Posts made by Zooey72

I know, sounds crazy right?  Just hear me out.

Yes, Spain was heavily pro Germany, but Franco was an opprotunist.  He didn’t join the Axis powers in 40 because he wasn’t getting what he wanted.  Now flash forward to 42-44.  The Atlantic wall is impregnable!  No one can breach it… unless…

Franco had geography, by 42 and def by 43 it was plain to see who was going to win the war.  That would have been a great time to throw his hat in with the winners.  Think about it, a safe landing site to funnel troops into Europe w/o the hell of D-day.  A second front opened in 43 instead of 44?  That is huge, and I am sure the allies would have paid that thug quite well to let them do it.

I am no Franco historian, so there may be a lot of reasons he would not have done this (coming to mind is the presence of foriegn troops in his country).  But it is interesting mind candy.  I wonder if there were any offers to Franco from the allies, and if there were why were he rejected them.

The best chance Hitler had to convince Franco to enter the war was in 40 when France fell.  You seem to forget, England stood alone.  Do you honestly think it would have wasted troops taking the canary islands that serve little if any strategic value (England could barely defend itself, and if Hitler had waited on attacking Russia for a year and focused on England they probably would have been invaded).  Did Franco bitch and moan about it, yes - that is what negotiating is.  He wanted more than what Hitler was willing to give for Spain to enter the war.

England did not have a good relationship with Spain.  I would compare that relationship to the US and Iran - yes, we aren’t killing each other but I would hardly call that a good relationship.

Hitler tried to bribe Franco and the bribe was not large enough.  That is why Spain did not enter the war.  Take all ethics out of the argument (because we are talking about the Nazis and a opressive dictator) I agree with Hitler.  Franco was acting like an ass.  If not for his support he would not be in power… kind of like Franco owed him one and didn’t pay up.

Looking at it from Franco’s perspective, Franco wanted parts of France and Hitler did not want to give it to him.  If they are not going to get parts of France, than what would he get from joining a war with Germany?  Any conquests of note would go to the Germans/Italians.  As in every war it was fought over $.  It was not in Franco’s best intrest to join the war.

Hmmmm.  This just gave me an idea for a new thread

_I personaly think the Spanish staying netrual is a huge reason Germany lost.

I don’t agree.
If spain declared war to the allies, only after a few months and spain fall under allies control.
Spain is too hard to defend.
Can be invaded by south, east and west.
Franco was afraid that his country undergoes a maritime blockade. His army would not have been able to survive for a long time and his government would have fallen because the people would have rebelled. Spain had just lived 3 years of civil war so he did well to stay away from war and anyway Germans did not need a him._

Sorry, but none of this has basis in fact, except maybe that it could be invaded on multiple sides… but that is as much a consideration as saying Germany could have invaded Scotland

First, there were no “allies”, there was only an “ally” in 40 - and that was England which was being bombed to death by the Germans.  England was doing all it could to stop the Germans from invading them - they weren’t going into Spain or anywhere else.  Spain (with probably German and Italian reiforcements) would have easily taken Gibralter.

Second, Spain is a fortress.  If you look at the Geography it is mostly mountains.

Third, yes, Spain would have been blockaded.  But that is not why they would not have gone to war.  The British would have been further crippled by having to spread thier Navy even thinner than it already was trying to blockade Spain.  After the fall of France they couldn’t keep the coast from Norway to France adequetaly covered, throwing Spain in there would have overwhelmed them.

Franco didn’t join the war because he didn’t think he got enough of France to warrant it.  If Hitler had given him more when France fell, he would have joined.  The communist opposition in the country was purged when Franco won.

And Germany did ‘need’ them for the reasons I already stated

England would have fallen.

Follow the logic…

Spain joins --> Gibralter falls
Gibralter falls --> Suez Canal falls (and Malta for that matter)
Suez Canal falls --> India falls.

Those losses would have brought England to its knees.  In addition to this the loss of Suez would have exposed the caucus oil fields from the South.

I personaly think the Spanish staying netrual is a huge reason Germany lost.

The Military Channel was playing an old 60s movie “Hitler” and it got me thinking.  I have never seen this movie before, but it sucks.  Historical mistakes asside, it was just written badly.  The guy playing Hitler, who would follow a social retard like him?
This may never fly in hollywood because he has been made such a boogeyman and not the nut job that he was, but wouldn’t it be cool to see a movie about how he became an anti-semite (lots of good stuff there, he was awarded the iron cross because of the recommendation of a Jewish officer.  Or even going back further to his teen years when he lost his mother to cancer and her doctor was Jewish, when he came to power he got that guy out of the country because he knew exactly what he was about to do - but in his own insane mind it didn’t include ‘that jew’.

I am thinking a Hanibal Lectur kind of thing, but more on the evil side (lets face it, hannibal was no Adolf).  A movie showing a truely diseased mind getting worse and worse as time goes on, but the truely horrifying thing is that this sick mind inspired millions into the bloodiest war in human history.

Only problem is that you don’t want to comepletely portray him as Hannibal Lecture, because in the end a lot of people who have seen the original and the following movies kind of liked him.  Couple that with the fact that if you want to portray Hitler accurately he has to be Charismatic.  The last thing anyone would want walking out of the movie theater is to have less loathing of Hitler.

It would take a hell of a director, and some really talented actors to pull it off.

No offense, but some of what you posted is just naive.  We aren’t talking about us turning Iraq into a democracy.  If we wanted a stable Iraq we could have it in a month after their military was defeated (with a quarter the number of troops).  If we adopted the inhuman tactics used by Hitler, Tojo, or even SH the population would have been beaten into compliance.  I am not suggesting we should have done that, but it has been done and it is an effective way to control a population.  The British empire did it for 100s of years, we did it to the indians, SH did it to his own people (like the Kurds).  The nature of the regimes in Germany/Japan assures you that they would have done whatever was nec. to subdue the population - paticularly the Japs who were more racists towards us than the Germans would have been (Bataan death march).

We could not have outproduced Germany by itself, much less adding Japan, had Russia and Britian fallen.  Even put aside the fact we would have no industrialized trading partner which would stifle our own economy, the rest of the industrialized world would have been producing against us.  We could not comepete with that.

You have a point with the A-bomb… but how exactly were we going to deliver it if Germany held England?  W/o the island hopping we did against japan, it would be impossible to drop one on them either.  A doolittle raid would not be possible.  The B-29s could barely pick up that bomb, and there was no way they could fit those on a AC.  And than there is the very strong poss. that the whole program would have been dropped once things got as bad as it did.  Would you spend $ on weapons develepment in A&A if both England and Russia fall?

But lets say we do develop the bomb, find some way to deliver it, and manage not to get invaded during all this.  We only had 3.  One had to be tested, no way around that.  If you drop one and it doesn’t explode you just gave your tech to the enemy.  Than we have 2.  There are no places on the mapthat would have changed the outcome of the war.  What it would have done was get teh germans to race to get a bomb of their own.  And unlike us they have a much better delivery system in the V2.

If you had to point to the biggest Axis blunder of WW2 it would be that Japan never attacked Russia.  Yes, they may not have gotten very far and the terrain did suck, but the real estate was improtant enough to Stalin that he had 100,000s of troops stationed there just in case it was attacked.  Once Stalin found out that Japan had no intention of attacking they diverted those troops, and that was what made stalingrad possible.  It can be argued that w/o that victory the Germans may have broken the Russians, captured Stalingrad and than than the oil fields.  Hitler’s idea that was w/o oil Russia would lose the war (and he was probably right).

No love for Kursk on this one eh?  Moscow bought the Russians some time, Stalingrad was a huge defeat, but only at Kursk was the war decided.  If the Germans had had a 1941 blitz on Russia in 43 than it would have reveresed their fortunes.  As it happened, Hitler was an idiot and screwed things up (lucky for us).

For final victory the only role Japan played (or didn’t play) is that they did not attack the USSR.  The extra troops from the far east is what made Stalingrad possible.  W/O stalingrad you have no huge Russian victory that caused the eventual Kursk.  So actualy the battle (that did not happen) that sealed the axis’s fate was Japan not attacking the USSR.  Had they done that - even badly - it would have kept those Russian troops there and very likely could have changed the outcome of the war.  The war in the pacific was a sideshow in comparison to what was going on in Europe.  If the Germans did not win the Japs were destined to lose.

Well, this is Hitler’s wet dream come true.  The reality of it IMO, is that if England and Russia fell Roosevelt would have called for peace.  At that point we are the ones fighting a 2 front war with Japan in the pacific and the germans in the atlantic.  Also I think the way they have the Germans going to brazil from Africa would have been dumb.  If we were to be invaded take england, than Iceland, greenland through Canada and than the US.  Logistics is a nightmare for either side crossing 2 oceans - but that would have been the best way to do it.  But it would have been abundently clear that we could not win the war if Britian and Russia fell.  The Germans would have had the best real estate in Russia and England.  But the Japs would have gotten India, Australia, New Zealand - blah blah blah.

We could have dragged the war out to the early 60s because we are protected by 2 huge oceans - but we would have been destined to lose.  At that point make a deal with Germany/Japan to buy time.  Fortify the crap out of our continent and make em pay dearly if they try to attack us.  I think Tojo/Hitler would have gone for that deal.  They would have owned most of the world and would have figured it was just a matter of time before they got us too (and prob. would have been right).

It isn’t sexy like jets, rockets, and U-boats, and the atom bomb, BUT I think the real game changer would have been the assault rifle

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/MP44.jpg

The war for Germany was won and lost on the Eastern front.  If the frontline German troops had assualt rifles, you are talking about a whole different war.

All though sexy, and a HUGE tech. advancement the ME262 could not have saved Germany- the bombing we did, did not decide the war from 42 on.  I think Germany (even with jets) would have fallen reguardless of the bombing.  Bloodier - yes, more Russians would have died - but bombing did not decide the war.

I completely agree, Fox is right slanted.  But the crappy thing is that it is the only place to go not to hear the further extreme of the left.  I would love if fox was more “fair and balanced”, but it isn’t.  BUT, where else can you go to hear another point of view that is not tainted?

CNN?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo

Fox may be bad, but they are not this bad.  Don’t you think the ACORN news was newsworthy?  Why was Fox the only one who really covered it?  I think the fact that Fox has such good ratings is because people are not nec. right wing in America, they just are sick of only hearing one point of view.

MSNBC is not unbiased either, and they are crazier than rat shit.

I am not sure how much they held, but I am sure it is in the 1000s of barrels - not hundreds of gallons.  That aside, oil tankers were the main target for any sub (not an opinion, a fact) and I would be curious to know the other parts of the world that had serious oil dumpage.  Japan attacked us (mostly) because we exported oil to them and threatened to stop exporting exporting.  A lot of oil got dumped into the pacific when our subs sunk their gravy train of oil from borneo.  Last I checked, their is still sea life in the pacific.

Again, I don’t know diddly about this - why I am asking the question.  I can see there being a difference between refined oil and crude.  IF crude is worse, than ya - this is a huge enviormental disaster.  If not than I think this whole thing is being dramatized for politics (on both sides).  I just can not imagine 4 years of intentional sinking of ships that carried oil is less than a few months of one hole spewing oil into the Gulf.

I am being lazy at the momment to look up the stats (I will later), BUT I have an unarguable point (this being an Axis and allies forum).  Japan always attacks Russia  :-D

Without looking it up, I think most historians agree that the forces the Russians used at Stalingrad were from the East.  And even the “few” divisions you mentioned I think meant the difference - esp. when you consider if Paulus could have broken out of Stalingrad could have been relieved.

This is not a political question, this is for info.  The germans sunk a ton of our oil tankers right in the Gulf, it was the prime target - I think we can all agree on that.  How much oil did get dumped into the ocean?  Recent events say how bad things are in the Gulf, but I keep coming back to ww2 and the U-boat campaign.  I can’t see how after 4 years of war and untold amount of oil being spilled across the globe can be smaller than what is going on now.  I have read up on WW2 since I was a kid, and I have never heard of any kind of damage being done because of oil tankers being sunk.  I know there was no clean up - no resources for it, there was a world war going on.  I don’t know that for a fact, but I think it is a good bet there wasn’t.

I could be wrong, anyone have any info on this?  Or at least the numbers of how much oil was spilled off our coast during WW2 (and other places if you happen to know).

And was the oil refined?  That could be the difference too.  Maybe refined oil isn’t as toxic - I have no idea really.

This guy doesn’t know diddly.  The Japs didn’t even have to attack Russia, all they had to do was declare war on it and I think the Germans could have  pulled off a win.  The troops that made Stalingrad possible came from the east.  They had been stationed in case the japs did attack.  Stalin took the threat seriously.  After one of their spies confirmed that there would be no attack, only than did the Russians move those troops west.  Had Japan declared war, those troops would have stayed where they were.

A german victory at Stalingrad cuts off the volga, captures the Caucus and all the oil in it.  It even frees up North Africa and the suez cannal for Rommel because the British would have defend that flank.

Not attacking Russia at all would have been Germany’s best bet.  But short of that I think they could have won if Japan even made the gesture of attacking Russia.

Actualy the Nazis were more sane in this reguard than the allies were.  They had much more, and much better chemical weapons than we had but did not use them.  Kind of an early version of MAD.  Hitler served in WW1 and was exposed to mustard gas and I think that influenced his decision.  Could also argue that might be one of the reasons he used it in the holocaust, he hated those “subhumans” that much.

Churchill actualy almost used chemical weapons in 44.  He was enraged at the v1 and v2 attacks that he wanted to start dropping chemical weapons in the bombing raids in retaliation.  Roosevelt talked him down from it.  Good thing too - a V2 loaded with the more lethal and more plentiful german chemical weapons would have been a holocaust in and of itself.

Most over rated is Patton.  He made no greater command decision than “charge”.  Any jackass can do that (almost).  I am sure you know the whole “blood and guts” nickname he had (and earned).

The worst General, by FAR was Clark.  It is absolutely stunning they allowed him to live after the war.  He should have been court martialed and hung for all of the American (and axis too) lives he wasted.  Little story about this POS…

When he finaly broke through in Italy and was about to capture Rome it was mid afternoon when his caravan had to stop because there was some fighting going on up the road.  We were mopping up some Germans who were cut off.  Clark’s assistant asked “how long till we can get under way”.  The guy in charge said it would probably take 4-5 hours.  Clark wouldn’t allow it, he demanded it be cleared in 2 hours (and it was).

The reason why?

The sun was going down and the General wouldn’t be able to take good pictures in the twilight as he entered Rome.

It is old, but I love this scene.  The “Americanization of Emily”.  For those of you who haven’t seen it - enjoy.  The ones who have… this kicks so much ass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyMRz1hbb4M

It was a typical “white man is evil for taking our lands” movie.  Except they made the “white man” more cartoon evil than real evil, and made the indians more noble than what they actualy were.  Turned religion into fact, and the blue people’s philosiphy on “we don’t want what the white man has” was bunk.  If you believe the romanticized idea that an indian would rather take 10x longer chopping a log with a stone axe rather than a metal one you watch way too much TV.

But I agree with it being a good action movie.  Worth the $ just for that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34629983/ns/us_news-weird_news/

and

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/11120919111.html

What do we pay taxes for???