OPINION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! (White Giant)

"BTW, I got written up at work! The paper says "for being disrespectful to my superior." I refused to sign it. I told them, first off, the head manager is NOT my "superior" in any way. (I hate that word!) Second of all, I was not disrespectful. I merely stated my right as an American. I have the right to assembly, says it right in the constitution. Nobody, and nothing is going to take my rights away without a fight."

I realize this is old but everybody should know that your rights working for a private company are not exactly the same as the ones you have from the constitution. The Bill of Rights were written to limit the GOVERNMENT not private firms. People that work for the government have different rights then those who work in the private sector except in infractions of labor law, collective bargaining agreements, or other legally binding contracts.

BC

I fully back Michael Morrison. So long as I had comepleted my work, asked for more and supported other areas, I would work how and when I liked. I also decided if I wanted a pay rise.

If I didn't like somthing I would say so and stand by it. I believe it's right they have the right to fire you but I also believe it's my right to stand by my promised freedoms and my beliefs and perhaps just get another job. I did this mainly by contracting and being self-employed as I'm not a good employee and never want to be.

We are all equals. We should work together and not against each other.

Nix,

A forward: Your post really offended me, so I hope this does the same to you. I'm not sure if it was misinformation controlling you post or not, but I would advise you to dredge up some knowledge about history.

What the hell are you talking about with the WWII stuff. Sure we used Britian as a base, but we invaded into North Africa as our first real offensive in the war. Our air raids based out of Britian AND North Africa allowed us to severely damage the Axis infrastructure.

Mount a counter attack? Which major entirely BRITISH counter attack established a beachhead in the European mainland? I never heard about that one. Mabeye you didn't either? Britian would have been hosed in WWII had the US not gotten involved. Hell, a few more years without US intervention and Britian would have been nuked off the face of the planet. God wouldn't have saved the king and queen that day.

Face it, the US was the largest Allied player in that war. Britian brought up a tidy second place. In the words of Winston Churchill himself, "Up to El Alamein we survived, after, we conquered." Coincedentally the US created it's North African beachhead at about that time. We helped form the pincer movement that trapped Rommel's forces.

And, as a final cheap jab, Britian's contribution to the war on terror was a sick joke. You guys are already on the run after a mere sub 400 (military) casualty figure. I find it funny that a country that had a few trains blown up by your beloved terrorists was so pathetic when a chance to fight back against that kind of crap came up.

Note to all Brits in this thread. This post is just a biased reply to Nix's biased post. I wrote it because his ignorance pissed me off. Don't take it personally.

The counter attack, I'm sure it was after the Battle of Britain (I'll dig it out) was on the German cities through the means of bombers. The order as given knowing that the Germans would respond with everything they had. '1 million tonnes of bombs dropped on one UK city in one night.'
This was before the USA got involved. So much for our special friendship.

I'll take the rest of it personally. We backed you, again knowing that it will bring death to the home land, and this is what you have to say about it.

To be fair Master, the Big One in Europe was largely decided on the plains of Russia. The Western Front was a sideshow and coup d'grace, little more.

Pissing contests between Brit and Yank are an insult to the brave men and women who paid the price for both our society's survival.

Nix, do you take night classes on how to piss people off with stupid comments?

Your right of course FarmerBob. And I apologize. It's just the fact that his post really hit a nerve of mine. I don't think he could have said much else that would have pissed me off more.

But a question for you FarmerBob; What makes you think the results of WWII were decided on the fields of Russia alone? I mean, obviously Hitler suffered massive losses on the eastern front, but I wouldn't go so far as to say D-Day and all other offencives in the east were merely a "slideshow".

Ben

Hitler was an incompetent Commander in Chief.

Invading Russia is a fools errand as history should have demonstrated.

The war was lost on June 22 1941...The rest of the conflict was a foregone conclusion.

Sam nailed it. When crazy Adolf decided to execute Barbarosa, invading the USSR on a wide front aimed at occupation of the population centers, it was all over but the shouting. By June '44, allied planners were already starting to think "Post War".

The only chance The Third Reich ever had was a Southern attack towards Turkey, the ME, and the southern Sov oil fields. They would likely have still been overwhelmed from the combined economic and industrial capacities of the Allies, but with adequate POL supplies(a luxury they rarely enjoyed), the Wehrmacht would have been able to fight even more effectively, possibly to a strategic stalemate.

It was the combination of manpower, petroleum, and industrial limitations that doomed the Thousand Year Reich from the beginning.

Had Adolf tried to "liberate" and arm the Ukrainians, organize the Muslim world against their colonial occupiers, and coordinate with the Japanese for effective strategic objectives, who knows?

But that would not have been Hitler or National Socialism. This is why any single ideology will never conquer the World. It's inherent contradictions will eventually prove fatal.

A fool's errand, indeed. Adolf should have learned a lesson from Mons. Bonaparte.

Thank you for the excellent summary FB. I think you may have misunderstood me a bit. I wasn't really saying the Axis had a chance in hell of winning the war, I was merely saying the use of the word "sideshow" seemed to downplay the sacrifices and combat that occured in the western front.

I personally don't think Hitler could have ever taken over the entire world. He simply didn't have enough manpower. Hell, the resistance forces based in conquered countries could have defeated his occupation forces once he was stretched that thin. Germany dosen't even have enough people.

Speaking very bluntly (meaning I wouldn't have approved of this), his best bet would have been to negotiate a settlement with the Allies that would have allowed him control of all of Europe (except for Britian). Assuming he got the Allies to agree with that, he would have had to slowly exterminate all of the native populations in Europe, thereby destroying resistance and opening up Europe for colonization by his "master race". Note the fact that I think Hitler was a mad man and I don't approve of any of his actions.

I think he overlooked the most important fact during his conquests. Instead of improving life for conquered peoples, he subjucated them and made them hate him. I think that in order to conquer the world (or even a part of it) you need to provide a conquered nations populace with better rights and a higher standard of living than what they had before. Even give them a lesser government with representation in your main government. It's hard for people to be loyal to a government that opresses them and is just generally bad. That's my opinion anyways.

That's it exactly, Ben.

It's been estimated that the Ukraine alone could have supplied the Werhrmacht with 100 divsions who would gladly have joined the Germans and allies in marching on Moscow. Thank God Hitler was Hitler. It could be a very different world if he hadn't been an insane meglomaniac.

But again, lebensraum meant for Aryan subjegation of the Untermenschen and ruling them as fuedal masters. Kinda tough sell. Especially when the SS fanatics roll in and start mass executions in the "liberated" territories.

Indeed.

If Hitler had increased funding for Werner Von Braun he could have finished the A9/A10 ICBM.

The original plan for WWII called for hostilities in 1945. A much different world if the Nazis had the bomb and a means to deliver it. Along with a proper navy and top flight air force and army.

A very interesting what if? to ponder is if Germany and Italy and refrained from declaring war on the US, following Dec. 11.

This could be biased because I'm an american, but, I think that one of the Axis's greatest mistakes was the decision to declare war on and attack the US. They should have let us sit in our isolationist ignorance and consolidated their gains. Hitlers mistake was the he essentially tried to blitzkrieg all of Europe and much of Africa. He overextended his forces and was just too brutal to garner much foreign support.

I have to disagree. The failure wasn't in Operation Barbarossa, but the timing. Stopping to pull the Italian chestnuts out of the fire in Greece delayed the start for over a month. German forces were in sight of Moscow when the Russian winter started adversely affecting operations. Given that extra month of time, Moscow may have well fallen, cutting off much of Russia with the concurrent loss of Russia's major transportation hub, as well as it's governmental locus.

If Operation Barbarossa hadn't gone forward, it wouldn't have been much longer before Stalin invaded German occupied Poland, putting a different spin on the war, but leaving it substantively the same.

The blitzkrieg was the only way to wage war that Germany had. It was born of economic necessity. Throughout the war, German forces never enjoyed a stockpile of more than 30 days of war supplies. With a friendly government in Spain, the only country left in Europe that wasn't in Germany's thrall was England. Africa wouldn't have needed too many troops to conquer. After all, how many troops did the other colonial powers have there? And yet they managed to keep the people there subjugated until after the war. I acknowledge the fact that there is a vast difference between conquering a country and keeping it pacified. I fact I learned the hard way from 1967 to 1970.

Hitler was indeed a poor commander in chief. His military thinking was in large part confined to that of a corporal, not that of a member of the General Staff - which he held in contempt.

Nix, the British response of bombing German cities was first carried out on 5 September 1940, after German air craft strayed over London, and dropped bombs in the North east and Eastern portions of the city. The deliberate bombing of civilians was started by the Allies. Great strategically, since it made Hitler furious and derailed operational plans that had Britain on the ropes. Without this change, British effective participation in the European conflict would have ended in weeks, even with lend/lease.

There are many things that could have made the war spin out differently. The thing to remember, I think, is to take each individually, and work from there. Too many things would have had to have been different for the Axis to conquer the entire world in that conflict. The question remains is whether that was ever a goal of any of the Axis powers. Germany wanted room in Eastern Europe and Western Asia - it's attacks on Western Europe were merely to further that goal. Japan wanted resources - it's attacks on America were to delay American response to it's subjugation of IndoChina and the Pacific Islands. Perhaps they were aware of Gen. Smedley Butler's quip that "the American dollar goes overseas and gets lonely. So we send the army over to keep it company." (Sorry if the quote isn't exact, I haven't read war is a racket in years." Italian goals were confined to Eastern Africa and the Mediterrean rim. The Axis, if the war had been decided in their favor, may have dominated the world, but I don't think they would have bothered with attacking the rest of it for many years. The conquest of America wasn't even contemplated by the Japanese - Pearl Harbor was just a spoiling attack. But none of the Axis governments were very good at judging their opponents.

Thanks for the rant room.

Here's the actual quote from Major General Smedley Butler (USMC)

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

Richard you posted as follows, "The deliberate bombing of civilians was started by the allies."
I suppose those Stuka dive bombers over Warsaw in September of 1939 were just stray aircraft that somehow managed to level the city. Oh, and the bombimg of Rotterdam in May of 1940 was mistaken for a dam. I guess the Nazis were just bad at flight navigation. Give me a break. The British didn't need an excuse to bomb German cities. The fact that the Germans had already bombed civilian targets in the countries of British allies was all the justification the British needed.

Neidy,

Point conceded. The air attacks on Polish troops stationed in the city could be construed that way. Or the attacks on the so-called "Black Monday" on GERMAN troops by the Luftwaffe in the Northwest suburbs. Entrenching troops in an urban population should absolutely prevent the enemy from attacking it.(That has worked so well in world history.) There is a huge difference between Operation Wasserkante, and the allied attacks on civilian populations in world war 2 which had as it's purpose only the death of civilians - with the military objective being ostensibly the destruction of the governments' will to resist. I'll include the terror bombings that Germany resorted to after the initial bombing of Berlin in that category. I never stated that only the Allies were guilty of war atrocities.

Rotterdam was indeed bombed - after troops there under Colonel Scharroo refused to surrender the city without a fight, knowing full well that the city would then be attacked. Even after the first ultimatum was refused, and the bombers had started going in, to be warned off with flares - another chance was given to the forces there to surrender. And still Colonel Scharroo decided to continue the fight. There is indeed some controversy concerning the second group of bombers who were not in position to see the flares, as well as the timing of the recall order itself.

And speaking of Rotterdam, let's not forget the bombing in 1943. Or if you want to continue with other cities, Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Plenty of blame to accrue to both sides.


Britain needed no justification to begin it's atrocities, and would have invented whatever was needed - just as the Germans did in the Warsaw uprisings, or indeed it's justification for the entire war. Seeking to demonize one side, and point to the other as being part of the forces of righteousness is as old as warfare. But antiquity does not lend a veneer of respectability in this instance. If the Allies had indeed wanted to be on the side on the angels, the Holocaust would have taken pride of place in their justification for war - as and when they learned of it, instead of years later, when it was politically expedient.

I'm going to have to refrain from giving you a break. And continue arguing from facts, not rhetoric.

Lol! It's funny how you "concede" my point and then try and justify the actions of the Nazis. I'm sorry to say, you sound like a post war apologist for them. You conveniently overlook the fact that Warsaw was surrounded, and Polish Troops squeezed from the east by Russians and the West by the Nazis, had nowhere else to go. The Nazis had more humanitarian options aside from laying waste to the city. They could have laid siege to the city and waited in out few more months. They chose the more brutal option.

As for Rotterdam, you again try to be an apologist. 'Oh poor Rotterdam! It only got leveled because of poor communication'! Hey, Richard. Did it ever occur to you that the Nazis had no right to invade the neutral countries of Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg in the first place? Why, the nerve of those little countries trying to defend there cities against naked aggression.

The fact is that Germany prior to September 1939 and Japan prior to December of 1941 had already used air terror tactics against civilian populations. In the case of Germany, I point to the terrot air raids against civilian populatins in support of Franco during the Spanish Civil War. Japan's worst examples were the "Rape of Nanking" and bombing of Shanghai. You conveniently forget these facts. The Axis powers set the rules for engangemment in World War II even before the war began. They threw the shit and the shit hit the fan. Too bad for them. They chose total war and in fact set the example.

As for your accusation that I am demonizing one side over the other. You are damn right I am. My premise as to who to view as the good guys vs. the bad guys rests on the simple view of a post war world where the Axis were victorous vs. one where the Allies won. I prefer the latter.

You also actually try to blame the Holocaust on Britain and France. While I definitely agree that they could have done a better job of allowing more Jewish refugees into their countries, that in no way implicates them in the greatest deliberate murder of humans based on race in Western history. ( Of course Soviet Russia was even worse during the purges in the 1930's)

I have great respect for the culture of Germany and Japan. Unfortunately, the achievements of those nations made a certain sector of the people of those nations view themselves as racially superior and more entitled than the other nations of the world, while at the same time too many more level headed people in those countries looked the other way. If it had to take total war and destruction to eliminate this notion from their national thought and thus allow other countries to live with some sense of security, then so be it. I do not feel sorry for Germany and Japan. When the war was over, they were treated with respect, rebuilt and became among the most prosperous nations in the world. Would a Nazi Germany and Militarist Japan have treated defeated nations in the same way had they been victorious?. I think we know the answer to that question.

Neidy,

It was not my intention to apologize for any of the actions on either side in that war. Only to point out that both sides are worthy of condemnation. You conveniently overlook the fact that those troops squeezed into those cities indeed had other options - one could look to both Paris and Rome for an example on either side. Each was in line with the 1907 Hague Convention.

Britain and France were not to blame for the Holocaust - they pulled no triggers. Neither did America when it refused emmigration. Nor was the Catholic Church who aided and abetted the fascists. Nor were the Syrians, Jordanians, and Palestians who rioted in their streets when it was proposed to send the Jews there. Germany and Germany alone had the responsibility. Along with all the enthusiastic collaborators in France and Poland, and in other occupied countries who shared their anti-Semitic views.

The fact that the "civilized" nations of the world have repeatedly looked away when genocide has been committed is a troubling fact to me. Especially those that supposedly champion human rights. And whether that has occurred in Germany under Hitler, the Ukraine under Stalin, the Cultural revolution in china, Pol Pot, Darfur, Rwanda, the list just goes on and on. However, I think the fact that Germany tried to remove them before executing them does deserve some mention. As well as the fact that their policies concerning racial purity were an outgrowth of United States policies at that time. Eugenics is a dirty word now, but back then it was prevalent in all Western civilizations. Sweden ended their Eugenics program in the 1970s. Is it really that much of a difference in why people are discriminated against? Whether it's skin color, culture, or age, gender, or physical infirmity? All seem equally repugnant to me.

You do realize that we were allies with Stalin? Who killed over 5 times the amount of people that Hitler did? I see you do. Again, demonizing one side over the other. 6 million in German controlled areas versus 30 million in the Ukraine. While both are reprehensible, calling the lesser evil a greater one requires some agile mental gymnastics, doesn't it? However using this as a justification for the war is similar to Lincoln using the slave issue in the United States as a justification for war. Sounds nice, but it just ain't so.

True, the Germans had no justification for the invading of countries who were not party to the Treaty of Versailles. But, that includes those poor countries you mentioned. What was taken? Not just overseas colonies, such as those subjugated by the British and French in Africa, the middle east, the near east and Indo-china; but territory that was part of the country of Germany itself. I urge you to consider what a British or American response would be to the permanent annexation of California or Wales would be.

I am no respecter of any culture. It would be great if men were all brothers under our skin, but the truth is we are all murderers, rapists and cannibals ( to paraphrase Mencken).

As to your comment about total war and destruction being necessary to relive wrong-headed notions about superiority, who is going to be the arbiter? With the current world situation, are you recommending the carpet bombing of Muslim countries? What about the Chinese who have always considered themselves superior to the Westerners? Should we preemptively bomb them, so we don't have to worry about a future war, which is surely coming?

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the countries in question being treated with respect. Again, that requires mental gymnastics that I can't quite achieve.

Would Germany and Japan have treated defeated nations differently? I sincerely doubt Germany would have. After all, they partitioned France and occupied part of it. Just as was done to them. I think a country defeated by the Japanese would have suffered more than just the permanent elimination of their armed forces (although that has been worked around). Or the impression of up to 300k comfort women to service the occupying forces. (although in a small way they achieved some revenge for that. Over 25% of the occupying forces left with some form of venereal disease.)

The original plan was for de-industrialization of Japan, not it's economic growth. We rebuilt Germany in order to have something to counterpoise to our Great Ally Stalin. Indeed, certain segments of the American military forces wanted to keep going all the way to the Pacific. And enlist the Nazi's to help do it. The plan for Japan was changed for pretty much the same reason.

Richard, my problem with your argument is you mix too many apples with oranges. Every nation can look back at some sordid time in their past. As I already noted in my prior post, there was insufficient moral outcry against the persecutuion of Jews in Germany as we both have correctly pointed out in the immigration policies of the western countries.

We are talking about World War II and the specific manner of war making between the nations. Were there collaborators? Of course. We all know that. But that symapthy with the Nazi theology didn't represent the overall view of the nations and people of Europe and America. Yes, they had their religious and racial prejudices, but there were lines that they didn't cross. Such as the instigated state policy of eliminating an entire race of people. You again say you do not mean to be an apologist for the Nazis, yet at the same time point out that the Nazis weren't so bad since they at least offered to let the German Jews emigrate FROM THEIR OWN COUNTRY! 'We'll give you a chance to leave before we murder you'. Wow. I see the Nazis in a new light.


As for the alliance with Russia. That was out of reality rather than choice. After all, Hitler invaded Russia. You can only deal with one mass murderer at a time. You know and I know that that was neccesitated by the time and circumstances. When a country is fighting for its survival, it sometimes can't be picky about who it will choose as it's friends.

I knew the Treaty of Versailles would come up in this. Another attempt to excuse Nazi agression.Before the war began, Germany had already swallowed up Czechoslovakia. A nation with which it had absolutely no territorial claims. Not even the Sudenland had ever been part of Germany.Germany, in her conquests exported her program of extermination. That's the big difference.

What the hell does China have to do with this? They were under unprovoked attack by the Japanese. I could care less what they think of their racial superiority. The average Chinese wouldn't know what you are talking about. The Chinese consumer today is too busy trying to copy western cultural practices to think about whether they are undermining what you claim to be their belief in their own racial and cultural supremacy. You make no sense.

Look. Here's the bottom line.Fascists of the 1930's and 40's: Really, really bad asses who meant to take over the world geographically to the extent they could and dominate it politically. The Allies: Scared shitless, found their cojones, became double the bad asses and then kicked ass. And we are all the better for it. Spare me the political philosophers and all that other crap.

Neidy,

Kind of hard to spare you in anyway, when you keep using the same pretext to justify your own opinions that I use in mine. Until 1948 the Jews didn't have a country. If Germany was indeed their country, you have just undermined your argument about the Sudetenland - where ethnic Germans tried to form their own country under Woodrow Wilson's 14 point plan. A process that was tried repeatedly by democratic and peaceful means. It's got to be either one way or the other, not one way for you and another for myself. Anything else is simply intellectual dishonesty.

Belgium, Luxembourg and Holland was the topic you broached. Moving those countries into the Sudetenland is bad geography. I believe the area you are looking for in Czechoslovakia that was German is Upper Silesia, particularly the Hultschin area. The Sudetenland was ethnic Germans seeking to form their own country - an entirely separate issue.

Your argument about being picky holds little water. Expediency can never trump morality, else your entire argument against the Nazi's collapses of it's own weight.

The Treaty of Versailles was a major cause of the war. I think that's beyond disputation. Since you seem to think otherwise, I'd welcome your reasoning. After all, if the Germans had honored that treaty, reparations would only have just over another decade to run before it was paid off. A ruinous peace often leads to war - as America found out in Afghanistan.

What does China have to do with this? Perhaps you should go back and read your post, where you posited than anyone who thought they were superior, and had the capacity to attack other nations should be eradicated with total war. I strenuously object to your statement that the average Chinese wouldn't know what I was talking about. I think the average Chinese knows exactly where the phrase "the Middle Kingdom" comes from. Their practice of using barbarians to control barbarians continues to this day.China has been planning since the beginning of the armistice in Korea on how to successfully attack my country, the USA. And sooner or later, I think that will flare into open warfare, besides the economic and cyber warfare we are already engaged in. Is it that you only care about the German and Japanese view that they were superior, and care little about the same thing among other nations? By your statement in your latest post, I assume that to be the case. Either something is right for all, or it is wrong for all. There goes that philosophy again. Perhaps you could explain in detail how the same action for one is different for the same action in another? That seems to be the majority of your arguments. I only differ in stating that it is bad for both. We're already half in agreement, perhaps you can persuade me the rest of the way.

Since World War 2 doesn't seem to be your forte, care to move this discussion into a different context?

Shelton, you argue so many points, ranging over such a wide range of importance. What's your main point--that the Axis weren't entirely evil automatons but real people, and that the Allies weren't purely good automatons but real people? Of course that's true and it is good to remind us all of that. But it's less than useful to carry it to the point of arguing the moral equivalencies of all parties.

Neidy's summary is right on the mark.

Richard. Where one is born, there lies his or her country. Don't tell me that German Jews didn't consider themselves German. Again you act as an apologist for the Nazi thuggery. Sudetenland was not part of Germany prior to the Versaille treaty. It was part of the Austia Hunagarian Empire.
Hitler's interest in the Sudetenlnd was motivated only out of purely military need. Czechoslovakia was allied with France in the event of war with Germany. The area in question was heavily fortified and was a linchpin of the Czechoslovakian defense. Hitler knew that in the event of war in the East he would not only have to possibly face France in the west, but also the entire Bavarian region of Germany would be at risk. He knew that if he could get the Sudetenland wrenched from the Czechs, any future invasion of Czechoslovakia would be a cake walk. This was evidenced by the fact the Czechs didn't even bother to put up a fight in March 1939 when Hitler followed up the Munich appeasement with the takeover of Czechoslovakia. I don't know what you are talking about regarding the Low countries. I didn't move them geographically. You must be confused. Re read my post. Don't try to lecture me about Europe and the world wars. I'll run circles around you. Versaille was simply a convenient way for the Nazis to exploit German nationalism and make Germans think they had some how been wronged. In fact there probably was too harsh a peace forced upon Germany. But, that will never justify there reaction to it. As for the rest of your post, you once again are starying from the topic. The "middle kingdom"? ... whatever...

ww1 was a stalemate til US stepped in
ww2 The Germans were winning till the African Invasion
desert storm yes there were others nut US and its advanced weapons did most of the work
B52
b2B
a10
apache
f117
f22 raptor
Nimitz Carrier 5 acres of sovereign real-state
m2 browning been around 90 years and still kills well. its killed germans, japs, koreans, VC, and arabs
Iowa battleship the go away comeback refit ship my favorite warship
M1 Abrams most advanced tank in world
its problem lack of competition
also your probably running on a Dell, HP, or gateway using windows XP or higher

Neidy,

Sorry, it's been a busy couple of days on the other side of the orb.

Hitler's interest in the Sudetenland may have been purely military. The Sudetenland's interest in a Germanic Austria predated Hitler's rise to power. No other world leader was prepared to get involved into breaking up a country - like Bosnia and environs.

The middle kingdom quip was in response to your statement about the average Chinese. An intrinsic part of Chinese cultural is their belief in their superiority over all other cultures.

And, now, having beat this subject into the ground, how about a new topic?