I'll believe the missiles can reach the US only once we have a few successful tests. Nevertheless, get ready for the annual media barrage from N. Korea over the coming annual joint military exercise, hopefully it will be less crazy than last year.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/30/22506777-n-korea-building-missile-launch-pad-capable-of-aiming-at-us-report?lite
QuoteN. Korea building missile launch pad capable of aiming at U.S.: report
By Alexander Smith, NBC News contributor
North Korea is improving one of its missile launch sites and may soon be able to fire rockets large enough to hit mainland United States, according to experts.
Recent satellite images appear to show that one of the country's launch stations has been modified to accommodate an intercontinental missile 25 percent larger than one it fired into space in Dec. 2012, according to a report by Johns Hopkins University's U.S.-Korea Institute (USKI) published Wednesday.
The report added that the launch pad, which could be ready as early as March, would allow for "a more robust rocket test program in the future involving larger space launch vehicles and road-mobile ballistic missiles able to attack targets in Northeast Asia and the United States."
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned the Senate Intelligence Committee on Wednesday that North Korea had gone through with its threat to continue its nuclear weapons program, posing "a serious threat to the United States and to the security environment in East Asia."
The satellite images appeared to show that North Korea has also tested a rocket engine for a new road-mobile intercontinental missile called the KN-08, the report said. Rockets have been displayed at parades in the capital Pyongyang but analysts have speculated these were mock-ups.
Outwardly, however, North Korea is on something of a charm offensive, having hosted the press in New York, London and Beijing in the past week.
North Korea's ambassador to the U.K., Hyun Hak-bong, gave an interview to Sky News on Thursday in which he blamed the U.S. for its hostile policies. He said his country had "no option but to have the nuclear deterrent."
The North sent the South an open letter earlier this month in which it called for an end to hostilities. The letter warned that the tense stand-off between the two nations could lead to "an all-out...nuclear war" from which "no Korean can escape."
It comes ahead of the annual joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea. Last year more than 10,000 American personnel participated. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un responded with a series of internationally-condemned missile tests and suggested he was about to launch a nuclear attack.
I'm totally willing believe they have missiles that can hit the US.
Anything with more accuracy than hitting the right country however....no.
hmm, food supplies running low again?
overall, NK is a defensive power, not aggressive
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
overall, NK is a defensive power, not aggressive
I suppose in the sense of not actually attacking anybody. In every other sense they are pretty aggressive. Government sponsored counterfeit schemes, selling nuclear technology, participating in the drug trade, and kidnapping foreign nationals: those are pretty provocative and aggressive moves.
Guam or a tip of Alaska(Attu Island) don't really count.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
overall, NK is a defensive power, not aggressive
Wonder why they keep building tunnels into the South, then.
To stay even in the arms race, perhaps we should build a missile launch pad capable of reaching North Korea.
Quote from: Grey Fox on January 31, 2014, 10:27:51 AM
Guam or a tip of Alaska(Attu Island) don't really count.
Yes it does, you fuck.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 31, 2014, 10:50:58 AM
To stay even in the arms race, perhaps we should build a missile launch pad capable of reaching North Korea.
We've got two: USS Antietam, and USS Shiloh. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on January 31, 2014, 10:49:55 AMWonder why they keep building tunnels into the South, then.
showing aggression and demonstrating they are willing to fight a war does not mean the nation is an aggressive power*
*"aggressive power" as i originally meant = the aggressor in a full out war, that they do not commit acts of aggression
Quote from: ValmyI suppose in the sense of not actually attacking anybody. In every other sense they are pretty aggressive. Government sponsored counterfeit schemes, selling nuclear technology, participating in the drug trade, and kidnapping foreign nationals: those are pretty provocative and aggressive moves.
many of those are ways for an already ostracized and economically unstable power to get a quick buck. see response to derspiess
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:02:47 AM
*"aggressive power" as i originally meant = the aggressor in a full out war, that they do not commit acts of aggression
Sure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys. They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:02:47 AM
showing aggression and demonstrating they are willing to fight a war does not mean the nation is an aggressive power*
*"aggressive power" as i originally meant = the aggressor in a full out war, that they do not commit acts of aggression
I think the number and scale of the tunnels go a bit beyond that. Each tunnel the North made has been large enough for an entire infantry division to pass through in one hour. The KPA's posture, training & doctrine is at least as much offensive as defensive.
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:06:11 AMSure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys. They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.
well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea
Quote from: derspiessI think the number and scale of the tunnels go a bit beyond that. Each tunnel the North made has been large enough for an entire infantry division to pass through in one hour. The KPA's posture, training & doctrine is at least as much offensive as defensive.
so, north korea preparing to win a war should war occur is proof they are likely to be the aggressor? i think most nations prepare to win wars
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea
I don't think anybody expects them to. They just expect them to cause trouble and proliferate weapons of mass destruction.
Quoteso, north korea preparing to win a war should war occur is proof they are likely to be the aggressor? i think most nations prepare to win wars
Wait is North Korea under the impression they can win a war?
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:33:40 AM
Wait is North Korea under the impression they can win a war?
Most of the country surely does. I'm also sure a good portion of the army & leadership believes it as well. Whether the Fat Kid believes it, dunno-- hopefully not.
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:33:40 AMI don't think anybody expects them to. They just expect them to cause trouble and proliferate weapons of mass destruction.
Wait is North Korea under the impression they can win a war?
i think a number of people believe NK is the type to be the aggressor in a full out war
there are probably elements in the military that feel they might stand a chance of quickly defeating south korea, even though they're wrong. how much of a minority that element is, i dunno. there was a time where north korea knew/highly suspected it had a stronger military yet did not act, even during crises that severely affected south korea's ability to fight off an invasion (i think it's the may 16 coup that i'm thinking about, but it might have been another in the 70s)
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:06:11 AMSure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys. They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.
well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea
The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.
When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.
How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?
Quote from: Berkut on January 31, 2014, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:06:11 AMSure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys. They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.
well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea
The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.
When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.
How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?
You have pretty much just described the offset of WWII, for starters.
Quote from: celedhring on January 31, 2014, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 31, 2014, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:06:11 AMSure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys. They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.
well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea
The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.
When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.
How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?
You have pretty much just described the offset of WWII, for starters.
They could have backed down easily. Poland, so fucking what.
North Korea has engaged in more then just bluster. They've killed a fair amount of people. For instance, they had recently sunk a SK ship and shelled and island owned by the south.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
North Korea has engaged in more then just bluster. They've killed a fair amount of people. For instance, they had recently sunk a SK ship and shelled and island owned by the south.
But were those full scale invasions? No, so therefore not aggressive.
Quote from: Berkut on January 31, 2014, 12:00:15 PMThe problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.
When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.
How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?
their style seems to be more causing an incident every now and then just to show they're to be taken seriously, then talking their way out of international outrage. so far it has worked. from their perspective, they could be attacked at any time, and their enemies are just waiting for them to show a moment of weakness before they strike. that makes military preparations, especially those they know/figure the enemy will likely discover, fairly reasonable when looking at it through the eyes of a NK military leadership - make it so that it would be far costlier for the enemy to invade than it would to leave them alone. plus, i wouldn't be surprised if some of these little attacks by NK are to appease some element within the leadership... or seen as a rite of passage (wasn't that what the latest boat attack was for kim jong-un?)
Quote from: ValmyBut were those full scale invasions? No, so therefore not aggressive.
that would be a fair jibe had i not explained what i meant when i initially said "aggressive." as it stands, it's kinda unfair, imo
Quote from: RazgovoryNorth Korea has engaged in more then just bluster. They've killed a fair amount of people. For instance, they had recently sunk a SK ship and shelled and island owned by the south.
i know. see above comments
Your definition of "aggressive" sucks. I could say the US hasn't engaged in any aggressive acts since 1941, because the US hasn't technically declared war therefore can not have been in a "full out war".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 06:24:40 PM
Your definition of "aggressive" sucks. I could say the US hasn't engaged in any aggressive acts since 1941, because the US hasn't technically declared war therefore can not have been in a "full out war".
it's not my definition of aggressive. it was poor choice of wording to describe what i meant to originally convey, which i corrected in my second post
QuoteN. Korea building missile launch pad capable of aiming at U.S.
I'm sure they can build plenty of missile launch pads that are capable of aiming at the U.S.
I just aimed a nerf gun towards the US :ph34r:
I just aimed a pencil at Canada. Beware, you curling fuckers.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 06:28:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 06:24:40 PM
Your definition of "aggressive" sucks. I could say the US hasn't engaged in any aggressive acts since 1941, because the US hasn't technically declared war therefore can not have been in a "full out war".
it's not my definition of aggressive. it was poor choice of wording to describe what i meant to originally convey, which i corrected in my second post
Oh, has your definition been modified again? My understanding was from your second post where you said "The aggressor in a full out war". As I pointed out the US hasn't been the aggressor in a "full out war" for a long time.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 07:40:57 PMOh, has your definition been modified again? My understanding was from your second post where you said "The aggressor in a full out war". As I pointed out the US hasn't been the aggressor in a "full out war" for a long time.
ah, i misread your post
the united states invaded iraq and afghanistan
but if your point is to eventually ask: "why would NK think the U.S. & co. would be aggressive toward them, given... etc. etc. etc.?" - does NK seem like a reasonable country to you?
edit: you mistook what i meant by "full out war." i was using the general definition, not legal
What definition of "full out war" are you using?
Quote from: derspiess on January 31, 2014, 10:49:55 AM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:22:32 AM
overall, NK is a defensive power, not aggressive
Wonder why they keep building tunnels into the South, then.
WWZ dude
it was a term used to avoid confusion, since i figured if i had said simply "attack," someone would point out the obvious - border incidents, etc. apparently it didn't work :D
full out invasion, attack, etc. etc.
So now it's full out invasion? You can't be aggressive without a "full out invasion"? So if the US decided not to invade Iraq and just nuked it, that would not be an act of aggression?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 08:41:23 PM
So now it's full out invasion?
Quote from: LaCroixfull out invasion, attack, etc. etc.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
As I pointed out the US hasn't been the aggressor in a "full out war" for a long time.
Yeah, but Iraq 2003 feels like it was just yesterday.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 08:42:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 08:41:23 PM
So now it's full out invasion?
Quote from: LaCroixfull out invasion, attack, etc. etc.
Yes, I got that part. Sinking someone's ship or dropping artillery on someone's town is also an "attack".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 08:43:07 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
As I pointed out the US hasn't been the aggressor in a "full out war" for a long time.
Yeah, but Iraq 2003 feels like it was just yesterday.
It does don't it? :(
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 08:51:27 PMYes, I got that part. Sinking someone's ship or dropping artillery on someone's town is also an "attack".
nuclear attacks tend to be considered a larger scale attacks, unlike sinking a ship or lobbing a few shells at an island
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 08:51:27 PMYes, I got that part. Sinking someone's ship or dropping artillery on someone's town is also an "attack".
nuclear attacks tend to be considered a larger scale attacks, unlike sinking a ship or lobbing a few shells at an island
So? Aggression is not a matter of scale, it's a matter of intent and action.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 09:11:02 PMSo? Aggression is not a matter of scale, it's a matter of intent and action.
of course aggression is a matter of scale
intent to start a war, and the act to follow through with that intent
intent to provoke, and the act to follow through with that intent
intent to scare, and the...
etc.
i'm not sure where you're going with this
Where I'm going is that sinking a warship or shelling a town are acts of aggression. To argue otherwise is absurd.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 31, 2014, 09:22:16 PM
Where I'm going is that sinking a warship or shelling a town are acts of aggression. To argue otherwise is absurd.
of course they're acts of aggression...
but they do not necessarily have to be part of all out warfare. one can commit an aggressive act without intending for there to be war
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:24:04 PM
one can commit an aggressive act without intending for there to be war
That's assuming that the other side will play along with your script when it comes to escalation. That's very Chinese of you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 31, 2014, 09:32:13 PMThat's assuming that the other side will play along with your script when it comes to escalation. That's very Chinese of you.
as i said to berkut, so far it has worked for several decades
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 09:37:26 PM
as i said to berkut, so far it has worked for several decades
Until the one time it doesn't.
I wonder if Timmay is getting his emergency evacuation rickshaw and coolie ready for Foal Eagle '14.
Quote from: celedhring on January 31, 2014, 02:09:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 31, 2014, 12:00:15 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 31, 2014, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 31, 2014, 11:06:11 AMSure by that definition, besides that war they started that killed millions, they are choir boys. They are masters of provocation and saber rattling, if they were masters of aggression they would not exist anymore.
well, they're clearly not choir boys. my point is that anyone who worries about north korea launching a sudden invasion, or attack against japan/united states, doesn't understand north korea
The problem with being agressive and blustery and all saber rattling while not really intending to actually go to war is that sometimes the result is that you end up at war even when you don't set out to do so.
When you bluff enough, eventually someone is going to call you on it, and then you find yourself in a position where circumstances force your hand, or at least you perceive that they do.
How many wars have started throughout human history where the side that started the war never really intended to go to war to begin with, but got themselves to a position where they could not back down?
You have pretty much just described the offset of WWII, for starters.
Not really. Hitler wasn't bluffing--he wanted war, and the British and French had given up on appeasing him.
Now if you'd said WWI, you'd be on firmer ground.
Pretty sure Hitler was confident on getting Gdansk without war, after all he got Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel without war beforehand. Once he had committed himself, he couldn't back down. The French were still pushing for a negotiated solution until the eleventh hour, so it's not like Hitler had no reasons to believe the entente would back down once again.
The French and British were so committed that we got the Phony War.
Except Hitler started the war and he could have backed down at any point.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2014, 07:35:14 AM
Except Hitler started the war and he could have backed down at any point.
Well, the point I'm trying to make with the comparison regarding N. Korea is that Hitler got away with so much that he had no reason to back down, he thought the Allies would cave like they did all the times before. NK has got away with so much (really, can you imagine the reaction if some foreign power shelled your territory like NK did to SK?), that I believe that their leadership believe they can get away with anything sort of an invasion in order to extract concessions or build up domestic support.
Who do they think they are, Hamas?
Quote from: celedhring on February 01, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Pretty sure Hitler was confident on getting Gdansk without war, after all he got Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel without war beforehand. Once he had committed himself, he couldn't back down. The French were still pushing for a negotiated solution until the eleventh hour, so it's not like Hitler had no reasons to believe the entente would back down once again.
Actually, he was
afraid that they'd back down again. He had decided that he wanted war in 1939, and was worried that the Allies would negotiate and give him everything he was demanding again. A lot of his subordinates weren't really happy about it, because previously he had told them to plan for war starting in 1946 or so.
Yeah, he was a bit put out about the appeasement in 1938. He was surprised in 1939, but was happy to get his war. Hitler was, after all, insane.
Quote from: celedhring on February 01, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Pretty sure Hitler was confident on getting Gdansk without war, after all he got Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel without war beforehand. Once he had committed himself, he couldn't back down. The French were still pushing for a negotiated solution until the eleventh hour, so it's not like Hitler had no reasons to believe the entente would back down once again.
The French and British were so committed that we got the Phony War.
If Gdansk didn't spark his war, he'd have found something that did.
Quote from: dps on February 01, 2014, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 01, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Pretty sure Hitler was confident on getting Gdansk without war, after all he got Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel without war beforehand. Once he had committed himself, he couldn't back down. The French were still pushing for a negotiated solution until the eleventh hour, so it's not like Hitler had no reasons to believe the entente would back down once again.
Actually, he was afraid that they'd back down again. He had decided that he wanted war in 1939, and was worried that the Allies would negotiate and give him everything he was demanding again. A lot of his subordinates weren't really happy about it, because previously he had told them to plan for war starting in 1946 or so.
He figured if he didn't get on with the war by then, he'd have no chance to win it. The mid 40's would have been way too late according to the possible buildup timeline. The longer they went, the worse chance Germany had to win.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 03, 2014, 10:47:42 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 01, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
Pretty sure Hitler was confident on getting Gdansk without war, after all he got Austria, Czechoslovakia and Memel without war beforehand. Once he had committed himself, he couldn't back down. The French were still pushing for a negotiated solution until the eleventh hour, so it's not like Hitler had no reasons to believe the entente would back down once again.
The French and British were so committed that we got the Phony War.
If Gdansk didn't spark his war, he'd have found something that did.
He was actually pissed off at the Sudeten crisis settlement during the Munich Conference, because he already wanted to go to war then.
Fair enough then, the version I've always read is the opposite; he didn't want war yet because Germany was unprepared.
Quote from: celedhring on February 04, 2014, 03:08:43 AM
Fair enough then, the version I've always read is the opposite; he didn't want war yet because Germany was unprepared.
That's what his politicians and generals thought, during 1938.
Could someone point me to some sources on this? I'm pretty sure the consensus from what I've read was that Hitler did not want war with France & Britain in September 1939. AFAIK he didn't want war with Britain at all.
Quote from: derspiess on February 04, 2014, 09:05:41 AM
Could someone point me to some sources on this? I'm pretty sure the consensus from what I've read was that Hitler did not want war with France & Britain in September 1939. AFAIK he didn't want war with Britain at all.
You have evidence that the consensus amongst Historians is that Hitler did not want War with France and Britain despite saying he did, telling his generals to prepare for it, and doing everything he could to destroy negotiations at every turn? Do YOU have any sources on this supposed consensus?
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2014, 10:21:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 04, 2014, 09:05:41 AM
Could someone point me to some sources on this? I'm pretty sure the consensus from what I've read was that Hitler did not want war with France & Britain in September 1939. AFAIK he didn't want war with Britain at all.
You have evidence that the consensus amongst Historians is that Hitler did not want War with France and Britain despite saying he did, telling his generals to prepare for it, and doing everything he could to destroy negotiations at every turn? Do YOU have any sources on this supposed consensus?
Well as far as I understand, he wanted war with Poland and France, but he would have preferred not to fight the British if possible.
Quote from: celedhring on February 01, 2014, 09:30:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 01, 2014, 07:35:14 AM
Except Hitler started the war and he could have backed down at any point.
Well, the point I'm trying to make with the comparison regarding N. Korea is that Hitler got away with so much that he had no reason to back down, he thought the Allies would cave like they did all the times before. NK has got away with so much (really, can you imagine the reaction if some foreign power shelled your territory like NK did to SK?), that I believe that their leadership believe they can get away with anything sort of an invasion in order to extract concessions or build up domestic support.
Except the comparison is nonsense since Hitler knew damn well the Poles were going to fight. There was going to be a war regardless of what France and Britain did.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 04, 2014, 10:23:32 AM
Well as far as I understand, he wanted war with Poland and France, but he would have preferred not to fight the British if possible.
He did absolutely nothing to achieve this goal if that was his aim. From what I gather he figured, like Erich von Falkenhayn before him, that if Britain's continental allies were defeated the British would give in.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2014, 10:21:36 AM
Quote from: derspiess on February 04, 2014, 09:05:41 AM
Could someone point me to some sources on this? I'm pretty sure the consensus from what I've read was that Hitler did not want war with France & Britain in September 1939. AFAIK he didn't want war with Britain at all.
You have evidence that the consensus amongst Historians is that Hitler did not want War with France and Britain despite saying he did, telling his generals to prepare for it, and doing everything he could to destroy negotiations at every turn? Do YOU have any sources on this supposed consensus?
Jeez, take a breath for a second & re-read what I wrote. I said the "the consensus
from what I've read". I didn't say I know the universal consensus among historians. And I'll go further by saying I don't remember exactly what my sources were as it's been a while since I read up on the subject. Hell, I could even be remembering it wrong.
I'm just asking for some sources so I can edumacate myself. Chill out, commie-lover.
I think the consensus, if there is one, is roughly:
1. Hitler wanted Poland and the access to the East it provided.
2. If he could get that without war with France and England, that would be fine with him, but he knew this was unlikely.
3. He was willing to take the war with France and England in order to get Poland.
4. He figured that England would bow out after France was defeated.
Hitler view was that he was going to take Poland. If France wants to fight over it, that is fine, he would then take France as well. If not, that is fine too...although since his ultiimate goal is always the Ukraine and Russia, he probably would actually prefer getting France taken care of first, since he would not want to have to fight France and the USSR at the same time.
I suspect that had France and England backed down again, nothing really would have changed. He would conquer Poland, then come up with a pretext to do the same to France next year anyway.
That sounds right to me.
I think the only thing pre-Barbarossa that Hitler did NOT count on was England staying at war even after France went down.
Which is still why I say that English stubbornness after the summer of 1940 really does not get the credit it deserves. Their refusal to back down after all their allies had been crushed was a critical point in the war, IMO.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2014, 11:02:59 AM
Which is still why I say that English stubbornness after the summer of 1940 really does not get the credit it deserves. Their refusal to back down after all their allies had been crushed was a critical point in the war, IMO.
British stubbornness ;)
But how much more credit can we really give them? Heck they usually are mad at us for giving them and Churchill too much credit.
Quote from: Berkut on February 04, 2014, 11:02:59 AM
I think the only thing pre-Barbarossa that Hitler did NOT count on was England staying at war even after France went down.
Which is still why I say that English stubbornness after the summer of 1940 really does not get the credit it deserves. Their refusal to back down after all their allies had been crushed was a critical point in the war, IMO.
Yeah, government inertia is just great.
Quote from: Valmy on February 04, 2014, 11:04:52 AM
But how much more credit can we really give them?
May 1940 was the turning point of the war in Europe. Not Stalingrad, not D-Day, but Churchill's decision to stick it out and fight for as long as it took and getting the Cabinet and Crown to go along with it. So the Brits get every bit of credit they deserve from history in saving western Europe from the scourge of Nazism and leather fetish wear.
QuoteHeck they usually are mad at us for giving them and Churchill too much credit.
That's just the English being the English, in their usual unassuming and self-deprecating fashion.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 04, 2014, 07:56:26 PM
May 1940 was the turning point of the war in Europe. Not Stalingrad, not D-Day, but Churchill's decision to stick it out and fight for as long as it took and getting the Cabinet and Crown to go along with it. So the Brits get every bit of credit they deserve from history in saving western Europe from the scourge of Nazism and leather fetish wear.
Eh, depends what you mean by turning point. The good guys got a lot of ass beating after May 1940 (you mean September, don't you?) and lost a shitload of territory. Stalingrad is the true turning point in Europe, and Midway the true turning point in the Pacific, the point at which we started to roll back conquered territory.
The Battle of Britain changes the narrative from "We're all fucked" to "We can probably hang on until the Americans come in."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 04, 2014, 08:15:30 PM
The good guys got a lot of ass beating after May 1940 (you mean September, don't you?) and lost a shitload of territory.
No, I'm referring to the political decision-making process in London during the week of May 24th; that was the time of the political decisions made in London regarding the future of the war: whether to resign to defeat and pursue a negotiated peace, or to keep fighting even in the middle of the Dunkirk fuck-up.
But then again, I subscribe to the Lukacs school of unabashed Churchill worship anyway.
I've been reading, on Languish's collective recommendation, The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, by Adam Tooze (http://www.amazon.com/The-Wages-Destruction-Breaking-Economy/dp/0143113208), over the last few months. While I don't have it available to me right now, the first half of the book has definitely given me a better appreciation for just how crucial the prospect of actually fighting a major war, not just "re-militarizing" and not just territorial conquest, was for Hitler's overall economic/social plan for the Reich.