It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I didn't realize Europe is a net exporter of oil now...
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Go take a look at France and Germany. Both import millions of barrels of oil a day.
The UK's economy is not only directly tied in with the other European nations, but would also lose business if they didn't have oil to export.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Not the UK. The UK doesn't even export that much. It's only a few hundred thousand barrel surplus you guys have running. The UK doesn't provide Europe with its oil...
Originally posted by Broadsword20068
The United States does not have oil; we have about enough to run the country for 3 months maybe; we do not have "50 years reserves" of oil.
That is why ousting Saddam was important, so that he wouldn't end up in the future getting true WMD or his sons developing true WMD and thus causing a crapload of havoc in the region.
I agree the US does not have 50 yrs worth ( I doubt the entire worlds oil reserve would last 50 yrs) but we have alot more then 3 months worth.
We probably (just an opinion ) have a good 5 to 7 yrs up in Alaska alone.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I don't look just at specs to make my decision. I look at total design. The S-35 had several major design flaws. The commander had to carry out most tasks, which is just a minor inconeniance, but a huge disadvantage. It allows the enemy to react faster. And while heavier armored, it had some major weak points. It didn't take much firepower to split the hull.
The Panzer was not as slow as you say, either. It could go 40mph, just like the S-35.
There were only some 400 S-35's produced, as well. This was the best tank the French really had.
They did not use the French tanks on the frontlines. They served secondary roles.
I think you're idea of attacking is a bit skewed. The Germans innitiated the fighting in Norway. It wasn't the British doing the attacking. They mostly just retreated. The invasion of France soon followed.
That was my point. You were completely unprepared to fight. You were even pretty unwilling.
This is what I'd call complacency and cowardice.
Sounds more like they just got out smarted.
This doesn't really explain how they intended to fight the Germans since the Germans didn't have to even attack France to begin with.
It only explains how they planned on surviving.
It depends on what the aircraft was. If it were a C-130, I wouldn't think those pilots were going off to shoot down some flankers.
I never said horses weren't used, I said they didn't serve as the frontline combat force of the German army.
Europe "benefited" a whole lot more than America did.
The American military could have gone head to head with the Soviets, and won, and did so without as much bloodshed as people would expect.
There wouldn't have been any nuclear war because no side has anything to gain from firing it. No nation in history, nor any nation that will exist, will doom themselves simply to destroy the enemy unless they know that themselves, and their own people will be whiped off regardless of what they do.
The only thing you did to stop an invasion was let American troops be stationed in your countries.
No reason? How about the fact that they had a history of aggression?
One only had to look at how they acted after WW2 to see that their main goal was getting more power, not peace.
At this point, you don't yet face any major external threat. That may not last, though. If a major war broke out within the next decade, I'd say Europe would be completely caught off guard.
You in fact are helping future threats develop. The French and Germans undemrining America with Iraq, supporting Russia, and arming China may seem cute now, but we'll see how you feel when you become their bitches. They won't be as gentle as America is.
This type of attitude is extremely dangerous.
Go take a look at what China and Russia are both doing. Do they have the capacity today? No. Will they in the future? It's very possible.
While Europe takes it easy, and even helps these two nations, America will keep building its military up so it doesn't find itself in a situation like Europe did during WW2.
Europe doesn't have to be threatened directly. What the hell would you do if someone cut off your oil?
Hell, Saddam and Iraq would have completely had you guys by the balls if it weren't for America. If they had swept across the Middle East, Europe would have been nearly powerless to stop them. Iraq would have gone from being a petty nuissance to the one of the world's greatest powers.
- Well as I've said the French had some excellent tank designs for their day (I agree the fashion for a multi-tasking commander turned out to be a poor choice but it was hardly the 'flaw' that having the bulk of your tanks armed with a 20mm cannon and a machine gun was, right?).
- Like I said, their problem was not their kit but how they used their kit
Norway was a strange instance of the 2 sides reaching the same conclusion and finding they were both attempting an invasion at the same time, one side invited and the other not.
Two days later Denmark surrendered, totally unprepared for invasion. But the Norwegians, similarly surprised, did not succumb. They even managed to sink the German Blücher off the coast of Oslo. Their small army then prepared to face attacks up the coast and in the north. They were offered support from 12,000 British and French troops.
We were not "completely unprepared" we were simply not as prepared as we believed we needed to be, the UK alone had enormous forces around the world, unfortunately not enough in the western European area.
As for a lack of resolve?
How on earth can you conclude this given the privations the people of Britain and Europe were prepared to suffer and did suffer in seeing the war thorugh to a successful conclusion?
.....and frankly what would many Americans know about that, hmmm?
It shows how war can throw up the most unlikely coincidences. Had the Germans not believed their original plans compromised (a light aircraft carrying them came down in Belgium on 10th Jan 1940, a few months before the attack) the whole western attack would have proceeded much differently than it actually did.
- This is ridiculous. Germany need to secure the western flank to free her forces for the attack on the USSR, the fact that she failed to defeat the UK (and expended large forces in trying to do so) ensured the Russia situation was nothing like as dire as it might have been
(although I, like many observers of WW2 am convinced there was never a possibility of Germany ever actually defeating the USSR, they were too big, to prepared and too huge)
It would have been similar to WW1, containment and blockade gradually wearing down the German ability to wage war.
Effective proven tactics which had already won the allies a WW. Who can blame them for believing the same might well happen again.
Afterall it came within a chance air accident and a couple of months of actually doing so.
- ...and the link proves you wrong, they were along with huge numbers of horses in transport and supply.
- I think you'll find US industry did enormously well out of the deal.
- Believe what you like, you're in a small circle that believe that kind of dangerous nonsense.
Coupled with the fact that the Soviet doctrine was to view nuclear weapons as any other and that their attack (were it to come) would be with nuclear weapons anyway do you seriously imagine it all being contained within Europe and Russia?!
- Believe what you like, the fact is we must obviously have done enough to deter an attack (even if one accepts your reasoning that it were ever really likely) seeing as it never actually happened.
The Soviets expected the western powers to keep out of eastern Europe and leave them secure and to rebuild. They saw 'democracy movements' in eastern Germany and Hungry in the 1950's and later in eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia in the late 1960's as the west attempting to destabilise their regimes.
They were not entirely wrong either.
In fact we now know we could have had meaningful arms limitation and reduction talks during Krushchev and Eisenhower's time.
Russia's main goal was security; as it has always been for Russia seeing as how they have regularly faced ruinous attacks and threats from the west in the last few centuries.
- .....and this "major war" is going to suddenly spring up from where, hmm?
.....and who can afford this 'threat', hmmmm?
Cos it certainly isn't like the old days. You can't build a genuinely threatening set of forces in secret like was once possible.
Europe has looked to sell some existant military tech to China, so what? It hasn't happened yet and is this so different from Boeing selling 787's there?
Cos if that isn't selling cutting edge aerodynamics, materials and computer tech I'd love to know what is.
Can you spell 'hypocrisy'?
Germany and France don't support the US in Iraq.....so what?
I thought you guys believed in "freedom" to choose.
Some of you Americans seem to be getting some kind of weird sad kick out of knocking the French at every opportunity yet they are there risking their forces in Afghanistan.
Just because they didn't agree with the Iraq war you start up with the weird infantile attitudes?!
- Yes for the USA, especially given the way so many Americans are blind to the damage this paranoia is doing to themselves
Russia is not going to bankrupt herself again persuing a military the country cannot afford. Russia is also abiding by her agreements to reduce the level of her nuclear and conventional weapons.
- Get real.
American has not come close to facing a situation like Europe did during WW2 ever since WW2 ended
- Well we do have substantial oil and gas reserves of our own actually and with the conservation and startegic usage only that would instantly be implemented we'd manage for quite sometime I'm sure.
- Yeah well I know letting you imagination run wild over what Saddam might have done is the basis for many thing in the USA right now but the point is he didn't and never came close to it (excepting gulf war mk 1 in which he believed the visiting US ambassador had said 'feel free' to him just before it all started).
....and what the hell do you think he would do have done anyway? The point of having the oil isn't to hoard it but to sell it.
Simply hanging on to it kind of misses the point in a major way, right?
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The harsh reality of any large scale war between powers is that the draft would be necessary and government planning of the war economy and the shifting of workers.
Not true. Drafts are not needed in America, and shouldn't be in Europe. America right now could take out Europe without a draft.
A military much larger then what America had during the Cold War is impractical. It's simply too hard to organize, equip, train, and deploy a military of that size for any nation the world has yet to see.
Most great war machines didn't have drafts at all, and fought wars constantly.
Germany's supply lines were too stretched and the infrastructure and poor conditions of the russian front would of made conquering the entire USSR extremely hard if not impossible IMO.
There's two sides to this, those who believe Germany could of won and those who don't. We'll never know.
I have to disagree. America would never be able to maintain such a large volunteer army and America would have no chance in hell against Europe. If you really think all national service armies are poor, look at Israel and Germany, two armies who man for man are superior to the American GI and who both have long and proud military traditions. National Service is a mixed bag and every general would prefer an entirely volunteer army but I do not think it would be possible to maintain the flow of recruitment and the proper amounts needed and also the restructuring of the economy to war needed without some sort of government control on these mechanisms.
If you were fighting a real large scale war against another power I (let's say the US vs Europe) you would have to introduce national service to get the numbers required to be able to take on Europe in a long, drawn out large scale conflict.
I go off what history has shown us since total war has been a reality since the 20th Century and history tells us that national service is sooner or later introduced by the powers during great wars (wwi, wwii) and that the economy is shifted to war production with some sort of government planning.
There are only two types of people on this matter. The educated, and the ignorant.
How could someone argue the Germans couldn't win, when they were just outside Moscow, with Stalin ready to run, and had yet to lose? They suffered their first loss only to the Russian winter, which never should have happened because first, the Germans should have gone prepared. Even still, though, if they hadn't taken a detour to resolve conflict in the Balkans, they would have been able to attack Moscow before the first winter set in.
America kept a military of "that" size all throughout the Cold War. It was also better trained, and better equipped then the one America keeps now.
Army size isn't even close to the best judge of its strength, either. The greatest empires were built not from massive armies, but smaller, well organized ones. It's all about discipline, and technique. America is above everyone here.
And Germany does not have a military better trained than America. Their military isn't even considered the best military in Europe, even though they have the largest of them all. Germany's military possesses almost no offensive capability.
As for Israel, they are a product of circumstance. They have conscripts who are put into a unique position. Their nation is at constant threat from all of their neighbors, constantly attacked by the Palestinians, and they are always deployed in hostile environments.
Even still, this military was taught everything it knows from America. Without America's help, they wouldn't exist anymore.
America's military at this time is a scaled down, decayed form of what it once was. Always remember that. America's military during the 80's was untouchable in this world in size, training, and technology. We had the capability to fight wars on multiple continents against the best in the world.
NOTHING stops America from returning to that level except the demand for it.
Total war isn't something first seen in the 20th century, and it's ignorant to say that. There was simply more firepower than ever.
The wars of the past took just as much from the nations fighting them. I will take a look at ALL history. I have looked at the greatest war machines on Earth.
The Russian winter is one of the arguments for why no-one could win against the Russians. Just because you take out someone's capital it doesn't mean it's all over, a lot of Russia's defence industry was moved towards the Urals and they would of turned the tide sooner or later even if Moscow was taken. I'm not arguing if Moscow could of been taken but I am arguing if the Germans could of won the war with their poor logistics and lack of manpower. Napoleon took moscow after borodino btw and we still have Russia today. My main argument for why the Germans could never of won is because of logistics, logistically speaking Russia was a nightmare and its a miracle and a testament to the german military that they were able to keep the success going so far, considering the extremes and the ingenious ideas german engineers came up with to overcome the logistical nightmare that was russia.
As for the might US army, the US had the draft until 1973 if you didn't know, so for a large part of the cold war we saw national service as well. Even back then the US didn't have enough to take on a collective europe, approx 2.23 million in 1986 and to think that is wrong. To return to cold war levels would only drown the US economy more indebt and have an adverse affect on it, such large armies thankfully are not needed anymore because of the stable times we live in. Overestimating yourself and underestimating your opponent is the worst mistake some have made. If there was a war between a small, professional trained US military and a national service based European military in Europe the Europeans would win because of the advantage of home ground and the fact of superior numbers combined with good training and onpar technology. The German military is a very well trained defence force and you're kidding yourself if you don't think so. Forgive me if I am mistaken but didn't the british help first train Israel's army? As for circumstance for germany, I think being the flashpoint for a potential warwsaw pact thrust through Europe for 45 years is more than enough to keep you on your toes during the cold war. Also just because a defence force hasn't got excellent power projection capabilities doesn't mean they are a bad force.
okay as for total war : total war involves basically all facets of society (industry, civilian and military essentially an entire people) fighting for the one cause of winning a war. Until the French revolution, most wars were essentially fought with small professional armies based on feudalist practices, essentially having to "raise" an army. Not until WWI did we see total war, essentially a 'total war' where we saw huge conscript armies of the masses fighting and there also being a war effort at home, essentially production and also patriotic and nationalistic fervour over the war. So essentially the 20th Century was the first instance when we saw total warfare, all facets of society was involved and this can essentially be attributed to the long-term effects from the industrial age and the changes that happened in western society. Pick up a few history books and have a read about how WWI is the first total war instead of your odd viewpoint.
No one man can look at ALL of history, a historian must understand the past and also learn the lessons that they can bring but you must not ignore the great changes in society that change our paradigms and completely changes our world. What i'm trying to say is that you may of looked at the greatest war machine's on earth but they were different times and circumstances what we must do is analyze our recent history and also the present as they have more relevance than wars of the past due to the great differences in our societies today. Believe it or not but the best armies in the world were the one's of the 20th century, we've never had so much destructive power before.