WWII Deaths
 

A fascinating video. Maybe it should go in DC, but it's history and I think has a wider pool of potentially interested people, so :shrug:


https://vimeo.com/128373915

There's too many of us....there's too many of us....there's too many there's too many there's too many....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yJAlIHsXcLY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I often wonder the outcome of WWII if Germany allied with Russia instead of invading. Not 100% the Axis would have won but wow, the land campaigns would have been so much more brutal for the Allies.

Thanks for link.

What a powerful little video.

Well, ultimately we win for one simple reason, see below, but the entire war would have been much, much, much uglier.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...g_of_Japan.jpg

Had we not invaded and pushed across when we did, we were about two to three months from being completely ****ed by the Germans.

They were very, VERY close to completing technology that would have decimated the allies.

As luck would have it, we were more than happy to commandeer those brilliant minds and put them to work, post-Berlin.

I was watching some program the other night where a Canadian soldier was taken back to the Channel where they had located the ship he was on, which sank during the invasion of Normandy after striking a mine. The story was just incredible, being blown across the deck of the ship, trying to decide if he should just jump or wait for the bow to sink and swim for it, having to shed his gear in order to swim, and getting hold of a capsized lifeboat by happenstance and then still going ashore.

They also described this method someone had come up with to try to make tanks float by surrounding them with this inflatable air bladder, which didn't really work well because it wasn't tall enough and the middle part filled with water from the waves. What must it have been like to be crew of the the second tank, after you see the first one push off the front edge of the boat and seeing it sink?

What technology? Jet engines on planes, which Hitler undervalued, misused and ignored? Dumb ballistic missiles that could not be targetted on strategic targets and had pathetically small warheads? Nuclear weapons, the program that was essentially deprioritized early in the war and was absolutely nowhere near completion? Longer-range submarines, which were crippled by Doenitz's centralized control requirements when Enigma had been cracked?

By 1944 nothing was going to save the Germans except the atomic bomb, and they didn't have it, and weren't even trying hard to get it.

Maybe he's talking about the V2?

Coming from a defender of BB, I'm going to pass on your assessment.

Yes, those didn't work well, at all. We lost alot of tanks that way, and tank crews. :D


Everyone wants to paint every single human being fighting for us in that war as a stellar example of heroism, but they were human like in any other war. I've read accounts of some pilots on D-Day who were basically forced at gunpoint by the troops on their own ships to get in ****ing CLOSER to the shore. When you see the ship next to you discharge troops/tanks that sink and die, and then your "captain" (really a scared kid who is maybe 25 years old at best, and like an Ensign in rank) tells you it's time to get off the boat and charge because the bullets are hitting his boat --- well, you can imagine what will happen, given that the boat has, whatever, 200+ soldiers and like 20 sailors.

("boat", means an LST or similar landing ship).

Pictures of a tank with its bladder.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...6e/DD-Tank.jpg

http://worldwar2headquarters.com/ima...ank-screen.jpg

What technology? You could've written the answer in as many words as you typed, but instead tried a pathetic dodge.

Nothing new there. The Germans launched over a thousand (I forget how many) V-2s during the war. The main problems were (1) small warhead and (2) no guidance system so that strategic targets could be selected.

I haven't run the numbers or seen this written, but I would bet serious money that the total payload dropped in any of the large late war allied bombing raids (pick one, Dresden, Frankfurt, Berlin) was larger than the total payload carried by all V-2s launched by Germany during the war.

Unconventional technology.

Very helpful. You mean sharks with laser beams on their freaking heads or what?

Actually, what is sort of amusing here is that you are echoing Hitler's own belief. He was completely convinced, until the bitter end, that something miraculous would happen to turn around Germany's steady losses. They really went nowhere but backwards starting from the losses at Stalingrad (Feb 1943) and North Africa (May 1943).

For two years, Hitler thought that some technological breakthrough or SOMETHING would save Germany. Between those two battles though, the Germans lost well over a million men killed, wounded or captured, and never really recovered. From there, it was nothing but a long, slow, painful series of strategic losses with occasional limited tactical victories.

And no technology the Germans were then working on was going to reverse that trend.

Cool video of the change in territory day by day during WWII.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WOVEy1tC7nk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

What technology?

This. Hitler was an idiot and pretty much ignored any sound military advice given to him by his generals. His forces were spread too thin. If his generals killed him, it may have been a different outcome. My grandfather was a B-24 navigator, and told me some pretty crazy stories. He also said that if Hitler wasnt so tunnel visioned, they probably couldn't have landed on the beaches. He also told me a crazy story that the US was didn't want to really deploy, and that the british ended up sinking some american ships and blamed it on the germans to force us into it. German forces knew they were spread to thin to defend a landing and did NOT want us to deploy. Just food for thought.

I don't understand the question - what if two nations that despised each other suddenly decided to ally? Wonder why you asked that. Assuming they didn't hate each other, the obvious answer is that they'd rule the world and with ease. German technology and creativity + Russian mapower and natural resources would dominate.



Put it this way: in London just after the war's conclusion, Scotland Yard tried to figure out how the West should proceed with the Soviet Union (who was now in Germany and hence on their doorstep). A memo to Churchill concluded that it would take the entire armies of England, the USA, France, and even a re-constituted German army to repel any USSR invasion.

Let's unpack your post, since it's got some separate concepts going on.

First, the above. "Hitler was an idiot" is waaay too broad a statement. In many ways, yes he was. In at least some ways (for example, adopting von Manstein's invasion plan for France over the objections of more senior generals) he was a genius. In all ways he was ****ing mass-murdering psychopath.

However you have to take the "good" with the bad. If it wasn't for Hitler, Germany never would have controlled basically ALL of Europe at one point in time. If it wasn't for Hitler, maybe they could have held it longer.

Well, questionable. The real issue wasn't so much landing, as Rommel did most all that could be done to prevent a landing, but rather whether the Allies could have been repulsed by, for example, an earlier release of the tanks around Pas de Calais to counterattack.

I dont' attribute that so much to Hitler being an idiot or tunnel-visioned, but rather the success of the Allied efforts to confuse/misdirect the Germans.

Too vague. Deploy what, when? You mean launch the actual D-Day attack? If so, do you mean launch it literally ON THAT DAY, or launch it in general?

I've read quite a bit on this stuff, between Churchill's (very self-serving) six volume World War II history to Alanbrooke's diaries (which are superb) and books on Marshall and Roosevelt, but need more information on what the story is here.

Really? The London Police Department (fancy name, but that's what it is) concluded that?! Wow, must be definitive then!

It's bullshit. First, we had friggin nukes, and the Soviets still didn't have any long-range bombers worth the name. Second, IF we had had time to redeploy (and fully mobilize) then the US/UK (plus commonwealths) would have far more population and far more troops, potentially, then the Soviet Union.

I'm not saying by any means that it's some kind of cakewalk. FAR from it, but

IS COMPLETELY WRONG.


Edit to note that Russia would have zero capacity to launch any kind of amphibious assault against England, much less cross the ocean and attack the U.S. Their "navy" at the end of WWII was a complete joke. Like basically non-existent.

I love idiots who think they understand WWII. Really? the Germans and the Russians get along? Stalin and Hitler were both maniacal egomaniacs. Now to mention Hitler was running a far right state that had killed 1000s of German communists to come to power. No way these two powers are allied for any length of time let alone to fight all of the allies.

It's a made up scenario, a "what if" if that makes sense dick loon. Stalin wasn't exactly a big fan of capitalism either but he sided with the USA and the allies out of a deal with the devil of convenience.

Get laid dude. Seriously.

Hey Loon! The Nazi's were Christian!

http://www.howtoteachyourdogtricks.c...g-to-Fetch.jpg

FETCH BOY!!!

They also "allied" (though that is too strong a term, actually) in the form of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was a non-aggression pact but had a secret protocol to conquer Poland and divide it between them.

As another "what if"...

If I remember correctly didn't Japan kind of hoodwink Germany by not attacking Russia thru Siberia simultaneously and hitting Russia from two frontsl? Take away the mushroom cloud maker and there's a couple cool scenarios that one can dream up.

Neat stuff.

History geek fight!

LMAO

Well, looking like this'ns bout to go all DC.

I'm not aware of any formal agreement or promise by the Japanese to Germany regarding attacking the USSR.

There were actually some very serious battles (heavy skirmishes perhaps?) along the Soviet/Manchurian border between USSR and Japanese forces. They were the first battles that Zhukov was involved in actually, IIRC.

Had Japan been more aggressive, even in feinting attacks, they could have helped the Germans substantially by potentially typing up Soviet troops. As it was, they basically got beat and went back to focusing on the stuff that really mattered to them -- China and their seagoing power focus.

Not much but the best I could find on short notice:

http://www.haciendapub.com/randomnot...strategic-plan

The Ark of the Covenant and a mind-reading Cate Blanchet. Duh.

Since you didn't read Otters hypothetical, he asked what would've happened had the two allied. And that answer is simple: they'd have overrun Europe (including England) in a matter of weeks.


Your nuke rebuttal won't work because by the time America developed and tested it, we were already deep in 1944. All allied lands would've already been conquered and hence those forces would've been impossible to dislodge. If you're arguing for raining nukes down on Berlin and Moscow, they'd retaliate instantly by liquidating allied civilian populations under their control.

Europe, YES. But, well, actually, Germany did that all by itself, so that's not giving up much.

England is still going to be a huge problem. The fundamental problem the Germans had was that they couldn't dominate either the skies over England and the English channel, or create a safe environment for ships to transport troops to England, and then resupply them.

Would Russia/Germany together (assuming no US involvement) be able to get there eventually? Yes. Really no doubt.

"in a matter of weeks"? Absolutely not. WTF were they going to do? Row over there with no ****ing tanks, no local air superiority and no naval superiority? That ain't happening.


What "allied lands"? Allied territory in Europe? Yes.

If the US gets involved earlier, however, due to Russia/German designs on England (it's all a big hypothetical), then England never gets invaded. With US focusing assistance on England, Germany/Russia will take absolutely forever to get the necessary sea/air power to mount a serious offensive, and though that eventually could be done I think, the US/UK will develop nukes first.

Keep in mind you have a logistical problem here -- the Soviets are pretty freaking far away from England, have no navy worth the name, no heavy bombers, not really even good medium bombers, and their best forces, like the Germans, are their ground troops, which are going to have a real problem crossing that little patch of water between Frnace and England.

Not really even worth answering. Nor would it necessarily matter. At this point it's literally a struggle for survival. If A-bombs are what are needed to bring the enemy to its knees, they are what will get used.

Besidess that, we were pounding the shit out of Germany long before we took back control of France. It's not necessarily a useful or effective war fighting technique to kill civilians. We would destroy their leadership and their capacity to fight (industrial centers, etc.). Murdering innocents in France or whatever isn't going to balance those scales.

The U.S. couldn't have saved England from a combined war machine of that magnitude. And most of the bombing soirees into Germany were launched from England so short-haul nuke raids wouldn't have been possible. It'd have to be done with long-range bombers (as it was in Japan) with serious air control and ground cover below. It *could* have been successful but it was no given.


The far likelier scenario is Europe would've been ruled by the two in perpetuity and America wouldve seen any action as futile. Germany alone nearly held off all allies over a 3-front war (I include Italy as a front they defended)

How does one get an invite to a bombing soiree? Are they black tie?

No matter how big the "war machine", they gotta cross the Channel. Depending on when the US enters the war, then that could be a major problem.

If there was no Channel, you're right. As it was, the German war machine was similarly overwhelming, vis-a-vis England, after France's fall, and couldn't get the job done. "More overwhelming" doesn't necessarily matter, unless T-34s have some kind of previously unknown swimming capability.

I've been bombed at a few soirees myself....

Err...no, it's a two front war. Two different enemies on different sides equals two fronts. Unless you want to say the US/UK were also fighting a "two front war" in Europe (in Italy and France), which makes no sense at all.

Second "nearly held off"? In what sense? The German military's high watermark came at the height of Barbarossa, which was the summer of 1941. Once the Russians stopped them at Moscow, and the US entered the war, they just steadily lost the war. They didn't nearly hold off anything -- they just managed to hold them off for four years, which is pretty impressive, but it wasn't like a close call or anything. After Barbarossa failed, there really weren't any "close calls" anymore, either for the Russians or the Brits, much less the Americans.

I usually like to launch my heat seeking missile after getting bombed at a soiree, personally. I've been to some soirees where I got bombed listening to the B-52s.

Correct. Sea Lion was canceled because the Germans hadn't gained air or sea superiority. Add to that the fact that they really didn't have an amphibious force that would have been required to cross the channel...

Hypothetical are fun to a point, but the facts are more fun. The Brits, with a little help, won the BoB and Hitler turned his intentions toward the country he really wanted to fight. The BoB was the first turning point in the European theater and it's victory can't be overstated.

What, you mean barges on the Rhine aren't ideal amphibious assault naval vessels to cross the English Channel?!?!

LMAO

No, not quite.

The fun fact about the BoB is that ONE German bomber changed the course of the battle. One. If that hadn't happened, the RAF very well could have been destroyed.

Yes. A little accidental bombing on civilians, a little retaliation, and suddenly...

I've read Marvel "What If" comics that were more plausible than Hitler and Stalin being allies.

Aww man, and just as I'm taking time off for a week's worth of seminars about ... wait for it ...

American history.

I reserve the right to resurrect the thread when I get back on the 21st. See you jokers then.

Throw history around and you're guaranteed to get a Donger and Amnorix sighting. Raw meat is less appealing to starving lions than history is to us, especially WWII history.

The more interesting question is what happened to Patton?

Was the car accident an "accident" or not?

Did it prevent a war?

Bastard.

:spock:

Even if Patton wanted a war with the Soviets (which I presume your are talking about), he had already been relieved of his post at Third Army at the time of his accident. Eisenhower certainly didn't want a war with them, nor did Truman.

So, no, his death didn't prevent a war and if he had lived, there wouldn't have been a war.

Cool.

Why was he relieved? End of conflict? Slap another soldier or insult someone?

Amazing the things one learns on CP! :)

How Hitler Could Have Won the War is a great book, a little scary even. A lot could have changed on decisions that his generals suggested but was ignored.

Going from memory, the final straw was when he compared NAZI members to not being any different than Republicans and Democrats. Just "party members."

His increasingly erratic behavior probably hastened his dismissal as military governor and as head of Third Army, but the Army was very rapidly demobilizing anyway.

The conspiracy theories around his death are fairly absurd. He had no power or authority or ability to start a war with the Russians, and had never shown any MacArthur like delusions that he was a separate power, above and not answerable to his commanding officers and the President. MacArthur's delusions were fed in part by his long, LONG tenure away from home, and away from any more senior military officers. Patton never had that.

And, suffice to say, since Ike had punished him for slapping an officer, and then relieved him of Third Army, and since Truman would later dismiss MacArthur, NEITHER would be afraid to dismiss Patton completely from service if they felt it was warranted.

[QUOTE=Donger;11546360]Going from memory, the final straw was when he compared NAZI members to not being any different than Republicans and Democrats. Just "party

Ouch!

I posted this to my FB page this past D-Day Anniversary. Truly incredible how many sacrificed their lives. o:-)

All he had to do was one thing: enlist the help of the revolutionaries in the Baltics and the Slavs in the South (Ukraine & the Caucusus). Both were ripe for the cause and overt sympathizers when they arrived, hating Stalin and the Communist regime. Had he done that, he'd have taken over Leningrand - probably - and the Caucuses with their oil fields - certainly.


Without having to divert Army Group Centre down to Ukraine, he could've pushed through the last 20 miles to Moscow and knocked out their command apparatus. And would've avoided the loss at Stalingrad down South, and commandeered all the oil in the Caucuses.

Germans were close to developing weapons that would have beat America. Glad we had luck on our side.

I watched that video, and it had a few interesting tidbits. I knew that Stalingrad was big, but I didn't realize that it was that big.

However, the numbers in this video seem larger than numbers I see elsewhere. The video reports "half a million Nazis died", plus roughly 100,000 POWs. But the numbers in other sources show the figures as being much lower: http://necrometrics.com/battles.htm

Once Barbarossa failed all the great generals of history rolled into one couldn't have saved the nazis. It was over. Hitler fought exactly the right strategy to prolong his life. It had disastrous consequences for the German people and Wehrmacht but it prolonged his rule as much as could possibly be done.

The first aspect is one Hitler would have never tolerated. Nor his apparatus.

The Minsk encirclement doomed Barbarossa but eliminated 1 million Russian soldiers. If Moscow is taken it cuts almost all the rail lines the government is forced to fail back to the Urals and at best Stalin can stalemate the Germans going forward. The Minsk encirclement was backed by Hitler and his generals that feared a million Russians on their flank. Had the weather not changed it would have been a moot point. Both would have collapsed.

Well...how far off was he, really?

the spear of destiny
the ark of the covenant
philosopher's stone
the holy grail
the brass monkey
the jewel of the nile
the last of the mohicans

you know shit like that

and that dude's false eye

You forgot the monkey fist.

Man, people were sick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Yes. Unit 731 is almost unknown in the West but they were the Japanese version of Dr. Mengele. IIRC, their strain of bubonic plague is still killing people in China.

BTW, thanks for the post Amno. That was an extremely insightful video. I'm a WWII buff. My Pops was a pilot for the U.S. Army Air Corp from 1939-45. Loved talking to him about his experience when he served - when he would actually talk about it, which was somewhat rare. Anyway, thanks for the link!

In high school and thereabout I wouldn't consider myself to have been a real civil war buff, but I did a lot of reading about it.

WWII is so interesting though, and the volume of what's been written about it and the scale of the conflict just leave it to where it's one of the most fascinating topics in human history to study. You can find more of these riveting stories every day, and you could study it as an interest for the rest of your life and probably never run out of new material.

I always find myself asking, what would I have been doing if I'd been alive then? Being in that situation must bring things out of you that you never knew were there, both good and bad, and undoubtedly would change you forever too.

I heard from an aged relative once, now deceased, that in Korea the brutality of the two Korean sides toward each other was shocking even to people who had fought against the Japanese a few years earlier. I don't know as much as I should about Korea, but it sounds like those two sides were just ruthless.

The North Koreans were absolutely brutal when they invaded the South, basically purging whole entire villages and such. When the tide of the war turned the South Koreans paid them back in kind.

It was pretty ugly on both sides.

Based on this thread, let's see where you would have been if you had joined the Navy: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...287316&page=16

(Rolling dice.)

You would have been on the Fletcher-Class Destroyer USS Wedderburn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wedderburn_(DD-684)

You would have seen some action but your ship was never damaged, so you would have come home with some good stories and little trauma.