sad thoughts on poly posters

[David Floyd]

And if moscow had fallen, the russian people would ahve lost most of their will to fight

No, but they would have lost their communications and transportation hub, which would have been just as significant.

Yes, but then the Japanese could have held down more units in the East, if the russians were worried that the japanese would only fight one superpower rather than the USSR and the USA.

Not really. The Soviets knew that the Japanese couldn't really go anywhere in Siberia - they didn't have the logistics to do much more than take the Maritime Provinces. They couldn't march across Siberia like they do in Axis & Allies, and that was obvious. The Soviets still would have withdrawn large forces, including their best units, to face Germany at the time of Typhoon, but it wouldn't have made much difference because the remainder, including masses of T-26s - which were useless on the Western front but powerful in the East - would have easily checked any Japanese attack.

But earlier, they took that island... and kept half... Sakhalin Island I beleive it was...

Yes, Sakhalin, but not only was this not part of mainland Russia, but as I explained above this was a totally different war, totally different time, and totally different set of circumstances.

and what did he attempt to ACCOMPLISH in declaring war? At the time, he had no prospects for invasion...

He accomplished destroying a significantly large number of American merchant vessels, especially the vital oil tankers, during Operation Drumbeat. This somewhat limited the operational options opened to the Allies until they could replace these losses. Although this wasn't worth war with the United States by any means, it was still significant.

[DarkCloud]

Ah, thank you david, I stand corrected I did not take tanks into consideration. The USSR did have a greater production capacity. Japan could not have held the land... But I still maintain that their mere presence would have pinned more units...

(And I did remember it was Sakhalin island in my 2nd post on this page ... It took me a while, but I finally remembered )

[David Floyd]

Instead of siding with their allies, Germany, Italy declared war on their allies, believing it better...

Well, they sat out at first, only declaring war in 1915 when the Entente promised them more territorial gains than the Germans did, and also promised them the territory they wanted in Austria-Hungary.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


MrFun, I have to agree with most of your post

[David Floyd]

Actually I agree with your post as well, but I'd add that just because we have and will continue to do those things doesn't make them right.

[MrFun]

No sh*t, David -- my implication is that dictatorship puppetry is always wrong.

[DarkCloud]

No, but they would have lost their communications and transportation hub, which would have been just as significant.

But Moscow was a symbol- the unassilable point, unable to be taken by Napoleon, etc. Its loss would have hurt morale greatly. And then the forces would have been forced to fight a guerilla war in the Urals

He accomplished destroying a significantly large number of American merchant vessels, especially the vital oil tankers, during Operation Drumbeat. This somewhat limited the operational options opened to the Allies until they could replace these losses. Although this wasn't worth war with the United States by any means, it was still significant.

I agree that was good, but if he had merely sunk without declaring war (as the Allies thought Hitler had been doing all along) perhaps it would have taken a few more days... possibly a few weeks for the Americans to get their act together. Although, possibly it wouldn't have... Who can say?

America declaring war on Germany was inevitable so long as they were allied with Japan.

-
Russia had a lot of mfg capability, but as Germany rebuilt their shattered provinces, they gained much wheat, supply lines, and mfg production... They could have lasted a few more years. Possibly 46-48 If they only fought Russia... and If they ignored Britain, except for leaving token forces, and sent their airforces to the East... coupled with the NAfrica forces, they should have been able to have beaten back the Russians.

IT would have been close... But I think the Germans could have done it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
No sh*t, David -- my implication is that dictatorship puppetry is always wrong.

Really? Do you think ineffective and weak democracies would have been preferable to 'stable' dictatorships during the Cold War?

[David Floyd]

But Moscow was a symbol- the unassilable point, unable to be taken by Napoleon, etc. Its loss would have hurt morale greatly. And then the forces would have been forced to fight a guerilla war in the Urals

Well, Moscow was taken by Napoleon in the Winter of 1812. He just couldn't hold it because the Russians razed most of it first and there was no shelter left.
But if Germany took Moscow the Russians probably would have fought on. The Chinese did when their capitol was taken, albeit ineffectively of course.

I agree that was good, but if he had merely sunk without declaring war (as the Allies thought Hitler had been doing all along) perhaps it would have taken a few more days... possibly a few weeks for the Americans to get their act together. Although, possibly it wouldn't have... Who can say?

Maybe, but I'm not sure how relevent a couple of weeks would have been - and a second sneak attack in one week would probably have inflamed the US even more.

America declaring war on Germany was inevitable so long as they were allied with Japan

Hmmm, maybe - but even after Pearl Harbor there wouldn't have been enough votes for a declaration of war against Germany, until Germany did it first.

but as Germany rebuilt their shattered provinces, they gained much wheat, supply lines, and mfg production... They could have lasted a few more years. Possibly 46-48 If they only fought Russia... and If they ignored Britain, except for leaving token forces, and sent their airforces to the East... coupled with the NAfrica forces, they should have been able to have beaten back the Russians.

Well, in the East it wasn't so much a lack of forces that defeated the Germans, it was poor timing and poor strategic decisions. The Germans could have had Moscow in October of 1941, and then turned to the Ukraine briefly in 1941 and finished it in 1942. Leningrad likewise would have been gone if Moscow fell - Moscow was the center of Soviet north-south rail transportation until rail lines were rebuilt behind the Volga, and without this transportation the Germans could have defeated the Red Army in detail.

[Capt Dizle]

If people here would get off the internet and listen to the radio they might know stuff. The following quote should end any debate about the character of America.

***

President Bush on Saturday closed out the final hours of his 32-day escape from Washington by designating September as a month of service to honor victims of Sept. 11.

"That spirit of courage and selflessness has shown the world why our nation is the greatest force for good in history," Bush said from his Texas ranch in his weekly radio address

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If people here would get off the internet and listen to the radio they might know stuff. The following quote should end any debate about the character of America.

***

President Bush on Saturday closed out the final hours of his 32-day escape from Washington by designating September as a month of service to honor victims of Sept. 11.

"That spirit of courage and selflessness has shown the world why our nation is the greatest force for good in history," Bush said from his Texas ranch in his weekly radio address

[loinburger]

What part of that quote do you think is the most relevant? I'd say "32-day escape" sums it up pretty well, myself...

[St Leo]

"That spirit of courage and selflessness has shown the world why our nation is the greatest force for good in history," Bush said from his Texas ranch in his weekly radio address

Lol. That is so wrong on so many different levels.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Really? Do you think ineffective and weak democracies would have been preferable to 'stable' dictatorships during the Cold War?

Sometimes, doing the right thing, means not giving in to doing it the easy, sloppy way that goes against our country's principles.

The harder thing to do, would have been to strengthen truly freer governments.

The easier, more sloppy thing to do, would be to do what our country did; support dictatorships, and/or overthrow free governments to establish new dictatorships.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun


Something doing the right thing, means not giving in to doing it the easy, sloppy way that goes against our country's principles.

The harder thing to do, would have been to strengthen truly freer governments.

The easier, more sloppy thing to do, would be to do what our country did; support dictatorships, and/or overthrow free governments to establish new dictatorships.

Would that you had faced the same choices. I'd bet you'd have made the same or similar decisions.

It's all too easy sitting this side of WW2 and the fall of the Berlin Wall to second guess the people who lived it and held the fate of the world in their hands, on all sides.

The trick is to understand what they did and most importantly, why they did it. That is history.