Hitler and his bad timing

[Fiddleback]

Neil Bortz was doing a discussion on the 7th about how we could never have pulled off the Normandy Invasion Plan today, much less defeated Germany. His point was that the media coverage and soft ass public opinion/politicians would sicken us into cowing down to Hitler and surrendering after the first big battle. After reading today leftist weakisms I soundly agree with Mr. Bortz. But I guess since I didn't join the military I shouldn't have any opinion of our foreign policy what-so-ever???? Hmmm. I remember a civilian who did great things while running our military. Roosevelt. (Um, I believe there were economic incentives for that little scuffle too, btw) Jeez. :barf:

"Chickenhawk" signing off.

 

[cavetech]

I second Neil's position.

 

[soupah]

But I guess since I didn't join the military I shouldn't have any opinion of our foreign policy what-so-ever???? Hmmm. I remember a civilian who did great things while running our military. Roosevelt. (Um, I believe there were economic incentives for that little scuffle too, btw) Jeez. :barf:

"Chickenhawk" signing off.

Oh geez. Well, I guess you're entitled to the jibe. I never said in that other thread you shouldn't have an opinion, Andy, but that I was basically angry that more people hadn't served in the military yet defended war. It's just a point-of-view. Heck, I don't even know if you served.

As far as Normandy, I don't think we lost a major battle until Operation Market Garden (though I'm just using my memory from reading history books a long time ago, so I could be wrong) and by then we were pretty committed.

If we'd been defeated sometime early in the invasion and pushed back to the sea, we probably would've continued with the safe (edit- by "safe," I meant safer than Normandy, in that it was what Winston Churchill advocated as "safer"- according to what I've read), slow advance route up thru Italy that Churchill favored so much. And Stalin would've conquered Germany up to the Rhine.

p.s. Roosevelt would've joined the army, if it weren't for the polio (edit-incorrect; he contracted polio as a 42-year old adult). His brother (edit; cousin) Teddy sure did a good job, eh?

 

[tinmaddog]

I disagree. Look at how behind the President and the invasion of Afghanistan the American public was. I would be willing to place money on a significant portion of the people opposed to the war in Iraq supporting the war in Afghanistan. If there were another Hitler today he would be stopped.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

If we'd been defeated sometime early in the invasion and pushed back to the sea, we probably would've continued with the safe,slow advance route up thru Italy that Churchill favored so much. [...]

p.s. Roosevelt would've joined the army, if it weren't for the polio. His brother Teddy sure did a good job, eh?

Up through Italy was slow but it wasn't safe.

Teddy was Franklin's distant cousin. Franklin's polio came well after he might have served in the military.

 

[Svashtar]

Neil Bortz was doing a discussion on the 7th about how we could never have pulled off the Normandy Invasion Plan today, much less defeated Germany. His point was that the media coverage and soft ass public opinion/politicians would sicken us into cowing down to Hitler and surrendering after the first big battle. After reading today leftist weakisms I soundly agree with Mr. Bortz. But I guess since I didn't join the military I shouldn't have any opinion of our foreign policy what-so-ever???? Hmmm. I remember a civilian who did great things while running our military. Roosevelt. (Um, I believe there were economic incentives for that little scuffle too, btw) Jeez. :barf:

"Chickenhawk" signing off.

Andy, good point but I really don't think much has changed. There was tremendous pressure by many in the US and the international community pre-UN to keep us out of "Roosevelt's War" or the "European War" in the late 1930's and early 40's.

I have several books, one of them written for teen boys from the 1930's which roundly praise the great new experiments in government as practiced by the Germans and Japanese, and they had many strong sympathizers in this country. Many people felt that Germany was just getting their legitimate payback for the punitive and overly harsh Versailles treaty, and that the Sudetenland and of course Austria were their rightful lands. Poland it was argued was necessary as a buffer to protect German border interests, and even the fall of France did not mobilize the US.

The US had a large population of German-Americans, and they knew that Germany had been harshly treated post-WWI. Germany signed the Versailles treaty only under protest, and in fact the US refused to ratify it, I think because they knew that it went too far. That treaty in many ways led to a national reaction in Germany that led directly to the largest militarization of any nation in history at the time, and hence to the conflict 20 years later. In 1940 Hitler took great delight in forcing the French to surrender in the same railway car that was used for the signing of the Versailles treaty in 1919.

The Chinese have a great saying that the revenge-minded French and British should have kept in mind when composing that disarmament treaty: "Build a silver bridge for a fleeing enemy." (There is a reason that the "V" in the subsequent V-1 and V-2 stands for "vengeance.")

As you know it was really only after Pearl Harbor that this country got fired up enough to start kicking a$$. It always seems to take something like that to get the country mobilized. "Remember the Maine" comes to mind...

With the same provocations today, we'd be there I'm sure, although maybe with a bit more diplomacy I would hope, which is not a bad thing as long as you don't succumb to analysis-paralysis. In that conflict, there was no quitting after just one battle, even had we lost. It was really us or them, and that kind of clarity has been sadly lacking in subsequent wars (or police actions.)

Norm

 

[Fiddleback]

Neals point was that if we lost 6500 men in the first major battle in Afghanistan with the press covering it from within the units, do you think we would have continued? Or, what of this question, if the press had been covering the Normandy invasion from within the units with modern technology and we had seen the scene unfold, do you think we would have continued the war even in the 1940's?

I just thought it was a great point. The govt didn't allow the pictures we see today of the body strewn beach to be released until after the war. Hell today the press is 'cameras rolling' the entire time. I just think thats a mistake. I also think Americans have gotten more sensitive to battle casualties, and their stomach for loss has gotten queasier.

Soupah, you call that a jibe...........

Edited.

 

[cliff355]

Hell today the press is 'cameras rolling' the entire time. I just think thats a mistake.

My sentiments exactly and it may go way beyond D-Day. IMHO if Grant had to contend with Fox and CNN after Cold Harbor - well, we probably wouldn't be electing U.S. presidents from Texas.

 

[tinmaddog]

Honestly though, American television doesn't really show the majority of what is going on over there. If you look at CNN vs. CNN International (obviously owned by the same ppl and have access to the same footage), the footage shown overseas is much more, well, thorough. They show the Iraqui civilians that are killed and injured, the results of our military's actions. When the networks need someone to interview about the war they interview generals and former generals almost exclusively, when there are experts in a number of other fields very qualified to give analysis of aspects of the conflict (doctors, psychologists/psychiatrists, aid workers, hell, the victims of the stray bombs themselves). The US media has been in many ways a pro-military apparatus during this war.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The US media has been in many ways a pro-military apparatus during this war.

Totally untrue.

The reason the US version of the news doesn't worry about foreign casualties or "soft science" experts is that our media is so anti-administration it focuses on American losses to make the war look worse for us.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

IMHO if Grant had to contend with Fox and CNN after Cold Harbor ...

Well, sort of, maybe, but ... I think if that were the way they covered it, Grant would have "lost" a few reporters along the way.

 

[Fiddleback]

Well, sort of, maybe, but ... I think if that were the way they covered it, Grant would have "lost" a few reporters along the way.

Essav. Thanks for your posts today. Somehow you make grave points in a way that make me laugh my butt off. You're right I can see it now:

Grant: You aint printing that.
Press: I know my rights what about free.... bang.


LOL. Does anybody remember the singing telegram lady in the movie clue???

She goes..."Dada Da Da Da Da, I am your singing telegram... bang.

I still laugh just thinking about it.

 

[Ad Astra]

America was shocked by the publication of graphic war photos of KIAs in the Tarawa invasion in Nov. 1943, but we kept fighting.

Is there such a thing as a good war?

Be nice if the media really was fair and balanced, and focused once in a while on damage done to the enemy.

Even the taking out of al-Zarquawi was a grudging acknowledgment of positive news. Negative anything, the media jumps all over, thusly giving the enemy his own propaganda corps for free.

Castro was hiding for his life in a cave in the Sierra Madre mountains until an idiot reporter "secretly interviewed the great rebel leader" in his cave and published a series of "EXCLUSIVE" articles about "the real Castro" - thusly loaning him credibility. And people believed the written words.

The spin doctors.... what power. Most people believe what they are told, isn't that amazing?


Mike :thumbdn:

 

[Nordic Viking]

Yet when Boortz was called to serve in Vietnam, he decided not to go. He claimed some BS deferment blah, blah, blah.

If the Allies had cowards like him in WW2, then the Germany would certainly have ruled the world. Why is the Iraq mess compared to WW2 anyway?

 

[Fiddleback]

Yet when Boortz was called to serve in Vietnam, he decided not to go. He claimed some BS deferment blah, blah, blah.

If the Allies had cowards like him in WW2, then the Germany would certainly have ruled the world. Why is the Iraq mess compared to WW2 anyway?

I believe the French were considered allies.... LOL (No offense HD)

I guess it has become impossible to discuss anything without our war in Iraq becoming central to the discussion. I started the thread because I was called a 'chickenhawk' for my pro-war/troop supportive opinions.

How's Sweden doing??? I heard no more Germany. Thats good right?:thumbup:

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Yet when Boortz was called to serve in Vietnam, he decided not to go. He claimed some BS deferment blah, blah, blah.

Did Boortz do that?

Did Bill Clinton do that?

If a claim for deferment was accepted, was it really BS?

Is running away to Canada a valid claim for deferment?

Do we judge opinions on their match with current reality, or on the biography of the person expressing them? Or on the ethnicity of the person expressing them? Or on the class background of the person expressing them? Or on their match with our own preconceived ideas?

If you answered YES to any of the above, you answered YES to any of the above.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I believe the French were considered allies....

How's Sweden doing???

The French are still our allies. Difficult sometimes, but allies.

In WW II, Sweden was an ally of Germany. Not so devoted an ally as Japan or (sometimes) Italy, so after the war, nobody took them over and re-educated them. Can you imagine a British Zone? A French Zone? A Russian Zone, in Sweden?

Can you imagine an American Zone ??

 

[Nordic Viking]

I believe your impression of the French as cowards is somewhat mistaken, since their Resistance / Maquis fought equally as brave or even braver than the British / American forces.

It is one thing to face an enemy overseas where it's just you, it's another thing to fight someone who is in your backyard lobbying bombs at your house and shooting at your family. All the French resistance fighters had aliases, because if they were caught, the Germans would kill their families too.

Sweden was not an ally of Germany, it was neutral and allowed Hitler to use its railways to transport troops and ore. A very clever move IMO, since Hitler could have destroyed the country in a week. America was also neutral BTW, until Japan forced(sic) her into the war.

As for Boortz, I was stating that someone who avoids a war when it's their time to serve, for whatever reason, only looks like a hypocrite when they act like rabid war monger by criticising others who are apposed to war.

 

[Fiddleback]

I promised my friend HD that I would give the French a break, so I won't argue that point with you. Plus, your point is subjective and we could argue about it for days without any kinda headway. I will say that my normal anti-French rhetoric (I am of French Canadian dessent and take leeway with ragging both nations) is related to their willowy modern foreign policy stance, and rarely very serious.

I had thought that even though the Germans were using the Sweedish railways and highways their resistance was a force to be reconed with. One story I remember involved sinking ferry boats that contained innocent Sweeds because the cargo was suspected to be nuclear (nucular if you're a true GB supporter LOL) supplies for the German bomb program. I've never consider the Sweedish a German Ally.

 

[soupah]

Teddy was Franklin's distant cousin. Franklin's polio came well after he might have served in the military.

Oh yeah, I knew that about Teddy and Franklin, just somehow didn't put it together when I was typing Duhhh.

But what I didn't know was that Roosevelt contracted polio as an adult. (pause for Google check) Egads, you're right- born in 1882, contracted polio in 1924 when he was 42! So he chose not to serve (apparently, he wanted enlist to during WWI, but fellow politicians persuaded him that could best serve in his then-current position).

Live and learn- thanks Esav.