Laozi Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Nope, no way Germany can hold all of Europe, simply impossible. Even if they conquer both Russia and England the central government in Berlin goes bankrupt because it would take years just to get conquered nations "up and going" again. Not being able to pay the military that you use to control the lands is folly, see roman empire. Also you have to see in each country their would be heavy underground resistance sabotaging Germany at every turn. If you are aware of economics at the time of WWII then you would know that the U.S. was completely self-sufficent thus having an quasi-isolationist stance during the early part of the war. I would not ignore the fact that if things had turned out differently and Europe could have taken care of itself the U.S. would have remained a silent supporter. But thats obvioulsy not what happened. If the U.S. would have been inclined to they could have easily "sat out" the war and let Germany's conquest destroyed itself from within. Remember theres no Death Stars in WWII. If we were so concerned about another dominate superpower, why not go to war against Russia while we had all our troops over there like Genreal Patton said? People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
213374U Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Nope, no way Germany can hold all of Europe, simply impossible. Even if they conquer both Russia and England the central government in Berlin goes bankrupt because it would take years just to get conquered nations "up and going" again. Not being able to pay the military that you use to control the lands is folly, see roman empire. Also you have to see in each country their would be heavy underground resistance sabotaging Germany at every turn. At the time people seemed to have a different opinion, though. None of that happened, anyway, and as I said, I don't deal with hypothetics. If you are aware of economics at the time of WWII then you would know that the U.S. was completely self-sufficent thus having an quasi-isolationist stance during the early part of the war. I would not ignore the fact that if things had turned out differently and Europe could have taken care of itself the U.S. would have remained a silent supporter. But thats obvioulsy not what happened. If the U.S. would have been inclined to they could have easily "sat out" the war and let Germany's conquest destroyed itself from within. Remember theres no Death Stars in WWII. If we were so concerned about another dominate superpower, why not go to war against Russia while we had all our troops over there like Genreal Patton said? Huh? I think you're beginning to lose the trail here. Autarchy is an outdated idea, it's not feasible even for the almighty US economy. And well, since countries have armies and form defense coalitions like NATO, I think your theory of 'any conquest is unsustainable' isnt shared by most strategists and statesmen. After all, if we follow your reasoning, why have well trained and equipped armies when we can rally some partisan militias in case we are invaded and get even better results? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Laozi Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 Because its one thing to destroy the sovereignty of a small nation, but much harder to do so to multiple larger nations. I thought that could be inferred sorry. And as far as U.S. being self-sufficent, it pretty much was, we could easily supply our own food, industry, etc. Exporting was indeed a fair size industry, but certainly not one that was vital, ie. agriculture, but that too sould be easily inferred. When your large enough to produce more then you can use you're at the very least self sufficent. People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
Rosbjerg Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 well Germany was actually close to developing a nuclear weapon! .. so if USA hadn't interfered, Germany would have developed better rockets and eventually would have nuked them.. Hitler already had several teams working on a way to deliever bombs to the US east coast .. But I think America did act in partial self interest! I mean they would benefit alot from saving Europe! .. and they did .. strenghtening the bond, which had suffered a little after WW1, with Europe (and particular England) gave them a good deal of contracts, and when they helped to rebuild west Germany (which also paid off in the end) they had themselves a pack of strong friends who would follow their lead for a good time to come .. allowing them to literally control most of the world .. albeit through politics and diplomacy! but still .. and thus the cold war began ... because Russia did the same thing, although they controlled their 'friends' with guns! Fortune favors the bald.
DarthLightsaber Posted February 18, 2005 Author Posted February 18, 2005 The U.S. didn't go to war in Vietnam defending freedom. It's just so that they could ensure their dominance in the world. Besides, South Vietnam wasn't even a democratic state, it was dictatorial, corrupt and unpopular (even it's own people were against the government). There is no justification for war and whoever said that there is glory in war is wrong. War is not about glory and most countries will go through any means to ensure that they win it. Don't go giving me this honour or glory B.S.. I respect the sacrifice of those soldiers but I cannot respect the governments which perpetrated these acts of war. There is always an ulteriror motive... Sad but true. In the end, you can't go criticizing all the German soldiers. Many of them were conscripted into the army. If they didn't fight, they would be killed anyway. So you call them war criminals because they didn't want to be killed? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The U.S. went to Vietnam to stop Communism from taking over the world not to prove they were dominant.
213374U Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 The U.S. went to Vietnam to stop Communism from taking over the world not to prove they were dominant. Keep telling yourself that before you go to bed. But beware, if you say 'Mao Tse-Tung' three times, he will appear and start a revolution in your barn! - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
DarthLightsaber Posted February 19, 2005 Author Posted February 19, 2005 The U.S. went to Vietnam to stop Communism from taking over the world not to prove they were dominant. Keep telling yourself that before you go to bed. But beware, if you say 'Mao Tse-Tung' three times, he will appear and start a revolution in your barn! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mao Tse-Tung, Mao Tse-Tung, Mao Tse-Tung...............OH S***!
213374U Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 :ph34r: - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now