10 Shocking Ways the Second World War Could Have Ended Differently

[ATAG_((dB))]

I just read that article that I want to share with you guys

http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/10-shocking-ways-second-world-war-ended-differently.html

[TWC_SLAG]

dB,

I can hardly wait for the arguments responding to this thread. I, for one, will keep quiet and just watch.

badfinger

[IIJG27Rich]

I like what this mans says. If Hitler only did things like a practical thinking soldier would have done things then.....






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx0iwRO6jas

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

10 ways the Second World War could have ended differently?

I only see 7.

Anyway, the premise and the arguments are entirely flawed.

1. Germany Invades Britain Instead of the Soviet Union

First of all, Germany did try to invade Britain. They failed because they could not establish the conditions to allow an invasion. They could not gain complete air superiority over the Channel, without which, the invasion would fail.

The fact is, the extremely large unseen gorilla in the room which is not much mentioned in discussions of the BoB was the Royal Navy. 5 times the size of the Kriegsmarine, any confrontation between the two would have ended badly for the German sailors. Without complete air superiority any invasion force would be marooned on their beachheads, out of supply and rendered helpless. In the 1960's Sandhurst Military College ran a wargame on this subject, with as many of the real commanders, both German and British present, and the actual orders of battle used. The situation I have described above was the result.

In 1941 it would have been more difficult to launch a successful invasion, not easier. The British were out-producing the Germans in aircraft and pilots in the summer of 1940, and this imbalance only accelerated, by 1941, they were no longer outnumbered when it came to Fighter Squadrons, and bombers were close behind. A second go round at the BoB in 1941 would have seen an even worse defeat. 1940 was the German's best chance.... they failed.

2. Japan Refrains From Invading Pearl Harbor

"Invading Pearl Harbour"??? What alternate universe was this?

In any case, the Japanese and Americans were going to war, no matter what... the oil embargo the US put on the Japanese as a result of their invasion of China meant the IJN would be reduced to a fleet without the ability to sail... the Japanese militarists could not accept that... they had to seize the oil resources of South East Asia, and they knew doing so would mean war with US if they did... the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour was an attempt to gain a temporary naval advantage which the Japanese hoped would mean the US would lose their will to fight, give up and negotiate in the same way the Russians did in 1905.

3. The Germans Take Moscow in 1941

It is remotely possible the Germans could have taken Moscow in 1941, but unlikely... the fact is, for the Germans, things went as well as they possibly could during Fall Barbarossa, the Soviets blundered hugely time and time again, allowing the Germans to pocket and capture nearly all the Soviet starting armies, yet the Soviet reinforcements and production were such they still held the Germans off. The Germans really had no idea of the size of the Soviet Army, the General Staff kept expecting a collapse, they kept expecting the Soviets were down to their last army... and yet they kept coming.

It is more likely as an alternate... that Stalin would have realized sooner than he did that he was no military Genius, not wait till the last second when the Germans were outside Moscow, and instead hand over control earlier to Georgi Zhukov, thus avoiding some of the disasters of the summer and autumn. If that had happened, the Germans would have gotten nowhere near Moscow.

A more plausible alternate history: Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky, the brilliant strategist, developer of the concept of the "Deep Battle" with armoured forces, (which was used in 1943/44/45 by the Soviets), and Commander in chief of the Red Army through the '30's was purged by Stalin in 1937, executed... along with most of the experienced officers in the Red Army. If that had not happened, if Mikhail Tukhachevsky had still been alive, with the Red army led by experienced Officers, it is likely the Germans would have been stopped in their tracks in the first month... with the Red Army beginning its counterattack and drive to Berlin in 1942 instead of 1943. Then we would have seen a real Cold War nightmare, with the Soviets occupying the whole of Germany, Austria, Czecheslovakia, Poland, etc.

4. Russia and Germany Make a Separate Peace

Never happen. Hitler's entire intention from the start was "Lebensraum" in the East for the Germanic race... and the extermination of the Slavic peoples... they were next on the list after the Jews. The war against Britain was secondary. The war was ideological and racist in nature... there could never be a negotiated solution.

5. The Nazis Develop the Bomb Before the Allies

Never happen... Hitler had driven many of the key Nuclear Physicists out of Germany with his racist philosophy. Plus Robert Oppenheimer, 'Father of the Atom Bomb' was American... plus the Germans did not have the money to fund such a project.... no one did except the Americans... it was a hugely expensive undertaking to develop a bomb in the time period the US did. The Soviets couldn't develop it on their own either... they had to steal much of the research data from the US... and it took them much longer.

6. No Western Front

Never happen... Churchill was second fiddle to Roosevelt, who called the shots... the US had a war economy three times the size of the British, and an Army and airforce equally superior in size... they made the decisions.

7. The July 1944 Plot to Assassinate Hitler Succeed

Who cares? Allies would have still called for unconditional surrender... no negotiations were possible... and in July of 1944, the die was already cast... the Germans were about to be surrounded in the Falaise pocket in Normandy, and the Soviets were in the process of destroying Army Group Center on the East Front... both events the Germans never recovered from.

[Roblex]

I have always been fascinated by how the war so often hinged on luck or missing intel.

What if the Japanese had caught the US carriers unawares at Pearl Harbour and sunk them all?
What if during the preliminaries for the Battle Of Midway that last squadron of dive bombers looking for the IJN had decided to RTB as planned rather than stretch it another five minutes and stumble across a ships wake that led them to a single ship that led them to the main fleet?
What if the Japanese had not decided to change from bombs to torpedos (or was it vice versa?) at the last minute so they were left with bombs scattered all over the deck when the US dive bombers attacked thus making the damage fatal?

Back in England,
what if the Germans had realised how effective their attacks on the radar were? At one stage they managed blind everything between the Isle Of Wight And Dover and we had no idea what was coming. Yes we could often fix them fast but sometimes we could not and if the Germans had known what to hit then they would have been more effective.
What if the Germans had realised how close they were to grounding the RAF when they decided bombing airfields was not working and switched to bombing London? I have seen counter arguments that we were never that close to collapse but it is a matter of record that Churchill was told we could only last another week.
What if the weather had remained bad long enough for the Battle Of The Bulge to succeed? We were in serious trouble for a while and most of the casualties would have been US. Could that have swayed public opinion back home?

It is easy to say that if America had not joined in with it extra production and materials then Britain still could have fought on and stopped any invasion but war to the death is not the only route. If Germany had decided to pull back in 1941 and consolidate the huge gains it already had and negotiate a cease fire then who is to say we would not have agreed? With the whole of continental Europe and its resources under German rule then Hitler could afford to bide his time. If Churchill had not taken control then there is a very good chance we would have done that in 1939 and there were enough weak willed people in Westminster to remove him again in 1941 if Hitler sweet talked them; just look at how fast he was voted out when the war ended.

[ATAG_Lewis]

'The Most Dangerous Enemy' by Stephen Bungay is an interesting book about the Battle of Britain....Bungay is a British war historian....There are some controversial opinions he has...One that both Churchill and Hitler both knew that there was never going to be an invasion of Britain...The Luftwaffe where up against the best air defence system in the world...and at the time the Royal Navy was the largest in the world....Hilters objective was to get Britain to sue for peace...

and that the Battle of Britain was not as close a run thing as has been the norm opinion for most...

Interesting points of view...

The book is a good read either way...

[401Cdn. Beagle]

Here's the complete list, Db might of missed it: http://io9.com/10-shocking-ways-the-second-world-war-could-have-ended-1558135375

Thanks for the video Rich. Interesting interview and the revelation regarding "Dunkirk" was news to me.

I've been living in Germany for 22 years. Once, not too long ago, a German colleage said to me " if he ( Hitler ) only didn't attack Russia, finished off the English and didn't declare war on the U.S. things would be a lot different now". That says a lot about how things have "changed".

Revisionists be damned, I'm happily relieved Hitler and Germany lost the war.

[b0czek]

3. The Germans Take Moscow in 1941

4. Russia and Germany Make a Separate Peace


Those two are quite tricky - there is big IF.
From what I read - Soviet people hated comunism system after it was introduced. They hated this system and Stalin so much, that they welcome German soldiers in 1941 in towns and villages as liberation army. Due to totally madnes of Hitler's philosophy they were not liberated - they were to be enslaved and removed from world's maps. This was - in my humble opinion - biggest failure from Hitler's successfull point of view. There are interesting readings - e.g. books written by Suvorowsky.
When he (or his generals) came to conclusion and tried to establish some 'national' armies it was too late - nevertheless Vlasow army is good example of dramatic decisions of Russian people - what happened that they were able to fight against their fatherland. Incredible dramatism.

There is also other interesting topic (I've found nice reading regarding this topic last weeks, it is called 'Ribbentrop-Beck Pact').
Hitler was trying to take Poland on his side and cooperate during invasion on Russia. What would it mean for Poland - hard to say, speculations only. Simplifying things - agression on western countries meaned that Poland will declare war, so he decided to concuer Poland first (he knew, that France and Britain will not fight for Poland). His target was to defeat polish army and then he had free hands to head to west. But what would happen if this pact - Ribbentrop-Beck would became reality - hard to say.


@Beagle
From what I read - Hitler's agression on Russia was two/three weeks before Stalin's plans of agression. This somehow states why Hitler was so successfull - Russia was preparing to agression (they were investing in attack units, no defence, they destroyed their defence lines to make agression easier). For this reason Hitlers agression on Britain would be bless for Stalin - no armies to defend East.


Of course - no matter of Poland being Soviet satelite for about 50 years and all dramatism it caused - I am glad Hitler lost.

[ATAG_((dB))]

Thanks Beagle I am not sure why I've copy the wrong one. No excuse:banghead:

o7

[AKA_Knutsac]

These discussions often focus on tactics and strategy and I'm always reminded of the old adage "Amateurs talk tactics, but professionals talk logistics."

Through the lens of history, it appears the German threat to GB was much less than commonly believed. Sealion was an impossibility; as Buzzsaw mentioned, the Royal Navy was the 800lb gorilla in the room (and amphibious operations are tough, think of the planning and effort required for D-day...the Germans didn't have anything close to this capacity). And even the U-boat offensive was much less of a real threat than commonly believed (big picture, not for any individual merchantman that was in the wrong place at the wrong time).

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[vranac]

That article is on the level of something " how to lose weight" in a popular magazines.

Very good post from Buzzsaw :thumbsup:

What I would put there is a flight that Rudolf Hess, the Hitler's right hand made at May 1941 ( 10th I think) to Scotland , just before the start of Barbarossa.

He was isolated after that and sentenced in Nuremberg and allegedly committed suicide in his 90's just before there were some rumors that Gorbachev will try let him free.

We have to wait till 2017 when some more secret documents should be declassified ;-)

Germany never planed to go in war against the rulers of the Sea. Building a strong fleet was a 10 year plan and Hitler asked to do that in a six years ( 1946).
Like Buzzsaw said even if they had won the air battle there was the Royal navy.

Hitler just wanted to sue for the peace with GB and evade fighting on a two fronts. What was the message sent after the Hess arrival ? Maybe we will never know.

[401Cdn. Beagle]

I've met many German WWII vets since I've been living here. My father-in-law was stationed in the Bretagne on his 18th birthday during the allied invasion and actually died of his wounds in 1995. My neighbour was one of the few who returned from the POW camps in Siberia after being taken prisoner in Stalingrad. My other neighbour saw the Wilhem Gustloff ( check it out on wiki ) sail off to its last deadly voyage, was later terribly wounded in the face by a Russian air attack on his ship and was conscripted into the "Einsatzkommando". And I once had the pleasure of meeting a real friggin, blue blooded Nazi who actually complained to me about the treatment of German POWs by Eisenhowers troops after the war. What is common amongst all four is they regretted, honestly regretted the war didn't turn out in thier favour. The biggest "mistake" was attacking the Russians- not the Soviets- the Russians. So sure, you can revision- or- revise the way the war could have turned out but, its better the way it did indeed end.

[IIJG27Rich]

:recon:

[AKA_Knutsac]

Rich, why edited (book reference removed)? I had never heard of this little piece of postwar history, very unsettling (for an American) if accurate.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[Walleye]

Always wondered if Churchill could've survived, politically, if the axis had just taken North Africa and the suez in 40-41? People still remembered Gallipoli, and if the axis hadn't bombed England just how much appetite there was for war ... The loss would've caused a lot of worry about allied positions from Palestine to India and even Australia.

[JG27-Gaidin]

Salute and Howdy All,

For me the only "what if" I ever wondered about is; what if Germany had developed the long range strategic bomber, instead of the tactical bomber. I have read that it was one of the underlying causes of Udet's suicide. The tactical bomber met Germany's short-term needs, but was useless for winning against the "Big Three".

Gaidin

[AKA_Knutsac]

Salute and Howdy All,

For me the only "what if" I ever wondered about is; what if Germany had developed the long range strategic bomber, instead of the tactical bomber. I have read that it was one of the underlying causes of Udet's suicide. The tactical bomber met Germany's short-term needs, but was useless for winning against the "Big Three".

Gaidin

Even if developed, could they have produced them in numbers enough to make a difference? My understanding is that Germany relied on very quick victories and was not prepared for any long-term conflict; they just didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up with attrition. Seems they were doomed to fail eventually, they didn't control the sea lanes and had limited access to oil...the life blood of a modern military (I've heard it said that WW II was actually won in the oil fields of east Texas and Oklahoma).

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[JG27-Gaidin]

Even if developed, could they have produced them in numbers enough to make a difference? My understanding is that Germany relied on very quick victories and was not prepared for any long-term conflict; they just didn't have the industrial capacity to keep up with attrition. Seems they were doomed to fail eventually, they didn't control the sea lanes and had limited access to oil...the life blood of a modern military (I've heard it said that WW II was actually won in the oil fields of east Texas and Oklahoma).


Salute Knutsac,

Well that's sorta my train of thought expounded. Udet put his energies into the development of the tactical bomber so there was large amounts of production effort put into producing the Stuka. If, on the other hand, those efforts were put into a strategic bomber what could have been the outcome? With the development of the strategic bomber you'll also have a change in tactics. There are a number of ways this could have been put to good use; long range bombing of factories and production (of course), long range attacks on convoy shipping (possible coordination with Wolf-packs), interdiction of supply points and avenues of approach to battle areas. With the introduction of a strategic bombing campaign the Allies would have had to set up interception and thin their front ranks to meet the threat. Think of what these attack could have done to the Russian factories in the east. Underestimating the value of radar, early in the Battle of Britian, would have played hell on their marshalling efforts but I still wonder how it could have changed the outcome if they had developed bombers along the Allies plan.

Salute,
Gaidin

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

There is a reason only the US and Britain produced heavy four engined bombers... they were tremendously expensive, and very technologically demanding.

The British did not have a large war economy, and the amount they invested in creating a heavy bomber fleet for their nightbombing campaign ended up being a huge drain on it. This is one of the reasons why they had to import 75% of their tanks, and 30% of their tactical aircraft from the US. And one of the reasons why their land forces lacked in other areas... so much of their manpower was either flying, maintaining or building these huge bombers. Some historians do not believe they were wise to invest as much effort as they did into heavy bombers. There is a strong argument they could have built a light bomber force of Mosquitos which could have accomplished the same night bombing goals with less cost and far fewer casualties.

The US on the other hand had a far larger economy, and they were able to afford the huge costs of developing and producing these monsters much easier.

A Boeing B-17 cost $238,329 per unit... plus just as important... required a crew of 10, including two pilots... training costs were immense... bombload was 8,000 lb.

A Lancaster cost 45,000-50,000 British Pounds... (Pound was worth approx. $4.00 US) with a crew of seven, normal bombload 14,000 lbs.

A Mosquito cost 15,000 pounds... with a crew of 2, delivered a bombload of 4000 lbs, cost was approx. $60,000 US dollars. Plus it was almost impossible to intercept... loss rates for the Mossies were a tiny fraction of the heavies... they were just too fast... by the time they were spotted on radar, and interceptors scrambled to climb up to their altitude, they were already over target and gone. The later Mossie models had a speed of 415 mph at 28,000 ft. Goering used to go into fits about the Mossies:


It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops.

The Germans went as far as sending up Me-262's at night to chase the Mossies... even then, not many were caught

Germany could not afford to build a big fleet of 4 engined bombers... much too expensive considering their costs for maintaining a 200 division army... instead their means of strategically attacking the British and Americans was the Submarine... which was initially very cost effective... but later in the war when the British and US developed aerial anti-sub methods, with patrol aircraft and escort carriers with the convoys, they became almost ineffective.

A good argument can be put that if the Germans hadn't wasted their money building enormously expensive ships like the Bismarck, and had instead put their efforts into creating a large sub force at the start of the war, that Britain might have been strangled in 1940-41... as it was the Germans really had the Brits on the ropes, with a small sub force of only approx. 50 U-boats.

Churchill said the only threat that really scared him were the German subs.

[ATAG_((dB))]

There is a reason only the US and Britain produced heavy four engined bombers... they were tremendously expensive, and very technologically demanding.


Your missing one the Canadian build Lancaster. o7

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Your missing one the Canadian build Lancaster. o7

Canada's war industries were integrated with the British. The Lancaster was a British design, and all the original investment was done by the British.

[ATAG_((dB))]

Payed with our tax and build with our brain and sweat don't you agree?

[AKA_Knutsac]

... as it was the Germans really had the Brits on the ropes, with a small sub force of only approx. 50 U-boats.

Churchill said the only threat that really scared him were the German subs.

It's been argued that perhaps even this threat has been exaggerated. Many, many more merchants made it through than were lost, and again, the industrial capacity of the allies (specifically the US) quickly made up for the attrition. The U-boats were an effective "terror weapon", but didn't seem to have as great an effect as has been portrayed. Clay Blair's two-volume set seems to be the definitive compilation of the data.

http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-U-Boat-War-Hunters-1939-1942-ebook/dp/B003F3PLQW/ref=la_B000AP7ZXK_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1420384011&sr=1-3

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

I've met many German WWII vets since I've been living here. My father-in-law was stationed in the Bretagne on his 18th birthday during the allied invasion and actually died of his wounds in 1995. My neighbour was one of the few who returned from the POW camps in Siberia after being taken prisoner in Stalingrad. My other neighbour saw the Wilhem Gustloff ( check it out on wiki ) sail off to its last deadly voyage, was later terribly wounded in the face by a Russian air attack on his ship and was conscripted into the "Einsatzkommando". And I once had the pleasure of meeting a real friggin, blue blooded Nazi who actually complained to me about the treatment of German POWs by Eisenhowers troops after the war. What is common amongst all four is they regretted, honestly regretted the war didn't turn out in thier favour. The biggest "mistake" was attacking the Russians- not the Soviets- the Russians. So sure, you can revision- or- revise the way the war could have turned out but, its better the way it did indeed end.



Of course they regret losing. They where volunteers; they knew what they where signing up for. I've never bought into the German people in general not wanting the war. If that was true it wouldn't have happened. Hitler won an election and soldiers especially early on wanted to fight for Germany and signed on smiling to do it.

[ATAG_((dB))]

Of course they regret losing. They where volunteers; they knew what they where signing up for. I've never bought into the German people in general not wanting the war. If that was true it wouldn't have happened. Hitler won an election and soldiers especially early on wanted to fight for Germany and signed on smiling to do it.

Hitler only won 6 or 8 % of the electorate if my memory recall right :)

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

He had popular support. Your figures are waaaaaaaaaay off.

In 1933 just short of 89% of Germans of eligible age voted. The Nazi party won with almost %44 of the votes stomping rivals in the election. The next closest was SPD under Otto Wells with 18% and the rest spit under smaller parties.

You can't mobilize a motivated army willing to invade everyone around if the general feeling of a population is an unwilling. The German people of that time are fully responsible for all the horror of the Second World War.

Revisionists and younger Germans may dislike that fact but at the end of the day a generation was wiped out under Nazi rule voted in using the democratic process.

[xvii-Hardegen]

Personally I think that one of the best " what if " is this:

What if the Second World War never happened avoiding millions of dead and families ruined forever ?

Peace is the best valor that we can achieve worldwide.
I really hope that in the future new generations will never forget how many sacrifices has been made by all sides during the Second World War and other Wars to guarantee us a period of relative peace.
Unfortunately for us the human beings memory has got very short legs...
I would like to wish peace to all of you my fellows and your families for as long as it will be possible...
We spend a lot of time speaking of the War, so few speaking of the Peace...
To conclude...
What if one day we will be able to live all together without wars pestering the world?

[hnbdgr]

The German people of that time are fully responsible for all the horror of the Second World War.

A lot of them for sure, but your statement is a big generalization. If you want to generalize - does that mean that the american people are responsible for the invasion of iraq and subsequent "unintended consequence" of creating ISIS? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/president-obama-claims-rise-of-isis-is-unintended-consequence-of-george-w-bushs-invasion-in-iraq-10115243.html)

[JG4_sKylon]

Personally I think that one of the best " what if " is this:

What if the Second World War never happened avoiding millions of dead and families ruined forever ?

Peace is the best valor that we can achieve worldwide.
I really hope that in the future new generations will never forget how many sacrifices has been made by all sides during the Second World War and other Wars to guarantee us a period of relative peace.
Unfortunately for us the human beings memory has got very short legs...
I would like to wish peace to all of you my fellows and your families for as long as it will be possible...
We spend a lot of time speaking of the War, so few speaking of the Peace...
To conclude...
What if one day we will be able to live all together without wars pestering the world?


You are absolutely right, but peace does not bring profit.

[xvii-Hardegen]

You are absolutely right, but peace does not bring profit.

Unfortunately here I can only reply that you are absolutely right...

[AKA_Knutsac]

He had popular support. Your figures are waaaaaaaaaay off.

In 1933 just short of 89% of Germans of eligible age voted. The Nazi party won with almost %44 of the votes stomping rivals in the election. The next closest was SPD under Otto Wells with 18% and the rest spit under smaller parties.

You can't mobilize a motivated army willing to invade everyone around if the general feeling of a population is an unwilling. The German people of that time are fully responsible for all the horror of the Second World War.

Revisionists and younger Germans may dislike that fact but at the end of the day a generation was wiped out under Nazi rule voted in using the democratic process.

The near universal human phenomenon is explained nicely in "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Force_That_Gives_Us_Meaning). There's a common cycle of ginning folks up for a war followed by eventual disillusionment as the excitement wears off, costs rise, and full body bags start piling up. A good chunk of the human population appears very susceptible to manipulation.

~S~

AKA Knutsac

[vranac]

He had popular support. Your figures are waaaaaaaaaay off.

In 1933 just short of 89% of Germans of eligible age voted. The Nazi party won with almost %44 of the votes stomping rivals in the election. The next closest was SPD under Otto Wells with 18% and the rest spit under smaller parties.

You can't mobilize a motivated army willing to invade everyone around if the general feeling of a population is an unwilling. The German people of that time are fully responsible for all the horror of the Second World War.

Revisionists and younger Germans may dislike that fact but at the end of the day a generation was wiped out under Nazi rule voted in using the democratic process.

You could have that in every modern and democratic country with a certain economic conditions. Then just turn on a propaganda machine and find an enemy to hate.
You have neglected The Treaty of Versailles and the impact that it had on the future. It was basically a time bomb that was left intentionally, according to some historians,
especially the ones that followed the financial side of that story.

[7./JG26_SMOKEJUMPER]

I have not forgotten anything Vranac. I am fully aware of the Treaty of Versaille. Had Hitler wanted to he could have changed it through diplomacy with a big stick.

He didn't want to nor did the German people.



Russian people right now want war. Right down to the same excuses of "ethnic Russians". The modern parallel of modern Russia and 1930's Nazi Germany is scary.




None of you can really debate the fact that the German people of voting age in 1933 are guilty of genocide. It's a shame Germany will face for a good long while and they deserve it. Like America and slavery it's quite the stain to get past.




The near universal human phenomenon is explained nicely in "War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Force_That_Gives_Us_Meaning). There's a common cycle of ginning folks up for a war followed by eventual disillusionment as the excitement wears off, costs rise, and full body bags start piling up. A good chunk of the human population appears very susceptible to manipulation.

~S~

AKA Knutsac



Just look at American media. Manipulative as all heck.


Better than the Russian state controlled media though. No one gets shot for calling Obama a dumb ass.

[hnbdgr]

Russian people right now want war. Right down to the same excuses of "ethnic Russians". The modern parallel of modern Russia and 1930's Nazi Germany is scary.

This line alone says you're way out of touch with reality


None of you can really debate the fact that the German people of voting age in 1933 are guilty of genocide. It's a shame Germany will face for a good long while and they deserve it. Like America and slavery it's quite the stain to get past.

I suppose the allies should have hanged all of them in 1945 then...:doh: Very few people could have foreseen what will happen a few years down the line. I'm not defending all germans btw, a fair share of them did do horrible, evil things and many have joined. But to say what you said is a gross exaggeration.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Sorry I'm going to have to disagree.

To suggest the entire German nation was guilty of genocide is an exaggeration.

To suggest a significant minority of Germans participated in genocide, and a majority either looked away, or were too frightened to object would be correct.

The fact is, the human race tends to operate in tribal groups and to set their moral codes on the basis of what the most influential leaders recommend.

Sometimes the tribe makes a mistake and selects a leader who is flawed. Happens throughout history, and in all nationalities.

Germany had a general tradition of obedience to authority, and fawning respect for the military which was established in the culture from the time of Frederick the Great of Prussia and which permeated their society. Hitler was able to use that culture to get the German nation to follow his directions. Plus of course, as in all societies, there are large numbers of sociopaths and selfish people who are willing to join the power structure and to commit murder and genocide to benefit their own advancement.

Combine the German 1930's era cultural traditions with the characteristic response of humans when they are told by their leaders they are threatened, (violence) and you get an expected result.

Nazism, Facism, Japanese Militarism and WWII are the worst example of human behaviour yet recorded, but they are not the only example.

Name any nation which currently exists, and you'll find examples in their past where their citizens have engaged in abhorrent behaviour. (including the USA, Canada, Britain, etc. etc. )

And you can also, thankfully, find individual examples of generosity and unselfish behaviour, even in the worst of societies... this was the case in Nazi Germany too.

So to tar the entire German people's with one brush is taking it a little far.

In any case, Germany is now one of the most progressive and peaceful societies in the world, and one of the leaders worldwide in the search for sensible non-violent solutions for situations where conflict arises.

[JG4_sKylon]

Russian people right now want war. Right down to the same excuses of "ethnic Russians". The modern parallel of modern Russia and 1930's Nazi Germany is scary.



Just look at American media. Manipulative as all heck.

The 2 sentences say very much about your state of mind.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Interesting points made by all. :thumbsup:

Thanks to everyone for contributing. :salute: