No end in sight

You can talk about anything here

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
danno527
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Ontario

Re: No end in sight

Post by danno527 »

@ indy

I guess i was wrong but i am prety damn sure we had more than 7 corvettes, mabye some of "our" ships were sold and/or flagged as british or american. I know we sold a half a dozen destroyers to the americans during the war.
Blackadderthe4th
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Coventry, UK

Re: No end in sight

Post by Blackadderthe4th »

[quote=""Soccerman771""][quote=""Blackadderthe4th""][quote=""Soccerman771""][quote=""Blackadderthe4th""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]Ooof! Another double post, but again, this thread is getting far too interesting, even for me ;)



Russia did most of the grunt work in WWII; without the Russian contribution, America would not have had a place to put all its tanks and planes on European soil. Most German casualties in WWII occurred in the East. The Western Front was always secondary to the monumental struggle in Russia. Just look at the numbers: The Russians lost 25 million people (roughly 15 million civilian). The Germans lost about 4 million.
(mostly military). The Americans basically stepped in and finished the work the Russians began., and the British/Canadians/French tagged along for the ride... and some territory in West Germany after the war, not to mention seats on the Nuremberg tribunal from which they could pour righteous accusations on hated Nazi thugs, then hang 'em high.

[/quote]

This may be going back a bit but I can't let you get away with this. Without the Russians there still would have been European ground to step foot on - Britain. This was proved when air superiority over our skies in the Battle of Britain was secured. It was a close run thing but we made it once the Germans switched to bombing cities giving the RAF respite. We already had naval superiority and with air superiority we had secured Britain from invasion. History has shown that land might means nothing when trying to invade Britain. Just look at the Spanish Armada or Trafalgar denying Napoleon his chance to invade.
Germany wasn't on the edge of victory then got bored and started its offensive against Russia. They were losing the Battle for Britain and it was becoming apparent that invasion of Britain wasn't feasible. Hitler abandoned his plans for operation Sea Lion in October 1940. Even if the attention wasn't turned towards the Russians and he focused on invading Britain. It just wasn't feasible. How long did D-day take to plan and carry out? Years? Its the same thing, imagine D-day in reverse but without Naval or Air superiority. Britain was safe. It may not have prospered or won the war but safe from invasion it certainly was.

Also Britain had more casualties then America including 67,000 civilian deaths(as it happens an unexploded German bomb was found in my university campus yesterday) so I think saying we 'tagged along for the ride' is not fair.

Apologies for the long post and back tracking but I just had to post this.[/quote]

You do know that the thing you have written that I bolded was actually accomplished by the Celts about 1000 years before D-Day - right?[/quote]

Celts no. Normans yes. And they did it without big steel warships too, though to be fair they weren't being dive bombed at the time either...[/quote]

My source: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Who-We ... 083/?itm=8

What is yours?

^^ very good quick read by the way...[/quote]

For the Battle of Britain stuff just type Battle of Britain in the internet and you will find loads can't really give you anything specific because it all comes from multiple sources over many years (which I did re-check before posting) but be assured the facts are the RAF denied the Luftwaffe air superiority over Britain and Hitler abandoned all plans for invasion of Britain because of this. One great source for all WWII stuff is 'The World at War' narrated by Laurence Olivier, I really like this because they interview high ranking politicians and generals of the time as well as a comprehensive view of all theaters of war supported by real footage of the war.

I know little about the celts which is why i said I didn't know of any celtic invasions from France across the channel 1000 years ago except the Norman Invasion in 1066, which is Norman not Celtic, though granted there might be little difference between the two cultures at the time. As far as I know there was no successful Celtic Invasion of Saxon England. Besides it would have been no-where near the scale of D-day...
User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: No end in sight

Post by IndyBrit »

@Danno:
That's quite possible. Also, if they had any ships just under 1,000 tons they wouldn't have been listed regardless of how numerous. That data would be skewed to pick up the type of mainline ships built by the more classical naval powers. Of course, the data could also be wrong, but probably not by much.

I had illusions shattered by the cold hard facts as well. :D It often happens, as I stated originally, well known mantras and inside "facts" are often just not right, even if they may have a kernel of truth.

----
Did someone say we went off-topic? The heck, you say. Beer, beer, beer...
User avatar
Kaiser_von_Nuben
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: New York, NY USA

Re: No end in sight

Post by Kaiser_von_Nuben »

I didn't mean to denigrate the Brits by saying they "tagged along for the ride" to victory in WW2. They undoubtedly played a material role in the fight. I used that phrase, as I often do, for rhetorical flourish. My point was to emphasize the massive losses that Russia suffered compared to all the other Allied combatants. Although Britain did not suffer such heavy losses, its military role was extremely significant. It held off the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, it tied up valuable German forces in North Africa for years, it successfully maintained the Atlantic supply routes and it served as the base for both the strategic bombing campaign and D-Day.

Chris is right that Hitler called off Sea Lion in October 1940. But I believe Germany could have finished off England later if Hitler did not foolishly invade the USSR. If Germany's full military production could have been focused on England--prior to America's entry into the war--I don't see how the Brits could have survived. But thank God Hitler was a bad general (after all, he was just a corporal who thought destiny chose him to do things). Without Hitler, there would never have been a war. And if Hitler simply allowed his Prussian general staff to handle the military stuff, I don't think the Germans would have lost. On the other hand, if Hitler had given his generals too much discretion, they probably would have killed him before 1939. He was not popular among the aristocratic core of the German army. The Army only respected him after his popular support skyrocketed after the Fall of France ("Who doesn't love a winner?"). Without that popular support, I think the aristocrats--led by the army officers--would have killed Hitler and wiped out the Nazi party along with its SS sycophants.

Nazism embodies so many "un-German" ideas. I really don't like it when people simplistically assume that all Germans are Nazis or support ignorant, bigoted Nazi ideals. This often happens in the U.S. press and media (ie, How many Hollywood movies only mention Germans in connection with war atrocities, death camps, etc...?). It was a stunning political--and dare I say, lucky--political feat for Hitler to cultivate absolute control in a country that for centuries represented religious freedom and liberal, cultural and intellectual progressivism in Europe (Luther, Beethoven, Bach, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Planck, Schopenhauer, Berg, Nietzsche... the list goes on). I guess once enough people are desperate enough (ie, a depression and resentment over a bad peace treaty), they will give in to anyone. And if that "someone" is unscrupulous enough, he can be a ruthless dictator who almost destroys the world.
"The German Army will not stand for it!"

-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Blackadderthe4th
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:01 am
Location: Coventry, UK

Re: No end in sight

Post by Blackadderthe4th »

[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
Chris is right that Hitler called off Sea Lion in October 1940. But I believe Germany could have finished off England later if Hitler did not foolishly invade the USSR. If Germany's full military production could have been focused on England--prior to America's entry into the war--I don't see how the Brits could have survived. But thank God Hitler was a bad general (after all, he was just a corporal who thought destiny chose him to do things). Without Hitler, there would never have been a war. And if Hitler simply allowed his Prussian general staff to handle the military stuff, I don't think the Germans would have lost. On the other hand, if Hitler had given his generals too much discretion, they probably would have killed him before 1939. He was not popular among the aristocratic core of the German army. The Army only respected him after his popular support skyrocketed after the Fall of France ("Who doesn't love a winner?"). Without that popular support, I think the aristocrats--led by the army officers--would have killed Hitler and wiped out the Nazi party along with its SS sycophants.

[/quote]

The only point in which the invasion of Britain was feasible was after the retreat from Dunkirk. After that and during the Battle of Britain we re-organized our defenses and upped war production to the point where we weren't far behind Germany and miles ahead in Naval power. I don't see how Germany could ever have closed the gap in Naval power to make a landing possible. It wasn't just Britain fighting on our side either but our commonwealth too and combined I am sure we could have fortified our island in the years it would take Germany to produce the necessary air and Naval forces to make a landing possible. If Hitler focused on invading Britain I'm sure we would have focused on defending our Island instead of fighting in Africa and Asia. German war production was greater but in order to take and hold a beach head you need a significantly greater force which Germany may have had but these forces would never have made it across the channel. Operation Sea-Lion wasn't abandoned because Hitler wanted to invade Russia but because invasion of Britain wasn't possible or if it was it simply wasn't worth it where as Russia was more tempting for whatever personal/strategic reasons.

Interesting bit of info hereon war production not sure how reliable it is but it does show German weakness in Naval power particularly air-craft carriers which the Germans had none.
User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: No end in sight

Post by IndyBrit »

Interesting numbers there Chris. In case anyone doubts whether the USA played a decisive role, note that from 1940 forward the USA was producing almost 70% of the total Allied war goods, and by the end of the war the USA was producing more war goods than all other countries combined.
wicked_assassin
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:27 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: No end in sight

Post by wicked_assassin »

being patriotic is equal to being blind ;)
Image
User avatar
Kaiser_von_Nuben
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: New York, NY USA

Re: No end in sight

Post by Kaiser_von_Nuben »

In the 1930s, the German navy started a massive re-armament program. They said they would be ready to fight by 1946. Several large aircraft carriers were planned. Needless to say, Hitler "sped things up a bit." German admirals were horrified that they had to go to war with the tiny fleet available in 1939. The fact that they caused so much damage with U-boats alone is quite impressive considering Britain's naval might.
"The German Army will not stand for it!"

-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
User avatar
danno527
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:25 am
Location: Ontario

Re: No end in sight

Post by danno527 »

[quote=""IndyBrit""]@Danno:
That's quite possible. Also, if they had any ships just under 1,000 tons they wouldn't have been listed regardless of how numerous. That data would be skewed to pick up the type of mainline ships built by the more classical naval powers. Of course, the data could also be wrong, but probably not by much.

I had illusions shattered by the cold hard facts as well. :D It often happens, as I stated originally, well known mantras and inside "facts" are often just not right, even if they may have a kernel of truth.

----
Did someone say we went off-topic? The heck, you say. Beer, beer, beer...[/quote]

Damn that is why, Canadian Corvettes were 925 tonnes. I just googled it and we had 83 of them under our flag as well as several transfered to Britain and the US.

Ive also had many illusions shattered by facts. Generaly they are me trying to do something stupid on a snowboard/wakeboard/mountainbike and the facts are laws of physics. ;)
User avatar
IndyBrit
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 1318
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 1:53 am
Location: Indianapolis

Re: No end in sight

Post by IndyBrit »

"Ive also had many illusions shattered by facts. Generaly they are me trying to do something stupid on a snowboard/wakeboard/mountainbike and the facts are laws of physics."

+1
:D
User avatar
Macabee
N3O Member
N3O Member
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:41 pm

Re: No end in sight

Post by Macabee »

[quote=""IndyBrit""]I'm not sure which position of yours I'm debating anymore, but mine is pretty clearly stated in the previous paragraph.[/quote]

Really? I think what I've said is consistent. I'm hoping it's just because I don't fit well in convenient box, I think you might call them templates.

The first box appears to be the Bush is Great box. This box includes all the well informed people who had full access to all supporting data and made wise-thoughtful decisions and weighed all the data available and also just happen to have a good template as well as a good world view.

The other box is filled with those Bush detractors with the broken template and the defective world view. These people are not only not nice to Bush, they can't focus on real issues and only have problems with his policy choices because they have a personal dislike of him.

If only those meanies could dissent without pointing out anything a Bush apologist might find uncomfortable! Bush and his peeps would never question anyone's patriotism, accuse them of not supporting the troops, or accuse them of being in league with the terrorists, or compare them to Nazi appeasers or anything else like that. Maybe that nice purveyor of child-bestiality-porn, Skooter Libby wouldn't have gone after some guy's wife after he debunked the story about the forged report about yellow cake from Niger that was ignored by the Bush admin.

I've never been one that cared to fit in a box, but I'm not inconsistent.

Mac
Image
User avatar
GreenDude
Captain
Captain
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 6:17 am
Location: Concord, CA
Contact:

Re: No end in sight

Post by GreenDude »

Man shoot, this is one long debate that I am still trying to read it all
BTW: Seems like there is no end is sight of this post
Image
Image
User avatar
jonesk
Private
Private
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:07 am
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand

Re: No end in sight

Post by jonesk »

[quote=""GreenDude""]Man shoot, this is one long debate that I am still trying to read it all
BTW: Seems like there is no end is sight of this post[/quote]

You obviously haven't been reading it properly - there have been at least four debates :-P
emperoral
N3O Officer
N3O Officer
Posts: 569
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:36 pm
Location: Lincoln, Uk

Re: No end in sight

Post by emperoral »

What makes me laugh sure I read it somewhere but no doubt if wrong one of you guys will correct me but the States army was so small when WII started that I think it rank 53rd in the world ie Holland had a bigger army than them.
User avatar
Kaiser_von_Nuben
Honorary Member
Honorary Member
Posts: 2186
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
Location: New York, NY USA

Re: No end in sight

Post by Kaiser_von_Nuben »

@ Al : Yes, in 1941 the U.S. military was woefully underequipped. The Depression wrought havoc on the economy and military spending plunged throughout the 1930s. It was so bad that American troops did not even have guns to train with in 1940-1941; they used cardboard cutouts and sticks. That all changed after Pearl Harbor, of course.

@ Mac : Yes, Bush is a divisive figure. I like your "check this box" approach to answering questions about him. You can't really be moderate when you talk about Bush because he did not see complex world issues in a subtle way; he had unimpeachable moral certitude and he knew black from white. In fact, if you say something is white and he says it's black, there's no sense debating or interpreting it; you had better just prepare for war.

Finally, I like your stab at Republican moral failings. After all, we can all expect liberal-communist-flower-power-tree-hugger-insurgent-loving-Kumbaya-singing Democrats to engage in unspeakable sexual practices, because they are leftists with no morality whatsoever. But it is oh-so-satisfying to see toe-the-line Christian moralists get caught engaging in the same unspeakable sexual practices. In other words, Clinton did what he did because (according to the Republican assumption) that's how Democrats act (ie, they are godless, deviant Communists who want to abolish private property and steal money for poor black mothers). But when a Republican rep patronizes a D.C. madam and requests some kinky stuff, that contradicts everything the Republicans stand for: decency, normalcy, regularity.

Hypocrisy is so much fun to behold!

And this thread is so much fun to behold, too! :roll:
"The German Army will not stand for it!"

-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Post Reply