CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: Yes, US did have a ton of money to burn on a war effort. No, that doesn't automatically make them great fighters or saviours of "the other guys" who just went in and took the most casualties.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who said they "took the most casualties"? Besides, getting ones soldiers killed is not the mark of the "strongest" nation. Although since you did say, "Reading through some but not all (sorry, I have a social life) of these posts it seems to me like there are a few people "defending the honor" of the US as the great savior or something of this sort." it is expected. I'd suggest reading the entire thread before drawing conclusions of what people have said. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> All these posts about Americans and their "great sacrifices" seem to forget that the US lost the least men and went through the "easiest" fighting out of most participants of the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Just because Americans are more adapt at causing causulties than receiving them is no reason dismiss their contributions. As for "easy" fighting... what are yous aying? The Germans in the West were whimps? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Some forget just how damn lucky the US is with their strategical possitions. If the US was created in the viccinity (bad spelling, I appologize) of Europe, how would it stand up to a Blitzkrieg?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At least as well as Russia I would guess. Of course the US had even more industrial power. BTW, you do know that the only "true" use of Blitzkrieg was in the taking of France, right? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> European countries did not have this natural advantage. Also, the US never went through the sort of suffering most of the other countries went through.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *Sniff* Gosh, you'd almost blame the US for the war... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On the Eastern front, the hatred between the two sides was so intense that villages of civilians would be butchered, prisoners would rarely be taken, and bodies of the dead desecrated to a horrendous extent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like the Pacific War... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Now, the US fighting men did see their share of fighting and violence. You have to admit though, that in NONE of their campaigns has this sort of hatred was shared with any of the US' enemies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would say Japan. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Just think about my points before continuing to praise the US fighting men, who have indeed earned their place in history, haven't seen just how brutal and dirty war can get.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess the US was fighting WWII: Version Light. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Well, I agree with you in part Bates. No need to really call anyone idiots. Extremely stubborn patriots, but not fully idiots Thing is, again IMO, one on one Germany could have taken on any country at the time. Especially if Germany was on defense. As was proven on the Eastern front, prolonged fighting for such a gigantic land mass that was the USSR demolishes even the best of armies. ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Extremely stubborn patriots, but not fully idiots<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, maybe. I am of the opinion that patriotism leaves you blind to what is actually happening, it is reinforced ignorance. Not only this, but when people start off with their patriotism... "fighting for our way of life" "we had more production than the planet earth put together" etc etc, they actually don't realise how corny and tiresome this is for other people. Just because someones grandfather and his pissed up mates shot some weary German through the eyes, does not mean that the next generation and the one after that should begin taking all the credit. [This message has been edited by M. Bates (edited 10-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: The Americans are bound to be unbearable and self-obsessed: they are at the end of their "turn". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> what gives you that idea? the fact we got the biggest economy, the most high tech army, the most cultural imperialism? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Don't you idiots realise <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> no we're all idiots <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In the next Century instead we will have Chinese History Channel historians, regaling all and sundry about how their country is virtuous and God fearing, and how they have fought to protect their way of life... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> unlikely at best for the above reasons. (btw, i'm chinese and american). "God fearing"? unlikely since the gov's tendency for crackdowns on religious followers. (hey whadda ya know, i'm catholic too!) ------------------ "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show [This message has been edited by russellmz (edited 10-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Scout, Point 1 - Getting one's soldiers killed is not a mark of a good army, yes. Winning a war against an enemy who bests you in almost every way useing poorly trained farmers is a mark of a devoted people and a strong (if tyranical) government. Point 2 - Americans were as you say "adapt at causing casualties" because 1) The enemy was overpowered. 2) The enemy was tired and depleted from other fronts. 3) The enemy was at the end of his logistical line and his industry was at its maximum, while the US was just beginning to really fight the war. So, as you see, the Germans in the West were not wimps. If you take one big tough guys and jump him with 5 not-so-tough guys, he has a challange on his hand. So suppose both sides are both struggling to win. Now comes in a 6th not-so-tough guy, who is fresh and not as tired as the others. The tough guy breaks simply because of numbers and the inflow of fresh resources. Point 3 - Blitzkrieg was indeed performed in France the the largest extent, but was also performed to a lesser extent in other fronts. Including Barbarossa (agh, the spelling!). Point 4 - Please, please don't put words in my mouth. Saying the US had not suffered as much is a fact. Saying I blame them for it is your imagination. Point 5 - No, it doesn't sound much like it. The Pacific war had no where the extent and brutallity of the Eastern front. There were land battles, but they were sparse and the fighting was none-constant, unlike the Eastern front. The brutallity was much less as well. Thanks for responding! ------------------ "...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..." - Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back" [This message has been edited by The Commissar (edited 10-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what gives you that idea? the fact we got the biggest economy, the most high tech army, the most cultural imperialism?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, don't blame me, French politicians get excited about "cultural imperialism" from across the pond, so we Europeans get the all-conquering Euro so that we can look even more stupid. It just *annoys* me when, in these modern times, we get people still saying that their kind of patriotism beat the Germans, when in fact their patriotism makes them just as bad the Nazis in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what gives you that idea? the fact we got the biggest economy, the most high tech army, the most cultural imperialism?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey, don't blame me, French politicians get excited about "cultural imperialism" from across the pond, so we Europeans get the all-conquering Euro so that we can look even more stupid. It just *annoys* me when, in these modern times, we get people still saying that their kind of patriotism beat the Germans, when in fact their patriotism makes them just as bad the Nazis in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 One quick comment on the last few posts, and keep in mind that this is coming from a professional soldier. The US's greatness has always been in that it is governed by the people. A people who always strive to avoid war (not always successful of course). A people made of folks from most of the countries we keep haranguing each other about. The idea of the US invading the CONTINENT of europe is preposterous. Why would we want the damn place? Unless to come to the aid of the people? Also anyone who thinks the average adult in the US is deeply influenced and prejudicial toward outsiders because of Hollywood has some serious prejudices themselves. Movies like SPR are entertaining movies about americans for americans. You dont agree with it, dont watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 One quick comment on the last few posts, and keep in mind that this is coming from a professional soldier. The US's greatness has always been in that it is governed by the people. A people who always strive to avoid war (not always successful of course). A people made of folks from most of the countries we keep haranguing each other about. The idea of the US invading the CONTINENT of europe is preposterous. Why would we want the damn place? Unless to come to the aid of the people? Also anyone who thinks the average adult in the US is deeply influenced and prejudicial toward outsiders because of Hollywood has some serious prejudices themselves. Movies like SPR are entertaining movies about americans for americans. You dont agree with it, dont watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 You guys really amaze the hell out of me. I just wanted to know what the fascination among players for the germans were. You guys might as well be argueing over what color the sky is on a cloudless day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Just a bit off subject here guys, but I feel it's important: If you guys want to continue holding a conversation, let's not all abuse each other and make Steve have to lock this thread. Threads like this, if handled correctly, really bring color and variety to the board, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Just a bit off subject here guys, but I feel it's important: If you guys want to continue holding a conversation, let's not all abuse each other and make Steve have to lock this thread. Threads like this, if handled correctly, really bring color and variety to the board, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I disaggree, according to the Farm Hall transcripts Germany was technologicaly close to producing a bomb in 1941 (9-12 months away). However, the scientists involved in the project, most notably Werner Heisenberg, did not really want to produce an atomic bomb and focussed their efforts on a reactor instead. On several occasions they outright lied to Albert Speer as to their knowledge on how to make the bomb and the amount of U-235 that would be needed to do so. Had Hitler or Speer placed more emphasis on making the bomb back in 1941 Germany certainly could have made one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 . [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike Oberly: '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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> We are assuming that Germany had not fought Russia and had had 4 years to prepare for D-Day. Given this assumption, there would have been plenty of fuel left. Are you familiar with the stats on the Type XXI U-Boat? It certainly would have changed the nature of the Atlantic war if sufficient numbers could be produced. Which would be the case given 4 years without fighting the Russians. As for the stealth fighters and bombers being humourous... Have you ever seen a HO-229? Have you ever seen a B-2 Spirit? Notice any similarity? Is it merely a coincidence that engineers from Northrop Grumman spent several months at the Smithsonion Institute studying the HO-229 while they were designing the B-2? I suggest reading "The Horten Brothers and Their All-Wing Aircraft" and "Secret Aircraft Designs of the Third Reich" before you find Germany's stealth aircraft to be so humourous. I'm sure you'll be quite surprised at how far ahead of their time many of the German aircraft designers were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 . [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 . [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 . [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 double post [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 double post. [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 double post [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 double post [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 double post [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Dog Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 [This message has been edited by Red Dog (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts