kallend 2,150 #26 December 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou are correct, US pilots in the Battle of Britain comprised 0.25% of the total. No US radars, and no US fighter planes were involved. Where did Britain get the fuel for all of their aircraft? I'm sure there are plenty of Merchant Marines who transported untold tons of materiel who may also disagree with your perception. So you're really saying that arms suppliers should get the credit for winning wars? OK, I guess the Brits should get all the credit for D-Day and Normandy, since it was their island that launched the invasion and provided supply ports and the airfields for the USAAF 8th Air Force. None of which alters the FACT that it was the USSR that destroyed the Wermacht, with some help from friends.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #27 December 17, 2006 Well the world has already forgotten the price paid by the Serbs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 December 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteOur entire place in the world would be so dramatically reduced - we might never have able to stop Hitler. Or Stalin. Ummmm - it was the English Channel and Stalin's USSR that stopped Hitler. By 7th December 1941 Hitler's Germany had already failed in its invasion attempt on Britain, and was in process of failing in its attempt to take Moscow. The Eastern Front is what destroyed the Wehrmacht. One of several important factors in the Brits' victory in the aerial Battle of Britain was Hitler's (or was it Goering's?) decision to switch from concentrating the Luftwaffe's attacks on the Brit fighter wings, to striking cities and other "strategic" targets, giving the fighter wings a chance to regroup at a time when they were just shy of the human and logistical breaking point of exhaustion. Basic invasion strategy is to take out the enemy's eyes, ears and defenses first, before going full bore for the enemy's heart. The Brit fighers were Britain's aerial sentry defenses. Hitler should have (and possibly could have) kept targeting the fighter wings until they were effectively decimated by attrition. But instead, he thought, wrongly, that his bomber wings, escorted by his fighters, could just punch through the Brit fighters in an aerial form of the blitzkreig tactics that worked for him so well against Poland, France and Belgium. But the premature shift to bomber attacks against strategic targets allowed the fighters to survive, and strengthen, to the point where they were able to turn the battle. (In today's military technology, it might be the equivalent of failing to take out the enemy's anti-aircraft missiles and targeting radar.) It was one of several key blunders Hitler made in the war. The Eastern and Western/Southern fronts destroyed the German war machine together. Each front bled the enemy to the strategic benefit of the other; and the American and British heavy bombing campaign, especially once it reached into the heart of Germany proper, most certainly aided the Eastern front on a strategic level. Quote7th December 1941 December 7th, 1941 Fixed it for you. Tawk American. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #29 December 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOur entire place in the world would be so dramatically reduced - we might never have able to stop Hitler. Or Stalin. Ummmm - it was the English Channel and Stalin's USSR that stopped Hitler. By 7th December 1941 Hitler's Germany had already failed in its invasion attempt on Britain, and was in process of failing in its attempt to take Moscow. The Eastern Front is what destroyed the Wehrmacht. One of several important factors in the Brits' victory in the aerial Battle of Britain was Hitler's (or was it Goering's?) decision to switch from concentrating the Luftwaffe's attacks on the Brit fighter wings, to striking cities and other "strategic" targets, giving the fighter wings a chance to regroup at a time when they were just shy of the human and logistical breaking point of exhaustion. Basic invasion strategy is to take out the enemy's eyes, ears and defenses first, before going full bore for the enemy's heart. The Brit fighers were Britain's aerial sentry defenses. Hitler should have (and possibly could have) kept targeting the fighter wings until they were effectively decimated by attrition. But instead, he thought, wrongly, that his bomber wings, escorted by his fighters, could just punch through the Brit fighters in an aerial form of the blitzkreig tactics that worked for him so well against Poland, France and Belgium. But the premature shift to bomber attacks against strategic targets allowed the fighters to survive, and strengthen, to the point where they were able to turn the battle. (In today's military technology, it might be the equivalent of failing to take out the enemy's anti-aircraft missiles and targeting radar.) It was one of several key blunders Hitler made in the war. The Eastern and Western/Southern fronts destroyed the German war machine together. Each front bled the enemy to the strategic benefit of the other; and the American and British heavy bombing campaign, especially once it reached into the heart of Germany proper, most certainly aided the Eastern front on a strategic level. Quote7th December 1941 December 7th, 1941 Fixed it for you. Tawk American. There's a date which will live in infamy!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #30 December 17, 2006 I'm saying that the RAF soundly stopped the third reich in its tracks, and that the fuel and materiel that made that possible came from across the pond. The USSR launched its counter offensive against Germany on December 6, 1941. Germany did not get stalled until well into 1942 and the Soviets did not begin to retake their lost ground until 1943.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #31 December 17, 2006 QuoteWell the world has already forgotten the price paid by the Serbs. And the 67 million total dead from WWII, 10 million from WWI, Vietnam, Korea, et al...everyone has too short a memory.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #32 December 17, 2006 exactly and you can read what it was like for the germans in that timeframe in Guy Sajer's Book "The Forgotten Soldier" It was actually a great but disturbing and sad book. It goes to show us all that nobody likes war, no matter how good you are at it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #33 December 17, 2006 >It goes to show us all that nobody likes war . . . Well, clearly some people do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #34 December 17, 2006 I know people that love being a Soldier or Sailor tec. and have fought very well in combat, but don't just plain old enjoy killing. They would be far happier being otherwise occupied. That does not mean they will not do what needs to be done, that IS their JOB. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #35 December 17, 2006 QuoteI'm saying that the RAF soundly stopped the third reich in its tracks, and that the fuel and materiel that made that possible came from across the pond And we payed for it through the nose all the while 'exchanging' for free vital technological brakthroughs that were essential for US military development. Make no mistake that it was a buyer seller relationship.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #36 December 17, 2006 Why do you care about when and where on the east front the Germans died? Are you disagreeing with me about Soviet sacrifice being the biggest on the allied side of the war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #37 December 18, 2006 QuoteWhy do you care about when and where on the east front the Germans died? That does not make alot of sense. Alot of WWII vets gave a shit, but they had no choice, kill or be killed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #38 December 18, 2006 QuoteI'm saying that the RAF soundly stopped the third reich in its tracks, and that the fuel and materiel that made that possible came from across the pond. The USSR launched its counter offensive against Germany on December 6, 1941. Germany did not get stalled until well into 1942 and the Soviets did not begin to retake their lost ground until 1943. Next time I'm on a successful big way, I'll be sure to thank Exxon-Mobil for selling us the fuel in addition to thanking the pilots, plane captains, manifest, and jumpers. The Nazis were STOPPED (the original poster, to whom I responded, used the verb "stop") in September 1940 at the English Channel, in December 1941 at the gates of Moscow and St. Petersburg, in July 1942 in their drive to the Suez Canal at El Alamein, and in Sept 1942 at the Volga (Stalingrad). Supplies of aviation fuel to the RAF from the US were initially ILLEGAL due to the Neutrality Act. Most of the aviation fuel for the B of B came from (Dutch) Shell's East Indies plants (Borneo in particular). US Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy urged Roosevelt over and over to deny aid to Britain, told Roosevelt over and over that Britain would lose, was anti-Churchill and pro-Chamberlain, and finally resigned in disgust in Nov. 1940 when it was clear that the invasion was canceled and that lend-lease would be approved. The US Embassy was the very first one to abandon London during the B of B. The Lend-Lease Act was not passed until months later, in March 1941.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #39 December 18, 2006 QuoteJoseph P. Kennedy urged Roosevelt over and over to deny aid to Britain, told Roosevelt over and over that Britain would lose, was anti-Churchill and pro-Chamberlain, Pro-Chamberlain? Pro-Hitler! Bastard sent letters to Hitler congratulating him on his solution to the Jewish problem.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
martin-o 0 #40 December 18, 2006 Ok. I will try to be as clear as I could possibly be: I am sure that the Soviet efforts during WWII were greater than any other country. When and where their losses and victories happened doesn’t change this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #41 December 18, 2006 QuoteQuoteJoseph P. Kennedy urged Roosevelt over and over to deny aid to Britain, told Roosevelt over and over that Britain would lose, was anti-Churchill and pro-Chamberlain, Pro-Chamberlain? Pro-Hitler! Bastard sent letters to Hitler congratulating him on his solution to the Jewish problem. Indeed. "Hitler's dislike of the Jews was well-founded... In every revolution, you have to expect some bloodshed. Hitler is building a spirit in his men that could be envied in this country", Joe Kennedy Jr, in a letter to his father, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy to which the Ambassador replied: "I was very pleased and gratified at your observations of the German situation, and I think your conclusions are very sound". What a great help the US Ambassador to Britain was in 1940.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #42 December 18, 2006 QuoteOk. I will try to be as clear as I could possibly be: I am sure that the Soviet efforts during WWII were greater than any other country. When and where their losses and victories happened doesn’t change this. I am not sure of that due to the fact they did not have to half way around the world in order to fight. I am in complete agreement that there efforts were at least equal to other nations contribution in the war. I know for a fact the Soviets had far more losses, this in part was initially due to outdated tactics, and weaponry. (Horses vs Tanks) (Airpower) initially (Field Commanders) The Soviets were far numerically superior, but were hindered by their own military leaders and Stalin himself. There were great leaders in the patriotic war but those were field officers like Marshall Zukhov. The Germans were hindered by none other than Adolf himself, without his meddling the Germans would have probably won in the east. (by not fighting on two fronts in that scale) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #43 December 18, 2006 QuoteQuote The Germans were hindered by none other than Adolf himself, without his meddling the Germans would have probably won in the east. (by not fighting on two fronts in that scale) Well, the team that makes the fewest mistakes often wins. Hitler made bigger and more disastrous mistakes than the other leaders, like bombing London instead of the fighter airfields, devoting absurd amounts of resources to the V weapons and "the Final Solution" to the detriment of more useful armaments, invading Russia while Britain was still undefeated, pissing away his armies in the east, refusing to allow Rommel to deploy his divisions as he wished on 6/6/44, insisting that the Me262 was a bomber... Gee- one could write a book... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #44 December 18, 2006 Quote I am not sure of that due to the fact they did not have to half way around the world in order to fight. I am in complete agreement that there efforts were at least equal to other nations contribution in the war. I know for a fact the Soviets had far more losses, this in part was initially due to outdated tactics, and weaponry. (Horses vs Tanks) (Airpower) initially (Field Commanders) The Soviets were far numerically superior, but were hindered by their own military leaders and Stalin himself. There were great leaders in the patriotic war but those were field officers like Marshall Zukhov. The Germans were hindered by none other than Adolf himself, without his meddling the Germans would have probably won in the east. (by not fighting on two fronts in that scale) First off, Hitlers vision, Hitlers obsession was destroying Russia. the war in Western Europe was almost a momentary diversion to enable him to focus all his forces in the East (witness his rapid abandonment of Operation Sea Lion when the BoB did not go to plan) - if England had signed a peace treaty as he expected it would have been a total success and the US would not have become involved in Europe. 2nd, every nation in Europe was using outdated weaponry and tactics against the Germans in the first world war. They had built up their forces and planned for war - we had not. Even those countries that had up to date tanks and aircraft had far too few of them to hold off the Nazis. Hell, in the mediterranean Britain was having to commit biplane fighters against Me109s!! The same was true for Russia but they, like us, responded. They fought the best they could with outdated equipment whilst continually developing new technology. By the time they went on the offensive they had tanks and fighter bombers that were far superior to the previously invincible German tech. The Russians lost more men than any other nation put together - in the initial stages of the war that was the only way they could fight the germans, sheer manpower, they were fighting in the streets, city by city. They had to, they weren't just fighting for freedom but for survival. In the end what Russia and the UK had in common was a 'buffer zone'. For us it was the channel, for them it was winter. Hitler fucked up initially by optimistically invading with winter round the corner (and with increasingly bizzare decisions towards the end of the war) but without superhuman resistance by the Russians he may well have succeeded. An interesting question is whether Russia would have been defeated by the loss of Moscow, or if they could have continued pulling their manufacturing and command centres further and further back into the interior until the Germans over stretched themselves. The question also stands with the hypothetical if Hitler had waited for a spring invasion. In short, the Russian input to victory in WW2 simply cannot be overstated.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites CanuckInUSA 0 #45 December 18, 2006 QuoteFirst off, Hitlers vision, Hitlers obsession was destroying Russia. the war in Western Europe was almost a momentary diversion to enable him to focus all his forces in the East Yes it is true that Hilter was obsessed with destroying the Russians more so than the West. In fact I've read in the past that Hilter actually viewed England as potential allies (what with them being almost Arian and all). But I have one question. What does this have to do with who was the best US president? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #46 December 18, 2006 Just wondering.... cuz of the MAJOR thread drift.... "Who was the best US president?" How many posts now on Hitler? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #47 December 18, 2006 QuoteYes it is true that Hilter was obsessed with destroying the Russians more so than the West. In fact I've read in the past that Hilter actually viewed England as potential allies (what with them being almost Arian and all). But I have one question. What does this have to do with who was the best US president? [Sly] Ummmm, ask Gawain and Kallend? I just saw a fight and thought I'd wade right into the middle of it! Apologies for the derailment, back on track my vote goes for Hoover, Johnson, Nixon or Bush II, I just can't quite make my mind up.....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #48 December 18, 2006 QuoteAs for GWB being evil You watch too much CNN, NBC, CBS go to Moveon.org and the underground democrates sites way too much. Any, what actions prove him to evil in your mind? I prefer that GOD will judge him.. Seems there are three of the good Lords commandments that he has broken.. but perhaps the Hague for a war that was unneccessary...based on lies...executed with imcompetence by GWB and his henchmen. In Trumans day.. the BUCK stopped at his desk.... in GWB and Reagans days... That is where the buck starts getting passed from... the Oval Office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #49 December 18, 2006 Quoteperhaps the Haig for a war that was unneccessary Now that's irony! . (Get it? You know, Al Haig.......never mind.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #50 December 18, 2006 oops Hey I am tired.. the power has been out since during the last Seahawks game.... and I am runing on a wireless plugged into a genset... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 2 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
jakee 1,596 #44 December 18, 2006 Quote I am not sure of that due to the fact they did not have to half way around the world in order to fight. I am in complete agreement that there efforts were at least equal to other nations contribution in the war. I know for a fact the Soviets had far more losses, this in part was initially due to outdated tactics, and weaponry. (Horses vs Tanks) (Airpower) initially (Field Commanders) The Soviets were far numerically superior, but were hindered by their own military leaders and Stalin himself. There were great leaders in the patriotic war but those were field officers like Marshall Zukhov. The Germans were hindered by none other than Adolf himself, without his meddling the Germans would have probably won in the east. (by not fighting on two fronts in that scale) First off, Hitlers vision, Hitlers obsession was destroying Russia. the war in Western Europe was almost a momentary diversion to enable him to focus all his forces in the East (witness his rapid abandonment of Operation Sea Lion when the BoB did not go to plan) - if England had signed a peace treaty as he expected it would have been a total success and the US would not have become involved in Europe. 2nd, every nation in Europe was using outdated weaponry and tactics against the Germans in the first world war. They had built up their forces and planned for war - we had not. Even those countries that had up to date tanks and aircraft had far too few of them to hold off the Nazis. Hell, in the mediterranean Britain was having to commit biplane fighters against Me109s!! The same was true for Russia but they, like us, responded. They fought the best they could with outdated equipment whilst continually developing new technology. By the time they went on the offensive they had tanks and fighter bombers that were far superior to the previously invincible German tech. The Russians lost more men than any other nation put together - in the initial stages of the war that was the only way they could fight the germans, sheer manpower, they were fighting in the streets, city by city. They had to, they weren't just fighting for freedom but for survival. In the end what Russia and the UK had in common was a 'buffer zone'. For us it was the channel, for them it was winter. Hitler fucked up initially by optimistically invading with winter round the corner (and with increasingly bizzare decisions towards the end of the war) but without superhuman resistance by the Russians he may well have succeeded. An interesting question is whether Russia would have been defeated by the loss of Moscow, or if they could have continued pulling their manufacturing and command centres further and further back into the interior until the Germans over stretched themselves. The question also stands with the hypothetical if Hitler had waited for a spring invasion. In short, the Russian input to victory in WW2 simply cannot be overstated.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #45 December 18, 2006 QuoteFirst off, Hitlers vision, Hitlers obsession was destroying Russia. the war in Western Europe was almost a momentary diversion to enable him to focus all his forces in the East Yes it is true that Hilter was obsessed with destroying the Russians more so than the West. In fact I've read in the past that Hilter actually viewed England as potential allies (what with them being almost Arian and all). But I have one question. What does this have to do with who was the best US president? Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #46 December 18, 2006 Just wondering.... cuz of the MAJOR thread drift.... "Who was the best US president?" How many posts now on Hitler? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #47 December 18, 2006 QuoteYes it is true that Hilter was obsessed with destroying the Russians more so than the West. In fact I've read in the past that Hilter actually viewed England as potential allies (what with them being almost Arian and all). But I have one question. What does this have to do with who was the best US president? [Sly] Ummmm, ask Gawain and Kallend? I just saw a fight and thought I'd wade right into the middle of it! Apologies for the derailment, back on track my vote goes for Hoover, Johnson, Nixon or Bush II, I just can't quite make my mind up.....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #48 December 18, 2006 QuoteAs for GWB being evil You watch too much CNN, NBC, CBS go to Moveon.org and the underground democrates sites way too much. Any, what actions prove him to evil in your mind? I prefer that GOD will judge him.. Seems there are three of the good Lords commandments that he has broken.. but perhaps the Hague for a war that was unneccessary...based on lies...executed with imcompetence by GWB and his henchmen. In Trumans day.. the BUCK stopped at his desk.... in GWB and Reagans days... That is where the buck starts getting passed from... the Oval Office. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #49 December 18, 2006 Quoteperhaps the Haig for a war that was unneccessary Now that's irony! . (Get it? You know, Al Haig.......never mind.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #50 December 18, 2006 oops Hey I am tired.. the power has been out since during the last Seahawks game.... and I am runing on a wireless plugged into a genset... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
