Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 8/7/05 05:09 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:
anywho, overlord was an overwhelming success in the long-run. there isnt much that can be criticised. maybe we couldve used the british inventions, im not too sure why they didnt.

YAY!!! We finally agree on something!

---

At 8/7/05 05:22 AM, Jimsween wrote:

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.

Please rephrase.

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.

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 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.

I mean if you bypassed other large cities.

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.

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.

That's funny, because the Volkssturm did it all the time.

Like when?

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Ha, funny. I will answer below.

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.

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.

---

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 8/8/05 04:03 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/8/05 12:07 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Please rephrase.

When invading Germany, the Soviets experienced much more resistance than the allies.

Naturally, the Soviets were a far greater threat.

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.

It's interesting that you should mention Weidling. I recently read a book called Soldat about a man who was very close to Weidling in the end. Weidling was under Hitler's direct orders, and he personally traveled to and from the bunker and always left infuriated. The two days of fighting after Hitler's death produced a negligible effect on the overall ferocity of the battle.

I mean if you bypassed other large cities.

Like we did in the Pacific?

I must admit that the Pacific is not my area of expertise. Perhaps you could offer an example of this?

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.

Surrounding many cities with strong garrisons is dangerous in Europe, because they will attempt mutually supporting breakouts. Not only that, the more troops you use to surround the city, the easier it is for the enemy to counter attack your front line and open a path to the city.

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?

No, I mean they were the ones who fought hardest out of fear of the Red Army, and yet their overall impact was negligible.

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.

Come now. Casablanca was an announcement of policy, and most certainly was binding.

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.

What do you want me to say here, exactly? Go check it if you care enough, the people were afraid of unconditional surrender. I can't explain it to you because I wasn't there, and you can't understand it because you weren't there. Once again, you can rebutt the rationale all you like, but it's a tad late for that.

First off, we invaded Vietam without a port. And there wasn't a port until we captured St. Lo in Normandy.

Most of the initial force in Vietnam was already there, came in relatively small groups, or were brought in by air. There would be no South Vietnam equivalent in Europe. Also, St. Lo is several miles inland from the beaches of Normandy.. One of the main objectives was to capture Cherbourg, which would replace the man-made harbor that was floated across from England to the landing zones in order to facilitate resupply.

Second, there was no port in Iwo Jima or many other Pacific invasions.

These battles are incomparable to Europe. Each island was not expected to hold, but to exact the highest price before being taken. Iwo Jima had only 22, 000 defenders, and had no possibility of being reinforced or resupplied.

And third, I don't see how the reason for those battles would prove that it is easier to transport over harbor.

Then you know nothing about them.

First off, the distance between Portsmouth and Normandy is not much shorter than the distance between Tunis and Sicily.

But we are assuming that you cannot use England as a staging ground, which means that all of your supply is coming across the Atlantic, and that you had no place to build up before the invasion took place, other than the ports of the eastern USA.

And I fail to see how Italy would maintain control of the mediterranean.

The Italian Navy was in many ways more impressive than the German Navy (shocking that they did anything right, I know), and assuming that England is not at war with the Axis, Italy would be in control of the Mediterranean at the time of a US invasion of North Africa.

---

At 8/8/05 09:46 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Naturally, the Soviets were a far greater threat.

Thats awfully convenient. How were the Soviets a greater threat? Just because of greater numbers? In the end the invasion of Germany was done with just 3 million Soviets, not 14 million.

It's interesting that you should mention Weidling. I recently read a book called Soldat about a man who was very close to Weidling in the end. Weidling was under Hitler's direct orders, and he personally traveled to and from the bunker and always left infuriated. The two days of fighting after Hitler's death produced a negligible effect on the overall ferocity of the battle.

Whats your point? They still waited to surrender.

I must admit that the Pacific is not my area of expertise. Perhaps you could offer an example of this?

Hmm, you know what I'm not actually positive which cities were avoided. I know it was used in both the Battle of Leyte and Okinawa.

Surrounding many cities with strong garrisons is dangerous in Europe, because they will attempt mutually supporting breakouts. Not only that, the more troops you use to surround the city, the easier it is for the enemy to counter attack your front line and open a path to the city.

First off, were talking mainly about a militia, not something very good at fighting thier way out of a city. And second, most of our troops were not at the front line, we garrisoned alot. Keeping the garrison in the vicinity of a city is just easier.

No, I mean they were the ones who fought hardest out of fear of the Red Army, and yet their overall impact was negligible.

Ah, so the normal soldiers didn't fight out of fear?

And thats not even a good point, thier impact was negligible not because they didn't fear the Soviets much, but because they are a civilian militia. I can't believe your actually trying to make the point that the Germans didn't fear the Soviets.

Come now. Casablanca was an announcement of policy, and most certainly was binding.

???

Announcement of policy is not binding. Espescially not when it conflicts with an outstanding treaty.

What do you want me to say here, exactly? Go check it if you care enough, the people were afraid of unconditional surrender. I can't explain it to you because I wasn't there, and you can't understand it because you weren't there. Once again, you can rebutt the rationale all you like, but it's a tad late for that.

It doesn't matter if they were afraid of unconditional surrender, they would have been afraid of the guidelines set out by the Atlantic charter anyway, if they were indeed afraid.

Most of the initial force in Vietnam was already there, came in relatively small groups, or were brought in by air. There would be no South Vietnam equivalent in Europe. Also, St. Lo is several miles inland from the beaches of Normandy.. One of the main objectives was to capture Cherbourg, which would replace the man-made harbor that was floated across from England to the landing zones in order to facilitate resupply.

First off, I wasn't claiming St. Lo was a port, my point was that we managed to capture important cities against a large army without even having a port.

Second, you are completely wrong about Vietnam. Only a small contingent was even in Vietnam, your completely full of bullshit on that one. We brought alot of troops in through natural beaches.

These battles are incomparable to Europe. Each island was not expected to hold, but to exact the highest price before being taken. Iwo Jima had only 22, 000 defenders, and had no possibility of being reinforced or resupplied.

How exactly does that rebut the fact that we were able to send huge contingents onto those islands and resupply them without ports?

Then you know nothing about them.

Or perhaps your just making something up about them?

But we are assuming that you cannot use England as a staging ground, which means that all of your supply is coming across the Atlantic, and that you had no place to build up before the invasion took place, other than the ports of the eastern USA.

Notice, Tunis and Sicily.

The Italian Navy was in many ways more impressive than the German Navy (shocking that they did anything right, I know), and assuming that England is not at war with the Axis, Italy would be in control of the Mediterranean at the time of a US invasion of North Africa.

So now you've decided the time of a US invasion of North Africa, and it happens to be before we even acheived naval dominance. Wow, crazy.

Of course we would defeat the Italian navy first.

---

At 8/10/05 07:29 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/8/05 09:46 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Naturally, the Soviets were a far greater threat.

Thats awfully convenient. How were the Soviets a greater threat? Just because of greater numbers? In the end the invasion of Germany was done with just 3 million Soviets, not 14 million.

Definately because of greater numbers. I mean, three German army groups were facing like 12 Soviet fronts of equal size. Also because Hitler ordered that not one inch of Soviet soil be surrendered, let alone German soil. Obviously there was also a strong sentiment against communism, and the Red Army in particular.

Whats your point? They still waited to surrender.

What's your point? The fighting continued after the war ended, not necessarily because people were afraid, but because the infrastructure was so wrecked that they didn't know to surrender. And as the entire war after 1942 will show you, surrender isn't always an option for German commanders or soldiers who are disallusioned.

I must admit that the Pacific is not my area of expertise. Perhaps you could offer an example of this?

Hmm, you know what I'm not actually positive which cities were avoided. I know it was used in both the Battle of Leyte and Okinawa.

Cities in Europe often have rail and road networks that make them vital to continuing the campaign, but this is not so in the Pacific. In the Pacific, each island is like a city and though you could bypass all of them and head straight to Tokyo, many of them must be taken first.

First off, were talking mainly about a militia, not something very good at fighting thier way out of a city. And second, most of our troops were not at the front line, we garrisoned alot. Keeping the garrison in the vicinity of a city is just easier.

I forget the point of talking about how useless militias are outside of cities.

Funny how you still had to thin out your lines though, huh?

No, I mean they were the ones who fought hardest out of fear of the Red Army, and yet their overall impact was negligible.

Ah, so the normal soldiers didn't fight out of fear?

Not principally, they were obligated to fight for their lives, no matter what enemy they were facing.

And thats not even a good point, thier impact was negligible not because they didn't fear the Soviets much, but because they are a civilian militia. I can't believe your actually trying to make the point that the Germans didn't fear the Soviets.

Okay, my point was 1) that they feared the Soviets a shitload, and 2) that they had a negligible impact. Ergo, those who were the most afraid had the least impact.

And I'm not making that point. I'm saying that removing the Soviets from this scenario isn't suddenly going to make Germany fall into your waiting arms.

Come now. Casablanca was an announcement of policy, and most certainly was binding.

???

Announcement of policy is not binding. Espescially not when it conflicts with an outstanding treaty.

Policy is binding. So that whole unconditional surrender thing was just a practical joke? You're trying to say that they were not serious about unconditional surrender?

It doesn't matter if they were afraid of unconditional surrender, they would have been afraid of the guidelines set out by the Atlantic charter anyway, if they were indeed afraid.

Not really, considering that when it was conceived, actually having to submit to those conditions was the furthest thing from Germans' minds.

First off, I wasn't claiming St. Lo was a port, my point was that we managed to capture important cities against a large army without even having a port.

Wrong. You had mulberries.

Second, you are completely wrong about Vietnam. Only a small contingent was even in Vietnam, your completely full of bullshit on that one. We brought alot of troops in through natural beaches.

http://en.wikipedia....S._Forces_Committed

These battles are incomparable to Europe. Each island was not expected to hold, but to exact the highest price before being taken. Iwo Jima had only 22, 000 defenders, and had no possibility of being reinforced or resupplied.

How exactly does that rebut the fact that we were able to send huge contingents onto those islands and resupply them without ports?

The entire island could be secured in only a few days, not over a number of weeks or months as would be required in Europe or North Africa. Also, the Japanese fought a defensive battle from square one, while the Germans would not. This meant that your troops and supplies landed considerably less molested, and the landing zones were never fully contested.

Then you know nothing about them.

Or perhaps your just making something up about them?

Haha. You crack me up kid. Go have yourself a lesson about those battles and get back to me.

Notice, Tunis and Sicily.

So the entire German army is waiting for you in Italy, and you're going to walk right in? You'd need serious time to prepare which the Germans wouldn't let you have.

The Italian Navy was in many ways more impressive than the German Navy (shocking that they did anything right, I know), and assuming that England is not at war with the Axis, Italy would be in control of the Mediterranean at the time of a US invasion of North Africa.

So now you've decided the time of a US invasion of North Africa, and it happens to be before we even acheived naval dominance. Wow, crazy.

Of course we would defeat the Italian navy first.

How's that, exactly? You have no bases whatsoever in the Mediterranean. Even the Germans could put uboats or whatever they wanted there. Good luck getting though the Straight of Gibraltar! Bottlenecks are great fun for attacking forces!

---

At 8/11/05 12:39 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Definately because of greater numbers. I mean, three German army groups were facing like 12 Soviet fronts of equal size. Also because Hitler ordered that not one inch of Soviet soil be surrendered, let alone German soil. Obviously there was also a strong sentiment against communism, and the Red Army in particular.

Wait... isn't that last line completely agreeing with what I said?

What's your point? The fighting continued after the war ended, not necessarily because people were afraid, but because the infrastructure was so wrecked that they didn't know to surrender. And as the entire war after 1942 will show you, surrender isn't always an option for German commanders or soldiers who are disallusioned.

Were not talking about just individual people. This is a commander and an army.

Cities in Europe often have rail and road networks that make them vital to continuing the campaign, but this is not so in the Pacific. In the Pacific, each island is like a city and though you could bypass all of them and head straight to Tokyo, many of them must be taken first.

I thought you said that troops could be transported much faster over land. We can bomb ships just like we can bomb railroads, and an army advancing on foot over land can be countered easily.

I forget the point of talking about how useless militias are outside of cities.

That cancels out alot of the German army.

Funny how you still had to thin out your lines though, huh?

In real life? No I don't see why thats funny. Thats normal in an invasion, you have to occupy to prevent insurgence.

Not principally, they were obligated to fight for their lives, no matter what enemy they were facing.

That is far oversimplifying things. They may be obligated to, but soldiers rarely fight to the death unless they have idealogical reasons to or have something to fear if they lose.

Okay, my point was 1) that they feared the Soviets a shitload, and 2) that they had a negligible impact. Ergo, those who were the most afraid had the least impact.

And I'm not making that point. I'm saying that removing the Soviets from this scenario isn't suddenly going to make Germany fall into your waiting arms.

I'm not saying it will. You yourself acknowledged that the Germans fought particularily hard against the soviets out of both fear and because they didn't want to submit to communism. France surrendered out of fear of an invasion, yet Germany didn't even surrender after practically thier entire country was demolished.

Policy is binding. So that whole unconditional surrender thing was just a practical joke? You're trying to say that they were not serious about unconditional surrender?

Policy is not binding. Where are you getting this from? Policy is policy exactly because it isn't binding, it just gives you a general idea of what you can expect.

Not really, considering that when it was conceived, actually having to submit to those conditions was the furthest thing from Germans' minds.

Whats your point? I don't really see how that applies to what I said. Anything they could fear was already mentioned in the Atlantic charter, so they would really be fearing that.

Wrong. You had mulberries.

That.. would just go to reinforce my point. We didn't have a port, so we made one.

http://en.wikipedia....S._Forces_Committed

Uhh, yeah that says exactly what I said. I don't see your point.

The entire island could be secured in only a few days, not over a number of weeks or months as would be required in Europe or North Africa. Also, the Japanese fought a defensive battle from square one, while the Germans would not. This meant that your troops and supplies landed considerably less molested, and the landing zones were never fully contested.

Hmm.. sure you don't want to rethink that? I can name alot of invasions in the pacific that took weeks if not months.

Haha. You crack me up kid. Go have yourself a lesson about those battles and get back to me.

I suppose the best way to not be proven wrong is to never present your argument.

So the entire German army is waiting for you in Italy, and you're going to walk right in? You'd need serious time to prepare which the Germans wouldn't let you have.

Why would they be waiting for us in Italy? Why not Greece? Marseille? Spain? Any of those can be done instead, Italy is just the most practical example because we did it in the past (yes I know we did southern France in the past too).

And keep in mind, it wasn't as if Germany had 3 million extra men that they decided to put into Russia, they raised more. They want 3 million extra soldiers to pay as much as we want an extra 10 million.

How's that, exactly? You have no bases whatsoever in the Mediterranean. Even the Germans could put uboats or whatever they wanted there. Good luck getting though the Straight of Gibraltar! Bottlenecks are great fun for attacking forces!

Did Germany have any naval bases in America? Wierd that they were still able to attack our shipping convoys then... How far is Kwajalein from Pearl Harbor (disregarding the fact that Kwajalein wasnt even where they all came from).

Your thinking too small. Remember that the pacific is much larger than the Atlantic. The distance from Honolulu to Tokyo is about the same as New York to Morocco. And the distance from Honolulu to Manilla is much much longer, as is the distance from Sydney to Manilla.

---

This is possibly one of the longest debates over a single issue ever.

EVAR

---

Hahahahahaha. No.

I know for a fact me and jake had a longer one previously. And I've had longer than that easily. I've even had longer than the one with Balsac about mcdonalds coffee.

---

and i havent backed out yet. have decided the internet can't be trusted anymore so i think i might take time to visit the library. should be able to get a stable source there

---

At 8/12/05 05:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/11/05 12:39 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Wait... isn't that last line completely agreeing with what I said?

Sure is, because I know the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS were afraid of the Red Army. That doesn't affect the amount of resistance Hitler commits to the front. If anything he should have ended the war long before it did end, if he really cared about the sentiments of his men.

Were not talking about just individual people. This is a commander and an army.

And commanders and armies swore an oath to Hitler himself which meant that they had to obey his command. Even if every German army continued to resist to surrender to the west after Hitler died, it doesn't make much difference in the overall destructiveness of the war or the Battle of Berlin.

Cities in Europe often have rail and road networks that make them vital to continuing the campaign, but this is not so in the Pacific. In the Pacific, each island is like a city and though you could bypass all of them and head straight to Tokyo, many of them must be taken first.

I thought you said that troops could be transported much faster over land. We can bomb ships just like we can bomb railroads, and an army advancing on foot over land can be countered easily.

That doesn't counter anything I said. I said that you have to take cities for the same reasons you had to take islands in the Pacific: they are crucial junctures for continuing your advance. You don't bomb the rail and road networks in cities, since you need them to move armor. You can seal them off, but it makes it a little tough to advance.

I forget the point of talking about how useless militias are outside of cities.

That cancels out alot of the German army.

What? How's that?

Funny how you still had to thin out your lines though, huh?

In real life? No I don't see why thats funny. Thats normal in an invasion, you have to occupy to prevent insurgence.

In a liberation? And garrisoning a lot of troops never changed the fact that you couldn't use them all, so that point is moot.

That is far oversimplifying things. They may be obligated to, but soldiers rarely fight to the death unless they have idealogical reasons to or have something to fear if they lose.

Soldiers fight to the death every day. That's what they make armies for. Unless you mean hand to hand, which is not how the majority of the war was fought.

I'm not saying it will. You yourself acknowledged that the Germans fought particularily hard against the soviets out of both fear and because they didn't want to submit to communism. France surrendered out of fear of an invasion, yet Germany didn't even surrender after practically thier entire country was demolished.

We are in agreement about that first part, but that doesn't mean that the German army will only fight its hardest against Russians. If you were the only threat, and they knew that the fuhrer would accept only victory or the total destruction of Germany, which they did, they'd fight just as hard.

Policy is not binding. Where are you getting this from? Policy is policy exactly because it isn't binding, it just gives you a general idea of what you can expect.

And the general idea was that the Allies would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender, which they knew Hitler would never agree to.

Whats your point? I don't really see how that applies to what I said. Anything they could fear was already mentioned in the Atlantic charter, so they would really be fearing that.

I'm only going to say this one more time, and then I'm not going to respond on it anymore: The Germans were afraid of, and united by unconditional surrender. I can't explain it to you apparently, but please do check into it.

Wrong. You had mulberries.

That.. would just go to reinforce my point. We didn't have a port, so we made one.

It was barely possible to get it across the Channel, let alone the Atlantic.

Uhh, yeah that says exactly what I said. I don't see your point.

The first troops to go were 3,500 which added to the 25,000 that were already there. They were able to deploy more over the course of the year, not within a few weeks.

Hmm.. sure you don't want to rethink that? I can name alot of invasions in the pacific that took weeks if not months.

We were talking about the Battle of Iwo Jima, which lasted from February 19th to February 23rd, 1945.

Haha. You crack me up kid. Go have yourself a lesson about those battles and get back to me.

I suppose the best way to not be proven wrong is to never present your argument.

Tobruk was important to Rommel because his supply lines over land were far too long. This was a major factor in the see-sawing of both armies back and forth across the desert. The Battle of the Scheldt was fought to open the estuaries leading to Antwerp,
because Allied supply lines were over stretched across 'injin country.' The Battle of the Bulge was designed to close Antwerp and stem the Allied advance.

Why would they be waiting for us in Italy? Why not Greece? Marseille? Spain? Any of those can be done instead, Italy is just the most practical example because we did it in the past (yes I know we did southern France in the past too).

Because Italy is the next logical target.

And keep in mind, it wasn't as if Germany had 3 million extra men that they decided to put into Russia, they raised more. They want 3 million extra soldiers to pay as much as we want an extra 10 million.

If you were a serious enough threat, they would raise just as many men as they did in real life. The Wehrmacht had over two million men in 1939.

Did Germany have any naval bases in America? Wierd that they were still able to attack our shipping convoys then... How far is Kwajalein from Pearl Harbor (disregarding the fact that Kwajalein wasnt even where they all came from).

They attacked them from France. What does Kwajalein have to do with anything?

Your thinking too small.

That doesn't change the fact that you'd need bases in the Mediterranean in order to control it. You have nowhere to refuel and rearm, which means you can't maintain a constant presence. Think of the Battle of Britain, the Germans had the same problem only with aircraft.

---

At 8/12/05 09:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Sure is, because I know the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS were afraid of the Red Army. That doesn't affect the amount of resistance Hitler commits to the front. If anything he should have ended the war long before it did end, if he really cared about the sentiments of his men.

Alot of the resistance was not ordered by Hitler, several of the counteroffensives were done of the army's own choice. And the fear of the Red Army would effect how hard they fought too, your militia argument is not applicable here because a militia is innefective for completely different reasons.

And commanders and armies swore an oath to Hitler himself which meant that they had to obey his command.

I seem to remember that Hitler ordered the soldiers not to surrender at Stalingrad, yet they did. Funny that the magic binding of this oath didn't kick in and stop them.

That doesn't counter anything I said.

Okay, I will grant you that it is tougher to advance without taking the cities. But lets keep in mind you could walk across Germany in a week. Railroads can be bypassed, too. If thats the only problem then there isn't much problem at all.

What? How's that?

If were going to use the 10 million+ number, thats counting alot of militia and poorly trained conscripts.

In a liberation? And garrisoning a lot of troops never changed the fact that you couldn't use them all, so that point is moot.

I said invasion, not liberation. The Germans didn't really think of it as a liberation. And while we could have removed the garrisons, we didn't, so your point is moot. All you essentially end up doing is arguing if we had the numbers again.

Soldiers fight to the death every day. That's what they make armies for. Unless you mean hand to hand, which is not how the majority of the war was fought.

Theres a difference between fighting to the death and dying in combat. I'm going by the common meaning of the phrase, which is fighting and refusing to surrender even when you know your going to lose.

We are in agreement about that first part, but that doesn't mean that the German army will only fight its hardest against Russians. If you were the only threat, and they knew that the fuhrer would accept only victory or the total destruction of Germany, which they did, they'd fight just as hard.

You have no logic for that. They fought harder because of ideals and fear, not because they knew Hitler would never surrender. If anything, that would give them more motivation to surrender.

And the general idea was that the Allies would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender, which they knew Hitler would never agree to.

So now its gone from 'they were afraid of the consequences of unconditional surrender' to 'they knew Hitler would never accept unconditional surrender'?

I'm only going to say this one more time, and then I'm not going to respond on it anymore: The Germans were afraid of, and united by unconditional surrender. I can't explain it to you apparently, but please do check into it.

And I've already explained this. Anything they would have to fear from unconditional surrender was already layed out in the Atlantic charter, so they would be just as united by that if there was no policy of demanding unconditional surrender.

It was barely possible to get it across the Channel, let alone the Atlantic.

Thats a whole new point entirely, but I'll rebut it anways. We made it across the Atlantic, didn't we?

The first troops to go were 3,500 which added to the 25,000 that were already there. They were able to deploy more over the course of the year, not within a few weeks.

Okay... you realize that we eventually brought a half a million troops into Vietnam... right? 25,000 is a small contingent. And we deployed 50,000 more within a few weeks, so I don't know what your talking about there. Seriously, did you really read the article?

We were talking about the Battle of Iwo Jima, which lasted from February 19th to February 23rd, 1945.

I mentioned other islands as well. Iwo Jima was not the only one without a port.

Oh, also, thats not when Iwo Jima ended. Thats just when we raised the flag. The battle wasn't even done for another month.

Tobruk was important to Rommel because his supply lines over land were far too long. This was a major factor in the see-sawing of both armies back and forth across the desert. The Battle of the Scheldt was fought to open the estuaries leading to Antwerp,

because Allied supply lines were over stretched across 'injin country.' The Battle of the Bulge was designed to close Antwerp and stem the Allied advance.

And how are they not examples of it being easier to transport over land? I was presumptious in thinking you actually had an argument, rather you just completely ignored what I said. Look at the other side.

Because Italy is the next logical target.

So if they are all waiting in Italy, we could just go to one of the other places I mentioned.

If you were a serious enough threat, they would raise just as many men as they did in real life. The Wehrmacht had over two million men in 1939.

And two million men is more then 3 percent of thier population. Germany was able to conscript another 3 million because those men were actually doing something, but having 5 million men (almost 10% of thier population, nearly a quarter of the workforce) sitting around in southern Italy isn't too appealing.

They attacked them from France. What does Kwajalein have to do with anything?

They attacked our convoys right in American waters. Not 100 miles off the east coast.

And I'm using Kwajalein to show you that the Japanese were able to attack Hawaii from a distance comparable to the distance between the US and North Africa.

That doesn't change the fact that you'd need bases in the Mediterranean in order to control it. You have nowhere to refuel and rearm, which means you can't maintain a constant presence. Think of the Battle of Britain, the Germans had the same problem only with aircraft.

No, thats just not true at all. You can refuel from convoys, you can go months without rearming. And at that, ships can be constantly taking turns patroling and then going back to port. Midway is thousands of miles from the nearest Japanese port, how were they able to have practically thier entire fleet extended so much then?

---

The U.S is obviously going to be a super-power in this world no matter what, if any stronger countries arise the American president will release an I.C.B, if u dont no wat this is, it can destroy the earth, it's that powerful. What i'm trying to say is: You can't hunt what you can't kill. and obviously we can't kill a super-power.
I'm 15 and this is what my veiws of the world are. Sorry if they offend.

---

At 8/13/05 04:39 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/12/05 09:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Alot of the resistance was not ordered by Hitler, several of the counteroffensives were done of the army's own choice. And the fear of the Red Army would effect how hard they fought too, your militia argument is not applicable here because a militia is innefective for completely different reasons.

What counter-offensives? And of course fear would make them fight harder, but that doesn't mean that without fear they're not a formidible force.

I seem to remember that Hitler ordered the soldiers not to surrender at Stalingrad, yet they did. Funny that the magic binding of this oath didn't kick in and stop them.

The men at Stalingrad endured hell you and I will never understand for months because they were forbade to surrender. It was only when effective command and resistance was no longer possible that they surrendered.

Railroads can be bypassed, too. If thats the only problem then there isn't much problem at all.

Not for infantry, but for armor and supply they are essential.

If were going to use the 10 million+ number, thats counting alot of militia and poorly trained conscripts.

In the end, yeah. Not during the majority of the war.

I said invasion, not liberation. The Germans didn't really think of it as a liberation. And while we could have removed the garrisons, we didn't, so your point is moot.

I meant in France and the Low Countries. There's nothing to suggest that you could have used them all, because if you could, your lines should never have been so hard-pressed.

Theres a difference between fighting to the death and dying in combat. I'm going by the common meaning of the phrase, which is fighting and refusing to surrender even when you know your going to lose.

Kinda reminds me of what I said. The army knew it was over after 1942 and continued to ferociously resist on all fronts.

You have no logic for that. They fought harder because of ideals and fear, not because they knew Hitler would never surrender. If anything, that would give them more motivation to surrender.

How do you figure? They can't surrender. And of course there's logic behind it. If you invade them, they'll be afraid of you. You'd be the only thing between them and total prosperity.

So now its gone from 'they were afraid of the consequences of unconditional surrender' to 'they knew Hitler would never accept unconditional surrender'?

Nope, it's both.

And I've already explained this. Anything they would have to fear from unconditional surrender was already layed out in the Atlantic charter, so they would be just as united by that if there was no policy of demanding unconditional surrender.

Dude, I'm not speculating about their dispositions. For the love of God, go check. Unconditional surrender scared and united them, not the Atlantic Charter. This is from the mouths of people who were there.

Thats a whole new point entirely, but I'll rebut it anways. We made it across the Atlantic, didn't we?

No, it was built in Britain.

Okay... you realize that we eventually brought a half a million troops into Vietnam... right? 25,000 is a small contingent. And we deployed 50,000 more within a few weeks, so I don't know what your talking about there. Seriously, did you really read the article?

You realize that your involvement lasted over a decade, right? You realize that their deployment failed to neutralize North Vietnam, right? You realize that technology existed then that didn't exist in WWII? And that the Americans had spheres of influence in the Pacific that they would lack in the Atlantic?

We were talking about the Battle of Iwo Jima, which lasted from February 19th to February 23rd, 1945.

I mentioned other islands as well. Iwo Jima was not the only one without a port.

Oh, also, thats not when Iwo Jima ended. Thats just when we raised the flag. The battle wasn't even done for another month.

The point is that the campaign wasn't going to last as long as a European campaign would.

And how are they not examples of it being easier to transport over land? I was presumptious in thinking you actually had an argument, rather you just completely ignored what I said. Look at the other side.

Which other side? I was talking about both sides. How are they not examples of it being easier to transport over land?? Have you been listening to a word I said? Their supply lines over land were over-stretched and their war efforts couldn't continue because of that.

And two million men is more then 3 percent of thier population. Germany was able to conscript another 3 million because those men were actually doing something, but having 5 million men (almost 10% of thier population, nearly a quarter of the workforce) sitting around in southern Italy isn't too appealing.

Obviously having them all in Italy was an exaggeration. If they were that stupid, they never would have built the Atlantic Wall. However, it's the logical target because of the limitations of fighter cover. And yes, obviously they wouldn't deploy everyone they could at once, I meant over the course of the war.

They attacked our convoys right in American waters. Not 100 miles off the east coast.

And I'm using Kwajalein to show you that the Japanese were able to attack Hawaii from a distance comparable to the distance between the US and North Africa.

You mean in raids? That's a far cry from naval dominance my friend.

No, thats just not true at all. You can refuel from convoys, you can go months without rearming. And at that, ships can be constantly taking turns patroling and then going back to port. Midway is thousands of miles from the nearest Japanese port, how were they able to have practically thier entire fleet extended so much then?

But the Italians and Germans don't have to bother with that, since they could rearm and even reinforce much faster. Not to mention that sea power without air power can't win battles. And why do you think the Japanese captured islands in the Pacific? Deep water ports and airfields. And besides, they lost that battle.

---

At 8/15/05 11:07 PM, Jerconjake wrote: What counter-offensives? And of course fear would make them fight harder, but that doesn't mean that without fear they're not a formidible force.

I'm suprised that you were unaware of such counteroffensives. Most of them don't have names because they were so numerous. Two name only a couple, the counter-offensives done by the 9th and 20th army to try to relieve Berlin.

The men at Stalingrad endured hell you and I will never understand for months because they were forbade to surrender.

Yet they surrendered, nonetheless. However loyal they are, they are not binded physically to fight. One could easily argue that the reason they fought so hard in Stalingrad was because they faced almost certain Soviet capture.

Not for infantry, but for armor and supply they are essential.

Thats really odd, because I was under the impression Tanks were self propelled. Germany is not a dense jungle, in fact at that time Germany had the finest road system of any country.

In the end, yeah. Not during the majority of the war.

During the majority of the war they had only 4 million men.

I meant in France and the Low Countries. There's nothing to suggest that you could have used them all, because if you could, your lines should never have been so hard-pressed.

In most of those countries we were aided by the civilian populace, in fact the battles to relieve those cities were small, because the Germans evacuated. They feared Urban war more than us because we had the favor of the civilians. And our lines were often hard pressed on purpose, we were under pressure to advance quickly for many reasons so we spent little time in one place, and when new troops did come it was preferred to let some troops go back, to avoid shell shock. The amount of time spent fighting by the average American soldier in ww2 is actually low compared to other wars.

Kinda reminds me of what I said. The army knew it was over after 1942 and continued to ferociously resist on all fronts.

Indeed, thats my point completely. They fought even though they knew they wouldn't win. They wanted to protect Germany from communism and the Soviets.

How do you figure? They can't surrender. And of course there's logic behind it. If you invade them, they'll be afraid of you. You'd be the only thing between them and total prosperity.

If they knew Hitler would never surrender they would know fighting would be pointless, because even if a stalemate was reached he would still provoke aggression. And as for the second point, keep in mind they declared war on us, and our terms for surrender as per the Atlantic Charter were not entirely unprosperous.

Nope, it's both.

Okay, then where is your argument for the former and why are you brining up the latter instead?

Dude, I'm not speculating about their dispositions. For the love of God, go check. Unconditional surrender scared and united them, not the Atlantic Charter. This is from the mouths of people who were there.

I realize they may be saying that, but thats probably because Unconditional Surrender came after the Atlantic charter, and thus it is more relevent to mention that. Just like it is more relevent to mention the Patriot act 2 when talking about civil rights even though they basically said the same thing. The fact remains that the terms for unconditional surrender couldn't possibly be any worse than those already layed out by the Atlantic charter, as pretty much every possibly term was already covered in some way by it.

No, it was built in Britain.

Ohhhh I see what your saying. Such a port could have been made in North Africa instead. If it was even vital.

You realize that your involvement lasted over a decade, right? You realize that their deployment failed to neutralize North Vietnam, right?

First off, claiming that that was why we failed to secure Vietnam is ludicris. Second, the fact that we were there for a decade does not change that we were able to send large contingents there without a port quickly. And your last two points make the assumption that it takes months to get across the Atlantic, it doesn't, we could transport troops within days.

The point is that the campaign wasn't going to last as long as a European campaign would.

Because it was done with smaller amounts of soldiers, yes.

Which other side? I was talking about both sides. How are they not examples of it being easier to transport over land??

Both Britain and Germany had a sea port in North Africa, they were having problems transporting troops over thier own land. And that was the same with the Battle of the Bulge, Germany was unable to transport troops over thier own land, and supply lines without even a seaport were able to exceed thiers.

Obviously having them all in Italy was an exaggeration. If they were that stupid, they never would have built the Atlantic Wall.

So your saying they would build up those numbers, I completely agree with that. But then you get to an issue of manpower, where we completely beat them. The only way they can win is by preventing us from even landing, which so far seems impossible.

You mean in raids? That's a far cry from naval dominance my friend.

Up until Midway it wasn't. And even past then, Japan dominated parts of the pacific much farther than the distance from New York to Europe. Ships are big, and can go long times without resupply, and often can be easily resupplied at sea.

But the Italians and Germans don't have to bother with that, since they could rearm and even reinforce much faster.

Which only goes more to prove American dominance in the air. We focused on constructing aircraft carriers, and that proved to be massively successfull. The problem is, even if Japan or Italy or Germany could figure out to counter our aircraft carriers, it would be too late by then, because we would already be able to strike thier ports. It only takes one bomb to ruin a ship in construction.

And then you get into an issue of industrial strength, where the US beats all of them even more. Japan being a mostly agrarian country, and Germany being a country with few resources, and Italy being one of the laziest countries in human history.

---

At 8/18/05 03:37 AM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/15/05 11:07 PM, Jerconjake wrote: I'm suprised that you were unaware of such counteroffensives. Most of them don't have names because they were so numerous. Two name only a couple, the counter-offensives done by the 9th and 20th army to try to relieve Berlin.

All attempts to relieve Berlin were by Hitler's orders. But the German army was trained to do stuff like that. Part of the reason it was so effective was because its commanders were encouraged to take initiative in the field. In fact, the entire Nazi state was organized this way.

Yet they surrendered, nonetheless. However loyal they are, they are not binded physically to fight. One could easily argue that the reason they fought so hard in Stalingrad was because they faced almost certain Soviet capture.

You obviously have a very limited understanding of this battle. You're saying that they both fought harder because of fear of capture and that they surrendered en masse in violation of Hitler's orders. In fact, very good surrender terms were offered to the Germans there, and still they continued to fight while encircled and facing almost certain defeat because of Hitler's orders. That's how bound they were.

Thats really odd, because I was under the impression Tanks were self propelled. Germany is not a dense jungle, in fact at that time Germany had the finest road system of any country.

Tanks are not meant to be moved long distances on their tracks.

In the end, yeah. Not during the majority of the war.

During the majority of the war they had only 4 million men.

Over several years, with many casualties.

In most of those countries we were aided...

German pullouts from cities came from their eventual realization that they heavily disadvantaged their tanks and their overall maneuverability in urban warfare, and also to preserve cities like Rome. Germans too had to garrison, and there were 800,000 in France alone.

Indeed, thats my point completely. They fought even though they knew they wouldn't win. They wanted to protect Germany from communism and the Soviets.

The army favored ending the war actually, but they fought on because Hitler refused to surrender.

If they knew Hitler would never surrender they would know fighting would be pointless, because even if a stalemate was reached he would still provoke aggression. And as for the second point, keep in mind they declared war on us, and our terms for surrender as per the Atlantic Charter were not entirely unprosperous.

Knowing that and being able to do something about it are two different things. And have you ever been faced with the choice of just giving up a bunch of gains quietly or fighting for them? Your argumentative nature seems to indicate that you would fight.

Okay, then where is your argument for the former and why are you brining up the latter instead?

The former refers to the civlian population's fears, and the latter the army's. That was a mistake, but both are revelent anyhow.

I realize that they may be saying that...

Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Casablanca was more relevent. It meant that Germany couldn't decide any of the terms. Even if what you're saying was universally true, it would still mean that they were afraid of, and united by Allied terms.

No, it was built in Britain.

Ohhhh I see what your saying. Such a port could have been made in North Africa instead. If it was even vital.

From here on in we'd both be speculating.

First off, claiming that that was why we failed to secure Vietnam is ludicris. Second, we were able to send large contingents there without a port quickly. And your last two points make the assumption that it takes months to get across the Atlantic

I meant the initial force that was landed. You deployed a lot of men by helicopter, and you had the Phillipines which was vital for a whole host of military necessities.

The point is that the campaign wasn't going to last as long as a European campaign would.

Because it was done with smaller amounts of soldiers, yes.

Yes, exactly.

Both Britain and Germany had a sea port in North Africa, they were having problems transporting troops over thier own land.

I know they were both having trouble transporting over land, that's what I've been saying. That's why they needed ports closer to the front. And you had the seaport of Antwerp in the Battle of the Bulge. The battle was fought to try and close it so you couldn't advance into Germany.

The only way they can win is by preventing us from even landing, which so far seems impossible.

I would say that the landings are a considerable obstacle. You'd have only limited amounts of landing craft, and the Atlantic Wall would likely include Western France and North Africa instead of Holland, Belgium and Northern France. Given enough time to complete it, and the full capacity of Germany behind it, it could be a West Wall of the coast. Air superiority would be difficult to acquire, and all German armor in service would be deployed to push you back into the sea.

Up until Midway it wasn't. And even past then, Japan dominated parts of the pacific much farther than the distance from New York to Europe.

Japan wasn't facing any other naval powers in the South and Central Pacific though. That's like planting your flag on the moon, there's no one to stop you. Only when faced with a serious threat in the form of the US navy does this become a problem for them.

Which only goes more to prove American dominance in the air.

I disagree. German and Italian aircraft would have bases on land, which could be resupplied in the middle of a battle. Downed aircraft would land in safe territory, while American pilots would be behind enemy lines. Both replacement pilots and aircraft would have to come through enemy waters, or having the carrier refitted in a port. The first notion would be to counter the carriers, the Germans would recognize the threat of course.

and Italy being one of the laziest countries in human history.

Haha, nice.

We are assuming that America is alone though, which means that the Germans must already have defeated Russia and/or made peace with Britain, and captured all the resources therein.

---

A lot less US troops would have died on the beach landings if the amphibious tanks were not released from the ships so early (they all sunk), and the rocket ships were closer to the beach so they actually hit (they all fell short)

So the troops had none of the cover they were promised in the briefing! I would personally have written a very strongly worded letter of complaint.

---

At 8/18/05 07:43 AM, Jerconjake wrote: All attempts to relieve Berlin were by Hitler's orders. But the German army was trained to do stuff like that. Part of the reason it was so effective was because its commanders were encouraged to take initiative in the field. In fact, the entire Nazi state was organized this way.

First off, these were most definately not ordered by Hitler. Second, thats my point exactly, they were trained to do so, but did not in the western front. It would seem very much that they did not fight as fiercly against the Americans and British.

You obviously have a very limited understanding of this battle. You're saying that they both fought harder because of fear of capture and that they surrendered en masse in violation of Hitler's orders. In fact, very good surrender terms were offered to the Germans there, and still they continued to fight while encircled and facing almost certain defeat because of Hitler's orders. That's how bound they were.

I find it odd that surrender terms can be offered to an entire army but orders from a commander can't. Your contradicting yourself.

Tanks are not meant to be moved long distances on their tracks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank

The Sherman can go 240km on it's fuel tank, I don't think the US army was too concerned about wear and tear of tanks, this would be the only time they would use them.

Over several years, with many casualties.

Yes, your point?

German pullouts from cities came from their eventual realization that they heavily disadvantaged their tanks and their overall maneuverability in urban warfare, and also to preserve cities like Rome. Germans too had to garrison, and there were 800,000 in France alone.

Actually, it was 500,000 until the Allies started preparing for D-day. And now your just splitting hairs. The Germans no doubt were worried about the tanks, but that can be solved by just pulling the tanks out, fear of the civilian populace no doubt played a big part in deciding not to use Urban warfare. Paris was taken over almost completely by civlians.

The army favored ending the war actually, but they fought on because Hitler refused to surrender.

And they fought harder because they wanted to stop the Communists espescially.

Knowing that and being able to do something about it are two different things. And have you ever been faced with the choice of just giving up a bunch of gains quietly or fighting for them? Your argumentative nature seems to indicate that you would fight.

Funny that they didn't fight at all as fiercly on the western front then to keep thier gains.

The former refers to the civlian population's fears, and the latter the army's. That was a mistake, but both are revelent anyhow.

Okay, well since both are already being covered in this argument I think this point is moot.

Well yeah, that's what I was saying. Casablanca was more relevent. It meant that Germany couldn't decide any of the terms. Even if what you're saying was universally true, it would still mean that they were afraid of, and united by Allied terms.

Allied terms, yes. They were probably united by them. However such terms wouldn't exist of the war went around again, it would all be up to the US. We may have even seen a resistance force in Germany.

From here on in we'd both be speculating.

Almost this entire argument is speculation. Mine is basically that the US massively outweighed them in production and manpower, yours is that either we didn't or we would have never been able to put that advantage to use.

I meant the initial force that was landed. You deployed a lot of men by helicopter, and you had the Phillipines which was vital for a whole host of military necessities.

I'm not familiar with helicopters being used to deploy troops into Vietnam, I wasn't aware we had any helicopters in range. The phillipenes is at least 600 miles from Vietnam, much longer if you take the route taken by the US, in order to avoid provoking North Vietnam or China.

Yes, exactly.

Which has nothing to do with supply.

I know they were both having trouble transporting over land, that's what I've been saying.

Your not listening, I'm specifically saying that tehy had trouble even though it was on thier own turf, despite railroads and highways they still were unable to supply thier troops. This greatly downplays the advantage you say Germany has.

I would say that the landings are a considerable obstacle.

This is of course assuming that Germany doesn't think of Britain as a threat at all, which is unlikely in any circumstances. Our air superiority would come from carriers, and more transports can be built. We have time on our side, unlike both Japan and Germany. Germany has to deal with a huge military and costly occupations. Also, we would have a nuclear weapon before both Japan and Germany.

Japan wasn't facing any other naval powers in the South and Central Pacific though. That's like planting your flag on the moon, there's no one to stop you. Only when faced with a serious threat in the form of the US navy does this become a problem for them.

Midway was a long time after the US declared war on Japan.

I disagree. German and Italian aircraft would have bases on land, which could be resupplied in the middle of a battle.

Your version of what would happen is exactly the opposite of what did, German and Italian aircraft were defeated, and nobody recognized the threat. You seem to take any chance you have to downplay the US army and claim it was unable to do many things but when it comes to the axis you are more than ready to claim near perfection.

Haha, nice.

We are assuming that America is alone though, which means that the Germans must already have defeated Russia and/or made peace with Britain, and captured all the resources therein.

We were assuming that they invaded neither. Of course if Germany had taken over all of Europe we would be unable to invade, thats a given. But it is unlikely either of those things would happen, the German army would have had to take Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad in the first year in order to defeat Russia. Either that or they would have to plan for a long war, which still ties up resources. If Germany conquers Britain, it is just better for us. Britain is the perfect invasion point.

---

At 8/18/05 07:20 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 8/18/05 07:43 AM, Jerconjake wrote: First off, these were most definately not ordered by Hitler. Second, thats my point exactly, they were trained to do so, but did not in the western front. It would seem very much that they did not fight as fiercly against the Americans and British.

All the serious attempts were. And yeah, in France they were more geared toward withdrawal, since it was obviously impossible not to until the West Wall.

I find it odd that surrender terms can be offered to an entire army but orders from a commander can't. Your contradicting yourself.

That sentence doesn't make sense. What commander?

The Sherman can go 240km on it's fuel tank, I don't think the US army was too concerned about wear and tear of tanks, this would be the only time they would use them.

Replacements are not driven to the front, they are moved by rail. It's faster, produces much less ware and wastes less fuel.

Over several years, with many casualties.

Yes, your point?

That they maintained more or less stable numbers despite this.

The Germans no doubt were worried about the tanks, but that can be solved by just pulling the tanks out, fear of the civilian populace no doubt played a big part in deciding not to use Urban warfare. Paris was taken over almost completely by civlians.

That's because the Germans left Paris without much fight. They didn't seem to mind that the populace of every Russian city hated them even more, until they learned the military disadvantages of urban warfare.

The army favored ending the war actually, but they fought on because Hitler refused to surrender.

And they fought harder because they wanted to stop the Communists espescially.

Agreed. But those same troops had victories in numerous other states when they weren't afraid and desperate, and lost when they were.

Funny that they didn't fight at all as fiercly on the western front then to keep thier gains.

That was seen as impossible because they lacked the resources to stop them. In Italy they resisted fiercely, and they managed to stabilize that front.

Allied terms, yes. They were probably united by them. However such terms wouldn't exist of the war went around again, it would all be up to the US. We may have even seen a resistance force in Germany.

Went around again?

Almost this entire argument is speculation. Mine is basically that the US massively outweighed them in production and manpower, yours is that either we didn't or we would have never been able to put that advantage to use.

The latter. I meant that we would be speculating about how the Germans treated ports.

I'm not familiar with helicopters being used to deploy troops into Vietnam, I wasn't aware we had any helicopters in range. The phillipenes is at least 600 miles from Vietnam, much longer if you take the route taken by the US, in order to avoid provoking North Vietnam or China.

But it's still a base which was vital to the campaign, by all accounts. We're not talking about Vietnam anyway. Circumstances there were very different.

Yes, exactly.

Which has nothing to do with supply.

How do you figure? You have to supply far less men with food, ammunition, reinforcement, etc. Europe would be a sustained campaign with hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks and aircraft needing resupply. More needs to be brought in at once.

Your not listening, I'm specifically saying that tehy had trouble even though it was on thier own turf, despite railroads and highways they still were unable to supply thier troops.

It was still possible to resupply over land, and most of their difficulty came because air superiority couldn't even be contested by the Germans. The Germans couldn't even produce enough supplies by that time anyhow. Without Antwerp, stalemate would have developed until the Germans could build up enough to counter-attack.

This is of course assuming that Germany doesn't think of Britain as a threat at all, which is unlikely in any circumstances. Our air superiority would come from carriers, and more transports can be built. We have time on our side, unlike both Japan and Germany. Germany has to deal with a huge military and costly occupations. Also, we would have a nuclear weapon before both Japan and Germany.

Germany didn't consider Britain a threat when they were at war, let alone if they were at peace. Carriers cannot carry five thousand aircraft, as the Allied force on D-Day enjoyed. You'd need somewhere in the area of 59 Nimitz Class carriers to accomplish this; $266 billion worth. Transports can be built, but you'd also need to build ships for them to be launched from. And as if you'd use nuclear weapons to get a beachhead.

Midway was a long time after the US declared war on Japan.

No shit. That doesn't mean that the two were constantly engaging each other.

Your version of what would happen is exactly the opposite of what did, German and Italian aircraft were defeated, and nobody recognized the threat.

...Yeah. Of course. During the actual campaign the Allies too had land bases, which are much easier to operate and can sustain huge numbers of aircraft. They weren't forced to rely on carriers in this theatre, so they didn't. Besides, the Luftwaffe was not given priority because on the Russian front aircraft were not pivotal, but most that they did have were still deployed there.

We were assuming that they invaded neither. Of course if Germany had taken over all of Europe we would be unable to invade, thats a given. But it is unlikely either of those things would happen, the German army would have had to take Moscow, Leningrad, and Stalingrad in the first year in order to defeat Russia. Either that or they would have to plan for a long war, which still ties up resources. If Germany conquers Britain, it is just better for us. Britain is the perfect invasion point.

I am arguing on the basis that Germany has already occupied the western USSR, because war between the two was inevitable. If Hitler didn't start it, you can bet Stalin would have. And if Hitler let Stalin start it he would have lost, because Red Army reforms would have been completed. The Germans still could have won in 1942, and I am assuming that they did. And Britain is no more perfect than North Africa.

---

At 7/24/05 02:59 AM, everythingiscrap wrote: 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.

Haha.I dont think "wanting to see the US weaker politically and militarily" means they want to see us die.This statement alone should cancel out your whole argument, but I'll continue anyway.

We saved the world in world wars I and II.

We did not "save the world" in World War I. We saved our allies in World War II. Saving the world is not a good phrase when talking about a nations involvement in a war, especially your own.

We've sent peacekeeprs in to every conflict. We stopped Slovodon! We went into haiti! Also Grenada!

Right, but we have also have made some situations worse.In the past we have funded guerillas to overthrow there governments. Our plans backfired and the guerillas became corrupt and used their power for other purposes. Situations similar to these are common. Google and I'm sure you'll find some examples.

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!

Wrong. I'm not sure exactly which nation gave the most money, I think it was Germany and then Japan.So much for the evil axis we saved the world from huh everythingiscrap?

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.

What the hell is that supposed to mean!?

We didnt do anything to these people. In afghanistan, we gave them weapons to fight off the soviets, and all they did was attack us!

Ha.And why would you expect them to bow down to us in the first place?Is it because we gave them guns? Are you saying that they are "bad" for attacking us while it would be perfectly fine for them to attack the soviets?

And saddam! He deifed 11 UN resolutions about disarming! He even gassed his own people! the kurds!

How does defying UN resolutions have anything to do with what we are talking about?

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.

Since when is the rest of the world anti semetic ?

Also, if gore had been elected preisdent, the earth would probably be called allah right now instead of earth.

That makes about as much sense as everything else you have said so far.

I have nothing against muslims just al-qaida. I know im randomly changing topic from sentence to sentence.

Ofcourse this is referring to your calling the earth allah comment.As we all know only terrorists pray to Allah not muslims.

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.

Well not the world, just us and our supporters. I also find it offensive that you say Iran is a "threat to the world"

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

Im going to assume you were misinformed here as well.

Geez...Were you just running off on all the things you can remember hearing on a local news channel for the last three years? Next time get your fact straight because not everything you here is true.

-MisterJoeful

---

We should be paying more since we're one of the richest nations. Other nations contributions should be dwarfed in comparison, as a leading superpower we should be giving aid wherever it is needed. I don't blame other nations for saying that we don't pay enough.

I believe that the world right now is acting like spoiled little brats who are completely unappreciative of all that America does for them. Ask yourself this, if France or any other European country became as powerful as us, do you think they would have done as much for the world as us? And even now they have the audacity to criticize us whilst we clean up another mess in Iraq! I think we need to completely remove all foreign aid (including tsunami relief and missionary work) and just wait until these nations realize what it would be like if they got their wish. Also, I am kind of a dick, and if I were president I would wait until certain nations like France made a public apology to the US for this crap before continuing foreign aid once again. Also, imagine what all that money could be used for if we stopped giving it to spiteful foreigners and used it to fund our own economic projects...

---

At 8/25/05 02:56 PM, jlwelch wrote: And even now they have the audacity to criticize us whilst we clean up another mess in Iraq!

another mess which you made. its your own mess, so you should really clean it up.

I think we need to completely remove all foreign aid (including tsunami relief and missionary work) and just wait until these nations realize what it would be like if they got their wish.

its the responsability of all well-off nations to help those in need. since your a very rich nation then of course you're going to give more. if someone doesn't like you, you can't just go off and cry in a corner.

Also, I am kind of a dick

yeh

---

At 8/18/05 10:48 PM, Jerconjake wrote: All the serious attempts were. And yeah, in France they were more geared toward withdrawal, since it was obviously impossible not to until the West Wall.

Serious attempts? I'd like to know exactly what your definition of 'serious attempts' is. I'm baffled as to how an attempt they chose to do on their own would be less serious than one they were told to do. Most definately they were much more coordinated, and larger, but that doesnt really help your argument at all. Also, what made it impossible not to withdraw? Specific troop numbers dont exist, in relative to the size of the eastern front, the western front stayed at a 2:3 ratio with the eastern front if not matched the numbers.

That sentence doesn't make sense. What commander?

Any commander, you said they were unable to give orders to thier troops in Stalingrad.

Replacements are not driven to the front, they are moved by rail. It's faster, produces much less ware and wastes less fuel.

No, they were often driven. They used rail when they could but as you stated, rail wasn't always an option.

That they maintained more or less stable numbers despite this.

Yes, your point? That by no means means that they had reserves of manpower they werent using, that just means that they couldn't afford to use any less troops.

That's because the Germans left Paris without much fight.

Its not entirely true to say the populace of every Russian city hated them. And I think you know that. Nevertheless, didn't you just acknowledge thier disadvantage in Urban warfare? Unless your trying to say Russians hated the Germans much more of the French hated them.

Agreed. But those same troops had victories in numerous other states when they weren't afraid and desperate, and lost when they were.

Are you trying to claim that that was because thier fear of communism had a negligible effect on how well they fought? If so thats a very half-assed way of doing it, because it not at all proves that, those are all different situations with different opponents and troops numbers. I was by no means saying that they would never lose because of thier fear of communism, I was saying that thier fear gave them added incentive to fight, to the death at that.

That was seen as impossible because they lacked the resources to stop them. In Italy they resisted fiercely, and they managed to stabilize that front.

And they didn't lack the resources on the Eastern Front? If anything, they had a better chance of the Western, because they didn't have to deal with a brutal winter every year. And they did not succeed in Italy, they failed, Italy was taken, they just managed to garrison in the mountains so well that the Allies decided to avoid fighting.

Went around again?

Err... not at all sure what that was supposed to mean.

The latter. I meant that we would be speculating about how the Germans treated ports.

Not entirely all that, but to an extent. It's not just how they treated thier ports, its also speculating on whether we would have been able to capture a seaport, or that we even needed one. I dont see your point though, weve always been speculating.

But it's still a base which was vital to the campaign, by all accounts. We're not talking about Vietnam anyway. Circumstances there were very different.

Yes its different, but it proves that its possible. So maybe we have to have our scientists work on it for a while, its still possible. I've said before, we clearly have the time advantage here, neither Japan or Germany can afford a long drawn out war.

How do you figure? You have to supply far less men with food, ammunition, reinforcement, etc.

Iwo Jima is a small long Island, with only a small percentage of its coast even scaleable. Theres no port. We were able to supply nearly a hundred thousand US troops nonetheless. In comparison, there are thousands of miles of beach along Normandy, and even ports (but I guess those would all be destroyed by the all knowing Germans). So whats the problem? Do we not have enough boats? Thats the only possible problem I can see that what you just said right now could highlight. But of course, this is entirely disregarding the fact that your argument now is nothing like what your original argument was.

It was still possible to resupply over land, and most of their difficulty came because air superiority couldn't even be contested by the Germans.

You dodged the point. Yes it was possible, but they weren't able to. Thats the main reason they lost the battle of the bulge.

Germany didn't consider Britain a threat when they were at war, let alone if they were at peace.

By the end of the war (d-day statistics are pretty much the same, we scaled back naval production early on as we had already defeated the japanese navy) we had 28 fleet carriers (80+ aircraft each) and 71 escort carriers (around 25 planes each). Trying to compare that to modern day carriers is faulty on many levels, the least of which being price. That alone is enough for 4,000 planes. Ships are of no shortage for the US during ww2, I've yet to hear any historian say we couldn't build enough ships, we were building ships at an amazing rate.

No shit. That doesn't mean that the two were constantly engaging each other.

So your saying the US just watched the Japanese sail right up next to Hawaii even after Pearl Harbor? Right...

...Yeah. Of course.

The Luftwaffe wasn't given priority? Wow, I'm amazed. Your the only person I've ever heard say that. The Luftwaffe was given too much priority, it drained off the other divisions. Yeah land bases are easier, but as we figured out in the pacific, we can get them later, we use the carriers to get land bases.

I am arguing on the basis that Germany has already occupied the western USSR, because war between the two was inevitable.

We'll I'm not even factoring Russia into this. I don't think it was inevitable for them to go to war, it was likely but both of them could have easily realized the futility of such an act. Trying to predict the events in Russia during ww2 in a different timeline is futile, because there are so many different possibilites. Germany could fell because of the massive difficulties of occupying Russia. Japan could have declared war on Germany over a dispute about conquered Russian land.