(March 27, 2016 at 1:04 am)Cato Wrote: I can't get my head around the idea that we should just let the Middle East suffer through a civil war. It's as if an older brother that survived a serious addiction problem sat back and said to his younger sibling 'it's just something you need to experience for yourself'. Totally misguided.

To extend your simile, addiction is something that can only be overcome by the desire and determination of the addict to live clean and sober.

I don't think it's possible for any outside power to step into the ME and knock heads together. There are too many grievances, both real and imagined, to do so, sadly.

(March 27, 2016 at 1:53 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 1:03 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Germany was incapable of defeating England because it didn't have the means to invade it.

The one possible victory strategy was starvation vis commerce war, but Barbarossa scuppered that because the tanks got the steel rather than the U-boats.

Can we all agree that Hitler was a dummy?  He thought he was fighting a 19th Century war. He should have played with toy soldiers.  Maybe he would have won.

(March 27, 2016 at 2:02 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 1:53 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The one possible victory strategy was starvation vis commerce war, but Barbarossa scuppered that because the tanks got the steel rather than the U-boats.

Can we all agree that Hitler was a dummy?  He thought he was fighting a 19th Century war. He should have played with toy soldiers.  Maybe he would have won.

Preposterous. Hitler was no dummy, despite our collective disagreement with his motives and actions. 19th century? Hitler changed what at the time was considered modern warfare and the rest of the world had to adjust. Your conclusions aren't even wrong; they're ill informed and completely fictional.

(March 27, 2016 at 3:04 am)Cato Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 2:02 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Can we all agree that Hitler was a dummy?  He thought he was fighting a 19th Century war. He should have played with toy soldiers.  Maybe he would have won.

Preposterous. Hitler was no dummy, despite our collective disagreement with his motives and actions. 19th century? Hitler changed what at the time was considered modern warfare and the rest of the world had to adjust. Your conclusions aren't even wrong; they're ill informed and completely fictional.

Hitler used tactics other people had used successfully.  He had no real allies, he had a small basin of resources, no real navy, he couldn't invade England, his logistics was weak, he couldn't develop new weapon systems because he was under constant attack, he couldn't defend his country, and he couldn't touch the Western Hemisphere nor could he destroy the Russian infrastructure.  He lost the war as soon as he fired the first shot.  He could only beat up weak countries such as France and Poland.  He might have been able to win WWI but I doubt it.

(March 27, 2016 at 3:35 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 3:04 am)Cato Wrote: Preposterous. Hitler was no dummy, despite our collective disagreement with his motives and actions. 19th century? Hitler changed what at the time was considered modern warfare and the rest of the world had to adjust. Your conclusions aren't even wrong; they're ill informed and completely fictional.

Hitler used tactics other people had used successfully.  He had no real allies, he had a small basin of resources, no real navy, he couldn't invade England, his logistics was weak, he couldn't develop new weapon systems because he was under constant attack, he couldn't defend his country, and he couldn't touch the Western Hemisphere nor could he destroy the Russian infrastructure.  He lost the war as soon as he fired the first shot.  He could only beat up weak countries such as France and Poland.  He might have been able to win WWI but I doubt it.

Meh, the world was smarting from WW1 and the great depression. Hitler if he had stopped with the weak countries might have gotten away with it, but his delusions of world dominance got to him and yea, when he fired at Russia that was just stupid, and yea, he had no real competitive military which is why he brought Italy and Japan in. 

But the mistake on the part of the west was letting Germany rot after WW1. The chances of Hitler rising if we had helped them would have been slim to none.

(March 27, 2016 at 2:02 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Can we all agree that Hitler was a dummy?  He thought he was fighting a 19th Century war. He should have played with toy soldiers.  Maybe he would have won.

I don't think it was a lack of intelligence that did him in, but rather his obstinancy in both standing by decisions no matter how badly they turned out, and holding territorial gains that should have been rationalized.

I don't think there's any way Germany wins that war once it attacks the USSR. Period.

(March 27, 2016 at 7:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: Meh, the world was smarting from WW1 and the great depression. Hitler if he had stopped with the weak countries might have gotten away with it, but his delusions of world dominance got to him and yea, when he fired at Russia that was just stupid, and yea, he had no real competitive military which is why he brought Italy and Japan in. 

But the mistake on the part of the west was letting Germany rot after WW1. The chances of Hitler rising if we had helped them would have been slim to none.

Hitler had the most competitive military of his time in 1939. And he had the most able strategists of his time. While Poland, France and Britain still fought the war of 1918, the Germans came up with entirely new tactics, combining air and ground forces into one strike force. As opposed to the allies at the start of the war, Germany's tank units operated as independent units and were equipped with onboard radios to coordinate the attack. The French tanks still used flags for communication.

The defeat is down to the allies adapting within two years and to ultimately having to hold and supply a frontline of 32.000 kilometers. Hitler taking active command more or less played into the allies hands, since he, as opposed to his generals, had no clue about when and where to retreat to get a tactical advantage. His orders were always, hold, hold, hold, at all costs.

Italy didn't play any role in supporting the Germans. On the contrary, by trying to invade Greece and failling miserably, they did not only extend the frontline, they also bound German forces in the southeast and ultimately shattered the plans for operation Barbarossa. Same goes for North Africa, where the Italian army, superior in force, was on the run in 1941. Again, German forces had to step in so as not to expose the underbelly.

Japan, well, they didn't play any role either, other than Hitler - unnecessarily - declaring war on the United States on December 11th. The one and only war, he formally declared, thereby making sure that the whole world stood against him. Same as the German command in WWI, he underestimated the industrial and logistical power of the US.

(March 27, 2016 at 7:44 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 3:35 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Hitler used tactics other people had used successfully.  He had no real allies, he had a small basin of resources, no real navy, he couldn't invade England, his logistics was weak, he couldn't develop new weapon systems because he was under constant attack, he couldn't defend his country, and he couldn't touch the Western Hemisphere nor could he destroy the Russian infrastructure.  He lost the war as soon as he fired the first shot.  He could only beat up weak countries such as France and Poland.  He might have been able to win WWI but I doubt it.

Meh, the world was smarting from WW1 and the great depression. Hitler if he had stopped with the weak countries might have gotten away with it, but his delusions of world dominance got to him and yea, when he fired at Russia that was just stupid, and yea, he had no real competitive military which is why he brought Italy and Japan in. 

But the mistake on the part of the west was letting Germany rot after WW1. The chances of Hitler rising if we had helped them would have been slim to none.

The Zionists were trying to destroy Germany by installing a commie regime like they had done in Russia.  The West had done nothing to stop that in Russia and they wouldn't have prevented the same thing from happening in Germany.  Hitler stopped them.  Sometimes the best course of action is to let people handle their own problems and develop their own solutions.

The usual antisemitic idiot, I see. Fundamentally ignorant, of course. Always comes with the territory.

(March 27, 2016 at 1:44 pm)abaris Wrote:

(March 27, 2016 at 7:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: Meh, the world was smarting from WW1 and the great depression. Hitler if he had stopped with the weak countries might have gotten away with it, but his delusions of world dominance got to him and yea, when he fired at Russia that was just stupid, and yea, he had no real competitive military which is why he brought Italy and Japan in. 

But the mistake on the part of the west was letting Germany rot after WW1. The chances of Hitler rising if we had helped them would have been slim to none.

Hitler had the most competitive military of his time in 1939. And he had the most able strategists of his time. While Poland, France and Britain still fought the war of 1918, the Germans came up with entirely new tactics, combining air and ground forces into one strike force. As opposed to the allies at the start of the war, Germany's tank units operated as independent units and were equipped with onboard radios to coordinate the attack. The French tanks still used flags for communication.

The defeat is down to the allies adapting within two years and to ultimately having to hold and supply a frontline of 32.000 kilometers. Hitler taking active command more or less played into the allies hands, since he, as opposed to his generals, had no clue about when and where to retreat to get a tactical advantage. His orders were always, hold, hold, hold, at all costs.

Italy didn't play any role in supporting the Germans. On the contrary, by trying to invade Greece and failling miserably, they did not only extend the frontline, they also bound German forces in the southeast and ultimately shattered the plans for operation Barbarossa. Same goes for North Africa, where the Italian army, superior in force, was on the run in 1941. Again, German forces had to step in so as not to expose the underbelly.

Japan, well, they didn't play any role either, other than Hitler - unnecessarily - declaring war on the United States on December 11th. The one and only war, he formally declared, thereby making sure that the whole world stood against him. Same as the German command in WWI, he underestimated the industrial and logistical power of the US.

The US has been on the same course as Hitler was on since WWII.  Sooner or later we will pay the same price he paid.