|
| Thread: What if the world got along?? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
posted September 01, 2002 06:54 AM |
|
|
What if the world got along??
I sometimes wonder, what would the world be like if Osama Bin laden came out and surrendered freely, admitted his crimes and was sentenced to death without another word from him? what if The Isrealites and the Palenstines Signed a Peace Treaty??? What if the Cold War Never happened??? what about if Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese Dictator surrendered 5 years earlier??? and the Attack on Pearl harbor Never happened??? What if the World Trade Centers were still standing tall, undentured??? what would the world be like? or, what if All Those 'pilgrams' and 'settlers' and the british and stuff never came to America?? would the Native Americans still be here??? Would they still be Buffalo Roaming the Country, and lodes of Gold and silver Deep in the Colorado and California? What if The U.S.A Lost against the british in the American Revoloution??
what if.....
|
|
Pure_Chaos
Bad-mannered
Known Hero
Destroyer of Morons
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:03 AM |
|
|
The world would be a pretty f#cked up place 
____________
If I were a banana and you were a monkey, would you eat me?
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 10:25 AM |
|
|
<quote>I sometimes wonder, what would the world be like if Osama Bin laden came out and surrendered freely, admitted his crimes and was sentenced to death without another word from him?</quote>
Then America would have to find another place to fight a war against, the Taliban would still rule, and Saddam not.
<quote>what if The Isrealites and the Palenstines Signed a Peace Treaty???</quote>
Then there would be religious fanatics on both sides that restart the war. there is no end here...
<quote> What if the Cold War Never happened???</Quote>
then communism would still be on large scale. But that's extremely unlikely, it isn't in humans nature not to grab power and not to compete.
<quote>what about if Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese Dictator surrendered 5 years earlier???</quote>
then the wotld wouldn't have known a second world war but a greater war, a war on a much larger scale, during the cold war.
<quote>and the Attack on Pearl harbor Never happened???</quote>
America would have felt the urge to defend itself and a few years after Europe has been conquered, the Nazis would turn their attention towards America, and they wouldn't be able to stand the invaders.
<quote>What if the World Trade Centers were still standing tall, undentured??? what would the world be like?</quote>
Bush would have way less suppoters.
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 02:34 PM |
|
|
jules
Damn it why does everyone assume that Europe could not stand up to Hitler without America? FACT Russia alone killed more germans, took on more of their army, tied down more of their resources. The only thing that may have happened is that more of europe would have been under Communist control.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Juulcesaar
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 04:08 PM |
|
|
All of europe, except matbe the islands like Brittania, ireland and Icaland would have been under Nazi rules. And only decades later (in the seventies maybe?) underground activity would overthrow the German Hierarchy. Without america, the British Empire wouldn't have tried to invade, and more men and resources and capable generals wold have been transferred to the eastern front, making the frontlines stable for a long period until the internal structure of the Third Reich collapsed.
____________
I do no longer exist...
Check 'reynaert' if you want to see me...
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted September 01, 2002 04:34 PM |
|
|
"locks himself in a lab"
...now where did I put the time machine blueprints?
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 06:18 PM |
|
|
perhaps so, but still Russia would have given Germany a damn fine pounding for a long time!
Hey lith can I come?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 06:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The world would be a pretty f#cked up place
it already is my child, it already is.....
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:14 PM |
|
|
If it wasn't for Germany, Austria and Russia, Poland would be waaay bigger now. From sea to sea AFAIK.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
Athimus_Phaeni
Famous Hero
Final Fantasy Fan
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:26 PM |
|
|
What if...
Adam was gay or Eve lesbian????
____________
But I won't be
Burned by the reflection
Of the fire in your eyes
As you're starying at the sun
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 01, 2002 07:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
jules
Damn it why does everyone assume that Europe could not stand up to Hitler without America? FACT Russia alone killed more germans, took on more of their army, tied down more of their resources. The only thing that may have happened is that more of europe would have been under Communist control.
What about when Japan took over India and the rest of China and then decided that that nice, cute unprotected East Soviet border was nice and tempting?
Look, every one of the Allies was important in winning the war. The US did not in any way shape or form single handedly win the war, but don't try to claim that the English and Soviets had everything under control and that the US had virtually no effect on the war. (Remember, even before the involvement of US soldiers, the US was providing a considerable amount of material aid.)
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 12:45 AM |
|
|
I didn't say America had no affect! I just pointed out that Soviet Russia had a greater numerical effect than most of the rest of the world combined. Under control, no but the fact remains that many in the west hardly ever gift Russia with any affect on the war, merely a side show to tie down German troops. Had russia not been involved the Western Aliies would never have got back Europe with all the troops freed from the Eastern front.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 02:06 AM |
|
|
Well, the reason Russia managed to stave off the German invasion (regarded by many as the turning point of WW2) was not only because of the much-popularized fact that Hitler's decision to invade Russia in the winter of 1941; but also because of Hitler's inability to get on a level ground with his generals. He was suspicious of them, and he overturned several of their decisions, most notably he ordered the army to keep going towards Moscow instead of halting as per original orders.
Keep in mind that Hitler beat himself as much as the Allies did. If Hitler had managed to invade Russia, he gets a ton of territory and oil from Russian territories, and he has a big advantage in Western Europe now. Yes Russia did have a significant impact, but I'd say there was a bit of luck involved.
____________
Since when do you type signatures?
"This win by the Panthers in Week 1 bodes well for the rest of the season." - Me last year
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 02:18 AM |
|
|
Luck, bad allies and bad management. Part of the reason for the lateness and failiure of the assault on Russia was because Italy invaded the Balkan countries and was frankly getting battered until Hitler diverted major manpower there from the assault on russia, pushing back Barbarossa by 2 months. He also sent troops to secure oil fields in 1941 in the south, diverting precious tanks from the drive on Moscow during 1941, delaying their arrival by another month. These 3 months could have seen the capture of moscow. He could have taken moscow in 1941 but for these delays.
The russians only ever needed the time to rebuild after the purges of the late 1930's. Once this took place their winter and new tanks in the T34 would enable them to smash Hitler's wermacht. Hitler got far too involved in specific cities such as Leningrad and Stalingrad, destroying his advances in the centre of Russia. Once mobilised though the Russian army was more than capable of defeating Hitler's forces as the battles from 1943 onwards showed. They simply outbuilt Germany in everyway. They simply needed time to reach this point and from then on the result on the eastern front was very much going to be russia's.
To suggest that it was mostly luck is to deny the genius of Generals such as Koniev and Zhukov, both of whom had a major affect on the war. The russians produced excellent tanks, many of which were years ahead of their western rivals. An example being the T34/85 a tank that appeared in 1944 (ish), during the time when the West was still using the frankly death trap Sherman. The t34/85 matched favourably with the Panther, one of Germany's finest tanks.
I would never suggest that Russia was the only winning member, but the general Public in the west has a vision of the War as something won solely by America and Britain. Russia hardly ever gets a mention and if it does it is to deride their troops or tactics
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 03:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I would never suggest that Russia was the only winning member, but the general Public in the west has a vision of the War as something won solely by America and Britain. Russia hardly ever gets a mention and if it does it is to deride their troops or tactics
Well, people read a lot into D-Day and attach a lot of significance to it. However, when you look at it objectively the war was already turning in the Allies' favor at that point anyways. It was the icing on the cake, so to speak. But, it still was important because it forced the Germans to concentrate on 2 fronts instead of 1, which lead to their eventual downfall.
____________
Since when do you type signatures?
"This win by the Panthers in Week 1 bodes well for the rest of the season." - Me last year
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 03:47 AM |
|
|
Yes that is kind of true, the russians were shouting for a "second front" ever since they entered the war, despite the invasion of Italy in 1943. What the allies did achieve after D-day was basically to ensure that Western Europe remained free of Communist rule which was their greatest legacy. they also tied down a large number of veteran divisions in the west, who until that time used france as an area to rebuild from damage inficted in Russia. This was no longer an option once the Western Allies invaded.
As for the d-day point it was a turning point of sorts as it showed the West's commitment to the war and freeing western Europe. Many battles are sited as THE turning point
Battle of Britain: Supposedly stopped the invasion of England (untrue hitler turned to planning invading russia long before the battle ended)
El Alemain: Turned Rommel back from Egypt, Britain's lifeline to Asia
Kursk: Stopped the German offensives in the east for the rest of the war and destroyed huge numbers of irreplaceable tanks
Pearl Harbour: Brought America into the war
and of course D-Day and Barbarossa
Of course the answer is there probably was not one single point in which you could say from then on that the Allies would win before 1944 when it was almost a foregone conclusion. The closest you can come is the year 1943 when the Allies stopped major german offensives and began the long haul of removing German forces from countries on all fronts
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 04:15 AM |
|
|
Yeah, I agree that it's hard to nail down a definite turning point. The Battle of Britain is yet another mistake by Hitler. If he had concentrated on that for just a few more months, instead of diverting his attention towards Russia prematurely, then the Axis forces would have had a huge boost in terms of having extra naval and air bases, as well as crushing Allied leadership.
BTW, I think that the U.S. would have eventually gotten involved in the war anyways if Pearl Harbor had never occured. Remember, German U-Boats were launching sneak attacks on ships that carried U.S. citizens. I doubt that Roosevelt would have stood for that any longer than... say, a month or two after Pearl Harbor would have occured.
____________
Since when do you type signatures?
"This win by the Panthers in Week 1 bodes well for the rest of the season." - Me last year
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 04:32 AM |
|
|
Hmmmmmm yes there is some logic to the second one, but the first I must add something to
Hitler's only mistake in the BOB was to switch to the bombing of cities, something German bombers were not designed for. If he had stuck with the tactic of bombing factories and radar stations then he may well of suceeded in clearing the skies over southern England. Despite this though Hitler may still have been unable to invade. Like so many before him the Royal Navy would never have sat idle and would have played a huge part in any invasion as would the errrr dubious weather of which England is famous for. Hitler would have had trouble summoning enough barges and invasion boats whatever the outcome of the BOB, so the BOB was really a huge mistake in general as the difficulties of invading England consisted of more than merely destroying the RAF south of Birmingham.
As for the USA that is clear and I would not dispute that. The american government were very pro British, despite a somewhat isolationist feeling amongst the population at large. He was also annoyed at Japanese actions in China and her attempts to sieze the oil of the Dutch East Indies. War for America at that stage was only ever a case of when, not if.
You could site most of those battles as potential mistakes by Hitler. Kursk would have acheived little had they even somehow made headway into the deffences due to the huge Russian build up there. El Alamein was a mistake because Rommel had begged Hitler for more resources and manpower for months prior to this. He frankly produced miracles to even get the Afrika Corps that far, yet when it came to the crunch the lack of supplies and reinforcements forced Rommel to retreat. As for pearl, well I doubt anyone could really blame hitler for that one..................
To add to the what if it is interesting that when The assasination plot against Hitler failed in 1944 the Allies were unsure whether to be relieved or dismayed. Without Hitler the war could have ran more smoothly with the Generals back in charge of the army so they would not want that. With him still there they could at least rely on him to mess the war up every now and then. Also the most likely contender after 1942 to become the next Fuhrer would be Himmler, a man who did not dabble in millitary affairs and also a man of ruthless efficency. He would have ensured that the "final solution" was carried out far more and also would have ensured perhaps that mistakes made by Hitler did not happen. Then again Himmler tried to get a negotiated surrender long before may 1945, so whilst the end might have been more brutal, it may have come sooner.
Sorry to go on BTW the second world war is something of a topic of mine.................
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Nivek
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 04:52 AM |
|
|
Hudson, don't worry about it. I love talking about WW2 as well. Makes for some good conversation.
As far as the BOB goes, from a tactical standpoint it may have been a less-than-wise decision. But what was Germany supposed to do? Just leave it alone? Britain was probably the main threat to Germany in the West, and at that point in time both the Royal Navy and the RAF were in pretty bad shape. So Britain looked pretty tempting to invade, even though the Luftwaffe had to concentrate on the RAF in order to secure air superiority in order to defeat the Royal Navy. I wouldn't call the BOB more of a choice than a necessity. I agree with you on the city bombings being a mistake, especially since Hitler was pretty pissed off by the British air raids on Berlin. I suppose it was more a reaction out of pride than common sense.
I agree with you on your other points, especially the Hitler assassination one. It was definitely a big boon for the Allied forces to have Hitler in power, since he often made decisions out of his ego and pride instead of looking at the big picture and seeing what the consequences of his actions would be.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 02, 2002 05:04 AM |
|
|
HMMMMMMMMMMMMM Oh allright so he couldn't just leave it alone. My point is though that his ability to destroy Britain as a fighting nation would face problems with either of the RAF or Royal navy still in action. The RN despite all it's old ships could take on the Kreigsmarine easily, if only it had air cover. Without air cover an invasion attempt was folly, with it, well still doubtfull as the RN would be able to intervene heavily. The germans would have had to have relied on their Luftwaffe to hold the RN at bay, something it would have difficulty doing for the extended period of time needed to invade England effectively. You are right of course, Hitler could not have ingored Britain, but there is some doubt as to how far his plans went for invading the UK. Plans were drawn up, but long before Eagle day (the high point of the BOB) Hitler had turned east to plan for Russia.
Interesting point is the comparison between Napoleon and Hitler. If you will bare with me:
1) they were both born outside the mainland of the countries they ruled (hitler was born in Austria, Napoleon on Corsica)
2) They both had England as their implaccable enemies
3) They both planned to invade England and then dropped the idea when it became implausable
4) they both invaded Russia and were heavily defeated, largely by the Winter at first
5) They are both short (well stretching it a bit here)
6) They were both defeated by an alliance containing Russia and England
And there's probably more, but that's all I can think of right now!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
|
|
