NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea
Um... that was tried after WWI, it ended up starting WWII.

Besides, it was far better at the time to rehabilitate those countries and turn them into independant allies against the USSR for the cold war instead of having to deal with a population that would grow increasingly unhappy with non-self rule.

Um... that was tried after WWI, it ended up starting WWII.


Beat me to it.

How the hell is 'annexing' == 'conquering'?

Wah wah cry me a river, you lose the war we get to do whatever we want with you. And if it means losing your identity with a slight chance of being enslaved then tough luck. Of course america can destroy them some more and then turn them into penal colonies if they need to

Poor Italy.. They're the forgotton axis power...

Poor Italy.. They're the forgotton axis power...
Although the UK, France and the USSR (plus many others) appear to be forgotten 'conquering' powers.

the russians did that. didn't work to well for them.

Why not just annex the whole world, if America's so great? Oh wait, then we'd be an empire, which we aren't now :shifteyes:

Wah wah cry me a river, you lose the war we get to do whatever we want with you.
Who on earth are you talking to?

And if it means losing your identity with a slight chance of being enslaved then tough luck. Of course america can destroy them some more and then turn them into penal colonies if they need to
Alright, why would it have been better to enslave the former Axis nations, given that we needed allies against the USSR and West Germany AND Japan acted as good buffer zones aginst the two?

Also, given that currently the US has large bases in both Germany and Japan, we got what we needed without the added cost of having to constantly put down rebellions or worry about another war starting in/with those nations while staring down the Soviet Union.

Make ourselves look tough and ruthless, I mean as a nation America never actually conquered a nation and proclaim it as their own generally.

That's what happned in a way. Rulers were imposed, laws and contitutions dictated, and pretty much every move oversought and approved by the allies. Then, when those countries were good to go on their own, they were released.

Why wasn't the rule enforced longer? Because no matter how good the invader is, people would get tired of them and restless. Much better this way.

So who would get what then? Or maybe, the USSR would let the USA annex them, only then to annex the USA itself. :)

Who on earth are you talking to?


Alright, why would it have been better to enslave the former Axis nations, given that we needed allies against the USSR and West Germany AND Japan acted as good buffer zones aginst the two?

Also, given that currently the US has large bases in both Germany and Japan, we got what we needed without the added cost of having to constantly put down rebellions or worry about another war starting in/with those nations while staring down the Soviet Union.
Um.... sarcasm?

Make ourselves look tough and ruthless, I mean as a nation America never actually conquered a nation and proclaim it as their own generally.
Well... except for the Moon. But you're right; that wasn't a nation.

Um.... sarcasm?
Questions. :p

Well... except for the Moon. But you're right; that wasn't a nation.
Huh? I thought the US never laid claim to the Moon.

What good can come from America officially annexing 'conquered' states? Isn't the situation in Iraq evidence of how Americans aren't really suited to the role of occupation? America has had plenty of practice at acquiring resources without official annexation.

Plus, even the Soviet Union made the pretense of its puppet states having some sort of independent governments. Didn't work out so well.

Huh? I thought the US never laid claim to the Moon.
I take it you never watched Star Trek?

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea
Who the hell says we didn't. We sat on Germany for a good 10+ years in a near annexed state, only 'giving' them back selfdetermination and rule much later in a propaganda stunt while keeping thousands of troops in Germany. Granted, the USSR was doing much, much worse, but still.

I take it you never watched Star Trek?
All of the orginal series, The Next Generation, all of the movies, most of Deep Space 9, a few seasons of Voyager, and almost none of Enterprise.

To what are you refering to within the vast universe that is Trek? ;)

Huh? I thought the US never laid claim to the Moon.
Oh, man.

I totally blew Coca-Cola out my nose because of that. That hurt.

All of the orginal series, The Next Generation, all of the movies, most of Deep Space 9, a few seasons of Voyager, and almost none of Enterprise.

To what are you refering to within the vast universe that is Trek? ;)
Um... Gary Seven? ... but apart from Star Trek, there was the US-USSR "race into space", of which the US was the clear winner. Regardless of whether the US sees itself as such (although I am sure NASA does) they do effectively have a monopoly on the moon. So far.

Um... Gary Seven? ... but apart from Star Trek, there was the US-USSR "race into space", of which the US was the clear winner. Regardless of whether the US sees itself as such (although I am sure NASA does) they do effectively have a monopoly on the moon. So far.
There's a difference though between landing on the Moon and claiming it is now a territory of the United States.

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

Wow, eerily similar to what Japan did before the war with Manchuria...

It worked out allright without annexation, didn't it?

Better than it would have with it, so much is certain.

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

I have posted before on related threads, the USA could have taken over Western Europe and made them US states before or after the war would be easier and governed them with loyal white European Americans reaching out to thier European cousins and European collaborators.

The US could have taken over all of Europe and did not do so, therefore not an empire on one of the threads.

Of course this would have led to a war with Russia at the time, which I think the US could have won, a fellow nation posted no, Russia-the Soviet Union would have won that war, it had more economic and millitary strenth on the continent by the end of the war.

The US had more people of European decent at that time than now.

I or others could look up the old ethnic census figures just for fun.

What do you all think?

What do you all think?
That regardless of the ethnic makeup of the US, the Red Army would have shat all over the Allies and driven them out of Europe again.

Then there might have been a repeat of the Battle of Britain, and the US would have bombed various cities conventionally and maybe with nukes. That would of course be limited by range and the number of nukes available.
Plus, the Soviet Union could have functioned well enough with many of its cities destroyed. It did in WWII.

In the end, no one wins, but the whole of Europe is communist. And we'd probably be all nuclear mutants by now.

That regardless of the ethnic makeup of the US, the Red Army would have shat all over the Allies and driven them out of Europe again.

Then there might have been a repeat of the Battle of Britain, and the US would have bombed various cities conventionally and maybe with nukes. That would of course be limited by range and the number of nukes available.
Plus, the Soviet Union could have functioned well enough with many of its cities destroyed. It did in WWII.

In the end, no one wins, but the whole of Europe is communist. And we'd probably be all nuclear mutants by now.

I am sure you understood as you did, the ethnic European makeup of the US meant it could govern Europe if it won the war against the Soviet Union.

Which according to you the Soviet Union would have won, whose knows you might be right now we will never know for sure.

I am glad we can put aside our diffrences on Cuba and post to each other on other subjects.

large parts of germany and a few japanese islands were annexed after 1945 ad are occupied to this day.

large parts of germany and a few japanese islands were annexed after 1945 ad are occupied to this day.
Well, "large" is a matter of perspective, I guess. :p

:sniper: Well we should not have let the ussr have germany to begin with! it caused alot of needless crap later we should have went stragit on thru germany and across uroupe and beat the hell out of them commi bastards!

I have posted before on related threads, the USA could have taken over Western Europe and made them US states before or after the war would be easier and governed them with loyal white European Americans reaching out to thier European cousins and European collaborators.

I doubt that it would have mattered. An invader is an invader no matter if their grandparents came from your country. We've seen that in action in Iraq, and that's with people who were born there, not just decended from Iraqis.

What do you all think?
I doubt the US could have aforded it. The goverment had to float a lot of bonds to pay for WWII and could do so only with the support of the public. I'm not sure the public would have been happy to support attacking our former allies, especially after the long war we just went through.

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy.

They had no choice, America didn't 'conquer' anyone. The said countries surrendered to the allied forces, Russia, France, U.K, Canada etc with the exception (I believe) of Italy which, at the end of the war was fighting on the same side of said allied forces. When Russia took Berlin, Germany was split into little bits and given to the allied forces to do effectively, as they wish with.

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation.

Because you would have to keep a large standing army in each country. It's one thing to take it and it's another to hold it. Look at all previous empires that failed to do what you suggested.

Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

Eh? Ahm the Korean War never ended. We are just in a long term cease fire.

Finally, nice way to dismiss the contributions of West Germany and Japan during the cold war.....

I doubt that it would have mattered. An invader is an invader no matter if their grandparents came from your country. We've seen that in action in Iraq, and that's with people who were born there, not just decended from Iraqis.


I doubt the US could have aforded it. The goverment had to float a lot of bonds to pay for WWII and could do so only with the support of the public. I'm not sure the public would have been happy to support attacking our former allies, especially after the long war we just went through.

And the US was not a dictatorship nation to do whatever it wanted to another way so saying what your saying, good point.

I have posted before on related threads, the USA could have taken over Western Europe and made them US states before or after the war would be easier and governed them with loyal white European Americans reaching out to thier European cousins and European collaborators.

The US could have taken over all of Europe and did not do so, therefore not an empire on one of the threads.

Doubtful indeed. To pull that off America would need a half decent navy and a half decent air force, neither of which they have as Pearl Harbour testifies to. Also, their supply routes would have been too thinly spread.

Of course this would have led to a war with Russia at the time, which I think the US could have won

Germany couldnt defeat Russia, what makes you think America could?

What do you all think?
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves. Don't ever forget it.

Doubtful indeed. To pull that off America would need a half decent navy and a half decent air force, neither of which they have as Pearl Harbour testifies to. Also, their supply routes would have been too thinly spread.


Well that is not valid. By the end of the war the US had both. The navy was significantly larger and the airforce had much better aircraft.


Germany couldnt defeat Russia, what makes you think America could?

It's fun to play what if.

For one thing the Americans would have learned from the Germans and we would not have been hindered like they were by Hitler. Our Front line commanders would have been able to respond as they saw fit.

It's fun to play what if.

For one thing the Americans would have learned from the Germans and we would not have been hindered like they were by Hitler. Our Front line commanders would have been able to respond as they saw fit.

How good our commanders were wouldn't have made a difference. The Russians outnumbered our, and our allies troops by a fairly large number. Not just in ground troops, but in tanks and airplanes as well. Also, they're technology at this time wasn't inferior, and in the way of tanks, was actually superior. If we had tried anything against Russia, the U.S. would have had it handed to them, hardcore. The only thing that stopped the U.S.S.R. from running wild over Europe was fear of the bomb.

How good our commanders were wouldn't have made a difference. The Russians outnumbered our, and our allies troops by a fairly large number. Not just in ground troops, but in tanks and airplanes as well. Also, they're technology at this time wasn't inferior, and in the way of tanks, was actually superior. If we had tried anything against Russia, the U.S. would have had it handed to them, hardcore. The only thing that stopped the U.S.S.R. from running wild over Europe was fear of the bomb.

Still a what if.

Tanks would have been a problem. Their aircraft was pretty lame.

Also the bomb would have made a difference wouldn't it? ;)

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

Personally I don't think we should've annexed them, but now...we should just annex Iraq and get it over with. The world hates us, Iraq's gonna be a breeding ground for terrorism and even nukes, they'll never have true democracy, and if we leave it's gonna go to shit, our troops will be stuck there forever so we might as well enjoy the rewards of taking out their murderer Saddam (whom they love so much). Annex Iraq.

Well that is not valid. By the end of the war the US had both. The navy was significantly larger and the airforce had much better aircraft.

A large Navy does not constitute a good one. Ditto the American air force.



For one thing the Americans would have learned from the Germans and we would not have been hindered like they were by Hitler. Our Front line commanders would have been able to respond as they saw fit.

Britain ruled the air and sea so there was no way America could get a foothold in Britain. With Germany secure to the east, Britain and the rest of Europe would have been free to concentrate on any threat that may have come from America to the west. Americas only option would have been to come in the back door via the USSR. The Russians would have cut them down where they stood.

A large Navy does not constitute a good one. Ditto the American air force.




Britain ruled the air and sea so there was no way America could get a foothold in Britain. With Germany secure to the east, Britain and the rest of Europe would have been free to concentrate on any threat that may have come from America to the west. Americas only option would have been to come in the back door via the USSR. The Russians would have cut them down where they stood.

I dont know why youre assuming britain wouldnt help the US defeat russia. Then all we would have to do is say we were gonna have "interim gov'ts" in europe for a few year and maybe later backstab the brits with troops stationed there, once on britain, I think it'd be a ton easier to conquer them then if you have to go by sea...

Not that defeating russia would be easy, or that moral wouldnt be a problem, frankly I dont think the US would have significant manpower/endurance to forcibly rule all of europe.

Also the bomb would have made a difference wouldn't it? ;)

Only if America could get it into position. With no air force this would have proved difficult :p

Make ourselves look tough and ruthless, I mean as a nation America never actually conquered a nation and proclaim it as their own generally.

well ... i would be blunt to suggest Afganistan and Iraq (if you can prove me wrong then ... yeah ... then i'm wrong and i'll admit it ... but only if you can prove it ...)

I dont know why youre assuming britain wouldnt help the US defeat russia. Then all we would have to do is say we were gonna have "interim gov'ts" in europe for a few year and maybe later backstab the brits with troops stationed there, once on britain, I think it'd be a ton easier to conquer them then if you have to go by sea...

Not that defeating russia would be easy, or that moral wouldnt be a problem

Britain had little to gain by turning on the rest of Europe but….. who's to say that, had they gone in with America, they wouldn’t stab America in the back when the deed in Russia was done.? :D

frankly I dont think the US would have significant manpower/endurance to forcibly rule all of europe.

To say nothing of intelligence.:p

Poor Italy.. They're the forgotton axis power...
They sure tried a lot to for that "quality" to be forgotten after 1943.

But what about all the others? There's:
-Thailand
-Norway
-Romania
-Bulgaria
-Croatia
-Slovakia
-Vichy France
-Flanders (kinda); some of the Walloons
-Guomindang breakaways

The exile governments of Georgia and Ukraine, the Russian Whites, Chandra Bhose's guys, the Jerusalem Mufti etc.

and:
-No, Finland, I did not forget you (and I'm still undecided about you, Spain)

So, USA, could you handle that?

Oh, and of course: contrary to Captain America and other, more recent myths, the USA alone ensured that the Axis would not be "made to suffer".
How long were they occupiers in Japan? Did Hirohito leave his throne, as previos propaganda had demanded? Was not the atomic bomb launched as an act of the Cold War already (the US panicked that the USSR was in a position to invade Japan)?
Who rehabilitated and re-employed most Nazis?
Who supported Resistance to communism through groups that had previously been in the pay of Germany (or in close ideological alliance with it)?

(Not to mention that, from an ideological point, the US never waged war "on Fascism".)

You see, the USA did all possible to get over the moment and normalize the situation. The last thing it wanted was to face the USSR alone (alone except for millions of glowing eyes looking up to it); so it turned the world into allies.

A large Navy does not constitute a good one. Ditto the American air force.


Well after fighting Japan, they had the experience. And even if England decided to fight, she could not sustain the losses. The US was turning out ships like crazy. There were what 15 heavy carriers by the end of the war?


Britain ruled the air and sea so there was no way America could get a foothold in Britain.


Please. The only reason England won the Battle of Britain was because Hitler ordered the cities bombed instead of continuing with military targets.


With Germany secure to the east, Britain and the rest of Europe would have been free to concentrate on any threat that may have come from America to the west.

Ok you assume Europe would be taking up arms against the Americans.

Americas only option would have been to come in the back door via the USSR. The Russians would have cut them down where they stood.

Sureeeee. Even with your tank argument. You left out the Pattons were developed. Never saw combat but it might offer a challenge to the current armor.

You also forget the Germans had better tanks then the US and still they were defeated. Why? because we were smart enough to move when the Airforce could fly.

Only if America could get it into position. With no air force this would have proved difficult :p

Hmm what was the range of the B-29s? and what did the Russians have to counter them?

Well after fighting Japan, they had the experience
The only thing America had was experience of losing to Japan. Air, sea and land. They knew it which is why they did the bomb.

And even if England decided to fight, she could not sustain the losses.
The loses would have been on Americas side

Please. The only reason England won the Battle of Britain was because Hitler ordered the cities bombed instead of continuing with military targets.
Britain won the Battle of Britain, not England.
Germany had little option to bomb our Cities as we had concealed our military targets too well. It's called planning a way on how to win a war.

Ok you assume Europe would be taking up arms against the Americans.
A fair assumption I think. Given a choice of freedom or occupation one would choose freedom.

Sureeeee. Even with your tank argument. You left out the Pattons were developed. Never saw combat but it might offer a challenge to the current armor.
Sureeeee.what? I never mentioned tanks

You also forget the Germans had better tanks then the US and still they were defeated. Why? because we were smart enough to move when the Airforce could fly.

Don’t do the tanks on me, that was someone else's post. However, since you brought it up, I very much doubt the American tanks would be able to move after the RAF had taken out the American fighters and thus removed air cover. And yes, Germany were defeated or, surrendered as I like to put it, but not by America as you infer

All in all, you seem to forget that Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way round.

Make ourselves look ruthless.
Thats the general impression people have of Americans.

Hmm what was the range of the B-29s? and what did the Russians have to counter them?

Not sure of the range, but the answer to the other question is Alaska. Russia had proved it's capabilities of winning in that terrain. Once the Russians were inside America, the bomb, even if America could get it off the ground, would be ineffective. Oh, and let's not forget that America had precious little money left at the end of the war. They had wasted it all on aircraft carriers that were ineffective against the Japanese Navy.

My god. The complete lack of historical knowledge on Daft Viagra's part is....well, stunning. Firstly, we won the Battle of Britain by the skin of our teeth; it was only the Berlin bombings and Hitlers idiocy in ordering a blitz on the main cities that allowed the RAF to survive against Luftwaffe attacks. We did not win because our military targets were well-concealed - what a load of codswallop.

Secondly - what the hell are you going on about when you say Britain would have fought the USSR in a 1945 conflict with the USSR? We were a firmj ally - even with Atlee as PM after the election we still would have fought with the US against the USSr; maybe a tad more reluctantly than if Churchill had remained, but we still would have fought.

Thirdly, a conflict in 1945 against the USSR would have been an allied disaster. Russian numbers would have defeated any allied defenses short of the deployment of the A-Bomb, particuarly as a number of US troops were heading for the Pacific campaigns. Nothing short of nuking the Kremlin or part of their German territory would have stopped their offensive.

My god. The complete lack of historical knowledge on Daft Viagra's part is....well, stunning. Firstly, we won the Battle of Britain by the skin of our teeth; it was only the Berlin bombings and Hitlers idiocy in ordering a blitz on the main cities that allowed the RAF to survive against Luftwaffe attacks. We did not win because our military targets were well-concealed - what a load of codswallop.

Plus the Luftwaffe had to re-deploy 200 planes to aid Rommels campaign in North Africa.

Plus the Luftwaffe had to re-deploy 200 planes to aid Rommels campaign in North Africa.

Thank-you. I'd completely forgotten about that fact.

My god. The complete lack of historical knowledge on Daft Viagra's part is....well, stunning. Firstly, we won the Battle of Britain by the skin of our teeth; it was only the Berlin bombings and Hitlers idiocy in ordering a blitz on the main cities that allowed the RAF to survive against Luftwaffe attacks. We did not win because our military targets were well-concealed - what a load of codswallop.

Secondly - what the hell are you going on about when you say Britain would have fought the USSR in a 1945 conflict with the USSR? We were a firmj ally - even with Atlee as PM after the election we still would have fought with the US against the USSr; maybe a tad more reluctantly than if Churchill had remained, but we still would have fought.

Thirdly, a conflict in 1945 against the USSR would have been an allied disaster. Russian numbers would have defeated any allied defenses short of the deployment of the A-Bomb, particuarly as a number of US troops were heading for the Pacific campaigns. Nothing short of nuking the Kremlin or part of their German territory would have stopped their offensive.

Ok Daft. Skinny and Von Von Witzleben explained it quite well. As I suspected your knowledge of WWII is rather weak.

If you are going to debate WWII with us, then you need to learn more. Many here have granddads and great-granddads who fought and told stories. Some were enough to interest us to read about it.

My Granddad actually fought the Germans in two armies. Poland and Great Britain. So our stories are from first hand rather then the movie of the week.

A battle against the Soviets would have meant the use of the atomic bombs. There is no saying how long it would have lasted.

The US would never surrender even with the loss of Europe. Simply because it would only be a matter of time before they went after the main land.

Finally, Europe fighting the US? It was not going to happen. The cold war was beginning and there was animosity between the Soviets and the West. Many incidents in the occupied areas.

But that is the fun of the "What if" arguments.....

The only thing America had was experience of losing to Japan. Air, sea and land. They knew it which is why they did the bomb.
Nope. That's completely incorrect. By August of 1945, Japan's navy and airforce were almost entirely destroyed. The USA used the bomb to avoid a costly invasion of Japan's main islands, and to send a message to the Soviet Union.

Nope. That's completely incorrect. By August of 1945, Japan's navy and airforce were almost entirely destroyed. The USA used the bomb to avoid a costly invasion of Japan's main islands, and to send a message to the Soviet Union.

Indeed. Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan, was estimated to cause more than a million US casualties alone.

Plus the Luftwaffe had to re-deploy 200 planes to aid Rommels campaign in North Africa.
I don't think so.

The Afrikakorps was formed in February 1941. Generally it is said that the Battle of Britain ended in October 1940.

Even though some German planes had to be moved into the Balkans, I don't think it really mattered. The battle was ultimately lost because of a failure in German command, and partly because the British just had the better position.

I don't think so.

The Afrikakorps was formed in February 1941. Generally it is said that the Battle of Britain ended in October 1940.

Even though some German planes had to be moved into the Balkans, I don't think it really mattered. The battle was ultimately lost because of a failure in German command, and partly because the British just had the better position.

Christ, you're right of course. God my knowledge is slipping - too many essays at the moment.

I don't think so.

The Afrikakorps was formed in February 1941. Generally it is said that the Battle of Britain ended in October 1940.

Even though some German planes had to be moved into the Balkans, I don't think it really mattered. The battle was ultimately lost because of a failure in German command, and partly because the British just had the better position.

Whoops. Serves me right for glancing instead of digesting.

Good catch.....

Indeed. Operation Olympic, the invasion of Japan, was estimated to cause more than a million US casualties alone.

Sorry to be picky, but thats actually a myth.

It was James Byrne(s) the Sec of State I think, or maybe Deputy Sec. of State and also Henry Stimpson the Sec. of War that came up with those figures, after the A bomb was dropped.

Stimpson initially said 500,000 US casualties (note, he didn't say deaths), and later Byrne(s) upped the figure to a neat million as the effects and devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki became clearer.

People began asking about the necessity of the bomb being dropped and they justified it by coming up with a horridly high number.

At the time, US military planners only reckoned that 50,000 to a max of 70,000 US soldiers would be lost.

Its a myth.

Sorry to be picky, but thats actually a myth.

It was James Byrne(s) the Sec of State I think, or maybe Deputy Sec. of State and also Henry Stimpson the Sec. of War that came up with those figures, after the A bomb was dropped.

Stimpson initially said 500,000 US casualties (note, he didn't say deaths), and later Byrne(s) upped the figure to a neat million as the effects and devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki became clearer.

People began asking about the necessity of the bomb being dropped and they justified it by coming up with a horridly high number.

At the time, US military planners only reckoned that 50,000 to a max of 70,000 US soldiers would be lost.

Its a myth.

Got a linky or a reference.

Not an area I read in detail. Only know about it from arguments and comments......

Got a linky or a reference.
This is what the plan would have looked like - from a pro-military, pro-nuke 'em writer: http://www.neswa.org.au/Library/Articles/olympic.htm

Wiki (with the usual reliability issues):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/index.html

Whatever the true figure, it would have cost a lot of people, and the US Command simply wasn't willing to risk angering the home front.

Got a linky or a reference.

Not an area I read in detail. Only know about it from arguments and comments......

Well, its in the U.S. State Documents/Archives (did a bit on that for my undergrad) but its briefly referenced on Wiki.

Yeah yeah, I know... Wiki...

But it uses its own sources for that particular point
Link to article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

But these are the paragraphs of interest anyway
The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost—and that number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.

Anyway, my research was memoirs and documents NOT Wiki :p

Got a linky or a reference.

Not an area I read in detail. Only know about it from arguments and comments......

A Myth? I think not. I quote from pages 374-375 of More What If? Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been - Robert Cowley and the essay by Richard B Frank entitled 'No Bomb, No End':

'When the Joint Chiefs authorised the invasion strategy in April 1945, they formally adopted a planning paper that addressed expected casualties. Rather than a raw number, however, this paper effectively provided a range of possible casualties based upon a pair of ratios derived from European and Pacific combat experience, both in rates per thousands of men commited per day:

(Table changed to fit Jolt, but figures the same)

Pacific Amphibious Campaign:

Killed In Action: 1.78
Wounded In Action: 5.50
Missing In Action: .17
Total: 7.45

European Protracted Campaign:

Killed In Action: .36
Wounded In Action: 1.74
Missing In Action: .06
Total: 2.16

Applying these numbers to the ratios generates in the following range of potential losses:

Projected Casualties For Olympic
for 90-day campaign

Pacific Experience:

Troops list case 1

Total Troops: 766, 700

Killed and Missing: 134, 556
Total Casualties: 514, 072

Troop list 2

Total Troops: 681,000

Killed and Missing: 109,515
Total Casualties: 456,610

European Experience:

Troops list case 1

Total Troops: 766,700

Killed and Missing: 28,981
Total Casualties: 149,046

Troops list case 2

Total Troops: 681,000

Killed and Missing: 25,471
Total Casualties: 132, 385'

Given that the most likely troops to be used were the Pacific Experience troops, and taking the first case list casualties of 514,072 and adding in the naval and air losses from the fanatical Japanese defence, it is not difficult to see that nearly a million casualties is not a myth. Even with European troops, air and baval losses combined would have reached near 500,000. So it is not a myth by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, you have also got to take into account that the invasion would not have been ready until March or April at the latest.

This was August.... do you really think the military planners thought Japan could hold out for another 7/8 months with no air, naval or land military power? No food, no supplies? No allies?

Please.

Well, you have also got to take into account that the invasion would not have been ready until March or April at the latest.

This was August.... do you really think the military planners thought Japan could hold out for another 7/8 months with no air, naval or land military power? No food, no supplies? No allies?

Please.

Heck, I can only quote the figures that the Joint Chiefs themselves prepared. From reading further on in the essay - too much to write and I don't wanna get sued - a blockade was politically unfeasible because of the allied policy of no terms by the Japanese. Many truly believed that Japan could hold out for that long, and these were the casualties they predicted.

... and these were the casualties they predicted.


On a worst case scenario yeah. but thats what the JCoS do. The present a rough guide to the President saying "This is what might happen if the shit really hits the fan... just so you know"

You go with the JCoS. I'll go with Truman's (somewhat contradictory) memoirs, Stimpson's interviews in the late 50's and Byrne's press releases after the war. ;)

Hey, historians differ. Thats the point :p

On a worst case scenario yeah. but thats what the JCoS do. The present a rough guide to the President saying "This is what might happen if the shit really hits the fan... just so you know"

You go with the JCoS. I'll go with Truman's (somewhat contradictory) memoirs, Stimpson's interviews in the late 50's and Byrne's press releases after the war. ;)

Hey, historians differ. Thats the point :p

Heh, true. It's a subject I like but have never been able to get into as much as I'd like. Could you tell me where you got those sources from? I'd like to read 'em sometime.

Once I read 'em, I'll take all of them into account and divide by two, like I do with all projected casualty reports. Still, from what you quoted, Byrnes figures of 500,000 casualties, ie KIA, MIA and WIA seems to be fairly accurate...maybe fewer if European troops were used.

The only thing America had was experience of losing to Japan. Air, sea and land. They knew it which is why they did the bomb.

Dear lord get a history book.

Dear lord get a history book.

Yeah. I think between me, PM, Von Witzleben and Neu Lonstein, we've crushed his idiotic view of history.

Make ourselves look tough and ruthless, I mean as a nation America never actually conquered a nation and proclaim it as their own generally.
Iraq

Trumans memoirs are... contradictory. He goes back over himself in some of the varying sections; saying he right to drop the bomb, then later saying he couldn't sleep at night knowing he had ordered so many innocents to be killed, then later saying it was out of his hands (which was true in a sense).

Henry Stimpson had a few meetings in which he descirbed the process of getting a million after the bomb was dropped- several with Eisenhower. Ike mentions this in "Mandate for Change" but I don't know how helpful that is.

Most of the documents are actually internal, interdepartmental and extrenal memo's that you should be able to access on the State dept. website.
www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus

Or even the National Archives and Records Admin at www.archives.gov

But... meh. Its a lot of searching! :D

The 500,000 figure is an odd one. Its only says casualties... not specifically 'deaths'. That could mean a lot of injuries- if that is the case then 500,000 might not be far off the mark.

However, its commonly played up as "OMFG! 500,000 DEAD US SOLDIERS!1!!" :rolleyes:

Yeah. I think between me, PM, Von Witzleben and Neu Lonstein, we've crushed his idiotic view of history.

The European theatre will always be open to debate, but it's hard to argue anything other than entire American victory in the Pacific theatre.

Iraq

The United States doesn't generally refer to Iraq as US territory. The Mexican War is a more apt example, but even that doesn't entirely qualify as the US "purchased" that land from Mexico. The US doesn't claim land as it own in the way that, say, the USSR did with the Baltic republics after WWII.

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea
NOT! That has been shown time and time again to be totally unworkable over the long term. Much, much better to help set them back on their feet again and have them become an ally than keep them as a vassal state and have them hate our guts.

My god. The complete lack of historical knowledge on Daft Viagra's part is....well, stunning. Firstly, we won the Battle of Britain by the skin of our teeth; it was only the Berlin bombings and Hitlers idiocy in ordering a blitz on the main cities that allowed the RAF to survive against Luftwaffe attacks. We did not win because our military targets were well-concealed - what a load of codswallop.

Firstly, I never said it was an easy win, but it was, nonetheless a win which would have bee inconceivable without concealing our military targets. You also seem to have taken the post to Berlin. Berlin is in Germany, the Battle of Britain took place in ????????? Britain maybe?



Secondly - what the hell are you going on about when you say Britain would have fought the USSR in a 1945 conflict with the USSR? We were a firmj ally - even with Atlee as PM after the election we still would have fought with the US against the USSr; maybe a tad more reluctantly than if Churchill had remained, but we still would have fought.

Secondly, I never said Britain would fight the USSR, that was someone else's post. I do wish people would read and quote from the respective posters.


Thirdly, a conflict in 1945 against the USSR would have been an allied disaster. Russian numbers would have defeated any allied defenses short of the deployment of the A-Bomb, particuarly as a number of US troops were heading for the Pacific campaigns. Nothing short of nuking the Kremlin or part of their German territory would have stopped their offensive.

Ditto above reply. Do read and understand the posts if you care to reply.

It's good to see you agree with me though

Dear lord get a history book.
Can you suggest an accurate one? (not the one you use)
I think you watch too many American films, get out more, the library maybe.

Firstly, I never said it was an easy win, but it was, nonetheless a win which would have bee inconceivable without concealing our military targets. You also seem to have taken the post to Berlin. Berlin is in Germany, the Battle of Britain took place in ????????? Britain maybe?


Again your lack of knowledge is showing.

Skinny is referencing the fact that a couple planes got lost on a British bombing run and dumped their loads on the city. Hitler got pissed and ordered the Luftwaffe to stop attacking millitary targets(ie airfields) and hit the cities. The RAF was struggling at that point and the relief allowed them to recover.


Secondly, I never said Britain would fight the USSR, that was someone else's post. I do wish people would read and quote from the respective posters.

He did read it. You were the one saying that GB would have taken arms against the US if there was a war with the USSR.


Ditto above reply. Do read and understand the posts if you care to reply.

It's good to see you agree with me though

No, he sort of agrees with you. You have basically argued that if there was a war, Europe would be owned by the USSR.

Skinny was saying that if the war went down it would be a disaster simply because Nukes would be used and it would probably have meant on German soil.

Can you suggest an accurate one? (not the one you use)
I think you watch too many American films, get out more, the library maybe.

:D you should talk.

I think I can speak for the others when I say why don't you tell us what you have read....

The United States doesn't generally refer to Iraq as US territory. The Mexican War is a more apt example, but even that doesn't entirely qualify as the US "purchased" that land from Mexico. The US doesn't claim land as it own in the way that, say, the USSR did with the Baltic republics after WWII.


Or like say… Americans took the land from the Indians.

Or like say… Americans took the land from the Indians.

Actually, they are called Native Americans now.....

:D you should talk.

I think I can speak for the others when I say why don't you tell us what you have read....

You sure talk enough for the others. :D
I take my data from history books as it happens. British, German Japanese, French, Belgium, I'm not fussy as long as it isn't American.
Even German history books arnt as contorted as some of the drivle I'm hearing here.

You sure talk enough for the others. :D
I take my data from history books as it happens. British, German Japanese, French, Belgium, I'm not fussy as long as it isn't American.
Even German history books arnt as contorted as some of the drivle I'm hearing here.

Titles my boy. Titles.

You are dealing with a bunch of readers......

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

No dude... just... no. For one thing, you never conquered shit in Korea. You were meant to be protecting South Korea. If you consider America's actions on the peninsula to be conquest, you're just dumb.

Wah wah cry me a river, you lose the war we get to do whatever we want with you. And if it means losing your identity with a slight chance of being enslaved then tough luck. Of course america can destroy them some more and then turn them into penal colonies if they need to

No, YOU cry ME a river. Because what I'm basically hearing is "WAAAA! THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE MIGHTY EMPIRE! WE SHOULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND ENSLAVE EVERYONE! WAAAA!!!! WHY AREN'T WE ALL POWERFUL! *sob*

Face it, you don't know shit about world politics. If you conquered and enslaved Germany, do you really think they'd be so willing to cooperate with the Western Allies? NO! You'd have Germans escaping to EAST BERLIN. Congratulations, you just made the Soviet Union, led by Joseph "I kill by the million" Stalin, the good guys.

Actually, they are called Native Americans now.....

I'm sure that pleases them. One day a proud Sioux warrior, the next day a Native American. I know which I'd rather be. :p
It doesn’t detract from the fact that their lands were taken

Titles my boy. Titles. QUOTE]

I could pull half a dozen titles off the wed in 15 seconds, it wouldnt prove anything


[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]You are dealing with a bunch of readers......

I am indeed, and then there is you.
Anyway, shouldnt you be in school now, catch up on your history

Also, the whole "conquer the Axis" thing was tried. It was called the Morgenthau Plan. Roosevelt rejected it. But the OP clearly thinks himself a better leader than Roosevelt.

No dude... just... no. For one thing, you never conquered shit in Korea. You were meant to be protecting South Korea. If you consider America's actions on the peninsula to be conquest, you're just dumb.



No, YOU cry ME a river. Because what I'm basically hearing is "WAAAA! THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE MIGHTY EMPIRE! WE SHOULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND ENSLAVE EVERYONE! WAAAA!!!! WHY AREN'T WE ALL POWERFUL! *sob*

Face it, you don't know shit about world politics. If you conquered and enslaved Germany, do you really think they'd be so willing to cooperate with the Western Allies? NO! You'd have Germans escaping to EAST BERLIN. Congratulations, you just made the Soviet Union, led by Joseph "I kill by the million" Stalin, the good guys.

You said it

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest]Titles my boy. Titles. QUOTE]

I could pull half a dozen titles off the wed in 15 seconds, it wouldnt prove anything


Ok put the titles up or are just making claims?

I'm sure that pleases them. One day a proud Sioux warrior, the next day a Native American. I know which I'd rather be. :p
It doesn’t detract from the fact that their lands were taken

Actually they will tell you it's an improvement.

They never liked the label of Indian. They will tell you they are apache, from the six-nations, etc. etc.

NA is not great but it's better then Indian.

No dude... just... no. For one thing, you never conquered shit in Korea. You were meant to be protecting South Korea. If you consider America's actions on the peninsula to be conquest, you're just dumb.



No, YOU cry ME a river. Because what I'm basically hearing is "WAAAA! THE UNITED STATES SHOULD BE MIGHTY EMPIRE! WE SHOULD TAKE OVER THE WORLD AND ENSLAVE EVERYONE! WAAAA!!!! WHY AREN'T WE ALL POWERFUL! *sob*

Face it, you don't know shit about world politics. If you conquered and enslaved Germany, do you really think they'd be so willing to cooperate with the Western Allies? NO! You'd have Germans escaping to EAST BERLIN. Congratulations, you just made the Soviet Union, led by Joseph "I kill by the million" Stalin, the good guys.

Yea I can hear all the Eastern Front guys screaming "Come on it will be better living with these guys!!!!!"

Yea I can hear all the Eastern Front guys screaming "Come on it will be better living with these guys!!!!!"

And, in Gyrobot's scenario, will the Western Front guys be saying much different?

Firstly:

@ MP: Thanks, that helps. Uni library most likely has Trumans memoirs available to read - and I'm off to the national archives in a few months when I go on holiday to the US. Thanks kindly.

@ Daft Viagra: Your reading comprehension and lack of historical knowledge is now appaling, especially since you make insane claims and then refuse to cite titles to back them up. You sir, are not a historian. Fortunately The Black Forrest has shown up your claims against me, for which I thank him - but please, do list your titles, all 15 of them - Templeman Library is one of the largest in England and I'm sure I can find them at my uni and read them for myself to see what godawful view of history you read.

I also read the post where you insulted TBF. Thats laughable - with your reading comprehension and historical knowledge, you seem to know nothing about any theatre of the conflict, wheras TBF has time and again demonstrated his historical knowledge.

Personally, I feel that America had been too soft when they defeated Japan and Germany as well as Italy. Why just force them to surrender when you can take over their nation. Install a governor and make then give resources to the home country as well as punitive taxes? I mean it will have been a lot more effective in maintaining diplomacy, especially with korea

I just have to note, Italy switched sides in the middle of the war, and allied themselves with Britain.

Also, America was NOT the only country in WWII, despite what Americans think. Wouldn't it have made more sense for France to annex Germany, and China to annex Japan, seeing as they are closer to both of those countries than America?

In fact, for a while, the Allies did annex Germany. It was split into four control zones - America, France, Britain and the USSR. America's control zone was smaller than the others, but Britain and France pulled out, giving the US control of their zones. The US also pulled out, creating the country of West Germany, while the USSR maintained puppet control of East Germany.

But I digress. What I'm saying is, you Americans joined the war late, and you aren't even near these countries you speak of annexing. If anything, Germany should have been given to France. Oh, and I'm not French, I'm British, and proud of it - but it would just make more sense to give Germany to France and Japan to China.

I just have to note, Italy switched sides in the middle of the war, and allied themselves with Britain.

Also, America was NOT the only country in WWII, despite what Americans think. Wouldn't it have made more sense for France to annex Germany, and China to annex Japan, seeing as they are closer to both of those countries than America?

In fact, for a while, the Allies did annex Germany. It was split into four control zones - America, France, Britain and the USSR. America's control zone was smaller than the others, but Britain and France pulled out, giving the US control of their zones. The US also pulled out, creating the country of West Germany, while the USSR maintained puppet control of East Germany.

But I digress. What I'm saying is, you Americans joined the war late, and you aren't even near these countries you speak of annexing. If anything, Germany should have been given to France. Oh, and I'm not French, I'm British, and proud of it - but it would just make more sense to give Germany to France and Japan to China.

Yes, let's give Germany to France and make things easier for the Soviets. I'd rather be allied with an unarmed German peasant militia than with 1.2 million French troops.

Yes, let's give Germany to France and make things easier for the Soviets. I'd rather be allied with an unarmed German peasant militia than with 1.2 million French troops.

Better than giving it to the US.

Better than giving it to the US.

No dude. The Americans were unaffected by the war. They weren't very angry. Giving Germany to France would have the French do to the Germans what the Soviets did - rape and murder.

Hey, I had an idea. You know what? Let's give up on this topic, because if America and her allies wanted to conquer Germany, TOO FUCKING LATE.

America - You've hit your peak and have begun the extremely slow spiral downwards. Get over it.

Britain, France - You got your revenge by raping and looting from the German people. Now we have more money than you, and a better military. Sucks to be you.

Russia - Nobody likes you, commie.


Are we done here?

You're just an angry young man aren't you?

You're just an angry young man aren't you?

Yeah, he is. You should have seen his other threads. Essentially he believes that the entire of Europe is doomed to be invaded by Muslims or somesuch rot. His historical knowledge is just as lacking.

@ Daft Viagra: Your reading comprehension and lack of historical knowledge is now appaling, especially since you make insane claims and then refuse to cite titles to back them up. You sir, are not a historian. Fortunately The Black Forrest has shown up your claims against me, for which I thank him - but please, do list your titles, all 15 of them - Templeman Library is one of the largest in England and I'm sure I can find them at my uni and read them for myself to see what godawful view of history you read.


Uni? Are you doing sports or something? The reason I ask is because you obviously cannot read and have a very short memory. Perhaps you are visually impaired? I give up, which is it?
Your starter for 10, where did I make reference to 15 titles?
When you can demonstrate that you are capable of reading my posts, I may start believing that you are capable of reading a history book



I also read the post where you insulted TBF. Thats laughable - with your reading comprehension and historical knowledge, you seem to know nothing about any theatre of the conflict, wheras TBF has time and again demonstrated his historical knowledge.

I don't recall insulting TBF, but if I did you shouldnt laugh, TBH needs all the help he can get. That's where you come in, stop posting rubbish

Uni? Are you doing sports or something? The reason I ask is because you obviously cannot read and have a very short memory. Perhaps you are visually impaired? I give up, which is it?
Your starter for 10, where did I make reference to 15 titles?
When you can demonstrate that you are capable of reading my posts, I may start believing that you are capable of reading a history book




I don't recall insulting TBF, but if I did you shouldnt laugh, TBH needs all the help he can get. That's where you come in, stop posting rubbish

You, sir, need all the help you can get. Not one of your historical hypothesis has stood upto the historical knowledge of four or five knowledgable posters in this very thread. You cliam to have read many textbooks - you mentioned British, Belgian, even German ones. Please, do enlighten me as to these titles - I'd love to know where you got the idea that Britain might turn on the US in '45, and the other idiotic ideas.

Hey, I had an idea. You know what? Let's give up on this topic, because if America and her allies wanted to conquer Germany, TOO FUCKING LATE.

America - You've hit your peak and have begun the extremely slow spiral downwards. Get over it.

Britain, France - You got your revenge by raping and looting from the German people. Now we have more money than you, and a better military. Sucks to be you.

Russia - Nobody likes you, commie.


Are we done here?
About point two of your rant.

Do you and Do you?

I think not to both.

Britain, France - You got your revenge by raping and looting from the German people. Now we have more money than you, and a better military. Sucks to be you.
No, buddy. It sucks to be you.

Just for everyone's information:
This guy is not German. He was born in Australia to German immigrants. His links to Germany are about as strong as mine are to Italy.
He does not represent anyone but himself (and he does it rather poorly).

Yeah, he is. You should have seen his other threads. Essentially he believes that the entire of Europe is doomed to be invaded by Muslims or somesuch rot. His historical knowledge is just as lacking.

Statistically, Europe will be islamic by 2050.

No, buddy. It sucks to be you.

Just for everyone's information:
This guy is not German. He was born in Australia to German immigrants. His links to Germany are about as strong as mine are to Italy.
He does not represent anyone but himself (and he does it rather poorly).

I'm a Volksdeutsche. I represent how Germany should have been. You represent how Germany turned out (read:swamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp)). Real Germans (read: backbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage)) died out in 1945.



This is over. I'm gonna be the bigger man and leave this topic.

Oh.... GOD!

Buddy, whatever shred of credibility you had remaining, has now flown straight out the window.

I'm done with this clown.
*walks out*

I'm a Volksdeutsche. Real Germans (read: backbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage)) died out in 1945
Ahem, it would be "Volksdeutscher", unless you're female. :D

Which means that I have just shot your whole made-up existence to pieces. Learn to speak the language, travel to Germany, get a visa (maybe you can claim asylum), a work permit and eventually ask for citizenship.

Then we can talk.

I know I said I'd leave, but I couldn't resist THIS.

Ahem, it would be "Volksdeutscher", unless you're female. :D

I never said I wasn't.

Which means that I have just shot your whole made-up existence to pieces. Learn to speak the language, travel to Germany, get a visa (maybe you can claim asylum), a work permit and eventually ask for citizenship.

Then we can talk.

Pfhhh, I'm not moving to some pseudo-nation. I'll move there when they rebuild the military, use the first stanza of Deutschlandlied and change the name back to Deutsches Reich (Bundesrepublik my ass). That is to say, never.

Statistically, Europe will be islamic by 2050.



I'm a Volksdeutsche. I represent how Germany should have been. You represent how Germany turned out (read:swamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp)). Real Germans (read: backbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage)) died out in 1945.



This is over. I'm gonna be the bigger man and leave this topic.

So...you're a Nazi? Yep, that makes a whole lot of sense considering your other rants. Plus, you know, you're not a freaking German. Neu Lonstein is, and I respect him far more than I do you.

So...you're a Nazi? Yep, that makes a whole lot of sense considering your other rants. Plus, you know, you're not a freaking German. Neu Lonstein is, and I respect him far more than I do you.

:rolleyes:

Stooping to the Nazi argument. That's so low.

I'm an ethnic German living outside "German borders." Which means nothing, because Germany has pretty much no national identity.

I never said I wasn't.
You'd be a rather butch girl if you weren't.

Pfhhh, I'm not moving to some pseudo-nation. I'll move there when they rebuild the military, use the first stanza of Deutschlandlied and change the name back to Deutsches Reich (Bundesrepublik my ass). That is to say, never.
In which case you still have to apply for a visum like any other immigrant. For that is what you are and always will be.

You're a confused teen, and that's normal. But you should learn to use your anger for something constructive.

You're not German, you never were and you never will be. You read a history book at some point and liked a country that existed once (not that you would have any clue what life there would be like). You might as well run around and claim allegiance to the Roman Emperor and call yourself Roman.

You'll be much happier once you learn to accept that you're Australian and nothing more. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :p

Britain, France - You got your revenge by raping and looting from the German people. Now we have more money than you, and a better military. Sucks to be you.

You actually believe that the German military is better, don't you? Well, actually, it isn't. See, not only is Britain not regulated by a treaty to limit her defences, but we have the A-Bomb. We also have more warplanes than you.

Oh, and our navy is the world's 2nd best equipped (after the US, not Germany), and among the world's largest.

And I believe our army is also one of the best equipped in the world. And we don't have to live with the rest of the world thinking that we're evil bastards, because that is, unfortunately, how people think of the Germans, even though it isn't true. Though, when someone says "Germany" to me, I can tell you, I don't think "forward-moving economic power".

Germany has very little, in fact, in terms of military. The world's most powerful nations are the following:

USA
Russian Federation
China
UK
France

In that order (you can change UK and France around, they're basically about the same power level, but the French navy is slightly larger, and the British army is slightly better equipped).

Face it; Germany is not a world power any more. Not even a little bit. It has been replaced by what we call "winners" - people who aren't forced to keep to a certain number of military personnel. Someone lock this thread before this guy starts saying he's Hitler's grandson.

I represent how Germany should have been.

No, you represent the magical elf world where history is different from ours here on Earth. You represent them masterfully, though - if whining were an Olympic sport, Magical-Elf-Nazi-World would get gold.

SUCKS TO BE YOU.

Though, when someone says "Germany" to me, I can tell you, I don't think "forward-moving economic power".
Now, that is a little unfair.

Germany has very little, in fact, in terms of military.
"Very little" is also a little unfair, considering that Germany was meant to safe Europe's arse from the Commies until the Americans arrived in force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr

Face it; Germany is not a world power any more. Not even a little bit. It has been replaced by what we call "winners" - people who aren't forced to keep to a certain number of military personnel. Someone lock this thread before this guy starts saying he's Hitler's grandson.
Care to show me the treaty that limits how many soldiers Germany is allowed to have?

I'm confused. Makaar, are you talking about Germany in 1945, or present day? Because I'm fairly sure Germany has quite a large army these days.

Care to show me the treaty that limits how many soldiers Germany is allowed to have?

Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany. Limits German service personnel to 370,000.

I'm confused. Makaar, are you talking about Germany in 1945, or present day? Because I'm fairly sure Germany has quite a large army these days.

No, it's pretty small. I was just spouting bullshit to make myself feel better.

OK, you're right, I got a little carried away there, but this guy just really pissed me off. Sorry.

Also, there isn't a treaty that limits the number of troops Germany has (after checking my course material) - Germany imposed those sanctions on itself after the war, in the same way as Japan, and agreed them in some written document with a name I don't have here.

You'll have to forgive me, my history isn't as good as it once was - that's why I'm taking this course now, to bring it back up to better standards.

Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany. Limits German service personnel to 370,000.
Note though that the German delegation proposed that one, along with many other things, to show that they weren't going to be aggressive.
It's not a matter of the Allies telling anyone what to do, it was a matter of the German government genuinely interested in ending the tensions on the continent and get rid of the Cold War stocks of weapons. They did do so, and since then the Americans have been pushing Germany to spend more on its military. Unsuccessfully.

Or, to use the actual text of the treaty:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject to the Negotations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a signficant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe. It assumes that in follow-on negotiations the other participants in the negotiations, too, will render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in Europe, including measures to limit personnel strengths.

It's still a restriction, no matter who proposed it. So in hindsight, if Germany decided it was a mistake, they still can't increase the military, right?

It's still a restriction, no matter who proposed it. So in hindsight, if Germany decided it was a mistake, they still can't increase the military, right?
Well, unless you're perfectly illiterate in modern warfare, you know that numbers don't count for shit.

So two things Germany could do:
a) Start spending serious money on the military. 250,000 is plenty of people if they all have the latest gizmos.
b) Call back the Reservists. Pretty much all people who served their mandatory time are part of the reserves, which would probably make for a million or two easily.

And plenty of reaons why they wouldn't:
a) It costs a lot of money, which the government doesn't want to spend.
b) The people don't like it, and whoever proposes it will be voted out of government.
c) There are restrictions both in the form of international treaties, but more importantly in the constitution regarding the use of the military.
d) Germany doesn't have any enemies.

And in the context of "You lost the war, therefore you losers can't have a large military!", it does matter whether something was imposed from the outside or proposed by Germany itself.

And, in Gyrobot's scenario, will the Western Front guys be saying much different?


Actually yes. That's why they Soviets build the Berlin Wall and that's why many people died trying to get across.....

Firstly:

@ MP: Thanks, that helps. Uni library most likely has Trumans memoirs available to read - and I'm off to the national archives in a few months when I go on holiday to the US. Thanks kindly.

@ Daft Viagra: Your reading comprehension and lack of historical knowledge is now appaling, especially since you make insane claims and then refuse to cite titles to back them up. You sir, are not a historian. Fortunately The Black Forrest has shown up your claims against me, for which I thank him - but please, do list your titles, all 15 of them - Templeman Library is one of the largest in England and I'm sure I can find them at my uni and read them for myself to see what godawful view of history you read.

I also read the post where you insulted TBF. Thats laughable - with your reading comprehension and historical knowledge, you seem to know nothing about any theatre of the conflict, wheras TBF has time and again demonstrated his historical knowledge.

Thank you! :)

I would say the same of you!

But I digress. What I'm saying is, you Americans joined the war late, and you aren't even near these countries you speak of annexing. If anything, Germany should have been given to France. Oh, and I'm not French, I'm British, and proud of it - but it would just make more sense to give Germany to France and Japan to China.

Actually, giving whole countries would not have worked for anybody. Most of all Japan ot China? That would have been a blood bath.

Hey, I had an idea. You know what? Let's give up on this topic, because if America and her allies wanted to conquer Germany, TOO FUCKING LATE.

America - You've hit your peak and have begun the extremely slow spiral downwards. Get over it.

Britain, France - You got your revenge by raping and looting from the German people. Now we have more money than you, and a better military. Sucks to be you.

Russia - Nobody likes you, commie.


Are we done here?

Wow what an angry person.....

Uni? Are you doing sports or something? The reason I ask is because you obviously cannot read and have a very short memory. Perhaps you are visually impaired? I give up, which is it?
Your starter for 10, where did I make reference to 15 titles?
When you can demonstrate that you are capable of reading my posts, I may start believing that you are capable of reading a history book

I don't recall insulting TBF, but if I did you shouldnt laugh, TBH needs all the help he can get. That's where you come in, stop posting rubbish

Ahhh so you are nothing more then a troll.

You really haven't read anything have you? Typical.

Statistically, Europe will be islamic by 2050.

I'm a Volksdeutsche. I represent how Germany should have been. You represent how Germany turned out (read:swamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp)). Real Germans (read: backbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage)) died out in 1945.

This is over. I'm gonna be the bigger man and leave this topic.

Ahh a wannabe neo-nazi? *sigh*

Do take your ball and go home.

Thank you... You've just underlined my theory that all americans are selfish morons.

YOU defeated Germany? Please...

Now I COULD join this flamewar, but I'll just stay on the sideline, throwing popcorn at those who fail miserably in the feud.

Thank you... You've just underlined my theory that all americans are selfish morons.

YOU defeated Germany? Please...

Now I COULD join this flamewar, but I'll just stay on the sideline, throwing popcorn at those who fail miserably in the feud.

*Sniff sniff* Ahh the sweet smell of sweeping generalizations!

So you think 300 million people are the same as the small representation of this site?

You, sir, need all the help you can get. Not one of your historical hypothesis has stood upto the historical knowledge of four or five knowledgable posters in this very thread. You cliam to have read many textbooks - you mentioned British, Belgian, even German ones. Please, do enlighten me as to these titles - I'd love to know where you got the idea that Britain might turn on the US in '45, and the other idiotic ideas.

Read the thread from start to finish, note who says what and then, and only then, come back and quote me. FYI, a quote is something I or someone else has said, not something someone says someone else has said or something you think they would have said. Please also list all the knowledgeable posters and how you, an obvious expert in history, geography and people studies, came to the conclusion that they were knowledgeable with your vast years of experience and travel. How old are you, 17, 18? You, are a joke and you get funnier by the hour.

Ahhh so you are nothing more then a troll.

You really haven't read anything have you? Typical.

Oh, you came back then. We're still waiting for the titles of all these books you've read.

Oh, you came back then. We're still waiting for the titles of all these books you've read.
Jesus, what is this now? A dick swingin' contest!

Grow up.

If we'd have annexed Germany, we'd have been no better than those we'd beaten. Anyway, we did to an extent: what was the BAOR for?

Thank you... You've just underlined my theory that all americans are selfish morons.

And all Danes are anti-Islam and terrible artists. Aren't generalizations fun?

Now I COULD join this flamewar

You already did.

And all Danes are anti-Islam and terrible artists. Aren't generalizations fun?



You already did.

I cry foulplay :p you're not permitted to come with logical arguments in a flamewar.

How old are you, 17, 18?

What does his age have to do with it? Surely you are not using age as a qualification for authority.

The USSR would have rolled over america if we had attacked after the end of WW2.

The nukes weren't necessary to end the war. Hell, we had air and naval superiority. We could have blockaded the country, concidering most of their food was imported at that time. We just needed to justify the few billion spent on R & D with the nukes.

It's a more reasonable statement that the Soviet Union conquered Germany. What would also be true is to say that the US prevented the Iron Curtain from falling across the English Channel.

The British Empire of 1940-44 didn't have the manpower or the economics to open a separate front to the west. They could and did defend themselves (though the British War College has said that Operation Sealion would have been a success if launched right after Dunkerque), but could not have taken the offensive. Only the US could fund Normandy; only the combined forces of the Empire and the US could have launched the invasion.

What does his age have to do with it? Surely you are not using age as a qualification for authority.

I do hope not. Thanks for the support Sdaeriji. I honestly don't know whether to respond to this troll. On the one hand his view of history is atrocious and I really want to correct it, but on the other I feel insulted. I'm studying history at Uni, take great pains to ensure my accuracy in every post I make, yet this jerk still questions what I say.

Meh, I guess he is a troll.

It's a more reasonable statement that the Soviet Union conquered Germany. What would also be true is to say that the US prevented the Iron Curtain from falling across the English Channel.

The British Empire of 1940-44 didn't have the manpower or the economics to open a separate front to the west. They could and did defend themselves (though the British War College has said that Operation Sealion would have been a success if launched right after Dunkerque), but could not have taken the offensive. Only the US could fund Normandy; only the combined forces of the Empire and the US could have launched the invasion.

Ahhh, so good to find another sensible historian on here. Yes - without US funds and troops, we'd have been royally screwed. We didn't have the power to wage multiple offensives against the Germans.

It's a more reasonable statement that the Soviet Union conquered Germany. What would also be true is to say that the US prevented the Iron Curtain from falling across the English Channel.

The British Empire of 1940-44 didn't have the manpower or the economics to open a separate front to the west. They could and did defend themselves (though the British War College has said that Operation Sealion would have been a success if launched right after Dunkerque), but could not have taken the offensive. Only the US could fund Normandy; only the combined forces of the Empire and the US could have launched the invasion.

What is this? Reason? This has no place in this thread! :D

Oh, you came back then. We're still waiting for the titles of all these books you've read.

Daft.... you have a fitting nick atleast. You have managed to make yourself seem like a total moron, they have repeatedly asked for the titles of the books you said you read yet you failed to supply these. You have also shown a lack of historical knowledge that even I found laughable...

Oh and crazy neurotic neo-nazi aussie thing (dunno if you're a guy or girl), please take something calming before your heads bursts due to high bloodpressure...

TBF, Sdaeriji and skinny, damn you guys really know your stuff :eek:

Daft.... you have a fitting nick atleast. You have managed to make yourself seem like a total moron, they have repeatedly asked for the titles of the books you said you read yet you failed to supply these. You have also shown a lack of historical knowledge that even I found laughable...

Oh and crazy neurotic neo-nazi aussie thing (dunno if you're a guy or girl), please take something calming before your heads bursts due to high bloodpressure...

TBF, Sdaeriji and skinny, damn you guys really know your stuff :eek:

Why thank-you. I'm studying history at Uni now - it's always been my passion. Eventually I want to lecture at this very Uni, so I try and get my facts as correct as possible. Ignore DV, he's just a troll.

PM, TBF and Neu Lonstein and like in a league of their own though - their WW2 knowledge goes past mine, and I thought I knew my stuff!

I'm a Volksdeutsche. I represent how Germany should have been. You represent how Germany turned out (read:swamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp)). Real Germans (read: backbone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage)) died out in 1945.The only people to use that term with anything other than spite wore swastikas on their arms.

Ahh a wannabe neo-nazi? *sigh*
Do take your ball and go home.
Sorry about this but:
*Steals the ball*
*Shoots*
*SCORES!*
Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaal!:fluffle:

Actually, giving whole countries would not have worked for anybody. Most of all Japan ot China? That would have been a blood bath.

Giving whole countries to anyone would not have worked, I agree. Giving whole countries to the US, especially countries in Europe and the Far East, would not have worked. The world's largest ocean seperates the US from Japan, and another large ocean (the Atlantic) seperates the US from Europe. Giving Japan to China would have made more sense than giving it to the US.

Daft Viagra, the reason people are calling you an idiot is because they have read your posts, therefore they CAN read. Hey, it's as good as your logic. Just give us the bloody titles and end the shitstorm that's flying around you. If you don't post again, we'll understand that you just made up a load of crap. Or maybe you'd like to draw this out by insulting me now? Because by insulting me, all you're proving is that you don't have any titles. Just give the titles, then you can insult me all you want.

Oh, you came back then. We're still waiting for the titles of all these books you've read.

I am in a different time zone. I do like to sleep.

Alright just to make this interesting, I will list what I have on one of my book cases. This does not include whats in boxes.

British and American Tanks of WWII
Tanks
Japanese Naval Vessels of WWII
Battleship Bismarck
Luftwaffe: A history
Baa Baa Black Sheep
Nimitz
Tanks of WWII
The US Army in WWII (3 volume set)
History of WWII
The War in the Shadows(it's about comandos, etc throughout hisotry which includes WWII).
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Berlin Diary(just picked it up).
Kamakazi
The Diary of Matomi Urgaki(planned Pearl Harbor)
The Biography of Monty(4 volumes in boxes).
Gods Samurai(Bio on Fuchida who led the air attack on Pearl).
A Bridge Too Far
Scorched Earth
Two Ocean War
The Black March: The personal history of an SS man.


There are much more in boxes.

I cry foulplay :p you're not permitted to come with logical arguments in a flamewar.

:D Ok that made me laugh.

The USSR would have rolled over america if we had attacked after the end of WW2.

The nukes weren't necessary to end the war. Hell, we had air and naval superiority. We could have blockaded the country, concidering most of their food was imported at that time. We just needed to justify the few billion spent on R & D with the nukes.

Eh what? We had wayyyy more farm land then.....

I am in a different time zone. I do like to sleep.

Alright just to make this interesting, I will list what I have on one of my book cases. This does not include whats in boxes.

British and American Tanks of WWII
Tanks
Japanese Naval Vessels of WWII
Battleship Bismarck
Luftwaffe: A history
Baa Baa Black Sheep
Nimitz
Tanks of WWII
The US Army in WWII (3 volume set)
History of WWII
The War in the Shadows(it's about comandos, etc throughout hisotry which includes WWII).
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Berlin Diary(just picked it up).
Kamakazi
The Diary of Matomi Urgaki(planned Pearl Harbor)
The Biography of Monty(4 volumes in boxes).
Gods Samurai(Bio on Fuchida who led the air attack on Pearl).
A Bridge Too Far
Scorched Earth
Two Ocean War
The Black March: The personal history of an SS man.


There are much more in boxes.

Sweet...lemme post mine!

The Oxford Companion To United States History
We Can Take It! Britain and the Memory of the Second World War
Chain of Command: US Presidents
Cassell's Dictionary of Modern American History
What Ifs? Of American History
My Early Life: Winston Churchill
Clinton on Clinton
Churchill - Roy Jenkins
Wellington as Military Commander
Rorke's Drift
Knights of the Black Cross
The Art of War
Achtung! Panzer
Pegasus Bridge
Caen: The Brutal Battle and Breakout from Normandy
What If?
More What If?
Military Blunders
The Last Battle - Cornelius Ryan
Downing Street: The War Years
Battle of Wits (Enigma)
The Battle of Britain
Churchill's General's
A Short History of Reconstruction
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Snap!)
A History of the 20th Century (Three volumes)
Wartime Britain 1939-1945
Stalingrad - Antony Beevor

Plus the book i'm reading at the moment: Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire & The War with Japan

I don't think either of us are underqualified here...

It's a more reasonable statement that the Soviet Union conquered Germany. What would also be true is to say that the US prevented the Iron Curtain from falling across the English Channel.


So what you are saying is that the Murmansk Convoys were a waste of time? Could the Soviets have held off the Germans without the aid while they raced to get the Urals rolling?

Side note: My grandmother dated a Norweigan guy who was on the Merchant ships. He made that run a few times. Even had 3 ships sank from under him. Interesting guy. Funny thing was that he had pointy ears like an elf.

Now back to our regularily scheduled programming.....

So what you are saying is that the Murmansk Convoys were a waste of time? Could the Soviets have held off the Germans without the aid while they raced to get the Urals rolling?

Side note: My grandmother dated a Norweigan guy who was on the Merchant ships. He made that run a few times. Even had 3 ships sank from under him. Interesting guy. Funny thing was that he had pointy ears like an elf.

Now back to our regularily scheduled programming.....

Good point there. The Soviets never liked to admit that grain and spam and the like from the US aided the Stalingrad offensive in particular, and the jeeps the US sent were much liked. Although apparently Stalin hated the Hurricanes and tanks Britain sent over...git.

Sorry about this but:
*Steals the ball*
*Shoots*
*SCORES!*
Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaal!:fluffle:

:D

Good point there. The Soviets never liked to admit that grain and spam and the like from the US aided the Stalingrad offensive in particular, and the jeeps the US sent were much liked. Although apparently Stalin hated the Hurricanes and tanks Britain sent over...git.Trucks were the big commodity. American tanks were so scorned that the Soviets eventually asked for no more to be sent... :D

Trucks were the big commodity. American tanks were so scorned that the Soviets eventually asked for no more to be sent... :D

Poor Shermans...even the Soviets didn't want the 'Ronson Lighters'...

Sweet...lemme post mine!

The Oxford Companion To United States History
We Can Take It! Britain and the Memory of the Second World War
Chain of Command: US Presidents
Cassell's Dictionary of Modern American History
What Ifs? Of American History
My Early Life: Winston Churchill
Clinton on Clinton
Churchill - Roy Jenkins
Wellington as Military Commander
Rorke's Drift
Knights of the Black Cross
The Art of War
Achtung! Panzer
Pegasus Bridge
Caen: The Brutal Battle and Breakout from Normandy
What If?
More What If?
Military Blunders
The Last Battle - Cornelius Ryan
Downing Street: The War Years
Battle of Wits (Enigma)
The Battle of Britain
Churchill's General's
A Short History of Reconstruction
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Snap!)
A History of the 20th Century (Three volumes)
Wartime Britain 1939-1945
Stalingrad - Antony Beevor

Plus the book i'm reading at the moment: Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire & The War with Japan

I don't think either of us are underqualified here...

Nice list!

Berlin Diary is also by Shierer

How are :
We Can Take It! Britain and the Memory of the Second Wellington as Military Commander
Knights of the Black Cross
Pegasus Bridge
Caen: The Brutal Battle and Breakout from Normandy
What If?
More What If?
Military Blunders
Downing Street: The War Years
Battle of Wits (Enigma)
Wartime Britain 1939-1945
Stalingrad - Antony Beevor


You reminded me of something.

You might look for Infantry Attacks by Rommel. It's more about his WW1 experiences but it gives you insight to the man.

There is something I noticed called Attacks but I think it's a reprint......

Trucks were the big commodity. American tanks were so scorned that the Soviets eventually asked for no more to be sent... :D

Now you see why we depended on air! :p

So what you are saying is that the Murmansk Convoys were a waste of time? Could the Soviets have held off the Germans without the aid while they raced to get the Urals rolling?



Yes, I think they probably could. What the Murmansk Convoys meant was that they could successfully defend Stalingrad and prevent access to Moscow.

The situation in the Soviet Union was quite similar in many ways to that of Great Britain, psychologically. No Brit was going to surrender to Germany until the country was occupied from Land's End to John o'Groats (did I spell that correctly?). Likewise, I couldn't see the Soviets giving in until the Ural Wall was breached - a capacity Germany simply didn't have.

The Murmansk Convoys probably did more morale assistance to the Soviets than functional. It showed they weren't alone in the fight, and that Germany could be stopped. But given enough time, with the economic capabilities of the two combatants, the USSR, barring some unforeseen disaster, was the only possible winner.

Nice list!

Berlin Diary is also by Shierer

How are :
We Can Take It! Britain and the Memory of the Second Wellington as Military Commander
Knights of the Black Cross
Pegasus Bridge
Caen: The Brutal Battle and Breakout from Normandy
What If?
More What If?
Military Blunders
Downing Street: The War Years
Battle of Wits (Enigma)
Wartime Britain 1939-1945
Stalingrad - Antony Beevor


You reminded me of something.

You might look for Infantry Attacks by Rommel. It's more about his WW1 experiences but it gives you insight to the man.

There is something I noticed called Attacks but I think it's a reprint......

Okay, I'll take 'em one by one:

1. Great book, but its not widely available - its a uni text written by a professor here. Great book though - talks about the myths of the British side of the war and how Thatcher subverted it in the 80's
2. I like it - picked it up at a boot fair. It's a history of the German Panzer Corp from '39-45. Good read, quite rare I think
3. One of my favourite books. Well researched and Pegasus Bridge is a personal favourite subject of mine.
4. Hard to get into, but scanning through it has a load of maps and stats, so I use it for reference more than anything
5&6 - I love Alternate History and they're well worth a read. Some great essays, ranging from What if the A-Bomb hadn't fallen to if Jesus hadn't been crucified.
7. Got it twice, but it's a rather short book. It does, however, analyse blunders like Stalinggrad well and has little tidbits to amuse the reader
8. The personal memoirs of John Martin, cabinet aide to Churchill. Biased but still bloody useful for my course.
9. Enigma is a fascinating subject, and this is a great book on the subject. Haven't read it in a while
10. Huge book that uses personal sources to write a history from civilians perspective. Again, so big I use it for reference and will read it eventually
11. My favourite book. So detailed yet so easy to read, and gives a great amount of detail about all sides of the battle - I never knew about Hiwis until I read it

though the British War College has said that Operation Sealion would have been a success if launched right after Dunkerque
The BWC really said that? Operation Sealion was a joke and would have been a disaster, no matter when it was launched. Not to mention it would have been nearly impossible for Germany to organize and launch an amphibous invasion of Britain immediately after Dunkerque.

The BWC really said that? Operation Sealion was a joke and would have been a disaster, no matter when it was launched. Not to mention it would have been nearly impossible for Germany to organize and launch an amphibous invasion of Britain immediately after Dunkerque.

They probably meant that it would have been a success if launched immediately - ie with everything in order. A moot point really, because it wasn't, but tantalising alternate-history...

Jesus, what is this now? A dick swingin' contest!

Grow up.Not. You would lose.

And all Danes are anti-Islam and terrible artists. Aren't generalizations fun?
You already did.

Only if you engage and have a small mind. Have you been to Denmark? Do you know any Danes? No, now you know what you dont know about Denmark. Visit, learn.

Ahhh so you are nothing more then a troll.

You really haven't read anything have you? Typical.

You never answered my question.

What does his age have to do with it? Surely you are not using age as a qualification for authority.

Authority? depends on how we use that word. Do you mean 'I am American, obey me' or do you mean 'I am American, I must know what I'm talking about and even if I don't and you figure it out I'll blow your brains out because you are not American?"

I know plenty of pre school kids with a better grasp on reality so pleeeese (dont you love it when people do that?) get a life and post on stuff you know about. Sesame Street maybe?

Ahhh, so good to find another sensible historian on here. Yes - without US funds and troops, we'd have been royally screwed. We didn't have the power to wage multiple offensives against the Germans.

How can you use the word historian in the same context? You cannot read, write, spell ..you have shown yourself to have no idea about history, geography or anything other than where your own genitalia are located, you claim you are going to a British university soon but are unable to answer simple questions like " this is where it was posted " , Aha you must be my postman, never gets it in the right slot (worries) brain of a pea (expected) should go far (the further the better).
Read up on history and come back when you know what you're talking about

How can you use the word historian in the same context? You cannot read, write, spell ..you have shown yourself to have no idea about history, geography or anything other than where your own genitalia are located, you claim you are going to a British university soon but are unable to answer simple questions like " this is where it was posted " , Aha you must be my postman, never gets it in the right slot (worries) brain of a pea (expected) should go far (the further the better).
Read up on history and come back when you know what you're talking about

Look mate, your petty insults aside, why don't you just leave the thread? You seem to have nothing to offer except petty insults and trolling - we're having a decent enough historical conversation here as it is, and you don't seem to be contributing positively to it.

Wow... insightful, Daft Viagria.... insightful....

Originally Posted by The Black Forrest
I am in a different time zone. I do like to sleep.

Alright just to make this interesting, I will list what I have on one of my book cases. This does not include whats in boxes.

British and American Tanks of WWII
Tanks
Japanese Naval Vessels of WWII
Battleship Bismarck
Luftwaffe: A history
Baa Baa Black Sheep
Nimitz
Tanks of WWII
The US Army in WWII (3 volume set)
History of WWII
The War in the Shadows(it's about comandos, etc throughout hisotry which includes WWII).
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
Berlin Diary(just picked it up).
Kamakazi
The Diary of Matomi Urgaki(planned Pearl Harbor)
The Biography of Monty(4 volumes in boxes).
Gods Samurai(Bio on Fuchida who led the air attack on Pearl).
A Bridge Too Far
Scorched Earth
Two Ocean War
The Black March: The personal history of an SS man.


There are much more in boxes.



Sweet...lemme post mine!

The Oxford Companion To United States History
We Can Take It! Britain and the Memory of the Second World War
Chain of Command: US Presidents
Cassell's Dictionary of Modern American History
What Ifs? Of American History
My Early Life: Winston Churchill
Clinton on Clinton
Churchill - Roy Jenkins
Wellington as Military Commander
Rorke's Drift
Knights of the Black Cross
The Art of War
Achtung! Panzer
Pegasus Bridge
Caen: The Brutal Battle and Breakout from Normandy
What If?
More What If?
Military Blunders
The Last Battle - Cornelius Ryan
Downing Street: The War Years
Battle of Wits (Enigma)
The Battle of Britain
Churchill's General's
A Short History of Reconstruction
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Snap!)
A History of the 20th Century (Three volumes)
Wartime Britain 1939-1945
Stalingrad - Antony Beevor

Plus the book i'm reading at the moment: Forgotten Armies: Britain's Asian Empire & The War with Japan

I don't think either of us are underqualified here

Ha ha ha, You guys sure had me going for a bit. I knew from the start that Sdaeriji was not British but couldnt figure how he tied in with TBF. Nice work guys but your cover was blown with that last post. I wont tell you how, well, I don't want to spoil your fun girls!
See ya!

Excuse me for interrupting. But i feel that this needs to be said.

Daft Viagria, just for your reference Dictionary.com (the web site for several dictionaries) defines the word "HISTORIAN" as the following (not putting in the 3rd entry becaues it deals with "source code"):


his·to·ri·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-stôr-n, -str-, -str-)
n.
A writer, student, or scholar of history.
One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.

[Download Now or Buy the Book]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Historian
n : a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it [syn: historiographer]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Ha ha ha, You guys sure had me going for a bit. I knew from the start that Sdaeriji was not British but couldnt figure how he tied in with TBF. Nice work guys but your cover was blown with that last post. I wont tell you how, well, I don't want to spoil your fun girls!
See ya!

What? Oh....heh, how sweet. The troll seems to think we're all the same person. I congratulate you on what is in fact quite an original idea, but you're quite wrong. Never met anyone from NS in real life, though wouldn't mind meeting the historians here.

I guess it is odd that me and TBF share a few books. Then again, Shirer's wprk is a must-have for good history students.

Anyway, ignoring the troll for now, I would like to pose a serious question:

After reading Beevor's Stalingrad for a second time, a question came to mind, which is this:

Could Barbarossa ever have been truly successful? Could it have completely knocked out the USSR from the war? Books like SSGB and Fatherland suggest it could happen - but what do you guys think. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to open the floor on this, as it were.

Only if you engage and have a small mind. Have you been to Denmark? Do you know any Danes? No, now you know what you dont know about Denmark. Visit, learn.

*woooooooosh*

Quick, look up! You might be able to see the point as it flies over your head.

-snip-you have shown yourself to have no idea about history, geography or anything other than where your own genitalia are located-snip-

And stuff like that will get you not only banned from the web site, but have your probably deleted for harassment.

Could Barbarossa ever have been truly successful? Could it have completely knocked out the USSR from the war? Books like SSGB and Fatherland suggest it could happen - but what do you guys think. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to open the floor on this, as it were.
The only way a Barbarossa could have worked in my opinion is if certain events lined up exactly and the Germans were vastly superior to the Soviets in ways I doubt seriously they were. Is it possible? Yes. Is it realistic? No.

The only way a Barbarossa could have worked in my opinion is if certain events lined up exactly and the Germans were vastly superior to the Soviets in ways I doubt seriously they were. Is it possible? Yes. Is it realistic? No.

Mmm, I guess so. Though I do often wonder about the plans the Germans had for striking up through Turkey and towards the oil fields to the south and not getting bogged down in Stalingrad. Unrealistic I guess...but oh so tempting to analyse.

we shouldn't have kept Germany as a territory, they deserve their own country

as do the Puerto Ricans should they want it - discuss

Schrandtopia']we shouldn't have kept Germany as a territory, they deserve their own country

as do the Puerto Ricans should they want it - discuss

I take it you mean 1945 Germany? Germany had lost, and to the winners go the spoils. Harsh and immoral perhaps, but allied leaders in '45 weren't exactly looking to go soft on the Germans. Millions were dead because of the Nazi regime and the people who had elected them, and they paid for what happened. Harsh, but there was no other alternative then.

As to Puerto Rico, yes they do. Isn't there a referendum due this year?

I take it you mean 1945 Germany? Germany had lost, and to the winners go the spoils.

isn't that the attitude that landed us in that mess to begin with?

Schrandtopia']isn't that the attitude that landed us in that mess to begin with?

Indeed - but I think the idea was that Germany was to be occupied and disarmed and divided so that it literally couldn't rise up again. It seemed to work this time - no economic sanctions, no rise of extremism. Plus of course most Germans didn't want another extremist regime. Skewed logic, but there was no other choice militarily and politically.

You never answered my question.

Keep reading Skinny and I posted a list.

Skinny: Thanks for the run down. I will add them to my never ending list of stuff to read. Well what I can get my hands on. You never know.....

Ha ha ha, You guys sure had me going for a bit. I knew from the start that Sdaeriji was not British but couldnt figure how he tied in with TBF. Nice work guys but your cover was blown with that last post. I wont tell you how, well, I don't want to spoil your fun girls!
See ya!


What the hell?

For one thing Sdaeriji and I are two different people.

So where is your list of books that would take 15 seconds to post ol noble historian?

Ha ha ha, You guys sure had me going for a bit. I knew from the start that Sdaeriji was not British but couldnt figure how he tied in with TBF. Nice work guys but your cover was blown with that last post. I wont tell you how, well, I don't want to spoil your fun girls!
See ya!

I don't get it. I never said I was British. It says I'm from Boston, Massachusetts right under my name.

Make ourselves look tough and ruthless, I mean as a nation America never actually conquered a nation and proclaim it as their own generally.


::cough:: Hawaii ::cough::

Anyway, ignoring the troll for now, I would like to pose a serious question:

After reading Beevor's Stalingrad for a second time, a question came to mind, which is this:

Could Barbarossa ever have been truly successful? Could it have completely knocked out the USSR from the war? Books like SSGB and Fatherland suggest it could happen - but what do you guys think. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to open the floor on this, as it were.


Oooh. Thats the toughie. Beevor is a very good read- a trustworthy source in my opinion.

It could have been successful IMO- but it would have needed a lot of luck on the Germans side.

1) Starting a lot earlier.
2) Not diverting airplanes and men to the Balkans/Greece to help the Italians.
3) Definitely reinforcing the Romanian and Hungarian Armies that held the line behind Stalingard. They had only cavalry and basic infantry apparently.
4) Not abandoning the Army in Stalingrad, and for sure NOT listening to Goering's plan to keep an entire Army Group going with airdrops during the siege.
5) Possibly not splitting Army Group South into taking the oilfieds and the Sevastobal too.

6) and POSITIVELY not destroying any possibility of good relations with the Ukrainians/Belorussians/Eastern Poles etc as the Germans advanced. Their actions only added to the pure spirit of revenge and blood lust on the Soviet side at Kursk, Stalingrad and Moscow.

Could Barbarossa ever have been truly successful? Could it have completely knocked out the USSR from the war? Books like SSGB and Fatherland suggest it could happen - but what do you guys think. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to open the floor on this, as it were.

With Hitler having to call the shots, it was doomed from the start. With guys like Manstein and Guderian, you should only say I want you here and what do you need.

Once the Urals came online; bad bad bad.

Once the T-38 hit the field. Game over. The Germans could only counter with an 88 or Anti-Tank planes.

I think the best bet would have been if they had taken Moscow in the first Winter.

I think Stalin in those days had pretty much given up (and he disappeared for a few days, didn't he, claiming later that he'd been in Moscow the whole time), and taking the city might have made the party complex collapse completely.

I think the best bet would have been if they had taken Moscow in the first Winter.

I think Stalin in those days had pretty much given up (and he disappeared for a few days, didn't he, claiming later that he'd been in Moscow the whole time), and taking the city might have made the party complex collapse completely.

Shocking thing was that the Wehrmacht was only about a day away from entering the city when their fuel lines froze in the Panzers. (I 've read accounts of the soldiers remembering vivdly seeing the onion domes of the Kremlin)

Imagine, had they started literally 24 hours earlier the war might have changed completely....

Wah wah cry me a river, you lose the war we get to do whatever we want with you. And if it means losing your identity with a slight chance of being enslaved then tough luck. Of course america can destroy them some more and then turn them into penal colonies if they need to

It took the Spartans a 1 soilder:10 members of the entire population ratio and the complete and absolute militrization of there culture just to maintain the master-slave social order. I forget the exact numbers, but the ratio is similar to that of Chinese troops in Tibet:Tibetians. To compare, that'd be about 8.2 million troops for Germany, 12.7 million troops for Japan, 7.0 million troops for Korea, 8.3 million for Vietnam and 5.8 million troops for Italy. Then of coarse, if the US were to maintain the same policys in there two most popular current occupations, that'd require an additional 2.6 million troops for Iraq and 2.9 million for Afganistan (though, Afganistan suffers from "war exhaustion" and thus is less prone to revolt in the immediate future... large formations of foriegn troops, or wide spread forced labor may dramaticly change that though).... and if you were to attempt such a master-slave relation in the US, it'd require a whopping 29.5 million troops ontop of the 47.5 million already mentioned.

America never actually conquered a nation and proclaim it as their own generally.
Hawaii...

Shocking thing was that the Wehrmacht was only about a day away from entering the city when their fuel lines froze in the Panzers. (I 've read accounts of the soldiers remembering vivdly seeing the onion domes of the Kremlin)

Imagine, had they started literally 24 hours earlier the war might have changed completely....

Yup. I'm fairly sure, although don't quote me on this, that German troops actually entered one of the subways on the outskirts of Moscow. Pretty damn near.

Oooh. Thats the toughie. Beevor is a very good read- a trustworthy source in my opinion.

It could have been successful IMO- but it would have needed a lot of luck on the Germans side.

1) Starting a lot earlier.
2) Not diverting airplanes and men to the Balkans/Greece to help the Italians.
3) Definitely reinforcing the Romanian and Hungarian Armies that held the line behind Stalingard. They had only cavalry and basic infantry apparently.
4) Not abandoning the Army in Stalingrad, and for sure NOT listening to Goering's plan to keep an entire Army Group going with airdrops during the siege.
5) Possibly not splitting Army Group South into taking the oilfieds and the Sevastobal too.

6) and POSITIVELY not destroying any possibility of good relations with the Ukrainians/Belorussians/Eastern Poles etc as the Germans advanced. Their actions only added to the pure spirit of revenge and blood lust on the Soviet side at Kursk, Stalingrad and Moscow.

the germans were not equiped to fight in winter.... they might of been able to take Russia west of the Urals, and they probably could of held it (with a high rate of attrition due to climate (for the first winter atleast)... but still held there ground). But I doubt they could of ever tooken Sibera. though, by pissing off the residents of occupied USSR/Ukrain/Poland, they pretty much fucked there chances of holding anything.

Yes, I think they probably could. What the Murmansk Convoys meant was that they could successfully defend Stalingrad and prevent access to Moscow.

The situation in the Soviet Union was quite similar in many ways to that of Great Britain, psychologically. No Brit was going to surrender to Germany until the country was occupied from Land's End to John o'Groats (did I spell that correctly?). Likewise, I couldn't see the Soviets giving in until the Ural Wall was breached - a capacity Germany simply didn't have.

The Murmansk Convoys probably did more morale assistance to the Soviets than functional. It showed they weren't alone in the fight, and that Germany could be stopped. But given enough time, with the economic capabilities of the two combatants, the USSR, barring some unforeseen disaster, was the only possible winner.

Without allied aid the Soviet Union would most likely have lost, or if not lost come very, very close to it. It wasn't just the Murmansk convoys but supplies that came through India/Iran and from Alaska. Not only raw material and weapons but medicine. American medicine and antibiotics were probaly the only thing that kept disease from running rampant in the Russian army. Later on in the war your right, the Russians didn't need American and British supplies as bad, but in the first and second years the supplies were instrumental in keeping Russia on its feet.

It took the Spartans a 1 soilder:10 members of the entire population ratio and the complete and absolute militrization of there culture just to maintain the master-slave social order. *snip*

What if you attempted it Roman style? ;)

Oooh. Thats the toughie. Beevor is a very good read- a trustworthy source in my opinion.

It could have been successful IMO- but it would have needed a lot of luck on the Germans side.

1) Starting a lot earlier.
2) Not diverting airplanes and men to the Balkans/Greece to help the Italians.
3) Definitely reinforcing the Romanian and Hungarian Armies that held the line behind Stalingard. They had only cavalry and basic infantry apparently.
4) Not abandoning the Army in Stalingrad, and for sure NOT listening to Goering's plan to keep an entire Army Group going with airdrops during the siege.
5) Possibly not splitting Army Group South into taking the oilfieds and the Sevastobal too.

6) and POSITIVELY not destroying any possibility of good relations with the Ukrainians/Belorussians/Eastern Poles etc as the Germans advanced. Their actions only added to the pure spirit of revenge and blood lust on the Soviet side at Kursk, Stalingrad and Moscow.

Gotta agree, especially with 6, the Germans were actually viewed as liberators untill the SS battalions started rolling in behind the main army. But I would have to add that they should have pressed on to Moscow instead of reinforcing army group South.

I would have said Barbarossa would have worked in only one circumstance - had German not been attempting to fight a two-front war.

If Germany had either (1) launched Sealion immediately following Dunkerque, as the initial plan called for (the BWC has gamed this out - Germany takes hideous losses in the initial assault, but Albion falls in six weeks) or (2) Germany had sued for a negotiated settlement, including the restoration of France, after the conquest of that country, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Hitler could have rolled the Blitzkrieg from Poland through to the end of European Russia by the end of the second year of the campaign, at which point I believe the fall of the rest would have been inevitable.

Mind you, I'd have also expected a guerrilla war for at least a couple of decades thereafter, but that's the price of conquest.