Post: #76

(10-08-2012 02:50 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(09-27-2012 03:18 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  Look, i"m not saying that the Americans did jack shit in the European war. They were indeed helpfull in defeating the Nazi's in the west. That fact is that America was very very reluctant to join the war and basically joined it get their own economy out of the slum by building weapons/ships/planes etc etc. When they found out this was a very good industry and realized they were turning into a superpower they also decided they needed to inter fear with the rest of the world from that moment on. Just look at all the shit they pulled in South/central America and South East Asia. The USA profited from the fact that European nations like the UK,France,Germany,Holland, Belgium lost all their colonial power since their own countries were pounded to ruble. Just look at how many countries went independent after WW2. Dozens. Most countries are worst of nowadays. I can't say Africa has really blossomed to a continent of successful peaceful nations.

Another fact is that the Americans would have never joined the war if Nazi-Germany and its allies weren't already losing the war in the East and needed all there resources there to stop the Red Army (and help the Italians out in Northern Africa since their army couldn't make a dent in a stick of butter) Why do you think D-day was such a success? Purely because Nazi-Germany already lacked the manpower to seriously defend those parts of Europe and it's war industry was already back to 10% of it's capability by relentless bombing by the Brits.

Americans have had the luxury to never have to fight a war in their own country. They never endured the misery,lack of resources,deathcount and destruction Europe had. This has influenced Europe till this day.
I'm thankfull that English speaking allies won in the west of Europe because well, we saw what happened in Eastern Europe after the war.

I always that if they weren't for the Russians we'd be Speaking German in Holland and if it weren't for the western allies we'd be speaking Russian in Holland.

I was going to respond to all the factual errors and exaggerations in this post but decided not as my temper would likely get me banned.

btw-Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Be my guest.

Yes, I know Hitler declared war on the US. The US was very reluctant in responding though.

Post: #77

I think Roosh needs to try Chipotle.

I have it frequently. Probably the best fast food chain - quality, fresh ingredients, tasty, and you get quite a lot of food - you can get double portions of the beans, rice, sour cream and cheese for free, if you just ask. The seasonings are on the bland side, compared to authentic Mexican food. Avoid the soda and chips, get the burrito in a bowl and get a cup for water. I just drink the seltzer mixed with a couple squeezed lemon wedges - tastes better than soda, free and way healthier.

Post: #78

Any argument that hitler was short on manpower is debatable, but that he was short on materiel is not. Look at the production figures of tanks; they actually rise throughout 1942-1944, despite heavy bombing.

The US govt was itching for a fight, but the populace was sick from the last war. Europeans drag us into shit, then aren't even grateful...you're welcome France (only partially joking). As for us making money from selling guns...we never got paid by the Russians, who bought most of our shit. A very much LOSING proposition.

Also basil can't tell if trolling or serious...

Post: #79

(10-08-2012 04:56 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 02:50 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I was going to respond to all the factual errors and exaggerations in this post but decided not as my temper would likely get me banned.

btw-Hitler declared war on the US, not the other way around.

Be my guest.

Yes, I know Hitler declared war on the US. The US was very reluctant in responding though.

#1 The US declared war back.

#2 For all practical purposes, there was already a de-facto war starting as early as 1940-41 with lend-lease and armed convoys as the US was supplying the British with all they needed to defeat Germany.

Post: #80

Quote:Look, i"m not saying that the Americans did jack shit in the European war. They were indeed helpfull in defeating the Nazi's in the west.

Helpful? Seriously?

Neil. I like you and what you post for the most part, but seriously. If not for the US the Russians would not have won on the Eastern Front, let alone the "Western Allies" on the western.

Saying we were "helpful" is a fucking insult. Yes, we were isolationist before the nips attacked us. Yes, we even had one senator vote against going to war after that attack ( A broad from Washington state. Imagine that...) After war was declared, us on the Japs, Nazi's on us, who supplied more war material alone compared to all of the Axis? Who supplied the British AND Russian army with tanks? Planes? Trucks? Radios? If not for the US the Russian horde would have been entirely on foot as far as supplies are concerned. And likely starving. 20% of the tanks the Red Army had were supplied by the US. The tanks they did have were built in a large part from US supplied steel.

The USAAF (US Army Air Force) dwarfed the night bombing British effort and bombed in daylight for better accuracy, suffering huge losses before turning the tide. 1000 bombers and 900 long range fighters is what the US put in the skys over Germany. Not England.

I will say this. The war that European's started made the US into a Superpower. Before WWII the US military was frankly a joke. Since it was been the one thing that protected Europe from the Red's. Hell, even today the US military supports a good bit of various Euro economies.

To get an idea of the true story of the war I suggest people read Hastings and Glantz. Throw textbooks and the likes of Ambrose in the trash.

It should be noted Hastings is a knighted Brit and even he says without the US the Nazi's would have run roughshod.

I understand nationalism and pride. I have it and you have it. (Unfortunately not enough do) The simple fact is without the US Hitler would in fact have won all of Europe, and beyond, and the world be a very different place today.

What makes me sad is the fact that there is no way this country could do anything like that today, even with the comparatively massive military we have. We have the hardware but not the manpower or gumption.

We are now a nation of pussies. With a lot of firepower.

Post: #81

I have never heard of such a thing as the Americans supplying the Russians with tanks or any other material. How the hell would they even get it over there? The seas were still pretty much ruled by German U-boats. especially the North Sea.

We highly disagree on this sentence: If not for the US the Russians would not have won on the Eastern Front, let alone the "Western Allies" on the western.
The Russians were butchering the Germans after the initial victories of Nazi-Germany. Hitler send the bulk of his manpower and material to the eastern front to stop the Russian hordes.
The Russians replaced their factories to the East of the country in a rapid rate when the Germans invaded. Once production got started again, they (Russian women and even children) produced like maniacs and in huge numbers. The quality was very bad compared to the German material. The tanks were pieces of crap welded together but there were 10 Russian pieces of welded crap versus 1 German superior Tiger tank. The Russians tanks had to sometimes gang up with 7 or 8 tanks to destroy one German Tiger. The same goes for the US/British tanks vs German tanks especially in the beginning of the war when the Shermans were ill-equiped.

The Russians had a nearly endless supply of men and had no regards for human life what so ever. There was the famous order 227 from Stalin saying "Not a step back"
If you were a Russian foot soldier you had the choice between a German or a Russian bullet since Russian commanders shot everyone not attacking. Attacking as in running in to gunfire. The Russian winter played a major role in Hitler defeat also since the Germans froze or starved to death in large numbers while the Russian were well equiped in this matter.
Hitler had superior tactics in the beginning of the war (blitzkrieg) but made irrational decisions later and the Russians outsmarted him time after time.

Except for a few threatening U boats on the coast of the US and some saboteurs there was no real threat from the Nazis IN the USA while the Russian/soviets suffered 20 million deaths. While dozens of countries were involved in the war, the soviets/russian suffered 33% of all casualties.

I'm not Russian and have no reason to defend their role in the war but knowing a bit about the overly patriotic American culture I think most Americans are very misinformed about their own war efforts.

I would say that defeat of Nazi Germay was due to 40% Russia, 25% Britain including colonial forces,15% USA and 20% rest/others like France and its colonial forces,Poland,Baltic countries,EA countries,Canada, Holland, Belgium. All the former occupied countries turned on Hitler as soon as he was losing the war and there was also a lot of active resistance movements.

Post: #82

(10-09-2012 04:18 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  I have never heard of such a thing as the Americans supplying the Russians with tanks or any other material. How the hell would they even get it over there? The seas were still pretty much ruled by German U-boats. especially the North Sea.

This did happen (more scholarly sources can be located for more confirmation if you want to look into it further).

Post: #83

Neil, much as I might want to I'm not going to argue with you because in reading your last post you do have a fair bit of understanding of the Eastern Front. You are absolutely right about the quality of the Russian tanks versus the German for example. One example of the Germans being too smart for their own good.

The thing is a lot of what is considered "common knowledge" isn't all that accurate. The Russians had a large number of the very same Sherman tanks that the Americans and British used in the war. Yes, they were inferior in some ways to the German tanks, much like the T34 was, but they were reliable and they were large numbers of them. The same can be said of the T34. They were delivered through not only Murmansk, dodging the U boats along the way, but also through Iran and Vladivostok.

The Soviets would never really admit to the assistance they received from the US as it would undermine the ideology the government imposed upon the populace. The true numbers concerning US Lend Lease to the USSR will never be exact in the public realm but it has been estimated based upon recently researched unit numbers and shipping figures to be sufficient to say that without it it the Red Bear would have been vanquished in the second or third year of war. The Soviets had a huge number of Sherman tanks, and some Churchills, in their ranks, the majority of their trucks were US supplied Dodges, most of their radios were labeled in English and the raging hordes ate a shitload of SPAM.

Yes, the Russians lost an amazing number of soldiers in the war. A large number of them to poor tactics as they consistently outnumbered the Germans not only in men but also equipment. If not for the influx of US supplied equipment and food it is safe to say that the Nazi's would in fact have finally overrun the Soviet army.

I'm not saying these thing to beat my chest and say USA rules. While we may rule the simple fact is without us WWII would have had a very different ending.

btw-I see you contribute 15% to the US. Funny thing is the US produced more war material by itself than the rest of the combatants combined.... Somehow that doesn't compute....

If you are really interested I suggest you read Max Hastings book Armageddon. It covers the last couple years of the war and has loads of information beyond just battle stats. It's a good read and it doesn't sugarcoat things.

The Allies had lots of warts too and if Eisenhower had balls, or if DC had instructed him to have balls, it's likely the Cold War would have been much different or never even happened at all.

Post: #84

Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction is also pretty good.

I disagree about WWII propelling America to the front - on the surface, yeah. But America was basically a superpower by WWI, as well.

Post: #85

I should note that I am not saying the US won WWII with our manpower. The Soviets did that in rivers of blood.

What I am saying is the US supplied the material that beat back Hitler.

Judging by debates and conversations I have been in, I am an unusual American in saying that D day didn't win the war. The hordes of Soviets wore down the Wehrmacht through sheer numbers while drive Dodge trucks, a fair number of Sherman tanks, and talking to each other on radios they couldn't read the instructions for while eating SPAM.

Hopefully that makes my statements a bit clearer.

Post: #86

(10-09-2012 04:46 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:18 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  I have never heard of such a thing as the Americans supplying the Russians with tanks or any other material. How the hell would they even get it over there? The seas were still pretty much ruled by German U-boats. especially the North Sea.

This did happen (more scholarly sources can be located for more confirmation if you want to look into it further).

Ok, thanks for the link. I didn't know it was going on on such a large scale. I knew that the US heavily supplied Britain during the course of the war.

One quote I noticed in the wikipedia article is this: "As one Roosevelt biographer has characterized it: "If there was no practical alternative, there was certainly no moral one either. Britain and the Commonwealth were carrying the battle for all civilization, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, led in the late election by their president, wished to help them."[6] As the President himself put it, “There can be no reasoning with incendiary bombs.”[7]"

This got me thinking. The USA most have thought about what would happen if the didn't interfere in the European war. If Germany would win the war on Russia and assimilated it's armies + material then America would be next up. Hitler was certainly crazy enough for it and was after total world domination.
His plans were to divide the world somewhere in Urals/Siberia between Germany in the west and the Japanese in the East.
Eventually he would fight the Japanese too and conquer the world. Well in his dreams he would.

Either this or there would be a cold war between the US and Germany.

Post: #87

(10-09-2012 06:52 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:46 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:18 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  I have never heard of such a thing as the Americans supplying the Russians with tanks or any other material. How the hell would they even get it over there? The seas were still pretty much ruled by German U-boats. especially the North Sea.

This did happen (more scholarly sources can be located for more confirmation if you want to look into it further).

Ok, thanks for the link. I didn't know it was going on on such a large scale. I knew that the US heavily supplied Britain during the course of the war.

One quote I noticed in the wikipedia article is this: "As one Roosevelt biographer has characterized it: "If there was no practical alternative, there was certainly no moral one either. Britain and the Commonwealth were carrying the battle for all civilization, and the overwhelming majority of Americans, led in the late election by their president, wished to help them."[6] As the President himself put it, “There can be no reasoning with incendiary bombs.”[7]"

This got me thinking. The USA most have thought about what would happen if the didn't interfere in the European war. If Germany would win the war on Russia and assimilated it's armies + material then America would be next up. Hitler was certainly crazy enough for it and was after total world domination.
His plans were to divide the world somewhere in Urals/Siberia between Germany in the west and the Japanese in the East.
Eventually he would fight the Japanese too and conquer the world. Well in his dreams he would.

Either this or there would be a cold war between the US and Germany.

Yes Neil Americans were pretty isolationist back then.
Hitlers greatest mistake more than invading Russia IMO was declaring War on the US. You cannot understimate the industrial/ military productive power of the US, during the war. Consider also that it was a main actor on both fronts (i.e Against the Japanese) Look at what happened with Russia in World War I.....an ill equipped and demoralized Russian military was defeated.
Without the equipment and supplies given to them by the US (in addition to the US Army, Navy and Air Force) both Britain and Russia might have fallen to the Nazis.

Post: #88

It is widely believed that Hitler only declared war on the US because of the pact with the Japanese and in hopes of the Japanese declaring war on Russia so Russia had to fight a war on two fronts and the toughest (most inhabitable) front being on the Japanese side.
He had to make some effort so he send some U-boats to do some minor attacks to back his words up.
His first goals were to create "lebensraum" (living space) in the east and create a Great Germany where German Arian farmers would have enormous farms and where Slavic people would do slave labor since he viewed them as inferior also. His ultimate goal would be world domination but I think he would have settled with an German minded gov. in the US for the first decade or so.
His immediate goal was to conquer the East and it is believed that he wasn't too happy with the fact that Britain and France declared war on him after the invaded Poland. They had to because of a treaty with Poland but British Prime minister Chamberlain did everything to keep Britain out of the war. An act that was considered Cowardish later.

If and I repeat IF England and France hadn't declared war on Germany and he had been able to focus on the East only then there would probably be a Greater Germany today in Europe/Russia. I'm quite convinced the Nazi would have beaten Russia at the time if Hitler was occupied in the West and the Scandinavian countries too. he was already very close to conquering Moscow. His armies were able to see Moscow with their own eyes. Taking Moscow (and Stalin) which was and is the control center of Russia would have been the deathblow for Russia. This was when he was already in war with half the world, let alone if he didn't have to fight in the west and to endure bombing raids all the time.

Fighting in Africa to help a weak Italy out was probably was one his biggest mistakes also. He just got to greedy just like all other dictators before him and he got what was coming to him. The guy was also pounding unbelievable amounts of drugs (meth) also. I recently saw a documentary on that.

Post: #89

I often wonder myself, as an fan of American military history, how the U.S. would have matched up with Germany, one-on-one, during World War 2

Post: #90

This WWII discussion is incredibly shallow. One can not dismiss the economic and material aid the US provided for the allies during WWII. At the same time it is naive to think that this was an act of charity.

While the war saw the US and USSR as allies it was merely a an alliance of convenience. From D-Day and onward the goal was to deny the soviets from occupying Europe. Even when at war the US considered Germany as a more reliable long-term trading partner and ally. Thus the claims that the US "saved" Europe are little but revisionistic propaganda. They protected their interests. History has shown that the war was in the long run a very profitable affair for the US from the influence gained.

This is identical to the French aid the US received during the revolutionary war. France wasn't playing good samaritan but counter-acting their nemesis Britain.

Post: #91

(10-10-2012 04:11 AM)LoveBug Wrote:  I often wonder myself, as an fan of American military history, how the U.S. would have matched up with Germany, one-on-one, during World War 2

Pound for pound Germany was undefeatable on the ground and in the air during WWII. Superior doctrines, a revolutionary understanding of combined arms, better ground unit training, better arms, better reliance on low-level officers etc

Granted German ground unit training suffered later in the war but by that time the experience of their officers and superior tech made up for it. During the last days of the war in the battle of Berlin the USSR still lost troops on a 5:1 ratio.

Against all this the US correctly adopted a stand-off approach and utilized their superior firepower to break the Germans with a minimal risk of life. A doctrine that have seen renewed use after Vietnam. In Afghanistan it's more cost-effective to blow up a taliban with a $12000 Javelin missile than risk a soldier's life who costs $1M to train and equip. Make no mistake, war is about MONEY. Always was, always will be.

Post: #92

Good points Vicious.

I think in fact this has been a key-factor in Anglo-Saxon victories throughout history.

Niall Ferguson has a very interesting chapter on the killing efficiency of the warring nations in WWI. Germany was far more effective. But US and British manpower and finances, among other things, overpowered them.

Adam Tooze's book (Wages of Destruction) also describes the poor state of the German war economy during WWII. The Germans were simply not that good at bringing their economic power to bear.

If one wanted to sum it up, Germans had a good mastery of tactics, but had an inadequate strategy.

Post: #93

Don't forget that the Nazi's were highly fanatical believers in Hitler and will always fight to the end. Germans are famous for that even now in Football.

I don't think the Americans stood behind Eisenhower in that way.

Hypothetically, I think that Germany would win if there was a war between the US and The Nazis at that time. It would probably be a naval war since one of the parties had to invade the other. I don't think the 1940 US navy was any match for the German superior U-boats + battle ships like the bismark and the tirplitz.
Even if the US came past the navy then they wouldn't have a chance on land because of the vast terrain they had to conquer before even reaching Germany while Nazi Germany would have it easy with NY and other major US cities being close to the sea. There wouldn't be much ground to cover before capturing or destroying major cities.

The only entry points into Europe would be do another D-day on France's beaches or go all the way around Britain to reach Germany. It would be easy to block narrow points like Gibraltar to the Mediterranean SEA or the English channel.

Post: #94

Neil... you're not doing your position any favours...

Post: #95

@ Skywalker:

It would be amazing if you read a book about WWII. Or just start with the Wikipedia articles.

1. US Navy was the largest navy in world, even larger than the British. Kriegsmarine was tiny and poorly armed compared to either.

2. US Army would've had a much tougher time vs. the Wehrmacht, yes. The only way they plausibly could win would be superior air-power. This they did have. The US built more than 300,000 planes during WWII.

It really doesn't matter what Germany would've done. Their ships would've been sunk, their planes shot down, their cities bombed to smithereens. It wouldn't have been easy, but there's no doubt the US would've won.

In a one-on-one contest, perhaps only the USSR would've been realistic for Germany to defeat. Not Britain or the US.

Post: #96

(10-10-2012 07:10 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  Good points Vicious.

I think in fact this has been a key-factor in Anglo-Saxon victories throughout history.

Niall Ferguson has a very interesting chapter on the killing efficiency of the warring nations in WWI. Germany was far more effective. But US and British manpower and finances, among other things, overpowered them.

El Jefe, which of Niall Ferguson's books is this in? Civilization? Sounds interesting.

You guys should read 'Winning at war - Seven keys to military victory' by Christian F Potholm. I found it fascinating, read it in 3 days.

It analyses several key decisive battles and military societies and examines the factors and doctrines that contributed to their success.

As mentioned above, one of the key successes of the German Wehrmacht during WW2 was their superior doctrine and training. They developed 'Auftragstaktik' one of the philosophies Western military doctrine is founded on. This means that officers and NCOs were given general orders to complete the mission, and they carried them out as they saw fit, in a changing battlefield environment or as Clausewitz puts it ' the fog of war.' As opposed to generals giving very rigid orders when they are miles away from the front line.

Post: #97

(09-27-2012 03:18 AM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  I always thought that if they weren't for the Russians we'd be Speaking German in Holland and if it weren't for the western allies we'd be speaking Russian in Holland.

So either way the Dutch got the shit kicked out of them. We can all agree on that.

Thanks for your time.

Aloha!

Post: #98

^^^Not according to Neil's new book. It's titled "Rewriting History: How the Dutch Defeated the Germans".

Post: #99

(10-10-2012 12:58 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  In a one-on-one contest, perhaps only the USSR would've been realistic for Germany to defeat. Not Britain or the US.

The English Channel is the only thing that saved the Brits from utter destruction as the German's had no way to cross it. U boats aren't much good for invasions...

Saying that, I'm curious how they would beat the US on the opposite side of the Atlantic when they couldn't even cross 22 miles of water.

Post: #100

(10-10-2012 12:55 PM)Vicious Wrote:  Neil... you're not doing your position any favours...

Not sure what my "position" means? My position where? This forum? I don't see the correlation between game/travel advice and debating war history.

We're talking fictional war here. Like fantasy football. No need to get all nationalistic and defensive. If people here don't like it that I think Germany would win over the US then they should not read this thread. I'm saying who I would think would win a fictional war, I'm not saying I would like Nazi Germany to win and i'm glad they got their ass kicked in the WW2.

We should have set parameters if we're discussing this otherwise it is of no use. I was thinking from the starting point of the war which is 1940.
Parameters:
US vs Nazi Germany, what year?, who attacking who? Are we talking about a surprise attack or a declaration of war?

ELjefe, while i"m not denying the fact that the US had a massive and stronger navy during the war and build it very fast, i'm doubting they had a sufficient and motivated army before it. The Nazi's did. Like I said, we need to set parameters here or it's no use even talking about it.
Otherwise we can also discuss about who would win between the Golden horde of Djenzis Khan and the army of Napoleon.