5,911 Forum Posts by "Jimsween"
At 8/7/05 08:39 PM, yellowsmoke wrote: Typical tactic of your ilk, jimsween, slinging insults as if this somehow proves your point. Character defamation, regardless of what the truth was, got GW voted both times around. You follow a similar pattern.
No, you see I'm not calling you an idiot to prove my point. Anyone with half a brain knows your wrong. I'm calling you an idiot because your an idiot. Thats an entirely different point.
Character defamation requires what your saying to be wrong. This post, and your previous one, are both proof that what I said is correct. And at that, what I said could not in any way be called character defamation, it being an opinion, and not being derogatory in any way, and it being privelidged.
You are familiar with something called the Geneva Convention, correct? It's this little thing we signed onto. It basically lays some rules down when it comes to warfare. well in this little document, now follow me here because I know its tough for people like you to understand, there is something called the 4th article. The 4th Article basically defines the rules when it comes to civilian populations. And one of these rules dictates that civilian populations are not to be targetted. It might do you good to read up on it.
Prove to me that the civilian populations were targetted. We dropped a huge ass bomb, on a city dedicated to plane and tank production with many military personell in it. And we also dropped leaflets warning the civilian population.
Now I'll give you that the 4th article and others didn't come into play until 1949, but the geneva convention dates back to the mid 1800's and its something most presidents dating back to lincoln tried to abide by, at least publicly.
The first Geneva convention. You are talking about the fourth one, which didn't even happen until 1949, and wasn't even signed until 1977.
As far as US imperialism, you can see examples of that, blatent examples in regards to our policies in Latin America as you can see US violations of the Geneva Convention. Most notably our actions in Nicaragua.
Thats really great, but how does this have anything to do with Japan?
And at that, every one of those actions can be written off as defense against the Soviet Union.
At 8/7/05 08:32 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: That's really observant of you. First off, if you had bothered to check, according to his profile he is more than ten years older than you, making you the "kid" in this matter.
I don't bother looking at dumbasses profiles to find things to make fun of them for. The stupidity of what he said is enough. Him being 20 only emphasizes how stupid he is.
Secondly, Hiroshima can indeed be classed as a war crime. It's not so different in nature to when American soldiers slaughtered entire villages in Vietnam.
Except Hiroshima was an entirely mobilized city, with many Japanese troops and large production centers. Hmm, pretty much entirely different.
You could have said that was done to demoralise the Vietcong forces, thus ending the war quicker, however it was on such a small scale compared to Hiroshima that no such explanation could be justified.
That made quite possible the least sense of anything I've heard in a long time. First off My Lai was a south vietnamese city, so it wouldn't really demoralize the Vietcong. And it was not at all done to end the war quicker or demoralize the Vietcong, it was done out of anger and because of confusion in orders.
Also, a larger scale would only help to justify it, you demoralize much more if you kill much more.
And finally, dropping an atom bomb on Germany would not only have killed those who initiated the Holocaust, but most of those who were victims of it. You couldn't have just said "Well, we think Hitler might kill the Jews some time, so we'll wipe out his entire society just to make sure".
Only if we dropped it on Poland, directly on Auschwitz. Apperantly I made a mistake in assuming you would know how an atomic bomb works, it doesn't destroy an entire country, it doesn't even destroy an entire city, it's just a very large bomb.
Desicions like that aren't made as a snap judgement, you can't just blow up the enemy on a whim and hope everything will turn out alright. If that's the kind of attitude people take then morality is meaningless.
Where is your evidence that it was made as a snap judgement? We had the bomb some 7 months before we dropped it.
Again you missed the point, I think what he was trying to say was that this was the USA's first step toward being the superpower it is today. Such a show of power and demand is essentially what happens today, with the so-called "policing of the world" that America is often accused of. The way the country can (potentially) flex it's capitalist muscle in order to achieve a wide range of favourable results across the globe.
Hmm, nope still makes no sense. He said that was imperialism, and it wasn't at all. Don't try and make an idiot sound reasonable, your just going to make yourself look like an idiot in the process.
The fact that you tell people to die for expressing their opinions really doesn't do much for your argument.
I think your mistaken, my argument is that it was right to drop the bomb, not that people should be able to say stupid shit without anyone calling them an idiot.
At 8/8/05 12:07 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Please rephrase.
When invading Germany, the Soviets experienced much more resistance than the allies.
All of that is true. However, the Battle of Berlin began after a two week Red Army build up on 16 April, Hitler committed suicide on 30 April and the battle ended on the 2nd of May. Most of the fighting occurred before he was dead, and his suicide didn't end the war, which meant that the troops were still under orders to fight.
The soldiers were under orders to fight from Weidling, and various commanders, not Hitler. And they fought until thier supplies exhausted, when they could very well have surrendered before.
I mean if you bypassed other large cities.
Like we did in the Pacific?
Large and important cities tend to have large standing armies. Hitler pulled out of some in order to preserve them, but others were stiffly defended.
Then we use the same tactic used in the Pacific, we surround the city, and then continue our campaign.
The Volkssturm was mostly used on the front lines of the east. They were intended to be used only in their areas, but this was rare in practice. Though they fought their best in Berlin out of fear, their overall impact should not be overstated.
So basically you are saying they are useless out of the city. Kind of what I was saying isnt it?
The Atlantic Charter came about when Germany was still winning the war, and before America had even entered it, I believe. They were more afraid of what the Allies said when they knew they were winning.
The charter was a treaty though, what was said at Casablanca was only words. It had no binding effect, the Charter most certainly did.
I have attempted to explain the rationale, but my explanation and your rebuttal has no affect on the fact that this is what was felt at the time by many Germans. Once again, the Atlantic Charter was not as fresh in their minds, because when it was conceived, defeat was not a threat to Germany. And unconditional surrender meant another "Diktat" or dictated peace, like after the Great War.
So basically you are saying they just forgot that we already said we werent going to punish them for the war, and then decided to assume we were despite the fact that nothing we said implied that. You can keep saying it was just like WW1, but it wasn't, we clearly stated it wasn't going to be like WW1.
No, they aren't. Those are examples of where transporting things over land was failing badly and battles were fought to open (or close) ports. Besides, a ship can't load and unload without a port. If you didn't have a port, your invasion would be effectively over.
First off, we invaded Vietam without a port. And there wasn't a port until we captured St. Lo in Normandy.
Second, there was no port in Iwo Jima or many other Pacific invasions.
And third, I don't see how the reason for those battles would prove that it is easier to transport over harbor.
All of the Germany army was not sent to repel Overlord. England and islands in the Pacific were invaluable staging points for troops and supply build up in particular. In this way, the distance of resupply to the troops is much shorter, but without such a place, only limited amounts of supplies and troops could be transported, and it would take much longer to do so. Your numbers of landing craft are also limited. The Germans only have to send ships through what would have been the Italian-controlled Mediterranean.
First off, the distance between Portsmouth and Normandy is not much shorter than the distance between Tunis and Sicily.
And I fail to see how Italy would maintain control of the mediterranean.
At 8/7/05 06:30 PM, Gingerwarrior wrote: I disagree with killing so many people entirely, but the Japanesse wouldn't have given up if they weren't bombed until they were all dead,
Yeah, wait.... No they did give up. That kind of throws your theory out the window.
but even worse is the pilot siad he'd do it again even though the war was over, what a murderous bastard!
Saying you would do it all again is a common phrase meaning in the same situation you would have done it, hes not saying he would go bomb Japan now, he is saying even after knowing the consequences he still would have done it.
At 8/7/05 12:52 PM, -TheDoctor- wrote: I think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a poor choice. Granted, America did need an effective demonstration of the weapon to convince Japan to surrender, but why oh why did they do so in such a widely populated area? Surely they could have obliterated a smaller, or more strategic target. In the end it would still have been clear how powerful the A-bomb was, and even if the Japanese still refused to surrender, well then they could have attacked larger targets.
They considered that, they came to the conclusion it wouldn't work. For one, they needed witnesses, they wouldn't even surrender after we dropped the first one, it took another one, and the invasion by the Soviets to convince them. A couple farmers who said they saw a really big explosion would not convince anyone. And at that, they needed a comparative example, 50,000 dead says alot more than a really big explosion.
At 8/7/05 08:52 AM, mythdragon wrote: Droping bomb was unnecessary show of power. Beside that wasnt military target at all.
The war was not one by targeting military targets. It became obvious that wasn't going to convince anyone. We had to firebomb many cities to win it.
And saying that without droping bomb more people woud lose lifes, you can also say that stoping hitler before he started war or make intervention when he atacked Poland coud save 50 milions of lifes. Plus Stalin coud get owned and ther was no clod war crisis or eastern block :/
Indeed. But we didn't do that did we. Does it mean we shouldn't have?
At 8/7/05 08:25 AM, KjartanT wrote: Spesialists says that Japanies had allready lost the war when Americans Bloved up Hiroshima so NO
We won it, but the Japanese wouldn't admit it. They would not surrender. We would have to do a land invasion of Japan to get them to admit it, and that would cost possibly millions of lives.
At 8/7/05 06:47 PM, yellowsmoke wrote: The dropping of nukes on japan was just a show of force which was meant to give a message to the rest of the world. It was also the start of this country's imperialism, which we are now seeing more than ever. First of all, it was a war crime. Hiroshima was a civilian target nothing more. Same thing with Dresden. Both were non military targets.
Wow. Just wow. Kids are getting so stupid nowadays. First of all, it was not a war crime, those things were done many times during the war, wars cannot be fought with only armies. And as if it would matter that it was a war crime, its the justification that matters, would it be wrong to drop a bomb on germany to stop the holocaust? Of coruse not, because you save more lives in the end. You save more lives in the end by dropping the bomb on Japan, and land invasion would have killed hundreds of thousands more.
And second, Imperialism? Choke and die. Imperialism would be us declaring war on Japan and then stealing all thier land, the exact opposite of what happened.
The necessity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are debatable. It's pretty well known that Japan was on its last legs and the idea that we'd lose another 100k troops trying to defeat them is a bit laughable. Think about it... we just developed a nuke... had to be tested out regardless of circumstances. And moral and civilian consequences. What lead up to the bombings was a good piece of propaganda that led the american public to believe we would lose a million more troops or whatever trying to defeat Japan.
Saying 'it's pretty well known' doesn't make you any less of a dipshit.
Japan had 7 million men saved up on thier homeland, they were so willing to fight for the death that they flew themselves into ships. At the very least we would lose 100k troops, and no doubt Japan would lose hundreds of thousands, if not millions more.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thats really great. Die moron.
At 8/7/05 10:58 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: ok i think im going to want sources this time bbecause you've said a lot without backing most of it up.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/..on/rationathome.html
And I don't have a source for that drafting thing, I figure thats obvious enough.
source
http://bryant2.bryan..0/trimborn/stats.htm
http://www.naval-his..ampaignRoyalNavy.htm
accepted. which is why neither side would win. i know this, other people know this, but your the only one whos arguing your case
The US would not sign a treaty either, because of how Japan suprise attacked us and because they would only end up being attacked again in the end.
would there have even been a pearl harbour in this scenario? i dont kno. i think we've reduced oursleves to guess-work
Why wouldn't there? It's not guess work, it's obvious. Why would Japan decide to attack us differently? If there is no reason to change strategy then they wouldn't have.
And you have still yet to offer figures for professional armies or for the number of German troops at any one point in time. Most statistics suggest only 4-6 million, but of course that would disprove you, so I'm sure you would wan't to find different ones.
At 8/7/05 10:42 AM, ManUrule wrote: you two sound like little children
Shut up. This is one of the more civil discussions that this board has seen. In fact there is very little insulting at all.
I suggest the next time you want to talk down to people smarter than you you go make fun of the special ed kids, they wont call you on your shit.
At 8/7/05 08:09 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: and one more for jimsween
WWII stats
And thats including civilian militias. The USSR never had a professional army of 30 million, they only had that when they took people off the streets and then gave guns to one in five of them. And it should be mentioned again, these are total figures. Germany maintained a large army for 7 years, while we started out with a small army and grew to a huge one. Maintaining a large one will require you to replace much more men.
Also, if you use the average percentage of soldiers fit for service for the German population at that time, only 10 million would be fit for service. Less than half of what the US has.
and as for poulation, nowadays your population is 295 million with only 67 million available manpower (18-49). however that number would go down considerably when asked how many are fit for service. so i think you can see how the numbr would go down from 130 million.
First off, I know you got that from the CIA world factbook so don't think you can fool me. Generally the number goes down 20% when looking at fit for service. Now if you take the pecentage fit for service now and then use it on a 130 million population, you get 22 million.
At 8/7/05 07:57 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: then why, may i ask, werent there more than 16 million US troops ready to fight during the war?
Okay, first off, you did not address my point. Germany could not in fact match our troops.
Second, because we didn't draft all of them. We also had very weak rationing (we didn't actually even need rationing). We fought the war with only a small amount of our power.
my god you dont even listen anymore. im talking about the majority of your fleet being in the pacific
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you not know how to read and then interpret what you read? I'm saying even with most of our fleet being in the pacific, we could have won, the amount we were producing massively exceeded that of Japan and Germany, the only reason it was small to begin with was because we never thought to make a big army, we were neutral.
actually the majority of all personnel involved in overlord were british.
US did not lead in numbers
First of all, I meant compared to Germany.
Second, those numbers are misleading warships says nothing about class or size.
And cant be that accurate, the most warships (Battleships, Fleet Carriers, Escort Carriers, Cruisers, and Destroyers) the US had at any one point and time in the war was only 600.
And by the end of the war our navy doubled Britains.
the atomic bomb wasnt developed until 1945, though, so you would have to wait until then. it took two bombs to finish off the japanese. so do you have the numbers? im willing to bet a peace would have been signed before then
No. First off, neither country would invade the US, not even the two combined. That is an undisputed fact.
Second, the US would not sign a treaty with Japan ever, even Yamamoto knew that. The reason is because they suprise attacked us on Pearl Harbor, and that infuriated the American public.
And third, the US would never leave the German and Japanese empires intact. At the very least they would retake France and the Pacific. It is obvious that if they were to leave them intact they would simply come back and attack them later, thats why we demanded an unconditional surrender to begin with.
Finally, yet again I ask for sources on your troop numbers.
At 8/7/05 02:01 AM, Jerconjake wrote: My argument boils down to this: fear of the Red Army is not the only reason there was resistance in Berlin. The fact is, most of the people who fought there did so as a result of orders from Hitler to resist to the last round, including most militia. The SS made examples of those who failed to answer the call. It's not like if you remove the Red Army, suddenly Berlin is a cake walk to capture.
This isn't even about just Berlin. It's about the invasion of Germany. All those counteroffensives the Soviets had, we didn't have them. They weren't ordered by Hitler either.
In Berlin, after Hitler commited suicide, they still fought, they kept fighting even when Hitler was no longer giving orders to fight. They didn't want to see thier mothers daughters and sisters raped by the Soviets. They didn't want Germany to submit to communism, that would defeat the whole purpose of the war.
The Germans left Paris mostly without a fight, though. The same thing happened with Rome. The Allies did bypass cities when it was advisable, and some French cities remained in German hands until the end of the war. However, if you cut off large and powerful enough cities, they will be a considerable threat to your rear, and hamper the strength of your spearheads.
What Spearhead? Berlin is at the end of our campaign. Theres only a small amount west of it.
And thats a large assumption at that, if a city has a large standing army in it yes, but not when its just a civilian militia.
That's funny, because the Volkssturm did it all the time.
Like when?
Understand that unconditional surrender was punishment. It's like the diktat of 1918 all over again, see. Remember the Treaty of Versailles?
Understand that the Atlantic Charter made it clear that we weren't going to punish them.
The people would want to surrender because of the Atlantic Charter, it made peace sound not too bad, and it would still be partially on German terms. The very fact that they said the opposite of imposing fines is why that would be appealing to the people.
Exactly. The announcment made at the Casablanca Conference doesn't override the Atlantic Charter. So unconditional surrender can't do anything worse than what the Atlantic Charter already mapped out, so theres no reason for them to get uppidy about unconditional surrender unless it is because of the terms already layed out in the Atlantic Charter.
Wrong. To Germany unconditional surrender = Treaty of Versailles all over again.
Nice logic gap. Because it's not like the Atlantic Charter already made it clear another Treaty of Versailles couldn't happen.
Hahahaha. I'm not even going to dignify that. See: Battle of Tobruk, Battle of the Bulge, Battle of the Scheldt, etc.
All of those are examples of it being easy to transport over land. Just look at the opposing side.
Only a couple million, well armed, well trained, well supplied Germans!
Just because you put an exclaimation point doesn't make it any more relevent. We have millions more than they do.
Limited in the numbers you can land at once. Without a staging area and the ability to send hundreds of short range landing craft, your initial force is limited compared to the number of Germans available to resist you. Even with D-Day capacity, the entire German army would become available to resist the threat.
There were only couple hundred thosuand Allied troops in operation overlord. All of the German army was not able to repel those before reinforcements could arrive. And a steady stream of reinforcements kept coming. Ease of transport would not make as much difference as numbers, and the US very much led in numbers.
At 8/7/05 04:36 AM, TurnipClock wrote: Also the non-soviet allies were scared shitless Stalin would attack them (his massive armies were already deployed to mid europe so it wouldnt be hard to push further).
Most definately. Historians tend to agree that Stalin was considering finishing off Europe and Asia, but they can't agree on what made him decide not to.
Stalin saw an oppourtunity, the Soviet Union was completely mobilized, industries had been moved to safer areas, production capacity was at all time highs. The major problem with mobilization is the damage done while starting it up, not while running it. And since it was already started up why not invade Europe while you have the chance.
At 8/7/05 03:49 AM, Pluto_from_Below wrote: And now i want to copy a text from wikipedia , you should read it. Most important it says that japan was probably going to surrender soon and that Japan wasn't warned.
Actually, it says the exact opposite of that. In the end it says leaflets were dropped and through it mentions that surrender was unlikely.
And at that, your quoting the part of the article in which it lists the opinions of certain groups, not what the facts are.
Japan would not have surrendered, the army would not let it happen. Not without one last fight. With the bombing, they realized they were never going to get a last fight, that the US was just going to keep dropping bombs.
I often here people claim that Japan wanted to surrender and was going to, and thier only condition was to keep the emporer in power. This is incorrect.
First off, it ignores the fact that the army attempted a coup even after the bombs had been dropped, and in the process they nearly killed the emporer. So it seems rather unlikely that they would have simply accepted a surrender.
Second, there was never a formal attempt at surrender, diplomats favored it, but it never happened.
And third, it was never directly stated that that was the only condition.
It was the right thing to do, if only because it made Stalin think twice about his next move.
I recently went on a quest to figure out who that girl in JOS's sig is (I've seen her on the internet everywhere). I think she might just be the most mysterious redhead on the internet, nobody knows anything about her except that on some site shes called 'Jessica'.
At 8/6/05 07:51 PM, Jerconjake wrote: There was civilian resistance in Stalingrad and Berlin because they were committed to the cause. Also, in Stalingrad people were forbidden to leave the city. If you knew anything about the battle for Berlin, you'd know that the average citizen was just trying to survive by that time. The lines for bread and water were far longer than recruitment lines.
People were forbidden to leave Berlin too, the Soviets had it surrounded. By the time the Soviets got to Berlin, everyone was aware of thier raping and pillaging abilities. Thats why they fought so hard against them.
I find it funny that your arguments boil down to 'you know nothing about Germany', I had no idea I was debating with a professor of German studies.
Not really. The commanders of German armies wanted to avoid defending Berlin completely and try and escape to the west and surrender, but Hitler ordered them to defend the capital.
Berlin was surrounded, where would they escape?
Wow. You would have to take Berlin. There's no way the war would end without taking major cities, especially Berlin. You're assuming that Hitler was rational enough to realize that when there's no hope the only option is surrender. I don't understand at all what you meant by avoiding conscripts.
No we wouldn't. Look at the pacific. We repeatedly avoided taking cities and still won. The whole plan for Europe from the beginning was to avoid Paris but we didn't at the insistance of the French.
And what I mean is we avoid fighting civilian militias, a civilian militia can't be ordered out of thier home, it just doesn't work. The whole purpose of them is to defend cities.
The Atlantic Charter was fucking sugary candyland next to Casablanca. It consisted basically of positives for Europe after the war, including for the vanquished. The only people that would be threatened by that were government officials.
Now you aren't even making sense. All Casablanca asked for was unconditional surrender, it never said there would be punishment for the Germans.
The Atlantic Charter said there would be Disarmerment and Self-Determination. The only two reasons one wouldn't surrender. Unless they thought we would impose fines or something, which goes exactly against everything the Atlantic Charter said.
Once again, wow. I take it you've not seen many Germans or Berliners talk about how they felt about unconditional surrender. You've never even seen The World at War, have you? Many officers still wanted Hitler dead because they felt it would end the war, but the average German never knew how hopeless it was. What I told you comes from first hand accounts by people who were there, so don't tell me that I'm speculating.
So now your argument is a movie. Great. Oh yeah thats right I forgot I'm talking to a professor of German studies.
An unconditional surrender is no worse then the guidlines the Atlantic Charter set out.
In the Pacific you had island hopping. You had many bases for resupply, ports, airfields and the like. In the Pacific you were capturing small islands and had massive fire support from battleships and airbases on other islands. Europe is very different, and Hitler had a funny habit of destroying ports before leaving them.
How is it easier to deliver support from Ships to places without Harbors then to deliver them across land with trucks and airplanes?
Nevertheless, your point is irrelevent, because we managed to do it in real life with no problem. What do we face now thats different? A couple million Germans.
Germans in real life had to go to Russia, France and Italy by rail. Where are you gonna go from North Africa, Italy? Imagine if Kesselring was able to use the full force of the German army at almost full strength. Or perhaps you'd go ahead with Operation Anvil instead? Good luck there too, considering that southern France is far closer to Germany than Russia and that the millions of troops not committed to Russia would be more than able to repel your limited numbers.
The most troops commited to Russia at any time were 3 million. How can we not match that?
And our limited numbers? Limited compared to who? China? Germany is the one with limited numbers.
At 8/6/05 04:55 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: And eventually the Germans would have developed their own. They were behind the US, but if the war is drawn out, they may well have accomplished making one.
Unlikely, when we found thier atomic program it was virtually nothing. They were under the mistaken assumption that you needed around 2,000 pounds of a U-235 so they never worked on it. By the time they would find out you didn't when we detonated the first bomb it would be too late as we would already be able to bomb them.
The Atomic bombs were a way to finish off the Japanese. You wouldnt be able to use them to fight the entire war, especially on both fronts
Why not? Carriers can be refitted to hold larger bombers. The Azores are within range of Berlin, we could always take them. There are islands North of Britain that could be taken. Hell we had an old base in Britain we could launch then from.
At 8/6/05 03:46 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: no these numbers are professional troops. not all the japanese are conscripts. and your going to need the majority of your 4 million marines and navy personnel. plus id say about 2 million of the 8 million actual soldiers. that leaves you about 6 million plus the air force to deal with europe.
I'm going to need a source for your numbers. Because those cannot be professional armies.
And second, we never used that many troops in the pacific.
because they don't want to lose. things will work out differently remember
They didn't want to lose in real life either, but they had no choice. They were willing to surrender but they didn't because of the Soviets.
well done.
Hmm?
no you proved that you did a 'mini d-day' in the pacific theatre. that operation didnt even involve paratroops. this would be much tougher. so no you havent prooved anything. And manpower has a lot to do with it.
Ex-fucking-actly. We were able to establish a beachhead with only a small amphibious force. Thats all that matters. After you have a beachhead or a port you can start shipping troops. And then it becomes an issue of manpower, which we exceed them in.
oh no of course not. so theres 10 million Germans minimum in the theatre plus all the rest of the axis.
No source for that number.
yes and how many of that 130 million are the right age, capable of serving, males? the maximum force you could muster was about 16 million through conscription. The Germans can do that too, and will outnumber that.
The US, a country of 130 million, only has 16 million males age 18-30?
Yet Germany, a country of 60 million, has more.
That was quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard someone say.
fair enough. plus the majority of you r navy.
The US produced 60 Battleships alone over the course of the war. We could easily defeat Germany, a country with just a few ports on the northern coast.
At 8/6/05 05:52 PM, TimeFrame wrote: Im just still wondering why the hell france is even on that list.
Compulsory military service and a huge military budget. People forget that France often sends troops to quell 'riots' in thier former colonies. In other words, invade.
At 8/6/05 07:47 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: "in the second world war, the maximum number of troops mobilised by the major coutries were approximately:
US: 12 million
Germany: 10 million
Japan: 7 million"
And as I already said, in the end most of these were civlian militias. The 7 million was Japan at the end they had 7 million conscripts all on that Island. And another point, we can ignore those soldiers of Japan, because we never needed to invade Japan.
At 8/6/05 07:01 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: you obviously arent grasping the consept of your own scenario. it won't happen like it did in the real wwii. if the germans think that they may lose, theyll conscript.
Why woudl they fight us if they didn't in real life?
i feel like im arguing with a monkey of some sort. ok, again you have to understand the concept of your own scenario. the us forces invade through africa and italy. however, unlike in the real wwii, you have to expect some sort of heavy resistance in invading italy, if you get that far.
Yeah, you haven't explained why. Italy wasn't busy fighting the Soviets in the first place.
And at that, that is beside the point. Your argument was that we would need to do a D-day, and I have sufficiently proved we could stage an amphibious landing into Italy from North Africa. Now your arguing manpower, which has nothing to do with your original point.
argh. because the germans are there too.
So there are approximately 2.4 million Germans not tied up in Operation Barbarossa. We just need to match each one with an American troop. Not difficult at all.
yeh that problem could be solved like that, as long as you pull them out of your magic hat. i presume thats your plan, considering the rest of your argument is based upon manpower you didnt have
Or perhaps from our 130 million population? How did we not have the manpower? You haven't explained this. 2-4 million troops could have done what the Soviets did with 14 million, the only reason it took that many for them was because they were poorly armed and poorly trained.
And on the Pacific we really only have one or two million at the most. Guadacanal only used 30,000 troops, Iwo jima only used 70,000, Okinawa only used 150,000, Phillipenes only used a couple hundred thousand. We beat Japan with navy and airforce more than with troops. Really I doubt more than one million went into battle in the pacific.
I like to steer the topic of all my debates onto ponies, thats where I really shine.
At 8/6/05 04:35 AM, JMHX wrote: Long enough for me to ram it through Congress like the bent over woman it is.
Why would you ram a bent over woman through congress?
:-/
At 8/3/05 05:32 PM, -BAWLS- wrote:So in that sense, Arthur would be promoting a cause (acceptance of homosexuality) that is still being debated. A lot like a lobbyist group.
I suppose teaching evolution would be "lobbying" as well, since it's still being debated and is opposed by a sizeable minority.
No, evolution is a science. You can't scientifically prove morals. Those are two completely different things.
At 8/5/05 01:50 PM, The_Light wrote: We were enemy (War Plan Red, the latter was a plan from the US army to invade canada in the mid 30's)
I hear this so much from Canadians it's laughable. Find me a country we didn't make an invasion plan for.
At 8/5/05 04:03 PM, Empanado wrote: Regarding the list... ITALY? Now that just deserves a major WTF.
Everyone always expects alot from Italy but when the time comes they just go on vacation or something. Italy pretty much matches UK and France in population and GDP, and they have a strong navy and alot of ports.
At 8/5/05 05:26 AM, Nietzschean_Ideal wrote: It's quite ironic that muslim militants, unequipped as they are, have the US trembling more than the might of all the earth's armed forces.
Those who adopt fear tactics are super-powers in their own right.
Yeah sure. Wait a tick... WW2 killed 55 million people.... how many people have died from Terrorism so far? Theres a difference between trembling and kicking ass, the latter is more like terrorists focusing all thier power to pull off a few attacks that are cleaned up in a day and then the US taking over Afghanistan with 13 spec ops soldiers.
Being able to make headlines doesn't make you a super power, terrorism never made anyone surrender.
At 8/5/05 03:04 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: Russia 6? I would at least put them 2 or 3. I mean, am I the only one that remembers all the crap they created and had in the Cold War?
I'm suprised Russia is even on the list. I thought they stopped paying thier army in 1996. But I do here they have a nice tank army buried in the ground somewhere along the border with China.
At 8/3/05 09:17 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Who, though? The population would, but they surrendered to the Soviets too. In fact, the average citizen knew they would be shot if weapons or soldiers were found in their homes by the Soviets, so citizens were afraid to resist because of the Red Army.
That is incredibly historically inaccurate. There was plenty of civilian resistance in Berlin, just like in Stalingrad. Knowing you would be shot is rarely a deterrent for resistance, since you would be shot in the process anyway.
The army and the Volkssturm still would still be under orders to resist.
Because those orders were given so they could have the opportunity to surrender to the US instead.
That's true, many were following orders. They were still bound by duty, regardless of the certainty of failure and they had been since the war turned against them. The fact is, there's no way you would get Berlin unopposed. You would never suffer as many casualties as the Soviets did, due largely to the quality of your troops, but you couldn't just waltz in.
We probably wouldn't even ever have to take Berlin. The Soviets only took it as a propaganda victory. Since we don't need to stop the advance of the Soviets, we can bypass the major cities. Thus pretty much avoiding conscripts.
As for the Atlantic Charter, it had nothing at all to do with unconditional surrender.
While you are correct, I think thats beside the point. The Atlantic Charter did everything but demand an unconditional surrender. And as you pointed out, it wasn't the surrender they were afraid of but the consequences of it.
Funny that you just ignored the explanation in the earlier part of the paragraph. Where is this speculation of mine coming in? I'm telling you how the German people felt as a whole and why unconditional surrender united them.
Exactly, your basing that completely off of speculation on your part. There are no historical references to this. The democratic underground still continued to work and still attempted a coup. German commanders still often refused to fight (see Berlin). And in the end they still wanted to surrender to the US.
Over a much shorter distance, and with bases in North Africa, including airfields. They'd have a much easier time with the flow of supplies and troops than the Americans could hope for. And even if you did manage to get all of North Africa, a foothold in Europe would be even more difficult, since German troops only had to come by rail, and they would be much closer to resupply.
So it takes us longer, we just send more men. We had these exact same problems in the Pacific and were able to overcome all of them.
And that last bit makes no sense, Germans only had to come by rail in real life too, but they still couldn't keep us out of Europe. Italians too. All the problems you are listing can be easily fixed by just matching British troops and sending more to make up for the Soviets.
At 8/3/05 04:41 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: this is the combined force of all the axis powers before conscription in mine and nik gardners view (lecturer). since the German force alone went up to 20 million after conscription, and since theyre defending their homes, i can see them conscripting anyway.
Again, where are you getting this from?
Also, the US saw little resistance from the population, that was mainly the soviets. For obvious reasons.
oh....angry noises. in the real WWII the Germans and Italians were a retreating force. Since you are invading Italy straight from the off, theyll be ready for you. They have the resources in this scenario to oppose you there and then. see? you came up with this scenario not me
You made absolutely no sense there. Invading straight from the off? What?
And why do they have the resources then but not now? Italy wasn't fighting the Soviet Union.
And how can that problem not be solved by using more troops?
At 8/3/05 04:30 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: I disagree about the manpower. Ok so the US has 12 million men ready. The combined European axis has about 15 million ready. All of this is, of course, before conscription. So you would have to put most of your effort into the European front. As i see it, your best bet on this suicide mission is to go on a 'torch' like landing in africa, and invade through italy. if you think you won't have a d-day scenario there you're kidding yourself. plus you have to spread all your resources between both theatres. i feel like ive repeated myself a million times.
Where are you getting these numbers? 15 million had to be after conscription.
And we didn't have a d-day scenario in Italy.
At 8/3/05 04:12 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: thats hardly a similar situation. there were two enemy armies coming from either side. and who will drive these vehicles and these planes? as ive said, you would have to split your army for each front. what comes to me is that by winning one front, you would lose the other. which is why i think itd end in stalemate
Who would drive the vehicles an planes? Uhh.. I dunno... people?
What makes you think we could not win both fronts? What are we lacking? We can make more vehicles and planes than them, and we have more manpower.
Hmm.. I think the real issue here is that are we willing to accept being gay as okay. I don't think we are, there is still a sizeable minority in this country that does not believe being gay is okay. So then its really just an opinion.
So in that sense, Arthur would be promoting a cause (acceptance of homosexuality) that is still being debated. A lot like a lobbyist group.
At 8/3/05 03:59 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: well in real life they had the soviets coming in from one side, and the Allied forces from the other. how do you think you'll go about getting them into a similar situation
Something tells me they wont go retreating into Poland and Russia. We just need to increase, even double our troop numbers in Europe. We already match both Japan and Germany combined in vehicle production, and exceed them in plane production.
