the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
funny, they said no-one would be able to attack pearl harbour as it's too far from anyone else, but it happened...............
Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2
- Thread starter NightHawk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
A
Anonymous
Guest
the lancaster kicks ass said:
A sneak attack on the ships in the harbor is a lot different from trying to invade.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
an air strike could have taken out most if the island's defences.............
A
Anonymous
Guest
the lancaster kicks ass said:
You vastly underestimate the defenses of Perl Harbor and the number of troops defending it by the time of Midway.
There was no way the Japanese were going to stage a successful airstrike on PH at that time either. The entire carrier airpower of the Japanese navy would still have been outnumbered by more than two to one. The entire sealift capability of the Japanese fleet (which was poor throughout the war) would still have left them at the disadvantage in terms of the number of troops. Even at the time of the PH attack in Dec. 41 the Japanese did not think a sneak invasion was viable, but by 1942 it was virtually impossible.
Yes Udet, I am a Blackhawk Crewchief in Iraq right now at the time and yes I have seen combat. Well it has been a few days since I posted our internet was down but I am back now. I see that I missed a lot. As for the theories on why Hitler declared war on the US I agree with all the things that Lunatic said, however Udet has made some very fine points. As for the reason that the US thought that Pearl Harbor was safe from attack was the fact that most torpedos of that time could not operate in the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor however the Japenese redesigned there torpedos to make them work there. I think the one thing we can agree on is the fact that Hitler was a lunatic. And RG_Lunatic just lay off of the rest of world owing the US something. They dont.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hitler was an idiot, and he was evil, but he was not a lunatic.
If he'd have have been a lunatic, he'd have used nerve gas, which he had in abundant supply to destroy the Russians in Poland, and might have tried to use it against Britain (though only the V2 could probably have successfully delivered it by the time the had it in sufficient quantities to use). But he knew that if he did so, the odds were very good that the British would use their nerve gas against the German homeland, and he didn't want history to remember him as being responsible for making Germany uninhabitable.
=S=
Lunatic
If he'd have have been a lunatic, he'd have used nerve gas, which he had in abundant supply to destroy the Russians in Poland, and might have tried to use it against Britain (though only the V2 could probably have successfully delivered it by the time the had it in sufficient quantities to use). But he knew that if he did so, the odds were very good that the British would use their nerve gas against the German homeland, and he didn't want history to remember him as being responsible for making Germany uninhabitable.
=S=
Lunatic
No was a lunatic aswell as being an idiot and evil. He was even documented as being diagnosed with a mental disorder.
DerAdler hello!
Thanks a lot for your reply!
One question, if you dont mind, do you ever heard or witnessed of any Iraki air force action against the USAAF?
Some of the things I am having the chance to read here, confirm Hitler is top favorite history character to thrown rotten eggs and tomatoes at.
Fool, idiot, imbecile, demonic, evil, liar, manipulator, murder, insane, megalomaniac and a very vey long bla, bla, bla...
Really, and I mean it, if you continue to see history of WWII in terms of Heavenly Immaculate Archangels vs. sulphurous dark demons, you are likely to miss an important part of the show.
With all due respect, mr. RG_Lunatic, the soldiers of the USA in Europe were not saving the world from anyone or anything.
Furthermore, the sole idea of the US soldiers fighting in Europe in order to liberate the people of the USA from a "terrible danger" and to maintain the "freedom, liberty and democracy of the U.S.A." could not only be part of the Grimm Fairy Tales: is a laughable choice of arguments.
Thanks a lot for your reply!
One question, if you dont mind, do you ever heard or witnessed of any Iraki air force action against the USAAF?
Some of the things I am having the chance to read here, confirm Hitler is top favorite history character to thrown rotten eggs and tomatoes at.
Fool, idiot, imbecile, demonic, evil, liar, manipulator, murder, insane, megalomaniac and a very vey long bla, bla, bla...
Really, and I mean it, if you continue to see history of WWII in terms of Heavenly Immaculate Archangels vs. sulphurous dark demons, you are likely to miss an important part of the show.
With all due respect, mr. RG_Lunatic, the soldiers of the USA in Europe were not saving the world from anyone or anything.
Furthermore, the sole idea of the US soldiers fighting in Europe in order to liberate the people of the USA from a "terrible danger" and to maintain the "freedom, liberty and democracy of the U.S.A." could not only be part of the Grimm Fairy Tales: is a laughable choice of arguments.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom the Iraqi Airforce did not launch any sorties against the USAAF or any of the coalition air forces. As a matter of fact they did not have much of an airforce left after the 1st Gulf War. Please do not take me wrong about my posts here with RG_Lunatic. I do not look at WW2 as a Heavenly Immaculate Archangels vs Sulphurous dark demons. I am deeply interested in History and wanted to major in History before my college funds went dry. When my service with the Army is finished I plan on continueing my education in History primarily European. I just happened to get caught in this argument with RG_Lunatic because he seems to have some grudge against the world. Anyhow you have made some very interesting points to this discussion, Thanks.
Hello DerAdler!
thanks for your kind remarlks.
Sorry, but I did not put it in a very clear manner: I knew you were just taking it on RG_Lunatic when you said Hitler "was insane, idiot and evil".
I should have figured it out; during the first war in Irak over a decade ago, Hussein´s army was large and powerful; perhaps not up to USA´s standards, but no one can deny it was powerful.
The question should have been: were there any air combats during the first war in Irak? If I recall correctly, there were several Mig29´s in Hussein´s inventory.
)
My point here is I am amazed to read certain comments from people whose knowledge about WWII is, or should be, a bit above the "average".
"On September 1st, 1939, one of the most evil forces humankind has ever experienced unleashed its pure naked dark fury in an attempt to subjugate and exterminate the peoples of the world...."
While such version might please many, I know it was not like that. As I said it is laughable.
You -not you DerAdler)- apparently fail to notice that with 2 guys such as Hitler and Stalin in office, only things like those we know happened could be the outcome.
The soviet communist regime killed and tortured people like no other regime in history; yet to be added are those murdered and tortured in the many countries where such a real piece of jewelry was put to practice.
thanks for your kind remarlks.
Sorry, but I did not put it in a very clear manner: I knew you were just taking it on RG_Lunatic when you said Hitler "was insane, idiot and evil".
I should have figured it out; during the first war in Irak over a decade ago, Hussein´s army was large and powerful; perhaps not up to USA´s standards, but no one can deny it was powerful.
The question should have been: were there any air combats during the first war in Irak? If I recall correctly, there were several Mig29´s in Hussein´s inventory.
)My point here is I am amazed to read certain comments from people whose knowledge about WWII is, or should be, a bit above the "average".
"On September 1st, 1939, one of the most evil forces humankind has ever experienced unleashed its pure naked dark fury in an attempt to subjugate and exterminate the peoples of the world...."
While such version might please many, I know it was not like that. As I said it is laughable.
You -not you DerAdler
)- apparently fail to notice that with 2 guys such as Hitler and Stalin in office, only things like those we know happened could be the outcome.The soviet communist regime killed and tortured people like no other regime in history; yet to be added are those murdered and tortured in the many countries where such a real piece of jewelry was put to practice.
MP-Willow
Staff Sergeant
Hello all this topic is really getting interesting.
For Midway, the USN had a lot of luck in understanding, breaking, and useing the IJN codes to know where the attack was. But I would not say Yamamoto planned poorly. This was his last great strtke to try and take out the USN. He was a great planner and unlike most of the Military command understood the USA and her industrial ability. Midway could have stil gone either way.
As for Hitler, yes he was evil and very controling, but I think he was smarter then most will admit. His ability to speak to great masses of people, to rebuilt Germany, that has some merit. But he would not or could not stop with that.
Now having Hitler and Stalin in the same decade was just shear doom for Europe. Eastern Europe was doomed to be eaten up and carved anew again it was just time. Chamberland and the west tried to do everything they could to avoid war and even not admit what was hapening. They courted Stalin because he was the slightly lesser Evil of the two, and had not had anounced plans for world domination. In that he as a step above Hitler.
For Midway, the USN had a lot of luck in understanding, breaking, and useing the IJN codes to know where the attack was. But I would not say Yamamoto planned poorly. This was his last great strtke to try and take out the USN. He was a great planner and unlike most of the Military command understood the USA and her industrial ability. Midway could have stil gone either way.
As for Hitler, yes he was evil and very controling, but I think he was smarter then most will admit. His ability to speak to great masses of people, to rebuilt Germany, that has some merit. But he would not or could not stop with that.
Now having Hitler and Stalin in the same decade was just shear doom for Europe. Eastern Europe was doomed to be eaten up and carved anew again it was just time. Chamberland and the west tried to do everything they could to avoid war and even not admit what was hapening. They courted Stalin because he was the slightly lesser Evil of the two, and had not had anounced plans for world domination. In that he as a step above Hitler.
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
What, Parkinsons?
Being a lunatic and being a cruel sadist are two different things...
Also, he never saw what he was commanding done, thus he could have no real sympathy...
Medvedya
Master Sergeant
GermansRGeniuses said:
People aren't sure. Granted, in the famous last bit of film, where he's talking to the Hitler Youth boys you can see that he's shaking like a leaf. However, medical minds say that since he was a stress-monster from an early age, this might have been a physical manifestation of hyper-tension. (which would be understandable!)
His physician, Dr Morrell, is widely discredited as a quack, and by 1945 was prescribing him enough drugs to fill a chemists. Many of these foul medicines were cocaine based - hense the mood swings between rage and euphoria. In short - what a mess!
GermansRGeniuses
Tech Sergeant
Yeah, I know about all that, but I think Parkinsons is logical for him...
Anyway, has anyone seen that movie about him?
Der untergang - Hitler und das ende des III Reichs
Anyway, speaking of his shaking hand, the bit of film I've seen is the one where he shakes some soldiers' hands, though I'm not sure if they were Hitlerjugend...
Anyway, has anyone seen that movie about him?
Der untergang - Hitler und das ende des III Reichs
Anyway, speaking of his shaking hand, the bit of film I've seen is the one where he shakes some soldiers' hands, though I'm not sure if they were Hitlerjugend...
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Who diagnosed it? Please provide a reference so we can see if this is a legitimate diagnosis, or one that serves someone's interests.
In his last years, he was heavily addicted to amphetamines and opiates. But was he "crazy", it depends on your definition. It is not even clear if he was a psychopath, there is no evidence he personally enjoyed killing, Hitler's hatred was largely abstract.
Still, the fact is he had tons of nerve gas which he could certainly have deployed against the Soviets. Had he done so, he would have wiped out most of the Soviet army. However, he knew that if he did so the repercussions for Germany were that it would almost surely become a wasteland and there would be no future Germany at all. When his subordinates were arguing to use the gas, he forbade it. In the end, when all was lost, he put the well being of the German people first.
=S=
Lunatic
The nerve gas was never an arguement here, about why he did and why he did not so I do not understand why you keep argueing that fact. Your personal vendeta here against me seems to be getting out hand. As for the diagnosis, I honestly do not know who and I think I phrased my post wrong it should have been merely that it was thought by modern physicians that he had some kind of mental disorder. Either way the man was crazy just face it RG_Lunatic. You make many great posts here but you seem to have something against me and I think that may be because I am a German citizen and you think that I disagree with you because you hate the Germans so much. That is not the case I disagree with you because I think seeing and Being with modern German people and haveing talked to many German vets I understand them better than you do. But its okay for sake of argument you are know everything man, are you happy.
A
Anonymous
Guest
MP-Willow said:
It was not luck that the USA broke the Japanese (and German) codes, it was skill and hard work.
Yamamoto over planned everything he did. He got away with it at Perl Harbor - but that was a sneak attack. Midway was too complex, involving 7 coordinated battle groups.
What Yamamoto should have done was to simply go in and take the island. He had the following front line warships available:
Carriers: (531 aircraft)
Kaga - 90 aircraft - 28 kt
Akagi - 91 aircraft - 31 kt
Shokaku - 84 aircraft - 34 kt
Zuikaku - 84 aircraft - 34 kt
Soryu - 71 aircraft - 34 kt
Hiryu - 73 aircraft - 34 kt
Ryujo - 38 aircraft - 29 kt
Battleships:
Yamato, Nagato, Mutsu - 27 kt
Kongo, Hiei, Kirishima, Haruna - 30 kt
Heavy Cruisers:
Tone, Chikuma, Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano - 35 kt
Takao, Atago, Maya, Chokai, Myoko, Nachi, Haguro, Ashigara - 34 kt
Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, Kinugasa - 33 kt
Plus about 17 Light Cruisers and 90-100 Destroyers with 33 kt or better speed.
All Yamamoto had to do was assemble these ships, steam toward Midway, and time it so that he would be about 250 nautical miles, from Midway as darkness fell the night before the invasion. This would have put them out of effective range of US attack aircraft. Max range of the dauntless was about 775 miles, but any plane caught 200+ miles from base at dusk in 1942 was a lost plane, and Japanese fighter defenses would have outnumbered any possible US attack by 3:1 or more. Before dawn, the Japanese fleet would have been been shelling Midway, and then the aerial bombardment would have begun. Within a day, two at the most, Midway would have fallen, EVEN IF THE USA WAS NOT SURPRISED!
Some links:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pacificwar/Midway/MidwayIndex.html
http://www.battle-fleet.com/pw/his/midway.htm
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm
MP-Willow said:
Actually, his rebuilding of Germany was built on lies. You cannot build a military to spend your way out of depression or recession. It will work for a while, but then inflation rears its ugly head. You are printing money to pay the military and war industries, and they are spending it on bread, so the price of bread rises. In 1937 when faced with imminent hyper-inflation, Hitler chose to rob the Jews, staving it off for another 2.5 years. In 1939, when faced with imminent hyper-inflation, Hitler chose to go to war.
MP-Willow said:Now having Hitler and Stalin in the same decade was just shear doom for Europe. Eastern Europe was doomed to be eaten up and carved anew again it was just time. Chamberland and the west tried to do everything they could to avoid war and even not admit what was hapening. They courted Stalin because he was the slightly lesser Evil of the two, and had not had anounced plans for world domination. In that he as a step above Hitler.
The whole Soviet situation is much more complex than that. Stalin was indeed evil, but in a much more insidious and intelligent way than Hitler. It can reasonably be argued that without Stalin, Russia would have fallen to the Nazi's in WWII. Only someone like Stalin would spend lives the way that they needed to be spent to achieve victory.
=S=
Lunatic
A
Anonymous
Guest
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I have nothing against you at all Alder. I disagree with some of the things you've said, and I've posted a compelling source for you to see concerning the issue. Seriously, I do not hate Germans. I'd be making the same argument if you were trying to argue that the US army in the West at the time of Col. Custer was "honorable", they weren't.
As for Hitler's insanity... he was a gangster who managed to gain control of a country. His only other "insanity" was the depth of his hatred of the Jews. I believe this started as a means to gain a following and power in a time when the German people were vulnerable to immoral politics, and then he began to believe his own lies. He surrounded himself with his own kind, fellow gangsters and corrupt industrialists, and of course they lost the war when they faced professionals.
=S=
Lunatic
No I dont think you understand what I am trying to say. And the German soldiers who fought in World War 2 were doing there job as soldiers for Germany and there is nothing wrong or unhonorable for that. As for committing acts unhonorable, yes things were done and there is no excuse for that but at the same time acts were committed by both sides. I dont expect someone who has never put there life in danger for there country to understand this. There is nothing more honorable than fighting for your country. The average German soldier had nothing to do with Hitlers genocide of the Jews or other people but yet he is considered unhonorable because he was conscripted to fight for his country. An example of this was Rommel is he not honorable because he wore a German uniform? I think not he was quite an honorable man. I have had dinner with his son Manfred on several occasions due to my former ROTC unit's partnership with the Afrika Korps Association and the things he tells about his father are so wonderful. This man was loved by many people even his enemies. If you go to his memorial service near Ulm, Germany every year there are soldiers from England, USA, France, and Germany all in there best uniforms laying wreaths in a wonderful ceremony, does this sound like a dishonorable man? I think not and neither were most of the German soldiers. Most were no different than the allied soldiers 18-25 doing what is expected as a soldier. And as for what I say, it is because I disagree with what you say and nothing again nothing will change my opinion. AND THIS IS NOT A STATE OF DENIAL. I know the facts just like you I just think your perception that all German people are evil and shared Hitlers ideas is wrong and I think most people would agree with that.
Attachments
A
Anonymous
Guest
You (intentionally?) misunderstand what I've said and overstate the points I have made to extreme.
As for acts of brutality being committed on both sides, the German's always started it. Just look at the E. front, the German's started the butchery very early on. Can you point to an instance where the German's were on the recieving end first?
You seem to think I am saying this applies to modern Germans. No where have I made such a statement. Today's German's are no more nor less vulernable to evil than any other Western country. But they certainly are not immune, and neither are we Americans.
Again, the one point I have made, over and over, is that far more WWII Germans knew what the Nazi's were doing than admitted it after the war. That is the denial I refer to.
How do you translate this into that I must hate Germans or that I think German's are lower than others (Americans)?
=S=
Lunatic
As for acts of brutality being committed on both sides, the German's always started it. Just look at the E. front, the German's started the butchery very early on. Can you point to an instance where the German's were on the recieving end first?
You seem to think I am saying this applies to modern Germans. No where have I made such a statement. Today's German's are no more nor less vulernable to evil than any other Western country. But they certainly are not immune, and neither are we Americans.
Again, the one point I have made, over and over, is that far more WWII Germans knew what the Nazi's were doing than admitted it after the war. That is the denial I refer to.
How do you translate this into that I must hate Germans or that I think German's are lower than others (Americans)?
=S=
Lunatic
