Wars and Conflicts permalink
Conquer North America in WW2
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Saturday, 7th February 2009
If the Nazi war machine had taken Russia and Great Britain would they have been powerfull enough to also finish off North America?
Would this vast, rich batch of countries U.S.A.
Canada, Mexico and South America be able to slew the dreaded foe as they developed their armed response? -
Message 2
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
How? The German war machine had no aircraft carriers, or long range bombers or fighters. If they took over Iceland and Greenland, they still couldn't supply air cover for an invasion. Their only chance would be to mount commando style raids on Canada's east coast, seize a couple of airfields, then hold them until fighters flying wit long range tanks arrived. Even then, those A/C would be sucking fumes and at the mercy of anything the Canadians threw at them. Even if the U K had surrended, and by some chance Germany had captured the aircraft carriers, they would still be hard pressed.
-
Message 3
Posted by GeniusOscarWilde (U11053284) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
you have quite a good point, but im almost 100% sure the genius of the german scientists would have produced something to invade america. it was the very scientists who produced the V2 rocket and who first started testing the jet engine... most of their work is still classified (you might be able to find some on the internet) so im afraid i have to disagree with you on your view of a Succseful german invasion of America.. =D
-
Message 4
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
If they would have been the first to have finished the A-bomb, they might have defeated the Americans, but even then a succesful invasion seems unlikely. If they wanted to invade America, they would first need to conquer Russia and go from there. Already far too many ifs and buts if you ask me..
-
Message 5
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
Not while John Wayne and Errol Flynn were alive. . .
-
Message 6
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
One thing to keep the USA out of the European war or drive it away to focus on Asia, quite another to occupy and conquer it. Shades of Bismarck's observation that if the British Army ever crossed the Channel he would send the Prussian police force out to arrest it.
The Nazis were mittel-Europeans seeking (very brutal) regional hegemony in Europe, but they had no interest in world domination. The only direct conflict with the USA was over the issue of "Neutral" US shipping supplying Great Britain and the equally "Neutral" US Navy attacking U-Boats on the high seas.
And re: The 'Jundenfrage', the lists of Numbers of Jews in various counties included neutral European states but not more distant belligerents at war with Germany such as he Commonwealth Dominions. -
Message 7
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
If the Nazi war machine had taken Russia and Great Britain I find this exercise silly. The Nazi war machine had not taken Russia and Great Britain because it had been incapable of doing that. There's no need to go any further.
-
Message 8
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
There is a fictonal book called "Clash of Eagles, by Leo Rutman, that covers this subnject. Its ISBN number is 0-449-14596-4. I picked it up in the U S some years ago.
G F -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
The Nazi war machine had not taken Russia and Great Britain because it had been incapable of doing that. There's no need to go any further.Â
Good point suvorovetz.
The fact is that the German armed forces were just about totally committed in the east after Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Even with the support of other European countries such as Italy, Hungary, Rumania and Finland etc they still couldn't defeat the massive might of Stalin's Soviet Union.
Assuming that they had fared slightly better in the east, (say as a result of peace with Britain or some such) - there was still nothing left in the tank. Conjectural talk about 'invading the US' and 'world domination', therefore, is just fanciful and at odds with the geopolitical realities of the time. -
Message 10
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
Hi,
If the Germans were unable to cross the Channel when we had our backs to the wall, how differcult would be the Atlantic or the Bearing sea,after crossing Russia and teaming up with the Japanise?
Regards
Spike -
Message 11
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Sunday, 8th February 2009
Sorry
I was under the impression that Hitler came within a whisker of destroying the Russians
and Great Britain was on the ropes until ~1942.
President Roosevelt in an address to Congress warned the American people if they did not aid their British cousins war would be on USA soil.
Just silliness, I guess... -
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 9th February 2009
came within a whisker of destroying the RussiansÂ
To paraphrase a famous Englishman:
"Some whisker. Some cat!" -
Message 13
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 9th February 2009
With the amount of support for non-interventionism or isolationism in the USA, is it not likely that they would have avoided confronting the Germans or even become allies of them - there were a lot of German immigrants there.
Many large American companies had business interests in Germany so would want to keep ownership of these. They might also see an opportunity to take over British interests in the rest of the world or at least outside Europe.
Perhaps some deal would be done where Germany did not occupy any territory in North or South America.
There was probably as much anti-Semitism in the US as elsewhere so they would be prepared to turn a blind eye to what the Germans were doing in Europe. -
Message 14
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 9th February 2009
there is little or no chance of the Germans pulling off a successful invasion of the US at any time in the 1940's.
Their naval forces were inadequate to invade the UK across the channel. The Atlantic is out of the question. Unless they embark on a a massive campaign of naval building. Which would divert resources such as steel and men from their land army at a time when they are planning to invade Russia. Even if they can conquer all of Russia, which IMO is doubtful in the extreme. Then they are going to need a period of possibly 15 to 30 years to pacify it. They are not going to have the time or the means to divert the massive resources it would take.
Even if you allow that they capture every ship yard in europe intact and can persuede all the workers in those ship yards to do their jobs properly and capture every ship in every navy in a working condition the German navy isnt big enough to man all of them.
The US is not just going to sit on its backside and assume that it cant happen here. For every German scientist in Germany there are five or ten more who voted with their feet on hitler coming to power. The exiles are for the most part the cream of the crop. But in any case the Americans are not exactly short of bright people themselves.
To invade you are going to have to cross several thousand miles of open water against a hostile coast. You wil need to take your air cover with you which means that you are limet to the numbers of planes you can take with you andthat all your replacement parts for planes tanks and ammunition are going to have to follow the same route. You will have to seize a samll area as a beach head and expand from that at the end of an impossibly long supply route.
You will be limited from the outset and attacking a country that made a religion out of mass production, and whose population is armed to the teeth. They dont have to have better equipment than you just out last you. Every round they fire can be replaced every plane you shoot down can be replaced. Evry tan k you destroy can be replaced. If you launch an attack their subs and surface ships will cut you to ribbons all the way across your front line begins at Brest not at New York. If and its a big if you can get the army ashore. All you have done is construct a very large prisoner of war camp which your own troops guard themselves
It isnt feasable and it almost certainly isnt possible. Unless those german scientists can come up with a teleporter. -
Message 15
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 9th February 2009
"...the USA, is it not likely that they would have avoided confronting the Germans or even become allies of them..."
There was never any chance of the US siding with the Nazis.
If Roosevelt had not been president then the isolationists may have held sway. But whatever faults the US had, they were a democracy. No democracy sided with Nazism without a gun at its head. And Germany did not possess a big enough gun to intimidate the US.
In the atual event the US sided with Germanies enemies for very good reasons. Not least of which was defeating totalitarianism in Europe. -
Message 16
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 9th February 2009
If Roosevelt had not been president then the isolationists may have held sway. But whatever faults the US had, they were a democracy. No democracy sided with Nazism without a gun at its head. And Germany did not possess a big enough gun to intimidate the US. I suppose, siding with Stalin was somehow more democratic than siding with Hitler.
-
Message 17
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 9th February 2009
"...I suppose, siding with Stalin was somehow more democratic than siding with Hitler..."
The US sided with the British. The position of the Soviets was a happy coincidence.
However, you demonstrate that the US was solidly against the Nazis. They even preferred to supply the Soviets rather than side with the Nazis. Tghis reinforces the point that there was no chance of a German/US alliance.
Without the US, there would probably have been no continental democracy at all in 1945. A point some may prefer to bypass. -
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 9th February 2009
vesturiiis,
I don't know what comic books or hackneyed alternate-universe science-fiction you've been reading and I'd rather not know. Hitler's postwar plans were
1) Germany would dominate Europe as well as be restored her old colonies,
2) Japan would gain its greater East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,
3) Britain would keep its empire, and
4) the US would continue to dominate the Western hemisphere.
Of these, only the last stood. -
Message 19
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Without the US, there would probably have been no continental democracy at all in 1945. A point some may prefer to bypass The first sentence is true only with the qualifier: by entering the war, particularly by invading West Europe, the US salvaged it. But Woodrow Wilson's and all the consecutive US administrations are not at all blameless as to the origins of the WWII in the first place.
-
Message 20
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Monday, 9th February 2009
I havent read all the way through the thread but i no that hitler had a alliance with mexico and was organizing a attack on the lower states (texas, new mexico, arizona and california)
so that when the americans arrived in europe the mexicans would attack whilst they were weakend to capture as much land as possible before they retreated to save their country.
WhiteCamry, the US hasnt been around long enough to "continue" dominating, they have only just come to power.
~ They only just managed to win over the tiny tiny country of vietnam
~ the same with guam
thats not power. -
Message 21
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Monday, 9th February 2009
WhiteCamary
Comic books Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal
Quasi science THE DOW WILL LOOSE 48% IN 2008
(NOW HAD WE KNOWN THAT)
OH WAIT YOU DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW
vesturiis -
Message 22
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 9th February 2009
I always understood that Roosevelt had quite a battle to get the US into WWII by stealth. There were many in US business / politics / military who were either anti-British, pro-German or just isolationist.
He only got Lend-Lease agreed because the US gained a lot from it, some might say they took advantage of the UK's weak position to gain a lot from the deal.
The US military took some time to get itself on a war footing as can be seen by Pearl Harbour. It is hard to predict what might have happened if Britain fell quickly to the Germans and Pearl Harbour never happened.
The Manhattan Project did not really get into full scale operation until Pearl Harbour, as late as August 1941 the US Uranium Committee did not believe warnings about the atomic bomb from the British scientists who were working on a similar project in the UK so again who knows what would have happened without the investment after Pearl Harbour. -
Message 23
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 9th February 2009
I think your playing to much Axis and Allies....
In the real world, wars outcomes are determined by balance of resources etc, will explain the economic implausability of an Axis invasion of the new world, and nthats before youy even consider the logistical and doctrinal problems and lastly AH actual war aims. -
Message 24
Posted by Nickiow (U13798335) on Monday, 9th February 2009
Article on the convoluted US entry into war, in essence the USN was fighting, and dying, well before PH. -
Message 25
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Suvorevetz :"...But Woodrow Wilson's and all the consecutive US administrations are not at all blameless as to the origins of the WWII in the first place..."
Really ?
Most historians seem to believe that the US is the least culpable of the great powers. It was the French and British who insisted on the punitive settlement of 1919. The US did much to alleviate the worst excesses, a view that the British came to share later.
Once Hitler was in power I am at a loss as to how the US could be held responsible. Perhaps you would care to explain this part of your theory. -
Message 26
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
suvorovetz,
I suppose, siding with Stalin was somehow more democratic than siding with Hitler. Â
No, but Hitler had already thrown the first punch. -
Message 27
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
TerryG*09*,
I havent read all the way through the thread but i no that hitler had a alliance with mexico and was organizing a attack on the lower states (texas, new mexico, arizona and california)
so that when the americans arrived in europe the mexicans would attack whilst they were weakend to capture as much land as possible before they retreated to save their country.Â
You haven't read all the way through much of anything else. The German government of WW1, not WW2, offered to support Mexico if the latter went to war to regain her old territory.
WhiteCamry, the US hasnt been around long enough to "continue" dominating, they have only just come to power.
~ They only just managed to win over the tiny tiny country of vietnam
~ the same with guam
thats not power.Â
Even though the US hoisted its flag over few countries and called them colonies, it nonetheless took free rein to intervene in Western hemisphere and Pacific affairs as it saw fit and with no interference from the other empires. That's power. -
Message 28
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
JMB
It is hard to predict what might have happened if Britain fell quickly to the Germans and Pearl Harbour never happened.Â
Two entirely independent cases. Pearl Harbor would have happened regardless of Europe. -
Message 29
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Most historians seem to believe that the US is the least culpable of the great powers. It was the French and British who insisted on the punitive settlement of 1919. The US did much to alleviate the worst excesses, a view that the British came to share later. You're missing the point. I'm not even getting into the business of hyper inflation in Germany and its consequences for all parties involved. Wilson propped up the Communist regime in Russia when it was on the ropes. He practically jump started the creation of a military industrial complex in the Soviet Russia. Hitler would never be able to rearm without Stalin's help. And guess who helped Stalin to arm? Western, mostly American, firms.
-
Message 30
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
WhiteCamry
No, but Hitler had already thrown the first punch Stalin had secured Roosevelt's assistance as early as in 1938. This friendly cooperation never seized even upon the signing of the "Non-aggression Pact" between the well-known brothers in peace Hitler and Stalin. So, whoever threw the first punch is immaterial - apart from being an unclear distinction, really. -
Message 31
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
suvorovetz
Stalin had secured Roosevelt's assistance as early as in 1938. This friendly cooperation never seized even upon the signing of the "Non-aggression Pact" between the well-known brothers in peace Hitler and Stalin. So, whoever threw the first punch is immaterial - apart from being an unclear distinction, really.Â
Really? When and where was this unusually foresighted assistance agreed upon? And what were the general terms? -
Message 32
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
WhiteCamry, Look it up before you make your decisions, you have compromised your intelligence.
and just to add, america attacked countries with smaller populations than they had soldiers at the time. -
Message 33
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Suvorevetz : "...I'm not even getting into the business of hyper inflation in Germany and its consequences for all parties involved..."
Feel free to. I would be fascinated to see how the US was at fault.
Whatever propelled the Soviets to achieve any particular level of industrialisation, the fact remains that Nazi antipathy towards Marxist dogma and racial theory denigrating Slavs was what led to their assault on the Soviet Union (notwithstanding the complications of the war as it stood in 1941). If US aid in the 1920s did assist the SU to resist Hitlerism, I fail to see that as a particulary bad thing. A weakened SU, or even imperialist or capitalist Russia, would merely have been an easier target for Germany.
I would still, however, be interested in seeing you support your assertions. -
Message 34
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
"...america attacked countries with smaller populations than they had soldiers at the time..."
Sorry, what is this supposed to mean ?
What date are you referring to ?
What was the size of the US military at that time ?
What countries did the US attack ?
Lots of questions to be raised from such a small post. -
Message 35
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
dont worry timmy, is it too hard for you to understand?
-
Message 36
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Anything lacking supporting evidence is hard to understand.
I can only infer from your insulting reply that you really have nothing to say.
For the record, on the history boards we usually attempt to avoid politicking. That is best done on other boards. If you must indulge in it, support your assertions. -
Message 37
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
guam and also vietnam were attacked which are two tiny countries and almost defeated america and i was discussing with WC abot this as he thought that that was proff of american dominance.
which is pitifull to say the least. -
Message 38
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Keep it friendly please
Andrew -
Message 39
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Guam almost defeated the US in war ?
When did that happen ?
Guam was taken from Spain. It was not, and is still not, a nation.
Vietnam did not come close to beating the US, they DID beat them. But the population of North Vietnam was, according to one site, about 16 millions. I doubt if the US military ever had quite that number. -
Message 40
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
>>Vietnam did not come close to beating the US, they DID beat them<<
ok, i wasnt to sure but i was just trying to prove a point that WC said that america has always dominated and that helps my debate. -
Message 41
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Suvorevetz : "...I'm not even getting into the business of hyper inflation in Germany and its consequences for all parties involved..."
Feel free to. I would be fascinated to see how the US was at fault. I just want to make clear that I never said that the US was at fault as a whole. South Carolina tobacco farmers had nothing to do with it, for example. However, the US government officials were involved pretty intimately. I suggest you get a copy of Anthony Sutton's "FDR and Wall Street" and read about who crafted and administered the reparation arrangements for Germany.
If US aid in the 1920s did assist the SU to resist Hitlerism, I fail to see that as a particulary bad thing.Â
Here lies the problem. Your causality model has just collapsed. There was no Hitlerism in the 20s. At least, nobody in the US government had any reason to believe that Bolsheviks needed protection from Hitler, who was biding his time in a German jail, among other engaging recreational activities. -
Message 42
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Hi TerryG*09*
Have a google for Monroe Doctrine. Basically its a declaration made by an American president in the Mid 19th C that the US would not allow any expansion of the european colonies in south america or the creation of new ones. Or for that matter any undue interference in the affairs of those countries.
This was accepted at the time and up to the sixties, and effectivley allowed America to dominate the Western Hemisphere. Which is what I think White Camry was saying.
Not that the US was dominating the west which would include europe. -
Message 43
Posted by TerryG*09* (U13753139) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
Thanks, thats all i needed to "hear".
although the only website i can go on is the bbc, i only use the web at work. -
Message 44
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
This was accepted at the time and up to the sixtiesÂ
It pretty much is still in effect today. The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, for example, was (from an American point of view) much more to do with the Monroe Doctrine than it was about the Cold War. -
Message 45
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 10th February 2009
WhiteCamry Really? When and where was this unusually foresighted assistance agreed upon? And what were the general terms? This is deja vous all over again. You have already asked me something like that a few months ago. I replied here:
and here:
-
Message 46
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
"...Your causality model has just collapsed. There was no Hitlerism in the 20s..."
I never said there was Hitlerism in the 1920s, and I thought we were discussing YOUR causality model, not mine.
All I am suggesting is that the US were quite right to prefer Stalinism over Hitlerism. To the US, the Soviets were the lesser threat as things stood in the late 1930s and early 1940s. That this changes by the 1950s is only so because the Nazis have been defeated.
Nobody in the 1920s could predict how the later history would pan out. I do not see it as un-reasonable for the US to do business with the Soviet Union. I doubt if any US politician would see anarchy in the Russian Empire as being in their interests. -
Message 47
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
All I am suggesting is that the US were quite right to prefer Stalinism over Hitlerism. To the US, the Soviets were the lesser threat as things stood in the late 1930s and early 1940s How was Stalinism better than Hitlerism? And why were the Soviets lesser threat to the US than Hitler's Germany, say in 1938 - 1939?
Nobody in the 1920s could predict how the later history would pan out. Except for you, of course, as you have justified the US government's aid to the Bolsheviks with Hitlerism that had not even existed then. I doubt if any US politician would see anarchy in the Russian Empire as being in their interests I doubt that this was the motivation of the US politicians. In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was not. But, I wonder if you clarify for yourself: would you prefer genocidal dictatorship that destroyed generations of people to what you call anarchy? In October-November 1917 Bolsheviks dislodged predominantly socialist Provisional Government and democratically elected Duma, by the way. -
Message 48
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
"...How was Stalinism better than Hitlerism? And why were the Soviets lesser threat to the US than Hitler's Germany, say in 1938 - 1939?..."
There is no evidence to suggest that the Soviets were seriously expansionist at that time. Soviet expansionism was opportunist or limited to its 'traditional' area of Russian influence. That is, they exploited the actions of others (specially Nazi Germany) to take over East Europe. Until the end of WW2 they were no threat at all to the West European democracies. When the Soviet stance changed, the US reaction changed.
"...Except for you, of course, as you have justified the US government's aid to the Bolsheviks with Hitlerism that had not even existed then..."
No, YOU stated that US assistance to the Soviets aided them. All I did was point out that this was, essentially, a happy accident.
"...But, I wonder if you clarify for yourself: would you prefer genocidal dictatorship that destroyed generations of people to what you call anarchy?..."
Again, you are going beyond what I said. I was commenting on the US position in comparing the Soviets to the Nazis. As it happens, I am probably in agreement with the US position. Revolutions that stay at home are preferable to revolutions that export themselves. There was very little precedent until recent times in interfering in countries that only murdered their own people. Even in Rwanda more recently, the international reaction was not exactly to jump in with all guns firing. Even then, the real mass murders happen later, when the US stance is more or less irrelevant.
My core position is not complex. The US actions are entirely understandable and acceptable given the situation at the time. Blaming the US for events 10 or 20 years down the line is not reasonable. To blame the US requires you to think that US policy was actually that influential. It was not. -
Message 49
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
suvorovetz
How was Stalinism better than Hitlerism? And why were the Soviets lesser threat to the US than Hitler's Germany, say in 1938 - 1939?Â
Both were equally reprehensible but, until one of them took their act on the road, there was no sense for any capitalist to refuse to do business with either of them. -
Message 50
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 11th February 2009
There is no evidence to suggest that the Soviets were seriously expansionist at that time Let's see, between 1939 and 1940 Stalin occupied East Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bessarabia, Bukovina; attacked Finland and occupied part of its territory as well. Obviously, it was not serious, just a joke.
All I did was point out that this was, essentially, a happy accident So, you're saying that the aid to a criminal regime had been offered for no reason at all. Just happened to be a happy accident. Isn't that nice?
Revolutions that stay at home are preferable to revolutions that export themselves Russian revolution neither stayed at home, nor it was meant to. The Declaration of the Soviet Union was an equivalent of the world war declaration. Even before the "official" start of world war Red Army attempted to roll across Europe - as in 1920 when Tukhachevsky's armada was unexpectedly routed at Warsaw.
Blaming the US for events 10 or 20 years down the line is not reasonable You're missing my point entirely. I contend that Woodrow Wilson's and FDR's policies are grossly misrepresented, as far as the US government is concerned.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.