Barack Hussein Obama will slap Americans square in the face with his dose of reality,and when we defend our traditions, his flock attacks with a barrage of insults, but no facts. His past acquaintances are never reported by his puppet pocket media, and yet any one who defies the man gets bombarded for their acquaintances, which always pale in comparison.

Barack Hussein Obama will praise socialists from other lands, while he segregates us, as Americans.  The President will befriend, or at least try and reach across the isle to appease terrorists, and yet, condemn Americans for making an honest living.  He will protect criminals who invade sneaking past our borders but offend Americas policies ginen to us through the constitution.   He is of the one world, one people mindset, but is America really like anyplace else here on Earth?  NO!

Barack Hussein Obama  expects to win another term.  If he does, he will indeed finish the job he started, creating a new America, his America which would be just another part of a very ordinary world.  America is the best place to live,  just ask those who are trying to sneak in, trying to come here for freedom.  Despite whatever Obama is thinking, his plan for a united World will fail, it must for freedom sake.  He is well known for throwing anyone under the bus who is against his type of world order.  We, as Americans now under Obamas policies, are fifty percent poor, lets not let him finish the job he has started, please, Come to your senses.

There were many obstacles Hitler endured to obtain power in 1933, in this year he was appointed as Chancellor however the establishment that gave him this title were keen to hold onto their power. Hindenburg, a powerful and prestige president at the time, had support from, and control over the army, Hitler’s hope to consolidate full power was also restrained by the power of institution such as the Reichstag. Hitler was aiming to bring about a Nazi revolution in Germany, and his position as Chancellor would help him to achieve this.

Hitler used violence in order to consolidate power; however he balanced the use of terror with legal means. The Nazis understood that power had to be taken legally in order to get the widespread support from the majority of the German population.  50,000 SA, SS and Stahlhelm members were appointed as auxiliary policemen on the 22nd February in order to intimidate and terrorize Nazi opponents. This led to violence against communist and socialists, who were reluctant to act against Hitler; they misread the situation and believed Hitler’s new role as chancellor would lead to political and economic collapse, and in turn the formation of communist rule in Germany. With members of the Nazi party in the police force this enabled Hitler to order a police raid on the head office of the communist party, KPD. Hermann Goering, then claimed that evidence was found during the raid, communist conspiracy theories to seize power through force were supposedly found. With this new evidence Hitler had an excuse to use violence and terror as he could claim it was merely defensive. The Nazis closed down socialist newspapers, cutting off socialist propaganda, and members of the SA disrupted political meetings damaging any chances of the left side developing an idea on how to stop the increasing power of the Nazis. Violence was an important factor whilst consolidating Nazi power and it is proved to be increasingly important when paired with the strategy of propaganda.

On the 27th February 1933, the Reichstag building was set on fire and the communists were blamed. The use of propaganda meant that the Nazis could take full advantage of the event, and pass all the blame onto the communists who were portrayed as dangerous threats. Terror was used, as the next day 4000 communist were arrested due to the event, weakening the communist threat and proving the power of the Nazi party and Hitler. The Reichstag fire gave the Nazis the opportunity to use legal actions in order to consolidate power as the emergency decree gave the police the power to arrest suspected Nazi opponents without confronting the courts.  Goebbels portrayed the emergency decree as a way to stop the spread of communism, and therefore it was welcomed by the vast majority of the German population as many feared communism. The decree gave Hitler legal reasons to arrest those he saw as a threat; because of propaganda he was able to use the decree to justify the arrest, imprisonment, and torture of many political opponents. By using violence, terror and intimidation Hitler was able to remove his political threats; at the General election in March 1933, all the communist deputies were barred from the Reichstag as a result Hitler gained a political advantage as the Nazis won the 1933 elections. After the elections the Nazis had gained the legal rights once again to destroy political opposition. The leader of the SS, Heimlich Himmler set up a concentration camp at Dachau where political opponents could be help in “protective custody”.

When presenting the Reichstag with the enabling act Hitler used force and intimidation as he brought with him the SA who swarmed the building. Again the presence of the SA put pressure on the government to pass the act, as they were reminded of the true power of the Nazis.  The act granted Hitler four years of power as dictator in order for the act to be granted, the communist deputies were barred from the Reichstag and Goring was able to reduce the required number of votes needed to achieve the overall majority. In February 1933 attacks on churches took place as the Nazis saw organized religion as an enemy.  The churches and religious figures supported the Enabling act as they feared the consequences if they didn’t, as they had seen what had happened to socialists and communists and did not wish to have the same fate.

After the Enabling Act had been passed, Hitler aimed to control all the social and economic aspects of Germany. First he dissolved the local state governments and introduced new state governors who were able to introduce Nazi policies. On May 2nd the offices of the social socialist trade union organization were raided by SA members and the organization was split up. The violence and terror used by the Nazis led to many socialist leaders fleeing the country as many had been killed or arrested and on June 22 the SPD was officially disbanded. The centre party, was the last party to be disbanded, and in June 1933, due to Himmler’s orders the most significant members of the party were arrested; again violence and terror was used to disband a political opponent, proving how important violence was in order for Hitler to consolidate power.

The use of violence was a key part in consolidating power in 1933; Hitler was able to use his position as chancellor to place members of the Nazi army into the police force. The propaganda used to exploit the Reichstag fire meant that Hitler could then use his legal rights to arrest communist and expose their theories of spreading communism worldwide. In order for the terror used to consolidate power to be effective it had to be connected with propaganda and legality, in order for the German people to side with the Nazis despite all the violence that was taking place. Therefore I agree that without violence Hitler wouldn’t have been able to intimidate and force his way to dictatorship as the terror was what caused people to back down and also caused parties to disband, paving the way for Hitler and the Nazi party to consolidate power. 

Sex has often been a weapon of war. In Human history, men in conflict situations  enjoying the upper hand in a war  use rape to demonstrate their power over the vanquished. They rape the women of the vanquished men and take some of them away simply to leave the men feeling defeated, humiliated and sexless.  

In Afghanistan however, the CIA did not humiliate Afghan men with rape and the like, they instead used Viagra to win them over from the Talibans. They managed to use Viagra selectively to lure hardcore, aged Warlords to the NATO side and what became known as the “silver bullet” (Viagra) proved to be a more effective bullet than the lead bullet in the war against terror.

 Mentioned is made of a 60 year old Warlord with four wives who for a long time was very uncooperative  towards  the NATO troops on the Taliban operations around his areas of control.  He was approached by a clever CIA agent and given just four pieces of Viagra. This was calculated to take care of his four wives.

After putting the silver bullets to use, the 60 year old warLord returned four days later beaming with confidence and extremely friendly to the American spies. In the desire to get more Viagra, he accurately detailed the Taliban troop movements which resulted in major victories for the American and NATO troops in  Southern Afghanistan where this war Lord was in-charge.

 Every time he returned for the Viagra to take care of his four younger wives, he would give useful information about the Taliban positions. To him , the power of Viagra and how it changed his marital sexual fortunes was a much higher good than the idea of defending the motherland from the foreign invaders.  He is even quoted to have said that Americans were “great Men” because of the magical silver bullets they have. To a big measure,  the pacification of Southern Afghanistan is attributed to viagra not the bombs and artilleries.

 As the war went on, older Warlords were from time to time lured with Viagra to cross over their loyalties to the American forces. It was not by mistake that the older men were targeted. At the age 60 and with an average of four sexually active younger women, it could be understood why the Viagra project worked so well in the Afghan war.

The civil war was a combination of many things, small steps that all piled up to unanticipated consequences. From each struggle of 1859-1861, each one was set out differently, presented with different challenges and permitted different solutions with different outcomes. To begin with slavery; it was a profound economic, political, religious and moral issue; the most profound problem that the nation had ever faced. However, it did not cause the civil war in a rational, predictable way. There was miscalculation, misunderstanding, it was confusing and the location was underestimated by both sides. They received incorrect images of the others in the Partisan Press. The political belief of each others’ economies, class relations, with both sides bluffing to the other. Slavery had become a bit on the obscured side by the time the fighting had begun. The white northerners weren’t fighting to end it, but Abraham Lincoln said, “Somehow it drove everything” (135, Ayers, Edward). There were even arguments that the slaves freed themselves, to enrich the story of the war, and to emphasize the growth of liberty. That would be one argument that would lose, it was not possible. It has to be up to the states and nation for all the slaves to be free, not the individual slaves themselves. There were the differences between the North and South that could contribute to the Civil War, their culture and beliefs and how they want to run their territory.

In the beginning it started out as the politics of slavery, but then later it had become very personal, about when the 36/30 came about, and then went back to politics, and so on. It had bounced back and forth from being about politics and then personal, but ended up on a personal note.

The social life is also “contingent”, implicated and unpredictable, because it all depends on one another. The public, private, economic; political, religious and secular; military and civilian lives are all very much connected. With social change, it can begin anytime, anywhere with the civil war being a great example of this. But Social change alone was not the cause either.  Another reason that has been argued of causing the war was modernity. The north was racing towards the twentieth century with banks, factories, railroads, etc. Therefore, it had been said that the southern states were at a standstill, stalled in time. This thought needs to be rethought, because in 1860, the south had become “modern” and was a pretty advanced society with machinery and trappings of modernity.

The political system itself had helped with the civil war. The assembly of the two parties over the first half of the nineteenth century had turned around binary choices. The party regulars had demanded of the loyalists it’s all or nothing, to be undecided and open to persuasion was to be less than a man. As the two party systems was strained and broke in the 1850’s, the American voters had felt driven divided by choices of the Republican or Democrat, Union or Confederacy. With The Missouri Compromise, Missouri wanted statehood and wants to be a slave state; this was in the late 1840’s. It was an extension to the pacific and it was the 36/30 parallel line, influenced by the slaveholders. Everything above was a free state and everything below was a slave state, Missouri being a slave state. But there were four major debates of the slave territories which are: the outright exclusion of no slave states in the western territory at all, Extension of the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific (36/30 a parallel), popular sovereignty-allowing the people of a territory to decide the issues and have the power to do what they want or not to do, and finally the protection of slaveholders(their right to own slaves) even if a few lived in the territory-property rights protection via the constitution. And it would upset the balance of the senate, but they figured it out with Maine being the free-state and Missouri being a slave-state. Therefore, Missouri was admitted as a slave state in 1821. This all concludes with an economic nationalism, the Westward Expansion and the Monroe Doctrine, the rise and decline of the Republicans and Sectionalism, but the Missouri Compromise remained in place until the 1850’s. Sectionalism also being a cause of the Civil War, the United States was divided between the North and the South.

The issue of slavery had become an issue of freedom on both sides from the 1840’s until 1861. Both leaders of North and South; had attempted to get to a solution to the problem of slavery in their territories. In which led to the four proposals I had just mentioned above. The politics of slavery had become very personal to everyone during this time, for example Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published. Her son had died 1849, the same year the Fugitive Slave Act had come about, in which galvanized Stowe so she could pour her grief and indignation into her novel about plantation slavery.  Her book was the top selling book of the time, selling three million copies.  It had convinced a lot of Northerners that slavery was wrong, but not enough to end it.

Slavery was an abstraction to most of the white northerners in this time. Stowe had made it an institution that did not just oppress blacks but also destroyed the families that debased the well-meaning of the Christian masters. She had grown up with evangelical and Protestant ministers and abolitionists-her father was Lyman Beecher. Slavery began to take a personal and tragic heart wrenching meaning for Stowe moved from being just political but to a moral issue and crusade. Slavery had become the center of politics in America, but it was slowly approaching the center of American life.

 In 1846, there was a Pennsylvania Congressman-David Wilmot who had modest proposal, to put slavery in the front and center of America as the most important American political issue. This issue would be put in place and strengthen over the next 15 years which would shake and rattle the worlds of Stowe and others, including the Union to their very core. Wilmot had offered an amendment to the appropriations bill for the Mexican War, in which is known as the Wilmot Proviso. It involved any acquisition of any territory from Mexico, had required a fundamental condition; the prohibition of extension of slavery into those particular territories. Although, it did not apply to Texas, because it had become a state before the war, in the Proviso Wilmot it linked freedom of the territories and the prohibition of slavery to the freedom of white people. He was trying to win votes in the free soil north and perhaps from the upper south. However, he ended up infuriating the slave power. It applies that the proximity of slavery was degrading and that white southerners were degraded people and unfit to join the American territories. It took at least fifty times for the bill to pass. The Proviso had shown sowed distrust and suspicion between the northerners and southerners, Congress had divided along sectional lines before, but it was much deeper and personal now.

During the election of 1848, both the Democrats and Whigs had wanted to avoid identification with either side of the Wilmot Proviso controversy, therefore selected the presidential candidates carefully and accordingly. The democrats nominated Lewis Cass a Michigan senator, whose public career went back as far as the War of 1812 and therefore, he understood the destructiveness that can be caused from the slavery issue-and the supported popular sovereignty. The Whigs were pretty quiet on the issue of slavery. They nominated Zachary Taylor, who was a war hero and not even a Whig or politician for that matter. He didn’t belong to any party and had never voted either. According to his background, some would say that he owned a hundred slave plantations in Louisiana and his deceased daughter was married to a proslavery senator-Jefferson Davis from Mississippi. His background had disturbed quite a few of the anti-slavery northern Whigs.

The Compromise of 1850, California applied for statehood, with a state constitution that had not made any provision for slavery; if Congress accepts California, it would be a free state. Admission of California would definitely tip the balance of power in the North and give the Free states the majority in the senate. On December 1849, Congress confronted the issue of California State, partisans on both sides promised it would be a long and bitter struggle. Because of the nine free-soil candidates had won seats in the House of Reps., and neither the Whigs nor the Democrats held the majority there. The Compromise debate had brought together three politicians: John C. Calhoun (died in two months), Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster. Calhoun had brought states rights to the foreground and claiming the compromise had not helped the south and they should veto the legislation. Daniel Webster supported the Compromise, and the Fugitive Slave Law which gave the southern slaveholders the right to go into the northern states and get slaves back. He claims he did not come as a Northern man from Massachusetts, but came as an American. He supported the Fugitive Slave Law, only because to preserve the Union. Eventually after a long debate, the compromise was rejected by the senate in the summer of 1850. Calhoun died that year in March, and Clay retired to recover from his poor health, but then died two years later. Webster was estranged from his fellow Whigs in the North and left the Senate and died a few months after Clay. Taylor dies and Millard Fillmore presumes presidency. Fillmore and Stephen Douglas an Illinois senator had passed the compromise. Douglas had wanted to pass it with Fillmore signing it. Douglas also had another proposal and it was the Railroad proposal that linked all of the United States; he had a trans-continental route that would link the east and west to the spread American democracy. The Senate had rejected the bill, although he did convince Pierce to remove the Indians from the Nebraska territory so Douglas plans on having a railroad run from Chicago and westward. The southerners had thought that this was another way for the northerners to increase their power and wealth, because it was at the northern line.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act was Douglas’ which split Nebraska into two territories with both Kansas and Nebraska having the understanding that Kansas would become a slave state and Nebraska being a free state. But each territory would be a popular sovereignty, but it had allowed the southerners to bring slaves into the formerly closed territory, his bill was repealed by the Missouri Compromise, there would be a civil war in Kansas. The Northerners of all parties were outraged, after all slavery existed below the Missouri line and was free above. It had existed for 34 years as a basis for the sectional accord on slavery, but it was threatened and the northern leaders had charged south’s desire to spread slavery and expand it political power. Douglas who was an advocate for Popular Sovereignty and wanted to create two territories; however this was a bad idea. The significance of this was that it cancelled the Missouri Compromise out and the split between the North and South began. By 1854, Pierce had supported it and the Kansas-Nebraska Act was law. Some say if the Kansas-Nebraska Act did not happen the civil war might not have occurred. The South’s fear was that if the blacks became free, then they wondered who would be the inferior, lower class. Therefore, they did not want to end slavery at all, they wanted to protect their way of life and unite the Confederacy.

The Middle Class plays a role in the Civil War also. They were evangelcalists, uptight and upright morality. They think everyone should be church going folks, and they resided in the North. Slavery had become personal for them, because it was based on morality, more than politics for them. The Middle Class wanted to improve society, make it better, and improve the working class, through evangelicalism. They were like the 19th century missionaries, and benevolent. There were no Middle Class in the South, no benevolence either. There were only Yeomen farmers, plantation owners, and slaves, possibly a few white workers. The main issue for the Middle Class was to preserve the Union. The South wanted to preserve their way of life, although it varied throughout the South. Evangelicalism was a unity of whiteness, as the southern had stated it.  

            To understand this totally, it has to be thought of this way, the war as a conflict between a modern North and a pre- or anti-modern South. In this kind of fundamentalist interpretation it all fits together neatly. The economy, politics, religion, gender relations, literacy, and demography are all aligned along the opposing axes of modernity on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. Supposedly, the North couldn’t help but fight for autonomy, technology, diversity, and progress, for what modernity demands. The South couldn’t help but fight for Hierarchy, agriculture, homogeneity, and the past for what modernity that is what has overcome. This differing degree of modernization is what is led us to war, it is left unexplained in ways, but it is self-evident to many people. It might be better to understand the modernity in the Civil War to think of the North and South of the simple difference between them, all the anger and debate that went into the war, had contained “modern” elements that would have not existed before the middle of the nineteenth century. There is no doubt that the North had embraced modernization with high literacy, rapidly growing towns and cities, early widespread adoption of industrial methods transportation and communication innovations and a strong dominance of political engagement by a broad electorate of white men. Yes, the slave South was moving slowly with fewer towns and factories and lower population density, but however, the white South had welcomed political parties, nationalism, political mobilization; it welcomed print and rapid change in ideas and the intimate connection to the cultural centers of Europe and the North. According to W.E.B. DuBouis, the southern slavery was downright cruel and costly, dirty, and inexcusable which nearly ruined the best democracy experiment that the world has probably ever seen. It created the prosperity for much of its white population, in which made them gain a sense of sophisticated means of communication, governance, a sense of belonging in and with the advanced and enlightenment of the Christian people. It made them be able to think for themselves with a destiny of their own. It also made the Confederacy build an enormous army out of nothing. Slavery gave the Confederacy its reason of existence; therefore it was not an accidental action of slavery emerging. There were two things of modernity that the North and South shared in common was print and popular politics. With the print, the people were able to voice their opinions, gripes, and loyalties beyond any boundary; to identify with the people they never met before, and to see themselves as abstract. Without papers, we might not have seen events that are decisive and would have passed on without a big consequence. However, with the papers’ it made people self-conscious and aware of whom they are who others said they were. The North and South had taken shape before getting their armies together; they were taking shape with words. It surely was not an accident that a sectional animosity had begun over railroads, telegraphs, and newspaper proliferated in the 1840’s and 1850’s.

The Civil War had been brought on by many people, constructing a chain of actions and reaction beyond any boundary of their own time and space; in many ways the people of the North and South in 1860 and 1861 had anticipated the war happening. President Pierce had hoped that Nationalism and expansion (manifest destiny) would unite the North and South, but it did not and ended up dividing them.

What caused the civil war? If you have to say just one word, then go ahead and say slavery, but the civil war DID NOT come from the existence of slavery alone, in a nation that was built on ideals of freedoms, or from the past and future caught in a death struggle, political events that occurred and crashed into society. Therefore, slavery was just a key catalytic event in a volatile mix of politics involving, the states, society, and each state wanting to do something different from the other, thinking they know what is best for their territory. The civil war was caused by all, states’ rights to be a slave state, politics of slavery, geography. Becoming independent, to succeed from the Union or not, to let the states’ govern themselves or not. It is all these things combined with everything that occurred through these events, the spread of democracy and a desire for political, economic and racial stability. To put it in short terms of the cause; it shouldn’t really be what caused the civil war? It should be more along the line of, the events that led up to the Civil War.

 The civil war is still very much alive in the south, especially the Deep South, slavery and the civil war still needs to be talked about; the reconstruction, the culture, and the wars of this century, and the freedom struggle and what about the future. Slavery may be gone, but it surely is not forgotten and there are still some among us that probably would own slaves today if they could. It needs to be talked about and somehow change it and/or make things better. Although, there will always be some kind of animosity among the Northerners and Southerners, but let’s hope that the Nation will not be divided again like during the Civil War era. Hopefully, the United States can and has learned from this war and will not let it happen it again. That is what our enemies are hoping and trying to do, they want us to turn on one another and rebel against the government.

I imagine most people would agree with this statement yet in British footballers are paid more than triple than someone who was fighting the war in Afghanistan would, personally I think its a disgrace. 

Footballers are just celebrities who get paid far too much for very little work. Now that I think about it, why would you pay someone a six figure sum to do a childhood activity? Footballers don’t risk life and limb for what they do, their families aren’t lying awake at night wondering if their loved ones will return home alive or in a coffin.

Footballers are treated like royalty while an Army Soldier is treated like a nobody most of the time. No one rolls a red carpet, they would be laughed at if they demanded V.I.P access at a hot club. A man or woman at war does not live in a mansion and have people do everything for them.

Army housing is in fact getting cut for British Soldiers, now they don’t even have that privilege, While once again footballers live in comfort and have the world at their beck and call. Well Soldiers do have one thing footballers don’t, the respect of their public. That is something money will never buy you.

In dedication to all the soldiers who died for our freedom.  They are incredible.

And for those who resist their lives}  Law enforcement, firefighters and etc..

for our safety and etc…

They are awesome as well.  They deserve our recognition.  

Please be sacred on this day.  If possible hang your Countries flag out on

your front and back yard to demo your love for your Country, please.

Suggestion:  show your family a lot of love and pride knowing you can

do this.  Our troops made this day possible.  

Please add a photo of a soldier.. on the comment section at the bottom

so we can honor them..  

If you have a Memorial Wall in your community.. suggestion:  pay tribute

to it.. 

They sneer and chant with simulated blood smeared signs at anti-war demonstrations,  what some may refer to as the animal act of copulation and the other animal act of war.  Not only that, but they shout that the act of engaging in weaponized conflict with opposing aggressors to safeguard individual rights compares with participating in sex to preserve or regain chastity and purity within the couple involved.  Yet, if this imprecise utterance is viewed in the context of procreation and emphasis is then placed on the development of an embryonic diploid eukaryote, then it is valid and an absolute verity.

Baby-making time

The destructive nature of bombs dropping on sections of cities in some foreign land to promote serenity for some distant day may seem difficult to conceptualize by the time search crews begin to recover human remains. The notion is so far removed from the idea of exchanging bodily fluids in an act of passion and pleasure in the bedroom. On the battlefield, it includes your adversary’s blood squirting into your eyes upon thrusting a spear into his neck, or enjoying watching as he shuffles off the mortal coil, gives up the ghost, and suffers the last blast of the buffets of fate and chance.

It is pertinent to remember that a babe is but a whole, perfect, untouched being.  The ultimate example of virginity lies in the womb of the mother, not the mother herself nor the father, indeed.  But that potential infant carries on the legacy of man as hateful as spite and as brilliant as the halo effect of an atom bomb’s detonation.

Go to sleep little babies.

Richard Overy in 1995 published his novel titled Why the Allies Won; Overy is a professor of modern history at King’s College in London and has published numerous works on World War II. Why the Allies Won is inclusive to Overy’s in depth study of why the allies won World War II, when it seemed that the axis powers were ahead until 1942-1943. Overy begins by clearly laying out the basic information as to why the allies did win. He discusses three major elements of World War II in terms of where the battles were: in the sea, in the air, and on the ground. By doing this he is clearly illustrates the allies’ rough situation upon entering the war, and how they were able to improve their performance both militarily and economically and come out of World War II victorious.

Overy discusses, in great detail, the war at sea. He goes into depth discussing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which ultimately cause the United States to enter the war. He talks about the intelligence of the allies and how they were eventually able to break the code of submarine warfare tactics which allowed them to defeat the German U-boats. The code-breaking and radar technology allowed their anti-submarine warfare tactics to become technologically superior alongside the United States Navy; both of which led to the demise of the German U-boat threat and the Japanese Navy.

The war in the air, as portrayed by Overy, consisted of more ineffectiveness, than actual effectiveness. Overy illustrates how the American bombing offensive had cause disruptions in Germany’s economy and actually diverted Germany’s resources to Reich. However, Overy also illustrates the importance of the American bombers along with the new radar technology, when dealing with the Japanese Navy and locating submarines. In one aspect, Overy does not seem to give the air force enough credit, but then in other areas he illustrates the importance of the aircraft with the bombings. For example, he talks of the Soviet air force and how their skill and confidence was aided in the allies winning the war; however, he compares that to the Germans and Japanese who were more militarized at the beginning of the war. In the way Overy compares the nations, he clearly illustrates that the allies had to learn how to fight in war; while the axis powers were already prepared for war.

The difference between the allies and the axis powers military skills, according to Overy, aided in the allies’ victory. The axis powers were prepared for war, while the allies had to learn war. The allies being pulled into the war, especially Britain and America were not as prepared but could then use more modern technology to create better equipment. This element is obviously important in answering the question of why the allies won and Overy does not ignore its importance. The technological advances and quality was illustrated numerous times when dealing with aircraft, bombers, submarines, tanks, and radars. He also illustrated how Germany was also working to improve their technology. In return, Germany developed too many weapons that were not as effective as their old, while at the same time, the Soviets continued working on making fewer new models of weapons but mass-producing their old weapons. As Overy also points out, this is an economic downfall to Germany as they are spending money trying to create something new, that in return fails, the Soviet Union spend their money producing the same equipment and not losing money in the long run.

The weapons proved vital for on the ground warfare. The axis while having better trained soldiers, focused on placing their combat troops in the front and not many in the rear. The allies placed more emphasis on using their troops for supply purposes which allowed them to continue warfare without break unlike the axis troops which were constantly running out of supplies and getting bombarded by the axis while waiting for supplies. Overy illustrates in precise detail the statistics of the allied resources in comparison to the axis resources and in return he portrays the obvious superior allied supply forces. The axis powers were lacking in shipping, tanks, aircraft, oil, steel, ordnance and ammunition as well as man power. All of these, the allied troops had plenty; they relied on obtaining their steel from American and was able to extract twice as much oil as the axis powers. The axis powers had oil; however, Overy points out that they did not have the drilling equipment to obtain the oil. The oil that Germany had and was able to extract was watered down by the time it reached the battle fields, which decreased its octane levels. Germany was unable to successfully extract and transport the high octane oil that, in particular, was vital for their aircrafts.

For the war on the ground the Soviet military force had been nearly defeated in 1941, after the near defeat, Stalin placed strict guidelines on the troops about desertion as well as surrender. Stalin told all troops that any soldier of any stature who muttered surrender or deserted the troops was to be shot down. The soviet military troops were quick to learn from their mistakes in 1941, and Overy points out how they organized themselves better and quickly became an overwhelming ground force that held massive defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk. Overy also points out that with the, now highly skilled, Soviet military and the inexperienced American troops working together axis illusion of victory would quickly fade.

Overy illustrates key elements in all the tactics made by the prominent military figures. Overy dedicates an entire chapter discussing not only the well-known military figures such as Churchill, Stalin, and Hitler, but he also points out key figures that are typically looked over and not often appreciated. Little known figures such as Alexander Novikove, who was the architect of the Red air force, and Alexei Antonov who became the chief of staff after 1943 is portrayed by Overy as being important to the allies winning World War II, but often ignored by other historians.

Overy examines six different settings in answering the question of why the allies won. He begins by discussing the navy powers and used the Coral Sea and midway, and the Battle of the Atlantic to illustrate the allied Navy powers. He used Stalingrad and Kursk to portray air warfare tactics. Finally, he used the strategic bombing offensives and Normandy to portray the technological and leadership aspects of allied victory.

One element that Overy also includes in a separate chapter is that of morality and the moral aspects of war. This is an element that is important to World War II and the allies’ victory over the axis powers. In this chapter Overy includes the atomic bomb and nuclear warfare that was used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the super bomb was effective in winning the wars the result of the atomic bomb was much more horrific than anyone anticipated. While there were originally three atomic bombs only two hit their target and left massive destruction and devastation after the realization of the atomic bomb it was a morality issues and decided that nuclear warfare would never occur again. When dealing with warfare Overy points out that civilian lives are commonly lost to the best of soldiers abilities, but to the extent of nuclear weapons, morally and ethically it was wrong.

Also in dealing with morality, Overy explains the Japanese warfare tactics with suicide bombers and people willing to give their lives knowing it would be lost, in comparison, with the allied troops who were willing to fight to the death. The difference between fighting in war with the intent to fight to the death verses fighting to die brought about another great point in not only warfare but the different nationalities and cultures that were involved in the World War II.

Why the Allies Won is a novel that would be a great addition to any historians library or simply for a World War II enthusiast. This book provides great insight on World War II and an in depth look at the allied verse axis powers. Throughout Overy’s book a reader is pummeled with historical statistics and data that make the book perfect for research. In addition to research the book is overall an easy read, and both accurate and reliable facts. The book is a quick read and can provide much insight into intricate details often overlooked about World War II, as well as makes readers question and wonder what would have happened had the axis actually been victorious instead of the allies. One downfall that I discovered in the book was that it took some getting into. Like any great literary work the beginning can often seem dry and loose the interest of readers, for me it began slowly but by the time one reaches beyond the first chapter the book is one that is difficult to put down. The range and use of blending both allied and axis information into each page keeps the readers in tuned to a chronological aspect, although the book is not in chronological order from cover to cover, and helps the readers realize how things played out. I found it to be fascinating how Overy includes a cultural historians point of view in the book with the included chapter about the morals of war and the different moralities concerned with each nation, how those morals differed yet the soldiers were all present to win the war. 

In conclusion, Overy allows readers to thoroughly understand the outcome of World War II by illustrating elements such as: technological quality, combat prowess, organization and leadership, and even comments of fighting a moral war in order to express why the allies won World War II.  Overy presents these thematic elements in a way that can easily be understood by readers, without omitting facts and statistics. Overy does not allow for any misconceptions when one finishes his book. From military leaders to battle plans, Overy covers the entire course of World War II, in order to answer the ultimate question that many people ask: how did the allies win the war after the axis powers were so far ahead.  

One of the veterans was Christopher Moberg who stated his  heavy missile artillery unit was allegedly responsible for over 5,000 indiscriminate civilian casualties.  These killing were supposedly later cover up by the army.  There were over 40 veterans participating in this ceremony of throwing away their medals.  During their speeches, many of the veterans showed clear signs of psychological distress.

After this event the police acted with brutal force.  According to many testimonies, no order for dispersal was given, when suddenly police arrived. Police attacked protesters, clubbing them across their heads. At least two protesters were badly injured.  By some reports, it looks like the police was ready to behave in this way regardless of how the protesters carry their action.

These are real American Heroes. If we have the courage and the heart to stand for what is right, please let’s join these brave soldiers who lived in their own flesh the nightmare of killing innocents under a fabricate lie of promoting “freedom and democracy”. THE PEOPLE UNITED WILL NO BE DEFEATED.

CHECK MY BOOK “CONFRONTATIONAL POETRY

On this page, readers can catch up on what is going on in politics by reading all of “The Wall Street Insider Reports” published by Ulsterman and The Ulsterman Report in Chronological Order from the earlists to the most recent. This page will be continuiously updated as new reports are released and published, so be sure to bookmark this page and check back often.

Published on Newsflavor.com

Wall Street Insider: “The President Was…Just An Empty Shell” (September 02, 2011) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: When It Comes To The Economy – President Obama Is Bored (September 05, 2011) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: President Obama’s Plan To Unionize The American Military (September 07, 2011) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: When It Comes to The Economy – President Obama is Bored (September 09, 2011) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: The Complete Interview (September 10, 2011) – LINK

Published on TheUlstermanReport.com

Wall Street Insider: Obama 2012 Re-Election “Not An Option” (October 09, 2011) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: The Obama White House Wants Us Gone. All of Us. (October 17, 2011) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: Wall Street Is To Obama As Jew Was To Hitler (November 14, 2011) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: “Leo Gerard” (December 15, 2011) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: President Obama’s Plan To Unionize The American Military (December 17, 2011) – LINK

Wall Street Insider Demands A Meeting (January 05, 2012) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: We Are At The Abyss – It is happening NOW (January 07, 2012) – LINK

Wall Street Insider: “19th and G” – LINK

Wall Street Insider: Complete January 2012 Interview (January 13, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: “California” (January 24, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: Preparing for War (January 29, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: My God…My God…What Has Become Of America? (March 09, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: “Task Group 120″ (March 12, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: “IMF – Back to Chicago” (March 14, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: Why I Do This (March 26, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: “Obama Is Pulling The Mask Away For All The World To See” (April 17, 2012) – LINK

Wall Street Insider Revisited – The Keystone Trap of Barack Obama… (April 18, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: Economic Doom To Follow Obama Re-Election… (May 10, 2012) – LINK

WALL STREET INSIDER: Can John Roberts Save America? (May 21, 2012) – LINK

The Wall Street Insider is currently being released and published on TheUlstermanReport.com on a semi-regular bases. Be sure that you regularly visit TheUlstermanReport.com to be one of the first to read the newest releases from The Wall Street Insider or just Bookmark this page and check back often for any updates being added to this page as soon as new Wall Street Insider Reports are released by TheUlstermanReport.com.

Note: Read the comment section of each Wall Street Insider Report and learn what other research is being conducted and reported on by The Ulsterman Report Army of dedicated and loyal readers of The Insider Reports. A lot of new and important news and information can be learned in the comment section of these Insider Reports at TheUlstermanReport.com website.

Bookmark this page and share with your family and friends. If you discover any broken links, please report your findings in the comment section below and it will be fixed A.S.A.P.

Thank You.

Another Article by this author that you might find interesting:

Read: The White House Insider Reports in Chronological Order