In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Who should have won WWII?
.250Savage
Member Posts: 812 ✭✭✭✭
I posted this on another BBS, wanted to get some feedback from people here...
Given all the barbs flying back and forth about the Le Pen issue, I thot I would post this, as it has been kind of kicking around in my mind for quite some time. On the whole, I can't say I am disappointed with the outcome of the war; still, when viewing the world as it is now, I have to wonder if things might be better with a people in the world devoted to purity of thought, form, and expression (aside from lib dems, who we know are perfect). I understand from the redoubtable (place hat over heart) Jeff Cooper that Rhodesia was indeed a most wonderful place, where it was said that "freedom reigned and free thought flowed like in no other country in history", or words to that effect. Yet the rest of the world characterized it as a racist abomination which had to be destroyed. And destroyed it was, perverted into Zimbabwe, where they have apparently completed their "ethnic cleansing"...er, wait, it's only called that when it's whites killing BLACKS, not when it's blacks killing WHITES, which we all know is called "justice".
To say that I find the industrialized slaughter practiced by the Nazis "appalling" would be putting it mildly. They stand as an icon of evil in a history of humanity filled with bloody, gruesome atrocities. Yet still, as with most wars, most people weren't entirely pleased with where they stood, but just fought on the side that "best" fit thier beliefs. Certainly it is popularly considered that the average Italian felt they were in the wrong side in that little spat. And maybe Patton was correct; we should have kept on going into Russia after the war was over and not stopped 'til we hit Canada. Certainly the events that took place over the next 40-odd years until Ronaldus Magnus ascended to the throne make it hard to refute that philosophy.
On the other hand, what would a '50s-era "racist", uncontested American Superpower have wrought? On one level, I would say that one "benifit" of Dubbya Dubbya Deuce was that it rushed the Industrial Revolution to Everyman, as before that, militaries (and farmers!) were still using horses, for Chrissakes! Hitler and his "Blitzkreig", or "Lightning War", changed that forever. Never again could anyone seriously debate the absolute superiority of the machine over muscle at almost every turn. In a perverse twist, modern feminism might never have come into being (a tragedy, I know) had it not been for ol' Adolf (Hitlery, check your voicemail). One possible "benifit" of the cold war was that the rest of the world had four decades to get "up to speed" after millenia of agrarian existence. That we are NOW the worlds' only "Superpower", when virtually every other nation of consequence on earth has both nukes and an industrialized infrastructure that could defeat us if combined, is nowhere NEAR what it might have been, had the same situation been so to a nation cocky and brash, fresh from victory in the "greatest" conflict the world had ever known.
I have no illusions that I have presented every side of this story, or that I know all the facts about the situations presented herein. I am open to "enlightenment", as our neo-socialists would say. Your comments are eagerly solicited, because (as you can tell), this is a subject of no small interest to me.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.--Voltaire~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
Given all the barbs flying back and forth about the Le Pen issue, I thot I would post this, as it has been kind of kicking around in my mind for quite some time. On the whole, I can't say I am disappointed with the outcome of the war; still, when viewing the world as it is now, I have to wonder if things might be better with a people in the world devoted to purity of thought, form, and expression (aside from lib dems, who we know are perfect). I understand from the redoubtable (place hat over heart) Jeff Cooper that Rhodesia was indeed a most wonderful place, where it was said that "freedom reigned and free thought flowed like in no other country in history", or words to that effect. Yet the rest of the world characterized it as a racist abomination which had to be destroyed. And destroyed it was, perverted into Zimbabwe, where they have apparently completed their "ethnic cleansing"...er, wait, it's only called that when it's whites killing BLACKS, not when it's blacks killing WHITES, which we all know is called "justice".
To say that I find the industrialized slaughter practiced by the Nazis "appalling" would be putting it mildly. They stand as an icon of evil in a history of humanity filled with bloody, gruesome atrocities. Yet still, as with most wars, most people weren't entirely pleased with where they stood, but just fought on the side that "best" fit thier beliefs. Certainly it is popularly considered that the average Italian felt they were in the wrong side in that little spat. And maybe Patton was correct; we should have kept on going into Russia after the war was over and not stopped 'til we hit Canada. Certainly the events that took place over the next 40-odd years until Ronaldus Magnus ascended to the throne make it hard to refute that philosophy.
On the other hand, what would a '50s-era "racist", uncontested American Superpower have wrought? On one level, I would say that one "benifit" of Dubbya Dubbya Deuce was that it rushed the Industrial Revolution to Everyman, as before that, militaries (and farmers!) were still using horses, for Chrissakes! Hitler and his "Blitzkreig", or "Lightning War", changed that forever. Never again could anyone seriously debate the absolute superiority of the machine over muscle at almost every turn. In a perverse twist, modern feminism might never have come into being (a tragedy, I know) had it not been for ol' Adolf (Hitlery, check your voicemail). One possible "benifit" of the cold war was that the rest of the world had four decades to get "up to speed" after millenia of agrarian existence. That we are NOW the worlds' only "Superpower", when virtually every other nation of consequence on earth has both nukes and an industrialized infrastructure that could defeat us if combined, is nowhere NEAR what it might have been, had the same situation been so to a nation cocky and brash, fresh from victory in the "greatest" conflict the world had ever known.
I have no illusions that I have presented every side of this story, or that I know all the facts about the situations presented herein. I am open to "enlightenment", as our neo-socialists would say. Your comments are eagerly solicited, because (as you can tell), this is a subject of no small interest to me.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.--Voltaire~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
Comments
Still, German technological superiority-- particularly with the Panzer and Tiger tanks and MG-42 machine gun-- should have helped them win, despite the revolutionary U.S. M1 and M1918 BAR used by foot soldiers. What made the Allies triumph? Who knows. It was anything from oil supply to world support to moral authority. Let's be glad.
i never make misteakes.
The 'why' of the victory . . . JMHO based on a lot of reading & some research, but I'd point to two primary factors: resources and Adolf Hitler. The Allies had the former and their top leaders (except Stalin) were capable of making sane decisions. With no insult to those who were there (my father was one), the German and Japanese forces were better trained at the outbreak of the war and with the exception of heavy bombers, the German military technology was still superior to anything the Allies had on VE day. Just not enough of it, nor, with the Russians occupying 2/3 of their military, enough troops to campaign successfully over such a vast area. Without Hitler (and I could go on to list pages of strategic errors there), I rather suspect all of Europe would be part of a German Empire of some sort today.
Remember...Terrorist are attacking Civilians; Not the Government. Protect Yourself!
NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member.
The number of German Jewish intellectuals who escaped Hitler and emigrated to the United States played a major role in our development of the atomic bomb which certainly shortened the War in the Pacific. Had Hitler not handed those academics to us as a result of his outrages I doubt that we would have had an atomic bomb in 1945.
Might have been an interesting world in 1950 if a few things had happened differently. England with English as a second language, Russian wheat and natural resources fueling the Third Reich, and the United States as the last hope for democracy. I think we still would have spanked the Japs, perhaps not as quickly as we did.....but I wonder how long it would have taken Hitler to start thinking that we needed his guidance. Beach
Ken
Clouder..
Military leaders who could quckly learn and deploy new tactics.
The Dog Face went in untrained in combat but learned quickly. After
taking a beating in Africa, Tunisia and part of Sicily, but learned
fast and became a match at least for the German troops by Italy.
Our factories kept turning out more and bettr equiptment. Our Air Corps by concentrating bombing on ball bearing plants, rail lines,
and refineries finally had a large portion of the Kraut planes
grounded. As a Infantryman, I recall going down the Autobahn during April '45 and seing all the Kraut fighter planes just sitting, unable
to take off due to lack of fuel. This did not happen by accident,
but good Military planning. As far as the invasion of Japan? I just
thank God, we had a American President with GUTS enough to use our
ultimate weapon and put a quick end to the war as our outfit was
scheduled to leave Europe for the invasion of Japan which would have
meant extremely heavy american casualties in envading their Homeland.
Also, an invasion of Gibraltar in 1941 would have made excellant sense. Franco was amenable to such a maneuver, but demanded that Spanish troops have the honor of removing the pesky British thorn. Hitler's ego woudn't permit this. Had Gibralter fallen the Med. would have truly become an Axis lake. Suddenly Wavel, and them Montgomery, would have been cut off, instead of Rommel; surely German victory in North Africa would have followed.
On a moral plane, what I would have liked to have seen was a German invasion of the USSR in 1939, with no invasion of France, where both sides bled each other white to the point that both governments collapsed, to be replaced by less extreme, more democratic governments.
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conf
A quite prophetic line from "Battle of the Bulge" is when Col. Kessler plops a FRESH cake down on the table and says to the General: "The Americans have enough fuel to fly cakes across the Atlantic." Game's over!
Mudge the succinct
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
-Dwight Eisenhower
The US Army is still learning this lesson today, working to transform it's huge field armies into "Interim Brigade Combat Teams" with a lighter, more supportable logistics footprint. The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) already has it figured out.
Proud USMC Logistician
"let not your work smack of the trowel, nor your words cause a blow from one either..."
It is true that Russia broke the back of the Wehrmacht by dumping tons of man and materiel against their opposite number. However, if the US had not been bombing the German industrial capacity off the map, one wonders- could Germany had produced enough dive bombers, Panzerfausts, Tigers, Panthers, late model Panzers, etc., to check the Russians? While German war production actually expanded in spite of our bombing effort, imagine what they would have produced if they hadn't had to find ways to make a tank roll without ball bearings, if they hadn't been forced to move their production underground and decentralize, etc.? In short, I feel that while Russia beat Germany, we supplied Russia with both the material to do so, and denied Germany the ability to effectively resist. So in the ultimate sense, the US won the war.
"...hit your enemy in the belly, and kick him when he is down, and boil his prisoners in oil- if you take any- and torture his women and children. Then people will keep clear of you..." -Admiral of the Fleet Lord Fisher, speaking at the Hague Peace Conf
His failure caused Hitler to have to invade Yugoslavia, Greece & Crete.
Had it not been for this Hitler would have had several more divisions plus the Airborne troops he lost in Crete. The invasion
of Russia would have started earlier & with more forces & supplies.
Leningrad would have either fallen by storm or have been much more closely invested & the Germans would have been much farther east before the rains started.
There is a very good chance that Russia would have been knocked out of the war before we even entered & if not then certainly by the end of 1942.
Certainly such an event would have delayed or even made our developement of the A-Bomb impossible. It would have of course
helped both the German & Jappanese nucular progams.
Most of this confirms my own beliefs/understandings. I have heard that Churchill never really went against the will of his generals, while Hitler almost always did. Too, he was an egotistical meglomaniac, who really believed all that "superman" jazz, instead of recognizing it as only being "suitable for public consumption". I understand he was also using amphetamines(sp?) with all their paranoia-inducing effects, which were not then know, tho I could be wrong on this. I had NOT known, or possibly not appreciated before, what a great effect the Russians had on the outcome of the war. Certainly, as I understand it, he almost had Britan beaten, then inexplicably turned to invade Russia, AND IN THE SPRING, when it turned into a muddy quagmire! FATAL mistake! I have also heard that he was brutal in his invasion, when if he had tried for a "kinder, gentler" approach, when Stalin was killing off scores of his own countrymen, that he may well have gotten the support of the Russian people. But he was an invading force, and even worse than "the devil they knew", and therefor fought savagely and faced with a "scorched earth" retreat policy.
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.--Voltaire~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.--Voltaire~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
And let's not forget, the Germans did not put their economy on a full war footing until 1943 or 1944 - they still had much of their industrial capacity devoted to consumer goods, unlike the Allies.
In short, the Germans came close even with Hitler making every strategic blunder imaginable. It's frightening to contemplate, but I believe virtually any rational leader could have achieved a complete German victory.
We read a lot about Patton, Eisenhower, etc., and very few people in the West know or appreciate the Soviet contributions, but as Beach's comments illustrate, an objective analysis of the war quickly leads to the conclusion that they were as important as - and arguably more important than - the Western Allies in the final result. The US, Soviets and Germans were the players, the rest were the supporting cast to one degree or another. Japan was a side show, more of a deadly annoyance than a true threat - Saddam Hussein on sushi.
None of these comments is meant to demean our Pacific forces or those of the smaller Allies. Their courage and sacrifices well documented, their honors well deserved. But it's pretty clear that Soviet bodies, American industrial strength and Hitler's insanity were the key factors in the final outcome.