Why do so many people consider WWII a foregone conclusion?

[diesel7013]

After reading through so many threads about WWII, I find it interesting that so many people belive that WWII was a foregone conclusion - that once the US entered the war, the war was over.

A very key point is that the US didn't enter the war until it had been going on for over 2 years ( since '37 in Asia ) and there were many scenarios that could have occured to change the outcome.

1. Germany did NOT have to wage war in the manner that she did. If she had ramped her war economy up to a true wartime economy prior to the Blitz in France - she would have had a larger supply of war material to support the invasion of the Soviet Union. That and a more realistic strategy for the invasion ( would take 12-18 months instead of 6-8 weeks ) and MAYBE it could have been done. Russia was on VERY weak footing during the initial part of the invasion and IF Germany could have made it to Moscow, well, who know??

2. Japan as well did not HAVE to attack the US - She could have just bypassed the US and gone after Siberia instead of the DEI - And maybe a different strategy could have prevented a US unconditional victory - imagine NOT hitting Pearl, but moving on Malaya and the DEI - if the US intervenes and suffers heavy losses - is it possible that US will to wage war at home is not as strong as it was historically and the US is politically motivated to end war early on terms that allow Japan to keep some of the possessions, especailly in DEI when that doesn't affect the US or Britian at all?? ( Remember US will to wage war in Korea and Vietnam a few years later - is that out of the relm of possibility )

So - really, I do believe that once the US entered the war in December of 41, based upon the current situation - the war was a foregone conclusion - the manpower and manufacturing capability of the US - unhindered by war, allowed the Allies to eventually overwhelm the Axis. The US would not suffer Japan short of an unconditional surrender and the same with Germany, especially with the Soviets pushing from the east.

BUT - prior to Dec '41, there are any number of tracks that the Axis powers could have taken to change the outcome - eliminate the Soviets, leave the US alone, and on and on...

This interesting conjecture is why we play wargames - how fun would it be to play WIR if we knew all the time who would win! [:D]

Well - with WITP - we do KNOW who will win...[:D][:D]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: diesel7013

After reading through so many threads about WWII, I find it interesting that so many people belive that WWII was a foregone conclusion - that once the US entered the war, the war was over.

A very key point is that the US didn't enter the war until it had been going on for over 2 years ( since '37 in Asia ) and there were many scenarios that could have occured to change the outcome.

1. Germany did NOT have to wage war in the manner that she did. If she had ramped her war economy up to a true wartime economy prior to the Blitz in France - she would have had a larger supply of war material to support the invasion of the Soviet Union. That and a more realistic strategy for the invasion ( would take 12-18 months instead of 6-8 weeks ) and MAYBE it could have been done. Russia was on VERY weak footing during the initial part of the invasion and IF Germany could have made it to Moscow, well, who know??

Ramp up her economy prior to 1940? How about prior to 1936? At the latest.

2. Japan as well did not HAVE to attack the US - She could have just bypassed the US and gone after Siberia instead of the DEI - And maybe a different strategy could have prevented a US unconditional victory - imagine NOT hitting Pearl, but moving on Malaya and the DEI - if the US intervenes and suffers heavy losses - is it possible that US will to wage war at home is not as strong as it was historically and the US is politically motivated to end war early on terms that allow Japan to keep some of the possessions, especailly in DEI when that doesn't affect the US or Britian at all?? ( Remember US will to wage war in Korea and Vietnam a few years later - is that out of the relm of possibility )

So now we have both Japan and Germany (I suppose) afraid to declare war on America. Two large what-if assumptions. And why, do you suppose, that neither country was well advised to make such declarations of war? (Technically Japan didn't declare war on us.)

So - really, I do believe that once the US entered the war in December of 41, based upon the current situation - the war was a foregone conclusion - the manpower and manufacturing capability of the US - unhindered by war, allowed the Allies to eventually overwhelm the Axis. The US would not suffer Japan short of an unconditional surrender and the same with Germany, especially with the Soviets pushing from the east.

BUT - prior to Dec '41, there are any number of tracks that the Axis powers could have taken to change the outcome - eliminate the Soviets, leave the US alone, and on and on...

All of which assumes the American public would have continued to sit idly by and wait for the Germans to develop the V3 or V4 rocket and aim that at New York, or the Japanese to inflate enough giant balloons to menace the west coast.

This interesting conjecture is why we play wargames - how fun would it be to play WIR if we knew all the time who would win! [:D]

Well, the Germans had no chance to defeat the Soviets in the board wargame Fire in the East. On the other hand, with both of Gary's two computer games on the Russian campaign it was easy for the Germans to roll. Which do you think I preferred playing the most? Which would you have preferred to play?

[Redd]

If you want to play a WW II game where you have the opportunity to radically change history, try Hearts of Iron from Paradox entertainment. With that game getting anything to actually resemble history is the hard part[:D].

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Redd

If you want to play a WW II game where you have the opportunity to radically change history, try Hearts of Iron from Paradox entertainment. With that game getting anything to actually resemble history is the hard part[:D].

Thanks for the warning. [:)]

[scott64]

You have to remember Hitler was crazy..[:'(]

[mdiehl]

After reading through so many threads about WWII, I find it interesting that so many people belive that WWII was a foregone conclusion - that once the US entered the war, the war was over.

Well, I note that some of your rebuttals are based on the premise that the war may have come out differently for the Axis if they had not gotten in combat with the US. That would seem to reduce to an opinion that once the US entered the war the outcome was essentially a foregone conclusion.

That's my position frankly. At least if you define the outcome as "unconditional surrender of Axis powers." The pathway to getting there, however, might have been more frightful. Visions of poison gas bombs rather than HE falling from Heinkels. Indeed I am *quite* surprised that it never happened, given the tendency on the part of 2 of the 3 Axis powers for inflicting unparalleled brutality on subject populations in occupied nations.

I can only see the Allies *not* winning if somehow a suite of consistent disasterous blunders were consistently produced by Allied operational planners. Short of an entire Army staffed entirely by Montgomeries and McClellans I can't imagine ANY way that could happen.

1. Germany did NOT have to wage war in the manner that she did. If she had ramped her war economy up to a true wartime economy prior to the Blitz in France - she would have had a larger supply of war material to support the invasion of the Soviet Union. That and a more realistic strategy for the invasion ( would take 12-18 months instead of 6-8 weeks ) and MAYBE it could have been done. Russia was on VERY weak footing during the initial part of the invasion and IF Germany could have made it to Moscow, well, who know??

Say 1933 and maybe you can get the economic strength you need. But I do not think that Germany could have developed that sort of economic strength without a world market... which implies a non-hostile suite of consumers -- which requires that Germany would be something other than what it intrinsically was (a military expansionist state bent on genocide ruled by the equivalent of Organized Crime Kingpins with moral sensibilities that make Nero seem saintly).

2. Japan as well did not HAVE to attack the US - She could have just bypassed the US and gone after Siberia instead of the DEI - And maybe a different strategy could have prevented a US unconditional victory - imagine NOT hitting Pearl, but moving on Malaya and the DEI - if the US intervenes and suffers heavy losses - is it possible that US will to wage war at home is not as strong as it was historically and the US is politically motivated to end war early on terms that allow Japan to keep some of the possessions, especailly in DEI when that doesn't affect the US or Britian at all?? ( Remember US will to wage war in Korea and Vietnam a few years later - is that out of the relm of possibility )

Well, Japan DID go after Siberia and was soundly thrashed in 1938 by the USSR. I can't see the US ending the war on terms that give concessions to Japan, because it was just as easy to not go to war in the first place by caving to Japanese demands. At most I think a "non Pearl Harbor" strategy would have played out much the same as the US Phony War in the Atlantci with Germany in 1941. I envision FDR providing intel about Japanese asset movement to the UK and making a "lend lease" deal to put Indonesian oil facilities under direct US administration. I hold that POV because (a) it's what the Japanese feared, (b) it's what the US was doing (recon wise anyhow), and (c) it's what senior level US admin folks were floating at the time (and they *had to be* representing FDR's opinion).

BUT - prior to Dec '41, there are any number of tracks that the Axis powers could have taken to change the outcome - eliminate the Soviets, leave the US alone, and on and on...

I don't think so. Japan's strongest hope was to take territories that were easy to strategically isolate because there was no way her industry could compete. Heck, they were pretty much losing to the Chinese by 1941 anyhow in the sense that (a) no end to the war was achievable, and (b) the war in China was bankrupting Japan. China was the worst sort of Tar Baby for Japan. The only moments of success for Japan occurred where they were able to identify valuable assets, strategically isolate them, and seize the asset in a lightning quick campaign. That's why the Japanese lost every campaign where the cards weren't all in their favor as a set-piece battle from the outset (Burma, New Guinea, Guadalcanaly, Nomonhan).

The best Japan could have hoped for was to try to accomplish final victory against China. But since Japan was already under oil and steel embargo with assets in the US frozen there was no way they could attempt that without seizing the SRA -- which ultimately meant fighting the US.

This interesting conjecture is why we play wargames - how fun would it be to play WIR if we knew all the time who would win!

No problem for me. It's not about "who wins" so much as "how you get there." IMO any WW2 PTO sim should end with Japanese unconditional surrender. One that does not has probably erred. But if "game victory" is defined as something other than "negotiated peace on terms favorable to Japan" then there is no reason why a historical SIMULATION game can't be "Cruelly realistic to Japan" and at the same time "Allow the Japanese player to win the GAME (but not the war)."

[pasternakski]

Oh, goody. Another silly "hey, look, I understand WWII even better than the actual history did, and I can prove it by making ridiculous, unsupported assertions" thread. Give me a break.

The Zero was far superior to the Wildcat.

How do I know? The Bible tells me so...

[diesel7013]

So - Past - you believe that there was NOTHING that could have occured during WWII to change the outcome to some major degree or other? Germany defeating Russia? The Allies losing at Normandy and Russia not stopping till the Atlantic? Japan NOT attacking the US directly and an uninterested US NOT fully behind a war vs. Japan? and on on on?

Certainly NOT making unsupported assertions, just throwing out some scenarios that COULD have played out with some different decision makings skills -

For the most part, that's why we study history - to discover what different decisions might lead to different outcomes - to learn from mistakes and learn from successes - and then to hopefully make better decisons ourselves -

WWII is a fertial area for us to discuss military operations because there were so many fulcrum points where different decisions might have lead to different outcomes - even if there were not MAJOR strategic changes - might not minor operational changes have affected history as we know it as well?? I enjoy reading different peoples opinion on the topics,

Personnally, I believe that prior to 1942, the Axis COULD have 'won' WWII, if only to negotiate a better deal than unconditional surrender. BUT - the attack on Pearl left the US enraged, and because of that, they were willing to undergo a significant change in their home life and standard of living to support a MASSIVE military build up to support the entire Allied war effort and to also demand unconditional surrender for Japan ( and later Germany ).
One question I have asked, and has not been really addressed by the forum is - IF Japan had not hit Pearl, and focused on DEI instead - and the US later went after Japan on our own to protect the DEI and Burma theatre - would the US public have supported the MAJOR military industrial build up that occured historically and reduced their standard of living, ect.. for the war years - or would democracy been a hinderance?

Look at Korea and Vietnam - both limited wars and public opinion quickly turned against the wars, and now - with a war in Iraq and Afganistan and NO MAJOR impact to our economy - we complain about gas going up to $2.00 a gallon.

Would the US public of 1940, getting out of the depression, and still suffering high unemployment ( comparatively ) been willing to gear up for a World War??

Or, would they have continued to demand social spending, ect...

Just wondering...

[moses]

I tried to discuss the point but am generally shouted down.

You wonder why nations go thru the trouble of fighting the wars.

It depends on what you accept as a given. Most who claim that the allies can only win accept the following at least as fixed:

1.) Both the Russian and US economies will outpreform all pre-war expectations.
2.) The German economy will underperform.
3.) The Russians will fight with insane determination and ruthlessness.

If all three of these things occur then I'd say it looks pretty bleak for the axis powers.

If these things are not fixed but variable to SOME degree then all bets are off.

BTW I am not claiming that # 1, 2,and 3 are not true. Simply that it is concievable that for example the american economy might not have gotten on-track until later than it did. It is concievable that something might have caused Russian resistance to be less fanatical. etc.

Now of course everyone will pile on. But as I've said before this is a philisophical question. How much could history have possibly varied from what actually happened. Some will say not at all. Others will argue for varying ranges of possibilities. Neither side can be proven right or wrong.

Nonetheless I predict much anger on this thread.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: diesel7013

So - Past - you believe that there was NOTHING that could have occured during WWII to change the outcome to some major degree or other?

Not what I said.

What you generally see in the forums (repeated so far here in humdrum fashion) is "I think ... (conclusory statement) (unsupported assertion) (citation to self or other similarly reliable source as authority)" - gargle, expectorate, rinse, repeat ad absurdem.

What's the point? You're not fooling anybody. You're bored. Nobody respects you. You want desperately to be heard. You feel that your life up to this point has been meaningless. So, you make a profound statement on an inconsequential wargame site's discussion board. Then, you go back to your meaningless life.

Unless you decide to do something really noticeable, like strap on a dynamite vest or something.

[Tristanjohn]

Man, even by your standards this last one was brutal. There's no call to beat anyone to pulp. An occasional spanking will do.

[Brausepaul]

WWII wasn't a foregone conclusion, and neither were all the other wars before. Each and every war is full of surprises and twistings. How educated people can conclude by comparing production numbers is absolutely beyond me, history has proven more than once that the outnumbered force or nation is capable of achieving a decisive victory.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

WWII wasn't a foregone conclusion, and neither were all the other wars before. Each and every war is full of surprises and twistings. How educated people can conclude by comparing production numbers is absolutely beyond me, history has proven more than once that the outnumbered force or nation is capable of achieving a decisive victory.

This is less and less the case as technology marches on, and as the gap between the haves and have-nots with respect to military power widens. It's the situation now that if America failed militarily, this defeat should only be due to a lack of support for our military back home, for there is no country which might realistically challenge us in the field. And this is good thing, not a bad thing--assuming America never develops a taste for colonialism, and I see no indication of that.

In World War II the situation was fundamentally different, yet still grossly favored America's position juxtaposed to its enemies.

Our country was effectively out of reach of those enemies, which meant that our industrial base could be expanded almost literally to infinity, the only restricting factor on that dynamic being time. Meanwhile, we had close Allies in close proximity to our enemies, from which shores we could more-or-less easily launch any variety of military actions against those enemies at times and places of our choosing. At least that's how matters stood at the beginning of 1942. As it turned out, we developed unheard of naval technology which allowed us in large part to conduct sustained operations against Japan pretty much at will solely from the sea without dependency on those friendly shores, when we so chose.

Our projection into the ETO was similar in 1942, our country mounting a vast armada to simply ship whatever was needed for the first step (North Africa) toward the eventual liberation of Europe from Germany. We did use England as a vast staging area for the final assault on France, and that was convenient, but had England not been available I suppose other (undoubtedly naval) means would have been found to win that war in the end anyway. For example, imagine an unlimited build-up of American military potential in North Africa as a prelude to an eventual invasion of the European continent. This was very possible, and had England not been in the picture I imagine something similar would have occurred.

Meanwhile, our enemies were at our mercy. Germany had no naval potential, so she could only sit and await her fate. And Japan, which did have a strong navy, did not have a strong enough navy to fight America at even remotely even odds from 1943 onward. Had the timeline of the war been shifted do to some (very) unlikely fall of England, I can only try to imagine the sort of United States Navy which would have been the result. Think perhaps in terms twice what we actually did build, which was already larger than all the fleets of the rest of the world combined by 1945.

The point I wish to make is that cost was no object, and the technology was already there and being implemented as fast as America could make that happen. And when America puts its mind to it, and its back into it, simply incredible things can happen. Fast.

At the end, America's economy was only fractionally geared for war. Had all of America's economy been turned over to war it is hard to figure what might have been produced, except to say with utter confidence that anything and everything needed would have been produced, and in short order. Indeed, had any such scenario unfolded, it might be the case that America's economy today would stand twice or even triple its actual size in relation to the rest of the world. Of course I'm pulling those numbers out of thin air, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. (This assumes even greater devastation in Europe and Japan, with larger effort still needed to rebuild those places, which suggests a correspondingly greater growth in our own industrial base to accomplish this chore.)

Consider this. After the war America had much to do at home, rearranging the industrial and social furniture and all that, yet it experienced no problem whatsoever to rebuild much of Europe and all of Japan (not to mention other sundry efforts of similar nature all around the world), almost as an afterthought, into stronger and more stable industrial bases than either country had ever been or ever dreamed to be. In a curious manner of speaking, World War II was just about the best thing that could have happened to Germany and Japan. Getting around the death, mayhem and carnage, both these countries came up smelling like the proverbial rose. And thank you very much, Uncle Sam.

It was kind of like a game of poker, where neither Germany nor Japan had many chips, Germany being something of a novice to the game, Japan not even knowing the rules. Now compare that to America: an expert at the game with vast experience, a shark with aces up both sleeves dealing seconds from a stacked deck, with an unlimited line of credit at the bank across the street.

Why the result of that surprises anyone is something I couldn't say. Wishful thinking?

[Brausepaul]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
...Why the result of that surprises anyone is something I couldn't say. Wishful thinking?

Wait...do you want to imply that questioning your point is equivalent to wishing a national socialist Europe?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
...Why the result of that surprises anyone is something I couldn't say. Wishful thinking?

Wait...do you want to imply that questioning your point is equivalent to wishing a national socialist Europe?

Not at all. I often find myself "wishing" over and over again that Germany would produce a few more tanks before she heads into Russia in 1941 as I read that history, but it never actually happens, and at no juncture do I really want Germany to win the war, only to stomp Stalin into the dust.

That's a kind of idle and harmless daydreaming exercise, not the "wishful thinking" per se I had in mind, which applies more to a person's reasoning process and leads inevitably to dubious conclusions. Case in point: threads of this nature, without number, where the same discussion essentially repeats itself over and over, are started due to someone's "wishful thinking" that Germany and Japan might have defeated the Allies . . . some way, somehow . . . with fantastic what-ifs presented to rationalize this forlorn belief . . . and no matter how much reasoned argument is presented to dispel the notion, that belief nevertheless persists . . . because it's based after all on . . . "wishful thinking" . . . and then another thread is started. . . .

It's all over these boards, in fact this forum specializes in just that kind of thinking.

[Marc]

ORIGINAL: diesel7013
we complain about gas going up to $2.00 a gallon.

Hey gas is really cheap in your country. If my calculation is correct then in Germany we are paying $6.00 per gallon. So please don't complain because you don't have a reason to. [:-]
Marc

[Tom Hunter]

A little time on my hands so I will break a rule and get involved

In reply to diesel

"1. Germany did NOT have to wage war in the manner that she did. " But Hitler did have to wage war that way, because that is how Hitler waged war and he was in charge of Germany.

"2. Japan as well did not HAVE to attack the US" This is a little bit more interesting because the Japanese could have gone for the NEI and maybe Malaya. That would have made the war different. But again the controlling factor is the political leadership and they wanted to attack the USA.

To Mdiel "Short of an entire Army staffed entirely by Montgomeries and McClellans " Montgomery and McClellan are not comparable, you can compare Montgomery to Grant but Grant was a much better general. What Montgomery and Grant have in common is a willingness to fight and a large number of victories, McClellan did not have either of those.

The fundamental point is correct, there is no saving your country from really bad generals. But anyone making the argument that the Allies (or anyone) would have lost if thier generals had been worse is either a novice or an idiot, possibly both. I am not saying mdiehl made this arguement, I am saying he cut it off.

Otherwise an excellent post, the economic strength argument "Say 1933" is particularly strong.

"So - Past - you believe that there was NOTHING that could have occured during WWII to change the outcome to some major degree or other?"

There was one critical point in 1940 when the King wanted Halifax to form a government. There is little question that Halifax would have opened negociations with the Nazis and that would have been a huge disaster for all humanity. There is a VERY strong argument that the critical battle of WWII was the political fight to get Churchill into the Prime Minister position in 1940.

My opinion is that focusing on military events for a change in the war is misguided because waging WWII required military, political and economic power. The economic power was the most difficult to change and the military power was also fairly stable, both of these things could be changed but it took months or even years to enlarge war production or develop superior doctrine. Political power could and did change over night, Churchill forming a government being one example, Hirohito deciding that Japan should surrender is another and the failed assasination attempt against Hitler would also have caused major changes.

Of course the military discussion is fun because it is so well documented and economics is fun because we are so unsophisticated about it.

But really I am just glad the Allies won.

[BossGnome]

My god Tristanjohn, could you be a little more nationalist please?[8|]

Let's see... america's land forces have been time and again not to say ridiculed but... to employ your words "challenged in the field"... The Korean War, and, even more so Vietnam were two very good examples. This is not to say that american land forces are weak, this is to say they are, and continiue to be, the weakest part of your military, and can and are being continuously "challenged in the field". Look at Iraq for god's sake... However, there is no denying that both the airforce and the navy are extremely powerful.

You seem to believe that building a big-ass military = getting a strong economy?

At the end, America's economy was only fractionally geared for war. Had all of America's economy been turned over to war it is hard to figure what might have been produced, except to say with utter confidence that anything and everything needed would have been produced, and in short order. Indeed, had any such scenario unfolded, it might be the case that America's economy today would stand twice or even triple its actual size in relation to the rest of the world.

What?? please tell me how that adds up? Everything needed to win the war would EVENTUALLY have been produced, yes, that is a given. However, tell me how in the heck building more ships and guns during a LONGER world war II would help america's struggling economy TODAY!?![&:]

Ps about the Oil problem go see here... http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: BossGnome

My god Tristanjohn, could you be a little more nationalist please?[8|]

Maybe I should be at that . . . considering I've not been at all so far in this thread.

Let's see... america's land forces have been time and again not to say ridiculed but... to employ your words "challenged in the field"... The Korean War, and, even more so Vietnam were two very good examples.

Good examples of what? It wasn't "American" forces in Korea (at first) who were pushed back but United Nations forces. And when America did move in it did pretty well, and on a veritable shoestring at that.

Vietnam? Is that a joke? As far as I know we never lost a major engagement in Vietnam. As a matter of record our country pulled out in 1975, but that was due to political pressure back home.

But in any event, we're not talking about Korea or Vietnam in this thread, we're talking about World War II.

This is not to say that american land forces are weak, this is to say they are, and continiue to be, the weakest part of your military, and can and are being continuously "challenged in the field". Look at Iraq for god's sake... However, there is no denying that both the airforce and the navy are extremely powerful.

American troops today are better trained and equipped than ever before. A case might also be made that they're better motivated than at any time other than World War II, and for all I know the morale of our troops might even surpass that high standard.

Iraq? Let's see. We have fanatical ragheads armed with vests of TNT who are pleased to kill themselves for some terrible religious ideal as long as they can also take a few others with them. And the odd sniper or two. And from that scenario you want to prove . . . what? That American infantry is the pits?

Our military has three branches, and the infantry (loosely speaking) performs quite well from everything I've been told. Maybe there's a ground-pounder in here who has recently served who would dispute that with me, but I doubt it.

You seem to believe that building a big-ass military = getting a strong economy?

Why would you think I believed that? I haven't written any such thing. It's more the other way around insofar as a strong economy allows one to produce and maintain a large military force.

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

At the end, America's economy was only fractionally geared for war. Had all of America's economy been turned over to war it is hard to figure what might have been produced, except to say with utter confidence that anything and everything needed would have been produced, and in short order. Indeed, had any such scenario unfolded, it might be the case that America's economy today would stand twice or even triple its actual size in relation to the rest of the world.

What?? please tell me how that adds up? Everything needed to win the war would EVENTUALLY have been produced, yes, that is a given. However, tell me how in the heck building more ships and guns during a LONGER world war II would help america's struggling economy TODAY!?![&:]

We weren't just building planes and ships and guns and whatnot, we were developing new technologies as well as producing loads of regular consumer goods. My point was that the longer the war might have lasted then the longer America would have pored most of its gross domestic product into reinvestment of the infrastructure, most notably in areas of military research and production, which would have inevitably left America with a larger working base than she actually enjoyed after the war.

What's hard about that to understand?

In point of fact, America did what she did during World War II with one hand tied behind her back, so to speak. At no time was this country fully mobilized in any manner, shape or form during World War II. The extent of "unpleasantness" for those back home amounted to cutting back on beef roasts, with somewhat limited gas for weekend excursions, assuming you were fortunate enough to have a car--and I might add that immediately after the war anyone who wanted a car got one, and in whatever color he chose. But meanwhile there were proms, movie theaters, and cards on Saturday night. Baseball, Mom and apple pie endured.

Now if you consider that chauvinistic, more power to you. I consider it simple truth.

[diesel7013]

Not what I said.

What you generally see in the forums (repeated so far here in humdrum fashion) is "I think ... (conclusory statement) (unsupported assertion) (citation to self or other similarly reliable source as authority)" - gargle, expectorate, rinse, repeat ad absurdem.

What's the point? You're not fooling anybody. You're bored. Nobody respects you. You want desperately to be heard. You feel that your life up to this point has been meaningless. So, you make a profound statement on an inconsequential wargame site's discussion board. Then, you go back to your meaningless life.

Unless you decide to do something really noticeable, like strap on a dynamite vest or something.

Nothing so brave as one who will stand in anonymity and criticze others... You must be sooo proud