It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 19
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Germany was never in danger of taking over the world and killing a sizable percentage of the world's population in WW1.

Why not?
They would have the largest navy, strongest army, strongest airforce and would control europe.
I call that a danger to the worlds population.



Whilst some German technology was impressive ( in WWII ) it was harder to get the prototypes into production. The German scientists suffered from multiple chains of command and inter agency secrecy, not to mention lack of resources.

If this technmology had been around in 1941 against Russia then the outcome could very well have been different. Imagine Tigers and Panthers in 1941 instead of the tin cans they used then....it may well have been a different outcome before Moscow.

If Germany had stayed in the war longer they would have copped the bomb as well, so maybe it was lucky for them.

One bomb in one town didnt worry hitler.
Hitler would have controlled a continnet.




posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

One bomb in one town didnt worry hitler.
Hitler would have controlled a continnet.


Hmm one bomb then another and another, eventually there wouldn't be a Germany left.

I think you have a warped sense of reality about WWII. Quite simply Germnay didn't have the manpower totake over the world, even with her allies which were hopeless anyway.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm one bomb then another and another, eventually there wouldn't be a Germany left.

You might remember there was only 3 bombs, and they used 1 one in testing.
[qoute]
I think you have a warped sense of reality about WWII. Quite simply Germnay didn't have the manpower totake over the world, even with her allies which were hopeless anyway.
Not then and there but eventually yes.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm one bomb then another and another, eventually there wouldn't be a Germany left.

You might remember there was only 3 bombs, and they used 1 one in testing.


By the end of 1945 the US had 6 nuclear weapons, 11 in 1946, 32 in 1947 and 110 in 1948. I'm fairly sure the 3 weapons detnated didn't count towards the end of year stockpile. So yes they could have ruined Germnay on a scale far more devastating than Dresden.

www.nrdc.org...



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
By the end of 1945 the US had 6 nuclear weapons, 11 in 1946, 32 in 1947 and 110 in 1948. I'm fairly sure the 3 weapons detnated didn't count towards the end of year stockpile. So yes they could have ruined Germnay on a scale far more devastating than Dresden.

Yeah, but the allies where close to invadeing, I personally dont thik they would nuked the land they where about to invade.
Now, me personally I think they would have not just kept nukeing things.
Since germany at the time controlled much of europe.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
By the end of 1945 the US had 6 nuclear weapons, 11 in 1946, 32 in 1947 and 110 in 1948. I'm fairly sure the 3 weapons detnated didn't count towards the end of year stockpile. So yes they could have ruined Germnay on a scale far more devastating than Dresden.

Yeah, but the allies where close to invadeing, I personally dont thik they would nuked the land they where about to invade.
Now, me personally I think they would have not just kept nukeing things.
Since germany at the time controlled much of europe.



Why would it be any different to the massive bombing raids the Americans and the Brits subjected German cities to ? Churchill especially would have advocated its use; after all he did consider using gas on the Germnas during the first days of the V1 attacks.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Why would it be any different to the massive bombing raids the Americans and the Brits subjected German cities to ?

You relise the small radiation factor.



Churchill especially would have advocated its use; after all he did consider using gas on the Germnas during the first days of the V1 attacks.

Yeah, but he didnt have a force yet ready to hit the germans.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
Why would it be any different to the massive bombing raids the Americans and the Brits subjected German cities to ?

You relise the small radiation factor.[/QUOTE]

Ahh, radiation poisoning wasn't quite as well understood as it is now. During that time the ends would have justified the emans as can be seen from the Allied massacre of German civilians from the air.



Churchill especially would have advocated its use; after all he did consider using gas on the Germnas during the first days of the V1 attacks.

Yeah, but he didnt have a force yet ready to hit the germans.


Churchill had plenty of gas home grown and US made.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahh, radiation poisoning wasn't quite as well understood as it is now. During that time the ends would have justified the emans as can be seen from the Allied massacre of German civilians from the air.

Yeah, but nukeing and bombing conventionaly is a bit diffrent.
They did knnow a bit about radiation there like, when troops start haveing hair fall out then it becomes a bit obvios.



Churchill had plenty of gas home grown and US made.

Yeah, but what I mean is he was doing that while NOT haveing an invasion going on, and gas dissapates nukes dont.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by rogue1
Ahh, radiation poisoning wasn't quite as well understood as it is now. During that time the ends would have justified the emans as can be seen from the Allied massacre of German civilians from the air.

Yeah, but nukeing and bombing conventionaly is a bit diffrent.
They did knnow a bit about radiation there like, when troops start haveing hair fall out then it becomes a bit obvios.



Well that would have been only after they had used the bomb, not before. No soldiers were exposed to the Trinity test.
There were plans if the war kept on going and no atomic weapons were a available to scatter radioactive products over the German countryside by air. Kinda like an extreme version of Agent Orange.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Actually, you need to look into how far off Germany was from developing Nuclear and Atomic weapons. The allies were lucky Germany never made them first, very lucky that Einstein warned them otherwise it'd be the other way around.

Also, I don't think America would of nuked them if Britain, etc had been taken over. Because no matter what, Hitler would still control such a large amount of land the bombs they had wouldn't destroy enough of it. In my view.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Actually, you need to look into how far off Germany was from developing Nuclear and Atomic weapons. The allies were lucky Germany never made them first, very lucky that Einstein warned them otherwise it'd be the other way around.


The German were never close to developing an atomic bomb, they didn't even have a functioning pile. The problem for Germany was is that they could only draw on a fraction of the resources available to North America, even if they had devoted more effort towards it.



Also, I don't think America would of nuked them if Britain, etc had been taken over. Because no matter what, Hitler would still control such a large amount of land the bombs they had wouldn't destroy enough of it. In my view.


It was the Soviet Union which decided the outcome of the European war not Britain.
With regards to bombing Germany, how many Germans would start to actively oppose the war when their cities are suffereing so much destruction. The psycholigical impact would be immense.
The usual startegic air campaign would also be in full swing as well.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
That depends on whose view you take. It's claimed Germany never started developing Atomic Weapons, but why did Einstein warn them that he had spoken to scientists who had been?

"On 2nd August, 1939, three Jewish scientists who had fled to the United States from Europe, Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner, wrote a joint letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about the developments that had been taking place in nuclear physics. They warned Roosevelt that scientists in Germany were working on the possibility of using uranium to produce nuclear weapons."

"In February 1943, SOE saboteurs successfully planted a bomb in the Rjukan nitrates factory in Norway. As soon as it was rebuilt it was destroyed by 150 US bombers in November, 1943. Two months later the Norwegian resistance managed to sink a German boat carrying vital supplies for its nuclear programme."

etc, etc...there's just as much evidence for them making a bomb, as against it.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1Gawd there's so much crap in this post I can't be bothered responding to any more of it. Good Luck Ed, you must be very patient.


Well in all seriousness, he is not the target, it is obvious that he has a bit of warped view of known history, but it is the readers that I am after, they see the Utopian argument and they see just how futile it is and maybe the mind can be changed in the way it assesses reality.

It is the seed that you plant that grows, maybe even devilwasp will do some reading and find out for himself just how ludicrous some of the crap he believes is.




SIDE NOTE:stumason

In some sense you are correct, speak your mind, but that gets real old when reality kicks in. A Navy's job is to make sure that it DOES NOT have to be used for war......the term deterrence mean anything?

Plus you need to read my post better about China, we will not invade and the thought is plain stupid. We want the market, not the land and by sea would be a complete fubar anyway.


Saudi bought CS4 missiles I think, not sure...

here :CSS-4


Look guys I like the UK and am glad to have them as allies and all but in the grand scheme of things the percentage of help the UK provides is small potato's. I am grateful but lets get back to reality.

Lets put it like this to make sure we understand the scale, I am not sure of these numbers but they are close, the UK probably has a higher percentage of their armed forces deployed to Iraq than the US, but 25k vs 150k is still 6-1 or better. The other nations like Poland are smaller yet.

You make it sound as if we do not appreciate what the UK is doing and that is so far from reality that you fail to see just how important we feel your contribution is, when I bad mouth Europe I try my damnedest to leave the UK out, but with the attitude in here by the UK members, I am beginning to wonder what will happen in the next 10-20 years.

The buddies I have from the UK have much different opinions of the US than you do and most of them are veterans, and yes most still hate Bush sill.

The ones I admire most are the Aussies, in general they are more conservative about this war than the US, they see the threat with Indonesia on their doorstep. The UK's threat will be from within.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Well in all seriousness, he is not the target, it is obvious that he has a bit of warped view of known history, but it is the readers that I am after, they see the Utopian argument and they see just how futile it is and maybe the mind can be changed in the way it assesses reality.

"History is not the truth, just a lie we all agree on."
Firstly I dont know wether to be happy or anoyed at not being a target.
I am also after the readers, most posts I read now are saying america won the war for europe single handedly and so they should control the world.
I am provideing the other half of the arguemnt, thus giveing them 3 choices.
Igonore us both..
Pick one side
Stay in the middle.



It is the seed that you plant that grows, maybe even devilwasp will do some reading and find out for himself just how ludicrous some of the crap he believes is.

Yes this "crap" i believe in is just as true as the things you believe in.
It doesnt matter who or what you believe in, its how and why you believe and the fact you believe.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Everyone knows that many nations won the war together and the Russians did most of the fighting and contributed most to winning the war in Europe and did 2 thirds of the fighting. Americans don't like to accept that though


#1 USSR
#2 USA



[edit on 3-3-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
...................


[edit on 3-3-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
Everyone knows that many nations won the war together and the Russians did most of the fighting and contributed most to winning the war in Europe and did 2 thirds of the fighting. Americans don't like to accept that though


#1 USSR
#2 USA



[edit on 3-3-2005 by drfunk]


In the European theater you are correct, in the first years with US supplied equipment, in the latter years with your own......

In the Pacific? None...zip unless you count the last three days when they grabbed some from the beaten Japanese....

Never did I once claim we won WWII by ourselves and quite the contrary, the only thing I will say is by 1944 we had the infrastructure to produce equipment faster than anyone could destroy it.....what I was referring to was the 50 years that followed WWII and who bore the majority of the cost of containing communism.



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger


In the Pacific? None...zip unless you count the last three days when they grabbed some from the beaten Japanese....

So the british in asia where sitting drinking tea or whiskey right?
Also , who is a threat to you, your comment has made me wonder.....



posted on Mar, 3 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Over all, I think Russia sent more troops, ammunition and tanks then any other Nation in WW2. They also were at war with China and Japan pre-WW2.

But after the massive defeat of the Russian Navy, pre-WW1 and the fact they had focused on a land Army it would of been hard for them to fight Japan in the Pacific Theater, they were better suited for isolating Germany and attacking them - after all, they'd of had to re-build most of their army and they had just undergone the Revolution, caused in part by the Russian-Japan war and the after effects of it and the Naval Defeat.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join