ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags World War II history

Reply
Old 28th June 2020, 08:20 AM   #321
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,052
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I believe the U.S. hit Japan too hard by imposing the oil embargo (and a similar embargo on other raw materials, plus closing the Panama canal to Japanese ships). It would have been better to raise the price of oil exports by 20% using an export tax, and to give the proceeds of such a tax to freedom fighters in China (while urging dialogue and negotiations).

As has been explained to you by multiple people, the US was not going to amend the Constitution just so that an export duty could have been imposed on oil sold to Japan, so that's a non-starter. Further, as I have also explained, and you ignored as usual, the US was already providing China with far more military assistance than such a duty could have funded. Previously, you proposed a 100% export duty; your new proposed 20% would have obviously generated far less revenue. Prior to the embargo, Japan was purchasing around 20 million barrels per year, and the price of oil averaged less than $1.50 per barrel. So even your 100% duty, which the Japanese could not possibly have paid for any significant period of time, would have raised less than 30 million dollars a year. But by mid-1941 the US had already provided or earmarked nearly 200 million dollars in military assistance for China.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Sorry, I never wrote such a thing. I believe, though, that the UK and France shouldn't have declared war on (and attacked) Germany in September 1939. This raised the general level of anger and violence, they (UK and France) lost the first part of the war, and several countries were occupied as a result of this decision (we also know what happened later).

What Little 10 Toes said.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
They could (for example) have limited themselves to accepting a large number of Polish refugees (including Jewish ones) on their soils, in order to provide some assistance to Poland.

First, exactly how would this have helped occupied Poland? Second, how would these refugees have reached France and Britain?
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:07 AM   #322
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
To renew and expand upon another question I've posed, and which you've ignored, Michel, please explain why it was unreasonable for the US and Britain to have insisted on unconditional surrender when, as I mentioned, Churchill and FDR1 were well aware that Germany and Japan were capable of developing nuclear weapons, especially when Germany was clearly much farther along than the Allies in the development of cruise missiles and heavy rockets.2
_______________
1A slight correction to my previous post on this subject. Although Einstein and Szilárd wrote their letter before Germany attacked Poland, FDR didn't actually receive it until October of 1939. However, he immediately recognized the danger, and ordered the military to begin studying the issue.

2I should note here that Spock's comment about putting nuclear weapons on V-2s in the classic ST:TOS episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" is incorrect. The V-2 had a payload of 1000 kg; a first-generation atomic bomb weighed about four times that. So the Germans would have had to have built a much larger rocket to carry a nuke, but obviously they would have been much better positioned to have done so than the Allies were.
It is true that Germany had good rocket technology at the end of WW2 (with the V-2 missile, for example), but they never got close to developing an atomic bomb:
Quote:
I don't believe a word of the whole thing,” declared Werner Heisenberg, the scientific head of the German nuclear program, after hearing the news that the United States had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
...
By 1944, however, the evidence was clear: the Germans had not come close to developing a bomb and had only advanced to preliminary research. Following the German defeat, the Allies detained ten German scientists, at Farm Hall, a bugged house in Godmanchester, England, from July 3, 1945 to January 3, 1946. Some of them, such as Heisenberg, Kurt Diebner, and Carl von Weiszacker were directly involved in the project, while others, such as Otto Hahn and Max von Laue, were only suspected and later proven to have not been involved. Heisenberg's disbelief after hearing that the United States had dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima confirmed in the minds of the Allies that the German effort was never close. As one German scientist exclaimed, it must have taken "factories large as the United States to make that much uranium-235!"
...
The German project had fundamental flaws from its conception. Many top German scientists had left Germany, some of them Jewish émigrés fleeing the new laws of German National Socialism. Other scientists left in protest, significantly decreasing the number of experts available to work on a German bomb. A substantial number eventually came to the United States to work on the Manhattan Project.
...
Significant work on the German project was halted in June of 1942. The Germans never achieved a successful chain reaction, had no method of enriching uranium, and never seriously considered plutonium as a viable substitute.
(https://www.atomicheritage.org/histo...c-bomb-project).

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

Last edited by Michel H; 28th June 2020 at 09:48 AM.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:19 AM   #323
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,412
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
... the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance
Okay, I think I'm done with this thread and this poster.

You wish Hitler's atomic bomb programme had succeeded so the world would have been spared Israeli arrogance?

That's a pretty special level of disgusting.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:28 AM   #324
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,735
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
France and Britain weren't really capable of launching a major offensive into Germany in 1939, for a variety of reasons. They should have tried to do more than they did, though. Also, whether such a hypothetical offensive would have led the Soviets to violate the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is debatable.
It's still more plausible than Michel_H's suggestions though.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:38 AM   #325
Lplus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 196
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Okay, I think I'm done with this thread and this poster.

You wish Hitler's atomic bomb programme had succeeded so the world would have been spared Israeli arrogance?

That's a pretty special level of disgusting.
It's certainly a special level of hatred for Israel, the USA and the UK, but that's been the basic driver of his arguments since the start fo the thread this was split from.
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 09:58 AM   #326
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,735
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is true that Germany had good rocket technology at the end of WW2 (with the V-2 missile, for example), but they never got close to developing an atomic bomb:

(https://www.atomicheritage.org/histo...c-bomb-project).

However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.
If by less persecuted you mean exterminated down to the last child, then yes, that would have happened had Hitler not been opposed.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 10:12 AM   #327
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Sorry, I never wrote such a thing. I believe, though, that the UK and France shouldn't have declared war on (and attacked) Germany in September 1939. This raised the general level of anger and violence, they (UK and France) lost the first part of the war, and several countries were occupied as a result of this decision (we also know what happened later).
Michel continues his long debunked whine about how dare the Allies declare war on Hitler.

Well we have already heard from Michel that the Poles should not have resisted with arms the German invasion and that the Poles should ha ve resisted by strikes, demonstrations etc. Ignoring of course the great brutality with which occupied Poland was treated from the beginning. Mass murder, torture, violent suppression etc. Hitler made it clear his intention to eradicate the Polish state and turn the population into serfs. (Those that were allowed to survive anyway.) And of course the Polish intellectual class would be liquidated.

How is that for raising the level of violence and anger. And of course Hitler's history of broken agreements etc., before the war must be forgotten. And the genocidal fantasies of Mein Kampf dropped down the memory hole.

And of course Hitler raised the level of violence and anger by invading Poland in the first place. But Michel's "logic" is the logic of the Lion that whines about the Goat complaining about being devoured.

And of course in Michel's view Germany under Hitler is allowed to resist the supposedly unacceptable demand for unconditional surrender with armed violence. When of course the Germans could just have surrendered and resisted by protests, strikes etc., and not armed violence. (Snark)

And it is so terrible that the allies would not talk to Hitler and treated him terribly. (Snark) No doubt the fact that Hitler was one of the most vile humans who ever existed is of no importance it is still unfair that the allies regarded him has a monster. (Snark)

Michel's demand for restraint is very one sided.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 12:12 PM   #328
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
They could (for example) have limited themselves to accepting a large number of Polish refugees (including Jewish ones) on their soils, in order to provide some assistance to Poland.
First, exactly how would this have helped occupied Poland? Second, how would these refugees have reached France and Britain?
Acceptance by France and the UK of a large number of Polish (military or non-military) refugees helped the Polish people. Regarding the question of how these refugees reached France and the UK, the webpages below offer some insight:
Quote:
After Poland's defeat in September–October 1939, the Polish government-in-exile quickly organized in France a new fighting force originally of about 80,000 men.[2]
...
In French-mandated Syria, a Polish Independent Carpathian Brigade was formed to which about 4,000 Polish troops had escaped, mostly through Romania and would later fight in the North African Campaign.[3]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...es_in_the_West)
Quote:
How exactly did Polish forces escape Poland after their defeat in WW2?
Some 85,000 Polish soldiers were raised to fight in France in 1940, and everyone knows about the Polish fighter aces who fought in the Battle of Britain. How did these people escape from Poland when it was attacked from both sides and closed off from the sea?
...
some were escapees via Romania and Hungary ... Brickie78 had a reply with more details of men via Romania and the Soviet Union.
...
The Polish government fled Warsaw on the 17th September, heading for Romania, along with other refugees. Their route was initially blocked by Red Army forces moving in from Kamenets-Podolsk (south west Ukraine), however the Soviets eventually let the Poles through that night. The Romanian people hid them, sometimes in return for bribes, however the government was under pressure from the Nazis to return the exiles to them. The majority of Poles were save from internment and deportation, unfortunately, some areas fell under the jurisdiction of officers who were members of the Nazi sympathetic Iron Guard, meaning some who fled to Romania were sent back.
(https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._poland_after/)
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 01:32 PM   #329
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,531
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Acceptance by France and the UK of a large number of Polish (military or non-military) refugees helped the Polish people. Regarding the question of how these refugees reached France and the UK, the webpages below offer some insight:

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...es_in_the_West)

(https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria..._poland_after/)
85.000 out of a population of more than 35 million in 1939. That’s less than a quarter of a percent.

Don’t forget that by the time the nazis were evicted from Poland in 1945, the population loss caused by the tender nazi touch, was such that it would only be in 1977 or 1978 that Poland would be at their 1939 level for population.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"

Last edited by erwinl; 28th June 2020 at 01:34 PM.
erwinl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 02:02 PM   #330
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
85.000 out of a population of more than 35 million in 1939. That’s less than a quarter of a percent.

Don’t forget that by the time the nazis were evicted from Poland in 1945, the population loss caused by the tender nazi touch, was such that it would only be in 1977 or 1978 that Poland would be at their 1939 level for population.
85,000 was only an initial number. According to wikipedia, the "Polish Armed Forces in the West" had 249,000 soldiers at the "height of their power" (probably around 1945).
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...es_in_the_West.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 02:06 PM   #331
RolandRat
Thinker
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
85,000 was only an initial number. According to wikipedia, the "Polish Armed Forces in the West" had 249,000 soldiers at the "height of their power" (probably around 1945).
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish...es_in_the_West.
They wouldn't have had to take in any if the Nazis hadn't invaded Poland and began systematically murdering the inhabitants.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2020, 04:54 PM   #332
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
By the way, Adolf Hitler gave a speech in Berlin in 1938 where he claimed that the only territorial demand of Germany is the Sudeten territories.

Chamberlain allowed him to take the Sudentenland.

So - no more demands!

Except he took the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and then continued with the invasion of Poland.

How could Britain and France ever believe he'd keep his word?

Hitler himself backed them into a corner from where they could only end up fighting against him.

And - as loads of people have said, the USA had been talking with Japan for years before Pearl Harbor. The last thing that the Japanese wanted was a peaceful settlement, as that would have forced them out of China.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...

Last edited by Rincewind; 28th June 2020 at 04:56 PM.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 07:59 AM   #333
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
By the way, Adolf Hitler gave a speech in Berlin in 1938 where he claimed that the only territorial demand of Germany is the Sudeten territories.

Chamberlain allowed him to take the Sudentenland.

So - no more demands!

Except he took the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and then continued with the invasion of Poland.

How could Britain and France ever believe he'd keep his word?

Hitler himself backed them into a corner from where they could only end up fighting against him.

And - as loads of people have said, the USA had been talking with Japan for years before Pearl Harbor. The last thing that the Japanese wanted was a peaceful settlement, as that would have forced them out of China.
It should also be borne in mind that there were plenty of voices inside the Reich calling for a dialling back of military spending and an emphasis on civilian production and rebuilding foreign trade in the aftermath of Munich, they wanted a period of consolidation and an end to the economic chaos caused by the endless drain of ever increasing armaments spending. Hitler simply chose to ignore them because he saw Munich as a failure, he had been cheated out of the war he wanted by Chamberlain's extraordinary concessions and warnings from inside Germany that the Wehrmacht wasn't ready. In 1939 the military leadership stayed silent and Hitler dismissed the options for diplomacy and normalizing Germany's place in the world. The war happened because Hitler wanted war and no other reason.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 08:33 AM   #334
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
It should also be borne in mind that there were plenty of voices inside the Reich calling for a dialling back of military spending and an emphasis on civilian production and rebuilding foreign trade in the aftermath of Munich, they wanted a period of consolidation and an end to the economic chaos caused by the endless drain of ever increasing armaments spending. Hitler simply chose to ignore them because he saw Munich as a failure, he had been cheated out of the war he wanted by Chamberlain's extraordinary concessions and warnings from inside Germany that the Wehrmacht wasn't ready. In 1939 the military leadership stayed silent and Hitler dismissed the options for diplomacy and normalizing Germany's place in the world. The war happened because Hitler wanted war and no other reason.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 08:52 AM   #335
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,052
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
It is true that Germany had good rocket technology at the end of WW2 (with the V-2 missile, for example), but they never got close to developing an atomic bomb:

(https://www.atomicheritage.org/histo...c-bomb-project).

Evasion noted. This is irrelevant. The point, which should be obvious, is that Churchill and FDR reasonably believed that Germany could have developed an atomic bomb; further, the Nazis likely would have built one had they had five more years to work on it. So kindly answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked: Was it unreasonable for Churchill and FDR to insist on Germany's unconditional surrender, knowing that, given enough time, Germany was likely to develop nuclear weapons eventually?

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
However, I believe that, if Nazi Germany had succeeded in developing a nuclear weapon before the end of the war (admittedly a rather scary prospect), there could have been some positive aspects to this: they could have prevented an invasion of their territory, the later political disease of Israeli-British-American arrogance might not have occurred, the rights of Palestinians might have been better defended (after WW2), and it is even possible that the Jews would have been less persecuted, to the extent that Nazi persecutions of the Jews reflected German anger and exasperation during the war.

Your swastika is showing again. That aside, the idea that Hitler would have attempted to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, rather than just using them to nuke Allied cities as soon as each weapon was finished, is ridiculous.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:55 AM   #336
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Evasion noted. This is irrelevant. The point, which should be obvious, is that Churchill and FDR reasonably believed that Germany could have developed an atomic bomb; further, the Nazis likely would have built one had they had five more years to work on it. So kindly answer the question I asked, rather than the one you wish I'd asked: Was it unreasonable for Churchill and FDR to insist on Germany's unconditional surrender, knowing that, given enough time, Germany was likely to develop nuclear weapons eventually?




Your swastika is showing again. That aside, the idea that Hitler would have attempted to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, rather than just using them to nuke Allied cities as soon as each weapon was finished, is ridiculous.
No, no swastika here, I am neither a Nazi, nor a neo-Nazi, as I have already said repeatedly.

I believe it was very wrong, for Roosevelt and the Allies, to demand unconditional surrender of Axis contries in January 1943 (with or without a nuclear threat - we know, of course, that the atomic bomb was used against innocents civilians by the Allies, not by Germany). In fact, it can be argued that this decision, imposed by Roosevelt, is even the worst crime in human history, because it may have led to tens of millions of deaths during WW2 (and, to this, one should add the current crises, for example with North Korea and Iran, stemming from an incorrect interpretation of WW2, and the belief that essentially the victors of the world war should have a monopoly on these dangerous and unnecessary nuclear weapons). A more reasonable demand would have been that Germany (and other countries) renounce their recent conquests, and go back to pre-war borders

If Adolf had had nukes in 1945, he could have threatened to bomb a British city if the Allies moved to conquer Germany. Such a bombing would have been so devastating for the unfortunate Britons that, hopefully, Germany would have been spared an invasion, which might have been a very good thing, because this might have led to a more balanced world, without Germany becoming a puppet of the U.S. (and, to some extent, of Israel).

If Hitler had been forced, in 1943, to go back to the pre-war borders after large conquests, it is possible that his loss of prestige would have been so great that he would have forced to resign. Do not forget, also, that Adolf had serious opponents in Germany, as the July 1944 Stauffenberg plot showed.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 01:29 PM   #337
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, no swastika here, I am neither a Nazi, nor a neo-Nazi, as I have already said repeatedly.
Sorry but people here like to base their opinions on facts and evidence and based on your statements about WWII and the sources you use to support them, yeah you're a Nazi apologist.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 01:50 PM   #338
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
You know, the Adolf Hitler that I've read about is totally different from the person presented here by Michel.

I believe that the view I have is the view of the vast majority of people - here's a few points:
He was an extremely untruthful negotiator.
He was a warmonger, desiring wars to conquer 'Lebensraum'.
His aim was to control all of east up to the Ural mountains.
He hated the Jews (and others) enough to try to exterminate them.
In 1945 he wanted to destroy Germany as not being worthy of him.
There was no away he would have considered stopping the war in 1942 - or ever; he believed he would win.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 01:59 PM   #339
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
In Japan during WWII, the whole population was mobilized to support the war effort.

A lot of assembly work was done in private houses, so very few Japanese were innocent.

I understand that there's an element of 'tu quoque' in what I'm about to write, but after what the Luftwaffe did in the Battle of Britain, you can understand the comment made by 'Bomber' Harris"

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:16 PM   #340
RolandRat
Thinker
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 248
@ Michael, you seem to be condemning the Allies for responding to the Nazis invading sovereign countries and slaughtering their inhabitants. Don't you think that if the Nazis hadn't, well, invaded sovereign countries and started slaughtering their inhabitants then there would have been no need for a response?

I would like to say thanks to a lot of the respondents here, I have learned a lot I didn't know from reading this thread.
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 04:18 PM   #341
RolandRat
Thinker
 
RolandRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 248
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Adolf had had nukes in 1945, he could have threatened to bomb a British city if the Allies moved to conquer Germany. Such a bombing would have been so devastating for the unfortunate Britons that, hopefully, Germany would have been spared an invasion, which might have been a very good thing, because this might have led to a more balanced world, without Germany becoming a puppet of the U.S. (and, to some extent, of Israel).
Wait what?
RolandRat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:25 PM   #342
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by RolandRat View Post
@ Michael, you seem to be condemning the Allies for responding to the Nazis invading sovereign countries and slaughtering their inhabitants. Don't you think that if the Nazis hadn't, well, invaded sovereign countries and started slaughtering their inhabitants then there would have been no need for a response?
I believe that, in politics like in medicine, decision-makers should make sure that the cure isn't worse that the disease.

When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, his primary aim was probably to restore the unity of his country, Germany, which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor). This was, to some extent, understandable, and therefore should not have been a reason for starting a new major war. Nevertheless, the UK and France went ahead and declared war to Germany, even though Hitler didn't want a war with them. Hitler is often presented as the ultimate warmonger, particularly by many posters in this thread, but, in 1939, it was him who was attacked by the UK and France (and not the other way around). One can speculate that Adolf would have been far less violent, had he not been attacked by the UK and France, see https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:31 PM   #343
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,226
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
By the way, Adolf Hitler gave a speech in Berlin in 1938 where he claimed that the only territorial demand of Germany is the Sudeten territories.

Chamberlain allowed him to take the Sudentenland.

So - no more demands!

Except he took the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and then continued with the invasion of Poland.

How could Britain and France ever believe he'd keep his word?

Hitler himself backed them into a corner from where they could only end up fighting against him.

And - as loads of people have said, the USA had been talking with Japan for years before Pearl Harbor. The last thing that the Japanese wanted was a peaceful settlement, as that would have forced them out of China.
"This is absolutely my last terrotorial demand in Europe"
Adolf Hitler during the Munich Crisis.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:32 PM   #344
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 5,052
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
It's still more plausible than Michel_H's suggestions though.

Sorry I forgot to respond to this earlier. Good point.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 05:35 PM   #345
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 48,226
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I believe that, in politics like in medicine, decision-makers should make sure that the cure isn't worse that the disease.

When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, his primary aim was probably to restore the unity of his country, Germany, which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor). This was, to some extent, understandable, and therefore should not have been a reason for starting a new major war. Nevertheless, the UK and France went ahead and declared war to Germany, even though Hitler didn't want a war with them. Hitler is often presented as the ultimate warmonger, particularly by many posters in this thread, but, in 1939, it was him who was attacked by the UK and France (and not the other way around). One can speculate that Adolf would have been far less violent, had he not been attacked by the UK and France, see https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud.
Damn it, I have to replace my BS Detector again, after reading this total crap.
Not even worth refuting, since a simple google search on the start of World War 2 wil shoe.
How long until Mikey defends Japan's conduct during "The China Incident".
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 06:00 PM   #346
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Damn it, I have to replace my BS Detector again, after reading this total crap.
Not even worth refuting, since a simple google search on the start of World War 2 wil shoe.
Will show what?
By the way, this is not a thread about shoes.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:11 PM   #347
Little 10 Toes
Master Poster
 
Little 10 Toes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,168
the thread should be based upon shoes since you dance around facts, shuffle away from answering, tiptoe around the inconvenient truth, and run away when presented with items that destroy your "version" of "history".

Your track record here in this thread speak more about you than anything else.

Last edited by Little 10 Toes; 29th June 2020 at 09:14 PM. Reason: Corrections
Little 10 Toes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th June 2020, 09:31 PM   #348
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,735
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I believe that, in politics like in medicine, decision-makers should make sure that the cure isn't worse that the disease.

When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, his primary aim was probably to restore the unity of his country, Germany, which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor). This was, to some extent, understandable, and therefore should not have been a reason for starting a new major war. Nevertheless, the UK and France went ahead and declared war to Germany, even though Hitler didn't want a war with them. Hitler is often presented as the ultimate warmonger, particularly by many posters in this thread, but, in 1939, it was him who was attacked by the UK and France (and not the other way around). One can speculate that Adolf would have been far less violent, had he not been attacked by the UK and France, see https://www.criticalpast.com/video/6...people-applaud.
Which was show by how, once Poland was invaded, Hitler only took interest in the bit that used to be German and left the rest of the country under a near benevolent puppet government.


Oh no.

Wait.

The moment the German army was passed, the SS rolled in and started their extermination programs.

One can say truthfully that had England and France not declared war Hitler would have been far more violent towards the civilian population. As even when he was losing the war badly he was still willing to squander resources on the concentration camps. Had he been more secure those would have been even more brutal.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 01:26 AM   #349
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,941
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
No, no swastika here, I am neither a Nazi, nor a neo-Nazi, as I have already said repeatedly.
You've said a great many things that simply are not true in your time on this forum. I believe this is simply another one of them.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
I believe it was very wrong, for Roosevelt and the Allies, to demand unconditional surrender of Axis contries in January 1943 (with or without a nuclear threat - we know, of course, that the atomic bomb was used against innocents civilians by the Allies, not by Germany).
I, on the other hand, believe it was unavoidable; the lack of trust between Stalin and the Western Allies was sufficiently great that only the complete removal of the likelihood of one making a separate peace with the Axis to the other was enough to allow them to work together. A failure to insist on unconditional surrender could have eventually led to far worse consequences.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
In fact, it can be argued that this decision, imposed by Roosevelt, is even the worst crime in human history, because it may have led to tens of millions of deaths during WW2 (and, to this, one should add the current crises, for example with North Korea and Iran, stemming from an incorrect interpretation of WW2, and the belief that essentially the victors of the world war should have a monopoly on these dangerous and unnecessary nuclear weapons). A more reasonable demand would have been that Germany (and other countries) renounce their recent conquests, and go back to pre-war borders.
When a serial killer is imprisoned, is this a crime in your world because he is deprived of liberty? Would it be more reasonable to simply insist that he stop killing people and go back to the life he lived before he started? Morally, that's equivalent to saying to Germany "Stop invading countries, go back to your own borders, and all will be forgiven."

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Adolf had had nukes in 1945, he could have threatened to bomb a British city if the Allies moved to conquer Germany. Such a bombing would have been so devastating for the unfortunate Britons that, hopefully, Germany would have been spared an invasion, which might have been a very good thing, because this might have led to a more balanced world, without Germany becoming a puppet of the U.S. (and, to some extent, of Israel).
Hitler had the V2 in 1945. Rather than using it as a bargaining counter, he used it to inflict as much death and destruction on Allied civilians as possible, despite the absence of any military value from its effects. He was never interested in compromise, only in dominating Europe.

Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Hitler had been forced, in 1943, to go back to the pre-war borders after large conquests, it is possible that his loss of prestige would have been so great that he would have forced to resign. Do not forget, also, that Adolf had serious opponents in Germany, as the July 1944 Stauffenberg plot showed.
And if alien space bats had beamed him up to their mothership in 1938, maybe WW2 would never have happened at all. Your whole notion that Nazi Germany, at the height of its military success, could have been persuaded by a strongly worded letter from Roosevelt to give up on the war and go back to its original borders, and that this would have been acceptable to the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, and, yes, let's include Belgium, is at about the same level of fantasy as alien intervention.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:00 AM   #350
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,589
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Michel continues his long debunked whine about how dare the Allies declare war on Hitler.

Well we have already heard from Michel that the Poles should not have resisted with arms the German invasion and that the Poles should ha ve resisted by strikes, demonstrations etc. Ignoring of course the great brutality with which occupied Poland was treated from the beginning. Mass murder, torture, violent suppression etc. Hitler made it clear his intention to eradicate the Polish state and turn the population into serfs. (Those that were allowed to survive anyway.) And of course the Polish intellectual class would be liquidated.
Actually, in the long run there wouldn't even be serfs, or not in Poland. Adolf also made it clear that he's not interested in germanizing Slavs, he wanted a pure Aryan state. And if you look at Generalplan Ost, sure enough, SOME Latvians and SOME Czechs could be deemed racially good enough to only get deported somewhere out of the way, but Poles were not even on that list AFAIK.

And it makes even... well, I wouldn't say sense, but you can see how he wouldn't change his mind, if you understand the whole racist ideology that was the background for all that. Which incidentally neither Hitler nor the NSDAP had come up with, nor would be the last to adopt. Basically for them only Aryans could build great states, and empires would decay and fall when they got polluted enough with enough 'subhumans' who were not fit to run a nation. Quite literally for them Rome fell because of immigrants.

Which, incidentally, is still an argument you hear recycled by the alt-right.

Once put it that context, it's clear he had no reason to "germanize" those 'subhumans'. Letting them integrate and adopt the culture wouldn't solve the racial issue he had with them. And, after all, the Romans had sure tried to integrate all those barbarians, and fat lot of good that did for them in the long run, eh?

So, yeah, short of somehow the whole NSDAP leadership dying in a plane crash at the same time, I don't really see how not resisting would have ended in anything else than a genocide.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 05:11 AM   #351
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,589
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Hitler had the V2 in 1945. Rather than using it as a bargaining counter, he used it to inflict as much death and destruction on Allied civilians as possible, despite the absence of any military value from its effects. He was never interested in compromise, only in dominating Europe.
TBF, he seemed very much aware from the start that the V2 is pretty much a waste of money, from a military stand point. It was used for propaganda value.

Germany had actually discovered in Spain that terror-bombing civilians doesn't cause them to surrender, but, on the contrary, it strengthens people's resolve. It's arguable how far up the totem pole that made it, but the report exists. In any case Germany started without a real terror-bombing doctrine. They didn't give a crap if there are civilian casualties as collateral damage, especially not in the East, but it wasn't the goal of the bombing per se. At least not in the beginning.

That would change when the UK bombed Berlin. The damage done was minimal, but the way the British press were pretty much creaming their pants about it showed that it did have great propaganda value. Queue shifting the bombing to do the same to the British. Not even as much for wanting to cause civilian casualties or even inflict any damage to the capacity to wage war, but mostly for propaganda value.

The V-1 and V-2 were really used for the same end, really.

In fact, somewhat paradoxically, when the Brits lied about where the V-1 bombs landed and how much damage they did, sure, it caused the Germans to shoot at some empty fields, but that served the German purposes just as well, if not better. I mean, hey, look, even the enemy press reports that we're bombing them successfully. The propaganda value was there. So, you know, win-win for both sides

Edit: that said, as the plan to try to send a dirty bomb to America showed, he probably WOULD have used a nuke if he had one. Pretty much for the same reason.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th June 2020 at 05:14 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:08 AM   #352
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Which was show by how, once Poland was invaded, Hitler only took interest in the bit that used to be German and left the rest of the country under a near benevolent puppet government.


Oh no.

Wait.

The moment the German army was passed, the SS rolled in and started their extermination programs.

One can say truthfully that had England and France not declared war Hitler would have been far more violent towards the civilian population. As even when he was losing the war badly he was still willing to squander resources on the concentration camps. Had he been more secure those would have been even more brutal.
and of course, before Poland he'd said he only wanted the Sudetenland - then stole all the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Of course, Austria was never part of Germany...
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:10 AM   #353
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, in the long run there wouldn't even be serfs, or not in Poland. Adolf also made it clear that he's not interested in germanizing Slavs, he wanted a pure Aryan state. And if you look at Generalplan Ost, sure enough, SOME Latvians and SOME Czechs could be deemed racially good enough to only get deported somewhere out of the way, but Poles were not even on that list AFAIK.

And it makes even... well, I wouldn't say sense, but you can see how he wouldn't change his mind, if you understand the whole racist ideology that was the background for all that. Which incidentally neither Hitler nor the NSDAP had come up with, nor would be the last to adopt. Basically for them only Aryans could build great states, and empires would decay and fall when they got polluted enough with enough 'subhumans' who were not fit to run a nation. Quite literally for them Rome fell because of immigrants.

Which, incidentally, is still an argument you hear recycled by the alt-right.

Once put it that context, it's clear he had no reason to "germanize" those 'subhumans'. Letting them integrate and adopt the culture wouldn't solve the racial issue he had with them. And, after all, the Romans had sure tried to integrate all those barbarians, and fat lot of good that did for them in the long run, eh?

So, yeah, short of somehow the whole NSDAP leadership dying in a plane crash at the same time, I don't really see how not resisting would have ended in anything else than a genocide.
Actually the Nazis stole Aryan-looking kids from Polish families.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:13 AM   #354
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
TBF, he seemed very much aware from the start that the V2 is pretty much a waste of money, from a military stand point. It was used for propaganda value.

Germany had actually discovered in Spain that terror-bombing civilians doesn't cause them to surrender, but, on the contrary, it strengthens people's resolve. It's arguable how far up the totem pole that made it, but the report exists. In any case Germany started without a real terror-bombing doctrine. They didn't give a crap if there are civilian casualties as collateral damage, especially not in the East, but it wasn't the goal of the bombing per se. At least not in the beginning.

That would change when the UK bombed Berlin. The damage done was minimal, but the way the British press were pretty much creaming their pants about it showed that it did have great propaganda value. Queue shifting the bombing to do the same to the British. Not even as much for wanting to cause civilian casualties or even inflict any damage to the capacity to wage war, but mostly for propaganda value.

The V-1 and V-2 were really used for the same end, really.

In fact, somewhat paradoxically, when the Brits lied about where the V-1 bombs landed and how much damage they did, sure, it caused the Germans to shoot at some empty fields, but that served the German purposes just as well, if not better. I mean, hey, look, even the enemy press reports that we're bombing them successfully. The propaganda value was there. So, you know, win-win for both sides

Edit: that said, as the plan to try to send a dirty bomb to America showed, he probably WOULD have used a nuke if he had one. Pretty much for the same reason.
I agree about the propaganda from the V-1, but of course that was a small loss compared to the many deaths that would have ensued if the V-1s had been reaching London in huge numbers.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 06:23 AM   #355
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 8,395
BTW - the Nazis abducted around 400,000 children, 200,000 from Poland.

Wiki suggests that possibly only 15% were ever returned to their families.

Wiki mentions 'some tens of thousands' died, too.

What a nice, friendly, caring bunch the Nazis were...

If anybody still thinks that the Poles could have negotiated with Hitler to lessen the effect of occupation, here's a Wiki comment:

Annual selection would be made every year among children from six to ten years of age according to German racial standards. Children deemed adequately German would be taken to Germany, given new names and further Germanised.[9] The aim of the plan was to destroy "Polish" as an ethnic group, and leave within Poland a considerable slave population to be used up over the next 10 years. Within 15 to 20 years, Poles would be completely eradicated.

Maybe Michel should think for a moment about what if that had been the policy in Belgium?

Just recall - around 6,000,000 Poles died in WWII, half of them Jewish - one sixth of the pre-war population.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...

Last edited by Rincewind; 30th June 2020 at 06:33 AM.
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 07:49 AM   #356
Tolls
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5,051
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
When Hitler invaded Poland in September 1939, his primary aim was probably to restore the unity of his country, Germany, which had been divided by the treaty of Versailles ...
(highlight mine).
Don't you think you ought to do some actual research rather than guessing?
It's all pretty well documented what Hitler was after when Germany invaded Poland.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 07:54 AM   #357
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,589
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
Actually the Nazis stole Aryan-looking kids from Polish families.
Yes, but as you say two messages below, it wasn't as much to really turn them into ethnic german citizens, as to have some germanized slaves to be worked to death later. It's just a more roundabout way to go about a genocide than just shooting them up front, really.

Edit: though as I always remind people, not all nazis had the same idea. Adolf wasn't interested in germanizing anyone. Other people were. Himmler in particular had some bat-guano crazy ideas about purifying racial souls, that even Hitler occasionally found crazy. Which says a lot. It's probably impossible to tell what would have happened in the long run. My guess though is that if Germany had won the war, or at least a managed to peace out with Stalin (fat chance, but hey, hypotheticals ftw), it would have gone Adolf's way. I.e., genocide all the way.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th June 2020 at 08:01 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:22 AM   #358
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
If Hitler had been forced, in 1943, to go back to the pre-war borders after large conquests, it is possible that his loss of prestige would have been so great that he would have forced to resign. Do not forget, also, that Adolf had serious opponents in Germany, as the July 1944 Stauffenberg plot showed.
Your whole notion that Nazi Germany, at the height of its military success, could have been persuaded by a strongly worded letter from Roosevelt to give up on the war and go back to its original borders, and that this would have been acceptable to the USSR, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, and, yes, let's include Belgium, is at about the same level of fantasy as alien intervention.
Nazi Germany was no longer at the height of its military successes in 1943: the German 6th Army surrendered in Stalingrad on February 2, 1943 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad). The allied leaders who met in Casablanca in January 1943 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference) were probably well informed about the latest military developments.
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:31 AM   #359
Garrison
Philosopher
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 5,154
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Nazi Germany was no longer at the height of its military successes in 1943: the German 6th Army surrendered in Stalingrad on February 2, 1943 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad). The allied leaders who met in Casablanca in January 1943 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_Conference) were probably well informed about the latest military developments.
Which puts them distinctly ahead of you who has shown utter ignorance about the history of WWII. You seriously think the Allies should have offered to just let the Germans retreat to their prewar borders after the carnage they has caused? What am I saying, of course you do, after all if everyone had just given Hitler everything he wanted all the time everything would have been fine.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 10:52 AM   #360
Michel H
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,041
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Which puts them distinctly ahead of you who has shown utter ignorance about the history of WWII. You seriously think the Allies should have offered to just let the Germans retreat to their prewar borders after the carnage they has caused? What am I saying, of course you do, after all if everyone had just given Hitler everything he wanted all the time everything would have been fine.
You seem to forget that UK and France had declared war to Germany in September 1939 (illegally in France's case, because without a proper vote of its parliament).
Michel H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.