|Forum||Europe Travel Guide||Facts & Trivia||Genetics||History||Linguistics|
|Eupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum|
When I saw the title of the thread, I asked to myself "which one?".
In reality, the WW II was a "continuation", or if you like a somehow necessary consequence of how the things were settled (or not) in the first one.
This thread somehow attracted me for some time, but it was not until I read this article in Asia Times that I decided to participate:
The article by an Italian "expert about China", deals with paralelism between the trayectory of Germany in the XX Century and that of China in the lasts and coming years... as scientific, economical and military powers that by its mere existance, "subvert" the established "status quo".
(By the way, it includes a comment or two about the issue of "German arrogance", that I think were mentioned recently on the forum)
By the way, it is my opportunity to recomend to "Muzungu" and "Cimerianbroke" this book:
On the other hand, I don't know if in Germany the subject is popular, but at least in the literature in English, every so often appear these fictions novels about the posibility of a Germany victory in WWII, some of them even taken to the screen...
Now, answering the direct question posed by @edao... (in the understanding that my answers reflect my personal values)
Certainly not for Jews, Gipsis and a lot of minorities, religious, racial and of sexual preferences.
These would have been exterminated altogether.
Then the Slavs would have been enslaved and subject to slow genocide (almost all Eastern Europe).
Even the "Mischlinge" from South Europeans were undesired (e.g. with Italians and Greeks).
Europe could have been "better", but only to Germans.
I don't know.Would a united Europe run by Germany have stopped America dominating the world in the way it has over the last 50 years?
There would have been no cold war, at least not against the USSR/Russia... but probably one between the USA and Europe.What role would a German Empire have played in the cold war?
Anyway, for that to happen once the war actually happen, the Germans must have defeated the USA and/or the Russians, which actually would have been very difficult.
As an example, lets remember that the Russians sustained arround 7-8 million casualties in 1941 alone. And they were able to stop the Wehrmacht and become a more efficient and large war machine every succesive year of the war.
The Americans had more industry than Germany, and at the end, the vision to have A-bombs by 1945.
Victory of Germany after 1942: Impossible.
German is a beautiful language (once you more or less understand its complexities).Would we be speaking German and would that be a bad thing?
I don't think that the only reasons that English is so widespread is only because of colonialism, trade, and the popularity of the Angloamerican culture. English is a very simple an easy language to learn.
Even other Europeans, do not make the effort learn much German.
Maybe some of us will have some confirmation about it in the case of future internationalitation (or not) of Chinese.
Germany has been doing better than most other countries in Europe. One or two years ago, in a theme about Turkey, I said that Germany (and Turkey) will survive better an economic crisis than some other countries that dedicated themselves to not very productive things, including some in the South dedicated, whose finances weren mostly about money laundering.Looking at the current crisis Germany seems by far to be the best run country in Europe, they now seem to be dictating terms of economic management to half of Europe via the back door. Germany are now turning away from Nuclear power and have an economy based more on manufacturing real things instead of playing with number in financial casinos.
Even when I do not hold for impossible that Germany too could show signs of weakness in the following years (they are Germans, not Martians), I admit that they are showing themseves as the great economical and historical force that was begining to be evident at the begining of the XX Century, and it seems that its rise as conductor of Europe, was finally irrepresible.
Besides that, the Spaniards were respected by Germans and Russians as good fighters. When Romanian, Hungarian and Italian divisions melted in front of the Soviet attacks, the Spaniards showed at least the resistance of the German divisions, as showed in battles like Krasny Bor.
I just wonder if this is the same for France and Italy? Most of us know only the oposit from international point of view about these two.
PS. No offence, it is not my point of view. It is what people are saying.
At least disgusting MTV would not exist.
A soldier without patriotism, or without the patriotic suport of its people, is to pitty.
I think that @Maciamo, or another user, put time ago a theme with the title "Are the French weak-kneeded", or something.I just wonder if this is the same for France and Italy? Most of us know only the oposit from international point of view about these two.
mmm... here it is:
In reality, the military history of France is mostly a history of bravery. What happened, is that the Americans didn't liked the rapid fall of France in WW II, and then there was this knee-jerk propaganda about "cheese, monkeys and surrendering".
Howerver, how many countries could have resisted things like the battle of Verdun, in WW I? There (in a single battle) the French lose 2 - 3 more people than the Americans in the whole WW II !!.
The problem is when you let what others think of you affect you.
The shame is when we swallow propaganda and clichees created by othes, without doing a personal "homework" to verify in reliable sources, this or that.
That applies no only to this matter - military history- , but all the stereotypes that we see around, specially when they come from Hollywood, or being sold by the press.
I for example, don't know much (o better say, nothing) about, let's say, Robert Mugabe... I only know that he is presented in the western Press as an incredible corrupt and inept African president. Maybe what they say about him is true... but I will not be repeating the same things, or buy it, until I myself, have gone to serious sources, and do a little homwork for myself.
About the Italians, is more or less the same as with the French. I didn't know that the Italians showed any cowardice in WW I, or anytime before.
In WW II, they had problems from the begining:
a.) Mussolini entered the war with a cynical attitude ("to seat in the negotiations table"), with an unmotivated public opinion.
b.) From the start, they performed bad against the Greek.
c.) They didn't had really the means for a mechanized war in the Sahara against the British.
d.) They surrendered ("betrayed" the Germans) when the allies began to invade and bomb Italian cities.
Actually, (d.) was pretty much intelligent, and the logical thing to do. Although there was a fierce battle in Italy anyway, at least much of the cultural heritage of Italy, specially Rome, was preserved.
The Germans fought fiercely to the end, in a lost cause, and lost uselessly much of their architectural heritage.
But this are my very personal points of view.
I take no offence. Why should I?PS. No offence, it is not my point of view. It is what people are saying.
We are here just amicably exchanging points of view.
I have a better question: What would have happened if Cruise ....oops I mean von Stauffenberg had succeeded in July 1944?
noting would happen...
we would all now write in forum in German, and by now fascist politicians would be replaced by some more peaceful people.....
so there would be EU with single language - German... and in villages when we visit grandparents we would still speak own languages...
Hitler was in his 60s at the end of the war and his co-ideologues
were also advancing in age. There had already been an assasination
attempt. In that light, how soon would infighting have made many
changes (I can't imagine what) in the aftermath of a German win?
Germany wouldn't have won the war because crazy loon was in power there. The arrogance and blind believe in might of their armies was a demise and worst enemy of Japan and Germany.
If someone more stoic was in power in Germany and emperor of Japan was more pragmatic, they would attack Soviet Union from two sides, finishing it off before they made moves against US. They would consolidate their holdings; Germany: whole Europe, Middle east and Africa; Japan: most of Asia, Australia and pacific islands. Now, their combined GDP and resources would be greater than those of US. Now they would be ready to fight US, though I'm still not convinced if US would loose, I'm not saying win, but just survive.
US would still be the first one with A bomb, a third of global GDP, and top technologies, with stratospheric bombers to deliver A bomb.
We are lucky, it didn't turn this way, and we didn't want to see the total war with 1950 armament. Even if Germany won at the end, we would be living in devastated post atom war world.
As an American with French/German/Scot/Welsh Roots I would like to chime in to defend my country. First I do not think we dominate the world not in the way the European powers did. In a nut shell we are you I have Family members buried in Europe from the first and second world wars that went to fight for wars that did not really affect us. I fought in the Iraq war in 2008 I would love to see a perfect world with perfect people. But we descend from waring tribes and warfare is in our blood and there it will stay. If Germany would have won the war. I think with the exception of people it deemed subhuman life would have went on. without the second world war we would not have near the technological advances we have today. War always gives birth to innovations. But then again I don't blame Germany as a whole people in general tend to believe what their government tells them lies or truth none of us are free of that
Last edited by L.D.Brousse; 11-03-12 at 17:18.
Lusitania and Pearl Harbor?
WWI and WWII didn't affect the US? Are you aware of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor?
Japan is not Germany. The German embassy took out ads warning passengers not to sail on the Lusitania. And dives to the wreck have show it appeared to have carried munitions So I fault my own government for using a civilian ships with passengers to haul war material. Sir I'm more than aware of the wars that The US has fought in. My family has been fighting them since the French and Indian wars myself included