Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/3/05 02:40 PM, Jimsween wrote:

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.

my point is that you said that it was easy to invade italy, which while being wrong in itself, you did not do alone.

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

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

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.

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

you have also only tried to prove US troop numbers.

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 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 03:05 PM, Jimsween wrote: '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.

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?

At 8/3/05 03:10 PM, Jimsween wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

'Came up' with? yes. i conjured them from thin air. my god, I asked my lecturer, a man who has been in the game a damsight longer than either of us, for some troop numbers.

you have also only tried to prove US troop numbers.

How exactly could the US census bureau be wrong?

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

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 03:55 PM, Jimsween wrote: They would surrender once we got them into a situation similar to the one we got them into in real life.

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

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.

At 8/3/05 04:07 PM, Jimsween wrote:

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.

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

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.

At 8/3/05 04:21 PM, Jimsween wrote:

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?

well done have a gold star.

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.

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.

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 04:33 PM, Jimsween wrote: Where are you getting these numbers? 15 million had to be after conscription.

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.

And we didn't have a d-day scenario in Italy.

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

At 8/3/05 03:05 PM, Jimsween wrote:

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.

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.
The army and the Volkssturm still would still be under orders to resist.

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.

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.

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.

I found the quote online somewhere. How about you just read this: http://casablancacon..om/ch3.asp#Surrender

As for the Atlantic Charter, it had nothing at all to do with unconditional surrender.

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.

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.

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.

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.

At 7/24/05 02:59 AM, everythingiscrap wrote: This is my frist post here.

good for you.

I heard about a survey a couple of weeks ago saying that 8 out of 10 europeans want to see the US weaker politically, and militarily. I've heard so many people say, we've got to stop US hegenomy. I can't believe that after all we did for the world, all they want to do is see us die. We saved the world in world wars I and II. We've sent peacekeeprs in to every conflict. We stopped Slovodon!

Slobodan!

:We went into haiti! Also Grenada!
Cold war..anti commy..I dont give shit that ddnt affect europe.

Also, for people saying we don't give enough aid money, and our people don't care about disaster and poverty, after the tsunami, our citizens gave more money than any other countries citizens, and every other governments contributions dwarfed in comparison to ours!

Your the bigest in the fucking world dumbarse your expected to

:Also, terrorism. People say we attacked them first, and that we deserved 9/11. Like winston chruchill, the professor from Univ. of Colo. I hope he burns in hell. We didn't do anything to these people. In afghanistan, we gave them weapons to fight off the soviets, and all they did was attack us!
You invaded to get bin Laden wanker

And saddam! He deifed 11 UN resolutions about disarming! He even gassed his own people! the kurds! And people say we deserved 9/11 because we do buisness with Israel! Whats wrong with that! Should we abandon them, and become anti semitic like the rest of the world.

The rest of the world isnt is it. the brits gave israel israel. Read upon ur history boy.

Also, if gore had been elected preisdent, the earth would probably be called allah right now instead of earth. I have nothing against muslims just al-qaida. I know im randomly changing topic from sentence to sentence. Also, if we pulled out of iraq right now, it would become just like iran, a terrorist run theocracy, thats a threat to the world.

Whats AL got to do with this?

P.S. There have been numerous reports of saddam bribing people high up in each of the governments that opposed the iraq war/

WHts that got to do with it?

At 8/3/05 03:10 PM, Jimsween wrote:

you have also only tried to prove US troop numbers.

How exactly could the US census bureau be wrong?

Um...Cause it's a census? It's a statistics thing, not a "lets count every single soldier" thing. You find an average and multipy...it ain't an exact number.

At 8/4/05 08:00 PM, Flash007 wrote: Um...Cause it's a census? It's a statistics thing, not a "lets count every single soldier" thing. You find an average and multipy...it ain't an exact number.

And to my knowledge, the Census doesn't go to every door and count every citizen and their family members...

At 8/4/05 08:00 PM, Flash007 wrote: Um...Cause it's a census? It's a statistics thing, not a "lets count every single soldier" thing. You find an average and multipy...it ain't an exact number.

What? No, a census is an exact count. Its not a "poll" where the pollers try to use math and whatever. It is a counting of everyone. And how the hell would the Army not know how many people they have? Does a company not know how many employees it has? Great thinking.

The enumeration of an entire population, usually with details being recorded on residence, age, sex, occupation, ethnic group, marital status, birth history, and relationship to head of household.

www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/epi_gloss.htm

Notice the ENTIRE POPULATION part.

At 8/4/05 08:20 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

Does a company not know how many employees it has?

With current creative accounting practices, probably.

The enumeration of an entire population, usually with details being recorded on residence, age, sex, occupation, ethnic group, marital status, birth history, and relationship to head of household.

www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/epi_gloss.htm

Notice the ENTIRE POPULATION part.

Notice the household part. They need people to truefully answer the census. This also is near impossible because of the amount of money it would take to track down every single member of an entire population. That is why we use statsics. We can't track down every single person in the country, homeless people contributing to the most to the trouble. By the time you finished the census it would be outdated. Do you really think we have people constatnly out there polling homeless people for their age, sex, occupation, ethnic group, marital status, birth history, etc.? Just because people don't have a home doesn't mean they aren't part of the population.

As for army records, Just look at the fuss over Bush's records to see how good they are.

Note, for almost all statements using the word all by itself, those statesments are false. (OK, that came out more math speak than I was going for, but I think I still made my point.)

At 8/4/05 08:00 PM, Flash007 wrote:

At 8/3/05 03:10 PM, Jimsween wrote:

Um...Cause it's a census? It's a statistics thing, not a "lets count every single soldier" thing. You find an average and multipy...it ain't an exact number.

The army files a lot of paperwork for every soldier they sign, and they keep track of everyone they sign. They know exactly how many people they have. It would be kind of hard making battle plans without knowing something like that.

And how the hell would the Army not know how many people they have? Does a company not know how many employees it has? Great thinking.

Um cause in war, pple die, and reports of incidents are often delayed weeks or months, MIA soldiers have to be accounted for to, its a general amount, but nvr an exact number

At 8/5/05 01:47 AM, DirtBikerX wrote: Um cause in war, pple die, and reports of incidents are often delayed weeks or months, MIA soldiers have to be accounted for to, its a general amount, but nvr an exact number

OMG THANKYOU. Im glad I got the input from a REAL soilder who works...

Ah, wait, what the hell, you are 15. A census is a count of EVERYONE. A census is maybe not the best word, maybe we should use a sentence so all yall can understand. The Army COUNTS everyone who WORKS for them. At every minute of every day, they know their troop strength. To say they dont know is completly inane.

What, you think the Army is just thinking they are falling behind recruiting deadlines because they are guesstimating? No, they know how many soilders they recruit, how many they have, how many will leave, when they will leave, etc.

And hey, geniuses'. Wanna know a good way to know how many people you have working for you? PAYROLL!!! Yes, how many people you pay. It is actually a very scientific process, so I cant go into specifics here or I would have to get into technical jargon that would be all but in-understandable to all.

well ive accepted that the census probably has the right number approximately

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 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 8/6/05 02:10 AM, Jimsween wrote: Again, where are you getting this from?

Also, the US saw little resistance from the population, that was mainly the soviets. For obvious reasons.

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.

You made absolutely no sense there. Invading straight from the off? What?

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.

And why do they have the resources then but not now? Italy wasn't fighting the Soviet Union.

argh. because the germans are there too.

And how can that problem not be solved by using more troops?

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

At 8/6/05 02:41 AM, Jimsween wrote: 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.

ok i can see the US just about matching the number of British troops, but how are you going to make up for the soviet manpower. please do tell

At 8/6/05 02:10 AM, Jimsween wrote: Again, where are you getting this from?

sorry forgot to answer that one. im getting this from various notes taken from my lectures.

"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"

Give or take a hundred thousand, these numbers show the troops actually mobilised during the war. Note that combined, Germany alone (no other european axis power) and Japan outnumber the US.

Now, without the 22-30 million Russians or the 8.7 million troops contributed by Britain and the commonwealth, the US doesnt have the manpower available to overcome the two major enemies.

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.