Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Most dangerous enemy

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Most dangerous enemy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 5:50:46 PM   
CCB


Posts: 4208
Joined: 3/21/2002
Status: offline
Who do you consider was America's most dangerous enemy of WW2 - Germany or Japan?

I say Japan because they had a vastly larger more potent navy than the Germans. And Japan inflicted more death and destruction on the US than Germany.

_____________________________

Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt
Post #: 1
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 6:02:07 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
Germany with absolutely no room for error.

Japan had a powerful navy initially. It was doomed all the same.

They had a well trained army. It too had no chance against the industry of the US.

Japan was an island nation, and their resources were always as vulnerable as were Britains.

Germany was considered first priority for good reason, they had the greatest chance to do the greatest harm. And they had access to a lot more of the planet than did the Japanese.
They were an established industrial nation with access to great amounts of manpower and resources.

And that we beat them, yet even today still amazes me. Sure sucks trying to beat them in wargames.

< Message edited by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -- 5/29/2004 11:02:31 AM >


_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to CCB)
Post #: 2
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 6:04:30 PM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2922
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline
Japan.

Germany wouldn't have declared war so readily if not for them.

< Message edited by NefariousKoel -- 5/29/2004 10:04:46 AM >

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 3
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 6:34:50 PM   
CCB


Posts: 4208
Joined: 3/21/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Germany with absolutely no room for error.

Germany was considered first priority for good reason, they had the greatest chance to do the greatest harm.


I respect you opinion Les, but...

The Germans had the greatest chance to do the greatest harm to the British and the Soviets, not the US. Wasn't the battle of the Atlantic won by May 1943?

Also by overrunning the Dutch Indies, Burma, Indo China, etc, Japan had all the natural resources she needed to wage war with the US.

_____________________________

Peux Ce Que Veux
in den vereinigten staaten hergestellt

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 4
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 6:58:38 PM   
Les_the_Sarge_9_1

 

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline
I see where you are coming from CCB, but while the Germans were indeed fighting since 39 and the US was never at risk of direct invasion, they were indeed on this planet the entire time.

Perchance to think what the US would be doing right now if Germany had NOT been defeated?

The Japanese would most assuredly not be helping with high tech from a nation rebuilt after defeat for one thing.

The US were important to WW2 (people can argue over who did the mostest till their eyes fuzz over for all I care), and they were on this planet the entire time as well.

Thus, I think Germany always had the greatest chance of doing the greatest harm. Harm they might not have ceased doing in 45 if we had not made the war end darn quick I might add.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to CCB)
Post #: 5
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 7:02:21 PM   
wodin


Posts: 8102
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
The Russians had finished off the Germans well before the USA invaded.

I think the USA helped stem the tide of communism rather than defeat Germany.

(in reply to Les_the_Sarge_9_1)
Post #: 6
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 7:12:22 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8262
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Nottingham, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

Japan.

Germany wouldn't have declared war so readily if not for them.


An interesting perspective that only an American could have...

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 7
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 7:31:51 PM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2922
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sprior

quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

Japan.

Germany wouldn't have declared war so readily if not for them.


An interesting perspective that only an American could have...


I try to keep it short and real.

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 8
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/29/2004 7:42:57 PM   
Pippin


Posts: 1233
Joined: 11/9/2002
Status: offline
I will tell you one thing. If an american pilot had a choice on which country to bail out over... it is no secret which one he'd chose.

Is this somewhat along the lines as... which is considered most dangerous?

_____________________________

Nelson stood on deck and observed as the last of the Spanish fleets sank below the waves…

(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 9
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 4:57:25 AM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
Of the Axis nations only Germany had the technology to truly threaten the USA. Heisenberg was one of the great phycisists, Von Braun and his team were way ahead in rocket science. Fortunately neither achieved what they were capable of during the war. Japan could only really have managed 'pinprick' raids on the Pacific coastline and some disruption of trade.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Pippin)
Post #: 10
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 6:27:47 AM   
NefariousKoel


Posts: 2922
Joined: 7/23/2002
From: Murderous Missouri Scum
Status: offline
The Japanese were the only ones to land troops on US territory.

(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 11
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 6:44:09 AM   
Deep Breakfast

 

Posts: 209
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel

The Japanese were the only ones to land troops on US territory.


Thats because there wasn't something called the Royal Navy in the way.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to NefariousKoel)
Post #: 12
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 6:58:17 AM   
Dave Briggs


Posts: 1162
Joined: 1/20/2002
Status: offline
If you mean dangerous of winning the war, Germany was by far the most dangerous enemy. There was no way the Japanese could win the war. Their cultural tradition of warfare was completely antiquated and those with modern ideas were shunned. They were basically using medieval tactics with modern weapons. Yamamoto knew this, but because of tradition the only honorable thing to do was obey. He planned the best he could but he knew it was to no avail. His best chance, and that of the nation, was some kind of negotiated truce. Unfortunatley that was impossible too, because the Allies would stop at nothing but unconditional surrender as historically happened. And I know everyone here knows of the unprecidented rift between the Imperial Army and Navy. Complicity between the two being virtually non existent. The only reason they were able to achieve their initial victories was because there was nothing to stop them. Now don't get me wrong. I lived in Japan for three years. I love the country and it's people. They are a wonderful people and extemely proud and traditional. I even consider it my adopted second country. But, as intelligent and clever as they were and still are, there is no way they could have won the war against the Allies in WWII.

Germany? They thought and fought just like we (the Allies) did. Basically, the same cultures clashing. Now that is dangerous.

_____________________________

“You're only young once but you can be immature for as long as you want”

(in reply to CCB)
Post #: 13
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 11:24:39 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
Dave, good post.

Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?

That was Yamamotos' brain-child.

edit: Just like to add that I too think Germany was the greater threat. If not to the US directly, but indirectly since a European continent under German control (and at war with the US) would not have been a good thing.

< Message edited by Belisarius -- 5/30/2004 10:26:06 AM >


_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Dave Briggs)
Post #: 14
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 12:04:50 PM   
Losqualo


Posts: 511
Joined: 5/23/2003
From: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

...Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?
...


From what I've read they took consequences the Americans didn't.
After the first tests by the americans with carrier based planes they were not able to take an advantage because of rivalries between the Air Force and the navy. The Air Force (IIRC Army Air Corps back then) didn't want the Navy to get airplanes (apart from recce planes).
In Japan such rivalries never existed because they were in the process of building a modern army and navy at that time. Thus they didn't have got an air force with tradition that could interfere with the navy's plans.

_____________________________


Losqualo's Homepage

(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 15
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 12:58:30 PM   
Bladrian


Posts: 30
Joined: 2/28/2004
Status: offline
The most dangerous enemy was ... an ally.


Unfortunately, the danger of their communist 'ally' wasn't recognised until immediately after the war.

Remember why WWII started? England and France declared war on Germany to protect Poland ... oops.

_____________________________

A .22 LR entering the eye socket is more incapacitating than a .44 magnum shattering the wrist.

(in reply to Losqualo)
Post #: 16
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 7:17:34 PM   
gunny

 

Posts: 990
Joined: 3/1/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CCB

Who do you consider was America's most dangerous enemy of WW2 - Germany or Japan?

I say Japan because they had a vastly larger more potent navy than the Germans. And Japan inflicted more death and destruction on the US than Germany.


The original question. America's most dangerous enemy was ofcourse Japan. The Germans couldn't get beyond the channel thanks to the RAF, the remainder of the Atlantic would be formidible without carriers.

Potentially the most dangerous enemy to humanity were the NAZI's sure as their perverted ideals eclipsed the Japanese atrocities. But in sticking to the original question you need only to watch 1941 with John Belushi and Dan Acroyd to get your answer.

(in reply to CCB)
Post #: 17
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 8:32:57 PM   
riverbravo


Posts: 1320
Joined: 1/16/2003
From: Bay St Louis Ms.
Status: offline
The Japs.

They attemted to wipe-out the entire Pacific fleet.

That would have left the western coast line wide open.

Yea hitler was dabbling with some long range stuff to attempt to strike the east coast..but hey,they were havin problems getting the V-2 airborne and all these flying wings and other crap they attempted would not have been operational until we already had an atomic bomb.

Japan posed the only real threat of a US invasion.

The Germans couldnt even cross the channel,how are they gonna cross the Atlantic with an invasion force?

Had the russians not been knocking on Hitlers door and the Germans posed any real threat whats so ever to the US they would have gotten this.....




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

I laugh at hurricanes!

(in reply to gunny)
Post #: 18
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 9:32:16 PM   
Dave Briggs


Posts: 1162
Joined: 1/20/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: riverbravo

Had the russians not been knocking on Hitlers door and the Germans posed any real threat whats so ever to the US they would have gotten this.....




Interesting point. The Japanese are remarkably calm and stoic in their interpretation of the nuke bombings of Japan. Most of the Japanese people that remember WWII understand that the A-bombs were a direct result of Japan's aggression. But most of those people would never admit it as that would be very dishonorable. Unfortunatley the younger generations of Japanese have been taught, if at all, a very different version of WWII than we in the west have. But yet we in the US and Japan seem to have a bond of mutual interest and respect to this day. It makes me wonder how the Germans (and Europeans) would have reacted to the US all these years since the end of WWII if we had dropped nukes on Germany.

_____________________________

“You're only young once but you can be immature for as long as you want”

(in reply to riverbravo)
Post #: 19
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 11:07:14 PM   
lefty nutter

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Dave, good post.

Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?

That was Yamamotos' brain-child.

edit: Just like to add that I too think Germany was the greater threat. If not to the US directly, but indirectly since a European continent under German control (and at war with the US) would not have been a good thing.


I really have to protest about Japan pioneering carrier strikes. I draw your attention to the raid on Taranto harbour by HMS Illustrious in November 1940. This raid persuaded Yamamoto of the potential for carrier strikes against naval targets and was used extensively in planning (e.g. modification of torpedos).

As for the question I think either could have represented a greater threat during the war depending on how the cards were dealt. But prior to hostilities, in terms of raw potential, Germany must surely have posed the greatest threat to the US. This wasn't really a direct threat (as in Panzerarmee Potomac) but rather in an indirect way. This was also the type of threat posed to the UK which was safe behind the Royal Navy in both World Wars yet chose to intervene for fear of what would happen after a German victory i.e. German hegemony over Europe, the Middle East and perhaps parts of Asia and Africa. A enlarged Germany with access to new resources could, over time, come to pose a direct threat.

_____________________________

"We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 20
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 11:34:40 PM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
quote:

The most dangerous enemy was ... an ally.


Unfortunately, the danger of their communist 'ally' wasn't recognised until immediately after the war.

Remember why WWII started? England and France declared war on Germany to protect Poland ... oops.


Do people here still believe in the myth of the Cold War?

Poland was just a pretext. The British and French military build up could not have been sustained much past mid-1940 otherwise they'd have sold out Poland the way they sold out Czechoslovakia.

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to lefty nutter)
Post #: 21
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 11:37:18 PM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6388
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
Neither one was a danger. Somewhere in 60 years they have glamorized the war into some sort of struggle. The United States once she entered the war was an unstopabble juggernaught. She only had to wish to do something and the axis powers feebly resisted but couldnt stop it. We so completly crushed all three of the major axis nations. Amphibious landings before the war were considered extremly risky. The United States conducted dozens of these and never failed in a single attempt.
The rest of our allies fought the axis powers to a standstill, and the the US came in and tipped the balaence into our favor.
We went from complete unprepardness, to shipping millions of men and equipment over the two largest oceans and they fought their way all the way to the enemies home territory. All of this was done in three and a half years. Not only did we win but we completly shattered two entire nations in the process. Neither one has had the stomach to enter another conflict since. We nearly wiped out one entire generation of young men in each of the two nations.
There never was any threat. When the Unites States entered the war it was simply a matter of time and how high the body count had to go until we won.

(in reply to lefty nutter)
Post #: 22
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/30/2004 11:39:39 PM   
EricGuitarJames

 

Posts: 957
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Not far enough away for some!
Status: offline
So much for Allies then FJ.

That's just 'America wins war alone' BS

_____________________________

It's Just a Ride!

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 23
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 12:45:26 AM   
Fallschirmjager


Posts: 6388
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EricGuitarJames

So much for Allies then FJ.

That's just 'America wins war alone' BS


I did mention the allies. The commonwealth fought the axis to a stalemate. England was capable of defending itself (and did so) but was never capable of going on the offensive to liberate the whole of Europe. Russia did more than its part in crushing Germany.
In the Pacific Anzac forces and again Britian were a great help in joining us to defeat Japan.
I am sorry for any misunderstanding. I did not mean to imply that we did not have help or to put it better, I did not mean to imply to mean that we did not come in to help those that had been fighting longer.
But I stand by what I sad earlier. Without us the commonwealth never would of been able to take the offensive. They were using every resource in defending themselves. America came in and decisivly tipped the balence in favor of the free world.
My apologies if I offended anyone.

(in reply to EricGuitarJames)
Post #: 24
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 1:46:23 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lefty nutter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Dave, good post.

Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?

That was Yamamotos' brain-child.

edit: Just like to add that I too think Germany was the greater threat. If not to the US directly, but indirectly since a European continent under German control (and at war with the US) would not have been a good thing.


I really have to protest about Japan pioneering carrier strikes. I draw your attention to the raid on Taranto harbour by HMS Illustrious in November 1940. This raid persuaded Yamamoto of the potential for carrier strikes against naval targets and was used extensively in planning (e.g. modification of torpedos).

As for the question I think either could have represented a greater threat during the war depending on how the cards were dealt. But prior to hostilities, in terms of raw potential, Germany must surely have posed the greatest threat to the US. This wasn't really a direct threat (as in Panzerarmee Potomac) but rather in an indirect way. This was also the type of threat posed to the UK which was safe behind the Royal Navy in both World Wars yet chose to intervene for fear of what would happen after a German victory i.e. German hegemony over Europe, the Middle East and perhaps parts of Asia and Africa. A enlarged Germany with access to new resources could, over time, come to pose a direct threat.


I am aware that the Pearl Harbor raid is almost a carbon copy of the Taranto raid. Yamamoto stressed the importance of carriers long before 1940 though.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to lefty nutter)
Post #: 25
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 2:18:36 AM   
lefty nutter

 

Posts: 250
Joined: 3/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: lefty nutter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

Dave, good post.

Just one question about the antiquity of Japanese thinking: why did they then manage to pioneer naval warfare by introduction of carriers as strike elements?

That was Yamamotos' brain-child.

edit: Just like to add that I too think Germany was the greater threat. If not to the US directly, but indirectly since a European continent under German control (and at war with the US) would not have been a good thing.


I really have to protest about Japan pioneering carrier strikes. I draw your attention to the raid on Taranto harbour by HMS Illustrious in November 1940. This raid persuaded Yamamoto of the potential for carrier strikes against naval targets and was used extensively in planning (e.g. modification of torpedos).

As for the question I think either could have represented a greater threat during the war depending on how the cards were dealt. But prior to hostilities, in terms of raw potential, Germany must surely have posed the greatest threat to the US. This wasn't really a direct threat (as in Panzerarmee Potomac) but rather in an indirect way. This was also the type of threat posed to the UK which was safe behind the Royal Navy in both World Wars yet chose to intervene for fear of what would happen after a German victory i.e. German hegemony over Europe, the Middle East and perhaps parts of Asia and Africa. A enlarged Germany with access to new resources could, over time, come to pose a direct threat.


I am aware that the Pearl Harbor raid is almost a carbon copy of the Taranto raid. Yamamoto stressed the importance of carriers long before 1940 though.


Quite. Still, Japan did not pioneer carriers as strike elements as several other countries had realised the possibilities. Yamamoto may have stressed the importance of carriers long before 1940 but so did many others. Don't forget that the RN was using carrier-borne aircraft to attack land targets in 1918! The Taranto raid opened Yamamoto's eyes to the possibility of hitting naval assets in harbour when previously they were thought to be safe given torpedo nets, shallow water and other such defensive meaures.

I would also argue that Japanese carriers were not sufficiently armoured but that is for another discussion.

_____________________________

"We believe no more in Bonaparte's fighting merely for the liberties of the seas than in Great Britain's fighting for the liberties of mankind. The object is the same, to draw to themselves the power, the wealth and the resources of other nations."

(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 26
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 5:39:24 AM   
TheGreek

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline
Germany was much the more dangerous enemy. The Japanese industrial base was puny compared to Germany. The US only applied about 30% of its war production to the Pacific Theater and even this 30% completely overwhelmed the Japanese with ships, airplanes, etc. The Japanese completed very few major warships that were not already under construction at the start of the war. Their aircraft production was also much less than the aircraft the US sent to the Pacific. In addition, the Japanese never produced sufficient pilots. While the initial Japanese armed forces were well trained and powerful, they were a brittle instrument that could not sustain a prolonged conflict and were quite vulnerable to a war of attrition. All those resources in the Dutch East Indies and the Phillipines had to be transported to Japan and the US submarine force destroyed much of the Japanes merchant fleet.

As far as bringing the war to US shores, the Japanese were capable of launching carrier raids, but while they probably could land troops on the US shoreline, they could never have supplied them with their small merchant fleet. Inability to supply their garrisons in the Aleutians was the prime reason for their withdrawal. If they could not supply these garrisons, how could they have supplied a force large enough to be dangerous to the US West Coast? Lack of supply was also a reason why the Japanese never seriously considered invading Hawaii.

(in reply to CCB)
Post #: 27
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 1:42:54 PM   
Kung Karl

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 7/1/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Neither one was a danger. Somewhere in 60 years they have glamorized the war into some sort of struggle. The United States once she entered the war was an unstopabble juggernaught. She only had to wish to do something and the axis powers feebly resisted but couldnt stop it. We so completly crushed all three of the major axis nations. Amphibious landings before the war were considered extremly risky. The United States conducted dozens of these and never failed in a single attempt.
The rest of our allies fought the axis powers to a standstill, and the the US came in and tipped the balaence into our favor.
We went from complete unprepardness, to shipping millions of men and equipment over the two largest oceans and they fought their way all the way to the enemies home territory. All of this was done in three and a half years. Not only did we win but we completly shattered two entire nations in the process. Neither one has had the stomach to enter another conflict since. We nearly wiped out one entire generation of young men in each of the two nations.
There never was any threat. When the Unites States entered the war it was simply a matter of time and how high the body count had to go until we won.



Germany was defeated by the Soviet Union! Japan was defeated by the USA! It is as simple as that. USA had nothing to do with the defeat of Germany. Ok, it shortened the war by a couple of months. The real accomplishment by the USA was saving Western Europe from the Soviet Union.

If someone disagree please tell me how the Germans could have won the war if the allies hadn't landed in Normandie? Simple answer, they couldn't. Even if D-Day never had happaend the outcome for Germany had been the same.

Further, if Germany had defeated the Soviet Union the US soldiers would never had sat their foot on mainland Europe. Think about it, western europe was defended by MOSTLY low quality units. If the entire Waffen SS had meet the allies supported by the Luftwaffe then D-Day would have been a disaster. There is no way an invasion of Europe could be succesfull without the eastern front binding the entire German army.

(in reply to Fallschirmjager)
Post #: 28
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 2:25:54 PM   
Losqualo


Posts: 511
Joined: 5/23/2003
From: Stuttgart, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kung Karl
...
If someone disagree please tell me how the Germans could have won the war if the allies hadn't landed in Normandie? Simple answer, they couldn't. Even if D-Day never had happaend the outcome for Germany had been the same.
...


I don't want to say that I disagree completely, but that argument is a bit too simple.
Don't forget the American landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. That landings also bound German troops that had to be withdrawn from the eastern front.
There were many Germal generals that wanted peace with Britain and America to concentrate on Russia because they saw a chance to defeat Russia.
Again, I dont want to say you're wrong, but concentrating on D-Day alone is just too simple.

_____________________________


Losqualo's Homepage

(in reply to Kung Karl)
Post #: 29
RE: Most dangerous enemy - 5/31/2004 4:02:30 PM   
Kung Karl

 

Posts: 321
Joined: 7/1/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Losqualo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kung Karl
...
If someone disagree please tell me how the Germans could have won the war if the allies hadn't landed in Normandie? Simple answer, they couldn't. Even if D-Day never had happaend the outcome for Germany had been the same.
...


I don't want to say that I disagree completely, but that argument is a bit too simple.
Don't forget the American landings in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. That landings also bound German troops that had to be withdrawn from the eastern front.
There were many Germal generals that wanted peace with Britain and America to concentrate on Russia because they saw a chance to defeat Russia.
Again, I dont want to say you're wrong, but concentrating on D-Day alone is just too simple.


Clarification, my point was that Russia had been defeated. That would mean extra German troops to Italy. In that case Italy would not have fallen. Basically it would require millions and millions of americans to invade europe and even then it would not be a guarante for victory.

I don't think tha the USA would be interested in a production race with Germany controling the entire european continet. And if they got an advantage in such a race it wopuld take a lot of years to assemble an invasion force large enough to break an atlatic wall that has been improved for say 5 more years. A Luftwaffe fighting the USAF. If the Soviet union had fallen in 1941 the battle of atlatic could have been tipped in german favor as the main factor was the German lack of subs. After the defeat the of Russia there would be no such lack of subs when production would been geared toward subs and aircrafts needed to destroy Great Britain.

The price would simply be to high for the USA.

< Message edited by Kung Karl -- 5/31/2004 2:06:16 PM >

(in reply to Losqualo)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> Most dangerous enemy Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.135