Why the Allies won

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sir Jersey --- Nice posts, glad to hear (read) you speak out. You are one of the cornerstones of this Forum. Even you & I have battled over a few religious issues, but your USA comments are fair & balanced. It's good to have your here. If you're ever out to Seattle, Boise, or Portland, give me a shout. We'll have a glass of wine, beer, or the drink of your choice ready...along with a hotseat game of SC.

@Lars --- That's right, we have a little thing going that needs addressed We're going me (Axis), right? Then you'll get your crack later, or mirrored is fine.

Gents, we need more Icons, where is the next generation? Be a person, have a take, think for yourself...but only trust the Lord of Hosts.

-Legend

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Blashy:

UK alone could have beaten them altough it would have taken them much longer but UK was outproducing Germany in 1941 and it would have starved it through naval blockade.

I think you are wrong here.

Germany starved the UK as well with its subs.

UK alone would have survived some years, but surely wouldn't have had any chance to win on its own.

Even if they produced a bit more in 1941: the UK still suffered heavily years after the war, which was won by the allied including the USA und USSR.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Lars --- What is your e-mail?

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

There are enough things wrong with the U. S. and all other countries, but if you look at history with anything like an objective view you'll see American food going to places like Belgium throughout WWI, Japan and Russia during the 1920s and even today it sends food and catastrophe relief all over the world. I've never seen it reciprocated. NEVER!

Lend elase had to be paid for, and I seem to recall Hurricane Katrina resulted in some inpouring of Aid to hte USA.....but otherwise when has the USA actually needed it?

[hellraiser]

= reply to the original question: allies won because they managed to drag germany into an attrition war for which the german war machine and german economy was not designed and not prepared.

Maybe with a better leadership, Germany could have won a war, but doubtful a World War.

War on 2 fronts was their first and most important mistake - the attrition war was already beggining. A lot of ppl advised AH against this, but luckily for the 'free' world, one of their best allies was AH himself Rarely in the history of mankind you can find such boldness, genius and sheer stupidity like AH packed back then.

[Liam]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

= reply to the original question: allies won because they managed to drag germany into an attrition war for which the german war machine and german economy was not designed and not prepared.

Maybe with a better leadership, Germany could have won a war, but doubtful a World War.

War on 2 fronts was their first and most important mistake - the attrition war was already beggining. A lot of ppl advised AH against this, but luckily for the 'free' world, one of their best allies was AH himself Rarely in the history of mankind you can find such boldness, genius and sheer stupidity like AH packed back then.

Precisely, the man was a genius about getting a bunch of Germans to Rally to a cause.

However he had no concept of what warfare big time entailed. Germany had limited capabilities for a long war, two fronts are irrelevent with blitzkrieg. Attrittion sucks your manpower, kills you. With Blitzkrieg you must kill your enemy quick if not you die.. I.E. Russia, initially Blitz, then frozen stiff into a DeathKrieg. Not men, equipment, or weather. Not leadership, all...

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

There are enough things wrong with the U. S. and all other countries, but if you look at history with anything like an objective view you'll see American food going to places like Belgium throughout WWI, Japan and Russia during the 1920s and even today it sends food and catastrophe relief all over the world. I've never seen it reciprocated. NEVER!

Lend elase had to be paid for, and I seem to recall Hurricane Katrina resulted in some inpouring of Aid to hte USA.....but otherwise when has the USA actually needed it? </font>

[JerseyJohn]

Brother Rambo

Appreciated and likewise. If your travels ever take you to the Garden State please contact me so we can finally get together.

And of course we've had religious issues in the past, I'm a Druid.

[Minty]

Nope sorry you weren't that generous.Not in the slightest. It was agreed that the UK had to pay for everything in full, every damn bullet. It was actually a big issues in the late 70s when the UK (and world)economy was going through a rough patch, the oil shock sent interest rates high and we were paying you more in interest than the loan. It was good business for the US and you made a lot of money out of us. All our gold at the time, and a hugh amount of interest in the last 64 years! Really serious money, in a simple sense the UK's vast gold reserves from 200 years of empire went into building up the huge economic might of the US, London financed your second "new deal". Warships were even diverted by the US from active service to go and pick up British gold reserves from arond the world. We still owe you nearly $100 million that is the last payment this year!

Take a look at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4970720.stm

[Lars]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@Lars --- What is your e-mail?

It's in the profile.

You want Axis, just send it. You want Allies and Patton, let me know.

Figured you missed my message between the French jokes.

[JerseyJohn]

Minty,

The best business for us at the time would have been to throw in with Hitler and Tojo and grab chunks of the fallen empires.

The second best business for us would have been to not gotten involved at all and let the Third Reich run it's course.

The least appealing thing the United States could have done in the early 1940s, from a purely selfish point of view, was to do what it did in backing the UK.

What a croc this all is -- the UK was complaining about paying us back THIRTY years after we extended the help?

Interest rates -- I wonder what the situation would have been with a purely isolationist United States? I wonder what sort of Britain would have been bitching about things thirty years later with the next generation of nazis ruling the European mainland, if not the UK itself?

[jon_j_rambo]

@Sir Jersey --- More people get saved over dinner (food) than at church...Closest I've been to New Jersey, well, I was in Pennsylvania last August, flew thru Philly. That is one BIG airport & paved city. I can't handle it, I'm a small town hero. Far as that Tamuz treegod stuff, well, I burn 3 cords of firewood each winter.

@Lars --- Okay dude, lets start a mirrored match! I'm sending you my Axis start, you send me yours. Good luck, we meet on the battlefield.

-Legend

[ October 06, 2006, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Lars]

Straight campaign, no soft builds, yadda yadda yadda I take it?

[jon_j_rambo]

@Lars --- Turn sent, all standard settings (nothing changed). Only rule I like is US Ships can't leave port areas before entering war. Lets go mirrored.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Lars --- Shouldn't we call each other a few names to spice this fight up? I forget, you're a commie? Euro? Anti-Christ? Bush-hater?LOL I need something to fuel the fire, my motivation.

Have fun kid,

-Legend

[Lars]

I'm a "hate-mongering rightwing pro-Bush warhawk".

Check, no gamey stuff. Will get it out this evening.

[rleete]

Be sure to drop your paras in the woods outside of Paris for his amusment.

[Minty]

Jeresy John,

Woh there cowboy, all I was doing was correcting your statement that the debt was written off.It was not. To your new enemies the USSR and china, yes, but to us No. you said to let you know if it was otherwise so I did. I did not say that the US declared war for business reasons of course it didn't. All i did was state that it was not as generous as you had claimed, you asked if the land lease had been repayed and I'm telling you that Britain, as a grateful and honourable nation, is still repaying it AND that the money at the time did the US a lot of good NOT that the decision to go to war was based on it.

[JerseyJohn]

Minty,

Please considered me Woh'd.

I see the point you're making, and it's a good one.

The Soviets never paid a cent that I know of, and naturally the Chinese didn't as it was all lost to Mao in '47 (except for Taiwan a.k.a. Formosa).

Which left Britain and France. I don't know if France paid the U. S. for the equipment that was extended to it during WWII.

Considering how the U. S. wrote it all off with the USSR and China I'd say it should have done the same with the UK.

But, seeing it from the U. S. view, when WWII started the country was only beginning to find its way out of the Depression. Many Americans I've known who lived through it say it was still very bad in the late thirties and it was wartime production that jolted the U. S. worker out of poverty.

The U. S. government was broke, just like everyone else. The only way industry was enabled to produce was through the smoking mirror of creating the national debt. If I'm wrong on this I hope some economist can give the correct details, but is the way I've always understood it.

Part of the rearmament was done through bond sales, but most of the war finances was accomplished through charging it up to the future.

As we never repaid it, I assume the U. S. is still paying for WWII.

-- Which would explain why we still wanted to be paid by anyone able to.

As far as going broke paying interest and never denting the principal, the United States has been doing that for decades and the total keeps growing all the time.

It will never be paid off and the system makes no sense to me.

-- Added later:

Considering what I just said regarding the way the United States exited WWII in debt to itself, things like the Marshall Plan and other outflowing expenditures become even harder to explain.

But recently, at another site, I've had people posting about the alterior motives the United States had in doing things like that and how they were mainly fluff without substance. Well, first of all, that's nonsense. Secondly, there was an alterior motive, it was to jumpstart European recovery so the Soviet system wouldn't expand any farther. Beyond that there were no deep dark schemes.

Sorry if I get carried away, but there's so much America bashing going on, including convenient rewriting of history, that it becomes very aggravating to deal with and sometimes leads to reactions I wouldn't normally choose to make.

[ October 06, 2006, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Retributar]

Hello JerseyJohn !:

This Web-Site might explain a little of what you are talking about!.

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1160159576.php

-- Posted Friday, 6 October 2006

The second factor promising more inflation is the “Forever War” against Islam—already being called World War Three in many quarters. As the chart by our own Bud Conrad shows, the dollar has been a casualty of every U.S. war. War costs are paid for with deficits, and the deficits translate into rising price inflation every time.

Bieng paid for with DEFICIT'S really mean's that the FED just print's more money in order to pay the expense, this inturn floods the market with lot's of money, forcing the DOLLAR to depreciate, which inturn causes prices for everything to go-up! [inflation].

This also mean's, that any money you save in the Bank, depreciate's or devalue's as this process is going on!.

And a Big-Recession or Hard-Depression is/may very-very likely just be about ready to begin, it started to show sign's of it coming on since the spring of 2005, and will likely be very obvious to all in early 2007!,...with the real agony hitting us hard in 2 to 3 year's!.

***

Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.

Alan Greenspan ***

[ October 07, 2006, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[n0kn0k]

As far as going broke paying interest and never denting the principal, the United States has been doing that for decades and the total keeps growing all the time.

It will never be paid off and the system makes no sense to me.

They can spend more money then they earn as long as the Gross National Product is rising faster then the payed interest i believe. It has something todo with inflation etc. Can't remember exactly, too many years ago that i had to learn that kinda stuff If the US economy will shrink though, then the **** will hit the fan, and they will get hit double as hard. Kinda like the 3rd world countries are having atm with their debts.

EU countries aren't allowed to have a shortage of more then 3% i believe. And in the Netherlands we've even been paying off our debt for the past 8 years under the wise guidance of our minister Mr. Zalm.

Edit: Retributar beat me to it

[ October 06, 2006, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: n0kn0k ]

[Retributar]

n0kn0k , you are very 'Aware', and wiser than most!.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

TaoJah ,

What country or culture do you support since you've got such total contempt for the United States? North Korea? Stalininst USSR? Hitler? Iran? What exactly are your stilted views based on?

None of the above. Contrary to what certain people tell you, it is not because someone is against the US-politics that he is in favor of your enemy's.

That is exactly the sort of shut-up-and-support-our-leaders-or-you-are-one-of-them attitude that makes the US so hated in the rest of the world.

[Retributar]

I have no trouble understanding either of you, JerseyJohn or TaoJah !.

You both have understandable point's of view, and that's ok!. So i'll just ramble on 'OFF-TOPIC' for a bit now!, as i really do care for all the inhabitant's of this North American Continent!,and the present action's of our leader's will ultimately have to be paid for by those inhabitant's.

I'll just add that it's good to support your own people, your own country, including your own leader's, provided that those leader's are conducting their effort's with their Nation & other Nation's in a responsible/just manner.

Those leader's also need to have respectful regard to the inhabitant's of that country [Their Social Programs,...Fair Taxation for the common folk,...for the Rich upper-crust and for the corporation's [Not just shift the Tax-Load disproportinately to the poorest inhabitant's]. Higher Education opportunities should be available for all,...not just the priveleged [Who can easily afford them], Practical-Affordable-Medical Care, Dignified Retirement for the elderly, and so on].

These leader's if they are to get the respect that is due them, and also which is then also reflected toward's their own country, need to try to really do justice for the people first!,and then thier neighbor's. A leader should not be conducting his effort's for his own personal ambition's or gain's, nor for just the rich, nor for just the priveleged first!.

They also need to do their best to provide gainful employment for them, instead of exporting the cream of industry/manufacturing and job's to where-ever the cheapest labour rates are available on the planet! [And also at the same time get loopholes, so as to not pay taxes in their own home country], or to where environmental standard's do not exist!,...so that they can drastically cut their cost's.

What is going on now!,...is wrong!!!, a leader is responsible for his action's,...that's why i can NEVER support...the..."shut-up-and-support-our-leaders"...axiom. Leader's need to be held to account!,and their action's or lack of them, questioned!.

[n0kn0k]

n0kn0k , you are very 'Aware', and wiser than most!.

Cheers