seem annemic. But that was never what we were after. I don't mind seeing some poor ignorant thrid world mob screaming these things; they don't know the truth, only what their leaders tell them.

But surely there's no excuse for those people in those two European countries whose names I won't mention. They have libraries. They have books. They read. They can't be as ignorant as the remarks that have been coming out of their leaders mouths lately. That isn't possible.

xwormwood made a fine point earlier about Germany's government barely squeeking into power. So how can anyone hold the entire nation responsible for the words and actions of their leaders? He's right. I hope the same is true of the French. We're all stuck on the same planet. The days of competing tribes has to end before we can move forward. Instead of squabbling with each other we should spend more time worrying about earthbound comets and asteroids. I have a feeling one of those things might end up being the true judge of nations.

[ April 05, 2003, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Urko]

JerseyJohn: You're speaking about some reasons to attacck Iraq thinking in a better world, ok, but the problem is that the U.S. doesn't try to rebuilt Iraq (only its petrol), or make a true democracy so What's the problem with the politics from France, Germany and Russia? Why do they have to agree with that war if it's not going to be for "a better world"?

[ April 05, 2003, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Urko ]

[xwormwood]

Urko:

The problem is that nobody knows exactly the reasons why france, germany, russia refused to join the US in this conflict.

Even though i surely don't know every reason the us had, i know that we have to fight for our freedom, and it is a good place to start this fight in a country like iraq.

When i saw last week "the two towers" the 5th time i realized, that there are strong similarities (sorry, someone should help me out, me english is still VERY limited) to our world.

"open war is upon you, if you dare the fight or not" (roughly re-translated speech of Aragon when he faced King Theoden).

If we refuse to fight back these criminal states like iraq, lybia, syria, north corea we or our children will have to pay the price for our decision.

[ April 06, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[JerseyJohn]

Urko

xwormwood said exactly what I would have. Hopefully the United States will be committed now to staying in these countries and rebuilding them not only in an economic sense but also in a social manner, helping them create responsible governments that truly represent their people. No country is represented when led by the whims of a mystic who only appears when he's calling for a Holy War; that isn't a responsible modern government.

What I held against those European Governments wasn't their refussal to join the war, that's their right, it was the overwhelming anti-American sentiment that was expressed. Accompanying that was the incredible defense for the Hussein regime.

The reasons why his government was an outlaw state are too numerous to mention. It had nothing to do with the WMD, what it really had to do with was his handing out rewards to the families of suicide bombers and all the additional activities he was conducting to aid and finance international terrorism. None of which could have been proven to the satisfaction of those calling for proof.

To me, the fact that he ruled by a reign of terror, gave no thought to setting Kuwait's oil fields ablaze, attempted to invade two of his neighbors and has already used chemical weapons on tens of thousands of people was in itself reason enough to throw him out of power and bring his people back into modern civilization.

That supposedly responsible governments and the United Nations itself could fail to endorse this seems incredible to me. His kind of regime is not a menace to America, it's a menace to the entire World and most of all a curse upon his own people.

Other dangerous rogue regimes need to be dealt with as well. The day of the solitary warlord ruling by whim need to be ended.

It's becoming too easy for such sociopaths to present a problem to the rest of the civilized world. Then there's the matter of subject populations. No people anywhere should have to endure what the Iraqis have gone through under Hussein. Instead of constantly talking and bickering, the United Nations should be doing something about these cancerous tumors; instead it gives them and their associates a forum and refuge.

The 9/11 attacks finally jolted the United States into seeing reality. Perhaps the UN is not part of today's real world. It's reached the point where it's host and principal founder found it necessary to completly ignore it's indecisive incompetence and act on it's own with another principal member and chief founder. Something is seriously wrong.

I don't like the new role the United States and Britain are assuming, that of being the International Enforcers. Even if such things start out noble and good they have a way of going off course. I emphatically hope the United Nations, and most of all it's other principal members -- France, Germany and Russia -- begin working in harmony to depose dangerous regimes and build responsible ones in their place. It's either that, or watch our cities go up in smoke because some pampered horse's ass like Bin Laden decides it should be done.

xwormwood

Your English is fine; there's no problem understanding it. And I notice it's becoming better with each post you make. A similar situation came up today with Bush. An Iraqi in exile said the new Government should not exclude Iraqis who speak poor English or none at all. Bush's response was, "There are plenty of people who say I don't speak it so well myself, I don'e see this as a problem." Thoughts have a way of moving past the so called rules of grammar.

To All: Sorry if I seem to be preaching from a soapbox. It wasn't an intentional role but one that came about as a reaction. Ironically I've always been a critic of America's international activities but I honestly believe much of that is changing and doing so at an astonishing pace.

The old America would be replacing Hussein with another warlord who'd keep the gas station open to American interests. That's what the U. S. really wanted in 91 and it's why the Administration sold the Kurds and especially the Sheiites down the drain. This time the United States is going against that tradition, we're committing ourselves to rebuilding the country and also to establishing a representitive government. This could easily backfire on the US; I think it's a couragous move in the right direction.

If I say it too often, and I'm sure I do, you have my appologies. I'd much rather be writing about SC and WW II than preaching from this soap box.

[ April 05, 2003, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]