Avatar, asymmetric warfare, and US contribution to WW2

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Yeah. And in Stargate SG-1, basic earthian machine guns scare the heck out of all the Jaa'fa who are supposed to posses much more lethal Go'auld technology... Silly!

At least Jack O'Neil gave a believable, though maybe not realistic, explanation in one episode: "These [Goa'uld staff blaster] are weapons to terrorize with. These [Earth made assault rifle] are weapons to kill with." (Not a perfect quotation.) I suppose the Jaffa and Goa'uld should have been scared of the projectile weapons first, when they were shocked, but get used to them later. When I think about it, it should have been the good aliens who would arm the humans, rather than the other way around (though Earth did alien tech'). Ah well.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yeah. And in Stargate SG-1, basic earthian machine guns scare the heck out of all the Jaa'fa who are supposed to posses much more lethal Go'auld technology... Silly!

Not necessarily. The Goa'uld are shown as being essentially all-powerful in the areas they control; their only enemies are each other; they share technology and culture in common; they are culturally and technologically stagnant; their intra-Goa'uld wars are essentially games; they are seen by their underlings as gods, with the result that innovation and dissent are culturally stifled.

With all these in place, getting the best use out of ground forces and their weapons is not necessarily a top priority. The rules of the game are fixed, and stay comfortably fixed until the Americans show up. In human history, getting best use out of available infantry weaponry has often not been a priority... The Japanese turned away from firearms for centuries and went back to swords because guns made serfs the masters of samurai; the Germans in WWII had fully automatic weapons all over the place, but oddly gave their average soldier a *bolt* *action* rifle to go up against the semi-auto Garand; cartrige arms were disliked by the US Army because it meant that the rate of fire would skyrocket and the troops would waste ammo;the selector switch on the M-16 goes from SAFE to SEMI to FULL AUTO (or three-round burst), while the selector switch on the AK-47 goes from SAFE to FULL to SEMI, because the US and USSR had differences of opinion regarding the merits of spray-n-pray vs. marksmanship; and so on.

The Jaffa were for millenia able to do what their masters wanted them to do... suppress the serfs, and kill other Jaffa while not upsetting the Goa'uld applecart. Better equipped & trained Jaffa would probably bring the wrath of the other Goa-uld, and make the game less fun.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Better equipped & trained Jaffa would probably bring the wrath of the other Goa-uld, and make the game less fun.

Hence the Gou'ulds not digging Anubis...

I think the one thing most of the Goa'ulds lacked were - excuse my sexist lingo - balls. Only Anubis, Baal and Ming the not so Merciless had balls, and poor Ming (yeah I know he's called Lord Yu ) was (going) senile. Sokar was a huge disappointment. He could at least have had the host of an Unas, so he would look truly devilish.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The inferences from these industrial and technical anomalies are wrong.

the Germans in WWII had fully automatic weapons all over the place, but oddly gave their average soldier a *bolt* *action* rifle to go up against the semi-auto Garand;

The Germans kept building bolt action rifles because of the desperate state of their industry. Also I doubt the rifle of the US Army was high on their list of priorities because most of their army spent the war fighting the Soviets and the British and they had been built to fight the Poles, French and Soviets. Anyway infantry section firepower was to be provided by MGs and the Germans were way ahead of everyone else in this regard.

the selector switch on the M-16 goes from SAFE to SEMI to FULL AUTO (or three-round burst), while the selector switch on the AK-47 goes from SAFE to FULL to SEMI, because the US and USSR had differences of opinion regarding the merits of spray-n-pray vs. marksmanship; and so on.

Nothing to do with concept of operations but everything to do with ease of production. The AK does not have a traditional selector switch that activates a mechanism that adjusts the sear that determines mode of fire (safe, semi, auto, etc). The AK’s selector ‘switch’ is the mechanism that adjusts the sear so the position is determined by the action. So full auto comes first because it is the natural state of the rifle.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

At least Jack O'Neil gave a believable, though maybe not realistic, explanation in one episode:

No one gave the real answer? Powder weapons don't require any expensive post production special effects to add some noise and light to the action... Its like Star Trek justifying why all the Aliens look like humans with a thin layer of cheap and easy makeup.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

At least Jack O'Neil gave a believable, though maybe not realistic, explanation in one episode:

No one gave the real answer? Powder weapons don't require any expensive post production special effects to add some noise and light to the action... Its like Star Trek justifying why all the Aliens look like humans with a thin layer of cheap and easy makeup.

Well, duh.

(It's a good explanation, really.)

 

[mz]

Saw it yesterday. Some excellent analysis here, and some very expected reactions by some as well.

It reminded me of western Papua New Guinea which has somewhat succeeded in driving out the government troops and the environmental catastrophe causing copper mine. First with bows and arrows and later with AK-47:s and machine guns.

I don't claim to know everything about that situation but more powerful tribes pushing weaker ones around for resources is real. It's happened many times around the world and it is a dramatic subject, and is worth repeating. I can attest to that as a citizen of a small country myself, as we have had to defend ourself with great losses in the last big war, with most of the world not believing for a minute that we could put up any real resistance. So there, Orionblamblam.

The 3D didn't really work well. Maybe my glasses were dirty or something. I don't know why such hamstrung technology with flickering, jerky movements and double vision has to be used.
I have excellent stereo vision, I once tested it in an airplane museum with a pilot test system where you see a stick through a thin hole and have to align it with another one. Maybe thus then the approximate 3D didn't work for me.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I can attest to that as a citizen of a small country myself, as we have had to defend ourself with great losses in the last big war, with most of the world not believing for a minute that we could put up any real resistance. So there, Orionblamblam.

Small problem:
1) On Earth, nobody really wants to well and truly destroy the ecosystem and even the atmosphere of even the most hated enemy, since you want their stuff and want to live there.
2) On Pandora... who'd give a damn? Humans can't breath there, so you might as well nuke regions you don't like. There'd be no downside. You wouldn;t make the air any more toxic than it already is, you'd clear the way for the mining machines, and you'd eliminate threatening critters/natives.

On Earth, we hold back. On Pandora, the only reason to hold back would be ethics... and since Avatar is typical anti-capitalist Hollywood alternate reality crapthought, ethics wouldn't be a concern.

 

[mz]

I can attest to that as a citizen of a small country myself, as we have had to defend ourself with great losses in the last big war, with most of the world not believing for a minute that we could put up any real resistance. So there, Orionblamblam.

Small problem:
1) On Earth, nobody really wants to well and truly destroy the ecosystem and even the atmosphere of even the most hated enemy, since you want their stuff and want to live there.
2) On Pandora... who'd give a damn? Humans can't breath there, so you might as well nuke regions you don't like. There'd be no downside. You wouldn;t make the air any more toxic than it already is, you'd clear the way for the mining machines, and you'd eliminate threatening critters/natives.

On Earth, we hold back. On Pandora, the only reason to hold back would be ethics... and since Avatar is typical anti-capitalist Hollywood alternate reality crapthought, ethics wouldn't be a concern.

Certainly the Soviets didn't do anything with most of the areas they captured from Finland. To simplify, from what I've heard of visitors, they're in deep poverty, relatively few people live there in houses that have not seen repairs since the war, when they were occupied by their builders. It was just mostly used as a buffer zone to protect Leningrad. In the north by the arctic ocean there are nickel mines.

US citizens would probably not have wanted to live in the Soviet Union either. The first Soviet nuke was detonated in 1949. The US had over 200 bombs by then.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab10.asp
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab9.asp
What was the discussion like back then? Why not nuk'em?

In the movie, at least some of the "evil" characters have some semblance of ethics still... Jake is given some time by the business guy to evacuate the blueskins.
It's of course just a simplistic movie, but it nevertheless has some connections to reality.

 

[Orionblamblam]

US citizens would probably not have wanted to live in the Soviet Union either.

Some did, but they tended to be either crazy or gullible. Soon enough "regretful" was added to the list, followed by "godohgod get me the hell out of here," which was responded to by most Americans with EABOD, GTFO and DIAF.

The first Soviet nuke was detonated in 1949. The US had over 200 bombs by then.
What was the discussion like back then? Why not nuk'em?

We didn't want what they had. Certainly not bad enough to start a world war.

Patton wanted to, though.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

US citizens would probably not have wanted to live in the Soviet Union either.

Some did, but they tended to be either crazy or gullible. Soon enough "regretful" was added to the list, followed by "godohgod get me the hell out of here," which was responded to by most Americans with EABOD, GTFO and DIAF.

The first Soviet nuke was detonated in 1949. The US had over 200 bombs by then.
What was the discussion like back then? Why not nuk'em?

We didn't want what they had. Certainly not bad enough to start a world war.

Patton wanted to, though.

Didn't Patton think he could conquer Moscow in no time? So the Red Army wouldn't be able to do anything about it before it was too late for them?

OT: He certainly should have been allowed to go to Berlin before the Red Army, or the very least liberate Prague.

 

[BAROBA]

....On Pandora... who'd give a damn? Humans can't breath there, so you might as well nuke regions you don't like. There'd be no downside. You wouldn;t make the air any more toxic than it already is, you'd clear the way for the mining machines, and you'd eliminate threatening critters/natives....

There is another reason; radioactivity. Protection against radiation is a lot more expansive and restrictive then protection against toxic air.
Also transporting nukes over interstellar distances involves risks.

What would they have used for fuel for the interstellar ship?

 

[Orionblamblam]

There is another reason; radioactivity. Protection against radiation is a lot more expansive and restrictive then protection against toxic air.

No, it's not. Notice that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not abandoned radioactive wastelands; reconstruction began ASAP, and the cities were re-populated in short order. Nuke the Pandoran jungle with a good air burst of megaton-class H-bombs and you'll wipe out the forest for a mile or two in radius, with probable firestorms beyond; after the first good rain, whatever radioactivity remains will likely be washed away. But you'll still need breathers outside... which is fine, since pretty much everyone stays indoors and runs the mining equipment remotely anyway. Most of the outside-operations seemed to deal with the locals. If you have determined to not mess about with them and go straight to kicking their asses, you don't need to interact with them any further.

Also transporting nukes over interstellar distances involves risks.

Build 'em on-site. Antiproton catalyzed fusion bombs would be well within their on-site manufacturing capability.

What would they have used for fuel for the interstellar ship?

Supposedly the ships use a hybrid fusion/anitmatter system, with the hydrogen scooped from the gas giant and the antimatter produced by an orbital production facility.

And again, blasting the surface with one of the starship engines will accomplish the same goal, without the need to build bombs.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It reminded me of western Papua New Guinea which has somewhat succeeded in driving out the government troops and the environmental catastrophe causing copper mine. First with bows and arrows and later with AK-47:s and machine guns.

If you are referring to the Bougainville Panguna copper mine then bows and arrows had nothing to do with it. The Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) was lead by an Australian trained officer from the Papua New Guinea Defence Force (PNGDF) and were armed with everything up to a Japanese 7cm Flak gun that was used as a highly effective coastal defence weapon. The PNGDF went at them with nothing more than infantry battalion level weapons – they were outgunned… And the only thing that saved the BRA from being done over in the mid 1990s by the PNGDF boosted by South Africans flying Mi-24s gunships and a CASA C-212 communications inteligence platform (Sandline/Executive Outcomes) was PNG and Australian politics. The final result of this has been reintegration of Bougainville back into PNG within 20 years after the BRA was fragmented by self serving tribal politics and pyramid scheme finances. If the infrastructure damage to the mine wasn’t so immense it would probably be back up and running. A very long way from the Romanticism inspired hippie trail vision of glow in the dark aliens with rainforest super computers and floating rocks…

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Didn't Patton think he could conquer Moscow in no time? So the Red Army wouldn't be able to do anything about it before it was too late for them?

Then he was a major fool. Surely after 1944 he would have learnt something or two about the limitations of truck borne logistics. The very same thing that delayed the German offensive into Russia in '41.

OT: He certainly should have been allowed to go to Berlin before the Red Army, or the very least liberate Prague.

"Going" to Berlin was something that 65 years ago required at least 250,000 casulties on your own side. Nazi Germany did not go out with a wimper but a mighty bang and the last months of battles were the most costly to the Allies since absorbing the initial German attacks.

But of course since the Americans managed to avoid most of these crucial battles that decided the outcome of WW2 we should take the opinion of the likes of Patton with a bit of scepticism. If they had actually fought decisively in WW2 it might be different.

 

[Orionblamblam]

But of course since the Americans managed to avoid most of these crucial battles that decided the outcome of WW2 ...

Yeah, like the French really helped a hell of a lot in the Pacific. How about those Thousand Lancaster Bombing Raids on Tokyo? How many British divisions were lined up for Operation Downfall?

 

[shockonlip]

But of course since the Americans managed to avoid most of these crucial battles that decided the outcome of WW2 we should take the opinion of the likes of Patton with a bit of scepticism. If they had actually fought decisively in WW2 it might be different.

Hello! Is anybody in there! Just nod if you can hear me, is anyone at home !

OK, remove ALL US involvement from Europe in WW2. Including air war, North Africa,
Italy, D-day, Battle of the Bulge, technology development, manufacturing and convoys
for the allies.

We weren't needed !

Abe Gubler has spoken !

Jeez!

I ain't drinkin your cool-aide dude!

 

[Orionblamblam]

OK, remove ALL US involvement from Europe in WW2. Including air war, North Africa,
Italy, D-day, Battle of the Bulge, technology development, manufacturing and convoys
for the allies.

Keep in mind that while the US, which in 1939 had an army smaller than that of Belgium, and was on the other side of the planet, was not involved in a war that we had no good reason to be involved with, Britain and France were involved in the "Sitzkrieg," doing essentially *squat* to evict the Germans from Poland... something they were contractually obligated to do. The war in Europe, apart from naval engagements, largely didn't heat up until the Germans took the war to the Brits and French.

So, obviously, the US is the guilty party here.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hello! Is anybody in there! Just nod if you can hear me, is anyone at home !

OK, remove ALL US involvement from Europe in WW2. Including air war, North Africa,
Italy, D-day, Battle of the Bulge, technology development, manufacturing and convoys
for the allies.

We weren't needed !

Abe Gubler has spoken !

Jeez!

I ain't drinkin your cool-aide dude!

I understand it’s an inflammatory posting but think about if for a second. Those battles you mentioned… were they as important as the Battle of Britain 1940, Moscow 41, Tobruk 41, etc? Not to mention the attrition and redirection of German combat power by the Poles in 39, the French in 40, the Serbs and Greeks in 41 and the British in 40 and 41?

By the time the American forces were directly involved in the war the Germans had already been defeated. American economic power helped (just helped) the British and Soviets but it was their forces and those of the fallen allies that really defeated this enemy. Being in at the end of the final kill does not make someone the winner of war no matter how much post war media products are produced saying so.

As to American’s involvement in the final kill it is quite debatable. Maybe there wouldn’t have been an Operation Overlord as big as was seen but the RAF was doing the real damage in the bombing campaign burning out German cities every night. But it was in the east were the real land battle was and the Red Army was good enough on its own to defeat Germany.

And as is demonstrated by the impetuous into this very argument why didn’t Patton just “go” to Berlin? Because even in 45 the Nazis were able to seriously bleed you and only the Soviets had the guts to go in and do that. After the casualties the Americans suffered in western Germany they didn’t have the desire for a big final push no matter how much bluster Patton churned out.

Which is the whole point. Patton is a crazy self promoter. The western allies did not have the power to take on and defeat the Red Army in ’45. If they tried then all of continental Europe would have been behind the Iron Curtain.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

OK, remove ALL US involvement from Europe in WW2. Including air war, North Africa,
Italy, D-day, Battle of the Bulge, technology development, manufacturing and convoys
for the allies.

Keep in mind that while the US, which in 1939 had an army smaller than that of Belgium, and was on the other side of the planet, was not involved in a war that we had no good reason to be involved with, Britain and France were involved in the "Sitzkrieg," doing essentially *squat* to evict the Germans from Poland... something they were contractually obligated to do. The war in Europe, apart from naval engagements, largely didn't heat up until the Germans took the war to the Brits and French.

So, obviously, the US is the guilty party here.

Actually no to all those points.

In 39/40 the US was hugely involved in the war and an instrumental part of the Anglo-French “sitzkrieg” strategy. Germany lacked the economic potential to fight a long war and the entire Anglo-French strategy was to build up their military forces using American industrial power and then once they had an overwhelming force conquer Germany. Before the German attack in the west the Anglo-French had ordered something like 5,000 military aircraft from the USA and huge amounts of other supplies. The US Government was doing everything they could to facilitate this supply of equipment to the Anglo-French.

It was going to work too until that bastard Manstein noticed a significant geostrategic flaw in the Anglo-French defence plan based around Belgiums insistence on pre war neutrality and the Ardennes. And it was only luck that enabled the Manstein plan to be implemented as Hitler being very aware of the ticking clock on his ability to match the Anglo French wanted to launch an attack in the west as soon as possible before they had the year or two to build up their strength. He initially planned to attack in ’39 but extremely poor weather (coldest winter in living memory) and the loss of the initial attack plans combined with Manstein working around the chain of command finally changed the German attack plan so it would work so brilliantly. Otherwise the Anglo-French would have ground the Germans down in a fast forward reply of WW1.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yeah, like the French really helped a hell of a lot in the Pacific. How about those Thousand Lancaster Bombing Raids on Tokyo? How many British divisions were lined up for Operation Downfall?

Obviously in the context of talking about Patton I was referring to the War in Europe.

 

[Orionblamblam]

In 39/40 the US was hugely involved in the war

American *industry,* to be sure. But the US military was a useless shambles. Soldiers trianed not with machine guns, but with wooden props that had "Machine Gun" stencilled on the side.

and an instrumental part of the Anglo-French “sitzkrieg” strategy. Germany lacked the economic potential to fight a long war and the entire Anglo-French strategy was to build up their military forces using American industrial power and then once they had an overwhelming force conquer Germany.

The UK/French forces were more than enough for the job at the time. When hitler first started acting up and doing actionable offenses (building up the Luftwaffe, annexing everybody nearby), the UK/French could have easily swatted him down.

The lesson here is that sometimes you gotta man up and lay a beatdown on some deserving opponant. Hitler shoulda been squashed early; Bush II learned that lesson and squashed Saddam. Oddly, much the same people who complain about the US in Iraq also complain about the US not getting involved in yet another dreary European war that our European allies didn;t even want to engage in.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Obviously in the context of talking about Patton I was referring to the War in Europe.

Despite what many insular Europeans believe, there was more to WWII than just Europe.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

American *industry,* to be sure. But the US military was a useless shambles. Soldiers trianed not with machine guns, but with wooden props that had "Machine Gun" stencilled on the side.

A state only different to that of the British Army by a few years. In the spring of 1940 the British could deploy 10 good divisions with some weapon categories inadequate and incomplete to France but by the summer of 1941 they (including the Commonwealth) would have been able to deploy 40 excellent divisions (assuming no German offensive). However in 1938 the British would have struggled to field 2-3 divisions to France. The US Army went through a similar cycle from 1939-42.

The UK/French forces were more than enough for the job at the time. When hitler first started acting up and doing actionable offenses (building up the Luftwaffe, annexing everybody nearby), the UK/French could have easily swatted him down.

The lesson here is that sometimes you gotta man up and lay a beatdown on some deserving opponant. Hitler shoulda been squashed early; Bush II learned that lesson and squashed Saddam. Oddly, much the same people who complain about the US in Iraq also complain about the US not getting involved in yet another dreary European war that our European allies didn;t even want to engage in.

It’s easy to see all that with hindsight but remember the Democracies and League of Nations in 1933 was in the Great Depression and Germany had spent 15 years as a laughing stock of Europe. So it was hard to see just how threatening the Nazi-Army-Captains of Industry alliance in Germany was going to become in five years time.

Iraq in 2003 really isn’t on par with Germany in 33 in terms of greater threat to the world or even the Middle East. The same thing can not be said in Middle Eastern regional terms for Iran. Iraq was really the Fascist Italy of the 1930s in 2003 while the Nazi Germany is next door in Iran. Though engaging and bleeding Iran in various theatres like Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen seems to be working well judging by the extreme unhappiness in the people of Iran with their governing regime and the huge PPP costs to them to keep up this fight.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Though engaging and bleeding Iran in various theatres like Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen seems to be working well judging by the extreme unhappiness in the people of Iran with their governing regime and the huge PPP costs to them to keep up this fight.

And so, in order to take the thread back to the original topic... clearly what we need to do about Iran is to develop a gigantic fusion powered cargo SSTO, capable of being transported across interstellar distances at sublight speeds (meaning that it can remain dormant for years without systems breaking down, locking up or freezing solid), equipped with vectorable-thrust engines for Harrier-like VTOL performance, in order to fly at, oh, 30 knots over Tehran to dump leaflets on the Iranian people.

(Really, is that any stupider than what happened at the end of "Avatar?")

 

[shockonlip]

Abe, you like to study history, but history doesn't tell the whole story of war.
How the result of a battle actually depends on a guy in a foxhole doing the right
thing, and turning the momentum of the fight, is never part of the history. Historians
like to summarize and condense and publish statements like what you said below
where the Germans were already defeated by the time the US entered the fight.
But such things are untested hypothesis which assume that all things will go your
way in the chaos of war. Such hypothesis were never played out, so I wouldn't
give them too much credence.

I visited Bastogne in 2005, and in my family we have several veterans of the 101st
(Europe) and 82nd (Pacific) airborne divisions (unfortunately all now deceased) and I
personally got a feel for what the US and Belgian citizens were up against. I take insult
to what you say when you indicate that we got bloodied and then didn't have the will to
continue to Berlin. Remember dude, we (Belgians and US soldiers) won that battle ! Way
outnumbered and won!

You have no idea what it was actualy like that winter. How much easier it would have been
to give up. Laying outside in that cold, dealing with frostbite, and sickness and still manning
your post. How terrifying when your foxhole was the target of a German attack with tanks
and enemy infantry that outnumbers you, and you and your fellows had to come up with ANY
solution to stop the advance.

That battle was won by a number of Belgian citizens and US soldiers who did the right thing
to change the momentum of the attack, and I guarantee that most of them were never
documented for history. It's those incredible little acts during chaos. You can't predict what
will happen only see what did happen. Which is why I don't think historians can make these
sweeping generalizations.

One particular sight which really gripped me was this Belgian lady who proudly wore the colors
of the 101st Airborne Division on her shirt. And the US Sherman tank dragged from one of the
battlefields and put into the center of town. It is periodically cleaned and repainted.
And the touching American memorial there outside of town and the excellent museum
for all combatants that tells their story. I was trying to find what road to take to the
memorial from the center of town and one of the locals recognized my American english and
came out to help me. She was very appreciative of what the US soldiers had done to help
her ancestors and wanted to help me go learn more. You could say that she really wanted my
tourist dollars, but I detected more. At least in that town there is an appreciation for what
America did in the European war.

Yes, we weren't in on the beginning, but if you think you could have won it without us?

Again I think you over estimate your position.

We aso did a hell of a lot more than you give us credit for.

Let's just say we were allies and needed each other. I think that is the key point.
That's the only way to rule against the chaos, to have enough friends in the
fight.

Regards,

Larry

 

[bobbymike]

Abraham Gubler - I have read histories of WWII by D'Este, Churchill, Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan, Eisenhower, Anthony Beevor, Andrew Roberts, Martin Gilbert and Fuller and have to say I have never read anything that even resembles your interpretation of events.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, you like to study history, but history doesn't tell the whole story of war.

And WW2 was just a collection of fox holes? When I say the US didn’t have the guts to fight across Germany to capture Berlin in 1945 it’s not because this is some “feeling” I have or other. It’s because the records of decision making at that time record this! Direct orders to delay and limit offensives to avoid casualties because the Germans were not collapsing despite the hopelessness of their position and disruption of their logistics. In turn the tactical and strategic air forces were released onto Germany in 1945 one of the most awesome and brutal displays of air power the world has ever seen.

As to the Battle of Bulge even if there was no resistance the Germans wouldn’t have been able to advance to Antwerp they simply lacked the logistics to do so. None of this is supposed to dilute or white wash the immense personal sacrifice and achievements of various combatants and participants in this battle of WW2 as a whole. But facts are facts and to assess WW2 as a hole in a sentence or paragraph is to do so on the strategic level which is primarily economic. And this battle just wasn’t strategic to the outcome of the war. That had already been decided.

Abraham Gubler - I have read histories of WWII by D'Este, Churchill, Victor Davis Hanson, John Keegan, Eisenhower, Anthony Beevor, Andrew Roberts, Martin Gilbert and Fuller and have to say I have never read anything that even resembles your interpretation of events.

Participants don’t write history. Besides you are assuming this is my opinion. As opposed to that of some of the world’s best economic historians working directly from archival records to debunk the various mythmaking of participants to the events. If you want a good introduction to actual strategic economic history of WW2 I would suggest the “Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi economy” by Adam Tooze.

 

[quellish]

Iraq in 2003 really isn’t on par with Germany in 33 in terms of greater threat to the world or even the Middle East. The same thing can not be said in Middle Eastern regional terms for Iran. Iraq was really the Fascist Italy of the 1930s in 2003 while the Nazi Germany is next door in Iran. Though engaging and bleeding Iran in various theatres like Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen seems to be working well judging by the extreme unhappiness in the people of Iran with their governing regime and the huge PPP costs to them to keep up this fight.

Am I reading this correctly? You are saying someone is bleeding *Iran* in those areas, not the other way around?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Am I reading this correctly? You are saying someone is bleeding *Iran* in those areas, not the other way around?

I said PPP: Purchasing Power Parity. Sure Iran’s best efforts in Iraq, Lebanon, Yeman, etc are costing our side in damages inflicted and suppression costs. But those Hezbollah rockets don’t come for free. It is costing Iran tens of billons of dollars to support terrorism each year and this is just money they don’t have. The USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq can absorb the costs of countering Iran far better than Iran can afford to spend this money. Add to this the billions Iran is spending around the world to buy legitimacy in various third world countries that may have a beef with the USA and the west. This spending by Iran has already resulted in massive street demonstrations from the public who would prefer to have that money spent on good things for Iranians turning the country into an open, oppressive dictatorship.

 

[shockonlip]

And WW2 was just a collection of fox holes? When I say the US didn’t have the guts to fight across Germany to capture Berlin in 1945 it’s not because this is some “feeling” I have or other. It’s because the records of decision making at that time record this!
...
Participants don’t write history. Besides you are assuming this is my opinion. As opposed to that of some of the world’s best economic historians working directly from archival records to debunk the various mythmaking of participants to the events. If you want a good introduction to actual strategic economic history of WW2 I would suggest the “Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi economy” by Adam Tooze.

Oh yes ! Those great and brave economic historians!

And let's say this with emphasis about the first paragraph above!
Mr. Gubler, you are full of shit !!

 

[amsci99]

Quite the lively topic, I was wondering what James Cameron was referring to
when he meant that the crew of the ISV Venture Star is protected by the following means; "protects the cargo and crew modules from the engines' heat and radiation using the simple rule of r-squared attenuation rather than heavy shielding"

http://io9.com/5464478/27-avatar-questions-answered-by-the-movies-designers

Also enjoy the following links.

http://io9.com/5444960/avatars-designers-speak-floating-mountains-amp-suits-and-the-dragon

http://io9.com/5521563/camerons-next-project-may-not-be-avatar-2-or-battle-angel

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Oh yes ! Those great and brave economic historians!

And let's say this with emphasis about the first paragraph above!
Mr. Gubler, you are full of shit !!

Go have a big sook Shockonlip. If you can’t put aside your immense personal stake in WW2 because you went on a holiday to Belgium and try and objectively analyse the major turning points of the war and its actual events beyond those that generate the most number of movies and tourist destinations then all you are doing is proving my point. The war was decided not by the loudest and most emotional voices after it but by the strategic, tactical and economic inputs and decisions. The former is like James Cameron’s view of colonialism and resource extraction as seen in Avatar compared to how it actually happens.

 

[quellish]

I said PPP: Purchasing Power Parity. Sure Iran’s best efforts in Iraq, Lebanon, Yeman, etc are costing our side in damages inflicted and suppression costs. But those Hezbollah rockets don’t come for free. It is costing Iran tens of billons of dollars to support terrorism each year and this is just money they don’t have. The USA, Israel, Saudi Arabia and even Iraq can absorb the costs of countering Iran far better than Iran can afford to spend this money. Add to this the billions Iran is spending around the world to buy legitimacy in various third world countries that may have a beef with the USA and the west. This spending by Iran has already resulted in massive street demonstrations from the public who would prefer to have that money spent on good things for Iranians turning the country into an open, oppressive dictatorship.

Ah, OK. So I was reading that correctly. This reminds me of the lead vase story.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Didn't Patton think he could conquer Moscow in no time? So the Red Army wouldn't be able to do anything about it before it was too late for them?

Then he was a major fool. Surely after 1944 he would have learnt something or two about the limitations of truck borne logistics. The very same thing that delayed the German offensive into Russia in '41.

OT: He certainly should have been allowed to go to Berlin before the Red Army, or the very least liberate Prague.

"Going" to Berlin was something that 65 years ago required at least 250,000 casulties on your own side. Nazi Germany did not go out with a wimper but a mighty bang and the last months of battles were the most costly to the Allies since absorbing the initial German attacks.

But of course since the Americans managed to avoid most of these crucial battles that decided the outcome of WW2 we should take the opinion of the likes of Patton with a bit of scepticism. If they had actually fought decisively in WW2 it might be different.

Well, would Patton have been able to disregard orders from Eisenhower? BTW it seems to me that the individual American soldiers were willing march/travel to Berlin ASAP given the "Berlin or Bust!" paintings on US tanks. :-\

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

But of course since the Americans managed to avoid most of these crucial battles that decided the outcome of WW2 ...

Yeah, like the French really helped a hell of a lot in the Pacific. How about those Thousand Lancaster Bombing Raids on Tokyo? How many British divisions were lined up for Operation Downfall?

Are you referring to RAF's planned "Tiger Force"? The atom bombs made it moot. British-led Chindits did fight in Burma. BTW the Free French did fight at several battle grounds, including the Eastern Front, and there were Maquis guerillas in French Indochina.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

In 39/40 the US was hugely involved in the war

American *industry,* to be sure. But the US military was a useless shambles. Soldiers trianed not with machine guns, but with wooden props that had "Machine Gun" stencilled on the side.

and an instrumental part of the Anglo-French “sitzkrieg” strategy. Germany lacked the economic potential to fight a long war and the entire Anglo-French strategy was to build up their military forces using American industrial power and then once they had an overwhelming force conquer Germany.

The UK/French forces were more than enough for the job at the time. When Hitler first started acting up and doing actionable offenses (building up the Luftwaffe, annexing everybody nearby), the UK/French could have easily swatted him down.

While I *agree* that the French army should have followed up the Saarland offensive and that RAF Bomber Command should have been much more aggressive in 1939 (not just bombing harbours, but airstrips, factories, trains, rail tracks etc as well), one has to remember that the French army didn't have enough rifles to arm all soldiers (!).

During the Munich Crisis, Daladier didn't want to appease Hitler, but ultimately felt forced to do so because Chamberlain refused to be hard. (Of course, Hitler would use the Czech industries to serve Das Reich and Wehrmacht were able to inspect the Beneš Line of fortifications, enabling the quick defeat of Belgian fortress Fort Eben-Emael, and thus making it possible to bypass the Maginot Line.

France failed to do something about the re-militarization of Rhineland because the French government didn't have the money to mobilize its army, even less to wage a war. To devalue the Franc was seen as political suicide, and it wasn't certain whether France would be able to borrow money from the British and American bond markets, especially while invading Germany.

The lesson here is that sometimes you gotta man up and lay a beatdown on some deserving opponent. Hitler shoulda been squashed early; Bush II learned that lesson and squashed Saddam.

But not Bush Sr... :-\

Speaking of Iraq, it makes me wonder if there ever was a realistic chance for the SS-led Werwolf guerillas to make a difference, after Germany's defeat. ???

Oddly, much the same people who complain about the US in Iraq also complain about the US not getting involved in yet another dreary European war that our European allies didn't even want to engage in.

Too true...

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

And WW2 was just a collection of fox holes? When I say the US didn’t have the guts to fight across Germany to capture Berlin in 1945 it’s not because this is some “feeling” I have or other. It’s because the records of decision making at that time record this!
...
Participants don’t write history. Besides you are assuming this is my opinion. As opposed to that of some of the world’s best economic historians working directly from archival records to debunk the various mythmaking of participants to the events. If you want a good introduction to actual strategic economic history of WW2 I would suggest the “Wages of Destruction: the making and breaking of the Nazi economy” by Adam Tooze.

Oh yes ! Those great and brave economic historians!

And let's say this with emphasis about the first paragraph above!
Mr. Gubler, you are full of shit !!

Please do behave like a civilized adult and respect your fellow posters; I hate to see this thread be locked like too many others because of some posters' misbehaviour.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Are you referring to RAF's planned "Tiger Force"? The atom bombs made it moot.

Pfff. The atom bombs came at the *end* of the war. Where were the RAF bombers and Royal Marines in all the battles leading up to that? Did they someho w get written out of the histories of Wake Island, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Saipan and all the rest... or were they simply not there?

Fact is, they weren't there. And for good reason: it wasn't their war. Just as Europe was not America's war. And yet, America decided to fight first and foremost in Europe.

 

[Orionblamblam]

The lesson here is that sometimes you gotta man up and lay a beatdown on some deserving opponent. Hitler shoulda been squashed early; Bush II learned that lesson and squashed Saddam.

But not Bush Sr... :-\

While it's true that in the long run substnatially more should ahve been done WRT Saddam after Gulf War I, it's not clear that Bush *could* have done much more.
1) The war had the specific goal of driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Once that was done... the "mandate" was pretty much over.
2) A push on Baghdad would have been a bloodbath for both sides, and the US publuic had decided to get all squirrely after the "Highway of Death." One of the downsides of 24-hour instant satellite news is that it lets the civilian populace armchair quarterback things it just doesn't understand. Try to imagine what would have happened in the Pacific if CNN had been there to broadcast live all the horror and death.
3) On the other hand, the abandonment of the Kurds was shameful. Not as shameful as the abandonment of the Shah, and without the dire long-term consequences, but still really quite awful.

Speaking of Iraq, it makes me wonder if there ever was a realistic chance for the SS-led Werwolf guerillas to make a difference, after Germany's defeat. ???

Seems doubtful.
1) If they had in fact started to make a meaningful difference, the western allies could have simply annouced that "all right, we give up. These Werolf-dominated regions will be turned over to Soviet occupation rape troops" and that would ahve pretty much ended the threat as the *Germans* would string up the guerillas.
2) while there were some Nazis that kept up their ideology for decades after, and of course there've been a lot of goobers who like to pretend to be "neo-Nazis," the fact is that Nazi ideology was only a decade and a half old, and not nearly as ingrained or as crazy as Islamic extremism.
3) The Iraqi insurgents were funded, supplied and staffed largely by non-Iraqis. Who outside of Germany would support the Werwolves?