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.

 

Nazi Germany, overhyped?

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Again, I agree. I think I took your stance as a little more "hardline" than you intended it to be. Must be your refusal to speak American for me.



We absolutely agree on the military front. They had some marvelous minds in their officer corps, and some truly brave enlisted men (as did everybody else, obviously). I think one could argue that if Hitler had gotten out of the military's way, they could've waged war more effectively. The flip side of that coin, however, is that if Hitler had gotten out of the military's way, the military likely would've forced a German capitulation substantially earlier. They didn't call Hitler the Bohemian corporal out of love and respect, after all.




posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So tell me genius,,if the Brits had it in hand, why was Churchill,begging the Yanksmto get involved, or didn't he in your timeline



Why did Bush beg the UK to into Iraq with him?

Doesn't matter what the advantage is in war, anyone with a ounce of sense and a working bran cell will try and call allies in, even if winning is a sure thing.

US entering the war just assure victory in less time will fewer dead Brits.


And you studied history, I doubt



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok


Delayed 2-3 years?? Really? I will be polite here and label that 'best case scenario'. Worst case scenario? Never.

Too many variables here. Lend-Lease on steroids? Not at all as the U.S. is focused on Japan? Goering comes to his senses and returns to bombing airfields, ports and infrastructure instead of London? A huge increase of German air assets due to victory in the east?

I say again, anyone's guess.



Two to three years not because of anything the UK did but as Speer stated that the Chromium and Tungsten receives Germany had would be gone by 1947. That means no more tanks or artillery. It was actually a genuine and terrifying fear of his. 1947 and the German industry's would collapse. After that Russia or the UK could walk in.

Germany could not have survived a prolonged war, there economy was too fragile.


I knew nothing of this shortage, however,one would think that all the occupied regions Germany now controlled would have some supply of both. What is the date of this Speer comment?


Speer comment was 1942 at the height of there power.

Chromium and Tungsten reserves apparently are pretty low on the European mainland.

Most it was controlled by Portugal, the British empire and the USA. With some in Neutral country's dotted around the world and either unable to ship to Germany due to having pressure put on them by the allies to deny trade.
Portugal supply got cut off around 1942 by Britain.

UK and USA pretty much had a strangle hold on it.
edit on 8-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2017 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: crazyewok

It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.


Yeah. That's the problem with new technology and ideas. it a risk, you run the risk of it being a dud and you being left with obsolete weapons looking like a fool.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.


The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Another complaint of Speer and a example of NAZI stupidity was the mismanagement of Occupied territory's.
His complaint was he could barley use the capture industry's and resources because of sheer scale of incompetence in the conquered territory's.

His main example was his visit to a capture industrial site in Ukraine.
Most the factory's where intact and the people where treating the Germans as liberators (seeing as Ukraine's hated Stalin with a very justified passion).


6 months later half the population had turned on the NAZI and had become partisans. Why?

Because the SS Einsatzgruppen where sent in and started shooting people for being slavs.....



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef


They didn't have one carrier, they had and were building over 60. Germany had no means to defeat the United Kingdom militarily.

As a matter of fact, since the German atomic program was so far behind the Allies as to be practically nonexistent the British could at some point deployed atomic weapons on the Germans if need be.


Forgive my skepticism, but even the U.S. couldn't build 60 carriers. Planned, perhaps, not build.

Next, hiding them from the Germans would be tough, perhaps less so in France, but up north? Difficult, at best. The Germans could have easily followed those planes back to their carrier and attacked them at sea. German high-command were not slouches, by any means. They would have to remain well off-shore to avoid detection and thereby reduce the distance they could attack inland.

I believe you paint a rosy picture when it comes to the actual military aspect of this. You also rely on a massive indirect U.S. support without their involvement directly which is semantics in any scenario of the U.S. 'not being involved' in the European war.

I do agree on your take on Hitler and National-Socialism, however. The vast majority of their military was pure professional and would continue to give you fits, despite the political and economic barriers they faced. You faced your own economic and manufacturing issues , as well. Much of your material was shipped in....



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.


The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.


Funny how an island nation pays attention to a naval force and land locked countries not so much isn't it
Now I want to insert the word genius to be patronising but I won't, because I want to be above that petty stuff, just once in this thread

Overhyped or not, the Nazis were formidable, I think we can all agree?



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Yeah, but one torpedo and that carrier is a reef


They didn't have one carrier, they had and were building over 60. Germany had no means to defeat the United Kingdom militarily.

As a matter of fact, since the German atomic program was so far behind the Allies as to be practically nonexistent the British could at some point deployed atomic weapons on the Germans if need be.


Forgive my skepticism, but even the U.S. couldn't build 60 carriers. Planned, perhaps, not build.

Next, hiding them from the Germans would be tough, perhaps less so in France, but up north? Difficult, at best. The Germans could have easily followed those planes back to their carrier and attacked them at sea. German high-command were not slouches, by any means. They would have to remain well off-shore to avoid detection and thereby reduce the distance they could attack inland.

I believe you paint a rosy picture when it comes to the actual military aspect of this. You also rely on a massive indirect U.S. support without their involvement directly which is semantics in any scenario of the U.S. 'not being involved' in the European war.

I do agree on your take on Hitler and National-Socialism, however. The vast majority of their military was pure professional and would continue to give you fits, despite the political and economic barriers they faced. You faced your own economic and manufacturing issues , as well. Much of your material was shipped in....

Actually a huge bulk of these carriers where Escort carries. Very small carriers converted from old obsolete ships designed to carry a dozen fighters.

These carriers where designed specifically for convoy duty rather than large fleet operations.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.


The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.


Funny how an island nation pays attention to a naval force and land locked countries not so much isn't it
Now I want to insert the word genius to be patronising but I won't, because I want to be above that petty stuff, just once in this thread

Overhyped or not, the Nazis were formidable, I think we can all agree?


Militarily they where formidable.


Economically and politically they where plagued with fundamental flaws that would always lead to there downfall one way or another.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Another complaint of Speer and a example of NAZI stupidity was the mismanagement of Occupied territory's.
His complaint was he could barley use the capture industry's and resources because of sheer scale of incompetence in the conquered territory's.

His main example was his visit to a capture industrial site in Ukraine.
Most the factory's where intact and the people where treating the Germans as liberators (seeing as Ukraine's hated Stalin with a very justified passion).


6 months later half the population had turned on the NAZI and had become partisans. Why?

Because the SS Einsatzgruppen where sent in and started shooting people for being slavs.....




This is where you lose me ewok, the Naxis where brutal ruthless killers with an agenda of genocide
They killed millions and you say they were not as bad as we think they were.
How do you arrive at that statement
They were efficient killers,and ruthles and took the combined axis to topple them



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Being a ruthless and killers does not make a regime stable.

Just mean they can create a lot of dead bodies before they collapse.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

That's kind of a stupid thing to say, honestly.

One, Germany didn't neglect it's navy.

Allow me to introduce you to this thing called a U-Boat

Two, Germany wasn't "landlocked" by any means during World War Two.

Looks like a lot of coastline to me

Luckily, you restrained yourself from trying to be patronizing though.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I agree Nazi Germany is overhyped. Imo, Nazi Germany is a symptom to the rise of fascism in western civilization, which was orchestrated by the Federal Reserve & funded by people like Prescott Bush, who helped support Hitler's rise to power. We have far more similarities with Nazi Germany than differences. Every economic downturn & war we've seen in the past 100 years was caused by the Federal Reserve. Many of the socialistic ideas by the left are the same ideas Hitler called for in the past & people like Merkel, Obama, Hillary, Gore, Bush, Romney, McCain, Gowdy, Christie, etc. (career politicians in general) are calling for now. The word Nazi standed for National Socialist party in Hitler's Germany. In the USA we went from a free country, with a small government, run by the people, based on the natural rights of liberty, justice (due process) & the persuit of happiness for all to an enslaved country, with the largest government in history, run by corporations, based on the elimination of due process, corruption & greed to enrich the fascist elite.

www.intellihub.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's incredibly interesting to read about the infighting that took place between the so-called "Battleship Admirals" and the "Carrier Admirals" during the war. Mostly in the American navy, but even in the Japanese fleet.


The Japanese very early on grasped the potential strategic importance of airpower versus naval vessels as demonstrated obviously at Pear Harbor, but even more so in the South China Sea where aircraft destroyed Prince of Wales and Repulse in open water.


Airpower vs naval vessels. I think you hit a key point here.

That's exactly where naval airpower is at it's best. Against naval vessels. When faced against a matching or near matching land airpower, the advantage swings back to the land-based units.

The U.S. proved on a number of occasions against the Japanese that they could carve out an airfield in days, if not hours, and ferry in units. Take out a carrier and not so easy to replace.

I believe that British aircraft carriers would be an asset, of course. Turn the tide? Only if the tide was ready to be turned. If the current Chinese know where the U.S. carriers are, and they do, those carriers are at far more risk than the intended targets inland. JMO, though.



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

en.wikipedia.org...


The luftwaffe was incredible, ewok is saying their planes were inferior?



EJ



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

So what system regime is not like that, what system or regime is stable
Look at those in the US now, look at history

Look at all invading forces, how many benevolent dictators do we find
Hitler was a ruthless maniac, he wasn't after smooth, he was after genocide

Nothing runs smoothly



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: HorrorRoach
a reply to: Raggedyman

en.wikipedia.org...


The luftwaffe was incredible, ewok is saying their planes were inferior?



EJ


The number of wrecked German planes at the bottom of the English Channel say otherwise



posted on Jul, 8 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JBIZZ

So they were overhyped but completely restructured your country for the last 80 years, hmmmm
I wonder if people are thinking this through properly




top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join