Liam Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 HEHEHE I'm the UnLoved Uncle of 3 Kids. I've done more for them than their own Fathers financially and otherwise, Don't get me Wrong I Bish and Complain John but I do love them and I wouldn't do it for anyone else. Just these 2 adorable Ladies, and 1 Kewl Young Man. <the boy is a HEADACHE!> 4 Years old... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 25, 2004 Share Posted August 25, 2004 Give it time, Liam. Four-year-olds often have lingering TerribleThrees! That's about how old I was, incidentally, when I first became an uncle, so at this point I've got nieces and nephews in their late forties and fifties! No guy ever wins with nephews. They'll grab what they can when they're young and then, after they turn twenty or so, will swear they never saw you before. I've had that happen a dozen times in my life. Like you say, it doesn't effect the way you feel about them but it hurts, all part of the process. I guess there are exceptions, and of the couple of dozen nephews and grand nephews I've got there are a few who have come out and struck up conversations about how good I was to them when they were kids, but most of them seem much better at forgetting than remembering. Okay, we agree that nieces and nephews are a lost cause, Liam, which is precisely why you're the kind of guy who should find a good woman, get married and have about a dozen kids of your own! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawolf Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 Kinda late on the subject but that never stopped me yet! Haven't read all the discussions but did anyone mension that Germany should have waited till the spring of 42 to attack Russia. By then Six Panzer Divisions could have taken N. Africa and the Middle East, shutting down the Suez and Oil from Iraq. Turkey may have entered on axis side and Russia could have been attacked from Caucasus and from Poland destrying her oil. It works in the game also, every time! I doubt if USSR would have attacked Germany at anytime. What think ye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 SeaMonkey I don't think Russia would have made a move till 1943 at the earliest. Even then, I doubt the Russian people would have rallied to fight in a war of conquest -- the first few bloodbaths would have had Stalin and Beria struggling to maintain control. Additionally, as I've often remarked at SC, I don't believe the USSR could have supported a prolonged effort, logistically, that was fought on it's western frontiers. Hitler toyed with the idea of hitting it in the Spring of 1942, but then he also toyed with the idea of sending everything east immediately after the fall of France and invading the USSR that Sept, which his generals wisely assured him would be a mud and snow fiasco and would only serve to give the USSR seveal free months over the winter to muster their largely undamaged potential. In the game, starting from the 1939 scenario as Axis I almost never get to turn early on the USSR, but then I'm a very sluggish player. Your Mediteranean scenario is iffy only because it wasn't a matter of sending more divisions, it was more a matter of sending more supplies! But without the Soviet campaign going on there's every reason to believe that Malta could have been taken during the autum of 1941 and North Africa wrapped up over the winter with those extra units you mentioned -- along with greatly increased air support for the Panzer Armee Afrika. They might well have swept through the Middle East and I agree that Turkey might have kicked in with the Axis. With Britain driven out of the Mediteranean and Middle East, Spain might also have joined the Axis to grab Gibraltar and other spoils as well as getting aboard with the obviously winning side. [Hitler and Franco during their only meeting, Fall 1940.] On a side note, if Germany would have had a large force near the Pyranees during the summer of 1940 Franco would definitely have joined the Axis. He was set to do so when Admiral Canaris assured him that Germany had already moved most of it's forces east for the later drive against the USSR. I think that should be reflected in the game. Franco wasn't even concerned with whether he'd win or lose against the Germans, he was sure that a war on his own soil against either side would have toppled him from power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skanvak Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I see that the question of winning the War is still on. I will add my little stone. I agree with most of what has been said on the topics. But I still think that Germany couldn't have won the War. The reason is two folds. First, it is a question of the definition of "winning the war". Hitler never defined what it will consider a victory except perhaps inconditionnal surrender of all allied country. Second, the objective of acheiving the inconditionnal surrender of all allied country seem today unreacheable. Not that defeating Germany was easy, but because the Allied country where strong too (especially the US) and defeating them all was unreachable (Still I agree that the war was hard, and that it could have gone worse (and it went quite bad) but not as worse as a German victory over the USA). Therefore I reckon that the greatest reason that Germany lose is its lack "end of War condition". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 1 real good fact is, Russia, UK, USA all aligned were much stronger. What else do you need to include? If you had the most awful leadership you could think of the above wouldn't count as much or could even fail the Allies. The Germans and Italians-Japanese were no match. Had Germany not DOWed USA and dropped the Massive U-Boat Wars and called Japan a wild reckless fool, then moved on and held onto his resources till he was better equiped for Russia<if a Russian War was eminant> some say it was. Others say no... There is a possability of consolidating LC/France the Balkans, parts of Scandanavia and even North Africa into a Fine Empire, but he was greedy and hence greed was his undoing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Why the Germans lost, from the Band of Brothers,"What were you thinking? Haven't you heard of General Motors?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawolf Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 I'm not "Seamonkey" I'm Seawolf....remember John The mid 1941 German Mediterranean Scenario with four to six Panzer Divisions is fool proof. With Germany in Greece, Sicilly, Cyprus, and Crete, domineering the Sea lanes with the Luftwaffe, Britian is helpless, Egypt is a pushover. Without the Suez, and Spain allowing Gibralter to fall by either the Italians of Germans, Englands route to the Far east with Oil supplies is damaged. Germany could have concentrated on the Cape of Good Hope with massive Wolfpack warfare strangling the Royal Navies sea advantage. Thank God that Hitlers' Generals didn't see this alternitive. Hope the new game will allow this scenario! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 Dropping the 48 is what did it! My eyesight isn't that hot any and it looked like Seamonkey, I know not all Seapersons are the same, but it's hard for me to destinguish one from the other when I'm used to SeaWolf48. Anyway, I'd consider it a privlege to be mistaken for either of you guys. From now on I'll just refrain from personal references and make general responses. The thing with all of this Mediteranean discussion is the Iraqi oil didn't go to the Britisn Isles, most of it went to the Royal Navy without going to Britain first and the remainder went to the Commonwealth countries. Most of what went to the British Isles went around the Cape instead of through the Mediteranean, which was considered to dangerous for all but the fastest and most heavily protected convoys. The UK ran on oil that reached it from the United States and South America. Regarding oil, Germany got through the war on average using only 3/4 of British peacetime consumption! As a scenario it sounds fine, but it would be good if the historical supply situation were also reflected. [ August 31, 2004, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45(the 2nd) Posted August 31, 2004 Share Posted August 31, 2004 The Krauts lost,no matter how long they waited to invade Russia or no matter what technology they could have used, they still would have lost the war. 1. You can't defeat the 4 most powerful nations in the world united. 2. Nazism is wrong. Not only morally but it's just not correct. So any man who isn't in it for the power or the money and has a well-functioning brain will stand up to them, inevitably leading to their defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Never knew the Nazis had such an Oil Shortage. I'm sure they must've collected a Surplus to run those panzers like mad throughout the war! They wouldn't have plowed through Poland-France-Russia without lots of Oil. The Iraqi Oil Scenario seems a little bit touchy, that's going into Russian interests isn't it? Why the RR jumps in SC when you DOW Iraq for Russia. Iran was a Puppet of USSR? I thought it was cause of the Tehran conference anyways, A mobilized force runs a lot on oil! Without that you cannot fly, you cannot transport on trucks, drive your tanks like mad. Plus you miss out on giving you troops lots of practice time. I know later in the war, Germany had shortages that hurt the Fighter Squadrons most of all. They basically hopped into the plane with little or no experience and that was that. Though the Allies had their on shortcommings that seemed a lot worse. Russian preparation was a joke, if not for having had a huge Army they would've died. Germans smooshed their frontline... Germans had great Leadership, accept the higher echelon. The Generals were really good, the organization of their armies, the concepts...revolutionary... When most of the German Generals were uncertian of Hitler getting as far as he did with France out, I suppose it worked against Germany as a Nation. A smaller peace could've been arranged had France and England beaten Germany alone.. or stalemated them at least..the victories there made Germany strong enough to turn to Russia and other nations to create a much larger scale conflict. SC is accurate in a way, Churchill kept running to Parliment warning them. The Brits and French could've been a bit better prepared. They basically ignored him People have posted Wartime production figures for each nation, staggering that Russia and USA even back then were the Masters.. Although the later quality of the Armor Germany was producing was King...The Fighters weren't...trade off by 1943 if you look around, I'm certian you'll find text that says that Stalin felt he could beat Germany alone even without the Second Front he demanded from his Allies! Think on that frightening prospect, it's very likely. One thing I will say Axis won a lot of initial victories! Those early victories would've gone much further, look out! You can't out produce a nation if you don't have your factories to produce anything anymore can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arax3 Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 The Nazis lost the war because they were morally and ethically depraved. God intervened to assure their destruction. Same for the Confederacy. A3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Couldn't have said it better arax3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Liam Much of the oil used in the French Campaign was salvaged from Poland. Most of the oil used in Barbarossa was collected from France. One of the reasons the Bismarck was sent out in May of 1941 was because Raeder knew Barbarossa was coming up and feared if he waited much longer he wouldn't be given enough fuel to fill Bismarck's tanks for it's full ~ 7500 mile range to get it to Brest around the North Atlantic. Much of Germany's fuel shortage was subsidized by synthetic fuel plants, of which Germany was the leader. Regarding quantities used you need to also consider that peacetime Britain had millions of private cars and trucks where Germany had almost none, so 3/4 of the UK peacetime consumption would have been more than adequate for conducting a war. Naturally, toward the end, as the Rumanian and then the Hungarian fields were lost they had nothing but dwindling supplies. The Hungarian oil and their own synthetic sources would have combined for about 1/3 of Germany's wartime requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45(the 2nd) Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Originally posted by arax3: The Nazis lost the war because they were morally and ethically depraved. God intervened to assure their destruction. Same for the Confederacy. A3 I agree, except for the god-part. Where was god in 1939 or 1940? Where was god when Hitler survived all those assasination attempts(Von Stauffeberg conspiracy,operation Foxley,..),Where was god during the German elections of 1933??And I could go on for a while lie that and not just about WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avatar Posted September 1, 2004 Author Share Posted September 1, 2004 WW2 was Man's creation, not His. God doesn't interfere in humanity's wars; except for that battle story in the Bible about the wall's (of Babylon or something?) tumbling down because of God. Oh yeah, there's this one story with Hitler on a stage during a speech, and a carpenter had placed a bomb right underneath. It didn't go off. Did God choose to save Hitler? And what right did God have to interfere in the Confederacy? They were all bible lovers. The Confederacy wasn't evil, although slavery is. Its economy was geared towards slavery since early 1700's, and people are always reluctant to change (like US today with your ridiculous recycling programs. Do you realize that the average US citizen generates 8 times the trash that a European makes? And a European generates 60 times an East Indian, and a 1000 times an Ethiopian). Your pigs, all of you P.S. Canada is no better, but i'm living in Germany now, so I'm saved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45(the 2nd) Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Héhé, welcome to Europe,Avatar. I hope you'll like it here,does it rain more Germany than in Canada btw? never been there before, I'm afraid. I know this sounds cruel but I think that if there is a god he did a pretty good job by letting Hitler live. I mean, just look at the enormous positive changes that happened after WW2. Decolonization,voting right for women and black people. WW2 was needed to shake the world up and to serve as a warning for the future, to show us what humanity is capable of doing to its own race and planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 No God? You guys are a little off track. Get off your computer, go outside & behold the creation... Something very significant came true after WW-2, the recreation of the nation of Israel. God scattered the Jews when Titus invaded in around 79 A.D., with the prophesy of bringing them back together later. It's a Christ thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45(the 2nd) Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 JJR, be tolerant for once. It's not because you believe something is true that everyone in this forum has to believe that too.I believe that the inquisition ended some time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawolf Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 From Avatar Your pigs, all of you P.S. Canada is no better, but i'm living in Germany now, so I'm saved. That's so french, I wish America was as far advanced as france or Quebec is spiritually, culturally, and financially. Yah, Germany is your friend, you should feel right at home! Why not live in Socialist france, your fatherland. Too much chaos. Oh that's right they are so snobby that they don't even like the french from Quebec! I've mostly found that people that don't like America are jealous of our prosperity. They usually say "we like Americans but not America". You can't separate the two, America is it's people. If you like the people then you like their country also. I don't like the French, and I don't like france. Been their, no big deal! But I do like the Europeans. Germans, English, Irish, Greeks, great countries. But there is no place like, Southern California (Orange County). Best weather on earth, best golf, best economy, and the most excepting people anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Bolt Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Why Germany Lost? Read "Why the Allies Won" by Overy. 1.winning the Battle of the Atlantic 2.German technology - great stuff, but too many different models variants - not enough interchangeable parts. This left too mnay unrepairable tanks behind. 3.Morally correct Allies. (my personal favorite) 4.The oil shortage - brought on by allied bombing. He had a few other reasons I cant recall with some fine data research to back the all his theories. Overy also points out, despite popular belief the German ground pounder was not a better soldier than Ivan or GI Joe. Fritz just had more practice early in the war and the allies eventually caught up in soldiering skill, Ivan was an equal warrior by late 42 and GI Joe got better in 44. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Definitely Germans had the edge in the early days, who else was really spending bucks on Military in 1933-1939? Sort of like a cold war that noone else realized was going on Interesting info John on the scavenging side of the Germans to get together on what they needed to fight a war. Being a nation with such huge ambitions I would look to make certian I had a surplus or a good supply of these things before I went out for World Conquest! Foolish German planning. They had their obvious flaws aside from God and the rest of it.. I don't really think God directly interferes in the hearts of man, rather he inspires them to do their own thing which if is Divine, is inspired by him? Confederacy, was a fluke. The War was a difference of culture and one side wasn't going to give up their way of life nor accept the ideals of the other. Some latent hatred between the North and South was there awhile. Slavery was one of many issues to throw on the pile to create a fire that once sparked cost more American lives than any other war in history. Oddly enough in America at the time, Further North you went the more Abolishinist it was, further South Pro-Slavery and in the middle, Neutral. Heh, very demographic... Slavery still exists to this day, there are millions of women and children in everything from making you soccer balls at 6.99 a pop from China and India or when you go down to a local brothel, the girls there may have been sold or basically had two options, poor or whore... So where do you draw the line? Even after the Civil War, the Freedoms the African Americans wanted never came! All this American bashing. And French bashing too. We all point our fingers at nations that waste. Heck, the nations that aren't wasting, don't because they can't afford to. If they could they would also! People are people! When the British Empire was at her peak she was not unlike us. Napoleon wasted a lot young French peoples lives. Germany wasted heck their whole Nation, so don't talk of waste and what not as a judgement call on nations. The best thing is to work towards a better tomorrow, be practical and make practical changes bit by bit. Or let the will erode away "Change" is the key, and that's just a hard thing for some to cope with who're use to things a certian way their whole life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Why did Germany Lose the War? Simply put its leaders did not know when to halt their aggression or feel the need to negotiate a peace when you are winning the battle. They were unwilling to give up some of what they gained in order to secure peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawolf Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 Back to the question. If Germany would have waited until 1942 to attack the USSR, she may have discovered the T-34 thru intel, that would have been big. Also going back to my scenario of attacking North Africa before Russia, Germany would have had beter Oil supplies, and England would have had much less. Yes, Jersey John, England got most of it's oil from the US and So. America, but Mid East oil was used by all countries, encluding Russia after the Caucases were taken. Germany would not have to waist their time and materials making synthetic fuels. Germany lost a million young men in Russia the first year of her attack into Russia. She never made up the difference with new recruits or satellite forces. Waiting until 1942 would have(hinded sight) cut down on troops killed or wounded by the harshest winter in 500 years in the USSR. Normal weather in winter was 0 to 20 degrees below zero. 1941 saw 50 to 60 degrees below zero. That's deadly! As some have stated, even if Germany had made Uncle Joe quit, Germany didn't have the forces to occupy all of Russia, and she never would have beaten the US. But she might have fought to a draw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawolf Posted September 1, 2004 Share Posted September 1, 2004 GENERAL COLT Why do you short change US Armed Forces. In 42 we were kicking the Jap's butts in Guadalcanal, the invincible jungle fighters. In 41 the jap's couldn't take Bataan until Apr of 42. Singapore the Gibralter of the Pacific fell in two weeks. In 43 after north africa we invaded Sicily, and fought the Herman Georing Division and it retreated to Italy. Only in Tunis did we recieve a bad name, and it was mostly because of bad Generals and not the troops. To compare troops lets use the standard of one German soldier of 1942 quality. What was a french soldier worth comparied to him. 1 Ger= 4 Fra, 1 Ger= 1.5 Eng, 1 Ger= 8 Rus, 1 Ger= 1.5 US, 1 Ger= 3 Ita, 1 Ger= 2.5 Jap, 1 Ger= 5 Chi, 1 Ger= 2.5 Empire. This would slide as the war went on. This however would not be true about navies or air forces, or Panzers for that matter. 1 Ger Pnz= 3 USSR, 4 UK, 5 US, 10 Fra. Fun to compare...very subjective however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts