Post: #76

Shit - I need to go away and read up on this.

Thanks for the pointers!

Post: #77

People like to talk great about Rommel due to the fact that he was highly respected amongst Allied forces.

Post: #78

(05-01-2013 03:00 PM)Neil Skywalker Wrote:  

(05-01-2013 09:34 AM)Tyroc7 Wrote:  

(04-29-2013 05:58 AM)liberman Wrote:  At the start of 1941 before operation Barbarossa the german military was the most powerful and experienced in the world. It had recently defeated the french army along with the allied expedition force which was thought of at the time as the best in the world in just 6 weeks. The first month of the eastern front against the soviet union was incredibly successful in military terms for the germans. Virtually the entire soviet air force in the western region was destroyed and entire soviet armies had been surrounded and cut off. But the germans massively underestimated the red army ability to mobilize and the determination of the defense so there was no quick victory thus the vast majority of the Wehrmacht was tied up in the eastern front.
Had the Soviet Union collapsed it would be virtually impossible for Britain and America to liberate europe. Likewise had britain made peace with germany after the battle of france the Soviet Union probably would have collapsed after the german invasion regardless of american intervention because there would be no need to defend the atlantic wall with 900 000 solders. Germany ultimately had the power to beat the russians or the western allies but not both and so was defeated.

Interesting what if discussion.
Here’s my two cents:

On Germany defeating the UK: True, the Luftwaffe came close to decimating the RAF. Had the Luftwaffe continued to focus on radar installations instead of cities the air war may have ended differently. It does not necessarily follow, however, that Germany would have been able to invade and defeat the UK because of this thing called the English Channel. Germany was a second rate naval power ill-equipped to carry out and sustain a large scale amphibious operation. As Adam Tooze writes in THE WAGES OF DESTRUCTION “At no point in the war did Germany assemble the naval or aerial forces necessary to dominate the British Isles thought his was not for lack of trying. The task was simply beyond Germany’s industrial resources.” Later he writes “In the summer of 1940, Admiral Raeder and the Kreigsmarine did step up their planning for the construction of a new generation of giant battleships. But these would take years to come to fruition…”

So even with the RAF defeated it is not clear that Germany could have invaded the UK. Germany did not have the fleet to carry out such an invasion nor to supply such an invasion force after it landed.
On Germany almost defeating the USSR except for Hitler’s blunders and US aid: The USSR had help from the US. But Germany also had troops from other axis powers. Check out the order of battle for Operation Barbarossa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_B...xis_forces
. You will notice significant contributions from Italy, Romania, Hungary and Finland. True, these troops didn’t measure up to the Werchmacht. But they could and did inflict casualties. The Finns in particular embarrassed the Russians in the Russo-Finnish war and were excellent troops in cold weather fighting. Moreover, until December 7, 1941 the Russians also had to keep between 500,000 – 1 million men in the Far East to guard against a Japanese attack. These troops proved pivotal in throwing the Germans back in front of Moscow.

While we’re conjuring up Hitler’s blunders, what about Stalin’s? Stalin purged his officer corps only a few years before the war. How would the Red Army have performed had their officer ranks been at full strength? The officers who were purged were often the most accomplished and independent thinking (these were the ones who were seen as a threat by Stalin) leaving behind sycophants who were too afraid to tell Stalin he didn’t know what he was doing. Why wasn’t the Red Army better prepared for an invasion that everyone knew was coming. Even without today’s technology you couldn’t line up 3 million men on a border without someone catching wind of this. British intelligence, Japanese intelligence, his own spies and even German deserters all warned the Soviets an invasion was about to come. Stalin’s own generals begged him to move some forces into the rear and to not to try to defend every nook and cranny of their newly conquered territory. Why was the Russian Air Force parked in airfields within striking distance of the Luftwaffe on the eve of the invasion?
If the German army did not have any allies, if the Russians did not have to guard against a Japanese attack, if Stalin had not purged his officer corps, if the Red Army had taken sensible precautions to prepare for a German attack, would the first few months of Eastern front have turned out differently? I suspect so.

One last point about Germany. The Germany military machine was built to win quick wars where the opponent was knocked out in a matter of months at most. The German military doctrine, their weaponry and their industry was all oriented towards quick decisive contests. For example, Germany had no real navy and no strategic bomber. Their tanks, while excellent were less amenable to mass production.
The problem is that the German military machine was fighting a war of attrition first against the British Empire, then the Soviets then the US. It is questionable that Germany could have ‘won’ a war of attrition against any of these powers individually let alone all three combined.

Tyroc7,

Thanks for your contribution and welcome to the forum.

Germany naval power was indeed weak but had they bombed all the radar stations it could have destroyed the RAF even with a lesser air force. The bombing raids by the Brits that followed in the years after hurt the German industry so much that they couldn't keep up with supplying the East front and developing their new rockets and other wonder weapons. It was Hitler himself who never believed in rocket power in the 1930's and after the start of the war. His blind faith in the wehrmacht (land forces) kept him from really allocating funds and man/brain power to develop such weapons.
The war would have developed a lot different if it had been raining down V-2's on London from the start of the war when the RAF couldn't do bombing raids.

Neil Skywalker:

You make three points.
1. The RAF could have been destroyed if the Luftwaffe focused on the radar installations exclusively. I don't disagree. But I don't think this necessarily means Germany could have successfully invaded Britain.

2. With the RAF destroyed Britain would not have been able to bomb German industry.
I think this is debatable. If the RAF is severely damaged during the Battle of Britain BUT Germany still doesn't invade Britain it's difficult to predict how things would have turned out. Presumably at some point Germany still would have attacked the Soviet Union. This would give Britain time to rebuild their air force. Moreover, the Battle of Britain was taking a toll on Britain's fighter planes not their bombers. Allied bombers flew unescorted over Germany until the P-51 Mustang appeared in 1944. Because Allied fighters could not reach Germany before the Mustang arrived, the British focused on night time air raids.
My point here is that the British probably still could have undertaken their strategic bombing initiative in 1943-1945 even if the RAF's fighter arm had been decimated in 1940.

3. If Germany had developed and used the V-2 earlier in the war the outcome might had been different. This may be true, but this seems like a separate issue. The war also would had turned out differently if the US had developed the atomic bomb sooner, Britain radar sooner, etc.

Post: #79

Neil, I completely disagree with your version of German/British military might.

- The V-2 rockets had no outcome on the war whatsoever, it wouldn't be until the late 50's that the US with far more resources AND German rocket scientists would manage to have a working ballistic missile. The greatest effect the V weapon production had on the war effort is that the Allies put in immense resources in destroying their production and launching sites. Germany however also put in preciously scant resources in building them. You could consider the two to even out, but with the Allies having far more resources at hand the V weapon production hurt the Axis war effort far far more than it as its effect as a terror weapon (tactically it produced nothing). I've been to Peenemünde, the main research site for the V weapons on the coast of the Baltic sea. It's a very cool place, you can feel history in the ground.

Fun fact, it's actually from the German rocket scientists extracted by the US after WWII that the idiom about "rocket scientists" originates.

- The British bombing campaigns were incompetent to say at the least and it wasn't until the later part of 1944 that it seriously affected the German war effort. Previous to that the British Area Bombing directive dictated that the Allies should target German cities in order to break the German fighting spirit. It had no such effect and allwoed for most part the German industry to perform unharassed.

A great book to read on the air war over the west front is The First And The Last by Adolf Galand. Galland is a fascinating figure in his own right. When having surgery performed on him after an injury in a fighter raid Galland demanded from his surgeon that he was allowed to smoke during the procedure.

Post: #80

The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.

Post: #81

(05-01-2013 09:40 AM)clever alias Wrote:  on the eve of ww2, the us economy was larger than all axis countries combined. us wins, hands down

Without the atombomb the US would still fight against Japan.

Post: #82

The WW2 only helped the US in every aspect to become a superpower. They got all the smart jews who escaped from Europe and after Europe was destroyed their economy could grow without European competition.

We can also be thankful that the Nazis couldn't make a atombomb before the war ended. If you look at the scientists they had like Otto Hahn who discovered the Nuclear fission, it was big luck in the human history. It's also funny that a german-jew was the leader of the Manhattan project.

Post: #83

(05-03-2013 04:59 PM)SU27 Wrote:  The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.

They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.

You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.

Also Vicious is right in regards to the V2 rockets, IIRC the Germans didn't have much to load onto them due to lack of continued research and ended up loading the rockets with bricks, cement and forks.

Post: #84

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 04:59 PM)SU27 Wrote:  The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.

They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.

You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.

Also Vicious is right in regards to the V2 rockets, IIRC the Germans didn't have much to load onto them due to lack of continued research and ended up loading the rockets with bricks, cement and forks.

The US did just fine militarily pre-Hiroshima, as actual history has showed us for all to see. Their conventional forces were growing each year by the millions. And they also had the economic powerhouse to back it that was rivalled by no country on earth, not Germany or the Soviet Union or Japan or the UK.

No country on earth could have invaded the US, as again is shown by actual events. And by the time the US developed the first nuclear weapon in 1945, they would have had no problem producing dozens and dozens of them. In addition, the US tested dozens of nuclear weapons between 1945 and 1949, more than enough to completely destroy pretty much every major country on earth.

This entire thread is redundant. Based on its nuclear power alone, the US would have had no problem reducing every other country on earth to rubble.

Post: #85

I don't even know where to start... Troll?

Post: #86

(05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't even know where to start... Troll?

was this directed at me?

Post: #87

(05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't even know where to start... Troll?

Our very first "Ivy League"

Post: #88

(05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't even know where to start... Troll?

Our very first "Ivy League"

haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league

hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.

You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.

The US tested dozens of nuclear weapons around 1945, and easily could have dropped these weapons on their enemies instead of in the Nevada desert. With only two atomic bombs, the US laid waste to two Japanese cities and forced that country to surrender unconditionally. Yes that's right, WITH ONLY TWO BOMBS. With a few dozen more weapons, they easily could have laid waste to literally dozens of other countries. You claim I can't use nuclear weapons to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.. but I don't need to. The US was protected from its enemies by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, all they had to do was sit back, let their economy roll out tanks, planes, and rifles, and wait for their scientists to produce the atomic weaponry they need to bring all the other countries of the world down to their knees. In fact, the US could have lost every fucking battle and campaign of the war and it still wouldn't have mattered, they still would have been protected by thousands of miles of ocean and they would have been the first to produce nuclear weapons that could wipe out their enemies.

Post: #89

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't even know where to start... Troll?

Our very first "Ivy League"

haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league

hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?

Naw bro we have Athlone Freakin McGinnis!

Quote:

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.

You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.

The US tested dozens of nuclear weapons around 1945
Dozens? They only tested one "Trinity"
, and easily could have dropped these weapons on their enemies instead of in the Nevada desert.
You're forgetting the fact that the bombers have limited flight range, and what would have happened had they rushed Trinity to use?

With only two atomic bombs, the US laid waste to two Japanese cities and forced that country to surrender unconditionally.
The effects of the Abombs on Japan's surrender is arguable, prior to the Abombs the whole freaking country was already laid to waste via firebombings. Not to mention the Soviet entry into the theatre was what most likely pushed Japan to surrender.
Yes that's right, WITH ONLY TWO BOMBS. With a few dozen more weapons, they easily could have laid waste to literally dozens of other countries.
Except for the fact I pointed out earlier, the US during World War II only had three Abombs. And the bombers had limited range so that eliminates some targets.
You claim I can't use nuclear weapons to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.. but I don't need to! The US was protected from its enemies by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, all they had to do was sit back, let their economy roll out tanks, planes, and rifles, and wait for their scientists to produce the atomic weaponry they need to bring all the other countries of the world down to their knees. In fact, the US could have lost every fucking battle and campaign of the war and it still wouldn't have mattered, they still would have been protected by thousands of miles of ocean and they would have been the first to produce nuclear weapons that could wipe out their enemies.

This isn't some fucking COD or civilization game where the US can run around nuking everyone willy nilly ala Ghandi. There are consequences, why do you think that nukes weren't used during Korean War even when Douglas MacArthur wanted to? I was pointing out your previous statement where you claimed "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.". This idea is flawed due to the fact that you claim the US could have won any battle in WWII due to their possession of Abombs, yet you forget that except for the last year of the war the US didnot have any Abombs to use in "any WWII battle".

Your weak arguments, lack of reading comprehension and Ivy League boasting seems to suggest that you are either
A) Stupid and use "Ivy League" to project yourself in a superior manner
B) Just a plain ole troll

Post: #90

(05-04-2013 12:29 AM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:  I don't even know where to start... Troll?

Our very first "Ivy League"

haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league

hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?

Naw bro we have Athlone Freakin McGinnis!

Quote:

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.

You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.

The US tested dozens of nuclear weapons around 1945
Dozens? They only tested one "Trinity"
, and easily could have dropped these weapons on their enemies instead of in the Nevada desert.
You're forgetting the fact that the bombers have limited flight range, and what would have happened had they rushed Trinity to use?

With only two atomic bombs, the US laid waste to two Japanese cities and forced that country to surrender unconditionally.
The effects of the Abombs on Japan's surrender is arguable, prior to the Abombs the whole freaking country was already laid to waste via firebombings. Not to mention the Soviet entry into the theatre was what most likely pushed Japan to surrender.
Yes that's right, WITH ONLY TWO BOMBS. With a few dozen more weapons, they easily could have laid waste to literally dozens of other countries.
Except for the fact I pointed out earlier, the US during World War II only had three Abombs. And the bombers had limited range so that eliminates some targets.
You claim I can't use nuclear weapons to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.. but I don't need to! The US was protected from its enemies by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, all they had to do was sit back, let their economy roll out tanks, planes, and rifles, and wait for their scientists to produce the atomic weaponry they need to bring all the other countries of the world down to their knees. In fact, the US could have lost every fucking battle and campaign of the war and it still wouldn't have mattered, they still would have been protected by thousands of miles of ocean and they would have been the first to produce nuclear weapons that could wipe out their enemies.

This isn't some fucking COD or civilization game where the US can run around nuking everyone willy nilly ala Ghandi. There are consequences, why do you think that nukes weren't used during Korean War even when Douglas MacArthur wanted to? I was pointing out your previous statement where you claimed "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.". This idea is flawed due to the fact that you claim the US could have won any battle in WWII due to their possession of Abombs, yet you forget that except for the last year of the war the US didnot have any Abombs to use in "any WWII battle".

Your weak arguments, lack of reading comprehension and Ivy League boasting seems to suggest that you are either
A) Stupid and use "Ivy League" to project yourself in a superior manner
B) Just a plain ole troll

The entire point of this thread is to examine which country could have won WWII. Not the battles fought during World War II, but the entire war itself. And the answer is, the US because they were the only country that possessed nuclear weapons. It's a very simple answer: the US could have lost every battle during the war yet still won the war because they were the only country that possessed nuclear arms. When I said the US would have won any battle of WWII, what i meant was they would have won WWII as a whole, because in the end they were the only ones with a nuclear stockpile. I could care less who could win this battle, or that battle. What matters in the end is who wins the war. And like I already said, the US could have lost every single battle and conventional military campaign of the war, but in the end they won the race to building the atomic bomb, and this is what ultimately gives them the upper hand over every other enemy.

If the US had to, and were threatened by a conventional total war by Germany and the Soviet Union they most certainly would have produced tens of thousands of nuclear weapons (as they did in the 1950s when they had to) and most definitely would have used at least some if not all of them in a fight to the death world wide total war. In fact, the willingness of the US to use the bombs is proven because they did in fact use them against Japan. Nobody else in the world, at that time, possessed nuclear weapons so the US - if threatened with conventional annihilation by the Nazis and Soviets - most definitely would have used their nuclear capability because no one could fight back with similar weapons.

The only reason the US did not use nuclear weapons in Korea is because (1) by that time the Soviets had them too, and nuking korea might have led to the soviets nuking america right back, and (2) the US almost used nukes in Korea, and probably would have if the North Koreans had won. However, the US preferred to try to keep the Korean Conflict as a local matter and wanted to see how things would turn out on the battle field. Also, the Korean War was not a worldwide fight-to-the-death like WWII was, so you comparing a local conventional war in Korea is absurd when placing it next to the life or death, worldwide total war represented by WWII.

I never brought up that I was Ivy League in this thread, only you did as anyone reading this thread can easily see. I did mention in another thread this fact, but it had nothing to do with being superior me mentioning it served as context as to why certain women reacted to me in certain ways. I never ever used it to disparage you or express superiority to you, this inferiority complex is something that you invented in your own head so I dont know why you're reacting so negatively. I did react with a zing but only after you attacked me first, for no apparent reason. Anyways, I'm not the one who brought up "ivy league" in this thread, you did. Perhaps it is you who suffers from a marked lack of reading comprehension skills?

Anyways that's besides the point. Let's get back to the issue of the thread: for you to claim that the US would not have used atomic weapons during WWII is totally contradicted by what actually happened according to the historical record: AND THAT IS THAT THE US WAS MORE THAN WILLING TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO END WWII AGAINST JAPAN OR ANYONE ELSE IN ORDER TO SAVE AMERICAN/ALLIED LIVES.

Your argument, Emancipator, is contradicted by actual fact.

Post: #91

The most common myth that I hate to see repeated again and again is that Hitler lost by attacking Soviet Union, repeating Napoleons mistake or attacking it to soon. This is just plain wrong. Everybody who continues to spread this is an uneducated simpleton.

In fact Nazis had learned from Napoleon and WWI and took great care to avoid all the mistakes done by their predecessors. The most notable thing to learn was the strategic importance of Norway. And they have learned about Russia as well. During the three years Nazis fought in Russia they always took care to attack it only in summer.

Germany did not wanted to attack Soviet Union before total victory on western front but they had to. Soviets were prepared to attack Nazis anyway and had assambled a large force on their borders. However since Soviets had great production but little in terms of tactics (vice versa for Germans) these forces were only good for attacking but not defense. The Soviets hoped to attack by surprise while Nazis are busy in Western front and conquer all Europe. Nazis broke this Soviet strategy by attacking Soviets merely few weeks before Soviets planned to attack. Since Russians had bad defense the initial Nazi attack was a great success and they conquered vast territories, Ukraine, Baltics and more.

If the Germans had not attacked Soviets they would have lost the war much sooner!!!

Hitler knew about the power of Russian winter and he knew that he has to destroy Soviets soon or he would be dragged in a war of attiration on two fronts and lose(that also happened). Therefore had to bet it all on Blitzkrieg. He had to reach Moscow until winter by all costs. But he did not and this is why he lost the war. Many wonder why he did not raze Moscow because initial offense on Russia was so successful that Moscow was ill defended and Nazi army stopped only twenty-something km from Moscow, with the most forward troops having a visual of Kremlin towers with a naked eye. But apparetly Hitler got cocky, didn't listen to his Generals and spend too much resources on side quests that slowed the attack down. There is also a theory that Hitler thought that the undefended Moscow is a trap and got scared and there is also a very conspirational theory that Hitler did not actually wanted to win the war, because he was in fact an illuminati agent and therefore stopped Nazis from attacking Moscow.

Whatever the case, the war was decided in 1941 when Nazi troops concluded that they cannot continue to advance forward while being merely twenty-something km from Moscow. During the winter Soviets replenished their forces using their unequaled production and beat Nazis back. During summers of 1942 and 1943 Nazis always pushed a little forward again, but they made lesser successes each year because Soviet forces grew more stronger with every year, while Nazi forces thinned with every year.

Post: #92

(05-04-2013 01:36 AM)Mage Wrote:  The most common myth that I hate to see repeated again and again is that Hitler lost by attacking Soviet Union, repeating Napoleons mistake or attacking it to soon. This is just plain wrong. Everybody who continues to spread this is an uneducated simpleton.

In fact Nazis had learned from Napoleon and WWI and took great care to avoid all the mistakes done by their predecessors. The most notable thing to learn was the strategic importance of Norway. And they have learned about Russia as well. During the three years Nazis fought in Russia they always took care to attack it only in summer.

Germany did not wanted to attack Soviet Union before total victory on western front but they had to. Soviets were prepared to attack Nazis anyway and had assambled a large force on their borders. However since Soviets had great production but little in terms of tactics (vice versa for Germans) these forces were only good for attacking but not defense. The Soviets hoped to attack by surprise while Nazis are busy in Western front and conquer all Europe. Nazis broke this Soviet strategy by attacking Soviets merely few weeks before Soviets planned to attack. Since Russians had bad defense the initial Nazi attack was a great success and they conquered vast territories, Ukraine, Baltics and more.

If the Germans had not attacked Soviets they would have lost the war much sooner!!!

Hitler knew about the power of Russian winter and he knew that he has to destroy Soviets soon or he would be dragged in a war of attiration on two fronts and lose(that also happened). Therefore had to bet it all on Blitzkrieg. He had to reach Moscow until winter by all costs. But he did not and this is why he lost the war. Many wonder why he did not raze Moscow because initial offense on Russia was so successful that Moscow was ill defended and Nazi army stopped only twenty-something km from Moscow, with the most forward troops having a visual of Kremlin towers with a naked eye. But apparetly Hitler got cocky, didn't listen to his Generals and spend too much resources on side quests that slowed the attack down. There is also a theory that Hitler thought that the undefended Moscow is a trap and got scared and there is also a very conspirational theory that Hitler did not actually wanted to win the war, because he was in fact an illuminati agent and therefore stopped Nazis from attacking Moscow.

Whatever the case, the war was decided in 1941 when Nazi troops concluded that they cannot continue to advance forward while being merely twenty-something km from Moscow. During the winter Soviets replenished their forces using their unequaled production and beat Nazis back. During summers of 1942 and 1943 Nazis always pushed a little forward again, but they made lesser successes each year because Soviet forces grew more stronger with every year, while Nazi forces thinned with every year.

Mage, I do agree with you that Hitler had almost no choice but to invade the USSR in 1941 or else he'd risking taking on a much more powerful Soviet Union later on. Also, he had the element of surprise because the Soviets, after signing the non-aggression pact with Hitler, did not think the Germans would attack.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that Hitler did indeed fight and lose most of the war in Russia. Despite all the planning Hitler did indeed make many of the same mistakes that Napoleon did. The German army invaded Russia without any winter clothing, because they had hoped to take Russia before winter. Also, most historians are in agreement that Hitler lost the Soviet campaign because he couldn't make up his mind as to what the true goal of Operation Barbarossa should be, whether it was to capture the communication and transportation hub at Moscow or the food basket and oilfields of the Ukraine and the Caucasus.

I also disagree with your notion that the Germans never conducted a winter campaign against Russia. In fact, their most disastrous campaign of the war, their attempt to take Stalingrad, was launched in September 1942 and lasted until February 1943, the entire winter. Hitler believed that the Soviet Army would fall quickly because it was weakened by the purges of Stalin. However, the purges had not weakened the Red Army as much as some people assume it did. Plenty of very talented Soviet officers survived the purges, and even gained promotion because older, more conservative and less modern thinking officers had been killed off. Two of these officers, Rokossovsky and Zhukov, were two of the most successful generals of the entire war.

Also, there is no evidence that the Soviets had planned to attack Germany. This no doubt would have happened eventually due to the ideological differences between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, but there is no evidence that the Soviets actually had plans to conquer Germany within the few weeks of the 1941 invasion date set by Hitler.

Post: #93

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?

An intelligent counterpoint would require an intelligent point.

- The only reason the US could deploy A-bombs on Japan was because they had total air superiority. How would you achieve that against a a hypothetical Germany/Soviet threat that controlled most of the European continent?

- The A-bombs where highly experimental weapons and required immense resources. Their numbers were very limited by the ability to extract U-235 from uranium, a process that wasn't properly refined until the 50's. There was no stockpile to speak of before that. That the US could produce "tens of thousands" of nuclear weapons (strategic) prior to the late 50's is ludicrous.

- How is it that "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons."
A) When the US participated in conventional battles that they lost or held only taxing victories in?
B) Did not have access to working A-bombs until late 1945?
The above doesn't make any sense.

- Using A-bombs in Europe would have been politically irredeemable. There was major resistance in the US, even in the house and senate against even going to war with Germany. Every so often I have to remind people that the US didn't enter the war until Hitler foolishly declared war on them.

The only way I can interpret what you wrote is as one big what-if in the event that the US was backed into a corner in 1945, then the US could possibly have used A-bombs to a larger extent to negotiate a peace (as they did in Japan when they were already defeated). But to use nuclear weapons to "win" anything? Just about every military strategist since the advent of nuclear weapons has discarded such notions. In the end, war is about economics and nuclear weapons are simply anathema to that.

As I have said many times on this forum and also in this thread. The US did "win" the WWII, but not from its military progress but from the post-war financial aid that solidified its influence over large parts of Europe for the duration of the Cold War. Had the US lost control and made extensive use of A-bombs they would have stood alone during the Cold War, shut out from Europe.

Unrelated I found this amusing:

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league

Followed by:

(05-04-2013 01:06 AM)SU27 Wrote:  I never brought up that I was Ivy League in this thread, only you did as anyone reading this thread can easily see. I did mention in another thread this fact, but it had nothing to do with being superior me mentioning it served as context as to why certain women reacted to me in certain ways. I never ever used it to disparage you or express superiority to you, this inferiority complex is something that you invented in your own head so I dont know why you're reacting so negatively.

Cute. I'm really convinced.

Post: #94

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?

An intelligent counterpoint would require an intelligent point.

ok great, i guess this is why you wrote such a long response to my comment. I'm flattered.

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  - The only reason the US could deploy A-bombs on Japan was because they had total air superiority. How would you achieve that against a a hypothetical Germany/Soviet threat that controlled most of the European continent?

Easy, the same way they did it with Japan: through the use of aircraft carriers, and in the alternative, an island hopping campaign. Later on - although unnecessary - they could have used other later developments such as long range bomber aircraft, which were being improved at an incredibly rapid pace by the 1940s, Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SBLM's), and Long Range Ballistic Missiles (ICBM's).

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  - The A-bombs where highly experimental weapons and required immense resources. Their numbers were very limited by the ability to extract U-235 from uranium, a process that wasn't properly refined until the 50's. There was no stockpile to speak of before that. That the US could produce "tens of thousands" of nuclear weapons (strategic) prior to the late 50's is ludicrous.

Expiremental? So the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were only "experimental"? And uranium wasn't properly refined? It was refined more than properly enough to build at least two atomic bombs, the ones that obliterated Nagasaki and Hiroshima! The more you write, the more ridiculous your arguments become. The fact of the matter is, atomic weapons stopped being in the experimental phase the moment they were actually used on a population. The moment they were proven to work by actually wiping out entire cities, they stopped being experimental. And the US already had hundreds if not thousands of nuclear bombs at its disposal in the late 1940's. They had also conducted dozens of nuclear tests in the deserts of Nevada and Arizona. This is not "ludicrous" as you claim, but historical fact. No matter how badly you want to try and win this argument this fact will not change.

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  - How is it that "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons."
A) When the US participated in conventional battles that they lost or held only taxing victories in?
B) Did not have access to working A-bombs until late 1945?
The above doesn't make any sense.

To people who have the ability to reason and make logical conclusions, it makes total sense. The US built the atom bomb in 1945. Whether they won or lost every single battle of WWII makes not a shred of difference. The point is, by 1946-47 they had the ability to produce hundreds of atomic bombs that would have made it easy for the US to destroy Germany and the Soviet Union just as easily as they had destroyed Japan, especially after the war exhaustion faced by the Germans and Russians in fighting each other.

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  - Using A-bombs in Europe would have been politically irredeemable. There was major resistance in the US, even in the house and senate against even going to war with Germany. Every so often I have to remind people that the US didn't enter the war until Hitler foolishly declared war on them.

Who says this? Are you kidding? This "fact" exists only in your head! The entire United States was ecstatic to go to war against both Germany and Japan. This is very well known, all you have to do is look at the immense sacrifice the American public made in giving up common luxuries in order to support the war effort. Never in US history was a president as popular as FDR was when he was leading the country to war against both Germany and Japan. Americans - 15 million of them - happily volunteered to go to either Europe or the Pacific to fight both of the major axis nations. And even before the Hitler declaration of war, American public and government opinion was heavily on the side of Britain - because of the unrestricted German UBoat campaign in the North Atlantic. Also, there was a sense of Anglo-American brotherhood that allowed the US government to pursue a course of very pro-British policy, such has providing the British govt with loans and the British navy with 50 destroyers to help strengthen that country's defence. Although it's true there was a sense of isolationism, this went out the window the moment Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  The only way I can interpret what you wrote is as one big what-if in the event that the US was backed into a corner in 1945, then the US could possibly have used A-bombs to a larger extent to negotiate a peace (as they did in Japan when they were already defeated). But to use nuclear weapons to "win" anything? Just about every military strategist since the advent of nuclear weapons has discarded such notions. In the end, war is about economics and nuclear weapons are simply anathema to that.

This simply is not true. Provide a single quote by a single expert on nuclear war who says that the US would not have bombed several countries in the late 1940's if it came down to a matter of national survival. I guarantee you cannot do it, because such a comment on such a period was never made. I guarantee you, the US would have dropped atomic bombs even if it meant saving American lives, never mind if it meant national survival. The US dropped atomic bombs on Japan not because its national survival was at stake, but because it simply wanted to save American lives. For the American president, just saving lives (and not national survival) was more than enough reason to drop the bomb.

Vicious, what you are confusing is the US monopoly on atomic weapons in the late 1940's with what later became known as the MAD theory (Mutually Assured Destruction). MAD only applies when other countries also came into possession of atomic weapons, but this did not happen until 1949. The US, between 1945 and 1949, had a monopoly on the use of atomic weapons. And if the US had chosen to strike first, they would have taken out the nuclear ready capability of all of their enemies.

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  As I have said many times on this forum and also in this thread. The US did "win" the WWII, but not from its military progress but from the post-war financial aid that solidified its influence over large parts of Europe for the duration of the Cold War. Had the US lost control and made extensive use of A-bombs they would have stood alone during the Cold War, shut out from Europe.

So you're saying the US won the war by providing funds AFTER the war had actually ended?? This is preposterous reasoning on your part! How could the US win a war AFTER it had already been won?!

The truth is, the US was the biggest winner of the war, and they won by providing vast amounts of money and supplies to the UK and the Soviet Union, including 100,000 tanks and trucks to the Russians. In 1945, at the end of WWII, the US had the world's largest and best army, the largest air force, the largest navy, and in addition to all this WAS THE ONLY COUNTRY ON EARTH THAT HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Unlike all the other major countries in the world: China, Japan, Germany, USSR, and France, the US was the ONLY country that was not devastated by the war. Its economic and industrial output, in 1945, far outstripped that of all the other countries of the world COMBINED.

(05-04-2013 02:53 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Unrelated I found this amusing:

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league

Followed by:

(05-04-2013 01:06 AM)SU27 Wrote:  I never brought up that I was Ivy League in this thread, only you did as anyone reading this thread can easily see. I did mention in another thread this fact, but it had nothing to do with being superior me mentioning it served as context as to why certain women reacted to me in certain ways. I never ever used it to disparage you or express superiority to you, this inferiority complex is something that you invented in your own head so I dont know why you're reacting so negatively.

Cute. I'm really convinced.

Apparently you were unable to read the portion of my response where I wrote this:

I did react with a zing but only after you attacked me first, for no apparent reason. Anyways, I'm not the one who brought up "ivy league" in this thread, you did. Perhaps it is you who suffers from a marked lack of reading comprehension skills?

hmm... you know vicious, it looks like emancipator isnt the only one of the two of you who has poor reading comprehension skills. But I admire your efforts to "re-edit" my post in order to achieve false conclusions. This is no doubt the same way you are propping up all of your other false conclusions, through the use of faulty and "re-edited" reasoning.