Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2014, 01:42 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,971,539 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
There's not chance the US was not going to fight Germany. Lets face it, Germany was trying to take our job, and that is dominating the world economically and militarily. No way the power brokers in the US would have stood for that.

The US was closer to the Atomic weapon than Germany before the war started. No matter what, we would have developed it first


Not true at all, before the 1930s, America was a backwater when it came to the physical sciences and was in a position much like the Chinese find themselves today. Before 1940 if you were a young American physicist or chemist just out of university you really had to go overseas for a few years like J. Robert Oppenheimer did to study science with an established European researcher to get exposure to the scientific cutting edge. Oppenheimer studied quantum theory under Prof. Max Born in Germany for example. You really couldn't do this work in America until people like Oppenheimer returned to the States in 1936 and got a faculty position at Univ. of Calif. (Berkeley) and started his own research group. America was known for technological inventiveness but tended to view basic science as a frill or a distraction. Thomas Edison could have usured in the age of electronics in the 1880s with his discovery of a strange blue glow seen on a lamp bulb with a heated filament biased at hig voltage. He made a note and even called it the Edison Effect but then ignored it because he could see no use for this phenomena. But in the hands of Prof. J.J. Thompson in Britain this was named thermionic emmision and the blue glow was due to the emission of electrons from the hot filament. From this simple electron tube, diodes, trodes, pentodes and more came to be and our technolgy took a great leap forwards. An advance that would have been well inconcievable to a Thomas Edison mentallity. American science as well as British took a great leap forwards when political extrememisn in Europe forced many scientists to leave continental Europe and take refuge here or in Britain. With them knowledge to build the bomb and other important technical advances like radar, or advanced aviation came to America where it found the resources and industrial might and relative safety from aerial bombardment or armed attack to bring things to frutition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-01-2014, 11:20 AM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,441,036 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL View Post
Realistically, Japan might have ground on and on in China, evenutally cutting some deal with Chiang Kai-Shek to be their puppet, and then wiping out the Communists. They probably could have kept much of what they had in some lasting fashion if they never went to war with the US and UK. Dai Nippon would eventually prove to be a ally against the USSR.

Germany's position in Europe was only ever going to get weaker. The cost of fighting WWII drained Britain enormously. Being able to actually wrap that up at some point would probably have bought the Empire a few more years at least, and really I'm not sure they wouldn't have managed to wear away some of the German gains in the periphery of Europe on their own. Similarly as awful as Stalin and the USSR was they were able to pose a realistic threat to the West in OTL. With the Nazis destroying the German education system, they would have had no trouble keeping up with Nazi Germany over the long term. Things would be grim within Germany and its allies for a lot of people, and Nazi policies would weaken Germany over the long term.

Both countries would probably be viewed in the West as barely tolerated allies put up with because the communists posed a worse threat to the world in general.
So Nazism is better than communism? Were communists sending Jews to the death chambers by the millions? As bad as the communists were, their intentions were not as evil as Hitler's. Stalin and Mao are the face of communism as we know it, and they were brutal dictators. But communism is more of an economic system, not a dictatorship. It doesn't matter what economic system your country has if a brutal dictator runs the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2014, 12:42 PM
 
3,804 posts, read 6,152,255 times
Reputation: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
So Nazism is better than communism? Were communists sending Jews to the death chambers by the millions? As bad as the communists were, their intentions were not as evil as Hitler's. Stalin and Mao are the face of communism as we know it, and they were brutal dictators. But communism is more of an economic system, not a dictatorship. It doesn't matter what economic system your country has if a brutal dictator runs the country.

No, nazism is worse. However, the nature of the situation at the time is that a large number of people in the west preferred Hitler and whatever came with him to communism. The thinking was that a stronger Germany could be useful as a counterweight to the Soviets, and that is the major reason why the British and French repeatedly kept trying to reach some sort of deal with the Nazis. Now admittedly they didn't know for a while just what was going on in Germany with regards to the camps, but supposing that at some point the Nazis had decided to stop being aggressive towards the outside world the Western powers probably would not have gone to war with Germany over that alone because they feared the Soviets that much. Sad but true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2014, 01:01 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,441,036 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL View Post
No, nazism is worse. However, the nature of the situation at the time is that a large number of people in the west preferred Hitler and whatever came with him to communism. The thinking was that a stronger Germany could be useful as a counterweight to the Soviets, and that is the major reason why the British and French repeatedly kept trying to reach some sort of deal with the Nazis. Now admittedly they didn't know for a while just what was going on in Germany with regards to the camps, but supposing that at some point the Nazis had decided to stop being aggressive towards the outside world the Western powers probably would not have gone to war with Germany over that alone because they feared the Soviets that much. Sad but true.
Ok, in a pre-war context I agree with you. Once war began, the Nazi's became the #1 threat. You said Germany was only going to get weaker. Not sure what you meant by that. Pre-war? Or during the war?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2014, 01:31 PM
 
3,804 posts, read 6,152,255 times
Reputation: 3338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
Ok, in a pre-war context I agree with you. Once war began, the Nazi's became the #1 threat. You said Germany was only going to get weaker. Not sure what you meant by that. Pre-war? Or during the war?
Just as time went on.

The lifespan of the British Empire was shortened by the war. A smaller war or none at all should extend its life so you have a substantial opponent to Germany that would be stronger than it was in OTL.

The USSR would have managed to keep pace or at least pose a continuing credible threat to Germany just as it did to the west in OTL. So there's another.

Specifically though from what I have heard it really sounds like the Nazis were destroying Germany's education system such that kids who grew up in an enduring Nazi Germany would not have been credible inheritors of the scientists and engineers who grew up during the Wiemar Republic and earlier.

All in all it leads me to think that in the 50s or 60s you'd start to see a decline of German power relative to its neighbors especially if the Nazis had been free to pursue their policies of racial purity unhindered and started liquidating or driving off ever larger portions of their population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2014, 04:24 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,441,036 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuburnAL View Post
Just as time went on.

The lifespan of the British Empire was shortened by the war. A smaller war or none at all should extend its life so you have a substantial opponent to Germany that would be stronger than it was in OTL.

The USSR would have managed to keep pace or at least pose a continuing credible threat to Germany just as it did to the west in OTL. So there's another.

Specifically though from what I have heard it really sounds like the Nazis were destroying Germany's education system such that kids who grew up in an enduring Nazi Germany would not have been credible inheritors of the scientists and engineers who grew up during the Wiemar Republic and earlier.

All in all it leads me to think that in the 50s or 60s you'd start to see a decline of German power relative to its neighbors especially if the Nazis had been free to pursue their policies of racial purity unhindered and started liquidating or driving off ever larger portions of their population.
When you say "Just as time went on", are you saying regardless of whether or not Germany prevailed in WW2? Or are you saying once they got bogged down in a protracted war of attrition?

If the latter, then I agree with you. The Germans themselves knew this. They anticipated before the war that the Soviet industrial potential over time would overwhelm Germany's. The Germans relied on quick victories for success. They knew they couldn't win a protracted war of attrition against the Soviets (or Allies for that matter). For this reason, the Germans knew that 1941-42 was their invasion window. The longer they postponed their invasion, the less likely the chance of success because the Soviets would produce exponentially more tanks, planes, and troops. Hitler was counting on defeating the Soviets quickly in 1941 for success. He figured if he captured Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad, that the Soviets would collapse like a house of cards. The Germans expected a 1917 type of collapse.

With the U.S.S.R., it all depended on their ability to continue production during wartime. When the Germans invaded, much of their industry was destroyed in 1941. It took until late 1942 before the Soviets could start producing at a high level again. So the German initial plan worked, but they failed to deliver a decisive blow and allowed the enemy to live on. The Soviets figured out how to rebuild their industry beyond the Ural Mountains out of reach of German planes. This is ultimately what allowed the Soviets to win the war.

What would happen in the event of a total Nazi victory in WW2? I think we are just speculating. The Nazi's would have total control of Europe and would control trade and resources. They would have prospered in that situation in my opinion.

Regarding the British, I think you're over-estimating the situation. The British lost most of their world power after WW1 and were relatively weak in the 1930's. They started a massive rearmament program in the late 30's in the run-up to WW2 that made them strong militarily, but weak on all other sectors. The British had a smaller population and were isolated on an island.

When you look at Germany today, it is one of the largest economic powers in the world. The irony is that this happened despite having a weak military for the past 60+ years. I believe that Germany has always been destined to be a world economic giant. They just pursued the wrong means in the early 1900's that set them back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2014, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,971,539 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
So Nazism is better than communism? Were communists sending Jews to the death chambers by the millions? As bad as the communists were, their intentions were not as evil as Hitler's. Stalin and Mao are the face of communism as we know it, and they were brutal dictators. But communism is more of an economic system, not a dictatorship. It doesn't matter what economic system your country has if a brutal dictator runs the country.
Communism in Stalin's USSR or Mao Peoples Republic were only goals to be worked towards. Until Russia and China could end the problem of scarcity and transcend the need for wages, prices and capital communism was not possible only a a pot of goal at the end of the long road of history. So how to run and organize a society that needed to do a lot of work, development and discovery to improve the human condition and to create a new mindset in people to bring this about not with rewards and incentives (because when things are so plentiful as to lack any meaningful value) but because not making a contribution to society would be wrong (punishable) like lying, killing or stealing are today.
Both Lenin and Mao thought they saw a way to take their poor backward lands from where they found them to Marx's dream world. It was through a temporary (by history's standads) dictatorship run by a small group of experts (You know The Party) who would see the building of everything needed to achieve communism and then when done exit from the stage of history. If there was a flaw in Leninism or Maoism it was believing The Party would (Like Yoda, Obi Wan and Anakin did at the end of the last Star Wars movie) just fade into night. Maybe Communism is like trying to cool down to Absolute Zero or go faster than light in a vacuum but we haven't found the tricks to do these things yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 06:03 PM
 
3,910 posts, read 9,441,036 times
Reputation: 1954
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwruckman View Post
Communism in Stalin's USSR or Mao Peoples Republic were only goals to be worked towards. Until Russia and China could end the problem of scarcity and transcend the need for wages, prices and capital communism was not possible only a a pot of goal at the end of the long road of history. So how to run and organize a society that needed to do a lot of work, development and discovery to improve the human condition and to create a new mindset in people to bring this about not with rewards and incentives (because when things are so plentiful as to lack any meaningful value) but because not making a contribution to society would be wrong (punishable) like lying, killing or stealing are today.
Both Lenin and Mao thought they saw a way to take their poor backward lands from where they found them to Marx's dream world. It was through a temporary (by history's standads) dictatorship run by a small group of experts (You know The Party) who would see the building of everything needed to achieve communism and then when done exit from the stage of history. If there was a flaw in Leninism or Maoism it was believing The Party would (Like Yoda, Obi Wan and Anakin did at the end of the last Star Wars movie) just fade into night. Maybe Communism is like trying to cool down to Absolute Zero or go faster than light in a vacuum but we haven't found the tricks to do these things yet.
Communism was a severe reaction to what preceded it. In Russia, under the rule of the Tsars, there was an oligarchy where a small, elite ruling class held 99% of the wealth and everyone else suffered as poor serfs or peasants. People got fed up and rebelled. WW1 accelerated this process. They saw communism as a more preferable alternative. At least under communism, nobody was rich but nobody was poor either. I believe that communism in its original form under Lenin was more moderate, but when Stalin took over it became more radical. Especially when it came to brute violence against their own Russian citizens.

In countries like China and Cuba, it was a similar story. You had a small elite controlling 99% of the wealth while everyone else were poor peasants. Communism was a reaction against it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 06:50 PM
 
2,951 posts, read 2,888,865 times
Reputation: 5029
The Nazi's may have taken over Europe but to bring it to the US would have been their Vietnam. Blitzkrieg tactics simply wouldn't have worked here. To use this tactic to spearhead the US would be to simply find yourself in the middle of a hornet's nest. How do you rage an organized war when every Joe has a gun and knows how to use it? Look at the Revolutionary War. The British simply couldn't fight an enemy that would take pop-shots and run into the weeds again. Now imagine that on a national scale. Truth be told, the Germans would seriously have to ask themselves if it was even worth it.


To take over the US would take consider buildup and time on the German's part to even consider it. I think by that time the US would recognize the situation and would have made more than adequate defenses for such a happening.


The US is not Russia or France. Take over Moscow and you take over a country. Kill the queen kill the colony. Bomb NY or DC…like a lizard losing its tale. I don't think most American's would even recognize or even care their queen was gone…and that would surprise the Germans.

The infrastructure here is so vastly laid out, it is hard to keep it all together from a German standpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2014, 07:35 PM
 
1,825 posts, read 1,414,323 times
Reputation: 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34 View Post
So Nazism is better than communism? Were communists sending Jews to the death chambers by the millions? As bad as the communists were, their intentions were not as evil as Hitler's. Stalin and Mao are the face of communism as we know it, and they were brutal dictators. But communism is more of an economic system, not a dictatorship. It doesn't matter what economic system your country has if a brutal dictator runs the country.
Stalin was pretty bad. Stalin deported Poles, Tatars, Kalmyks, Crimean Greeks, Volga Germans, Finns, Romanians, Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Chechyns, Balkars, Ingush, Karachyeks, and basically any ethnic group in the USSR that Stalin felt were disloyal. Often to harsh interior areas and often to Gulags as a form of collective punishment. ,this is why many of the aforementioned groups still tend to be very hostile to Russians.

Last edited by Egbert; 06-02-2014 at 07:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:08 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top