Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Repubs and warmongers, read and learn
- Thread starter strongchick
- Start date
clusterfoxtrot
New member
This is going to get complicated, but I'll keep it brief. The Russians defeated the Germans on the Eastern front. However:
1) We wiped the Japanese off the face of the map with a few small nukes;
2) The English and the other European allies were kept alive by our (eventual) ability to keep the sipping lanes open and (relatively) safe from Wolfpack hunter/killer U-Boat groups;
3) Our ability to do this was only because of early advances by the Polish, followed by joint efforts with the French and English, and subsequently the OSS which in conjunction with Bletchly Park's operations were able to reproduce both cipher systems of the Enigma and Purple. The ability to decode the Kreigsmarine and Reich transmissions was critical in our ability to defeat the Axis powers;
4) DDay was successful because of counterinsurgency terrorist operations run by members of the OSS. Essentially, 17+ OSS operatives trained 1700 French, etc. resistance fighters who prepared traps and countermeasures to divert, demolish, and confuse the retreating German army. This chaos was instrumental in successful mop-up operations.
5) The British did a remarkable job defending their homeland, no doubt about that. There is a lot more, however, to attacking another continent the size of the US with no allies involced. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Germans could have made a successful, sustained invasion of the US.
6) And IMO, yes we have some right to arrogance. While not steeped in history and warfare as other nations. We have a kill to casualty ration second to none. Our weapons systems are the most advanced in the world. An the bulk of the free world looks to us everytime there is a problem that needs to be mopped up. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. Again, IMO, I think we should convert to a paramilitary state, with allies (read bases of operation: UK, Germany, Israel, South Africa, Australia, and Japan) and rent our services out for all global conflicts - cash up front. Other than that, everyone else is on their own unless they have something to pay for services with - no credit.
CF
1) We wiped the Japanese off the face of the map with a few small nukes;
2) The English and the other European allies were kept alive by our (eventual) ability to keep the sipping lanes open and (relatively) safe from Wolfpack hunter/killer U-Boat groups;
3) Our ability to do this was only because of early advances by the Polish, followed by joint efforts with the French and English, and subsequently the OSS which in conjunction with Bletchly Park's operations were able to reproduce both cipher systems of the Enigma and Purple. The ability to decode the Kreigsmarine and Reich transmissions was critical in our ability to defeat the Axis powers;
4) DDay was successful because of counterinsurgency terrorist operations run by members of the OSS. Essentially, 17+ OSS operatives trained 1700 French, etc. resistance fighters who prepared traps and countermeasures to divert, demolish, and confuse the retreating German army. This chaos was instrumental in successful mop-up operations.
5) The British did a remarkable job defending their homeland, no doubt about that. There is a lot more, however, to attacking another continent the size of the US with no allies involced. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the Germans could have made a successful, sustained invasion of the US.
6) And IMO, yes we have some right to arrogance. While not steeped in history and warfare as other nations. We have a kill to casualty ration second to none. Our weapons systems are the most advanced in the world. An the bulk of the free world looks to us everytime there is a problem that needs to be mopped up. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS. Again, IMO, I think we should convert to a paramilitary state, with allies (read bases of operation: UK, Germany, Israel, South Africa, Australia, and Japan) and rent our services out for all global conflicts - cash up front. Other than that, everyone else is on their own unless they have something to pay for services with - no credit.
CF
HansNZ
New member
SPONGEBOB: the germans were kicking the russains asses up until stalingrad. they had pushed deep into russia reaching moscow and leningrad. yes, the major turning point was stalingrad but up until that point germany was kicking asses. the real task was to push the germans back out and in order to help facilitate that, a major offensive was launched in africa. germany was too spread out at this point and could not devote enough resources in all areas to win. that was the strategy. thats what D-day was supposed to do in 1942 but it was delayed until 1944.
_______________
HANSNZ: Yes, the Germans were kicking the Russians asses until Stalingrad. That is why I cited it as the turningpoint. And so, as I said before, it was the Russians who pushed the germans back, not the Americans. British and American material support for Russia only added up to 4% of Russia's military materiel.
North Africa was a British centre of operation, not American. The Americans were only involved in a secondary role. NZ and Australian troops were predominantly involved in this theatre of war.
______________
SPONGEBOB: in 1939 the US modified its neutrality act by allowing the sell of weapons to our allies. it was on the same "cash and carry" basis that was allowed for non military goods already in place. the land lease act was passed in 1941, it enabled great britain, who could no longer afford to pay cash for its military and non military supplies, and who was being bombarded nightly by the german airforce, to "borrow" the much needed supplies. the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies, do you think this might have helped just a little. without oil, you have no aviation fuel or tank fuel. hardly think you could survive without that. so the allies did not fight the germans ALONE.
_____________
HANSNZ: Incorrect. The lendlease system did indeed supply the British with much material, as did other allies such as NZ and Australia, for most of the war. This materiel was not decisive at the time of the Battle of Britain when the UK fought back Germany ALONE. It wasn't until after this that this war material started to have an effect. The BRITISH prevented their own defeat, later american assistance kept a bankrupted UK in the war, it did not save them initially - the British saved themselves.
___________________
SPONGEBOB: in 1940 roosevelt took steps to prepare for a possible war by creating the national defenseadvisory commission and the council of national defense. in june of the same year he brought two prominent republicans into his cabinet as the secretaries of war and navy. in the summer he traded fifty destroyers to great britain for the right to build military bases on british possessions in the atlantic. in october the congress approved a big increase in defense spending and instituted the first peacetime draft registration and conscription in american historyand another draft law, increasing draftee's service from one year to two and half years passed in august. etc. etc. to say the US was unprepared and would have been crushed is ignorant. the germans could not have successfully crossed the atlantic and done any real damage to the US. they had no where to station the needed manpower to do so. thats one reason why the US is a great location strategically. since the germans knew they could not do it that is why they entered into a military alliance with japan.
_____________
HANSNZ: Agreed, invading North America by sea would have been difficult strategically. But to say that if the Germans had attempted that the preparations the Roosevelt administration had made at that point would have been sufficient is stretching it a bit.
The British and French were making plans much earlier and look how much trouble they found themselves in nonetheless. In any case Russia was Germany's prefered target, not the US. But to say that a German defeat of Britain and Russia wouldn't have been a direct threat to the US is laughable. These two countries were all that stood between Germany and total world domination. In the longer-term it seems unlikely that the USA would have been able to defeat a victorious Germany and marauding Japan alone.
With German control of all of Europe and the USSR, the industrial and manpower odds against the USA would have been staggering. To think otherwise would involve some serious self-delusion about American power. A land invasion from Siberia down through Nth America would have by-passed the issue of projecting naval power. The Germans would have been far more familiar with fighting in such climactic conditions too. In any case we are starting to creep into "what-if" scenarios now.
______________
SPONGEBOB: you have not presented any evidence or examples to back up your post yet you resort to name calling and rhetoric and arrogance yourself. im not argueing one way or the other, who saved who's ass, thats rediculous to do when you look at the big picture.
_______________
HANSNZ: Really? You've done nothing more than me to prove your points. So calling arrogant Americans arrogant makes me arrogant? Interesting philosophy....
_______________
HANSNZ: Yes, the Germans were kicking the Russians asses until Stalingrad. That is why I cited it as the turningpoint. And so, as I said before, it was the Russians who pushed the germans back, not the Americans. British and American material support for Russia only added up to 4% of Russia's military materiel.
North Africa was a British centre of operation, not American. The Americans were only involved in a secondary role. NZ and Australian troops were predominantly involved in this theatre of war.
______________
SPONGEBOB: in 1939 the US modified its neutrality act by allowing the sell of weapons to our allies. it was on the same "cash and carry" basis that was allowed for non military goods already in place. the land lease act was passed in 1941, it enabled great britain, who could no longer afford to pay cash for its military and non military supplies, and who was being bombarded nightly by the german airforce, to "borrow" the much needed supplies. the US was the MAIN supplier of oil to the allies, do you think this might have helped just a little. without oil, you have no aviation fuel or tank fuel. hardly think you could survive without that. so the allies did not fight the germans ALONE.
_____________
HANSNZ: Incorrect. The lendlease system did indeed supply the British with much material, as did other allies such as NZ and Australia, for most of the war. This materiel was not decisive at the time of the Battle of Britain when the UK fought back Germany ALONE. It wasn't until after this that this war material started to have an effect. The BRITISH prevented their own defeat, later american assistance kept a bankrupted UK in the war, it did not save them initially - the British saved themselves.
___________________
SPONGEBOB: in 1940 roosevelt took steps to prepare for a possible war by creating the national defenseadvisory commission and the council of national defense. in june of the same year he brought two prominent republicans into his cabinet as the secretaries of war and navy. in the summer he traded fifty destroyers to great britain for the right to build military bases on british possessions in the atlantic. in october the congress approved a big increase in defense spending and instituted the first peacetime draft registration and conscription in american historyand another draft law, increasing draftee's service from one year to two and half years passed in august. etc. etc. to say the US was unprepared and would have been crushed is ignorant. the germans could not have successfully crossed the atlantic and done any real damage to the US. they had no where to station the needed manpower to do so. thats one reason why the US is a great location strategically. since the germans knew they could not do it that is why they entered into a military alliance with japan.
_____________
HANSNZ: Agreed, invading North America by sea would have been difficult strategically. But to say that if the Germans had attempted that the preparations the Roosevelt administration had made at that point would have been sufficient is stretching it a bit.
The British and French were making plans much earlier and look how much trouble they found themselves in nonetheless. In any case Russia was Germany's prefered target, not the US. But to say that a German defeat of Britain and Russia wouldn't have been a direct threat to the US is laughable. These two countries were all that stood between Germany and total world domination. In the longer-term it seems unlikely that the USA would have been able to defeat a victorious Germany and marauding Japan alone.
With German control of all of Europe and the USSR, the industrial and manpower odds against the USA would have been staggering. To think otherwise would involve some serious self-delusion about American power. A land invasion from Siberia down through Nth America would have by-passed the issue of projecting naval power. The Germans would have been far more familiar with fighting in such climactic conditions too. In any case we are starting to creep into "what-if" scenarios now.
______________
SPONGEBOB: you have not presented any evidence or examples to back up your post yet you resort to name calling and rhetoric and arrogance yourself. im not argueing one way or the other, who saved who's ass, thats rediculous to do when you look at the big picture.
_______________
HANSNZ: Really? You've done nothing more than me to prove your points. So calling arrogant Americans arrogant makes me arrogant? Interesting philosophy....
Last edited:
Steroid_Virgin
New member
strongchick said:http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/33/features-cooper.php
even more interesting, and similar to my position back in October 2001:
Yeah... I hope you're kidding
Well, they attacked us, and if it is a by-product that we get the oil. I am all for it. Besides for the complicity you speak of that would mean that practically all of our gov't would have been in on murdering our own citizens, which makes you and me responsible as well since we gladly (yeah right) pay our taxes and "blindly" vote the same assholes in office year after year.
BTW, I wouldn't believe the L.A. Times any more than Taliban spokesman.
BTW, I wouldn't believe the L.A. Times any more than Taliban spokesman.
musclebrains
New member
IT was the LA Weekly, an independent weekly paper.
Similar threads
- Locked
