Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 26, 2024, 10:23 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
WWII
#11
RE: WWII
I hope our queen doesn't mind me offering something to think about.

I just saying the other night, if I could change one thing in history, it would be to have a Marshall Plan in 1919 instead of a rape at/Treaty of Versailles.

At the end of the first World War, the German people overthrew the Kaiser and the fledgling democracy asked for peace. With modern sensibilities, we can see the distinction between the actions of the Kaiser and the German people. A Marshall Plan at that time could have helped the German people assemble a functional democracy and wouldn't have ruined their economy with crippling war reparations. The rise of Hitler and the second world war could have been prevented and we would have had a more just and equitable peace after what might have been the first and only world war.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
...      -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
...       -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
Reply
#12
RE: WWII
(April 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: Who do you think won the war?

It's obvious who lost (the Germans) but the Americans think it was their intervention that led to victory?

I'm curious as to what people think the catalystic factors were which led to the Allies winning?
Sorry for hijacking your post btw Tongue

Well, right off the bat I would say the allies won. I will also say that the american intervention did have a significant impact. I will also say that we Americans definitely ended it with the unconditional surrender of Japan. We Americans had some significant actions in WWII, but like I said before, it was team work that won the day.
Reply
#13
RE: WWII
(April 27, 2011 at 3:36 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I hope our queen doesn't mind me offering something to think about.

I just saying the other night, if I could change one thing in history, it would be to have a Marshall Plan in 1919 instead of a rape at/Treaty of Versailles.

I could never mind you interjecting, DP.

I had one very good history teacher who had us talk about that very point in history - too bad hindsight is 20-20.
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#14
RE: WWII
(April 27, 2011 at 3:36 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:
(April 27, 2011 at 1:14 pm)Napoleon666 Wrote: Who do you think won the war?

It's obvious who lost (the Germans) but the Americans think it was their intervention that led to victory?

I'm curious as to what people think the catalystic factors were which led to the Allies winning?
Sorry for hijacking your post btw Tongue

Well, right off the bat I would say the allies won. I will also say that the american intervention did have a significant impact. I will also say that we Americans definitely ended it with the unconditional surrender of Japan. We Americans had some significant actions in WWII, but like I said before, it was team work that won the day.

Quote:

Did the atomic bomb, in fact, cause Japan to surrender? Most Americans think the answer is self-evident. However, many historical studies�including new publications by two highly regarded scholars--challenge the conventional understanding. In a recently released Harvard University Press volume drawing upon the latest Japanese sources, for instance, Professor Tsuyohsi Hasegawa concludes that the traditional �myth cannot be supported by historical facts.� By far the most important factor forcing the decision, his research indicates, was the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on August 8, 1945, just after the Hiroshima bombing.




You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid.

Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.




 








Reply
#15
RE: WWII
Napoleon666 Wrote:Who do you think won the war?

The Soviet union, America, and England.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Reply
#16
RE: WWII
(April 27, 2011 at 3:28 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: The russian victory at kursk was the killing stroke. The germans never gained the upper hand after that.
The victory of the allies in the western sphere was due to: the weather, the russian man power, the american industrial might and english beligerence. without the last I doubt america would have been so keen to join the fight.

http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/
Reply
#17
RE: WWII
Quote:without the last I doubt america would have been so keen to join the fight.

WE had no choice. Hitler declared war on us.


As far as the German Panzer divisions, Gawd....one has to look behind the facade. As it was the only Pz Div to engage early on at D-Day I chose the 21st Pz. Div as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Panzer...29#Rebirth

Quote:Major General Von Hulsen surrendered the remnants of the division on 13 May 1943.
[edit] Rebirth
[edit] 1943

In France, the division was reconstituted on 15 July 1943, where it remained for rehabilitation and garrison duty until the Allied landings at Normandy. The new division's commander was Oberst Edgar Feuchtinger[2] who was promoted to Generalmajor on 1 August 1943 and Generalleutenant (equivalent to Major-General) exactly a year later.[3] It was heavily engaged in the fighting at the Normandy beachheads, being the only Panzer division to engage the Allies on the first day.

Formed largely from occupation troops, it was designed as a fast moving unit to counter the invasion army, therefore it became known as a Schnelle Division West (Fast Division West). It was equipped with tanks, halftracks, self-propelled artillery and trucks, in most cases captured vehicles of French origin.

The only unit specially formed for the division was the 305th Army Flak Battalion. The 1st Battalion of this unit was now fully equipped with four companies of 88 mm guns mounted on half tracks and two companies of 20 mm guns, also mounted on halftracks. The 2nd and 3rd Battalions were equipped with 150 mm Hummels. The Division did operate mainly captured French tanks, which were supposed to have been replaced by three companies of 22 PzKpfw III per Battalion and one company of 22 PzKpfw IV. This transfer was not carried out until the first weeks of May 1944 and even then the Battalions only received 17 Mark III's and 14 Mark IV's.


Even the vaunted SS units were wrecked in Russia and sent to the West to rest and refit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_SS_Divi...tern_Front

but let's not pretend that the ranks were re-filled with highly-trained veterans such as those whom they had lost.[/quote]

Reply
#18
RE: WWII
Okay, as far as Germany, I have many opinions on why they lost:

#1 - The German people suffered many extreme changes in government before the war. They went from a strange Imperial monarchy/democracy to one of subjugation to the victors of WWI to that of extreme fascism/corporate dictatorship. All in one generation. This is stressful upon the German people in and of itself.
#2 - The German workers supported Hitler to go into power under a socialist state. As soon as Hitler gained power he dumped any idea of socialism, dropped wages, banned labor unions, banned any form of free gathering of the people into groups. When this happened many of the people had no choice but to get involved into the war effort. So Hitler really forced his people into war, instead of leading them out of their depression.
#3 - The Nazi party was seperate at first when elected, but then quickly dissolved anything resembling a democracy of the people, and took over command of the armed forces. They wiped out the socialist branch of their party in the "night of the long knives". This surely caused distrust among the millitary and Nazi members themselves. This constant fear of other members, in my opinion, caused a loss in faith and faigned nationalism in many except the most highest members of the Nazi party. I bet even they were fearful of being murdered or executed on a whim, and were therefore more willing to say a comforting lie as opposed to a factual yet disturbing truth.
#4 - The Nazi party was in control of the millitary, but not part of the millitary at the same time. This caused massive disruption of the millitary chain of command as Nazi party members could easily step in and disrupt the chain of command with dictatorship like results. I feel this was the biggest mistake was the Nazi party itself, as its beaurocracy was chaotic, prone to rash and immediate decisions by its members. Standing orders could be changed on a whim, and strategic decisions from the regular officers in the millitary would sometimes be ignored and changed under the whim of one Nazi party member.
#5 - Hitler went too far too fast. If Hitler had of taken his time between his conquest of Europe and his attempted conquest of Russia, he would have had longer sustaining power. He got involved in a land war in Asia/Russia and it cost him time, energy, and many lives. His quick step into Russia more than likely was the main key to the Nazi demise.
#6 - The Nazi party utilized right wing extremist social views. If the Nazi party would have instead integrated ALL of the German citizens instead of demonizing the minority, he would have had a much more powerful fighting force. I hate to say this, and I dispise it, but he had other options in fron of him other than mass murder of the jews and other German citizens. He had their spirits broken in the ghettos, so why didnt he give them an option to either work in the war factories or fight in the trenches? His mass murder of the minorities was a big mistake. Russia took their own citizens, gave them guns and told them to run into battle and warned them if they retreated that they would be gunned down. This worked for Russia (as much as I dispise it) and it more than likely would have bolstered Hitlers army.
#7 - Hitler did a shit job protecting his oil fields/fuel dumps. As soon as the allies were in a position to bomb Hitler's fuel dumps, the war for Germany went exponentially bad for Hitler in a very short amount of time. Oil reserves are a key factor in a fighting force. A minor loss in oil reserves causes major problems of mobilization and advancement.
#8 - Hitler should have put more resources into his submarines than his surface ships. If Hitler had kept the market cornered in top of the line technology for submarines he would have done much better on sea. This includes his enigma devices. Many of his problems on sea stemmed from constant naval forces from America. America had a LONG trip to travel from America to Europe. He should have took this into consideration and focused on invention and upgrade for his submarines and less on going toe to toe with American battle ships that he knew full well were the top of the line at the time.

That is my opinion.
Reply
#19
RE: WWII
I listened to this podcast on the 12 hour round trip between here and my mum's house - he had some interesting stuff on there.

http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharch...-world-war
[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]
Reply
#20
RE: WWII
Quote:As soon as Hitler gained power he dumped any idea of socialism, dropped wages, banned labor unions, banned any form of free gathering of the people into groups.

Fuckin' libertarian!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Can We Sue Germany for WWII? InquiringMind 59 6766 September 30, 2016 at 7:13 am
Last Post: Faith No More
  Fascism won WWII reverendjeremiah 19 7632 April 1, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Last Post: reverendjeremiah



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)