Why the Allies won

[Xanos]

I will mostly likely get atacked for this but, here goes...

Say the Germans did get the peace with france and the UK. Was smart enough not to invade a country with a two front war and actually won in the east, (Due to america not entering and keeping their production to themselves) and took the middle east to get that much needed item called oil.

How on earth are the Germans supposed to hold 4 relgions together (Christian, Prodestant, Shi'ite, and sunni) while killing off another one? Then how would they hold on to their gains? The middle east countires would have done what they are doing today, but against an emeny (Germany) that has even more of a manpower problem. Also, they would be supplied by 1st world nations with modern weapons.

Can you even imagine what would have happened if Hilter tired to extend his Holocaust to other countires...the revolts would have exploded out of every single nation under this new Reich. I would go so far as to say that people on Hilter's high command would have even helped them happen.

It seems to me that even if Germany did win the war, they would never have been able to keep what they won. It would be to much space, too few men, and way to many cultures to hold under one man that truly felt that the world needed to be cleaned of the unpure...

The Pax Germania would have fallen such as the Romans did; but much faster. There would never, ever have been a single month of peace within the new empire. And, like Rome, Germany would not have been able to stand for long...

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

Appreciated and likewise. Those Camp Rambo T-shirts make great collectables.

Retributar,

Great heralding of the appearance of Deep Thinking to the board's posts. :cool:

Scook,

Great assessment. William L. Shirer wrote a great book on this period, The Collapse of the Third Republic in which he chronicles the downward spiral of France during the 1920s and 30s.

I think the difference between the French molase and the path the Germans took had more to do with nationist attitudes at the end of WWI. Britain and France followed a very foolish course at Versailles. Germany was allowed to believe hostilities had ended in a one year armistace and not a surrender. During that year the German navy was interred at Scapa Flow yet the Royal Navy continued to blockade German imports, exactly as though the war were still in progress, the only difference was that the fronts no longer existed.

The German army was disbanded, it's place taken by freikorps that had very vague allegiance to their commanders and nothing else in particular. The eastern territories, won against Czarist Russia and guaranteed in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, were stripped away, and over the winter of 18-19 Germany suddenly became a defeated nation being raked over the coals by the victors.

This created the betrayal myth that played so well into the hands of the nazis. But if it hadn't been that bunch, it would have been some other group of rightwing extremists, or the Bolshevicks. But whoever wound up taking Germany from the pre-doomed Weimar Republic, they would have had the belief that Germany had been betrayed in 1918.

So, on one side there was a great nation smoldering and about to ignite and, on the other, there was another great nation suffering from total internal exhaustion.

In the decades that followed France went to brink of adapting solialism and its governments regarded the French left wing as the enemy, not a resurrected right wing Germany.

Along the way Britain and France often seemed to be going out their way, through the League of Nations, to create aggressor nations rather than controlling them. I'm talking about their hollow actions against Japan in Manchuria and Italy in Ethiopia. In both cases they only succeeded in driving important members out of the League while doing nothing to help those who had been invaded.

Add to all that it's waddling policies during the 1930s, no real national focus, the final selling out of it's only democratic ally, the Czhechs, and the lack of national enthusiasm comes into focus for 1939. As you said, France literally lost an entire male generation in the Western Front. Now it was being assured that exactly the same thing would be happening again.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Xanos --- The Germans had a plan to kill everybody who wasn't part of their Satanic masterace.

[JerseyJohn]

(continued from above post)

Xanos,

Agreed, that's pretty much what I was getting at. Even Hitler realized he couldn't conduct a program of genocide during peacetime. And he didn't try to.

The Holocaust wasn't initiated till the Spring of 1942, after Hitler had gone to war with the United States.

-- So, what I was wondering about was if the nazis would actually have fallen back on one of their pre-war plans, to deport European Jews to Palestine. As I said, this wasn't their plan for altruistic purposes, they saw it as a way of playing against the British in the Middle East and forcing the Arabs to throw in with the Reich.

[Lars]

Originally posted by Xanos:

It seems to me that even if Germany did win the war, they would never have been able to keep what they won. It would be to much space, too few men, and way to many cultures to hold under one man that truly felt that the world needed to be cleaned of the unpure...

The Pax Germania would have fallen such as the Romans did; but much faster. There would never, ever have been a single month of peace within the new empire. And, like Rome, Germany would not have been able to stand for long...

Er, he never planned to hold it all. Just carve out a bigger niche for Germany and then set up rump states all around.

[Wicky]

Karl Haushofer was the man behind the nazi Geopolitik. He taught Hess who as JJ already said wrote parts of Mein Kamf.

"Geopolitik contributed to Nazi foreign policy chiefly in the strategy and justifications for lebensraum. The theories contributed five ideas to German foreign policy in the interwar period: the organic state; lebensraum; autarky; pan-regions; and the land power/sea power dichotomy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Haushofer

Possibly if Germany established its landbased empire after making peace with UK, the UK could have become, if supported by USA, like Cuba, offshore and part of a Cold War from a very different Europe/Asia.

Karl Haushofer and his son feature in The Hitler-Hess Deception by Martin Allen which examines the Nazis desperate search for peace with UK and its rebuff before embarking with Barborossa .

link

[ October 04, 2006, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[JerseyJohn]

Wicky,

Thanks for those links -- I'm putting those two books on my list, Hess, his role in the Reich and his flight to Scotland all interest me very much.

Karl Haushofer and son are generally neglected in histories of the Reich, often not mentioned at all except as a footnote. And that's another area I'd like to know a lot more about.

It's interesting that, though the target of American propaganda films, they fell from favor with the nazi heirarchy during the war. The son was sent to a concentration camp and executed.

[Scook]

Our propagandists were better than their propagandists! But then, we had more material to work with.

[Liam]

Thanks for the Kudos JJ

fact is about all I said, when I was tired and much typos.. It's fairly true, I'm no expert but the way the war was run I honestly think some of us armchair generals would've done a fair job in comparison with those actual generals. Though we have almost every book written by those WW2 Generals and many Analysts..

Poor Frenchies, they weren't bad soldiers. I hear they were poorly Paid? Am I right, they were also not properly setup due to the Budget for the Maginot and the backwards thinking, rather than backwards Gears of the Frenchie Tanks. Great Armor, the best in the World.. I do not know if my WW2online Simulator is correct, but the Beautiful round armor, so thick that it would take a 88 to penetrate it is awesome.. better guns.. Yes Lower calibre do take them, but it is almost impossible without a flanking shot. Those Germans my Friends were good! Very good! Lots of Training, I wonder if the Frenchies had that? I hear that the Germans were the most disciplined and Well Trained Soldiers of WW2 until of course you begin to talk about American Airborne and the like?

All questions though, comparing one man to the next is no comparison. Italians didn't want that war, they had nothing to gain. A few brave Italians themselves a part however ultimately their Dictator was a Joke and their Role in WW2 would turn out to be one too. France's errors were so inbedded in yesterday they were flanked, cut off, and not even unloaded by the time the Real War came. In our Actual WW2online Sim, we replay it if the Allies had properly prepared and they DO WELL! Great ATGS, Great Tanks, Great Planes.. All in all a soldier is a soldier.. No need to knock them

In my Personal opinion, the French may have not had the heart for a Second War, the first they lost more than any of the Western Allies, they also humiliated Germany along with Belgium..they Karmically reaped what they sowed. No Adolf Hitler could've came to power in a Healthy German Republic, so bankrupt from repaying these two guys. Blame the Diplomats of the UK and France and the lack of hindsight. Not the simple soldier

P.S. Read up in this topic besides my responce, my views are echoed in some of our comrades views. I see that many believe the French were beaten up and tired to lose more men to yet another war, Though being occuppied would've been unacceptable to True Frenchmen.. I doubt that this Defeatist attitude some portray them as having is the actual truth. I'm sure they thought they could rally a defense similar to the one they had done, ferrying Troops in taxicabs to defend Paris pushing the Germans back in some brilliant Manuevers

German's were Nationalistic, they were not Lovers, they were Fighters. They were very Ambitious. Humiliation and degredation and death I think only increases ones resolve. You kill 1000 Al Qeida(sp you bread 10,000 as those 1000 become Martyrs and so fourth

I do not believe tired is Death on this scale, not even the Civil War. Tired is Weariness, suffering, and even worse than death men without arms, legs..etc... Saw a British Propaganda Film of all the poor boys returned, hundreds parading their missing limbs.. Quite sad, many suffered in WW1.. All that Hate, all that pent up emotion would've been better of released.. Just How? Justice, Hitler offered it.........and total self-destruction

Fact is there was no brilliance to be had, sadly, no time for it either. Think even in SC terms, if you had 2 Armored Armies a Degaulle HQ, all Frenchies full strength. All units upgraded. Plus real Spitfires protecting the Front with HQ, which the Limeys never comitted.. You might have, if you could defend aline from Belgium down through the Ardenne to the Maginot a decent chance, you'd need less units, at least..

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Colin I

We posted at almost the same instant, but I'm glad you said what you did about Guderian's advance and von Kleist's having to withdraw on orders instead of taking Dunkirk, as he wanted to do with Reinhardt's panzer corps.

As for those French jokes, adapted from old Italian and Egyptian jokes, the best thing is to ignore them. At least we didn't see the one about the Italian admiral inspecting his fleet through a glass bottom boat -- oops, sorry, didn't mean to say it.

[ October 04, 2006, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[Blashy]

Hitler was in charge, he was VERY clear that German expansion was at the expense of Russian land.

So he lost the war right then and there EVEN without UK or USA involvement.

Russians had more manpower and WERE outproducing Germany HEAVILY in 1941.

USSR alone could have beaten them, USA alone could have beaten them and UK alone could have beaten them altough it would have taken them much longer but UK was outproducing Germany in 1941 and it would have starved it through naval blockade.

Germany had dillusions of grandeur.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

QUESTION: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

ANSWER: Nobody knows, because nobody has ever tried.

Pffft, that's lame.

It's pretty easy to come up with a few US jokes too, you know.

About Iraq and their support of the tortureous regime there. About their aid to Saddam Houssein to fight Iran. Or about their aid to Bin Ladin to fight Russia in the 80's. About Vietnam. About them in WWII not doing anything until they were attacked. About them needing French help to get independance form the UK. About them genociding Indians.

Very lame.

[Yogi]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

QUESTION: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?

ANSWER: Nobody knows, because nobody has ever tried.

Pffft, that's lame.

It's pretty easy to come up with a few US jokes too, you know.

About Iraq and their support of the tortureous regime there. About their aid to Saddam Houssein to fight Iran. Or about their aid to Bin Ladin to fight Russia in the 80's. About Vietnam. About them in WWII not doing anything until they were attacked. About them needing French help to get independance form the UK. About them genociding Indians.

Very lame. </font>

[JerseyJohn]

TaoJah ,

Occasionally you say something that rings true, but when you do it's an accident. You're an anti-American broken record with only one side. And your remark about how the United States did nothing till it was attacked is idiotic.

The United States has been wrong many times, but it's also done a lot of good for a lot of other countries. You completely overlook that.

Even when I want to agree with you, as in some of the remarks about the U. S. involvement in Vietnam and Iraq, things a lot of U. S. citizens were against, I still can't because you're so ludicrously anti-American in everything you say.

What country or culture do you support since you've got such total contempt for the United States? North Korea? Stalininst USSR? Hitler? Iran? What exactly are your stilted views based on?

[jon_j_rambo]

This is getting good, let me get a coke & bag of popcorn

[JerseyJohn]

We're even handing out free 3-D glasses.

[Edwin P.]

In my view though the USA has the best of intentions until the law of unintended consequences rears its head government officials don't always know how to respond.

To certain degree this could be reflected in SC2.

Example: Allied players wants to pressure Japan, a member of the Axis Alliance to attack the USA so that the USA can come to the aid of Germany in Europe.

So, the American player decides to Embargo Japan.

80% the Embargo works and Japan is goaded into attacking the USA and the USA enters the war against the Axis alliance on Dec 7, 1941.

20% the plan backfires and Japan agrees to withdraw from occupied China. USA war readiness declines.

If on the other hand, the USA decides not to embargo Japan then its war readiness will not receive a bonus or penalty, and it will likely enter the war sometime during the period of April though August of 1942.

[jon_j_rambo]

Uncle Sam ain't no Quaker. There are times when Sam likes to headcrack, Indians, 'Nam, Iraq, etc. An instrument of evil, nah. Israel has had its issues over the millinuims too. No better place in the world than the USA. Freedoms, opportunity, etc. Yeah, we got some fruitcakes, nuts, and other select bad apples...but we rock!

[Blashy]

I will say that I fall in with Tao.

Who's side am I on? NONE, because ALL of the countries are out for number one and will even let their OWN people suffer to achieve it (plight of the poor in USA, lack of medicare, etc...)

And the old saying that they've done alot of good well you can save 1 million people but if you turn around and kill ONE person in cold blood your no good then the one who saved none and killed.

And USA has probably done more wrong then good, so has Canada, UK, Russia, China, name a rich industrialized country and its record of oppression, supporting corrupt Govts so long as whatever resources is in that country is available to them, selling weapons to keep certain areas unstaible. Well they are ALL guilty of it.

Funny thing is greed has continually blinded humans to learn from history. For example look at USAs arts (TV, Radio, Books, etc...) the most popular are the ones preaching violence or utter mockery of others (reality tv), look at its decaying school system (now the lowest among the top industrialized countries), how their poor are the worst treated of the top countries, their disfunctional correctional system again one of the last among the top western countries. Their more and more heavy reliance on their military to impose their views.

All of these occured to great societies that have fallen. The elite at the top ignore it all and let greed control their actions.

Oh yes, USA is defintily a society on decline, now let me say that the rest of the world is not doing any better but USA is victim of its own past that made it successfull, but then again they are not a victim of their own greed.

So I'm not on the side of anyone at least not any human. I'm on the side of the planet and the animals and if we don't change our ways the best thing it could do is fine a way to wipe us out because we are definitly prooving to be its only flaw when we could be its greatest asset.

[Lars]

Hey rambo, never received that email.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

To begin with, countries are not individuals, they don't think consistently from one year to the next, they act according to who is running them.

I have no idea what you're talking about. And neither do you.

Sure there are blemishes in US history. The slaughter of the North American Indians -- and the United States is not unique in doing something like this, it's been done from before recorded history; the displacement of one group of people by another. Sorry it happened, but it happened. For their part, the American Indians were not a nation, to refer to the tribes as nations is going some. Most of them were semi-nomadic and lost their lands to a migration. Get over it.

The Mexican War was unjust. But in 1916 the United States had more than enough provocation with Poncho Villa to have seized northern Mexico, but it didn't. It could have invaded Mexico and annexed the entire country instead of entering WWI, but it didn't. And what exactly did this country gain from fighting in WWI? Zilch -- no territorial annexation, no reparations, nothing at all. After the Boxer Rebellion, when other nations were busy grabbing still more of China than they already had the U. S. fined the Imperial government and put 100% of those funds into paying for an American college education for Chinese students. How tyranical.

The United States did not make the Phillipines a province -- instead it groomed it for independence and guaranteed it. Same with Cuba. If any U. S. territory wants to go it's own way it just votes to do so and we leave.

In WWII what territory did the United States annex? What plunder did we take? Sicily voted to leave Italy and become a part of the United States but the United States refused to accept it (please refrain from ethnic jokes here). Had the United States sought to do so, it could have annexed vast areas almost anywhere it wanted -- as was done by Britain and France after WWI and the USSR after WWII. It didn't. Instead it helped the nations ruined by warfare to rebuild.

There are enough things wrong with the U. S. and all other countries, but if you look at history with anything like an objective view you'll see American food going to places like Belgium throughout WWI, Japan and Russia during the 1920s and even today it sends food and catastrophe relief all over the world. I've never seen it reciprocated. NEVER!

You and TaoJah are both misinformed and ridiculous and I wish you'd be so at some other country's expense.

[Retributar]

http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/AMH-V2/AMH%20V2/chapter5.htm

The Russian Campaigns

Much of the hope for an early end to the war rested with the tremendous successes of Soviet armies in the east. Having stopped the invading Germans at the gates of Moscow in late 1941 and at Stalingrad in late 1942, the Russians had made great offensive strides westward in both 1943 and 1944. Only a few days after D-Day in Normandy, the Red Army had launched a massive offensive that by mid-September had reached East Prussia and the gates of the Polish capital of Warsaw. In January 1945, as U.S. troops eliminated the bulge in the Ardennes, the Red Army started a new drive that was to carry to the Oder River, only forty miles from Berlin.

Overall, far greater masses of troops had been employed over the truly vast distances of the German Eastern Front than in the west. Even as late as December 1944, over 3.5 million Germans struggled against the Russians along a 700-mile front compared with fewer than 1 million on the Western Front along a much narrower frontage. Yet the Soviet contribution was less disproportionate than would appear, for the war in the east was a one-front ground war, whereas the Allies in the west were fighting on two ground fronts (Western Europe and Italy) and conducting major campaigns in the air and at sea, as well as making a large commitment in the war against Japan. At the same time, the United States was contributing enormously to the war in Russia through Lend-Lease, almost $11 billion in materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, enough to equip some twenty-odd U.S. armored divisions); 11,400 aircraft; and 1.75 million tons of food. While Russian casualties against the Germans dwarf American and British losses, it should be clear that only the Allies working together won World War II.

[Nerd King]

Agreed JerseyJohn:

Some might remember me by the moniker Normal Dude (lost my password). Threads and comments like these prompted me to leave the Battlefront forums. I have no inflated ego about me/my country, but the absolute one-sided ignorance that is allowed to flourish here is disgraceful and counter-productive.

[Minty]

I'm so proud of this little topic I started..... like a father watching his son grow.

Top post Retributar! The US contribution and thorough cooperation of all allies was vital. Nothing can be taken in Isolation.

And I'm with you Jersey Jon, for the most part the US's intentions have been mostly honourable and did a lot for the end of imperialism. Tis not without mistakes but to put it simply the good far outweighs the bad. The present admin is making some big mistakes but lets not let that tar US history.

but as for your NEVER statement, you're wrong. Millions was given in aid for Katrina last year by the EU alone, both government and individual contributions. Adn there were collections in every high street in the UK after Sept 11th for things like the NYPD/Fire widows funds etc.There's still a lot of goodwill over here in the Old world for the yanks.

[Nerd King]

And let be known that Europe rules! : ) I was born in England, and half of my family still lives there, so people who are going to tar me for being a "stupid American" can shove it. : )

[JerseyJohn]

Minty,

I stand corrected. And I'm glad for it because it's good to know that it isn't the one way street I've begun seeing it as being. Thanks for pointing it out. For the record, I feel the U. S. position on Cuba has been ridiculous for four decades now and kind of wish it had accepted Castro's offer during Katrina.

Nerd King / Normal Dude

Appreciated. I agree with what you're saying. I also left the SC forums for a long period, most of last year, and a major reason was I became angry because it was always open season on the United States.

And the stupidity of it is that so many Americans, myself included, have been extremely critical of U. S. foreign policy since the 60s. I don't like the Bush Administration and, like yourself, feel it's made some huge blunders. Mistakes we'll be paying for in many ways for decades to come.

But to have to read these ignorant America bashing idiocies over and over, that's really more than anyone should have to put up with.

-- Just read your second post.

Well, all Americans are immigrants, even the American Indians migrated to the two continents in comparatively recent historical times, but are of course sevaral steps above immigrants.

The posts bashing other countries are also bad and, really shouldn't be allowed.