History discussion - no, hitler has never seeked the spear of destiny - General

[QUOTE=Satansick;39560861]How would WWII play out if the Germans and the Japanese worked better together. First concentrating on taking down the Soviet Union and then turning to Europe/The pacific.[/QUOTE]It's hard to debate on that when the Japanese were bogged down far South concentrating on their ongoing war with Chinese forces. If we assume a scenario where the Chinese made peace, and allowed for the Imperial Army to strategically relocate back North in time for Barbarossa. Stalin would've never made the gamble of withdrawing his Siberian crack divisions to the European theatre and put up an large influence during the battle of Moscow. [url=http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/Mythbusters3.html]Not that I'm saying it wasn't just Siberian divisions that saved the day,[/url] but the battle for the Soviet capitol might've turned more differently if there wasn't the availabity of Siberian divisons present during the fight. WW2 is too abundant of "what-ifs" to discuss about anything, really.

WW2 is pretty much "What If: The War" What if so and so died? What if this and this happened? It never ends.

I liked WW2 because it started the Cold War, Which pretty much started the Space Race. and I fucking LOVE the Space Race.

[QUOTE=kamikaze470;39566633] WW2 is too abundant of "what-ifs" to discuss about anything, really.[/QUOTE] oxymoron. You guys are essentially saying "There's too many topics". It's a [I]history[/I] thread, ffs, there's more "what ifs" that involved the 18th century by comparison. What if the United States never actually needed to form (I.E, no taxation-without-representation) What if France stayed a Kingdom? What if Russia conquered Prussia? What if Germany formed early? What if Austria broke apart? What if the United Kingdom fell to France? etc. etc. etc. [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] And, obviously, I have a soft-spot for WWII, mainly the Asian theatres. Such a soft spot you can break it with a poke.

You can do a "what-if" with[I] literally everything that's ever happened in history[/I], more or less. What if the code of Hammurabi was never written? What if the Greeks had lost the Trojan War? What if the Romans never overthrew the Etruscan kings and founded a republic? What if Hannibal won the Second Punic War? What if Julius Caesar didn't get stabbed? What if the Roman Empire fell apart in the first century instead of the fifth? What if the Normans hadn't conquered England? What if, what if, what if, and so forth until more modern history, like what if the US hadn't pulled out of Vietnam or what if Reagan hadn't been elected. The possibilities are nearly endless.

[QUOTE=TMBGFan;39569995]You can do a "what-if" with[I] literally everything that's ever happened in history[/I], more or less.[/QUOTE] That's the point I'm trying to make. Not wanting to discuss WWII because there's "too many what if's" is counter intuitive the a large portion of the discussion.

I don't have a problem with discussing WW2 and the limitless possibilities of alternative scenarios that stem out of it. The way I see it, the topic could get out of hand due to the sheer possibilities to talk about rather it's relevant to the topic in question or not in the first place.

[QUOTE=TMBGFan;39569995]You can do a "what-if" with[I] literally everything that's ever happened in history[/I], more or less.[/QUOTE] "What-if" questions are a good way to gauge the importance of an event. If I said 'what if Kevin Rudd had stayed Prime Minister of Australia?', I'm pretty sure my world wouldn't have changed much. A question like "If Germany had created an atomic bomb first" would result in a world very different from ours. They're really only good as food-for-thought though. It's fun to imagine the scenarios but asking 'what-if?' is pointless when it comes to actually studying history.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;39565904]Is it true to say that Western World basically allowed and even promoted Hitler's growth during 1930-1940? Considering policy of Appeasement, inability to promote Versailles Treaty, Munich Agreement?[/QUOTE] this is a bit unfair to say. the people of france and britain had just gotten out of a very brutal world war less than 2 decades earlier. no one wanted to fight the germans again. it was much easier to just appease the germans and hope that they would stop after gaining some of their pre-war land back and have a military. the allies were hoping to avoid another world war. it's bad to say that they "promoted" hitler's growth.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39570070]That's the point I'm trying to make. Not wanting to discuss WWII because there's "too many what if's" is counter intuitive the a large portion of the discussion.[/QUOTE] Focusing on counter-factual history doesn't exactly contribute much, there is a reason why it has something of a stigma in the discipline. I agree that it is no reason not to discuss WWII, but I have other reasons to want to veer away from it.

Am I late to the history majors party? [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] I brought Marc Bloch

[QUOTE=skynrdfan3;39536111]no history can touch the american revolution don't even try[/QUOTE] the founding fathers were mad conspiracy theorists that started a pointless war, then rewrote history to paint themselves as heroes

[QUOTE=ScottyWired;39570747]"What-if" questions are a good way to gauge the importance of an event. If I said 'what if Kevin Rudd had stayed Prime Minister of Australia?', I'm pretty sure my world wouldn't have changed much. A question like "If Germany had created an atomic bomb first" would result in a world very different from ours. They're really only good as food-for-thought though. It's fun to imagine the scenarios but asking 'what-if?' is pointless when it comes to actually studying history.[/QUOTE] You'll rarely, if ever, find a scholarly article based on "What ifs". History is about what did happen and why, not what didn't.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39573201]the founding fathers were mad conspiracy theorists that started a pointless war, then rewrote history to paint themselves as heroes[/QUOTE] did you know king George the third never blocked a single piece of legislation

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39573685]did you know king George the third never blocked a single piece of legislation[/QUOTE] nah i'm pretty sure he blocked a few retarded ones that the colonies sent over for approval (like a stupid paper money scam) [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] or if not him, one of his underlings

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39574027]nah i'm pretty sure he blocked a few retarded ones that the colonies sent over for approval (like a stupid paper money scam) [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] or if not him, one of his underlings[/QUOTE] The governors would have. No monarch has cockblocked a piece of legislation since 1708.

Why does it seem that Napoleon just became an idiot in his later years? I was rather surprised when I found out how awful he became considering how much he's made out to have been.

hubris

[QUOTE=gnisasas;39573154]Am I late to the history majors party? [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] I brought Marc Bloch[/QUOTE] I've always been a Braudel kind of guy, I hope he got his invite. Oh, and can't forget Henri Pirenne either!

May I propose that we have a discussion about one specific history topic (eg. ww1 ww2, medieval wars, the space race.. ect...) for 2 solid pages, and then we change onto a new one, Im sure It cant be soo hard to do considering all of us are adults.

What do you guys think would have happened if Operation Sea Lion was a success?

[QUOTE=urundeadmom;39574618]May I propose that we have a discussion about one specific history topic (eg. ww1 ww2, medieval wars, the space race.. ect...) for 2 solid pages, and then we change onto a new one, Im sure It cant be soo hard to do considering all of us are adults.[/QUOTE] Why can't we keep it as is? That sounds too limiting for discussion

[QUOTE=Frayyyy;39574693]Why can't we keep it as is? That sounds too limiting for discussion[/QUOTE] It was just an idea, just so we aren't having 3-4 different discussions all at the same time, which can get kind of out of hand. But whatever you guys want I was only suggesting, personally Im up for anything even keeping it the same way.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39570970]this is a bit unfair to say. the people of france and britain had just gotten out of a very brutal world war less than 2 decades earlier. no one wanted to fight the germans again. it was much easier to just appease the germans and hope that they would stop after gaining some of their pre-war land back and have a military. the allies were hoping to avoid another world war. it's bad to say that they "promoted" hitler's growth.[/QUOTE] They did promote Hitler though, yes they didn't want a war and that's why they took the route they did but this helped Hitler, if they hadn't and instead took Hitler down as soon as he started breaking the treaty then Germany wouldn't have been in as nearly a strong position that it had in 1939. With leaders such as Lloyd George praising Hitler as a great leader for turning Germany around it is clear that for most of the 1930's Germany was purposefully allowed to grow in strength e.g. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement. They did promote Hitler's growth through appeasement and they kept doing it until they finally saw that Hitler was not going to stop. [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=VOSK;39574675]What do you guys think would have happened if Operation Sea Lion was a success?[/QUOTE] Germany would have been able to move the majority of it's military to the east to fight the Soviets though I'm not well versed in the details of the Eastern Front. They would still have had the same major problems with the winter regardless which would have resulted in the Soviets gaining the upperhand.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39575330]They did promote Hitler though, yes they didn't want a war and that's why they took the route they did but this helped Hitler, if they hadn't and instead took Hitler down as soon as he started breaking the treaty then Germany wouldn't have been in as nearly a strong position that it had in 1939. With leaders such as Lloyd George praising Hitler as a great leader for turning Germany around it is clear that for most of the 1930's Germany was purposefully allowed to grow in strength e.g. The Anglo-German Naval Agreement. They did promote Hitler's growth through appeasement and they kept doing it until they finally saw that Hitler was not going to stop. [/QUOTE] almost no one in france or britain would have supported a pre-emptive strike at germany for breaking the treaty of versailles. i don't like the word "promote", because it paints the picture of a bunch of ministers who actually really liked hitler and wanted germany to grow stronger when in reality it seemed more like the french and british just didn't want to fight germany anymore. [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Thom12255;39575330] Germany would have been able to move the majority of it's military to the east to fight the Soviets though I'm not well versed in the details of the Eastern Front. They would still have had the same major problems with the winter regardless which would have resulted in the Soviets gaining the upperhand.[/QUOTE] if they had the extra forces it's quite possible they wouldn't have had a problem with winter. the only reason winter came into play in operation barbarossa was because of the battle of smolensk. if the germans were stronger, it's possible the resistance at smolensk would have been destroyed more easily and moscow would have been walked on. [editline]13th February 2013[/editline] but im sorta tired of talking about ww2(esp. ww2 what-ifs). hey guys, how about those carolingians?

Anybody here listen to the History of Rome podcast?

Alright, to help with things [t]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/tick.png[/t] - I make new thread about WWII what-ifs [t]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/cross.png[/t] - The discussion stays here

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39576037]Anybody here listen to the History of Rome podcast?[/QUOTE] [url]https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-history-of-rome/id261654474[/url] this podcast?

Yep, I really enjoy it.

i'll give it a try. are there any similar series on the early middle ages? that period is the most interesting to me.