Victory, Defeat, Armistice, Taxes, Depression

[JerseyJohn]

Liam,

Terrific post, as always.

I have to agree all the way through.

The Italian troops had no chance on the French border. It never shows up in war games but there was a defensive line there built during the Maginot program and it was made tremendously more effective by the terrain.

In Greece, Mussolini launched the drive during the worst time of year, as the rains were coming down in the mountains becuase he thought it would give him the element of surprise!

In North Africa even his own generals, Grazziani chief among them, told him that sending large infantry columns across the open desert was inviting disaster and that's exactly what happened.

His admirals advised him that his navy, without radar or aircraft carriers, was a paper tiger. The Italian Air Force had been among the best in the world ten years earlier, but by 1940 it was hopelessly obsolescent.

And, of course, behind it all was substandard equipment and an army filled with political hacks in its officer corps.

Prior to Italy's entry in the war, Rundstedt's evaluation went something like this: "If they remain neutral we'll keep two divisions along the Alpine passes. If they join Britain we'll need four divisions to defend the southern border. But, if Italy becomes our ally, we'll have to send twelve divisions to defend the place." -- Very prophetic indeed.

Agree completely on the development of an A-bomb. I don't think any other country could have had anything like the Manhattan Project. Originally it was five programs, all independent of one another, looking into five different ways of making an atomic bomb. By 1945 two remained, the uranium and plutonium branches. This program alone dwarfed what most other nations were expending on their entire war effort.

And the B-29 program was almost as costly and an even more closely guarded secret!

It seems doubtful to me that the V-2 rocket could have been made to carry an A-bomb. Reliable nuke carrying missle systems weren't developed till, I believe, the mid-50s.

Given a couple of years truce it would have been interesting to see what sort of aircraft both Germany and Britain would have been flying. You draw an interesting British A-bomb scenario. Considering the comparatively short distance involved I don't think Germany could have had an adequate defense even with their own radar, which was on a par with Britain's. Conversely, I don't think Britain could have defended against a German atomic bomb strike. All either side would have needed to do was to send off several bomber strikes to draw all the intercepts and send the single bomber carrying the nuclear device behind everything else. I think it would have been a sure bet on getting through.

With the USSR I agree fully. 1943 always seemed to me to be the earliest Russia could have struck against Germany. In game terms I think there should be two basic Soviet Armies, one representing it's forces prior to the German invasion (or 1943, whichever comes first) and a second kind of army that comes into existence after a year of fighting. Due mainly to Stalin's purges the Soviet Army and Air Force had to learn it's craft from spilling unimaginable amounts of blood. Despite all of Hitler's mistakes in Barbarossa, in the first six months he did the equivalent of defeating France twice! -- and then the winter set in.

Terror bombing -- no doubt about it. Also, a very cold blooded definition of military targets that included first the workers, and then the workers families, and finally all civililians in enemy territory. Kill the enemy's soldiers, kill the workers who provide munitions for the enemy's soldiers, kill the farmers who feed both groups, kill the communications and transportation workers that keep the enemy's country functioning, and finally kill the enemy's families. Terror bombing at first on Rotterdam and London, expanded on Hamburg, Hiroshima, Dresden, Nagasaki, Tokyo till it was no longer just terror or killing workers, the miltary target became the entire enemy population.

[jon_j_rambo]

Happy 4th of July! (if legally, and politically correct we are still allowed to say this).

Camp Rambo recongizes the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776.

Europe, bite me,

-Legend

[JerseyJohn]

And a Happy Fourth to you too, Brother Rambo. :cool:

[Blashy]

If war had been delayed let us not forget that wars are the biggest cause of technological advancement.

So if war had been delayed, I doubt anyone would have been close to an A bomb as the money would simply not have been there for fast progression. At least not for another 12-15 years (1953-55).

[JerseyJohn]

I agree, Blashy. We were talking more about the war ending in 1940 and resuming later on, along the lines we were discussing earlier, but I think it amounts to the same thing.

Wealth and resources required for an uncertain result would have been too great to expend during peacetime.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Blashy --- So you're an expert in this field? Could you quote a source?

HeHe...you know my written source

Happy 4th of July, unless the anti-Camp hates that saying to & want to pass a law banning Nationalism & pride in the USA.

-Legend

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@Blashy --- So you're an expert in this field? Could you quote a source?

...

-Legend

What field are we talking about? There are numerous books on the Manhattan Project and what it took to complete, not only in manpower and wealth but also in resources. And the kicker is nobody knew if it was even possible to make an atomic bomb. The United States went to extremes to develop it partly because FDR was told that Germany was working on one -- exaggerated claims that turned out to be completely wrong -- and partly because the US government wasn't sure, in the early days of the war, that it would be able to cross two oceans and win with conventional warfare.

It was incredibly expensive, at least done the way the U. S. did it, with 5x duplication of effort finally narrowed down to 2x, with all parts of the program being totally in the dark about the other parts except for the one or two key people at the top of each branch of the program.

I agree completely with Blashy, without the war raging nuclear energy might have been researched for it's own sake and, somewhere along the line, nuclear weapons would have also been researched and developed, but instead of the 4 years it took the United States during WWII I think it would have been more like 15, at the very least.

Also, of course, the B-29 and the even larger bombers on the drawing boards, weren't specifically designed to carry A-bombs, but until the mid-fifties they were the only aircraft capable of doing so.

-- The Soviets reverse engineered U. S. B-29s that were forced to land in Asiatic Russia after flights against the Japanese. When they had them operational the Soviet version was given a Russian name, but they were B-29s down to the last detail. It wasn't till United States officials actually saw the Soviet clone flying, in formations, that the United States realized the Soviets were manufacturing their own version and not just flying the ones the ones they'd grabbed from the USAAF.

[arado234]

Liam if the bad guys were planning a war they may have started loading more resources into an atomic program than the good guys.We are very lucky we never had to find out.Just imagine three major players developing it at about the same time.

[Guest Mike]

hitler was not going to load any resources into "Jewish science".

[JerseyJohn]

That term even had the German physicists confused, I think something came up one time from the Gestapo advising that scientists weren't supposed to use anything that Einstein had come up with. Fortunately for the German scientists the Gestapo had no idea what that was supposed to entail, so they pretty much ignored it.

Hitler seems to have been mildly interested in developing an atom bomb till the war began going badly and as it got steadily worse he became more enthusiastic about the various miracle weapons that he was always given exaggerated reports about. By 1945 he was telling people, at least his secretaries because Trude Linga talked about this in a documentary, that Germany would soon smash London with a single bomb and when they did the Allies would plead to have peace.

Stalin knew all the details of the American bomb's progress even before Truman was told of it. He coldly calculated that the USSR had taken the equivalent of at least two dozen a-bomb hits during the German invasion, so he wasn't overly fearful of America's new weapon.

Throughout the late forties the United States only made a handful of a-bombs per year and had a hard time finding enough nuclear material for the Nagasaki bomb. As it turned out a German sub that started out for Japan surrended instead in Virginia and it's cargo was used to complete the third bomb (the first had been used for the initial desert test).

[arado234]

Russia may have taken the equivalent of two doz.abomb hits but WITHOUT the radioactive fallout.Add that to the mix and i dont think stalin would have been flapping gums.Just ask the people of chernobyl.

[JerseyJohn]

When Stalin came to that conclusion radio activity wasn't well understood, even by scientists. Which is why so many of that original group wound up dying of cancer.

There's a documentary about the two test bombs set off at the Bikini Atoll not long after Japan's surrender. The people studying the aftereffects walk around without a care. Many of the sailors later died of cancer and the U. S. Navy, even to this day, denies any responsibility.

In any case, I don't think the United States made more than two or three bombs a year during the mid-40s, so Stalin's lack of fear was justified. When we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki we didn't have another for a long time to follow.

[jon_j_rambo]

Yep, how do you know the effects of radiation, until some dudes are used as test rats. Interesting enough, radiation works on some cancers.

[JerseyJohn]

An ugly little historical fact that was suppressed for thirty or so years after WWII ended is that American doctors working for the army and CIA studied the results of Japanese and German experiments on human beings. In the case of the Japanese, none of the scientists involved were ever prosecuted and many went on to hole key positions in later Japanese governments.

Even though the tests themselves were illegal and immoral by US, British and most other country's standards, the information accumulated was regarded as unique and valuable, all the more because researchers from those countries wouldn't have been allowed to conduct similar tests on humans, even if they they were inclined to do it.

[Liam]

Even still folks in a historical context noone would've cared about radioactivity in the early days of WW2. So if you couldn't bring many Bombs to the table, what would they have accomplished.

It is true the Soviets had their hands all in the Manhattan Project, they had a spy on the sight in New Mexico!

Quote Wiki:

"Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion USD ($23 billion in 2007 dollars based on CPI). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret."

23 billion in WW2 terms may have purchased the equivelant of the entire Panzer Army of Germany... Would 3 Nuclear weapons have stopped that many armies or neutralized the nations will to fight. Also one has to remeber about Nukes, they're very powerful in removing communication transportation lines since they're a vaporizing bomb. That may have been more powerful than the fear they brought... Plus they did the job, as they were the most powerful explosive of the age.

LASTLY, with only 2 nukes or even 5 nukes I do not see Germany quitting in '45 or '46, anyone see the Post War photographs of it! Looked more like a Hurricane had leveled Germany, the equivelant of 10-15 Massive ABombs across it's industrial heartland, from above Germany looked like the Moon in places!

[JerseyJohn]

They might not have cared about radiation till word started getting out about the miserable death people suffered who weren't even within the radius of the explosion.

I think the psychological effects would have been far worse than what 1,000 bomber raids produced, even if the actual death tally might have been greater.

It took a couple of days for the Japanese government to believe the stories about the Hiroshima explosion. They were confused because all communication from the city just ceased and didn't resume.

There's still some debate as to whether it was the two A-bombs that forced Japan's surrender, or the quick and decisive invasion of Manchuria and Korea by the Soviet Army.

The German fanatacism in 1945 was incredible. For all practical purposes the country fought to the death. A final effect of the damage inflicted is that two full years after Germany's surrender the country had only 40% of the food it's population would normally have required.

-- It's easy to see Germany's WWII ruin in movies made in the late 1940s. Most of them didn't even want them as a backdrop but of course there was no way to not film it. The Third Man, filmed in Vienna around that time, is fill with characters walking down streets, past huge piles of rubble that used to be buildings.

[Blashy]

I was never surprised by all the tests done by scientists on humans and the "good guys" finding some excuse to virtually let it pass.

Sure compared to Germany, Italy and Japan the Allies were more good, but actually good? Not for second.

They used the war for their profiting benefits and exploited (and have so since) other minor countries as best they could.

The A bomb is a perfect example, sure Japan said they would fight to the death... ok just surround the island and totally blockade it, no need to have a loss of life for the Allies and less Japanese would have died but lack of food would have meant surrender. It might have taken a little longer.

But trying out and showing off that new super weapon, much too tempting (greed) and so they did with little regard to the suffering it would cause (we were the good guys, right???).

I am very happy we won the war, but I don't consider ourself "good guys" .

Like I always say, greed is going to kill us all.

Anyways, WW2. Even without a fanatic war in Europe was inevitable after the course WW1 took. There was a possibility of it being delayed but I say 1950 at the latest.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Blashy --- We are all sinners (not pure), but there is also a clear definition between good & evil during WW-2. Son, we (by the way, since when have you become 'we'?)...we didn't wax civilians. We didn't start the war. We didn't want the war. Etc.

We rebuilt the world & have made it a much better place. (see Freedom)

-Legend

[Blashy]

Like I said, we were the so called "good guys" compared to those idiot racists leaders in Italy, Germany AND Russia.

But we (the rich western nations for the most part) have done allot of bad stuff and certainly have not made the world a better place for more than 2/3rds the population of this planet and we EASILY could have. Your freedom analogy is funny seeing as the biggest promoter of freedom in the world (in terms of screaming out the window they are the most free nation, I'll take my Canadian freedoms over USA anyday) USA has supported virtually ALL oppressive governments that have existed or do exist in the world, even helping put them in power AND destroying democratically elected governments on the way.

I said WE because I live in a country that is not better than USA, we tolerate and support oppressive governments as well as long as we have easy access to their resources... GREED.

And WE because last time I checked Canada joined the fight in September 1939.

[Desert Dave]

And WE because last time I checked Canada joined the fight in September 1939.

Heard the news yesterday... 66

Canadian soldiers have been killed

In Afghanistan thus far.

Canada may be the ONLY "trust-worthy"

Friend we - the USA I mean to say,

Has got left,

Given all the "cowboying around"

We have been doing these last, oh,

60 odd years.

Chasing bad-guy ghosts.

Imagine IF all the monies

That went into the pockets

Of those VERY FEW who own

Substantial shares of stock

In Weapons, IE,

The sprawling and EVER increasing :eek:

Military-Industrial Complex,

Had instead gone into:

Schools.

Infrastructure.

Police & Fire departments.

Alternative Energy sources.

Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

The list is long.

Soon enough,

We - the people,

The reason for the Government

Existing in the first instance,

WILL make some long over-due changes.

It's JUST beginning... now. :cool:

[Blashy]

Sorry to say Dave but Canada is getting out of Afghanistan when our term ends in 2009.

Canadians never supported it and now 66% of the elected leaders don't and it will go to a vote in the fall.

Some want them to return now but they are a minority.

We'll respect our engagement and then get out... maybe if France, UK, Russia, China, USA and Iran stopped selling weapons to BOTH sides it would help but that ain't gonna happen.

[jon_j_rambo]

Well, whatever. We are at war...forever, just the world we live in. Now their doctors are killing machines (see UK airports last week).

You think the formation of the USA was luck? You think the wealth of this country was just evolution? You really believe Israel's 1948-today in their land "just randomly happened"? The USA cannot be clearly found in the Book, but FOR SURE the return of Israel was foretold.

Back to good vs bad. I'll keep it simple. We ain't perfect, but we are the best. We are #1 for now, maybe we'll go down...but today ain't that day.

For anybody who says, how does this apply to SC2? Simple, there are nations in the game, and the USA is one of them.

-Legend

[n0kn0k]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Heard the news yesterday... 66

Canadian soldiers have been killed

In Afghanistan thus far.

Canada may be the ONLY "trust-worthy"

Friend we - the USA I mean to say,

Has got left,

Given all the "cowboying around"

We have been doing these last, oh,

60 odd years.

We Dutchies are also still there with nearly 2k troops

We even have 4 in the USA. Fear us!

http://www.mindef.nl/missies/uitgezonden_militairen.aspx

This is also an interesting link.

All Dutch deployments back till Korea.

Including pictures!

http://www.nimh.nl/korea_tot_kabul/index.html

[Blashy]

You gotta give it to the Dutch, for such a small people they were pretty much all over the world at one point in history.

Then Canada went over there and kick them Germans out and said hello to the ladies .

[SeaMonkey]

Sorry DD, your about 140 years off.

The US State department's expeditionary forces(ie. Marines) started .....hmm...I believe it was around 1798 with a little excursion(policing) in the Med region.

I believe those opponents were of the same religious background as the current ones.

See what happens when you don't do the job right the first time.