SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cnyndwllr who wrote (264035)11/11/2014 2:30:29 PM
From: Sam  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 540820
 
And like a good chess player the US war machine took advantage of its ability to move pawns (produce weapons of war, especially tanks and aircraft, and to supply soldiers)

Seems to me that those are castles and knights. We were surreptitiously supplying Britain with pawns (supplies) before D-Day, then in '42 moved our knights and castle into position for the kill.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (264035)11/11/2014 2:30:58 PM
From: Steve Lokness  Respond to of 540820
 
<<<<<I think an argument can be made that if the US had entered the war at the onset it might have gone worse, not better.>>>>>

I agree and for the reasons you laid out. Maybe to the point where Germany might have won - or we ended up in a draw. Hitler was a mental retard that let let his emotions infect rational decisions. His war machine was indeed vastly superior to ours. Just saw the movie Fury which hints to this.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (264035)11/11/2014 3:48:41 PM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540820
 
Ed, I think most Americans have no idea whatever how big WWII in Russia was compared to in Western Europe. A little quote from Wikipedia:

The Eastern Front was the largest and bloodiest theatre of World War II. It is generally accepted as being the deadliest conflict in human history, with over 30 million killed as a result. [6] The German armed forces suffered 80% of its military deaths in the Eastern Front. [73] It involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined.[ citation needed] The distinctly brutal nature of warfare on the Eastern Front was exemplified by an often willful disregard for human life by both sides. It was also reflected in the ideological premise for the war, which also saw a momentous clash between two directly opposed ideologies.

Russia's military deaths in WWII were 10 million, compared to about 400k for the US and a little less than that for Britain.

Of course, once the Manhattan project got rolling, it maybe didn't matter. Operation Barbarossa started in summer of '41, Pearl Harbor was in December, and it seems that the atomic program was first approved by Roosevelt in October. But if Hitler hadn't turned on Russia, it would have been a far different war, for sure.



To: cnyndwllr who wrote (264035)11/11/2014 4:25:35 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 540820
 
No way. They could never have defeated the combined forces of what was left of Europe, the UK and the US. As for the USSR, that wasn't a "mistake"- it's what Hitler always planned on doing. The majority of the Jews were there- and Hitler's whole reason for the war was to kill them- but he needed Europe for materials before he turned on the USSR. It's quite clear from the original documents from the war that the supreme goal was the extermination of every Jew everywhere (and given the anti-semitism of historical England and Europe, it really surprised Hitler that more people in other countries didn't understand the grand plan). Hitler was a loon- and if you read the missives from the occupied areas, you get letters like this- lots of them (and I paraphrase)- "We can't possibly meet our quotas if you expect us to kill all the Jews, some of whom are working on armaments"- to which Berlin replied- "The main point is killing the Jews. That's essential. Everything else is secondary." So if Hitler had been forced to be more "cautious" his own side probably would have taken him out- as they tried to do, but failed, and he would never have had access to as many Jews to exterminate- after all, there just weren't that many in Germany. The millions he exterminated (and not just Jews, of course) came from the occupied territories- put a hold on that, and you put a hold on his ability to kill, and allow his own citizens to take him out- because it's not like there wasn't any resistance in Germany, and the Germans were sensitive to internal as well as external pressure. That's why Rossenstrasse worked- and why they quit going after people with disabilities.
Much of what the Nazis were doing depended on speed and secrecy- the Wannsee conference shows that. Read the transcript. Not everyone (even at that conference) agreed- and nothing in particular was done to the people who didn't go along. So if the works had been gummed up, I think it's almost a certainty Hitler would have failed.