You have some holes in your history. The Germans were bombing the airfields into oblivion. If Hitler had not given relief to the RAF when they needed it the most there would not have been a RAF. Like I said, they were only weeks away from being gone for good. Their airfields were being systematically destroyed.

If Britain had fallen then it is possible the USA could not have retaken it, but fortunately for us, Hitler was an idiot militarily speaking. To bad his people skills were not on par.

A lot of websites out there claim Churchill did this on purpose, he wanted to work Hitler into a state where he over ruled his Generals. I'm not sure myself, as a lot of them are frankly pushing other agendas.

Reguardless of personal feeling your calling a man an idiot that took over most of the world by force in 5 years. With all our might we can't even take over Afganastan in 12. His undoing was his massive meth addiction. They also gave it to their soldiers. Thats how they were able to cover so much ground so fast. Each german soldier had a meth supply.

 

I have decided this is a argument I don't want to get into.

I am not that passionate about WWII history.

 

Reguardless of personal feeling your calling a man an idiot that took over most of the world by force in 5 years. With all our might we can't even take over Afganastan in 12. His undoing was his massive meth addiction. They also gave it to their soldiers. Thats how they were able to cover so much ground so fast. Each german soldier had a meth supply.

man you add a dash of entertainment to every debate

 

WWII - another war to end all wars... I am no longer prepared to participate in these discussions. Hitler's biggest mistake was underestimating Russia and attacking it when he did. If he had not, half the world would be speaking Russian (the east) and half would be speaking German (the west). But as it stands, Germany seems to have won anyway as it seems to have the greatest power in the EU.

What is interesting is that I have never heard soviet/russian people discuss this topic at all (who was instrumental in ending WWII) and come to a conclusion that it was the red army. The war was won by the people led by Marshal Zhykov. People like my grandmother always speak of the assistance of the British and the French without which life would have been impossible (http://www.rt.com/news/uk-arctic-convoy-medals-824/.
)

Personal opinions aside, the war was lost by Hitler and the mounting mistakes (check out this article on Operation Barbarossa http://worldatwarmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/WaW_17-article.pdf

 

Reguardless of personal feeling your calling a man an idiot that took over most of the world by force in 5 years. With all our might we can't even take over Afganastan in 12. His undoing was his massive meth addiction. They also gave it to their soldiers. Thats how they were able to cover so much ground so fast. Each german soldier had a meth supply.

Hitler had the most powerful propaganda machinery ever. This combined with brutal oppression of system opponents was part of his initial success.

Of course he was an megalomaniacal idiot. How could he think he could overtake the whole world?

If it isn't oppression than it is through manipulating public opinion. He did this very well. And it worked for all human history until now.

Suddenly, some examples of very recent history come into mind. Just have a look at the shifting justifications for the war in Iraq.

If the ruling powers do not control their people/soldiers then how to convince them that invading another country is a good thing?

Works for a lot of countries all over the globe. If you are a soldier then try to think: What am I doing here? For what am I standing here for, risking my life?
If you have the choice, of course...

Friend of mine decided he wanted to be deployed to Afghanistan as a soldier (German), for no other reason than good money. What the hell...

 

I don't remember the tactical term; It's akin to "mutually assured destruction", but there's a point at which tacticians decide that the fight isn't worth it. If they knew that they would have to kill 1 out of every 2 Americans if we were to rise up against the government, they may just lay down their weapons and hand over the country. Or they may not. Especially if being led by a nutcase the likes of Hitler. I tend to agree with you, if our military were against us, it would seem almost an impossible battle. I hope it never comes to that. But remember, the military is made up of Americans, mostly American patriots, and I doubt that all of them would follow orders to attack their countrymen.

This is one of the things where what the Founders set up changed in a way that they didn't foresee, but that I think they would have been happy about. More so than most militaries around the world, the U.S. military is really a "people's army". Contrary to popular believe, it is NOT sworn to obey the Commander in Chief (the President) and it's allegiance is NOT to the government. The oath that every member takes (and most take it quite seriously and not just as a bunch of words they have to spout when the join) is to the Constitution -- they swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They are actually required, by that oath, to take down a government that has become an enemy to it. So, while the Founders saw a standing army as a tool of the government that could be used to threaten and oppress the people, it has evolved into an institution that, push come to shove, it is probably more likely to side with the people against the government. At what point this would happen is, of course, unknown, but that is a good thing because the government doesn't know where that boundary is, either, and are thus going to be very hesitent about straying anywhere near it. The Founders believed that the populace needed to be sufficiently armed so as to have the ability to stand up to whatever army the government could field. Today, of course, that isn't possible. But just as the relationship that the Founders assumed would be the case between the government, the military, and the people evolved into something unlike anything that had existed prior to that (to the best of my knowledge), so too did the role of an armed populace. Instead of having to stand up to the army with the ability to defeat them in the field, an armed populace now serves primarily as the tripwire that will likely be the catalyst for forcing the military (individually and collectively) to make the decision that they all hope they will never have to make.

I've asked active duty officers at what point the government becomes a domestic enemy to the Constitution and it is NOT a topic they like thinking about to talking about, but it becomes clear that it is a topic that most of them HAVE spent at least some time thinking about. There are no obvious, clean answers. But then again, there was a time when the question being asked was at what point would the colonies need to revolt and that was also a question with no obvious or clean answers, but it was a question that eventually HAD to be answered, no matter how hard, how dirty, or how bloody the path down which that answer led.

 

Yes I spent plenty of time thinking about it underway. It's one of those mind boggling things that eventually you just decide to stop thinking about it, lest you burn out your brain.

 

Sparky, if you had said the continental USA I might have agreed, but Hawaii is a state (it was a valuable territory then, one of several Japan attacked).

They also occupied part of Alaska (another territory at the time) for nearly a year, and firebombed the Pacific Northwest. I believe they also shelled some oil refineries using the deck guns on subs, but I might be misremembering that and it was the Germans on the east coast that did that. The Germans sank shipping within sight of land (even using the lights of U.S. cities to backlight their targets) along the east coast for quite some time.

It was believed that England would fall and that the U.S. would have to face Germany alone and without access to airfields from which to operate bombers out of. This was the motivation behind the development of the B-36 because was believed we would have to be able to bomb targets in Europe from bases in America.

 

Nazi's didn't fight in WW2 - they were a political group - Germans fought in world war 2.

Then why do all my grandfathers lugers and war trophies have swastica's on them?

 

Then why do all my grandfathers lugers and war trophies have swastica's on them?

Because American corporatists thought they would sell better.

 

I have decided this is a argument I don't want to get into.

I am not that passionate about WWII history.

I am, I've spend 1000's of hours reading books talking to old war vets at airshows, hearing grandpas' stories about the war. One was in EU and was Pattons personal motorcycle messanger, other was in the paficific as a gunnery sgt. (Which ammounted to him making stills on islands they took over, selling it to the soldiers, then selling the still to the army when they came in. Made lots of money doing it. Always made me laugh when he called it coconut whisky.Said he had to give a bottle to the CO for every batch, back then I didn't know what a CO was. And my grandfathers brother joined up with the RAF or another allied airforce in 41, was shot down in 42, and spent till 44 or 45 in a POW camp. After the war he couldn't grow hair at all anymore. Bald as a qball. No eyebrows, hair, not even ear hair.

 

Because American corporatists thought they would sell better.

Check your facts, Luger and the US didn't have a very good relationship fromthe late 30's+. Ever since we had him make a .45 luger with no hope of getting the contract. Plus the price value of a swastica luger is thru the roof. Only high ranking officers got one.

 

Plus the price value of a swastica luger is thru the roof.

See, it worked!

 

When I asked "How to prepare for THIS" I meant, even with so many firearms in the hand of american citizens they are still not prepared. Otherwise there would have been someone to put an end to the attack, right there in the movie theater.

However I'm beginning to lean more towards having a firearm myself, you never know, might be useful one day.

http://www.denverpost.com/dontmiss/ci_21152646/fear-prompts-gun-sales-panic-after-colo-massacre

 

http://www.denverpost.com/dontmiss/ci_21152646/fear-prompts-gun-sales-panic-after-colo-massacre

"Nationally, the shootings have triggered a fierce debate over gun control and whether government has a role in reining in the ownership of firearms."

I wonder what of gun control they are talking about. This was a planned attack, and he was a "normal" guy, i.e. nobody could have foreseen what he was planning, he wasn't a registered mentally ill person. Even here in Canada where it is more difficult to obtain firearms, i.e. more gun control than in the US you could easily buy several shotguns and do the same thing as he did.

Yes some crimes can be prevented by stricter laws, but not all of them.
On the other hand, I think there are degrees of satisfaction when killing someone, according to the method you employ. Why didn't he choose to throw some chemical weapon? Since he was a medical student it would probably have been easy to do...
If firearms were less easily available, would he have carried out his attack or not?

............
Something went wrong while these people were younger. Why do they think that killing isn't a bad thing?
What might have been his motives? Did he live in a parallel world?

​

 

For someone who claims to have reads thousands of books, you sure have a poor understanding when it comes to the Nazis and their rule.

Their leader was Austrian - so straight away not all Nazis were German.


Fact is the Germans were human. Each German soldier had a family, a dad, a mum, a wife, perhaps children.

Each German wrote home, drank, sang and laughed like any allied soldier.

And each one fought just as bravely as any allied soldier.

You must understand the control over everything the Nazis had, that is why your luger has swastika.

Heck, the Nazis created their own version of the boy scouts.

 

you want to know how it happens, check out the documentary about third wave experiment.

The trick is, we are all human beings. There are a few books that will tell you about that period - "Mephisto" (or watch the movie, and about making of the movie) is an easy one, reading about WWI is not bad either, to get perspectives on the Nazi regime. Compare the well known Remarque, who had to flee Germany with Earnst Junger (Storm of Steel) who became the chosen german author of the period. Try to figure out why such decisions were made and how young minds were affected by it. Thought control is a frightening thing, especially if you are unaware of it. Neither you nor I know how we would behave in a situation until it happens, one can only hypothesize.

 

more gun control than in the US you could easily buy several shotguns and do the same thing as he did.

Yet another perspective......

 

For those interested in the Japanese occupation of Alaska, read the 1000 mile war.

I've seen the battlefields of Attu Island. From the remaining landing craft sunk at Massacre Bay to the spot where the Japanese Colonel died. I fished the rivers of that battefield and caugt some nice Dolly Varden trout. Also found lots of muntions from WWII laying about. I didn't retrieve them, I just let them be.

The battle of Attu lasted longer than the American leadership thought it would take.

 

I'll have to buy that, thanks Joe.