 |
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child’s full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.
Deborah Campbell, 25, said she phoned in her order last week to the ShopRite. When she told the bakery department she wanted her son’s name spelled out, she was told to talk to a supervisor, who denied the request. Spokeswoman Karen Meleta told The Easton Express-Times for Sunday’s editions that the store considered Campbell’s request inappropriate.
The Campbells ultimately got their cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said.
Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because “no one else in the world would have that name.” He sounded surprised by all the controversy the dispute had generated.
What do you think this holds for the kid – growing up?
#119
Hitler’s initial objective was to conquer western Europe including Britain. Had he done that, he would have had access to a *much* larger navy and more importantly, many more resources. Combine the relative size of the British North Atlantic fleet with the French fleet with his German fleet and compare it to the US navy and suddenly the disparity is not so great.
> Yeah, but to invade the
> US they would be.That is
> what we are arguing about –
> the whole we would be speaking German canard.
Again, you are ignoring what could have been. Suppose we postulate what would have happened if Germany had defeated both the Soviet Union and conquered western Europe including Britain which would likely included control of the Balkins and much of the Middle East. What do you suppose Hitler, now having conquered half the world, would have done next?
> And turns out boats were
> needed just to defeat England,
> which Germany was never even able to invade.
Not true. What was needed was air superiority. With air superiority, those boats would have been easy targets.
> The war was fought and lost
> on the eastern front.
Not true. Without the western front, the importance of the eastern front is moot. If Hitler succeeds in conquering Britain, the Soviet Union would have been toast (they almost were anyway) and he would have been able to concentrate his forces in North Africa and Russia. Hell, if Hitler attacks Russia six weeks earlier, he probably forces them to terms.
Yet, it is not much of stretch to see that if certain events had occurred even slightly different, it would have changed the outcome.
My point was narrow and very easy to make. Hitler posed no threat to the US. The US was in no danger of speaking German. People who make such statements are ignorant and any other statements they make on the issue should be ignored.
Now, I also believe that Germany would have lost the war to Russia alone and that when the US entered the war German had no chance of victory in the long run, even though they may have won some battles. That point is slightly more debatable, but even that is not vey much in doubt.
The third question is what did we win. Did we achieve our objectives? Was Germany really more evil than the USSR? Did more people suffer under a USSR rule than under a possible German rule?
And if the USSR was not able to take over the world after wining the war and the territory that went along with it, why would you think that Germany posed such a threat, with less population…
The communists stated they wanted world domination while Germany did not make such a claim. Thus if you real fear is German domination of the US you should have been more fearful of USSR domination.
That is the interesting question and one worth asking yourself more deeply. Pat’s book is worth the read for this question and the question of was WWII good for England. Did churchill do the best for his people and his country… the answer is very interesting.
#122
> Hitler posed no threat to the US
I disagree. A fascist in control of the entire European continent was a serious threat to the US. There is clear evidence that Hitler felt that a war with the US would happen at some point and thus he planned for such a war geared his policies in anticipation of engaging the US.
> Now, I also believe that Germany
> would have lost the war to Russia alone…
Ridiculous. You should read more about the details of that war. Germany almost defeated Russia in two front war. Russian infrastructure was in shambles even at the time of the German attack. Without a second front, Germany easily defeats the Red Army.
> The third question is what did we win[?]
We eliminated one megalomaniac bent on killing people purely because they were not of the master race. That we did not kill two does not mean that the war was not a success.
> Was Germany really more evil than the USSR?
It is an irrelevant question. Germany was the more imminent threat. By mid-war, Churchill was disgusted with Stalin but he knew that he had to eliminate the more immediate threat to his country or risk the destruction of Britain. In 1939, Stalin wasn’t a threat to conquer Europe. Germany was.
> And if the USSR was not able to take
> over the world after wining the war and
> the territory that went along with it,
> why would you think that Germany posed
> such a threat, with less population
You are conveniently ignoring many key factors, including the atomic bomb and our then massive mobilization along with two million dead Russians. The Soviets didn’t have the resources to take on the US. We would have had air and naval superiority and the bomb.
> Thus if you real fear is German
> domination of the US you should
> have been more fearful of USSR domination.
This is conjecture which ignores reality. The Germans acted on their impulse for world domination first. At the time, it wasn’t clear to everyone that the Soviets were bent on world domination. In 1939, they did not have nearly the resources needed to really take over Europe. Many in the world sympathized with the communist revolution. Not many knew Stalin for the truly evil man he was.
As they say, hindsight is 20/20. Looking back now, should we have taken Patton’s advice and taken on the Russians? Maybe, but it wasn’t possible. After V-E day, it was still believed we’d have to invade Japan and given what had happened in the early part of 1945, it was thought it was going to be very costly. In addition, the US was nearly bankrupt so paying for a new war with the Soviets would have probably sent us over the top. While we wanted Stalin’s help to take out Japan, even then Truman and his staff were leery of letting him help *too* much. It also ignores the fact that the US and the world in general were tired of war. Most of the soldiers in the European theatre were adamantly opposed to being sent to the Pacific theatre to continue fighting (my grandfather included). It would have also required convincing the American people to attack Russia and that would have required overwhelming and overt evidence of their desire to invade Europe. It just wasn’t in the cards to take out the Bolsheviks at the end of WWII.
#120–Thomas==forgive me if this is becoming the en- dash discussion I had with Mustard===”but” you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth and that is the only point I’m making. You agree and then disagree. Equivocation is bad history don’t you think?
Take any event in history, change it, and absent it being dispositive, you don’t know what would happen except “something different.” And in the case of USA winning WW2, the worst difference in almost all scenarios would have been limited to delay. Yes delay with more cost of lives and such, but delay only.
Two main reasons all you fantasy scenarios fall apart: 1: USA’s massive resources of people and materials and manufacturing ability and 2: Hitler was nuts.
Forget the movie inwhich the running gag line was “Never forget not to get involved in a land war with Russia.” WTF do you mean by “Winning the War against Russia?” Fall back, fall back, torch the country, kill half your own people, the enemy freezes. Do you think “taking” Moscow meant anything???? No. As Yossarian knew in Catch-22==it was just a line on a map.
Silly Hooman.
#121, Thomas,
While I agree with most of your points so far, this is where you do get it wrong.
> The war was fought and lost
> on the eastern front.
Not true. Without the western front, the importance of the eastern front is moot.
The Germans over extended themselves on the eastern front. The effort to supply the Eastern Armies deprived the Western Armies in Africa and France of material, manpower, and most importantly, fuel to sustain any action.
The War in North Africa was inconsequential when compared to the battles fought in Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Axis North African Army was out of ammunition, food, fuel, and manpower.
It is usually agreed that Hitler’s major blunder was to invade the USSR and the turning point in the war was the Battle of Stalingrad. The wounded alone took a terrible amount of energy to deal with and of the approximate 250,000 that surrendered, less than 10,000 ever saw Germany again.
Even if the industrial power of the US did not enter the war, the USSR would have ultimately defeated the Germans. The Allies greatest contribution to the war was the bombing of Germany’s industry and rail transport.
If Germany had of managed to conquer Britain, much or most of the Home Fleet would have escaped to Canada. There were plans for that eventuality.
As I said though, I pretty well agree with the rest of your points including your assessment of Buchanan’s revisionist history book.
#124, booboo,
#120–Thomas==forgive me if this is becoming the en- dash discussion I had with Mustard===”but” you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth and that is the only point I’m making.
Why not just STFU. You make no sense and are becoming quite annoying. We don’t need to hear what your shrink is posing to you.
#126–fusion==speaking of shrinks, you don’t take criticism too well do you?
Too bad. Much to learn from criticism==even when its wrong.
We only grow when we change our minds.
#124
You seem to want to think that because the events have already unfolded, we cannot make reasonable guess as to the consequences should some of those events happened differently. That’s nonsense. If Hitler conquers Europe along with Britain he now has the resources to take on the US and he would be entrenched. Taking Moscow would have meant he no longer had a eastern enemy along with nearly unlimited oil reserves and many additional naval ports. How is that speaking out of both sides of my mouth?
#128–Thomas==you ask: “How is that speaking out of both sides of my mouth?” //// Just as you demonstrate here. You start by saying what you speculate is only a “reasonable guess” and then you speak in certainties. Then you’ll go back to equivocating between possibilities and most likelies.
You are a lot like Hitler in that respect. You think you can predict outcomes based on logic or will????
Hah!!!! History is littered with the failed certainties of tyrants. Be they military leaders or armchair bullshitters.
It is fun to speculate==but not with the certainty you immediately lapse into. Russia would not “fall” with the occupation of Moscow, the troops/factories would “most likely” just move farther east. Who knows if Hitler/Tojo would not turn against one another?? How tired would the German war machine get after a decade of fighting?? Might not a 43rd assassination attempt finally succeed?
Just jerking off here, I think once again it would come down to who gets the bomb first.
Do you agree whoever got the Bomb first would win the game of world dominance, or do those dominoes fall in a different pattern with your detailed and superior knowledge of the time?
#125
Britain was *the* key to the war for a few reasons.
The first and most obvious reason is that it provided a location to launch an invasion. Without it, the allies either have to come through Iceland or they have to come through North Africa or they have to land in Russia. So, without Britain, there is no D-Day.
The second and far more important reason is Bletchley Park. If Germany conquers Britain, we lose most of our ability to intercept German transmissions. While the Americans had information on Enigma, intercepting transmissions involves more than just having the machine. It meant missions to get new machines, rotors, plugboards and daily starting positions along with listening stations and people doing the listening. Thus, our information from UTLRA would have been substantially limited. This is of course assuming that the Bletchley is perfectly destroyed during a German invasion. The worst case scenario is that the Germans discover that their codes are compromised and change to something new we can’t read.
Because of UTLRA, we were able to locate the subs supplying Rommel in North Africa. Without it, Rommel likely wins. Further, the naval code was especially difficult as Donitz was paranoid. Even during the war, there were many times when the Allies could not crack the naval code and the effect was a dramatic rise in sinkings. Without Britain, we probably never crack the naval code. In addition, the British trained and supplied their operatives. That is much harder to do without a nearby base of operations.
The Russians were greatly helped by UTLRA which gave them specific information on German troop movements even though the Russians themselves did not have the ability to crack Enigma. Using UTLRA, Churchill was able to warn Stalin of Germany’s attack on Moscow weeks before it happened. Without the British code breaking, the war on the Eastern front goes very differently.
Third is the bombing of German resources from Britain. We destroyed quite a bit of Germany’s war machine from land based bombers from Britain. Without Britain that doesn’t happen and Germany’s manufacturing and research continues unchallenged. Whether they would have developed the atomic bomb is debatable, but they might have finished development on some of their other projects like their jet aircraft or perfected their rockets.
The Germans almost beat the Russians despite Russian numerical superiority and a two front war. The Russians were not versed in fighting modern wars like the Germans were at that point and their infrastructure like rail were in shambles. Without British help, the Germans beat the Russians as they can dedicate more resources to the now single front and they Russians are not aided by UTLRA.
The eastern front was critical no doubt. It helped slow German domination enough to give us time to get our act together. However, had Britain been conquered before Hitler attacked Russia, he would have been entrenched in Europe and we would not have been able to stop him.
It is an irrelevant question. Germany was the more imminent threat. By mid-war, Churchill was disgusted with Stalin but he knew that he had to eliminate the more immediate threat to his country or risk the destruction of Britain. In 1939, Stalin wasn’t a threat to conquer Europe. Germany was.
This is the key to the debate and were you go very wrong. Russia had more people and more natural resources than Germany. They also had a stated policy of world revolution.
Germany made no claims of world domination. Thus, objectively Russia posed a much greater threat to the world (and the US) than Germany, and this was born out by the 50 year cold war, which could have ended horribly.
And speaking of threats, Russia developed the Bomb shortly after the cold war using spies that were crawling all over our government including the Rosenbergs (although there were much higher placed spies). Germany had no such intelligence infrastructure.
So tell me again who was the greater threat???
And anyone claiming that England was the key to anything that went on in WWII is smoking dope. England was a useless ally that did essentially nothing outside of propaganda and code breaking (which there were good at).
Russia lost some 20 million in WWII and England and American some fraction thereof. The war was fought by them (at least in Europe).
Germany made their big push into Russia early and if they had takem the big three cities the war would have turned out different. That is true. (And the world may have been better off if they had done so, as again soviet Russia was more harmful to the countries they occupied than Germany would have been).
But once they did not, the tide of the war turned. Russia was able to regroup and Germany was never able to stop the onslaught.
America and England had nothing to do with that change of fortune as they really did not enter the war until after that change took place.
This is well know and widely acknowledge outside such populous places such as the history channel which is essentially entertainment.
I would just say as someone who thinks of themselves as knowledgeable in this area you owe it to yourself to read Pat’s book. Nobody is more knowledgeable about history than Pat. He proved that with his analysis of the Iraw war and deserves respect for that if nothing else (although he has made other excellent predictions).
And while you might, in the end, not agree with his analysis you will be better off for the debate and the insights he brings to the discussion. To just shut your eyes to new information and analysis is not going to get you a deeper understanding of history and how it might relate to future policy decisions (like Iraq).
\
#131
More people does not equate to victory. Have you ever heard the term “force multiplier”? Iraq had a much larger force than the US in both wars and we wiped the battlefield with them. The Chinese outnumbered the Japanese by massive numbers and yet got their clock cleaned in Manchuria. The French forces outnumbered the German forces during World War II and the Germans still won…in a month.
> Germany made no claims of world domination
So the “Third Reich” was just a marketing ploy?
Was Stalin evil? Yes. Was he more evil than Hitler? In retrospect, yes. It was not at all clear at the time. Regardless, he was not the imminent threat at the time and quibbling over grey areas of “evilness” is irrelevant in the face of a real invasion.
> England was a useless ally that
> did essentially nothing outside
> of propaganda and code breaking
> (which there were good at).
Proof that you haven’t the foggiest idea of what you speak. As I said, without England, the Allies lose the war, including Russia. Without Britain, there is no ULTRA (or very little), no bombing of German infrastructure, little or no intelligence from operatives and no base of operations to launch an western invasion or launch land based bombers.
> Russia lost some 20 million in WWII
So? Stalin killed at least a couple million himself during the war (I believe the number is as high as 10 million killed by Stalin before the end of the war). Is that in that number? The Russians were known for shooting their own men in the back if they retreated. Is that in that number? The Russians were not prepared for Germany or modern warfare. Yes, they had numbers (of inexperienced men) and the weather. Without a western front, those number differentials diminish. In terms of resources, they were severely lacking. Raw, natural resources, sure. However, the infrastructure to make use of those resources came later.
> America and England had nothing
> to do with that change of fortune as
> they really did not enter the war
> until after that change took place.
Not true. America was sending supplies and Britain was sending intelligence. As I said, Stalin was notified ahead of time of the German attack on Moscow and was given detailed troop movements in many cases.
It is easy to question the decisions made 50 years later. Frankly, I think it is wishful thinking to believe that we could have avoided WWII or the Cold war. Had we stayed out of the war against Germany, it is very likely that Germany would control Europe and much of the Asian continent and might have brought a war to our doorstep when it was too late. I will say this about Pat. He’s consistent with the Republican mindset of the 1930’s leading up to the war. I think he’s wrong, but he is consistent in that regard.
Personally, I find the names of these children offensive and frankly I am disgusted. I certainly would never name my children the names of filth. However we do live in America. We have the right to name our children whatever it is we want. We may not agree, but that has no bearing. If (big IF) these people have done nothing illegal, I do not see a problem other then offending our other fellow Americans and other nationalities. Being offensive seems to be a larger crime then starving or neglecting children which there are many children in America who are left in these situations and go unnoticed. That is the real crime.
I believe the underlying issue in all this is my worry of my peers being more concern about a name then your neighbors children who are beaten and abused, neglected or malnourished, maybe even homeless. This child (no matter his name) in this photo appears loved and cared for. I will be curious as to the turn of events. Hopefully there is nothing illegal going on.
Just remember these children have no real understanding of what is going on. They are still the purest of innocence in all this and they are not to blame. They have no real concept why they were ripped from their homes.
My prayers will go out to the children.
O.o
Sorry Kiddy !!! :’-(