The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

I'm in the middle of a game of CM at night in fog and I was set up as the allies and I hate it. Why? For the same reason I hate it when I'm the allies and I get set up with any extreme terrain/weather set up, because the bloody Germans created a tank and a gun and an infantry organization for every damn situation. I'm facing flamethrower equipped HTs and all SMG squads and they're tearing my men apart because no Allied force ever put together an all SMG squad. When you set up interlocking fields of fire with your HMGs and AP minefields within their very short LOS and all the enemy does is roll up and overpower you, you naturally feel like your troops are inferior. So when you have these disassociated battles where the German player gets to pick the perfect troops for the terrain, you always end up with the Germans having a tactical and doctrinal advantage.

However, in WWII, the Germans paid the price for this, losing out on the benefits of mass-production, having specialized units that suffered in stand-up combat and having armor that was overly specialized and less easily repaired than your standard, die-cast Sherman. This can't be simulated in a game the scale of CM but it sure as hell had an effect on them during the war.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by CavScout:

You make a point that is often over-looked. Germany gets many "kudos" for fighting a two-front war but America was fighting a two front war that was even more spred out than Germany's.

Cav

Damn, I am agreeing with Cav. Will wonders never cease?

I would go even further than that. The Americans, simultaneously, fought (or helped fight) major conflicts all over the Pacific, the Battle of the Atlantic, the air war over Europe, Africa, Sicily, and Italian land campaigns, and, by the way, spent untold billions on the atomic bomb development.

All this while providing the USSR and the UK with a significant portion of the resources they used to fight the war themselves.

The US has ZERO need or reason to bow to anyone in the arena of how to fight a war. They have been almost universally successful in the conflicts they have become involved in.

As far as someone claiming that the Germans ahd the best equipment, you must have a rather constricted view of WW2. The US consistently produced some of the finest weapons used in WW2. The fact that their tanks were so mediocre is only interesting because evrything else was so superior. The best rifle used in the war. The finest aircraft. The best warships. Etc., etc.

Jeff Heidman

Mike Oberly · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I think that when PzKpfw 1 posted

that Germany fought on three fronts he was refering to Italy? America was in Italy too. We were fighting

a war on three fronts then too. One of those fronts bigger than all three of Germany's fronts combined.

I don't really disagree with your point in general,but it should be noted that Germany was fighting America *and* Britain in Italy,and it is not very realistic to compare the armed might of Japan to Russia.I am no German fanboy,but it's not accurate to deny that Germany's armed forces were more effective than any other single power's other than Russia,at least until mid '44.

Naturally,America had far greater potential might than Germany,but I'm just speaking of the forces in the field.

Why do I even post to these OT threads?Good question.

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

I don't think there was even a slight possibility of the US dropping atomic weapons on Germany. Others have made this point much better than I, but I'll lay it out: the war against Japan was of a fundamentally different nature than the war against Germany. Racial and cultural differences were perceives as so great, that all other concerns of fairness, humanity, morality, were wiped away by a consuming desire to win. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess then we only attacked civilan centers and fire-bombed in Japan....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Studies were done which determined that a significantly smaller percentage of Americans fighting in the Pacific had moral compunctions against killing Japanese than Americans in Europe did against killing Germans. The war in the Pacific was significantly more brutal than the war in Europe, and that brutality made it possible to consider using a weapon of such extraordinary brutality as the atomic bomb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because of prejudice or because the Japanese were willing, on the whole, to fight to the last man were as Germans had no problem surrendering?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

In contrast, Americans of German descent made up a large percentage of the American population. IIRC, in 1914 1/4th of all Americans claimed some degree of German descent. After WWI, German emigration to the US increased, and then fell off again after 1933, so I can only assume that that percentage remained stable or even grew slightly. Hell, half of the guys who designed the A-bomb were German. I believe that if it was likely that the Nazi atomic bomb program had moved quicker, and if Hitler either used or threatened to use atomic weapons against the Allies, then the US would have retaliated in kind. But that is a what if, and a moot point. The US simply would not have nuked Germany otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

And, as Jeff pointed out, we most certainly did not have atomic bombs sitting around in 1939, or 1941, or June 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And no one claimed it did. Jeff is just enganged in a furious defense of Germany and is prone, it seems, to changing the context of quotes and their order.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

You cannot argue that the US did win or could have won the war on its own. Winston Churchill wrote after the war that "England provided the time, America provided the money, and Russia provided the blood." And I think that's a good quote with which to end this post.

He also said in 1940, "I think I see my way through: we shall have to drag in the Americans." If you read his writtings you'll see that he "saw the United States as the key to victory"--Churchill as War Leader:

Lessons for the Future, Winston S. Churchill, M.P.

Red Dog · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

quote:

---------------------------------------------

Anyone saying the Allies couldn't win without Russia, which this point was refering to, over-looks these weapons.

---------------------------------------------

Anyone ignoreing the importance of the other nations contributions or downplaying it isn't going to see my point either. So let me understand this, Germany conquers Russia, their is no atritional warfare for 4 years, their is no bulk commitment of German troops in the East, the US sets back waits till August 1945 & nukes Berlin and waits for someone to sighn the armistance.

Germany wasn't that far away from producing nukes of their own. Four years without war and they very probably would have had them. They already had the V-2 to put them in, the HO-229 (the first stealth fighter/bomber, a prototype saw combat in late '44)would have reached mass production and the HO-18 (a stealth bomber with a range of 7,000 miles) would have completed the prototype stage. Let's not forget about the Type XXI U-Boat which had just begun mass production in the last months of the war...

Things would have been very different if Germany had had a few years without fighting the Russians.

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks:

I'm in the middle of a game of CM at night in fog and I was set up as the allies and I hate it. Why? For the same reason I hate it when I'm the allies and I get set up with any extreme terrain/weather set up, because the bloody Germans created a tank and a gun and an infantry organization for every damn situation. I'm facing flamethrower equipped HTs and all SMG squads and they're tearing my men apart because no Allied force ever put together an all SMG squad. When you set up interlocking fields of fire with your HMGs and AP minefields within their very short LOS and all the enemy does is roll up and overpower you, you naturally feel like your troops are inferior. So when you have these disassociated battles where the German player gets to pick the perfect troops for the terrain, you always end up with the Germans having a tactical and doctrinal advantage.

However, in WWII, the Germans paid the price for this, losing out on the benefits of mass-production, having specialized units that suffered in stand-up combat and having armor that was overly specialized and less easily repaired than your standard, die-cast Sherman. This can't be simulated in a game the scale of CM but it sure as hell had an effect on them during the war.

Elijah, I couldn't agree more, but I think you are missing the source of the problem. The problem is that CM woefully underrepresents the Allies in squad types. There were American units armed primarily with SMGs, they just aren't in CM.

Here is a link to a thread I started a while back discussing the disparity in squad type selection in CM.

This is going to piss off CavScout and others who are going to have to question my membership in the fictional "Germans must win at all times" conspiracy.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007896.html

Jeff Heidman

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Damn, I am agreeing with Cav. Will wonders never cease?

Hell must be frozen now!

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Red Dog:

Germany wasn't that far away from producing nukes of their own. Four years without war and they very probably would have had them. They already had the V-2 to put them in, the HO-229 (the first stealth fighter/bomber, a prototype saw combat in late '44)would have reached mass production and the HO-18 (a stealth bomber with a range of 7,000 miles) would have completed the prototype stage. Let's not forget about the Type XXI U-Boat which had just begun mass production in the last months of the war...

Things would have been very different if Germany had had a few years without fighting the Russians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fantasy. Except for the bit about the UBoat.

The Germans were nowhere near an A-Bomb.

The Germans were nowhere near an operational bomber that could reach the continental US, much less a "stealth" bomber.

The V-2 could not have carried a tenth of an A-bomb, much less an entire one, nor did it have the range to reach the US, nor did it have the accuracy if it did have the range.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

Jeff Heidman

Thomas_Peiper · October 10, 2000

I quite don't understand this whole discussion. I was not able to check the chat for three days and what is on top, this discussion.

I'm german, so I play the german side. It's as simple as that. I'm proud of my current country, our achievments AFTER the world war. With the help of the United States we made it to be the 3rd biggest Industry Nation after the USA and Japan. Our Democracy is one of the stablest in the world and we are a part of the European Union.

The things my anceisters did in World War II would be something to be proud of, wouldn't it be for the six million jews that were killed and the little reason we started the war which caused millions and millions of lives. This is nothing to be proud of.

The fact that german soldiers were fighting even when it was obvious the war was lost is indeed remarkable and it shows that the german soldier was able to hold out under enormus presure. But the pure souls that lost their lives because of the Idiot Hitler would probably say, to the hell with it.

But something still gets on my nerves, anyone who denies, that germany had lost the war against incredibly overwelming odes, well if you won't to see it that way it's your choice, but don't cheat on history because it won't work.

By the way, I wan't to express my sympathies to all CM players in the USA. You have a great country and wouldn't it be for you, Germany wouldn't be were it is today.

I wish all of you a great time playing CM.

------------------

Thomas

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Red Dog:

Germany wasn't that far away from producing nukes of their own. Four years without war and they very probably would have had them. They already had the V-2 to put them in, the HO-229 (the first stealth fighter/bomber, a prototype saw combat in late '44)would have reached mass production and the HO-18 (a stealth bomber with a range of 7,000 miles) would have completed the prototype stage. Let's not forget about the Type XXI U-Boat which had just begun mass production in the last months of the war...

Things would have been very different if Germany had had a few years without fighting the Russians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germany was never "close" to the A-bomb. Germany, and no other nation for that matter, had the resources available to put into such a project other than the United States. Even the British turned over their materials on their research as they had no way to effectivly implement an atomic program.

Mike Oberly · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Germany wasn't that far away from producing nukes of their own. Four years without war and they very

probably would have had them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd love to see some proof of that.They had forced most of their scientists who were on the right track to flee due to the Nazi's anti-semitism.According to Speer,they weren't anywhere close to atomics by the end of the war.I don't think the Russian war had a great effect on their research.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They already had the V-2 to put them in, the HO-229 (the first stealth

fighter/bomber, a prototype saw combat in late '44)would have reached mass production and the HO-18

(a stealth bomber with a range of 7,000 miles) would have completed the prototype stage. Let's not

forget about the Type XXI U-Boat which had just begun mass production in the last months of the war...

Things would have been very different if Germany had had a few years without fighting the russians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Stealth'?That's quite humourous.The XXI U-Boats would not possibly have played a factor at that point in the war,even if the Germans had a bushel of them.They couldn't even fuel their tanks,let alone 'luxuries' like U-Boats.Or jet fighters,for that matter.

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

the highest ratio overall was 4.10:1 on 8 May 1945. Of course this doesn't represent the corolations actualy achieved in Soviet offensive buildups or in attacks on a small frontage where local Soviet corelation often achieved 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 in men & similar superiority in AFVs etc.

*See Glantz David, House Jonathan, When Titans Clashed p. 301 - 303.

Regards, John Waters

Ahh, it was only a matter of time before someone quoted Glantz.

Anyone who claims to know anything about the war in the East who has not read Glantz has some work to do.

He gets a little [n]too Soviet-centric, but it is a refreshingly honest look at the war in the east from a western historian.

Jeff Heidman

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

Cav, I think you're spending a lot of time batting back other people's arguments and not a lot supporting your own

A) I'm not saying the war in Europe wasn't awful and brutal. I'm saying that the war in Japan was moreso.

Can you deny that racial prejudice did not play a part in how the US fought the Pacific war? Consider this: during World War Two, a bit over 10,000 Americans of European descent were interned in internment camps. Over 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned. Can this be explained in anything other than racial terms? This racism absolutely did extend to the soldiers in the field. As I pointed out, studies showed that a smaller percentage of American soldiers felt a moral compunction against killing Japanese soldiers as compared with killing European soldiers. This study is not on the web AFAIK so I cannot provide a link, but if I can dig up the reference I will post it.

C) My contention that the US would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany is based on my understanding of world history and personal conjecture. What is your contention that we would have dropped the bomb on Germany based on? We did not, so I think the burden of proof rests on you.

D) Gee, we can drag out Churchill quotes all day, but where did I say that America's contribution wasn't vital to winning the war? What I'm saying is that all of the Allies' contributions to the war effort were vital. You seem to be saying that the US could have won the war on its own. I disagree.

Edited for grammar, spelling, and added emphasis

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Fantasy. Except for the bit about the UBoat.

The Germans were nowhere near an A-Bomb.

The Germans were nowhere near an operational bomber that could reach the continental US, much less a "stealth" bomber.

The V-2 could not have carried a tenth of an A-bomb, much less an entire one, nor did it have the range to reach the US, nor did it have the accuracy if it did have the range.

Where do people come up with this stuff?

I agree and I don't know.

Again though, even if the new German U-Boat was going to be "great", its effects on the war and the numbers that might have been produced are suspect. If one wants to see how to effectivly prosecute a submarine war one should look to the US in the Pacific where submarines were effective.

Cav

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thomas_Peiper:

But something still gets on my nerves, anyone who denies, that germany had lost the war against incredibly overwelming odes, well if you won't to see it that way it's your choice, but don't cheat on history because it won't work.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would you give Poland, Denmark, Belgium or others that lost to Germany the same leeway?

Besides, I don't admire the man who stands and takes the stings of the hornets after kicking their nest. I admire the man who sees the nest for what it is and leaves it alone.

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

Anyone who thinks the US would not have used the A-Bomb on Germany is living in some other world.

The burden of proof is NOT on CavScout, it is on someone who is claiming something directly at odds with both what actually occurred, and stated US policy.

The A-bomb was developed with the intention of using it on Germany. Roosevelt said he would use it on Berlin at the first opportunity.

The US participated in the bombing of Dresden wchich resulted in the deaths of more Germans civilians than were killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and more than both of them put together if you believe the German post-war casualty estimates. Why would you think that the US would suddenly have a fit of conscience over the Germans when it came to nuking them, but be perfectly willing to fire-bomb them back to the stone-age?

Jeff Heidman

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

Chup,

There was little friendliness between the USA and Germany that couldn't have been easily wiped away, as it had with the Japanese. We justified firebombing Dresden, just as we justified fireboming Tokyo and we would have dropped the bomb on the most expedient target, Japanese or German, if necessary. What can't be argued is that, had Germany kept fighting and shown itself to be capable of fighting late into 1945, they would have fallen over themselves to surrender upon seeing the effects of an atomic blast, regardless of whether it was on a German city or a Japanese one.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

CavScout · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Cav, I think you're spending a lot of time batting back other people's arguments and not a lot supporting your own

A) I'm not saying the war in Europe wasn't awful and brutal. I'm saying that the war in Japan was moreso.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You said it was because of prejudice. I say it was because the Japanese were willing to sacrifice more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Can you deny that racial prejudice did not play a part in how the US fought the Pacific war? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show that it did in the respect that you claimed. The brutality of the Pacific campaigns can be attributed to the tenacity of the enemy rather than his race.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Consider this: during World War Two, a bit over 10,000 Americans of European descent were interned in internment camps. Over 100,000 Americans of Japanese descent were interned. Can this be explained in anything other than racial terms? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem.... was this on the battlefield?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This racism absolutely did extend to the soldiers in the field. As I pointed out, studied showed that a smaller percentage of American soldiers felt a moral compunction against killing Japanese soldiers as compared with killing European soldiers. This study is not on the web AFAIK so I cannot provide a link, but if I can dig up the reference I will post it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you attribute this strictily to race or can it be explained in other ways including the way the different enemies, Germans and Janpanese, fought?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

C) My contention that the US would not have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany is based on my understanding of world history and personal conjecture. What is your contention that we would have dropped the bomb on Germany based on? We did not, so I think the burden of proof rests on you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

War in Europe was over before the bomb could be used. We had not problem with bombing Germany in the same way, if not MORE harshly, than Japan untill that time. There is no reason to suspect we wouldn't have continued that trend.

Cav

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Anyone who thinks the US would not have used the A-Bomb on Germany is living in some other world.

The burden of proof is NOT on CavScout, it is on someone who is claiming something directly at odds with both what actually occurred, and stated US policy.

The A-bomb was developed with the intention of using it on Germany. Roosevelt said he would use it on Berlin at the first opportunity.

The US participated in the bombing of Dresden wchich resulted in the deaths of more Germans civilians than were killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and more than both of them put together if you believe the German post-war casualty estimates. Why would you think that the US would suddenly have a fit of conscience over the Germans when it came to nuking them, but be perfectly willing to fire-bomb them back to the stone-age?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff - your sources are at odds with mine. I've read that Roosevelt stated that he would not use the atomic bomb against Germany unless there was a threat of Germany using an atomic bomb of its own. Again, I make no promises about finding this source, as my books and I are separated by an ocean. I will, however, try to find it.

I contend that the burden of proof is on anyone who would state that the US would have dropped the bomb on Germany for a simple reason: because we did not.

You point out the paradox between being willing to conventionally bomb Germany's civilian population and being willing to use atomic weapons against it. I don't deny the paradox. Why did we treat German POWs relatively well while dropping bombs on their wives and children? History is full of paradoxes, if you try to resolve them all, you'll burst.

Cheers

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 10-10-2000).]

Thomas_Peiper · October 10, 2000

Cav, thats simple not correct. Poland and Denmark, yes you made your point and of course the german side was supiror as it was for greece, yougaslavia and the CSFR but Belgium, they were fighting together with the Neterlands, France and Britain, although not with a closed front.

And to close this discussion once and for all it is nonsense to argue if it was 3to1 or 4to1 or "only" 2to1.

USA+Russia+Britain makes for about 500 million, Germany+Japan makes for abaout 200 million, thats not counting the other staates involved. And please don't come up with the Italians, because after 1943 it wasn't worht it.

So can we accept the fact that the allies won the war and would have won no matter what Germany or Japan would have done but they won simple because the axis couldn't stand a chance even at "only" 2to1.

For the other thing, I thought I made it clear, that I have the same respect for every Allied soldier as I have it for a german or japanese. If I failed, well I do it know. Lets leve it at that shall we and play some CM.

------------------

Thomas

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

Moreover (doncha love it when someone starts with a moreover), I think the atomic bomb question is a digression.

CavScout, I think again that you are spending more time trying to pull me down than trying to pull yourself up. You are the one who is arguing that the US could have won the war on its own, an opinion which flies in the face of some of the most eminent politicians and historians of both then and now. I ask you therefore to prove it. Let me ask you a few questions, and I ask that you respond to the questions rather than attacking my position.

1) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Britain? If so, how?

2) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Russia? If so, how?

3) Allowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, if Britain and Russia had been defeated, or had been non-combattants, from where would the US have based bombers with which they could have dropped atomic bombs on Germany?

As I said, please answer the questions.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Jeff - your sources are at odds with mine. I've read that Roosevelt stated that he would not use the atomic bomb against Germany unless there was a threat of Germany using an atomic bomb of its own. Again, I make no promises about finding this source, as my books and I are separated by an ocean. I will, however, try to find it.

I contend that the burden of proof is on anyone who would state that the US would have dropped the bomb on Germany for a simple reason: because we did not.

This is logically fallacious. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.

I could as easily say that the US would not have used the M48 Patton tank against the Germans had it been available. Reason, because we did not. Or that the US would not have used the F4U Corsair against the Japanese in 1941; reson: we didn't use the F4U Corsair against the Japanese in 1941, so we would not have used it had it been available.

We did not have the opportunity, hence you cannot draw any conclusion about our willingness based on what we actually did.

You could conclude that we would not use chemical weapons against Germany because we didn't, but the A-Bomb is a non-starter.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

You point out the paradox between being willing to conventionally bomb Germany's civilian population and being willing to use atomic weapons against it. I don't deny the paradox.

You do not deny the paradox, yet you are unwilling to address it?

Is this not the same as admitting that your position is untenable but you are unwilliong to change it anyway? That seems a bit close minded to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Why did we treat German POWs relatively well while dropping bombs on their wives and children?

Another logical fallacy, a false equivocation.

This is not a paradox in the least. There was nothing to be gained from treating German prisoners poorly, there was something to be gained from bombing civilians (I will refrain from repeating your intentionally emotive use of words).

The two are not analogous, so your analogy is not relevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

History is full of paradoxes, if you try to resolve them all, you'll burst.

History is *not* full of paradoxes. Some people's illogical and irrational view of what history is is full of paradox, and this is an exmple of that. You cannot escape the irrationaility of your position by waving it away as a "paradox".

Jeff Heidman

Cheers

Hamstersss · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Moreover (doncha love it when someone starts with a moreover), I think the atomic bomb question is a digression.

CavScout, I think again that you are spending more time trying to pull me down than trying to pull yourself up. You are the one who is arguing that the US could have won the war on its own, an opinion which flies in the face of some of the most eminent politicians and historians of both then and now. I ask you therefore to prove it. Let me ask you a few questions, and I ask that you respond to the questions rather than attacking my position.

Chup, I realize this was directed at CavScout but I'd like to throw my moreovers in. First, it is a common misconception that the American people blanche at casualties, they are merely a practical people and slow to anger. Looking at the only true trial by fire that the Americans have faced, the American Civil War, you can see that their national character is made of sterner stuff than most people think.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

1) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Britain? If so, how?

First, to "disallow" the idea of the US using or developing the bomb would be like disallowing the Germans the use of jet fighters, advanced armor or other technological advances on their side. The Americans developed this weapon because of the necessities of war, not as a national science project. However, even without it, the industry and mass production of the US, along with its immense natural resources and agricultural production, guarentee a victory in any war of attrition with any other power on the globe. It would have taken longer and more Americans would have died but there is no way Germany could compare to the amount of manpower and weaponry produced in a nation the size and strength of the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

2) Disallowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, could the US have won the war without Russia? If so, how?

Africa, Italy, France and then Germany. More aircraft carriers and more tanks, more troops and more guns, more ships and more bombs, more planes and more bullets, more, more, more, more until Germany was torn to pieces, just like the South in the Civil War. The US had practically limitless power at that time and the national will to use it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

3) Allowing, for the moment, the idea that the US would have used atomic weapons against Germany, if Britain and Russia had been defeated, or had been non-combattants, from where would the US have based bombers with which they could have dropped atomic bombs on Germany?

If you are fighting in a war and your enemy develops a new style of tank that is more powerful than your tanks, you upgrade your tanks. If, however, your enemy has developed a new technology that allows him to pack 20,000 tons of explosive power into a single bomb, how do you counter that? The US could launch it from an aircraft carrier a la Doolittle or they could clear the skies with their limitless airpower and drop it from Sicily or they could nuke Tokyo and tell Germany, "So, do you want to be next?" And Germany would have cried foul and surrendered because there was NOTHING ELSE THEY COULD HAVE DONE. Atomic weaponry was not an incremental advancement like jet fighters, King Tigers, fancy new U-Boats or even aircraft carriers, it was an exponential advancement that gave the United States the capability to defeat the entire world. If they had wanted to after WWII, the US could have rolled into Russia and succeeded where Germany failed, why? Because they could nuke Stalingrad or nuke Kursk or nuke Kiev or nuke any other significant population or industrial center that caused them grief.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[This message has been edited by Elijah Meeks (edited 10-10-2000).]

Chupacabra · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

History is *not* full of paradoxes. Some people's illogical and irrational view of what history is is full of paradox, and this is an exmple of that. You cannot escape the irrationaility of your position by waving it away as a "paradox".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Erm. I have several pieces of paper which say that I do, in fact, know something about history. You seem to be contending that history is logical and rational. I contend that, if this were so, we would have no reason to study history. Why bother? It would all be common sense. Was Hitler logical and rational? Was Stalin?

People are illogical and irrational. History is a study of people.

If you believe that history is perfectly rational, then yes, I can see how my position would come across as irrational. However, there's nothing I can do to disabuse you of that opinion, so there's really no reason for me to try.

------------------

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

Jeff Heidman · October 10, 2000

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Erm. I have several pieces of paper which say that I do, in fact, know something about history.

Good for you. So? Should we all quit arguing with you because those pieces of paper? Do they make you infallible? Does everything you say become Truth because of these pieces of paper?

How do you know what pieces of paper I might have? Perhpas my paper is bigger than your paper. What then?

Maybe it would be better if we just debated on the merits of the arguemnt instead of what paper we might have on our "Look at Me!" wall.

I said your position on this is illogical and irrational. You have even admitted it is illogical and irrational, except you wish to call it a "paradox" in an effort to wave away your unsupprtable position.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

You seem to be contending that history is logical and rational. I contend that, if this were so, we would have no reason to study history.

Logical and rational != consistent and uncomplicated.

Physics is logical and rational, but it seems like a pretty good idea to study it anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

Why bother? It would all be common sense. Was Hitler logical and rational? Was Stalin?

What difference does it make to the issue at hand? People are not history, people make history.

You are making a claim about what would have happened given a set of circumstances. Others have pointed out that your conclusion is flawed. You cannot make your premises support your conclusion. This is not history, it is logic.

Are you sure you have some sort of degree in history?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

People are illogical and irrational. History is a study of people.

People are often illogical and irrational. The reasons people do things are often misguided, stupid, pig-headed, ignorant, and senseless.

So what?

I guess you can say absolutely anything you want about anything at all, and then refuse to defend your assertions by waving the magic "paradox" wand. We are talking about how you make and then support conclusions, not whether or not people are rational all the time.

I notice you did not address my rather specific examples of how your rather unique method for determining history fails.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

If you believe that history is perfectly rational, then yes, I can see how my position would come across as irrational. However, there's nothing I can do to disabuse you of that opinion, so there's really no reason for me to try.

Again, you are just refusing to defend an indefensible position.

History, like everything else, is rational. People do things for a reason. Not always a good reason, or a logical reason, but things do not just magically occure that have no explanation. History is not magic.

You seem to want history to be able to support any cotention you make, rather than forming your contentions around what hisotry tells us.

So, answer the question. Why do you believe that the US would be unwilling to kill 100K or so Germans with an A-Bomb when they amde it abundantly clear they were willing to kill 100K Germans with fire bombs?

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 10-10-2000).]

The Germans, historical Bad Boys or just really cool guys?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements