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.

 

Thank You Germany & France...for the knife in the back!

page: 18
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
50-60 years ago, this was normal talk for young American men....Killing Japs, Krauts, Injuns and Commies etc etc.,


And 500 years ago it was ok to rape, pillage and slaughter



but sadly our modern society has been poisoned by the Liberals who dope up any young man on Ritalin who dares shows any sign of patriotism


Ritalin is designed to stamp out Patriotism...sounds interesting.......lacking in proof, fact and truth but interesting none the less



I don't have proof, but roughly HALF our young American boys have never even fired a BB gun!!!


and....?


Their manhood and Patriotism is being watered down and its gonna get worse. Whats gonna happen in the next 50 years?? I beleave in future, only 25% of Americas men will think like me.....the other 75% will be ether stabbing America in the back or too weak to even hold a BB gun.


Err...no....your are getting Patiotism and Nationalism confused in my opinion.
In my opinion Patriotism is the love of ones country, its people, its culture and its history.

Nationalism is believing your country is better simply because it is your country, if you were born in China would America be better?


[edit on 18-4-2005 by UK Wizard]




posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 04:14 PM
link   
American Madman:

Like I said, pity it is that your sissy country - along with the rest of Europe - couldn't stand up to Hitler before he rolled over you all like a bulldozer. Why should we have to come save you? Hmmmmmmmm?


Read a history book, Madman. ALL of Europe stood up to Hitler, including Russia.

The United States contributed very little to the winning of WWII, when compared to the rest of Europe, whose citizens were fighting and dying and trying to live amongst all this war.

Let me break it down for you:

On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men. Note that the casualty figures for smaller units do not always add up to equal these overall figures exactly, however (this simply reflects the problems of obtaining accurate casualty statistics).

Casualties on the British beaches were roughly 1000 on Gold Beach and the same number on Sword Beach. The remainder of the British losses were amongst the airborne troops: some 600 were killed or wounded, and 600 more were missing; 100 glider pilots also became casualties. The losses of 3rd Canadian Division at Juno Beach have been given as 340 killed, 574 wounded and 47 taken prisoner.

The breakdown of US casualties was 1465 dead, 3184 wounded, 1928 missing and 26 captured. Of the total US figure, 2499 casualties were from the US airborne troops (238 of them being deaths). The casualties at Utah Beach were relatively light: 197, including 60 missing. However, the US 1st and 29th Divisions together suffered around 2000 casualties at Omaha Beach.

Utah and Omaha Beach were the easiest of all of them to take, geographically.

Europe saved itself, with a little bit of help from the USA and Canada.

jako

Read read read



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus

Originally posted by D

I felt sick after reading that. Patriotism and love of one's country is one thing, but being 14 and talking of "killing communist Chinese soldiers" is another. How about telling your son to talk to some Chinese friends on how they feel about their home country? Open up their eyes a bit. I think you'd be pretty sick if I told you that tears came to my eyes when I heard my son saying that they'd like to kill American soldiers. Reverse the situation, and you'd know how sick that sounded. Promoting patriotism and love of ones country does not have to mean the promotion of hate and xenophobia.


You used the words "sick" so many times in your sad wimpy paragraph....it started making me sick!

50-60 years ago, this was normal talk for young American men....Killing Japs, Krauts, Injuns and Commies etc etc., but sadly our modern society has been poisoned by the Liberals who dope up any young man on Ritalin who dares shows any sign of patriotism and God forbid a young American man challange radical Islam....he would be sent to "anger-management" therapy and brain-washing sessions.

I don't have proof, but roughly HALF our young American boys have never even fired a BB gun!!! Their manhood and Patriotism is being watered down and its gonna get worse. Whats gonna happen in the next 50 years?? I beleave in future, only 25% of Americas men will think like me.....the other 75% will be ether stabbing America in the back or too weak to even hold a BB gun.

I don't expect you to understand me.....you never could.

Maximu§


LA - I agree with your assesment that the US is becoming weak


It is mostly the north eastern urban/burb types though. The south and midwest still has the American fighting spirit.

However, don't blame it on Ritalin. I was taking close to 100 MGs a day in HS and college, and I really needed it (just ask my teachers :lol
. All it did was help me hold my Winchester steady trying to bag bucks with my friends



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Jakomo, whatever amount of help America gave to France and Germany is always debatable, but the fact of the matter is we spilled blood to help free France and we rebuilt and protected Germany for generations at the cost of hundreds of billions of our US dollers.

We never asked for anything in return, except friendship and some fair trade between friends. Is that too much for us to expect???

If any of you Americans think Germany and France have the right to sell advanced weapons to China than your traitors and back-stabbers, not me. You have lost all sense of right-and-wrong and you're good for nothing.

Pack your bags and get out of my country...go live in Canada.

Maximu§



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
American Madman:

Like I said, pity it is that your sissy country - along with the rest of Europe - couldn't stand up to Hitler before he rolled over you all like a bulldozer. Why should we have to come save you? Hmmmmmmmm?


Read a history book, Madman. ALL of Europe stood up to Hitler, including Russia....


CONTEXT...

I was saying that they didn't stand up to Hitler BEFORE he turned his country into a juggernaught and rolled over Europe.

I certainly understand that the UK and ESPECIALLY Russia stood up to Hitler. My displeasure is the TIME it took them to do it. The moment he attacked any one else France, the UK, and everyone else should have taken Hitler down. Instead, they waited for him to take Poland etc.

In fact, Europe should have taken out Hitler the moment he broke the restrictions put on Germany from WWI.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
If any of you Americans think Germany and France have the right to sell advanced weapons to China than your traitors and back-stabbers, not me. You have lost all sense of right-and-wrong and you're good for nothing.

Pack your bags and get out of my country...go live in Canada.


Damn right



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
[Ritalin is designed to stamp out Patriotism...sounds interesting.......lacking in proof, fact and truth but interesting none the less


Maybe we should debate this on another thread one day Wizzy. I don't have proof, but America has lost roughly 1/2 of our "fighting-stock" and I wonder if we will even have any fighters left in the next 50 years.

In WW II we had lines of young men joining up to fight the Nazis and Japs, now the Army is falling short of recruiting goals.

Thats not good news ATS people!!!

All Im trying to do is raise my (2) boys to be good, honest Christian men who love America and will serve her as I have. I guess that makes me a "freak" in most of your eyes huh?

At the risk of going off topic...being in the US military makes you a better person than before you went in. You come out stronger, smarter, more educated and more deadly. Most importantly, you have a strong sense of pride that you put in your time serving America and made a small difference in the world.


Maximu§

[edit on 053030p://111 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
AMM, you are full of delusions of grandeur.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
No, I understand the idea, but why should we have helped you? Germany posed no threat to the US. The Nazis didn't have the Navy to take on the US, and we got the bomb before him. We also had a larger population and better undustrial capacity then Germany.


Ever heard of Grand Admiral Karl Donitz? Read up on the Second Battle of the Atlantic. 5 Type IX class U-Boats were sent to destroy American shipping after Germany declared war. Those 5 U-Boats sunk nearly 400 ships and over 2 million tons of shipping with NO losses. The US also had no experience with modern naval warfare on its shores and refused Royal Navy advice to use the convoy system which were more effective against subs. Also, might I also remind you that the German navy was the only navy with submarine capability. Germany also later developed such subs as the Type XXIII class which proved to be invincible (much like the King Tigers on land), but sufficient numbers were not produced.

Also, Germany was initially ahead of everyone else in atomic bomb research. However, due to the success of Blitzkrieg, Hitler decided to delay atomic bomb development because he didn't need it. Furthermore, thanks to the EUROPEAN allies that sabotaged Nazi atom bomb research and materials, it delayed testing long enough that Hitler wasn't able to develop it.

Also, so what if you had a larger population? Unlike Russia, you don't have harsh winters, and Germany was crushing the numerically superior Red Army in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa.

Germany also had the largest mechanized force in the world, and at this time, mechanized forces were THE thing to have in ground warfare. Germany also possessed the largest airforce.

Another factor that impacted Hitler's decision on declaring war on America was that Germany was also at least a decade ahead of America in most technological fields. The original plan was to finish the war on Europe and focus the rest of their efforts on America, and they predicted that by that time, Germany would have super battleships with 24 inch guns, intercontinental missiles, and several other destructive weapons.






- We could debate US companies cashing in on playing both ends against the middle until it became too much for even the US to stay out of it (and I am happy to admitt much of this applies to WW2 and not WW1) but it was US Pres Wilson allowing his (originally very very worthy and fine) 'principles' to become perverted into a vehicle for (mostly) French revenge against Germany that in large part gave rise to WW2.


So now you blame WWII on the US


Get real Sminky - Europe was to blame for both world wars, not the US. Europe got themselves in deep # both time, having wars never before or since matched in blood shed and BOTH times the US came to your aid.

Without all you EUROPEANS there would not have BEEN either great war!


Actually AMM is right on this one. The single European I shift the blame to is Heinz Guderian. His philosophy of blitzkrieg intrigued Hitler so much so that it resulted in Hitler finally gaining the confidence to break the Versailles Treaty. Hitler fought in WWI. He knew that trench warfare would result in a stalemate. Therefore, he saw the genius of Guderian's strategy. Not long afterwards, Germany invaded Poland.

Poland was recently able to resist the Red Army. So while many believed that Poland was a weak country unable to defend themselves, think again. They weren't a bunch of guys running around on cavalry, they had tanks and planes. Germany also had cavalry and used them in Operation Barbarossa...

Poland, having resisted Russia, shocked Allied command when they fell to Germany. A technologically superior France fell as well. The UK was able to resist with radar (America did not have radar at this time btw), AND because Hitler decided that he wanted to bomb the UK infrastructure rather than their airfields first (it was common for Germany to always bomb airfields first). This allowed RAF fighters to take off and shoot German planes out of the sky. America, lacking radar and possessing inferior planes, would never have had such luck against the most powerful airforce of the time EVEN if the Luftwaffe didn't bomb American airfields first.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

If any of you Americans think Germany and France have the right to sell advanced weapons to China


Do you have one shred of evidence that anything sold by European countries gives China any sort of tactical advantage , and more of a one than the technology sold by US companies? because if you can i'd like to see it.

There has been an embargo on selling China weapons since the Tianamen Square incident, this 'embargo' was never broken but it did not stop European companies selling certain things to China, what actually stopped countries selling high tech weaponery was a Code of Conduct, which will still be in place even if the embargo is lifted. Lifting the embargo is so relations can be normalised not so Europe can sell evil, world enslaving deathrays of doom to the evil, murder loving, pinko-commie chinese.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Jakomo, whatever amount of help America gave to France and Germany is always debatable, but the fact of the matter is we spilled blood to help free France and we rebuilt and protected Germany for generations at the cost of hundreds of billions of our US dollers.

Might I correct a few things here?
You added to the spilt blood, you added to the help in the rebuilding of germany and you helped protect germany.


We never asked for anything in return, except friendship and some fair trade between friends. Is that too much for us to expect???

You asked for money in return of all the things we bought, you also asked for bases in our countries.
You asked for free trade and friendship, both were and still are being held.


If any of you Americans think Germany and France have the right to sell advanced weapons to China than your traitors and back-stabbers, not me. You have lost all sense of right-and-wrong and you're good for nothing.

Yeah and one thing, the definition of traitors and back stabbers is different from every person, I dont call them traitors and my definition of right and wrong is quite clear; wrong: "Working, funding and helping terrorists." Right: Standing by your allies when they need you and even when they do things that dont seem to help you.
IMO your insults and accusations and judgeing of people is rather pathetic but hey thats my opinion.
You have the right to insult people in your country , but not here.
This is supposed to be a place of discussion not a stomping ground for political activists.


Pack your bags and get out of my country...go live in Canada.

Its not your country, never will be.
America is the land of the free, so it is free....its not controlled by anyone....just led.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
I was saying that they didn't stand up to Hitler BEFORE he turned his country into a juggernaught and rolled over Europe.

We were in no state for a war, we didnt want one and the damm treaty that caused all of it was too harsh, we also werent in a position to stop him from takeing the sudeten land or poland.



I certainly understand that the UK and ESPECIALLY Russia stood up to Hitler. My displeasure is the TIME it took them to do it. The moment he attacked any one else France, the UK, and everyone else should have taken Hitler down. Instead, they waited for him to take Poland etc.

Uhh what?
He went into the rhine land, which really was the right thing to do since it was german land.
Second he went to the sudeten land and then took of czechoslovakia, unless we sent the british army through germany (yeah right with our army at the time?) or down into italy we couldnt have done anything.
Also italy did mobilise to stop hitler but didnt do anything after france and the others didnt or couldnt do anything.
And in poland we knew he was dodgy so we said we would defend the polish, but uh oh how do we get to poland?
Past the german coast line.....no chance!
So we called in the ruskies, they hate the poles and the poles hate them but they both hate the nazi's more.
But the polish, some of our ministers and stalin himself didnt like the idea.
Stalin decided to buy time, if he had gone in it might have done some good.


In fact, Europe should have taken out Hitler the moment he broke the restrictions put on Germany from WWI.

Oh you mean like the 100 000 man army?
What you going to do with that?
Defend germany?
No chance.
No navy, how its going to defend itself? Oh wait they cant.......funny seems like the allies where more interested in leaveing germany defenceless than peace.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
Do you have one shred of evidence that anything sold by European countries gives China any sort of tactical advantage , and more of a one than the technology sold by US companies? because if you can i'd like to see it.



France sold anti-ship missiles and supersonic jets to Argentina and look at the hits the RN took. The fact of the matter is, should countries who you've helped and protected arm your adversaries for a few shillings?

What does that make them?? Their not friends anymore if they go ahead with this, so what are they?

You seem like a good man cmdrpaddy...would you sell rifles to your best friends adversary? Yes or No?? If your friend asked you to please not to do it...would you? Course not, cause your a good man. You Honor friendship and its no different with countries that are allies.

I think China is gonna come to blows with America in the near future and you know what?

I want my side to win.

Maximu§

[edit on 063030p://111 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LA_Maximus
France sold anti-ship missiles and supersonic jets to Argentina and look at the hits the RN took. The fact of the matter is, should countries who you've helped and protected arm your adversaries for a few shillings?

So?
America sold guns to the IRA...should we call you traitors?
You might also note they stopped selling after the missiles where fired...read up a bit will you?


What does that make them?? Their not friends anymore if they go ahead with this, so what are they?

They are friends, they helped look for 4 of our guys in the channel at the start of this year.......is that what enemies do?


You seem like a good man cmdrpaddy...would you sell rifles to your best friends adversary? Yes or No?? If your friend asked you to please not to do it...would you? Course not, cause your a good man. You Honor friendship and its no different with countries that are allies.

Oh so now the US and china are just adversary's?
Not enemies?
Would you sell rifles that you know cant hurt your best friend (Oh so thier now your "best friends"? Looks like UK just got booted out
because he has armour that stops it and better range than that rifle?
[qutoe]
I think China is gonna come to blows with America in the near future and you know what?

I want my side to win.

The US wil only go to war with china if it invades taiwan, taiwan will only be invaded if it declares independance, taiwan also doesnt fully want independance.....thats just the news the people in power want you to hear.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   


France sold anti-ship missiles to Argentina and look at the hits the RN took. The fact of the matter is, should countries who you've helped and protected arm your adversaries for a few shillings?


Last I heard Argentina was not China.

I do know what you are saying though, I don't want European countries to sell weapons to China anymore than you do, but for different reasons. I don't want them sold because I disagree fundamentaly with trading in death. Selling weapons of any sort, in my view, is the same thing as killing someone, or at the very least aiding in the death of somebody. You disagree with Europe selling weapons but seem to have no problem (or atleast haven't made it known) with America selling weapons to countries with similarly poor human rights records and countries that produce the terrorists that George Bush seems so desperate to eliminate.


D

posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
I don't know if any of you have thought of this yet, but how many countries on an international level do you think give a crap about someone else's country? It might have been different 50 years ago, but today I believe everything a country does, whether its in trade agreements, defence treaties and other things like that is to ensure its own prosperity, well-being and survival. Do you think Germany and France really worry about the past and how the US helped them? On a personal level some might, but if disregarding past events and alliances allows them to prop up their economy make some money here and there, make sure their country is stable, they're gonna go ahead and disreagard it. And it's not just Germany and France as well. There's many more examples.

Australia doing peacekeeping on East Timor. I'm know that there was a human rights crisis there, but it gave the oppurtunity for Australia to go in and use East Timor to keep an eye on Indonesia. A means to maintain the security and well-being of Australia just in case Indonesia tries to pull anything off.

US going into Afghanistan. On an international level I don't think that the US were just being nice to the Afghan people, no they went in to hunt and kill terrorists to ensure the safety and survival of herself.

And now, France and Germany are willing to trade weaponary with China. This brings in the dollars and thus helps to prop up the economy and thus contributes to the well-being and survival of the nation.

Everyone does it.

Edit: Spelling.



[edit on 18/4/05 by D]



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackout
Ever heard of Grand Admiral Karl Donitz? Read up on the Second Battle of the Atlantic. 5 Type IX class U-Boats were sent to destroy American shipping after Germany declared war. Those 5 U-Boats sunk nearly 400 ships and over 2 million tons of shipping with NO losses. The US also had no experience with modern naval warfare on its shores and refused Royal Navy advice to use the convoy system which were more effective against subs.


No experience with modern naval warfare


The US WROTE THE DAMNED BOOK ON IT! While the rest of the world was still obsessing over battleships, the US was building up it's carrier force. Ever heard of a guy named Chester William Nimitz? Well he dominated the seas then, he dominates them today withthe most powerfull carriers in the world named after him



Also, might I also remind you that the German navy was the only navy with submarine capability. Germany also later developed such subs as the Type XXIII class which proved to be invincible (much like the King Tigers on land), but sufficient numbers were not produced.


Sorry, but you are completely WRONG on this. How do you think the US held a blockade on Japan?


Quite frankly, the fact that you could even say something like this is very indicative of your understanding of WWII.

A list of the HUNDRED plus US subs that served in WWII.



Also, Germany was initially ahead of everyone else in atomic bomb research. However, due to the success of Blitzkrieg, Hitler decided to delay atomic bomb development because he didn't need it. Furthermore, thanks to the EUROPEAN allies that sabotaged Nazi atom bomb research and materials, it delayed testing long enough that Hitler wasn't able to develop it.


No - the Allies did almost NOTHING to delay the Germans. They accounted for a few months - TOTAL (and that includes AMERICAN air strikes which dealt the second greatest blow to their nuclear ambition, with Norwegian Knut Haukelid dealing the greatest blow). In fact, of everything the Germans hurt their own cause the most by switching heavy water production sites repeatedly.

The US also may have started out behind Germany, but was far ahead of Germany by 1943.



Also, so what if you had a larger population? Unlike Russia, you don't have harsh winters, and Germany was crushing the numerically superior Red Army in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa.


We have our own terrain issues, like actually getting an army across the Atlantic to our shores, crossing the rockies, and traversing the south western dessert, etc. Plus, our entire population was armed, and we had MUCH greater industrial capacity then Russia did.



Germany also had the largest mechanized force in the world, and at this time, mechanized forces were THE thing to have in ground warfare. Germany also possessed the largest airforce.




Another factor that impacted Hitler's decision on declaring war on America was that Germany was also at least a decade ahead of America in most technological fields. The original plan was to finish the war on Europe and focus the rest of their efforts on America, and they predicted that by that time, Germany would have super battleships with 24 inch guns, intercontinental missiles, and several other destructive weapons.


He would have been fighting Russia for years, if not decades - they would have bled each other dry while the US took care of Japan and built up it's military. By the time Germany was done with Russia (if they didn't end in a stalemate or get beat), the US Navy would have been too much for Germany to overcome.

As for their wonder weapons...Battle ships were made obsolete by carriers. They wouldn't have a chance against the US carrier fleet.

The ICBMs they would have had would have been near useless just like their V-2's because they didn't have guidance systems.

Besides, the US had the Bomb, and could have simply attacked from the North Atlantic, gone nuclear, and wiped Europe off the face of the planet had we wanted to.



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrpaddy
. You disagree with Europe selling weapons but seem to have no problem (or atleast haven't made it known) with America selling weapons to countries with similarly poor human rights records and countries that produce the terrorists that George Bush seems so desperate to eliminate.





Like Pakistan? Im not sure selling F-16s to those Fools was a good idea, but Germany and France selling weapons to China sure does not help our situation in the Pacific.

Max

Max



posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
LA_Max,

"I think China is gonna come to blows with America in the near future and you know what?

I want my side to win. "

The only reason the US and China will come to blows on the battlefield is due ignorant racists like you. Those who are never happier than when they are killing anyone who is different from them.

In my opinion your kids should be taken away from you and given a chance at a real life free of the bile and intolerance which blights your life. Why should they suffer because you are cursed with an inferiority complex which can only be deadened by hate.

As for a conflict between China and the US, it is already ongoing and you are already losing.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. American Mad Man, No response to my previous post?
[edit on 19-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

[edit on 19-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]


D

posted on Apr, 19 2005 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
LA_Max,

The only reason the US and China will come to blows on the battlefield is due ignorant racists like you. Those who are never happier than when they are killing anyone who is different from them.



True.

Maximus, I don't want to sound like I'm doubting your faith or anything as I myself am a Christian and would not like to attack a brother in Christ. But I am curious how you can read the Bible and be a follower of Christ, but at the same time condone and practice hatred at the same time. I'm just having a bit of trouble comprehending that. Thanks in advance.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by Blackout
Ever heard of Grand Admiral Karl Donitz? Read up on the Second Battle of the Atlantic. 5 Type IX class U-Boats were sent to destroy American shipping after Germany declared war. Those 5 U-Boats sunk nearly 400 ships and over 2 million tons of shipping with NO losses. The US also had no experience with modern naval warfare on its shores and refused Royal Navy advice to use the convoy system which were more effective against subs.


No experience with modern naval warfare


The US WROTE THE DAMNED BOOK ON IT! While the rest of the world was still obsessing over battleships, the US was building up it's carrier force. Ever heard of a guy named Chester William Nimitz? Well he dominated the seas then, he dominates them today withthe most powerfull carriers in the world named after him


Read more closely, I said no experience with modern naval warfare on ITS SHORES. If they did, they would have 1) implemented the convoy system and 2) sunk at least one damn U-Boat.

Also, America, while they were building up their carrier fleet, did not realize, like everyone else at that time, that the carrier was the dominant force in the seas. They still stuck their carriers in front of their battleships, just like everyone else.





Also, might I also remind you that the German navy was the only navy with submarine capability. Germany also later developed such subs as the Type XXIII class which proved to be invincible (much like the King Tigers on land), but sufficient numbers were not produced.


Sorry, but you are completely WRONG on this. How do you think the US held a blockade on Japan?


Quite frankly, the fact that you could even say something like this is very indicative of your understanding of WWII.

A list of the HUNDRED plus US subs that served in WWII.


Step back. This isn't about Japan.

And also, who cares about American subs? They had little impact on Germany. Germany's U-Boats were technologically superior and their naval strategy (particularly Donitz's "wolf pack" strategy) was superior. That's why America couldn't sink one U-Boat until finally taking RN advice.

Even then, there was no way America or any of the Allies would be able to stop the Type XXI and Type XXIII class subs that were later deployed by Germany. They also happened to be the first subs to actually operate entirely submerged.





Also, Germany was initially ahead of everyone else in atomic bomb research. However, due to the success of Blitzkrieg, Hitler decided to delay atomic bomb development because he didn't need it. Furthermore, thanks to the EUROPEAN allies that sabotaged Nazi atom bomb research and materials, it delayed testing long enough that Hitler wasn't able to develop it.


No - the Allies did almost NOTHING to delay the Germans. They accounted for a few months - TOTAL (and that includes AMERICAN air strikes which dealt the second greatest blow to their nuclear ambition, with Norwegian Knut Haukelid dealing the greatest blow). In fact, of everything the Germans hurt their own cause the most by switching heavy water production sites repeatedly.

The US also may have started out behind Germany, but was far ahead of Germany by 1943.


Did you just ignore the entire part where I stated Hitler delayed atom bomb research due to blitzkrieg victories? It was only because Hitler slowed it down that America could have possibly even caught up.





Also, so what if you had a larger population? Unlike Russia, you don't have harsh winters, and Germany was crushing the numerically superior Red Army in the early stages of Operation Barbarossa.


We have our own terrain issues, like actually getting an army across the Atlantic to our shores, crossing the rockies, and traversing the south western dessert, etc. Plus, our entire population was armed, and we had MUCH greater industrial capacity then Russia did.


Getting an army across the Atlantic?
Maybe if the US sunk one U-Boat without RN advice then we can debate this.

America had it all timed right by luck. If the US declared war on Germany the same time as France and Britain, they would have been devastated. It doesn't even matter if your entire population was armed - it's still laughable when I read about the 10-15 Shermans engaging a single Panzer. What's worse is that the Wermacht put everything on the tanks and mechanized forces. Your entire population might be at arms (mind you, even though you're endowed with the right to bear arms, I find it hard to believe everyone had a ready rifle), but the fact is that the tanks always struck first along with air support from the Luftwaffe, which was THE most powerful air force at the time. A man with a rifle can only engage infantry, and with the Germans, infantry always came last to sweep the last few scattered men that weren't killed by tank/air bombardment.

America timed it right again when Germany was forced to declare war while they were already busy with Britain/Russia. Had they not been, it's almost guaranteed that Hitler would conduct a surprise attack - as he had done with almost everyone else. The Blitz was a surprise attack and lifted the "phony war" idea, and Russia wasn't suspecting an attack by its ally. Also, as was the case with any other German surprise attack save the Blitz (due to Hitler's own idiocy), it was customary for the Luftwaffe to bomb all airfields first so I don't even want to hear about what inferior American planes could have done.





Germany also had the largest mechanized force in the world, and at this time, mechanized forces were THE thing to have in ground warfare. Germany also possessed the largest airforce.




Another factor that impacted Hitler's decision on declaring war on America was that Germany was also at least a decade ahead of America in most technological fields. The original plan was to finish the war on Europe and focus the rest of their efforts on America, and they predicted that by that time, Germany would have super battleships with 24 inch guns, intercontinental missiles, and several other destructive weapons.


He would have been fighting Russia for years, if not decades - they would have bled each other dry while the US took care of Japan and built up it's military. By the time Germany was done with Russia (if they didn't end in a stalemate or get beat), the US Navy would have been too much for Germany to overcome.

As for their wonder weapons...Battle ships were made obsolete by carriers. They wouldn't have a chance against the US carrier fleet.

The ICBMs they would have had would have been near useless just like their V-2's because they didn't have guidance systems.

Besides, the US had the Bomb, and could have simply attacked from the North Atlantic, gone nuclear, and wiped Europe off the face of the planet had we wanted to.



Once again, it wasn't until after the Battle of the Coral Sea and Midway (although, it's generally accepted that it was AFTER WWII) that everyone began to realize that the carrier was the dominant force. Also, America couldn't have handled the German U-Boat fleet let alone the newer subs they eventually began deploying albeit in insufficient numbers.

The V-2's were more of a psychological weapon than a strategic weapon. V-2's were never launched in the hopes of destroying an exact factory, for instance. A couple of ICBM's would have convinced the American public to discontinue the war.

If America hadn't lucked out, they wouldn't have obtained the bomb. A German attack on American soil would have shifted the majority of America's resources and attention towards defense rather than developing the atom bomb.

America simply wasn't ready for Germany on the strategic or technological level. Donitz's "wolf packs" devastated shipping, and Britain nearly surrendered due to lack of supplies. I needn't even explain the success of blitzkrieg as there still isn't a counter-strategy for it today.

[edit on 20-4-2005 by Blackout]




top topics



 
0
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join