# USA vs. NK



## evancity2 (Feb 24, 2004)

Will it happen. Through me whatever you got. If it's all put together, I bet we can make an accurate idea of what could happen. We all know Bush isn't afriad of war, and in the "Hungry Koreans" post, some guy talks about possible war this summer. I NEED ANSWERS. But I don't need stupid or of the piont answers (in other words, don't start talking about Matrix Reloaded or Michael Jackson for no apparent resean whatsoever). TNX

-oh yay, political relations between NK and USA or Un etc. are allowed.


----------



## Barbarossa (Mar 6, 2004)

If war did break out it would be the world vs communism and terrorism.  US declares war on N. Korea then China backs N. Korea then the US has a serious problem to deal with.


----------



## Johnney (Mar 7, 2004)

wehave to much on our plates as it is right now.  after we the this middle east thing under control for the most part i think we will be addressing nk a little more closely.  

lil kim dont want none of what we have to offer in a military way. hes jsut trying to save face with his country. as soon as he sees that his making demands isnt going to work with us, he will be a little more responsive. 
<i>if</i> it goes that far, it wont be pretty, thats for sure.


----------



## AtlantaWalter (Mar 7, 2004)

It would be interesting to see the chinks try that human wave BS they did during the Korean war against the modern weapons we have today. A fuel air bomb, mini-guns, Claymores, and a few of our other toys would certainly make them wish they'd stayed home and been happy with their bowl of fish-heads and rice!!!!


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 8, 2004)

Still, I'm afraid that, well...along with human waves they have something else...um...uh... THEY HAVE *&%$ NUKES. SAME WITH *&^%$% CHINA. Also, would Russia jion the commy side?


----------



## Barbarossa (Mar 8, 2004)

Russia wouldn't join North Korea or China.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 8, 2004)

My question is, is China really communist anymore? I mean with the passage of the laws granting private property its not any communist state i know of. I mean its not Democracy by any deffinition of the word but not really communism anymore either.

I dont think China wants N Korea with nukes anymore then we do. If N Korea decides to fire one at S Korea or Japan or anywhere the wind will blow the fallout back to china. Do you think they want that?

But then again, regardless of if they are still communist, they still have the commie foundation. and commies always lie.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 8, 2004)

China has stated many times that they are absolutely opposed to a 'nuclear' peninsula.  Why then they aren't taking a more proactive stance against North Korea I don't understand.  Like the Soviet's before them, the Chinese seem to enjoy playing the dangerous game of brinkmanship with the U.S.  This is why it is important that we always assume an aggressive posture.  Letting North Korea dictate the terms and pace of negotiations is a fool's game and helps to ensure failure.


----------



## Johnney (Mar 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Zhukov _
> *Letting North Korea dictate the terms and pace of negotiations is a fool's game and helps to ensure failure. *


 like i said, lil kim is trying to save face. trying to be the big man on the block, he'll buckle sooner or later.  but then again hoping for this out of a man who fattens up his military while his people eat tree bark, afterbirth, and other nasty thing might be a little far


----------



## Isaac Brock (Mar 8, 2004)

China would never join North Korea in today's worldpolitik.  I believe if given the proper casius belli, they'd love nothing more to let that dog off its leash.  Remember North Korea is Stalinist Communism and China is Maoist Communism.  For those who do not believe the difference to be great, we need to look no further than Sino-Soviet relation in the 70's and 80's.

China would back the USA.  It would give them much needed "credibility" as policing power and possibly get them economic credits.


----------



## AtlantaWalter (Mar 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Isaac Brock _
> *China would never join North Korea in today's worldpolitik.  I believe if given the proper casius belli, they'd love nothing more to let that dog off its leash.  Remember North Korea is Stalinist Communism and China is Maoist Communism.  For those who do not believe the difference to be great, we need to look no further than Sino-Soviet relation in the 70's and 80's.
> 
> China would back the USA.  It would give them much needed "credibility" as policing power and possibly get them economic credits. *



The only good commie....is a DEAD commie!!!!! Stalinist, Maoist, it doesn't matter; they all need to take the long, celestial, dirt nap.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Mar 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AtlantaWalter _
> *The only good commie....is a DEAD commie!!!!! Stalinist, Maoist, it doesn't matter; they all need to take the long, celestial, dirt nap. *



Emotions aside, China is world player and so is the US.  Both know that confrontation between eachother would be non-advantageous.  We don't live in a world of absolute evil.

I remembered this quote my history prof once told me that stuck in my head.  I just looked it to get the real wording:

"Diplomacy is a disguised war, in which states seek to gain by barter and intrigue, by the cleverness of arts, the objectives which they would have to gain more clumsily by means of war."
-Randolph Bourne


----------



## AtlantaWalter (Mar 9, 2004)

Nice quote but I prefer Clausewitz's "War is the continuation of politics by other means".

That's just because, throughout the ages, I have always been a war-monger though. That's not as evil as most think. If it weren't for man's innate desire to conquer others, America might not be at the stage we are currently at.


----------



## Isaac Brock (Mar 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by AtlantaWalter _
> *Nice quote but I prefer Clausewitz's "War is the continuation of politics by other means".
> 
> That's just because, throughout the ages, I have always been a war-monger though. That's not as evil as most think. If it weren't for man's innate desire to conquer others, America might not be at the stage we are currently at. *



Maybe not, but I 'd suggest that post-WW2, war has not always been kind, nor in retrospect, favourable to American interests.  It could be my moderate nature, but War is not something to be proud of, but rather something to be remember in the hope of never having to engage in it again.  For if we have to engage in war, we should do not out of bravado and pride, but rather out of grave duty.  I for one think that lesson is well ignored in this day an age.

In the case of North Korea, I believe the US has an approriate cassius belli to wage war, though they do not, in the case of China.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 9, 2004)

Im not sure we have to worry about China as much. I know they are communists but they are departing from communist ideals. They still live in a totalitarian state, But the Soviet Union is a clear example of what happens when A totalitarian states becomes lax allowing their people alittle freedom.


----------



## CrazyLiberal (Mar 13, 2004)

An attack on North Korea could start WW3. North Korea has nuclear bombs that can reach the Pacific Coast of the USA. They could nuke Los Angeles within hours of us attacking them. China would most likely back them and Russia would not got involved in the war. In the case of a WW3 it would most likely be NK China vs USA Britain. Whether we like it or not it would of been impossible for us to win WW2 if the Russians had sides with the Germans or remained neutral. North Korea has the 4th largest Army in the world, and China has the 3rd. 

IMO if we attacked NK there is a large possibility of nuclear holocaust so we must tread carefully.


----------



## Johnney (Mar 13, 2004)

> They could nuke Los Angeles within hours of us attacking them


 now would that be such a bad thing to drop a couple nukes on cali?


----------



## Barbarossa (Mar 13, 2004)

North Koreans have nukes that can hit Hawaii and Alaska but not Califonia.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 13, 2004)

No nukes coming from here...


----------



## CrazyLiberal (Mar 14, 2004)

I had heard they were close to developing missles that could reach California/Seattle/Oregon, I may be wrong. I live in Alaska <eek> 

I'm just happy knowing they would never attack my remote town in the middle of no where with 8,000 people!


----------



## jimnyc (Mar 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by CrazyLiberal _
> *I'm just happy knowing they would never attack my remote town in the middle of no where with 8,000 people!  *



Might want to read what NT said:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=261&highlight=alaska


----------



## CrazyLiberal (Mar 14, 2004)

My town is over 600 miles from the Military bases in Anchorage, AK. There is no civilization within 300 miles of my town I feel relatively safe


----------



## Johnney (Mar 14, 2004)

jesus christ your in the middle of no where!


----------



## CrazyLiberal (Mar 14, 2004)

Yep 

There are no roads off the island either. Any nature freak would love it, but not me. The only way off the island is a 2 hour plane trip that flys to Juneau Alaska (the capital, which has about 4 times more population) 3 times a week


----------



## Johnney (Mar 14, 2004)

now thats insane... please tell me you were born there...!


----------



## CrazyLiberal (Mar 14, 2004)

No I was not born here. I'm forced to live here. I was born in Anchorage, that city is a great place.


----------



## eric (Mar 14, 2004)

Now is it not time we start to seriously develop missle defense systems ?


----------



## MtnBiker (Mar 14, 2004)

> _Originally posted by CrazyLiberal _
> *No I was not born here. I'm forced to live here.  *


You're in jail?


----------



## Johnney (Mar 14, 2004)




----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 15, 2004)

> An attack on North Korea could start WW3. North Korea has nuclear bombs that can reach the Pacific Coast of the USA



WW3 was over years ago. We won the cold war.



> They could nuke Los Angeles within hours of us attacking them.



All the more reason to support SDI rather than oppose it.



> China would most likely back them and Russia would not got involved in the war. In the case of a WW3 it would most likely be NK China vs USA Britain.



Doubt it. China doesnt want nukes going off near N Korea. The winds would blow the fallout over them.



> Whether we like it or not it would of been impossible for us to win WW2 if the Russians had sides with the Germans or remained neutral.



I dont think so. The Soviets helped. but we could have done it without them. We did have nuclear bombs at the end of the war. it just would have been alot more bloody. Im rather glad the commies did do something right and fight Hilter. One of the few things theyve done right.



> North Korea has the 4th largest Army in the world, and China has the 3rd.



True but our army sucked compared to the Germans and Japanese in WW2 and we beat them. Wed just probably have to reinstate the draft. But i still think the fact that N Korea would probably be severely weakened by hunger would stop them from being as big as a problem as we might think. And i dont buy that china would support them.



> IMO if we attacked NK there is a large possibility of nuclear holocaust so we must tread carefully.



I agree, we need to tread carefullly. And we need to make sure John Kerry is not elected. We already know the North Koreans would rather negociate with him because they think he is more willing to give them what they want.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *I dont think so. The Soviets helped. but we could have done it without them. We did have nuclear bombs at the end of the war. it just would have been alot more bloody. Im rather glad the commies did do something right and fight Hilter. One of the few things theyve done right.*



At no point during WW2 was any less than 75% of the German wehrmacht engaged on the Eastern Front.  Even during the invasion and conquest of France the vast majority of the German army was operating in the east against possible Soviet aggression.  A great deal of the time the Red Army was contending with as much as 95% of all German land forces.  

The Soviets did more than help, losing over 27 million lives.


----------



## supermarine (Mar 15, 2004)

Hello boys, IM baaaack! Well anyway, i do agree with you Zhukov, the russians did do ALOT IN that war. And they suffered much more casualties than the brits and the americans combined. But keep in mind(im not going against the russian soldiers and stuff, they weere better than nazis) the russians did have consentration camps too in siberia. They killed jews too. (the nazis were much worse though) Stalin may have been on our side during the war, but he was a tyrant almost as bad as hitler. Shortly after they "liberated" the countries in EAstern Europe, they quickly came behind the iron curtan, away from western society. Now dont get me wrong, if it wasnt for the russians, we probably would have lost the war against the Germans, and we would be also fighting the russains. Yes it's true, GErmany and russia were allies at the bigining of the war, and if germany didnt turn on them, We would have been speaking russian or german right now, depending on who took america, and(or) won the war between the germans and russians. (War between them was inevitable)


----------



## _dmp_ (Mar 23, 2004)

Comparing casualties is not a good measurement of amount of help.   Lots of things cause casualties.

That said,  Had the USSR not been such a big player in WW2, I'd wager most of Europe would still be under German control.  They were huge.


re: USA v. NK...

NK has been hootin and hollerin for decades.  Nothing they say now should lead ppl to believe we are any closer/further than war than say, 10 years ago.


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 23, 2004)

We were comeing up from below. No, had the Russians been nutral, we would have won, it just would have taken much more time.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 23, 2004)

From what i understood alot of the lives the Soviets lost were soldiers Stalin killed for not wanting to stand against the Germans. 

like I said, there is no doubt that they did help. But i still believe we could have done it without them. It just would have ment a longer war. alot more lives lost. Do you think having 100 of the german troops against us would have stood much ground if Hitler had a few atom bombs drop on berlin?


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *like I said, there is no doubt that they did help. But i still believe we could have done it without them. It just would have ment a longer war. alot more lives lost. Do you think having 100 of the german troops against us would have stood much ground if Hitler had a few atom bombs drop on berlin? *



With all due respect, you simply don't understand the scope of what were two distinctly different wars in Europe.

Between the USA and the UK, in both theatres of the war, they lost a combined 700,000 civilians and soldiers.

The Soviets lost at least 8 MILLION soldiers and at least 16 MILLION civilians.  The city of Leningrad was surrounded and pounded with artillery for 900 days.  1.5 million civilians were killed by shelling or starved to death in that one city alone.

There are a lot of what-if's involved here, but if it were not for Hitler's intention to invade and destroy the Soviet Union from the begining, England would have been conquered. 

From where would we have flown our nuclear bombers then?  A roundtrip flight from North America to Berlin?  That would have been a feat, not impossible, but certainly difficult.  Germany on the other hand would have had the advantage of being able to launch the 6 engine bombers they were designing (they called it the New York Bomber) from England.  Then you have bombers that can hit our eastern seaboard while we have to fly over occupied Europe to hit Berlin.

It would have been a completely different war without the Soviets.   Had Hitler managed to conquer England before Pearl Harbor his declaration of war against us may never have happened because absent our support of England we would not have been in his way.  It would have been the U.S. occupied with our war in the Pacific when one day New York was incinerated by the Nazi Atomic bomb.

The key is, without the Germans being primarily occupied by the Soviets in the east, it would have been impossible for us to land in Europe let alone conquer it.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 23, 2004)

Unfortunatelly this discussion is based on what ifs. We dont know what would have happened otherwise. Im aware of went on in WW2. Heck i have a degree in it. But I think we could have won regardless..because we had to.


----------



## supermarine (Mar 23, 2004)

i completly agree with zhukov, more than half of the german soldiers were preoccupied with the war on russia. It was hard enough going through western europe with the amount of troops there, if there was no war with russia, the size of the armies of western germany would have at least quadubled in size. IF NOT MORE. I hate to admit it, but with us sending troops into the pacific, the amount of troops that we would have sent to europe would be miniscule if it wasn't for russia. And also, when i said that the russians took many casualties, that just shows how big the german army was, it takes a lot of men to fight, and put up a good fight against the russians. Even if they used strategy against them and caused many defeats for the russians, it would still take a lot of men. we would have lost the war if it wasnt for the russians.


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 23, 2004)

OKAY. LETS GET DOWN TO THE VERY RESEAN OF THE RUSSIAN CASUALTIES. DO YOU GUYS KNOW NOTHING OF THE SCUICIDAL CHARGES JUST SO THE RUSSIANS COULD GET TO BERLIN FASTER THAN EISENHOWER? PLEASE, DO NOT USE EVIDENCE THAT OPPOSES YOU AURGUMENT FOR YOU ARGUEMENT! AND YA, THE RUSSIANS DID TAKE GREAT LOSSES BECAUSE THE GERMANS HAD STRONGER FORCES, BUT THAT WAS BEFORE THE AMERICAN AND BRITTISH AND CANADIANS ARRIVED.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 24, 2004)

It all comes down to my first point. 

At no time did the combined forces of England (which included Canadians, Australians, Indians, and all sorts of miscellaneous others), the United States, and the French resistance, on every front in which we confronted them, have to contend with more than ONE FOURTH of the German army.

Yes, Red Army soldiers ran at the Germans without guns.  Yes, Red Army soldiers were shot by their own military police forces, the NKVD.  That's partially why their soldiers suffered perhaps EIGHT times the deaths that the US and UK suffered in both the European and Pacific theatres.  Stalin had already won the war by the time we landed at Normandy, and he knew it.

Again it's all what if's.  Personally, I don't believe we would have won it without the Soviets, and I think everyone knew it at the time.  Why do you think Stalin was allowed to enslave half of Europe?  Hell, we almost gave him half of Japan, and reneged at the end of the war.  

Of course, wether we would have won it or not without the Soviets is a silly question as there would have been no WW2 without the Soviet-German conflict.  Hitler didn't start a war because he wanted England, he wanted Eastern Europe.

Turn the cap-lock off.


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 24, 2004)

How the hell do you qoute something on this board... Okay, Zhukov, when you said the Russins had already won the war  before june 6th (d-day), I'm gonna have to say no. i will fall in to your "combined effort" thing, but not that. I will not accept the fact the the Russians would have won it without us. Agian (I know I have said this already) it was the German inability to wage war on two fronts that made the war end when it did. AND I must say that we did face more than una fortha of the German army in Battle Of The Bulge, when they all scurried over to us. Also, I will NOT STOP TYPING IN CAPS LOCKS. Also Zhukof, don't pretend you didn't see my written thing about the SCUICIDAL CHARGES. So please, actually read this and think about the pionts I have made.


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 24, 2004)

And Sonny, Stalin was worse than Hitler. He killed something like 20million people, where Hitler only KKKilled 4million. Nice to see you back, dude. Thought you'd gone forever.


----------



## MtnBiker (Mar 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by evancity2 _
> *How the hell do you qoute something on this board...   *


There is a quote button at the lower right hand corner, just click on that.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by evancity2 _
> Okay, Zhukov, when you said the Russins had already won the war  before june 6th (d-day), I'm gonna have to say no.



5 July 1943 (a full year before Normandy)

The Battle of Kursk, the last major offensive of the German army, after which, they were on the defensive until the end of the war.  The strength of the Red Army and Soviet industrial might continued to grow as the power of the German army was being irreversibly eroded.  This was the turning point.

By August of '44 the Russians were in Germany.



> I will not accept the fact the the Russians would have won it without us.



It is debatable to what degree our strategic bombing of German cities helped the Soviet war effort.  What is known for sure is that German industrial capacity continued to increase throughout the war.

Our Lend-Lease efforts did not amount to much until the end of the war.



> Agian (I know I have said this already) it was the German inability to wage war on two fronts that made the war end when it did.



What I'm saying is the second front to which you refer was miniscule compared to what was transpiring in the East.



> I must say that we did face more than una fortha of the German army in Battle Of The Bulge, when they all scurried over to us.



Battle of the Bulge = 29 German Divisions

German Army on Eastern Front at that time = 165 German Divisions
    +24 in Balkans
    +22 in Finland/Norway




> Also Zhukof, don't pretend you didn't see my written thing about the SCUICIDAL CHARGES. So please, actually read this and think about the pionts I have made.



I commented on that.  Perhaps you should read mine.


----------



## supermarine (Mar 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by evancity2 _
> *And Sonny, Stalin was worse than Hitler. He killed something like 20million people, where Hitler only KKKilled 4million. Nice to see you back, dude. Thought you'd gone forever. *



I think taht hitler was worse than stalin because #1 Hitler killed his people more visiously than stalin. STalin just shot them most of hte time. HItler skinned, boiled, shot, gassed, raped, etc. Also stalin had a bigger country to control, and thus more people to kill, and Stalin was in power much longer than hitler. IF hitler was in the same situation as stalin, he would have probably killed around 40milion. ANYWAY THEY WERE BOTH ASS****.


----------



## supermarine (Mar 24, 2004)

I do think that the russians might have lost if it wasnt for us too, we were on the african and italian front, and we were giving to the russians. But i think that the russians had a better chance than us alone against germany.


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 24, 2004)

How can you say a guy who killed 4 million people is worse than a guy whom killed 20 million. I'm sorry, I just think Stalin was not afraid to go farther for his regime. Also, Zuckov, where did you get those facts. I seems hard for me to believe you can just remember them in your head. Give me a link or some facts, or I will be forced to regard you evidence as "bs".


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 24, 2004)

> _Originally posted by evancity2 _
> *Also, Zuckov, where did you get those facts. I seems hard for me to believe you can just remember them in your head. Give me a link or some facts, or I will be forced to regard you evidence as "bs". *



BS, eh?  Hehe.  Well, I already gave you the facts, but here are my "links."

Try:

"Russia at War: 1941-1945", by Alexander Werth

"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany", by William L. Schirer

"Zhukov", by Otto Preston Chaney

and

"A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II", by Gerhard L. Weinberg

and then go get a minor in Russian/Soviet history and consult your notes.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 24, 2004)

And Stalin was worse than Hitler, but only because Hitler lost.  Had he won....


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 25, 2004)

You got a minor?


----------



## _dmp_ (Mar 25, 2004)

move to the "WW2" forum, and copied to the "MY Homeland had more ppl killed than YOUR homeland" forum.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by evancity2 _
> *You got a minor? *



Yes, and I speak russian.


----------



## William Joyce (Mar 25, 2004)

> It would be interesting to see the chinks try that human wave BS they did during the Korean war against the modern weapons we have today. A fuel air bomb, mini-guns, Claymores, and a few of our other toys would certainly make them wish they'd stayed home and been happy with their bowl of fish-heads and rice!!!!



I laughed my ass off at this.

Asians are too frickin' docile to mess with us, plus, they don't speak our language, so they couldn't even make slaves out of us.  "Chin yong yee yaaahhh!" they'd bark.  "Dude, what?" we'd say back.  Wouldn't work.  They all look alike, and different from us, so wasting a ton of them at once wouldn't jerk tears.

But, the main reason we won't take action against North Korea is because it's not in the Jews' interest.  They're the one calling our military shots these days.  We only went after Asians when WASPs were calling the shots:  Roosevelt, Vietnam, etc.  

Then again, maybe Jorge Bush will be told of a link between pajama boy and 9/11...


----------



## kcmcdonald (Mar 25, 2004)

first to issue the NK thing.
I think that if war was to start between us and NK the only country to suffer worse than NK would be SK, that is the only real human cost of the war i can think of. If war was going to happen you'ld better believe that we would carpet bomb the shit out of that country. If they had any missle system we'ld know were it was before we attacked. WW3 would only happen if the chinies got involved. The chances of that country trying to pick a fight with us would be retarded, we'ld slaughter them. To answer what we would do about the human wave, i have three letters to answer that S.A.W. Have some of that and call me when they pick up the pieces of you're body.

The weigh in on WW2 and Russia.

If you are going to talk about this subject you have to go back to 1941, when the Italians went into Africa and got there buts kicked by the british. If the Italians hadn't of pulled Germany in to Africa Germany would have been able to start opperation Barbarossa two mounths earlier, With an additional 60 days the Germans would have had no problem taking Moscow before winter. If Moscow would have fallen Russia would have fallen. Also if Hitler wasn't so obbsed with "STALIN-grad" and had given the tanks to army group A in the north he would have been able to advance father in the north and chocked stalingrad into surender. Also if hitler would have consentrated to the south into the Caucususes and taken the oil form the Russians thier tanks would have run out of fuel. No tanks, no Russia. If left to the German Generals the war in the east would have been over in the fall of 1941 and england would have been conquered the spring of 41. It was the fact that the Germans refussed to acknowledge the English Radar and kept sending planes to get shot down. If left to it's own devicses the US would not have been able to force the Geramans from France, espessially if we had to face the entire German Army in France. It's wierd that Hitler had the Army and the tech to conquer the world but it in the end it was Hitler, not the US not the USSR that caused the end of the war in Europe.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 26, 2004)

> _Originally posted by kcmcdonald _
> *It's wierd that Hitler had the Army and the tech to conquer the world but it in the end was Hitler, not the US not the USSR that caused the end of the war in Europe. *



Hitler was certainly a political genius, and was quite capable of swaying the masses but in the end Hitler was a fool.

I could write a book about how Hitler let the world slip through his hands :

-> Allowing the British to escape at Dunkirk
-> Switching Luftwaffe objectives from destroying the RAF to bombing London
-> Invading Russia too late in the year
-> Invading Russia with the England conflict unresolved
-> Invading Russia with no priority
-> Not utilizing widespread partisan hatred for the Soviets in occupied USSR
-> Stalingrad
-> Starting WW2 too early, before jet tech., rocket tech., atomic tech. was ready for implementation (maybe 5 years)
-> Starting WW2 too early, before the Hitler youth were fully of age (again 5 short years)
-> Wasting resources/time on battleships and other surface ships


_et cetera_


----------



## kcmcdonald (Mar 26, 2004)

It is ammazing isn't it that all through the history of the world that it was leaders, not armies otr generals that caused the decline of thier great empires.

ie romans, greeks, french, english,german,japan(they attacked america, I know this was a general decision, but the leadership forced this action) and mabey even this fate may befall us americans. I mean in the thread of world history Amercia reminds me a lot of Rome. We have the power, the will, and the money to ensure homodgeny and peace. It is yet to be seen if we will be the forst country to not become engulfed in our own power and become to stretched to maintian said power.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Mar 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by kcmcdonald _
> *It is ammazing isn't it that all through the history of the world that it was leaders, not armies otr generals that caused the decline of thier great empires.
> 
> ie romans, greeks, french, english,german,japan(they attacked america, I know this was a general decision, but the leadership forced this action) and mabey even this fate may befall us americans. I mean in the thread of world history Amercia reminds me a lot of Rome. We have the power, the will, and the money to ensure homodgeny and peace. It is yet to be seen if we will be the forst country to not become engulfed in our own power and become to stretched to maintian said power. *



All the more reason to keep Kerry out of office.


----------



## kcmcdonald (Mar 27, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Avatar4321 _
> *All the more reason to keep Kerry out of office. *



    exactly


----------



## musicman (Mar 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Zhukov _
> *BS, eh?  Hehe.  Well, I already gave you the facts, but here are my "links."
> "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany", by William L. Schirer *



Hello, Zhukov.  I'm glad to run into another fan of Schirer's wonderful book.  I read it years ago, and it made a lasting impression on me.  

I'd like to make a few observations based on the book (as nearly as I can remember it) and get your thoughts.

1.  Operation Barbarossa was originally scheduled to go off in the early spring of 1941.  This critical timing was upset by Hitler's well known insane temper.  

As Hitler moved to subjugate the Balkans, tiny Yugoslavia had the nerve to put up a resistance.  Hitler was furious.  Against the advice and pleading of his generals, he set out to punish and crush the upstarts.  This he most certainly did, but it took six weeks.  In order to satisfy his outraged pride, he postponed the invasion of the Soviet Union until June 22.

After the war, the surviving generals who were involved were asked how much longer the Germans would have needed to take Russia before the onset of it's murderous winter.  The unanimous answer was, "Six weeks".  

2.  A great part of the success of Dunkirk and the survival of Great Britian was the fact that HItler himself was a slavish anglophile.  It was not his plan to crush and subjugate England as he had other countries.  These other countries were, after all,  peopled by-in his mind-"subhumans".  His dream was to unite with Britian (once Churchill had been ousted, and reason once again prevailed in that country) and create white domination of the planet.

Here is a (probably not perfect, as it is from memory) quote from Hitler's general staff: 

"[Hitler] then astonished us by professing a great admiration for the British.  He said that they had achieved their empire by means that were sometimes harsh, but added with a shrug 'Where there is planing there are shavings flying.' "  

A member of Parliament, sizing up England's position in postwar Europe, observed, "Hilter only wished to crash the Carlton Club.  Stalin wished to smash it".


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 28, 2004)

With respect to the timing for Operation Barbarossa, at first Hitler had desired a *fall* of '40 campaign in another example of his gross inadequacies as a military strategist.  The need to transfer such a large amount of men and materiel from the west to the east made such an early attempt impossible.

Hitler was concerned about shoring up the Balkans against a possible English incursion that would disrupt his plans for the invasion of the USSR.  He got a late start on that as well (the end of May as opposed to the beginning of May) and, as you said, it took a bit longer than expected due to sturdy resistance.

Despite the delay the Germans managed to make it to within 40 miles (perhaps 30) of Red Square, being able to see the spires of the Kremlin from their position.  Then winter set in and the Russian resistance solidified.


With respect to England, it is true Hitler was an admirer of the English and impressed with their Empire.  Hitler would have preferred to avoid any confrontation with the English at all, and referred to the whole conflict as the "wrong war."  With such a half-assed attitude about the affair it's no surprise he abandoned his plans for the invasion and failed to subjugate the English before he turned his attention to the Soviets. 

At the time he felt if he quickly crushed the Soviets (and he was sure he could) the English would be forced to face reality and acquiesce to the wishes of the Germans.  The English would have been incapable of enduring the full force of an unopposed German Reich in control of the whole continent of Europe.

Once all that had happened, the Japanese would have had a free hand in Asia and Hitler felt he had 30-40 years before the US would become a threat to him.


----------



## musicman (Mar 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Zhukov _
> *With respect to the timing for Operation Barbarossa, at first Hitler had desired a fall of '40 campaign in another example of his..........*




It's interesting, isn't it, that a man as universally hated as Hitler was turned out to be his own worst enemy. He doomed himself with his actions, yet he really had no choice, being the person he was.

As you mentioned earlier, had he shown the Soviet people a glimmer of hope, they would have gladly joined him in ousting their tormentor, Stalin.  But Hitler, being who he was, couldn't do that.  He didn't give a rat's ass about them- targeted them for slave labor and/or extermination.  When the people saw that they were fighting for their lives, and not some bankrupt political ideology, it became a different matter.  

It could also be argued that Hitler's declaration of war on the US was a huge blunder.  He did it in the vain hope that his ally, Japan, would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union.  This would have given the Soviet Union Hitler's problem-a two-front war.  In reality, though, that probably didn't loom large. The US had been a belligerent participant in the war since it's onset in every sense except "official declaration".  

I guess we've wandered off topic a bit.  You mentioned something earlier about a WWII chatroom.  Wouldn't dream of asking  you to do my work for me, but could you steer me in the right direction? 

Thanks.  I enjoy jawing with you.


----------



## Zhukov (Mar 29, 2004)

> _Originally posted by musicman _
> *When the people saw that they were fighting for their lives, and not some bankrupt political ideology, it became a different matter.*



This was probably the greatest miscalculation.  It's also the reason the Russians don't call that war World War 2.  The Russian people knew they were fighting for their very existence, not communism, and not Stalin.  This is exemplified in the termonology they use, calling the conflict "The Great Patriotic War."  



> *It could also be argued that Hitler's declaration of war on the US was a huge blunder.  He did it in the vain hope that his ally, Japan, would reciprocate by declaring war on the Soviet Union.  This would have given the Soviet Union Hitler's problem-a two-front war.*




Even a minor Japanese incursion into the Soviet Far East could have tipped the balance in western Russia in the Nazi's favor by diverting vital Soviet divisions to the east to confront the Japanese.  Zhukov was kept waiting in the Far East for a large portion of the initial Nazi offensive, in case of Japanese aggression.  He only arrived in time to conduct the defense of Moscow.

Fortunately for the Soviets, a.) the Japanese were far more interested in arable land and readily available natural resources than they were in arctic wasteland, and b.) the Japanese had a treaty with the Soviets and bushido demanded they honor it.  



> *I guess we've wandered off topic a bit.*




Topic, schmopic. 



> *You mentioned something earlier about a WWII chatroom.  Wouldn't dream of asking  you to do my work for me, but could you steer me in the right direction? *



Someone else mentioned that, and I'm not sure exactly to what they were referring but I think it was a sarcastic remark.


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 29, 2004)

Okay, Zhukov, I'm sorry I ever argued with you on this topic (says unsarasticly). You obviosly know your stuff. And you know what's funny, I don't really care that we wondered off toppic. Heres a quote from my very first post on this topic.



> _Originally posted by evancity2 _
> * I NEED ANSWERS. But I don't need stupid or of the piont answers (in other words, don't start talking about Matrix Reloaded or Michael Jackson for no apparent resean whatsoever). TNX
> 
> -oh yay, political relations between NK and USA or Un etc. are allowed. *


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 29, 2004)




----------



## kcmcdonald (Mar 30, 2004)

evencity,
thats the way threads go sometimes. you don't like it don't start a thread!!!


----------



## evancity2 (Mar 30, 2004)

I never said I didn't like it!


----------

