Revisionist history being taught in Europe?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by STEED

Subman1, this is not a history lesson just food for thought.

I agree for the most part. Germany needed Africa for the oil as well. Oil was its biggest weakness. I still doubt that they would have been defeated completely like they were however without the work of all three nations.

Also, as said above, we can thank Hitler for some of his grave errors.

-S

[STEED]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I agree for the most part. Germany needed Africa for the oil as well. Oil was its biggest weakness. I still doubt that they would have been defeated completely like they were however.

Also, as said above, we can thank Hitler for some of his grave errors.

-S

Hear, hear.

If Germany had a different leader who was not a psychopath then well, what if.........?

And if the Communist had failed to take Russia?

So many what ifs.

[STEED]

One thing is for sure WW2 helped America out of recession and I am grateful for there sacrifice in Europe for there help to bring down a monster and his evil vision.

[Penelope_Grey]

Yes - you did good. I never said the British didn't. Rommel however was not stupid and in war, one days successes could turn into ones defeat tomorrow. The idea that you could have defeated Rommel back to Germany is pure conjecture.

Never did I say back to Germany. I said that the Africa corps were being beaten back as in they were not gaining any more ground and the British forces was pushing into theirs. When America came in to join Montgommery that was it they really were done for. Then there was the thrust up into sicily and Italy and then Italy folded when Mussolini was sacked by the King, and that was that, fenito Benito. (Couldnt resist)

You did not defeat the Luftwaffe. You only stopped them here - and it was a commendable job. It also set them back force wise. Don't think they wouldn't have been back if things started to work out better on the Eastern Front.

We didn't defeat them? Hitler gave in trying to best us in the battle of britain, he gave up, therefore, we won the battle of Britain. Might not be a KO type Victory, and yeah, the RAF only won on points, but they still won. Never was so much owed by so many to so few and all that.

Last time I checked, the American people had little say on whether or not troops were deployed at any one time. So I don't buy that.

What type of explanation is required here, it took a devastating attack on Pearl Harbour before the american population was ready to fight? How can that not be bought?

Ah hello? Anyone home? That is pure garbage! I won't even bother to moment on it.

I made a mistake here. The Americans were over here fighting the germans my brother told me about the flying fortresses taking off in the day and bombing Germany and the gathering of the invasion forces to go to France, and the thrust up through Italy which was consolidated with German troops. I never actually studied the fight in Italy so I was not aware what the American role was. I knew about north Africa but well, there were gaps. I only had pieces and thought it was a complete picture.

Only as the result of a waning public desire to support the war. Politicians vote to send the troops in, however sooner or later over the course of many years, politicians can be voted out of office. This is where the Ameican people can strike back at decisions they do not like.

So basically it was a poltical thing to make sure they got reelected. I understand now.

On the fight - not only could the US field more troops, it could outproduce Germany and this is truely the one factor that defeated them - the US could ourproduce the neccesary hardware - and this hardware we also gave to the British - even before we entered into this war prior to 1941. Quite simply put - the UK would have been over-run on every field had the US not supplied the neccesary hardware to fight back. This is why subs were deverted to stop it.

Well can't contradict anything there except for two words, gave and supplied. Nothing was given and supplied, Britain paid for every bit of American gear you sent out. Which is only fair!

That is your opinion. He was not invaded persey. We had a duty to defeat him. If we had not, this is how you would win a war against the US - your start the war, complete your objectives, surrender to the US, and then kick their inspectors out and forget about any ceasefire agreements that were put in place after the fact. Easy. Simple. Sounds strangely similar to what Hitler pulled.

Why do people keep insisting this was an invasion? The war from 1991 was not over! I guess it sounds better for the opposition.

A large military force enters another country forcefully, that is an invasion. Not only that, the UN did not sanction the measures. And the UK is as guilty as the US is for invading Iraq. Immaterial of 1991, the war was over, and had been over for well over a decade. Bush turned his guns on Iraq for a reason, and whatever reason that was we don't know yet, and Blair went along with him very readily. There were no WMD's there, and so lots of people are left wondering, why was Iraq invaded?

Then along comes aid for oil? I wonder, was it for oil all along like many claim?

[STEED]

Rommel was better than Montgomery in many ways and if he got the supply's he needed then it would had be a different situation. Hitler was far to busy with the Ost Front and that front got most of the supply's.

We payed a price in the Italian campaign 1943-1945. Air/Field Marshall Kesselring fought a brilliant tactic defencive war against the Allies, Kesselring held us up for four months at Casino.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Never did I say back to Germany. I said that the Africa corps were being beaten back as in they were not gaining any more ground and the British forces was pushing into theirs. When America came in to join Montgommery that was it they really were done for.

You told me 10 times above that you would have defeated Germany. I'm glad you agree that this is not the case - this is why I wrote that.

The Afrika (I believe this is how you spell it from a German persepctive) corps were in no way done when the Americans arrive as you say. So much they were not done, that they thousands upon thousands of green Americans. Patton would probably want to slap you about now!

We didn't defeat them? Hitler gave in trying to best us in the battle of britain, he gave up, therefore, we won the battle of Britain. Might not be a KO type Victory, and yeah, the RAF only won on points, but they still won. Never was so much owed by so many to so few and all that.

I'd call it more like stalling them as their attention was needed else where. My definition of defeat means they are no longer effective.

What type of explanation is required here, it took a devastating attack on Pearl Harbour before the american population was ready to fight? How can that not be bought?

You must not know too much about American politics to say this. This was not a decision from the American people, but one from our Government. They were just waiting for an excuse to enter fracefully. If this didn't come, we wouls have entered anyway.

I made a mistake here. The Americans were over here fighting the germans my brother told me about the flying fortresses taking off in the day and bombing Germany and the gathering of the invasion forces to go to France, and the thrust up through Italy which was consolidated with German troops. I never actually studied the fight in Italy so I was not aware what the American role was. I knew about north Africa but well, there were gaps. I only had pieces and thought it was a complete picture.

If you study it, it was a race between Patton and Montgomery. Patton won the race, and Monty was a little ticked about it.

So basically it was a poltical thing to make sure they got reelected. I understand now.

Got it. That explains the above then. That is how it works over here. G. Bush didn't ask the American people to send troops to Iraq or Afganistan. He actually is the first President since WWII to even bother to ask our own Congress if it is OK to send troops into Iraq, and he didn't have to as President. The American people have little choice in it - as well as even our Congress who can only cut funding for it after the fact. That is why they call the American President the 'Commander In Chief'. He has the ultimate say on when and where our troops go and what they are going to do.

Well can't contradict anything there except for two words, gave and supplied. Nothing was given and supplied, Britain paid for every bit of American gear you sent out. Which is only fair!

I can't argue that. However, the American Government didn't have to supply anything.

I guess you can say we 'gave' you pilots to help fight the Battle of Britain. So there! :p We gave you something!

A large military force enters another country forcefully, that is an invasion. Not only that, the UN did not sanction the measures. And the UK is as guilty as the US is for invading Iraq. Immaterial of 1991, the war was over, and had been over for well over a decade. Bush turned his guns on Iraq for a reason, and whatever reason that was we don't know yet, and Blair went along with him very readily. There were no WMD's there, and so lots of people are left wondering, why was Iraq invaded?

Then along comes aid for oil? I wonder, was it for oil all along like many claim?

Largly incorrect. Only a Ceasefire with terms was in place - terms that were brushed aside by Saddam. The guns were turned towards Saddam as a defensive measure for Kuwait. The invasion word is up for debate in this case, but on a technicality, it conceed that it could be used either way.

By the way - The time it took for this to happen doesn't matter if its one week or 20 years. Time is irrelevant when only a Cease fire is in place. The war was far from over. If you surrender as country, you must abide by the terms of the ceasefire or face the consequences. Saddam hadden complied for 5 to 7 years.

On the WMD front - they are there. More evidence popped up that they had been moved prior to anyone caring. i will find an article on that for you from the head inspector in Iraq. Either Iran or Russia has them now.

-S

PS. Found it - http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=21924

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

as well as even our Congress who can only cut funding for it after the fact. That is why they call the American President the 'Commander In Chief'. He has the ultimate say on when and where our troops go and what they are going to do.

The president has the authority to send troops anywhere but he has to get congressional approval within 60 days.

The War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148) limits the power of the President of the United States to wage war without the approval of Congress. The War Powers Act of 1973 is also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1).

The purpose of the War Powers Resolution is to ensure that Congress and the President share in making decisions that may get the U.S. involved in hostilities. Portions of the War Powers Resolution require the President to consult with Congress prior to the start of any hostilities as well as regularly until U.S. armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities (Sec. 3); and to remove U.S. armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not declared war or passed a resolution authorizing the use of force within 60 days (Sec. 5(b)). Following an official request by the President to Congress, the time limit can be extended by an additional 30 days (presumably when "unavoidable military necessity" requires additional action for a safe withdrawal).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[bradclark1]

Just a German military trivia thing:
20% - Western front
80% - Eastern front

But in all the what if's of could the Soviet Union have won on their own you have to take into account the western bombing campaign and it took both English and American bombers to do it. Just one of them would have been wiped from the sky. It took both and it destroyed the German industry and demorilized the nation. I think without the bombing the Soviet Union could have been fought to a truce, I won't say victory and there also would have been a third world war when one or the other could build up enough to restart.
So what happened happened and alternate histories didn't happen.

[Skybird]

Agreed on the whole posting, except this:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

It took both and it destroyed the German industry and demorilized the nation.

If the bombing war against european cities in WWII showed one thing, than this: that you do not brake public morale by it, but in fact even strengthen it, and raising more stubborness: "Jetzt erst recht!". That was true for the people in many countries and cities being haunted by this terrible tactic, London, Hamburg, Warsaw, etc. Maybe Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the two exceptions to mention, but they were exceptions in more than just this understanding, I think.

the assumption that bombing cities helps to shatter the enemy people's fioghting spirit has been discussed by historians and contemporary militaries since WWII. I see little evidence for this assumnption being true. Latest example was "Shock and awe" in 2003, which only had an imminent effect that did not last long, and completely failed to impress the wide public ihn general. Compared to the city war in WWII, it was a harmless effort anyway, I admit that.

The deep fall in public moral in German cities, or better: rubble-fields, came AFTER the war was over. But desperation did not last long, it seems.

My grandparents, not talking often about that time, said things on this theme that I feel would also back me here.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Agreed, except this: if the bombing war against european cities in WWII showed one thing, than this: that you do not brake public morale by it, but in fact even strengthen it, and raising more stubborness

This is a very true fact.

[joea]

Originally Posted by STEED

This is a very true fact.

Maybe little effect on morale, but some effect on industry, and a big effect on German anti-air defence. How many 88s were based in Germany? How many fighters? In fact it was indirectly the bombing campaign (once long range escorst were possible) that defeated the Luftwaffe.

Also let's not forget the differencel, at least initially, between US bombing in Europe was not aimed at moral but "precision" targets, while the British went for area bombing. Not saying how precise it in fact was (and the RAF got better at hitting targets at night, and the US eventually went for area bombing in Japan).

Also, there was effect on industry and transport and oil. Production may have continued, even increased, but new weapons were delayed, one example being the Type XXI. Not to mention the quality of a lot of tanks, jets etc. was not up to par.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Agreed on the whole posting, except this:

Okay, my bad, you are backed up on morale by this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...fect_on_morale