Reply With Quote
I think Newt Gingrich co-wrote some alternate history books. I'm sure they are full of partisan hackery, but if you're into that sort of thing.
Allied defeat on D Day may well have pulled the US out of the european war, FDR had already written his resignation speech in case of defeat. Nazi's could have easily smashed the invasion with panzer divisions that were in place. However Hitler distrusted his generals and the panzer divisions were under Hitler's direct command. On the day of the invasion Hitler was taking a nap with orders not to be disturbed. By the time he awoke that afternoon and gave the order to move the panzer divisions into action the cloudy skies had begun to clear allowing allied air power to hold the panzer divisions at bay.
I think Newt Gingrich co-wrote some alternate history books. I'm sure they are full of partisan hackery, but if you're into that sort of thing.
Probably along the lines of Orson Scott Card's neo-con ramblings although I think Newt's a little brighter than OSC.
There are lots and lots of revisionist history theoreticians out there these days, but the notion that Germany attacked France and Great Britain because they were about to be attacked is nonsense. What happened is this:
1. Germany violated every provision of the Versailles Treaty (that ended WWI) possible after Hitler came to power in 1933. This included developing weaponry that had been forbidden, re-establising an Army, etc. etc., and then attacking their neighbors. Hitler always intended to attack Russia and said so forthrightly in Mein Kampf, written before he ever came to power.
2. England and France were treaty-bound to defend Poland if she was attacked, and Hitler knew it. He just didn't think they would do anything about it, since they had already allowed him to over-run three other countries without doing anything about it. So he attacked Poland, and England and France declared war on Germany.
3. France thought that the "Maginot Line" ( a series of fixed defenses along the border with Germany built after WWI) would hold them back.
Neither France nor England was well prepared for War, but Germany was, having fought alongside Franco's army in Spain while overturning Royalist forces there and making Spain fascist, just as Germany became under Hitler.
4. Germany used their military build-up under Hitler (again, in contravention of the Versailles Treaty), their participation in Spain's civil war, and their their over-running of Czechoslovakia, Austria and ultimately Poland, to become the foremost military power in Europe. They were happy enough to go to war with France, but actually didn't want to go to war with England, believing that the English people and the German people were similar to one another.
5. After France and England declared war (September of 1939), virtually nothing happened until the Spring of 1940. Both sides were preparing. So the notion that Germany attacked France and England because they were about to be attacked by them in only true inasmuch as England and France were at war with Germany after Germany refused to leave Poland after they attacked there in 1939.
6. France capitulated within 6 weeks of the German assault, leaving Britain alone to fight Germany. Germany planned an invasion of Britain, although the German generals and high command argued against it. Hitler decided that if he could obtain air superiority over England, the invasion would go forward. Britain's Royal Air Force fought Germany's Air Force to a standstill over the skies of southern England in the summer of 1940, forcing Hitler to conclude that he could not invade England successfully at that time. He had INTENDED to invade Russia in May of 1941, but he couldn't mount the invasion of England and he couldn't get England to surrender. So he figured he would just put off invading England until after he beat Russia (which he figured would take less than 6 months --after all-- nothing else stood for more than 6 months against his armies). So he attacked Russia, figuring that he could beat Russia while his submarines starved England into submission.
7. Hitler's delayed invasion of Russia meant they couldn't get to Moscow before the winter set in, and that delay (attributable to the Battle of Britain's success for England) meant that Russia had time to fall back, get supplies from the U.S. and Britain, and begin fighting back.
8. Had Britain not been able to stand alone from the fall of 1939 until the fall of 1941, when Russia finally was able to start fighting back, WWII would have been very different. Had the British Air Force not pulled off a "David vs. Goliath" move against Germany's numerically superior Air Force in August-September of 1940, and had the British people not been able to 'hold out' against the Blitz in the winter of 40-41, refusing to surrender to the bombing onslaught, Germany may well have been better prepared to attack Russia earlier in 1941 (in May rather than in June-July), and they might have gotten to Moscow before the Winter stopped them. And Germany might have won.
9. Germany declared war on the U.S. 8 days after Pearl Harbor. THAT is what finished Germany. The industrial might of the U.S. (which provided armaments to Russia, England and the U.S.) finished Germany. It took us a long time to get started, and the invasion of Europe across the English Channel was not possible before 1944 because even with our industrial might we didn't literally have the ships to get the guys across the Channel in sufficient force until that time, but it was the industrial strength of the U.S. to fight huge wars on two massive fronts that won the war for the Allies.
10. Russia did not face a two-front war. They did not declare war on Japan until after our bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Russia last more men in WWII than any other combatant, but they didn't win the war. Our industrial strength won the war on both fronts. It was only a matter of time. Other events could have hastened the outcome or postponed the outcome, but once we were in it, the outcome was assured.
I agree with most of your post (I had cited #8 earlier in the thread) except parts of #10. Russia and Japan never "officially" declared war on each other but there was bitter, gruesome border skirmishes in and around Mongolia in 1939. Georgy Zhukov--arguably Russia's most notable general of the war--cut his teeth fending off the Nips at Khalkin Gol and other battles. Needless to say, they weren't friendly throughout the war. Russia took one for the team, and for awhile were getting the full brunt of Germany's land-war aggression.
I heartily recommend these books I will never read.
The Krauts could have won the Battle of Brittain had they not decided to use the Luftwaffe to do daytime bombings of the cities instead of finishing off the RAF and all the radar sites on the channel. That mistake forced them into only being able to do unfocused night bombing of the cities.
You really can't "win" a battle without ultimately putting boots on the ground.
Of course you can.
It's just a battle, not a campaign or a war.
Prob off topic, but Man in the High Castle by and The Plot Against America by Roth are two excellent alt-histories dealing with WW2
Which they were poised to do if they hadn't gone half ass in their battle for air superiority.
True. Hitler lost the war in Russia.
I'm kinda swamped myself right now with visiting family through tomorrow. I have spent the last 16 years of my life studying the events and causes of WWII...admittedly geeky..just an interest of mine. This includes several trips to England and France (Imperial War Museum, etc. etc., and the Arromanches and Normandy beaches areas of France). Mostly it involves tons of reading. I promise that I will give you a bibliography within two days ( the grandchild leaves tomorrow), but in short, check out the WWII histories by Rick Atkinson (imminently readable and current). If you want to go further back, read the war diaries of Churchill himself ( unsurprisingly biased but beautifully written), and the guy who opened the WWII museum in New Orleans who escapes me right now but I will check it out shortly)...
Enjoy your journey. I think you will find it fascinating and worthwhile.
True, except that the 'Battle of Britain' generally means the air war between England and Germany fought in the skies over the South of England primarily between August-September time frame of 1940. Hitler had assumed (because Goering told him) that England's air defenses were so small as to be easily beaten. Air superiority was assumed to be critical to a successful landing of a German Army on the shores of England. But the RAF fought the Luftwaffe to a virtual tie. Problem for England was that if they lost no more planes than the Luftwaffe did, they (England) would still lose because they had so many fewer planes in reserve.
The Germans would have won the air battle had they not gotten distracted by RAF bombings of German cities, upon which Hitler ordered them to put their greatest effort into bombing English cities, hoping that the destruction of their cities would bring England to the Treaty table where they would ask for terms. The Germans had almost destroyed the RAF, but by allowing them to build up their fighter aircraft again when the Germans turned to the "Blitz", they just pissed off the British citizens and gave the RAF a new lease on life. Since there never was an invasion of Britain, and since the Blitz and the u-boat blockade of England during 1940-1941 failed to force England to ask for surrender terms before the invasion of Russia was scheduled to occur (it was scheduled for May - the delay until June was due to Hitler wanting one last chance to get England to cry 'uncle'), the invasion of Russia went ahead, but a full 6 weeks after it was originally planned to occur.
That's why the Air war is called the 'Battle of Britain'.
Linkcity
Next: meme storm.
you guys do know every war since roman empire times, the germans has had a participation in them
You previously asked me for some sources.
Re: Mein Kampf's description of Hitler's intent toward the USSR - check out chapters 7 (the Red Front) and 14 (Eastern Policy), wherein he describes the threat he perceives from Communists (and he attributes Communistic political ideology to Jews), the need to eradicate Jews and Communists, and the simultaneous need for "lebesraum' (living space) for the German people to expand, given their superiority over the Slavic races, etc. etc.
All of the following I have read and recommend to you. Some of the take what you would call the "official version". Most, especially, the most recent ones, don't. None of them, however, espouse the views published on-line by some modern-day hate mongers that the German people were really swell during the war and the War was really the fault of Churchill and Roosevelt and the Bolsheviks.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer and Ron Rosenbaum. This is the oldest of the books, written only a few years after the war by a journalist who had lived in Germany during Hitler's rise, and thus relates his vision of what was happening and why. Certain things were not clear when it was first written that have come to light since then (how early the Brits had broken the German codes, e.g.), but it is exceptional in its 'first person singular' narrative of events.
(2)The World at War, 1939-1945, by Max Hastings. He also has another book about the very end of the war but it is out on loan and I can't remember its le. But he is very very tough on the allies and their execution of the war and their misunderstanding of the German People.
(3)Rick Atkinson's Liberation Trilogy, first - An Army at Dawn, second - The Day of Battle, and third - The Guns at Last Light.
Atkinson, like Hastings, is a modern historian who is vehemently critical of the Allied Leadership including Churchill and Eisenhower and Roosevelt and Omar Bradley, etc. etc.
(4)The last Lion series, written mostly by William Manchester, a very well respected historical biographer, and completed, after Manchester's death, by Manchester's selected successor, Reid (can't remember his first name). Reid just about hates Churchill's guts for being a narcissistic jerk who belittled everyone around him, but had the clearest vision of what the world would look like after the War than anyone except Stalin (because he recognized what Stalin was about to do but couldn't stop it without American help, which was not about to be forthcoming from Roosevelt, Eisenhower, or Truman.
(5) Churchill and Hitler in Victory and Defeat by John Strawson
(6) Franklin and Winston by Jon Meacham - borrrring.
(7) The Greatest Battle (Moscow) by Andrew Nagorski
(8) The Last Citadel (Kursk Battle) and The End of the War (Race for Berlin), both by David L. Robbins
(9) Stalingrad to the Fall of Berlin by Antony Beevor
I believe that every government acts in what it perceives to be its own self-interest. After the Communists took over all of China after WWII, the greatest fear among Western Democracies was that the 'Appeasement' of Hitler that allowed him to become so strong and thus so hard to beat in battle once they had decided that battle was necessary was being repeated in the face of growing Communist might, and so places like Vietnam, which was interested in throwing off French colonial rule should be 'kept free' from Communism. Not because we cared a whit about Vietnam, the French or the Chinese for that matter, but because no politician (including Eisenhower, Kennedy or Johnson) wanted to be the one who 'lost' another country to Communism.
There is of course lots of propaganda about WWII. But there was a lot of truth, also. If you read across a wide range of authors who are unbiased historians, I think you get a pretty clear picture that we won the War, but it was our industrial strength, not our moral rec ude,
that brought about the victory. Russia also won the War, with close to zero moral rec ude, but lots of self-interests satisfied. Britain arguable lost the war as did France, because both of their empires collapsed during or immediately following the war. The U.S. was happy as a lark to watch that happen.
If you really want to challenge a war that we fought in contradiction to the stated reasons, the Iraq War is the most obvious and the most recent.
No, Cosmored. I have done more than enough work for you to bring you the sources and readings in detail that I have actually read and understood. It is up to you now to do some real research of your own, rather than continuing to say you still don't understand why I accept the historians I have read and understood. Unless you read the bibliography I gave you and find something in there that is inconsistent with my presentation, you have no more room to ask for more from someone else.
If you choose to believe the internet youtube postings rather than the academic research by actual historians, there is no way you are going to change by anything I say. And you don't need to change. Lots of folks prefer their versions of reality to those put forward by folks who have actually studied the issue. I'm done with this now.
And by the way... you are welcome for that full bibliography I gave you.
Evay, do you have any do entary recommendations for WWII?
That's good, but I personally loved this one too:This is still my favorite WWII do entary.
Well, the ones I am most familiar with are the ones from the History Channel or PBS. Ken Burns had a couple of series, focusing on ordinary soldiers and the home front. I think one was in 2007 and one in 2010 (Europe and the Pacific, respectively). The World at War was originally made during the 70's, but was remastered and done in HD and Blu Ray in 2010. This one covers the buildup of Nazism in Germany prior to the War. And WWII in HD came out in 2011 and is quite comprehensive (probably the best of the three, imo), and uses colored film wherever possible, which is very unusual for most WWII do entaries. There was not a lot of color footage at that time, but they found all they could and is pretty well done.
All of the above are available on Amazon. I honestly did not like Ken Burns' piece, but maybe because I'm tired of his approach.
Yeah, I have World at War and really enjoyed it. Especially all the color footage they had in the first episode on Hitler's Germany and all the color footage from Iwo Jima (wow that place looked like ). I'll have to get WWII in HD on your recommendation too (DD was recommending it to me also). I hate every Ken Burns do entary I have ever seen (National Parks, Baseball, Prohibition), so I know to steer clear of his work. The National Parks one really disappointed me because I heard it had this huge budget so I was expecting Ansel Adams kind of backcountry shots. Instead every single shot from Yosemite, Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and Sequoia was something no more than 5 minutes walk from the road, and most of his shots were just park the car and shoot. He completely failed in showing how spectacular our parks are by just showing the views that everyone has already seen.
I have another series called The Unknown War that was aired in the Soviet Union and focused on their efforts and the carnage they faced at the hands of the Wehrmacht and SS, but it's not nearly as well done as World at War.
After his Civil War piece, Ken Burns had pretty much shot his wad. The one on the war in the Pacific just made me mad more than anything because it added nothing other than anecdotal musings from a bunch of folks who vision was as narrow as their noses. The Russian one you mention is one I am not familiar with but sounds interesting. And yeah, you can hardly blame the Russians for believing that their sacrifices were greater than anyone else's....mostly because they were. if you come across one of the do entaries on the Kursk Battle, get it. Man, that was truly amazing to watch unfold as they drew the Wermacht into that topographical trap and then snapped it.
The Rick Atkinson trilogy is genuinely worth reading, I promise.
oh, and p.s. the National Parks thing? I couldn't agree more. A total travesty. The very best thing in America and he blew it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
