What If Germany Had Not Gone To War With Russia?

(Kiwiwriter @ Sep 23 2005, 12:35 PM) [post=39361]It would have been a lot easier for FDR to plunge the US into war through these conspiracy theories had the fleet not been destroyed, and so many lives lost. Had the Japanese been intercepted short of Pearl Harbor, and defeated, the American people would have been just as angry, and their war effort in better shape.
[/b]
Hi Kiwi,

In staying with the conspiracy theory of Pearl, and the assumption I have made is that it was valid (though I am not saying it was, it is simply conjecture) I don't believe the conspiracy would have accounted for the level of devastation. I don't think that Roosevelt and company (his co-conspirators) could have imagined how much devastation it caused. It was too perfect.


(Kiwiwriter @ Sep 23 2005, 12:35 PM) [post=39361]Gordon W. Prange and several other good books and writers have done a fine job of tearing up most of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories. [/b]
Maybe so, but they haven't removed the obligation. Its much harder to prove something covered up than disprove it. I don't discredit the Japanese. It was a well planned attack. That's not the point. The point is that it appears that Kimmel is guilty of gross negligence of protecting his fleet which is his most basic responsibility. He was not just an ensign that was prone to make a simple blunder from inexperience. It was not an improbable thing that happened and the Admiral just didn’t have the proper defense called, "oh well, I'll try to protect my fleets in the future, defending the fleet was simply was not a priority until now". They were fully expecting a fleet strike at Pearl in the near future. This is not a good reason to do what is insane and that is pull your defensive screens and patrols back so you can’t possibly detect an attack you are already expecting especially after hearing the largest carrier task force has left Japan and contact has been lost with it heading your way. That’s simply not a “mistake”, not one you are allowed to make. To make an analogy for those that are not Navy savvy, consider that if General Bradley had known that the Ardennes offensive was coming in December but did not know the day, but had intelligence that suggested it was within a day or two, put all his supply in one pile so that if one piece was struck by something as simple as a grenade (defense planes parked together), then the whole supply would go up and your troops be without supply to fight a major offensive and then pull back ALL his scouts and guards (destroyer/sub screens) in the Ardennes so that he couldn’t see them coming or know when, and then remove all the experienced troops, artillery and armor away from the area (carriers gone from pearl) and when your men heard the tanks coming and you merely say it is extra tanks coming to help protect the area as the attack is about to start. Kiwi, in this situation you would never say the Germans simply pulled off the “perfect” attack and Bradley accidentally made the wrong choices that anyone could do and we should simply give the Germans credit. That’s what you are faced with in Pearl and I really don’t believe you see how egregious the Pearl situation was. It was NOT “ok” to abandon the security of the majority of your fleet and the lives of your men and the entire air defense as a simple mistake of “missing a tiny detail”. That’s not a mistake. It would be incompetence to the point of thinking treason would be a far more rational explanation. Now, I don’t think that Kimmel would have done that normally. I think he was for his fleet to survive and did mind if he lost his air force and did mind if his men were slaughtered by his failure to perform the most basic of security requirements that a green ensign fresh out of college wouldn't even make. He was not a Japanese spy that was so expert in Naval warfare that he didn’t miss a lick at exposing his troops to the Japanese attack so that the most possible damage could be done and the least possible defense was in place. But if he were, he was the perfect spy because he didn’t miss anything that would have compromised his fleet any more except moving all bombs and ordinance out on the decks of all the ships and putting a sign up in Japanese saying "This ship is vulnerable to sinking here, please shoot carefully".

(Kiwiwriter @ Sep 23 2005, 12:35 PM) [post=39361]Another thing about the conspiracy theories is that they fail to give the Japanese any credit for the situation -- they are usually depicted as being maneuvered by a crafty Roosevelt into launching the attack, which was not the case at all -- and the conspiracy theories started with guys like Harry Elmer Barnes, who were pre-war isolationistsand FDR-haters and post-war Holocaust deniers, so there is a common linking thread.

I give credit where it's due: the Japanese came up with a great plan, rehearsed and planned it meticulously, and carried it out. They fully expected the Americans to be on the alert, and were surprised themselves when they found they were not. I also assign blame, as Prange said, where it's due: "there is enough guilt to go around." Everybody failed in the American chain of command. I believe that Short and Kimmel were censured far too harshly. Yes, they had to be relieved, but they were demoted and tossed aside. That was wrong.
[/b]
Pange is wrong. It was not the responsibility of everybody in the American’s command to protect Pearl, not at all. It was Kimmel’s and his alone. He was the fleet commander, that’s not just a patch to wear so every person on the base must salute you, but is a solemn assignment to you to make sure your fleet is prepared and defended. This is why you don't let just any expert Navy man have the job, he has to be the best, NOT the worst. The Japanese should have lost their entire fleet attacking Pearl before they even launched from land based aircraft and the three carriers waiting in ambush, subs, battleships mopping up after the carriers were gone. I have nothing against Kimmel. But I think it would be moral to try him for treason if you don’t accept the possibility of a conspiracy that undermined his ability and obligation to perform basic Navy security 101. I haven’t read any of the conspiracies yet, but I know from common sense that there must be one. Such negligence can only be explained by conspiracy or treason. You simply cannot put a case together that would explain the details of the disaster, there is NO third option. I prefer to give Kimmel the benefit of the doubt because I simply don’t believe he was a man inclined to treason nor a Admiral that had never had any training whatsoever on basic defense and the concept of protecting something. Explain how my Bradley analogy could be acceptable and how Ike would be at fault if Bradley made those choices and didn’t clear it with Ike. Kimmel was the equivalent of Bradley. His actions in Pearl are the fundamental equivalent of those I pointed out in the analogy.

Hey Kiwi, I am not a conspiracy freak, not in the least, but I think you are letting your contempt for conspiracies interfere with the fact that a conspiracy is demanded and more rational in a logical sense than no conspiracy at all. Just because you view conspiracies with great contempt does not mean there can’t be one with Pearl. No level of contempt can change it if it happened; it merely assures you would never be able to find it out. The circumstantial evidence alone would convict. Kimmel couldn't simply argue in his defense, "I just didn't know that ships need to be protected or that they would sink if torpedoes hit them, nobody could have known that ships sink, I am only an Admiral". That's what your inference is by saying that it was just mistakes.

 

Plnat-pilot

Taken from The Barbarossa

Also from Russia's war by Richard Overy

Jimbo it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about

Stalin didnt kill any one and the nummber was not 15 million
7-8 million died becuase of starvation which was casued by Stalin because he was exporting Grain to get money to industrialzie the Country also the american invsments are not correct

And Do you know how the nazies treated the Jewes?
They treated all Soviets the exact same way
And you say this is better

You clearly know nothing you must study more

And Plant-Pilot Never forget you were wrong about Napoleon

Taken from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front...I%29#Operations

The Eastern Front was unparalleled for its high intensity, ferocity, and brutality. The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front. It was by far the deadliest single front in World War II, with over 4 million deaths on the Axis Forces, Soviet battle deaths were about 7 to 8 million, and civilian deaths were about 14 million. The genocidal death toll was attributed to several factors, including brutal mistreatment of POW's and captured partisans by both sides, multiple atrocities by the Germans against the civilian population, the wholesale use of weaponry on the battlefield against huge masses of infantry, and Joseph Stalin's draconian policies against supposed enemies. The multiple battles, and most of all, the use of scorched earth tactics employed first by the Soviets and afterwards by Germans destroyed agricultural land, infrastructure, and whole towns, leaving much of the population homeless and without food.



And plant-pilot the research papers facts are not wrong it is just you who can not admit that the facts are correct, the facts about Nazi losses are correct do you really belive they are wrong

Hitler's plans also miscarried before the onset of severe winter weather; he was so confident of a lightning victory that he did not prepare for even the possibility of winter warfare in Russia. Yet his eastern army suffered more than 734,000 casualties (about 23 percent of its average strength of 3,200,000 troops) during the first five months of the invasion, and on 27 November 1941, General Eduard Wagner, the Quartermaster General of the German Army, reported that "We are at the end of our resources in both personnel and materiel. We are about to be confronted with the dangers of deep winter." [My italics.]

And if they are wrong then PROVE that they are wrong
And never forget you were wrong about Napoleon

You were wrong about Napoloen and you are equally wrong when you say the facts from the American research papers are wrong

AndJimbo you are wrong about most things you have ever written

 

Moderator where are You?

Why the Dengs post isnt remowed yet?

It is full of slander!

You people should remove it!

 

This is my first posting on this thread so please forgive me if I go over old ground to some degree.

The thread in my mind is in two parts, the impact of Germany not going to war on Russia, and the second, The impact of going to war on the USA. Taking them one at a time.

Impact of Germany not going to war on Russia.
The big question is would Russia have gone to war on Germany. I personally doubt that this would have happened. Russia was in crisis barely able to feed itself with vast numbers of people dying of starvation and disease. The expansion of industrilisation wasn't going as well as hoped and the five year plans in place were going about as well as any five year plan has ever gone. Stalin would have done almost anything not to upset Germany.
From Germany's point of view peace with Russia gave them one large piece of security and that was a source of oil, the lifeblood of any war.

Declaring War on the USA
This would have done what his Generals dreaded and of course what it did do. Namely made an enemy of the biggest economy in the world, one free from attack and able to supply almost limitless amounts of arms and munitions. It was also a technically advanced country able to take the latest advances from the UK develop then into weapons of war and produce them in vast quantities. Radar and code breaking are probably the best real examples of this happening.
There is no doubt that the war would have gone on a lot longer as Germany would have been able to concentrate its defences. However in the end the tide would have overwhelmed them.

 

(jimbotosome @ Oct 21 2005, 10:30 PM) [post=40393]
.

Hey Kiwi, I am not a conspiracy freak, not in the least, but I think you are letting your contempt for conspiracies interfere with the fact that a conspiracy is demanded and more rational in a logical sense than no conspiracy at all. Just because you view conspiracies with great contempt does not mean there can’t be one with Pearl. No level of contempt can change it if it happened; it merely assures you would never be able to find it out. The circumstantial evidence alone would convict. Kimmel couldn't simply argue in his defense, "I just didn't know that ships need to be protected or that they would sink if torpedoes hit them, nobody could have known that ships sink, I am only an Admiral". That's what your inference is by saying that it was just mistakes.
[/b]

No, I think that if there was a "conspiracy" at Pearl Harbor, it was a conspiracy of sloth, arrogance, laziness, and lack of imagination. Absolutely, Kimmel was responsible for the safety of the ships under his command, at all times. Prange says that, too. But I think that Pearl Harbor's "conspiracy" is one of omission, not of gleeful plotters meeting in the backroom, figuring out how to maneuver the US into war and make it look like the other fellow's fault, and to hell with the consequences.

Nor do I disdain all conspiracies...we have seen plenty, all through history, and some have worked. John Wilkes Booth and his crew stand out. Adolf Hitler used conspiratorial politics to facilitate his rise to the top, as did his opponents, Kurt Schleicher. So did Lenin and Stalin. The Wannsee Conference was the advancement of a criminal conspiracy by a highly industrialized, modern, technological state, to murder millions of people.

My anger at the conspiracy theories that are batted around in our society is their ludicrous nature. They invariably wind up being a rehash of the same discredited ideas, under varying names: a gigantic Satan-based conspiracy by ruling elites (a term for Jews) to destroy the world, that goes on for generations and centuries.

As Michael Shermer writes in "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happens and Why Do They Say it?," "For conspiracy theorists, all manner of demonic forces have been at work in history, including the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the Knights of Malta, the Masons, the Freemasons, the Cosmopolitans, the Abolitionists, the Slaveholders, the Catholics, the Communists, the Bilderbergers, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Warren Commission, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Monetary Fund, the League of Nations, the United Nations, and, most recently, the New World Order. In many of these conspiracy theories, 'the Jews' are seen to be at work behind the scenes, deviously conspiring to implement their cabals."

Raphael Ezekiel, in his study on today's neo-Nazis and racists, attended one of their conferences in 1987, and noted that most of the rhetoric was anti-Communist hysteria, with dire threats of imminent Soviet conquest of the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ezekiel asked one of the leaders of this varied group, Richard Girnt Butler, how he interpreted the collapse of Communism. It meant, said Butler, "that a branch office of the shop that had not been doing well was closed." The name and brand of the conspiracy was immaterial, Ezekiel concluded. What mattered was that there was a conspiracy. Everything was a conspiracy, and in the case of him and his followers, the source of the conspiracy was Satan and his Jewish puppets, and they were responsible for everything.

There are many things I have against such conspiracy theories and theorists, and they are (with a little help from John George and Laird Wilcox, and their scholarly study, "Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe:"

1. Absolute certainty that they have the truth. And, as true believers, that everyone is really "on their side," but not allowed to show their support, because of the evil conspiracy. It's one of the reasons these folks keep going to places they are clearly unwelcome -- public protests in Jewish neighborhood...hijacking internet discussion groups like THC...staging demonstrations at political conventions. They think everyone is really on their side, and sooner or later, the eyes of the vast mass of humanity will open, and everyone will march in lockstep behind the National Alliance instead of the Zionist Occupation Government.
2. The belief that America, or their nation, is controlled to a greater or lesser extent by a conspiratorial group. In fact, the believe this group is very powerful and controls most nations.
3. Open hatred of opponents. Because these opponents (actually "enemies" in the extremists' eyes) are seen as a part of or sympathizers with "the Conspiracy," they deserve hatred and contempt.
4. Little faith in the democratic process. Manily because most believe "The Conspiracy" has great influence in the U.S. government, and therefore extremists usually spurn compromise. This lack of faith is also displayed in the cynical contempt they have for the process, which is seen when they wrap themselves in civil liberties and freedoms when they come under public attack or scrutiny. Example: neo-Nazis wrapping themselves up in freedom of speech in the "Holocaust debate."
5. Willingness to deny basic civil liberties to certain fellow citizens, because enemies deserve no liberties. This is seen in their internal rhetoric, when they call for shipping all the Jews to Israel on leaky boats, or publications like the "Turner Diaries." We also see this behavior in their acts: Matthew Hale hiring hit men to whack a judge who ruled against him in court, David Irving trying to silence Deborah Lipstadt (and anyone else who crosses him), Communist counter-demonstrators hurling rocks and bottles at Klansmen. The hypocrisy of this behavior appalls me.
6. Consistent indulgence in irresponsible accusations and character assassinations. They duck and weave in "debate." They actually don't want a "debate," they want a confrontation, which ends either with their opponents furious, dead, or converted. So when they get hit with the facts and their lies are exposed, they can't address the issue or give an answer...they just denounce their interlocutor. Part of this is also because of their own sense of self-importance and anger over being ridiculed. Often enough, when conspiracy theorists spout their drivel, they don't get a confrontation at all...just laughter and ridicule. Few things can be more upsetting to a true believer, particularly one who, as stated up top, has the absolute certainty of giving out the truth. How dare you ridicule the mouthpiece of God? How dare you make me look foolish instead of playing my game of confrontation? You should be agreeing with my quotation from Mark Weber and the Institute for Historical Review instead of just laughing at it! What I'm saying is of cosmic importance....I'm fighting the great world conspiracy, dammit! Stung by ridicule, these folks drop the "high ground" and hurl invective back at their opponents, which also generates the confrontation they seek.

A few I would add:

The adolescent nature of the mentality and presentation...conspiracy theorists live in a world of confrontation, conflict, and apocalypse. They are all fighting the last battle for humanity's survival, against an overwhelming enemy with vast resources. The only thing the conspiracy theorists have on their side is that in their reality, all of humanity is on their side...it just hasn't awakened to the great crisis yet. The true believers have to alert and mobilize humanity to face the many-headed hydra of the Jewish menace. At the same time, they look forward to that imminent day of disaster and destruction, because they believe that out of the chaos they will emerge as the organized saviors of humanity, taking the reins of the battered world at the request of a betrayed, despairing, and desperate humanity, and building a new, pure, and perfect world.

In reality, they live a life of preparation for confrontation, the confrontation itself, and catharsis thereafter -- along with a lot of reading and interpreting of news and events to fit their pre-conceived notions.

It all sounds like a schoolboy adventure, a mix of A.G. Henty and "Dungeons and Dragons," with King Arthur and his knights thrown in. It's perfect for overheated teenagers of all ages who want quick and romantic solutions to often insoluble problems. It neatly explains everything from the creation of the planet to the Kennedy assassination to the designated hitter rule. It makes an extremely complex world extremely simple. And it enables people who feel they are entitled to things they have not got believe that their failures in life are not their fault...despite being white, blue-eyed, and young, they are being held down by those evil Satanic Jews...or Bilderbergers...or whoever. Satan is the reason they don't have a huge mansion. Or a decent-paying job. Or the respect of fellow historians. Or the post as chair of the history department at some university. Or that nobody takes their theories seriously. Or that they draw ridicule instead of invitations to serve on presidential committees to "revise" the story of the Holocaust. Or that they can't find the absolute written proof that the Holocaust was faked by a bunch of Jewish writers in Moscow on the orders of Stalin and Bernard Baruch. It enables people to avoid responsibility for their own lives, and their own fortunes.

So that's why I have contempt for many conspiracy theories and their makers.

I hope I've been clear. I don't think I'm doing a very good job of it, somehow. If I was, you'd see my point. But unlike the conspiracy theorists, I don't blame you or "social engineering" or the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." I blame myself...if I'd been a better writer or a smarter guy, I would have been able to explain myself in a coherent manner. I'm not, so I haven't. So it's my fault, and I accept that. All I can do is try.

 

And Do you know how the nazies treated the Jewes

Do You know how soviets treated Slavians(Russians, Ukrains, Belarus.......) people?
Do You know how soviets treated Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Finnish, Moldavians, Polish in 1939
Do You know how soviets treated Hungarians in1953, Tchehhoslovakkians in 1969, Afganistan in 1979

German people feel guilty nowdays!
Soviets progeny feel proud nowdays!

 

I don't mean to nit-pick (but I can't help it) Do you mean G. A. Henty? Whilst he certainly was, by modern standards reactionary and conservative, let's not forget that several generations who won his books as school prizes stood up to do the right thing in 1914-18 and 1939-45.

 

(adrian roberts @ Sep 20 2005, 05:54 PM) [post=39277]</div><div class='quotemain'>One thing that was sure. The US “lost contact” with the largest Japanese task force ever spotted (possessing 4 carriers). Ok, this can happen. [/b]

In what sense did the US lose contact with the task force? Were they actually shadowing it from when it left Japan? I thought the only contact made with it was by two PBYs that were shot down before they could radio back to base. (Though I wonder if their fate was ever proven, given that none of the crews survived). If this was the only contact then the US can hardly be said to be expecting an attack, on that evidence alone.

I'll be interested to hear any more on this theory, though I've tended to favour cock-up explanations rather than conspiracies.
[/b] I am the same way Adrian, conspiracy is usually just imagination run amok.

To answer your question, the US was tailing it by submarine. A sub cannot keep up with a fleet. But to lose contact and pull your destroyer and sub screens around Pearl, that's either gross incompetance that would get a newly graduated officer court marshalled, much less an admiral that is responsible for Pearl and all the ships and planes in her, or it would be the sign of a conspiracy and Kimmel was just the "patsy". The findings of the Roberts Commission was eventually overturned and Kimmel was cleared. Why? If he was innocent, then why did the RC find him at fault? If he was guilty then why did they over turn the findings?

But my whole point on the matter was if there was no conspiracy, it would be derelict of FDR. My premise for saying this is that if Britain had fallen to Germany, the whole world would be “royally” screwed. It would have been very difficult if not impossible to ever invade Europe. FDR was well aware that the longer the US holds out, the worse things will be and the more people that will die because of it to a point Germany might be unstoppable afterwards. We can argue whether or not Germany would have won the war against Britain if they had continued the path of Sea Lion rather than deciding to switch tactics to bombing civilians. That’s all well and good for our entertainment in the year 2005. But that is “completely” inconsequential as far as this issue is concerned with them because at the time they did not have the beauty of hindsight that we geniuses do. From FDR’s perspective, if the war had continued through 1942 without the US in it, then it may be that Germany walks the world as the most heavily armed and most industrial nation on the earth possessing the entirety of Europe. This is not a chance that he could take and would be looked upon retrospectively as a betrayal of the nation he swore to protect (treason by apathy). But more over, he loved this country and simply couldn’t risk it on a roll of the dice like that. Logic demands a conspiracy and he is the most likely one to realize it.

The American people were not interested in another World War and congress would NEVER have gone against this feeling to declare one. American merchant ships and war ships were being sunk all the time and the people had no interest in joining the fray. Since a president can't declare a war, then only inspiration would have ever have brought it. Germany certainly wasn't going to declare it. As much as FDR had baited Hitler he wisely chose to ignore engaging the US. FDR was chomping at the bit to get into the scrap.


But, while the pacifists in the US sat around the camp fire, held hands and sang “Kum Bah Yah”, Hitler was building his stranglehold on Europe. I would be willing to bet dimes to dollars that when FDR and Churchill got together in the Oval Office or on FDR’s retreat, Churchill’s discussions were a little more somber than his “we will fight them on the beaches” speech. Men typically do not rise to the stature of these two men by being idiots or lacking common sense.

 

(rikp @ Dec 29 2005, 03:48 PM) [post=43749]I don't mean to nit-pick (but I can't help it) Do you mean G. A. Henty? Whilst he certainly was, by modern standards reactionary and conservative, let's not forget that several generations who won his books as school prizes stood up to do the right thing in 1914-18 and 1939-45.
[/b]

Yes, that's who I meant, and I was not referring to his political views, but just his writing style and subject matter...young boys thrust into daring and romantic adventures. I read "In the Reign of Terror" when I was a kid, and enjoyed it.

 

First of all, germany wouldn't even have defeated Czechoslovakia, had Poland, France (and/or others) stood by her. I remind you France was CS's military ally with signed treaties. But this is a deep matter. According to some article in the treaty the USSR was to help in order for France to send troops too. But Stalin was already waging secret war on EVERYBODY through the (O)GPU/NKVD. It fitted his plans not to help CS and definitely not to help Poland. Why didn't poland help CS? Because of the Tesin border region dispute? Or because the GPU deviated and thwarted military equipment dispatch from CS to PO by instigating strikes of railway workers in 1920?

So, CS (15 million, well equipped), Poland (35) and France (50?, splendidly equipped) alone would have defeated/repelled Germany.

I heard though that Stalin made territorial demands on Germany in Aug 1940. He wanted the Germans to clear out of Poland, namely beyond the demarcation line from 1914. That would mean Warsaw inside Russia. Hitler, white with fury supposedly issued directive 21. But probably those two would have met anyway in some form. Nobody can dispute, though, the German arrogance of those times, their aggressiveness and even scorn for the lesser peoples.

That's why they planned so poorly for the Barbarossa campaign. 10 weeks? Out of their minds. No winter outfit? Must be joking... At any rate, it's insane to venture into the vast spaces of the largest country in the world, inevitably distending and dissipating one's armed forces on a 2900 km (1800 mi) front. And then fight on two or more fronts.

Germany could not have withstood the united war effort of UK/USA and their colonies and allies. They lacked the natural resources! What did they have apart from coal and iron? They even lacked wolframium... Not to mention the manpower. Even with France and Europe on its knees...

Still, things must have looked dire after Pearl Harbour. Half Asia under Japanese yoke. In fact the Yanks hated and despised the Japs. This must be said. After the 1904 war, they were ridiculed as if they had lost not the Russians. They were faithful allies in WWI and still the USA viewed them as competition. That deeply offended them and gave rise to militarism. A pity.

But we are not talking here about the responsibilty for the war.

 

The battle of Crete delayed the German invansion to Russia and this may have affected by many historians the results of the War.For more info you can read an article at the World War Press Greece