08-05-2002 08:46									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Forget it... I was working on a rebuttal, but its not even worth it.

	08-05-2002 08:51									#32
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Zkribbler Two centuries have shown that no nation, however strong, can enrage the American people and hope to emerge victorious.[/I]

I guess those Vietnamese guys didn't enrage you, they just ticked you off a bit?

	08-05-2002 08:52									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: IIRC in 1900 the British were still busy hating the French and Americans

By 1900, the US and UK were allies. The UK's stated policy was to have a navy as large as the next two largest navies. This broke down in the 1890s when the Germans and Americans started building up. However, the Brits realizes that the Amis would be on their side, so they did not worry too much about falling behind on their 2 navy plan. By that time the Brits and Americans were friendly.

	08-05-2002 08:54									#34
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: IIRC in 1900 the British were still busy hating the French and Americans (remember, they sided with the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War), and were quite cozy with the Germans, as the House of Hanover and the House of Windsor were practically the same people. So, the British might have interfered with a German invasion of the U.S., but only to ensure that they got their piece of the pie. I'm sure the German military could have defeated the U.S. Army of the time, but the supply lines would be far too long to garrison the place effectively. It would have been a short occupation.

Well, this I will add to though. The British were certainly leaning toward recognizing Confederacy, but that's a far cry from siding with them. Anglo-American relations have always (even during strenuous times) been rather understanding. After the Revolution, Britain was one of our top trading partners, after the War of 1812, in the crisis of 1840, during the Civil War, the Alabama Affair, Venezuela afterwards cooperation was usually pretty strong. There has never really been true national hatred between these countries even if their diplomatic goals often brought them near war.

The British still hated the French though, and who could blame them?

I wouldn't go as far to call the Germans and Brits cozy in 1900. They were strong trading partners, true, and they did not necessarily have any existing troublesome relations, but Britain was rather worried about Germany's increasing role as the European military juggarnaut. True, the Kaiser Wilhelm loved his dear grandma Victoria, but she was dead by 1901 anyway, and he HATED his uncle who succeeded her in England.

	08-05-2002 08:55									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man I guess those Vietnamese guys didn't enrage you, they just ticked you off a bit?

The North Vietnamese never attacked American soil, so no, they never ticked us off.

In fact, there was more resentment against the election-stealing, dope-smuggling leadership of the South Vietnamese.

	08-05-2002 08:56									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: I guess those Vietnamese guys didn't enrage you, they just ticked you off a bit?

For six thousand years old, I'd certainly hope you'd be the voice of reason around here. Thanks for needling him where I was too disgusted to act.

	08-05-2002 09:17									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Zkribbler, Mexico didn't attack the US. We attacked them.

	08-05-2002 09:32									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

chegitz guevara : Yes, we did attack the Mexicans first as a matter of fact. We also declared war on Britain in 1812 first eventhough a favorable diplomatic offer was on its way by boat to America as the declaration of war was on a ship to England.

We also goaded the Japanese into attacking us by placing numerous embargoes on them and diplomatically antagonizing them for years leading up to December 7th, 1941. Of course, I sort of feel that the Japanese needed to be dealt with given the horrific atrocities they were inflicting upon Chinese and other Asian occupied peoples.

As for the Tripoli campaign, it was a brief, well-though-out, focused attack upon a rather poorly organized group of thieves. Organization and well-defined goals win wars, not Americans (although they do on occasion ).

And France... French privateers plundering American privateers and vise versa. I remain unconvinced.

Tripoli and France hardly represent the American resolve since both affected only an unquantifiable fraction of the population in terms of home front mobilization of society, economy, military, or otherwise.

	08-05-2002 09:56									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II chegitz guevara : Yes, we did attack the Mexicans first as a matter of fact.

...north of the Rio Grande.

quote: As for the Tripoli campaign, it was a brief, well-though-out, focused attack upon a rather poorly organized group of thieves.

Other than ignoring the point I was making (unjustifiable attacks on American shipping enraged the American people), you're wrong saying the war was brief (1801-1805) and you're wrong saying ti was well thought out (our stategy was to blockade but only the Enterprise was small enough to venture into the shallow coastal waters; our land invasion ended up stranded at an oasis, and, if I recall, in the four years of war, we had three different commanders.)

quote: French privateers plundering American privateers and vise versa. I remain unconvinced.

French privateers were not plundering American privateers because we had no privateers at the time. We were at peace.

But I was inaccurate in saying it was the privateers that enraged the American public. That came later--when Talleyrand's agents (Mssrs X, Y & Z) offered to stop the raids if the U.S. would pay bribes to Talleyrand and another French official. The war cry was "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!"

	08-05-2002 10:13									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yeah, but the Mexicans said the border was at the Nueces River. So its a border squabble.

	08-05-2002 10:48									#41
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II Tripoli and France hardly represent the American resolve since both affected only an unquantifiable fraction of the population in terms of home front mobilization of society, economy, military, or otherwise.

Not to mention the most simple fact of all: It was FRANCE! France hardly represents anything except incompetent military commanders and even more inferior civilian administrations.

When your greatest leader was from a recently conquered Italian island, you've got problems.

	08-05-2002 11:12									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: When your greatest leader was from a recently conquered Italian island, you've got problems.

*cough* Louis XIV *cough* Charles Anjou *cough*

	08-05-2002 14:16									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: north of the Rio Grande...

The silliest remark I've ever read, alongside with comments by other... yes, American posters... grow up, folks

Anyway, I think that if the US was going to spare her coastal population as much as possible, Willi might have succeeded wth his canal plans, if it wasn't for the British maybe. If they were going to fight until the end, though, he wouldn't have standed a chance, for they had the short distance.

	08-05-2002 17:32									#44
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II For six thousand years old, I'd certainly hope you'd be the voice of reason around here. Thanks for needling him where I was too disgusted to act.

You completely missed the point didn't you. The whole reason the American population was never behind the Vietnam war was that the Vietnamese never attacked the US first. His point was when others attack the US first we tend not to give up and not to forgive. Next time, read it without getting all indignant. And

Please excuse the US for trying to take some of the means in which the Japanese people raped and slaughtered the Chinese and Korean people. It was really horrible of us to do that wasn't it?

Oh and welcome back to the OT. It's been a while.

	08-05-2002 17:37									#45
	Increase the size of your Attachments

As for the original topic of the thread.


I think the Germans would have had more sucess if they had just attacked Panama. If they would have attacked American cities, then the people would have demanded a protracted war of revenge. If they simply attacked Panama, then maybe they could have gotten the US government to accept it. But not if New York and Boston were burning.

	08-05-2002 19:04									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Someone actually wrote a Turtledovian alternate history about this idea

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...9133731-2911910

I read it about 7 years ago, I think. I don't remember much, so it couldn't have been that great.

	08-05-2002 19:41									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

a book about mother's day?

	08-05-2002 19:47									#48
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Cosica wasn't conquered by the French, it was purchased. Genoa sold it.

The French provided the US with Layfette, one of our better generals during the Revolution.

	08-05-2002 20:52									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: a book about mother's day?

When I click on the link I get brought to "1901: A Novel", a book about the German invasion of the US in 1901.

Hmm.

	08-05-2002 20:59									#50
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

who cares what you planned?
you are now completely castrated and working your butts off paying all of us

	08-05-2002 22:13									#51
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Had Germany attacked the U.S., it would have started WWI 14 years earlier. Britain and France would have seized the opportunity, under pretense of defending the U.S., to declare war on Germany, as both had gripes with Germany and were concerned with her military power and economic dominance of the European continent. Also, France was itching for revenge after their humiliation by Bismarck in the Franco-Prussian war. The big difference is that Austria and the Ottomans might not have supported Germany, as the attack on the U.S. would likely come across as unprovoked aggression. Thus, Germany likely would have been alone against 3 major powers, likely more if Russia decided to get involved. Germany's defeat likely would have been swifter and more decisive than in WWI.

As for those making the laughable suggestion that the U.S. would cave in if Germany attacked our coastal cities...that's nonsense. Remember, the Brits in 1812 burned our capital, and we still kept fighting and won. Lincoln didn't surrender when the South invaded Maryland and PA. When the Japanese thought the same thing in WWII, that we'd cave after a quick attack, we showed them they were wrong.

Germany wouldn't have been able to beat the U.S. at that time.

	08-05-2002 22:23									#52
	Support Apolyton

Some will say that we survived the War of 1812 instead of really winning it. The Brits will no doubt point out the many other things that were going on at the time of that war, but in the end it was their fault for over extending themselves to begin with.

Your point though is valid and that's what Zribbler tried to say earlier but people were too busy climbing to their ivory towers and didn't get it.

	08-05-2002 23:32									#53
	Full PM-box? Change here!

note: the entente cordiale between the UK and France wasn't before 1904.

	08-05-2002 23:38									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion note: the entente cordiale between the UK and France wasn't before 1904.

Doesn't matter. Both had a vested interest in containing German power, and would have jumped at the chance to do so if Germany attacked America.

Germany's building up of its fleet was viewed by the British as a direct threat to their own navy, as there wasn't anyone else it could be directed towards (they felt). This was a major source of British concern with German arms build up.

	09-05-2002 00:34									#55
	Got spare money?

So they didn't even need an entente cordiale to hate Germany together?

(I know. the word itself stands for an agreement over colonial issues...)

	09-05-2002 00:55									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The thing is, had Germany not been quite so aggressive in North Africa with the French and in building up her fleet to match the Brits, Britain might very well have stayed out of WWI. Until the above incidents, Britain and Germany were actually heading towards the path of a somewhat amicable relationship.

We come back to the idea that had Bismarck been running things, Germany probably would have had a far better time of it during the last century.

	09-05-2002 00:57									#57
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Yeah, but then North Africa was an issue for the French? I thought they were deep into their Revanche.

As for the Brits and the fleet, that's probably true. Too much confrontation there, but that's what Wilhelm II. was like. Mememememe. His grandfather is said to have been better there. Under Wilhelm II. the 2nd Empire was just not the same as under Wilheml I., Bismarck and Moltke. Basically 2 eras in 1, isn't it a laugh?

	09-05-2002 02:58									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sprayber : I was actually saying that I thought it WAS a good thing that the Americans goaded the Japanese to attack them. I said that quite plainly. But facts are facts... Pearl Harbor wasn't just out of the clear blue sky. I supported instigating the conflict because it let us stop the Japanese reign of terror.

	09-05-2002 03:08									#59
	Full PM-box? Change here!

And in addition to that, the reason why I was being "indignant" is because in most of the situations he described, we were not the ones who were attacked, or at least not attacked without provoking attack.

The American public wasn't enraged about paying tribute to the Barbar Coast, it was rich trade merchants that didn't want to have to shell out more money.

The thing is that the only times when his statement is applicable would be World War II and the American Revolution because those were the only times that either the great majority of the population was forced to throw its weight behind a war or that there was a general wide-spread mobilization of the economy. I'm not denying that when America gets a war machine going, it really GOES! But most (note the word most, please) of these circumstances were really like any other conflicts of their day. There was nothing particularly spectacular about any of them.

And with regards to Vietnam, we lost Vietnam not because the public wasn't supporting it but rather because we didn't even know why the hell we were there! We had very abstract goals, and when you haven't got your objectives clearly defined, you lose. I don't care how powerful you are.

	09-05-2002 04:14									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man IIRC in 1900 the British were still busy hating the French and Americans (remember, they sided with the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War), and were quite cozy with the Germans, as the House of Hanover and the House of Windsor were practically the same people.

Actually Britain was never anywhere close to recognizing the Confederacy. The Europeans generally thought that the war was primarily over slavery. Britain had freed it's slaves only 30 years before, and the evangelical movement that had forced this issue was still very strong. During the war a British shipbuilder built a commerce raider christened "The Alabama" for the Confederacy. When this was discovered riots broke out in several major British cities. Particularily notable were riots by textile workers laid off because of the short supply of cotton. The major factories were located areas dominated by evangelism, and these people were willing to sacrifice their jobs if it meant helping to end slavery. The incident nearly brought down the government in a vote of no confidence.
I did a college paper on the subject.