Night Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Good Message and pretty cool at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 LOL, that is hilarious! I can just imagine a war monger like him making such a speech. Nice work. Haha, FakeNews (Fox)... that's their top story. Nothing else more important is occurring in the world right now. Put a democratic message instead and Fox would not give it a second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 This one is the hottest video out! I just got it in my e-mail. Internet travels fast. @Blashy --- Warmonger? For what, defending our Nation. "You have no idea how to defend a Nation" --- Col. Jesssup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yogi Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Well, despite a decision awhile back to try and stay out of these types of threads, I figure I should quick weigh in before the inevitable lock-up. 1) Thanks for the post - I'm glad I had a chance to view it. 2) LOL? Maybe if it wasn't so on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZGungHo Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I didn't think it was all that good - and to long. BTW - Fox has the picture and a link to it on top of the page RIGHT NEXT TO the real news! Go Fox!! I don't think I'd call Patton a warmonger. I know he said he loved it, but he was also aware of the destruction, death and pain it caused, and wrestled with it. Like all Military professionals he loved what he did - why else would you make it your profession? Yet he hated the pain and suffering it caused. All of us fallen humans are strange! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Taking the Lord's name it vain, is not good. How can one curse God? Yeah, I could have done a better write-up on second thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: This one is the hottest video out! I just got it in my e-mail. Internet travels fast. @Blashy --- Warmonger? For what, defending our Nation. "You have no idea how to defend a Nation" --- Col. Jesssup. Patton did a great job in WW2, but anyone knows he was pro war ALL the time, that is all he knew he said it himself. The only thing I agree with him post war is the support to take on the Soviets right away, although him it was not for the sake of liberating all those twice invaded countries but just to keep having a war. Luckily he was not the head guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Originally posted by Blashy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: This one is the hottest video out! I just got it in my e-mail. Internet travels fast. @Blashy --- Warmonger? For what, defending our Nation. "You have no idea how to defend a Nation" --- Col. Jesssup. Patton did a great job in WW2, but anyone knows he was pro war ALL the time, that is all he knew he said it himself. The only thing I agree with him post war is the support to take on the Soviets right away, although him it was not for the sake of liberating all those twice invaded countries but just to keep having a war. Luckily he was not the head guy. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Patton was going to arm the Germans, mixed with high powered American armies. Then, with production, air power, etc...We win. Either way, USA was #1 then, & we are certainly #1 now. Nothing can stop us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Patton was going to arm the Germans, mixed with high powered American armies. Then, with production, air power, etc...We win. Either way, USA was #1 then, & we are certainly #1 now. Nothing can stop us. Wehrmacht were wiped out in 1945, arming them would not have helped on a short term. The difference between wehrmacht in 1941 and later years were huge. The more I read about the red army(especially recommend David Glantz's book Colossus Reborn) the more obvious is that this monster would have crushed any thing in 1945. Hearts of Iron explored this in the expansion Doomsday. Russians steamroll western allies, a-bomb levels the score. Another interesting thing is, the wehrmacht fighting on equal terms(men, planes, tanks) would it have lost to the allies and the Soviet Union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted July 25, 2007 Author Share Posted July 25, 2007 I tought the video was very well made and also made some really good points, including giving a newer point of view. I don't see how the Soviets could have won if the war continued after the fall of Berlin agianst the Western Allies, esp if German's were helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Kuniworth, you keep forgetting that USA and UK were supplying more than 75% of all logistics equipment and some materials. No more convoys and it would have hurt them significantly. Total manpower in 1945 was 16 million UK/USA versus 11 million for Soviets, who I agree had them pretty much in the same theater but the Germans had a couple of millions left (9.5 in 1944). 425 000 warplanes versus 157 500. US GDP 1500 + UK 346 vs. 362 for Russia and it would have dropped with convoys being cut off. Air power alone with the Allies massive bombing capabilities and the soviets having no chance of winning the air war would have been utter destruction. In 1944 the allies were still bombing cities and German production increased, in 1945 they finally got a clue and started to bomb strategic targets and German production virtually came to a standstill. They would have done the same to Russia and all those troops would have been out of supply by bombing and by no longer receiving convoy from their ex allies. No A bomb needed (although it makes things easier). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Originally posted by Blashy: Kuniworth, you keep forgetting that USA and UK were supplying more than 75% of all logistics equipment and some materials. No more convoys and it would have hurt them significantly. Total manpower in 1945 was 16 million UK/USA versus 11 million for Soviets, who I agree had them pretty much in the same theater but the Germans had a couple of millions left (9.5 in 1944). 425 000 warplanes versus 157 500. US GDP 1500 + UK 346 vs. 362 for Russia and it would have dropped with convoys being cut off. Air power alone with the Allies massive bombing capabilities and the soviets having no chance of winning the air war would have been utter destruction. In 1944 the allies were still bombing cities and German production increased, in 1945 they finally got a clue and started to bomb strategic targets and German production virtually came to a standstill. They would have done the same to Russia and all those troops would have been out of supply by bombing and by no longer receiving convoy from their ex allies. No A bomb needed (although it makes things easier). Yes. The Soviet Union were exhausted, the western allied could gear up even more if needed for an all out war. I also think western allies would have wan a total war, but thinking of US going on the offensive with Japan left and tired people would be hard to see(thank good politicians not military run things in a democracy). Actually I think UK and US air-plane production should be something like 450,000... Secondly allied bombing campaign are still debated, the effectiveness are in question. Thirdly, Regarding manpower: The german figure of 9,500 000, does it include the ones already captured by the soviet side? Soviet figure at end of war is basically land, in your 16 million allied figure you included air and navy personel. If you just speak land combat troops this figure is far from that for the US and the UK. USSR would probably NOT be able to sustain a long war with the west which through combined forces and Americas production surely would have grudally built up a massive force. But cost would have been massive. On the the other hand and what Im saying, I can't see how the western allies, with all the difficulties breaking the battered wehrmacht 1944-45 should have been able to withstand an all out soviet assault in Europe beginning at the end of the war. Sherman against js-2 good luck. If they would have won a long war, I think yes, but the cost would have been huge. Another interesting thing is how a war between west and east in 1945 would have been recived by the population in different countries. Many would surely take up arms against the russian juggernaut, but at the sime time there were a lot of communistic movements that sprung up from the war success of the Soviet Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 But the bombing was pretty ineffective throughout the war but in 1945 they did switch a strategic bombing and not bombing towns in the hope of demoralization of popular support. When they did that, they almost brought German production to a halt. So they had figured out to use their huge bombers to deny the enemy of supplies and they would not have reverted to ineffective city bombing and thus with strategic bombing they could have denied all that manpower up front resupplies. I don't like wars, but I don't like letting people suffer in oppression and that is basically what the majority of political leaders of the Western Allies decided to do. But that is not surprising, they have historically thought of East Europe as lesser people (racist I know, but true nonetheless) with little value in terms of resources (not so much anymore). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Time to make a Game/MOD on this topic!,... Call it ..."Patton's Destiny!". So here when Germany & Italy are finally defeated,...Russia then tries to take advantage of the situation and Assaults the Western Held Sphere of Europe!. This is where 'Patton' would say that GOD has at last acknowledged his Destiny at this point in Human-History!. Who know's,...maybey they can even entice Turkey, Iran and a few other's to join their cause!. If they could retake Poland quickly enough, then the former German controlled Polish factories might be able to help boost their production output?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I am uncomfortable with someone using the image of not one but two deceased men as mouthpieces for his (filmmaker's) political views. I guess that kind of thing is de rigeur for Youtube but in this specific case it makes me feel kind of perturbed. Combined with all of the unintentional ironies ("Fighting for Freedom" over there while dismantling freedoms over here), and the film's 15 minutes of fame will zip on quickly by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 But the bombing was pretty ineffective throughout the war but in 1945 they did switch a strategic bombing and not bombing towns in the hope of demoralization of popular support.This had stopepd by 1943, not 1945!! And even befoer then IIRC ti was Speer who said that another 6 raids such as the one that caused the firestrom at Hamburg would have won the war..... The allies tried to hit transport and oil more from late 44. Certainly German productino increased, but much of it was decentralised and the final products were not assembled in nearly as many numbers as they might have been because of transport difficulties! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Either way, USA was #1 then, & we are certainly #1 now. Nothing can stop us. I presume you don't include your god in that?? someone once said "Pride goeth before the fall"....dunno who it was, but every empire in history has fallen, and I see no reason why the US will not be the same. I reckon 150 years from now there will be the United Catholic States of America speaking Spanish, and the Confederate States of America speaking drawl!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 That was fun to watch. I disagree with most of what was said because I believe it was a criminal act to attack a foreign power without provocation. I did not think we had the necessary provoacation prior to the invasion and wrote congress daily not to go but they listened to Bush. I do not think we have any legal right to stay there today. I do believe we should pay war repariations for having committed this crime. We had never preemptively invaded a soverign nation in the past that I know of and it should never be allowed to happen again. I leave that preemptive stuff to the evil side so that is Hitlers game and certainly should not be ours. We are suppose to be the good guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I think this is fitting right about now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o Stuff at the end is unnecessary, but the rest is interesting. I personally thought that Patton video was boring. Interesting concept anyway. Original was better and much more relevant. [ July 25, 2007, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Timskorn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 @Stalin's Organ --- Yeah, pride cometh before the fall. So even you, the non-believer is quoting scripture, I love it. Pride can be good or bad, guess it depends on the type & definition of pride Frankly, as a saved dude, anything temporal (such as war, economics, etc), is just that, temporal. Nobody sits on their deathbed caring about how big thier house is, how much of the world they traveled too, etc. In the end, you need a friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 Wow, who is the evil one, you are the guy saying that the U.S. should fall and have civil war etc. How many peoples lives will all this devestate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 @Night --- Dude, there are sinners & saints in every country. Not sure what that ratio is in the USA. I'd rather be here than another country, nothing I can do about it, accept spread the word. I'd rather die today & be in Heaven, than live to 200 years, then goto Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 The amount of sinners globally is 100%. Only God knows the other side of the ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 True, you can't become a saint, w/o knowing you're a sinner first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts