Didn't one of you guys do a “special posting” about Charlemage on Wikipedia a while back?  Could it be a case of “wiki-revenge?”

Did they use ground penetrating radar?  ::)

I found passages in one of Ambrose's books that were lifted verbatim from a book by George Wilson called “If You Survive” (and OUTSTANDING first person memoir of combat) — Ambrose credited the attribution to a personal interview with Wilson.Ambrose did a lot to advance the literature on the American experience in World War II in Europe -- not sure he advanced "history" as much as he advanced literature, if you know what I mean.

I've seen this – as well as the police UAVs orbiting over the high crime portions of a city.  Kind of disturbing

I was going to chime in with the C-130 also – unglamorous, but a stalwort workhorse.

Hmmm….  Just supposing…If this had transpired, how would the American Atlantic fleet have been different in composition -- and how would the Pacific fleet have suffered?No doubt the British would have pushed their fleet into exile in Canada if the British Isles had fallen (or would have scuttled anything that was in threat of falling into German hands).  A combined British exile fleet and American Atlantic fleet would have looked markedly different than what was present in 1942 - for one, American carriers would have been much more prevalent in the Atlantic.  Sure, U-Boats would have been a threat, but so were Japanese submarines.Could make for an interesting "counter-factual" historical exercise!

Ego might be the term, but I think “hubris” fits better…Hitler had focused on eastward expansion for Germany since Mein Kampf - so it really shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone.  Great Britain had an edge on Hitler's invasion plans through ULTRA intercepts and they gently "nudged" Stalin to be on alert for German aggression - but Stalin (paranoid as ever, especially where Churchill was involved) thought that Great Britain was trying to provoke him into initiating the conflict with Hitler.  Not wanting to even give a shadow of a hint that they had ULTRA, the British were reluctant to push the issue.  Of course, I believe that Stalin was getting corroborating evidence through the Lucy spy network, but chose to ignore it too, along with all the reports from the frontier listing German preparations (the Germans claimed 1) the forces being built up were there in preparation for an invasion of Great Britain, and were here on the frontier to be out of range of the British bombers, and 2) that their positions were strictly defensive - but as the Soviet frontier forces reported, there was no barbed wire in front of the German positions and German reconnaissance flights - and later foot patrols - continually invaded Soviet territory).  So, another great question here is why was Stalin so adamant to not see the threat of the impending German invasion?Just my personal interpretation of your original question - I think that Hitler had been thrown off track by the British response to the fall of France.  He had expected Britain to accept a separate peace with Germany - not to resist at all costs.  I don't think he intended to ever see the British Empire fall - that would have created a vaccuum that would have benefited all of the other powers, but not Germany - he needed Britain, if not as an ally, at least as a balance on the world power scene.  When Great Britain did not seek / accept terms after the fall of France, I don't think Hitler new how to proceed - it was his temper that drove him to start bombing Great Britain and to start planning SEALION.  Every other operation up until that point had followed a pretty specific pattern - diplomatic isolation, economic and political pressure, and the imposition of German troops -- by force or by threat of force.  Everything had been carefully planned up until that point.  I think that some of his timing and rashness in launching BARBAROSSA when he did might have been aimed at isolating Britain -- if the Soviet Union were knocked out of Europe (and maintained only a greatly weakened Asian position) - then perhaps Britain would be further isolated and more receptive to accepting a separate peace.  In actuality, it is highly unlikely that Britain ever would, as German expansion into the Middle East, Bessarabia, and Greece would continue to drive conflict with the interests of the British Empire - but I don't think anyone ever accused Adolf Hitler of thinking clearly and rationally after 1940.

Okay, I'm joining this one a little late, but as a Virginian – and just having attended a speech by Gov. McDonnell on Wednesday – it is my opinion that what we are seeing is the continued “amateur hour” in American politics.  It is the result, I believe, of an over-arching lack of attention to detail amongst our society.  People are focused on being professional any more in their work – more interested in getting on to the next thing rather than doing the current thing right.How many here have seen issues with students (or professors for that matter) who don't proofread or appropriately edit their work?  How many papers have we read (or written) that obviously betray haste in preparation.  It is said that Winston Churchill would agonize over a specific choice of a word or turn of a phrase in a speech - spending hours writing, reciting, and re-writing a speech before he was comfortable delivering it.  Historically, it shows - his speeches were marvelous things, whether you agreed with his politics or not.What happened in Richmond was just another case of some staffer rushing this through without proper thought or research, and their supervisor only glanced at it and authorized it.  Do you think the governor read it in detail before it was published?  Do you think it was "war gamed" before it was released?  Of course not - we're too culturally and intellectually lazy these days.  The real issue is... oh wait, American Idol is on... I'll finish that thought later if anyone has bothered to read this far.