Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You underestimate conservatives, and Americans.

At 8/3/05 03:16 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: this has made me laugh ill give you that. what are you going to replace the professional, well trained army with. conscripts? the Germans would rip you to pieces.

Thats funny, they didn't in real life.

ok let me rephrase it so you can understand. these figures, stay with me now, are based on the same numbers of soldiers in a division.

No they aren't. Where is your source?

Im sorry i didnt realise i said "The US census bureau is wrong"

Either your sources are wrong or the US census bureau is. And at that, the US census bureau clearly lists the total number of US soldiers who fought in WW2.

I think you're being extraordinarily naive there. Do you think that Hitler wouldn't try to mobilise the entire force possible in a war against the US. OR do you simply think that the Germans will try to surrender to you straight away?

They would surrender once we got them into a situation similar to the one we got them into in real life.

At 8/3/05 02:44 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: my point is that you said that it was easy to invade italy, which while being wrong in itself, you did not do alone.

The fact that British helped means nothing. All it means is we need to replace the British troops we wouldn't have. There was nothing you offered that couldn't be replaced, that is my point.

my figures assume that all divisions have the same number of men. no need to get snotty junior.

And that would be an incorrect assumption. So really citing the number of divisions means nothing.

and so i came up with different figures from my lecturer.

'Came up' with?

you have also only tried to prove US troop numbers.

How exactly could the US census bureau be wrong?

At 8/3/05 02:52 AM, Jerconjake wrote: I'm not sure what you mean. German civilians didn't fight anyone, except if you count the Volkssturm. We're assuming communism is not a threat to Germany, and that the only enemy is the US. In that scenario, you really think the German people would welcome you with open arms?

If they were willing to surrender to anyone they would be willing to surrender in the end. Instead of the Soviets being the threat the threat would be continued warfare.

And some of the Hitlerjugend and SS continued to resist even after the war ended. Many were ideologically committed, and many were committed to serving their officers, which were still under the command of the interim government who were chosen by Hitler.

Thats completely beside the point. Most of the people fighting in Berlin probably weren't fighting for ideological reasons, they were just obeying orders.

First off, FDR demanded unconditional surrender at Casablanca, which completely surprised Churchill, who had not been consulted on it. And I quote Churchill himself:

I'm wondering, where is that quote from?

Nevertheless, I was referring to the Atlantic Charter.

Second, unconditional surrender to many Germans and army officers meant that Germany was either going to win or lose. The answer was more black and white then. After that, it didn't matter if your neighbot was a Nazi, a Socialist or what they were. They were all German and they were now bound together by Germany, not ideology. For God's sake, go learn about Germany istead of your "America saved the world" sources.

'Learn about Germany' is your argument, very nice. The reason resistance was continued in Berlin was in the hopes that they could surrender to the Americans, no matter how much speculation you offer you can't change historical facts.

So Germany, who would have had no other battlefield commitments, is just going to sit idly by and let America invade North Africa. Whatever you say!

They have to ship troops there just the same as we do.

At 8/3/05 05:32 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: ah theres that we word. not only the US, but the British too.

Whats your point? And at that, you still failed to address my point.

I'm not desperate, and I don't think it seems like that at all. I'm having a good time watching you scramble around in circles. And the numbers, while differing slightly, have no important differences. I think that you are the desperate one here, desperate to prove that your beloved US couldve taken on the world. Which, Im afraid to say, it couldnt. Don't get me wrong, out of all the countries they had the best chance, but wouldve come to some sort of peace eventually. Without allies your army wouldve took the full brunt and I think that may have been a factor in the end to an armistice. I'm not sure what path the holocaust wouldve taken, or even if the final solution even came about, but I don't think it wouldve been nice.

A division can have up to 20,000 men or as low as 5,000. You've been proven nonsensical yet again.

oh for the love of god stop talking about population! i think you're obsessed with that as your main argument. and no you havent disproven my troop figures, so stop acting like a little child and put a real argument forth

What troop figures? You never once presented figures of the number of troops at any one point at time.

You gave figures for troops all together, but those were disproven by the US census bureau.

At 8/3/05 06:31 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: sorry to post again everybody but I'd just like to say that Jimsweens population might need rethinking. i looked at his numbers and then it struck me, the German population in 1939 was 80,600,000! Wow you seem to have lost about 20 million people there Jimsween, how about that

Really thats amazing seeing as how thats the CURRENT German population.

My numbers are fine, your the one that might need some rethinking.

At 8/2/05 07:37 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Germany did not draw its troops solely from its homeland. The Waffen-SS and the Wehrmacht consisted of volunteers from all over Europe, and Austria alone brought (I believe) another fifteen or twenty million people into the Reich.

Uhh... Austria only had a population of 6.7 million.

At 8/2/05 07:32 PM, Jerconjake wrote: And that would be?

The German people. They wouldn't have fought. It's a historical consensus that the only reason they fought the Russians was because they wanted to surrender to the Americans instead.

What's your point? Hitler died five days before the war ended.

Alot of the fighting in Berlin happened after he died.

What? That slogan was a reaction to the American demand of unconditional surrender, you fool. Maybe if you hadn't made that stupid move and united Germany the war would have ended sooner, but you did and it didn't.

American deman of unconditional surrender? Every ally demanded that. In fact BRITAIN was the one that initiated that plan.

But you still seem to forget that the Germans were fighting the Soviets mainly so they could hold out and surrender to the Americans. Which would make your theory that the US unified Germany against it bullshit.

The Germans would not let you get a foothold in Europe. The number of troops you drop coincides with the numbers of landing craft you have, which is limited when you're launching them from large ships. You'd have no airbases beyond aircraft carriers, which heavily limits you in numbers, fuel supplies and types or aircraft. You have no ports to bring supplies in, and if you captured one, you'd need to push inland to prevent the Germans from attacking the port with artillery and air strikes. Of course, the Germans would be counting on you moving inland, so that they could encircle you in the traditional German manner. The sheer logistics are enough to make it questionable, let alone the difficulty of the fighting itself.

Thats why you take something weakly defended, like North Africa, first. Berlin would easily be in bombing range from Tunis.

At 8/2/05 10:34 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: There is no comparison between D-day and any such pacific assault. D-day was the biggest and most complicated operation in human history. There is no such comparison.

Okinawa was about half the size of D-day. And even at that, I see no reason there needs to be a D-Day. We took over Italy without a D-day.

'we would be more.' well put. during the war, Germany always had more divisions available, even before they begun dragging in the poorly trained divisions. In 1941, Germany had about 235 divisions available for combat while the US had a mighty 39. In fact, the peak number of divisions the US had was 94. i can easily see Germany maintaining its occupational force and fending off the US.

The number of troops in a division widley varies. The fact that your coming to that conclusion based on that number says alot about how desperate you are to come to that conclusion.

hmmmm. you may have to rethink that one

Ignoring the fact that I have already given you troop figures, and disproved your troop figures, we even match them in population.

Germany was 60 million in WW2, Japan was 70, the US was 130.

Remember at that end where they shoot Ben thinking he is a zombie, and drag him by the heart with that hook thing.

Yeah, well not long before some guys lynched a black man like that.

Just something to think about...

At 8/2/05 06:31 AM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't think you follow me. Clock speed is a poor method of determining how powerful a processor is.

Your misinterpreting things, thats not how it totally works.

I will grant you that AMD processors generally run faster than Pentium (however, this is completely determinant on what your doing), and that clock speed does not measure the speed at which it runs. However, you still cannot exceed a maximum. And you can't fix it by simply increasing the amount of memory done per clock. It's a heat and electrical noise issue.

It's not that AMD processors are better, they are designed for a different task. Any Intel designer could easily make one of thier chips process more information per clock, but doing that has its downsides. If you have shorter bursts of information, an intel is better, but if your running long continuous streams, AMD is better.

Think of it this way, if you are doing anything but gaming, Intel is probably better.

At 8/2/05 05:46 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: I was referring to this. I thought it was some new kind of chip technology when I read about but I really dont know.

Multi-Core (and 64 bit).

If multi-core is the future of our processors, please shoot me. Prepare to pay hundreds more for processors that will be slow unless the program is designed to fit the complicated mess of a way it works, in which case your likely to not even see much of an increase in performance anyway.

I would much rather they take another 5 years to come up with some way to eliminate elictrical interference or some new material that conducts heat differently than have a multi core processor. It's worse than 64bit, because at least with 64bit all you need is one massive overhaul, with mutli core you need another overhaul for every core.

At 8/2/05 05:41 AM, TheReveiwer wrote: Uhhh here's something maybe you should specify in yoru topic ((the country)) Look at the spelling O_O

You're a moron. Die.

At 8/2/05 04:28 AM, Gunter45 wrote: Since when is clock speed the determinant of processor power? We could have processors cranking at 10 ghz that would barely be able to do much of anything. Processor clock speeds are increasing, but what's more important is how much information they can crunch in each clock cycle. AMD chips have slower clock speeds than Intel chips, generally speaking, but are equally, if not more powerful, simply because they do more per clock cycle.

I don't see why thats really relevent, because the difference one can make by fine tuning a processor like AMD does it not stellar. You can make a car a little faster by tuning some of the parts but to really make it faster you have to change the engine.

At 8/1/05 07:37 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Who's going to surrender, exactly? You're not hearing me here. Hitler would not have surrendered under any circumstances. Thus, the army would continue to resist. Also, if there isn't a worse enemy, like the USSR, the US would look pretty bad to the Germans.

The same people that would have surrendered to the US in real life.

Well for one, there's the army, and desertion or insubordination is frowned upon to say the least. Hitler's still not surrendering here, especially if he doesn't have to deal with the Russians.

He is dead though.

Have you ever heard the phrase "enjoy the war, the peace will be dreadful?" That's how the average German citizen felt about losing the war, because they'd experienced that before, after WWI.

Thats why they wanted to surrender to the US.

But your supplies are coming all the way across the Atlantic. The Germans could launch several counter attacks to any landing before you could resupply and reinforce. True, your numbers were probably able to match the Russians and British if need be, but I don't think America was prepared to absorb the kind of losses that would be needed to win the war.

So then the invasion is delayed until our forces immedeatly dropped can be much larger. The longer the war drags out the better off we are. Japans resources are drying up and Germany was already at its peak. The US is the only one still building up its military.

At 8/2/05 03:01 AM, Gunter45 wrote: And by no advancements, you mean sweeping advancements. The fact that 64 bit processors have been developed is huge, just by itself, not to mention the speed with which processors become smaller and more powerful.

Okay, 64bit I will give you, but the technology for 64bit was there long long ago, it was just never introduced into the market because of its cost and uselessness.

And while getting smaller is technically advancement, it doesn't help us, because we still can't go above 3.8

At 8/2/05 01:25 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Im not exactly familiar with them to much. But, hell, aint computers faster? And what about that stuff that IBM is gonna do with the PS3? Isnt that a new kind of processor?

Well, the game systems only use crappy low end procesors anyways. For example, the XBOX, the fastest system, only has 500mhz. While most desktops have around 2.8GHz (the fastest is 3.8GHz.

So really it won't be hard for them to make a faster processor. Computers aren't really getting any faster, they are getting cheaper.

And there is a lot more things going on than just processors. Another reason nothing may has happened with them is what needs fixing or making better with them, ya know?

Advancement of technology is really only the advancement of the processor. Anything else you can just make bigger and put into it. You could have 8 2GB sticks of ram but anything more than 4GB is overkill for a 3.8GH processor.

The only thing stopping us from artificial intellegence and androids is really the processor.

At 8/1/05 11:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: Do you have anything to back up your assertion that the pace at which we are acquiring new technologies is slowing?

Processor development has had no advancements in the past 5 years.

Fuck.. a FEMALE robot?

It's just going to cry alot and get its period.

At 8/1/05 08:47 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: No we're not in the war remember. Plus I doubt you couldve done d-day on your own.

Okay so then option one. We did D-Day on our own in the pacific again and again.

Do you even think about your plans? Imagine a well stocked Rommel! Then I think you'll agree it won't be as easy as you think.

Hey may be well stocked but we would be more, Germany still has to deal with the occupation, and we have a higher population and a much stronger economy.

In any case the US needed its Allies to end the war sooner. And I conclude that without its allies the US simply doesnt have the manpower to beat off all the axis forces

How so? We exceed them both in manpower.

At 8/1/05 02:20 AM, TurnipClock wrote: Proof?

Chemically addictive.

At 8/1/05 02:32 AM, Jerconjake wrote: The people all wanted to surrender long before Belin was even threatened. The trouble is, you've got Hitler who's not surrendering under any circumstances. By the time he had killed himself, the infrastructure had completely broken down and his control over the country was virtually eliminated. There were still battles going on in Berlin after the war officially came to an end, after all.

But in they would hav surrendered to the Americans if given the chance wouldn't they? So then why wouldn't they if the Americans were the only ones fighting?

It was the Americans who demanded unconditional surrender, which in the eyes of many Germans left no choice but to fight.

How does that make sense?

There's a reason for that. American troops generally had two years of training before they were sent anywhere. Therefore, sending them would only have resulted in a slaughter when they were faced with experienced, well trained, and battle hardened German or Japanese troops.

Well, to be fair, majority of those battle hardered troops were dead near the end of the war.

However, this still allows for a US only victory. We would have just had to wait longer for our number advantage to take effect.

Wow I can't believe I missed such a huge debate.

I just wanted to address a couple of points.

Wages being lower is not neccesarily a bad thing. It promotes growth. People are clearly willing to work for those lower wages, which means there are no jobs for people with that education that offer higher wages. Which is usually a sign of high unemployment. If wages are lower then more profits are generated, and as long as those profits are spent by someone, anywhere, they will create jobs. Thus solving the unemployment.

Now once the worker surplus is gone, there will be more competition to get and keep workers, which leads to wage increases.

In the end, everyone is better off. It's economic growth, economic growth that could not have been generated without wage cuts.

This is why so many people are against the minimum wage.

Also, as for the argument that they have a monopoly, that too, is good. The only way you can sustain a monopoly is by either forcing your competitors out of business by offering beter service, or by measures that are usually illegal. Now, I've yet to see any evidence of the latter, so I can only assume the former is what is happening.

So clearly, if Wal-Mart can offer better service, it's a good thing that the mom and pop stores go out of business, the only people hurt are mom and pop. Why should everyone else suffer so some people can go on running thier business retardedly? Corporations are more efficient and can offer cheaper prices and better prices, speed up economic growth because they have no emotional attachments. The welfare of people is the governments job, not the corporations.

At 7/31/05 10:17 PM, madzakk wrote: More like too many investments being bought on margin, then, with a small economic downturn, people were calling their markers and the money wasn't there. From there, it spiralled out of control.

I said if anything.

At 7/31/05 10:10 PM, madzakk wrote: Last time it happened (The Great Depression) it caused a global economic depression.

You mean European, and, in fact, that was already there because of WW1. If anything our depression came from that.

At 7/31/05 09:59 PM, _FLAGG wrote: I still feel, however, that these deranged teenagers would have let loose their sociopathic tendencies, at one point or another...even if their parents had stepped in.
As I said before...if it hadn't of been bullies picking on them/poor parenting, it would have been breaking up with a girl, or getting fired from a job, or being evicted.

I totally agree. Thats the same argument I use when it comes to things like violence in video games and pornography.

At 7/31/05 09:53 PM, madzakk wrote: It's a weapon, once used, is then useless. They're not going to destroy themselves to destroy the US. BTW, Japan is not a dictatorship.

None of those countries are destroyed if the US goes into economic depression.

At 7/30/05 03:06 PM, hkmaster wrote: No, in WW1 they weren't beating us, it was practically a stale mate,

With Russia out of the war it was more of an advantage to Germany. Keep in mind the entire time all they needed to do was get to Paris to knock France out, they would much rather surrender then see thier beautifull city burn.

and WW2 they could never of invaded Britain, they wanted to, but couldn't.

Because of US support. Without our planes you would have never won the Battle of Britain.

At 7/30/05 01:43 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: yes but the pacific was more of a naval war than europe

I wouldn't say that. We had won the sea way before 1945. But you can launch planes from any island.

ok ill go along with you for a while. so whats the plan of action. straight beach landing into france? inv ade africa and then italy. in reality the british and us couldnt make much of an impact there. both those would fail. you have to remember youd have the entire combined forces of Germany, Italy and the rest of the European axis to deal with.

Africa, then Europe. Africa as a base of operations most likely.

Unless were saying Germany took over Britain, which might be easier, Britain first then Europe.

We don't have to deal with the entire combined forces because most of them were already busy with the occupation. We would have to deal with more Germans, approximately 2-3 million more. And beating Italy is not something to worry about because that was accomplished easily anyway.

At 7/31/05 09:25 PM, madzakk wrote: Ask the Taliban how easy it is to stay in power when you piss off the US.

How many treasury bonds did the Taliban have?

My point exactly.