World War 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Fallen wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
There’s nothing glorious about war, and there’s nothing that is truly black and white. Anybody who glorifies death and destruction as “manly” needs to get their head out of their ass.

I find it truly ironic that those in our government who are willing to go to war on a whim are the same ones who have never worn a uniform or fought in war in their lives.[/quote]

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not that the war itself was either good or manly- it’s that the reaction of the average people in this country was VERY manly. They knew what had to be done, and I’ll be damned if millions of them didn’t volunteer to go right onto Iwo Jima and the shores of Normandy and risk their lives for the rest of the world.

And we have gone to war on many whims- the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, Vietnam… but WWII was far from a “whim.” It was a concerted effort by an expanding superpower to destroy our navy and force us to sue for peace on their terms under the threat of destruction. All the while, we were faced with a growing evil empire in the east with Germany.

That’s not a whim… that’s some comic book shit where there’s no other way to do it. And believe me, if there was another way to do it, Eisenhower would have thought of it.

[/quote]

Best post so far on the thread[/quote]
Very good indeed. I’m always happy to see an occasional area of agreement with avowed opponents. As long as they agree with me that is. Irish has been pretty much right on in this thread. There is such a thing as just and necessary war wherein horrific killing and conflagration is the unavoidable path to the greater good. That really blows, but it is still true nonetheless.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

Tell you what: In northafrica, german soldiers under Rommel couldn’t believe with what audacity italian troops surrendered. Determined, they often traveled with two suitcases and shouted across the battlefields “are you americans?”.
If confused Landsers pointed in the general direction of the enemy lines, they’d march there straight with a friendly “Grazie mille!” - now, is this manly?

[/quote]

Hell yeah, that is fucking awesome.

[/quote]

Small correction - Americans came into North Africa via Operation Torch in 1942. These incidents occurred during the first British advances into Libya in 1940 where more than 250 000 Italians surrendered, many of the officers with their luggage.

By the time Operation Torch started, no one paid any attention to the Italians anymore.

Although, to be fair, some of their units did put exemplary (usually pointless) performances, such as the Ariete division.

Interestingly, the man responsible for creating the Rommel myth was Churchill. We’re not talking about the glorification in the British press and the General Staff, but his “political” decision to stop the Libyan offensive in 1941 (when the Italians were basically thrown into the sea) and send all available men and resources to their doom in Greece as a gesture of support.

This gave Hitler time to create the Afrika Korps, a sideshow to stiffen the Italians and annoy the Brits.

83

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
The thing about WWII that always amazed me was how the Germans managed to lose.[/quote]

Coming from an Englishman that speaks loudly. You would know that your country was on the brink of being controled by German Troops. Had Hitler consentrated on you guys first and then Russia we all might be speaking German.[/quote]

Bullshit. Despite the invasion proclamations and subsequent myths, there was never any danger from the invasion itself. German troops were in no condition to cross the Channel with the available resources against any opposition. Hitler half-heartedly tried to push the Brits towards negotiated peace.

Nazi focus was on the East, always the East. The reason for the attack on France was avoidance of the two front war from WWI.

84

Why would the Germans have to invade Britain at all? They could’ve crippled us if they deployed more U-Boats, and made more sensible attacks on our airfields. If they fitted their fighter escorts with drop tanks, they could’ve stayed in our airspace for more than 15mins. The list goes on.

85

In a nutshell, Germany lost because Hitler’s delusion of Teutonic destiny and subsequent underestimation of enemy capability and resolve led him to bite off way more than he could chew at one time.

86

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Why would the Germans have to invade Britain at all? They could’ve crippled us if they deployed more U-Boats, and made more sensible attacks on our airfields. If they fitted their fighter escorts with drop tanks, they could’ve stayed in our airspace for more than 15mins. The list goes on.[/quote]

But here’s the thing- they didn’t. And I think you’re doing a big disservice to those warriors of the RAF when you say that the only reason the Germans lost is because they couldn’t stay in the air long- which I don’t know to be true.

On top of that, Germany was very unsure that Operation Sea Lion would have worked, simply because the krauts never had much of a navy and the British, obviously, did. Air power was the first step, and they couldn’t even pull that off, much less pulling a fleet together, landing, then fighting foot by foot.

87

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:

War is never a good thing, and it is never a truly “good vs. evil” battle, no matter what the media wants you to believe.
[/quote]

And WWII was. How the Japanese and the Nazis, with the ridiculous amount of atrocities committed, cannot be considered “evil,” is beyond me.

I have been reading about the Japanese because of the show “The Pacific,” and all it takes is a couple of pictures from the rape of Nanking to show you how far the mercy of the Japanese Empire extended. [/quote]

Here’s one for you. How about “Nazi Germany vs. Stalin’s USSR”. Would you consider that “good vs. evil”? Both sides committed horrible atrocities and both sides were led by psychopathic mass murderers.

You could make a point that essentially the entire second world war was fought on the steppes of Russia and Eastern and central Europe. The numbers of people killed, men, material and area involved is bigger than the rest of the 2nd world war put together.

Compared to the Eastern Front, the Western front was a sideshow. When the allies did get involved in the war big time, the Germans and Soviets had been fighting in a cataclysmic struggle for over 3 years. The Germans were nowhere near the fighting force they had been in 1940-1.

That may be why many Americans glorify the 2nd World War so much. America didn’t experience the absolute devastation and death that all of Europe did. The entire European continent was in ruins, and Western civilization was shaken to its core. America on the other hand had been able to build its way out of the Great Depression and came out as the only superpower that was essentially unscathed. That also may be why, even to this day, that many Europeans abhor war much more than most Americans do.

And one more thing. I made the point that war is never truly “good vs. evil”. Civilians are always the innocent victims of war but in World War 2 this was multiplied beyond what it had been in any other war. Civilian deaths far outnumbered military deaths in World War 2. There were millions of innocent German and Japanese civilian deaths (Firebombing in Dresden and Tokyo) as there were millions of innocent civilian deaths in the USSR, Allied Europe and China. Things are never black and white.[/quote]

I havent read this yet but its true that above all else WWII was a war between Socialism and Fascism.

88

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Why would the Germans have to invade Britain at all? They could’ve crippled us if they deployed more U-Boats, and made more sensible attacks on our airfields. If they fitted their fighter escorts with drop tanks, they could’ve stayed in our airspace for more than 15mins. The list goes on.[/quote]

But here’s the thing- they didn’t. And I think you’re doing a big disservice to those warriors of the RAF when you say that the only reason the Germans lost is because they couldn’t stay in the air long- which I don’t know to be true.

On top of that, Germany was very unsure that Operation Sea Lion would have worked, simply because the krauts never had much of a navy and the British, obviously, did. Air power was the first step, and they couldn’t even pull that off, much less pulling a fleet together, landing, then fighting foot by foot.[/quote]

Usually, when people discuss WW2 they tend to concentrate on the things the Germans could have done better, but the fact is that they were very close to the “best case scenario” in real life.

The resources (raw materials and industrial capacity) of the Reich were simply not sufficient to create a successful Navy, Air Force and the Army. That’s why they started with a laughably low number of submarines in '39. You want more tanks and submarines? Cut down on the surface ships and planes.

Adam Tooze in “Wages of Destruction” analyzes the Nazi strategic conundrum, even tearing down the myth of the “Speer miracle”.

Add to that chronic inefficiency, wastage and corruption, not to mention inter-service rivalry and you’ve got a problem on your hands.

People tend to forget that the Wehrmacht that rolled over the USSR border in June '41 wasn’t a sleek, mechanized juggernaut, but a lumbering army mostly relying on foot transport and horse drawn carts and equipped to a large extent with Czech and French weapons and transport.

89

[quote]Charlemagne wrote:
Here’s one for you. How about “Nazi Germany vs. Stalin’s USSR”. Would you consider that “good vs. evil”? Both sides committed horrible atrocities and both sides were led by psychopathic mass murderers.
[\quote]

Disagree. Neither Hitler nor Stalin were nuts. They were dedicated, pretty savvy about their goals and hard workers. The need to make them into psychopaths is just trying to convince ourselves we’re so much better than they are.

[quote]
That may be why many Americans glorify the 2nd World War so much. America didn’t experience the absolute devastation and death that all of Europe did. The entire European continent was in ruins, and Western civilization was shaken to its core. America on the other hand had been able to build its way out of the Great Depression and came out as the only superpower that was essentially unscathed. That also may be why, even to this day, that many Europeans abhor war much more than most Americans do.
[\quote]

And whose fault was that? It was the Europeans that got into these wars. Don’t blame the Americans for not having anything like the violent history that Europe did. We had almost no standing army (except during war) until after WW II. Peace didn’t come to Europe until we parked an army on them and told them to knock it off. Now it has come full circle that Europe enjoys a huge peace dividend and can comfortably forget its usual behavior.

[quote]
And one more thing. I made the point that war is never truly “good vs. evil”. Civilians are always the innocent victims of war but in World War 2 this was multiplied beyond what it had been in any other war. Civilian deaths far outnumbered military deaths in World War 2. There were millions of innocent German and Japanese civilian deaths (Firebombing in Dresden and Tokyo) as there were millions of innocent civilian deaths in the USSR, Allied Europe and China. Things are never black and white.[/quote]

Dude… The bombing of civilians was never part of the Allied planning until the Nazis flattened Rotterdam and promised to do it to every city that refused to surrender. You also managed to forget exactly what the Luftwaffe did to most Russian cities they could reach as well as the entire Blitz. (And I’m leaving out what the Japanese had been doing in China too, btw) Having the Nazis commit mass murder from the air against entire civilian populations unopposed? Never. They want to bomb cities? Fine, flatten all of theirs. They never repudiated this strategy and even went so far as to make V-1 and V-2 rockets to automate bombing England. If the Nazis has said they would cease, the Allies might well have agreed, but nope. Goering never once indicated he was going to have a change of heart on the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe.

As I’ve said before, the reason we had WW II was because the Germans weren’t sure they lost WW I (“stab in the back” myth anyone?) The way WW II was fought was to make it abundantly clear even to the Germans they had lost. Now they are convinced and – surprise – are good little pacifists.

And as always, I might just be full of shit…

– jj

90

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Why would the Germans have to invade Britain at all? They could’ve crippled us if they deployed more U-Boats, and made more sensible attacks on our airfields. If they fitted their fighter escorts with drop tanks, they could’ve stayed in our airspace for more than 15mins. The list goes on.[/quote]

They didn’t even need to do that. For one thing, Hitler should have listened to Goering and unleashed the Luftwaffe on the retreating Brits after the disasterous Battle of Dunkirk. Basically, it was the death blow for Great Britain. They had to retreat on whatever could float because all their equipment was destroyed. 600,000 British soldiers were easy pickings for the Luftwaffe; they had no air cover, no sea cover, nothing at all. If Goering had his way, the Luftwaffe would have utterly decimated every British soldier. Hitler thought the conclusion of the battle was self-evident, and Britain would surrender.

Secondly, the Battle of Britain was technically a draw, but the advantage went to the Nazis. If they had kept up their air campaign, Britain would have eventually faltered. It was a case of simply numbers, for every airplane the Brits had, the Germans had 2. German pilots were better trained, better prepared and had access to more advanced technology. It was only Hitler’s insistence that Operation Barbarossa take place in June of '41 that saved Britain.

With respect to Barbarossa, Hitler overrode the OKC (German High Command) and demanded that the oil fields in the south and Stalingrad/Leningrad be taken as well as Moscow. This effectively split his army into three pieces instead of the concentrated push the OKC wanted to take towards Russia. The plan was to take Moscow, sever Soviet High Command into two pieces (East and West) and systematically conquer each army group. Instead, Hitler forced this decision and ended up with the disastrous Stalingrad and Leningrad battles. Even after all that, if Hitler allowed his army groups to retreat from those two Waterloos, he could have salvaged some sort of stalemate.

America drastically overplays how much we contributed to Germany’s defeat. The defeat was already written in stone long before D-Day happened. The Western Allies faced less than 25% of the Wehrmacht, less than 10% of the Waffen-SS and less than 10% of the Luftwaffe. They had less ground to cover than the Russians with respect to Berlin. Despite all that, the Russians still reached Berlin weeks before the best Allied estimates. All the Western Allies did was speed the war’s conclusion by a few weeks.

92

[quote]Fallen wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:

I would also point out that telling someone to “shut the fuck up”, especially someone who usually makes valid points in their posts, is not the best tact to use. I have seen a few of your posts before and you really have no business dictating who can speak and who can’t.[/quote]

True, but in this format its merely the flexing of my first amendment rights.

Back on subject please[/quote]

You know the first amendment doesn’t protect you from other people thinking that you sound like an idiot?

93

Fixed

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]0mar wrote:

…America drastically overplays how much we contributed to Germany’s defeat. The defeat was already written in stone long before D-Day happened. The Western Allies faced less than 25% of the Wehrmacht, less than 10% of the Waffen-SS and less than 10% of the Luftwaffe. They had less ground to cover than the Russians with respect to Berlin. Despite all that, the Russians still reached Berlin weeks before the best Allied estimates. All the Western Allies did was speed the war’s conclusion by a few weeks.[/quote]

The industrial (and military) might of the USSR defeated Germany, pure and simple.[/quote]

95

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]lou21 wrote:
Fixed

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]0mar wrote:

…America drastically overplays how much we contributed to Germany’s defeat. The defeat was already written in stone long before D-Day happened. The Western Allies faced less than 25% of the Wehrmacht, less than 10% of the Waffen-SS and less than 10% of the Luftwaffe. They had less ground to cover than the Russians with respect to Berlin. Despite all that, the Russians still reached Berlin weeks before the best Allied estimates. All the Western Allies did was speed the war’s conclusion by a few weeks.[/quote]

The industrial (and military) might of the USSR defeated Germany, pure and simple.[/quote]
[/quote]

The Soviet Army doesn’t even bother to get out of bed in the morning to head west to the Land of the Reich without the massive blood transfusion it gets from the American taxpayer in the early to mid 40s.[/quote]

And of course the 100000+ trucks or so the US delivered to them.

96

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sorry to be a downer, but it is enevitable that another World War will come about. This time the whole world will be involved, not just Europe, and Asia.[/quote]

This is interesting, where will the line of demarcation be drawn? I assume there will be poles towards which lesser entities will be drawn. Or will it be a dog-eat-dog war?[/quote]

I beleive in the Bible so if you read the Book of Revelation there is the war of Armaggedon so this is where I am pulling my information.

97

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Why would the Germans have to invade Britain at all? They could’ve crippled us if they deployed more U-Boats, and made more sensible attacks on our airfields. If they fitted their fighter escorts with drop tanks, they could’ve stayed in our airspace for more than 15mins. The list goes on.[/quote]

They didn’t even need to do that. For one thing, Hitler should have listened to Goering and unleashed the Luftwaffe on the retreating Brits after the disasterous Battle of Dunkirk. Basically, it was the death blow for Great Britain. They had to retreat on whatever could float because all their equipment was destroyed. 600,000 British soldiers were easy pickings for the Luftwaffe; they had no air cover, no sea cover, nothing at all. If Goering had his way, the Luftwaffe would have utterly decimated every British soldier. Hitler thought the conclusion of the battle was self-evident, and Britain would surrender.

Secondly, the Battle of Britain was technically a draw, but the advantage went to the Nazis. If they had kept up their air campaign, Britain would have eventually faltered. It was a case of simply numbers, for every airplane the Brits had, the Germans had 2. German pilots were better trained, better prepared and had access to more advanced technology. It was only Hitler’s insistence that Operation Barbarossa take place in June of '41 that saved Britain.

With respect to Barbarossa, Hitler overrode the OKC (German High Command) and demanded that the oil fields in the south and Stalingrad/Leningrad be taken as well as Moscow. This effectively split his army into three pieces instead of the concentrated push the OKC wanted to take towards Russia. The plan was to take Moscow, sever Soviet High Command into two pieces (East and West) and systematically conquer each army group. Instead, Hitler forced this decision and ended up with the disastrous Stalingrad and Leningrad battles. Even after all that, if Hitler allowed his army groups to retreat from those two Waterloos, he could have salvaged some sort of stalemate.

America drastically overplays how much we contributed to Germany’s defeat. The defeat was already written in stone long before D-Day happened. The Western Allies faced less than 25% of the Wehrmacht, less than 10% of the Waffen-SS and less than 10% of the Luftwaffe. They had less ground to cover than the Russians with respect to Berlin. Despite all that, the Russians still reached Berlin weeks before the best Allied estimates. All the Western Allies did was speed the war’s conclusion by a few weeks.[/quote]

Wow. Talk about revisionist history at its finest.

Well, even the French will admit what we did in that war was instrumental. It would not have been won without us.

And besides that, we secured the future of Europe by being in it- had the the US not gone in, but the USSR had beaten Germany, all the Europeans would have had another 50 years of Soviet dominated misery to add, just like the Poles and other Eastern European countries.

Our affect on history with that war, in fact, cannot be UNDER stated.

98

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]0mar wrote:

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Why would the Germans have to invade Britain at all? They could’ve crippled us if they deployed more U-Boats, and made more sensible attacks on our airfields. If they fitted their fighter escorts with drop tanks, they could’ve stayed in our airspace for more than 15mins. The list goes on.[/quote]

They didn’t even need to do that. For one thing, Hitler should have listened to Goering and unleashed the Luftwaffe on the retreating Brits after the disasterous Battle of Dunkirk. Basically, it was the death blow for Great Britain. They had to retreat on whatever could float because all their equipment was destroyed.

600,000 British soldiers were easy pickings for the Luftwaffe; they had no air cover, no sea cover, nothing at all. If Goering had his way, the Luftwaffe would have utterly decimated every British soldier. Hitler thought the conclusion of the battle was self-evident, and Britain would surrender.

Secondly, the Battle of Britain was technically a draw, but the advantage went to the Nazis. If they had kept up their air campaign, Britain would have eventually faltered.

It was a case of simply numbers, for every airplane the Brits had, the Germans had 2. German pilots were better trained, better prepared and had access to more advanced technology. It was only Hitler’s insistence that Operation Barbarossa take place in June of '41 that saved Britain.

With respect to Barbarossa, Hitler overrode the OKC (German High Command) and demanded that the oil fields in the south and Stalingrad/Leningrad be taken as well as Moscow. This effectively split his army into three pieces instead of the concentrated push the OKC wanted to take towards Russia.

The plan was to take Moscow, sever Soviet High Command into two pieces (East and West) and systematically conquer each army group. Instead, Hitler forced this decision and ended up with the disastrous Stalingrad and Leningrad battles. Even after all that, if Hitler allowed his army groups to retreat from those two Waterloos, he could have salvaged some sort of stalemate.

America drastically overplays how much we contributed to Germany’s defeat. The defeat was already written in stone long before D-Day happened. The Western Allies faced less than 25% of the Wehrmacht, less than 10% of the Waffen-SS and less than 10% of the Luftwaffe.

They had less ground to cover than the Russians with respect to Berlin. Despite all that, the Russians still reached Berlin weeks before the best Allied estimates. All the Western Allies did was speed the war’s conclusion by a few weeks.[/quote]

Wow. Talk about revisionist history at its finest.

Well, even the French will admit what we did in that war was instrumental. It would not have been won without us.

And besides that, we secured the future of Europe by being in it- had the the US not gone in, but the USSR had beaten Germany, all the Europeans would have had another 50 years of Soviet dominated misery to add, just like the Poles and other Eastern European countries.

Our affect on history with that war, in fact, cannot be UNDER stated.[/quote]

The Pacific Front was nearly 100% America, yes, but the European front was 95% Russia.

France is thankful because, as you said, they weren’t washed away by the Soviet tide.

99

[quote]0mar wrote:

The Pacific Front was nearly 100% America, yes, but the European front was 95% Russia.

France is thankful because, as you said, they weren’t washed away by the Soviet tide.
[/quote]

It was not. There were two theaters of war opened up by American troops, and without those, Germany would have been able to concentrate all of their might on the Russians.

To say otherwise is foolish and ignoring history.

100

Canada was a formidable presence in that war, once upon a time.