War talk

Remove this Banner Ad

Stan The Caddy said:
I agree with this. I've been to Churchill's birth place and burial site in the one day and it's one of those things that I'll never ever forget.
Click to expand...
I drove straight past gandi's ashram.

Never understood why people care about stuff like that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

vinum coupe said:
I drove straight past gandi's ashram.

Never understood why people care about stuff like that.
Click to expand...
I've visited a few houses, Freud, Einstein etc - but it was more out of curiosity or to see where they wrote some book or came up with some theory - not a religious experience. More like "huh he's got a wooden desk too, cool".
 
Well this thread certainly has gone in an unexpected direction

Not that I'm complaining... the same arguments have gone back and forth for 250 odd pages so it's a nice change up... and I feel like I'm learning something :D
 
Willo_ said:
Well this thread certainly has gone in an unexpected direction

Not that I'm complaining... the same arguments have gone back and forth for 250 odd pages so it's a nice change up... and I feel like I'm learning something :D
Click to expand...

I might occasionally get tired of talking footy........but I never of talking about WW2.
 
Stan The Caddy said:
No, it was their navy during the battle of Britain. That's what saved them.
Click to expand...

Could you clarify what you mean.
If you mean they would have been a deterrent against a German invasion at some time in the future fair enough (and even that was doubtful given the Germans lack of amphibious capabilities and the high commands unwillingness to attempt it unless the RAF was destroyed first) but the actual battle of Britain was won solely by the RAF.

manboob said:
I think the role of both the Russians and Brits is being slightly overplayed here.
american-flag-2-1024x768.jpg
Click to expand...

Bit hard to overplay the role of the country (Russia) that was responsible for inflicting around eighty percent of German causalities.
 
Who did more in the war: the internet's oldest, and silliest, game.
 
Just to sum up WW2. Russia won it in Europe with very little help from anyone, and The U.S won it in the Pacific with very little help from anyone. Britain's role in the war was minimal at best and has largely been exaggerated due to the enourmous personality of Churchill, who gave great speeches but was one of the worst military minds in history.
 
Partridge said:
Especially when you consider they had the previous examples of Napoleon and Charles XII to learn from.
Click to expand...

The same scorched earth episode if I remember correctly.

Cattery said:
Bit hard to overplay the role of the country (Russia) that was responsible for inflicting around eighty percent of German causalities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Stalin used his people as cannon fodder (think Russia had the highest casualty rate out of the all the countries but do not have time to look it up).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

darren forssman said:
Yeah, Stalin used his people as cannon fodder (think Russia had the highest casualty rate out of the all the countries but do not have time to look it up).
Click to expand...
High Soviet casualty rates had more to do with the immaturity of the RKKA and the losses incurred in the first two summer campaigns of the war (and in particular Barbarossa) than a deliberate callousness, although Soviet commanders were always prepared to tolerate higher losses than Western counterparts. Once new doctrine and new leaders emerged in 42-43, and the equipment lost in 1941 was replaced, the overall ratio of Axis to Soviet casualties evened out.
 
thejester said:
High Soviet casualty rates had more to do with the immaturity of the RKKA and the losses incurred in the first two summer campaigns of the war (and in particular Barbarossa) than a deliberate callousness, although Soviet commanders were always prepared to tolerate higher losses than Western counterparts. Once new doctrine and new leaders emerged in 42-43, and the equipment lost in 1941 was replaced, the overall ratio of Axis to Soviet casualties evened out.
Click to expand...

On top of that is the huge amount of civilian casualties incurred by German occupation and the Soviets desire for military goals over civilian ones (IE Siege of Leningrad for one).
 
Partridge said:
I'm not forgetting them.

For one thing there weren't that many injuries - Simpson, Hawkins and Enright. Who else was there? Hawkins even returned for the last two finals. If they couldn't cope with Simpson and Enright missing they shouldn't be there.

The other thing is I regard Hawkins' unavailability for the Fremantle final as 100% self inflicted.

So I don't blame injuries, I blame incompetence at selection far more.

But it did usher in a new era, where the validation of individuals (players and coaches) became more important than team results.
Click to expand...

Problem with your logic is that you always make the assumption that if the club try's something and it isn't successful that something else automatically would of been successful .

Your whole argument about Hawkins missing the QF being self inflicted is based on the false assumption that if he had been given more rest that he would of been ok to play.

Hawkins had a bulging disc that could of been aggravated by a number of things in the days leading up to the QF .

The club doctors thought he was ok to play ,the specialist outside the club thought he was ok to play and Doc Larkins thought he was ok to play.

Larkins said resting Hawkins for a lengthy period was unnecessary, with the cons of missing football outweighing the pros.

"There's no point putting him aside for a month because he loses fitness," he said.

"Rest takes away the inflammation and the pain but that often only takes a few days - he's been good between matches and been able to play and train well at the end of each week and that's why they've kept playing him throughout the middle part of the year.

"Having a month off will mean he's still got a bulging disc at the end of the month but his back won't be sore and he will have lost a month of football."
 
thejester said:
High Soviet casualty rates had more to do with the immaturity of the RKKA and the losses incurred in the first two summer campaigns of the war (and in particular Barbarossa) than a deliberate callousness, although Soviet commanders were always prepared to tolerate higher losses than Western counterparts. Once new doctrine and new leaders emerged in 42-43, and the equipment lost in 1941 was replaced, the overall ratio of Axis to Soviet casualties evened out.
Click to expand...
It didn't help that in battles like Leningrad Russian soldiers under Stalins orders were shot by their own if they tried to retreat.
 
Cattery said:
Could you clarify what you mean.
If you mean they would have been a deterrent against a German invasion at some time in the future fair enough (and even that was doubtful given the Germans lack of amphibious capabilities and the high commands unwillingness to attempt it unless the RAF was destroyed first) but the actual battle of Britain was won solely by the RAF.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think that Hitler was ever all that interested in invading GB and the main reason for that was the Royal Navy. It was GB's safety blanket that they always knew that they could rely on if they needed to and it was quite daunting to the Germans simply by its mere presence. Don't get me wrong, the RAF deserve all the credit in the world for being able to defeat the Luftwaffe but the reason for why a full scale invasion of GB never occurred wasn't just because of the deeds of the RAF but also because of GB's far superior Royal Navy.
 
Stan The Caddy said:
Personally I don't think that Hitler was ever all that interested in invading GB and the main reason for that was the Royal Navy. It was GB's safety blanket that they always knew that they could rely on if they needed to and it was quite daunting to the Germans simply by its mere presence. Don't get me wrong, the RAF deserve all the credit in the world for being able to defeat the Luftwaffe but the reason for why a full scale invasion of GB never occurred wasn't just because of the deeds of the RAF but also because of GB's far superior Royal Navy.
Click to expand...
You mean the far superior Royal Navy that was finding it almost impossible to protect U.S naval convoys providing supplies to GB and taking huge losses to German U Boats. Mate had Hitler won air superiority over England (which he only didn't because his planes could only spend around 10 minutes over British skies before needing to return to the continent to refuel) then the Royal Navy wouldn't have been a problem and simply would've been destroyed by a combination of U boats and air power. As it was by 1943 the U.S had a far more powerful navy than The RN, it only took the Yanks 2 years of the war to build a better bigger fleet than GB's pride and joy. The U.S completely saved GB and Western Europe, without their supplies GB would've been starved in to submission, would've had no armaments, and would've wilted under the pressure. I know it's not fashionable to say but thank God for FDR and the U.S in WW2 or we could all be living under Nazism, Japanese tyranny, or Communism.
 
BlightysCats said:
You mean the far superior Royal Navy that was finding it almost impossible to protect U.S naval convoys providing supplies to GB and taking huge losses to German U Boats. Mate had Hitler won air superiority over England (which he only didn't because his planes could only spend around 10 minutes over British skies before needing to return to the continent to refuel) then the Royal Navy wouldn't have been a problem and simply would've been destroyed by a combination of U boats and air power. As it was by 1943 the U.S had a far more powerful navy than The RN, it only took the Yanks 2 years of the war to build a better bigger fleet than GB's pride and joy. The U.S completely saved GB and Western Europe, without their supplies GB would've been starved in to submission, would've had no armaments, and would've wilted under the pressure. I know it's not fashionable to say but thank God for FDR and the U.S in WW2 or we could all be living under Nazism, Japanese tyranny, or Communism.
Click to expand...
Firstly, if you don't even know what a paragraph is how do you expect people to take you seriously? I've told you about this before, write in paragraphs otherwise you end up making yourself look stupid.

Now please explain to me how the Luftwaffe were going to be able to penetrate any Capital ships when they didn't even possess armour-piercing bombs like the Japanese did at that particular time? Also, after 1940 the Kriegsmarine were incredibly weak after the Norwegian campaign and seeing as though you like your quotes German general Jodl once stated that "So long as the British Navy existed, an invasion would be to send my troops into a mincing machine".

The Royal Navy far and away out numbered their German counterparts with the amount of destroyers and battleships that they possessed and had the Germans actually been stupid enough to attempt operation "Sealion" they would have been obliterated by the Royal Navy simply by its weight in numbers if nothing else.

And lastly, FDR was a coward whom lacked the fortitude and foresight to do what was required until his hand was forced and he had no other option but to become directly involved in the war.
 
Stan The Caddy said:
And lastly, FDR was a coward whom lacked the fortitude and foresight to do what was required until his hand was forced and he had no other option but to become directly involved in the war.
Click to expand...

Being a bit harsh on FDR there mate. Even if he wanted to do more American public opinion was strongly against going to war, was it not? It wasn't until he had the pretext of Pearl Harbour that they could become involved, coupled with Hitler stupidly declaring war on the U.S. which dragged them into that theatre as well.
 
A pertinent point is also how much did American Industrialists and others profit from the war by supplying both sides?
And did Hitler singlehandedly turn things around after the Treaty of Versailles without assistance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top