Redstate

I must protest. Samuel Adams, although from Boston, the bastion of liberal stench, is far superior to any German beer that I have ever consumed.

I propose the following:

The owners of the democRat party: BowelMovement.org

Only the fact that Germany invaded the Soviet Union caused them to support US involvement in the European Front in WWII. That began unraveling just as soon as Germany surrendered. A major piece of our motivation to use the nuclear weapons against Japan was to get the War OVER before a very war-weary nation just lost interest in it and the Left began pressing for accommodation to the Soviets in the Pacific.

In Vino Veritas

This satire nails it completely. Perfect!

Tony
www.romadascoprire.com

Most creative, dude. Well done.

The owners of the democRat party: BowelMovement.org

and yet, despite the alternative media, the Hate America crowd has a huge megaphone and the Defend America crowd still does not. Imagine if our megaphone were as big, or the sizes of our megaphones were reversed?

I do think 25 - 30% or so of the population is mentally ill and most of that translates to conspiracy theorists, BDS and Hate America, but you can't convince me the vast majority of this country supports what Moveon.org and the Dem leadership and nutroots are espousing. I just don't believe it.

It's a megaphone war, and to some extent theirs are old and rusty and falling into disrepair (NYT).

And whoever came up with the above poster -- priceless!!

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

What has always baffled me about the (home based) haters of America and everything we stand for do not leave. If I were so unhappy, I think I would. Food for thought...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

please explain...

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Oh, and it drew from Republicans, Democrats and Socialists alike. Its base was broad but shallow, and as soon as we were attacked and war was actually declared, most AFers closed ranks and supported the war and the President.

"much like MoveOn"? Please.

-
NARF

In a truly awesome and thoughtful move, a redstater changed my username. Truly you are the standard-bearers of a party chock-full of great, deep ideas. How could anyone think otherwise.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

You missed this, which not only told you what you apparently found out accidentally, but also left you instructions.

Good luck.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It could be worse. He could have changed your username to something truly disgusting; such as leftist.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

And al the isolationists of the time. That generation put aside their differences to save the country and spread freedom throughout the world. Too bad their seed didn't breed true to the third generation.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Drawing a parallel between the America First Committee and MoveOn was a stretch (AFC disbanded once war started; MoveOn has continued to criticize the country's elected leadership and its military) but arguably legitimate. Pooping on the carpet was not. I trust you can avoid the latter in the future. We would hate to have to wish you well in your future endeavors.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Moving on, so to speak.

I'm sure you still have the hand you weren't using for typing feverishly gripping The Plot Against America, but I really have to recommend that you actually do some history reading before you come trolling over here.

Let me help you out, and it's a condition of your continued ability to post here: I'd appreciate your next comment to be a thorough analysis of the linkage between the Depression-era populists and remaining Progressives, and the best-known anti-Semites of the same time, and their shared position on involvement in the European theater. One admonition: No cutting and pasting from Wikipedia.

I doubt you'll actually do this, as you just came here to make a poorly-sourced insult, but hope springs eternal.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

worthy!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

LOL!!! His name change is the funniest thing I have read today.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Truly, your cleverness knows no bounds. I'll make sure to tell all my lefty friends that we are powerless against your playground taunts.

I haven't read The Plot Against America, but, yes, of course there were those on the left that wanted us to stay out of WWII prior to the act. They changed their tunes, though, just as most on the right did after the war began. The AFC, however, became the America First Party, filled only with the most hard-right members of the former AFC.

Well, now I'm in a quandary. You see, you were given a specific assignment, and I didn't see the words "Huey Long" and "Coughlin" anywhere in there, even though, duh, that's the easy way out. On the other hand, you almost read like you thought somewhere in there.

Quite the little dilemma.

I've got a solution, though! It's in two parts, and all you have to do is type about twenty-five words per question.

(1) Identify how many America First Party candidates the Republican Party backed for national office after the latter's founding, with the last names of each and the years in which that backing occurred.

(2) In 25 words or less, explain the formation and level of Communist involvement in the Progressive Party as constituted in 1948.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Nosepicker's [sic] post or the reaction to it.

The present war in Iraq is not comparable to WW2, nor is Moveon.org comparable to America First. AF also was not the Republican-led enterprise NP makes it out to be - unless you count Sinclair Lewis and e.e. cummings as Republicans (which they were not). AF formally disbanded almost immediately after Pearl Harbor.

On the other hand, drawing a direct link between Eisenhower's successful long-term strategy in a conventional war with our feckless long-term strategy in an unconventional one is itself foolish. Sure, Petreaus is a good general. The surge also is something some of us were arguing for (literally) four-plus years ago. But one goes to war, as they say, with the army and history you have, and there is such a thing as too-little-too-late in a war.

A pox on everyone.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Thanks so much for once again taking the time from your busy day to offer us your Olympian wisdom. We look forward to your next barely-involved tirade at your regularly appointed hour.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Thomas, I happen to read Redstate nearly every day -- and have since its very first day. I also have a long history of agitating for agitating for more troops in Iraq. So, yeah, I'm going to sneer a little bit, and at both sides. "Nosepicker" is a moron. But many of these folks applauding the surge were standing in the way of good policy for years, and some trashed me three years ago for advocating what they now embrace. Except, now, likely, it's too late. Bravo.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

I read The Washington Post every day, though I've been gone from that ... place ... for years. This does not, in fact, mean that I'm an active participant there.

I'm fully aware of how long you've been here, thanks. Implicit in what I was saying was a reference to that, which back when you did more than the occasional graffiti run, you'd have caught.

But many of these folks applauding the surge were standing in the way of good policy for years, and some trashed me three years ago for advocating what they now embrace.

I am neither aware of any elected, nor appointed, official posting here. Can you tell me to whom you're referring?

Except, now, likely, it's too late.

Only domestically, and that only because of the sorts of people your blogging compatriots have pushed for the last six years.

Bravo.

Bravo, indeed.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I read The Washington Post every day, though I've been gone from that ... place ... for years. This does not, in fact, mean that I'm an active participant there.

Do you really think this is an apt comparison (RedState ==> Washington Post)? How does one get to be an "active participant" at the WaPo (aside from getting hired, that is?).

I am neither aware of any elected, nor appointed, official posting here. Can you tell me to whom you're referring?

This proves too much, Thomas. Participating in a representative democracy does not eliminate your responsibility for policy. Nor is it proper to assume that representatives are immune to the vocalizations of those whom they represent.

And, in any event, you have elected officials posting here all the time -- and more power to RedState for getting 'em.

Only domestically, and that only because of the sorts of people your blogging compatriots have pushed for the last six years.

1. You may have missed this: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/07/claps-hands.html.

2. If you think that the only thing holding that's been holding us back in Iraq the last five years is a domestic insurgency, you're really off it.

In any event, Thomas, I do like debating you. I just think that both sides in this debate have been pursuing their narrow interests for a while now, and neither really stops to think what's in the best interests of the country as a whole.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Do you really think this is an apt comparison (RedState ==> Washington Post)? How does one get to be an "active participant" at the WaPo (aside from getting hired, that is?).

And you say you read RedState almost every day. (You'd know the answer to that second question if you did.) I could have lied and said I read dKos every day, as that would have been more analogous to your non sequitur response; do you really believe that reading is the same as interacting?

This proves too much, Thomas. Participating in a representative democracy does not eliminate your responsibility for policy. Nor is it proper to assume that representatives are immune to the vocalizations of those whom they represent.

That in turn proves too much -- for while we bear the burdens of the government to which we consent, the idea that our representatives are remotely responsive to the "vocalizations of those whom they represent" is belied by the continued existence of Roe, the ridiculous spending of the last ten and change years, and [insert all but a handful of legislative choices from 1976 to the present].

Your initial point cast far too broad a net; did (and do) many participants here oppose additional troops for whatever reason? Yes. Do they bear responsibility for standing in the way of good policy for years? Come on, now.

(Incidentally, I didn't point out the logical fallacy of assuming that merely because a thing is a good idea now, it was necessarily a good idea then. But I abandoned that argument at the trial level, so no need to deal with it on appeal.)

1. You may have missed this:

I really wish you hadn't shown me that. I'd more or less given up on constructive dialogue between the left and right, and the comments section in that post just reinforced that.

2. If you think that the only thing holding that's been holding us back in Iraq the last five years is a domestic insurgency, you're really off it.

Now, now, now: You've known me long enough, at least on the boards and by email, to know that I type what I mean. There is a difference between "it's too late" and "something has held us back for [four] years." Given the on-the-ground situation abroad, I'd say it's not remotely too late. Given the on-the-ground situation here, I'd say any chance for success in Iraq is toast. In fairness, I should blame the American people for losing interest in a new toy once it's more than a few weeks old, too, even if millions die for that loss of interest.

In any event, Thomas, I do like debating you. I just think that both sides in this debate have been pursuing their narrow interests for a while now, and neither really stops to think what's in the best interests of the country as a whole.

In order:

Moi aussi, which is why I find the drive-by nature of your comments of late -- of which, concededly and with no small amount of thanks from yours truly, this is not one -- so irritating; and

I would actually say that's not fair to either side: They're both pursuing their narrow interests because they believe that's what's best for the country. One's probably more right than wrong, and vice versa; but the one thing I have held to for over a decade of nasty partisanship is that 90% of the people on each side of the screaming divide are actually arguing in good faith. (I'm not sure Harry Reid is, but that's because that's not his job. I'm pretty sure Nancy Pelosi, by contrast, is, and is simply wrong-with-bells-on.)

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

It did scroll off the page before I got back, but I appreciate the response.

I don't know if you'll see this, but I did want to respond to your comments regarding Redstate and the drive-by nature of many of my comments. I have always been out of step with the Republican party on some issues, and I was particularly out of step with George Bush from the get-go. (I supported McCain for the '00 election, and never quite forgave Bush for South Carolina.) It's been a tough seven years, to say the least, and has been getting worse -- particularly after the collapse of immigration reform.

That said, I do still have some weak recognition that coming on a conservative Republican website and picking fights with conservative Republicans really isn't in my political interests either. There will never be a majority of voters who think like I do; there will never even be a majority of Republicans who think like I do. I need the conservative base as part of this coalition. Pissing them off is not in my long-term interest.

So I've been very reluctant reluctant to delve into comments, because I'm sure to see something that I disagree with and -- me being me -- will want to disagree with it. At this stage of the game, however, the last thing the party needs is more dissention. So, I've tried to restrict my readings of the front page and, occasionally, RedHot. Consequently, I visit RedState less than I used to and don't devote as much attention to responding to comments.

But that's unfair as well when I do comment. It's no fun to debate someone who disappears for 12-24 hours at a time and, consequently, that means it's no fun to debate me. Thus, when and if I do pick a fight, I'll do better to hold up my end of the bargain.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

"There will never be a majority of voters who think like I do; there will never even be a majority of Republicans who think like I do. I need the conservative base as part of this coalition. Pissing them off is not in my long-term interest."

Von, how exactly do you think?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I'm essentially a classic liberal (or "sane" libertarian*), although I prefer a more robust foreign policy than some.

*Having founded the Libertarian student group as an undergrad -- which was, for clearity, nearly 15 years ago -- "sane" is an important qualifier.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Not that this is a huge point one way or the other, but Cummings was, in fact, a Republican.

I had no idea. I always assumed the exact opposite based on his scholarship and poetry. Do you have a cite?

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Richard S. Kennedy, Dreams in the Mirror: A Biography of E. E. Cummings, 376ff.

The first page of that citation should be on Google books. He was no Alf Landon/Wendell Willkie-type squish, either, but thought that Roosevelt was basically a communist and opposed World War II even after Pearl Harbor.

Also on the list of Republicans You Wouldn't Think Were Republicans: Gertrude Stein and Jack Kerouac. The GOP is a hipper party than you might think.

Thanks on e.e., but Kerouac wasn't a Republican -- even at the end of his life. He was a French-Canadian drunk from Lowell, who hated hippies.

For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.

Well, if you hate hippies, subscribe to National Review, and voted for Goldwater, you're a Republican in my book, whether or not you're a drunk.

Germany declared war on the US prior to the US er, uh....going over to Europe. They never actually attacked us (unless you want to count our neutral patrol ship getting in between a German ship and a British ship during a firefight "attacking us.")

Of course, a lot of people believed then -- and some still believe today -- that we had no business getting involved in the European theater. Just because Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan doesn't mean they were going to be attacking us on our soil as Japan did. They were a little busy at the time and were pretty focused on domination of Europe.

There's something to be said for sticking up for your friends. But we did lose several hundred thousand souls in a theater that impacted our allies' security a lot more than it impacted our own -- at least, directly.

But the point of the thread and the Photoshop are well taken. That era was a different era for America -- a better one, in many ways...including this one.

You, my delusional friend, are suffering from historical ignorance.

For a real perspective of the great tradition of the GOP and its accomplishments since its creation, I suggest a little reading. http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/ Then you can come back here and grovel.

The owners of the democRat party: BowelMovement.org

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

At least in this Country, the laborers and the scientists were very, very well compensated for their sweat and genius and that sweat and genius gave their children an era of unfathonable hope and opportunity, so much so that we are able to afford to tolerate a parasitic class of self-styled intellectual elitists typified by MoveOn and, I suspect, people like you.

To the other point, I'm not one who subscribes to the "we'd be speaking German now" school had we stayed out of the European War, a sentiment for which there was broad support in America, left, right, and center. The Left only advocated involvement after Germany invaded the Soviet Union. Overnight they went from sabotaging war production to Second Front Now.

The World would be very different had we not gone to Europe first, but the Germans did not have and could not have had for the foreseeable future the power to meaningfully attack us accross the Oceans. It would have been a very tense bi-polar world as each Great Power remaining sought allegiances and alliances that served its interests. While German destruction of the Soviet Union might have been seen by many as a good thing, it would not have been in the US' interest nor the interest of what might have remained of the British Empire to allow the Germans access to Soviet resources. Consequently, an alliance between the US, GB, and the Soviets would have been inevitable. The US might well have been more accommodating to Soviet interests in the Far East, but again, the Soviets were a Continental Power with limited means to project power accross the Seas. We and the Germans would both have driven towards nuclear weapons and there would have ensued a Cold War between the US and Germany as both flirted with Mutually Assured Destruction. Sound familiar? The Germans and the Soviets were the last of the old authoritarian empires and they, not we, were on the wrong side of history.

In Vino Veritas

You're so quick to assume that I'm pot-smoking hippy printing up neo-leninist newletters on mom's computer from the parent's basement.

Just yesterday, I looked up the information I needed to register to vote, so I can vote for a republican candidate in the primaries.

MoveOn is a bunch of patsies and principle-less lowlifes who've latched onto something they can criticize a republican about. But, like a broken clock...

As for Germans, most historians and military analysts suggest that Germany could never have posed a serious threat to the American mainland. If we hadn't intervened, it's possible that europe itself might have kicked nazi ass even without soviet help, but definitely with. Either way, same end... decades of cold war. But we survived that. And it was a democrat president that might have done some sneaky things to make sure that the japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, he had no other surefire way of making certain the public would support involvement in foreign wars.

I only wish we had an Eisenhower over there running things rather than a Petraeus right now. He had the integrity to tell the truth, and enough of a mind to see past any lies that Bush cronies might try to put over on him.

Not that that wouldn't piss off the MoveOn people too... they'd hate to be proven wrong about the republicans being bunch of delusional warmongers. They'd never get the chance to pack Congress full of their flunkies, were that the case.

Ask yourself this... if the democrats are so full of principle, and believe the Iraq war to be such a profound moral wrong, why are they not impeaching Bush? They have a majority, they could make their case... even those that think we were correct to invade must admit that there is at least *some* argument there that it might be justifiable.

They refuse to, it's off the table. Either they are hypocrites for the sheer hell of it, or they have an agenda... who cares about the evil war, if they can parlay it into another multi-decade domination of the House and Senate?

Having someone claim to be a republican, and commit a crime or unethical behavior does not look bad for the republican party. It's when we fail to police our own, when we try to downplay that such people exist for political gain or to avoid loss. How can such people look themselves in the mirror?

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Do you believe he is the One?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

He won't win, of course. When mainstream media talks about every single republican candidate, skipping over him and talking about those that placed ahead of him, and those behind, but ignoring him... something is going on.

And, even if he does win, can't imagine that he'll avoid assassination before the general election is held. You don't threaten to dissolve the federal reserve and start printing your own money again, or to get rid of the IRS... going after the money is a sure way to get killed by a lucky shot from a lone madman.

"a lucky shot from a lone madman"

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

And, even if he does win, can't imagine that he'll avoid assassination before the general election is held.

It's a testament to Red State's openness to debate that Ron Paul backers are indulged here. However I don't think that extends to the lunatic rantings that infect such a significant proportion of his backers.

to find the one or two kernels of sanity among his believers. Careful, or we will all be labeled as RonPaul™ Deniers!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I don't know what historians and military analysts you're reading, but there was NO EUROPE LEFT well before US involvement in WWII; the entire continent was under German hegemony and GB was hanging by a thread. So, I don't know where the notion comes from that the Europeans might have repelled the Germans; most of them just acquiesced to German rule and many actively embraced it. We went to great lengths post-war to rehabilitate our gallant European "allies" because we needed them to oppose the Soviets, but fundamentally, Quisling was more representative than the maquis - and most of the maquis were pro-Soviet.

It is unquestionable that Roosevelt pursued a very provacative course towards the Japanese, but notions that he did "sneaky things" are the stuff of black helicopters and tin foil hats. We were caught with our pants down on 7 Dec 41 because we believed the Japanese would back down in the face of our provocations; they didn't and the rest is history.

As to the rest of it, it doesn't make enough sense to respond to.

In Vino Veritas

It's hard to reconcile what happened with the official stories. I don't think that it falls into conspiracy theory land to speculate that a warmongering democrat might have deliberately maneuvered the nation and the japanese to the point where it was inevitable that there be an attack.

He had the means, he was a politician with all the ethical baggage such an occupation implies.

Such speculation is about as conspiracy-theorish as supposing that some large minority of cops are corrupt to one degree or another. Difficult to prove, but hardly outlandish.

You're going to source that silliness about FDR from real sources, not LewRockwell.com. Then, you can provisionally keep posting here.

(I say this as someone who's pretty sure FDR is in Hell; but then again, I also say this as someone whose job is to make sure this place doesn't turn into a nuthouse.)

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

"As for Germans, most historians and military analysts suggest that Germany could never have posed a serious threat to the American mainland."

Wrong try again.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

What if FDR had told the Germans oh about 1935, it's time for you to have regime change - this Adolf guy has got to go. And what if they hadn't listened to FDR so FDR sent in American troops and changed their regime for them. And maybe some of the Germans didn't like that "occupation" so they shot at Americans and killed some American troops with booby traps, and maybe 3,000, 4,000, or even 10,000 American troops would end up getting killed in that occupation of Germany in the 1930's.

Now if FDR had done that, would he have done a good thing and saved millions of lives?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Bush just saved us from an Iraqi conquest of the entire continent? Well, put into that perspective, I'll have to rethink my entire stance on the war.

kill 6 million jews.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Yes and no, and you're close to the real reason that liberals and conservatives disagree on GWOT/Iraq.

Sadaam was unlikely to personally control the entire continent of Asia. Then again, Hitler never controlled the ENTIRE continent of Europe - there was Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, part of Russia, etc. Hitler, even compared to other dictators, was unusually warmongering. Sadaam launched unprovoked attacks against Iran, Kuwait, and Israel and also used extreme violence against citizens of his own country and attacked Saudi Arabia. That's not as much aggression as Hitler, but I think its more aggression than any other country has done since 1945. Left alone, Sadaam would have just got more and more powerful, and then he would have been harder to stop.

I think most liberals want peace and most conservatives want peace. However, most conservatives don't think the choice we have is between war and peace. We think our choice is between having small wars and large wars. Since some other countries/groups call us Great Satan and are absolutely determined to wipe us out I don't see how we can have peace. Given that, I prefer small wars to large wars and I would rather nip problems in the bud.

in 1935 to do what Bush did in 2003.

Different world, different country.

The US in 1935 was basically isolationist with a strong pacifist tradition. Even if FDR could convince a majority of Congress that intervention was necessary, a very doubtful proposition, we did not have the military and naval forces needed to accomplish the mission.

They had a growing rocket program which resulted in our own ICBM and space launch capabilities. And Hitler feared us; after writing Mein Kampf he became aware of the Progressives and their eugenics programs. So by the time he went to his publisher to write his second book (which he never published because he realized it gave away too much of his plans), he was declaring the USA the long-term rival to Germany along with his plan to colonize Russia for lebensraum.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Certainly, had they not imploded, they would have considered us rivals. But it seems more likely that we would have had some sort of cold war with them, rather than them staging an invasion from across the atlantic. The only real fear would have been Hitler being a maniac, and attempting to nuke us... it's naive to hope they wouldn't had had the bomb in 1950, and impossible to believe they wouldn't have had it by 1955. Still, he might have not been Furher by then, or others in his regime might have had enough influence with him yet to steer him away from nuclear armageddon. It's not clear what would have happened...

But neither is it for certain that WWII was the only possible way to have a good outcome.

Apparently, it's trusting the Nazis not to use the atomic bomb. Who knew?

-
NARF

Hitler was an amateur, compared to the genocidal maniac that was Stalin. And it was still possible to trust him to just not nuke us for the hell of it.

Last I looked, their country was pounded to rubble and their armies destroyed. Even with that, they maintained political control until the end. Even after Hitler's suicide, there was an orderly succession; it wasn't some coup leader or military junta that surrendered to the Allies.

In Vino Veritas

When they had to invent coal gasification, it wasn't because the allies had destroyed their oil infrastructure. They had simply ran out, and not managed to steal more.

Either they would have managed to beat the soviet union (unlikely) and in the process wasted much of the oil that could be found there, or they would have been hemmed in and unable to get more. How they might have kept all their little vassal states in line and managed it all even as they attempted to put down a decades-long insurgency, is something that I must be too dumb to see while you obviously are some sort of scholar specializing in this particular era of military history.

Or maybe you just watch too much of the History Channel. Wasn't it What-if-Hitler-had-won-Week last week?

did it have any words?

Where would the Nazis have gotten their oil? Possibly from the Mideast, since without the US military, there would have been nothing to stop them from rolling across North Africa and right into the Saudi Kingdom, Iraq, Iran. ALL THE OIL IN THE WORLD! AND the Grand muffti and all the other Arab leaders were ready to welcome them.

What is the most popular book translated into Arabic today (and for all time)? Mein Kampf....are we seeing a pattern here?

The Soviet Union, possibly. Arab insurgencies, possibly. Or even accidents of history themselves. While I have little doubt that given just one more decade that a nazi nuke would have been inevitable, past that things aren't quite as rosy for them. Whereas the soviet system was brutal, it could at least be pragmatic... you didn't kill those scientists that were still useful to you. The nazis didn't seem to adhere to the same strategies. If the climate had changed to where they would, the nazi regime might have become relatively less warlike.

Communism itself often proclaimed that it would rule the world. And look how that turned out. They could make a claim here and there for some tiny little third world country twice a decade, but it just never managed to do much more. The reasons for that are less important, whether they couldn't sustain it, or whether you credit the US with covert actions that halted its spread, is there any reason to suppose that it would have been different with Nazi Germany?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The reasons for that are less important, whether they couldn't sustain it, or whether you credit the US with covert actions that halted its spread,

Actually the reasons for the halt of Communism are ALL important. Covert action? How about the Cold War! Is there ANY doubt that the USSR was thwarted from its ambition of world domination ONLY by a determined AND Nuclear armed US that was unwilling (with the exception of President Carter) to back down, and was willing to arm and support other nations around the world in stopping that world domination from taking place. Without the nuclear threat you cannot honestly say they would not have taken as much of Europe, Africa and Asia as they wanted. OH, and South and Central America.

NOW, in the LONG run, say a couple more centuries to use up all the resources of their conquests, and totally bankrupt their system, YES, eventually it would have collapsed from within. Millions and millions more would have died, millions and millions more would have been slaves...but hey, why should we have wasted our time fighting them?

I never once stated that I believe we shouldn't have developed nukes, or that we shouldn't have them now.

If you read even a little of what I said, you might come to the correct conclusion that had we not fought WWII, I would advocate treating a victorious nazi germany much like we did the soviet union. Weak, I know... it's easy to do, seeing as how I know from history that it worked once already. Doesn't take much genius to do that.

As for it taking centuries to unwind... how? They were starving and had no money to buy wheat on the global market. Had they tried to conquer for it, the same policies that ruined farming in the soviet union would have soon done so elsewhere. Even with the entire globe under their power, it's hard to imagine it taking much longer than twice what it did in reality, to rot from within. That's not quite "centuries".

you've come to a battle of wits unarmed, and, no, I don't watch the History Channel much.

Since you said you'd just registered to vote, I presume you either just woke from a coma or just graduated from high school, they're about the same thing. Of course, you could be a mind-numbed lefty who just registered Republican so you could speak truth to power; that's even worse. You've amply demonstrated that you have no real grasp of history beyond a little crap from lefty teachers in survey courses. Now stop embarassing yourself and don't insult people who know a Helluva lot more about this than you do.

In Vino Veritas

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

"When they had to invent coal gasification, it wasn't because the allies had destroyed their oil infrastructure. They had simply ran out, and not managed to steal more."

Ever heard of Ploesti? I guess not.

While Allied and Axis forces were battling in Sicily, the USAAF staged one of the war's most daring heavy bomber raids. The target was the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania, estimated to be supplying 60 percent of Germany's crude oil requirements.

Shortly after dawn on Aug. 1, 1943, USAAF B-24s took off from bases in Libya and headed toward the heavily defended target, deep inside enemy territory, 1,000 miles away. ...Of 177 planes and 1,726 men who took off on the mission, 54 planes and 532 men failed to return.

As for threatening the U.S., did you know that 46 ships were sunk in the Gulf of Mexico by U-boats? Many more were sunk just off the east coast of the U.S.

It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins

"The only real fear would have been Hitler being a maniac, and attempting to nuke us".

I was hoping that if I read enough of your stuff I would find at least one that gave reality a glancing blow.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Imploded??? I think somebody need to refer to a dictionary, or a perhaps a history of WWII.

P.S. You might also want to look up the words Pax Germanica.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

it would have been more likely that they would gotten the bomb first?

I admit that I think our victory in the race for the bomb was God's providence, but God works thru history, and..

well, ...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I think our leaders perceived the Germans as the true existential threat and we would have used the A-bomb on them had it been necessary. If we played out an scenario where they did not declare war on us and we could not politically enter the War, I think we still would have prepared to deal with Germany and that preparation would have included nuclear arms. I'm not so sure they saw us the same way; lots of German arrogance there. I think they still viewed us with contempt even as their Country was turned to rubble around them, and, frankly, from the standpoint of the WH and SS, they had some justification for their attitudes. I think they saw US troops in much the same way CS troops saw them; no match in an anything like equal fight, and it was all too often true. Because they were so ground oriented, they never clearly saw what air and naval forces were doing to them. I think the Soviets also viewed us much the same way though they were clearly struck