It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 2:17 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
long time guy wrote:
And lastly is this and sort of how I remember Lend Lease. An overwhelming amount of the Lend Lease supplies were provided to the British.

Look at these numbers and weep.
https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/w ... -enough-i/


As a result, between 1941 and 1942 only 7% of the wartime cargo shipped from the US made it to the Soviet Union. The bulk of the weapons and other materials arrived in the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, once the winds of war had decisively shifted.

You are aware that a lot of deliveries to the british went to the russians, right?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Stalin literally said American production won the war. But LTG knows better. Strange world.


Stalin never was quoted as saying that and for the record he denied it publicly until the time of his death. He never acknowledged the U.S. role publicly and Khrushchev said there was no record of it other than his word.

Thanks for once again providing absolutely nothing.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Stalin literally said American production won the war. But LTG knows better. Strange world.


Stalin never was quoted as saying that and for the record he denied it publicly until the time of his death. He never acknowledged the U.S. role publicly and Khrushchev said there was no record of it other than his word.

Thanks for once again providing absolutely nothing.

Why would Khrushchev, in the middle of a cold war with the US, credit the US with crucial aid in the Great Patriotic War?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
And lastly is this and sort of how I remember Lend Lease. An overwhelming amount of the Lend Lease supplies were provided to the British.

Look at these numbers and weep.
https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/w ... -enough-i/


As a result, between 1941 and 1942 only 7% of the wartime cargo shipped from the US made it to the Soviet Union. The bulk of the weapons and other materials arrived in the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, once the winds of war had decisively shifted.

You are aware that a lot of deliveries to the british went to the russians, right?

The number I provided accounts for Britain's Lend Lease shipments. They are allied vs Domestic. Not just American.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
And lastly is this and sort of how I remember Lend Lease. An overwhelming amount of the Lend Lease supplies were provided to the British.

Look at these numbers and weep.
https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/w ... -enough-i/


As a result, between 1941 and 1942 only 7% of the wartime cargo shipped from the US made it to the Soviet Union. The bulk of the weapons and other materials arrived in the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, once the winds of war had decisively shifted.

You are aware that a lot of deliveries to the british went to the russians, right?

The number I provided accounts for Britain's Lend Lease shipments. They are allied vs Domestic. Not just American.

I didn't bother with your link. If accurate, touche. Now, if millions of tons of shipping from the US made it to the Russians during Barbarossa, why did you say Russia won without lend lease and US efforts?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
Stalin literally said American production won the war. But LTG knows better. Strange world.


Stalin never was quoted as saying that and for the record he denied it publicly until the time of his death. He never acknowledged the U.S. role publicly and Khrushchev said there was no record of it other than his word.

Thanks for once again providing absolutely nothing.

Why would Khrushchev, in the middle of a cold war with the US, credit the US with crucial aid in the Great Patriotic War?


It may have been a time of cooperation strangely enough. Even though there were engaged in the Cold War there were times when the U.S. and the Soviets "lessened the tension" could have been one of those times. No way to trust Khrushchev I still haven't heard a plausible explanation as to how they defeat Germany if they invade Britain and the Luftwaffe explanation doesn't quite cur it. A aerial standoff when Germany's overwhelming strength lie in ground forces? Really?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
And lastly is this and sort of how I remember Lend Lease. An overwhelming amount of the Lend Lease supplies were provided to the British.

Look at these numbers and weep.
https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/w ... -enough-i/


As a result, between 1941 and 1942 only 7% of the wartime cargo shipped from the US made it to the Soviet Union. The bulk of the weapons and other materials arrived in the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, once the winds of war had decisively shifted.

You are aware that a lot of deliveries to the british went to the russians, right?

The number I provided accounts for Britain's Lend Lease shipments. They are allied vs Domestic. Not just American.

I didn't bother with your link. If accurate, touche. Now, if millions of tons of shipping from the US made it to the Russians during Barbarossa, why did you say Russia won without lend lease and US efforts?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
By the time the battle of stalingrad was ended, close to 7.5 million tons of american materials made it to Russia.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Last edited by Darkside on Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
And lastly is this and sort of how I remember Lend Lease. An overwhelming amount of the Lend Lease supplies were provided to the British.

Look at these numbers and weep.
https://orientalreview.org/2015/05/12/w ... -enough-i/


As a result, between 1941 and 1942 only 7% of the wartime cargo shipped from the US made it to the Soviet Union. The bulk of the weapons and other materials arrived in the Soviet Union in 1944-1945, once the winds of war had decisively shifted.

You are aware that a lot of deliveries to the british went to the russians, right?

The number I provided accounts for Britain's Lend Lease shipments. They are allied vs Domestic. Not just American.

I didn't bother with your link. If accurate, touche. Now, if millions of tons of shipping from the US made it to the Russians during Barbarossa, why did you say Russia won without lend lease and US efforts?

I didnt catch that... what now?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
long time wrote:

It may have been a time of cooperation strangely enough. Even though there were engaged in the Cold War there were times when the U.S. and the Soviets "lessened the tension" could have been one of those times.

Cooperation between the us and Soviets between 46 and 90? Ok. What about zhukov saying what he said in 63? An era of cooperation?

Quote:
I still haven't heard a plausible explanation as to how they defeat Germany if they invade Britain and the Luftwaffe explanation doesn't quite cur it. A aerial standoff when Germany's overwhelming strength lie in ground forces? Really?

Yes. Really. Tell me, how do you get ground forces into England?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
How does Britain and the U.S. hold off Germany without Russian manpower? That question still hasn't been answered and no saying its irrelevant in 1941 really ain't cutting it.

Russia pushed back the Germans. How does the U.S. and Britain do this in 1941 if we remove Russia?

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm
Posts: 6715
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
long time guy wrote:
How does Britain and the U.S. hold off Germany without Russian manpower? That question still hasn't been answered and no saying its irrelevant in 1941 really ain't cutting it.

The British Empire had a population in the neighbourhood of four times that of the USSR.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
long time guy wrote:
How does Britain and the U.S. hold off Germany without Russian manpower? That question still hasn't been answered and no saying its irrelevant in 1941 really ain't cutting it.

I've explained it probably at least 3 or 4 times now.
1. Germany had by the time they'd over run france, extended their ground forces beyond reasonable supply lines.
2. Germany was losing more equipment than they were building.
3. Germany had little access to oil thus their need to ally with or invade russian territory.
4. Germany absolute lost the battle of britian and by mid 43 lost the battle of the Atlantic.
5. England was reading Germanys codes having broke them. As a result, they knew where naval forces were positioned and knew how to largely get by them.

In essence, as far as england goes, german ground forces were irrelevant. Germany wasnt taking england.
As far as europe goes, germany literally couldn't sustain their war efforts with both domestic production and the slave labor they subjugated throughout europe. Ask albert speer. He knew it.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Darkside wrote:
It could be argued that another major turning point in the war was english code breakers by late 1942. British shipping was largely getting through the Wolfpack u boats and the british navy was sinking nearly a sub a day. By May 1943, Dönitz had conceded the battle of the atlantic. By this point, allied victory was probably guaranteed. The allies were going to win the battle of attrition, which was greatly sped up by the Russians slaughtering the aging armies on the eastern front.


Actually,While the British did a lot. If it was not for the Polish effort at stealing a machine and getting it to the British they would not have done as well of a job.
The American codebreakers in the Pacific played a huge part as well,let us not forget.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
A lot of WW2 goes back to 1919, there really was no end to the First War just a short pause. The worse thing that could have happened to the Allies is in Dec 1941 is that Hitler did not declare war on the USA. He would have done that he would have fucked FDR and Churchill over. There would have been no way the American people would have allowed the military and industry to be used for anything but crushing the Japanese Empire. He had enough trouble as it was trying to keep the public and military focused on Germany until 1943. Without Lend Lease to Britain and USSR,war is over. U.k> would probably lose Africa and part of Middle East. USSR well they might just collapse,in 45 they where almost out of men. Without help from USA,there would be no mass shipments of trucks,planes and most importantly SPAM.Remember even with them going almost 100% of their industry on tank production about 1/3 of their tank park was M4 Shermans. It might even convince a couple of the neurtrals to come in on Germanys side,Turkey. They had a long history of friendship with Germany.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:18 pm
Posts: 19488
pizza_Place: Phils' on 35th all you need to know
Darkside wrote:
Lend lease was absolutely vital in russia beating germany. That post is wrong.


The one thing about Lend Lease that most people miss is that a certain percentage of what the Brits got was to be forwarded to the USSR per treaties and such.

_________________
When I am stuck and need to figure something out I always remember the Immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I just drank what?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 04, 2020 11:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Ok cool. But you always have to look at it the context of time. Sure in 1944 with a fully mobilized military could they have taken on Germany? Yeah they could have. In 41 when Germany invaded Russia? .

Completely irrelevant. The question never was could the US take on Germany in 1941. The question is, did the US require the Russian involvement to win WWII. Unless your argument is that the US couldn't mobilize without Russia running interference on the eastern front which honestly I cannot fathom that argument being made in good faith.


Where his argument is silly is his premise about the US having a negligible effect of the war in Europe The US entry into the war in that theater was HUGE and the overwhelming reason why the allies won that war. Between the entry of the US into that theater and Hitler being in charge of the military decision making in Germany, the war decision was assured. Hitler at the beginning of WWII had the best trained, best equipped military force in the world. No question about it. They also at one point had some very smart generals but a lot of the real military brains got replaced by guys who were Hitler's lackeys.

I guess Hitler thought that the Japanese would tie up the US entirely in its own military theater but he was once again wrong. The Japs didn't destroy our carriers and it was our carriers, its planes, and the rest of what remained of our fleet and SUBMARINES that rapidly destroyed the Japanese fleet and aircraft and facilitated the very difficult process of digging them out of their island chain and Japan itself. Enter the MARINES and our Naval superiority. Not to mention the very rapid conversion of an American industrial surge that produced American tanks, ships, aircraft, and SOLDIERS AND SAILORS in a very small amount of time.

I guess that LTG is just so head up in his negative view of this country that he wants to down play American excellence in its dealings with all things historical including our minor role in the European theater in WWII. Once again, those cemeteries in Normandy and a lot of Europe would prove otherwise.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Wrong. Hitler was absolutely going after Russia regardless of the US involvement. He said so in main kamph. Operation barbarossa was in the works in 1940.
The legend goes that hitler was relieved that japan bombed pearl because he was concerned about US involvement after cash and carry then the beginnings of lend lease. He believed that if japan was engaging the US, we'd have no will to break our doctrine of European nonproliferation.


You seem to be arguing with yourself. Who said that he wasn't going after Russia? His hatred for Slavic people was well known. It's the primary reason that he invaded Russia.

We'd already broken it Neutrality Agreement with cash and carry. U.S. was never neutral at any point during the War. Never.

We lost 400,000 soldiers. Russia lost 11 million soldiers. Did by far the bulk of the fighting. They are the primary reason we won the war.


That's a horrible misstatement of what actually happened. Most of the Russians casualties were not occasioned in fighting but rather because of the starvation and illness in that army. they basically retreated over vast amounts of territory and were brutalized by the invaded German army and air force. Then you had the infamous SIEGE in which millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians died.

By the way, the worthiness of fighting is told in not the amount of deaths that are incurred but rather yourself and your comrades not dying yet still kicking ass and winning. The Russian army was basically a badly led, ill equipped military force that had one marching order....RETREAT AND BURN while getting your ass kicked. Stalin didn't give a shit about the losses he got. Less to feed, clothe, and even supply bullets to. ANd if Hitler hadn't been so stupid to invade that vast expanse of awful terrain, Stalin would have been glad just to sit and wait for the US and its other allies to get killed by the Germans and leave Russia a huge share of the territory and wealth.

Stalin, has never gotten the deserved hatred of the world like Hitler has. Neither has Mao.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Wrong. Hitler was absolutely going after Russia regardless of the US involvement. He said so in main kamph. Operation barbarossa was in the works in 1940.
The legend goes that hitler was relieved that japan bombed pearl because he was concerned about US involvement after cash and carry then the beginnings of lend lease. He believed that if japan was engaging the US, we'd have no will to break our doctrine of European nonproliferation.


You seem to be arguing with yourself. Who said that he wasn't going after Russia? His hatred for Slavic people was well known. It's the primary reason that he invaded Russia.

We'd already broken it with cash and carry. U.S. was never neutral at any point during the War. Never.

We lost 400,000 soldiers. Russia lost 11 million soldiers. Did by far the bulk of the fighting. They are the primary reason we won the war.

I was disagreeing with the hawk. He said something about if Japan didnt attack the US, hitler would have wanted a treaty with russia.


I believe so. I think that even Germany did not know ahead of time that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor. I think that was pretty much solely the Japanese decision. Hitler should have known that if the US entered solely into the war in Europe that Germany would be in trouble and it proved true despite the fact that the US ended up fighting in two major theaters during WWII.

Hitler also showed up to WWII that he would take over countries and then strike peace deals with others in the region. I think that if the US would have entered the war against Germany and Italy that he would have played the peace deal card. Think of it this way. Without the losses at Pearl, between the British and the US Naval forces, Hitler would have his navy crushed very early and eventually its land based air corps also. Add the US rapid production of aircraft to the experienced forces of Britain and the German air corps would have been quickly demolished. Germany would have then be surrounded as it ended up being in 1945. My guess is that the war in Europe would have started as far as US involvement in 1942 and ended up in late 1943 or early 1944. LIke I have said, Hitler, would have tried like hell to arrange a peace deal and accept parts of Europe as in his already won territory as his reward.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Ok cool. But you always have to look at it the context of time. Sure in 1944 with a fully mobilized military could they have taken on Germany? Yeah they could have. In 41 when Germany invaded Russia? .

Completely irrelevant. The question never was could the US take on Germany in 1941. The question is, did the US require the Russian involvement to win WWII. Unless your argument is that the US couldn't mobilize without Russia running interference on the eastern front which honestly I cannot fathom that argument being made in good faith.


You continue to suggest this which really isn't making sense since the war started in 39. Without Russia running interference there would not have been war for the U.S. to fight by the time they mobilized.
It's also easy to speculate as to what the U S might have done but the fact is they didn't as far as Germany was Concerned.
I will simply post facts and I'm a little distrustful of Khrushchev and his memo too.

That's not true. England was handling the luftwaffe and Germany's surface fleet long before Germany broke the Russian Germanany treaties in june 41


Yeah but Germany hadn't committed troops to Britain. If most of the German Army was committed to fighting Russia was does that suggest regarding the importance of Britain?


Germany did not have the troops to command because it didn't have the command of the air to protect their naval landing craft. Their landing craft would have been sitting ducks trying to crash the Channel. I also believe that FDR would have declared war on Germany at a point prior to them attempting to invade England. This would have been the breaking point of FDR. FDR hated Stalin but he wouldn't have let England fall.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Hawk, i disagree. Hitler outlined his plot to invade Russia in mein kampf. Stalin knew it too. Russian troops are reported to have engaged germans who were simply approaching lines to report Intel.
The only way hitler doesn't invade Russia is if Russia gives germany access to Caucasus and Romanian oil freely. Stalin wasn't hip to that at all. Stalin distrusted the allies even while accepting their aid. It's the culture.
By the time hitler crossed Poland stalin knew what was up.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Antarctica wrote:
The role of the British in winning the war has become criminally understated with time. They are portrayed as hanger-ons by westerners and easterners alike.

They fought alone for the first two years of the war. Not only holding off the Luftwaffe and U-boat menace by an astonishingly narrow margin, but also maintaining control of the Mediterranean and Suez. And this was the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe at the height of its powers. The German war machine even by 1941 had spent a decent amount of its "jet fuel" on trying to vanquish Britain or at least meaningfully upsetting its Empire and they failed.

Truly, if we are trying to find a country that was indispensable to the war effort, it very well could have been them.


100% right. And Churchill as the British leader was to me the most inspiring leader in the entire free world at the time.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
The Hawk wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Ok cool. But you always have to look at it the context of time. Sure in 1944 with a fully mobilized military could they have taken on Germany? Yeah they could have. In 41 when Germany invaded Russia? .

Completely irrelevant. The question never was could the US take on Germany in 1941. The question is, did the US require the Russian involvement to win WWII. Unless your argument is that the US couldn't mobilize without Russia running interference on the eastern front which honestly I cannot fathom that argument being made in good faith.


You continue to suggest this which really isn't making sense since the war started in 39. Without Russia running interference there would not have been war for the U.S. to fight by the time they mobilized.
It's also easy to speculate as to what the U S might have done but the fact is they didn't as far as Germany was Concerned.
I will simply post facts and I'm a little distrustful of Khrushchev and his memo too.

That's not true. England was handling the luftwaffe and Germany's surface fleet long before Germany broke the Russian Germanany treaties in june 41


Yeah but Germany hadn't committed troops to Britain. If most of the German Army was committed to fighting Russia was does that suggest regarding the importance of Britain?


Germany did not have the troops to command because it didn't have the command of the air to protect their naval landing craft. Their landing craft would have been sitting ducks trying to crash the Channel. I also believe that FDR would have declared war on Germany at a point prior to them attempting to invade England. This would have been the breaking point of FDR. FDR hated Stalin but he wouldn't have let England fall.

This is truth. England's air superiority was precisely why the german ground troops were irrelevant, and a big reason why hitler was confident redeploying east.
Germany lost the battle of the atlantic officially mid 43, but it was decided long before that.
Plus.... the codes. England was reading their mail. Germany didnt know that, though. Rumors are out there that churchill allowed merchants to be sunk so as not to arouse suspicion. Bad guy? Maybe. That's another debate.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:

No it's a very simple deduction. The bulk of the fighting was conducted against Russia. We fought by far the weaker of the two in Japan. We entered the War 3 years after it started. When we did our focus was on fighting mostly in Pacific.

It was well known to everyone at the time that Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with Germany. Do you want me to start posting those cables regarding U.S. reticence to engage Germany?


And you cannot continuously pooh pooh the Timeline either. If Germany sends its troops into Britain instead of Russia in Sept 41 what do you think the U.S. response would have been? How would they have been able to mount an effective counter?

True, the bulk of the fighting was against russia. We know that russia needed our support vis a vie the lend lease act to hold the line against Germany. Russia by your account (undisputed by me) barely held the line against germany. We have them 18 million tons of supplies in that time frame. If they barely held on, what effect did our contribution of 18 million tons of materials have on their effort to hold the line? Its irrational to say the US didnt have an impact there. They weren't alone. We were there too. Not pulling triggers but delivering triggers to pull.

I know the legend of roosevelt not wanting to mix it up with germany but he did, and not just on their own, but knowingly opening a front against the world's finest navy on one front and against the world's finest army (with the aid of the Italians who as it turned out didnt have a taste for this kind of thing).

He did it knowing what was true, that our manufacturing capacity and supply capacity dwarfed Germany's.

And you keep saying if germany just sent its troops to Britain. They literally couldn't. The english won the battle of Britain, and the battle of the atlantic. They couldn't just send troops. That's why they didnt. Operation sea lion was a failure because they never could get naval superiority.


Let me rephrase that. Of course the U.S. had an impact. They just didn't have an overriding impact.

There is no way that argument is plausible and Lend lease alone isn't enough. Particularly when you factor in how I'll prepared the country was to fight Germany in 41, 42, 43 even.

Look at some of the reports on just what was entailed just to get that "war machine" of ours on an actual war footing. Ford and Chrysler had to revamp their entire line in order to start sprouting out armament. That took time. Lots of time.

We weren't prepared to fight the type of war that was necessary for Germany until well into 1943.

You can't just blow of the time in between. That's not how Wars are fought.


It took very little time to crank up American manufacturing might.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
The Hawk wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:

No it's a very simple deduction. The bulk of the fighting was conducted against Russia. We fought by far the weaker of the two in Japan. We entered the War 3 years after it started. When we did our focus was on fighting mostly in Pacific.

It was well known to everyone at the time that Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with Germany. Do you want me to start posting those cables regarding U.S. reticence to engage Germany?


And you cannot continuously pooh pooh the Timeline either. If Germany sends its troops into Britain instead of Russia in Sept 41 what do you think the U.S. response would have been? How would they have been able to mount an effective counter?

True, the bulk of the fighting was against russia. We know that russia needed our support vis a vie the lend lease act to hold the line against Germany. Russia by your account (undisputed by me) barely held the line against germany. We have them 18 million tons of supplies in that time frame. If they barely held on, what effect did our contribution of 18 million tons of materials have on their effort to hold the line? Its irrational to say the US didnt have an impact there. They weren't alone. We were there too. Not pulling triggers but delivering triggers to pull.

I know the legend of roosevelt not wanting to mix it up with germany but he did, and not just on their own, but knowingly opening a front against the world's finest navy on one front and against the world's finest army (with the aid of the Italians who as it turned out didnt have a taste for this kind of thing).

He did it knowing what was true, that our manufacturing capacity and supply capacity dwarfed Germany's.

And you keep saying if germany just sent its troops to Britain. They literally couldn't. The english won the battle of Britain, and the battle of the atlantic. They couldn't just send troops. That's why they didnt. Operation sea lion was a failure because they never could get naval superiority.


Let me rephrase that. Of course the U.S. had an impact. They just didn't have an overriding impact.

There is no way that argument is plausible and Lend lease alone isn't enough. Particularly when you factor in how I'll prepared the country was to fight Germany in 41, 42, 43 even.

Look at some of the reports on just what was entailed just to get that "war machine" of ours on an actual war footing. Ford and Chrysler had to revamp their entire line in order to start sprouting out armament. That took time. Lots of time.

We weren't prepared to fight the type of war that was necessary for Germany until well into 1943.

You can't just blow of the time in between. That's not how Wars are fought.


It took very little time to crank up American manufacturing might.

Yes, and they had a head start. The ramp up happened before 12/7/41. Assuming the war effort was ramped up upon pearl was a mistake by the above poster imho

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
The Hawk wrote:
.

I guess that LTG is just so head up in his negative view of this country that he wants to down play American excellence in its dealings with all things historical including our minor role in the European theater in WWII. Once again, those cemeteries in Normandy and a lot of Europe would prove otherwise.


That's your racism speaking again

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Boys. Keep it clean. Theres enough to debate without that.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 12:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
long time guy wrote:
Darkside wrote:
long time guy wrote:

No it's a very simple deduction. The bulk of the fighting was conducted against Russia. We fought by far the weaker of the two in Japan. We entered the War 3 years after it started. When we did our focus was on fighting mostly in Pacific.

It was well known to everyone at the time that Roosevelt wanted nothing to do with Germany. Do you want me to start posting those cables regarding U.S. reticence to engage Germany?


And you cannot continuously pooh pooh the Timeline either. If Germany sends its troops into Britain instead of Russia in Sept 41 what do you think the U.S. response would have been? How would they have been able to mount an effective counter?

True, the bulk of the fighting was against russia. We know that russia needed our support vis a vie the lend lease act to hold the line against Germany. Russia by your account (undisputed by me) barely held the line against germany. We have them 18 million tons of supplies in that time frame. If they barely held on, what effect did our contribution of 18 million tons of materials have on their effort to hold the line? Its irrational to say the US didnt have an impact there. They weren't alone. We were there too. Not pulling triggers but delivering triggers to pull.

I know the legend of roosevelt not wanting to mix it up with germany but he did, and not just on their own, but knowingly opening a front against the world's finest navy on one front and against the world's finest army (with the aid of the Italians who as it turned out didnt have a taste for this kind of thing).

He did it knowing what was true, that our manufacturing capacity and supply capacity dwarfed Germany's.

And you keep saying if germany just sent its troops to Britain. They literally couldn't. The english won the battle of Britain, and the battle of the atlantic. They couldn't just send troops. That's why they didnt. Operation sea lion was a failure because they never could get naval superiority.


Let me rephrase that. Of course the U.S. had an impact. They just didn't have an overriding impact.

There is no way that argument is plausible and Lend lease alone isn't enough. Particularly when you factor in how I'll prepared the country was to fight Germany in 41, 42, 43 even.

Look at some of the reports on just what was entailed just to get that "war machine" of ours on an actual war footing. Ford and Chrysler had to revamp their entire line in order to start sprouting out armament. That took time. Lots of time.

We weren't prepared to fight the type of war that was necessary for Germany until well into 1943.

You can't just blow of the time in between. That's not how Wars are fought.


You once again are talking out of your ass. What, for example, do you know about "how Wars are fought". A far as the US not being "prepared to fight the type of war necessary for Germany, what do you imagine would have happened if the US would have declared war against Germany in let say 1940-41? How quickly do you think that we would have declared war and a military draft? How long would it have taken for American soldiers and Marines to have been shipped to England and elsewhere to enter the war? Would the amazing conversion of American commercial enterprises into war goods not have happened in 1940 like it did in 1942? Think that the great production of planes and ships that occurred would not have happened?

No man, if the US had entered the war in 1940. The outcome of the war would pretty much been the same except for a couple of years earlier demise of Germany, Italy, and Japan. And if Truman would have given the go ahead for Patton, Russia also. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14931
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Darkside wrote:
Hawk, i disagree. Hitler outlined his plot to invade Russia in mein kampf. Stalin knew it too. Russian troops are reported to have engaged germans who were simply approaching lines to report Intel.
The only way hitler doesn't invade Russia is if Russia gives germany access to Caucasus and Romanian oil freely. Stalin wasn't hip to that at all. Stalin distrusted the allies even while accepting their aid. It's the culture.
By the time hitler crossed Poland stalin knew what was up.


Its only a theory. I know about Mein kampf and Hitler's notion. My theory is that Hitler was a pragmatist for awhile and if Japan had not attacked, the entire war in the west would have been completely different. I think Hitler would have settled for territory won, fed his nationalistic ego and waited to see what happened later. His biggest mistake was believing that the US would be so occupied with Japan that it wouldn't have time, manpower and resources to fight in Europe. He chose wrongly :eye: :eye: :eye:

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 1:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65791
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
The Hawk wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Hawk, i disagree. Hitler outlined his plot to invade Russia in mein kampf. Stalin knew it too. Russian troops are reported to have engaged germans who were simply approaching lines to report Intel.
The only way hitler doesn't invade Russia is if Russia gives germany access to Caucasus and Romanian oil freely. Stalin wasn't hip to that at all. Stalin distrusted the allies even while accepting their aid. It's the culture.
By the time hitler crossed Poland stalin knew what was up.


Its only a theory. I know about Mein kampf and Hitler's notion. My theory is that Hitler was a pragmatist for awhile and if Japan had not attacked, the entire war in the west would have been completely different. I think Hitler would have settled for territory won, fed his nationalistic ego and waited to see what happened later. His biggest mistake was believing that the US would be so occupied with Japan that it wouldn't have time, manpower and resources to fight in Europe. He chose wrongly :eye: :eye: :eye:

Word. Do you believe that the US sits on the sidelines in europe without pearl?
I mean, it's possible England had shit handled with aid alone. Russia was not a concern of the US at all until barbarossa and then russia was mainly a convenient distraction.
Or does the US enter when rommel over ran north Africa and US commanders knew that with access to Iranian oil, germany didnt need to fuck with Russia?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group