 |
| |
|
|
Six Thousand Year Old Man
|
 |
Ad Rock
Aug 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
I realize this is a silly thread, but what makes it even sillier is the number of people who assume that because the USA has a large, strong military now, it ALWAYS had a large, strong military. Sure, supply issues would prevent the Germans from doing anything but posturing towards the US mainland... but c'mon... USA invade Germany? The Germans had a large,
professional army in 1900. The US army was embyronic by comparison.
Moreover, in 1900, nobody 'occupied' defeated enemy nations. You lose the war, you lose a few possessions and some dignity (i.e. Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War). The notion of trying to invade and permanently occupy an enemy nation in 1900 would be as foreign as trying a cavalry charge in 2002.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
 |
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I realize this is a silly thread, but what makes it even sillier is the number of people who assume that because the USA has a large, strong military now, it ALWAYS had a large, strong military. Sure, supply issues would prevent the Germans from doing anything but posturing towards the US mainland... but c'mon... USA invade Germany? The Germans had a large,
professional army in 1900. The US army was embyronic by comparison.
|
(bolding mine)
Not Professional, huh? Embyronic? I guess that collection of old buildings on the Hudson river that have been training Officers since 1802 don't count for nothin'?
Read my reasoning post. It debunks your claim of a superior "professional" German Army in comparision to the US Army.
quote:
Moreover, in 1900, nobody 'occupied' defeated enemy nations. You lose the war, you lose a few possessions and some dignity (i.e. Franco-Prussian War, Russo-Japanese War, Spanish-American War). The notion of trying to invade and permanently occupy an enemy nation in 1900 would be as foreign as trying a cavalry charge in 2002. |
Bbbbbbbzzzzztttttt!!!! Wrong! The United States, in effect if not in name, occupied a territory larger than Western Europe from 1865-1876. Said territory was the Former Confederacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Six Thousand Year Old Man
|
|
Ad Rock
Aug 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lonestar
(bolding mine)
Not Professional, huh? Embyronic? I guess that collection of old buildings on the Hudson river that have been training Officers since 1802 don't count for nothin'?
Bbbbbbbzzzzztttttt!!!! Wrong! The United States, in effect if not in name, occupied a territory larger than Western Europe from 1865-1876. Said territory was the Former Confederacy. |
OK, I'll play 
1) If they've been training officers since 1802, when do you think they'll get it right? 
2) It's one thing for your army to defeat a band of rednecks, and another to defeat a professional army that has been trained for a real, constant threat of war (which was a feature of late 19th century Europe). The German army is widely accepted by historians to have been the best trained force in the world in the early 1900s. If you don't buy that, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to think that an army made up of conscripts and led by 60 year old Civil War vets would win that fight.
3) Then why didn't you occupy Spain? Total war didn't exist in 1900. Read your history books. Naturally the winner of a civil war is going to 'occupy' the loser - all they're doing is occupying their own territory. Not the same as occupying a foreign nation, which was unheard of at the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
OK, I'll play
1) If they've been training officers since 1802, when do you think they'll get it right?
|
What, destroying the third largest Army in the world didn't do it for ya? (Mexican Army, circa 1846)
quote:
2) It's one thing for your army to defeat a band of rednecks, |
natch.
quote:
and another to defeat a professional army that has been trained for a real, constant threat of war (which was a feature of late 19th century Europe). The German army is widely accepted by historians to have been the best trained force in the world in the early 1900s. If you don't buy that, fine, but don't expect the rest of us to think that an army made up of conscripts and led by 60 year old Civil War vets would win that fight. |
Problem; as there was a million of said rednecks led by hundreds of Mexican War heros, it was like fighting a professional army. Remeber; nothing improves a army like experience. And the United States in 1900 had experience up to it's ass.
quote:
3) Then why didn't you occupy Spain? Total war didn't exist in 1900. Read your history books. Naturally the winner of a civil war is going to 'occupy' the loser - all they're doing is occupying their own territory. Not the same as occupying a foreign nation, which was unheard of at the time. |
As I said, in effect it was like occupying a defeated nation. By 1865 the CSA had factories, armies in the field, and (at the remaining ports in Texas) a navy. It wasn't your standard Civil War. It was more like two nations fighting another.
And certainly the French in 1865 were afraid of the army that had beat "just a bunch of rednecks." Especially after we told them to get outta Mexico or we'd throw them out...
On to the lightening round, Alex...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akka
|
 |
In front of my computer.
Nov 2001
time: 06:19
|
|
Aaah, well, I know it's not a serious thread, but there is really too much absurdities here 
quote:
Actually in the early 1900s, the American navy was a force to deal with. It was either 2 or 3 since 1900. Britain, of course, was alway #1 .
-Not very big in 1900, but certainly bigger than the German navy. Had just came through the Spanish-American war kicking ass and taking names.
|
British navy was about 150 ships. German and french ones were about 100. USA war FAAAAAAAAAAAAR away, and was nowhere able to compete. Spain was a really small power in Europe by the time, you just can't compare it to Germany.
quote:
Not Professional, huh? Embyronic? I guess that collection of old buildings on the Hudson river that have been training Officers since 1802 don't count for nothin'? |
May I say it ?
Well I'll say it : yes, it counts for nothing. Professionnal US army by the time was a joke. Though it actually has lots of competents officers and military material, it was NOT THE CASE at the start of the century.
quote:
What, destroying the third largest Army in the world didn't do it for ya? (Mexican Army, circa 1846) |
LMAO
ROFL
No, seriously, you think that the army of Mexico was the third army in the world ?
No wonder that you consider the army of US from this time to be match for German's one
I suppose that the first army in the world was USA, the second was UK, Mexico the third, and Germany, Russia, France and Autria were some remnants of weak states ?
(if I remember well, Mexico was crushed by a French expeditionnary army of less than 60 000 soldiers in the 1860's...)
quote:
Problem; as there was a million of said rednecks led by hundreds of Mexican War heros, it was like fighting a professional army. Remeber; nothing improves a army like experience. And the United States in 1900 had experience up to it's ass. |
Of course, I can imagine how the "experienced heros" from wars against Mexico will be able to cope against a MODERN (by the time) army with something more than old rifles and broken discipline.
Guess you don't really have a grip on reality when talking about professionnal army 
And USA experience of war up to it's ass ?
Go back to your history school books, boy, Europe was ten time more full of wars at this time that USA has ever been during its whole existence. France alone fought four war in a frame of time where USA had only its Secession one's. If there was a place in the world where war was known, it was Europe
quote:
And certainly the French in 1865 were afraid of the army that had beat "just a bunch of rednecks." Especially after we told them to get outta Mexico or we'd throw them out...
|
Afraid of what ?
They just had some more important trouble with a big neighbour called Bismark, and didn't gave a sh*t about a poor land like Mexico. The cost of maintaining the expeditionnary army was too high and it was bringing nothing interesting. Sure, it helped that USA showed they were not enthusiastic about the presence, but the States had to busy with the reconstruction more than starting a war with what was considered the best world army by the time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuŕ Rénmín Gňnghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
euro coins
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Aaah, well, I know it's not a serious thread, but there is really too much absurdities here
British navy was about 150 ships. German and french ones were about 100. USA war FAAAAAAAAAAAAR away, and was nowhere able to compete. Spain was a really small power in Europe by the time, you just can't compare it to Germany.
|
Personally, I disagree with the "2 or 3" statement. We were like ninth or tenth.
But still bigger than Germany's Navy in 1900.
quote:
May I say it ?
Well I'll say it : yes, it counts for nothing. Professionnal US army by the time was a joke. Though it actually has lots of competents officers and military material, it was NOT THE CASE at the start of the century.
LMAO
ROFL
|
Are you joking? They only thing, the only thing the United States had against it at the turn of the century was that it was small. It was small and filled with professional volunteers. History has consistantly shown volunteer armies are, man-for-man, superior to conscription armies.
Although as Lenin said, "Quanity has a quality of it's own."
The job of the US Army in that case would be train up new soldiers. As we had a bunch of vets from the Spanish-American War, the Filipino Insurrection, and, to a lesser degree, the United States Civil War, any army the United States raised at the time would be more proficient then the German Conscription aremy.
quote:
No, seriously, you think that the army of Mexico was the third army in the world ?
No wonder that you consider the army of US from this time to be match for German's one |
Hey, it was in 1845. It was bigger than the French and British Armies at the time.
quote:
I suppose that the first army in the world was USA, the second was UK, Mexico the third, and Germany, Russia, France and Autria were some remnants of weak states ? |
Germany didn't exist in 1845!
And the United States was way down the list. (only had 10,000 regulars, IIRC)
quote:
(if I remember well, Mexico was crushed by a French expeditionnary army of less than 60 000 soldiers in the 1860's...) |
You remember incorrectly. The Mexicans kicked the crap out of the French. repeatibly.
quote:
Of course, I can imagine how the "experienced heros" from wars against Mexico will be able to cope against a MODERN (by the time) army with something more than old rifles and broken discipline. |
Yeah, and we all know how useful that was. All the way up to WW1 the Europeans were laughing at the American policy of spreading out the troops and attacking in a skirmish line. When WW1 began, your vaunted German and French armies lined up in blocks and whaled away at each other like a bunch of idiots. Apperently, they hadn't relised technology had changed since Napoleon.
quote:
Guess you don't really have a grip on reality when talking about professionnal army
And USA experience of war up to it's ass ?
|
Guess you're wrong.
quote:
Go back to your history school books, boy, Europe was ten time more full of wars at this time that USA has ever been during its whole existence. France alone fought four war in a frame of time where USA had only its Secession one's. If there was a place in the world where war was known, it was Europe
|
What, the United States has a tradition of warfare stretching all the way back to...1607. We have plenty of tradition in warfare. Every much as the Europeans.. Probaly more so, as we fought the only large scale general war from 1815-1914.
quote:
Afraid of what ?
They just had some more important trouble with a big neighbour called Bismark, and didn't gave a sh*t about a poor land like Mexico. The cost of maintaining the expeditionnary army was too high and it was bringing nothing interesting. Sure, it helped that USA showed they were not enthusiastic about the presence, but the States had to busy with the reconstruction more than starting a war with what was considered the best world army by the time. |
I find that unlikely. Especially as the Franco-Prussian War was some years off. Seems to me that YOU need to go look at your History books.
That said, the French Army in Mexico didn't budge until 100,000 man army under Sheridian (widley considered one of the Best Generals of the war) moved into Texas. In Grand French tradition, they bolted from a fight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Like I said above, it would appear that the German plan was to just shell some ports and hope that the Americans would throw their hands up in horror. Apparently there wasn't a plan for a real invasion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dom Pedro II
|
 |
The College of New Jersey
Nov 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
The American army of 1900 was NOT the American army of 1865. After the Civil War, the army was almost entirely dismantled. Even in the Spanish American War, the army was pretty small, and the Americans lost something like 5,000 men from crappy gear,supplies, and food poisoning as well as disease. Proportional to the army, those losses were embarressing, and Teddy tried to put an end to the purchasing of such shoddy merchandise, but how do you think an American invasion force would have faired in Germany in 1900 with no blankets, tents, good boots, etc?
Furthermore, the American Civil War is as close to an exception as you get. While the U.S. army did "occupy" the South during Reconstruction, the whole point of the war had been to bring the rebelling states back into the Union. Had it been a war with another sovereign state, they wouldn't have done it.
Occupation of another country and total war were just extremely infrequent in that day and age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Would it help if I point out one more time that this was supposed to be an all navy show on the part of the Germans? Therefore comparing armies is rather futile. Furthermore there wasn't any plan for sustained involvement, the attacks were to be handled raid style. Heck, the Germans could have tried this on any nation, even Britain, and have gotten out with their fleet intact at least the first time.
But while we're on the subject of armies, does anyone know how many troops were raised during the Spanish-American War? Wouldn't those troops have been available on short notice?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lonestar
|
|
AECCP Dark Lord of the Sith
Aug 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
The American army was extremely small at the time. And Germany is a tad more powerful than Spain, to say the least. Plus, Germany was ahead in the tech race at that time. |
I'd like to remind everyone here that the army was much larger than the pre-Civil War Army was. Especialy you, Dom Pedro ::Shakes fist::. :P
Anyway, while I'm far, far, too lazy to look up exact numbers, we had thousands of soldiers, specifically, thousands of soldiers looking for "gooks" in the Phillippines. Absolutely astonishing that that word would come back and be used to describe the VC lo those many years later....
EDIT: Seems to be about 11,000 soldiers in the Phillippines circa 1900. Most were volunteers for the Spanish-American war, so the majority of the Professional Army would still be in the continental states. Call it 30,000 soldiers (probaly more) in the contienental states at the time.
Course, all this hinges on the Germans moving the hundreds of thousands across the Atlantic (a) in secret (following mobilization) and (b) without the USN doing it's damndest to stop it.
Anywho, as it's been pointed out many times, the German plan seemed to be "Bombard NYC and Boston, and the Yankees will call it quits."
Last edited by Lonestar on 12-05-2002 at 03:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
They'd lose.
Thousands of miles of supply lines across the ocean. They couldn't even take RUSSIA!
America had the world's largest merchant marine. how long it would it take to turn these over to battleships.
Also, american ships of the time outgunned germans by about 3 to 1. (This is a true fact).
No coaling stations nearby for the Brits. The USA, on the other hand, has the entire coastline to draw from.
France will probably get involved, which will draw in Russia.
Britain might get involved as well, to make sure those two don't carve up germany.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2002 08:51
|