PDA

View Full Version : Who contributed most to the defeat of Fascist Germany ??



Pages : 1 [2] 3

stevey
04-16-2002, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by shtarker
>>oh thats a bit unfair !!!!! i don't think aus was in any real threat of invasion was it ?????

Yes there most certintly was.
Apart from fossil fules, Australia (partly through size alone) holds most of the natural resources in the reigion.
Fortunatly we just managed to hold them off just long enough, but this (as much as I hate to admit it) is where Amreica (and again the Soviet Union) starts seroiusly saving some buttts.

i don't mean it wasn't worth invading !! i meant the japs didn't have serious plans of invading (not that anyone would know it at the time, or that they wouldn't have tried if an oportunity arose obviously)

do you think the British didn't help enough ??? i think the fall of Singapore etc and the rapid initial progress of the Japs took everyone by surprise....i don't think theres any shame on the British for abandoning Australia, i don't think thats true at all.

what happened was a realisation the the British couldn't help !!! thats more the point. it is to the USA Australia needs to look.
i personally think that Pearl Harbour meant the japs had lost the war(certainly when they missed the US carriers)...crazy gamble...

and Hitler invading Russia took the pressure off Britain....

then Midway and Stalingrad meant the war was won.........just years of hard fighting left......

shtarker
04-16-2002, 07:00 PM
>>I don't mean it wasn't worth invading !! i meant the japs didn't have serious plans of invading (not that anyone would know it at the time, or that they wouldn't have tried if an oportunity arose obviously)

I disagree a fair bit here.
Japan simply does not have many natural resources. That is why the needed to gain control of Australia or they would be hard pressed to win the war.
For that reason they pushed very hard on Papua New-Guinea trying to reach Australia. At one point they even got close enough to perform one air raid on the city of Darwin and even sent a few submarines down into Sydney harbour.

>>do you think the British didn't help enough ??? i think the fall of Singapore etc and the rapid initial progress of the Japs took everyone by surprise....i don't think theres any shame on the British for abandoning Australia, i don't think thats true at all.

Thats a good point, Britian could not have possible done anything to stop the Japanese. And we don't hold it against you, we still have your queen as our head of state and with out England the ashes series would just be plain boring.

kermi3
04-16-2002, 08:25 PM
Hitler was our best General
Dwight D. Eisenhower I believe...or was it Churchill.

Nothing more need be said.

QuestionC
04-17-2002, 12:04 AM
I put down Russia, although I'm a little uncertain that's enough explanation...

WW2 was a war of narrow margins, and it there is no lacking of victories or events that changed the fate of the war, but, IMO, the biggest turning point was when Germany and Russia broke the alliance. The war on the eastern front dwarfed all other warfare. Fighting a two-front war isn't neccisarily defeat (if you think about it, the US was fighting a three-front war...), but Russia was basically a vacuum for Germany's military while the western front stood.

The western forces were responsible for exploiting Germany's biggest weakness, it's airforce (later in the war), after which it's sea force naturally fell, but that really isn't enough to win the war, it just forced Germany into having to win its land wars.

fyodor
04-17-2002, 01:08 AM
I'm pretty sure that the best general of the war would go to Erwin Rommel or even more likely, PATTON!

stevey
04-17-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by shtarker
>>I don't mean it wasn't worth invading !! i meant the japs didn't have serious plans of invading (not that anyone would know it at the time, or that they wouldn't have tried if an oportunity arose obviously)

I disagree a fair bit here.
Japan simply does not have many natural resources. That is why the needed to gain control of Australia or they would be hard pressed to win the war.
For that reason they pushed very hard on Papua New-Guinea trying to reach Australia. At one point they even got close enough to perform one air raid on the city of Darwin and even sent a few submarines down into Sydney harbour.

>>do you think the British didn't help enough ??? i think the fall of Singapore etc and the rapid initial progress of the Japs took everyone by surprise....i don't think theres any shame on the British for abandoning Australia, i don't think thats true at all.

Thats a good point, Britian could not have possible done anything to stop the Japanese. And we don't hold it against you, we still have your queen as our head of state and with out England the ashes series would just be plain boring.

i could be wrong, but i didn't think the japs planned to land on australia mainland. (not that a bit of bombing and ship-sinking and general slaughter wasn't planned!!). i'm only actually going on "the times atlas of WWII" which shows the Japs planned limit of the japanese empire in 1942, which includes dutch east indies and new guinea, but not australia mainland (because they probably didn't think they'd hold on to it, i think the yanks could have landed in Australia and fought them off, probably overextending a bit to try to take Aus)

The Jap War Plan was..... destroy the US carriers at Pearl Harbour, invade various countries and islands and form a barrier which the Americans couldn't penetrate - defense in depth - and thought the US would get tired battering against it, the casulties etc and let the japs keep what they'd got, which included all the resourses an empire needed to be self sufficient. they were planning to hold on fanatically to every island etc and judged the western democracies weak and the USA public couldn't tolerate the casulties and would give up...but they were wrong.

but i suppose it depends on how well the USA and Australia fought back, the weaker the allies were, the more they'd have took


in hindsight it also seems that hitler never really seriously intended to invade Britain by land but expected some sort of settlement after destroying the RAF. he wasn't actually intending to take over Britain or the Empire.

but hindsight is a powerful tool !!!!!!

stevey
04-17-2002, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by fyodor
I'm pretty sure that the best general of the war would go to Erwin Rommel or even more likely, PATTON!

Patton ??????? nooooooooo !!!!

i think honestly that the best generals were mainly German,
Rommel, Von Manstein, Rundstedt, Kesslering.....and the worst Hitler(although he had his moments earlier on !!).

but i think the allies had far and away the best strategic thinkers and leaders.......roosevelt, churchill, eisenhower.... all great men....and stalin (almost as Evil as Hitler...but much clearer thinking than him!!)

and the fact that (basically put) it took the combined forces of the USSR, United States, British and all the Commonwealth countries and other allies to defeat the Germans is a testament to their fighting men............




another crap General...Mark Clark(glory seeking dickhead).

Dual-Catfish
04-17-2002, 07:02 PM
I'm disgusted to see that Canada was excluded from the poll, and the USA was not. Canada was in the war from the start.

fyodor
04-17-2002, 10:12 PM
I'm disgusted to see that Canada was excluded from the poll, and the USA was not. Canada was in the war from the start.


Why? Do you honestly think that Canada is a viable answer to the question? If you do, then you are an idiot. No offense meant, of course.




and the fact that (basically put) it took the combined forces of the USSR, United States, British and all the Commonwealth countries and other allies to defeat the Germans is a testament to their fighting men............


or perhaps a testament to the fact that by the time the USSR and the USA got involved, Germany already was in control of so many resources (including manpower) that there was almost no place to gain a strategic foothold.

And as to Patton, I admit he wasn't exactly an admirable man in many ways, but he was a brilliant leader. He (and Montgomery) was instrumental in defeating the Afrika Korps, and the Third Army's drive through France against a powerful enemy was simply amazing. If not for several incidents and Eisenhower's fear of confrontation with the Soviets, he probably would have beaten the Red Army to Berlin, thus preventing, or at least alleviating, four decades of trouble in Germany, not to mention general low living standards in East Germany.

Brian
04-18-2002, 05:13 AM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
Russia had a huge impact on the war because of there numbers. Well Britain was able to hold the Germans off, chances are they might not have been able to continue to do so, no less advance into Europe. The United States entering the war put an elephant on the scales of the war on the sides of the allies. Though to be fair, the war took a joint effort.

As for the atomic bomb the United States was far a head of everyone. Germany concentrated on rockets, not the Bomb. Also the Soviet Union got a leap in development as a result of a spy.

Germany lost the war when they attacked Russia

stevey
04-18-2002, 09:12 AM
>>>>If not for several incidents and Eisenhower's fear of confrontation with the Soviets, he probably would have beaten the Red Army to Berlin, thus preventing, or at least alleviating, four decades of trouble in Germany, not to mention general low living standards in East Germany

i don't rate Patton as highly as you do, he didn't contribute as much in Africa as you imply, in fact he had a few shocks when fighting the Germans for the first time.
he was the ideal man to lead the breakout after Normandy though.
But the Soviets taking Berlin was agreed at Yalta, thats why the Western Allies didn't push on.....it wasn't Eisenhower.
in hindsight i think we gave the USSR too much, half of Germany and eastern Europe...i especially feel sorry for the Poles.
But the Red Army was so powerful, and the British had had enough fighting. Patton said the USA should keep fighting against the USSR after Germany fell, but that was totally ridiculous.....he was a VERY arrogant man......

ygfperson
04-18-2002, 09:16 AM
i've gone past the point of actually caring what country wins the poll.

nvoigt
04-18-2002, 09:24 AM
Interesting sidenote:

>Germany lost the war when they attacked Russia

There are sources saying that Stalin would have attacked on his own two weeks later. If you are looking up figures of Russian production, you will see that tank ( aggressive weapon ) output was rather high and the tanks were completely inoperable on russian terrain because they were designed to use at least dirt roads. Many of them shreded tracks and were overrun by the germans in the first year.
As Russian and Asian terrain had little to offer concerning roads or flat countrysides, the logical conclusion would be middle europe as a prime target.

If Russia had attacked with it's massive tank power able to fight on proper ( non-russian ) terrain, it could have been a lot worse for Germany.

( This is open to debate, I read it. It isn't neccessarily the truth, I haven't checked this )

Dual-Catfish
04-18-2002, 09:30 AM
As for the atomic bomb the United States was far a head of everyone. Germany concentrated on rockets, not the Bomb. Also the Soviet Union got a leap in development as a result of a spy.

Didn't Einstein leave europe because the Germans labeled him a Jew? Didn't he go to the United States and begin work on the bomb with a few other scientists? Germany started work on the bomb before the States did, that's why Einstein wrote a letter to Roosevelt about them trying to purifying U-259 (or was is 255) for the purpose of making a bomb.

I wonder what would have happened if Einstein remained in Europe for the duration of the war..

stevey
04-18-2002, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Dual-Catfish
I'm disgusted to see that Canada was excluded from the poll, and the USA was not. Canada was in the war from the start.

mebe i should have said, British Empire and Commonwealth countries.

according to my history book.....
sept 3rd 1939, great britain, new zealand, australia, india and france at war with germany.
sept 10th 1939 canada declares war on germany to help great britain and france..a very moral decision considering they were not directly threatened.....
canada raises 780,000 fighting men and loses 39,320 dead.
canada's 3rd division makes up 1/5 of d-day invasion force and land on a beach of their own.
canada and british forces have the hardest fighting around Caen, to allow the Americans under Patton to break out......
canadians push on to close the Falaise pocket with appalling casualties...
a german general quotes "the british are fighting to the last drop of canadian blood"
canadians continue to make up around 1/5 of Allied armies in the western front......
nobody fought much better than the Canadians, Aussies and new zealanders.......

stevey
04-18-2002, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by nvoigt
Interesting sidenote:

>Germany lost the war when they attacked Russia

There are sources saying that Stalin would have attacked on his own two weeks later. If you are looking up figures of Russian production, you will see that tank ( aggressive weapon ) output was rather high and the tanks were completely inoperable on russian terrain because they were designed to use at least dirt roads. Many of them shreded tracks and were overrun by the germans in the first year.
As Russian and Asian terrain had little to offer concerning roads or flat countrysides, the logical conclusion would be middle europe as a prime target.

If Russia had attacked with it's massive tank power able to fight on proper ( non-russian ) terrain, it could have been a lot worse for Germany.

>>>>>i dont know where you got this from at all......
everthing ive read is totally to the contrary.....
Stalin was totally shocked when hitler broke their peace agreement and apparently went into deep depression for several days after before getting himself together........there were no plans for attacking Germany


( This is open to debate, I read it. It isn't neccessarily the truth, I haven't checked this )

Dual-Catfish
04-18-2002, 09:51 AM
Why? Do you honestly think that Canada is a viable answer to the question? If you do, then you are an idiot.

Explain to me why Canada isn't just as viable an answer as any other up there. Most americans believe they single handedly won the war, althought I can't blame them. Almost all World War II movies made in the USA are dripping with bias.

I'll admit, even if Canada was up there, I'd still vote for USSR.

stevey
04-18-2002, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by ygfperson
i've gone past the point of actually caring what country wins the poll.

i asked the question for interests sake, i wanted to see peoples opinions, and to highlight the role of the USSR which i thought was neglected in the West, certainly among people i talk to...
but people on this board seem to be better informed than most.....

its was a bit of a trite question actually and its obvious that it was very much an Allied effort.

it is heartening that although there were disagreements the Allies worked well together for a common good. wish i could see that happening more today.........where are the German, Italian, French and other European troops in Afganistan ?? why is it the USA has to fight the wars which need winning ie gulf war, war on al queda etc
still the British help as much as we can...and we should.

stevey
04-18-2002, 10:01 AM
>>>I wonder what would have happened if Einstein remained in Europe for the duration of the war

he would have been gassed !!!!!!

Dual-Catfish
04-18-2002, 10:09 AM
Perhaps I should rephrase that. What would have happened if he had not been flagged a jew?

stevey
04-18-2002, 10:13 AM
>>>Explain to me why Canada isn't just as viable an answer as any other up there.

dont be daft !!!

troops mobilised / casualties(dead)
inc. civilians

Britain 4.6 million / 331,000
USSR >20 million / 20/25 million ??
USA 11.5 million / 292,000
canada 780,000 / 39,300

not that numbers of troops and casualties are a full picture but still.....don't be daft !

stevey
04-18-2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Dual-Catfish
Perhaps I should rephrase that. What would have happened if he had not been flagged a jew?

how do you mean "flagged a jew", he was a jew !! and as such would never have helped Hitler.
but if he wasn't jewish ??? he wasn't actually one of the main scientists developing the bomb, but who knows ?????

nvoigt
04-18-2002, 12:11 PM
>where are the German, Italian, French and other European troops in Afganistan ??


German troops are part of the peacekeeping force in Kabul.

German special forces ( KSK ) were fighting alongside US troops even before Afghanistan was freed from the Taliban.

stevey
04-18-2002, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by nvoigt
>where are the German, Italian, French and other European troops in Afganistan ??


German troops are part of the peacekeeping force in Kabul.

German special forces ( KSK ) were fighting alongside US troops even before Afghanistan was freed from the Taliban.

yep theres a few, but considering Germany is the 3rd richest nation in the world........

theres 6000 US ground troops
1700 British.......

and only a few hundred soldiers of other nations.

and the gulf war - 10 US divisions, 1 french, 1 British.........wheres everbody else ??????

we shouldn't rely on the US to do the Western worlds fighting, even if they are good at it !!
the US is getting tired of defending Europe.......

Shiro
04-18-2002, 03:46 PM
>theres 6000 US ground troops
>1700 British.......
>
>and only a few hundred soldiers of other nations.

That's right. But the US is yelling out loud that they have declared war and that they are going to Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden and free the country of the Taliban. Well, let them. Bush wants to attack each country with terrorists. That's his choice, not of the others.

>and the gulf war - 10 US divisions, 1 french, 1
>British.........wheres everbody else ??????

One can wonder why the US was present at the Gulf War. Mostly because of the oil, in other words, money. If something hasn't anything to do with money, than the US won't be present with such much military power.

>we shouldn't rely on the US to do the Western worlds fighting,

The western world doesn't. The US has choosen for a large military operation, other countries choose more peaceful things.

>the US is getting tired of defending Europe.......

And Europe is tired of the US thinking they are defending Europe.

Barjor
04-18-2002, 03:55 PM
I second that Shiro. In a cynical way there is a reason why the "terrorists" hate USA more then they hate Europe

stevey
04-18-2002, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Shiro
>theres 6000 US ground troops
>1700 British.......
>
>and only a few hundred soldiers of other nations.

That's right. But the US is yelling out loud that they have declared war and that they are going to Afghanistan to catch Bin Laden and free the country of the Taliban. Well, let them. Bush wants to attack each country with terrorists. That's his choice, not of the others.

>and the gulf war - 10 US divisions, 1 french, 1
>British.........wheres everbody else ??????

One can wonder why the US was present at the Gulf War. Mostly because of the oil, in other words, money. If something hasn't anything to do with money, than the US won't be present with such much military power.

>we shouldn't rely on the US to do the Western worlds fighting,

The western world doesn't. The US has choosen for a large military operation, other countries choose more peaceful things.

>the US is getting tired of defending Europe.......

And Europe is tired of the US thinking they are defending Europe.

well i think the war on terrorism is necessary, and i think the Gulf War was necessary. Of course it was about oil, oil fuels all our economies, ie is the reason for our standard of living. Economies are precariously balanced, oil is vital....
Saddam controlling Kuwait and threatening Saudia Arabia was too bad a scenario......
and if there is another war against Saddam to prevent him getting a nuclear bomb then i hope Britain will support the USA.....

we all want world peace, but you need to fight sometimes......the USA is looking out for all our interests...

shtarker
04-18-2002, 06:51 PM
Ok this goes a few pages back, but too bad


i could be wrong, but i didn't think the japs planned to land on australia mainland. (not that a bit of bombing and ship-sinking and general slaughter wasn't planned!!). i'm only actually going on "the times atlas of WWII" which shows the Japs planned limit of the japanese empire in 1942, which includes dutch east indies and new guinea, but not australia mainland (because they probably didn't think they'd hold on to it, i think the yanks could have landed in Australia and fought them off, probably overextending a bit to try to take Aus)

They still would have needed steel. Australia is the only viable, large scale source of iron ore in the reigion.
As an interesting side note, due to some "smart" policies in the 20's and 30's most of the weapons and equipment used by the Japanese were made from Australian steel, this fact is probbly still true today.
Australia knew that an occuping force in Australia would most likely only be interested in mining iron ore and producing steel. For that reason, before America entered the war, there was a proposal just to let Japan have a large chunk of northern Australia where they would have been able to collect all the iron, copper, zinc and gold they wanted. This had very little support from the rest of Australia, espically from those living in the north.



and the gulf war - 10 US divisions, 1 french, 1 British.........wheres everbody else ??????

Australian troops were in Afganistan from the very beginning.
However we sort of don't really have much of an army so to speak (and out air force is sort of somewhat outdated, though as recent war games have shown, still very effective) so most of our worth wile troops are in Afganistan.
But I do agree strongly with Shiro, its Bush's war on terror (and oil prices).

novacain
04-18-2002, 11:47 PM
I think the British did the most to defeat the Germans.

This is because they owned the luxury liners that transported many millions of troops from all over the world to where they were needed.
As these liners were in competion for passengers in the trans Atlantic run, they were built for speed, and could outrun the German U-boats.
Without them the war would have been lost no matter how many troops the Allies had.

Sentaku senshi
04-19-2002, 03:33 PM
>>we shouldn't rely on the US to do the Western worlds fighting,

The western world doesn't. The US has choosen for a large military operation, other countries choose more peaceful things.<

But if we do nothing, then we are sharply critized. How ironic.
-Damed if you do, damed if you don't

stevey
04-19-2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by novacain
I think the British did the most to defeat the Germans.

This is because they owned the luxury liners that transported many millions of troops from all over the world to where they were needed.
As these liners were in competion for passengers in the trans Atlantic run, they were built for speed, and could outrun the German U-boats.
Without them the war would have been lost no matter how many troops the Allies had.

interesting !!! yeah those liners were so fast, the u boats couldn't get a "firing solution" and never sank one.

did Hitler declare war on the USA because he thought, they'd never get troops to Europe ???? or thought they'd be tied up with Japan ?? surely he didn't think Japan would win ???
i know he had a "pact" with Japan, but so what......he had one with the USSR !!....he wouldn't honour it if he didn't think it was in his best interest..

if he hadn't declared war on the USA, the US wouldn't have declared war on him, we'd probably have had two separate wars, USA/Japan and a European war on Hitler.....
I know that Roosevelt was wondering how to get the US public to support a war in Europe as well as against Japan, but then Hitler declared war and that was that.

stevey
04-19-2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by shtarker
Ok this goes a few pages back, but too bad

They still would have needed steel. Australia is the only viable, large scale source of iron ore in the reigion.
As an interesting side note, due to some "smart" policies in the 20's and 30's most of the weapons and equipment used by the Japanese were made from Australian steel, this fact is probbly still true today.
Australia knew that an occuping force in Australia would most likely only be interested in mining iron ore and producing steel. For that reason, before America entered the war, there was a proposal just to let Japan have a large chunk of northern Australia where they would have been able to collect all the iron, copper, zinc and gold they wanted. This had very little support from the rest of Australia, espically from those living in the north.


on further investigation, yes you are quite right, Australia and New Zealand were planned targets (but not in the 'initial planned outer limit of Jap empire in 1942')

and around 100 British were killed on Sept 11th, so its our war too...
and yeah, its the Americans job to ensure the free worlds oil supplies silly me.....why did i think all the free world should help ????
just sit back, criticise the USA for killing too many innocent Iraquis and drive to work in your electric car......

Sentaku senshi
04-19-2002, 07:00 PM
>and around 100 British were killed on Sept 11th, so its our war too...
and yeah, its the Americans job to ensure the free worlds oil supplies silly me.....why did i think all the free world should help ????
just sit back, criticise the USA for killing too many innocent Iraquis and drive to work in your electric car......<

Great electric cars, good Idea. OH wait there not pratical yet. There really only usefull for people who don't travel that many miles. not me, nor anyone in my area, they have a high price, so guess what most people can't afford them.

Actuly we can solve the problem by removing OPEC's control over the oil. Even in countires that are not part of it.

Hope europens like high oil prices, and the Jappense worship even higher ones.

stevey
04-19-2002, 07:03 PM
I take it you recognise I was being sarcastic ??????

stevey
04-19-2002, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
>>we shouldn't rely on the US to do the Western worlds fighting,

The western world doesn't. The US has choosen for a large military operation, other countries choose more peaceful things.<

But if we do nothing, then we are sharply critized. How ironic.
-Damed if you do, damed if you don't

Most European countries are self - serving, double-dealing hypocrites when it comes to terrorism.
they backstab each other, the French tend to buy off their terrorist problems etc etc
let America be the enemy of the Muslim Fundamentalists, we don't want to get involved...we'll keep our heads down.....

All too pacifist for there own good.....the Belgians refused to sell us artillery shells in the Falklands war !!!(we stopped making our own of certain sizes of shells, Belgium was the NATO supplier), French Aerospaciale sent technicians to get exocet missiles working and were cheering when British ships were sunk......

Theres no unity in Europe...even among NATO countries

shtarker
04-19-2002, 07:50 PM
>>just sit back, criticise the USA for killing too many innocent Iraquis and drive to work in your electric car......

Doesn't that mean there's kind of an upside to America losing its oil supply?
Ofcourse your right, even with recent advances in battery technology (espically the creation of a vanadium redox cell) electric cars will probbly never go very far beyond a toy. However ethanol and vegetable oil fuel substitutes have come quite far, the only problem now is finding enough land to grow the huge amounts of sugar cane (or beets) neded.

dbaryl
04-19-2002, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Sentaku senshi
>and around 100 British were killed on Sept 11th, so its our war too...
and yeah, its the Americans job to ensure the free worlds oil supplies silly me.....why did i think all the free world should help ????
just sit back, criticise the USA for killing too many innocent Iraquis and drive to work in your electric car......<

Great electric cars, good Idea. OH wait there not pratical yet. There really only usefull for people who don't travel that many miles. not me, nor anyone in my area, they have a high price, so guess what most people can't afford them.

Actuly we can solve the problem by removing OPEC's control over the oil. Even in countires that are not part of it.

Hope europens like high oil prices, and the Jappense worship even higher ones.

Why don't we all just ride our trikes to work, eh?

Yoshi
04-19-2002, 10:43 PM
Russia did not exist 1915 - 1991. It was called the "USSR" or the "Soviet Union". Which is a communist country.

And the German's fascist fall is because Hitler was scandaled... I think. He commited suicide in a bunker.

nvoigt
04-20-2002, 06:12 AM
>He commited suicide in a bunker.

He shot himself, like many Nazis did, because he was afraid to be captured. The Red Army was approaching Berlin so without any hope to escape, he shot himself.

stevey
04-20-2002, 09:39 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wraith_Master
Russia did not exist 1915 - 1991. It was called the "USSR" or the "Soviet Union". Which is a communist country.

>>>oh i never knew that !!!! I thought the whole Soviet Union was just called Russia !! thanks for correcting me....and i had always thought the USSR was a capitalist country, silly me...


And the German's fascist fall is because Hitler was scandaled... I think. He commited suicide in a bunker.

>>>>>>commited suicide in a bunker ?? oh i never knew that either, again many thanks for enlightening me.........learning all the time.......

>>>>please also let me know if I have spelt anything wrong.....

ctimm46
04-20-2002, 02:28 PM
First of all to claim that any one thing or person or battle was the key battle, is a little extreme. I have heard historians say that some of the more important battles were those fought over Greenland. Hitler was using that area for a weather prediction outpost and such. Cutter boats were instrumental in the victory there. So, it wasn't truly one thing, but a bunch of things, which probably makes this whole discussion pointless, but I like it anyway.

The Russians may have had a large impact, but then you could say that it was because of the winter that they were able to turn the tide. The Russians were getting beaten at every turn until the winter started to hurt the Germans. Hitler made the mistake of allowing his troops to stay in Russia too long. So, I have a hard time saying it was the Russians who turned won the war. Besides if the Germans hadn't broken the non-aggression pact they had with Russia, Russia never would have gotten into the war. Stalin and Hitler had a deal, Hitler was dumb enough to believe he could fight a 2 front war and not have to pull out during the famed Russian winter. (Yes I know it was the Soviet Union, but it is Russia again and it is quicker to type Russia)

I believe the British did quite a bit, but in a more specialized manor. They were great at "special ops" they had spies and double agents that worked wonders all the way to Berlin. It is my opinion that Montgomery wasn't all he thought he was and got alot of credit because he was one of the highest ranking British officers and he seemed to have a good PR person. The Russians, British and American split most of the kudos amongst themselves, but with the cold war coming on, the Russians weren't given much credit among the westerners.

The US did a great deal, but they didn't really have the "hardships" that the British and Russians had. Besides Pearl Harbor and Midway there weren't too many attacks on areas that were held by America. So, the American "War Machine" was able to function without dealing with having to rebuild buildings and so on.

I think the greatest contribution was made by Hitler himself. Between not truly trusting his aides to holding back German tanks from Normandy because he believed there was to be another attack (the main attack) further South. Also, not unleashing Rommel on his western front was a mistake in my mind as well. He should have given Rommel complete control. Staying in Russia for the winter and I believe he got a late start on that whole assault anyway, is a mistake that he should have known not to make. Hitler seemed to pull the reigns in on his men when things got a little rough, which hurt one of the main premises of the blitzkrieg, that local officers make the decisions that effect them most. That generals make overall plans and officers make local plans. In the end there were troops that were waiting north and south of Normandy that were waiting for the call from Hitler to move or counter-attack. The British counter-intelligence units "made" Hitler believe that Norway and the Paile de Cailes were major targets, much bigger than Normandy. (Please forgive the spelling and I am not 100% sure about the exact locations -- but somewhere north of Normandy and somewhere south of Normandy). So Hitler held back troops through the end.

There were too many contributions made to really identify the biggest, however Hitler did far too many things for him to ever overcome to win, but I believe the US made it a shorter war.

And let's not forget the French who added new meaning to the word surrender. Again the spelling is difficult but the Majenough line. It was a line of cannons and other obstacles built before the war to hold back the Germans. It was built along the border of France and Germany, it cost billions in todays dollars and the Germans were in Paris in 2 weeks anyway, with French troops warming up their white flags.

stevey
04-20-2002, 06:47 PM
>>>>>>And let's not forget the French who added new meaning to the word surrender. Again the spelling is difficult but the Majenough line. It was a line of cannons and other obstacles built before the war to hold back the Germans. It was built along the border of France and Germany, it cost billions in todays dollars and the Germans were in Paris in 2 weeks anyway, with French troops warming up their white flags.

i think we are all a bit unkind to the French, i hate to admit it !!

when the French signed an Armistice, their army was totally defeated. the reason is they were poorly equiped and trained etc, because the armies of Britain and France and the other western allies were neglected by a pacifist public, who would do anything to avoid war. we were not ready for war. so their fault was to be weak, but weak because nobody wanted to fight, thats it basically.
the US army was also very weak at this time, but they were building up rapidly seeing that war in Europe and/or against Japan was more than likely. so they had time to get ready, 2 years in fact.

and the Maginot line ?? much maligned and unfairly. since it only covered the Franco-German border, and the Germans went ROUND IT, i think it served its purpose. the fault was actually in not making it longer !!!



and what you said about Greenland, are you taking the ........ ???
Greenland weather prediction stations were more important than Stalingrad, Kursk, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, Arnhem ???? are you off your trolley ???:)

ctimm46
04-20-2002, 08:34 PM
My point about the Maginot line (thanks for correcting my spelling) is that they had put an great effort into defending themselves, but it was a foolish effort. But they did make an effort, until Hitler knocked on the door.

My point about the Greenland is that even Historians (granted, some have their own agendas) cannot agree as to what was important and what wasn't. My point was that if some can say/justify that the battles over Greenland were critical, then it just goes to show that you cannot really put an emphasis on any of the above.

stevey
04-20-2002, 08:44 PM
well i think you read some quack historians, if they think Greenland was one of the important battles !!!!!

i think there are key battles/decisions/events...

no serious historian would say Midway, Stalingrad, Kursk, D-Day etc etc were not the key battles......that the invasion of Russia(oops USSR) was not one of the key events.......

stevey
04-20-2002, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Ken Fitlike
Another thread i've not read so forgive me if someone has already suggested:

John Wayne.

It's a well known fact that the 'Duke' similtaneously and single-handedly defeated the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific.

He won the West too.

I know - i've seen the movies and they never lie.

:)
John Wayne !! bloody draft dodger !! all American film heroes are you know.....theres sly stallone.... errrrrr.....Audie Murphy.....no thats wrong.....errr... well, bruce willis is scared to fly anyway.

ctimm46
04-20-2002, 09:08 PM
I didn't say (nor did the historians I mentioned) that other battles weren't important.

I am just saying just like in any victory it is the sum of the total, not the effect of one or two events.

Besides I think that the largest contribution was made by the growing paranoia of Hitler himself.

tim545666
04-20-2002, 10:19 PM
I think America played the largest role in Germany's defeat mostly because of its air superiority. With the idea of radios between infantry, takns, and planes, airplanes were finally able to bomb where they were supposed to. And they also shortened the war. Had it not been for the US, Germany would have had more time with its new fighter jets and V2 rockets. Had Germany had more time to develop these weapons and mass produce them, it could have easily won the war. No country in the world had an answer for these weapons at the time of their development, but they came too little too late for Germany.

novacain
04-22-2002, 12:59 AM
>>well i think the war on terrorism is necessary, and i think the Gulf War was necessary. Of course it was about oil, oil fuels all our economies, ie is the reason for our standard of living. Economies are precariously balanced, oil is vital....
Saddam controlling Kuwait and threatening Saudia Arabia was too bad a scenario...... and if there is another war against Saddam to prevent him getting a nuclear bomb then i hope Britain will support the USA..... "

Yes, I agree. But would like to see the US stop suppling / selling these 'democratic' leaders arms and training to use against the 'right' people.

Then the US looking suprised a few years later when these people use the arms / training against the 'wrong' people.

Then all of us having to clean up the mess.

In our war on terrorism.
Why is it so clear who are the terrorists in Afghanistan when in Ireland, Israel, Phillipines and Sri Lanka ect, who the terrorists actually are is a very complicated issue?

Just lucky I guess we have the US government / TV to tell us who the terrorists are.

stevey
04-22-2002, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by tim545666
I think America played the largest role in Germany's defeat mostly because of its air superiority. With the idea of radios between infantry, takns, and planes, airplanes were finally able to bomb where they were supposed to. And they also shortened the war. Had it not been for the US, Germany would have had more time with its new fighter jets and V2 rockets. Had Germany had more time to develop these weapons and mass produce them, it could have easily won the war. No country in the world had an answer for these weapons at the time of their development, but they came too little too late for Germany.

The USA deserves massive credit for being the arsenal of the West, but youre barking up the wrong tree with these arguments above.....

1) US 8th Air Force - total 7100 planes
British Bomber Command alone (ie not the entire Royal Air Force) - total 6900 planes

Total bomb tonnage dropped on Germany and Axis powers -
USAAF 1,460,000 tonnes
RAF 1,235,000 tonnes

ie 50/50.

and it was the British and Russian(ooh sorry USSR) close support attack planes that were the best of the war.

2) V1 and V2 's dropping on London etc were a real pain, but were not effective weapons and were enourmously expensive. After years of developement the ICBM's and US space effort were the results, but they were never going to be a war winning weapon at the time. after France was liberated, they couldn't even reach London. a total of 2420 V1 &V2 hit london, but we attacked Berlin and Dresden with 1000 Bombers each with bigger payloads than a V2!!! easy to say with hindsight but they were not worthwhile and had little effect.

3) the Germans were more advanced with jet engines, but the British were not far behind and the first Meteor jet fighters were operational before the end of the war. In fact it is debatable who actually invented the jet engine. And the rolls-royce jet engine was given to the USA gratis (part of desparate attempts to get the US into the war), this engine was developed by the US and this engine became the basis of the famous Sabre jet fighter and also the famous MIG 15 when we'd sold it to the Russians!!! so it must have been a good engine.

on a similar subject, the German tanks were far better than the British and US tanks, but not the Russians - they had some of the best in the war.
But just before the end of the war the first British Centurian tanks entered service, these were exceptional tanks, and were used to great effect by Israel in 1956,1967 and 1973 against Russian tanks. ie they were STILL good 30 years after the war !!
In 1945/46 some good US heavy tanks were also entering service.
So basically the Western allies had caught up technologically, and there is no reason to think that if the war hadn't ended sooner, that the Germans would have better technology, its a myth.

stevey
04-22-2002, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by novacain
>>well i think the war on terrorism is necessary, and i think the Gulf War was necessary. Of course it was about oil, oil fuels all our economies, ie is the reason for our standard of living. Economies are precariously balanced, oil is vital....
Saddam controlling Kuwait and threatening Saudia Arabia was too bad a scenario...... and if there is another war against Saddam to prevent him getting a nuclear bomb then i hope Britain will support the USA..... "

Yes, I agree. But would like to see the US stop suppling / selling these 'democratic' leaders arms and training to use against the 'right' people.

Then the US looking suprised a few years later when these people use the arms / training against the 'wrong' people.

Then all of us having to clean up the mess.

In our war on terrorism.
Why is it so clear who are the terrorists in Afghanistan when in Ireland, Israel, Phillipines and Sri Lanka ect, who the terrorists actually are is a very complicated issue?

Just lucky I guess we have the US government / TV to tell us who the terrorists are.

yeah i agree.
we should all be careful who we sell arms to, unfortunately its such big business !!
ie the French would sell arms to anybody who the US wouldn't !!
and if not them the Russians have a dire need of cash !! the Chinese love to sell their AK 47 copies to anyone and everyone !!
the British are not far behind...we all love to sell arms and get upset when they are actually used !! :rolleyes: i guess its all a little more comlicated than that really, but even so......