h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Charged with what? Cannibalism?
There is a move to get Mr. Clinton disbarred right now. I just amazes me how many people (my father & brother among them) who H-A-T-E Bill Clinton ... I mean it's PERSONAL. I have disagreed with politicians, but I didn't hate them with a passion. Jeez! I don't like what he did, and if I were Mrs. Clinton I would NOT tolerate his behavior (probably why I have never been married), but as President I am more concerned with how he votes ont he issues. Monica was a groupie who went after him, she was no victim. Two consenting adults is not a crime, it's Hillary's problem! He's a slime, and I will be glad when he retires, but there was no reason to impeach him.

Bloke, did you pop on over here to this thread to avoid hockey talk?!?! Well, one of he hockey guys , GargleBlaster is here aruging with Bluebottle!

Whew! As long as you (BB) realize that it wasn't me. Funny how we both were fooled even though we both noticed a change in tone. Anyways, you guys need to play nicer with each other, and GB, you need to wash your mouth out with SOAP! I don't agree with everything BB said either, but by swearing it feeds the stereotype that Americans are rude and ugly. If the facts are on your side, I am sure BB will concede the point. Okay, now back to your corners, gentlemen, and BE NICE!!!

I am gonna watch HOCKEY now! Bye.

Well, I am glad to see you have adopted a more conciliatory tone. I love to talk about history, which is why I came here in the first place. Your post asked why the US rebelled, so I answered the question. It wasn't about leveling charges at the British people, it was just about history, and I think that is where the whole thing went wrong.

So... to continue in a reasonable tone...

I still disagree with that statement about Britain being content with the land it had. You have to analyze this in the spirit of the times... competition on the continent was fierce, and wars were breaking out all the time. Countries were scrambling for an edge in the power structure, so they wouldn't be overwhelmed by their enemies. That edge was imperialism. From the various colonies (when I say colonies, I am referring to every land they claimed, from North America, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific) and , Britain could get money to finance their wars, trade goods to supply them, remote bases from which to launch attacks, etc. It was the colonies that made Britain the world's great power from 1763-1945. The other countries saw this, and felt that they had to have empires to compete as well. The US saw it just like the Europeans did, which is why they made the drive to the Pacific Ocean, and picked up various territories such as Hawaii and the Philipines. Imperialism sucked, and it did no one any good, but everybody did it, so there is no point in pointing fingers now and blaming people for what previous generations did. But if any of the major powers had failed to participate, they would have been severely diminished as a result.

Now to WWII: In the spring of 1942, when American troops first arrived in Africa, the war was at its lowest point for the Allies. English troops had been completely removed from Europe, and in Africa, they had been pushed back nearly to Alexandria. The French were no more, and could only offer sporadic guerilla resistance. The Russian invasion had bogged down to a war of attrition, but did so just outside Moscow. In Asia, Japan had full control of the Philippines, Hong Kong, East Indies, and many others, and were prepared to hit Australia next. But in the spring, US and British troops opened a second front in Africa, and caught Rommel in a vise. In the Pacific, the battles of Coral Sea and Midway wrecked the Japanese fleet. Between the two, the tide was turned.

However, the Allied victory in WWII had more to do with Hitler's (and Mussolini's) idiocy than American intervention... the war could well have been over by 1942:

- He allowed the British troops to escape the continent in a massive rescue operation at Dunkirk, and they could become a factor later.
- He declared war on Russia immediately, rather than waiting to dispatch the western powers first.
- Mussolini invaded Egypt and Greece without consulting Germany in 1941. The results were nearly disastrous, and Germany was forced to divert resources to these places. The result was that the invasion of Russia was delayed for 6 weeks. The Russian campaign was delayed a second time by Hitler's indecisiveness in August, when his generals wanted to finish off Moscow before winter. Had they done so, Russia would have been finished, because Moscow was by then the transportational hub of the country, and they would have had free access to everywhere. Meanwhile, the Japanese honored their non-agression pact with Russia, which allowed Russia to recall troops they had staged on their eastern border to the defense of Moscow after winter.

As for tanks, you are correct that Shermans were inferior to Panzers... however, that inferiority was marginal compared to what the British began the war with. The important thing is that they were much faster than the Russian T-34s (which were well armored and gunned, but the fleet Panzers just ran circles around them) and packed enough firepower to get through Panzer armor. It was the Panzere that was the most advanced tank of WWII (at least, before the Panzer II debuted near the end of the war), followed by the Sherman, and the T-34 a distant third. As for mass production of the T-34, Russian production under communist rule had always followed one rule: Make it simple, and make it cheap. Simple, so you can make a lot of them, and cheap, so when they get destroyed, you haven't lost a big investment. The USSR always did care more about the bottom line than how many people got killed along the way.

"You should not stereotype all British soldiers as being evil - they were not." - It was not my intention to say that they were evil. I was only answering your question about the roots of the Revolution, and the Quartering Act was certainly a contributing factor. Of course, not all British soldiers went to the extremes, but this stuff did happen. That is why there is a specific mention of the quartering of soldiers in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. I don't know why you took all this personal, but there it is. It happened over 200 years ago, and I am not one to hold a grudge. Anyway, I thought I was pretty clear about saying that it was a disagreement with the British government, and had nothing to do with its people.

And yes, the British government did find democracy, but it found it in baby steps. One of history's great ironies is the great "No taxation without representation" argument made by the colonists... the average taxpayer in England had no more representation than the Americans. The difference was that British writers such as John Locke and John Trenchard were writing scathing criticisms of the Parliament and crown. The British people largely ignored them, but the Americans took them to heart... and these writers influenced Thomas Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington, to name but a few. Those criticisms had to increase in volume over the centuries in order for Parliament to make the necessary reforms. The Colonists simply accomplished at a single violent stroke what would take Parliament ages to accomplish.

"I merely feel that America is not as superior as it often portrays itself to be." - I suppose if we were a more guarded people, we would look a bit less undeservedly smug. But one thing that does characterize most Americans is an almost frightening outspokenness and frankness. So if Americans come on strong in their patriotism, they proclaim it to the heights. And since we air out our political dirty laundry to the entire world, our flaws are more obvious than those of other nations. In the global audience, our politics are something like a continuing episode of Melrose Place, so everyone else's journalists are constantly tuned in. But as I said before, any attempt to stereotype Americans is doomed to failure... you can only, at best, stereotype a specific region (and a specific nationality within that region) with any hope of meeting a person that fits that stereotype.

I think we're all talking about history because we all love it, but it's very interesting to see how the different interpretations are.
Sorry for mis-interpreting your post, I'll do all I can to keep it calmer and friendlier in here from now on.

Was Britain content with the land it had - a very good question, and very debatable. I still think that Britain was more interested in India and trade routes to it, especially Africa, which explains why they were willing to go to war in the Suez Canal debacle not so long ago (I can't remember the exact date, but was around the 1950s). But again, Britain was involved in America, and once in, did not want to lose face by pulling out, and were afraid that France, Britain's rival, was going to gain control of America instead. Which may well have been one of Lous' motivations, it's hard to tell.
You said "It was the colonies that made Britain the world's great power from 1763-1945. The other countries saw this, and felt that they had to have empires to compete as well. The US saw it just like the Europeans did, which is why they made the drive..." and that is very true, to an extent. But Britain did not start the rush for Empires in Europe, but rather was quite late in it. In Elizabethan times, Britain was still a fairly poor relation of Europe's, but was gaining some power. And it was in the Elizabethan period that the Pope of the time gave an order that divided the world between Spain and Portugal. I cannot remember the exact details, but essentially it drew a line on a map and said all lands east belonged to Portugal, all west belonged to Spain. France and Britain were relative late-comers to the Empire-grabbing as Britain was concentrating on preventing the threat from Spain. Germany (which as you know did not become a united power until the 1880s) was even later. Britain, though, when it did eventually start to build an empire, had undergone an industrial revolution, which is why it was able to gain more land than any other European power.
You said
"However, the Allied victory in WWII had more to do with Hitler's (and Mussolini's) idiocy than American intervention... the war could well have been over by 1942:
- He allowed the British troops to escape the continent in a massive rescue operation at Dunkirk, and they could become a factor later. " - very true - although I do not know if "allowed" is quite the right word, as a lot of men died at Dunkirk, and it was a big battle. But Germany was trying to tackle Britain and France at the same time.
"- He declared war on Russia immediately, rather than waiting to dispatch the western powers first." - that was undoubtably the mistake that cost Germany the war. It was, frankly, suicide. But then, Britain wasn't going anywhere at that time... No doubts that that was Hitler's fatal mistake.
"- Mussolini invaded Egypt and Greece without consulting Germany in 1941. The results were nearly disastrous, and Germany was forced to divert resources to these places." very true.

As for the debate on tanks, I guess it all depends on what you mean by "superior". If I wanted to say what the superior car was, and to me, the smallest car was the most superior one, I would say the mini is superior. If, to you, you wanted to measure speed and that was what made a car superior, the mini would be pathetic, and Thrust SSC would be superior, although to me as Thrust SSC is huge, it blatantly isn't.

So, what is "superior"? The Panzer was, by far, a better tank than the British ones, which afterall had been designed as Infantry support vehicles, designed along the same trains of thought as Mother in The Great War. The Shermans were faster than the T-34s, true. And there is no doubt that Germany had the strongest designed tanks of the war, especially with their Jagdtiger (SdKfz 186), Jagdpanzer VI. For details about tanks, you should check out the http://www.onwar.com/tanks website, it's very detailed. Also, it depends on what model Sherman we are comparing to what model T-34, as both advanced. I'd say that the Sherman started off stronger, yet towards the end of the war, the later model T-34s were stronger than the later model Shermans. It's almost impossible to come to a definate conclusion as to which was superior unless we agree on what, exactly, we mean by "superior". In many ways, though, you are right that the Shermans were better than the T-34s, it all depends on what you are measuring. Both were equally effective.

You are right about the lack of representation in Britain. Even the 1832 Great Reform Act, which removed all rotten boroughs still made no difference, hence the Chartist movement in the 30s and 40s. It wasn't until the 1880s that the average working class man got the vote.

As for stereotypes, you are right that they are always flawed and dodgy at best, but when dealing with history, it is impossible to come to terms with it without using stereotypes of one sort, as because we weren't there, we have not experienced what it really was like then.

You know, I'm not terribly fond of Clinton as a person, myself, but I am firmly convinced that he was what the country needed just now. Just take a look at the unemployment rate, the economy, etc. I may not agree with the man in most things, I may not like him, but as a President, I have to say he's done pretty darn well by the country.

It is my opinion that the current state of prosperity has nothing to do with Clinton, but is based on:

1) Measures put forth by Bush. Remember, macro-economic policies have a require a lead time of approximately 4 years to achieve results.

2) The growth of opportunities in the information technology sector, and favorable performance of IT stocks, fueled primarily by the growth of the Internet.

Odd...

I perused the onwar website, and it seems to completely contradict what I read about WWII tanks. What I read said that the T-34 was horribly slow, but was the heaviest armed and armored tank of the bunch. The Panzer had a reasonable gun, good plating, and was so fast and nimble that the T-34's were totally outclassed. The Sherman came along then, and was nearly as fast and powerful as the Panzer, but carried slightly less armor, and was less reliable in the field.

According to the stats in onwar, the take on T-34's and Panzers are backward... the T-34's averaged 40 km/h offroad, compared to just 20 km/h for Panzers... and Panzers that ran as fast as 40 km/h didn't see production until 1944 (I didn't check all of them, though, so I may have missed a quick one in there somewhere). The Shermans mostly ran at 34 km/h, thus enabling them to run circles around Panzers as well, although they were the lightest of the bunch in both armament and armor.

At least one thing held true about the T-34... the "make them simple, and make them cheap" rule. Notice that T-34's didn't have radios, except the command vehicles. The radios enabled the other armies to coordinate their attacks much better than the Russians, and superior tactics can overcome superior technology.

Oh, as to the "Hitler let the English escape at Dunkirk" thing, I am not entirely sure, because I can't recall where I picked up this bit of information (may have been a History Channel WWII thing), but it was my understanding that there was some sort of hesitation on Hitler's part that allowed the evacuation to begin in the first place, much like his hesitation in the USSR invasion.

"...more attrocities happen in New York alone each year than Britain committed before the War of Independance."

I take offense to that. You are comparing NYC to a WAR that went on for years???? Where are your facts? I am from NYC. I spent the first 24 years of my life there, so I feel more qualified than you to speak about what goes on in New York City. Sure, there's crime. There's crime everywhere. NYC is NOT the most dangerous place, by far, especially when you factor in the population. Not even if you limit it to the USA. I think that was an unfair "shot", and as a proud New Yorker, I don't appreciate it. Again, where are your facts? Name some NY "atrocities" that occured in one year that are worse than went on in the War of Independence?