Comparing Iraq 2005 with Germany 1945

@Private:

Here is a different take that resonates for me:

I have seen it argued that both Germany and Japan* were strategically weak. Both lacked natural resources and needed access to those from elsewhere to maintain their war machines.

In the case of Japan that required secure supply lines from the East Indies, which their naval losses and strategic myopia denied them.

Germany needed to conquer territories that would secure those resources.

By contrast the allies were resource rich. Command of the seas gave access to resources from across the globe. Japan challenged US command of the Pacific for only a very short time frame. German U Boats did cause the Allies difficulties in the Atlantic for a longer period of course, but denying global resources to the UK is not the same as denying them to the USA, let alone gaining them for Germany.

Axis supremacy needed victory after victory in the face superior Allied production and manpower. The Allies only needed to deny them a sufficient proportion of those victories.

Of course, those that faced the Axis onslaught did not perceive any such “inevitable” Allied victory. And for a time those victories did keep coming …

*I include Japan in this answer because one of the reasons why Germany lost WW2 is that Japan never diverted enough allied resources away from the European theatre.

I agree with this, but that may not even fully capture all the reasons Germany lost.  In terms of just pure industrial production capacity Germany could not compete against the US, especially with the latter protected by its isolation from bombing.  I recently read an interesting book, Death Ride, that made much of Germany’s failure to develop long-range bombers, and with much of the USSR’s industry moved well East of Moscow Germany could not bomb it.  Göring apparently preferred lots of little short-range bombers to fewer and larger long-range bombers.  It also made much of the Germans’ decision to divert part of its Eastern Front ground forces to Italy leaving them under-supplied and outnumbered in Operation Citadel.  The near-impossibility of maintaining distant supply lines, despite Göring’s assurances that he could make up for it, have been discussed to death.

All-in-all, I think the reasons are so many that in retrospect it would have taken a near-miraculous perfect storm of events for Gemany to have emerged victorious.

FYI, here is a link to a project (ending in the next 7 hours) on Kickstarter that has been wildly successful.
Part of that success is because of how well the project was presented, the stretch goals and what you get for funding it (plus the quality of the work being produced of course)!

kickstarter.com/projects/1812955737/bug-hunt-corridors

There are many examples of similar, incredibly successful crowd-funded projects.  This is only the most recent that I’ve been interested in personally (and wish so much to have had the money to back it now).

@LHoffman:

@Gargantua:

Or DONE AT ALL…

Hahaha… ouch.

Well when the German set is said to be “released soon” for over a year, you don’t update your site, and you don’t respond to questions. Then “done at all” does seem to fit.

Well that’s different. So what you’re trying to say is that Germany fell apart after the war which is absolutely correct. Back to my original argument, WWI led to enormous social change that sparked the technological progress which led to the lifestyle we now enjoy. In Germany particularly democracy and progressive ideals had been supressed for generations, but after WWI this was no longer possible due to the chaos you describe. Additionally, an affect of both world wars has been the spread of democracy by the victorious powers of Britain, France and the US.

Again how would the world be different without the world wars. I think it would be more backward, less changed, less democratic, more imperialistic, but perhaps more stable because Democracy tends to breed instability.

I think most of the backing came due to two facts:
(1) the USSR needed reforms, that was obvious.
Still, they probably wanted a long term leader that could be influenced => a younger one, after the two short reigns of Andropov and what-was-his-name… Probably, the influentials wanted some change, but surely not that much that it would threaten their power-base, one of the reasons for the coup that failed due to Jelzins help for Gorbachev.
(2) The general secretary and all the other positions he fills made him the most powerful man in the USSR. Probably, whoever put Gorbachev into place, underestimated him. Pretty much the same underestimation that Hitler faced when he was appointed Chancellor, but luckily Gorbachev used that to reform positively, and i consider the new freedom of information, the right to ask wether the party is right and that the crucial reform.

So, I don’t think that there was “real” backing, i believe Gorbachev was kind of a compromise candidate, kind of a makeshift. Of course, once he was into power, you ccouldn’t remove instantly, that would have meant that the party made a mistake (which was not “allowed” before Gorbachev). And he was clever enough to stay into power, and use his popularity at the beginning (which soon, after the economy started to collapse openly, was reduced to more or less nothing) to enforece the reforms.

@Y_ny:

Yes, we won the war … in part because of the courage and sacrifice of great people. But without the French, we would never of come close to winning.

Ulterior motives?

@Oz__:

I think referring to the French or Germans as wimps for being “afraid” to attack Iraq is shortsighted.

I agree.

I say we come up with a set of rules and restart this topic (Its a fun topic).

For Example:

German Airforce still intact?
German Navy and Uboats still intact?
Egypt Conquered?
What about Japan?

Well, we’re not exactly talking about an Orthodox teacher here :) It’s hard to desribe Mr Note.