Shit - I need to go away and read up on this.
Thanks for the pointers!
Thanks for the pointers!
Quote: (05-01-2013 03:00 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:
Quote: (05-01-2013 09:34 AM)Tyroc7 Wrote:
Quote: (04-29-2013 05:58 AM)liberman Wrote:
At the start of 1941 before operation Barbarossa the german military was the most powerful and experienced in the world. It had recently defeated the french army along with the allied expedition force which was thought of at the time as the best in the world in just 6 weeks. The first month of the eastern front against the soviet union was incredibly successful in military terms for the germans. Virtually the entire soviet air force in the western region was destroyed and entire soviet armies had been surrounded and cut off. But the germans massively underestimated the red army ability to mobilize and the determination of the defense so there was no quick victory thus the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was tied up in the eastern front.
Had the Soviet Union collapsed it would be virtually impossible for Britain and America to liberate europe. Likewise had britain made peace with germany after the battle of france the Soviet Union probably would have collapsed after the german invasion regardless of american intervention because there would be no need to defend the atlantic wall with 900 000 solders. Germany ultimately had the power to beat the russians or the western allies but not both and so was defeated.
Interesting what if discussion.
Here’s my two cents:
On Germany defeating the UK: True, the Luftwaffe came close to decimating the RAF. Had the Luftwaffe continued to focus on radar installations instead of cities the air war may have ended differently. It does not necessarily follow, however, that Germany would have been able to invade and defeat the UK because of this thing called the English Channel. Germany was a second rate naval power ill-equipped to carry out and sustain a large scale amphibious operation. As Adam Tooze writes in THE WAGES OF DESTRUCTION “At no point in the war did Germany assemble the naval or aerial forces necessary to dominate the British Isles thought his was not for lack of trying. The task was simply beyond Germany’s industrial resources.” Later he writes “In the summer of 1940, Admiral Raeder and the Kreigsmarine did step up their planning for the construction of a new generation of giant battleships. But these would take years to come to fruition…”
So even with the RAF defeated it is not clear that Germany could have invaded the UK. Germany did not have the fleet to carry out such an invasion nor to supply such an invasion force after it landed.
On Germany almost defeating the USSR except for Hitler’s blunders and US aid: The USSR had help from the US. But Germany also had troops from other axis powers. Check out the order of battle for Operation Barbarossa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B...xis_forces
. You will notice significant contributions from Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland. True, these troops didn’t measure up to the Werchmacht. But they could and did inflict casualties. The Finns in particular embarrassed the Russians in the Russo-Finnish war and were excellent troops in cold weather fighting. Moreover, until December 7, 1941 the Russians also had to keep between 500,000 – 1 million men in the Far East to guard against a Japanese attack. These troops proved pivotal in throwing the Germans back in front of Moscow.
While we’re conjuring up Hitler’s blunders, what about Stalin’s? Stalin purged his officer corps only a few years before the war. How would the Red Army have performed had their officer ranks been at full strength? The officers who were purged were often the most accomplished and independent thinking (these were the ones who were seen as a threat by Stalin) leaving behind sycophants who were too afraid to tell Stalin he didn’t know what he was doing. Why wasn’t the Red Army better prepared for an invasion that everyone knew was coming. Even without today’s technology you couldn’t line up 3 million men on a border without someone catching wind of this. British intelligence, Japanese intelligence, his own spies and even German deserters all warned the Soviets an invasion was about to come. Stalin’s own generals begged him to move some forces into the rear and to not to try to defend every nook and cranny of their newly conquered territory. Why was the Russian Air Force parked in airfields within striking distance of the Luftwaffe on the eve of the invasion?
If the German army did not have any allies, if the Russians did not have to guard against a Japanese attack, if Stalin had not purged his officer corps, if the Red Army had taken sensible precautions to prepare for a German attack, would the first few months of Eastern front have turned out differently? I suspect so.
One last point about Germany. The Germany military machine was built to win quick wars where the opponent was knocked out in a matter of months at most. The German military doctrine, their weaponry and their industry was all oriented towards quick decisive contests. For example, Germany had no real navy and no strategic bomber. Their tanks, while excellent were less amenable to mass production.
The problem is that the German military machine was fighting a war of attrition first against the British Empire, then the Soviets then the US. It is questionable that Germany could have ‘won’ a war of attrition against any of these powers individually let alone all three combined.
Tyroc7,
Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the forum.
Germany naval power was indeed weak but had they bombed all the radar stations it could have destroyed the RAF even with a lesser air force. The bombing raids by the Brits that followed in the years after hurt the German industry so much that they couldn't keep up with supplying the East front and developing their new rockets and other wonder weapons. It was Hitler himself who never believed in rocket power in the 1930's and after the start of the war. His blind faith in the wehrmacht (land forces) kept him from really allocating funds and man/brain power to develop such weapons.
The war would have developed a lot different if it had been raining down V-2's on London from the start of the war when the RAF couldn't do bombing raids.
Quote: (05-03-2013 04:59 PM)SU27 Wrote:
The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.
Quote: (05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 04:59 PM)SU27 Wrote:
The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.
They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.
You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.
Also Vicious is right in regards to the V2 rockets, IIRC the Germans didn't have much to load onto them due to lack of continued research and ended up loading the rockets with bricks, cement and forks.
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:
I don't even know where to start... Troll?
Our very first "Ivy League"
Quote: (05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.
You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:Naw bro we have Athlone Freakin McGinnis!
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:
I don't even know where to start... Troll?
Our very first "Ivy League"
haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league
hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?
Quote:Quote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.
You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.
The US tested dozens of nuclear weapons around 1945
Dozens? They only tested one "Trinity"
, and easily could have dropped these weapons on their enemies instead of in the Nevada desert.
You're forgetting the fact that the bombers have limited flight range, and what would have happened had they rushed Trinity to use?
With only two atomic bombs, the US laid waste to two Japanese cities and forced that country to surrender unconditionally.
The effects of the Abombs on Japan's surrender is arguable, prior to the Abombs the whole freaking country was already laid to waste via firebombings. Not to mention the Soviet entry into the theatre was what most likely pushed Japan to surrender.
Yes that's right, WITH ONLY TWO BOMBS. With a few dozen more weapons, they easily could have laid waste to literally dozens of other countries.
Except for the fact I pointed out earlier, the US during World War II only had three Abombs. And the bombers had limited range so that eliminates some targets.
You claim I can't use nuclear weapons to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.. but I don't need to! The US was protected from its enemies by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, all they had to do was sit back, let their economy roll out tanks, planes, and rifles, and wait for their scientists to produce the atomic weaponry they need to bring all the other countries of the world down to their knees. In fact, the US could have lost every fucking battle and campaign of the war and it still wouldn't have mattered, they still would have been protected by thousands of miles of ocean and they would have been the first to produce nuclear weapons that could wipe out their enemies.
Quote: (05-04-2013 12:29 AM)Emancipator Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:Naw bro we have Athlone Freakin McGinnis!
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:
I don't even know where to start... Troll?
Our very first "Ivy League"
haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league
hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?
Quote:Quote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:
They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.
You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.
The US tested dozens of nuclear weapons around 1945
Dozens? They only tested one "Trinity"
, and easily could have dropped these weapons on their enemies instead of in the Nevada desert.
You're forgetting the fact that the bombers have limited flight range, and what would have happened had they rushed Trinity to use?
With only two atomic bombs, the US laid waste to two Japanese cities and forced that country to surrender unconditionally.
The effects of the Abombs on Japan's surrender is arguable, prior to the Abombs the whole freaking country was already laid to waste via firebombings. Not to mention the Soviet entry into the theatre was what most likely pushed Japan to surrender.
Yes that's right, WITH ONLY TWO BOMBS. With a few dozen more weapons, they easily could have laid waste to literally dozens of other countries.
Except for the fact I pointed out earlier, the US during World War II only had three Abombs. And the bombers had limited range so that eliminates some targets.
You claim I can't use nuclear weapons to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.. but I don't need to! The US was protected from its enemies by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, all they had to do was sit back, let their economy roll out tanks, planes, and rifles, and wait for their scientists to produce the atomic weaponry they need to bring all the other countries of the world down to their knees. In fact, the US could have lost every fucking battle and campaign of the war and it still wouldn't have mattered, they still would have been protected by thousands of miles of ocean and they would have been the first to produce nuclear weapons that could wipe out their enemies.
This isn't some fucking COD or civilization game where the US can run around nuking everyone willy nilly ala Ghandi. There are consequences, why do you think that nukes weren't used during Korean War even when Douglas MacArthur wanted to? I was pointing out your previous statement where you claimed "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.". This idea is flawed due to the fact that you claim the US could have won any battle in WWII due to their possession of Abombs, yet you forget that except for the last year of the war the US didnot have any Abombs to use in "any WWII battle".
Your weak arguments, lack of reading comprehension and Ivy League boasting seems to suggest that you are either
A) Stupid and use "Ivy League" to project yourself in a superior manner
B) Just a plain ole troll
Quote: (05-04-2013 01:36 AM)Mage Wrote:
The most common myth that I hate to see repeated again and again is that Hitler lost by attacking Soviet Union, repeating Napoleons mistake or attacking it to soon. This is just plain wrong. Everybody who continues to spread this is an uneducated simpleton.
In fact Nazis had learned from Napoleon and WWI and took great care to avoid all the mistakes done by their predecessors. The most notable thing to learn was the strategic importance of Norway. And they have learned about Russia as well. During the three years Nazis fought in Russia they always took care to attack it only in summer.
Germany did not wanted to attack Soviet Union before total victory on western front but they had to. Soviets were prepared to attack Nazis anyway and had assambled a large force on their borders. However since Soviets had great production but little in terms of tactics (vice versa for Germans) these forces were only good for attacking but not defense. The Soviets hoped to attack by surprise while Nazis are busy in Western front and conquer all Europe. Nazis broke this Soviet strategy by attacking Soviets merely few weeks before Soviets planned to attack. Since Russians had bad defense the initial Nazi attack was a great success and they conquered vast territories, Ukraine, Baltics and more.
If the Germans had not attacked Soviets they would have lost the war much sooner!!!
Hitler knew about the power of Russian winter and he knew that he has to destroy Soviets soon or he would be dragged in a war of attiration on two fronts and lose(that also happened). Therefore had to bet it all on Blitzkrieg. He had to reach Moscow until winter by all costs. But he did not and this is why he lost the war. Many wonder why he did not raze Moscow because initial offense on Russia was so successful that Moscow was ill defended and Nazi army stopped only twenty-something km from Moscow, with the most forward troops having a visual of Kremlin towers with a naked eye. But apparetly Hitler got cocky, didn't listen to his Generals and spend too much resources on side quests that slowed the attack down. There is also a theory that Hitler thought that the undefended Moscow is a trap and got scared and there is also a very conspirational theory that Hitler did not actually wanted to win the war, because he was in fact an illuminati agent and therefore stopped Nazis from attacking Moscow.
Whatever the case, the war was decided in 1941 when Nazi troops concluded that they cannot continue to advance forward while being merely twenty-something km from Moscow. During the winter Soviets replenished their forces using their unequaled production and beat Nazis back. During summers of 1942 and 1943 Nazis always pushed a little forward again, but they made lesser successes each year because Soviet forces grew more stronger with every year, while Nazi forces thinned with every year.
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:
hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:
haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league
Quote: (05-04-2013 01:06 AM)SU27 Wrote:
I never brought up that I was Ivy League in this thread, only you did as anyone reading this thread can easily see. I did mention in another thread this fact, but it had nothing to do with being superior me mentioning it served as context as to why certain women reacted to me in certain ways. I never ever used it to disparage you or express superiority to you, this inferiority complex is something that you invented in your own head so I dont know why you're reacting so negatively.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:
hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?
An intelligent counterpoint would require an intelligent point.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
- The only reason the US could deploy A-bombs on Japan was because they had total air superiority. How would you achieve that against a a hypothetical Germany/Soviet threat that controlled most of the European continent?
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
- The A-bombs where highly experimental weapons and required immense resources. Their numbers were very limited by the ability to extract U-235 from uranium, a process that wasn't properly refined until the 50's. There was no stockpile to speak of before that. That the US could produce "tens of thousands" of nuclear weapons (strategic) prior to the late 50's is ludicrous.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
- How is it that "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons."
A) When the US participated in conventional battles that they lost or held only taxing victories in?
B) Did not have access to working A-bombs until late 1945?
The above doesn't make any sense.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
- Using A-bombs in Europe would have been politically irredeemable. There was major resistance in the US, even in the house and senate against even going to war with Germany. Every so often I have to remind people that the US didn't enter the war until Hitler foolishly declared war on them.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
The only way I can interpret what you wrote is as one big what-if in the event that the US was backed into a corner in 1945, then the US could possibly have used A-bombs to a larger extent to negotiate a peace (as they did in Japan when they were already defeated). But to use nuclear weapons to "win" anything? Just about every military strategist since the advent of nuclear weapons has discarded such notions. In the end, war is about economics and nuclear weapons are simply anathema to that.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
As I have said many times on this forum and also in this thread. The US did "win" the WWII, but not from its military progress but from the post-war financial aid that solidified its influence over large parts of Europe for the duration of the Cold War. Had the US lost control and made extensive use of A-bombs they would have stood alone during the Cold War, shut out from Europe.
Quote: (05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:
Unrelated I found this amusing:
Quote: (05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:
haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league
Followed by:
Quote: (05-04-2013 01:06 AM)SU27 Wrote:
I never brought up that I was Ivy League in this thread, only you did as anyone reading this thread can easily see. I did mention in another thread this fact, but it had nothing to do with being superior me mentioning it served as context as to why certain women reacted to me in certain ways. I never ever used it to disparage you or express superiority to you, this inferiority complex is something that you invented in your own head so I dont know why you're reacting so negatively.
Cute. I'm really convinced.