He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great wihout victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasnt only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939.
As far as the Hitler peacetime era is concerned, I think the Czechs might disagree…but this is merely a minor point about the acual dates.
What I think is fascinating is the possibility of Japan sending its navy to assist Great Britian in the atlantic in return for the oil Japan needed. I am sure that GB, being desperate to protect their merchant marine, would have made this deal (though it would not have pleased the USA). Remember that Japan fought against Germany in WWI. So instead of the USA bailing out the UK, it would be Japan.
Then Pearl Harbor would not have happened, as Japan only did so to enable their capture of the oil rich Dutch East Indies. Japan being unimpeded, would have eventually consolidated control over Korea and China and today would be the worlds superpower.
What I think is fascinating is the possibility of Japan sending its navy to assist Great Britain in the Atlantic in return for the oil Japan needed. I am sure that GB, being desperate to protect their merchant marine, would have made this deal (though it would not have pleased the USA).
I am quite sure that Churchill was not the kind of man that made deals with totalitarian regimes under any circumstances. Japan had cast her destiny with the European axis by signing the anti-commiterm pact further delineating what form of government they wanted to rule the world. They despised the English and any other “colonial power” that made any claim to any part of Asia. That “pact” as you call it would have to include guarantees from the British government to basically stay out of India, south east Asia, and probably some claim for Australia allowing the Empire of Japan to outright annex these areas and put it under “Asian” control. The return of the Bushido society had vary harsh view of outsiders and as such no accommodation could possibly be forthcoming by anybody from 16 downing st.
as an aside… I didn’t forget about the Hitlers bloodless conquests consisting of :
1936 Rhineland re-militarized
1936 helping fight for franco’s Spain and the nationalists
1938 Austria, Sudetenland, Checkoslovakia
But they didn’t lead to a general war during Hitlers first 7 years in power. That was pure Brinkmanship and power politics on Hitlers part.
I am quite sure that Churchill was not the kind of man that made deals with totalitarian regimes under any circumstances.
Uncle Joe?
Thanks for your support!
IL:
I doubt Pres. Roosevelt would have waited for Japan even if Germany had not declared war on us first. Seriously, we KNEW that if Brition fell before we entered the war we’d loose almost any chance of victory in Europe. Furthermore, we knew that Japan was hardly in a position to invade en-masse which would allow us to fight a holding war (much like we did) while we focused primarily on Germany.
I hold to my contention that if Hitler had not declared war on us, Roosevelt would have declared war on him.
I think the whole point was a scenario where Japan is not alligned with Germany and decides to attack Hawaii and germany stays out of the war. The concept was addressed in terms of the US fighting a war in the pacific first and finishing off Japan by mid 1944. In the mean time yes i too aggree that eventually FDR would convince the US public to fight in the european conflict. HOWEVER, during those years of 1941-1944 (which i do not think that war in europe involving the US to be likely) the German Reich would have other plans than to wait for daddy to land in France et al.
During this time germany would have taken out UK (since they were now “partners” with Stalin) and shared some of UK’s colonies. Preparing for UK from june 1940-1944. I am quite sure that herr Hitler would have had time to invade UK and deny a stageing area for the american forces. SO i am saying their is no way for UK to hold out against germany during this period. THe occupation of England would allmost undoubtedly be met with some emergency invasion by american forces somewhere in europe to help fill the void but it would not have been deprived of any close base to sustain it all the way from the east coast. Something along thse lines was addressed in “It happened here” movie about the same concept. AS far as Stalin in the mix as well, you can only imagine how he probably distrusts America and England even more than Hitler. He would be willing to have a accomodation with Hitler if it meant expansion and a “warm water port”
In any case America could not cope with a revitalized German economy and a huge Soviet war machine ready to defend and prepare for 4 years against this invasion.
@Imperious:
He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great wihout victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasnt only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939.
He was no military leader at all. He was no general, no marshal, no nothing. He was a diplomat. A pure statesman.
He was the Chancellor that stayed home and let others fight the wars that were “inevitable”. He did do nothing in the war, no planning no strategy.
He is not remembered as a military man.
And Jennifer:
Britain
…or does USA stand for “Uniformed Sluts of America”?
(yes, this is low… but this the second thread i read, and the second time that people mis-spell names. That is purest disrespect. I hope that my “counter-example” shows why.)****
He is remembered as a stateman
Falk…Please read what i write then post. I posted exactly the way you just illiterated. You are the only person who can do this:
He is remembered as a stateman, while in the war of 1866 he succeeded in defeating Austria and excluding it altogether from Germany. Also the Franco-German War (1870-71) ended with Prussian success. The outcrop of these wars and the unification of Germany put them on the fast track for world power. NO nation was ever great without victories from various wars fought over time.
No he wasn’t only a military leader, but then again Hitler had his peacetime era as well 1932-1939.
He was no military leader at all. He was no general, no marshal, no nothing. He was a diplomat. A pure statesman.
He was the Chancellor that stayed home and let others fight the wars that were “inevitable”. He did do nothing in the war, no planning no strategy.
He is not remembered as a military man.
Hmmm i think we are saying the same thing? And my previous comparison of Hitler and Bismarck is only to demonstrate the ability of both leaders to unite their nations thru adversity. It can be argued that Kaiser Wilhelm wasn’t a military leader either since he didn’t run any campaigns either.
Another Pandora’s box to open would be how Germany might have actually defeated the Soviet Union within the time frame of 1941-1942. IMO this would not be possible at any time after this point unless we assume Hitler placed the Reich economy on 'total war" (full mobilization) I assume that the completion of this task would involve the same span of time as when Germany finally accomplished this feat around Dec 1944. So if we take this example we get the factor of 2 years from start to finish, while the Soviets only needed about one year to get at full war making potential.
So as a consequence Hitler would have to begin around the summer of 1939 to be ready for the summer of 1941. The concept of the Whermacht relied on finishing off nations in quick fashion or “victories on the cheap”. Which could be done against any combatant sake the Soviets who could trade space for time until they were ready to strike back with overwhelming odds. In the course of the actual campaign the balance sheet was quite equal, while German production wasn’t vastly outdone until the beginning of the March- April 1942, which is when Stalin had moved his military industrial complex further east (Urals).
Of course losing 6 weeks of good weather fighting in the Balkans against Yugoslavia and Greece didn’t help Hitler for preparation for his Barbarossa campaign, but nevertheless Germany had operational possibilities for victory as long as they kept focus on 1) destroying Soviet Armies 2) control of Stalins ability to coordinate his forces north and south of the front, and 3) disruption of the enemies ability to conduct the war.The first point was formulated upon classic envelopment actions by armored pincers, while the slow Soviet logistical system denied the possibility breakout, unless the trap was set too late. From June 22 to August 31st Germany enjoyed unparcelled success and nearly everything proceeded according to plan, but once Hitler saw the Soviet nation buckle under immense pressure he abruptly changed plans and divided his forces to siege Leningrad in the north, Moscow in the center and Rostov/Kiev in the south with the last battles in this area causing much bloodshed for AGS. The Key IMO was to strike only at Moscow severing the “head” and denying Stalin the critical rail lines which he used to shuffle his forces on the north/south axis. Also, there were important industries in the vicinity of Moscow region and they were turning out war materiel right on the front lines, where Germany had to first convert the rail gauge all the way from Poland and slog everything thru mud to the front. This was a considerable advantage for Stalin and a missed opportunity for Hitler. In the north the siege of Leningrad wasted and tied down a sizeable portions of AGN. I believe only a token force should have been used to “hold down” a relatively smaller Soviet force. The worst use of economy of force occurred with army group south (AGS) which was doing quite well until Hitler decided that forces from AGC should have been detached to help with the enveloping of the Kiev pocket. The necessary waste and loss of tempo certainly resulted in the irremediable demise of the 1941 campaign. Had this last straw not been carried out, Moscow would have fallen and Stalin would have to fight with separate lines both north and south. The result would be a much better defensible situation to hold out thru the winter of 1941-42. The roads and access from the east of Moscow and the south is much more difficult to conduct offensive operations, because their is no" logistical staging area" to support a counteroffensive, while losing Moscow would be quite demoralizing to say the least.
It is quite clear that Stalin was prepared to carry the fight from Kazan and the Urals, while a second army was further south defending the eastern approaches of the don and the area south of Rostov. The spring of 1942 would see a classic mop up campaign whereby now the forces at Moscow could go after Archangel and Leningrad and deny any northern lend lease route to the Soviets. In the south, AGS would not have to cover the northern flank and could spend its time destroying and taking Baku oil center. Even following this scenario its quite clear that Stalin would not give up until he probably lost the Urals due to heavy concentrations of Industry, but in real terms this would amount to no real opposition to a victorious Whermacht in the long term.
No he wasn’t only a military leader,
He was no military leader at all.
Hmmm i think we are saying the same thing?
I think you should be careful in who you call “illiterate”.
@Imperious:
… the Hun…
@F_alk:
And Jennifer:
Britain
…or does USA stand for “Uniformed Sluts of America”?
(yes, this is low… but this the second thread i read, and the second time that people mis-spell names. That is purest disrespect. I hope that my “counter-example” shows why.)It made it past the “Spell Check” button and that’s how I’ve always seen it spelled.
Also, I’d prefer it if you could refrain from name calling. I didn’t return from my break immediately attacking you, CC or Mary. I request you return the respect I’m trying to show you, please.****
I still contend that FDR wouldn’t have waited for Japan to fall without a German DOW. He would have gotten the Congress to declare war on both Japan and Germany (as Japan’s most powerful ally) then stripped Japan of that ally before defeating them. It would have been the only way to save BritAIn (better F_alk?) from a successful, future German invasion. He must have known the predicament Britain was in at that time because he was shuffling “volunteers” and weapons over as fast as he could to help them before the attack on Pearl. Furthermore, we basically ignored the Japanese until Europe fell even after Pearl - the only excuse for this would be to save the Brits.
Could Germany have defeated Russia? Yes, if the Brits and French had kept attempting appeasment instead of war, I think Germany could have successfully conquered the Russians, then turned on the French.
Also, I’d prefer it if you could refrain from name calling.
I think you should be careful in who you call “illiterate”.
I still contend that FDR wouldn’t have waited for Japan to fall without a German DOW. He would have gotten the Congress to declare war on both Japan and Germany (as Japan’s most powerful ally) then stripped Japan of that ally before defeating them. It would have been the only way to save BritAIn (better F_alk?) from a successful, future German invasion. He must have known the predicament Britain was in at that time because he was shuffling “volunteers” and weapons over as fast as he could to help them before the attack on Pearl. Furthermore, we basically ignored the Japanese until Europe fell even after Pearl - the only excuse for this would be to save the Brits.
Could Germany have defeated Russia? Yes, if the Brits and French had kept attempting appeasement instead of war, I think Germany could have successfully conquered the Russians, then turned on the French.
Yes i believe that can be argued as well with plausibility. After all this is speculative History!
OK i have two questions:
@Imperious:
Also, I’d prefer it if you could refrain from name calling.
I think you should be careful in who you call “illiterate”.
The first quote was from me, the second was not. Stop attributing phrases other people type to me.
@Imperious:
I still contend that FDR wouldn’t have waited for Japan to fall without a German DOW. He would have gotten the Congress to declare war on both Japan and Germany (as Japan’s most powerful ally) then stripped Japan of that ally before defeating them. It would have been the only way to save BritAIn (better F_alk?) from a successful, future German invasion. He must have known the predicament Britain was in at that time because he was shuffling “volunteers” and weapons over as fast as he could to help them before the attack on Pearl. Furthermore, we basically ignored the Japanese until Europe fell even after Pearl - the only excuse for this would be to save the Brits.
Could Germany have defeated Russia? Yes, if the Brits and French had kept attempting appeasement instead of war, I think Germany could have successfully conquered the Russians, then turned on the French.
Yes i believe that can be argued as well with plausibility. After all this is speculative History!
OK i have two questions:
- how much time would you expect a DOW from America to be made against Germany.
- What do you suppose Germany would be doing during the time before the DOW.
1) I expect the DOW would be sent within that same year at least, probably before the second fiscal quarter. Time was of the essense and FDR knew it.
2) I really don’t have a clue. If it were me I’d be setting up an invasion of England - but obviously Hitler wasn’t interested in doing that, he wanted them to surrender due to air assaults. Being as that was the situation, I presume he’d continue is rocket attacks and bomber attacks while utilizing the majority of his ground pounders in Russia.
