tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post683105786538239617..comments2024-02-23T11:23:45.971-05:00Comments on Lost Motorcyclist: How to Live Through A BombingLost Motorcyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-70376657051679063012010-08-21T09:19:43.103-04:002010-08-21T09:19:43.103-04:00Golly ... there's enough in your comment to ba...Golly ... there's enough in your comment to base several postgraduate papers on ... LOL! ;-)<br /><br />First, with respect to the German nuclear bomb: Hitler's primary strategy was to rapidly overwhelm his opponents ('Blitzkrieg'), and this strategy succeeded in Poland, Norway and France. Germany's choice of weapons was geared towards these 'lightning' campaigns. For example, at the outset of the war, they were completely lacking in strategic bombing (long-range, heavy) aircraft.<br /><br />Throughout the war, German weapons development priority was given to projects with short-term payback. Once the magnitude of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nuclear_energy_project" rel="nofollow">nuclear bomb project</a> was realized (in 1942) most of the research resources were reallocated to weapons with a shorter development period. British '<i>moves to try and slow them down</i>' most likely had less effect than Hitler's own policies.<br /><br />Next: '<i>If Japan had attacked the USSR instead of the USA</i>.' It's worth bearing in mind that that there had been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchuria#Russian_and_Japanese_encroachment" rel="nofollow">almost continuous conflict</a> in Asia throughout the 1930s, especially in Manchuria. In fact, a primary reason the Imperial Japanese Navy was able to prevail over the Army, instituting the <a href="http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/coprospr.htm" rel="nofollow">Co-prosperity Sphere</a> strategy, was because the Army had bogged down in China.<br /><br />Once committed to its Co-prosperity Sphere strategy, Japan was forced to deal with the only other naval power in the Pacific, the U.S.A. And their ('faint hope') tactic had to be an attempt to destroy the American Navy at anchor in Hawaii. That attack finally overcame American 'isolationism' and brought the U.S. into the war. What <i>is</i> interesting is that Roosevelt agreed, with Churchill, to giving first priority to the European Theatre.<br /><br />Finally, what '<i>if the British had stood on the sidelines</i>'? I've always found it less of a question of '<i>Why did Britain declare war on Germany?</i>' than '<i>Why did Britain agree to a Polish defense pact?</i>' (1939). After the successive political embarrassments of the Rhineland, the <i>Anschluss</i>, the Sudetenland, and the Czech 'rump', there was considerable political pressure in Britain to resist further aggression by Hitler.<br /><br />By September 1939, opposition to Chamberlain's 'appeasement' policies had grown to the point where Chamberlain effectively had no political option, especially in the light of the Polish defense pact, but to issue the September 3 ultimatum. Hitler, though, did for some time continue to entertain the hope of effecting a separate peace with Britain.Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-91488815867257116442010-08-20T22:18:02.342-04:002010-08-20T22:18:02.342-04:00You are right, a massive subject, the war between ...You are right, a massive subject, the war between Nazis and USSR without Britain and France jumping in.<br /><br />If Germany had been more successful, they could have captured the USSR's resources.<br /><br />A couple of other things to consider. Might the Nazis have developed the atomic bomb? They were working on it, and the British made some moves to try and slow them down.<br /><br />What if Japan had attacked the USSR instead of the USA? The attack on the USA had much to do with the British persuading Roosevelt to provoke Japan.<br /><br />It's hard to say how the war might have turned out if the British had stood on the sidelines. Obviously, they were very concerned that Germany would win and annex the USSR, thereby giving Germany unlimited resources. That's the main reason I think they declared war in 1939 instead of waiting for Hitler to attack the USSR.Lost Motorcyclisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-5444373817275998752010-08-20T10:06:29.374-04:002010-08-20T10:06:29.374-04:00A couple of comments on your comments on your own ...A couple of comments on your comments on your own blog entry ...<br /><br />First, you write, with respect to American cooperation with the Nazi regime, '<i>that stopped on December 7, 1941</i>.' I beg to differ. In fact, the evidence indicates that American business interests carried on in Germany well into WWII. Well documented culprits include IBM, Ford, GM and Chase-Manhattan.<br /><br />Next, you speculate that, without British resistance, '<i>Hitler could have accomplished his goal of annexing the USSR to Germany</i>'. <br /><br />I believe that would have been highly unlikely. This is a <b>massive</b> subject in its own right, but here's a quick summary ...<br /><br />Stalin took a stance of trying to placate and appease the Nazis during 1939 through early 1941, deliberately minimizing Soviet preparations for war, hoping that Hitler would honour his non-aggression agreement. That stance (no doubt combined with the effect of Stalin's military <i>purges</i> of the late 1930s) allowed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa" rel="nofollow">Operation Barbarossa</a> significant early successes in June through October 1941.<br /><br />However, once Soviet military industry was ramped up (coupled with American <i>Lend Lease</i>), the Red Army reorganized and the Soviet position consolidated, the German invasion quickly faltered. And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad" rel="nofollow">Stalingrad</a> (July 1942 - February 1943) is generally accepted as the turning point of WWII in Europe.<br /><br />Although Britain certainly played its part (the Allied bombing campaign, the Battle of the Atlantic, the North African Campaign, &c., &c.) this was of limited help to the Soviets; Stalin continued to plead for the Allies to open the '<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/news/08iht-ddrussians_ed2_.html" rel="nofollow">second front</a>', something which was not achieved until 1944, with progress in the Italian Campaign and with Operation Overlord.<br /><br />But the most significant factor, in my humble opinion, is that Germany's war efforts depended on limited and rapidly depleting resources, both materiel and manpower, whereas Soviet resources were, to all intents and purposes, unlimited. In any war of attrition (as in WWI) Germany was bound to fail.Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-61028065497518114592010-08-20T09:23:09.831-04:002010-08-20T09:23:09.831-04:00A fascinating vignette of life in England during W...A fascinating vignette of life in England during WWII - thank you for sharing this.<br /><br />Although you only obliquely refer to the 9/11 attacks, I believe this is a point that deserves more emphasis. Not only did the U.S. enter WWII <b>more than two years after</b> Britain (and Canada) but the continental States (and Canada) were never subjected to enemy bombing.<br /><br />In perspective, as well, American <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties" rel="nofollow">casualties in WWII</a> were insignificant compared to those of its Allies - less than 0.32% of its population, compared to almost a full percent for the UK and a massive 14% for the Soviet Union. (Even in little Estonia, where my family hails from, the casualty rate was almost 5%.)<br /><br />So, although this sort of destruction, death and disruption remains part of the cultural background of most Europeans, Americans are generally only vaguely aware of it as distant background noise. And I suspect that this is a major contributing factor to the massive overreaction we have seen to the 9/11 attacks.<br /><br />I think it is extremely difficult for most Americans to empathize with the victims of the consequences of their aggression. In contrast to Europeans, for whom this kind of death and destruction is all too recent.Madeyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593933575568389288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2156536327610779049.post-69091501329451219822010-08-19T12:00:22.656-04:002010-08-19T12:00:22.656-04:00Actually, I also have a comment on this.
Ironical...Actually, I also have a comment on this.<br /><br />Ironically, during the bombing of Britain, the USA was still helping to finance the Nazi regime, and providing fuel and equipment to Germany, although all that stopped on December 7, 1941. <br /><br />England declared war on Germany two years before Pearl Harbour. It took a lot of guts for an unprepared country like Britain to pick a fight in 1939. But if Britain had not attacked when it did, or had not been able to hold on for two years, Hitler could have accomplished his goal of annexing the USSR to Germany to become the world's sole superpower.<br /><br />The world would have looked very different today.Lost Motorcyclisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08873504561959138792noreply@blogger.com