US General: We Can Successfully Attack Iran

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlotte408
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

The United States gave up the vast majority of the bases it acquired during WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. For various reasons.

France wanted us out. Fine. So we left. [Although France went ahead and spent BILLIONS to develop their own nuclear warheads, missiles, and aircraft.] Ditto, the Philippines; although the eruption of Mount Pinatubo got us out of there somewhat ahead of schedule. Ditto, Puerto Rico.

Bases in Thailand and various Pacific Islands and Morocco and Libya: We’re not there anymore.

Sometimes a friendly government would like us to stick around to act as a deterrent against aggression, such as South Korea … and it serves a training and logistical purpose for us.

When some crisis or other occurs, we negotiate with the host nation for basing rights. Some agree and some disagree. When the need goes away, we go away.

I asked some other poster to provide details of all the overseas bases and he was unable to provide any actual details. Just a bunch of generalities which didn’t pan out. Deliberately confusing “installations” with “bases”. An installation could be a rental locker at an airport in Karachi. A base could be a tent city in Iraq. And they open and close as needed.

In this age of internet and publicly available satellite photos, there are no secrets anymore.

No generalities or global statements, please. Specifics only.

So, sorry, but I just don’t understand your comment.
This list is sufficient, I think:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Frankly it doesn’t matter if a base is a tent city or not. The point is not how permanent a military presence is, but rather that it’s there at all. As for whether a foreign government wants us there, they typically would. We provide national security, and deterrent to their enemies, for them that they would have to provide on their own otherwise. Japan is a perfect example of this. Just because a country wants us there doesn’t mean we should be there.

We also don’t need to be involved in every “crisis” all over the world; raising the point that we negotiate for basing rights just begs the question. You assume that we must or should be involved in “crises” around the globe.

The point is that bases in Japan are not necessary to provide for our national security, nor are bases in Afghanistan, at this point, for that matter. The new base in Australia is a total joke when it comes to national defense.

Peace and God bless!
 
You do realize that is 2008 right? After two years of the democrats “doing something about fuel prices”.
Yes, during the last year of the Bush presidency—the presidency of a leader who was always in bed with Big Oil. Then things started easing off leading up to the election…trying to grease the skids for McCain, I suspect—a parting gift from W to his own party.

And I do not remember increases in the time period to which you refer. We didn’t have them in this region, at least.
 
Bases all over the world are not necessary preparation for a world war that isn’t even remotely on the horizon. They certainly aren’t necessary for any likely conflicts we might be involved in that aren’t of our own making.

Peace and God bless!
Bases in North Korea are in preparation for the difficulties of that region there, and bases in the ME are in preparation for what might happen there.

Military exercises between America and a myriad of different countries build ties between America and those countries better than diplomacy ever can They also serve the purpose of those countries not going to Americas enemies in order to fulfill their security needs.

If Egypt was not building military relationships with USSR in the early 60’s the Seven Day War would not have even happened, the West Bank would already be Palestine.
But America lost that kind of relationship. When Egypt turned away from USSR and entered into an arrangement with America, the result was a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
 
Bases in North Korea are in preparation for the difficulties of that region there, and bases in the ME are in preparation for what might happen there.

Military exercises between America and a myriad of different countries build ties between America and those countries better than diplomacy ever can They also serve the purpose of those countries not going to Americas enemies in order to fulfill their security needs.

If Egypt was not building military relationships with USSR in the early 60’s the Seven Day War would not have even happened, the West Bank would already be Palestine.
But America lost that kind of relationship. When Egypt turned away from USSR and entered into an arrangement with America, the result was a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt.
Again, all of this begs the question. Do we need to be involved in “difficulties” in these regions? I think not, so the question-begging fails. This argument especially fails in a post-Cold War world, but to me it fails even during the Cold War; “containment” was an unnecessary policy given the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed on itself.

Peace and God bless!
 
We’re hearing the drum beat ramp up just in time for elections and pulling out of Iraq. Do the war contractors miss the cash cow of Iraq already?

A nuclear Iran can’t seriously threaten the U.S., so I’m not buying it. This seems like nothing but 2003 WMD talk all over again, this time coming from a Nobel Peace prize recipient’s administration. I don’t know what’s sadder: that our government is talking this way so soon after the Iraq disaster ends, or that people seem to be buying it.

Peace and God bless!
Agreed!
 
This list is sufficient, I think:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases

Frankly it doesn’t matter if a base is a tent city or not. The point is not how permanent a military presence is, but rather that it’s there at all. As for whether a foreign government wants us there, they typically would. We provide national security, and deterrent to their enemies, for them that they would have to provide on their own otherwise. Japan is a perfect example of this. Just because a country wants us there doesn’t mean we should be there.

We also don’t need to be involved in every “crisis” all over the world; raising the point that we negotiate for basing rights just begs the question. You assume that we must or should be involved in “crises” around the globe.

The point is that bases in Japan are not necessary to provide for our national security, nor are bases in Afghanistan, at this point, for that matter. The new base in Australia is a total joke when it comes to national defense.

Peace and God bless!
Sorry, but your post is incomprehensible to me.

None of what you have posted is “self-explanatory”.

What makes you think that if the United States pulls back from overseas bases, that the security of the United States would be enhanced?

Seriously, how would isolationism [people who have thought about this for a couple of hundred years have given it a label] help our situation?

The idea of not having an effective overseas military presence failed as early as 1805. And it has failed repeatedly ever since. We have “stood down” repeatedly and it was only perceived as weakness on our part.

The United States DOES have enemies. There are regimes/governments/rulers overseas who do, in fact, have evil intent against the United States.

So you really need to explain clearly how your idea would work.
 
Sorry, but your post is incomprehensible to me.

None of what you have posted is “self-explanatory”.

What makes you think that if the United States pulls back from overseas bases, that the security of the United States would be enhanced?

Seriously, how would isolationism [people who have thought about this for a couple of hundred years have given it a label] help our situation?

The idea of not having an effective overseas military presence failed as early as 1805. And it has failed repeatedly ever since. We have “stood down” repeatedly and it was only perceived as weakness on our part.

The United States DOES have enemies. There are regimes/governments/rulers overseas who do, in fact, have evil intent against the United States.

So you really need to explain clearly how your idea would work.
First of all I’ve never proposed isolationism, so let’s take that off the table right now. I’m not saying that military actions should be all together abandoned; I’m not a pacifist, I just believe in a measured use of force as a last resort rather than the posturing of war-power. You know, I follow Catholic teaching on the matter.

Pulling back our bases promotes U.S. security because a) our troops will be here, defending us, rather than in Afghanistan defending a corrupt regime put in by us that angers militant Muslims world-wide (as just one example) and b) it would save us a LOT of money that could be used, through tax cuts, to raise the standard of living of people here at home.

I don’t disagree that there are regimes that have evil intentions against the U.S., but I ask you to name one of them that doesn’t have grievances against the U.S. for our military interventions. There are no Imperial Japans out there right now that want to expand at the expense of the U.S., and there are no Nazi Germany’s out there with the capability and desire of overrunning a continent to promote a world-wide ideology of evil.

Being perceived as weak by enemies who are weak is not really a problem in my mind. Let them perceive whatever they want, it doesn’t mean they can do anything they want against us. If they pose a credible threat then we can and will act against them, but having military bases in other countries that anger these people and/or cost us billions of dollars isn’t helping us in the long run. The Taliban is not about to overrun the U.S., and never posed a threat to us (Al Qaeda is not the Taliban), but our on-going war against the Taliban and occupation of Afghanistan along with our “covert” military actions in Pakistan are producing more enemies of the U.S. every day.

Peace and God bless!
 
If Obama mindlessly follows Bushian “logic” and sleepwalks into this thing, a lot of Americans will face some unpleasant choices after the Strait of Hormuz closes.

“What do I spend my money on? Gasoline? Or things like house rent, food, medicine, and clothing?”
And what makes you think that Iran will not tinker with the Strait anyway when they get the idea that they can do so without consequences? The worst thing that can happen in the face of aggression is to have a weak leader. Forget your hatred of Bush…do we have a strong leader now? I think not and neither does Iran.🤷
 
On Germany and Japan, Germany was justifiably angered by the harsh Treaty of Versailles that was imposed upon them. The Allies won as decisively as they did only because they had the eventual support of the US. Japan attacked us because of the oil embargo we had against them. So even in these two cases, we have the problem of unintended consequences from international meddling.
 
And what makes you think that Iran will not tinker with the Strait anyway when they get the idea that they can do so without consequences? The worst thing that can happen in the face of aggression is to have a weak leader. Forget your hatred of Bush…do we have a strong leader now? I think not and neither does Iran.🤷
Despite all the facile comparisons being made by Republicans, this isn’t Munich in 1938.

Bush has nothing to do with it.

They don’t even have to close the Strait—just making it more dangerous will cause the insurers to raise premium rates for the oil tanker owners, and they’ll pass on the cost to the consumer at the gas pump in the form of higher prices.

And I have yet to hear any Republican say how he’d protect ordinary people from the consequences of hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz. Do you seriously think they give a flying scat omelet? I don’t.

I have little doubt Obama will do what needs to be done, if push comes to shove. But it’s not a decision to undertake lightly. That’s a far-off place, at the end of a LONG supply line, and it’s hedged in with land in almost every direction—plenty of opportunity for all sorts of attacks.
 
First of all I’ve never proposed isolationism, so let’s take that off the table right now. I’m not saying that military actions should be all together abandoned; I’m not a pacifist, I just believe in a measured use of force as a last resort rather than the posturing of war-power. You know, I follow Catholic teaching on the matter.

Pulling back our bases promotes U.S. security because a) our troops will be here, defending us, rather than in Afghanistan defending a corrupt regime put in by us that angers militant Muslims world-wide (as just one example) and b) it would save us a LOT of money that could be used, through tax cuts, to raise the standard of living of people here at home.

I don’t disagree that there are regimes that have evil intentions against the U.S., but I ask you to name one of them that doesn’t have grievances against the U.S. for our military interventions. There are no Imperial Japans out there right now that want to expand at the expense of the U.S., and there are no Nazi Germany’s out there with the capability and desire of overrunning a continent to promote a world-wide ideology of evil.

Being perceived as weak by enemies who are weak is not really a problem in my mind. Let them perceive whatever they want, it doesn’t mean they can do anything they want against us. If they pose a credible threat then we can and will act against them, but having military bases in other countries that anger these people and/or cost us billions of dollars isn’t helping us in the long run. The Taliban is not about to overrun the U.S., and never posed a threat to us (Al Qaeda is not the Taliban), but our on-going war against the Taliban and occupation of Afghanistan along with our “covert” military actions in Pakistan are producing more enemies of the U.S. every day.

Peace and God bless!
Withdrawing our military to within our own borders does not guarantee our own safety. That approach to national security was proven to be obsolete and absolutely stopped prior to World War II. The idea that we could defend our borders went away with the invention of the airplane. [And there are some even today that do NOT want to defend our borders.]

With airplanes and the advent of cyberspace, which is real, adversaries can cripple our country easily just by reaching out to us.

What emerged over time, was the ability to defend in depth … you use your intelligence to figure out who our adversaries are and what their intentions and capabilities are.

And then you figure out what countermeasures to employ.

We were surprised by the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. And we have been surprised repeatedly thereafter … the Berlin Blockade for example, and the Berlin Wall. The invasion of South Korea by North Korea. The takeover of numerous countries in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. The instigation of the Greek Civil War and before that the Spanish Civil War.

After a while, you start to get the idea that maybe we should not be surprised anymore. So we start to take a look around and catalog who is creating the takeovers.

This is not new stuff. Even for the United States. Basic intelligence gathering 101.

President George Washington warned about “foreign entanglements” and yet a very few years later, around 1805, President Thomas Jefferson found himself at war with the pirates in northern Africa. And since we didn’t have any decent intelligence gathering capability, we were forced to rely on the Brits, French and Italians, who all had their own agendas.

The Barbary Pirates of Tripoli and of north Africa terrorized the Mediterranean from 1492 until the mid-1800’s or so. 300 years! These are the same Islamic radicals that we are dealing with today!

That was 1805 when Jefferson got involved overseas. And in 1812, the United States was invaded by England which landed in New Orleans and also burned Washington DC.

We probably had no business getting involved in World War I. But somehow, President Woodrow Wilson, after promising not to, did. And it goes on.

When the forces of Communism seized Russia in 1917, that event triggered a whole giant tsunami of military and political events seeking to overthrow governments all over the world. Read “The Black Book of Communism” and “Fire in the Minds of Men”.

Read the three volume book by Larry Tart “Freedom Through Vigilance” and the single volume, “The Price of Vigilance”.

You read the Old Testament … in Genesis and Exodus … they were instructed by God to send out spies.

Everybody for hundreds of years has sent out spies to find out what other people are doing.

Arguably, the most naive country in the world is the United States. One of our presidents said that “Gentlemen do not read one anothers’ mail.” And disbanded our small intelligence operation.

More recently, … read Dino Brugioni’s book, “Eyes in the Sky”

What is going on today? Well, there are thousands of cyber attacks on our infrastructure on a daily basis. China has an extremely active espionage operation going on within the United States. Militant Islamic extremists are very active. Russia is active. Cuba and Venezuela.

They don’t need to land and invade.

They can just use cyber warfare to steal your money. They can mine the Straits of Malacca to disrupt your oil supply. Or the oil supply of your friends.
 
On Germany and Japan, Germany was justifiably angered by the harsh Treaty of Versailles that was imposed upon them. The Allies won as decisively as they did only because they had the eventual support of the US. Japan attacked us because of the oil embargo we had against them. So even in these two cases, we have the problem of unintended consequences from international meddling.
World War I was an outgrowth of the previous unending train of European wars.

The Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I was harsh on Germany. But not Japan. Japan was one of the allies during World War I. Japan made out just fine.

Japan had invaded China back in 1932 and treated the Chinese, Manchurians and Koreans very badly. And that angered the Europeans and Americans which had close ties to those countries. Japan has always imported oil. This is not a surprise. When DuPont invented nylon, that took away the Japanese market for silk used for womens’ stockings. And that ended Japan’s foreign exchange. Instead of innovating, after all silk is a desirable kind of thread and textile [that’s what fashion designers do … they innovate], Japan decided to become militarily aggressive, which was stupid because THEY HAD NO OIL!!

Japan had to capture the nearest oil source which was the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia], but there was the famous “5-5-3” naval treaty specifically designed to deny Japan enough ships to sustain a naval campaign against the Dutch East Indies. All of this was well known and well calculated long before WWII.

After World War II, Japan finally figured out that they could innovate in various manufactured products. But it took one heck of a battle to get them to use innovation instead of military force.

The United States had no business getting involved in World War I. That Zimmerman Telegram business was nothing more than a headline ploy and was forgotten two weeks later. World War I not only adversely impacted Germany, but it also just about bankrupted England and France and Italy, as well.

The United States got involved in World War I and World War II because of the very effective operations of British intelligence in the U.S.

But Germany had no more business invading its neighbors than did France or Italy or England. And the villain was Stalin, who supported Germany with oil … figuring that another war with England would bankrupt both Germany and England, and then he would swoop in and capture both.

Japan’s long-term energy shortage has been a continuous problem. They CANNOT AFFORD to buy all of the oil they need without some valuable exchange products. So, they found that nuclear-generate electricity would provide what they needed to run their industry. Right now they are arguing internally about restarting their 48 or so nuclear reactors which were shut down after the earthquake and tsunami.

hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html

djysrv.blogspot.com/
 
Despite all the facile comparisons being made by Republicans, this isn’t Munich in 1938.

Bush has nothing to do with it.

They don’t even have to close the Strait—just making it more dangerous will cause the insurers to raise premium rates for the oil tanker owners, and they’ll pass on the cost to the consumer at the gas pump in the form of higher prices.

And I have yet to hear any Republican say how he’d protect ordinary people from the consequences of hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz. Do you seriously think they give a flying scat omelet? I don’t.

I have little doubt Obama will do what needs to be done, if push comes to shove. But it’s not a decision to undertake lightly. That’s a far-off place, at the end of a LONG supply line, and it’s hedged in with land in almost every direction—plenty of opportunity for all sorts of attacks.
THIS IS A REAL, SERIOUS, BIG DEAL AND EVERYONE IN THE WORLD KNOWS IT … EXCEPT THE AMERICANS.

There are seven maritime choke points.

These have been well known for more than a hundred years. Actually MUCH longer than that. Prior to the present Suez Canal, there was a smaller one used by the Chinese to trade with Italy … which is why northern Italy grows rice and has a silk industry.

And you need also to add the narrow passages such as Gibraltar and places in the Mediterranean.

And you also need to add the two passages around the southern tips of Africa and South America. Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn.

The reason for the need for a water route from Europe to China and Japan is that the Muslims closed the overland route.

205.254.135.7/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=330

Excerpt below: and click on the link for a decent map.

Maritime transit chokepoints are narrow channels along widely used global sea routes. Because about one half of the world’s crude oil supply is moved by tankers on maritime shipping routes, world oil transit chokepoints are a critical part of global energy security.

Source: EIA (data estimates based on APEX tanker data)

The international market is dependent upon reliable transport. The blockage of a chokepoint, even temporarily, can lead to a substantial disruption in energy markets.
Closure of some chokepoints would require the use of longer alternate routes, thereby increasing transportation costs, but for other chokepoints, there are limited alternate routes.

As a result, there are existing, planned and proposed pipelines in many of these areas to bypass such chokepoints. EIA has compiled and analyzed data for seven major world oil transit chokepoints, summarized below:

The Strait of Hormuz, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea, saw an oil flow of 15.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2009 when flows through this Strait accounted for roughly a third of all seaborne traded oil, or 17 percent of oil traded worldwide.

The Strait of Malacca, located between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, links the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and Pacific Ocean. Malacca is the shortest sea route between Persian Gulf suppliers and the Asian markets. It is the key chokepoint in Asia with an estimated 13.6 million bbl/d flow in 2009.

The Suez Canal and SUMED Pipeline in Egypt are major routes for transit from the Persian Gulf to Mediterranean Countries and North America. Their closure would add an estimated 6,000 miles of travel around the continent of Africa. In 2009, total oil flows through the Suez were 1.8 million bbl/d, and SUMED flows were approximately 1.1 million bbl/d.

The Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, links tankers originating in the Persian Gulf to the Suez Canal/SUMED pipeline and beyond. Its location, between the horn of Africa and Yemen, has made transit through this Strait vulnerable to piracy in recent years. An estimated 3.2 million bbl/d flowed through this waterway in 2009.

The Bosporus Straits divide Asia from Europe, connecting the Black Sea with the Sea of Marmara. The 17-mile waterway supplies Mediterranean countries with oil from the Caspian Sea Region. In 2009, approximately 2.9 million bbl/d of oil flowed through these Straits.

The Panama Canal, while an important route connecting the Pacific Ocean with the Caribbean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, plays a smaller role in world oil transit, mainly because of tanker size restrictions. In 2009, roughly 0.8 million bbl/d of oil, mostly refined products, traveled through the Canal.

Also, the Danish Straits are becoming an increasingly important route for Russian oil exports to Europe. In 2009, an estimated 3.3 million bbl/d of oil flowed westward through this waterway.
 
Again, all of this begs the question. Do we need to be involved in “difficulties” in these regions? I think not, so the question-begging fails. This argument especially fails in a post-Cold War world, but to me it fails even during the Cold War; “containment” was an unnecessary policy given the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed on itself.

Peace and God bless!
These issues have been serious for hundreds of years.

Russia dominates the European land mass.

If countries want to trade freely, then they need to protect the water routes.

So you end up with naval issues.

Welcome to the world of geopolitics.

Not new. You don’t have to like it.

Read Mahan and Mackinder. These issues have been studied since ships were invented.

international-relations.com/History/GeopoliticsSilkRoad.htm

These wars have been going on since the 600’s. Even earlier, actually.

The USSR did not “collapse on itself” … it was pushed hard by Ronald Reagan to force it to collapse.

The Soviet Union collapsed because Ronald Reagan was an economist and knew that if he conducted economic warfare against the Soviets, then they would be unable to sustain their military adventures … because command economies always fail.

So he formed an informal alliance with France, the UK, the Vatican, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to stop subsidizing the Soviets and to attack their weaknesses. For example, he knew that the Soviets were stealing certain types of computer designs, so he deliberately planted specially designed computer technology for them to steal … designs that failed or contained “viruses”. He knew they were desperate to get their natural gas pipelines built so they could use natural gas supplies as blackmail against Europe, so they stole compressor designs … that vibrated and blew up. And the list goes on and on.

Read Peter Schweizer’s book, “Victory!”

news.investors.com/Article/595799/201112231803/us-should-learn-from-ussrs-collapse.htm
 
Japan had to capture the nearest oil source which was the Dutch East Indies [now Indonesia], but there was the famous “5-5-3” naval treaty specifically designed to deny Japan enough ships to sustain a naval campaign against the Dutch East Indies. All of this was well known and well calculated long before WWII.
The 5-5-3-2-2 plan did nothing to hamper Japan’s navy. While they protested it vehemently in actuality they couldn’t even build and maintain the “3” tonnage ratio for every 5 the US and England built and commissioned. Had it not been for the Washington treaty the US would have probably had 10 to 3 advantage over the Japanese in capital ships at the start of WW2.
 
Despite all the facile comparisons being made by Republicans, this isn’t Munich in 1938.

Bush has nothing to do with it.

They don’t even have to close the Strait—just making it more dangerous will cause the insurers to raise premium rates for the oil tanker owners, and they’ll pass on the cost to the consumer at the gas pump in the form of higher prices.

And I have yet to hear any Republican say how he’d protect ordinary people from the consequences of hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz. Do you seriously think they give a flying scat omelet? I don’t.

I have little doubt Obama will do what needs to be done, if push comes to shove. But it’s not a decision to undertake lightly. That’s a far-off place, at the end of a LONG supply line, and it’s hedged in with land in almost every direction—plenty of opportunity for all sorts of attacks.
You have a love affair with Democrats which blinds you to reality. No politician…no matter what he says can protect us from the consequences of hostilities with Iran and the Strait but to say that Republicans don’t care…like we don’t have families…homes…transportation issues like everyone else? Who do you think we are…what do you think we are? Yes…I damn well think that we give an omelet. We just have a different way of dealing with problems. There is not one responsible person that I have heard…including John Bolton (whom I admire) who has said that the consequences of hostilities are not going to be painful if not tragic…not one. But sometimes choices do not include good choices just perhaps the only choice. Everyone knows how long the supply line is…I have an atlas too…compare the distance between there and say…Japan or Okinawa. We do what we need to do. We cannot survive without oil…even by buying a Chevy Volt or building a wind turbine. On the subject of attacks. Iran knows that we have the ability to literally make them disappear …and that is no exaggeration. The reason they are aggressive is because they feel certain that Obama does not have the determination to use our military potential…and I mean all of it. He won’t…he can but he won’t…I know it and they know it. Obama is a weak POTUS…who looks good in a suit…so do I!
 
The 5-5-3-2-2 plan did nothing to hamper Japan’s navy. While they protested it vehemently in actuality they couldn’t even build and maintain the “3” tonnage ratio for every 5 the US and England built and commissioned. Had it not been for the Washington treaty the US would have probably had 10 to 3 advantage over the Japanese in capital ships at the start of WW2.
If the U.S. had actually built itself up to that 10 to 3 advantage, then there is a good chance that WW2 would not have started at all.

The Japanese would have been deterred from striking at the United States. They might even have pulled back from Manchuria. If they had attacked the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies, with a strong U.S. Navy, the Japanese Navy would have been wiped out in short order. [They attacked U.S. forces in the Philippines about the same time as they attacked Pearl Harbor. And if our Navy had been visiting the Dutch East Indies or using it as a forward operating base, then there would have been no attack at all.]

In addition, there were plans for some larger U.S. battleships … the Montana Class … which were never built. Visualize a three turret Iowa Class, but stretched to accommodate four main turrets instead of three.

It’s another story altogether with respect to the European theater.

If we had provided aid to Czechoslovakia, then perhaps Hitler’s army would have turned around at the border instead of seizing it and triggering WWII.

OR, Hitler might have waited a couple of years until he had many more submarines. He had only a very small fleet of U-Boats at the start of WWII.

OR, Hitler might have improved his fleet of four-engine airplanes. One of his long range bombers did make a unrefuelled round trip flight from Germany to the U.S. and back. A delayed war might have started off with an “exchange” of nuclear weapons!!

Lots of what if’s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top