NationStates Jolt Archive

It's all about the Russians!

Yes I know but he said nothing about a British Surrender so that is why I stated what I stated. And there is no gaurentee that the British Military would've surrendered either.



They did employ the V2 rocket late in the war and yea you are right about that.



Possible but not likely.
I know the scenario is unlikley but with the defeat or capitulation of the UK the US would not be invunerable by its distance from Europe.

The V2 they used was a single stage one, they had a two stage version that had far greater range undergoing tests.

They also flew a bomber from a French base to within 50 miles or so of New York. With the design of US cities and the lack of any defence infrasrtucture any early attacks by the axis would be very destructive.

I'm not saying you would say this but for those in the US that say they bailed the UK out in WWII how about the UK defended you for the whole of WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cataduanes
Yeah i saw that too, begs the question of what would have happened if the Hitler and launched Operation Sealion and invaded the home island.

His army would have been destroyed in the channel. Not having air or naval superiority.

According to the British War College, you are actually wrong about that. In their Annals (1972 edition) they claim that had Sea Lion been launched either immediately following Dunkerque, or any time in the following year, their analysis shows the conquest of Albion taking roughly six weeks. The Germans suffer horrendous losses in the initial assault, but gain air superiority within eight days, following which the assault rolls up what's left of the British Army without much fuss.

The problem is that Sea Lion (Unlike Overlord) takes place in the English Channel, preventing the Royal Navy from acting effectively. And until the Battle of Britain, Germany had more fighting aircraft.

We couldn't possibly have been glory seekers. We tried to stay out the dang mess but you European dopes had to keep dragging us in, and Japan had to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Germany, Japan- What were you thinking?! You could have won (not that we wanted you to) if you'd just left US alone!!!

We couldn't possibly have been glory seekers. We tried to stay out the dang mess but you European dopes had to keep dragging us in, and Japan had to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Germany, Japan- What were you thinking?! You could have won (not that we wanted you to) if you'd just left US alone!!!

This is most definitely 100% correct.

Anyone who has been to any of the memorial cemeteries around Europe should know that we were all in it together. Don’t forget about the Lend-Lease Act which provided the soviets and UK with military equipment before the US entered the war. A civilian mfg. sector which the Nazis couldn’t reach was key to victory. I feel sorry for anyone who gets their history from crappy Hollywood movies.

According to the British War College, you are actually wrong about that. In their Annals (1972 edition) they claim that had Sea Lion been launched either immediately following Dunkerque, or any time in the following year, their analysis shows the conquest of Albion taking roughly six weeks. The Germans suffer horrendous losses in the initial assault, but gain air superiority within eight days, following which the assault rolls up what's left of the British Army without much fuss.

The problem is that Sea Lion (Unlike Overlord) takes place in the English Channel, preventing the Royal Navy from acting effectively. And until the Battle of Britain, Germany had more fighting aircraft.
For every study that says Sea Lion would have worked there must be at least as many that say it was nothing more than a pipe dream and doomed to failure if it had been implemented. Myself, I take the view that there's many a fall 'twixt a hypothetical plan involving landing a small infantry force by river barge and conquering a proud island nation in six weeks.
You just have to look at all the preparations that went into Overlord, the PLUTO, mulberry Harbours, amphibious training, experience of similar combined forces operations in actual combat conditions, Duplex Drive tanks, Hobart's Funnies, FUSAG and other deception efforts, complete sea and air superiority, dedicated landing craft, resistance movements behind enemy lines and so on. And what did Sea Lion have? River Barges.

4. After the German army wore down the Russians, a cease-fire in the east would have led to an invasion of the UK, which would probably have been won by the German army.
There are two things wrong with that speculation:
1. After the defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht no longer had the ability to 'wear down' the Russians, at least not enough to get a cease-fire.

2. The Germans were never in a position to launch a successful invasion Britain, not even in 1940. Operation Sealion would have been a disastrous failure had it been launched. Even if the Germans did get a cease-fire with Russia, it still would have taken them years of planning and resource gathering to launch anything more than a laughable boat ride across the channel.

The US's operations in Europe, in partnership with those of the British Empire, had no effect on the ultimate outcome of WWII in Europe. What they did do was prevent Soviet hegemony over the entire continent
Exactly. :cool:

Does it truly matter who did what?

What matters is that all of the Allies, The Americans, the British, The Russians, The Polish, The (Free) French, The Danish, The Norwegians,The Indians, The Canadians, The Greeks, and The Chinese, we all fought together, won together, and died together.

There are two things wrong with that speculation:
1. After the defeats at Moscow and Stalingrad, the Wehrmacht no longer had the ability to 'wear down' the Russians, at least not enough to get a cease-fire.

2. The Germans were never in a position to launch a successful invasion Britain, not even in 1940. Operation Sealion would have been a disastrous failure had it been launched. Even if the Germans did get a cease-fire with Russia, it still would have taken them years of planning and resource gathering to launch anything more than a laughable boat ride across the channel.


Exactly. :cool:

My point was that if they hadn't been worried about their western front, they may have played the east differently. And what would the Germans have had but time to prepare and launch and invasion if there were no US involvement. Remember, they also wouldn't have had to devote as many resources in Africa without US involvement, either.

I know the scenario is unlikley but with the defeat or capitulation of the UK the US would not be invunerable by its distance from Europe.

The V2 they used was a single stage one, they had a two stage version that had far greater range undergoing tests.

They also flew a bomber from a French base to within 50 miles or so of New York. With the design of US cities and the lack of any defence infrasrtucture any early attacks by the axis would be very destructive.

I'm not saying you would say this but for those in the US that say they bailed the UK out in WWII how about the UK defended you for the whole of WWII.


He may have been able to bomb us, or launch missiles at us. We still could bomb him(ever heard of the B-36 and B-29?) Not only that, our navy was MORE than Suffecient to prevent a land invasion of the United States. And it was just getting stronger. While the german navy, lacked aircraft carriers, and only had a couple of Battleships. Hardly a blue water force. Sure they had subs, but whenever around carrier based aircraft they wouldn't be able to operate.


If the UK had Capitulated and the USN had to face the RN, that might be different. But I somehow doubt that would have happened.

Actually germany had a formidable merchant and military navy.

Ever heard of the Bismark?

It just so happened that they ended up tied in Norway for the most of the war.

As i said earlier, Sea Lion would not have worked at all. won't go into it, it just wouldn't have worked.

We couldn't possibly have been glory seekers. We tried to stay out the dang mess but you European dopes had to keep dragging us in, and Japan had to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Germany, Japan- What were you thinking?! You could have won (not that we wanted you to) if you'd just left US alone!!!

Most incorrect thing ever.

First, Europe didn't do anything to japan. so stop counting japan as a force against europe.

Did japan attack on the beaches of dunkirk, no.
Did japan have to bomb america because of europe fighting them, no, they just attacked you to capture the islands.

European dopes dragging you in, that's laughable.
America not wanting us to win? - thats strange i never heard that before

Get your facts right

Actually germany had a formidable merchant and military navy.

Ever heard of the Bismark?

It just so happened that they ended up tied in Norway for the most of the war.

As i said earlier, Sea Lion would not have worked at all. won't go into it, it just wouldn't have worked.

The Bismark and Tirpitz were pretty much the only major surface combatants the Germans put out. They were tone only ones that could have gone toe to toe with an Iowa or a King George.

Those other "Pocket Battleships" would have gotten their asses handed to them by just about any other battleship.

Most incorrect thing ever.

First, Europe didn't do anything to japan. so stop counting japan as a force against europe.

Did japan attack on the beaches of dunkirk, no.
Did japan have to bomb america because of europe fighting them, no, they just attacked you to capture the islands.

European dopes dragging you in, that's laughable.
America not wanting us to win? - thats strange i never heard that before

Get your facts right

Well, Germany was really no big threat to the US. After all, we have that big ole Ocean separating us from them. Hell, if Germany hadn't declared war on us, we would not have done anything to them. Probably. It's just too bad that FDR tried to antagonize the Axis.

Germany Declared war on the US first.

And the USSR saved Europe, not USA.

While America certainly wasn't the reason the allies won the war (they had a reasonable chance even if America didn't), America's entry did seal the coffin for the Axis powers.

America's entry did save countless lives, and their war efforts were very significant (like all other allied powers, mind you), so to say that America did little or nothing in World War 2 is also completely incorrect.

Why consider it a debt repaid, when we REVOLTED against you?? You didnt create us, we did. You just put us on the land.

both of you are wrong. It is true that Britain did not create America but they also did not place them on the land. America, as colonies were merely let go by Britain they had no help making their nations from Britain or anywhere else in Europe. England did stop and take notice when they imposed taxes, but very little was done to help America be formed.

A fuckload, and slave labour.

Nope, not slave labour. The Todt Organisation recruited local paid labour.Barely paid is still paid :)

Not really

There are three postions

1. The USA is the princpal saviour of Europe, everyone in Europe should grovel to them etc...

2. The USA were just a backup, the British and the Russians were the principal saviours

3. The USA, Russia and Brtian along with the resistance in Europe combined to defeat the Nazi's. While some had larger roles than others, one could not have done without the other.

And to those who take on position 1, I should point out that since Europe essentially created the USA (Partically Britian because of the colonists and France for their support in the American war of independence, whithout which the American rebels would have lost), then you really should consider WW2 a debt repayed.

First of all, I agree with option three. However, Britain didn't create the U.S. The United States was created by the colonists who chose to fight back against an inconsiderate and selfish British Parliament. England merely used the colonists to fulfill their own selfish desires and we fought back and have come a long way without Great Britain.

First of all, I agree with option three. However, Britain didn't create the U.S. The United States was created by the colonists who chose to fight back against an inconsiderate and selfish British Parliament. England merely used the colonists to fulfill their own selfish desires and we fought back and have come a long way without Great Britain.

That is the most balanced argument I have ever seen.

:rolleyes:

Actually germany had a formidable merchant and military navy.

Ever heard of the Bismark?

It just so happened that they ended up tied in Norway for the most of the war.

As i said earlier, Sea Lion would not have worked at all. won't go into it, it just wouldn't have worked.


Yes, Bismarck and Tirpitz vs. Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Washington and South Dakota. Any ONE of those ships could go toe to toe with Bismarck or Tirpitz. Then you add in the Essex and Midway class carriers. What do you get? German Defeat in the Atlantic.

...What do you get? German Defeat in the Atlantic.
So what are the Japanese doing?

So what are the Japanese doing?

Facing the Rest of the American Fleet.

So what are the Japanese doing?

Quietly wetting themselves in the corner.

And American Fleet that by the End of the War had over 100 Aircraft carriers(including Lights and Escorts) and 20-30 Battleships. As compared to Japans 15ish Aircraft Carriers(including Lights and Escorts) and 14ish Battleships. Along with the German battleships, (i think they only had 4 or 5) and 0 Aircaft Carriers.


The American Fleet could have fought both and won.

The American Fleet could have fought both and won.
I suppose this all depends on what time-frame we're talking about. In 1945, yes. In 1941 - maybe not so sure.

I suppose this all depends on what time-frame we're talking about. In 1945, yes. In 1941 - maybe not so sure.


With what we had in the Atlantic in late 1941 early 1942, that would have still been enough to stop the Germans. Plus the moment they got close to our coast, land based aircraft would have had a field day with their ships lacking air cover, along with the fact that german ships really lacked good anti-aircraft protection.


Don't get me wrong, it would have been a fight. But the North Carolina's that were launched in 1941 could have dealt with the Bismark and Tirpitz.
Its amazing how big of a difference Radar Directed fire control had on Gunnery back then.

Well I believe Hitler said himself...
"I am a hero on land but a coward at sea".

Without the United States, the Soviets would have almost certainly been forced to accept a draw with the Germans, and the British could not have defeated the Germans without American help and would have been forced to accept a forced peace or possibly even military defeat.

Critical American Industrial contributions
1. Millions of tons of shipping built to replace Allied shipping losses from the U-Boat War.
2. Hundreds of thousands of motor vehicles, particularly trucks, that the Soviet Army depended on to provide its logistical support that made it possible for it to launch its continual offensive from September 1943 - May 1945
3. Practically all of the landing craft used by the Allies during the war.

Critical American Military contributions
1. The US 8th and 12th Air Forces by conducting daylight bombing over Nazi Europe forced the Luftwaffe to shift most of its fighters to home defense, and thus providing for free the Russians air superiority in the East from 1943 - 1945. This effort also shot down and killed most of the best pilots of the Luftwaffe and crippled it. The RAF was completely unable to assist in this effort as its aircraft were not suitable for daylight bombing, and it lacked a long range escort fighter. RAF losses during night raids were as bad or worse at times then US losses during daytime raids.
2. The American infantry landing at Omaha Beach was absolutely critical for the success of D-Day. For more information, read the book Disaster at D-Day for why that is.
3. American forces in Sicily were much more successful then British forces in Sicily.
4. The US Army defeated the last major offensives of the Germany Army in World War II, with little assistance from either the British or Free French Army. In short, it gutted the last remaining panzer reserves the Germans had, and after that, the German panzers could only delay the inevitable in Hungary and elsewhere.
5. American forces routinely excelled in pursuit operations, while many writers consider the British Army in World War II inferior in many ways to the British Army in World War I (and since World War II as well) in terms of leadership and also general quality of training.
6. The US Navy and Army destroyed the Japanese military, with the US victories at sea being completely earned by US forces acting without significant Allied support. British Commonwealth (especially Australian and New Zealand) assistance was useful, but not critical to overall victory. Although that assistance did bring success sooner. China actually provided more assistance in many ways by tying down the bulk of the Japanese Army during the war (although the Japanese lacked the shipping after 1943 to do much with it anyway)

In short, although the Soviets killed more Germans then the rest of the Allies put together, Soviet victory is unlikely without US assistance, and many writers now believe that the Allied Combined Bomber Offensive, along with the War in the West and Italy, was absolutely critical in drawing away sufficient forces to prevent Germany victory or stalemate on the Eastern Front.

It was a team effort, but the Allies would have lost or been forced to accept a draw without US assistance.

And American Fleet that by the End of the War had over 100 Aircraft carriers(including Lights and Escorts) and 20-30 Battleships. As compared to Japans 15ish Aircraft Carriers(including Lights and Escorts) and 14ish Battleships. Along with the German battleships, (i think they only had 4 or 5) and 0 Aircaft Carriers.


The American Fleet could have fought both and won.

in addition, US Navy late 1930s and wartime designs for all classes of warships are considered generally superior in most respects (and in some cases, all respects) to Axis and other Allied Warships. Training deficiencies were overcome after about a year, and remember, the US Navy won as often as it lost to the Japanese during 1942 and 43, and never lost a battle after 1944.... even when a collection of escort carriers and destroyers faced off several battleships, cruisers and destroyers (the stand by Taffy 3 at the Battle of Leyte Gulf)

Factor in the large fleet it started with in 1941, and wartime construction during 1942-43, and the Axis could never have successfully defeated the US Navy at sea during the war. Not even Germany with all of Europe and part of the Royal Navy (taken as prizes) could have done so. Germany wouldn't have been able to train enough crews quickly enough to produce a material advantage compared to the US Navy and European warships lacked sufficient range to force battle on the US Navy, which was designed for Pacific Operations (and long cruising ranges).

Battleships in American Navy Circa late `41 early `42


BB-31. USS Utah. (Sunk at Pearl Harbor)
BB-33. USS Arkansas
BB-34, 35. USS New York, USS Texas
BB-36, 37. USS Nevada, USS Oklahoma(Sunk at Pearl Harbor)
BB-38, 39. USS Pennsylvania(Damaged at Pearl Harbor), USS Arizona(Sunk at Pearl Harbor)
BB-40, 41, 42. USS New Mexico, USS Mississippi, USS Idaho
BB-43, 44. USS Tennessee and USS California
BB-45, 46. USS Colorado and USS Maryland(Damaged at Pearl Harbor)
BB-55, 56. USS North Carolina, USS Washington
BB-57, 58. USS South Dakota, USS Indiana(Commisioned April 30th)


Aircraft Carriers.
CV-1. USS Langley
CV-2, 3. USS Lexington, USS Saratoga
CV-4 USS Ranger
CV-5, CV-6, CV-8. USS Yorktown, USS Enterprise, USS Hornet
CV-7. USS Wasp



That is a grand total of 17 Battleships, Pre- Pearl Harbor and 8 Aircraft Carriers

while after pearl harbor(out till 01 May 1942) 14 Battleships and 8 Aircraft Carriers.(picked up two new BB's early 42), (some of the Pearl Harbor ships may have finished repairs by then, THough I'm not sure.)

According to the British War College, you are actually wrong about that. In their Annals (1972 edition) they claim that had Sea Lion been launched either immediately following Dunkerque, or any time in the following year, their analysis shows the conquest of Albion taking roughly six weeks. The Germans suffer horrendous losses in the initial assault, but gain air superiority within eight days, following which the assault rolls up what's left of the British Army without much fuss.

The problem is that Sea Lion (Unlike Overlord) takes place in the English Channel, preventing the Royal Navy from acting effectively. And until the Battle of Britain, Germany had more fighting aircraft.

a number of writers, British and American, believe differently, pointing out that the Luftwaffe was untrained in anti shipping tactics, lacked a torpedo bomber, was inefficient even during the Battle of Crete (when it had total air superiority and the RN at its mercy to a large extent... losses were heavy, but the British STILL evacuated most of the garrison and prevented an amphibious invasion to support the airlanding).

In addition, although the Germans could have gotten ashore, the Royal Navy would have certainly wiped out the Kriegsmarine in any surface engagement, especially at night, and German U-Boats would have most likely failed to stop them, even with Luftwaffe help.

Plus the RAF still had a sizeable number of bombers available, and even assuming they did nothing more then provide the Luftwaffe with targets, it would have forced the Luftwaffe to divert fighters from escorting its own bombers against the RN.

In short, the most likely result, the Germans get ashore, and then are cut off and forced to surrender soon after, probably within a few weeks at most as they run out of ammunition.

Hitler was right to consider Sea Lion a bad idea.

That is the most balanced argument I have ever seen.

:rolleyes:

oh what a horrible thing to say before I put in my first post! :eek:

okay it's the Allies (America, Britain and Russia) against the Axis (Germany and Japan). Now for the purpose of simplification the other nations WERE under the flags of the allies (there probably will be a debate about this! [china]:p ).

Now the Russians were under a peace treaty untill they were attacked. The American Lend-Lease program helped them as much as Stalin fleeing and shuting himself up in the dacha after the blow hurt. but the Russian spirit is made of sterner stuff and retaliated against them with shear numbers and (not THAT bad) technology. The Russians COULD(?) have won the war simply by themselves, BUT consider the Wunderwaffen and the Vergeltungswaffe! them were made far from the Russian front (were ANY developed close?) and who knows how far they could have gone... Now the German Nuclear Energy Commission was NEVER going to make the bomb and all who are educated about the German Nuclear Energy Commission know it (anyone not agree?) but the sub-orbital bomber and some Chemical Warheads? hmm...

The British were in a bad spot, no arguement. Their tanks SUCKED and their African strategy was to run at the Germans with their tanks and hope that they could get within the firing range of the horrible British Tanks :headbang: and without the other allies they were doomed! if the V3 launch site hadn't been destroyed :rolleyes: Vielen Dank für dass Gott!:D

The Americans had economics on their side and nothing could have changed that, but they didn't want any part of the war till the axis forced them (STUPID STUPID AXIS :headbang:) and the Lend-Lease wouldn't have done anything against the the Wunderwaffen and the Vergeltungswaffe if the Germans had had the time... but the Japs COULD have sunk :p the stunning blow (although NOONE is stupid enough[?] to think the Americans would have been conquered by the Japanese) but if that had come to past the Germans could have consoildated their position and maybe had Britain by then (at least their territory in Africa)

Die Deutschen(The Germans)? well how to put this??? here goes:

Ihr Führer saugt und warum, auch, warum Sie JEDER sofort Sie endgültige Dummköpfe in Angriff nahmen!
(For the Germans whose lauguage I just butchered I was trying to say: Your Leader sucks and why, oh why did you attack EVERYONE at once you utter fools!;) )

now the Russians were in a non-agression treaty and the Germans were unmatched technology wise, but like the WWI germans not thinking TANKS were a good investment they had an assault rifle and the leader said no (it was only when the field commanders sercretly got them and asked for more that the leader said yes) but the only flaw (and this is a contradiction) was the leader, Hitler. He send them to war and made them lose....

日本, I won't even try beyond that in Japanese and they went to war in the most rediculous way, if they wanted oil why not bargin with Germany over Cacus? but maybe good old アメリカ(America,American[Hopefully]) imperialism was the theat, well nothing could be done but try the stunning blow, and it ALMOST worked, but nothing could have made a difference looking back, sorry you were SCREWED and nothing short of massive German help could have made any difference and no way was that possible!

just my two cents, hopefully i'm right(or that the shear number of words confuses :rolleyes: )

Ihr Führer saugt und warum, auch, warum Sie JEDER sofort Sie endgültige Dummköpfe in Angriff nahmen!

es tut mir leid!

Ihr Führer saugt und, warum Sie JEDER sofort Sie endgültige Dummköpfe in Angriff nahmen!*:)

I doubt that without the British and more importantly the Americans sending a huge supply train (either up the perilous Scandanavian shipping lanes or across the Bering Sea from Alaska) that the Soviets would have survived against the German onslaught and been able to regroup as well as they did. A lot of people forget just how well supplied the Soviets were from the West. Planes were literally being flown from Alaska to Russia and then flown in stages to the front.

The US outlogistally supplied all other nations in WWII. When it comes right down to, only gross incompetence allowed the Germans to do as well as they did. They never had a chance from the start.

Although I think that the US would have looked a bit better if their corporations hadn’t been allowed to supply the Nazi’s with service, even after the US and Germany were at war. Germany had their phone service run by a US corporation and IBM helped the Nazi’s organize the Holocaust. There were so many war profiteers at work with Republican links in the WWII, that when Patton and Bradley revealed their shady activities, both Generals were targeted for assassination.

The concentration camp that the US ran, where over a million German POW’s died of neglect (read “Other Losses” for the whole story) wasn’t exactly a shining moment either.

It might have also been more heroic if the US hadn’t stolen the Nazi gold that came from the German concentration camps and used the money to start up MacArthur’s regime in Japan (ever wonder where all that instant coin came from?).

It might have been more heroic if MacArthur wasn’t given credit for the Atoll Hopping strategy of Nemitz, when MacArthur actually voted against it vehemently at the meeting to decide that strategy. Or MacArthur telling US Marine to take ground with only bayonets, because the Japanese were hold up in MacArthur’s property and he didn’t want the US troops shooting it up (a friend of my dad was one of the few surviving US troops from that fiasco).

Of course there are guys like Jimmy Stewart, who even though practically ordered not to, joined the air force to do his part, because he felt that it was what was expected of every other American.

I restate my question: What overtly hostile military moves did either Germany or Italy make towards the United States to draw them into the European theater?

Of course it was in the United States' self interest to do so- saying anything else is foolish. It doesn't detract from what they did- but don't kid yourself by saying it was purely done so out of the goodness of their hearts.

How about sinking American ships in the Atlantic?

I doubt that without the British and more importantly the Americans sending a huge supply train (either up the perilous Scandanavian shipping lanes or across the Bering Sea from Alaska) that the Soviets would have survived against the German onslaught and been able to regroup as well as they did. A lot of people forget just how well supplied the Soviets were from the West. Planes were literally being flown from Alaska to Russia and then flown in stages to the front.

The US outlogistally supplied all other nations in WWII. When it comes right down to, only gross incompetence allowed the Germans to do as well as they did. They never had a chance from the start.

I don't believe that the Germans did what they did only on luck or ignorance (well, the whole allowing Germany to fester and breed a state that would listen to hitler, hmm...) but I believe that what the Germans did was with skill and subterfuge in spite of the disarming and if Russia DID sign a non-agression treaty with them, then Russia saw some seeming wisdom in not challeging them and so did finland

also:

I doubt that without the British and more importantly the Americans sending a huge supply train (either up the perilous Scandanavian shipping lanes or across the Bering Sea from Alaska) that the Soviets would have survived against the German onslaught .

how can you say that when:

When it comes right down to, only gross incompetence allowed the Germans to do as well as they did. They never had a chance from the start.

what are you saying?

IBM helped the Nazi’s organize the Holocaust.

:confused: seriously?? HOW with Vacuum Tubes and Typewriters? :p

Ihr Führer saugt...
http://www.schildersmilies.de/noschild/laughoutloud.gif

:confused: seriously?? HOW with Vacuum Tubes and Typewriters? :p
How do you kill 6 million people without computers? You don't.

And that's what IBM had punchcards for.

Neu Leonstein, I'm just glad I got it right... right?

How do you kill 6 million people without computers? You don't.

And that's what IBM had punchcards for.
lol,
Ihr Führer saugt...
but what did Stalin say?:confused:

Neu Leonstein, I'm just glad I got it right... right?
The phrase "sucks" doesn't exist in German. Saying that someone "saugt" would at best mean that someone is vaccuuming a room or something, at worst imply that Hitler himself is some sort of suction device. So it sounds funny.

But the sentence is pretty meaningless as it is. One would have to rewrite it like this:

Euer Führer ist scheiße und warum, warum nur, musstet ihr alle auf einmal angreifen, ihr Dorfdeppen?

i agree with you alot on this, hollywood tears history apart, and this history seems to be the history that future generations start to believe in.

i also find it terrible to hear Americans say "we saved England in WW2", its not that easy, england did continue fighting for itself, england never needed to be liberated. and who is to say that perhaps England did not save the USA in WW2, by holding back the Nazi force. once Hitler had control of England, the two big threats after that would be Russia and the Americas (includes canada, because yes canada did have a big role in ww2).

i also am tired of hearing the same heroic stories of the allies, what if the allies lost, would these stories be heroic. i enjoy hearing about what the other side did, what their heroic stories were. i personally like "All Quiet on the Western Front" the storie of germans in ww1, its stories we dont get to hear often.

Although I think that the US would have looked a bit better if their corporations hadn’t been allowed to supply the Nazi’s with service, even after the US and Germany were at war. Germany had their phone service run by a US corporation and IBM helped the Nazi’s organize the Holocaust. There were so many war profiteers at work with Republican links in the WWII, that when Patton and Bradley revealed their shady activities, both Generals were targeted for assassination.

I have read the book that conspiracy theory is from, and its validity has been refuted by a number of sources. In addition, a number of German corporations were in the US during the war, particularly chemical companies in Texas and Louisiana, and Shell Oil had significant German ownership, but it didn't keep the British from seizing control of it (as they owned the other half).



The concentration camp that the US ran, where over a million German POW’s died of neglect (read “Other Losses” for the whole story) wasn’t exactly a shining moment either.

The book has been roundly condemned by multiple sources and writers for its inaccuracies, including the most important point of all.... many of the 'other losses' cited were in fact POWs released early, usually Volksturm and Hitler Youth kids sent home.


It might have also been more heroic if the US hadn’t stolen the Nazi gold that came from the German concentration camps and used the money to start up MacArthur’s regime in Japan (ever wonder where all that instant coin came from?).

That is laughable, do you have any kind of reference or source from a creditable source on this? As far as the fate of the gold is concerned, any gold seized by the US government from the Nazis was legal booty of war. Considering the Germans murdered millions of people to get it, the German claim to it is pathetic, and sadly the people whose gold teeth were removed to obtain it were dead.


It might have been more heroic if MacArthur wasn’t given credit for the Atoll Hopping strategy of Nemitz, when MacArthur actually voted against it vehemently at the meeting to decide that strategy. Or MacArthur telling US Marine to take ground with only bayonets, because the Japanese were hold up in MacArthur’s property and he didn’t want the US troops shooting it up (a friend of my dad was one of the few surviving US troops from that fiasco).

MacArthur is overrated in my view as well, but he did generally suffer fewer losses in his theater due to combat compared to ground gained then just about any other commander during World War II. US Marines were under MacArthurs command at no time during World War II except at Corrigedor, and of course during Korea. The Marines in the South Pacific were indirectly under the command of Nimitz and directly under the command of Halsey.



Of course there are guys like Jimmy Stewart, who even though practically ordered not to, joined the air force to do his part, because he felt that it was what was expected of every other American.

Jimmy Stewart did indeed have an outstanding war record, and Clark Gable also served in combat (as a Sergeant)

I doubt that without the British and more importantly the Americans sending a huge supply train (either up the perilous Scandanavian shipping lanes or across the Bering Sea from Alaska) that the Soviets would have survived against the German onslaught and been able to regroup as well as they did. A lot of people forget just how well supplied the Soviets were from the West. Planes were literally being flown from Alaska to Russia and then flown in stages to the front.

The US outlogistally supplied all other nations in WWII. When it comes right down to, only gross incompetence allowed the Germans to do as well as they did. They never had a chance from the start.

A certain amount of truth to that, and Allied naval losses were heavy doing it too. Although actually more supplies came in via Vladivostok (on Russian freighters) and through Persia.

i agree with you alot on this, hollywood tears history apart, and this history seems to be the history that future generations start to believe in.

i also find it terrible to hear Americans say "we saved England in WW2", its not that easy, england did continue fighting for itself, england never needed to be liberated. and who is to say that perhaps England did not save the USA in WW2, by holding back the Nazi force. once Hitler had control of England, the two big threats after that would be Russia and the Americas (includes canada, because yes canada did have a big role in ww2).

i also am tired of hearing the same heroic stories of the allies, what if the allies lost, would these stories be heroic. i enjoy hearing about what the other side did, what their heroic stories were. i personally like "All Quiet on the Western Front" the storie of germans in ww1, its stories we dont get to hear often.


the simple fact is that Hollywood makes movies for American audiences, and the average filmmaker isn't exactly an expert in history.

Read the book "Cross of Iron" to get an excellent German perspectivie, and the "Forgotten Soldier"

The book has been roundly condemned by multiple sources and writers for its inaccuracies, including the most important point of all.... many of the 'other losses' cited were in fact POWs released early, usually Volksturm and Hitler Youth kids sent home.
Hey, I let you in peace with your previous flag-waving, but don't get ahead of yourself here. The whole "Disarmed Enemy Forces" affair isn't exactly something to be proud of, so don't pretend it didn't happen.

Euer Führer ist scheiße und warum, warum nur, musstet ihr alle auf einmal angreifen, ihr Dorfdeppen?

my greatest thanks, the Germans and their scheiß... of course! how could I forget...

:confused:Dorfdeppen:confused:

The phrase "sucks" doesn't exist in German. Saying that someone "saugt" would at best mean that someone is vaccuuming a room or something, at worst imply that Hitler himself is some sort of suction device. So it sounds funny.

OH! thats why they needed IBM's vacuum tubes!:p

:confused:Dorfdeppen:confused:
I tried to put something in there for morons. Village Idiots sounded about right, and a little amusing too. So that's why it says Dorfdeppen.

Hey, I let you in peace with your previous flag-waving, but don't get ahead of yourself here. The whole "Disarmed Enemy Forces" affair isn't exactly something to be proud of, so don't pretend it didn't happen.

I have read the book... have you? His principal source is one report. That report has been thoroughly disproved by a number of British Historians (Keegan is the best known) and American historians (Stephen Ambrose is the best known) and I have no knowledge of any German historicans claiming its true with solid evidence.

No other historian before or since has looked at that report and come up with the same conclusions.

my greatest thanks, the Germans and their scheiß... of course! how could I forget...

:confused:Dorfdeppen:confused:

thats why the whole East Germany thing went sour Stalin....:rolleyes:

No other historian before or since has looked at that report and come up with the same conclusions.
I'm not talking about figures though, but about the simple fact that they actively tried to get around the Geneva conventions by renaming their POWs and then proceeded to cut their rations and at time put them to work on various projects.

I'm not talking about figures though, but about the simple fact that they actively tried to get around the Geneva conventions by renaming their POWs and then proceeded to cut their rations and at time put them to work on various projects.

considering that both the Americans and Russians seriously considered shooting every German officer over the rank of major, all things considered, German POWs were much better treated under American control then under Soviet, French or even British control

considering that both the Americans and Russians seriously considered shooting every German officer over the rank of major, all things considered, German POWs were much better treated under American control then under Soviet, French or even British control
I suppose if you really wanted to look at it that way, you could.

I suppose if you really wanted to look at it that way, you could.

if you want to really be appalled, read about the Morganthua Plan and why it wasn't carried out.

if you want to really be appalled, read about the Morganthua Plan and why it wasn't carried out.
Oh, I'm aware all right.

But one good thing came from it - the Unimog (http://www.unimog-forever.com/). Yay!

Actually germany had a formidable merchant and military navy.

Ever heard of the Bismark?

Bismarck was sunk on May 27, 1941 7 months before Germany declared war on the United States.

Most incorrect thing ever.

First, Europe didn't do anything to japan. so stop counting japan as a force against europe.

Singapor (britain), French Indochina, India (British) Hello! Check your friggin facts. So in retrospect, these territories belonged to those nations which were associated with Europe. By extension, an attack on those possions is an attack on the sovereign nations as stated previously and therefor makes it an attack against Europe.

Did japan attack on the beaches of dunkirk, no.
Did japan have to bomb america because of europe fighting them, no, they just attacked you to capture the islands.

We were not militarily involved until 1941.

European dopes dragging you in, that's laughable.

Germany didn't have to declare war on the United States. We sure as hell didn't declare war on them until AFTER THEY DECLARED WAR ON US!

America not wanting us to win? - thats strange i never heard that before

Get your facts right

Look whose talking.

Germany Declared war on the US first.

And the USSR saved Europe, not USA.

That last bit can actually go either way.