- Feb 2015
First, we have been down this road before on other issues. That is your opinion, not a "fact." That should be obvious. For example, one does not have to qualify facts with limiting conditions like "in any reasonable way."It's FACT that no one stood up to Hitler in a reasonable way, among any of the powers outside of Germany.
But at least you have whittled it down from that original Pollyanna prescription of - when they came for the communists, when they came for the Jews - which sounded like you are talking about German citizens. Now, you have "doing nothing" to stop Hitler down to the French and the Rhineland. I agree that may be something of a 'last best chance.' This is also good, because it forecloses the necessity of entertaining ideas of how history could have been different, if only - if only Lichtenstein had stood up, if only Luxembourg had stood up. Though, speaking of small countries, 'if only the Vatican had stood up' might be a bone that has some meat on it.
Since you want to play these what if games - what if Manstein stuck to the Schliefen Plan, what if the French had invaded the Rhineland, etc. - play this one. What if, in 1934, the Pope pronounces the Nuremberg Laws a grave sin, excommunicates Hitler, revokes the Concordat, warns German Catholics that their souls are in peril if they participate in these crimes against their departed brethren (Jews), and exhorts Catholics all over the world to follow the Vatican lead in making no treaties of friendship with Hitler? Why is it I have this 'crazy' idea that this would have put more of a spoke in Hitler's wheel than Britain ever could?
No, I am not. There is no perfect execution. Everyone makes strategic and tactical mistakes.This is why acronyms like SNAFU come into existence. German victories are no more or less marred by Allied errors, than Allied victories are marred by Hitler's errors in my book. Your book doesn't seem to work that way. Also, in my book, I consider the possibility that some of errors may be deliberate. There are ALWAYS traitors somewhere. I have a feeling your book doesn't do that, either.Not necessarily easily... and you're again confusing strategic/tactical mistakes on the part of the Allies with German ability
It's nice of you to acknowledge, finally, that the US built a big war machine in Germany, and not in France. However, are you not now making the same mistake you accuse me of - confusing capability with errors of strategy/tactics?Germany had the capacity to produce more, yes. But if you look into the economic side of things through WW2, that capacity was never at full efficiency and managed its resources poorly.
I recognize propaganda, even when people insist it is "fact." Do you not recall my earlier mention of Goebbels/Riefenstahl film propaganda being good, but the Pentagon/Capra film propaganda (Why We Fight) being better? You do realize, don't you, that both are propaganda? Perhaps you should watch the Capra film and assess how much of that you believe is "fact."You do realize that "Triumph of the Will" was pure propaganda
As to the specific point to which you respond, I also recognize when one country's psyops constitute propaganda advantage. The French did not have the advantage over the Germans. IMO, the reverse was true.
I didn't say "super" and I didn't say Hitler was an "idiot." I said he was an Austrian. However, I do say it is an "actual fact" that the German Army did roll over a bunch of other counties. I expressed the opinion that did so "quickly." Others have expressed the opinion that it was quick, like lightning, calling it Blitzkrieg. And for some reason, this bothers you.No, this is more recognizing actual facts and evidence that the Wehrmacht was not this super organization that only lost because Hitler was an idiot.
[QUOTE="Sam-Nary, post: 3203755, member: 16452"The US was not, and still is not, a totalitarian dictatorship where Roosevelt was privy to all the information on what American companies were doing. [/QUOTE]So, we are back to the 'FDR-is-stupid' defense. Not a snowball's chance.