- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is what the US did in WWII the most impressive thing a country’s ever done?
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:33 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:33 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Russia played a more significant role with Allied victory over Germany than US did.
2
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:34 pm to OMLandshark
Just did a relisten to Carlin’s HH addendum episode about who was better between WWI and WWII German militaries. His biggest argument in his belief that WWI was the better military is that the ideology that went into Nazi Germany caused them to lose the war. Because at the highest levels, it wasn’t about merit, it was about if you could toe the party line.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:34 pm to Sanfordhog
that doesnt really change the fact that americas accomplishments during ww2 is the single most impressive feat in the history of warfare
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:34 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
With the notable exception of Italy.
Who put the last 30 bullets into Mussolini? 100 Italian sharpshooters.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:35 pm to Sanfordhog
quote:
Russia played a more significant role with Allied victory over Germany than US did.
Russia could not have done what we did in WWII, its structure was never capable of doing that.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:35 pm to oleheat
quote:
But I would agree that what took place here and abroad during WW2 saved the world.
From what? Not from Communism, which we enabled to go in dry on Eastern Europe.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:37 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
I don’t because they were so evil that they were counterproductive to a ridiculous degree. Why not send the Jews to the front lines as canon fodder instead? Instead they depleted a massive amount of military and civilian resources to an idiotic and disgusting genocide.
They used a substantial amount of Jews and other prisoners for slave labor, which is actually one of the major reasons they were even able to achieve what they did due to their major deficiencies in manpower.
I'm not sure how arming Jewish women and children and deploying them to the front is a wise strategy...
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:37 pm to WestCoastAg
Two front aspect, pacific and Western European, it was impressive but that was an allied victory in Europe. I’m not sure Europe is liberated without Eastern front and Russian military.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:38 pm to Sanfordhog
there was no outcome where the united states ends up on the losing side of that war. russia surrending, russia overcoming, it really did not matter. it was only a matter of how long it would have taken
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:39 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
They used a substantial amount of Jews and other prisoners for slave labor, which is actually one of the major reasons they were even able to achieve what they did due to their major deficiencies in manpower.
But think of all the Nazis that could be used in military service that are wasted taking out 10 million people, many of which could also be used a soldiers. I think the benefits outweigh the cons here.
quote:
I'm not sure how arming Jewish women and children and deploying them to the front is a wise strategy...
Well, not them. You hold them hostage and threaten them with a brutal death should the men in their lives be killed or defect.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:43 pm to TigerstuckinMS
quote:
Who put the last 30 bullets into Mussolini? 100 Italian sharpshooters.
One of my favorite anecdotes regarding the Italians:
General Tsolakoglou, the Greek commander in Epirus, is contacting Nazis to arrange surrender: "I refuse to surrender to the Italians- we defeated them!"
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:45 pm to Amadeo
Not saying they won the war singlehandedly (far from it), but the fact is that roughly 80% of the Nazi war machine's resources were tied up on the Eastern Front. It would have been MUCH tougher to land in France had the bulk of the Wehrmacht not been occupied by the Soviets on the Ost Front. Just being fair and honest. The USSR suffered between 20 and 30 million war deaths fighting the Nazis.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:45 pm to BuckyCheese
After nearly two decades of making the rest of Europe his bitch. It took multiple countries teaming up against him to defeat him.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:46 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
there was no outcome where the united states ends up on the losing side of that war. russia surrending, russia overcoming, it really did not matter. it was only a matter of how long it would have taken
That's entirely dependent on what you consider to be "the losing side." If you mean the United States losing its sovereignty or being occupied, I agree. If you think it means the United States was conquering and occupying Germany/Europe regardless of circumstances, I vehemently disagree.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:47 pm to Sanfordhog
quote:
Two front aspect, pacific and Western European, it was impressive but that was an allied victory in Europe. I’m not sure Europe is liberated without Eastern front and Russian military.
Yes it is, Germany was never winning that war, Soviet Union or not.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:48 pm to adavis
Although, Napoleon never could get the best of GB. Lord Nelson spanked that arse a couple of times. Napoleon was more of a land invasion guy. Russia swallowed him up pretty good too
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:49 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
Mongolia
ottomans
spain
ottomans
spain
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:51 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
I mean there are at least 50-100 different events that are equally impressive in their own right.
It's like the [likely altered] Dan Carlin quote, "whenever there is a debate about the worst single place to be in history, it ends up being a tie between a thousand places".
One that sticks out is Hannibal crossing the alps with 39 war elephants then decimating the Roman army. If he would've marched on Rome afterwards all of western history would be completely different.
For WW2, I mean you can name several. What the RAF did in the Battle of Britian is still incredible. Using a much less advanced Hurricane (or Spitfire) against the Liftwaffe's 109E, knowing everytime you went in the air for 4 straight months that you were outnumbered.
It's like the [likely altered] Dan Carlin quote, "whenever there is a debate about the worst single place to be in history, it ends up being a tie between a thousand places".
One that sticks out is Hannibal crossing the alps with 39 war elephants then decimating the Roman army. If he would've marched on Rome afterwards all of western history would be completely different.
For WW2, I mean you can name several. What the RAF did in the Battle of Britian is still incredible. Using a much less advanced Hurricane (or Spitfire) against the Liftwaffe's 109E, knowing everytime you went in the air for 4 straight months that you were outnumbered.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:52 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
there was no outcome where the united states ends up on the losing side of that war. russia surrending, russia overcoming, it really did not matter. it was only a matter of how long it would have taken
If Hitler does Dunkirk right and doesn’t let the Yugoslav coup d'état affect his plans (seriously, that was retarded to delay his invasion of Russia for something that would take 5 seconds to deal with later), I think they win WWII. There are certainly alternate realities where Europe is completely Nazified and others where it is completely Communist.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 6:53 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
But think of all the Nazis that could be used in military service that are wasted taking out 10 million people, many of which could also be used a soldiers. I think the benefits outweigh the cons here.
Yeah I just don't agree at all. Few could be used as soldiers. Hitler was also fanatical about preventing subversion within the ranks due to what happened to Germany in the latter portion of WWI with political insurrection. Jews, Polish nationalists, and former Red Army soldiers weren't exactly what would be considered reliable soldiers to waste precious military resources on.
The Waffen-SS incorporated a certain degree of foreign legion. Including Ukrainians and some Russians. They were generally used in anti-partisan operations and at times the Germans even viewed them as too brutal and bloodthirsty for their liking.
quote:
Well, not them. You hold them hostage and threaten them with a brutal death should the men in their lives be killed or defect.
Well then I don't know where your 10 million figure is coming from. And you think the Germans should have been more brutal then?
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News