Results 21 to 30 of 58
-
03-04-2012, 03:45 PM #21
1. You are correct. The French saved our arses with advanced weapons that we did not have. But you are incorrect if you think that the French played a role in the fighting. The French casualties were a mere 990 compared to some 25,000 dead and another 25,000 wounded American colonials.
2. Hitler had a goal of world domination. He believed it was his birth right. If you look up the Third Reich you will discover that Hilter called his reign the Third Reich because it was thought that the Third Reich would rule the world. In actuality, he was counting the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich even though it was not a German ruling entity (in lore the Reichs are all German). So in reality Hilter was the Second Reich, but he called it the Third Reich because he believed that military dominance of the world was his destiny.
Had we stayed out of it and waited for him to conquer Europe and Asia we would have been next. Was it in his immediate plans? No. Conquering Europe, Russia, Asia and Africa would have taken decades. But it would be foolish to think that he did not envision taking North America at some point.
3. The British still control territories that they consider profitable (the Virgin Islands, Caymen Islands and Faulklands come to mind). They gave up the ones that were either too hard to defend or no longer held strategic or financial value. Since America has both strategic and economic value it is logical to assume that they would have not voluntarily gave us autonomy.
-
-
03-04-2012, 03:46 PM #22
Why don't you create a country without a standing army and see how long your freedoms last.
-
03-04-2012, 03:53 PM #23
1. You are correct. The French saved our arses with advanced weapons that we did not have. But you are incorrect if you think that the French played a role in the fighting. The French casualties were a mere 990 compared to some 25,000 dead and another 25,000 wounded American colonials.
If I am not mistaken, weren't they the ones who surrounded the British? I think they had supply ships incoming. Everyone was against the British at that point, so I guess France isn't alone. I think Spain had some guys too, etc.
2. Hitler had a goal of world domination. He believed it was his birth right. If you look up the Third Reich you will discover that Hilter called his reign the Third Reich because it was thought that the Third Reich would rule the world. In actuality, he was counting the Holy Roman Empire as the First Reich even though it was not a German ruling entity (in lore the Reichs are all German). So in reality Hilter was the Second Reich, but he called it the Third Reich because he believed that military dominance of the world was his destiny.
Had we stayed out of it and waited for him to conquer Europe and Asia we would have been next. Was it in his immediate plans? No. Conquering Europe, Russia, Asia and Africa would have taken decades. But it would be foolish to think that he did not envision taking North America at some point.
Yes, he had a goal of world domination. But let's be realistic. Millions of people would love to dominate the world. Can anyone actually do it? Doubtful. Hitler was too busy bailing out Italy's butt to conquer the world. Now, if Italy was not part of the Axis Powers, maybe he would have won.
3. The British still control territories that they consider profitable (the Virgin Islands, Caymen Islands and Faulklands come to mind). They gave up the ones that were either too hard to defend or no longer held strategic or financial value. Since America has both strategic and economic value it is logical to assume that they would have not voluntarily gave us autonomy.
What about places like India? Besides a few minor revolts, they got their independence through democratic movements in the 1900s.Andrew Bailey Supercollector: 233/263 not including 1/1's (88.6%); 265/466 cards including 1/1's(56.9%)
-
-
03-04-2012, 03:54 PM #24
That wasn't my question. There are people out there fighting against other countries. How are they protecting our freedoms? Nobody was fighting against us. We jumped in. There is not a single country on Earth who would be capable of taking away our freedoms or liberties. Yes, they could kill a ton of us, but our own government is the real worry.
-
03-04-2012, 03:58 PM #25
-
-
03-04-2012, 04:01 PM #26
A country could bomb us an any moment.
Example (a bad one, but an example) is Pearl Harbor. Granted we knew it was coming, but that is besides the point.
-
03-04-2012, 04:04 PM #27
I think you are referencing a scene from "The Patriot". That may be what happened but the French were here only as observers and advisors. They did not have a significant active military force on our soil.
If anybody had a shot I would say it was him. Had he not started a two front war he would have controlled Europe and Russia by the late 1940's or so. With no significant military Africa would have been easy, no more than 3 or 4 years I am guessing.
Asia would have been the biggest challenge simply because the area is so vast. It is a little known fact that Japan was actually a military power and more powerful than China, and since they were Hitler's ally he already had the strongest military in Asia at his disposal.
No major financial benefit to keeping India. No strategic value to India. It was a no-brainer to cut them loose once they started rebelling. I am not positive but I think the primary value that India had to Britian was crop production.Last edited by duane1969; 03-04-2012 at 04:07 PM.
-
-
03-04-2012, 04:14 PM #28
Had you bothered to read the quote I was responding to you'd see why I was responding how I did. Shrewsbury said they (people serving in the military) are braver, and more courageous than anyone posting here. And in response to something else someone else posted (believe it was shrewsbury in response to me) so are you saying only the soldiers who unfortunately got killed are more brave and courageous than anyone who hasn't been killed even soldiers?
-
03-04-2012, 04:16 PM #29
No, are you in the right thread?
-
03-04-2012, 04:19 PM #30
I think you are referencing a scene from "The Patriot". That may be what happened but the French were here only as observers and advisors. They did not have a significant active military force on our soil.
I was actually going off of what I've been taught for the past 6 years. I've never seen that movie before.
If anybody had a shot I would say it was him. Had he not started a two front war he would have controlled Europe and Russia by the late 1940's or so. With no significant military Africa would have been easy, no more than 3 or 4 years I am guessing.
Asia would have been the biggest challenge simply because the area is so vast. It is a little known fact that Japan was actually a military power and more powerful than China, and since they were Hitler's ally he already had the strongest military in Asia at his disposal.
He was a great military leader, but had his fair share of weaknesses.
No major financial benefit to keeping India. No strategic value to India. It was a no-brainer to cut them loose once they started rebelling. I am not positive but I think the primary value that India had to Britian was crop production.
We were taught the exact opposite. It was a major textile capital for the British, as well as the crops. They were able to get cheap labor from the Indians for many years.
-
Originally Posted by andrewhoya 
