Rewriting history...would you attack Germany?

[rincewind]

......... but it would have been against vastly superior Russian armor and numbers in artillery and troops, the depth and distance of Russia that swallowed up others, etc., etc.

You've just fallen for one the classic blunders. The first is never get into a land war in Asia.

[Predicto]

It is 1938.

Hitler has already passed the Nuremberg laws of 1935 banning Jews from all professions, and having to wear a yellow star. He has remilitarized the Wehrmacht, annexed Austria in Anschluss, and is threatening the Czech Sudetenland.

Do you attack?

If you were a liberal minded socialist in Paris and London- the answer was no. It was called APPEASEMENT, and there are millions who still practice it today.

The answer is yes.

sincerely - a liberal minded American.

Your simplistic mischaracterizations of what liberals believe or stand for are a tired joke, getting more tired with every one of you posts.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

While it may be fun to play "what if?" like this you have to factor in everything. The Allies in '30 had a dismal military, economically things were in the crapper, there were not yet any of the technological advances that allowed us to overwhelm the Germans. Even if you could have pulled the trigger to start who's to say it wouldn't have settled into another slugfest-in-the-trenches? You have to remember that Britain had to weather the Blitz and we had to crank up our industrial base before we started turning the tide in 43-44.

Try this one, what if we had let Patton loose in '45? He was on the record as stating that were it up to him he's rearm the Germans and turn them around to attack Russia. Considering what we know now of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War, what would you do? No Soviet empire in Easter Europe, no nuclear threat, no support for Mao and the Chinese......... but it would have been against vastly superior Russian armor and numbers in artillery and troops, the depth and distance of Russia that swallowed up others, etc., etc.

That one is interesting...

[Zguy28]

Several of you are missing the point of this thread.

Its an analogy. Replace Nazi's, Germany, and Allies with Hezbulla, Lebanon, and Israel.

[rincewind]

Several of you are missing the point of this thread.

Its an analogy. Replace Nazi's, Germany, and Allies with Hezbulla, Lebanon, and Israel.

I know what you're getting at - but I don't think its a good analogy. MUCH different world, MUCH different circumstances.

[Air Force Cane]

"If Nazi Germany is defused we have no guarantee the world would have not been any worse from some other reason."

Well, except for the 6 million Jews and the millions of Gypsies, Poles, Slavs and Russians who were exterminated, that is a great point.

[LD0506]

You've just fallen for one the classic blunders. The first is never get into a land war in Asia.

I just asked, and I noted that in my post. A land war in Asia, whether in Russia or China would have bled our ground forces white but we had a massive strategic air arm w/ the bomb at the time, would that change the equation? Again, just asking, but people have demonized the Germans (with good reason) and still tend to overlook the fact that more people, more Jews, more Poles, more everybody died under Stalin than Hitler. As bad as the Nazi scourge was, it only lasted a relatively short time compared to the Russians. If you kill Hitler in 1930 someone else would have risen in much the same mold, conditions in mid-Europe were so bad at the time that something was going to give. You disrupt and destroy Soviet power in the following generation you have a much greater effect on the history of the world.

[Predicto]

Try this one, what if we had let Patton loose in '45? He was on the record as stating that were it up to him he's rearm the Germans and turn them around to attack Russia. Considering what we know now of the Iron Curtain and the Cold War, what would you do? No Soviet empire in Easter Europe, no nuclear threat, no support for Mao and the Chinese......... but it would have been against vastly superior Russian armor and numbers in artillery and troops, the depth and distance of Russia that swallowed up others, etc., etc.

If we did that we would have had two major problems.

First, we are a democracy. We don't just abruptly turn on our allies and invade them willy-nilly, despite what on general (who was a great general, but also kind of nuts) may have wanted. The American people and the GIs in particular fought the Nazis so well because the Nazis were evil and we believed in the righteousness of the cause. The American people are not just a bunch of army ants that you can redirect at any enemy you choose overnight.

Think about trying to sell this idea in 1945 - rearm the Germans that we just defeated, sneak attack our allies, and no, none of you GIs get to come home even though Hitler has been defeated. Good luck in Congress and good luck on Main street, USA.

Second, the Russians at that time had a huge army equipped with millions of top notch T1 Tanks and excellent artillery. They outnumbered our boys about 5 to 1 and were well seasoned after years of bitter battle with the Wehrmach. They had every advantage in logistics and supply, they had terrain and weather greatly in their favor, and they would be defending their homeland from another unprovoked attack.

Result: we would have met the same fate as Napoleon and Hitler before us. Patton was a fool.

[SUNSTONE]

Think of it this way - if a criminal pulls a gun out on the street and starts firing into a crowd and you fire back killing him, you are a hero. If however you know what he is going to do (in the future and can't prove it) and shoot him before he attacks anyone, the witnesses suddenly see you as the murderer.

That's scenerio isn't even close.

You left out the fact that the criminal had already pulled a gun out and fired into the crowd before.

And now he has a shotgun in his hands, and he is in public.

And a cop recognizes him from his crimes before.

Now then, what do you do?

[LD0506]

great thread.

although let's make it a little more realistic.

It is 1938.

Hitler has already passed the Nuremberg laws of 1935 banning Jews from all professions, and having to wear a yellow star. He has remilitarized the Wehrmacht, annexed Austria in Anschluss, and is threatening the Czech Sudetenland.

Do you attack?

If you were a liberal minded socialist in Paris and London- the answer was no. It was called APPEASEMENT, and there are millions who still practice it today.

Now I think I'd disagree here. FDR, a Democrat and granddaddy of all "liberals", supported the Brits far beyond the letter of the law before we got into the shooting w/ Lend-Lease and loans. The so-called "left" was already fighting in Spain before what we consider WWII officially started. There was a lot of pressure in Europe in the '30s between leftist/socialists and rightwing/fascists, this was one of the elements that brought Hitler to power in the first place. It might be germane to mention as well that before the war started there was a huge movement in the US in support of the Germans.

It is conveniently forgotten that a lot of the West was more than a little pleased to see Germany trying to tear the guts out of the commies.

[Predicto]

Several of you are missing the point of this thread.

Its an analogy. Replace Nazi's, Germany, and Allies with Hezbulla, Lebanon, and Israel.

Sure, but it is a crappy analogy. The rising German state in 1938 was rapidly building the most powerful industrial base in Europe and annexing the weaker countries around it, with the ability to threaten the world.

Hezbollah is a fly in the eye compared to the power of Israel. They are a horrible terrorists, but not the same kind of threat, plus the results of a preemptory invasion are quite different in the two cases. Invade Germany and Hitler falls. Invade Lebanon, and... well, Lebanon just stays f*cked up the same way it is now, except more so.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

That's scenerio isn't even close.

You left out the fact that the criminal had already pulled a gun out and fired into the crowd before.

And now he has a shotgun in his hands, and he is in public.

And a cop recognizes him from his crimes before.

Now then, what do you do?

In both scenarios, you take him down. The first scenario said that you know what he's going to do but can't prove it. That implies that you are correct, but you might just have trouble justifying it to the masses...who cares?? If you're doing the right thing, that's all that matters.

In the above scenario, it's even more of a no-brainer.

[Zguy28]

I know what you're getting at - but I don't think its a good analogy. MUCH different world, MUCH different circumstances.

Is it now.

Hezbulla seems very much like fascist brownshirts to me.

[Destino]

That's scenerio isn't even close.

You left out the fact that the criminal had already pulled a gun out and fired into the crowd before.

And now he has a shotgun in his hands, and he is in public.

And a cop recognizes him from his crimes before.

Now then, what do you do?

Your scenerio sucks hard. Hitler wasn't even leading Germany yet in the situation we are discussing. Germany had yet to act and was just beginning to trend towards Nazi extremism.

[Destino]

In both scenarios, you take him down. The first scenario said that you know what he's going to do but can't prove it. That implies that you are correct, but you might just have trouble justifying it to the masses...who cares?? If you're doing the right thing, that's all that matters.

In the above scenario, it's even more of a no-brainer.

My example wasn't meant to imply that you don't act - the point was the fallout from your action right or wrong is vastly different. This is why the original question included support of the allies. With out this little impossible detail the US could not act even knowing what we know. Doing so could result in it's own destruction should the world identify the US as the threat instead of pre-nazi Germany.

[Zguy28]

Sure, but it is a crappy analogy. The rising German state in 1938 was rapidly building the most powerful industrial base in Europe and annexing the weaker countries around it, with the ability to threaten the world.

Hezbollah is a fly in the eye compared to the power of Israel. They are a horrible terrorists, but not the same kind of threat, plus the results of a preemptory invasion are quite different in the two cases. Invade Germany and Hitler falls. Invade Lebanon, and... well, Lebanon just stays f*cked up the same way it is now, except more so.

In 1938 yes it is a crappy analogy. I deliberately avoided the late thirties for that very reason. Notice I said

Let's travel back to 1930.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

My example wasn't meant to imply that you don't act - the point was the fallout from your action right or wrong is vastly different. This is why the original question included support of the allies. With out this little impossible detail the US could not act even knowing what we know. Doing so could result in it's own destruction should the world identify the US as the threat instead of pre-nazi Germany.

I see what you mean. I inferred the wrong point of your post then.

Good points!

[Thanos]

Read a Harry Turtledove novel.

[DjTj]

Is it now.

Hezbulla seems very much like fascist brownshirts to me.

Except I think there is about a zero chance that the Palestinians will build the kind of industrial infrustracture that Germany was able to build in the 1930's.

Even if Israel failed to exist, Hezbollah wouldn't be able to take over the Middle East if you gave them 50 years.

I don't know the future, but I know what's NOT going to happen, and Hezbollah is never going to be as powerful as the Nazi Party was back in the day.

[LD0506]

If we did that we would have had two major problems.

First, we are a democracy. We don't just abruptly turn on our allies and invade them willy-nilly, despite what on general (who was a great general, but also kind of nuts) may have wanted. The American people and the GIs in particular fought the Nazis so well because the Nazis were evil and we believed in the righteousness of the cause. The American people are not just a bunch of army ants that you can redirect at any enemy you choose overnight.

Think about trying to sell this idea in 1945 - rearm the Germans that we just defeated, sneak attack our allies, and no, none of you GIs get to come home even though Hitler has been defeated. Good luck in Congress and good luck on Main street, USA.

Second, the Russians at that time had a huge army equipped with millions of top notch T1 Tanks and excellent artillery. They outnumbered our boys about 5 to 1 and were well seasoned after years of bitter battle with the Wehrmach. They had every advantage in logistics and supply, they had terrain and weather greatly in their favor, and they would be defending their homeland from another unprovoked attack.

Result: we would have met the same fate as Napoleon and Hitler before us. Patton was a fool.

I don't disagree but I think it might be interesting to "what if?"

The Soviet Union was in no way as monolithic as portrayed at the time, there were huge numbers disaffected w/ Uncle Joe, advantages in logistics and supplies other than munitions are ephemeral at best. The Red Army "lived off the land" to a large extent. In food, medical attention, fuel, communications, air power, etc., we held a decided advantage, and would have been in roughly the same situation vs Russian armor that we were in the 60s and 70s, our airpower had to negate their armor. One of the primary reasons we "did" Dresden the way we did was show the Russians what strategic air power was about. The aim wouldn't have been to conquer and occupy Russia (which would result in just what you're saying) but to destabilize and topple Stalin's Soviet tyranny.

And I'm not sure I agree but if Patton was a fool then he was a magnificent one, and he was our fool :applause:

[Destino]

In 1938 yes it is a crappy analogy. I deliberately avoided the late thirties for that very reason. Notice I said

No matter what year you pick it still sucks. Lebanon and the terrorists within it do not have it within their power to grow so strong they can wage war against the allied nations of the west and stand a fighting chance of winning. In fact the current scenerio in the middle is a WEAK nations attacking a powerful ones they stand no chance of defeating... the exact opposite of early events leading up to WWII.

It is an interesting question though and an enjoyable thread.

[Zguy28]

No matter what year you pick it still sucks. Lebanon and the terrorists within it do not have it within their power to grow so strong they can wage war against the allied nations of the west and stand a fighting chance of winning. In fact the current scenerio in the middle is a WEAK nations attacking a powerful ones they stand no chance of defeating... the exact opposite of early events leading up to WWII.

It is an interesting question though and an enjoyable thread.

Germany wasn't weak after Versailles? How do you think the Nazi's actually came to power? They played off of the peoples poverty, joblessness, and despair at being humiliated and "persecuted" by the Allies along with nationalistic socialism to get support.

BTW, I could see the partial reformation of the Ottoman Empire if Israel were eliminated.

[Predicto]

I don't disagree but I think it might be interesting to "what if?"

The Soviet Union was in no way as monolithic as portrayed at the time, there were huge numbers disaffected w/ Uncle Joe, advantages in logistics and supplies other than munitions are ephemeral at best. The Red Army "lived off the land" to a large extent. In food, medical attention, fuel, communications, air power, etc., we held a decided advantage, and would have been in roughly the same situation vs Russian armor that we were in the 60s and 70s, our airpower had to negate their armor. One of the primary reasons we "did" Dresden the way we did was show the Russians what strategic air power was about. The aim wouldn't have been to conquer and occupy Russia (which would result in just what you're saying) but to destabilize and topple Stalin's Soviet tyranny.

And I'm not sure I agree but if Patton was a fool then he was a magnificent one, and he was our fool :applause:

In 1945, the Soviet Union was pretty monolithic. The great Patriotic War was in full swing and people had bought into it (at the time). Stalin may have been "topple-able" before the war, and maybe soon after the war, but not in 1945. Negating their armor, artillery and numbers advantages with air power is easier said than done. There is a reason that the Russians kicked Nazi butt at Kursk and Stalingrad - they were very very tough and very very numerous. Our only real advantages were food, fuel and air power, but those are hard to maintain when you have to ship all your supplies across the Atlantic Ocean.

I agree that Patton was magnificient. He was a tactical genius (but apparently a strategic doofus).

Let me ask you again - do you really think the GIs would have followed him to Moscow in 1945? How could we possibly have justified such an act to the American people at that time?

[DjTj]

Germany wasn't weak after Versailles? How do you think the Nazi's actually came to power? They played off of the peoples poverty, joblessness, and despair at being humiliated and "persecuted" by the Allies along with nationalistic socialism to get support.

BTW, I could see the partial reformation of the Ottoman Empire if Israel were eliminated.

Although impoverished and persecuted, Germany had an educated populace and all the industrial advances from World War I ... it was the place where the internal combustion engine and the automobile were invented, where Heisenberg first formulated quantum mechanics, and where Otto Hahn and Fritz Sassman discovered nuclear fission. They were very ripe for rapid technological advancement, while Palestine is nothing like that.

The Germans could rebuild their World War I army and become a major fighting force. If the Ottoman Empire's army is revived, we'll run over their horses with our tanks.

[rincewind]

Germany wasn't weak after Versailles? How do you think the Nazi's actually came to power? They played off of the peoples poverty, joblessness, and despair at being humiliated and "persecuted" by the Allies along with nationalistic socialism to get support.

BTW, I could see the partial reformation of the Ottoman Empire if Israel were eliminated.

That's a mighty big 'if' and one I don't see happening anytime soon.