Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/29/05 09:40 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 7/29/05 07:28 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Last but not least, everyone hates how ignorant the US is. The very fact that you don't know any of this is evidence enough of the arrogant and ignorant attitude that the US treats the world with.

Wow, good job singling out a single person as an example of all Americans.

And in all that stuff, I havent seen the reason Europe and other Western countries dont like us to much. I mean, France and Germany and Russia and all them didnt like us before 9/11, they dislike us even more after Iraq. Whats the excuse for that?

No, in that case it's just jealousy. Europe is jealous that their power is weigning in the face of US strength. I'm just talking about the people that want to bomb the fuck out of you.

At 7/29/05 08:03 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 7/29/05 06:40 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Because in the actual scenario their only options are really, really bad defeat and bad defeat. So of course they opted for the lesser option because it was the best one they had. Hitler still wouldn't have surrendered, and the Volkssturm and all that still would have been created. So considering that surrender was not an option, they would have fought just as hard against the Americans.

I still don't get it. They were willing to surrender when given the options of a bad ending and a really bad ending, they would still have those if it was just the Americans, the bad ending being surrendering and the really bad being fighting to the death. Besides, Htler was dead then anyway.

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

Which was because the Americans were also fighting Imperial Japan, which still would have been a problem for them. A bigger one in fact, because the British would not be available in either theatre of war. The Germans would be able to mobilize more troops faster, and the Americans would not be able to create as much devastation with their air force, assuming they got air superiority at all without Britain and Russia fighting Germany.

No, we still only had a fraction of our forces on both fronts. The problem was our ranks were swelling faster then we could ship people out.

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.

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.

At 7/31/05 09:49 PM, Jimsween wrote: Unless were saying Germany took over Britain, which might be easier, Britain first then Europe.

No we're not in the war remember. Plus I doubt you couldve done d-day on your own.

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.

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.

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

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 05:45 AM, Jimsween wrote:

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 8/1/05 07:16 PM, Jimsween wrote: Okay so then option one. We did D-Day on our own in the pacific again and again.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

hmmmm. you may have to rethink that one

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.

At 8/2/05 07:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: 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.

Yes, because Anzio and Salerno were both just walks in the park with fluffy cotton candy and little lolly pop sticks.

Anzio and Salerno were both extremely rough D-days and they were both horrific.

At 8/2/05 04:21 AM, Jimsween wrote:

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.

And that would be?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

At 8/2/05 07:13 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/2/05 10:34 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: 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.

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.

Why is it that only Canadians are arguing against Jimsween? I mean, the Canadians contributed about as much as the Polish army. If these arguments were comnig a brit, or a Russian, maybe they would have some real validity, but since they're being argued by people who just want to say Jimsween is wrong I have trouble believing them.

At 8/2/05 07:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Why is it that only Canadians are arguing against Jimsween? I mean, the Canadians contributed about as much as the Polish army.

lol.

what is the basic argument here,(to long to read back) that america could have won the war on their own?

At 8/2/05 07:46 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote: what is the basic argument here,(to long to read back) that america could have won the war on their own?

I'm not really sur anymore, it's been lost in the barrage of useless facts and information.

one of those threads.....

well america were undoubtably the mose powerful nation at the time but alone they could not have stopped the germans if the brittish hadnt been helping, but on the same hand with out american help russia would have continued to advance throught europe and took the whole mainland.

so western europe needed american help no matter what the situation and to defeat the germans america needed the combined efforts of the russians and brittish to be successful also

At 8/2/05 07:46 PM, PhysicsMafia wrote:

At 8/2/05 07:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Why is it that only Canadians are arguing against Jimsween? I mean, the Canadians contributed about as much as the Polish army.

lol.

what is the basic argument here,(to long to read back) that america could have won the war on their own?

That's the gist.

And Camarohusky, you should maybe read up a little on Canadian contribution to World War Two. Without us on D-Day and the Battle of the Schelt (which was a British fuck up, the war would have been much more difficult. We're arguing because we know what we're talking about.

At 8/2/05 08:00 PM, Jerconjake wrote: And Camarohusky, you should maybe read up a little on Canadian contribution to World War Two. Without us on D-Day and the Battle of the Schelt (which was a British fuck up, the war would have been much more difficult. We're arguing because we know what we're talking about.

Yes cause there was a hell of a lot of fighting on Juno Beach. The Canadians walked on unopposed.

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 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 10:22 PM, Jimsween wrote:

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.

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?

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

Alot of the fighting in Berlin happened after he died.

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.

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.

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

"The statement was made by President Roosevelt without consultation with me. I was there on the spot, and I had very rapidly to consider whether the state of our position in the world was such as would justify me in not giving support to it. I did give support to it, but that was not the idea which I had formed in my own mind....I have not the slightest doubt that...the British Cabinet...would have advised against it, but working with a great alliance and with great, loyal and powerful friends from across the ocean, we had to accomodate ourselves."

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.

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.

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!

At 8/2/05 08:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/2/05 08:00 PM, Jerconjake wrote: And Camarohusky, you should maybe read up a little on Canadian contribution to World War Two. Without us on D-Day and the Battle of the Schelt (which was a British fuck up, the war would have been much more difficult. We're arguing because we know what we're talking about.

Yes cause there was a hell of a lot of fighting on Juno Beach. The Canadians walked on unopposed.

The Germans had excellent observation and firing positions, from which they inflicted heavy casualties. In the assault teams, the chance of becoming a casualty in that first hour was almost 1 in 2.

You've never even heard of the Battle of the Schelt, have you?

The Canadian beach was the second hardest contested I think if I remember. The beaches were tough as hell but Im not sure how much it was contested after they got past the beaches or what the terrain was like. I do know the Canadians held off counterattacks from a SS division after they got deep inland though. Did a fine job on D Day.

At 8/2/05 07:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: 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.

ah theres that we word. not only the US, but the British too.

'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.

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.

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.

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

At 8/2/05 10:22 PM, Jimsween wrote: Thats why you take something weakly defended, like North Africa, first. Berlin would easily be in bombing range from Tunis.

And you withink full bombing range of them. And I doubt Germany would leave that southern flank unguarded. Thats pretty naive

At 8/2/05 07:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Why is it that only Canadians are arguing against Jimsween?

I am British, I live in England.

At 8/2/05 07:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: 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.

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

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.

ah yes. reading the wrong column. bugger.

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.