12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

I really hate the European Union. After 4 years of living in the Euro-Zone and dealing with the schitzophrenic retardation of Brussels and the constant attempts to inflict their brand of eurocrat idocy on everyone, like it or not.

Perhaps, but I prefer the retardation of Brussels to the retardation of the US nowadays. In fact I think the US has set new standards on how to NOT run the world.

As for Britain standing on it's own again...doubt it's going to happen.

Depends in which side of the retard coin you are looking at. Brussels surpasses the US in several key areas of politico-socio retardation, where the US still remains number one in other areas of epic fail.

It's really a matter of which areas one personally values more. On the domestic front, I shall happily take the retardation back home over the sh*t that that topilet known as brussels keeps flushing out. On the foreign front, US and EU are pretty evenly matched in the dipsh*t department.

And I totally disagree on Churchill. Seriously...sign a treaty with Hitler, and lose some of their empire? Are you nuts? You are advocating a nation to display weakness and allow the loss of imperial possesions...in exchange for what? Peace? With the small-man fueher of a nation with whom the British shared no current political, social, or cultural values? Whom had locked horns in the previous war? The same little bastard that ended up wiping his ass with just about every treaty he signed?

Churchill made some epic ****-ups, true. Refusing to play ball with Uncle Adolf was not one of them. And the empire was failing, there was nothing Churchill could have done to save it, or prolong it. The British empire was slowly unraveling for a number of reasons. And a number of british were not, in the end, that bothered by it.

There is much more to a nation than how big an empire it can build.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I am not sure I understand why Brussels / Germany is vilified that much. I could understand it coming from the position of anti-centralization. As for its mistakes, while it did commit a number, I'd still rank it as less idiotic than a lot of other polities. Frankly, China included. I think the lack of information has given us the illusion that they know exactly what they are doing, when I don't think they are at all. They are suffering blowbacks now and will suffer more later (and their current efficiency came after a body count of millions due to idiotic policies).

Coming from the Arab World that is an absolute joke in this world, I think the EU is a bold and much needed experiment. It will go through a lot of mistakes, but I believe it will learn from them, like all polities before them (how much idiocy did Rome commit before learning its lesson only to fail again 2 centuries later?). But at the very least they are doing something that is to their benefit.
I can't say the same about our polities, whose existence in this world is utterly inconsequential.

And I believe that a political European Union would be, all things considered, a good thing for Europe if managed properly (otherwise it would be swallowed by the competition). Everything of course has pros and cons. 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:24 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Churchill. Seriously...sign a treaty with Hitler, and lose some of their empire? Are you nuts? You are advocating a nation to display weakness and allow the loss of imperial possesions...in exchange for what? Peace? With the small-man fueher of a nation with whom the British shared no current political, social, or cultural values? Whom had locked horns in the previous war? The same little bastard that ended up wiping his ass with just about every treaty he signed?

And fight a war that will destroy your entire economy and make your country a puppet in the hands of a bigger player. Yeah sure that was a ****ing smart move.

Churchill made some epic ****-ups, true. Refusing to play ball with Uncle Adolf was not one of them. And the empire was failing, there was nothing Churchill could have done to save it, or prolong it.

He destroyed the Empire through the massive cost it took to win against Hitler, there's no debate on that, and I believe it's bull**** to think there was nothing he could have done to save it.

Remember he wanted to SAVE the Empire, he was very strongly against it's destruction but he facilitated it.

 
There is much more to a nation than how big an empire it can build. 

if it's not strong enough to preserve it's values against foreign nations then everything it has done values squat.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:29 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Churchill made some epic ****-ups, true. Refusing to play ball with Uncle Adolf was not one of them. And the empire was failing, there was nothing Churchill could have done to save it, or prolong it.

He destroyed the Empire through the massive cost it took to win against Hitler, there's no debate on that, and I believe it's bull**** to think there was nothing he could have done to save it.

Like what?
For all intents and purposes, British hegemony collapsed in 1918 and the only reason that never became official is because the USA did not want to take its place. Britain would have been stupid if it agreed with Hitler's idea of continental Empire for Germany, colonial one for Britain. There is a reason why Napoleon was obsessed with a continental union (biggest pressure point on Britain).

With the rise of the USSR and USA and the decline of Europe (One of Britain's pillars of empire), Britain inevitably would have declined. Especially when these two were not afraid to **** slap the Brits in the Suez War.

[Costin_Razvan]

Then don't help Russia and US become the dominant players. Keep Germany around as a another player on the table to balance out Russian and American power.

I believe that if Churchill had agreed to a peace treaty then neither Germany or Russia would have won the inevtiable war between themselves, and once the dust had settled they would have entered a cold war, or they would have fought on until they couldn't. And weakening Russia would have been a very good thing for Britain.

As for the USA, it involves too mcuh variables including the Japanse. If the British had agreed to a peace treaty then perhaps the ones advocating joining the war would have been quieted down in the US, which in turn might have led to the Japanese not attacking Pearl Harbor. On that front it's hard to speculate however.

I firmly believe that if Churchill had not been such a strong war advocate as he was things would have turned out very differently that might have preserved the Empire, would it have been a certainity? Not really.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:39 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Then don't help Russia and US become the dominant players. Keep Germany around as a another player on the table to balance out Russian and American power.

Thus allowing Germany to overpower them and hold them by the balls (continental Europe, much like Germany is today).

In either case, Britain would have declined. Not sure it could have been able to do anything about the USA. Their problem was lack of political will, not capacity. All they required was the will to become hegemon.
Sure we could speculate that if Churchill didn't do what he did, Pearl Harbor may not have hapened. But I prefer to look at the larger trends and not details. I believe a war of some sorts was inevitable and an American and Japanese rivalry was a strong possiblity after Mathew Perry forced Japan to submit to US pressures back before the Meiji restoration.

As for the Western Front. I think we both know that USSR was the major deciding point in the European theater. Not Britain nor the USA.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:42 .

[Sylvianus]

* comment removed. *

Modifié par Sylvianus, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Perhaps but without Pearl Harbor the US might not have even joined the war at all, and it's role was an important one in it.

There was a very strong isolationist movement in the US before they joined up after all.

As for Napoleon's overall political strategic goal, I think it was unfeasiable in the end.

 
As for the Western Front. I think we both know that USSR was the major deciding point in the European theater. Not Britain nor the USA.  

What if all the troops spent in the Western Front would have been sent in the Eastern one? Would Russia had won? Many doubt it quite strongly, but would Germany had lost? I do not believe so. 

The German and Italians lost a LOT of troops, tanks and planes in Africa. Do these losses compare to those sustained on the Eastern Front? Hell no, but they would have stopped Stalin's forces from winning.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:47 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Perhaps but without Pearl Harbor the US might not have even joined the war at all, and it's role was an important one in it.

It might not have joined the war like it did. But an American Japanese conflict, I'd argue, was almost inevitable. Both of their policies were leading to it. Pearl Harbor was just a catalyst.

It is true that the USA may not have been as willing to join the European theater. But Britain would not have been that much better off if it had to deal with 3 superpowers instead of 2. 2 of which are ideologically anti-imperialist. And with the USA already exerting A LOT of economic influence on Europe even back then.

[Costin_Razvan]

But Britain would not have been that much better off if it had to deal with 3 superpowers instead of 2. 2 of which are ideologically anti-imperialist. And with the USA already exerting A LOT of economic influence on Europe even back then.

Maybe, but the economic cost of five years of war did take a massive toll on the British. They lost half a million men fighting that war, and that's just deaths.

What I am saying is that Britain should not have committed itself against one side so early as it did. The irony is that in the very long run it might be Germany who wins. ( That is if a European Federation is created with them at helm ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

But Britain would not have been that much better off if it had to deal with 3 superpowers instead of 2. 2 of which are ideologically anti-imperialist. And with the USA already exerting A LOT of economic influence on Europe even back then.

Maybe, but the economic cost of five years of war did take a massive toll on the British. They lost half a million men fighting that war.

Accelerated the inevitable, their economy was already weakening.

Maybe the British empire would have lasted a few decades more (and that's a big maybe I'd argue). In the larger scheme of things, does that really matter?

Not saying that Churchill couldn't have done anything better or that he didn't commit mistakes. But the way I see it, the trend of the British empire collapsing was already set in stone. Many argue and I'd agree, since 1871 (yea I believe Germany / Strong continental Europe and Britain cannot coexist without tremendous difficulty, as recent develoments show).

I think a lot of factors were completely outside of his control. By that point, the USA was already boss, it just needed a war to make it official.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 02:56 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Accelerated the inevitable, their economy was already weakening.

Maybe the British empire would have lasted a few decades more (and that's a big maybe I'd argue). In the larger scheme of things, does that really matter?

Yes it does because taking a bullet to the head is very stupid instead of trying to treat a broken arm.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

And fight a war that will destroy your entire economy and make your country a puppet in the hands of a bigger player. Yeah sure that was a ****ing smart move.

That was certainly better than having your entire nation backstabbed and crushed, assmilated or annihilated. Seriously, do you really think Hitler would have kept any treaty beyond necessity? Churchill did the only sane thing he could have done in his position. Only a complete tool would have trusted a peace treaty or alliance with Germany.

And given the choice of inevitable superpower masters, I think the US was the most natural choice of ally, given common shared history, language, institutions, and general values. Britain was declining as an empire, it was inevitably going to end up in a lessened status. So of the three: US, Germany, and Russia, it's pretty obvious what the natural choice of Big Buddies would be. Despite the relative geographic closeness and distant Germanic ethnic roots, the Germans and British mix like oil and water. And the germans would have just as readily made Britain their puppet as anyone else.

Of course, I disagree that britain is the complete puppet of the US. The British still carry alot of influence and weight in their own right, especially with their former colonial and imperial possesions, as well as maintain pretty good relations there. They might no longer be the big fish in the pond, but they aren't completely toothless.

He destroyed the Empire through the massive cost it took to win against Hitler, there's no debate on that, and I believe it's bull**** to think there was nothing he could have done to save it.

Remember he wanted to SAVE the Empire, he was very strongly against it's destruction but he facilitated it.

Churchill's intentions or desires do not change the fact that the british Empire was not savable. See KoP's post. WW1 had cost Britain a hell of alot. Not only had they spent lives and resources on a war that ended in no clear victor, and thus, could not maintain the necessary authority of its colonies. It was slipping away long before september 1, 1939. It was one of Churchill's flaws: he was still desperately grasping at the pipe dream of an old empire that was slipping away.

if it's not strong enough to preserve it's values against foreign nations then everything it has done values squat.

Again, I disagree. Despite their mistakes, failures and sins of their colonial past, the british left a far better legacy in many of their old posessions than the French, Spanish, or other powers did with their empires in the past three centuries. Whatever their future, the legacy they leave will outlive them.

And if you want to apply the brush evenly, your narrow definition would apply to your heros of empires and nations past, whose nations fell apart because they could no longer preserve their own values. Was everything the Romans, Greeks, ect squat because they collapsed and could not defend and maintain their societies and values? Western civilization would not exist without Rome rising and falling.

Time is the ultimate test of worth in this department.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Accelerated the inevitable, their economy was already weakening.

Maybe the British empire would have lasted a few decades more (and that's a big maybe I'd argue). In the larger scheme of things, does that really matter?

Yes it does because taking a bullet to the head is very stupid instead of trying to treat a broken arm.

Replace broken arm with gangrene and I think it would be a better analogy.

Besides, I think it's about time we realize that we did not yet reach the stage of a manageabe global empire. The US was the closest thing to it and only 70 years later it's collapsing.  British Hegemony lasted a century at best, was already collapsing since 1871.

So I agree with Skadi in that size is not the only thing that matters. Maintaining regional spheres of influence, with some influence in global politics, is a more manageable goal.

[Costin_Razvan]

That was certainly better than having your entire nation backstabbed and crushed, assmilated or annihilated. Seriously, do you really think Hitler would have kept any treaty beyond necessity? Churchill did the only sane thing he could have done in his position. Only a complete tool would have trusted a peace treaty or alliance with Germany.

Hitler wanted to destroyed Russia, since he viewed them as subhuman ( as he did with the Poles ). So let the Germans fight the Russians in a long a bloody war that would weaken both sides. It would be preferable if neither wins of course.

It's not about trust, it's about pitting your opponents against one another to weaken them.

Of course, I disagree that britain is the complete puppet of the US. The British still carry alot of influence and weight in their own right, especially with their former colonial and imperial possesions, as well as maintain pretty good relations there. They might no longer be the big fish in the pond, but they aren't completely toothless.

The British still lost a lot from joining that war, can you deny that?

Churchill's intentions or desires do not change the fact that the british Empire was not savable. See KoP's post. WW1 had cost Britain a hell of alot. Not only had they spent lives and resources on a war that ended in no clear victor, and thus, could not maintain the necessary authority of its colonies. It was slipping away long before september 1, 1939. It was one of Churchill's flaws: he was still desperately grasping at the pipe dream of an old empire that was slipping away.

And again as I repeat myself, shooting yourself is not a solution. Fighting WW1 was losing an army for Britain, fighting WW2 was a headshot.

Again, I disagree. Despite their mistakes, failures and sins of their colonial past, the british left a far better legacy in many of their old posessions than the French, Spanish, or other powers did with their empires in the past three centuries. Whatever their future, the legacy they leave will outlive them.

And if you want to apply the brush evenly, your narrow definition would apply to your heros of empires and nations past, whose nations fell apart because they could no longer preserve their own values. Was everything the Romans, Greeks, ect squat because they collapsed and could not defend and maintain their societies and values? Western civilization would not exist without Rome rising and falling.

Time is the ultimate test of worth in this department.

Then perhaps I am mistaken to apply the brush like that, but for all the cultures that left behind a long lasting legacy there are ten times as many that got got completely destroyed and forgotten when they lost their power.

[Costin_Razvan]

So I agree with Skadi in that size is not the only thing that matters. Maintaining regional spheres of influence, with some influence in global politics, is a more manageable goal.

Even that goal would have been better served had an alternate course of action been taken.

Besides the British Empire there are other things to consider though. The outcome, as it happened, almost lead to humanity wiping itself out in nuclear confrontation between the US and Russia. It led to tens of millions of dead in proxy wars and opression around the world.

It might have proggressed the world techonologycaly but I just don't think the end result was a good one for the world as a whole.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:13 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Even that goal would have been better served had an alternate course of action been taken.

With Germany controlling Europe? Highly unlikely.

Besides the British Empire there are other things to consider though. The outcome, as it happened, almost lead to humanity wiping itself out in nuclear confrontation between the US and Russia. It led to tens of millions of dead in proxy wars and opression around the world.

It might have proggressed the world techonologycaly but I just don't think the end result was a good one for the world as a whole.

I am not sure I would fault Churchill on that.

I am not sure I'd agree that a German / Russian cold war (or a triple threat cold war with the USA) would have been a better result either. Especially if Germany got a hold on a nuclear weapon before Russia, which they most certainly would have. Hitler would have used them, I am 99% sure.

Not to mention that N@zi ideology prevailing in Europe would not have been a good result either, considering how irrational a lot of its points are.

That said, the Arab world might have profited from such an alternative. If Germany was really uninterested in the middle east, which seems unlikely. Somehow or  other, it would have wanted access to that oil.

Though honestly I don't really think about these kinds of things. The world is comprised of a lot of opposite interests that I am not sure we could speak of the interests of the world as a whole (not even sure how to categorize it) barring environmental issues (even that can be questioned).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:28 .

[Costin_Razvan]

With Germany controlling Europe? Highly unlikely.

While Hitler had some puppet states and some nations he occupied he most certainly did not control all of Europe. Not Spain, not Italy and not Romania. France and Poland had resistance movements, which would have been strengthened covertly by the British had they agreed to a peace treaty. Hell it was almost a given.

I am not sure I would fault Churchill on that.

I am not sure I'd agree that a German / Russian cold war (or a triple threat cold war with the USA) would have been a better result either. Especially if Germany got a hold on a nuclear weapon before Russia, which they most certainly would have. Hitler would have used them, I am 99% sure.

I am not so sure about the Germans getting a nuclear bomb until 1950 given their level of research into the technology. As for Hitler using it...well anyone would have it used as the Americans did. Hell it was almost granted.

As for the triple cold war, or maybe add Japan to that, perhaps it might not have been, but that's kinda a complicated issue.

Not to mention that N@zi ideology prevailing in Europe would not have been a good result either, considering how irrational a lot of its points are.

Maybe, but so was communism, and that died eventually. It should be stressed that anti-Jewish sentiments did not make one a N@zi, since it involved a bit more then that.

That said, the Arab world might have profited from such an alternative. If Germany was really uninterested in the middle east, which seems unlikely. Somehow or other, it would have wanted access to that oil.

Though honestly I don't really think about these kinds of things. The world is comprised of a lot of opposite interests that I am not sure we could speak of the interests of the world as a whole (not even sure how to categorize it) barring environmental issues (even that can be questioned).

Maybe. "Shrug" but when looking at the world wars I tend to question the overall effect they had on the world. I'll admit that I am very biased however since the end result was extremly bad for my country.

I do think that the image of Hitler being a complete madman are very exagerated though. He was not, which ( as I've said before ) makes what he did all the more horrifying.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:45 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Hitler wanted to destroyed Russia, since he viewed them as subhuman ( as he did with the Poles ). So let the Germans fight the Russians in a long a bloody war that would weaken both sides. It would be preferable if neither wins of course.

It's not about trust, it's about pitting your opponents against one another to weaken them.

And given that the Germans and Russians expended far more resources destroying each other than the Germans did  fighting the British. So basically, Britain was, in a sense, doing that. Weakening its enemies. However, the Germans were the more clear and present danger. They engaged the enemy that was the most dangerous and immediately offensive.

The British still lost a lot from joining that war, can you deny that?

Nothing that wouldn't have been lost had they gone the apeasement/treaty route. Like I said, they were in the process of losing everything anyway. A treaty with Germany would not have made much of a difference. Especially as this extended to other axis powers with whom Britian's relationships were very different.

And again as I repeat myself, shooting yourself is not a solution. Fighting WW1 was losing an army for Britain, fighting WW2 was a headshot.

And again, I disagree that World War 2 was a headshot for britain. For starters, they weren't completely helpless, nor were they weak, easy and defenseless prey like some of the nations germany blitzkrieged through. And while the Germans were certainly technoglically, numerically, tactically, and economically superior to the British, the Brits made up for it in improvisation, resoursefulness, and flexibility. Plus, the british had far more friends in places high and low they could call on. They still had imperial posessions, such as India, who had as much to lose as far as the japanese went, and the Gurkhas were friggin ruthless troopers. Plus former colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa who provided their support and forces. And of course, even before the US offically joined the war, our govornment was still sending them unofficial aid, despite the reluctance of most Americans at the time to get involved in yet another European war.

Second of all, they didn't declare war on Germany alone. Supposedly, the French were supposed to be getting their backs too, remember? And at the time, France had the only military in Europe, supposedly, that could have given the Germans a headache. yet they were practically unfurling their white flags before the Werhmacht was halfway through belguim. You can't blame the british that their most important ally and neighbor lost the guts for the fight before it began.

Then perhaps I am mistaken to apply the brush like that, but for all the cultures that left behind a long lasting legacy there are ten times as many that got got completely destroyed and forgotten when they lost their power.

The British will certainly not fall into that category,. Whatever their future, they have left their mark on the history of human civilization as surely and permanantly as the babylonians, persians, Romans, Arabs, Greeks, Mongols, ect. The dominant power of the 20th century was a former British colony whose constitution and government structure is half based on English Common Law, the other half being a mix of enlightenment era ideas of Roman Republicanism and Greecian democracy. Not to mention that English is the Lingua Franca of aviation, computers, and other current cutting edge fields. Plus major British inventions, such as the automobile, the jet engine, the world wide web, penecillin, ect. They have made a permanant stamp on human history, I think.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

While Hitler had some puppet states and some nations he occupied he most certainly did not control all of Europe. Not Spain, not Italy and not Romania. France and Poland had resistance movements, which would have been strengthened covertly by the British had they agreed to a peace treaty. Hell it was almost a given.

French resistance was not a big deal.
Germany was the strongest economy, it would have controlled Europe that way.

I am not so sure about the Germans getting a nuclear bomb until 1950 given their level of research into the technology. As for Hitler using it...well anyone would have it used as the Americans did. Hell it was almost granted.

But unlike the Americans, Hitler was far more likely to use it for more than political ends. But rather racial ends. He is the kind of guy that would have wiped out Russia if he could.

EDIT: And I agree that Hitler was not a madman. Nor do I believe he was "evil". There is no doubt however that he was irrational.

Maybe, but so was communism, and that died eventually.

Yes, but the Eastern bloc still suffered decades of it. It would have been better off without it.
Same with Europe with n@zism. Sure modern day democratic liberalism is full of flaws. But I'd argue that almost anything is preferrable to totalitarianism, especially one motivated by irrational and bordering on idiotic ideas.

Maybe. "Shrug" but when looking at the world wars I tend to question the overall effect they had on the world.

The world is always in a bad spot (some parts more than others). That's the beauty of it for me.

That's where I'd agree with Addai, that human progress is cyclical.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:50 .

[Costin_Razvan]

However, the Germans were the more clear and present danger. They engaged the enemy that was the most dangerous and immediately offensive.

Russia which lost 30.000 tanks and recovered in 1941? I mean perhaps Russia's strength surprised everyone ( Hitler himself said in private when he didn't know he was being recorded that he was completely shocked by the numbers of Russian tanks ). You're saying that everyone underestimated Russia?

Then frankly the Brits where stupid.

Second of all, they didn't declare war on Germany alone. Supposedly, the French were supposed to be getting their backs too, remember? And at the time, France had the only military in Europe, supposedly, that could have given the Germans a headache. yet they were practically unfurling their white flags before the Werhmacht was halfway through belguim. You can't blame the british that their most important ally and neighbor lost the guts for the fight before it began.

Oh I am sorry. I know I wasn't clear, but I should very much mention that I was NOT talking of making a treaty with Germany when they invaded Poland. I was talking after France fell, different story then at the very beginning.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 03:59 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Germany was the strongest economy, it would have controlled Europe that way.

In Europe, not the world however. You said it yourself the USA was in a strong position, and Hitler didn't declare war on the USA until the Japs bombed the Pearl.

But I'd argue that almost anything is preferrable to totalitarianism, especially one motivated by irrational and bordering on idiotic ideas.

Oh I agree. I personally prefer a system with a very powerful leader but with personal freedoms. It's stupid to even attempt to control people's personal lives.

 
But unlike the Americans, Hitler was far more likely to use it for more than political ends. But rather racial ends. He is the kind of guy that would have wiped out Russia if he could.  

It's not that easy with nuclear bombs without balistic missiles. Certainly Hitler had rockets...but risk of using those with nuke...well I doubt he would have used them when they could fallen on his own army or cities.I do not think he would have been that irrational.

My scenario would have seen many people dead, perhaps even more then died. It would have depended on Japan fighting the US or not ( I speak of Japanese opression in Asia ).

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:04 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Germany was the strongest economy, it would have controlled Europe that way.

In Europe, not the world however.

Yes, and that would have still weakened if not removed British influence on Europe (which might compromise its overseas empire, should that economically united Europe decide to squeeze it).
The US would have controlled the Atlantic and I'd say the pacific (Japan was no match, their best admiral knew it).

Oh I agree. I personally prefer a system with a very powerful leader but with personal freedoms.

Likewise. For civilizations (not only states) to flourish, such freedoms are necessary imo.

 
It's not that easy with nuclear bombs without balistic missiles. Certainly Hitler had rockets...but risk of using those with nuke...well I doubt he would have used them when they could fallen on his own army or cities.

Bombers. Surely much more practical than the Amerika bomber project thing.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...



Oh I am sorry. I know I wasn't clear, but I should very much mention that I was NOT talking of making a treaty with Germany when they invaded Poland. I was talking after France fell, different story then at the very beginning.

Ahhh, ok. Now I see what you mean. Still, I think it would have been an epically bad idea then, for many reasons. Signing such a treaty with the Germans would have hurt them greatly on the diplomatic front with other countries. I mean, would all the "subhuman" or "non-human" swarthy skinned colonies be terribly supportive if their mother country signed a devil's deal with a regime that was tightly regimented and modeled on the notion of white supremecy? If you think the Brits were having trouble keeping their empire together before, that would have probably driven a major nail in the coffin on that front. So in gaining a tempirary, but uneasy truce with a highly treacherous and ruthless nation, they still lose control over their empire. At least in continuing to fight, the British managed briefly to unite and strengthen its empire under the banner of a common enemy, the Axis. So at least their was a temporary halt in the internal problems, as most were engaged in common threats.

Their situation was a very difficult one. But I certainly believe they made the right choice to keep on fighting. Sometimes, that's the only real option left, when the alternatives are much, much worse, especially in the long term. I do not doubt one bit that any pact or treaty with germany would have ended badly for the British.

[Costin_Razvan]

Bombers. Surely much more practical than the Amerika bomber project thing.

They can be shot down, and then you have the risk of your precious bomb getting captured by the enemy.

Skadi: I really, really, really need to stress this next part out about the Holocaust: Not that many people knew about it at the time, and even today there are a lot of people who deny it happened or just don't know it occured, especially in the areas you are talking about.

The only reason the Holocaust is as known as it is today is because of the political usage it had in the aftermath of the world. But think of the Holodmor.

Stalin

Killed

Ten Million people

in one

WINTER.

Everything that Hitler, every irrational part of that human that he was, every massacre cannot, and will never match what Stalin did with the Ukrainians, yet 90% of the world does not even know of the ****ing word Holodmor.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 décembre 2011 - 04:15 .