Five Swedish soldiers wounded in Afghanistan
- Thread starter victor
- Start date
TheGM
The voice of reason
victor said:
See now this is what I'm talking about. What the hell does Geo-Political babble have to do with this?
And I didn't say he did say that they didn't help. I said he said that help what that what the US did...Didn't really matter. Which he did if you looked at it.
It's Axiomatic.
Crni Vuk's last post says it all really. USSR not only needed the supplies, completely depended on them.
Also, a lot of speculation regarding wether USSR would have romped the rest of Europe, maybe, but I tend to think that after losing millions of people both civi's/soldiers they'd of probably stopped in Berlin regardless if the allies were there or not.
Also, a lot of speculation regarding wether USSR would have romped the rest of Europe, maybe, but I tend to think that after losing millions of people both civi's/soldiers they'd of probably stopped in Berlin regardless if the allies were there or not.
No, stating one-liners just to provoke while giving no content whatsoever is not allowed.TheGM said:
Huh? You disagree with the perception of the severity of the American aid, but at the same time you say that it is exactly as large as perceived?TheGM said:
If only Hitler helped, the US must have been useless, right?TheGM said:
Military successes and failures during World War 2 cannot be attributed to simple causes like that.
No, I didn't. I consistently said that the US was crucial to the end result. I said that the USSR could have very well prevailed without that aid.TheGM said:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.TheGM said:
Would it, or would it just have been a delay of execution? I don't rightly know, I don't think you can know either.Shoveler said:
Unless you're talking about a competent leader at an earlier point in time, at which point there probably would have been neither a war nor a holocaust. Which, of course, would mean a vastly different world.
I think you're misjudging Stalin, there.Shoveler said:
TheGM
The voice of reason
Ah Feux Intellectualism mixed with contored historical view. Got it.
I see many attempts at trying to correct the uncorrectable, in a attempt to get one's oppinion over.
And thats what this all is.....opinions on something all of us have only read about.
To bad everybody eleses opinnion is wrong.
I see many attempts at trying to correct the uncorrectable, in a attempt to get one's oppinion over.
And thats what this all is.....opinions on something all of us have only read about.
To bad everybody eleses opinnion is wrong.
Ah, the defense of those who can't think of anything: ignore arguments and claim it's just an opinion, and they are thus somehow right.TheGM said:Ah Feux Intellectualism mixed with contored historical view. Got it.
I see many attempts at trying to correct the uncorrectable, in a attempt to get one's oppinion over.
And thats what this all is.....opinions on something all of us have only read about.
To bad everybody eleses opinnion is wrong.
Just throwing out statements without any argumentation doesn't work. So instead of whining about form, why don't you produce some content to convince someone?
There's a delete button if your response is the last one in a thread. I'd prefer it if you used that, instead of editing your post to be contentless.Shoveler said:
TheGM
The voice of reason
Sander said:
Like that is going to happen here. There is no conveince you what you said made no sense. you put up a wall now. You are dug in on you opinnion and will defened it no matter what.
my oppinon is half the stuff you type is out there with Huble Telescope. what is said one post is now flipped over on another. then bleeds together in one giant puddle of what the?
I have a better shot at selling a Sand Box to a Sheik.
GM, can speak for himself, but it seems your mind is made up Sander, are you able to be convinced? Doubt it. I'm all for reasonable discussion, but you seem to just ignore that 1000s of vehicles and countless tons of food sent to the USSR made a major difference....they were starving in many places....literally starving.
I can't help but think you have some deep seeded issues with the US in general. Just kinda comes across that way.
I can't help but think you have some deep seeded issues with the US in general. Just kinda comes across that way.
You're all wrong, Sander is right.
See? Easy, anyone can do it. Now, get back on track and provide counter-arguments, or I'm reporting posts from now on.
See? Easy, anyone can do it. Now, get back on track and provide counter-arguments, or I'm reporting posts from now on.
Yes. I am well aware of that. I am also aware of the fact that the Soviets weren't helpless without that either, especially given their general contempt for the health of the Soviet people and soldiers.Shoveler said:
As I said, I think the Soviets *could* have won without that help, but that it would've been significantly more difficult.
But yes, the lend-lease program was essential to the Soviet supply lines. But that doesn't mean that the USSR would've lost without that - it might mean that the USSR would not have been able to set up a counter-attack into German lands, it might mean that the USSR would've been overrun (though I feel that that is unlikely), or it might have simply meant that the Soviets had been delayed before launching a massive attack(given Stalin's inclinations, I think this is unlikely, since I feel he'd be giving a really high priority to military production).
But, your arguments as to why this wouldn't have happened have consisted of 'Well, it wouldn't have' so far. I have to say, though, that after doing a bit of research into the Lend-Lease program it was more far-reaching for the USSR than I thought at first.
I don't.Shoveler said:
I like how you determine that I cannot be convinced, after your entire attempt at convincing me consisted of a whopping 7 lines of statements, with no arguments.TheGM said:
That's a big-ass jump to conclusions, there.
AskWazzup
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Shoveler said:
If one was to believe what Viktor Suvorov wrote in his books (such as icebreaker), USSR wouldn't have stopped. Since from the very beginning, the initial plan was to conquer Europe (later the whole world?) by subtly forcing Germany into wagin a war against Europe ant thus weakening it and Germany, so that the mighty saviors from the east could liberate everyone from the faulty state of capitalism.
I doubt that Stalin wouldn't have siezed an opportunity like that if it was granted to him. A few more million lifes lost would not bother him, since he already showed that by killing (not directly) millions of ukranians, so to boost up the military production before the war.
What exactly isn't unthinkable? Japan assaulting the american mainland while being fully engaged throughout Asia? Seems fairly unlikely they would have the men & brass tacs to back that up.Sander said:
Conquering and holding Pearl Harbor would've been quite a feat in itself. They couldn't have gone much further. They were already running out of fuel as is. Assaulting deeper into american territory would've been far beyond the point of no return.
As for major part of your military? It was a considerable part of the Pacific Navy, but as I said, the gains far outweighed the price.
34thcell said:
Right. If it's a massive disaster why do we bother being there? There are plenty of UN nations who aren't. Strange point. Sweden has no business with "internationalism", whatever that is.
And to be honest, this is a NATO action, not a UN action. No matter what your politically correct newspaper says. We wouldn't be there if it wasn't for 9/11, an attack on American soil with a failed American military response. I'm not going to question the validity of attacking that country after 9/11, but my point is this is a NATO (read: American) war, and hence Sweden has nothing to do with it.
Right, I'm not debating who the real player is. Politically the war in Afghanistan is easy to get into, as it was supported by the UN. By sending troops to Afghanistan you can get some American good will and not piss off too many people.
EDIT
As a member of the UN every country has something to do with internationalism (at least politically); it's at the heart of the UN's ideals. But this doesn't really have anything to do with that. Its pure politics.
EDIT
As a member of the UN every country has something to do with internationalism (at least politically); it's at the heart of the UN's ideals. But this doesn't really have anything to do with that. Its pure politics.
To those who think a person different then Hitler might have "won" the war. Thing is that a lot of historians tried to think about this scenariou and well most get the similiar conclusion. Its still impossible.
One has to consider just a few things to see why. What was the cause of War and what was the initial German target. There wasnt any actualy. And today it is by many even believed that this played in the years of 41 - 45 a major role in the deafeat of Germany. There was no reason for the people anymore after 42 and the invasion in Russia and harsh conditions in the winter to expect a short and fast victory. Without Hitler there would have been not even a war of such size as the target for him was to conquer land for the "German civilisation" and destroy the jewish religoin and civilisation and till that isnt acomplished war had to continue. When this target is achieved though or when there will be reached a certain limit was unkown to anyone and never mentioned the war was always a "total war" and it is not far to say that there probably was no target or plan to stop not even in private. So any discussion about if Germany could have "won" the war is completely irrelevant since their targets during the War have been way to Bizarre. Where should you stop at conquering when you want to achieve the totall destructoin of a relgion and civlisation spread around the whole world? What can you expect as victory if you call the war in the ast a crussade for mankind? But without this targets which caused the war and the agression you can say that there would probably not have been a war of such level and size. Hitler can be seen as a major force behind the War efforts at least for the champaign in the east and it isnt far fetched to say that anyone with enough tactical thinking and responsibility regarding military achievements in mind would not have started a war with Russia since that has been seen as not feasible by most high rank officers in the Germany Military and the attack on Russia came for many as more or less a surprise since they expected a invasion on Britain. At least many Generals would voice their concerns about "Führerweisung Nr. 21" or the order to attack the Sovietunion.
), thats what we know "today". In the 40s things might have looked different for someome who has to consider all possible scenarios. And paritcularly to someome who followed the course of war till the the december of 41.
No one expected a invasion of Russia by the Germans either or even expected them to win the war with Poland and France that fast. Hell most didnt expected in the 39 a victory over France anyway (they had both more men and material then the Germans). What they wanted was to see Germany crush on the Maginot line. Still they won in France. Was a victory out of question? Probably. But was a assault on US soil out of qustion? Depends who you ask.
I try to see the things from the point (as said I just "try" it, no one can know for sure) how things must have looked back in the 30s, 40s and such. And here the danger for a attack on the US soil was seen as a real possibility. The US didnt activated their military over night and mobilized all forces. It took time to train troops and change the economy accordingly. Homeguards make a bad job compared to professional soldiers and one should always keep in mind that both Japan and Germany had battle experienced armies under their command which wasnt true for the US not on the same size. And still preperations proved to not be completed as certain battles for the US definetly showed the serious drawbacks in 1941 particularly regarding armored warefare. For that one can see the Battle of the Kasserine Pass which proved to be a huge dissaster for the American troops which have not only been bad prepaired but also had no adequate tactics in armored warefare.
They would engange usualy with tanks like the multi turret M3 "Lee" or "Grant"and light tank M3 Stuart modern German tanks in the desert
Rommel was not very impressed by the US troops. Thankefully the US troops enganged the Germans in Africa and still they went in the Normandy champain mainly with light and medium tanks like the sherman which was equal to the Panzer IV encountered in Africa to counter the German warmachine they knew about Tigers and Panthers but they didnt expected them in any large numbers as they expected only to encounter mainly the medium tank Panzer IV and Stug assault guns as those have been present in Africa. Though issue was that almost half of the used tanks in Normandy have been made of Panthers which proved to be almost invincible on the front by the most common US and brittish anti tank equipment except for the excelent 17pf (long 76mm gun) by the british which was a adequate answer on usual combat ranges and the US 76mm guns with HVAP amunition (high velocety armor pearcing) but to still get those vehicles head on with the US guns you had to engange them on almost suicide ranges and even then the possibility of the shell to fail in penetration cause of simply shattering on the tanks thick armor was very high.
It wasn't short before the end of the war that the US had in the Pershing and 90mm guns some "adquate" answer to the most common German (and later Soviet) heavy tanks. Luckily enough the Air supperiority was by the time of 1943 without any doubts above the axis but here mostly cause in the years of 1942 and 43 the axis stoped to spend a lot of concentration on new developments in air units the Germans for example never had any long range heavy bombers also their economy was not changed before late 1943 either by Albert Speehr and Guderian to increase output and have a lot more standartisations you could say tanks like the Panther and Tiger have been "almost" made by hand compared to 2000 Shermans that been made in 1 Month! on contrast there have been eventualy 2400~ Tiger I made in the whole war.
To make it short. With Pearl Harbor the US gained a lot. By our definition today cause we know the outcome. But could one expect that in such time? With knowing the vents before the war started for the US?
Dont forget in 1943 and 45 no one expected a short victory against the Japanese. Battles like Tawara, Iwo Jima and the assault on Okinawa which costed many casualties to the US showed that the will to fight by the Japanese was not broken. Not even in the lights of 1945. It was expected the war might still take till 1946 and if the emperor decided to flee to occupied land in China even till 47 hence the decision to get the Soviets in a attack on Japan (and the Soviets played that card very well sine they would have to break the neutrality with Japan! They had any "right" to refuse as they had no agressions with Japan the trade for that was to give the Soviets almost free hand in the "liberated" nations in the east how could one see in that time what issues that will cause later ...). But this estimation have been al done without the knowledge of nuclear weapons as even the highest military officers did not knew about the Nuclear weapon. Truman got not informed before he was President (and he was Vizepresident before). So without the nuclear weapon the war might have took much longer! But it didnt as we have seen.
That is one of the reasons why I doubt a place as important for the South Pacific like Pearl Harbor would have been sacrificed so easily and facing eventualy the danger of totall desturction of the harbor. No one could have foreseen in the 40s the course of the war. Not with certainty. And considering the fact that "in that year" the Japanese fleet was without any doubt superior to the US one and that in 42 even German submaries managed to damage instalations on the US coast and literaly engange ships as they leave the harbor and no one could knew what plans the Japanese had (Even a assault on the US coast was in debate) its qustionable that the Military would have enganged in such a high risk with Pearl Harbor. People in the military for example very carefully followed the war in Russia and the German "Blitzkrieg" and some feared a similar result in the US by Japanese forces eventualy.
The so called great purge in military comited by Stalin can be seen from quite a few different angles. It allowed for example as well (later of course) "fresh blood" with new ideas to enter in the high command of the military. On average in 1941 the Commanders in the high ranks of the Soviet Military have been around 20 years younger then their German counterparts which have been all in their 50s and some in their 60s even.
Also quite a lof the people that have been send to the camps by Stalin have been reactivated in the war ... just to spend it after the war again in the camps ... well.
One has to consider just a few things to see why. What was the cause of War and what was the initial German target. There wasnt any actualy. And today it is by many even believed that this played in the years of 41 - 45 a major role in the deafeat of Germany. There was no reason for the people anymore after 42 and the invasion in Russia and harsh conditions in the winter to expect a short and fast victory. Without Hitler there would have been not even a war of such size as the target for him was to conquer land for the "German civilisation" and destroy the jewish religoin and civilisation and till that isnt acomplished war had to continue. When this target is achieved though or when there will be reached a certain limit was unkown to anyone and never mentioned the war was always a "total war" and it is not far to say that there probably was no target or plan to stop not even in private. So any discussion about if Germany could have "won" the war is completely irrelevant since their targets during the War have been way to Bizarre. Where should you stop at conquering when you want to achieve the totall destructoin of a relgion and civlisation spread around the whole world? What can you expect as victory if you call the war in the ast a crussade for mankind? But without this targets which caused the war and the agression you can say that there would probably not have been a war of such level and size. Hitler can be seen as a major force behind the War efforts at least for the champaign in the east and it isnt far fetched to say that anyone with enough tactical thinking and responsibility regarding military achievements in mind would not have started a war with Russia since that has been seen as not feasible by most high rank officers in the Germany Military and the attack on Russia came for many as more or less a surprise since they expected a invasion on Britain. At least many Generals would voice their concerns about "Führerweisung Nr. 21" or the order to attack the Sovietunion.
Again Su (SuAside said:
), thats what we know "today". In the 40s things might have looked different for someome who has to consider all possible scenarios. And paritcularly to someome who followed the course of war till the the december of 41.No one expected a invasion of Russia by the Germans either or even expected them to win the war with Poland and France that fast. Hell most didnt expected in the 39 a victory over France anyway (they had both more men and material then the Germans). What they wanted was to see Germany crush on the Maginot line. Still they won in France. Was a victory out of question? Probably. But was a assault on US soil out of qustion? Depends who you ask.
exactly my thinking!Sander said:
Yes by our standarts today eventualy cause we know which curse the war took and cause we know today that neither the Germans or Japanese had the economy which would support their war efforts in the long run. In 1941 I have serious doubts anyone would have knew all this in details. And when you see how long the war took it seems no one believed in a short victory either.SuAside said:
I try to see the things from the point (as said I just "try" it, no one can know for sure) how things must have looked back in the 30s, 40s and such. And here the danger for a attack on the US soil was seen as a real possibility. The US didnt activated their military over night and mobilized all forces. It took time to train troops and change the economy accordingly. Homeguards make a bad job compared to professional soldiers and one should always keep in mind that both Japan and Germany had battle experienced armies under their command which wasnt true for the US not on the same size. And still preperations proved to not be completed as certain battles for the US definetly showed the serious drawbacks in 1941 particularly regarding armored warefare. For that one can see the Battle of the Kasserine Pass which proved to be a huge dissaster for the American troops which have not only been bad prepaired but also had no adequate tactics in armored warefare.
They would engange usualy with tanks like the multi turret M3 "Lee" or "Grant"and light tank M3 Stuart modern German tanks in the desert
Rommel was not very impressed by the US troops. Thankefully the US troops enganged the Germans in Africa and still they went in the Normandy champain mainly with light and medium tanks like the sherman which was equal to the Panzer IV encountered in Africa to counter the German warmachine they knew about Tigers and Panthers but they didnt expected them in any large numbers as they expected only to encounter mainly the medium tank Panzer IV and Stug assault guns as those have been present in Africa. Though issue was that almost half of the used tanks in Normandy have been made of Panthers which proved to be almost invincible on the front by the most common US and brittish anti tank equipment except for the excelent 17pf (long 76mm gun) by the british which was a adequate answer on usual combat ranges and the US 76mm guns with HVAP amunition (high velocety armor pearcing) but to still get those vehicles head on with the US guns you had to engange them on almost suicide ranges and even then the possibility of the shell to fail in penetration cause of simply shattering on the tanks thick armor was very high.
It wasn't short before the end of the war that the US had in the Pershing and 90mm guns some "adquate" answer to the most common German (and later Soviet) heavy tanks. Luckily enough the Air supperiority was by the time of 1943 without any doubts above the axis but here mostly cause in the years of 1942 and 43 the axis stoped to spend a lot of concentration on new developments in air units the Germans for example never had any long range heavy bombers also their economy was not changed before late 1943 either by Albert Speehr and Guderian to increase output and have a lot more standartisations you could say tanks like the Panther and Tiger have been "almost" made by hand compared to 2000 Shermans that been made in 1 Month! on contrast there have been eventualy 2400~ Tiger I made in the whole war.
To make it short. With Pearl Harbor the US gained a lot. By our definition today cause we know the outcome. But could one expect that in such time? With knowing the vents before the war started for the US?
Dont forget in 1943 and 45 no one expected a short victory against the Japanese. Battles like Tawara, Iwo Jima and the assault on Okinawa which costed many casualties to the US showed that the will to fight by the Japanese was not broken. Not even in the lights of 1945. It was expected the war might still take till 1946 and if the emperor decided to flee to occupied land in China even till 47 hence the decision to get the Soviets in a attack on Japan (and the Soviets played that card very well sine they would have to break the neutrality with Japan! They had any "right" to refuse as they had no agressions with Japan the trade for that was to give the Soviets almost free hand in the "liberated" nations in the east how could one see in that time what issues that will cause later ...). But this estimation have been al done without the knowledge of nuclear weapons as even the highest military officers did not knew about the Nuclear weapon. Truman got not informed before he was President (and he was Vizepresident before). So without the nuclear weapon the war might have took much longer! But it didnt as we have seen.
That is one of the reasons why I doubt a place as important for the South Pacific like Pearl Harbor would have been sacrificed so easily and facing eventualy the danger of totall desturction of the harbor. No one could have foreseen in the 40s the course of the war. Not with certainty. And considering the fact that "in that year" the Japanese fleet was without any doubt superior to the US one and that in 42 even German submaries managed to damage instalations on the US coast and literaly engange ships as they leave the harbor and no one could knew what plans the Japanese had (Even a assault on the US coast was in debate) its qustionable that the Military would have enganged in such a high risk with Pearl Harbor. People in the military for example very carefully followed the war in Russia and the German "Blitzkrieg" and some feared a similar result in the US by Japanese forces eventualy.
Indeed it is. But when it comes to history I always tend not to go in a black and white thinkingSuAside said:
The so called great purge in military comited by Stalin can be seen from quite a few different angles. It allowed for example as well (later of course) "fresh blood" with new ideas to enter in the high command of the military. On average in 1941 the Commanders in the high ranks of the Soviet Military have been around 20 years younger then their German counterparts which have been all in their 50s and some in their 60s even.
Also quite a lof the people that have been send to the camps by Stalin have been reactivated in the war ... just to spend it after the war again in the camps ... well.
You have any sources for that? Dunno I am just confused cause anything I heard about the Jeeps says they have been extremly reliable so much that Italian and German troups would do almost anything to either buy, capture or steal them (even from each other!).Kahgan said:...
The thousands of willies jeeps that the US sent were stuck in the snow the moment they arrived
Crni Vuk said:You have any sources for that? Dunno I am just confused cause anything I heard about the Jeeps says they have been extremly reliable so much that Italian and German troups would do almost anything to either buy, capture or steal them (even from each other!).Kahgan said:...
The thousands of willies jeeps that the US sent were stuck in the snow the moment they arrived
Not really, it was meant mostly as a joke. But the notion that jeeps were superior to the german kübelwagen is, according to wikipedia, from a us military handbook, and thus could be biased, and the experience from captured german vehicles said otherwise. I've read that the allies regarded the german kübelwagen as worth two US jeeps, because of the reliability (Can't back that up with any source though). The kübelwagen was a fantastic vehicle, it could start and run in 50+c in africa and 50-c in russia, mostly due to the air-cooled engine.
Can't speak for the russian equal to the jeep, if they had one. But american cars aren't as good as they are hyped to be, that's for sure.