Why the Allies won

[Desert Dave]

Yogi, elaborating:

@Desert Dave

My post was an intentional overstatement, but for what it's worth, I have no problem with dissent, and it is one of the reasons I am so proud to be an American. As an American, I can certainly express my views about the motives and methods of some although many seem to feel free speech only applies to those who agree with them.

Bashing? Maybe it is like the old quote on pronagraphy - Dissent vs Bashing, hard to define bashing, but you know it when you see it.

Don't care for that "@" business

That jjr started,

IIRC.

Kind of like - hurling a stone,

Or a picked-over bone,

Or it's a Blues Tune sans the moan,

See what I mean?

O/W,

Well said.

I'd only add... the Lens of Perception

Is, necessarily UNIQUE

For each.

The Doors of Perception

Open DIFFERENTLY... for each.

[... and the gap is VERY tiny; how has it

been said? We merely use, maybe, 10%

of our brain... well, ALL originates there,

other than what you might cull outta yer

imperishable Soul, and so, ipso, we CANNOT

actually SEE so very much,

in any given moment - ALL is vast

and we are quite tiny in compare]

On we go;

As Ottospmops hath righteously stated,

2-D language on a Forum Board

Has about as much to do with

WHO,

And, what we REALLY are,

As staring at an old

Washed-out PIC, say, circa 1888,

Has to do with the Cat

Standing directly next to you, true?

Nerd King, an instant - indignant!

Alright, why hasn't this been moved to a political forum? Wasn't it made for this inflammatory bullsh*t? Where the hell are the admins keeping things on topic? No wonder the SC2 community is dead. We all bicker about stupid sh*t when we should be discussing the game.

As I see it, pardon, but

One Cat's... "bullsh*t

Is another's... lotus flower.

Drifting along, hour by hour,

In a glistening, deeply listening Sea.

Take 'er easy,

There's plenty of room 'round here

For all sorts of stuff.

You can talk SC-2 all you want,

Who's stopping you?

_______________________________

One word for WHY the Allies won

The World War 2?

It's actually 3... they HAD to.

EVIL, pure and undiluted

Had been let loose.

Desparate, almost, the race

For very best Technology.

The stakes were huge.

Have... "progress," fairly orderly

And commonly agreed to, OR... live

Under the boot

Of bullying Doom.

BTW,

Thanks! JJ,

For the details on Hitler's witch-doctor.

I'd heard tell about some of it,

But, as per usual,

You've provided some insights

I'd not known.

**Would make a very apt

Center-piece for the latter half

Of your novel-to-be.

Luck!

With that.

[ October 08, 2006, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Desert Dave ]

[Yogi]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Don't care for that "@" business

That jjr started,

IIRC.

Kind of like - hurling a stone,

Or a picked-over bone,

Or it's a Blues Tune sans the moan,

See what I mean?

Just to be clear DD, my intent was not to "hurl a stone". I don't use the @ like jjr might. I do use it at times just to handle more then one thing on the same post and help clarify who I am responding too, no matter if it is a positive or negative response. If in this case you took the @ as offensive, I apologize, none was intended. Perhaps I should just use the persons name and leave the @ off, in the future.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Ottosmops:

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

... that the fuhrer, in addition to Parkinson's Disease and a host of other serious ailments, also had syphlis.

I didn't know this.

Is it somehow documented?

I can't imagine where Hitler could have been exposed to infection.

I always thought he transfused his sexual energy in his politics. </font>

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

...I for one and there are not just a few others who will be awaiting with anxious anticipation for your book.

IMO you have the clarity of vision to make this "what if" work, with premise. We can debate it, but in the end, who can say it couldn't have happened, only a fool?

I am sure that Hitler's demise, one way or another, was in the cards for 45 or 46. And who could deny that with some better decision making and an earlier exit by Hitler things couldn't have wound up vastly different.

Thanks SeaMonkey.

As you know, I've got several other WWII historical novels in the works that don't deviate form the main events. In many ways I'd rather write those, but the guy who does the actual printing wants the alternate history idea, so that part is sealed for me; it will be the straight history novels afterwards.

I believe that, even if the BEF hadn't been destroyed and Dunkirk never happened, that Hitler could still have come out of the war achieving his aims, which is to say, controlling Europe. I also believe he could have conquered most, if not all of, European Russia and fought the Soviets to a deadlock. The only thing he couldn't do was draw the United States into the war while he was also fighting the USSR.

So, the main basis will be that he either held Europe cooperating with Stalin, or that he held Europe while grabbing chunks of European Russia, but in either situation he doesn't involve the United States. And, as you said, Hitler dies in the late forties. Where it goes from there I'm still trying to figure out.

As I said earlier, I feel the Third Reich's own moral hollowness might have brought it down from within. But that would need to be expanded upon.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Thank you Dave, and I'm pleased to have found something relatively unexplored at the forum.

You're reading my mind, as usual. Hitler's mental deterioration is definitely great material for use in a novel. I'm planning to use it further down the road in a later novel that doesn't speculate on history but will work within the actual events.

In that one, both Hitler and Morell will be characters. :cool:

[Ottosmops]

Thank you, JerseyJohn, for the information about Hitlers doctor.

Such details are always appreciated.

[Desert Dave]

Thank you Dave, and I'm pleased to have found something relatively unexplored at the forum.

You're reading my mind, as usual.

LOL.

Yep,

And, as you have demonstrated MANY times

Over the years, John,

You are reading mine mind also!

Here fair soon,

Then I get some

Vexing VA matters over & done with,

I'll have to send EM

And we'll catch up on all the latest.

REALLY thrilled that you've, at last,

Begun to achieve some old goals. :cool:

First, though,

You had to live it on out,

And it wasn't always - quite, like that

Storied Atlantic Ocean we both

Know and love.

IE, falling ashore with such wonder-full music,

In some of those days, eh?

Well,

If it was - easy does it,

Anybody could do it,

And, very apparently,

They don't.

Wish it.

Sufficiently.

Etc, and, like that there.

[Minty]

Jeresy John, being a Brit I am biased but hell my grnadad fought at Dunkirk so I'm allowed to be. for me the single biggest 50/50 turning point of the war happened in May 1940 when Sir Winston Churchill, an outspoken old has been, narrowly pipped Lord Halifax as replacement to Neville chamberlain. It was very very close. The king wanted Halifax, chamberlain wanted halifax, the conservatiive party wanted Halifax, hell everybody did! Really it is astonishing that Sir winston got the job. The only reason he did is that the conseravtive party had no outright majority in parliament and Lord halifax would have had difficulty (as a member of the house of lords - for my US friends that is like the senate/supreme court vs parliament which is Congress but from which the PM is appointed) forming a Labour coalition. In truth Halifax took a senior role (foreign secretary - again for the my US buddies - secretary of state, condo Rice) thinking that he could still influence events. Had he been appointed PM he would surrended in Summer 40. No doubt. He nearly did anyway. As PM he would never have had the same influence on the US as the Half American ( actually by today's citizen rules Sir winston would have held both UK and US passports - yes he was American!) and total americanphile Churchill. UK quits in 40. No El alamein. No USA in the war. US only get involved in Pacific war. No USA support for USSR that's for sure.Hell FDR might not even have won the election in 1940 as he fought on a platform to keep the US out of the war (so politicains lie form time to time). With no War in November 40 to get into then what is FDR going to stand on? The increasing disillsionment with the New Deal? It's all over in Europe. And going into that meeting in early May 1940 it was fully expected that Halifax would come out PM. Winston got the job on May10th but nearly lost it two weeks later when men like my grandfather were scrambling for a way out of Belgium. Halifax and his colleague Boyle were commiting borderline treason talking to Hitlet via the Italains to come up with a ceasefire agreement and surrender terms. They would have been very generrous as AH really wanted peace with england. Scrap a few battleships, a few colonies and limited arms production. Nothing much. No SS marching down whitehall just stop meddling in europe. Fortunatley the british public went for an alcholic, fat,bald,old, cuban cigar smoking bombastic, ego maniac instead. Close call. Very very close.

[Liam]

Read some trash talk about Cost of War. The first book I read said this:

The cost of the war couldn't be calculated, whole towns and whole villages were removed off the map for eternity. No record or evidence that they'd ever existed remained!

The British had to pay to fight their primary enemy in 1940

The Americans paid to fight the Russians

It's a balance thing of Great Powers, however American's survived the Russians, The British Empire did not survive the Germans.

[Wicky]

Originally posted by Minty:

Halifax and his colleague Boyle were commiting borderline treason talking to Hitlet via the Italains to come up with a ceasefire agreement and surrender terms.

That's what Winson almost certainly wanted the Germans to think -If you get the chance to read the book I mentioned earlier in thread - '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

It might make you reappraise Halifax's role + the UK's Spanish ambassador's role in conning Hitler of the possibility of Churchill being tossed out in favour of a more surrender inclined faction in Government.

[Minty]

Wicky, I haven't read the book but I know the Author. He's a bit of quack / conspiracy theorist in my opinion. If Halifax has been that clever and he'd have made PM. If not then it implies he was churchill's emmissary and confidant which he was not as the 2 men loathed each other. churchill really was in danger of being overthrown as his power was based on a tory part that hated him and an allaince with the labour part that hated him more. With dunkirk happening a mere 2 weeks into his PMship he was toast.

Yes Hitler did believe he could get peace with the UK hence the dunkirk call off for 2 days and Hess. But the irony is that he could only have got it with Halifax as PM and with the BEF pulled out then it would never have happened. actually I think Chruchill would have not stood down even had the BEF been trapped. He'd have started a civil war rather than hand power to Halifax and with that to hitler.

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn!:

Your idea's for your book and possible movie should be looked at...like, right-away!.

'Clint Eastwood' is releasing a new movie on or around the 20th-22nd of October, called "The Flags of our Fathers.....IWO JIMA".

WoW!,...so if he even is releasing a 'War-Movie' in this day and age, then there is perhap's a real-chance of your book becoming a movie too!.

Clint Eastwood is a bit of a 'Maverick' when it comes to such idea's as your's, so the two of you just might get along pretty good!.

We wait with 'strung-out anticipation', of your communication with him!.

Feel free to do a Web-Search to find his Web-Site,...and query him!. As an example i got a reply from the 'Vice President' [ian Gordon] of BOLDOR Investment's, and he told me that 'Things are going to get really bad!'. So, you never know, Clint just might respond back to you!.

[Liam]

Agreed Minty about the fact Peace for the British was about as elusive as Peace for the Americans.

We had on our split in Government regarding the War and an internal conflict:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1940

FDR wanted to extend his reign as President for a Third Term, beyond our laws and people were worried that he may involve the USA in a second War in Europe. Noone wanted this, he promised not to, and actually held out on the poor Brits, but there was a definite threat to his leadership. His Primary contender was VERY ANTI-WAR had he been elected, HELL with Lendlease and hell with the Brits...

Aside from a Declaration of War on the USA there wouldn't have been a Joint effort. It is very likely the british would've been better off dealing with Hitler, but that would've met the end of the World. It would've kept their empire in tact for the time being. Many I'm certian in England knew that longterm it meant economic ruins to defy Hitler in the UK. Fracture of Empire, as she needed her Navy and Army to mantain such a fragile large grip on the world. With an Psycho in Europe, noone would've contended against British Imperialism in Africa, India, etc... Though who is to say the Japanese wouldn't have dismantled the Richest part of the brits, India for themselves. Either way the British were bound to lose out some...

I do know what it was like in England in the 50s, my Dad has told me, still rationed, well into the 60s and the ole saying goes, "English eat meat once a week, American's don't "

Many American's do not understand that Churchill was their savour and though he did look out for some British Interests, he put them aside to stand up to Hitler. Stalin was a clever little man, played Rosevelt. The British were bound to fall eventually, at least their sacrifice was for the World and they should be remebered nobally for their contribution rather for the Evils they've committed in their ascent to Empire.

Originally posted by Minty:

Wicky, I haven't read the book but I know the Author. He's a bit of quack / conspiracy theorist in my opinion. If Halifax has been that clever and he'd have made PM. If not then it implies he was churchill's emmissary and confidant which he was not as the 2 men loathed each other. churchill really was in danger of being overthrown as his power was based on a tory part that hated him and an allaince with the labour part that hated him more. With dunkirk happening a mere 2 weeks into his PMship he was toast.

Yes Hitler did believe he could get peace with the UK hence the dunkirk call off for 2 days and Hess. But the irony is that he could only have got it with Halifax as PM and with the BEF pulled out then it would never have happened. actually I think Chruchill would have not stood down even had the BEF been trapped. He'd have started a civil war rather than hand power to Halifax and with that to hitler.

[JerseyJohn]

Ottosmops

Appreciated. I think the normally glossed over details are often the most interesting.

Desert Dave,

My thanks, very happy to hear that you're down to the last VA details and things are on the up. Looking forward to having some talks under the New Mexico sun and on the Jersey Shore.

Minty,

What you've said comes across pretty clearly in the opening segments of the BBC documentary, The World at War with interviews from the late sixties and early seventies. Several people who were members of parliament during the late thirties and early forties talk very openly about not liking Churchill for the choice of their leader. One said of the Norway operation, (paraphrased, sorry) "It was just like Galipolli, the thing sounded very good but somehow just didn't work. Churchill was always coming up with things like that." And it's true, many of Churchill's strategic acts came down to flat out meddling, often with disasterous effects -- Greece 1940 instead of driving the Italians out of Libya before the Germans could arrive; Tobruck 1941; Singapore 1942 and various others.

One of those same parliamentary members went even farther back and said he felt the alliance with Poland was a huge mistake. Concluding with something along the lines of, "And in the event we didn't lift a finger to help them out. Not a finger -- because we couldn't!" To me the implication was that the UK and France, after selling Czhechoslovakia down the river, should have queietly withdrawn from Eastern European affairs and, if anything, sought to mend things with the USSR. At least that three way alliance would have meant something. Stalin was receptive to them even up to the Spring of 1939.

Fast forward to the defeat of France, I think Britain, if the defeat would have involved them more directly through the loss of the BEF, would undoubtedly have come to terms. I don't think it would have involved the ceding of any colonies or territory. As was said earlier, to me Hitler would have returned most of France and the Low Countries -- it would be unreasonable to assume either Britain or France could have accepted those places as a German launchpad for later invasions and air wars -- with Germany keeping Norway, Denmark and Western Poland. From there it would have been the inevitable brawl between Hitler and Stalin.

Japan is an interesting question. It wouldn't have had time to move into SE Asia, so the FDR embargoes wouldn't have been instigated. No doubt, eventually, it would have sought to expand into the Dutch East Indies -- the lure of all that oil, rubber and other resources would have proven too much to pass on. But without a European war the whole thing would have needed to be done differently.

I hope your granddad left a lot of info behind about his experiences at Dunkirk and during the war in general. I've seen some of the local people leaving their memories on film and they're very interesting. One in particular, by an army engineer I knew pretty well around 99-2000. I was trying to find him to say I'd seen his interview on public access and really enjoyed it, but found it he'd passed on. Well, at least he left that account. Unfortunately he left out some of the juicier adventures he told me about, involving French palaces and wine cellars that he and his unit had to themselves after putting booby trap signs all around the perimeter.

Thanks for the information on Halifax, Boyle and the others. It will definitely come in useful. Oh, and speaking of Churchill, people today forget that even as the war ended he was knocked out of office because he began talking about keeping the Empire in tact!

Wicky,

I know there's an element of truth in what you're saying about the peace deception, and it became more true as Churchill was in office through 1941 and the U. S. and USSR became participants. But during the period we're discussing, the Spring of 1940, it seems unlikely that his position was secure enough to be assured if the UK suffered a huge disaster such as the loss of the BEF on the continent.

Liam,

It wasn't actually illegal to serve three or four terms, it was just understood that it wouldn't be done. A lot of historians feel FDR's cousin, Teddy Roosevelt could have done it if he hadn't put his foot in his mouth about not running for reelection.

I agree completely with you, if there hadn't been a war in Europe, FDRs prospects of being reelected would have been very slim. He'd done a lot of unpopular things during his second term, such as attempting to stuff the Supreme Court with judges who were in his pocket. He failed miserably and had a lot of ill-will from both parties as a result. It seems that the prospect of war in both the Atlantic and Pacific was his selling point. Odd because, as you said, the Republicans were openly against involvement in either Asia or Europe. Yet, they lost. Try and figure it out, I can't. Unless, of course, the negative memory of Coolidge and Hoover was still figuring prominently in the public vote.

Retributar!

I don't think a letter from me to Clint Eastwood about a movie based on a novel that hasn't been published yet would go very far. In fact, I'm reasonably certain it would never reach him.

It will take 2007 for me to get it together in a publishable form and, hopefully, it will be printed early in 2008. I'll eagerly send out letters at that point and am keeping all my fingers crossed -- which makes typing much harder.

If you're interested in agenting I'd be overjoyed. The story can always be written as a screenplay while being written as a novel and I'm sure we can work out an arrangement not only for this story, but for several more.

Seriously, if you're interested please send me an email:

JohnofJersey@AOL.com

Your enthusiasm is contageous. :cool:

[ October 09, 2006, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

All the WW-2 vets I've talked with, weren't & aren't that thrilled about talking about the War. Their faces cringe just hearing about it. Watching your friends & countrymen blow up in front of you, can't be glorified.

[Retributar]

jon_j_rambo!... if i was one of them, i would react the same way!.

Living a 'Real Life Nightmare' can permanently shake and or shatter a human being!. So if i was one of them, i would prefer to never talk about it!.

There alway's will be exception's to that, so if one searches hard enough, a willing vet or two just may share their experience's!,...and might even be glad to do so!.

[jon_j_rambo]

My Uncle who is alive & well today (by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ) served in the US Navy. His destroyer was sunk by U-Boats in the North Atlantic, only a handful survived. He only shared the experiences with a couple family members, we were to never ask him about it.

An old neighbor fought at Bataan. Ever so often he would "bayonet the air", cursing Japanese names. He would talk about it, but it wasn't pretty. He's in Heaven now.

A dude in church fought as Bastogne, he showed us his chest scars from "field surgery". This Legend was also had several missionary houses for vets. Lost touch with this guy.

Another Uncle fought in Korea, he made no comment about war, except to follow Uncle Sam's orders. He died a few years ago due to cancer. Very funny dude, he worked for the Teamsters.

Played golf with this dude, he was a gunner in the US Navy, fought in all major engagements in the Pacific. He was very thankful that the closest Kamakazi crashed 200 yards away. Terrifying events, he couldn't believe that Kamakazis could penetrate a sky full of bullets. This dude has scraped death in many forms, he plays golf nearly every morning...a Legend.

On the otherside of the family, have a Uncle who flew Air Calvary against the VC. The dude is wired tight to this day, part time preacher.

Golfing buddy fought in Panama, he is spoked still from having two buddies blasted by some insurgents. He waxed the carload that got those members of his squad.

My cousin fought in Desert Storm I. He enjoyed it.

There are lots of Legends in this great country, which has been blessed by the Lord of Hosts.

-Legend

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

There's a difference between running around boasting about it, or reminiscing -- I've seen very few war vets do that (but I have seen a few, from various wars, who did do that) and leaving a historical record.

My late friend Ricky, for example, made no pretense about how terrible WWII was. He was a combat engineer and had to do things like put up a pontoon bridge while under enemy fire. There was no pretense about that having been fun. The part he told me that was humorous was how he and the others in his unit sealed off a French Chateua that was to be used as an HQ for the winter of 44-45. They posted signs saying they were clearing booby-traps and, when they were done, left the signs up an extra day and enjoyed the wine cellar.

That sort of thing is typical of what I've heard veterans tell me, they'll go into the battles, but with reluctance, but all veterans, myself included, are always quick to tell about the humorous moments.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Golfing buddy fought in Panama, he is spoked still from having two buddies blasted by some insurgents. He waxed the carload that got those members of his squad.

Panamanians fighting against US invaders were not insurgents - regardless of the rights and wrongs of their cause!

No doubt there are Panamanians who are also "spoked" by having carloads of their friends "blasted" by some Yankees.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sir Jersey --- Agreed, there is a difference between recounting & glorifying. The majority I known don't want either of them. God finds no pleasure in the punishment of the wicked either.

@Stalin's Organ --- So they are not insurgents? Okay, that's fine. How about the enemy? My buddy used a grenade launcher on these fine cultured people. How about we call them Panamanian-Central-Americans? How about we call them a bunch of dudes in a car shooting at Uncle Sam's troops? Sorry, I didn't have their birth certificates given to me from my golfing buddy.

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo,

True. I've known many vets who wouldn't discuss it under any circumstances. I never asked anyone to tell me about these things, mainly overheard conversations from childhood. When I was six or seven (1955 or 56) I even heard a very old man talking about his days in The Spanish American War. During the fifties there were many WWI vets and they were the ones I remember being most talkative about it, even the men who'd seen very severe action in France.

I'm glad some of them do tell about what they experienced, otherwise we'd have no way of knowing anything about what it's like, unless we went through it ourselves.

As for the Panamanians -- why not call them Panamanian soldiers? They were fighting for their country just like Americans would fight for their own. And in the Middle East, I don't have a problem saying the troops we ran through in two wars were Iraqi soldiers. And, as I said, they were fighting for their country.

Stalin's Organist makes a good point. People in war, on both sides, see things happening to those who they're fighting with. It's no different for a Panamanian than it is for an American, a German, Japanese, Iraqi or anybody else. If we intentionally, or unintentionally, cheapen their patriotism and loss, we also cheapen our own.

[jon_j_rambo]

Sure, fighting for your own country for whatever reason constitutes some kind of respect.

Remember this though: I respect Goliath, but God wasn't on his side.

We are better to serve God than man. I understand the human standpoint, which likes "equality" & "measuring sticks" for both sides of war. But there is a war for a reason, people war because of disagreement of some sorts.

BUT, I do not have to respect the enemy's patriotism to have love for my own. Meaning, I don't need to know evil, in order to love good.

"Doing right has no end" --- from the movie classic, Outlaw Josey Wales.

"They look pretty, but can they fight?" --- Oddball from the Dirty Dozen.

"Marching with uniforms doesn't make a fighting man" --- Alamo dude.

When you fight the enemy, take the whole armour, the breastplate, shield, & helmet...in order to quench the fiery darts of the wicked.

[JerseyJohn]

No, you definitely don't have to respect the other man's cause. Sometimes people fight for a cause they don't respect themselves.

Americans were in that situation in Vietnam, especially after the first year or so, when men who didn't want to serve were drafted and sent to fight in a war they didn't believe in. Still, they fought, bled and very often were killed.

Returning home they often took a lot of ignorant flack from their countrymen because they'd served in an unpopular war. I even remember WWII veterans who acted that way. Idiots!

So how do we measure patriotism? Maybe true patriotism is fighting for your country even you don't believe in what it's standing for at the time. I'm sure millions of Germans, Japanese, Russians and Chinese have been in that situation, and probably a lot of North Koreans and others. But unless you've got the ability to get out and resettle in another country, you're stuck with whatever it is that your country is doing.

I could easily have moved to Canada before receiving a draft notice. That didn't seem like an option to me, though I don't look down on those who did; especially if it was for idealistic reasons. I have nothing against Canada, but it wasn't my country. At the time I felt my country was wrong, but that's where I lived.

[jon_j_rambo]

Muhammad Ali took a viable option, he went to jail, gave up his boxing title too.

Hmmm, where is Desert Dave right about now? Shouldn't he be chiming in with some CCR,"I'm no senator's son"?

I wonder if Amish dudes were exempt from the draft?

Alvin C. York started out against war too, after his born again experience.

[jon_j_rambo]

I have something against Canada, their CocaCola is awful !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When I was in Windsor, I bought a Coke, tastes like it was made with rainwater, nastiest soda ever