Indeed, historically, nearly everyone has armed or supported their eventual enemies. Will the World ever learn? I do think your view of history is a little simplistic. You could go back even further to the last time Britain was successfully invaded by Duke William. IF King Harold hadn't had to go North to defeat the Vikings days before the battle of Hastings, history could have been very different. Also, IF Harold hadn't decided to leave a large proportion of his army in the North, he MAY well of won against William. Again, IF Hitler hadn't delayed his invasion of Britain when we were on our knees, we MAY all have been Nazis today. Then again, that evil MAY have been defeated from within. Too many unknowns and unanswerables for me, although, as I say, we really should try to learn from history instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
You only have to look at the present day conflict in Syria to emphasise your post Col. Seems to me the rebels are being painted as 'the good guys' when they are just as bad, if not worse than Assads regime. With the Wests backing and the possible rebel victory, in only bodes trouble in the future. I think it was an Aussie politician who said we should keep out if it as its the 'baddies v the baddies'
Tactics of the corporations will always out weigh the powers of western governments and the peoples of those countries will always be fed bullshit and fear ... More money is spent on terrorists and the fear we have of them Yet curable medical conditions kill more... Latest ratio about 40,000 to 1 Bob Crow's terrorists held the London games to ransom remember the headlines? The games and team GB are going to cost each of us what? 25 quid a year for life? Bob Crow could see who was making massive profits ... The real Terrorists The games were a massive success They certainly were Also ... IMO Hitler didn't want to invade the UK
Indeed. However as I previously wrote I would contest that the root cause of Stalin's actions was a combination of his paranoia induced by the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War and the failure of the German Revoltion which moved both the CPSU and Stalin away from an internationalist position to the subsequent socialism in one country position. I'm no political expert but as far as I can see any revolution of whatever political or religious nature is destined to end up eating itself if not based on Internationalism. Like close cousin marriage among certain ethnic groups the results are devastating. The examples are endless: North Korea, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and so on.
He couldn't have managed an invasion. Even if a landing had been achieved they would have got nowhere, no air cover, not enough tanks and inability to supply. There was never a serious invasion risk, just propaganda.
Which brings us to the biggest what if of all time... ...what if Bosingwas free kick had gone in and not hit the post in that game away to Villa last season? We'd have gone in at half time 2-0 up instead of 1-1 and probably won the game - meaning we'd have finsished the game a point behind Villa instead of seven - and with three wins on the bounce!
I think I said that there is always a danger in trying to simplify history, Col, which is why I mentioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Imaz has now countered with his thoughts on how that arrangement came about. So I don't think my view of history is simplistic at all; quite the contrary - I'm acknowledging the dangers of taking this stance. The Law of Unintended Consequences runs riot throughout history, not least as a result of Britain entering WWI. Mankind will, however, never learn. I cannot see any circumstances in which a lasting world peace is achieved, particularly given dwindling energy supplies, population explosion, religious differences, food and water shortages, needs arising through natural disasters and, quite frankly, the darkness that lies within human nature that, sadly, will never be totally suppressed. To believe otherwise is admirable, but futile.
I believe I'm right in thinking Britain was never really in Hitler's sights and only received attention once we'd declared war and become an adversary of Nazi Germany. That's not to say, of course, that things may have changed once he'd secured the whole of continental Europe.
Just caught up with the last few pages of this thread, which has taken an interesting turn... Col, you mention whether or not a lack of patriotism would have simply appeased Hitler through the 1930s. The facts show that he was appeased. Time and again the nations that would become the allied forces had solid evidence of his building up armed forces in direct contravention of the Versailles Treaty that ended WW1, and did nothing about it. They stood by and scowled whilst he annexed Czechoslovakia. They even tried to make peace with him (Chamberlain's infamous piece of paper) and only when it was too late did any real action take place. So no, I don't think that other nations would have acted differently. The question is - with less patriotic Germans, would they have stood up to him? As for an invasion of Britain, it certainly wasn't Hitler's prime objective, mainly because it gave him no strategic military advantage he didn't already have from occupying France. He had a huge supply of resources, an open gateway to the Atlantic, and to a degree Britain's geographic location had become irrelevant. In fact it was more difficult for us to get the supplies we needed than it was for Germany to deny these supplies to us. We were a thorn in his side, and if he had been able to launch a successful invasion he would have done so, but the failure of Goering's Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF in 1940 put paid to that idea - as it turns out, for good. Why he then turned on Russia - at the time he did - was and is a mystery. Sure there were ideological reasons why the Aryans hated the Cossacks, with the Slavic races caught in the middle. But opening the second front (actually third, if you include the see-saw that was North Africa) simply divided his troops and resources at a time of year they were least equipped for, and led ultimately to his defeat on all fronts. If he had managed to get through and capture Moscow, who knows what might then have happened. That he failed was down to three key elements: the harsh Russian winter, the willingness of so many Russians to defend their land with their lives, and the bravery of the crews of the Arctic Convoys, who supplied Russia with a vast amount of materials necessary for the battle - it's estimated that during the Battle for Moscow, 75% of the tanks used were British.
He lost Russia because of logistics and the fact that he was a stubborn mad man plus Jude Law helped .... what a shot he was
Any army that invaded Russia proper down through history eventually paid the price. They were sucked right into the belly of the beast (Bear?), first starved and then frozen, before the trap was sprung and the Russki's eat them all up.
Can't disagree with that. Here's the link to the simulation from 1974 of Operation Sealion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)
To the best of my knowledge Stain had already moved heavy industry vital to the war effort safely beyond the Urals by the time of the siege of Moscow. Stalin gambled on holding Moscow forbidding the citizens from leaving and enforcing a normal as possible way of life. If Moscow had fallen I don't think it would have changed the course of the war. The Red Army would still have had the tanks, planes and manpower to roll the fascists all the way back to Berlin. Just look at Manchuria where they rolled over the Japanese in just 10 days. Edit: Should read Stalin not "Stain", people went to the Gulag for less!
Fascinating stuff, Imaz. Thanks for the link. It would be interesting to speculate on the outcome of the war itself had this actually played out. Imagine if a German defeat on British soil and in the skies, as well as on the Channel, had provided the impetus for their eventual and speedier defeat. Certainly it would have been a humiliating defeat of proportions easily the equal (if not greater) than what Britain suffered at the Dunkerque evacuation, although that may have proved sufficient in itself to deter him from Barbarossa.
I'm not sure what plans Hitler had for Russia had his invasion worked. Most likely mass exterminations -on a scale that would have put the holocaust in the shade - and major exploitation of the oil, coal and iron resources under Russian soil. It would certainly have been a good while until a Moscow-less (and leaderless) Russia was able to fight back, and who knows what else would have changed in the meantime? It's possible Britain would have sued for peace based on the overwhelming logistical disadvantage it would have seen, in which case, with no Western front and little or no Eastern Front, the War is won by the Germans by the end of 1942. And we have a single nation, stretching from the Atlantic coast right across to the Pacific. Cue global domination. What I have described above is mere hypothesis, but it would only have taken a German advance of another 25 miles on the Eastern Front in 1941 for this to happen.
