Should the USA have teamed with the Germans

[Markle]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

We certainly shouldn't have armed the UK after they declared war against Germany. Instead of arming the UK we should have annexed Canada.

While the UK was busy defending themselves due to the aggressive war they started against Germany, they would not have had the resources to fight the USA at the same time.

And many Canadians, especially in Quebec, weren't too happy about their children being enslaved by King George to be used as royal cannon fodder again.

We could have easily taken Canada from the UK, probably without firing a shot.

Instead, FDR decided to enslave millions of Americans in violation of the 13th amendment and get hundreds of thousands of Americans killed fighting for the Soviet commies and the monarchy that sacked, looted and burned Washington D.C.

FDR was an evil traitor.

You tell me. Do you think the UK could have taken on the USA while they were at war with Germany?

No
The UK had a tiny army

And they were also stretched thin and depending on the USA for food, fuel, and other war supplies. When the UK declared war on Germany, they were caught off guard by how advanced the German war machine had become since WWI.

The UK actually was not sure what side the USA would join and had plans if the USA joined the evil guys

 

[ESay]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

The thing is I dont believe the Soviet troops could retreat from Europe even if Moscow got nuked. It wouldn't have been the end of the conflict, as was the case in Japan. One cant expect the army which is in full control of half Europe suddenly leave the positions and go home. Even after the nuclear bomb having been dropped, there would have been a full scale war.

Of course it would have been a War.........Only question would be would Stalin have given up Poland to the West.........which of course he wouldn't have.........so yes...........IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WAR...........As his supply chains got hit from long range bombers........it would have put his logistics in the dirt..............

Why are you so eager about Poland? Is it because of its geographic importance or historical justice or what?

I can agree that Poland and its people had unenviable fate in the war. And also, it may well be said it was betrayed by the Western allies.

But what comes to my mind first relating Poland and WWII is connection between Poland and the Holocaust. I am fully aware that it was the Germans that organized it and were in charge, and I dont try to shift the blame. But I also agree with the point that if not Polish active engaging in it, then it was be possible at least to try to significantly lower the numbers.

For me, personally, the Jewish question during WWII was somewhat a test on 'humaneness', and the Polish didn't pass it.

So, I understand why the idea of liberating Poland, at high cost especially, may be not too popular among the Americans. You have a different opinion. What is a reason?

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

 

[eagle1462010]

So, I understand why the idea of liberating Poland, at high cost especially, may be not too popular among the Americans. You have a different opinion. What is a reason?

The invasion of Poland was the reason for declaration of War..........to me it wasn't won til that objective was achieved.......

Poland was left hanging at the end............PERIOD..............That is historically correct.........I don't like it.

It's not like I was chasing a Polish bimbo or something.......lol

 

[eagle1462010]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

 

[harmonica]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

..we can't save the whole world.....that's a lot of American lives lost for what???

Straw man...Nobody said anything about saving the world...And at that, the natives of the various aforementioned countries would be participating in saving themselves.

And even after all that, what's Murica doing in over 130 countries right now, if not trying to save the world?

you want waste American lives on Eastern Europe for what reason?

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

 

[eagle1462010]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

 

[eagle1462010]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

......hahahaha--
...not--not massively at all---do you know how inaccurate heavy bombers were? Plus you have to have good weather/sighting--which did not happen all the time--especially in fall/winter
sure, it helps--but not massively

 

[Oddball]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

..we can't save the whole world.....that's a lot of American lives lost for what???

Straw man...Nobody said anything about saving the world...And at that, the natives of the various aforementioned countries would be participating in saving themselves.

And even after all that, what's Murica doing in over 130 countries right now, if not trying to save the world?

you want waste American lives on Eastern Europe for what reason?

Ummmmm....Maybe very much the same reason they were in western Europe in the first place?

BTW, nice move of the goalposts.

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

 

[harmonica]

Without controlling the skies all that Soviet armor would just be target practice and that's before developing jet fighters

so, we get halfway across Russia and then what?
..do you have any idea how much it would cost--in $$$/material/etc just to go HALF-way across Russia????!!!..look at the map I posted

Who said anything about occupying Russia? Just push them back to their start point - East of Poland

hahhahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so we are going to attack Russia, but just to Poland--and they will not be pissed---Russia will stop fighting once we get to Poland!!!!!!!???? Russia will say ''ok, it's ok that you attacked us, since you are at Poland, you win''????!!!!!
jesus f christ!!!!!! this isn't a movie!!!!

And after Moscow gets nuked........then what.......we did it to Japan ........what makes you think we wouldn't have done it there.

Yes they had a very large army.........but that army needed logisitcs too.

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

Wouldn't have been just to free Poland...All of eastern Europe was in Stalin's crosshairs.

There were no more nukes on hand after the ones dropped on Japan....That was a little secret that few knew about until well after the war.....Which isn't to say that some more couldn't have been produced over time, just saying.

..we can't save the whole world.....that's a lot of American lives lost for what???

Straw man...Nobody said anything about saving the world...And at that, the natives of the various aforementioned countries would be participating in saving themselves.

And even after all that, what's Murica doing in over 130 countries right now, if not trying to save the world?

you want waste American lives on Eastern Europe for what reason?

Ummmmm....Maybe very much the same reason they were in western Europe in the first place?

BTW, nice move of the goalposts.

hahahhahah--hitler declared war on the US...Eastern Europe/Russia did not declare war on the US

 

[eagle1462010]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

Yawn......ummm.........the scenario is IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR.........I think they would have been hit by air power had we went to War with them........lol

 

[esalla]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

LOL do you know how many Americans the German u boats killed?

Apparently not

You out of Vaseline yet?

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

Yawn......ummm.........the scenario is IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR.........I think they would have been hit by air power had we went to War with them........lol

airpower would not have won a war if we went to war with them

 

[eagle1462010]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

Yawn......ummm.........the scenario is IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR.........I think they would have been hit by air power had we went to War with them........lol

airpower would not have won a war if we went to war with them

Never said it did.............said it would cut their supply chain up and hit their ability to manufacturer..........if they were SOOOO UNBEATABLE.........then why the hell did they need the Lend Lease Act from us........trucks sent by us help them maintain that supply line.......

Take out their rail road engine network.......aka the engines pulling the trains........they would have been fucked.

As it was........even though Germany took nearly half the tracks from Russia.......they failed to hit the locomotives to pull the cars with the supplies.

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

Yawn......ummm.........the scenario is IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR.........I think they would have been hit by air power had we went to War with them........lol

airpower would not have won a war if we went to war with them

Never said it did.............said it would cut their supply chain up and hit their ability to manufacturer..........if they were SOOOO UNBEATABLE.........then why the hell did they need the Lend Lease Act from us........trucks sent by us help them maintain that supply line.......

Take out their rail road engine network.......aka the engines pulling the trains........they would have been fucked.

As it was........even though Germany took nearly half the tracks from Russia.......they failed to hit the locomotives to pull the cars with the supplies.

hahhahaaa
German population about 70 million
Russian population over 100 million
refer to the map I posted
even without Lend Lease, Germany is not winning

 

[eagle1462010]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

So..........they weren't fighting Russia now were they...........Hardly the same.........so we should have not given the Russians the 14000 aircraft..............OK......they didn't need them........obsolete...........lol

........you were talking about long range bombers--then you were talking about the bombing starving/etc the Russians--but we did not use long range bombers on the Russians

Yawn......ummm.........the scenario is IF WE HAD GONE TO WAR.........I think they would have been hit by air power had we went to War with them........lol

airpower would not have won a war if we went to war with them

Never said it did.............said it would cut their supply chain up and hit their ability to manufacturer..........if they were SOOOO UNBEATABLE.........then why the hell did they need the Lend Lease Act from us........trucks sent by us help them maintain that supply line.......

Take out their rail road engine network.......aka the engines pulling the trains........they would have been fucked.

As it was........even though Germany took nearly half the tracks from Russia.......they failed to hit the locomotives to pull the cars with the supplies.

hahhahaaa
German population about 70 million
Russian population over 100 million
refer to the map I posted
even without Lend Lease, Germany is not winning

Never said that.......you keep twisting......the scenario was if we had fought Russia..........

Stop moving the goal posts.