Yesterday was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and in the CPF thread DO YOU REMEMBER, I offered up this footage of that attack combined with the Roosevelt "infamy" speech of the next day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ)
...So here's a recap of what we did right during those next few years, offered up by Ace of Spades.....
QuoteDuring the 3-1/2 years of World War 2 that started with the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and ended with the Surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945,
"We the People of the U.S.A." produced the following:
22 aircraft carriers,
8 battleships,
48 cruisers,
349 destroyers,
420 destroyer escorts,
203 submarines,
34 million tons of merchant ships,
100,000 fighter aircraft,
98,000 bombers,
24,000 transport aircraft,
58,000 training aircraft,
93,000 tanks,
257,000 artillery pieces,
105,000 mortars,
3,000,000 machine guns, and
2,500,000 military trucks.
We put 16.1 million men in uniform in the various armed services, invaded Africa, invaded Sicily and Italy, won the battle for the Atlantic, planned and executed D-Day, marched across the Pacific and Europe, developed the atomic bomb, and ultimately conquered Japan and Germany.
It's worth noting, that during the almost exact amount of time, the Obama Administration couldn't even build a web site that worked.
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088 (http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088)
Quote from: quiller on December 08, 2014, 12:18:27 AM
Yesterday was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and in the CPF thread DO YOU REMEMBER, I offered up this footage of that attack combined with the Roosevelt "infamy" speech of the next day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ)
...So here's a recap of what we did right during those next few years, offered up by Ace of Spades.....
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088 (http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088)
All good stuff, but it's also important to understand that at the end of 1941, the United States had a pretty shitty military. Most of the battleships sunk and/or damaged at Pearl Harbor were 1920s relics. Most of the planes destroyed on the ground at Hickam were obsolete. Most of the troops serving at the Schofield barracks were still using Springfield bolt-action rifles designed in 1903, and wearing wide-brimmed doughboy helmets that didn't even work well in the first War.
I guess my point is that the nation recovered from a consistent array of negatives to score all those positives.
Quote from: TboneAgain on December 08, 2014, 04:57:10 AM
All good stuff, but it's also important to understand that at the end of 1941, the United States had a pretty shitty military. Most of the battleships sunk and/or damaged at Pearl Harbor were 1920s relics. Most of the planes destroyed on the ground at Hickam were obsolete. Most of the troops serving at the Schofield barracks were still using Springfield bolt-action rifles designed in 1903, and wearing wide-brimmed doughboy helmets that didn't even work well in the first War.
I guess my point is that the nation recovered from a consistent array of negatives to score all those positives.
:biggrin:
Yet by comparison, after all was said and done, what we have to show from this administration for one million times the cost of WWII, is an entry point to a website that does absolutely nothing but expose your personal information to the entire world, an extended depression, failed Marxist policy, the most hyped lie in world history on climate, used to force the nation to kill of capitalism via higher costs from failed alternative energy restrictions.
Capitalism's infrastructure, by the way was responsible for bringing WWII to a close.
And after all was said and done, going into a world war, cost us far less than what it cost to kill off our own culture.
How could nearly half a nation of voters not see the obvious? That they have been pawns of the communists?
It boggles the mind.
Quote from: TboneAgain on December 08, 2014, 04:57:10 AM
All good stuff, but it's also important to understand that at the end of 1941, the United States had a pretty shitty military. Most of the battleships sunk and/or damaged at Pearl Harbor were 1920s relics. Most of the planes destroyed on the ground at Hickam were obsolete. Most of the troops serving at the Schofield barracks were still using Springfield bolt-action rifles designed in 1903, and wearing wide-brimmed doughboy helmets that didn't even work well in the first War.
I guess my point is that the nation recovered from a consistent array of negatives to score all those positives.
Well, yes and no, on a couple of levels. The West Virginia, Maryland, California, and Tennessee (barely) were commissioned in the 1920s. The Arizona, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and Nevada were commisioned in the 1910s; the Utah, converted to an auxilliary, was older than Nevada. Recently transferred to the Atlantic were the three New Mexico class battleships, built after the Pennsylvania class but before the Tennessee class. Also in the Atlantic, the two modern North Carolina class battleships were working up.
It should be pointed out, though, that Japan (and Britain) were similarly situated as to battleships. The four Kongo class "battleships" (converted from battle cruisers), Ise & Hyuga, and Fuso & Yamashiro were mostly built in the 1910s; Mutsu and her sister (whose name slips my mind) were 1920s vintage (and approximate equivalents to ships of the USN Colorado class). Yamato was either approaching being in commission, or was newly so, with Musashi some time behind her.
Before moving on the aircraft carriers, it should be mentioned that the lack of building battleships in the late 20s into the late 30s was due to naval treaties that forbade doing so.
Carriers .... the USN and IJN were also similarly situated. The USN had two fleet carriers, Lexington and Saratoga that had been converted from battle cruiser hulls mid-construction, due to the naval treaty. Japan had two fleet carriers, Akagi and Kaga, converted mid-construction from a battle cruiser and a battleship hull. The USN had the light carrier Ranger; the IJN had Hiryu and Soryu. The USN had Yorktown and Enterprise, with Hornet being worked up; the IJN had Shokaku and Zuikaku. The USN had light carrier Wasp in late stages of construction. The number of carriers each nation had was, similarly (though indirectly), limited by naval treaty.
The biggest and costliest hardware @#$%-up in the USN was the torpedoes used in modern destroyers, submarines, and aircraft. The depth control mechanism, magnetic exploder, and contact exploder were all defective, and were not fixed until well into 1943. The biggest training @#$%-up in the USN was in training for surface battle, especially at night. Those two @#$%-ups cost many lives and quite a few ships.
Lunchtime is over.
USN submarines: the Gato class was very good or excellent, as were a couple of earlier classes; OTOH, there were still a good number of very inadequate 1920s boats and fleet boat prototypes in service.
IJN submarines were probably very good or better. But the doctrine for using them and the mindset of their officers was to focus on engaging warships. For various reasons, this made them fairly ineffective, until they were largely re-purposed for evacuation and resupply missions.
USAAF and USN planes. The B-17s in Hawaii were mostly older revs, and were being replaced. The Japanese had no 4 engine bomber (nor did the Germans). USAAF B-25s and B-26s were better planes than Japanese Bettys. The fighters in Hawaii were a mix of obsolete P-36s and P-40s, which had limitations when fighting Zeros. USN F4Fs similarly had limitations, but, flown properly, were adequate. USN SBD dive bombers were somewhat old, but performed well; IJN Vals were older still, with fixed landing gear. USN TBD torpedo bombers were outclassed; IJN Kates were class.
The US Army was pretty much as TbA stated, gutted and pathetic. Just as an example, the famous Sherman tank was IIRC pretty much an even match with the Mark III Panzer, which the Germans had in 1939. IOW, the Sherman was 2 or 3 generations behind what the Germans were using by the time the Sherman went into battle.
20+ years of unwise naval treaties and budget slashing left US forces on 12/7/41 with equipment that ranged from some of the best in the world (in a few cases) to pathetic to, in the case of USN torpedoes, defective. What was worse was the strategic thinking in both the Army and Navy and the woeful inadequate training which had been forced on them by budget gutting.
Quote from: quiller on December 08, 2014, 12:18:27 AM
Yesterday was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and in the CPF thread DO YOU REMEMBER, I offered up this footage of that attack combined with the Roosevelt "infamy" speech of the next day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ)
...So here's a recap of what we did right during those next few years, offered up by Ace of Spades.....
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088 (http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088)
Beyond the physical accomplishments, it's fair to consider the costs. Over 400,000 Americans dead -- ouch. And all that production cost considerable treasure, far more than this nation has spent on any other war, or in fact on all other wars combined since the Revolution. Interesting chart
here (http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22926.pdf) kinda puts that part of it in perspective.
It's a fair assessment to say that the US economy emerged into boom times after the war mainly because almost every other modern industrial economy had been destroyed or crippled during the war. World War II, thank GOD, was fought on foreign soil.
Every Dec 7th, I recall family lore I heard when I was a child, how four brothers were gathered in their Parents house enjoying a traditional chicken dinner planning CHristmas celebration etc when a distraught neighbor came to the door and told them of the attack, they went to the neighbors house (they didn't have a radio) and listen in shock. Later My grandfather, in his thick Irish brogue called them back to house, made the four boys sit at a table while he went into his room, he emerged with a handfull of straws, stuck out his fist and told them, draw a straw, 2 short for the Army 2 long for the Navy. My Grandmother begged that the youngest, My Uncle, be exemepted....My Grandfather said "The country needs him more than we do" She cried for three days.
To me, That little story exemplifies the spirit of the American people, it was all about duty,obligation, sacrifice when their country needed them. To Me THATS WHAT WE GOT RIGHT DURING WW2.
Just a little addendum to the story, the Youngest, My Uncle, who drew a "long" straw was the only of the 4 "boys" in the Pacific theater, His ship was hit by Kamakazi pilots didn't sink he also saw the flag raised on IWO Jima. He just passed in September, the last one left
God rest their souls, and all the men who Died on Dec 7th....we still remember.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on December 08, 2014, 04:46:40 PM
Every Dec 7th, I recall family lore I heard when I was a child, how four brothers were gathered in their Parents house enjoying a traditional chicken dinner planning CHristmas celebration etc when a distraught neighbor came to the door and told them of the attack, they went to the neighbors house (they didn't have a radio) and listen in shock. Later My grandfather, in his thick Irish brogue called them back to house, made the four boys sit at a table while he went into his room, he emerged with a handfull of straws, stuck out his fist and told them, draw a straw, 2 short for the Army 2 long for the Navy. My Grandmother begged that the youngest, My Uncle, be exemepted....My Grandfather said "The country needs him more than we do" She cried for three days.
To me, That little story exemplifies the spirit of the American people, it was all about duty,obligation, sacrifice when their country needed them. To Me THATS WHAT WE GOT RIGHT DURING WW2.
Just a little addendum to the story, the Youngest, My Uncle, who drew a "long" straw was the only of the 4 "boys" in the Pacific theater, His ship was hit by Kamakazi pilots didn't sink he also saw the flag raised on IWO Jima. He just passed in September, the last one left
God rest their souls, and all the men who Died on Dec 7th....we still remember.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
We have heroes now with our all voluntary military. Unfortunately, they are not recognized as such.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on December 08, 2014, 04:46:40 PM
Every Dec 7th, I recall family lore I heard when I was a child, how four brothers were gathered in their Parents house enjoying a traditional chicken dinner planning CHristmas celebration etc when a distraught neighbor came to the door and told them of the attack, they went to the neighbors house (they didn't have a radio) and listen in shock. Later My grandfather, in his thick Irish brogue called them back to house, made the four boys sit at a table while he went into his room, he emerged with a handfull of straws, stuck out his fist and told them, draw a straw, 2 short for the Army 2 long for the Navy. My Grandmother begged that the youngest, My Uncle, be exemepted....My Grandfather said "The country needs him more than we do" She cried for three days.
To me, That little story exemplifies the spirit of the American people, it was all about duty,obligation, sacrifice when their country needed them. To Me THATS WHAT WE GOT RIGHT DURING WW2.
Just a little addendum to the story, the Youngest, My Uncle, who drew a "long" straw was the only of the 4 "boys" in the Pacific theater, His ship was hit by Kamakazi pilots didn't sink he also saw the flag raised on IWO Jima. He just passed in September, the last one left
God rest their souls, and all the men who Died on Dec 7th....we still remember.
There were three brothers in Dad's family who served. Fred was the oldest, and joined the Army the day after Pearl Harbor. He wound up with Patton's Third Army in Europe after D-Day, but spent the final months of the war in a German POW camp. My uncle Bob was also Army, though he never said much about his service. Dad, the youngest to enlist, was only seventeen when he signed up with the Navy in early 1943. Before the year was out, he was helping load the 5-inchers on USS Trathen in the South Pacific. Until that time, he had never been outside Scioto County, Ohio.
All those boys are gone now. Dad was the last, in September 2011.
I don't know who coined the term "Greatest Generation," but I think we have a lot to live up to.
Quote from: Solar on December 08, 2014, 05:51:21 AM
:biggrin:
Capitalism's infrastructure, by the way was responsible for bringing WWII to a close.
Socialism's infrastructure had nothing to do with it? At all?
We got one thing right in WWII, that frankly I have not seen our nation willing to since.
The idea is called "total warfare", it's the kind of war we waged against Japan, and is also the kind of war we should be waging against these jihadi's today.
That said, I would like to say thanks, belatedly, to the WWII vets here.
Quote from: quiller on December 08, 2014, 12:18:27 AM
Yesterday was the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and in the CPF thread DO YOU REMEMBER, I offered up this footage of that attack combined with the Roosevelt "infamy" speech of the next day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFVxT3qzVlQ)
...So here's a recap of what we did right during those next few years, offered up by Ace of Spades.....
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088 (http://acecomments.mu.nu/?blog=86&post=353592#c22977088)
Actually those 22 carriers built were fleet carriers. Including light carriers and escort carriers the US built 120 total. This doesn't count the 5 fleet carriers the US started WW2 with. And in addition to the 8 built, the US raised 3/5 battleships from Pearl Harbor, to add to the 10 others we had at the start of the war.
Quote from: SVPete on December 08, 2014, 12:07:58 PM
Before moving on the aircraft carriers, it should be mentioned that the lack of building battleships in the late 20s into the late 30s was due to naval treaties that forbade doing so.
Carriers .... the USN and IJN were also similarly situated. The USN had two fleet carriers, Lexington and Saratoga that had been converted from battle cruiser hulls mid-construction, due to the naval treaty. Japan had two fleet carriers, Akagi and Kaga, converted mid-construction from a battle cruiser and a battleship hull. The USN had the light carrier Ranger; the IJN had Hiryu and Soryu. The USN had Yorktown and Enterprise, with Hornet being worked up; the IJN had Shokaku and Zuikaku. The USN had light carrier Wasp in late stages of construction. The number of carriers each nation had was, similarly (though indirectly), limited by naval treaty.
The biggest and costliest hardware @#$%-up in the USN was the torpedoes used in modern destroyers, submarines, and aircraft. The depth control mechanism, magnetic exploder, and contact exploder were all defective, and were not fixed until well into 1943. The biggest training @#$%-up in the USN was in training for surface battle, especially at night. Those two @#$%-ups cost many lives and quite a few ships.
Lunchtime is over.
The USN had radar for night battles; but the Navy still had to many peace time admirals who weren't familiar with new technology. The fact that torpedoes weren't tested until 1943 to see if the worked was unconscionable. So was the Sherman tank, which was a joke compared to the German tanks.
Quote from: kalash on December 11, 2014, 12:06:42 PM
Socialism's infrastructure had nothing to do with it? At all?
Had the US not entered the war, where would you be today?
Quote from: Solar on December 11, 2014, 04:04:13 PM
Had the US not entered the war, where would you be today?
Had we not entered the war, England and then eventually Russia would have fallen to the combined militaries of the axis powers.
And then, at a point and time, when it would be too late for America to do anything about it anyways, the United States would have.
Japan actually did the world, or well those of us who love freedom and liberty in the world that is, a favor 12-7-41 with their attack on Pearl.
Yes it's a tragic, horrible, loss of life for the U.S.
BUT those who did lose their lives, on that day, in doing so, while they and their families at the time probably didn't even know it.
All but ensured our Freedom today. Because it brought us into the war at a time when it was vital, in fact we were almost even then still too late...(topic for later/diff thread)
The very same freedoms, that these libs like Obama, Pelosi, Reid etc.... would just oh so dearly love to strip from us.
The very same liberty, that the Mc'lame's, Boner's and other Rino's infesting the Gop would have us voluntarily subject, submit and hand over to governmental authority.
We can all thank a WWII vet today for.
In a very real, literal sense, our freedom and our liberty.
Aside from the gift of life itself, I don't think you can give a human being a greater gift than what those guys did for all of us alive back then, and those of us "inheritors" of that same gift today.
Quote from: daidalos on December 12, 2014, 12:53:47 AM
Had we not entered the war, England and then eventually Russia would have fallen to the combined militaries of the axis powers.
And then, at a point and time, when it would be too late for America to do anything about it anyways, the United States would have.
Japan actually did the world, or well those of us who love freedom and liberty in the world that is, a favor 12-7-41 with their attack on Pearl.
Indeed. And the attack on pearl was unnecessary. What Japan really wanted was the European colonies in the Pacific and Asia. They felt they had to attack Pearl to keep the US from interfering. But, in reality, America never would have gone to war to save European colonies.
Quote from: kalash on December 11, 2014, 12:06:42 PM
Socialism's infrastructure had nothing to do with it? At all?
Yes. It was non existent...
Quote from: mdgiles on December 12, 2014, 04:24:11 PM
Indeed. And the attack on pearl was unnecessary. What Japan really wanted was the European colonies in the Pacific and Asia. They felt they had to attack Pearl to keep the US from interfering. But, in reality, America never would have gone to war to save European colonies.
Yamamoto knew it was a gamble, and I think when he realized that the U.S. carriers were safely out of port during the attacks, he pretty much knew theirs was a lost cause.
It was just a matter of time.
America might not have gone to war to protect European Colonies, but the Japanese couldn't conquer the European Colonies while ignoring the American holdings in the Pacific. American bases in the Philippines, Guam and elsewhere where strategically placed, and even if the Americans didn't enter the war officially, they would surely have allowed their bases to be used - if only as supply and staging areas - by their European allies.
That would have hobble Japan's plans in the Pacific.
And, no, I don't think it was just dumb luck that our carriers weren't in port during the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Darth
Quote from: mdgiles on December 11, 2014, 02:00:31 PM
The USN had radar for night battles; but the Navy still had to many peace time admirals who weren't familiar with new technology. The fact that torpedoes weren't tested until 1943 to see if the worked was unconscionable. So was the Sherman tank, which was a joke compared to the German tanks.
Well, you could cruise the French countryside in your monstrous, magnificently engineered, incredibly complicated, slow-moving, unreliable, underpowered, and nearly impossible to service Tiger II, or you could blast along eastward in an el-cheapo Sherman with thirty more just like it in your formation to lend fire support. I think I'd like to be in a Sherman. :tounge:
The Tiger II was a magnificent tank, but the Germans built fewer than 500 of them. The Panzer IV was the mainstay of the Western Front, and it was a good medium tank, but not significantly superior to the M4, especially the Firefly variant the British put into battle.
All told, Germany produced and put into battle fewer than 26,000 tanks of all types. We cranked out almost 50,000 Shermans alone. Our Soviet allies came up with over 84,000 T-34s. Throwing in the British tanks and American tanks besides the M4 Sherman, the Germans were purely outnumbered by nearly 10:1.
I've not watched it yet, but I saw a movie over on Hulu, what would the world be like without the U.S. supposed to be all about this "topic".
Anyone seen it, is it worth the watch or a waste of time?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on December 12, 2014, 05:06:06 PM
Yes. It was non existent...
Really? So it was actually, General Frost, that beat the germans near Moscow and Stalingrad and doctor Goebbels was right.... You never know... Live and learn...
Quote from: kalash on December 13, 2014, 11:43:35 AM
Really? So it was actually, General Frost, that beat the germans near Moscow and Stalingrad and doctor Goebbels was right.... You never know... Live and learn...
Ah goebbels was much smarter than you think. And especially much more smarter than you.
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 12, 2014, 05:47:08 PM
Yamamoto knew it was a gamble, and I think when he realized that the U.S. carriers were safely out of port during the attacks, he pretty much knew theirs was a lost cause.
Darth
He may also have been hoping for a period of capitulation and pacifism, like they enjoyed for so long with europe.
Quote from: european101 on December 13, 2014, 11:59:28 AM
Ah goebbels was much smarter than you think. And especially much more smarter than you.
No doubt, no doubt, man! And such a brilliant mind, talented journalist was driven to suicide (along with his friend, talented austrian artist) by barbaric russians!
Quote from: Solar on December 11, 2014, 04:04:13 PM
Had the US not entered the war, where would you be today?
Prior to Pearl Harbor my Dad was too young to be trained as a US Pilot, but he wanted to fly, so he rode a bus up to Canada and enlisted in the RCAF, as a Flight Cadet, flying Gypsy Moths.
He completed his trainnig prior to Dec. 7th, but after the sneak attack the US sent a train to Canada and brought our boys back home. My dad trained in basic bomber training in Texas and later in Avon Park, Florida, as a B26 Martin Marauder Pilot. He flew accross the pond with the first group of B26's to go over. He flew 58 bombing missions and shortly after being promoted to Captain, he was shot down, bailed out and was a POW for the last seven months of the war.
MY Dad said the only way they knew the war had ended was that one day, instead of Germans manning the towers, there were Russians mannng them. The Russians held our downed flyers as bargaining chips fo land concessions at the end of the war. Finally, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower got tired of Stalin's games and ordered a flight of B17's to fly up there and bring our boys home. The Russians blicked! (probably some poor Commie Commander ended up in a Goulag)
Where would I be today? Where indeed would any of us be were it not for the heroric actions of those who fought for our freedoms and those of the rest of the world! They all were our Greatest Generation! When times get tough and things look bad for us, I never forget..they had it worse and they overcame the adversties of their time.
Quote from: wally on December 15, 2014, 01:06:54 PM
Prior to Pearl Harbor my Dad was too young to be trained as a US Pilot, but he wanted to fly, so he rode a bus up to Canada and enlisted in the RCAF, as a Flight Cadet, flying Gypsy Moths.
He completed his trainnig prior to Dec. 7th, but after the sneak attack the US sent a train to Canada and brought our boys back home. My dad trained in basic bomber training in Texas and later in Avon Park, Florida, as a B26 Martin Marauder Pilot. He flew accross the pond with the first group of B26's to go over. He flew 58 bombing missions and shortly after being promoted to Captain, he was shot down, bailed out and was a POW for the last seven months of the war.
MY Dad said the only way they knew the war had ended was that one day, instead of Germans manning the towers, there were Russians mannng them. The Russians held our downed flyers as bargaining chips fo land concessions at the end of the war. Finally, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower got tired of Stalin's games and ordered a flight of B17's to fly up there and bring our boys home. The Russians blicked! (probably some poor Commie Commander ended up in a Goulag)
Where would I be today? Where indeed would any of us be were it not for the heroric actions of those who fought for our freedoms and those of the rest of the world! They all were our Greatest Generation! When times get tough and things look bad for us, I never forget..they had it worse and they overcame the adversties of their time.
Thanks for the post and it is right on target. I had four uncles who served. One did not come back. Another, still alive, was in the Battle of the Bulge. Then that generation came home and were instrumental in making the 50's and 60's two dynamic decades the likes of which we will not see again.
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 15, 2014, 01:31:42 PM
Thanks for the post and it is right on target. I had four uncles who served. One did not come back. Another, still alive, was in the Battle of the Bulge. Then that generation came home and were instrumental in making the 50's and 60's two dynamic decades the likes of which we will not see again.
When you say "we" you're probably right (at least for me, I turned 64 on Dec. 7th!) However, I still believe that America's best days are still ahead of us. I am doing what I can to ensure the America our children (and grandchildren) will inherit will have the same opportunities our parents (collectively)provided for us!
Quote from: wally on December 15, 2014, 02:05:03 PM
When you say "we" you're probably right (at least for me, I turned 64 on Dec. 7th!) However, I still believe that America's best days are still ahead of us. I am doing what I can to ensure the America our children (and grandchildren) will inherit will have the same opportunities our parents (collectively)provided for us!
I certainly did not desire to give the impression we (our country) cannot improve. However, the WW II generation understood what we fought for and the 50's and early 60's were so dynamic. I had the good fortune of starting school in 1949 and graduated from high school in 1961 and college in 1965. It was wonderful times. Today, we have multiple entitlement generations that do not understand adversity and I am not sure are able to deal with it. Therefore, many choose to sign onto the belief that government is the answer. Hence, we have what we have now. I hope we can reverse this trend, but it will take time and I will be dead and gone when we get back to the mindset of post WW II.
Quote from: kalash on December 11, 2014, 12:06:42 PM
Socialism's infrastructure had nothing to do with it? At all?
No, it didn't!
Just look at the Soviet Union during the war! If it had not been for the lend lease program of Capitalist America, the USSR would have lost their part of the war.
Of course, this would have enabled Hitler to concentrate all of his power on Operation Overlord! England may very well have fallen to the NAZIs.
Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 15, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
No, it didn't!
Just look at the Soviet Union during the war! If it had not been for the lend lease program of Capitalist America, the USSR would have lost their part of the war.
1941 december 5, soviet army start counteroffensive near Moscow, that buried forever "Blitzcrieg" and with it, hopes for the Germany win the war. No Land lease yet, US not even in the war at this moment.
1942 . After disaster with PQ-17 in june the next big convoy was sent to USSR in december 1942. Care to remember, what was going in in the second part of 1942? A little thing called Battle of Stalingrad - "Badge of courage on the chest of human race" (c), turning point of the WWII.
So, still not to much help through LL in 1942. Real quantities of LL started in 1943, when any thinking person at this time could see - Germany will lose this war.
P.S. And Second front was opened in june of 1944. Even less doubt at that time about outcome of the war.
LL was a big help for USSR (not as big as would be actual men on the ground in time: Second front, that Allies promised open in 1942, then 1943...), and it shortened continuation of the war, but it was fields of Russia and soviet economy, created in 1930s, that keep producing and increasing production of war materials during the war, that broke the spine on nazie machine on the eastern front, the main front of WWII. People under influence of dogma, that soviet style economy couldn't beat capitalist economy of the Germany(and almost the whole Europe, which germans were using), just because it is communist economy, are cheating themselves.
I think, the ONLY soviet economy, planned economy, could resist nazies. US economy did extremely good, but we will never know, how it would work under circumstances that USSR was in during the war.
Imagine enemy taken the whole eastern territory of the US, till Mississipi line, and necessity to relocate industry of Detroit and Pennsylvania to Alaska, and do it under enemy bombardment... Then we could determine, which model of economy was more effective under pressure...
Quote from: kalash on December 16, 2014, 11:53:08 AM
1941 december 5, soviet army start counteroffensive near Moscow, that buried forever "Blitzcrieg" and with it, hopes for the Germany win the war. No Land lease yet, US not even in the war at this moment.
You need to brush up on your history.
The Lend Lease Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on 11March 1941.
The U.S. started providing materials to the Soviet Union in June 1941.
While most Soviet Armored units were equipped with Soviet tanks, (Notably the T-34) by wars end nearly 2/3 of the support vehicles were made by Capitalist America - Dodges and Stuebakers!
The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.Finally, let's see what Uncle Joe Stalin had to say about the effect of American Capitalist manufacturing on the war...
"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."
-Joseph Stalin, Tehran - 1943Darth
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 16, 2014, 01:00:22 PM
You need to brush up on your history.
The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following:
i know all that, but timing was very important, and in hardest for USSR first year and a half of the war, LL didn't had big influence on war effort on eastern front. Tide of the war was turned because of the efforts of soviet economy and then, of course LL. Once again, by the time LL come to real effect, Soviet army was winning the war. LL shortened war and saved lives not just russians, but germans also. Stupid to deny this fact, but even more stupid to say that USSR won because of LL.
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 16, 2014, 01:00:22 PM
You need to brush up on your history.
The Lend Lease Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on 11March 1941.
The U.S. started providing materials to the Soviet Union in June 1941.
While most Soviet Armored units were equipped with Soviet tanks, (Notably the T-34) by wars end nearly 2/3 of the support vehicles were made by Capitalist America - Dodges and Stuebakers!
The United States gave to the Soviet Union from October 1, 1941 to May 31, 1945 the following: 427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,328 ordnance service vehicles, 2,670,371 tons of petroleum products (gasoline and oil), 4,478,116 tons of foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.), 1,900 steam locomotives, 66 Diesel locomotives, 9,920 flat cars, 1,000 dump cars, 120 tank cars, and 35 heavy machinery cars. One item typical of many was a tire plant that was lifted bodily from the Ford Company's River Rouge Plant and transferred to the USSR. The 1947 money value of the supplies and services amounted to about eleven billion dollars.
Finally, let's see what Uncle Joe Stalin had to say about the effect of American Capitalist manufacturing on the war...
"Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."
-Joseph Stalin, Tehran - 1943
Darth
Not quite. The Soviet Union was not part of Lend-Lease until October 1. However, the Soviets did receive stuff from the British beginning in early July. (That stuff was available for export because of shipments of replacement goods to England from the US.) The reason for the delay in the case of Russia is obvious -- until Barbarossa kicked off in late June, Stalin was in bed with Hitler, by treaty and by inclination. The invasion of Poland in 1939 should be described as a partition of Poland; the Germans did not occupy the entire country, but rather stopped their advance at a pre-determined line agreed upon previously between Hitler and Stalin, who simultaneously marched in from the east. Also, Stalin's post-Poland war on Finland had significantly damaged the Soviet Union's reputation worldwide, leading to its expulsion from the League of Nations. It took some time for Uncle Joe to become the sort of "friend" that results from being "the enemy of my enemy."
Quote from: Darth Fife on December 15, 2014, 02:58:23 PM
No, it didn't!
Just look at the Soviet Union during the war! If it had not been for the lend lease program of Capitalist America, the USSR would have lost their part of the war.
Of course, this would have enabled Hitler to concentrate all of his power on Operation Overlord! England may very well have fallen to the NAZIs.
Darth
Lately (past couple of years) I've noticed a growing trend among the young who believe that the USSR won the war with little, or no, help. Their teachers push this. Even had one person tell me that the USSR was never an ally of Germany, and used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.
Quote from: TboneAgain on December 12, 2014, 10:38:50 PM
Well, you could cruise the French countryside in your monstrous, magnificently engineered, incredibly complicated, slow-moving, unreliable, underpowered, and nearly impossible to service Tiger II, or you could blast along eastward in an el-cheapo Sherman with thirty more just like it in your formation to lend fire support. I think I'd like to be in a Sherman. :tounge:
The Tiger II was a magnificent tank, but the Germans built fewer than 500 of them. The Panzer IV was the mainstay of the Western Front, and it was a good medium tank, but not significantly superior to the M4, especially the Firefly variant the British put into battle.
All told, Germany produced and put into battle fewer than 26,000 tanks of all types. We cranked out almost 50,000 Shermans alone. Our Soviet allies came up with over 84,000 T-34s. Throwing in the British tanks and American tanks besides the M4 Sherman, the Germans were purely outnumbered by nearly 10:1.
The fact of the matter was that the US could build better tanks (see the Pershing, and the upgraded Sherman), but they were using an insane theory, whereby tanks were only supposed to be used for breakthroughs, while tanks destroyers fought tanks. As Stalin put it:
"Quantity has a quality of its own". Or to quote a German tank commander: "We ran out of shells, before they ran out of tanks". Sort of hard on the tank crews though.
Quote from: ConservativeMe on January 07, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Their teachers push this. Even had one person tell me that the USSR used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.
Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?
Quote from: mdgiles on January 11, 2015, 05:38:27 PM
The fact of the matter was that the US could build better tanks (see the Pershing, and the upgraded Sherman), but they were using an insane theory, whereby tanks were only supposed to be used for breakthroughs, while tanks destroyers fought tanks. As Stalin put it:"Quantity has a quality of its own". Or to quote a German tank commander: "We ran out of shells, before they ran out of tanks". Sort of hard on the tank crews though.
I sometimes think it's a difference in mindset based on geography. Until Barbarossa kicked off, everything the Germans tried to do was short-distance and successful -- except for the Battle of Britain, where they tried to used the tactical Luftwaffe as a strategic air force. Their entire philosophy up to that point was tactical, rather than strategic. They never built a strategic bomber in any numbers. They made a few half-hearted jabs at a strategic navy, but were never really effective beyond the ebb and flow of the U-boats. They sent semi-motorized armies into the wilds of western Russia relatively late in summer 1941 without making allowances for transportation, supply, or even winter clothing.
I think they had a poor concept of continental conflict.
Quote from: kalash on January 12, 2015, 03:04:52 AM
Quote from: ConservativeMe on January 07, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Their teachers push this. Even had one person tell me that the USSR used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.
Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?
Well, besides the fact that you deliberately edited the quote to make it sound different...
Quote from: ConservativeMe on January 07, 2015, 02:01:00 PM
Lately (past couple of years) I've noticed a growing trend among the young who believe that the USSR won the war with little, or no, help. Their teachers push this. Even had one person tell me that the USSR was never an ally of Germany, and used that time (1939 and 1940) to build up their armies for the upcoming German attack.
The thing wrong with it is that Russia DID have a non-aggression pact with Germany, and their military build up between 1938 and 1940 had much more to do with worries over Japanese activities to the east than worries over their buddy to the west. Russian intel basically ignored warnings from Britain and the U.S. that Hitler did not take the non-aggression pact seriously. They also ignored western intelligence reports of the buildup of German, Italian, and Finnish troops and equipment along their border.
Russia was not particularly weak at that time, but their assets were poorly located when the initial German attack came in June of 1941 because the Russian leadership allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Hitler and his non-aggression pact. As a result, a large portion of Soviet military assets were caught off guard, and destroyed. It was only due to unrealistic expectation of the German forces, far outpacing their ability to resupply forward units, that allowed the Soviets to regroup and push back. Then the weather added its voice, which the German forces were ill prepared for because they had outrun their supply lines.
Bottom line, while there is some possibility the Russia could have pushed the Germans back out of Russian territory, it is highly doubtful they could have defeated Germany had the U.S. not entered the war. Conversely, there is also little doubt that the U.S. could have eventually defeated Hitler without the assistance of Russia, though it probably would have taken a couple more years.
Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 08:30:10 PM
Conversely, there is also little doubt that the U.S. could have eventually defeated Hitler without the assistance of Russia, though it probably would have taken a couple more years.
Little doubt among who? Mentally challenged people?
USA by themselves couldn't defeat even North Korea or North Vietnam... So, "eventually", without USSR, who know what could happen.
Quote from: kalash on January 13, 2015, 06:16:49 AM
Little doubt among who? Mentally challenged people?
USA by themselves couldn't defeat even North Korea or North Vietnam... So, "eventually", without USSR, who know what could happen.
Speaking of mentally challenged, there is NO doubt we would have won eventually. U.S. wartime materiel production set global standards for rebuilding a war machine after pacifist trash had allowed standing equipment, ships and the like to lay idle, rust and become useless.
North Korea was us getting stuck with the UN's problems. Vietnam was a crooked Democrat named Johnson, lining his pockets from war profiteering through cronies. Both were considered "police actions" and not a declared war as was our 1941-1945 conflict in the longer European war.
Quote from: quiller on January 13, 2015, 06:41:33 AM
Speaking of mentally challenged, there is NO doubt we would have won eventually. U.S. wartime materiel production set global standards for rebuilding a war machine after pacifist trash had allowed standing equipment, ships and the like to lay idle, rust and become useless.
North Korea was us getting stuck with the UN's problems. Vietnam was a crooked Democrat named Johnson, lining his pockets from war profiteering through cronies. Both were considered "police actions" and not a declared war as was our 1941-1945 conflict in the longer European war.
Correct, right, and spot on! In addition, it should be noted that we had the capability of immolating North Korea or North Vietnam at any time. Never during either conflict was it a question of 'can we win?' It was always a question of 'are we willing to do what it takes to win?' In both instances, the answer was a political 'no.' I think it's not possible to overemphasize the fact that Korea and Vietnam were 'wars' run by politicians, which is actually why they were never declared to be wars, and why they were never 'won.'
Quote from: zewazir on January 12, 2015, 08:30:10 PM
Can you tell me what is wrong with this statement?
Well, besides the fact that you deliberately edited the quote to make it sound different...The thing wrong with it is that Russia DID have a non-aggression pact with Germany, and their military build up between 1938 and 1940 had much more to do with worries over Japanese activities to the east than worries over their buddy to the west. Russian intel basically ignored warnings from Britain and the U.S. that Hitler did not take the non-aggression pact seriously. They also ignored western intelligence reports of the buildup of German, Italian, and Finnish troops and equipment along their border.
Russia was not particularly weak at that time, but their assets were poorly located when the initial German attack came in June of 1941 because the Russian leadership allowed themselves to be bamboozled by Hitler and his non-aggression pact. As a result, a large portion of Soviet military assets were caught off guard, and destroyed. It was only due to unrealistic expectation of the German forces, far outpacing their ability to resupply forward units, that allowed the Soviets to regroup and push back. Then the weather added its voice, which the German forces were ill prepared for because they had outrun their supply lines.
Bottom line, while there is some possibility the Russia could have pushed the Germans back out of Russian territory, it is highly doubtful they could have defeated Germany had the U.S. not entered the war. Conversely, there is also little doubt that the U.S. could have eventually defeated Hitler without the assistance of Russia, though it probably would have taken a couple more years.
The instant the first Wehrmacht soldier set foot in the USSR, Hitler's war was over, and the result was utterly predictable, with or without the US. It was just a matter of time. The Germans overreached badly, taking on a foe far too powerful and physically vast. In fact, the Russians had already stopped the German advance -- after horrendous losses of men, materiel, and land, to be sure -- before the US entered the war. Army Group North and Army Group Centre never again made significant advances. Army Group South advanced to Stalingrad and into the Caucasus in 1942, and we know how that turned out.
Quote from: TboneAgain on January 13, 2015, 09:14:41 AM
Correct, right, and spot on! In addition, it should be noted that we had the capability of immolating North Korea or North Vietnam at any time. Never during either conflict was it a question of 'can we win?' It was always a question of 'are we willing to do what it takes to win?' In both instances, the answer was a political 'no.' I think it's not possible to overemphasize the fact that Korea and Vietnam were 'wars' run by politicians, which is actually why they were never declared to be wars, and why they were never 'won.'
Spot on!
As Topper Harley says in Hot Shots,
"Fighting without trying to win is like sleeping with your sister. Sure, she is a great lay with a blouse full of goodies, but it just isn't done!"
Quote from: kalash on January 13, 2015, 06:16:49 AM
Little doubt among who? Mentally challenged people?
USA by themselves couldn't defeat even North Korea or North Vietnam... So, "eventually", without USSR, who know what could happen.
Little doubt among any reasonably educated individual who does not have their head up the ass of soviet socialism and modernized history. (ie: rewritten to diminish the role of capitalism while inflating the role of socialism). The Soviet victory had as much to do with German mistakes as their own ability - though if they'd listened to British intel they'd have had a much easier time of it. Because the German advance outran their ability to supply the front lines, Russian troops were able to counter attack successfully. Because the German advance outran their ability to supply the front lines, the effects of winter weather were far more punishing to the forward German troops. Simply put, Hitler screwed the pooch by expecting way too much way too fast, and that allowed Russian forces the opportunity to hit back while the Germans were waiting for relief and supplies.
For that matter, one of the reasons the British were able to hang on as long as they did before the U.S. entered the war is Hitler screwed up by shifting the German bombing campaign from British industry and air field to bombing London as often as possible in some sort of psychological gambit.
Frankly, Hitler was not much of a CinC when it came to strategic principles, though he was pretty good at the tactical aspects of battle.