Random History Discussion

jerseyborn1971

Well-known member
Messages
180
Reaction score
356
See my post above. They can definitely not count for many reasons.

And of course we hadn’t peaked prior to WWII, we weren’t run by a military industrial complex. The US military was dismantled after WWI because the government did not believe in having a large standing military because they actually had some principles.
The Germans were fighting the Russians on one side and the US, France, GB and the rest of allies on the other. And they were more than holding their own for awhile. They fought the Soviet Union AND the United States simultaneously. Who's to say they wouldn't beat either of us 1 on 1?
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
3,282
The Germans were fighting the Russians on one side and the US, France, GB and the rest of allies on the other. And they were more than holding their own for awhile. They fought the Soviet Union AND the United States simultaneously. Who's to say they wouldn't beat either of us 1 on 1?
Right. But my point is the US wasn’t fighting them at their peak because they had to be split up.

Add to the fact that most of what the US fought was never the largest forces, AND many western engagements were around and after Stalingrad…
 

thekid33

President of the Kevin McDougal Fan Club
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
4,140
In WWI and WWII the Germans were fighting on multiple fronts and yet managed to kick serious butt for much of the wars. They were a shell of themselves by the time we got into WWI and while not entirely a shell of themselves by the time we were in action in WWII they were weakening and on the downturn.

All things being equal with technology - do you take the WWI German army or the WWII German army as being the "better" army?

I've always said that I'd take WWI.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
The Germans were fighting the Russians on one side and the US, France, GB and the rest of allies on the other. And they were more than holding their own for awhile. They fought the Soviet Union AND the United States simultaneously. Who's to say they wouldn't beat either of us 1 on 1?
Thats the thing though.

With Hitler running the show the Germans were gonna fail sooner or later because there was nothing to keep Hitlers ego in check, the dude was a lunatic and he made a bunch of tactical blunders. Operation Barbarossa being at the top of that list in my opinion.

As soon as Germany invaded Russia the final outcome of the war in Europe was pretty predictable.
 
Last edited:

Dizzyphil

Well-known member
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
1,541
Thats the thing though.

With Hitler running the show the Germans were gonna fail sooner or later because there was nothing to keep Hitlers ego in check, the dude was a lunatic and he made a bunch of tactical blunders. Operation Barbarossa being at the top of that list in my opinion.

As soon as Germany invaded Russia the final outcome of the war in Europe was pretty predictable.
Being the Father of a History Major (second Son).... learned much about WWII.. one of the turning points/blunders of the German's was Dunkirk... won the battle but lost capturing over 300k Allied forces allowing them to return to defeat the Germans in other places.....
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,927
Reaction score
6,154
The Germans were fighting the Russians on one side and the US, France, GB and the rest of allies on the other. And they were more than holding their own for awhile. They fought the Soviet Union AND the United States simultaneously. Who's to say they wouldn't beat either of us 1 on 1?

Right. But my point is the US wasn’t fighting them at their peak because they had to be split up.

Add to the fact that most of what the US fought was never the largest forces, AND many western engagements were around and after Stalingrad…
Yes, but the US military was also split in half fighting on two completely separate fronts with a MUCH longer supply chain to both than the Germans had. Imagine the entire might of the US Navy, Marines, and Army, PLUS the logistics from the Pacific added to the forces in Europe.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
3,282
Yes, but the US military was also split in half fighting on two completely separate fronts with a MUCH longer supply chain to both than the Germans had. Imagine the entire might of the US Navy, Marines, and Army, PLUS the logistics from the Pacific added to the forces in Europe.
My first response to you does mention that on page 1. That’s fair. I get it. But the fact of the matter is, we, the US, haven’t fought a global power at their height.
 

calvegas04

Well-known member
Messages
11,856
Reaction score
8,435
If Germany held off on Russia for 5 years or more as they originally planned they probably would have kept Europe and take the UK.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
Being the Father of a History Major (second Son).... learned much about WWII.. one of the turning points/blunders of the German's was Dunkirk... won the battle but lost capturing over 300k Allied forces allowing them to return to defeat the Germans in other places.....
Cool!

If I’m remembering correctly another thing that hamstrung the Germans was their command structure. It was very top down and resulted in micromanaging in terms of tactics.

The American command structure was much different in that respect which allowed for more nimble decision making in the field.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,927
Reaction score
6,154
Cool!

If I’m remembering correctly another thing that hamstrung the Germans was their command structure. It was very top down and resulted in micromanaging in terms of tactics.

The American command structure was much different in that respect which allowed for more nimble decision making in the field.
To a great degree, every US private was expected to be able to take over for a corporal, every corporal for a sergeant, every sergeant for a LT, every LT for a Captain, and so on without a dropoff in effectiveness. One US general said that you didn't have to tell the US soldier what to do. You told him what needed to be done then got the hell out of his way. US units were expected to be self-sufficient, able to adapt on the fly, think for themselves, and so on. The Germans were so top down that they had a bad reputation for just stopping and having no idea what to do or being scared to do anything without direct orders when they lost a commanding officer.
 

Dizzyphil

Well-known member
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
1,541
Cool!

If I’m remembering correctly another thing that hamstrung the Germans was their command structure. It was very top down and resulted in micromanaging in terms of tactics.

The American command structure was much different in that respect which allowed for more nimble decision making in the field.
Without a doubt, the German 'Leaders' had no say without hitl*r's 'stamp of approval'....

Another little 'factoid' to look up when you (or others) that a lot of History books didn't include - hitl*r feared the 'Boy Scouts'.... do a search on it... it's crazy!! Was crazy when my Son told me and showed me the research he did on it.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,976
My first response to you does mention that on page 1. That’s fair. I get it. But the fact of the matter is, we, the US, haven’t fought a global power at their height.
Why wouldn’t Japan be considered a “global power” at their height in 1941?

They completely embarrassed the Russians (one of the largest empires in world history at that time) in the Russo-Japanese war.
 

Dizzyphil

Well-known member
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
1,541
To a great degree, every US private was expected to be able to take over for a corporal, every corporal for a sergeant, every sergeant for a LT, every LT for a Captain, and so on without a dropoff in effectiveness. One US general said that you didn't have to tell the US soldier what to do. You told him what needed to be done then got the hell out of his way. US units were expected to be self-sufficient, able to adapt on the fly, think for themselves, and so on. The Germans were so top down that they had a bad reputation for just stopping and having no idea what to do or being scared to do anything without direct orders when they lost a commanding officer.
They were also more worried about their 'Social Status' and parties as well. Basically - everything was left up to hitl*r as far as battle/war commands and advances.
 

Dizzyphil

Well-known member
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
1,541
Why wouldn’t Japan be considered a “global power” at their height in 1941?

They completely embarrassed the Russians (one of the largest empires in world history at that time) in Russo-Japanese war.
Exactly - Japan was defeating and acquiring most of South Asia before/during this time... and believe it or not, in the early to mid 30's, a good amount of facilities was given to the Japanese Government by the United States not knowing they would use these against us later in '41.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,927
Reaction score
6,154
They were also more worried about their 'Social Status' and parties as well. Basically - everything was left up to hitl*r as far as battle/war commands and advances.
I think that also, to a great extent, the Germans didn't train their soldiers to the degree that the US did. They were so desperate for troops at the front, at least by '42, that they rushed basic & advanced training. Get them in a uniform, teach them the basics, throw them into the line. They got most of the rest of their training from their unit after they reached the front. OTOH, the US had the luxury of a larger population and distance from the front, and we put our soldiers through a year or so of training before most of them ever reached a front line combat unit. They'd typically spent months playing war games, practicing assaults, becoming experts on multiple weapons, and so on. When they got into combat, they felt experienced and little was surprising to them. Because of that, we had guys seeing their first combat on D-Day, for instance, who fought like seasoned veterans and weren't overwhelmed by the moment.
 

GowerND11

Well-known member
Messages
6,534
Reaction score
3,282
Why wouldn’t Japan be considered a “global power” at their height in 1941?

They completely embarrassed the Russians (one of the largest empires in world history at that time) in the Russo-Japanese war.

Exactly - Japan was defeating and acquiring most of South Asia before/during this time... and believe it or not, in the early to mid 30's, a good amount of facilities was given to the Japanese Government by the United States not knowing they would use these against us later in '41.
As I stated in my first response to this thread, they were already feeling the effects of being stretched too thin by 1942 (Pearl Harbor happening in December negates anything about 1941).

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike to force our hand while Japan KNEW that they were incapable of truly fighting us long term due to the economic and material deficiencies that they would have faced. We already had frozen assets of theirs. We already cut off their oil supply. We stopped supplies of iron and recycled metals. Japan was at its heights BEFORE attacking the US. Yamamoto has been widely attributed to a quote about all they did was wake a sleeping giant, even if it’s a misquote.

The Japanese leadership knew they could only keep power if they got the US to relent and sign a deal to give them the stuff they needed to have their imperial world continue.
 

calvegas04

Well-known member
Messages
11,856
Reaction score
8,435
As I stated in my first response to this thread, they were already feeling the effects of being stretched too thin by 1942 (Pearl Harbor happening in December negates anything about 1941).

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike to force our hand while Japan KNEW that they were incapable of truly fighting us long term due to the economic and material deficiencies that they would have faced. We already had frozen assets of theirs. We already cut off their oil supply. We stopped supplies of iron and recycled metals. Japan was at its heights BEFORE attacking the US. Yamamoto has been widely attributed to a quote about all they did was wake a sleeping giant, even if it’s a misquote.

The Japanese leadership knew they could only keep power if they got the US to relent and sign a deal to give them the stuff they needed to have their imperial world continue.
The carriers being out training on the 7th was a big miss for Japan as well.
 

Dizzyphil

Well-known member
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
1,541
As I stated in my first response to this thread, they were already feeling the effects of being stretched too thin by 1942 (Pearl Harbor happening in December negates anything about 1941).

Pearl Harbor was a preemptive strike to force our hand while Japan KNEW that they were incapable of truly fighting us long term due to the economic and material deficiencies that they would have faced. We already had frozen assets of theirs. We already cut off their oil supply. We stopped supplies of iron and recycled metals. Japan was at its heights BEFORE attacking the US. Yamamoto has been widely attributed to a quote about all they did was wake a sleeping giant, even if it’s a misquote.

The Japanese leadership knew they could only keep power if they got the US to relent and sign a deal to give them the stuff they needed to have their imperial world continue.
Arrogance and what you said - 'spread thin'.... the Japanese leadership didn't realize the importance and the significance of the US Navy and Midway.
 

thekid33

President of the Kevin McDougal Fan Club
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
4,140
Without a doubt, the German 'Leaders' had no say without hitl*r's 'stamp of approval'....

This is why I've always thought that their WWI army wipes the floor with their WWII army if they had equal equipment/weapons.

In WWI the Kaiser wasn't trying to dictate every military decision and you actually had generals and officers that were not afraid to make decisions and even improvise and adapt.
 

Dizzyphil

Well-known member
Messages
4,094
Reaction score
1,541
This is why I've always thought that their WWI army wipes the floor with their WWII army if they had equal equipment/weapons.

In WWI the Kaiser wasn't trying to dictate every military decision and you actually had generals and officers that were not afraid to make decisions and even improvise and adapt.
The old adage - "There's a difference between Chess and Checkers".........
 

KMac151993

Well-known member
Messages
3,603
Reaction score
2,141
The American advantage always was it's isolation, the military industrial complex was allowed to thrive because there was no "real" fear of attacks on home soil.

WWII was lost for Germany in the 30's with the death of General Wever for the Luftwaffe and Hitler's focus on a surface fleet rather than pouring all resources into U-Boats.

Fun fact - Fort Wayne, IN was on Hitler's target list.

Another fun fact, since Dunkirk was previously mentioned - after the troops were evacuated (300k saved) and the "Miracle at Dunkirk," the Brits sent 60k back.
 

notredomer23

Staph Member
Messages
17,633
Reaction score
17,557
The American advantage always was it's isolation, the military industrial complex was allowed to thrive because there was no "real" fear of attacks on home soil.

WWII was lost for Germany in the 30's with the death of General Wever for the Luftwaffe and Hitler's focus on a surface fleet rather than pouring all resources into U-Boats.

Fun fact - Fort Wayne, IN was on Hitler's target list.

Another fun fact, since Dunkirk was previously mentioned - after the troops were evacuated (300k saved) and the "Miracle at Dunkirk," the Brits sent 60k back.

Can you elaborate about Fort Wayne/Hitler’s target list? I’ve read/watched extensively about WWII and have never heard of something like this. My understanding was Hitler always viewed the US as the long term enemy rather than one they ever had real plans for
 

Irish du Nord

Well-known member
Messages
3,415
Reaction score
3,064
The south had some great generals, hard to say they were the best in the world or not. I'm not super familiar with European conflicts in the 1800s if they didn't involve the US or the Zulu.
The 30th best general from the Napoleonic wars was better than the second best rebel general.
 

KMac151993

Well-known member
Messages
3,603
Reaction score
2,141
Can you elaborate about Fort Wayne/Hitler’s target list? I’ve read/watched extensively about WWII and have never heard of something like this. My understanding was Hitler always viewed the US as the long term enemy rather than one they ever had real plans for
Hitler knew eventually he would have to deal with America - not full invasion but essentially force them into submission and to sue for peace. The "wonder weapons" - hit America's big cities and key industrial points put in jeopardy to force them out of the war. Fort Wayne was home to a massive International Harvester truck plant. Hitler didn't want the West past France...he wanted Russia, but he knew that he didn't "take care" of Britain and the US he would never be able to go East.

The problem for German scientists, despite arguably being the best in the world, was that while they were working with limited resources with bombs falling around them, American scientists were working in an unmolested desert.

I have a map somewhere that shows all of the locations the German's had earmarked as targets.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,569
Reaction score
20,018
We are so divided today that I don't know that we could ever achieve that again. I'd like to think we could, but I have doubts.

Also, what if I told you that the failure to properly humble and punish the South after the Civil War led directly to the hyper-aggressive SEC elitist attitude we see today? Thank you for attending my TED Talk.
No doubt there is division but I think this country could do it again. Both Germany and Japan didn’t think the American people had the stomach for a major conflict back then. Could Losing your freedom to protest be enough incentive?
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,569
Reaction score
20,018
Cool!

If I’m remembering correctly another thing that hamstrung the Germans was their command structure. It was very top down and resulted in micromanaging in terms of tactics.

The American command structure was much different in that respect which allowed for more nimble decision making in the field.
Patton is a great example. He actually took things a little too far a few times.

Montgomery was supposed to spearhead the campaign to take Messina in Sicily. Patton was supposed to protect his flank on the west coast and was upset not being given the lead but also with Montgomery’s plan which wasn’t aggressive. Montgomery was surprised and upset when they got to Messina only to find Patton had already taken it.
 
Top