...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

Ashland Henderson wrote:
Pretty funny, actually. We helped, no question about it but the real heavy
lifting was done by our old enemies, the USSR. I'd suggest reading some
real histories of WWII.


thunder wrote:
And with 20 million dead, the heavy dying.

You might want to take a second look at the numbers. Undoubtedly the USSR played
a huge role in WW2, or as they call it, The Great Patriotic War, but the oft
quoted figures of ~20 million casualties (I've seen it put at 23+M) include a
heck of a lot of civilians that were deliberately starved or worked to death by
Papa Joe Stalin.

Regards
Doug King

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Pretty funny, actually. We helped, no question about it but the real
heavy
lifting was done by our old enemies, the USSR. I'd suggest reading
some
real histories of WWII.


thunder wrote:
And with 20 million dead, the heavy dying.

You might want to take a second look at the numbers. Undoubtedly the USSR
played
a huge role in WW2, or as they call it, The Great Patriotic War, but the
oft
quoted figures of ~20 million casualties (I've seen it put at 23+M)
include a
heck of a lot of civilians that were deliberately starved or worked to
death by
Papa Joe Stalin.

Regards
Doug King

Exactly. One cannot diminish the contributions of the USSR but those
casualty numbers are inflated. Joe Stalin may even eclipse Hitler as
Europe's biggest mass murderer.

Our critical contribution was typical American cowboyism. While the English
were bombing at night at to save losses, they also weren't hitting much. We
got over there with our B17's and B24's and commenced daylight precision
raids on Hitlers infrastructure, despite him having the best air defence
system known to man. Our boys signed up for 25 missions when the average
survival expectency was 15 missions. If you're in Memphis stop off and visit
the Belle, she sits peacefully by the water now, forever on her 26th
mission - to make sure we never forget. If Col. Bob Morgan is ever speaking
near you, go see him - and look in the eyes of a real hero.

-W

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

Actually the Russian winter defeated the Nazi's. The German's extended the
supply lines to far and due to very precision manufacturing, the big guns
failed in the winter. Had a customer years ago, who spent WW2 on the
Russian front, German side. He stated one time when were talking about
Mercedes and fine German engineering, the engineering sucked at times. The
guns were accurate to inches in long range shooting, but an 88 was to blow
big holes not as a sniper weapon. When it got -30 degrees, the dissimilar
metals shrunk at different rates and the guns jammed. The Russian guns were
bored about 1/8" bigger, and could shoot German ammo, but the German guns
could not shoot the Soviet stuff. So the Russians blew the hell out of the
Germans with their own ammo. The Russian retreat at Stalingrad, was over a
lake that was melting fast. There are old movies of the trucks driving
across the lake ice, with at least a foot of water on top. The Russians
made it, but the Germans were forced to drive lots of miles to go around the
lake. Lacking supplies, because of the long supply lines.
Bill

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:_jBLb.7173$8H.20759@attbi_s03...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Pretty funny, actually. We helped, no question about it but the real
heavy
lifting was done by our old enemies, the USSR. I'd suggest reading
some
real histories of WWII.


thunder wrote:
And with 20 million dead, the heavy dying.

You might want to take a second look at the numbers. Undoubtedly the
USSR
played
a huge role in WW2, or as they call it, The Great Patriotic War, but the
oft
quoted figures of ~20 million casualties (I've seen it put at 23+M)
include a
heck of a lot of civilians that were deliberately starved or worked to
death by
Papa Joe Stalin.

Regards
Doug King

Exactly. One cannot diminish the contributions of the USSR but those
casualty numbers are inflated. Joe Stalin may even eclipse Hitler as
Europe's biggest mass murderer.

Our critical contribution was typical American cowboyism. While the
English
were bombing at night at to save losses, they also weren't hitting much.
We
got over there with our B17's and B24's and commenced daylight precision
raids on Hitlers infrastructure, despite him having the best air defence
system known to man. Our boys signed up for 25 missions when the average
survival expectency was 15 missions. If you're in Memphis stop off and
visit
the Belle, she sits peacefully by the water now, forever on her 26th
mission - to make sure we never forget. If Col. Bob Morgan is ever
speaking
near you, go see him - and look in the eyes of a real hero.

-W

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:14:34 +0000, Clams Canino wrote:


Exactly. One cannot diminish the contributions of the USSR but those
casualty numbers are inflated. Joe Stalin may even eclipse Hitler as
Europe's biggest mass murderer.

When you consider pre-war, I don't think there is any doubt Stalin was a
bigger mass murderer. It is true on the 20 million I quoted, I didn't see
a combat/non-combat breakdown. Regardless, the Soviets paid a tremendous
cost.

Our critical contribution was typical American cowboyism. While the
English were bombing at night at to save losses, they also weren't
hitting much. We got over there with our B17's and B24's and commenced
daylight precision raids on Hitlers infrastructure, despite him having
the best air defence system known to man. Our boys signed up for 25
missions when the average survival expectency was 15 missions. If you're
in Memphis stop off and visit the Belle, she sits peacefully by the
water now, forever on her 26th mission - to make sure we never forget.
If Col. Bob Morgan is ever speaking near you, go see him - and look in
the eyes of a real hero.

I didn't in any way mean to diminish our contribution. It's just I was
shocked to think of 20 million deaths, and I think we should all be
thankful the Soviets were an ally at the time.

The bomber crews took tremendous casualties, especially before the
Mustang. I was also surprised at the percentage of the merchant marine
that didn't survive the war. I have heard they suffered death rate than
any other service.

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message nk.net...
Actually the Russian winter defeated the Nazi's. The German's extended the
supply lines to far and due to very precision manufacturing, the big guns
failed in the winter. Had a customer years ago, who spent WW2 on the
Russian front, German side. He stated one time when were talking about
Mercedes and fine German engineering, the engineering sucked at times. The
guns were accurate to inches in long range shooting, but an 88 was to blow
big holes not as a sniper weapon. When it got -30 degrees, the dissimilar
metals shrunk at different rates and the guns jammed. The Russian guns were
bored about 1/8" bigger, and could shoot German ammo, but the German guns
could not shoot the Soviet stuff. So the Russians blew the hell out of the
Germans with their own ammo. The Russian retreat at Stalingrad, was over a
lake that was melting fast. There are old movies of the trucks driving
across the lake ice, with at least a foot of water on top. The Russians
made it, but the Germans were forced to drive lots of miles to go around the
lake. Lacking supplies, because of the long supply lines.
Bill

I'd suggest looking at the battle of Krusk. It wasn't the winter that
defeated the Germans.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:_jBLb.7173$8H.20759@attbi_s03...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Pretty funny, actually. We helped, no question about it but the real
heavy
lifting was done by our old enemies, the USSR. I'd suggest reading
some
real histories of WWII.


thunder wrote:
And with 20 million dead, the heavy dying.

You might want to take a second look at the numbers. Undoubtedly the
USSR
played
a huge role in WW2, or as they call it, The Great Patriotic War, but the
oft
quoted figures of ~20 million casualties (I've seen it put at 23+M)
include a
heck of a lot of civilians that were deliberately starved or worked to
death by
Papa Joe Stalin.

Regards
Doug King

Exactly. One cannot diminish the contributions of the USSR but those
casualty numbers are inflated. Joe Stalin may even eclipse Hitler as
Europe's biggest mass murderer.

Our critical contribution was typical American cowboyism. While the
English
were bombing at night at to save losses, they also weren't hitting much.
We
got over there with our B17's and B24's and commenced daylight precision
raids on Hitlers infrastructure, despite him having the best air defence
system known to man. Our boys signed up for 25 missions when the average
survival expectency was 15 missions. If you're in Memphis stop off and
visit
the Belle, she sits peacefully by the water now, forever on her 26th
mission - to make sure we never forget. If Col. Bob Morgan is ever
speaking
near you, go see him - and look in the eyes of a real hero.

-W

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

I could make the argument that Hitler defeated himself.

1. The "miracle at Dunkirk" Hitler let the English all get away to fight
another day - on purpose.

2. Attacking Russia when he did. Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was *imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.

3. Declaring war on U.S. after we declared war on Japan. Hitler had enough
problems without ****ing us off. And Japan didn't declare war on Russia to
follow Hitler, no need to be reciprocal there. That little move is what led
us to a "Europe 1st" decision.

4. The battle of Britian. He could have won it - had he not concentated on
London. He had a RAF almost to it's knees and didn't follow through. Having
Britain as a staging area was a big factor in the Allied victory.

And the list goes on. Hitlers psychopathic arrogance cost him WW2, that and
IMHO a subconscious "need to fail" he was quite self destructive.

-W



"Ashland Henderson" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
Actually the Russian winter defeated the Nazi's. The German's extended
the
supply lines to far and due to very precision manufacturing, the big
guns
failed in the winter. Had a customer years ago, who spent WW2 on the
Russian front, German side. He stated one time when were talking about
Mercedes and fine German engineering, the engineering sucked at times.
The
guns were accurate to inches in long range shooting, but an 88 was to
blow
big holes not as a sniper weapon. When it got -30 degrees, the
dissimilar
metals shrunk at different rates and the guns jammed. The Russian guns
were
bored about 1/8" bigger, and could shoot German ammo, but the German
guns
could not shoot the Soviet stuff. So the Russians blew the hell out of
the
Germans with their own ammo. The Russian retreat at Stalingrad, was
over a
lake that was melting fast. There are old movies of the trucks driving
across the lake ice, with at least a foot of water on top. The Russians
made it, but the Germans were forced to drive lots of miles to go around
the
lake. Lacking supplies, because of the long supply lines.
Bill

I'd suggest looking at the battle of Krusk. It wasn't the winter that
defeated the Germans.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:_jBLb.7173$8H.20759@attbi_s03...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Pretty funny, actually. We helped, no question about it but the
real
heavy
lifting was done by our old enemies, the USSR. I'd suggest
reading
some
real histories of WWII.


thunder wrote:
And with 20 million dead, the heavy dying.

You might want to take a second look at the numbers. Undoubtedly the
USSR
played
a huge role in WW2, or as they call it, The Great Patriotic War, but
the
oft
quoted figures of ~20 million casualties (I've seen it put at 23+M)
include a
heck of a lot of civilians that were deliberately starved or worked
to
death by
Papa Joe Stalin.

Regards
Doug King

Exactly. One cannot diminish the contributions of the USSR but those
casualty numbers are inflated. Joe Stalin may even eclipse Hitler as
Europe's biggest mass murderer.

Our critical contribution was typical American cowboyism. While the
English
were bombing at night at to save losses, they also weren't hitting
much.
We
got over there with our B17's and B24's and commenced daylight
precision
raids on Hitlers infrastructure, despite him having the best air
defence
system known to man. Our boys signed up for 25 missions when the
average
survival expectency was 15 missions. If you're in Memphis stop off and
visit
the Belle, she sits peacefully by the water now, forever on her 26th
mission - to make sure we never forget. If Col. Bob Morgan is ever
speaking
near you, go see him - and look in the eyes of a real hero.

-W

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:RzGOb.83926$nt4.128065@attbi_s51...
I could make the argument that Hitler defeated himself.

1. The "miracle at Dunkirk" Hitler let the English all get away to fight
another day - on purpose.

Debatable. Indeed, highly debateable.

2. Attacking Russia when he did. Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was *imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.

Hitler was certainly one of the factors and possibly even a major factor
in the defeat of Germany. The major error in Russia appears to have been
the diversion of the attack northward towards the Ukraine. Another one
was demanding that the divisions around Stalingrad not retreat.

3. Declaring war on U.S. after we declared war on Japan. Hitler had enough
problems without ****ing us off. And Japan didn't declare war on Russia to
follow Hitler, no need to be reciprocal there. That little move is what led
us to a "Europe 1st" decision.

Wasn't really that much choice. We were already aiding both England and Russia.
I don't remember the exact timing but I'd be very surprised if we hadn't
gone to war with Germany when we did with Japan anyway.

4. The battle of Britian. He could have won it - had he not concentated on
London. He had a RAF almost to it's knees and didn't follow through. Having
Britain as a staging area was a big factor in the Allied victory.

Well, the RAF members I served with, including some that were there, didn't
think he had brought them to their knees. The attacks on London were a
mistake but they were partly kicked off by the first deliberate attacks
on civilian targets which were done by the RAF against Monchengladbach,
home of Goering. And of course he didn't necessarily know the state of
the defenses. In any case, there is no real evidence for and much against
that arial bombing can cause anyone to surrender.

And the list goes on. Hitlers psychopathic arrogance cost him WW2, that and
IMHO a subconscious "need to fail" he was quite self destructive.

Pop psychology has never particularly impressed me. That said, he certainly
made mistakes.

"Ashland Henderson" wrote in message
om...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
Actually the Russian winter defeated the Nazi's. The German's extended
the
supply lines to far and due to very precision manufacturing, the big
guns
failed in the winter. Had a customer years ago, who spent WW2 on the
Russian front, German side. He stated one time when were talking about
Mercedes and fine German engineering, the engineering sucked at times.
The
guns were accurate to inches in long range shooting, but an 88 was to
blow
big holes not as a sniper weapon. When it got -30 degrees, the
dissimilar
metals shrunk at different rates and the guns jammed. The Russian guns
were
bored about 1/8" bigger, and could shoot German ammo, but the German
guns
could not shoot the Soviet stuff. So the Russians blew the hell out of
the
Germans with their own ammo. The Russian retreat at Stalingrad, was
over a
lake that was melting fast. There are old movies of the trucks driving
across the lake ice, with at least a foot of water on top. The Russians
made it, but the Germans were forced to drive lots of miles to go around
the
lake. Lacking supplies, because of the long supply lines.
Bill

I'd suggest looking at the battle of Krusk. It wasn't the winter that
defeated the Germans.

"Clams Canino" wrote in message
news:_jBLb.7173$8H.20759@attbi_s03...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Ashland Henderson wrote:
Pretty funny, actually. We helped, no question about it but the
real
heavy
lifting was done by our old enemies, the USSR. I'd suggest
reading
some
real histories of WWII.


thunder wrote:
And with 20 million dead, the heavy dying.

You might want to take a second look at the numbers. Undoubtedly the
USSR
played
a huge role in WW2, or as they call it, The Great Patriotic War, but
the
oft
quoted figures of ~20 million casualties (I've seen it put at 23+M)
include a
heck of a lot of civilians that were deliberately starved or worked
to
death by
Papa Joe Stalin.

Regards
Doug King

Exactly. One cannot diminish the contributions of the USSR but those
casualty numbers are inflated. Joe Stalin may even eclipse Hitler as
Europe's biggest mass murderer.

Our critical contribution was typical American cowboyism. While the
English
were bombing at night at to save losses, they also weren't hitting
much.
We
got over there with our B17's and B24's and commenced daylight
precision
raids on Hitlers infrastructure, despite him having the best air
defence
system known to man. Our boys signed up for 25 missions when the
average
survival expectency was 15 missions. If you're in Memphis stop off and
visit
the Belle, she sits peacefully by the water now, forever on her 26th
mission - to make sure we never forget. If Col. Bob Morgan is ever
speaking
near you, go see him - and look in the eyes of a real hero.

-W

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

Clams Canino wrote:

I could make the argument that Hitler defeated himself.

He didn't do himself (or the rest of Germany) much good as a strategist, that's
for sure.



1. The "miracle at Dunkirk" Hitler let the English all get away to fight
another day - on purpose.

That wasn't Hitler's call and IMHO they did not let the English (and a large
number of the French also) get away on purpose. From what I've read it was a
sort of turf battle between Von Runstedt and Goering, thrown on top of mixed up
communications, plus a good bit of logistic snafu as the Germans had advanced a
long long way in a short time, and their supply lines had not caught up.



2. Attacking Russia when he did.

yep, one of the classic blunders. "Never get involved in a land war in Asia."


Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was *imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.

Agreed. It would have been smarter for Hitler to bargain with the Sovets for oil
rather than attack them. However, if he'd been smarter the war would have been
longer and costlier for all.




4. The battle of Britian. He could have won it - had he not concentated on
London. He had a RAF almost to it's knees and didn't follow through. Having
Britain as a staging area was a big factor in the Allied victory.

I disagree here as well. The Germans did not have such good long range fighter
aircraft, nor strategic bombers. For one thing, they didn't have the industrial
capacity to build such aircraft *in addition to* what they were already
building, and which they very much needed. Consider this, Boeing started work on
the B-17 Flying Fortress in 1934. The Germans certainly had the know-how to
build planes of similar capability, but they didn't have the time to jump-start
a bomber project when they realized they needed one. Big strategic boo-boo....
remember, always pick a job you have the tools for!




And the list goes on. Hitlers psychopathic arrogance cost him WW2, that and
IMHO a subconscious "need to fail" he was quite self destructive.

He certainly was arrogant, and a psychopath. It's a damn shame that he ever rose
to a position of authority at all. For him to try and form war plans from
wishful thinking and pipe dreams must have really frustrated a lot of the German
generals.

IMHO the Allies had a big edge all the way along in WW2, from manpower to
industrial capacity to oil reserve to strategic planning. We still might have
lost, it was not a "sure thing".... very little really is!

DSK

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

I'll let Dunkirk lay for now and address that of which I'm *sure*. :)

What Hitler did not know, is that he had come very close indeed to finishing
off the RAF by concentating his bombing on RAF installations and coastal
defences. While he didn't have the strategic bombers, the Stuka and JU-88
had indeed delivered enough of a blow to the RAF that had Hitler *not*
switched to bombing London, he could have finsished off the RAF in a couple
more months. This is not speculation on my part, merely an extrapolation of
the ongoing success against Britians air defence system. Yes it was costly,
but it was *working*.

Had the Germans stuck to "the plan" they would have rendered the RAF
innefective and then been able to launch the planned "Operation Sea Lion"
which was the reverse of our D-day cross-channel invasion. Given the weight
they could have thrown at that (as opposed to attacking Russia) there is
little doubt that Nazi occupied England could have come about just as Nazi
occupied France did.

I know "why" they started in on London, I just hugely dissagree with the
tactic. In order to bomb London they took a lot of heat off the RAF,
allowing it to recover.

Now tell me? What good would all those B17's have done us without a ready
staging area in England? And regardless of our "eventual" intentions to get
more involved in Europe, the fact is we let Britian flap in the breeze too
long as it was, and we would not have been able to react quickly enough to
stop Hitler from crossing the channel.

I can easily see a scenario where if Hitler took England correctly, left
Russia alone, and Japan bombed the US at Pearl (holding our interest) that
he could have easily consolodated his power in Europe. Perhaps *then* he
could have still gone after Russia too - taking enough time to do it right.

It might well have come down to "Who comes up with The Bomb 1st" as we in
the US could not have mounted anywhere near as effective an attack on Europe
without England.

Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback it now..........


-W (Dunkirk another time)


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Clams Canino wrote:

I could make the argument that Hitler defeated himself.

He didn't do himself (or the rest of Germany) much good as a strategist,
that's
for sure.



1. The "miracle at Dunkirk" Hitler let the English all get away to
fight
another day - on purpose.

That wasn't Hitler's call and IMHO they did not let the English (and a
large
number of the French also) get away on purpose. From what I've read it was
a
sort of turf battle between Von Runstedt and Goering, thrown on top of
mixed up
communications, plus a good bit of logistic snafu as the Germans had
advanced a
long long way in a short time, and their supply lines had not caught up.



2. Attacking Russia when he did.

yep, one of the classic blunders. "Never get involved in a land war in
Asia."


Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a
player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was
*imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.

Agreed. It would have been smarter for Hitler to bargain with the Sovets
for oil
rather than attack them. However, if he'd been smarter the war would have
been
longer and costlier for all.




4. The battle of Britian. He could have won it - had he not concentated
on
London. He had a RAF almost to it's knees and didn't follow through.
Having
Britain as a staging area was a big factor in the Allied victory.

I disagree here as well. The Germans did not have such good long range
fighter
aircraft, nor strategic bombers. For one thing, they didn't have the
industrial
capacity to build such aircraft *in addition to* what they were already
building, and which they very much needed. Consider this, Boeing started
work on
the B-17 Flying Fortress in 1934. The Germans certainly had the know-how
to
build planes of similar capability, but they didn't have the time to
jump-start
a bomber project when they realized they needed one. Big strategic
boo-boo....
remember, always pick a job you have the tools for!




And the list goes on. Hitlers psychopathic arrogance cost him WW2, that
and
IMHO a subconscious "need to fail" he was quite self destructive.

He certainly was arrogant, and a psychopath. It's a damn shame that he
ever rose
to a position of authority at all. For him to try and form war plans from
wishful thinking and pipe dreams must have really frustrated a lot of the
German
generals.

IMHO the Allies had a big edge all the way along in WW2, from manpower to
industrial capacity to oil reserve to strategic planning. We still might
have
lost, it was not a "sure thing".... very little really is!

DSK

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:02:51 +0000, Clams Canino wrote:


Had the Germans stuck to "the plan" they would have rendered the RAF
innefective and then been able to launch the planned "Operation Sea Lion"
which was the reverse of our D-day cross-channel invasion. Given the
weight they could have thrown at that (as opposed to attacking Russia)
there is little doubt that Nazi occupied England could have come about
just as Nazi occupied France did.

It's fun speculating, but I'm not sure Sea Lion would have worked. The
RAF may have been in ruins, but the Royal Navy was still quite powerful
and the Germans didn't have the naval assets to support an invasion. They
intended to use river barges as landing craft, far from an optimum
solution.


I can easily see a scenario where if Hitler took England correctly, left
Russia alone, and Japan bombed the US at Pearl (holding our interest) that
he could have easily consolodated his power in Europe. Perhaps *then* he
could have still gone after Russia too - taking enough time to do it
right.

Definitely would have stood a better chance, but I wouldn't count the
Russians out. They took a pounding and still came back.

It might well have come down to "Who comes up with The Bomb 1st" as we
in the US could not have mounted anywhere near as effective an attack on
Europe without England.

Again, I'm speculating, but if England had lost, I'm wondering if we would
have entered the war in Europe.

Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback it now..........


-W (Dunkirk another time)

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

"thunder" wrote in message


It's fun speculating, but I'm not sure Sea Lion would have worked. The
RAF may have been in ruins, but the Royal Navy was still quite powerful
and the Germans didn't have the naval assets to support an invasion. They
intended to use river barges as landing craft, far from an optimum
solution.

Wasn't the Royal Navy running to us for safe haven? I'm a little fuzzy here,
but I thought that Britian was offloading ships to US and Canada so they
wouldn't be fair game.?


Again, I'm speculating, but if England had lost, I'm wondering if we would
have entered the war in Europe.

I doubt it, we would have been busy driving Japan from the Pacific. Again I
speculate that had Hitler not declared war on US after Pearl, we might have
taken a "Pacific 1st" position anyway. I sure don't see us running out of
our way to help Joe Stalin.... LOL. It's only in hindsight that we know
that Hitler was a monster of the same caliber as old Joseph. Had Germany
won, most of the evidence of the incredible atrocities would have been
hidden and erased. I know I never would have believed in "stray rumors" of
the systemic death factories without some evidence. The mind is slow to
believe that which boggles it so profoundly. I can at least comprehend (but
not agree with!) how Stalin could have "purged" the Soviet Union of
"unbelievers" , since theoretical communism needs everybody on board to even
hope to work. But I would have had a harder time swallowing systemic
genocide based on race or religion only - without evidence.


-W

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 01:16:38 +0000, Clams Canino wrote:


Wasn't the Royal Navy running to us for safe haven? I'm a little fuzzy
here, but I thought that Britian was offloading ships to US and Canada so
they wouldn't be fair game.?

That would be news to me. Warships?



But I would have had a harder time swallowing
systemic genocide based on race or religion only - without evidence.

One would think, but it seems too common throughout history.

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

Clams Canino wrote:

I'll let Dunkirk lay for now and address that of which I'm *sure*. :)

What Hitler did not know, is that he had come very close indeed to finishing
off the RAF by concentating his bombing on RAF installations and coastal
defences. While he didn't have the strategic bombers, the Stuka and JU-88
had indeed delivered enough of a blow to the RAF that had Hitler *not*
switched to bombing London, he could have finsished off the RAF in a couple
more months.

I don't know about this... it was a war of attrition with the British getting
resupplied by the US. Seems to me that percentage wise, the Luftwaffe was losing
more strength more rapidly than than the RAF (or was it the RFC at that time).
Anyway, the more planes the Germans lost, the less air strength they could put
over any given stretch of front for a blitzkrieg. In other words, success in the
air war over Britain equals failure at their other war operations.




Had the Germans stuck to "the plan" they would have rendered the RAF
innefective and then been able to launch the planned "Operation Sea Lion"
which was the reverse of our D-day cross-channel invasion. Given the weight
they could have thrown at that (as opposed to attacking Russia) there is
little doubt that Nazi occupied England could have come about just as Nazi
occupied France did.

I doubt it very strongly. Now, if there was a land bridge, sure. But facing off
two armies on dry land is a *very* different proposition than trying to ferry an
army across water. It's possible the Germans could have won, if they had been
able to get enough tanks across intact to hold a port for landing the rest of
the army... but that would take significant air cover, too, which they were
losing in your earlier scenario.


Now tell me? What good would all those B17's have done us without a ready
staging area in England? And regardless of our "eventual" intentions to get
more involved in Europe, the fact is we let Britian flap in the breeze too
long as it was, and we would not have been able to react quickly enough to
stop Hitler from crossing the channel.

Agreed. But remember, there was significant political opposition to getting
*any* involvement in a European war... Roosevelt was doing a lot for the
British, and ramping up US war industries, but we couldn't have helped them *if*
the Germans had got a strong foothold in England. And while it was proven that
one could fly B-17s off carriers, it wouldn't be an effective plan on a large
scale IMHO.



I can easily see a scenario where if Hitler took England correctly, left
Russia alone, and Japan bombed the US at Pearl (holding our interest) that
he could have easily consolodated his power in Europe. Perhaps *then* he
could have still gone after Russia too - taking enough time to do it right.

It might well have come down to "Who comes up with The Bomb 1st" as we in
the US could not have mounted anywhere near as effective an attack on Europe
without England.

Yes, it's easy to armchair quarterback it now..........

Well, if the Germans had gotten The Bomb first, it would have doomed England for
sure, and Russia later; it wouldn't have mattered whether they could
successfully invade either. You could even propose that they could have adapted
V-2s to be carried by subs and attacked the US with enough strength to stop us
from coming after them. But the 'brain drain' was a very real phenomenon; there
were relatively few German scientists who could build an atom bomb and the best
two said quite plainly afterward that they weren't going to (despite that they
pretended to in order to save their necks... can't say I blame them).

Now Japan with atom bombs is a little scarier, and they were closer from what
I've read.... that's what the balloon bomb project was really all about.

DSK

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:RzGOb.83926$nt4.128065@attbi_s51...

2. Attacking Russia when he did. Also failing to consult with or get
support from his Ally Japan in going after Russia. Russia wasn't a player
till he made them a player. Russia could have waited, it was *imperative*
however that he either take England or force it into a treaty.

3. Declaring war on U.S. after we declared war on Japan. Hitler had enough
problems without ****ing us off. And Japan didn't declare war on Russia to
follow Hitler, no need to be reciprocal there. That little move is what led
us to a "Europe 1st" decision.

The Japanese and Russians fought a little known war in 1939.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/jay...tjapan1939.htm

Apparently, the Russians delivered the Japanese such a setback (that
and the fact the Japs soon had their hands full with US, British,
Chinese, and various "homegrown" forces (Philipino, Vietnamese, ect))
that the Japanese were never again in any position to help their
German ally with another attack on the USSR or even to tie down
Russian forces. The last Russian reserves, which stopped the Germans
on the outskirts of Moscow were these same troops who had defeated the
Japanese.

Also, I believe CaliBill is refering to the siege of Leningrad.
Stalingrad was not a Russian retreat but, a victory which led to
elimination of over 250,000 German troops (killed and captured).
--
SJM

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 08:03:29 -0500, DSK wrote:


Well, if the Germans had gotten The Bomb first, it would have doomed
England for sure, and Russia later;

I'm just wondering. Inventing the Bomb, and manufacturing it in
sufficient quantities to make a difference are two different things. If I
remember correctly, the two bombs we dropped on Japan were all we had.
Were any of the powers at that time capable of sustaining nuclear
production?

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

thunder wrote:


I'm just wondering. Inventing the Bomb, and manufacturing it in
sufficient quantities to make a difference are two different things. If I
remember correctly, the two bombs we dropped on Japan were all we had.
Were any of the powers at that time capable of sustaining nuclear
production?

Probably not. The US had the most money, the most manpower, and the best
access to the materials, and as you noted we only could build two.

But... if the Japanese knew we only had two, would they have surrendered when
they did? *If* either Germany or Japan had built even one atom bomb (and I
don't think they could have, given the expense and material requirement) who
would have called their bluff?

DSK

...Superior Firepower... USSR WW2
 

Well, Viet Nam was lost by the politicians. As to Germany, they were on the
way to "The Bomb' but we strategically bombed some of the parts supply. We
bombed a dam that they used to produce Deuterium.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:
thunder wrote:


I'm just wondering. Inventing the Bomb, and manufacturing it in
sufficient quantities to make a difference are two different things.
If I
remember correctly, the two bombs we dropped on Japan were all we had.
Were any of the powers at that time capable of sustaining nuclear
production?

Probably not. The US had the most money, the most manpower, and the best
access to the materials, and as you noted we only could build two.

But... if the Japanese knew we only had two, would they have surrendered
when
they did? *If* either Germany or Japan had built even one atom bomb (and
I
don't think they could have, given the expense and material requirement)
who
would have called their bluff?

DSK





Not to join the family of rec.boats nitpickers but, in fact, we had at
least three atomic bombs on line or close to on line at that time, if
you include the Trinity Test of 16 July 1945.

Here are the observations of Fermi on that test:


My Observations During the Explosion at Trinity on July 16, 1945 - E.
Fermi

On the morning of the 16th of July, I was stationed at the Base Camp at
Trinity in a position about ten miles from the site of the explosion.

The explosion took place at about 5:30 A.M. I had my face protected by a
large board in which a piece of dark welding glass had been inserted. My
first impression of the explosion was the very intense flash of light,
and a sensation of heat on the parts of my body that were exposed.
Although I did not look directly towards the object, I had the
impression that suddenly the countryside became brighter than in full
daylight. I subsequently looked in the direction of the explosion
through the dark glass and could see something that looked like a
conglomeration of flames that promptly started rising. After a few
seconds the rising flames lost their brightness and appeared as a huge
pillar of smoke with an expanded head like a gigantic mushroom that rose
rapidly beyond the clouds probably to a height of 30,000 feet. After
reaching its full height, the smoke stayed stationary for a while before
the wind started dissipating it.

About 40 seconds after the explosion the air blast reached me. I tried
to estimate its strength by dropping from about six feet small pieces of
paper before, during, and after the passage of the blast wave. Since, at
the time, there was no wind I could observe very distinctly and actually
measure the displacement of the pieces of paper that were in the process
of falling while the blast was passing. The shift was about 2 1/2
meters, which, at the time, I estimated to correspond to the blast that
would be produced by ten thousand tons of T.N.T.

-------------------------------------------------

It should be pointed out that "superior firepower" is not necessarily
the key to victory. We had superior firepower in Korea and came away
with a draw. And despite what the revisionists claim, we were handed
our butts in Vietnam, even with our superior firepower and technology.

The reality is that U.S. forces did not win the two serious wars in
which they were engaged subsequent to World War II. We have done well in
skirmises against poorly motivated, grossly outgunned forces. I wouldn't
bet on the US defeating the Peoples Republic of China, if war ever broke
out between us. The Chinese are as tough at the North Vietnamese and
Koreans were, and they have far better equipment and military leadership
than those countries had. And they have the ability to mount massive
attacks against the US homeland.




--
Email sent to is never read.