Posts made by ABWorsham4

I believe Operation Sealion would fail even if the Luftwaffe had worn the R.A.F down in the Battle of Britain.

Studing the Battle of Creete has helped form this conclusion. It’s common knowledge that the Germans had to support the attack on Creete by air. In the Battle the Royal Navy blocked any attempt to supply the invasion by sea. The Germans had complete air control. This fact did not stop the Royal Navy from evacuating most of the defenders of Creete in the face of heavy losses.

How would the Royal Navy act to an invasion of the homeland? With the Germans Navy strength weakened by the invasion of Norway the Royal Navy would destroy most if not all the supporting forces.

I have no idea what losses the Royal Navy would suffer, prehaps a pre-war fleet. The cost would be light considered the consequence of failure. The British were aware of the failures of 1066 A.D.

If movie and pop stars and political leaders endorsed the airship then certain people would use airships. Otherwise our fast pace society will not accept such travel.

Most people’s thoughts of airships consist of the Hindenburg burning and the beer commercial series Bud Bowl.

I would love if ships and airships became the mode of travel again.

We have talked much about Europe in this discussion. If China remained neutral or sided with the Soviets would South Korea and Japan repel communist invasions?

Thank you for the post Romulus. I have been wanting to read, Pat Buchanan’s CHURCHILL, HITLER, AND THE
UNNECESSARY WAR.

I just do not have the time.

Both were brought up. The first as a joke.

LoL, Lennon actually crossed my mind.

I do agree with you that WWI was going to errupt. War was nearly unleashed in 1905 with the Moroccan crisis.

I thought tossing Ferdinand name into the list would be a great "curve ball’'. WWI needed a representive. Churchill, although a figure in WWI, made the fame in WWII.

Some great reading on the subject of the Empires of Europe before 1914 is, The Fall Of The Dynasties: The Collapse of the Old Order 1905-1922, by Edmond Taylor.

@Jermofoot:

@ABWorsham:

Ferdinand out of place? Some people change the world by simply getting killed. If his assination had not happened would Europe plunge into World War One?

Ferdinand’s death caused the greatest war known to civilization; followed by an even greater destructive conflict. If we look at the aftermath of the World Wars, how can Archduke Ferdinand, by his assination not get placed on such a list.

I do agree with your suggestions concerning Lennin and Gandhi. Those additions would make for great discussion.

There was a bigger part of the conflict than him alone.  And I don’t think getting assassinated is a “great” action, mostly because you don’t do anything but have someone kill you.  Lincoln and JFK should be up there then, and they have their own merits to go on.

And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…

@Obergruppenfuhrer:

I’m fessing up here. I voted for Hitler. “Man of the year.” I’m not quite sure what that means exactly so I took it as the most influential. I believe the atomic technology would have been discovered without Einstein, but perhaps not in the same time frame. There’s no way to know when it would have been available as a weapon without Einstein. His theory of relativity definately puts him in a close tie for me however.

I voted for Hitler because he demonstrated to modern civilization that an empire similar to the Romans, could still rise and pose a threat to the world, collectively. I think Hitler changed the manner in which the world now looks at those that rise to totalitarian power and the actions taken as a result. I believe he showed us that fanatisism with fervent followers can be precise, completely calculated, organized and extremely powerful.

I dont thing the American public has learned its lesson however. They don’t have perspective that history continues to repeat itself. Many people have completely forgotten the impact of 9/11 on our national security. I think the government has taken it as serious possible while the public (and even large divides of the government) has now come to almost a majority gripe against Americas efforts to thwart future attempts.

If anyone thinks that thinks there hasnt been a need for force to secure the safety of our country after 9/11 are still living in a safe little bubble where the twin towers collapsing are nothing more than TV violence they have long been desensitised to.

Yes, I think people have been out of touch with reality, but still are.  But to chastise Hitler for what he did then excuse the US for doing much of the same is quite a stretch.  Remember, Hitler invaded Poland on the excuse of threat to security.  There is no excuse for the most powerful nation in the world strong arming other countries and offering no diplomacy whatsoever.  So I should stop there lest this gets too political.

“And his death really had nothing to do with WW2…”

His death ignited World War One.

If World War One had not been fought then modern Poland does not exist. Danzig and the Polish Corridor were main objectives in Germany’s attack on Poland.

Ferdinand does not belong near the top of this list. However, He is not out of place on this list.

Jermofoot, I wish I had your opinion concerning this poll before I posted. Lennin and Gandhi would have been great additions. I considered Lennin, only to get captured by the thoughts of how Marx changed the world. At that point Lennin never came back in mind.

Ferdinand out of place? Some people change the world by simply getting killed. If his assination had not happened would Europe plunge into World War One?

Ferdinand’s death caused the greatest war known to civilization; followed by an even greater destructive conflict. If we look at the aftermath of the World Wars, how can Archduke Ferdinand, by his assination not get placed on such a list.

I do agree with your suggestions concerning Lennin and Gandhi. Those additions would make for great discussion.

I tell my kids, the ones that claim winning does not matter, that life is much like a game, people win and people loose-except the stakes are higher.

Is it true or just myth that the Soviets could launch a 50,000 tank invasion of Western Europe?

The thought of a Kursk type of tank battle between Soviet and NATO countries is captivating.

Who are the two ‘other’ votes?

Last year I went to a dinner party with other history majors. I love to talk. There is nothing worse than silence at a party. Keeping this in mind I alway keep several hot questions that are certain to get people to talk and think. This is my favorite.

Einstein was great, but this title belonged to Churchill.

This subject is not black or white, it’s grey!  Each person must look within themselves to answer the question of self sacrifice for a cause greater than themselves.

A commander must also make this decesion concerning his men. I’m sure Obergruppenfuhrer made the best decesion.

Wow, we’re now talking philosophy!

Thank you for that post Raunchy.

Oh well, like it really matters. I’ll do it later.

The subject of Goering and Dunkirk was brought up. It seems history has stamped Dunkirk, a German mistake. Was Hitler unwise by not committing his forces to crushing the British pocket at Dunkirk? I beleive he acted corectly by not attacking the British.

The goal of destroying the French army was still at hand. While the Germans were in control of much of the situation in the West they were still outnumbered in men and tanks. The Germans had very few heavy tanks. This has to be taken in consideration. Why give the French a chance to regroup?

By committing a large force to the English Channel the Germans would get within range of the Royal Navy and the R.A.F. Salerno and Normandy would prove how vulnerable tanks were to heavy Naval fire.

The area around Dunkirk favored the defense. The British would not give up without drawing a heavy cost on the attacker. The defense of the pocket around Dunkirk would give the Luftwaffe a chance to destroy the R.A.F.

How would history judge Dunkirk if the Germans had destroyed most of the Allies in the Dunkirk pocket and allowed the French to counter attack? What would occur had the war in the west lasted another year? How would Stalin react?

It’s just a thought.

How many Sturmgewehr 1944 were actually produced?

Even if we get off subject, you people are great! I enjoy talking WW II.

Von Manstein was one of the best leaders of WWII, he would get my vote for number one.

Wow, awesome post! Thank you for the infomation.

How would a 1945 European war been different? That’s a interesting question.

Since many weapons were developed during the war based on reaction i have no idea. The Tiger and Panther tanks were a response to the T-34. Would Germany start a 1945 war with Mark IV as the main battle tank?