WWII discussion thread

[DeletedUser]

The war would have happened still. The Treaty of Versailles put Germany under terrible military and economic conditions. For Germany to survive, they needed to do something. I do believe they were drastic in their options and there were much better ways of solving the problem but its true that when the world is your stage, violence and death are the quickest route to showing people you mean business.

Oh no doubt. I guess i was more focusing on how the British and French used appeasement to try and contain Hitler, and i was wondering if u think that might have changed with the US, or would the war have ended sooner or later, or would the outcome change.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh no doubt. I guess i was more focusing on how the British and French used appeasement to try and contain Hitler, and i was wondering if u think that might have changed with the US, or would the war have ended sooner or later, or would the outcome change.

I don't know about individual battles and fronts to make a good judgement on that. All i can do is take a guess from what i know. I feel US had an important role in positioning. With USA having oceans on both sides, it gave them the seclusion needed to not worry to much about a battle on their lands and worry more about mass producing weapons and military strength.

They had the ability to support allies to the east on the European front and at the same time attack Japan on the west front and cut off supply lines. I feel if USA was located in Europe then Japan would never have been taken out of the war that quickly and the battle may have lasted much much longer. The ending may not have even been the same.


Again, thats just my thoughts. I never took any WWII classes or anything, just my basic knowledge from high school. (at least what i remember of it)

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't know about individual battles and fronts to make a good judgement on that. All i can do is take a guess from what i know. I feel US had an important role in positioning. With USA having oceans on both sides, it gave them the seclusion needed to not worry to much about a battle on their lands and worry more about mass producing weapons and military strength.

They had the ability to support allies to the east on the European front and at the same time attack Japan on the west front and cut off supply lines. I feel if USA was located in Europe then Japan would never have been taken out of the war that quickly and the battle may have lasted much much longer. The ending may not have even been the same.


Again, thats just my thoughts. I never took any WWII classes or anything, just my basic knowledge from high school. (at least what i remember of it)

Ive always said the part about the USA being isolated, not worrying about home land battles could be argued help win the war, so i agree with you there.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ive always said the part about the USA being isolated, not worrying about home land battles could be argued help win the war, so i agree with you there.

Even if you think about it in a TW sense. You will be much more willing to send support if you are in K54 and the battle is happening in K55. You'll gladly support the front lines with most of your troops. As soon as that war starts getting close to you though, you're support will become stingier and you'll be less willing to give up large portions as the threat level to your "country" increases.

 

[DeletedUser]

Funnily enough, the healthcare in cuba is better than that of florida.

Be that as it may, that still doesn't mean Cubans enjoy a better quality of life than people in Florida. :icon_wink:


@ thronx + warriormonkey:

Had the US been in Europe, we would have been of far less use, and not just because we would have been focussing on defending ourselves. We would not have had the same industrial capacity and resource base to produce the weapons we did in the quanities we did. That was our single greates contribution to the war, IMO.

As for us being isolated and not haveing to worry about an attack on our shores, that was only true from one direction. There was no real threat of Germany or Italy crossing the Atlantic to invade us, I will give you that, but the West Coast was far more susceptible to an invasion from the Japanese than you might think. Don't forget that Germany and Italy didn't have the same amphibious forces necessary for sucah an invasion that Japan had. Japan had it, and used it to conquer the South Pacific and they would have eventually hit the shores of our mainland had we not turned the Pacific War around at the battle of Midway.

They did actually invade Alaska, and were the only country to actually invade us since the British in the war of 1812.

So, maybe the threat wasn't as likely, especially with hindsight to judge the events, but at the time I'm sure we didn't feel that we were far removed from the action.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

To get it back on topic.......

I agree. Communism, with the right people, could be a good system. However, and thankfully, we had the privelage of having evil Stalin and Lenin leading the first wave of cumminists, and we learned right away, this is not a good idea.

I would like to through this little question out here, as i have had mixed feelings when i think about this answer, and i get mixed reviews from others...

-Would the war have changed in anyway, would the start of the war changed, would the war have even happened, if the United States was located in Eurpoe? (i.e the US faced immediate danger when finding out about Hitler)

Lenin was actually a good leader, untill the civil war broke out which was right after the end of the World War 1 and treaty of the Brest-Litovsk, so he was good for few months :lol: but he did have good aims, compared to that of Stalin, the only reason why so many people died under his rule was the War communism which was a direct result of the Civil War, however he introduced the NEP which contained traces of capitalism, highlighting the fact that communism could not function properly as a government, no matter how hard you try those pesky peasants will be there to undermined you and starve the country.


@Pyker, didn't the Americans steal Alaska off Russians after the Romanov's died?


@Warriormonkey yes the treaty of Versailles was one of the main reasons as to why Hitler got to power, by promising food and land and revenge for the treaty he had lured a large majority of the country which was in such inflation that it was cheaper to burn money than buy firewood with it. I blame the Allies for the World War 2 .

 

[DeletedUser]

@Warriormonkey yes the treaty of Versailles was one of the main reasons as to why Hitler got to power, by promising food and land and revenge for the treaty he had lured a large majority of the country which was in such inflation that it was cheaper to burn money than buy firewood with it. I blame the Allies for the World War 2 .

We can all learn a very good lesson from that. You either give them enough freedoms to be happy and not cause them to revolt, or you cripple them to the point that if they do decide to revolt they can't cause any problems. We left them dangerous. They weren't happy with what was going on, and we still gave them enough power to do something about it.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

Well, the Allies did learn the lesson from the Treaty of Versailles, and directly occupied Germany at the end of the world war 2, admittingly, the Western countries aided the country's development whereas the USSR had caused further decline in economy of Eastern Europe and Eastern Berlin. The decline in economy was so bad, the amount of people that escaped East Berlin into West was about 6000 per day, before the Berlin Wall was erected. After the Wall was erected, it was like Splinter Cell, to hell with trying to escape that.

 

[DeletedUser]

@Pyker, didn't the Americans steal Alaska off Russians after the Romanov's died?

I believe that it was, as a true capitalist nation would, bought from Russia. :lol:

It was done through proper channels, though. I know we didn't invade Alaska.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

If my history doesn't betray me the Americans had purchased the Alaska for a loan of something like 100-200 years, the loan was about to run out when the Blosheviks decided to kill off the Romanovs, then Americans used the excuse "You were not the original owners so your not getting it meeeeeeeehhhhhh"

 

[DeletedUser]

ehh, that might be.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok I posted this in another thread in world37. I will add to it to rebuttal to other arguments posed in this thread.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

The U.S.S.R only lost so much because there general were picked for loyalty to stalin rather then there ability to command. Rush until your all dead or there dead is not a legitimate tactic, and only threw Hitler arrogance and indecisive actions did the soviet union not fall to germany. Keep in mind right before Hitler was about to clear out Moscow, he had all forces rerouted to Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Soviets winning the battle of Kursk was another mistake of hitlers because he didn't allow his general to attack for month while he sent more tiger tanks in, during that time the soviets turned perfect blitz terrain into a tanks worst nightmare, had hitler not stalled his general there fortifications there would have been none existent. It would have allowed for a main road to open up to the heart of the soviet union.

Stalingrad was a mistake that hitler made as well, he and stalin both made a mistake fighting for that damn town. However the Germany's had the upper hand and gave it away when they decided to engage in close warfare. His generals wanted to just surround the town and starve them out rather then fighting to take the town. Had the soviets been forced to fight in the open they would have been slaughtered whole sale. Not to mention the forces he could have saved and diverted to go and take Moscow. Not preparing for the war to go into the winter months was also a huge mistake on Hitlers part, and once again his general warned him about it.

Overall the soviets had they come up with better tactics then attrition would have had to lose a lot less men and women. There is no one to blame but themselves for allowing such jokes of leaders to command on the battlefield.

Also we didn't need the soviets to win that war, once hitler lost his navy that was endgame for him. We had several options that were all better then Normandy invasion, and I even think that operation was foolish. Odd enough it was done on the request of stalin and the french resistance for us to open another front in in Europe/ help reclaim France. Personally since the french were some of the first people we had to fight in ww2, I wouldn't have indulged there request at all.

Also as part of the German slave thing, do you think it would have been different had America not gotten into the fight? We literally had nothing to do there minus backing our allies. Do you think it was right for Stalin to keep the land promised to him by Hitler? Or that had the war ended and the french and British were the only one's involved would Stalin have stopped and not turned on them?

Oh ya and the USSR did take 2 islands from japan, but that was after they heard about us dropping the atomic bombs. That's some bravery. I stick to my stance that after the end of the European theater we should have engaged the USSR with the help of Germany, it would have saved lots of people from being massacred in Ukraine, among other regions and just people that didn't like or were suspected of not liking there government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over all USSR winning that war was a fluke, it was a contest between two retards, just one of them had several more men to kill for there goals.


Also to keep in mind when America got involved hitler had to dedicate more supplies to Italy and north Africa. Once Hitler lost his navy, and was incapable of maintaining air supremacy the war was won, it was just a matter of time. It's equvalant to playing chess and only having pawns to move, while your enemy still has his queen and bishops. We could have come up from italy which would have saved lots of money and supplies moving men, or we could have invaded from greece cutting off the soviet advance while pinching Germany's armies that are engaged with the soviets between us and the soviets. Also allowing for a southern attack on Italy pinching some troops between Italy and Greece. That would have been capable of trapping a large amount of there forces from retreating to fight us in the hedgerow country. Normandy was done not to win the war, but to appease France and the soviets, a 8 yo kid that plays to much Risk could come up with a better plan.

Eisenhower screwed us so badly, and the world too. I think his name should go down as more infamous then Hitler's or Stalin's name. This is why.

1 - he stopped patton and other elements of the USA from cutting off the soviet advance further into Europe.

2 - Kept us from taking berlin in order to allow the soviets to advance further into europe keeping us from ending the war sooner, and getting to the real long term problem (the USSR)

3 - Dropped nukes on cities picked for there population in order to end the war quickly, so he could use that in his campaign to become president. As someone in the military hitting civilian targets is not ok, no matter how the war is going. If we die so be it, I have lost friends, and even a grandfather to war. I admire there strength to do what was right, and not what was easy. We should have used our navy to starve them, but using the nukes to end the war was better for his political ambitions.

4 - lots of evidence out there that he allowed the assassination and even possibly ordered it, on one of our nations best generals to appease the soviets and silence what he could say about the tactics and political agenda's costing American lives in the war.

5 - he pussyfooted with the USSR not going with the facts, they were our enemy (nothing but love for russia now, things have changed there) . He let the war end for his own ambitions, and nothing less.

_______________________________________


just to end the arguement that the USSR would have won against france, uk, germany, and the USA. Or even just the USA.

Only an idiot would invade from Germany into the USSR, we would have landed on the other side and put them on two fronts while fighting a defensive retreat from the western front, and gaining ground in the eastern. When forces are transferred we'd just need one good defensive victory to stage a counter attack (look at how Montgomery put Rommel on the back-step for proof). Once that is done we use the Mediterranean to form a pincer movement and attack Kursk from it's backside not engaging it directly from the front. Surround Stalingrad and starve it out while forming a defensive boarder around it to protect and stop supplies and reinforcements, since Stalin is sure to send his main forces to take keep the city use it as bait (pride is folly/ I reference Julius Caesar). Win one good defensive battle there, then once again pincer from the Mediterranean and attack from Stalingrad north to Moscow.

Now for the eastern front, move forward along the poorly defended terrain to completely or nearly undefended factory cities and turn the factories production against them. Stalin had them all moved there from the western front because of Hitler, also to note it will cut off the population Stalin can draw from to enlist in his armies. Aside from that keep along the midsection of the USSR, and strike from south east to Moscow, not allowing for retreat from the city(see what happened to Napoleon).

End result - USSR split in two, major production ability gone. The war would end quickly after that point.

 

[Kash2Smash]

Ok I posted this in another thread in world37. I will add to it to rebuttal to other arguments posed in this thread.


~~~~~~~~~~~~

The U.S.S.R only lost so much because there general were picked for loyalty to stalin rather then there ability to command. Rush until your all dead or there dead is not a legitimate tactic, and only threw Hitler arrogance and indecisive actions did the soviet union not fall to germany. Keep in mind right before Hitler was about to clear out Moscow, he had all forces rerouted to Leningrad and Stalingrad. The Soviets winning the battle of Kursk was another mistake of hitlers because he didn't allow his general to attack for month while he sent more tiger tanks in, during that time the soviets turned perfect blitz terrain into a tanks worst nightmare, had hitler not stalled his general there fortifications there would have been none existent. It would have allowed for a main road to open up to the heart of the soviet union.

Stalingrad was a mistake that hitler made as well, he and stalin both made a mistake fighting for that damn town. However the Germany's had the upper hand and gave it away when they decided to engage in close warfare. His generals wanted to just surround the town and starve them out rather then fighting to take the town. Had the soviets been forced to fight in the open they would have been slaughtered whole sale. Not to mention the forces he could have saved and diverted to go and take Moscow. Not preparing for the war to go into the winter months was also a huge mistake on Hitlers part, and once again his general warned him about it.

Overall the soviets had they come up with better tactics then attrition would have had to lose a lot less men and women. There is no one to blame but themselves for allowing such jokes of leaders to command on the battlefield.

Also we didn't need the soviets to win that war, once hitler lost his navy that was endgame for him. We had several options that were all better then Normandy invasion, and I even think that operation was foolish. Odd enough it was done on the request of stalin and the french resistance for us to open another front in in Europe/ help reclaim France. Personally since the french were some of the first people we had to fight in ww2, I wouldn't have indulged there request at all.

Also as part of the German slave thing, do you think it would have been different had America not gotten into the fight? We literally had nothing to do there minus backing our allies. Do you think it was right for Stalin to keep the land promised to him by Hitler? Or that had the war ended and the french and British were the only one's involved would Stalin have stopped and not turned on them?

Oh ya and the USSR did take 2 islands from japan, but that was after they heard about us dropping the atomic bombs. That's some bravery. I stick to my stance that after the end of the European theater we should have engaged the USSR with the help of Germany, it would have saved lots of people from being massacred in Ukraine, among other regions and just people that didn't like or were suspected of not liking there government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over all USSR winning that war was a fluke, it was a contest between two retards, just one of them had several more men to kill for there goals.


Also to keep in mind when America got involved hitler had to dedicate more supplies to Italy and north Africa. Once Hitler lost his navy, and was incapable of maintaining air supremacy the war was won, it was just a matter of time. It's equvalant to playing chess and only having pawns to move, while your enemy still has his queen and bishops. We could have come up from italy which would have saved lots of money and supplies moving men, or we could have invaded from greece cutting off the soviet advance while pinching Germany's armies that are engaged with the soviets between us and the soviets. Also allowing for a southern attack on Italy pinching some troops between Italy and Greece. That would have been capable of trapping a large amount of there forces from retreating to fight us in the hedgerow country. Normandy was done not to win the war, but to appease France and the soviets, a 8 yo kid that plays to much Risk could come up with a better plan.

Eisenhower screwed us so badly, and the world too. I think his name should go down as more infamous then Hitler's or Stalin's name. This is why.

1 - he stopped patton and other elements of the USA from cutting off the soviet advance further into Europe.

2 - Kept us from taking berlin in order to allow the soviets to advance further into europe keeping us from ending the war sooner, and getting to the real long term problem (the USSR)

3 - Dropped nukes on cities picked for there population in order to end the war quickly, so he could use that in his campaign to become president. As someone in the military hitting civilian targets is not ok, no matter how the war is going. If we die so be it, I have lost friends, and even a grandfather to war. I admire there strength to do what was right, and not what was easy. We should have used our navy to starve them, but using the nukes to end the war was better for his political ambitions.

4 - lots of evidence out there that he allowed the assassination and even possibly ordered it, on one of our nations best generals to appease the soviets and silence what he could say about the tactics and political agenda's costing American lives in the war.

5 - he pussyfooted with the USSR not going with the facts, they were our enemy (nothing but love for russia now, things have changed there) . He let the war end for his own ambitions, and nothing less.

_______________________________________


just to end the arguement that the USSR would have won against france, uk, germany, and the USA. Or even just the USA.

Only an idiot would invade from Germany into the USSR, we would have landed on the other side and put them on two fronts while fighting a defensive retreat from the western front, and gaining ground in the eastern. When forces are transferred we'd just need one good defensive victory to stage a counter attack (look at how Montgomery put Rommel on the back-step for proof). Once that is done we use the Mediterranean to form a pincer movement and attack Kursk from it's backside not engaging it directly from the front. Surround Stalingrad and starve it out while forming a defensive boarder around it to protect and stop supplies and reinforcements, since Stalin is sure to send his main forces to take keep the city use it as bait (pride is folly/ I reference Julius Caesar). Win one good defensive battle there, then once again pincer from the Mediterranean and attack from Stalingrad north to Moscow.

Now for the eastern front, move forward along the poorly defended terrain to completely or nearly undefended factory cities and turn the factories production against them. Stalin had them all moved there from the western front because of Hitler, also to note it will cut off the population Stalin can draw from to enlist in his armies. Aside from that keep along the midsection of the USSR, and strike from south east to Moscow, now allowing for retreat from the city(see what happened to Napoleon).

End result - USSR split in two, major production ability gone. The war would end quickly after that point.

wht are you? a historian freak :icon_rolleyes:

btw, [spoil]I LOVE HISTORY [/spoil]

 

[DeletedUser71940]

Or you could have just dropped another nuke but on the Russians this time should the war have occured, after all Russia had only developed the nuclear weaponary a few years later.

 

[DeletedUser]

I just hate people like Stalin and Eisenhower going down in history as "great leader" when they rank with Hitler among others I wont state because religious people would hate me for it.

In my book nukes are only legitimate if the target is purely military, if we caught one of there armies in open country with no civilians in range I would agree with it being used after a surrender demand is made to that army. Only AFTER the surrender is rejected should such force be cleared for use.

 

[DeletedUser71940]

Stalin was only considered a good leader due to his cult of personality which he developed during his rule, thus making millions of people love him still, untill his crimes against the people came out.

i never even thought that the Americans considered Eisenhower as great, I thought Kennedy was the golden goose?

 

[DeletedUser]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked as targets for their military complex and supporting industrial complex, not because they were population centers. Had we just went for poulation centers, we would have nuked Tokyo. We had already fire-bombed the crap out of that city, and in all reality, the initial casulaties of the nukes were about the same as the casualties suffered by our fire-bombing of Tokyo.

At the end of the war, the USSR was not our enemy. It wasn't until talks broke down because of differences in ideology and the Soviet's desire to have a "buffer" (Eastern Europe) between them and everyone else not under their influence, that we started to think of them as enemies. Remeb er, the Mig-15, the fighter based on captured German designs, was initially produced with British engines because the West was trying to make nice, nice.

As intersting as your comments are to read, you have the benfit of hindsight to determine what we should have done. And hindsight was not a luxury Eisenhower had. If you look in a strictly tactical sense at the situation, Berlin was the ultimate target of the European war, so waiting for the Russians made sense, thus allowing a two pronged assault which minimized allied casualties.

 

[DeletedUser]

There was a clear path allowing them to get to Berlin, stalling allowed the German's to close that gap. Had we taken Berlin then, then the USSR wouldn't have been able to advance so far into Europe thus they wouldn't have as much occupation after the war. There were political reasons behind doing that, because the USSR wanted to keep Poland or at least there promised half of it.

To note, anyone with basic psycology skills or experience knew what Stalin was about. Look at his action up till the end of the war and it is dead obvious what we should have done. Look at how he attacked the Finnish, he did that because he could gain from it, why would he not do the same to us? even more so since our ideological differences makes our defeat more moral boosting, and self satisfying. You dont need hindsight to see that coming, just the balls to do something about it and not enough greed to be bought off.

As far as the cities bombed, they all had higher populations. If we had dropped the bombs off the coast and just said "this is what we can do, so surrender" would it not have had the same effect?

__________

this is a transcript from a good book I read.

Patton, who distrusted the Russians, believed Eisenhower wrongly prevented him closing the so-called Falaise Gap in the autumn of 1944, allowing hundreds of thousands of German troops to escape to fight again,. This led to the deaths of thousands of Americans during their winter counter-offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge.

In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.
___________________

ya, we had them by the balls, anyone that studies or has commanded in war knows initiative is EVERYTHING. We simply didn't need the USSR at that point, because there was a perfect whole for us to go threw, but we stalled on it and didn't act thus handing over the initiative.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kennedy was nothing more then a pretty face, it didn't take a lot of brains to solve the Cuban missile crisis. Preschool teachers solve those types of problems daily. The USSR wanted missiles near us, because we had them near them. The only logical end to that is both parties moving there missile sites out of those area's. Kennedy was not a man I admire in any sense, he was a womanizer, and just a horrible example of a man should be. He was just a pretty face, that used his speech giving ability to make lots of pretty promises.

Teddy Roosevelt is my hero, his main focus was cracking down on the corruption in politics, and he did a damn fine job. Shame no one carried the tradition on

 

[DeletedUser]

There was a clear path allowing them to get to Berlin, stalling allowed the German's to close that gap. Had we taken Berlin then, then the USSR wouldn't have been able to advance so far into Europe thus they wouldn't have as much occupation after the war. There were political reasons behind doing that, because the USSR wanted to keep Poland or at least there promised half of it.

To note, anyone with basic psycology skills or experience knew what Stalin was about. Look at his action up till the end of the war and it is dead obvious what we should have done. Look at how he attacked the Finnish, he did that because he could gain from it, why would he not do the same to us? even more so since our ideological differences makes our defeat more moral boosting, and self satisfying. You dont need hindsight to see that coming, just the balls to do something about it and not enough greed to be bought off.

As far as the cities bombed, they all had higher populations. If we had dropped the bombs off the coast and just said "this is what we can do, so surrender" would it not have had the same effect?

__________

this is a transcript from a good book I read.

Patton, who distrusted the Russians, believed Eisenhower wrongly prevented him closing the so-called Falaise Gap in the autumn of 1944, allowing hundreds of thousands of German troops to escape to fight again,. This led to the deaths of thousands of Americans during their winter counter-offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge.

In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.
___________________

ya, we had them by the balls, anyone that studies or has commanded in war knows initiative is EVERYTHING. We simply didn't need the USSR at that point, because there was a perfect whole for us to go threw, but we stalled on it and didn't act thus handing over the initiative.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kennedy was nothing more then a pretty face, it didn't take a lot of brains to solve the Cuban missile crisis. Preschool teachers solve those types of problems daily. The USSR wanted missiles near us, because we had them near them. The only logical end to that is both parties moving there missile sites out of those area's. Kennedy was not a man I admire in any sense, he was a womanizer, and just a horrible example of a man should be. He was just a pretty face, that used his speech giving ability to make lots of pretty promises.

Teddy Roosevelt is my hero, his main focus was cracking down on the corruption in politics, and he did a damn fine job. Shame no one carried the tradition on

Again, your comments are based mostly on hindsight and speculation as opposed what was actually known by Eisenhower at the time.

 

[DeletedUser]

Please I have posted proof that anyone with common sense or at most a small high school psychology class would come out saying he was gunna screw his allies. All your saying is "not uhh" over and over. Try naming one thing he did for the allies where he was not saving his own @$$

Like I have said his actions leading up to the end of the war, and his action prior to the wars start indicate that he is not someone you can trust. He was blatantly opportunistic, and megalomania-cal.

also what I have posted about the war is true, look it up on a map