RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/

RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

JohnWarren -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/7/2007 8:53:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy The AXIS powers were bound by treaty that if somebody declared war on one of them it would be war on all of them. It was a defensive treaty and the Japanese violated it by attacking first. Nazi Germany was under no compulsion to declare war on the US and why Hitler did is one of the great questions of the century

sleazy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/7/2007 9:08:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Yet, all the battleships, which were largely irrelevant against Japanese carriers and torpedo bombers, were left tied up to the dock. Along with all those sailors. When I feel overly cynical, I tend to think the US Government left them there to get sunk, inflame US public opinion, and convince everybody to follow the president into war. There are many people who claim documentary evidence that the powers that be knew exactly what was coming, but the conspiracy theory threads are elsewhere :) If anyone feels they desperately want a link try me on the other side

Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/7/2007 10:07:04 PM)
ok sure messed this up LOL

Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/7/2007 10:09:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Yet, all the battleships, which were largely irrelevant against Japanese carriers and torpedo bombers, were left tied up to the dock. Along with all those sailors. When I feel overly cynical, I tend to think the US Government left them there to get sunk, inflame US public opinion, and convince everybody to follow the president into war. There are many people who claim documentary evidence that the powers that be knew exactly what was coming, but the conspiracy theory threads are elsewhere :) If anyone feels they desperately want a link try me on the other side yes my uncle while still having a chip on his shoulder over losing so many friends at pearl to thins day maintains that rosevelt knew the japs were going to attack and let it happen so we could get into the war with germany and help england with boots as well as change the under the table equipment they were shipping over there to over the table... um... if i remember correctly dont think about ww2 much any more...

NorthernGent -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 1:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne in wwii we essentially were isolationists and in my opinion that is a war we should have entered long before pearl. i do not understand why the people of this country did not go to war prior. it seemed inevitable to me. Real0ne, you know, here I can understand why the US people did not want to enter WW2. Why should they get involved in a war fought by idiotic European imperialists. These countries had been at it for centuries and WW2 was the culmination - it was only ever going to end one way. Why should a person in say the US or Brazil sign up to get involved in sheer lunacy? Look at Britain, two world wars bankrupted this country and we're still paying for it now in more ways than one. Or do you mean the war in the pacific?

seeksfemslave -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:03:01 PM)
quote: Original myfriend_NG These European countries had been at it for centuries and WW2 was the culmination - it was only ever going to end one way. Do you recognise NG that is highly possible if not probable the the Germans would have won if the US had not become involved ?

meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Do you recognise NG that is highly possible if not probable the the Germans would have won if the US had not become involved ? Not at all. The end of the war would have probably been something like the WWI armistice. There was no way Germany could have occupied Britain who had won the Battle of Britain and who had a superior navy. The superiority of Britain's navy and airforce were the reasons Germany never seriously tried to invade Britain. Germany was relying on a quick war and the moment they lost the ability to bring the war to a swift victory was the moment they couldn't win and needed to find the best possible negotiated end to the war. Unfortunately Germany had Hitler in charge who was willing not to leave a brick standing in Germany. Any sensible German leader would have realised as soon as they failed to knock Britain out of the war would be to get the best possible negotiated settlement. At that point Germany probably could have got a settlement they could have described at home as winning and so could Britain. Which is how wars usually end only to begin all over again a couple of decades later.

Mercnbeth -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:19:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Original myfriend_NG These European countries had been at it for centuries and WW2 was the culmination - it was only ever going to end one way. Do you recognize NG that is highly possible if not probable the the Germans would have won if the US had not become involved ? This can be an interesting discussion. Seeks, is "involvement" limited to a declaration or war or can it include materials and weapons? If the "lend/lease" program was expanded to include carriers, military warships, submarines, and all war materials would that have been sufficient? I've always thought that with delay of the US entry Germany would have had advanced rocketry by the end of the war and perhaps their own atomic weapons. However, I don't know if what I've read about Hitler's poor leadership which didn't prioritize those weapons was reality or post-war winners writing the history. Can I add another "what if"? What if the UK fell? Suppose the Dunkirk evacuation of 300000 troops failed? Would Europe, and Russia for that matter, been the German sphere of influence equivalent to the post WWII USSR?

meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:28:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth What if the UK fell? Suppose the Dunkirk evacuation of 300000 troops failed? Would Europe, and Russia for that matter, been the German sphere of influence equivalent to the post WWII USSR? There wasn't a possibility of Britain falling. It's army was useless after having been seriously rundown after WWI but it had the best air defence system in the world and its navy was more modern and much larger than Germany's. Britain was in no condition to fight a ground war in Europe, that was completely out of the question for Britain but it had more than enough resources to defend itself and keep its sea lanes open. Germany required a quick victory because of its limited resources, it didn't get it. The war cost so much because the Nazis were willing to completely sacrifice Germany. Any rational leader would have sought to make a deal with Britain once it was clear Britain could not be taken. However, Germany had Hitler and Britain had Churchill by then who was also not willing to compromise.

Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:29:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne in wwii we essentially were isolationists and in my opinion that is a war we should have entered long before pearl. i do not understand why the people of this country did not go to war prior. it seemed inevitable to me. Real0ne, you know, here I can understand why the US people did not want to enter WW2. Why should they get involved in a war fought by idiotic European imperialists. These countries had been at it for centuries and WW2 was the culmination - it was only ever going to end one way. Why should a person in say the US or Brazil sign up to get involved in sheer lunacy? Look at Britain, two world wars bankrupted this country and we're still paying for it now in more ways than one. Or do you mean the war in the pacific? i think the war in the east and west were one in the same. It would make sense to me if hitler had a backdoor deal with japan to hit us with the idea that if we were busy in the pacific, opposite side of the planet from him, we would not be willing to take on germany too since we were anti war in the first place. Meantime he could cream the european nations and finally britain and russia. and he nearly did just that. That anti war attitude still rolls strong here. Whether its european or american imperialists past present or future. The bottom line is we wind up in these wars regardless if we want to or not. Maybe i am over simplistic about this but.......... Ok here is the picture....r1 has enourmous resources and has built a huge empire. which in itself implies r1 has a geneality that most likely is somewhere along the line connected to the ruling elite. The imperialists. So russia is being a jerk and wont do business with r1... and they have resources that i really want. So i find a guy with a hunger for power. call in a few markers. get him into power. give him a loan at a nice low rate for a military buildup or just sell him arms if ithink he will be the loser. well adolf my ole buddy, you got where you are cuz of me, i really would like to do business in russia. you will see to that wont you ole friend? So adolf starts taking over his neighbors which pisses britain off and the european nations get dragged into this one by one because hitler now needs ever growing resources to support the ever growing expansion of the war effort. Meantime russia needs arms so r1 being the great guy that i am cut a arms deal with russia at a nice rate so russia can fight germany. Same with britain and same with the us and japan. The world is left a shambles in the process, and who is there to save the day? Why r1 of course as i give everyone loans to rebuild LOL So the only way to thwart at least some of this pillaging is to go to war right away before the tyrant gets to far. because you see all to often the whole thing is a setup in the first place! Then totally take over the country such that r1 is cut out of the picture and which ever country you just took over you can personally refinance them or r1 will surely help... Good people get dragged into manufactured wars, most wars today are manufactured. That is why i said we would have to get in it anyway.

Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:37:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I've always thought that with delay of the US entry Germany would have had advanced rocketry by the end of the war and perhaps their own atomic weapons. However, I don't know if what I've read about Hitler's poor leadership which didn't prioritize those weapons was reality or post-war winners writing the history. speaking of atomic, they were not far off from having that completed and also if i remember my numbers correctly were about 2 years off of the delivery system, a long range bomber like the 38 as delivery system to the us.

meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:38:36 PM)
The Germans proved no match for the Russians and the Russian winter. The Russians kicked the German's arses. The Germans suffered their first defeat in 1940, from there it was down hill for them. Bad decisions and defeats all the way apart from a couple of offensives that were beaten back. Only a country with a death wish would have done what the Nazis did. The war lasted so long because the Nazis were happy for Germany to be bombed back to the stoneage.

sleazy -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:39:57 PM)
If the US had not entered WWII Britain would have fallen. Britains heavy bomber fleet was not enough to keep the industrial machine decimated. Britains navy would not have been able to keep the Atlantic open for long. All Germany needed to do was starve us out, it could have kept its troops fighting, on the eastern front, or even sued for peace there. This of course assumes the US continued to offer material support in the form of lend-lease, if that had been withdrawn it then Germany could have invaded pretty much at will. The only reason Germany hadnt already invaded prior to June 1944 was the commitment to fighting in the east.

KenDckey -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:44:04 PM)
I recognize two types of war. Religious war. these are done because of someone's intrepretation of their religious doctrine and religious abuses caused by someone elses intrepretation of their religious doctrine. Economic war. these are done for economic reasons. Hitler wanted control of all of Europe and all it's economic riches I believe. The Japanese struck the US because of the need for natural resources which were being blocked. I agree that during the prosecution of a war, the innocent pay worse than the military. They don't have the protections, equipment, training, resources,e tc to adequately protect themselves. I also believe that each and everyone of us are at war every day. Call it office politics, homelife, etc. These small wars over position, right/wrong, economics, etc happen to us each day over and over. I believe it is inbred into the human psychie (sp). I'm going to knock your head off because you looked at or spoke to my wife or daughter. You passed me on the highway, whatever. I see these daily in the media. These small, and unjustified wars feed our "need" for war. Regardless of it's size, impact upon society or us as individuals, I believe that war is and will be continuing as long as man walks the earth.

Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:48:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If the US had not entered WWII Britain would have fallen. Britains heavy bomber fleet was not enough to keep the industrial machine decimated. Britains navy would not have been able to keep the Atlantic open for long. All Germany needed to do was starve us out, it could have kept its troops fighting, on the eastern front, or even sued for peace there. This of course assumes the US continued to offer material support in the form of lend-lease, if that had been withdrawn it then Germany could have invaded pretty much at will. The only reason Germany hadnt already invaded prior to June 1944 was the commitment to fighting in the east. that was his downfall... had he concentrated on britain even with their resolve before we were able to get enough material in, does 600,000 to 1million tons of goods per day sound right? i think the war would have been quite different... Strategically keeping britain was essential.

meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:48:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy If the US had not entered WWII Britain would have fallen. Britains heavy bomber fleet was not enough to keep the industrial machine decimated. Britains navy would not have been able to keep the Atlantic open for long. All Germany needed to do was starve us out, it could have kept its troops fighting, on the eastern front, or even sued for peace there. This of course assumes the US continued to offer material support in the form of lend-lease, if that had been withdrawn it then Germany could have invaded pretty much at will. The only reason Germany hadnt already invaded prior to June 1944 was the commitment to fighting in the east. That is utter nonsense. After the Battle of Britain the Germans accepted they couldn't take Briatian. The reason they tried to bomb Britain into submission was because they knew their navy couldn't control the channel and their airforce couldn't control the skies. The German navy wanted a narrow front which the German airforce said it couldn't defend. The airforce wanted a broad front which the German navy said it wouldn't be able to command. In the end they never produced a serious plan for the invasion of Britain. This is so well known. Without control of Britain, Germany couldn't control the seas and didn't have the naval power to seige Britain. Germany only had the resources for a short war and once Britain couldn't be taken out and get control of the seas, they needed the oil fields of Russia. Invading Russia was a big gamble that failed. It's wrong to assume that Germany had limitless supplies, they didn't and couldn't get them. By the time the war ended, as we all know, Germany was a shell. One of the reasons it invaded Holland was for its resources and not for strategic reasons because Holland was neutral. Germany was desperate for resources.

Real0ne -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 3:56:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Without control of Britain, Germany couldn't control the seas and didn't have the naval power to seige Britain. Germany only had the resources for a short war and once Britain couldn't be taken out and get control of the seas, they needed the oil fields of Russia. Invading Russia was a big gamble that failed. It's wrong to assume that Germany had limitless supplies, they didn't and couldn't get them. that will probably be a great debate till the end of time. germany did need the resources, on the other hand if germany were to stop expanding it could have conserved more resources, enough to fight and win over britain? only if the uboat compaign was successful in keep us out... we were turning out 1 battleship per week and hitler was turning out 1 uboat per week...

meatcleaver -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 4:01:46 PM)
After initial success the uboats suffered terribly because the Royal Navy had worked out how to destroy them. You should watch Das Boot (the Boat) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082096/ a brilliant and highly acclaimed film. You will get a German perspective of the hammering the uboats had to take. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril", evidence later accumulated showed that 98% of convoyed British ships in the first 28 months of the war crossed the Atlantic safely, and at no time was the U-boat force close to a successful blockade of the United Kingdom.[2]

BeachMistress -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 4:03:28 PM)
The question of when war is justified is a good one. The US was justified in going to war against Japan in 1941. Naked agresssion with Miliary might must be addressed. The US was also justified in going to war against Germany, as Germany declared War on the US. From this one may assume that a State has the right, obligation, to make war to protect itself. But then wasnt Japan justified in going to war? After all, the US was building an ever shrinking embargo against Japan, that would slowly force them into economic capulation. I would say any State has the right to defend itself from attack with its military, war in otherwords, however the state must not create a situation in which that self same attack was the result of actions done by the State to begin with.

Mercnbeth -> RE: To War or not to War. That is the question/ (1/8/2007 4:15:45 PM)
By your definition would this be an "act of war"? quote: Russia has cut oil supplies to Poland, Germany and Ukraine amid a trade row with its neighbour Belarus. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6240473.stm

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

7.714844E-02