Jump to content

Marie Le Pen


Recommended Posts

 

Subutai was one of Genghis Khan's four "dogs of war" (Jebe and Jelme were two others, I can never remember the fourth.) He...well, he did some ****. Took a Mongol army on a two-year, 6000-mile raid through European Russia, then went back years later and conquered it. Coordinated the wings of his army using flags and signal fires across the Carpathians to invade Hungary and Poland (and win the battles of Mohi and Legnica on consecutive days, 300 miles apart - a modern army would be hard-pressed to do that.)

 

Subutai's campaigns were the basis for Tukhachevsky's "Deep Battle" doctrine in the early 30's, which means he partially informed German armor doctrine, which means he also made contribution to American AirLand battle doctrine. Meaning he'd practically be at home in modern armored warfare, which is something you can't really say about many historical generals. Plus, he had a career spanning over 50 years, over which I don't think he ever lost a battle (maybe one or two in China).

 

Belisarius was great, he'd probably be at the top of my list of most underrated generals. Alexander...I see your point (there's two very good books on Philip of Macedon that make that same point, very credibly.) But regardless, he still had to use that army, which he did to such great effect that he conquered the known world ("known" as defined by Greeks, of course), destroyed an empire that can legitimately be called a superpower, and never lost a battle.

 

 

Can't fool you...

Then I'm amazed and upset I've not heard of Subutai. But by the very fact you're familiar with the Byzantines, I call them "Romans" btw, pleases me greatly. It's a shame that we have history as a playbook for the present but nobody reads it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Not likely

 

I'm speculating, certainly, but I'm not necessarily saying the United States would have been occupied -- it just would have been a willing ally ultimately if Germany had been successful and the U.S. had remained isolationist.

 

Had we remained isolationist, our industry would have ultimately been a boon for the Germans rather than the Allies. The historical turn of phrase I always find apt is: WW2 was won with our stuff and Russian blood. We already had major American companies working with Hitler's war machine before 1941 (or at least their subsidiaries if you want to split hairs). Had we not joined the war, that relationship between Germany and American industry would have only deepened.

 

Plus, the Germans were ahead of us in terms of the development of the bomb. Had the United States not been drawn into the war, and had its industry continued to be an ally to the German war machine, the Germans would more than likely have gotten the tech first. Which puts them in the driver's seat geopolitically for the next two decades at least

 

Post war, in this alternative history, the United States and Nazi Germany probably would have had a cozy relationship. It just would be out in the open with the Germans in charge. Ironically, this would be kind of the reverse of what actually happened when the post war United States co-opted the bulk of the Nazi intelligence apparatus by granting asylum to ardent Nazi spies (and putting them in charge of our intelligence services while they were still in their infancy) -- all the while publicly denying doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, the Germans were ahead of us in terms of the development of the bomb.

 

No, they weren't. Not even remotely. Even if they hadn't exiled most of their top scientists and rejected their "Jewish" science, they didn't have anything close to the resource or industrial base to build one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...