 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Besides, che claimed that without the Soviets, the US would have lost the war. That claim is incontrovertibly false, due to the fact that the atomic bomb did indeed work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
That assumes that the U.S. could have gotten one operational before the Nazis took Britain, which would have been a lot easier for them once the USSR was out of the way. Where would the U.S. base it's bombers to hit Germany, Iceland? |
No, the East Coast. Ever heard of a little bomber called the B-36? If the war had gone to the late '40s - which, unless one side voluntarily made peace, any US-German war would have - we would have had them, along with hundreds of atomic devices.
Besides, I'd like to see you lay out a reasonable scenario in which Germany could conquer Britain prior to August, 1945.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Admiral
|
 |
of the peace and coexistance movement
Feb 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Besides, I'd like to see you lay out a reasonable scenario in which Germany could conquer Britain prior to August, 1945.
|
If Germany had not shifted the focus of the aerial assault on England to her cities in 1940, the power of the RAF would have been severely diminished. If Hitler had not then been unreasonnably afraid of losing his surface fleet after minor losses off Norway, Germany could have secured the English Channel. At this point, provided Hitler pushed back Barbarossa, he could have secured a beachhead in England. It would have been a long and tough battle, but once Germany had the beachhead, England's fall would have been inevitable.
As a sidenote, during the entire war, only one amphibious assault failed, and that was a very lack-luster Japanese assault on Wake involving no aerial support and extremely limited naval support (two destroyers, I believe).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Aggie, I attached a smiley to convey my attempt at humor
quote:
It was better for all concerned that they stay neutral. It certainly didn't harm them, and in the end it didn't harm us very much. |
quote:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. |
Jaako quote:
So, Berzie, if Sweden only got where it is by being socialists schmoozing off the manly capitalist USA during the cold war, then how do you explain Finland?
Finland is just as "socialist" as Sweden, with similar success, but had none of these (unfair?) advantages you claim were the only reason Sweden could succeed.
Funny isn't it? |
The Finns resisted the Russians and did so effectively - enough to stop at least 2 invasions. The Swedes have the Finns to thank for that. Now, you claim Finland is comparable to Sweden, aside from the fact one fought and the other didn't, how are they analogous?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
This is true. He had gotten messages even before that, that the SU troopers were poorly equipped, and was suggested to early on his attack. He refused the first time. Actually he refused the second time after seeing the battle between us, but it persuaded him to play with the idea and soon after he decided to make it earlier, the attack, and they got caught with the winter.
What comes to Sweden and the SU threat, surely it was there, and that's why Swedes felt strongly they should give up the neutrality. Most of you don' tknow how heated the debate was in Sweden. And in the government as well. THey really thought hard about it and didn't just say 'no' that easily. They thought and debated, a strong side said they should help but neutrality won at the end, but it was a very tight battle.
Official help was almost non-existent, but the unofficial help was largest from any nation. Almost 10 000 volunteers came to fight and tens of thousands of kids and babies were sent to Sweden, who offered free homes to everyone. So what was decided in the government didn't change the fact that they did feel strongly about helping and via unofficial routes came lots and lots of help. Who knows, without that help, we could have fallen, it's a possibility. They took lots of responsibility in the fronts, dominated few battles etc.. also many officers came in here to fight and gave priceless contribution through their experience and knowledge. Though official help was expected and hoped for, the unofficial help was more than welcome, even though it was smaller than official, because it was 100% volunteered base. But the amounts that came, you have to dig up many modern wars to come up with those numbers that came to help another country, to give their lives for free. So there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
Berzerker, brain drain can be contributed by WWII too  . Lot of Europe got destroyed. It took Europe back years and years. However, the brain drain is because what you say.. people want to make loads of money. Why not? IF you got the set of skills, and the best place to practice them is US, and as an added bonus you get paid multiple times, why the hell not.. it is the best solution for those individuals. And they are plenty of them.
But that is the result of the business world of the US. There are so many succesful businesses that makes it possible, it creates the spots for these individuals.
So, if anything, it's because US has the most businesses that again feeds itself. For example in here, we don't have too much businesses to help other businesses flourish. Say a computer manufacturing búsiness would be not so good in here, because there aren't supporting businesses. So it's difficult to establish such areas in here to begin with, without the support of other businsses you can do business with and cooperate.
This isn't so much 'the fault' of the system. However, today it is. The taxation of small businesses is horrible, it's still half. It's not at all fair, and if you want to make money wiht a business, you better be ready to make it in the fortune 500, because if you don't have an idea and plan and then execution of that plan in the caliber of that, you won't succeed even locally. It is equally difficult to create service based businesses, because the GDP etc are relatively low, so there is no consumer base like there is in the US. And still the taxation is hard. So you aren't allowed to grow. Furthermore the hiring of people is super expensive in here.
SO, it has to start from pummeling the taxation for small businesses to start with. We have to encourage people to start be enterprauners more, not by telling them it's cool but in action, lowering that tax. That's the best way. Now, no one has motivation to start a business, because government will leech it from the get go. This is not only my estimation, this has been polled numerous times recently in academic schools. No one wants to start a business in here. And if there's no businesses starting, well we all know what happens next. There's just no creation. And there certainly will be no new money to go around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pekka
|
|
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002
time: 07:30
|
|
And what hurts our economy even more is the fact, that most people in here with awesome ideas are ready to sell their businesses the first chance they get.. and you already guess who they sell them to... .. correct, americans . For a quick buck. But that buck locally is a lot you see.. but chump change in there. So many awesome businesses has been sold WAY too early.. I'm doing this project managment course which is pretty big, and we have this great man lecturing, he's been in the business world from the 60s (yeah he's old), and he knwo sa lot of people and has told many great stories. Every class he tells at least 4 or 5 examples from the real world where he has been a part of.. we usually cover mistakes and success stories.
What he always says is, if they had kept their hands ont he business JUST for 5 years or 10 years more, they would be multi-millionaires. But no, they had to sold it the first chance.. they didn't even see the potential in it. What the Americans are very good at, the best in the world, is to see the potential. To put price on it and see how much money it can make in the future. That's a great business, to buy off businesses that don't know what they have, or are to eager to get rid of it. And he's not anti-american.. on the contrary.... he's lkie the biggest fan of you guys. He just told how project managment was awesome in the Apollo programs, and because of that the US ultimately won the USSR in cold war and that's why we have euros adn businesses instead of rubles.. so he's also little crazy in the head 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Admiral,
quote:
If Germany had not shifted the focus of the aerial assault on England to her cities in 1940, the power of the RAF would have been severely diminished. |
Yes, the RAF would have lost more fighters. However, Britain was producing both more fighters and more pilots than the Luftwaffe, and seeing as how the BoB was fought OVER Britain, the British were able to recover their downed pilots, while the Germans were not.
In any case, we are talking about an invasion of Britain following a conquest of the Soviet Union, which presumably would happen either in the summer of 1942 or 1943. Either way, the RAF and USAAF would be so strong in Britain that the Luftwaffe would simply have no way to assert air superiority. Read up on production figures - the United States could SIGNIFICANTLY outproduce Nazi Germany, even a Nazi Germany that controlled all of Europe and had conquered the USSR.
quote:
If Hitler had not then been unreasonnably afraid of losing his surface fleet after minor losses off Norway, |
What??? I'm sorry, but you just don't understand. The Kriegsmarine lost a large part of its forces during the Norway campaign, including most of its destroyers and the heavy cruiser Blucher. Yes, the KMS still had major units in play, but the RN was SIGNIFICANTLY superior.
quote:
Germany could have secured the English Channel. |
You've got to be shitting me. Even the High Seas Fleet during WW1 wasn't able to secure the English Channel, and that fleet was the second most powerful fleet in the world. What makes you think that a fleet smaller than that of the British, Americans, Japanese, French, and Italians - and HUGELY smaller than the High Seas Fleet - could secure the English Channel?
I mean come on - do you know anything about WW2?
quote:
At this point, provided Hitler pushed back Barbarossa, he could have secured a beachhead in England. |
How?? The KMS had virtually no amphibous warfare craft. The Germans could have maybe pushed a couple of light divisions ashore into England, backed by some airborne troops, but these would quickly have been overwhelmed by the British army. Not that this is a reasonable scenario, because the Luftwaffe had no serious chance of defeating the RAF in 1940 to begin with, nor did the KMS have a reasonable chance of establishing superiority over the Channel - for the love of God, man, even the British Channel fleet could have stopped that from happening, to say nothing of the main battle fleet at Scapa Flow.
quote:
As a sidenote, during the entire war, only one amphibious assault failed, and that was a very lack-luster Japanese assault on Wake involving no aerial support and extremely limited naval support (two destroyers, I believe). |
Actually, the assault was only temporarily delayed while the Japanese brought in reinforcements, and this was due to the Japanese underestimated the tenacity of the United States Marine Corps. The story of the USMC resistance on Wake Island is actually one of the more interesting stories of the Pacific War - if you have a chance to pick up a book about it, certainly do so.
In any case, this is in no way analogous to a proposed German invasion of Britain in 1940, which would have been absolutely suicidal.
UR,
quote:
You're assuming that the US would still get the atomic bomb before Germany. An untenable assumption. |
Bullshit. Hitler had little interest in the atomic bomb project, and in fact, German scientists had, by and large, determined that the A-bomb was technically impossible. Furthermore, after the British raids on the Norwegian heavy water supplies, a German atomic bomb was impossible in any case.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that Germany never, EVER, developed a long range bomber capable of reaching the US (much less the Ural Mountains), while the US was constantly upgrading it's long range heavy bomber program - by 1948, the US would have had thousands of B-36s, with hundreds of atomic bombs.
quote:
Given that the Soviets were out of the picture, Nazi Germany could devote much more resources to research of advanced weapons. |
I call bullshit. The Germans would have been heavily tied up in the Soviet Union for years, if not decades. Furthermore, the US and Britain would still be pounding the hell out of Germany by this point with strategic bombers, and would have already kicked Germany out of North Africa, so I fail to see how Germany would have had tons of spare resources to pour into atomic weapon design (which they wouldn't have done anyway, for reasons I pointed out above).
As JohnT points out, the Germans were much more interested in rocketry than in either atomic weapons or long range bombers. So, maybe by 1948 conventional rockets would be landing on the US West Coast - but so what? At the same time, German cities would be going up in atomic fire. Game over.
quote:
If not for determined Allied interferences, such as bombing dams, commando raids, and such assorted actions, the Nazis would have the Bomb before the US. |
Cite? And in any case, why would the US/Britain stop bombing dams and conducting commando raids if the USSR was defeated? If those two things are all that stopped Germany from getting the Bomb first (bullshit, by the way), those two things still would have been going on.
quote:
Besides, the US got a whole bunch of scientists from Germany to work on the Manhattan Project. |
Relevance? This was true regardless of whether or not the Soviets collapsed.
Chemical Ollie,
quote:
US could finish the bomb so quickly because they captured German scientists who were willing to co-operate in the spring of '45. |
What??? The US already had the bomb virtually finished in the spring of '45 - the Manhatten Project scientists certainly did not derive any great benefit from Werner Heisenberg, and the rest, in the spring of 1945, nor did they derive any benefit from the largely defunct Nazi atomic bomb program.
Good Lord, it's amazing how so many otherwise intelligent people are so ignorant about so many aspects of World War 2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
Seriously though, that's what would have happened.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Imagine what domestic welfare US could have done with the tax money you wasted in Vietnam? |
**** welfare, imagine the tax cuts!
And by the way, I do, to some extent, buy the domino theory argument. Whether it was any of our business, though, is another thing entirely.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2005 06:36
|