While statistical sources contradict each other, There is no doubt that Germany lost several million men and thousands of pieces of armor (tanks and artillery) on the eastern front in WWII.

My question is this: If you were the supreme allied commander, how would you have liberated Europe if Hitler had not invaded Russia and those several hundred infantry and armored divisions had been available to him to defend the western front?

I t might have had to go the way japan did!

The whole strategy would have had to be different. The air war would have been longer and more costlier, if an invasion would have even been possible.

I shudder to think.

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

I, for one, have a problem with the premise. The Reich needed an expansion of its territory. He had already conquered France and the Low Countries. He had an ally to the south, in Italy. His only option was east, through Poland, or north, to Scandinavia. Sweden was neutral, Norway was already in the Nazi sphere, and the Soviets were at war with Finland. Hitler was also loath to attack England, as he didn't have the Navy, Air Force, and materiels to mount a cross-channel invasion.

To support his expansion of the Reich, Hitler needed Poland as a launch point, but he ultimately wanted Ukraine, and the southern USSR to accomplish this.

Hitler was not a global thinker. He had never been outside of Europe, and had no concept of the size of the world. He was extremely parochial, and his strategic plans were never clearly defined, or turned into workable tactics.

I am of mostly german blood. Many times I have heard people say, "How could the german people elect and allow someone like hitler come to power? I want to hear someone say that now.

His plans were very thought out it is just he ran out of resources and time to administer all of them. Had he developed his atomic bomb on time or been able to complete his jet fighter plans then it is very well possible that the whole world would be speaking German right now. I am not going to get into the semantics of what he was and was not but in his mind and for his people, Hitler regarded himself as a protector of his people. When you have immigrates and uncontrollable immigration/ illegals who do not speak your language, assimilate into your customs and come to your country not to participate but rather to take its resources and benefits then pretty soon your country ends up like the place in which the immigrates left. Do not get me wrong, Hitler's approach and processes were all wrong but in his mind he did what he had to do for the greater good of his country. It is only later, due to those affected by the holocaust do people tend to make it all more one sided then it actually was. Like all the people who automatically assume that the civil war was over slavery instead of resources the south needed being taxed so heavily that they could not prosper and survive. The slavery component was thrown in on the end of the war when things were being settled.

With a topic like this, we can easily go all over the ballpark. It wasn't my intention to explore the roots of evil, the Holocaust, or point fingers at any one country or its people.

Instead, the war is on and we have a tactical problem to solve: breach the western defenses against a well-equipped and determined enemy with a reasonably short supply line and with reserves on top of reserves.

I think it would happen exactly the way it did except it would also be us that lost a lot of men, armor, planes etc. Someone compared it to Japan. Rather than leaping across Europe to Berlin, we would have had to crawl the whole way.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Hitler should have learned from history.

The biggest problem he had was believing Germans/Aryans were the master race.
He didn't think they would experience the same problems Napoleon had when he
invaded Russia. Germany probably had the finest army ever amassed. If he had
listened to his generals, he might have ruled the world.

He should have kept Russia as an ally, and with Japan they might have conquered
the world. Then he would have joined Russia to beat Japan, and then attack Russia.

__________________
PC, censorship
with a smile.

Hello, I imagine two scenarios

First, when the invasion of Japan was planned there were three landing sites. These were to be first attacked with aircraft carrying A-bombs. The resulting deaths from radiation would have been far less than that from enemy fire. The air war would have had to be far longer, and there is the possibility that England may have fallen before we had become involved. Then a cross Atlantic invasion, or perhaps an alternate stop off, or invasion area, would have been necessary. In short all means necessary, including atomic warfare with B29s. The ground campaign would have cost more, and Europe would be devastated.

The second scenario would involve either a failed offensive or a realization of the slim possibility for success. We would still have a type of Cold War scenario between ourselves and Germany. I would imagine Japan still would have fallen, and Italy also. Conflict between Germany and USSR would still be highly likely at some point. I believe it is stated in "Mein Kampf" about the need for
"living room" to be acquired in the east. He had a pathological need to destroy other "lesser" humans (untermensch).

Overall I'm happy with the way it worked out and haven't had to serve, fight a world war, lived in peace, etc. Father was a WW2 vet so I guess I've appreciated these facts over the years.

Time would have been on our side. Germany's resources would start to run out. Eventually, it would have been the same. Too many heavy bombers, with escorts, too many Sherman tanks, too many M1s, no oil, too many "gadgets" that aren't that practical in real war. When the war would turn against Germany, then Stalin, smelling blood, would have moved in to get his share, like he would have if we had invaded Japan. In 1939 the Germans had the best armed forces, by late 1943, the majority of their weapons were dated, and no usable navy. They still had a lot of combat veteran troops, but eventually we would have overcome them. Paint the scenario however you want, good guys still win.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

My take is uncountable millions and if we go far back in history, billions have died because they let dictators have power and then no one wants to lead the charge to remove them because it would be certain torture and death for you AND your loved ones.

This is possibly the biggest load of garbage I have seen on this particular forum.

Just a couple of points: 1. You can hardly say that his plans were "well thought out" when he was exterminating the very scientists who could have produced that atomic bomb, or when he foolishly changed the concept of the jet fighters that were being produced to making them into bombers capable of delivering bombs to New York. 2. Many of those "immigrates" you speak of, those Jews he was exterminating, had fought bravely and effectively for Germany in World War I. If you are trying to draw a parallel to the current problem with illegals in the US, you have failed miserably. 3. I am a Southerner born and bred. I have multiple ancestors who fought with the Confederacy, and I am proud of them and my heritage. My GrGrGrandfather owned a dozen or so slaves before the war, and surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse with Gen'rul Lee. I know that slavery was just one of several root causes of the WBTS, but I also know that without the existence of slavery, the war would never have been fought.

In answer to the OP: the only recourse would have been the use of nukes. I believe the development of nukes in the beginning was with the assumption they would be used on Germany.

__________________
Georgia On My Mind

That's the way it is, and always will be. Look at a map, look at all the border lines of countries. Nearly all are drawn with blood and will always be.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

Hitler had lots of plans, some of them quite detailed.

Fortunately, a great many of them (and even more, as time and his Parkinson's, syphilis, and meth addiction progressed) had only the vaguest connection with reality.

Just about everything he did was tainted by his own psychopathologies. A Hindenberg would have had the atomic bomb, and ridden into Moscow at the head of a RUSSIAN army. Instead, Hitler exiled or murdered everyone who could have given him the bomb, and starved to death dozens if not hundreds of divisions worth of troops with an axe to grind against Stalin.

How could Hitler have won the war? By dying in 1940, or even more so by not being Hitler.

At every turn, Hitler was our salvation in WWII. I shudder to think what might have happened if the Germans had been led by someone both sane and competent.

And the B-36 was developed to deliver them to Germany from the continental United States.

Germany was NEVER going to beat the United States without us just rolling over and peeing ourselves like a whipped dog, something that wasn't in the cards.

From North Africa - Corsica then Northern Italian Mainland.
At the same time - Northern Greece and up thru the Balkans.

Nazi Germany was never going to be the object of illegal immigration from anyone, anywhere. The Reich was busy purifying its population, not diversifying it. When they invaded Poland, and then the USSR, they spent huge resources killing the populations who were Jewish, Slavic, etc. Hardly the vision of someone gathering great minds for an international expansion of the Reich.

Hitler was obsessed with defeating Communism, and destroying the lives of those who embraced any political view opposed to Nazism. The history books are repleted with the details of Nazi Germany's plans for eliminating non-Aryan peoples. He relied a great deal on the occult, and mythological stories about German superiority. A number of his science advisers were nothing but hacks who couldn't sell their idiocy to others.

He ignored the advice of his General Staff who actually understood what an enemy might do in reaction to an attack. He obviously missed European history day in school when they taught about Napoleon's misadventure into Tsarist Russia. His only understanding of war was what he experienced in the trenches of the Great War. Hardly an area for developing a basis for strategic thought.

He didn't have a clear view of what the German people wanted. "Liebensraum" was a Nazi-born idea, and wasn't supported by the non-Nazi Germans. As the war finally turned defensive for Germany after ca. 1943, the Wehrmacht fought for the "Fatherland", not maintenance of the Nazi state or expansion of its ideals.

There were actually two aircraft carriers in phases of development, but there were no aircraft on the drawing boards which could be used on them. The carrier doctrine developed by the U.S. had been in development for nearly twenty years at the outbreak of World War II. At the outset, Germany didn't even have aircraft carriers in the shipyards. They didn't have any strategic naval vessels. Their only two battleships didn't have any support ships- No cruisers, destroyers, or auxiliary vessels. They had expended their scarce resources on U Boat fleets, which isn't the strategy of a wannabe global power.

The Nazis, at their onset of power, were nothing but a bunch of criminals who were faced with governing when they took power. They never did figure out how to be a government.

After the war it was determined that though Germany was working on an atomic bomb, they were behind us and would have taken longer to produce it and needed a way to deliver it. The sabotage of heavy water experiments crippled their progress. Also, chief physicists were run out of Germany early on and ended up on the Manhattan project. Had Germany not forced or allowed the scientists to escape things may well have been different.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

A time machine and Seal Team 6 should do the job.

I've been a student of WW II for about 50 years.
I think one major point is relevant here without going into a lot of detail:
In 1944,ignoring the fact that the internal assassination attempt had failed, the OSS had a viable plan to take Hitler out. The plan was never implemented because the consensus was that an irrational and drug addicted Hiler in power was a greated danger to Germany than to the Allies.
The war was effectively over once the Germans lost the Romanian oilfields. If we hadn't beaten them militarily they would have eventually run out of oil.
BTW: The ME262,the 1st production jet fighter, while a great technical advance was no match for the P51s in manueverability and became somewhat easy targets once the Allied fighter discovered this. Additionally it wasn't very reliable and a real chore to keep in flying condition.
Jim

Grossly untrue. Germany only had 57 U-boats at the start of the war, many of them small coastal subs.

Versions of the Bf-109 and Ju-87 were in production and had tail hooks for carrier operations.

The Kriegsmarine had the beginnings of a well balanced fleet, including four battleships (two of them battle cruisers), three pocket battleships, three heavy cruisers, six light cruisers, 11 auxiliary cruisers (commerce raiders), destroyers, E-boats, torpedo boats, and thousand of auxiliary ships, even four troop ships:
Kriegsmarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The ME262 was not very reliable, true the life of the jet engine was only about 15 to 20 hours. As for maneuverability maybe at first the P51 could take it on in the air but once the Luftwaffe pilots learned how to fly it the ME262 held a big advantage in the air. The Americans learned to take on the ME262 only when it was landing, taking off or sitting on the ground. Luftwaffe ace Franz Schall had ten confirmed P51 kills flying the ME262, Georg-Peter Eder had nine confirmed P51 kills. Not a bad ratio considering there were only 200 ME262s operational at a single time.

With no eastern front we would have been in sad shape with all the manpower wasted in Russia put into the Atlantic wall, development of the V-1, V-2, atomic weapons and the ME262. According to some the Germans had a bomb at the end of the war, just no way to deliver it. If you ever get the chance, watch Mission from Mussolini on the Military Channel or whatever it's called. Maybe the person the show was about was just talking but he said he saw an atomic explosion in late 1944 on some island in the Baltic Sea. The area he claimed he saw the flash was tested for radiation tested positive 65 years later.

__________________
LIVE FROM THE DAWGHOUSE

This is what I like about this forum. A lot of history buffs here that add a lot to what I thought I knew. I really enjoy reading these military history threads.

I believe that if Hitler had just conquered Europe and then took a break and rebuilt his military things might have ended differently. He tried to take on the whole of Europe, Russia and the USA at one time and even though he had a very strong military it was just too much. If he had done it a little at a time I believe he would have succeeded.

Another point.

Hitler (Germany) declared war on the US several days after the US declared war on Japan. While we were in effect at war with Germany at sea, and had been for over a year, it's not clear we ( the US) would have declared war on Germany in 1941, and possibly not in 1942. No matter what you think about FDR, Marshall and King were by no means stupid. They knew the material, manpower and resolve a two-front war spanning the globe would require. If Hitler hadn't declared war on us so fast, and a couple of months had gotten under our belt, I bet we wouldn't have fought in Europe.

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

Adding tailhooks to existing land-based aircraft hardly make them aircraft carrier worthy planes. The Bf-109 was extremely unstable on land-based takeoffs and landings, causing almost as many casualties as in-air accidents. The Ju-87 Stuka was a fixed landing wheel dive bomber, and was essentially obsolete by 1942. U.S., Great Britain, and the Japanese developed purpose-built carrier aircraft. During the fighting in the USSR the Stukas turned into easy aerial targets for the Soviet fighter planes.

The Kriegsmarine was a regional/coastal navy. While they did have some protection from cruisers and destroyers, their prime directive for the smaller battle cruisers pocket battleships was commerce raiding. The German admiralty knew they couldn't fight it out with the superior Royal Navy in extended surface warfare. While Bismarck was successful against a British flotilla, including sinking the poorly armored HMS Hood, and damaging HMS Prince of Wales, he was eventually sunk by surface fire after being fatally damaged by obsolete torpedo biplanes from HMS Ark Royal. In the South Atlantic where the Kriegsmarine practiced commerce raiding, they were handicapped because of the extremely long supply chain from Germany.

The balance of the Kriegsmarine was primarily relegated to shore duties and bombardment. The "beginnings" of a fleet don't count once the shooting starts. Further, the Kriegsmarine didn't have enough ships to protect the German colonies as did the Royal Navy. After the start of the war, the Kriegsmarine couldn't even protect transport and supply craft destined for the Afrika Corps. Failure to protect Wehrmacht materiels in the Mediterranean was a prime cause of Rommel's defeat in northern Africa. The RAF had a field day attacking unprotected German ships. While E boats were effective, they too weren't deep water craft, and couldn't stay at sea.

The Kriegsmarine had no aircraft carrier doctrine, and would never be able to develop it. The U.S. and Royal Navies had worked for more than fifteen years developing theirs. Although allied with Japan, they didn't have the resources to develop, in such a short time, the type of carrier tactics the Japanese had done in the peace prior to WWII.

While tactics do develop with combat experience, basic naval strategies must be developed during peace time. The Nazi government had only a vague vision. Their war strategy was aimed to the east, the Soviet Union. A deep water Kriegsmarine was never practically in the cards.

Fire bomb Germany until the war machine was dead,
We ended up with Werner Von Bron, for our final solution if all else failed.

Hitler promised Germany hope and change.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

LOL....

I can tell some you all posting here have never read Mein Kamp or some of his personal journals. Which Hitler wrote as a young man in prison, he dealt with an influx of immigrates coming into his country taking jobs all at the expense of his own country man. This internal struggle led to his utter hatred for Jews at what he viewed as them doing to his country. It led to the formalization of his views and the peoples socialist German workers party.

As far as the poster above throwing his agenda or appeasements into the argument. Well buddy I too had a great great grandfather who had his arm shot off in the civil war. I have deep roots into the south and I promise you there are very few that run as deep. However, your misstatement of the slavery issue and the civil war is just not right. While I will not argue it was a component of the times, the main reasoning for the civil war dealt with too high tariffs on goods and sovereign states rights more so then slavery issues. As radical as those in charge of our political system are today, they were considered more so during the pre-civil war environment. As matter of fact, the movie Lincoln is an accurate depiction of when the civil war was winding down, how they threw the slavery issue on the end of it in negotiations. Speaking of Lincoln maybe you should read some of his statements and you just might find out that he was not the great emancipator you think he was. For Lincoln definitely had opinionated views on the subject.

No comparison to our current border crisis was intended and the two are not even similar. So, please do not jump to a conclusion that was not there. I too prescribe that paranoia got the best of Hitler and if he had kept his cool or trusted his Generals more and not over reached then he could very well have accomplished his goals. For he was closer than most people realize. Again, some of you all should READ the ACTUAL publications of historical figures before you comment on what you think they meant or what their intentions were. I love to read the old speeches and publications of historically significant leaders. You can gain a huge insight into not only what their intentions were but how things were at that particular time.

At first Hitler seems to be a genius reformer. He has all the problems nailed and tells how it should be done. He was going to bring back Germany from a broken country to a world power. No German patriot should want it any other way. It's no wonder people ate it up. Then late in the first half he starts putting those convincing arguments he made on Jews and other undesirables. And he gets more erratic. One thing he didn't promise was a 'kinder, gentler, Germany'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

At first Hitler seems to be a genius reformer. He has all the problems nailed and tells how it should be done. He was going to bring back Germany from a broken country to a world power. No German patriot should want it any other way. It's no wonder people ate it up. Then late in the first half he starts putting those convincing arguments he made onto Jews and other undesirables. And he gets more erratic. One thing he didn't promise was a 'kinder, gentler, Germany'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

An interesting story... too bad that the people who STARTED the war didn't agree with you.

Slavery culture was the DRIVING issue of the Civil War, every bit as much as Islamism is driving war in the Middle East today.

Slavery advocates were simply unwilling, not just to give up slavery, but to give up their "right" to practice it in the NORTH and everywhere else they could implant it as an institution, including California.

Saying that slavery wasn't the core issue of the Civil War is like saying that German racialism wasn't the core issue of WWII in Europe.

Barring the Allies just giving up, Hitler was NEVER going to win.

The Germans simply didn't have the resources, nor Hitler the common sense, to prevail.

Declaring war on the United States was the death knell. There was no obligation to, nor benefit from doing so. It turned American logistical assistance from a trickle to a biblical flood.

Germany lost the war on logistics alone. Hitler's strategic [and micro-managed tactical] pratfalls were a bonus. The German "war" economy was a joke, it's R&D programs seemingly "managed" by Peter Griffin on "bath salts".

The advantage of a totalitarian regime is that it can make decisions REALLY quickly.

The inherent flaw of a totalitarian regime is that it can make colossally STUPID decisions REALLY quickly.

You saying slavery was the central view is not correct, if you had 3 or 5 top reasons for the civil war then it would have been 3rd or 5th in the reasoning. It was not the central ideology regardless of the views or how they changed to fit whatever view you would like them too. Not all slaves were treated badly nor were they very common in the south except for larger more wealthy land owners.As winners of the civil war, the north can state it was just the reasoning for it because it fitted what they wanted to accomplish. The North and Northeastern USA had slaves as well especially in their more lavish plantations of the time.

Although things change, History does not regardless of how it get misinterpreted over time. Hitler could not get to were he wanted to be because he thinned his resources and ultimately ran out of time. Had he been able to prepare all his countries vast technological resources in time then he would have been unstoppable. Tyrannical dictators sometimes loose sight of what they want to do and then when the world turned against him, It was over.

Hitler's huge mistake was declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor, playing right into Churchill's hands. Would we have gotten into the war in Europe? Probably at some point, but consider this. Had we concentrated solely on the Pacific and Hitler hadn't sealed his fate with a war on two fronts, how would things have played out?

An interesting assertion, but one with which the instigators of the Civil War most vehemently disagreed.

It was THE central cause of the war, no matter how many tales are spun to the contrary. CONTEMPORARY writings almost INVARIABLY refer to SLAVERY and the need to preserve and EXPAND it, by force if necessary.

TARIFFS were the important matter... and yet a Fugitive Slave Act was passed rather than a reduction or elimination of those same tariffs, allegedly so crippling that they provoked a WAR? Perhaps you can explain why if tariffs were SO intolerable, the South thought it more important to force, BY LAW, Northerners to help enforce slavery... IN THE NORTH...

Then you wouldn't mind BEING a slave, since you wouldn't necessarily be "treated badly"?

Being a SLAVE is INHERENTLY being "badly treated". It's to be treated as PROPERTY rather than as a human being. Not too long ago, we sent a guy to prison here for keeping three women locked in his home for more than ten years, under conditions which weren't all that different from those of the average slave in the South... albeit with MUCH less manual labor.

The Japanese used American POWs as slave labor in WWII.

I'd be interested in your justification for Southern slavery which wouldn't also justify the use of American POWs to build the Burma railroad and to dig coal in Manchukuo...

On the Civil War note, most Federal troops originally joined the war to 'Save the Union". At the time the focus of the war was being changed, there was a near mutiny among Federal troops. They did not join up to "free the darkies" (Grants memoirs).

As for the Confederacy, slavery as an institution was going to go by the wayside. The cost of a healthy male slave @20 years old was @$9,000.00 at a time when that was a boatload of money. (History of the Confederacy) Then you have food, clothing and cradle to the grave care. It was rapidly becoming an economic pariah, especially when you could hire laborers for around $.50 a day. Most of the poor white population were in direct competition with slavery for jobs. (Sam R. Watkins, Co. Aytch)

Now, from the standpoint of the learned and elite, the right to expand slavery or abolish it in new states and territories was a tremendous economic issue. But how do you get men to go to war for a cause that dosen't really benefit them? We have to re-focus the reasons to get them to use patriotism, pride and a fear that "they want to change our way of life and deny us our rights" (Sam Watkins). BTW, according to "History of the Confederacy" 85%+ of those that fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves.

Back to the Federals. While there are always men who would take up a cause and believe strongly enough about it to lay down their lives, most won't. Telling a young Wisconsin farmer that we are going down to fight in order to free the slaves would have gotten you nowhere. Buttttt.....

When South Carolina seceded and fired on Fort Sumter, we rallied across the North to "Preserve the Union". All across the South, the rumor of a vast invading army coming to "force those unruly children" back to the bosom of the Union, caused great numbers of poor, white southerners to rally to defend their homes. Now you have cause to fight for.

And boy did they!

(Sorry for the hijack)

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

Declaring war on the United States when he had neither the duty under treaty, nor when it conferred any conceivable strategic benefit, was just one in an endless parade of stupid and self-defeating acts on Hitler's part.

There is simply NO way, that FDR EVER could have gotten a declaration of war against Germany without a prior German declaration or an attack comparable to Pearl Harbor.

If Hitler had actually been SMART, he would have sent a polite letter to Roosevelt offering his condolences for the loss of life at Pearl Harbor and offering medical assistance and his services as an "honest broker" between the United States and Japan.

The war with Japan would have ended sooner, and the one in Europe quite a bit later.

But then, that would still have required Hitler to have NOT been a racist, megalomaniacal, syphilitic, meth head.

The war aims of the South and North were assymetrical.

The South fought the war in order to preserve and expand slavery. Secession was a means to that end. Without a perceived threat to slavery, secession would not have occurred.

The North fought the war in order to preserve the Union. Suppression of secession and elimination of slavery were means to that end.

The Japanese fought WWII to "preserve the national polity". Aggressive war, savage exploitation, and genocide were means to that end.

The United States fought WWII in the Pacific to terminate Japanese aggression which threatened United States interests. Retaking Japan's conquests and destroying military rule were means to that end.

Without secession, no Civil War.

Without Pearl Harbor, no Pacific War.

Hitler was badly served by Ribbentrop and the pact with Japan. This move was almost as stupid as the French-Great Britain common defense pact with Poland.

Churchill was one of the great opportunists in England's history. He moved from one side of the Parliament (Tory, to Labourite, and back) with great frequency, and dependent on his current personal goal(s). He was a racist, and played fast and loose with the truth when it came to getting back into power after Baldwin and Chamberlain both failed with his use of backstage tactics. He masterfully played Roosevelt.

Franklin Roosevelt was a naive liberal who decided his next "dabble", after keeping the U.S. economy is tatters for eight years, would be foreign intrigue. He had no concept of the ways of European politics and structure. His state department was filled with Communist sympathizers and operatives. Stalin got U.S. State Department information in near real time, and he actually wiretapped Roosevelt's rooms at the Soviet compound during the Tehran talks.

Roosevelt's naivety also contributed to the high number of battle deaths during the European campaign. He coined the term "unconditional surrender", which guaranteed that the Axis powers, especially Germany, would have to fight to total destruction. Had it not been for Roosevelt's insistence, Germany may have surrendered in 1944, when members of the German General Staff plotted to assassinate Hitler. There were a number of feelers put out by the Germans, but rebuffed by Churchill and Roosevelt. Word also got out that Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr.'s, post-war plan for Germany, was to return them to an agrarian economy.

The WWII era is rife with examples of stupidity and naivety; almost approaching that of that of the Great War.

Hitler had NO treaty obligation to declare war on the United States, NONE. As I recall, he had a duty to come to Japan's assistance if IT were ATTACKED (probably looking at the Soviet Union). Unless one considers Pearl Harbor an attack ON the Japanese, Hitler was completely free to remain technically at peace with the United States.

Hitler had to be confronted SOMEWHERE at SOME TIME. The destruction of Czechoslovakia proved that beyond ANY doubt. His word was WORTHLESS.

Had the French not been so UTTERLY incompetent in 1940, the treaty with Poland would have created a tripwire to give France, Britain and Belgium time to prepare.

The "idea" that WITHOUT the treaty with Poland there would have been no war in Europe is one worthy of an "intellect" like that of Pat Buchanan.

Even today half of us are at odds with the other half on almost everything. We see the same news, same published statistics and cant agree. Now I see "facts and figures" thrown back and forth about the civil war that was a 152 years ago and stands taken and contempt that the other doesnt see it their way. I wasnt there but my gr, gr grandpappy was. My personal view is the north fought to preserve the union. Slavery was down the list. Lets say either the south had won and/or they were just allowed to break away without a fight.
Not just now, but back as far as the first world war, how long do you think our country both north or south would last with the powers of more powerful nations like Russia, Germany, England etc? At some point and a long time ago, we would be under different European flags. Lets see: A $9,000 slave vs a .50 cents field hand: Thats 18,000 days of labor that = just under 50 years of labor (7 days a week, not time off and thats 49.3 years, to be exact), AND you dont have to provide shelter or eats for the .50 cents day laborer. I would like to see where that $9,000 figure came from and if its for real, just how prevelent could it be with the figures given?

Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Goering. These are not men of military acumen. They were marauding, murdering hoodlums, seeking to be deified by their countrymen. They never had a chance, they were just too self absorbed to realize it. Even without Pearl Harbor, we would have joined the war eventually. The USA would not have been able to watch the world crumble to tyranny, because of traitorous isolationist cowards who would have waited until they were at our borders to face them.
I believe that Roosevelt and Churchill did quite a good job, and it was their destiny to lead the war to destroy the Axis.

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

What they were was cult leaders and grifters, just like Heaven's Gate and the People's Temple. The old men and boys in the Volksturm taking up Mannlicher-Carcanos and Panzerfausts were little different from the victims of Jim Jones taking up cyanide laced cups of Koolaid.

Roosevelt and Churchill were flawed individuals who made some flawed decisions, but I find it supremely ironic that those who are the most hysterically critical of Roosevelt and Churchill are strangely mild (or totally lacking) in their criticisms of Hitler and the Japanese militarists.

Check out Goering`s bio. His father was a former cavalry officer, he was a air ace with 22 air victorys and after the red barron bought it, he commanded the flying circus squadron. Also got the Iron cross not to mention the blue max. As commander at the end of the first world war he defied orders to surrender his planes and had his pilots crash them. Wounded in the thigh, he got on morphine used a cane and got fat.
I dont think it accurate to say he had no real military experience. I dont like the cruelty, debauchery and arrogance all showed either but give the devil his due. All these views vary depending on who won.

Goering was the legit war hero who fell in with the wannabes and whackjobs.

He was an opportunist, who if I recall correctly, founded the Gestapo. At the end of the war, he saw his opportunity and tried to step into Hitler's shoes. If Hitler had been able to get hold of him, he would have been killed.

The man had taste. I have seen pictures of the inside of his house. He was quite the big game hunter, collector of art, fine guns and handed over his S&W when captured. He lived large. I was raised in a part of central wisconsin that was mostly german including my grandparents. Even the town was named Berlin. I knew a cousin of rudolph hess and also a family named Goering. A farmer next to us was a survivor off a U-boat that had some story of being on some island for a long time. He was vocally for germany durring world war two and I heard he got worked over for it. I have a uncle still living that as a MP said he was assigned to drive General Patton a few times. Might have been because he spoke german? Uncle art is now in his mid ninetys. He was in the bulge and the first to be drafted in our county when the draft came out.

I agree:
Goering doesn't belong in with those other three military incompetents. His biggest mistakes IMO were overestimating the strength of the Luftwaffe vs the British RAF and his assurance to Hitler that the Luftwaffe could airdrop sufficient supplies to their troops in Russia.
Jim

The main reasons for the Souths secession from the union dealt with trade and taxation on their development of industrial manufacturing and resources. All the plants were in the North, while the South supplied them with raw materials (cotton) that they could not process themselves. The North dictated the prices charged hence causing unfair trade which is why the South unified and sought out trade agreements with foreign governments. This enraged the North and hence the riff that started the separation.

Slavery as depicted in all those fictional movies had nothing to do with real slavery. My family owns a farm and it has been in our family since the beginning of and the end of the civil war. I sought out one time to see if any one of my former family members owned any slaves. This is right in the middle of prime Delta farming land mind you and in the county for which my family farm is located only around 10 farmers owned slaves and of those they amounted to roughly 50-60 slaves. My family never owned slaves and I have seen and read stories, hand written accounts that there was no man on a horse cracking a whip. The farmers where out in the middle of the fields working side by side with the slave workers because they had to pick the cotton, work had to be done and it was not going to get done by themselves. Now whether or not you can continue to believe Hollywood about how slavery was so prevalent in the South and everyone was beat down then continue to do so but it did not happen that way. Maybe it was more of a rich plantation owners indulgence and more relevant in Louisiana and Florida but from what I have read and seen in regards to slavery from that era. It is nothing like Hollywood depictions.

Hitler was a mad man for sure, but his efforts in regards to protecting his country got lost in his thirst for conquest and power. I am sure that no one here would doubt that it could have been different had Rommel had the resources and field regiment of Patton. Who knows how it would have came out then.

Based on information released by Russia after the collapse of the USSR Hitlers invasion was a preemptive strike. Russia was planning an invasion into Poland and Germany so if Germany had not gone north Russia would have gone south a few months latter. End results would have likely been the same.

Among other things Russia admitted to keeping at least 10,000 US POWs they had "liberated" from German POW camps.