Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

DonL · Dec 2, 2011

Sorry parsifal, this is your next "propaganda" post!

Nobody here in this thread had ever denied german war crimes or the total evil things that the Nazis/germans did in WWII.

This whole issue in this thread was beginning with your post 222, as you described the USA neutrality as not singlesided and totaly legal.
Everybody who is interested in history knows that this is wrong! The singlesided neutrality of USA was decided from the beginning (1938/39) and the unrestricted attacks were only an explanation for the singlesided neutrality of the USA and not the reason!

You were the person that was glorifieng the spirit of neutrality of the USA!

This is how modern day proGerman revisionist historians work. A complete rewrite of history. try asking them how many Jews were murdered by the germans during the war. If any answer at all is given you will be shocked, at the very least they will try and argue the holocaust was true, but the numbers are inflated, and only a few Germans knew about it. A claim I know from personal experience to be a lie

I haven't read any proGerman revisionist word here in this thread. And 6 million jews were murdered from the Nazi's!
This is also a fact that every historical interested person knows.

parsifal · Dec 3, 2011

In fact the issue of the Neutrality patrols had been broached several times, starting with Ratsels Post 27

The thread author posted this early on

The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets. Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually.

Parsifal Post 48 (in part)

I see this as a far more difficult proposition to analyse than people are giving credit. Im not sure an accurate prediction can be made. In the end it wont get down to airpower, it will get down to manpower and economic management, plus really what Russia does in the finish. The alternatives are endless really.

Ultimately I see the war as likley to be won by the allies, but the war would be very different and more protracted, for sure. And certainly not guranteed either way

At Post 76 DonL introduces his Med first thesis. Hot debate follows for the next 50 or 60 posts.

I stepped into that debate because you were attempting to monster a junior member (at that time) with your germany first claptrap…..and you did not like my intervention (to put it mildly).

At Post 122, after you accused me of smoking pot, I responded as follows:

I am not the one making the outrageous claims for victory I said in my opening comments on this thread that it would be difficult to draw too many conclusions. So because I am counselling you to be cautious, and that there are more diffulties than perhaps you have considered, you think I am being outrageous. that has to be first. behave conservatively, and be accused of radicalism.

At post 124 I again repeated my basic position:

I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like....

At post 146,, still concentrating on the southern offensive, I stated "no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged. Not well known but in March 1941, the iron ore convoys from Sweden suffered the loss of over 50000 tons of shipping due to various British actions, that a big deal for a nation with only 1.5 million tons of shipping. There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.

Of course imports are only half the equation. The Germans also needed access to export markets, and couldnt get them. This made revenue a constant and increasing problem as their main sources of income....loot from the occupied territiries dried up.

So no, the blockade made a difference from the beginning" which leads into the naval war again

The debate about US neutrality patrols had been danced about by quite a few people, but the real change in the tone and debate occurred with Siegrieds Post 211, where he stated

"Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands. The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.

These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?

All hell broke out from those comments, including my response at post 222. Siegfrieds comments implied it was the US and not germany responsible for the war between the US and Germany. It was not just me that reacted to that

My post 222 actually stated

"Prior to lend lease was "Cash Carry" which required cash up front and that brit registered or controlled ships carry the munitions. I believe this policy was theoretically open to all belligerents, including germany, but for obvious reasons the germans never took advantage of it. Might be wrong on that score, as deliveries to Germany may have been deemed a breach of the neutrality act. Entry of Cash Carry ships into a war zone waqs not contrary to either international law, or US neutrality, since it was transpoting British goods in british ships.

To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea. The US did not make any unlawful claims on the economic resources of that area.....if German fisherman or merchantmen were found at sea they were left alone as far as I know by the pan American states. However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force. eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties. The US is generally seen as acting in self defence in these instances, even if by the latter half of 1941 they were shooting first and asking questions later.

Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping. Their problem, and a corner they only had themselves to blame for being backed into. Roosevelt had very cleverly (outmanouvred Hitler)

You have got to be kidding. Hitler (and the german Naval High Command) never showed the slightest restraint (well, to be fair Hitler hesitated for the first month of the war) in implementing unrestricted tonnage warfare in all areas of the world, against all neutral shipping (including Russian ships prior to June 1941). they implmented a policy of sink on sight, and issued illegal orders not to lend assistance to crews in distress. Unworkable rules you may argue, bu the rules of warfare that governed warfare against shipping, and more specifically wars against neutral shipping outside of a declared combat zone. The escalation in US belligerency was 100% Hitlers doing. The fact that his stupidity saved the allies the trouble of engineering US moves to war by more direct means is not the point. The point is, who caused the increased belligerency of the US.....Hitler and his Admirals

By December he had no choice. By his own impulsive actions he had placed Germany and the US in a state of undeclared war. My opinion is that within three months, even without Japanese attacks, the US and th4e European Axis would have been at war anyway, or germany forced to withdraw from the Naval blockade of Britiain, which would have MASSIVE implications on the war in all TOs."

I fail to see how those statement inflamed this thread to the point of claiming who was responsible for war crimes, and who caused the germans to decide to use unrestricted warfare. I made several other posts that war crimes were not the issue, the issue was whether unrestricted warfare was legal, and how that was received, and whether the US was justified in takeing action as it did. My post was about why US neutrality patrols came about and what caused it. Somehow people began arguing that it was the US neutrality patrols caused the Germans to implement unrestricted warfare. That came from your side of the fence, not mine. It just got more and more hysterical and farcical with every post.

tell me how that is 'propaganda"

DonL · Dec 3, 2011

Sorry what do you want?

Read the posts from 222 till 319 + 321! There are more then enough arguments inclusive my posts. I'm not repeating this all!

You are the person who raised the modern day proGerman revisionist issue in post 320 plus how many jews were murdered!
You suggest between the lines in many posts before (in this thread), that persons/members in this thread denied german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist! And this all because several members are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!

This is how modern day proGerman revisionist historians work. A complete rewrite of history. try asking them how many Jews were murdered by the germans during the war. If any answer at all is given you will be shocked, at the very least they will try and argue the holocaust was true, but the numbers are inflated, and only a few Germans knew about it. A claim I know from personal experience to be a lie

Watch the coughing, spluttering and indignant cries of bias erupt now.

Please name examples and I have written how many jews were murdered by the nazis!
Are the numbers correct?

This thread is about a bees di*k away from being closed

Perhaps, and you are doing all in your hand to reach this goal because there are several members that are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!
You are making many rhetorical prevarication, to suggest that these members, who are not your opinion, are denying german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist.

An other example for your rhetorical prevarication between the lines is:

However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force.

The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping.

First you suggest that all german officers and soldiers at U-boats and commercial raiders are pirates and second you suggest that unrestricted U-Boat warfare is the same as modern piracy at Somalia or Thailand.

Here are members that are not your opinion, but that is no reason to suggest that these members are modern day proGerman revisionist.
Also there is no reason to abuse a member as SS Totenkopf because this member has an other analysis about miltary facts and is not your opinion!

Edit:

I made several other posts that war crimes were not the issue, the issue was whether unrestricted warfare was legal, and how that was received, and whether the US was justified in takeing action as it did.

Then please explain your post 320 and what was the intention of this post?

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

Tante Ju said:
I think more like Kuwait Emir was happy for British "slip money" in exchange for being a puppet state for British interest. What exact they needed "protection" - its mobster term - from a railway gauge german was building for Turks?

Mr Ju,
What do you mean by 'slip money'? Its not a turn of phrase I'm familiar with.
' British Crown protection' in the context I posted is far more than the 'mobster' term you use. As I think you well know....
The Emir was a pragmatic man and knew which side his bread was buttered on.
The British were (are) just as cynical with protecting their interests as anyone else. The jealously comes from the fact that we were rather good at it.
John

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

parsifal said:
In fact the issue of the Neutrality patrols had been broached several times, starting with Ratsels Post 27

The thread author posted this early on

The general American public didn't wanted Hitler as a ruler of Europe. Most countries of the world were ready to fight Hitler accepting sacrificies, not only the Soviets. Check the history books, most Americans didn't want to be envolved in the war in Europe period. So if you say no 'Pacific" then that means no Pearl Harbor ergo the US not entering the war in Europe and Germany not having to worry about the russians, England Europe would be crushed eventually.

Parsifal Post 48 (in part)

I see this as a far more difficult proposition to analyse than people are giving credit. Im not sure an accurate prediction can be made. In the end it wont get down to airpower, it will get down to manpower and economic management, plus really what Russia does in the finish. The alternatives are endless really.

Ultimately I see the war as likley to be won by the allies, but the war would be very different and more protracted, for sure. And certainly not guranteed either way

At Post 76 DonL introduces his Med first thesis. Hot debate follows for the next 50 or 60 posts.

I stepped into that debate because you were attempting to monster a junior member (at that time) with your germany first claptrap…..and you did not like my intervention (to put it mildly).

At Post 122, after you accused me of smoking pot, I responded as follows:

I am not the one making the outrageous claims for victory I said in my opening comments on this thread that it would be difficult to draw too many conclusions. So because I am counselling you to be cautious, and that there are more diffulties than perhaps you have considered, you think I am being outrageous. that has to be first. behave conservatively, and be accused of radicalism.

At post 124 I again repeated my basic position:

I will concede. whilst i will argue till the cows come home that the germans could never win outright....what becomes highly problematic is the ability of the allies to defeat her. I think dropping Russia out of the equation makes a negotiated peace a very likely outcome. A draw if you like....

At post 146,, still concentrating on the southern offensive, I stated "no, the blockade was from day1, the effects also were immediate. Germany suffereed shortages from the very beginning of the war, which was a big reason her production lagged. Not well known but in March 1941, the iron ore convoys from Sweden suffered the loss of over 50000 tons of shipping due to various British actions, that a big deal for a nation with only 1.5 million tons of shipping. There were shortages in fuel for the italians, the main players, from the very beginning of the war. germany suffered its first fuel crisis in early 1942. Unless you are saying that the Russians would be continuing to supply the germans after the end of 1941....a highly unlikley event, the germans are in supply of raw materials difficulties from the very start.

Of course imports are only half the equation. The Germans also needed access to export markets, and couldnt get them. This made revenue a constant and increasing problem as their main sources of income....loot from the occupied territiries dried up.

So no, the blockade made a difference from the beginning" which leads into the naval war again

The debate about US neutrality patrols had been danced about by quite a few people, but the real change in the tone and debate occurred with Siegrieds Post 211, where he stated

"Lend Lease gave Britain vast amounts of military aid (aircraft, munitions, ships, financial aid) in return for access (lease) of a few islands. The American Navy had been escorting British convoys almost to the West Coast of Ireland for 6 months prior to the war. They most certainly did attack and depth charge u-boats. Even had a propganda campaigne to ensure Americans got their nose out of joint when a u-boat fired back and a destroyer got sunk.

These were called "neutrality patrols" and most certainly weren't.

Certainly Hitler showed restraint and had plenty of reason to declare war. It would be interesting to speculate as to how damaging the lend lease funding of the British war effort and the neutrality patrols could be compared to outright war. Bomber commands efforts didn't require much manpower at all, it required bombers, foreign exchange to buy the aluminium needed for making the aircraft and the food for British workers who made them as well (and weren't exporting anymore) as well as fuel in large amounts: all of which US lend lease money could supply.

Would he have been better of NOT declaring war?

All hell broke out from those comments, including my response at post 222. Siegfrieds comments implied it was the US and not germany responsible for the war between the US and Germany. It was not just me that reacted to that

My post 222 actually stated

"Prior to lend lease was "Cash Carry" which required cash up front and that brit registered or controlled ships carry the munitions. I believe this policy was theoretically open to all belligerents, including germany, but for obvious reasons the germans never took advantage of it. Might be wrong on that score, as deliveries to Germany may have been deemed a breach of the neutrality act. Entry of Cash Carry ships into a war zone waqs not contrary to either international law, or US neutrality, since it was transpoting British goods in british ships.

To enforce US neutrality and gurantee protection of the New World, the US, with the agreement of all the other American States implemented the pan American Neutrality Zone, that was in the beginning a failry restricted area of ocean, bu moved progressively east as the war progressed. This was purely to protect "American" interests(American in the continental sense). Eventually it included Greenland, Iceland and the other Atlanitic Islands. And included the protection of all shipping within that zone. this was entirely leagal, and well within the limits set by International maritime law of the sea. The US did not make any unlawful claims on the economic resources of that area.....if German fisherman or merchantmen were found at sea they were left alone as far as I know by the pan American states. However defence aginst acts of piracy such as was occurring with the U-Boats and raiders were encountered they were to be met with force. eventually there were so many breaches of Pan American neutrality by the germans that the US issued orders to treat all German warships as hostile, whether or not they were the first to fire. This was slightly outside the terms of International law, but has been generally accepted as a reasonable resoponse to German breaches of the PanAmerican Neutrality Treaties. The US is generally seen as acting in self defence in these instances, even if by the latter half of 1941 they were shooting first and asking questions later.

Wrong. They most certainly were acts of neutrality, in both spirit and in terms of legalityu. they were acting to protect their own and other American intersts by enforcing the provisions of their own neutrality declarations. The Germans were operating in flagrant definace of those neutrality declarations by applying unrestricted U-Boat warfare (ie modern day piracy) on declared neutral shipping. Their problem, and a corner they only had themselves to blame for being backed into. Roosevelt had very cleverly (outmanouvred Hitler)

You have got to be kidding. Hitler (and the german Naval High Command) never showed the slightest restraint (well, to be fair Hitler hesitated for the first month of the war) in implementing unrestricted tonnage warfare in all areas of the world, against all neutral shipping (including Russian ships prior to June 1941). they implmented a policy of sink on sight, and issued illegal orders not to lend assistance to crews in distress. Unworkable rules you may argue, bu the rules of warfare that governed warfare against shipping, and more specifically wars against neutral shipping outside of a declared combat zone. The escalation in US belligerency was 100% Hitlers doing. The fact that his stupidity saved the allies the trouble of engineering US moves to war by more direct means is not the point. The point is, who caused the increased belligerency of the US.....Hitler and his Admirals

By December he had no choice. By his own impulsive actions he had placed Germany and the US in a state of undeclared war. My opinion is that within three months, even without Japanese attacks, the US and th4e European Axis would have been at war anyway, or germany forced to withdraw from the Naval blockade of Britiain, which would have MASSIVE implications on the war in all TOs."

I fail to see how those statement inflamed this thread to the point of claiming who was responsible for war crimes, and who caused the germans to decide to use unrestricted warfare. I made several other posts that war crimes were not the issue, the issue was whether unrestricted warfare was legal, and how that was received, and whether the US was justified in takeing action as it did. My post was about why US neutrality patrols came about and what caused it. Somehow people began arguing that it was the US neutrality patrols caused the Germans to implement unrestricted warfare. That came from your side of the fence, not mine. It just got more and more hysterical and farcical with every post.

tell me how that is 'propaganda"

I await the responses to your points with interest Michael.
John

parsifal · Dec 3, 2011

Sorry what do you want?

Firstly dont use the word sorry when you arent. What I want is for this discussion to get back on topic

Read the posts from 222 till 319 + 321! There are more then enough arguments inclusive my posts. I'm not repeating this all!You are the person who raised the modern day proGerman revisionist issue in post 320 plus how many jews were murdered!

let me make my position as clear as I can for you. in the context of this thread, i am not intersted in German war crimes. The position that has been put, at post 211, was that Hitler showed great restraint and that the US was goading the germans into declaring war. There were subsequent posts by others that suggested the US was acting illegally to escort its ships in the Altantic whilst neutral.

Now there are suggestions being made within this thread that the british empire was guilty of war crimes, that Britain was a less moral state than nazi germany. Iadmit that i reacted to that, because it is outrageous, but would like to get the discussion back on track if that is okay.

My position is this. Unrestricted U-boat attacks made without warning were contrary to international law prior to WWII. Worse than that, in both 1939 and 1941, Donitz issued orders that no assistance of any kind was to be given to ships they torpedoed (the 1939 order at least was ignored on many occasions, doesnt matter, as an order both were known and commented on in US newspapers) . Both the use of unrestricted warfare tactics and the failure to lend assistance to stricken merchant vessels were in breach of international laws at the time, and attracted a response and and a backlash in public opinion in the US. This was neither driven by propaganda, or lies as has been suggested. It was driven by the free press in the US and was a genuine revulsion to what the germans were doing in the Atlantic at that time. The change in mood in the US public opinion is reflected in the gradual shift in the US congress from isolationsist to a pro-allied stance (in general). I freely admit that the rules of engagement that applied to U-Boats were weighted against the U-Boats, but thats not the point. Germans decisions on their operational management of their U-Boat assets involved their use that was contrary to the law of the sea, and was made worse by some rather nasty supplementary orders. These are all basic truths that have been attempted to be subverted by all manner of smokescreens, defelctions, personal attacks and downright porkies in this thread.

The result, in part was the extension of the neutrality zones and the escorting of American ships further and further east as the war progressed. By degrees, the Germans found themselves in a very similar position that they had found themselves in 1917....upsetting the largest neutral nation in the world by its use of unrestricted warfare.

This has nothing to do with war crimes or attrocities or honour, or any other extraneous stuff you or anyone else cares to throw in the mix. Germany's own decisions about how she wanted to wage the war at sea was by far the major incfluence in the drift of the US to the allied camp.

You suggest between the lines in many posts before (in this thread), that persons/members in this thread denied german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist! And this all because several members are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!

Please show me where i have accused other members of denying war crimes in this thread. What I have done is people ppass their own moral judgements about war crimes without the slightest clue of what a war crime is defined as in 1945. I actually avoid making such moral judgements, and simply stick to what the law was and is, and what the outcomes were. I leave it up to the courst and tribunals of WWII to make the moral judgements.

Without being specific, i ahave also stated that there is a real push to revise history, in this place. In another thread I have said that this is generally a good thing, however in the case of Germans involvement in WWII it seems to nearly always involve a distortion of facts, so as to portray Germany in the best possible light. History rewritten with the rose coloured glasses. this re-write of history is not done in the traditional sense, with a scholarly paper written, nd then a review undertaken by learned peers. oh no, people write anything, and others believe it. If that makes you uncomforrtable, then dont post on the Internet.

And as I have pointed out several times, this has absolutley nothing to do with how the US was drawn into the war. The US was drawn into the war because the Germans employed their U-Boats illegally. German usage of Uboats and surface raiders was tantamount to a modern form of piracy, thats how most of the world viewed it at the time. It was an effective form of warfare, but it sucked in the PR department. That is is not a moral judgement. its a fact. It had consequences, one of which was that it increased german isolation, and pushed the US towards the allied camp

Please name examples and I have written how many jews were murdered by the nazis!
Are the numbers correct?

Yes, they are, how about tackling all the other questions as well. Am curious if you can be as hoinest with them as well

Perhaps, and you are doing all in your hand to reach this goal because there are several members that are not your opinion about legality, neutrality and unrestricted attacks!

My goal at this minute is to get this thread back on topic. If you are suggesting that I disagree that Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were legal in the pre-1939 body of law, then you are right, I dont think they were legal. and neither did the nurenberg trial think they were legal either. thats one of the reasons Donitz went to prison after the war, along with his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships.

ou are making many rhetorical prevarication, to suggest that these members, who are not your opinion, are denying german warcrimes and more or less are modern day proGerman revisionist.

An other example for your rhetorical prevarication between the lines is:

You will have to re-phrase this. i simply cannot follow the tirade

First you suggest that all german officers and soldiers at U-boats and commercial raiders are pirates and second you suggest that unrestricted U-Boat warfare is the same as modern piracy at Somalia or Thailand.

Err no, I actually said that Unrestricted attacks were a form of piracy, pluss therere were a number of instances where the germans actually did enagege in high seas piracy. Perhaps I should have used the term privaterring. I fail to see how this is a slur on individual officers at sea. it was an accurate description of Donitz, since he was convicted after the war and sent to prison for various orders that he isued. I in fact gave praise to the German at sea officers because they frequently did not follow illegal orders given to them

And where did I say anything Somali or Ethiopian pirates. I said....unrestricted warfare is a form of modern day piracy. Which it is.

Here are members that are not your opinion, but that is no reason to suggest that these members are modern day proGerman revisionist.

Also there is no reason to abuse a member as SS Totenkopf because this member has an other analysis about miltary facts and is not your opinion!

Things do get heated, this is the internet. But its more than a bit rich to say i am bullying you guys after the way you behave and treat some of the other members in this place, particulalry some of the newer guys like Jenishce

Then please explain your post 320 and what was the intention of this post?[/

My post is more than justified in view of some of the comments made in its lead up. you guys cannot expect us on this side to behave and abide to the marquis of Queensbury rules, while you guys attempt to tun amok, rewriting your new versions of history and stomping on anyone that gets in your way. thats my explanation

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

I admire your combative spirit Michael but, there are people who just will not accept history.

Quite why they feel the need to put a spin on history (that makes the Germans seem less aggressive (even a victim) and therefore less responsible for WW2) that fly's in the face of documented historical fact is beyond me.

John

vinnye · Dec 3, 2011

pbfoot said:
My goodness one of the reasons the US was able to ramp up production of aircraft so quickly was the fact the Commonwealth was buying anything that could fly from the US well before Pearl Harbour.

I agree that the USA was able to begin its amazing aircraft prduction due to the demand of Britain and the Commonwealth. But when would they have actually begun to commit troops and ships to the actual combat?
Would it have taken more losses of American ships and lives to U-boats? Or could Germany have boxed a little more cleverly if she had been able to sink more shipping away from the US coastline, and hence appease the US for a bit longer?

This would have been extremely difficult for Britain and the Commonwealth - I don't believe that they would ever have sufficient airpower and manpower to mount a European Invasion. The Middle East may have been an option - but not an easy one.

If Germany had been able to develop some of its weapons without the air bombardment that the US gave during the day and RAF at night - who knows?
More Me 262's used as fighters and bombers?
Would Germany have developed the Atomic bomb first?

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

vinnye said:
I agree that the USA was able to begin its amazing aircraft prduction due to the demand of Britain and the Commonwealth. But when would they have actually begun to commit troops and ships to the actual combat?
Would it have taken more losses of American ships and lives to U-boats? Or could Germany have boxed a little more cleverly if she had been able to sink more shipping away from the US coastline, and hence appease the US for a bit longer?

This would have been extremely difficult for Britain and the Commonwealth - I don't believe that they would ever have sufficient airpower and manpower to mount a European Invasion. The Middle East may have been an option - but not an easy one.

If Germany had been able to develop some of its weapons without the air bombardment that the US gave during the day and RAF at night - who knows?
More Me 262's used as fighters and bombers?
Would Germany have developed the Atomic bomb first?

Good post valid points.
D Day would have been impossible without the resources of America.
Maybe a European invasion via the Med ( Italy) would have been possible but, at what cost? Mount Casino was bad enough as it was.
Britain her allies would have to wait till the occupied countries started to pick away at the German machine. That would have taken decades or longer but, I belive that a collapse would have been inevitable. Rather like the demise of the Roman Empire.
You would have to take the lunatics out of the high command for the ME262 to be used properly.
An A bomb? That is a thought...
John

DonL · Dec 3, 2011

At the moment I have no time so only one first reaction!

My goal at this minute is to get this thread back on topic. If you are suggesting that I disagree that Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were legal in the pre-1939 body of law, then you are right, I dont think they were legal. and neither did the nurenberg trial think they were legal either. thats one of the reasons Donitz went to prison after the war, along with his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships.

Are your sure of this?
To my opinion Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were illegal but under the circumstances necessary.
I don't want to defend Doenitz but Unrestricted u-Boat attacks and his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships weren't the reasons that he went in prison!

Laconia incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laconia Order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Order No. 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apropos Admiral Chester Nimitz stated unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day of the Pacific War!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 3, 2011

Readie said:
I admire your combative spirit Michael but, there are people who just will not accept history.

Quite why they feel the need to put a spin on history (that makes the Germans seem less aggressive (even a victim) and therefore less responsible for WW2) that fly's in the face of documented historical fact is beyond me.

John

I have a few suggestions here.

1. Lets get back on topic.

2. How about people stop throwing fuel on the fire. Making posts like the one above do not help the situation, and in fact throw it further off topic. It just puts on fuel on the fire, and I get the feeling that is all the poster wants to accomplish. Basically what I am saying, is it does not contribute to the thread and just aggravates the situation even more. Why do that?

3. Based off of number 2. If you have nothing to say to the topic, don't say it.

4. Reiterate number 1. Lets get back on topic.

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I have a few suggestions here.

1. Lets get back on topic.

2. How about people stop throwing fuel on the fire. Making posts like the one above do not help the situation, and in fact throw it further off topic. It just puts on fuel on the fire, and I get the feeling that is all the poster wants to accomplish. Basically what I am saying, is it does not contribute to the thread and just aggravates the situation even more. Why do that?

3. Based off of number 2. If you have nothing to say to the topic, don't say it.

4. Reiterate number 1. Lets get back on topic.

Chris,
I was responding to the posts that where all steering off topic I might add.
I find the rewriting of any history exasperating.
Presumably you'll be pointing out the inaccurate inflammatory comments of other posters in this thread....
Your forum...your call.
Back on topic? suits me 100%
John

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

Back on topic.

My answer to the original thread question is 'unlikely'.
Why? I have looked at war theaters where airpower is used to try and beat the enemy without the traditional army being used as much to lessen casualties?

The Russians in Afghanistan. A superpower beaten by guerrilla bandits is the classic example.

I do not believe that an allied air assault alone would have defeated Nazi Germany.

John

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Dec 3, 2011

Readie said:
Chris,
I was responding to the posts that where all steering off topic I might add.
I find the rewriting of any history exasperating.
Presumably you'll be pointing out the inaccurate inflammatory comments of other posters in this thread....
Your forum...your call.
Back on topic? suits me 100%
John

I point out post inflammatory posts whenever I catch them. I am not perfect, and do not see everything. It is impossible to do so. I do not live on this forum, and have a life outside of it, and therefore can not read every post. I think my track record speaks for itself however, that I am a fair moderator.

My point is this. DonL and Parsifal were having a somewhat heated discussion, that was off topic. It will never get back on topic, if 3rd parties keep throwing fuel the fire. Did you post help dissolve it? Did it do anything to cool it off? I doubt it.

Now for the last time, lets get this back on topic. I think parsifal has been trying to steer it back in that direction.

Readie · Dec 3, 2011

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I point out post inflammatory posts whenever I catch them. I am not perfect, and do not see everything. It is impossible to do so. I do not live on this forum, and have a life outside of it, and therefore can not read every post. I think my track record speaks for itself however, that I am a fair moderator.

My point is this. DonL and Parsifal were having a somewhat heated discussion, that was off topic. It will never get back on topic, if 3rd parties keep throwing fuel the fire. Did you post help dissolve it? Did it do anything to cool it off? I doubt it.

Now for the last time, lets get this back on topic. I think parsifal has been trying to steer it back in that direction.

Ok. I guess I got that one wrong, or it came across wrongly...
If anyone was offended, then I apologize.
John

parsifal · Dec 3, 2011

At the moment I have no time so only one first reaction

!

Dont post if you dont have the time

Are your sure of this?

Yes

To my opinion Unrestricted u-Boat attacks were illegal but under the circumstances necessary.

Irrelevant. The issue was whether the US was acting legally, and Germany illegally, when they attacked allied convoys in the way they did. Thankyou for admitting they were ilegal. Now all you need to do is accept that the US response was legal, and that Germany's actions were a big influence on the US drift to war, (really only exceeded in importance by the Japanese attack)

I don't want to defend Doenitz but Unrestricted u-Boat attacks and his illegal orders not to provide assistance to stricken ships weren't the reasons that he went in prison!

Oh really, if you dont want to defend him, then why are you saying all that you are, and even getting into this issue at all????.In fact , following the war, Dönitz was held as a prisoner of war by the Allies. He was indicted as a major war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials on three counts:
(1) conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity;
(2) planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression; and
(3) crimes against the laws of war (ie the laws of the sea, ie unrestricted tonnage attacks and no assistance to stricken vessels his warships had sunk).

Dönitz was found not guilty on count (1) of the indictment, but guilty on counts (2) and (3).

Laconia incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laconia Order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Order No. 154 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Havent looked at these links, but will do so

Apropos Admiral Chester Nimitz stated unrestricted submarine warfare was carried on in the Pacific Ocean by the United States from the first day of the Pacific War!

The USN tried to justify its attacks on Japanese by classifying every Japanese merchant vessel as a warship. In any event, like the Germans the USN was using the most effective application for its sub fleet. And unlike the germans this had no political fallout, since all the partys and sources of power (with the exception of the Russians) were not in the war against japan. And one final distinction that can be drawn on this issue, the USN was attacking belligerent ships....that is ships controlled by combattants. This was fundamentally different to the German policy of attacking all ships, regardless of whether they were controlled by combatants or not. including those belonging to neutrals in declared neutral zones. They (the Germans) decided to force their policies on everyone regardless of whether that nation was at war with them or not. Thats the difference and its a huge one

michaelmaltby · Dec 3, 2011

@gis238: "... What if WWI had ended with a fairer and equitable Treaty of Versailles and the world ended up with a far different Germany, sans Hitler and Nazis."

Yawn, yawn .... blame the Versailles Gang ... yawn.

What if Germany had gone COMMUNIST in 1918 -- what would Russia have done ..? That's a far more likely event, so important and interesting speculation. Start a thread on it, gis238.

MM

DonL · Dec 3, 2011

My point is this. DonL and Parsifal were having a somewhat heated discussion, that was off topic. It will never get back on topic, if 3rd parties keep throwing fuel the fire. Did you post help dissolve it? Did it do anything to cool it off? I doubt it.

With all respect I was out of the discussion after the Mediterranean campaign discussion!
I was in at the the glorifieng of the spirit of neutrality of the USA!
Then I had a break over more then 100 posts. It's not only me who was challeging Mr. Parsifal!
And with all respect I realy doubt that his intention with post 320 was to get on topic!
It was the most provocative post of this thread, so I can't understand your opinion, that he was interested to get on topic!

Irrelevant. The issue was whether the US was acting legally, and Germany illegally, when they attacked allied convoys in the way they did. Thankyou for admitting they were ilegal. Now all you need to do is accept that the US response was legal, and that Germany's actions were a big influence on the US drift to war, (really only exceeded in importance by the Japanese attack)

Yes the germans are the bad guys and the allied are the good guys, it doesn't matter how and why are the circumstances!
Mr. Parsifal you make me sick with your argumentation! Believe your mystery myths and I believe in reality!

Oh really, if you dont want to defend him, then why are you saying all that you are, and even getting into this issue at all????.In fact , following the war, Dönitz was held as a prisoner of war by the Allies. He was indicted as a major war criminal at the Nuremberg Trials on three counts:

You don't get it! I hate nazis but I'm an idealist and that will include all perspective's of the war in WWII and the given history!
You can argument till the next century about german "piracy" and the "spirit" of US neutrality"!
For me I did doesn't count! The facts are counting nor more no less!
There are more then 100 issues were the US Navy radio reported the station of axis ships, to be secure that GB or Commenwealth ships hit the goal. The Us neutralty was on very weak feets at the chasing of Bismarck and the Larconia incedent will tell you very much!

This was stated from many historian all over the world! And now I'm out! Believe in your mystery myths, every normal member or guest of this forum, can get his own opinion with a little research! But please you should be secure when you raise the next mystery myth, I'm in!

parsifal · Dec 3, 2011

michaelmaltby said:
@gis238: "... What if WWI had ended with a fairer and equitable Treaty of Versailles and the world ended up with a far different Germany, sans Hitler and Nazis."

Yawn, yawn .... blame the Versailles Gang ... yawn.

What if Germany had gone COMMUNIST in 1918 -- what would Russia have done ..? That's a far more likely event, so important and interesting speculation. Start a thread on it, gis238.

MM

In fact the versailles treaty was a failure because it did not go far enough one or the the other. It failed to follow Wilsons 14 points, and it also failed to secure unconditional surrender as Pershing had advocated.

If the allies had followed the 14 points i still think the "stabbed in the back camp would have emerged in post war Germany. Germany needed to experience the horrors of the war on their own territory such as happened in WWII to turn away from the God of war as their saviour.

parsifal · Dec 3, 2011

So, after all that, the issue is this.....with no japan, and no russia in the war, but with Germans declaring unrestricted warfare on all neutral shipping and in fact ramping things up in the Atlantic, when or if would the US enter the war?

I think that military preparation for land and air warfare would have continued apace, as historical, such that the first usage of US land and air forces would begin as normal....late '42. I believe the USN would have continued to ramp up its neutrality paytrols with increasing violence between the germans and the USN. I believe that around September or october 1942 the US would have entered the war anyway, much as they had in 1917, and for very similar reasons.

Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power?

Banned

Colonel

Banned

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Colonel

Chief Master Sergeant

Senior Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

Banned

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Chief Master Sergeant

Colonel

Colonel

Banned

Colonel

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads