Poll
Question:
When did WW2 truly begin?
Option 1: September 1, 1939 (Germany invades Poland)
votes: 29
Option 2: September 3, 1939 (Britain and France declare war on Germany)
votes: 4
Option 3: September 17, 1939 (Russia invades Poland)
votes: 0
Option 4: May 10, 1940 (Germany invades France)
votes: 0
Option 5: June 22, 1941 (Germany invades Russia)
votes: 0
Option 6: December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor)
votes: 1
Option 7: Other (Write-in)
votes: 8
So what do you think?
July 7, 1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident that opened the Second Sino-Japanese War.
1937 is a pretty obvious choice - poor poll design here.
Of the choice provided Sept 1 1939.
I agree that if you consider the Pacific part of WWII (and we should) 1937 is the better start date.
Hmm...Sept '39 certainly...Lets split the difference and say the 2nd.
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
Dec 7, 1941
Until then it was a minor European squabble.
28 July 1914.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 09:51:44 AM
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 09:57:06 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 09:51:44 AM
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?
Recognize the source, For Tyr the following applies: Sideshow= British action was mainly humiliation.
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 09:57:06 AM
10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Not sure how you decide the "fate of the entire world" while ignoring the war going on in fully half of it.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 09:57:06 AM
10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Pffft. We'd have just beaten the Nazis in the Cold War instead.
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Not sure how you decide the "fate of the entire world" while ignoring the war going on in fully half of it.
Even today the European region is more significant than Asia.
Back then the gap was huge.
Even if Japan managed to conquer China and create its co-prosperity sphere...it still wouldn't dominate the world. It would be a very powerful country and given a few decades could be a super power sure but it wouldn't become too massivly powerful when compared to the more industrialised western countries.
Germany however dominating Europe-Russia...Now that is a very very scary prospect. It could indeed dominate the world.
Euro-centric sure, but back then the world was a very euro-centric place.
Also in the evil stakes the prize just has to go to Germany. Even ignoring the relative powers of the two.
Japan was a country which just out of living memory had still been a medieval, feudal state. Continuing to act in a medieval manner...meh.
Germany though had been a corner-stone of the 'civilized world' for as long as there had been such a thing. They then despite their advancment decended into high-tech industrialised mass-murder.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 09:51:44 AM
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow. Just saying.
Quote from: PDH on September 01, 2009, 09:55:48 AM
28 July 1914.
:yes:
And the Sino-Japanese thing does not matter. Without the war in Europe, it would have not been a bigger deal than Italy's adventure in Ethiopia
Quote from: PDH on September 01, 2009, 09:55:48 AM
28 July 1914.
Well I guess if you can call a few conflicts with decades of peace in between the 'Hundred Years War' then that answer is as good as any.
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 09:54:16 AM
Dec 7, 1941
Until then it was a minor European squabble.
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942,
frijolero :contract:
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2009, 10:19:05 AM
And the Sino-Japanese thing does not matter. Without the war in Europe, it would have not been a bigger deal than Italy's adventure in Ethiopia
Um...opposing the Japanese was what got the United States into the War. The Japanese could have helped topple the Soviets if they had not been bogged down in China.
You euro-centric guys are smoking crack. The Japanese were the 2nd most powerful member of the Axis.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Notice that soon after the Mexican military saw combat, in March of 1945, the Axis surrendered. Coincidence?
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:22:52 AM
You euro-centric guys are smoking crack. The Japanese were the 2nd most powerful member of the Axis.
:yes:
And closer to Germany than Italy on the scale. Japan had beaten Russia 30 years earlier, something the Nazis failed to do.
Quote from: Tamas on September 01, 2009, 10:19:05 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 01, 2009, 09:55:48 AM
28 July 1914.
:yes:
And the Sino-Japanese thing does not matter. Without the war in Europe, it would have not been a bigger deal than Italy's adventure in Ethiopia
Absurd, the war in Asia was bigger by orders of magnitude.
I vote 1937.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Not sure how you decide the "fate of the entire world" while ignoring the war going on in fully half of it.
Even today the European region is more significant than Asia.
Don't think so. measured on a PPP basis, Asia is way ahead in GDP. Measured on a currency basis, Asia is still behind but of course it is growing at a much faster rate.
QuoteBack then the gap was huge.
Irrelevant. Back then Asia has enormous numbers of human beings and large quantities of valuable resources. That made it significant.
A key consequence of WW2 was that it accelerated the break-up of European domination of Asia, an event of world-historical significance in the Hegelian sense. In that context, the latest round in the long-standing European civil war - although intensely and bitterly fought - was arguably of less long-term significance.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Notice that soon after the Mexican military saw combat, in March of 1945, the Axis surrendered. Coincidence?
Yes. ;)
Quote from: PDH on September 01, 2009, 09:55:48 AM
28 July 1914.
Indeed....there was some historian I heard somewhere who called WW1 and WW2 the "Second Thirty-Years War"
Poor Euros. They want everything to be about them. 1937 is a good date.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 10:26:09 AM
Don't think so. measured on a PPP basis, Asia is way ahead in GDP. Measured on a currency basis, Asia is still behind but of course it is growing at a much faster rate.
By PPP its close...I can't be arsed to add everything together right now but India+Japan+China gives 15 559 142 which is marginly more than the EU. Russia has a pretty high number though which puts Europe over the top and can probally let it stand up to a few more Asian countries added onto the total...and then of course I said European region, the N.Africans were clearly involved in the war too...
Whatever, other GDP listings definatly put Europe on top.
But anyway, that's not important, at the time of the war Europe was clearly higher. Asia's rise is quite a recent thing.
Quote
Irrelevant. Back then Asia has enormous numbers of human beings and large quantities of valuable resources. That made it significant.
A key consequence of WW2 was that it accelerated the break-up of European domination of Asia, an event of world-historical significance in the Hegelian sense. In that context, the latest round in the long-standing European civil war - although intensely and bitterly fought - was arguably of less long-term significance.
The quickened break up of empires was far more down to the effects of the war on the European homelands than anything else in the world.
Sure, Europe was only a small chunk of the world. But a few European countries governed huge swathes of the rest of the world. Its what happens in those European countries that matters for their empires.
3 October 1935.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:36:14 AM
The quickened break up of empires was far more down to the effects of the war on the European homelands than anything else in the world.
It had something to do with the Japanese trouncing the colonial powers, seizing their colonies, and humiliating them in the eyes of their former subjects.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 10:33:41 AM
Poor Euros. They want everything to be about them. 1937 is a good date.
It should probably be regarded as two separate, but entwined conflicts. China didn't give a shit about Poland, and the Poles returned the favor.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 10:40:10 AM
It had something to do with the Japanese trouncing the colonial powers, seizing their colonies, and humiliating them in the eyes of their former subjects.
Had the European countries in question not been occupied to you really believe Japan would have had so easy a time?
Also, Indochina-Indonesia != the world.
Staying even still within Asia for instance talks about independance for India after the war had been going on ever since the outbreak of hostilities with Germany.
Indian independance had been gaining a lot of momentum in the 30s anyway, few doubted that it would be more than a decade or two before it finally happened. It was the wrecked British economy and the post-war labour government wanting to get things sorted out in India ASAP before it could be more of a burden that led to independance in '47. Japan had very little to do with things.
Hehe. Notice how he just ignores Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
Losing Singapore was called the worst disaster in British history at the time.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 09:54:16 AM
Dec 7, 1941
Until then it was a minor European squabble.
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Really? And why is that?
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:47:55 AM
Hehe. Notice how he just ignores Malaysia, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
Losing Singapore was called the worst disaster in British history at the time.
Hong Kong never got its independance.
True, I neglected Malaysian Borneo. Part of Malaysia (and Singapore) falls under Indochina however.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:45:14 AM
Japan had very little to do with things.
Um...the campaign in Burma?
I am sorry the humiliation of the British in Asia during WWII is what made their Asian Empire untenable. At least Slim allowed them to leave with some dignity intact.
Tyr is the Alexander Seil of Britain.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:45:14 AM
Japan had very little to do with things.
Um...the campaign in Burma?
I am sorry the humiliation of the British in Asia during WWII is what made their Asian Empire untenable. At least Slim allowed them to leave with some dignity intact.
The Burman campaign wasn't too significant in the grand scheme.
True, if the Indians and British had totally fucked up things would have went very different for India but as it was in real history it was the European war which decided India's fate.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 10:54:11 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:52:26 AM
Tyr is the Alexander Seil of Britain.
Who? :unsure:
Some kid who used to post on Paradox. He was totally fanatical about Russia. We used to argue for hours on IRC, he'd tell me about the mighty Russian fleet being restored in the Baltic and how the US eastern seaboard would fall under its might. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 09:51:44 AM
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow. Just saying.
the Japanese had limited logistical capability to invade Siberia while SE Asia and Indonesia had resources essential for their war effort. Siberia offered nothing.
If Japan tried to force the issue, I do believe the Russians could have still withdrawn those divisions, buy time through scorched earth, and then return at a time of their choosing to deal with the invaders. rope a dope leads to Khalhkyn Gol part II.
Quote from: saskganesh on September 01, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 09:51:44 AM
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow. Just saying.
the Japanese had limited logistical capability to invade Siberia while SE Asia and Indonesia had resources essential for their war effort. Siberia offered nothing.
Wasn't the presence of oil there already known?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 11:01:57 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on September 01, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:18:36 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 09:51:44 AM
The Pacific war was a sideshow. The Chinese-Japanese cripple fight doesn't matter.
If the Japanese had won those Siberian divisions would not have been able to save Moscow. Just saying.
the Japanese had limited logistical capability to invade Siberia while SE Asia and Indonesia had resources essential for their war effort. Siberia offered nothing.
Wasn't the presence of oil there already known?
don't know. deposits may have been identified but the infrastructure would have bene less developed.
Malayasia also had 90% of the world's rubber plantations. it was extremely important.
From a German perspective, WW2 started on 1 Sept 1939. The start of the war in Asia is just a footnote in our history books as far as I can tell. The only other date that would make sense from Germany's perspective would be 22 June 1941.
If European powers had not gone to war in 1939, the Sino-Japanese war would have been considered in history a regional or continental affair.
But with the European powers going to war, remember you were mobilising worldwide assets. Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians, all from the New World, picked up rifles and went across oceans to Europe and Africa.
The fighting between the European Allies and the European Axis took place over oceans and two continents. Hell, the Graf Spee even scuttled in Latin American waters.
The above, of course, makes no claims about the relative scale of the conflicts in terms of numbers of men, human suffering, etc.
Taken on its own the European theatre of WW2 was no more (or less) a world war than the Napoleonic Wars - it was simply yet another round of the struggle for European mastery dating back to the 16th century. Yes there was fighting in North Africa and the Atlantic - but there was in the Nappy Wars as well. The direct involvement of Japan and China is what gave WW2 its global dimension.
To the extent Tyr or others would aruge that absent the war, "x" would have happened anyways, the argument proves too much. Of course, it is true that over time, long term historical trends will play out. So what? It's not like anything Germany was doing or could have done would have prevented the rise of American hyperpower (although if Germany had just stayed all quiet and Weimarlike it could have delayed the inevitable for a longer time).
Not to state the obvious but didn't WWII really begin when Hitler became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934?
If Hitler doesn't rise to power than a World War doesn't take place. Who shot who first and where is just the first overt sign of Hitler's actions and plans. He had a clear plan and goal in mind before taking power. Once he got control the resulting conflict was inevitable. The only thing left to be decided was where and when someone would try to stop him.
I always thought it was weird that the 1914-18 conflict was given the moniker of a "world war" (although, granted, iirc only after WW2). Did the participation of the Ottoman Empire, a basically European state that was a perennial factor in pan-European conflicts, create a universal conflagration? Did the addition of Indian troops to the British order of battle globalize the conflict? Did the dick moves of the Japanese at Tsingtao and in the Pacific really make the Great War a world one?
I agree with the plurality that puts the beginning of World War II in 1937--with the rider that I would also find December, 1941 very acceptable, since that is when, Russo-Japanese non-aggression pact notwithstanding, the two previously independent conflicts merged into a single, mostly-integrated global war.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Taken on its own the European theatre of WW2 was no more (or less) a world war than the Napoleonic Wars - it was simply yet another round of the struggle for European mastery dating back to the 16th century. Yes there was fighting in North Africa and the Atlantic - but there was in the Nappy Wars as well. The direct involvement of Japan and China is what gave WW2 its global dimension.
We should rename WW2 into WW1 then as the war we know as WW1 was fought almost exclusively in Europe too.
Quote from: Zanza on September 01, 2009, 11:27:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Taken on its own the European theatre of WW2 was no more (or less) a world war than the Napoleonic Wars - it was simply yet another round of the struggle for European mastery dating back to the 16th century. Yes there was fighting in North Africa and the Atlantic - but there was in the Nappy Wars as well. The direct involvement of Japan and China is what gave WW2 its global dimension.
We should rename WW2 into WW1 then as the war we know as WW1 was fought almost exclusively in Europe too.
tell that to all the dead Turks.
Quote from: Strix on September 01, 2009, 11:23:09 AM
Not to state the obvious but didn't WWII really begin when Hitler became Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934?
That was stating the obvious. The important events like the Enabling Act and the "Gleichschaltung" happened in 1933.
QuoteIf Hitler doesn't rise to power than a World War doesn't take place. Who shot who first and where is just the first overt sign of Hitler's actions and plans. He had a clear plan and goal in mind before taking power. Once he got control the resulting conflict was inevitable. The only thing left to be decided was where and when someone would try to stop him.
WW2 was hardly inevitable in 1933/34. I would say that Britain and France had the power to stop Hitler with a minor conflict until say 1936.
Quote from: Joan Robinsontell that to all the dead Turks.
Depends on whether you define Turkey as extra-European. If you define Turkey as extra-European, you might as well define Russia as outside the borders of Europe, and the Napoleonic Wars become "World War I" (or World Wars I-IV if I remember the numbers of starts and stops correctly) and the Crimean War would be "World War II" (or V).
Edit: and geographically, yes, the decisive campaigns in the Turkish part of the war were fought in Asia, to a great degree by Arabs. But you've pointed out that the removal in space and in context does not remove the essentially regional, European dimension of the war as a whole.
Quote from: Zanza on September 01, 2009, 11:38:07 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 11:28:38 AMtell that to all the dead Turks.
Those that fell in Gallipoli?
The Turks who fought with New Zealanders to prevent Serbs from killing Austrian Archdukes? Yep.
Quote from: Zanza on September 01, 2009, 11:30:31 AM
WW2 was hardly inevitable in 1933/34. I would say that Britain and France had the power to stop Hitler with a minor conflict until say 1936.
It was inevitable given the power players and politics involved at the time. That Britain and France had the power to stop Hitler is moot because Britain and France lacked the resolve to do so.
If you want to play that game you could also call the 7 Years War a world war as it had significant and more important long term battles in America and India. I'd argue against either that or the Napoleonics, as the major participants were all European powers. It wasn't until WW I that a major power outside of Europe (counting Turkey/Ottomans as part of Europe) participated in these conflicts.
Millions of troops were mobilized and fought and died in western Asia in WW1. No matter how you define "Turkey" I dont see how anyone could possibly consider places like Arabia or Kut - both sites of significant fighting - to be part of Europe. And the outcome of the war had at least as significant an impact - if not more so - for that part of the world then for any other.
In addition, tens of thousands of soldiers fought up and down East Africa, with very significant impacts for the millions of people living in that region. And the German colonial possessions in East Asia in the Pacific - while not major sites of armed confrontation - did ahve real strategic significance.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 11:42:22 AM
In addition, tens of thousands of soldiers fought up and down East Africa, with very significant impacts for the millions of people living in that region. And the German colonial possessions in East Asia in the Pacific - while not major sites of armed confrontation - did ahve real strategic significance.
And the somewhat pathetic outcome that squabling for the dinky former German islands led to a major rift between Japan and the United States.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 11:39:32 AM
The Turks who fought with New Zealanders to prevent Serbs from killing Austrian Archdukes? Yep.
New Zealanders also fought Germans to prevent them from killing Poles in a period that Minsky does not consider to be a world war yet.
Quote from: Zanza on September 01, 2009, 11:44:29 AM
New Zealanders also fought Germans to prevent them from killing Poles in a period that Minsky does not consider to be a world war yet.
But that actually makes sense since it was the Germans who were killing the Poles.
I suppose until someone actually defines what a "World War" is, then this debate will go round in circles. I think what separates a "World War" in our conventional usage from other kinds of global conflict is its industrial and "total" character. For the British, in this sense there is even a marked rupture from the Great War, in that the British government thought it could fight it with a 'business as usual attitude'. No such illusions in 1939, however.
But for me, the entering into war of three major industrial global powers (including two globe-spanning empires) in September 1939 seems the most logical start date.
Quote from: Zanza on September 01, 2009, 11:27:44 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 11:18:58 AM
Taken on its own the European theatre of WW2 was no more (or less) a world war than the Napoleonic Wars - it was simply yet another round of the struggle for European mastery dating back to the 16th century. Yes there was fighting in North Africa and the Atlantic - but there was in the Nappy Wars as well. The direct involvement of Japan and China is what gave WW2 its global dimension.
We should rename WW2 into WW1 then as the war we know as WW1 was fought almost exclusively in Europe too.
Rename the Seven Years War WWI instead, major campaigns were fought in Europe, India and North America.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 11:55:11 AM
Rename the Seven Years War WWI instead, major campaigns were fought in Europe, India and North America.
I prefer to call it the "French & Indian War" :pigdog:
Just defining world war in terms of continents is silly.
If you do that then Alexander the Great fought a world war of a sort- 3 continents.
I'd agree with the total definition.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 12:04:02 PM
Just defining world war in terms of continents is silly.
If you do that then Alexander the Great fought a world war of a sort- 3 continents.
I'd agree with the total definition.
That was Known World War I
Observations:
The 1937 date was bound to be popular on Languish because around here people like to a) be contrarian, and b) prove they are GENIOUSes by pulling out more obscure bits of knowledge--though in this case 1937 should have at least been a poll option.
The Pearl Harbor date was something Marti put in there hoping spiess or some other AmeriKKKan would vote for it so he could harangue them about it.
-_-
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2009, 12:08:51 PM
Observations:
The 1937 date was bound to be popular on Languish because around here people like to a) be contrarian, and b) prove they are GENIOUSes by pulling out more obscure bits of knowledge--though in this case 1937 should have at least been a poll option.
The Pearl Harbor date was something Marti put in there hoping spiess or some other AmeriKKKan would vote for it so he could harangue them about it.
-_-
Yep & yep. I voted Sept. 1.
Can I change my vote? I want to be harrangued...
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Really? And why is that?
Date Mexico entered the war, duh. Know your history.
Quote from: PDH on September 01, 2009, 12:14:05 PM
Can I change my vote? I want to be harrangued...
ewwwww.
If this poll was aimed at the general American public, 12-7-1941 really isn't a bad option since there are plenty of people I am sure who have no idea that the war had been going on more than two years prior to Pearl Harbor. But obviously if you have no interest in history, you're not going to be posting here. :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 12:15:36 PMDate Mexico entered the war, duh. Know your history.
HARANGUE HIS ASS :mad:
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 12:04:02 PM
Just defining world war in terms of continents is silly.
If you do that then Alexander the Great fought a world war of a sort- 3 continents.
I'd agree with the total definition.
Alexander fought a series of wars, all of them somewhat localized.
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2009, 12:16:20 PM
If this poll was aimed at the general American public, 12-7-1941 really isn't a bad option since there are plenty of people I am sure who have no idea that the war had been going on more than two years prior to Pearl Harbor. But obviously if you have no interest in history, you're not going to be posting here. :contract:
Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:42:04 AM
It should probably be regarded as two separate, but entwined conflicts. China didn't give a shit about Poland, and the Poles returned the favor.
This. In this measure, it is akin to the already evoked Seven Years War, where two different wars were united into one by belligerent looking for allies and logistical support.
Culturally, the West is much more bound by the Sept. 1st date, however. The conflict with Japan lacks the ideological significance WWII as a whole gained, admitedly a bit later. Hence the, to our eyes, strange view of how WWII is portrayed in Asia, with Hitler being conscripted to sell kids' candies and all that.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
What is horrible about the monument is the fact it is plain horrible. How could they make such poignant and great monuments to Korea and Vietnam and miss so decisively on the WWII one?
I blame Bushitler.
Yellow wars are of little consequence. 1 Sep 1939.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 01, 2009, 12:16:19 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 01, 2009, 12:14:05 PM
Can I change my vote? I want to be harrangued...
ewwwww.
Yeah, Harang is rather ugly.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdanmahan.com%2Fautos%2Fuploaded_images%2F2007_goudey_harang-790800.jpg&hash=0b5de9b88df07b3e2b48f785d6eb8f1418185775)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2009, 12:16:20 PM
If this poll was aimed at the general American public, 12-7-1941 really isn't a bad option since there are plenty of people I am sure who have no idea that the war had been going on more than two years prior to Pearl Harbor. But obviously if you have no interest in history, you're not going to be posting here. :contract:
Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.
I voted September the 1st, as it's the canonical date after all, but if I wanted to be nitpicky I would have chosen the 16th of July, 1936.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.
Lend-lease?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 01:03:29 PM
I blame Bushitler.
Actually, Clinton is the one who authorized the memorial.
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2009, 01:06:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.
Lend-lease?
Combat involvement.
Quote from: Barrister on September 01, 2009, 01:06:40 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.
Lend-lease?
And wasn't there also some limited naval warfare in the North Atlantic, with the US navy protecting British convoys?
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2009, 12:08:51 PM
The 1937 date was bound to be popular on Languish because around here people like to a) be contrarian, and b) prove they are GENIOUSes by pulling out more obscure bits of knowledge--though in this case 1937 should have at least been a poll option.
Don't you think it is a little weird the WWII ends with Japan losing the war they started in 1937?
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on September 01, 2009, 12:08:51 PM
The 1937 date was bound to be popular on Languish because around here people like to a) be contrarian, and b) prove they are GENIOUSes by pulling out more obscure bits of knowledge--though in this case 1937 should have at least been a poll option.
Don't you think it is a little weird the WWII ends with Japan losing the war they started in 1937?
:huh:
It ends with them losing the war they started in 1941.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:05:36 PM
Well for a memorial I think those dates make sense since American involvement in the war only began on Decemeber 7th, 1941.
I wonder if in Danish Textbooks it says:
"World War II occured between 4:15 AM and 6:15 AM on the 9th of April 1940"
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
with them losing the war they started in 1941.
China was not part of WWII now?
I mean the whole reason they attacked us was because of what was going on in China and our objection to it. How are they not part of the same war? That makes no sense.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 12:59:04 PM
Indeed. Seeing the WWII monument in Washington (apart from its fascist conception) inscribed with: «World War II: 1941-1945» is horribly strange to a foreign eye.
Maybe that's because it's called the *National* World War II Memorial.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Maybe that's because it's called the *National* World War II Memorial.
Yeah we don't have a faggy tribute to our allies like in the Korean War one.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
with them losing the war they started in 1941.
China was not part of WWII now?
I mean the whole reason they attacked us was because of what was going on in China and our objection to it. How are they not part of the same war? That makes no sense.
So a reason for a war is the same as the war itself?
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
with them losing the war they started in 1941.
China was not part of WWII now?
Japan didn't surrender to China; they surrendered to us. As for China, the war wasn't over in 1945 even though the Japanese left.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 01:13:31 PM
Maybe that's because it's called the *National* World War II Memorial.
Yeah we don't have a faggy tribute to our allies like in the Korean War one.
:unsure:
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 01:44:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:22:25 PM
:unsure:
Have you ever seen the Korean War Memorial Tim?
Stainless Steel Statues of a patrol composed of US service men. I don't recall there being Allies among the statues.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Really? And why is that?
Date Mexico entered the war, duh. Know your history.
And WHY exactly should I count that instead of Dec 7? Is there something about me that makes me less American than you?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:45:54 PM
Stainless Steel Statues of a patrol composed of US service men. I don't recall there being Allies among the statues.
That is because they weren't. You somehow missed that huge marble slap where it listed all the allies in giant numbers and broke down the UN losses right beside the statues?
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 01:45:54 PM
Stainless Steel Statues of a patrol composed of US service men. I don't recall there being Allies among the statues.
That is because they weren't. You somehow missed that huge marble slap where it listed all the allies in giant numbers and broke down the UN losses right beside the statues?
I've never seen the monument in person, but a numbers break down that lists the allies doesn't seem much of a tribute.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 02:05:52 PM
I've never seen the monument in person, but a numbers break down that lists the allies doesn't seem much of a tribute.
So...even when you are mistaken and have never been there you are going to insist you are correct anyway? Impressive.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 02:10:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 02:05:52 PM
I've never seen the monument in person, but a numbers break down that lists the allies doesn't seem much of a tribute.
So...even when you are mistaken and have never been there you are going to insist you are correct anyway? Impressive.
It is the Languish way. -_-
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 02:10:32 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 01, 2009, 02:05:52 PM
I've never seen the monument in person, but a numbers break down that lists the allies doesn't seem much of a tribute.
So...even when you are mistaken and have never been there you are going to insist you are correct anyway? Impressive.
I thought his original statement was: :unsure:?
:lol:
:rolleyes:
28 June 1389.
843, treaty of verdun :p
Battle of Kadesh 1274 BC
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 01:48:21 PM
Is there something about me that makes me less American than you?
Yes.
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 01:48:21 PM
And WHY exactly should I count that instead of Dec 7? Is there something about me that makes me less American than you?
Have you ever waved a Mexican flag in a parade?
Seit 8 November 1923 wird zuruckgeschossen.
Also Oex, I just remembered seeing a WWII memorial in The Hague that displays 1940 - 1945. Does that bother you as well? :D
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 03:30:31 PM
Also Oex, I just remembered seeing a WWII memorial in The Hague that displays 1940 - 1945. Does that bother you as well? :D
Well all of the Netherlands is pretty strange to a foreign eye anyway.
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 03:32:33 PM
Well all of the Netherlands is pretty strange to a foreign eye anyway.
I thought it was quite nice. And clean.
Look Brain, you got Timmay taint +1
1940-1945 isn't such a bad date unless you're Polish. There was the phoney war in '39 afterall.
Still wrong of course but not massivly so.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 03:30:31 PM
Also Oex, I just remembered seeing a WWII memorial in The Hague that displays 1940 - 1945. Does that bother you as well? :D
I did not say there were no reasons for it, I said it was strange to see. I haven't seen that Dutch memorial. Perhaps in another setting and not in a memorial that reads like a tribute to Imperial Military Victories it works. It's also because the whole «War against the Nazis/Tyrany/Barbarians» gets a lot of mileage in the US, and that makes the 1941 date incongruous.
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 03:44:11 PM
1940-1945 isn't such a bad date unless you're Polish. There was the phoney war in '39 afterall.
Still wrong of course but not massivly so.
Don't discount the glorious Saar Offensive in 1939 :P
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2009, 01:06:13 PM
I voted September the 1st, as it's the canonical date after all, but if I wanted to be nitpicky I would have chosen the 16th of July, 1936.
You mean July 18th. Which is indeed the right choice.
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 03:54:14 PM
Don't discount the glorious Saar Offensive in 1939 :P
Gamelin had to make the politicians happy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 01, 2009, 03:50:07 PM
I did not say there were no reasons for it, I said it was strange to see. I haven't seen that Dutch memorial. Perhaps in another setting and not in a memorial that reads like a tribute to Imperial Military Victories it works. It's also because the whole «War against the Nazis/Tyrany/Barbarians» gets a lot of mileage in the US, and that makes the 1941 date incongruous.
You said it was "horribly" strange. But it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about the design more than anything, which is a different issue.
Since the US was not at war until 1941 it makes complete sense for us to list 1941 on our National World War II Memorial. If we named it the European World War II Memorial then you'd have a legitimate gripe.
Quote from: Iormlund on September 01, 2009, 03:54:46 PM
Quote from: The Larch on September 01, 2009, 01:06:13 PM
I voted September the 1st, as it's the canonical date after all, but if I wanted to be nitpicky I would have chosen the 16th of July, 1936.
You mean July 18th. Which is indeed the right choice.
D'oh! Typo!
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 01, 2009, 10:26:09 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:12:31 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 10:05:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Not sure how you decide the "fate of the entire world" while ignoring the war going on in fully half of it.
Even today the European region is more significant than Asia.
Don't think so. measured on a PPP basis, Asia is way ahead in GDP. Measured on a currency basis, Asia is still behind but of course it is growing at a much faster rate.
QuoteBack then the gap was huge.
Irrelevant. Back then Asia has enormous numbers of human beings and large quantities of valuable resources. That made it significant.
A key consequence of WW2 was that it accelerated the break-up of European domination of Asia, an event of world-historical significance in the Hegelian sense. In that context, the latest round in the long-standing European civil war - although intensely and bitterly fought - was arguably of less long-term significance.
Which is all well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with a 1937 start date.
The Japanese attack on the Allies was significant. The start of yet another round of war between Japan and the assorted warlords of China was much less so.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:05:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 09:57:06 AM
10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Pffft. We'd have just beaten the Nazis in the Cold War instead.
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
There is an israeli novellette I read when I was a kid, about an american jew that builts a time machine in a secret fallout bunker, to go back in time and convince Roosvelt to join the war, because in the future America had lost WW3 with all the major cities nuked and the country divided between Germany and Japan. The story was impressive to my young mind because it presented our reality as a product of that time travel.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
Alt-history. :bleeding:
Apples to apples, we only won the Cold War because the Soviets went broke first. The Nazi war machine was so innovation-happy that it was burning through funds and had huge compatibility problems with equipment; they would have gone broke even sooner.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
The US had greater demographic strength than Germany proper, and they didn't exactly inspire love among conquered populations.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:25:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 01, 2009, 10:22:52 AM
You euro-centric guys are smoking crack. The Japanese were the 2nd most powerful member of the Axis.
:yes:
And closer to Germany than Italy on the scale. Japan had beaten Russia 30 years earlier, something the Nazis failed to do.
Not fair. At Tsushima the russian battleships were multiple size gun design, while the japs had 4 big-guns-only battleships. Plus the japanese crossed the T on the ruskies. Not fair.
Oh wait, everything is fair in war...
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 07:16:19 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
The US had greater demographic strength than Germany proper, and they didn't exactly inspire love among conquered populations.
You don't get the point.
There wouldn't have been a Cold War with Nazi Germany.
It would have gone Hot in a second.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:25:46 PM
You don't get the point.
There wouldn't have been a Cold War with Nazi Germany.
It would have gone Hot in a second.
For Germany to have even the slightest chance of getting to that point, America needs to have sat the European war out.
Germany would have been utterly worn out from conquering the Soviets, and America would have been arming. We'd have probably gone along with the Manhattan project as well. Throw in our superior Navy and I think the Germans wouldn't be too quick to press the issue.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:24:06 PM
Not fair. At Tsushima the russian battleships were multiple size gun design, while the japs had 4 big-guns-only battleships. Plus the japanese crossed the T on the ruskies. Not fair.
Oh wait, everything is fair in war...
You are incorrect. The Russian and Japanese ships were both predreadnoughts. In fact, the weapon layout of the four Japanese ships and a number of the Russian ships was virtually identical.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:25:46 PM
You don't get the point.
There wouldn't have been a Cold War with Nazi Germany.
It would have gone Hot in a second.
I can't see why. It's not like Germany was more prone to go to war than Russia was.
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Really? And why is that?
Date Mexico entered the war, duh. Know your history.
And WHY exactly should I count that instead of Dec 7? Is there something about me that makes me less American than you?
Yes. You speak english with an accent!
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2009, 10:05:47 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 01, 2009, 10:01:57 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 01, 2009, 09:57:06 AM
10-20 million Chinese dead, 3 million Japanese dead, the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime, and marine units with over 100% casualties is a sideshow?
Compared to the battle for the fate of the entire world that was the European war yes.
Pffft. We'd have just beaten the Nazis in the Cold War instead.
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
There is an israeli novellette I read when I was a kid, about an american jew that builts a time machine in a secret fallout bunker, to go back in time and convince Roosvelt to join the war, because in the future America had lost WW3 with all the major cities nuked and the country divided between Germany and Japan. The story was impressive to my young mind because it presented our reality as a product of that time travel.
:lmfao:
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2009, 07:35:41 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:24:06 PM
Not fair. At Tsushima the russian battleships were multiple size gun design, while the japs had 4 big-guns-only battleships. Plus the japanese crossed the T on the ruskies. Not fair.
Oh wait, everything is fair in war...
You are incorrect. The Russian and Japanese ships were both predreadnoughts. In fact, the weapon layout of the four Japanese ships and a number of the Russian ships was virtually identical.
You are out of your mind.
Let me google the japanese ships that were at Tsushima.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:58:51 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2009, 07:35:41 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:24:06 PM
Not fair. At Tsushima the russian battleships were multiple size gun design, while the japs had 4 big-guns-only battleships. Plus the japanese crossed the T on the ruskies. Not fair.
Oh wait, everything is fair in war...
You are incorrect. The Russian and Japanese ships were both predreadnoughts. In fact, the weapon layout of the four Japanese ships and a number of the Russian ships was virtually identical.
You are out of your mind.
Let me google the japanese ships that were at Tsushima.
Are you going to try and lecture me about naval warfare in the age of the big gun?
This is going to be like me trying to lecture you about the Disney Channel.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2009, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
Alt-history. :bleeding:
Apples to apples, we only won the Cold War because the Soviets went broke first. The Nazi war machine was so innovation-happy that it was burning through funds and had huge compatibility problems with equipment; they would have gone broke even sooner.
One of the interesting facts about Germany was the before the war they graduating fewer and fewer engineers. Nazi meddling in education was destroying the pool of skilled German labor. A surviving Germany would likely be poor, uneducated, and racked by civil war as various party factions fought each other in the streets. Germany would need either a Stalin figure to purge nearly everyone or the private armies being built up by Himmler and Goring would have tore the country apart when Hitler died.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:51:28 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 01:48:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 12:15:36 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:48:35 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:22:22 AM
Actually for you it should be May 22, 1942, frijolero :contract:
Really? And why is that?
Date Mexico entered the war, duh. Know your history.
And WHY exactly should I count that instead of Dec 7? Is there something about me that makes me less American than you?
Yes. You speak english with an accent!
You might, but my English is as beautiful as the day is long. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 08:12:39 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 01, 2009, 07:15:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 07:08:39 PM
Every Alt-History book have read says the German would have won the Cold War.
The argument is that germany was such an aggressive monster that had to be stopped at the begining, if it grew up and took momentum (resourses to back their brain power), the world would have been doomed.
Alt-history. :bleeding:
Apples to apples, we only won the Cold War because the Soviets went broke first. The Nazi war machine was so innovation-happy that it was burning through funds and had huge compatibility problems with equipment; they would have gone broke even sooner.
One of the interesting facts about Germany was the before the war they graduating fewer and fewer engineers. Nazi meddling in education was destroying the pool of skilled German labor. A surviving Germany would likely be poor, uneducated, and racked by civil war as various party factions fought each other in the streets. Germany would need either a Stalin figure to purge nearly everyone or the private armies being built up by Himmler and Goring would have tore the country apart when Hitler died.
Interesting view.
I always thought the story that germany's brainpower started with the jews was an ashkenazi urban legend.
Let alone a disminishing brainpower pool from non-jew population.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 08:12:39 PM
One of the interesting facts about Germany was the before the war they graduating fewer and fewer engineers. Nazi meddling in education was destroying the pool of skilled German labor. A surviving Germany would likely be poor, uneducated, and racked by civil war as various party factions fought each other in the streets. Germany would need either a Stalin figure to purge nearly everyone or the private armies being built up by Himmler and Goring would have tore the country apart when Hitler died.
Hitler was unhealthy, but not so much so that he would have committed suicide if the Germans had a prayer of lasting through the war. Himmler and Goering also would have needed more time to continue building their private armies.
I'm also unsure how much of the engineering shortage was "Nazi meddling in education." Many of the people in positions of power enjoyed seeing the latest toys that the weapons engineers could crank out, so I think a lot of the shortage had more to do with the "conform or pay" populist approach of Nazi conscription methods.
Hitler probably wouldn't have lasted more then few years. And Himmler and Goering had very large armies. There is a reason why the SS was expanding so rapidly and the Luftwaffe was getting ground forces.
Nazi education policies were driving a lot of people away and making those who did stay on less competent. Things like German Physics were not exactly useful.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 08:27:23 PM
Hitler probably wouldn't have lasted more then few years. And Himmler and Goering had very large armies. There is a reason why the SS was expanding so rapidly and the Luftwaffe was getting ground forces.
Nazi education policies were driving a lot of people away and making those who did stay on less competent. Things like German Physics were not exactly useful.
I agree with you on the nazi education policies, but on the private armies, Rome so plenty of that, and it only got stronger, until somebody invented the stirrup.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 08:57:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 08:27:23 PM
Hitler probably wouldn't have lasted more then few years. And Himmler and Goering had very large armies. There is a reason why the SS was expanding so rapidly and the Luftwaffe was getting ground forces.
Nazi education policies were driving a lot of people away and making those who did stay on less competent. Things like German Physics were not exactly useful.
I agree with you on the nazi education policies, but on the private armies, Rome so plenty of that, and it only got stronger, until somebody invented the stirrup.
Shouldn't you be googling in order to attempt to school me on turn-of-the-century naval architecture, a topic in which I wrote the book?
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2009, 09:06:19 PM
Shouldn't you be googling in order to attempt to school me on turn-of-the-century naval architecture, a topic in which I wrote the book?
Ok, you win. The Musashi was a pre-dreanought.
Still, it had a larger proportion of high caliber guns. At least you have to give me that.
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 08:57:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 08:27:23 PM
Hitler probably wouldn't have lasted more then few years. And Himmler and Goering had very large armies. There is a reason why the SS was expanding so rapidly and the Luftwaffe was getting ground forces.
Nazi education policies were driving a lot of people away and making those who did stay on less competent. Things like German Physics were not exactly useful.
I agree with you on the nazi education policies, but on the private armies, Rome so plenty of that, and it only got stronger, until somebody invented the stirrup.
Er, it led to civil war.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: Siege on September 01, 2009, 08:57:30 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 01, 2009, 08:27:23 PM
Hitler probably wouldn't have lasted more then few years. And Himmler and Goering had very large armies. There is a reason why the SS was expanding so rapidly and the Luftwaffe was getting ground forces.
Nazi education policies were driving a lot of people away and making those who did stay on less competent. Things like German Physics were not exactly useful.
I agree with you on the nazi education policies, but on the private armies, Rome so plenty of that, and it only got stronger, until somebody invented the stirrup.
Er, it led to civil war.
But it survived, stronger.
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 08:14:12 PM
You might, but my English is as beautiful as the day is long. :)
Eez eet really?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cartype.com%2Fpics%2F362%2Fsmall%2Fspeedy_gonzales.jpg&hash=02fa0036cdd65dc688347da1313f49ebf5de7438)
Quote from: derspiess on September 01, 2009, 10:40:58 PM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 08:14:12 PM
You might, but my English is as beautiful as the day is long. :)
Eez eet really?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cartype.com%2Fpics%2F362%2Fsmall%2Fspeedy_gonzales.jpg&hash=02fa0036cdd65dc688347da1313f49ebf5de7438)
Anything else in that bag of tricks?
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:42:30 PM
Anything else in that bag of tricks?
I got a couple more in the holster. Gonna keep my powder dry, though.
Quote from: derspiess on September 02, 2009, 12:16:40 AM
Quote from: Jaron on September 01, 2009, 10:42:30 PM
Anything else in that bag of tricks?
I got a couple more in the holster. Gonna keep my powder dry, though.
:lol: I bet on the guy with the dry powder!