Interesting possible WW3 scenarios during the 1980's

One of the books I read on the conference has this opinion:

“Take Munich. A disaster, right? But since when does a peace conference that actually produces peace a disaster?” Note: I don’t own the book, so it may not be the exact words, but this is basically what it says.

The book also mentions that British was not strong enough to take on Germany, Italy and Japan, so the British decided to remove one of them by appeasement. It also asks the question of whether it would have been more honorable (and morally correct) to do appeasement or fight a war that Britain will lose? The book says that the mistake of Britain and France was not appeasement, but letting Germany get so powerful that by 1938 there was no choice but appeasement.

What do you think of this view? Thank you for responding in advance!

He would be housing Hitler himself, not helping Germany. And yes it would be stupid to announce they were holding Hitler. He would be taken in secret, probably until death.

Just wondering if Franco would be willing to take him in, which im guessing is a no.

To be simple… Look at politics as a square.

The top side of the square is 100% government control and authority.  The bottom being 0%

The left hand side of the square is essentially 100% tax.  The right being 0%.

Depending on policy, different groups find themselves at different coordinates in the square.

To answer the original posters question - Communists and Fascists essentially exert the same amount of authority.  But differ in their economic policies.  IE one could be rich in Nazi Germany, where as in communism, the economic freedoms were not as available.  That is one of several conclusions that leads people to see the Nazi’s as right wing.

In simpler terms it’s “Government control of business (Left) vs Business control of Government (Right).”

But is that enough to make the NSDAP a right wing party? In my opinion no. As I feel that all big government is essentially “Left Leaning/Socialistic”.  Meaning that 3/4 of the square is socialism (Anything with more than 50% authority, or 50% tax control of your life)

Again, a very rudimentary and simple perspective, take it or leave it.

Impressive…

I enjoyed it and it has caused me to reevaluate my opinion of Lee.
Have now elevated him  above genius for his thinking how best to win the war and see how he envisaged the South’s only real chance for victory. I always thought him wrong to refuse to go West when asked, but see how necessary he was in the plan of things.
You know I hold the Western defeats dear and wish a Bragg replacement had been found earlier, only acknowledge now it could not be Lee.
My search for the answer goes on.
I know the whole Confederate heirachy( and modern military thinking)would have baulked at the idea of promoting someone two ranks(and not West Point), but how would the army have fared with Cleburne at the helm?
I know it is not a credible choice as he had two immediate superiors in the army(though Hardee refused) as well as two unused Full Generals outside of it.
I would like to read about Hardee and fathom why he could not see himself in the role. He did have the Army’s confidence. He is also another reason Cleburne could never have had the Army, having always been his superior.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17390290

19 March 2012

A British general kept Winston Churchill and Free French leader Charles De Gaulle in the dark about a top secret 1942 plan to arm Vichy France, recently discovered documents reveal.

would it not be better keeping producing Panzer III and IV and keep on developing new Support Tanks etc like Hummel, Nashorn, Wirbelwind, kugelblitz etc.?…It would have been far better to satisfy the needs of the troops instead of longing for bigger tanks.
The Panzer IV was maybe not equal to all the counterparts of the allied tanks but further development of panzer III and IV´s and increasing production of it would be better in the long run!..E series might have been better and easier in production but it is not guaranteed that it would satisfy the need!
I dare even to say that a 5cm gun for panzer III series and a 7,5-cm-KwK 40 L/43 for the Panzer IV´s would have made a big diffrence!
In the end the Panzer IV was the backbone of all Panzerdivisions to the end of the war…

@Fishmoto37:

All of the above made important contributions to the war effort. Which one do you think contibuted the most. Do you think that there is one fighter that the U.S. could not have done without?

The voting is now closed and the P51 is the winner by 3 votes. Although there was very little commentary as to why.