The Best And The Worst Of Your Countries History.

[Monk]

I'll start with the good stuff - Denmark was the first country in the world (or was it just Europe?) to ban slavery, establish a citizens Ombudsman, legalize pornography, let gays enjoy same benefits as heterosexual couples, and of course there's always Christiania (In case you were wondering, that's the place Winston usually hangs out, but he doesn't really want to admit it )

Then there are a couple pretty important guys who I think are pretty widely known abroad for their significance in various fields, people like Kierkegaard or Niels Bohr (and maybe Lars Ulrich, too? ). Denmark got a neat reputation for a particular event in 1943, when most of the Danish Jews were succesfully evacuated to Sweden through a nationwide rescue operation after plans about deporting them to Germany had been leaked. That's all I can think of right now, though. I'm sorry to say that the story about the king of Denmark wearing a yellow star during the occupation is an urban legend.

I'll get back with the dark side when I get the time. So far, you've read pretty much what you'd read in a "visit Denmark" ad, only without the blonde women.

[el freako]

Very few British replies so far.

Best Moments:

Saving Europe from Napoleon Bonaparte in 1792-1815.
Saving Europe from Kaiser Wilhelm in 1914-1918.
Saving Europe from Adoph Hitler in 1939-1945.

Outlawing the transportation of slaves in the 1830's and enforcing it with our navy.

Worst Moments:

Abysmal treatment of the French during the 100 years war.
Terrible treatment of the Indian's in after the mutiny of 1857.
Atrocious treatment of Africans due to the slave trade.
Terror bombing of German cities in 1944-45.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, it is called 'nukes'

That was one idea, but a better one was bomb bridges and areas of concentration in China.

Truman was right to take that nutter out. We would have never won in Korea, too many Chinese.

Non-sense.
He removed him because he was an arrogant pr1ck, not for incompetence.
Numbers hardly matter all that much, if they have nothing to eat and no ammunition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

He removed him because he was an arrogant pr1ck, not for incompetence.

Actually he removed him because he directly went against a direct order of Truman's. MacArther tried to tell the press what he wanted to do and how Truman said no, trying to embarass him commander-in-chief. However, that was also against direct orders... and that was the reason for his dismissal.

And numbers would have mattered there. Don't care how much firepower you have... 100 million men is waaay too much to beat, especially in a war most Americans didn't know why we were there (like Vietnam, later).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Actually he removed him because he directly went against a direct order of Truman's. MacArther tried to tell the press what he wanted to do and how Truman said no, trying to embarass him commander-in-chief. However, that was also against direct orders... and that was the reason for his dismissal.

What part of arrogant pr1ck didn't you understand?

And numbers would have mattered there. Don't care how much firepower you have... 100 million men is waaay too much to beat, especially in a war most Americans didn't know why we were there (like Vietnam, later).

Your doing that thing that annoys me the most Imran, showing stupidity when I know your not stupid.
There isn't an army on this earth thay EVER totaled 100 million, and you know it.
Logistics is now, and has ever been, the key to war.
Men must eat, weapons need ammo, vehicles need fuel.
Are you just trying to argue for argument's sake?

[Imran Siddiqui]

What part of arrogant pr1ck didn't you understand?

Incompetance = not following orders... as well, you know

Your doing that thing that annoys me the most Imran, showing stupidity when I know your not stupid.
There isn't an army on this earth thay EVER totaled 100 million, and you know it.
Logistics is now, and has ever been, the key to war.
Men must eat, weapons need ammo, vehicles need fuel.
Are you just trying to argue for argument's sake?

Maybe that was an exageration, but they did have a Hell of a lot of forces, and I'm not so sure as you that the situation was that dire for the Chinese. After all they weren't too far from their supply lines.

[Tingkai]

Chris62's stupidity prevails...

Chris62: If you put your unwarranted arrogance aside, you might actually learn something. Or you can continue to maintain you're right even if you are wrong. And you are wrong on much of what you say.

First on some facts that cannot be disputed:

You claimed that the first heart transplant was done in the US. the first human heart transplant was actually done in 1967 by Dr. Christiaan N. Barnard in South Africa.

You claimed that penicillin was created in the United States. It was discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming in Britain.

You wrote: "Before shooting your mouth off, you should take a look at the TO&E of Nazi formations after Faliese [sic], the depths of your ignorence [sic] would probaly [sic] astound you."

I don't know why you want to discuss the strength of the German army after the battle of Normandy, but here are a couple of points. On June 6th, German forces in the West had 48 infantry division. By September, there were 21 div on paper. The 12 panzer divisions that remained in September had 120 tanks in total (source: John Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy).

So after the battle of Normandy, the Western allies had overwhelming numbers. But that doesn't conflict with anything that I said in my previous point. In fact, I stated that the Western Allies superior numbers overcame the individual superior quality of the German tanks.

As for the Soviets in WWII, you should sit down read my previous post and actually think about what it says because you obviously haven't understood the point. Let me try to explain this in a way that even you would understand.

The Soviets suffered massive losses in 41 that had most people thinking that Russia would collapse. [And if we believe what you say, and frankly I don't, the Russians were willing to surrender] But Russia continued to fight. In 42, Russia suffered more devastating losses. Again, many people said Russia was finished, but Russia fought on. In 43, the German high command was convinced that one more push and the Russians would collapse. It didn't.

Over and over again, people looked at the losses the Russians were taking and said they're bound to collapse. They have used up their reserves. Yet, the Russians continued to pour more men onto the battlefield and won.

And now you come along and claim that the Russians had suffered so many losses that West could have walked all over them. Ridiculous. You would have fit well into the German high command.

As for the quality of the Pershing and Centurion, no one has disagreed that these were great tanks and likely a match for what the Russians had. But as the German experience shows, simply having the best tank on the field does not guarantee victory.

The US and UK air power would have likely dominated against the Russians, but as Korea and Vietnam demonstrated, simply having superior air power is no guarantee for victory, although it certainly gives a significant advantage. There are ways to win on the battlefield even if the enemy controls the air.

The number one reason why the Western allies would not have been able to defeat the Russians is morale. Western troops would have had no desire to fight the Russian while the Russian would once again be defending the motherland.

There is no guarantee the US and UK could have defeated the Russians so to claim, as you did, that Truman allowed the Russians to take over Eastern Europe is stupid.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by el freako

Worst Moments:

Abysmal treatment of the French during the 100 years war.
Terrible treatment of the Indian's in after the mutiny of 1857.
Atrocious treatment of Africans due to the slave trade.
Terror bombing of German cities in 1944-45.

Don't forget the genocide and subjugation of Ireland.........

[KrazyHorse]

I can't force myself to feel too harshly toward the British Empire. Probably a result of comparing with Spanish, Portuguese, French and Belgian practices.

The major genocide of Ireland was mainly unintentional. Criminally negligent, but at least unintentional.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I can't force myself to feel too harshly toward the British Empire. Probably a result of comparing with Spanish, Portuguese, French and Belgian practices.

The major genocide of Ireland was mainly unintentional. Criminally negligent, but at least unintentional.

\

Some of the famines were intentional. Also, for long periods of time Irishmen were seen as wild beasts and it was legal to murder them. Genocide also occured during the Cromwell regime.

[Tolls]

The English treated all the conquered people of the Isles much the same...both Scotland and Wales suffered badly from English attempts at subjugation, Ireland was not alone in that.

Which all goes back to Bugs' point about 1066 really...the Normans didn't do us any favours. (Though Stamford Bridge is where I'd place the blame, rather than Hastings).

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Chris 62
The source for this is the historical section, US Army, West point, where I was attached for six months before I retired.
The actual numbers are staggering, and are not widely known to historians, as much of this is not codified or availible to the general public.It seems that 80% of the goods were passed through Iran (where there were Rails built by USA and Britain) and Vladivostok (Russian frieghters throughout the Pacific war were visiting the US west coast, Japan allowed this in the hopes of keeping Russia neutral).

So this is late war production for the most part. That makes sense, as U.S. production was amazing at that point. The Iranian supply corridor wasn't very functional until 1944, in part due to the German presence in the Caucasus in '42, and the time and effort necessary in building the rail lines in Iran. The Pacific shipping was quite limited due to the small size of the Soviet merchant fleet. U.S. submarines accidently sank 6 Soviet freighters during the war, which each time brought a furious diplomatic response from the Soviets, who were fearful of the fairly high percentage of the Soviet Pacific Merchant fleet lost with each ship, and who didn't give a damn about the U.S. war with Japan.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Our Soviet Friends had numerous Churchill and Sherman brigades in action, that they "neglect" to mention, probaly part of Stalin's anti-west mania.
It is also not widely understood that many Soviel designed Aircraft had western (British and US) designed and manufactured engines, so we are not just talking about a few Airacobras and Hurricanes here, but standard soviet designs, so I'm affraid it does past the test, depending on whether you believe US Army sources, which I do, mainly because they aern't publicized, and they explain the fantastic numbers the Soviets had in the field by 45. It is also true that the soviet training organization used almost all western equipment from 43 foward.
Also, it is two ports in the Artic, not one, Murmansk and Archanglesk, and after 43 the German ability to interdict this route is extremly limited, so most convoys were delivering 90% or more of the goods sent.).

I knew about the aircraft engines, which make up a high percentage of the expense of an aircraft. As for the two ports, Murmansk was subject to not only air interdiction by the Luftwaffe at sea, but also of it's rail line until 1943. Still significant if not incredible amounts of material were shipped from there fairly early in the war, when it counted most. I also knew that Soviet training involved a lot of obsolescent western equipment, with superior Soviet tanks being used in front line areas.

Originally posted by Chris 62
I was talking about the whole war, not seperate parts, but by 44 the USA and Britain had taken on the task of feeding and clothing the entire Soviet military, you don't seriously believe the Soviets found an alternate food source in country to replace Ukrane, do you?.)

After the rail lines became fully functional I knew that huge amounts of finished goods, uniforms, food etc. were shipped via this route (and ungodly numbers of trucks to haul them around). I never expected it to come to these sorts of precentages though, especially as it came so late. I still don't believe that those figures represent true percentages for the war as a whole. For one thing, it's pretty hard to determine just how much food is produced in a region that is starving, as desperate people can be both resourceful and secretive when their survival depends upon it. I can believe that 70% of officially accounted for foodstuffs came from overseas after 1943, but I can't buy into that figure for the whole war when the bulk of deliveries came so late. Assuming that 80% of the deliveries were made in the last two years of WWII, and even assuming that a fair percentage of the 20 million Soviet dead were brought low by starvation and it's complications, it seems to me that there is still a lot of food unaccounted for.

Originally posted by Chris 62
This is a bone on contention, but the fact remains the Soviets needed to move the bulk of their armor east to attack Japan shows their weakness.

Well, Stalin pulled almost everything out of there in 1941 and never looked back, so it's not that surprising that he had to build up. And from a strategic point of view it makes sense to use as much force as possible, especially when you have already suffered so many casualties. There were also a lot of Japanese to deal with, though they were no match for Stalin's experienced troops and cutting edge equipment. To be fair, the Japanese army in Manchuria had suffered from a lot of neglect during the war, and technically did not possess great equipment of doctrine to begin with.

Originally posted by Chris 62
Having better tanks is meaningless if their crews can't eat, aern't getting fuel, are being shelled constantly and have no air cover (make no mistake here, the Soviet Yak and Lavochkins were no match for Mustangs and Tempests, several times over the balkans US air mixed it up with the Soviets, and shot down several Soviet machines without loss, and shot up Soviet colums as well. Also, the US had begun to deliver the Pershing, which was more then a match for the IS-2, and Britain was preparing to deploy the excellent Centurion, so the quality gap was rapidily closing. Add to it, the US would be fighting the same kind of war, against an enemy with better tactical equipment, feeling the logistical pinch (all those B-17s, B-24s, and the new B-29s would be put to good use, as would Lancasters and Halifaxis, add to it that the allied bread line would be cut, plus the USA had nukes and the will to us them), and it becomes clear that the parity you claim is not so apparent, if fact, the western allies had advantages in 45 that they would never see again, advantages that kept Stalin in check a few years later, during the Berlin airlift, where Stalin realized that if he attacked the transports the allied airforce would rip his forces up, so he backed off.
I stand by what I said, the Soviets got away with murder in 45, and Truman was the #1 man reponsible for it. .)

Air superiority would have been easy, supremacy like that experienced by the allies over the Germans from the second half of '44 on a lot tougher. The Russians had quite a few things going for them, and a few more going against the Allies. For one thing, they had a lot of strategic depth, including the return of a lot of productive regions like Ukraine. While the U.S. had some nice long range fighters, they did not have the range to escort B-29s etc. all the way to the factories in the Urals, though I grant you if the allies had been able to study the successes they had in attacking the German rail system they would still have been quite effective using similar methods.

The Soviets had an army in being, and didn't have to rely as much on their industries to create one, only to maintain it. Both sides suffered from manpower losses, and the Soviets moreso than the allies. There would be political considerations for the western powers if a long or particularly intense war with the Soviets were to be prosecuted however, while I think that the Soviets would be faced with an ever shrinking army.

The Western Allies also were still involved in a war with Japan, while the Soviets were free to join it or not. Had an allied attack on the Soviets occurred, Soviet-Japanese cooperation could have produced some difficulties for U.S. plans in the Pacific, where Soviet aircraft could have made things difficult for the USN, and Soviet fuel could have given the moribund Japanese forces a boost. I'm not predicting a Japanese or Soviet victory, rather a prolonged and even more bloody chapter to the war.

As for the improved allied tanks, these were very late on the scene. My uncle had one of the first few Pershings and drove it over Remagen bridge (the third tank over during the battle there, with one of the first two being destroyed). These were decent tanks, but a bit slow, with poor armor sloping for the time (though a fair bit of armor), and a mediocre 90mm MA. They were a lot like the Sherman, nothing special at the moment of first production, and slow to be deployed in numbers sufficient to make a big difference while their utility in tank to tank combat remained palpable. Allied tank doctrine on an operational and tactical level were a far cry from the level of the Germans, which would have to be a pleasant surprise for the Russians. Offsetting this somewhat would be the excellent American artillery establishment, and plenty of tactical aircraft, though with a larger Soviet airforce at least initially, not as many available for interdiction and ground attack as there were against the Germans in Europe.

A clear advantage for the Western Allies would be the incredible mobility of their total force vs that of the Wehrmacht. This might have surprised the Soviet forces if the allies had been lucky enough to support a commander like Patton who had the imagination and skill to make use of it. Ike probably wouldn't have used it to it's best advantage, and Monty seemed still keen on advancing on a broad front as well. He knew better, but could never really pull off anything else successfully.

As for the nukes, it's hard to imagine them being all that effective in and of themselves. The allies could pound cities into rubble already by using large numbers of planes, so the threat was not that much worse than what would already be happening. Soviet intelligence had a much better handle on the fact that the U.S. only had a few nukes, and thus the bluffing mechanism used successfully against the Japanese would not have worked against the Soviets. With their economy already dispersed, it seems like the weapons would have been of marginal utility until they could be produced in numbers.

Anyway, it's nice talking history and what ifs with you.

[Chris 62]

Captain Tinky's disinformation brigade continues...

Originally posted by Tingkai
Chris62: If you put your unwarranted arrogance aside, you might actually learn something. Or you can continue to maintain you're right even if you are wrong. And you are wrong on much of what you say.

Sorry chumly, but your the one in error, as several people besides myself have already pointed out.
You just don't want to listen.

First on some facts that cannot be disputed:

Want to bet?

You claimed that the first heart transplant was done in the US. the first human heart transplant was actually done in 1967 by Dr. Christiaan N. Barnard in South Africa.

Best go back and read the link I provided.
Bernard's work was all based on Drs Richard Lower and Norman Shumway. They paved the way, and both were Americans. It might be also interesting to point out that Bernhardt's patient died 18 days after the procedure.
If you go back to my intial post, I said first heart transplant, not HUMAN heart transplant, and the two doctors I mentioned did exactly that, in 1959 with an animal.
The problem is, you assumed.

You claimed that penicillin was created in the United States. It was discovered by Sir Alexander Fleming in Britain.

No, what I was referring to was the first marketing and widespread distrabution of it, see link #2, captain disinformation.

You wrote: "Before shooting your mouth off, you should take a look at the TO&E of Nazi formations after Faliese [sic], the depths of your ignorence [sic] would probaly [sic] astound you."

I don't know why you want to discuss the strength of the German army after the battle of Normandy, but here are a couple of points. On June 6th, German forces in the West had 48 infantry division. By September, there were 21 div on paper. The 12 panzer divisions that remained in September had 120 tanks in total (source: John Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy).

And how did they get that way?
You made it a point to say how ineffective the allied armies were.
I love watching your back-peddle, but your not escaping.

So after the battle of Normandy, the Western allies had overwhelming numbers.

And how did they acchive such an edge?

But that doesn't conflict with anything that I said in my previous point. In fact, I stated that the Western Allies superior numbers overcame the individual superior quality of the German tanks.

What a backward interpretation.
Allied forces were out-numbered the entire first month before the breakout, yet breakout they did, against the army YOU claim had invincable armor.
Allied forces realized that numbers wern't going to cut it after Monty's heavily losses on the right shoulder of Normandy.
All you did here was prove my point!

As for the Soviets in WWII, you should sit down read my previous post and actually think about what it says because you obviously haven't understood the point. Let me try to explain this in a way that even you would understand.

You could try using facts, instead of the Pravda quotes you tried before.

The Soviets suffered massive losses in 41 that had most people thinking that Russia would collapse. [And if we believe what you say, and frankly I don't, the Russians were willing to surrender] But Russia continued to fight. In 42, Russia suffered more devastating losses. Again, many people said Russia was finished, but Russia fought on. In 43, the German high command was convinced that one more push and the Russians would collapse. It didn't.

Populist tripe.
Go read some real historian's work on the Eastern front, I turned you on to a few, go read them.
Stalin's peace feelers are all there, all your again doing is repeating the same non-sense as before.
Haldler was convinced the war was lost in 42, Guderian told Hitler flat out that an offensive in 43 would fail.
The only one who thought about "one more push" was Hitler, and even he understood that his Army would have trouble with a real offensive, so he settled on Zitidell.
You really don't know about any of this, do you?

Over and over again, people looked at the losses the Russians were taking and said they're bound to collapse. They have used up their reserves. Yet, the Russians continued to pour more men onto the battlefield and won.

It is the SOVIETS who addmited they were at their end manpower-wise in 45, not me.
You really need to be better read if you want to participate in these discussions.

And now you come along and claim that the Russians had suffered so many losses that West could have walked all over them. Ridiculous. You would have fit well into the German high command.

These kind of quotes are why I treat you with such deserved contempt.
Not once did I say it would be a walkover, only that the Soviets had no chance of victory vs the western allies in 1945.
The allies would be percieved as liberators all the way to the old Polish-Soviet border, even possibly in Belyorus, and need not push any further, a campaign of only a few hundred miles, in which the only one real obsticle (the Vistula), and would benifit from friendly populations (Remember, the allies had the real hard-core Poles, and Russian treatment of Germans in Prussia garuntees support for allied forces).
Of course the Soviets would fight back, and cause losses, but it would change nothing.

As for the quality of the Pershing and Centurion, no one has disagreed that these were great tanks and likely a match for what the Russians had. But as the German experience shows, simply having the best tank on the field does not guarantee victory.

No, you need flexibility, tactics, arty support, airpower, all of which favored the western allies.

The US and UK air power would have likely dominated against the Russians, but as Korea and Vietnam demonstrated, simply having superior air power is no guarantee for victory, although it certainly gives a significant advantage. There are ways to win on the battlefield even if the enemy controls the air.

Korea and Vietnam are poor examples, because they were limited wars were airpower could not be unleashed to it's fullest potential.
The only target worth bombing in North Vietnam were those Russian frighters loaded which supplies and equipment, and they were off limits.
Flying form bases in Germany, B-29s could reach soviet factories in the urals, and could bomb from 40,000 feet, far above the altitude any Soviet interceptor could reach (no Mig-15s yet, that won't be for several years)

The number one reason why the Western allies would not have been able to defeat the Russians is morale. Western troops would have had no desire to fight the Russian while the Russian would once again be defending the motherland.

Russian forces would only be getting such a boost should the west pursue into Soviet territory, and unlikely and unnecessary occurance.
Most Russian forces were extremly war weary, US forces were not (British forces were, however, and were also suffering from manpower shortages).
No advantage for Ivan here.

There is no guarantee the US and UK could have defeated the Russians so to claim, as you did, that Truman allowed the Russians to take over Eastern Europe is stupid.

In your un-informed opinon.
You have already shown me that there are major gaps in your knowledge of the eastern front in particular, and WWII in general, so anything you say would be taken with a grain of salt as it is.

[Chris 62]

Anyway, it's nice talking history and what ifs with you.

The same.
That was quite an excellent post, good food for thought there.
Nothing to really argue, as it's all speculation.

[Roland]

"Flying form bases in Germany, B-29s could reach soviet factories in the urals, and could bomb from 40,000 feet"

From certain findings all over the city here, I'd just say that targetting was not a strength at the time. Ha!