Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/12/2002 2:38:23 PM EDT
On another thread the question was raised if the Germans, Italians, & Japanese could have won WW II? The short answer is yes but most of the respondents raise the tactical points of contention that are certainly valid, cogent points in determining the outcome of the war. However, the whole outcome of WW II comes down to the fact that the strategic failure and lack of vision of the Axis leadership negated all the tactical brilliance of our enemies. Hitler was told not to go into Russia but his blind hatred of Joe won out. He was told not to go force on force with them but he just could not help himself. Perhaps the best explanation of this is detailed in a book by Blevin Alexander, "How Hitler could have won WWII", c.2000, Crown publishes, NY. The bottom line is that Hitler should have fought WW II in the North African Desert and not Russia. Defeating the British in the Levant would have put him on the Soviet underbelly pumping Iranian oil. The Soviets would not dare to attack the German divisions so near to their oil fields. The greatest question of history still remains why did the Roman empire fall? The result of that event pushed the Western world into a thousand years of darkness. All the great historians of western history have addressed the collapse of the empire but even to this day we have no definitive answer to the question. The imperative here is that the lesson is relevant to our society and our nation. For better or worst the United Stated is all that stands between freedom and another thousand years of darkness. It was once said" if Rome be week, where do we look for strength?" and this question was countered with "if Rome be lost, where do we look for help? " I think we can apply them to todays events. I invite your comments.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 2:52:42 PM EDT
Liquor, drugs, and a lack of rock and roll. [:D] Kidding aside, a good atatement. Could it have been the non assimilation of those they conquered into their society, thereby isolating them in a shell that would not allow change?
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 5:28:23 PM EDT
Well, I think the final answer is that the Roman people no longer believed in the concept of Rome. It was not a Republic. It was not a government that served its people and in fact the government was mostly Germans by the 4th century and Germans made up the bulk of the Army. Open borders brought in too many non Romans and it was not worth fighting for any longer. Rome ended because nobody cared.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 6:17:43 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 6:20:25 PM EDT
Let me make some scary modifications:
Originally Posted By ARSTAF: Well, I think the final answer is that the [red]American[/red] people no longer believed in the concept of [red]America[/red]. It was not a [red]Democracy[/red]. It was not a government that served its people and in fact the government was [red]largely corrupt and unconcerned with liberty[/red] by the [red]22nd[/red] century and [red]the Army was made up of a volunteer force castrated by budget cuts and ineffective leadership[/red]. Open borders brought in too many [red]non-Americans[/red] and it was not worth fighting for any longer. [red]America[/red] ended because nobody cared.
View Quote
I had a little trouble with what the government and army problems were, but it doesn't take too much imagination to see Rome's problems of the past as America's problems of the not-too-distant future.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 6:47:46 PM EDT
Many in the Roman armies lived years without seeing Rome. Gradually they assimilated themselves into the society in which they lived. Rome became more and more distant until finally irrelevant. That finally caused the down-fall of Rome.
Link Posted: 9/12/2002 7:22:53 PM EDT
I think everyones on the right track.Many different reasons. Maybe the Roman empire was too vast and made up of to many different cultures to hold onto forever,much like the soviet union. Probably towards the end since it was not a republic and made up of competeing leadership along with their followers,people did live for whatever felt good or was good for themselves .Rather than thinking in terms of what is good and correct as a society. You would definatly have to identify the pourus borders.The mass infiltration of non Romans into Rome that wanted a piece,but never really fully assimilated or were interested in the best interests of what Rome was all about.Maybe they never really knew? Of course the army that made Rome,was eventually dominated by these "barbarians" that really had nothing to do with the Roman tradition.They didn't have Roman interests at heart,mostly there own immediate needs. Some of these characteristics have similarities with the US.Except we're not built by conquest and submission of our neighbors. The silmilarity with people that would come here and dilute our population,caring for only what the US can do for them without understanding or defending(assimilating) what this country is about, is more than alittle scary.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 6:21:53 AM EDT
A question that has always intrigued me is, "Why the Japanese were so poor in designating targets for the Pearl Harbor attack?" The Japanese totally neglected bombing the fuel and refueling facilities at Pearl. Had they taken out the fuel and the fueling infrastructure the US would have been in far worse condition than we were. If we had lost those, there would have been little option except to pull the Pacific Fleet back to the West Coast. To me, the strangest part is that Japan itself is an Island totally dependant on imported oil. Given that, why didn't they attack the oil transport from the US to our refueling points in the Pacific?
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 7:04:13 AM EDT
I remember seeing something on the fall of the roman empire. Mostly due to the size. It could no longer sustain itself, and corruption in the government. There were not enough resources to sustain such a large army. People were shaving money to make more money, inflation caused a problem because so much money was being minted for all the wars that were being fought, so the soldiers could get paid.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 7:14:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sweep: ARSTAF!!! However, I've heard it argued that Greece and Rome, as well as others, fell because the people became fat and happy. What I mean by that is that they did "whatever made them feel happy" without considering the consequences of their actions. It seems that when the more that outrageous behavior is accepted as normal, the fall of an empire is right around the corner. Just my thoughts and to me, that's what we're looking at today.
View Quote
Lack of morality, and the citizens let their Republic fade away due to apathy.
Link Posted: 9/13/2002 7:31:34 AM EDT
No one thing made Rome fall. When any government exists for as long as Rome did, things sort of pile up, many of which have already been mentioned. A few things to remember however: 1)the Roman empire did NOT fall all at once, and it did not end in 476, the usual date given. The Eastern Empire, which was certainly a continuation of the Imperial government, existed until the Muslims conquered it in the Middle Ages. 2)Even the barbarians who wound up bringing about the fragmentation and eventual disintegration of the Western Empire still saw the existence of the Roman Empire as a GOOD thing. Indeed, well into the era of the Rennaisance there was a government in Germany known as the Holy Roman Empire, in a futile attempt to keep something of Rome alive. 3)If anything can be said to have been the last straw that brought Rome down, it was a fragmentation of governmental power. Several different pretenders declared themselves Emporer on a semi-regular basis over a couple centuries and took troops from the borders into France and Rome to press their claim. This weakened the borders, weakened the military and threw doubt on the imperial authority. This, more than anything else, sapped Rome of both its troops and its wealth.
Top Top