Well, it wasn't a problem in ww2 where US civilian and military casualities were much less then axis casualities.

Wow, I think I can honestly say that I've never seen so convoluted a thread before. Well, maybe a few over at the Zoo. I think I'll pass on this one, I already have a headache after a quick skim, good luck guys.

I've missed all this for a few days, so thanks to Swiss et al for taking it up.
Good points well made.

I wonder why it is that threads like this one always seem to end up discussing America's global exploits?

Just to reply to 'theshark888' though, (even though it hardly seems relevant now!);

20/20 hindsight and a modern perspective is all well and good, but;

It was widely felt by the mid 30's that the restrictions of Versailles were too restrictive for what was and is a major economic european power.
Consequently when Germany exceeded the 100k limit, was virtually welcomed into the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland, diplomatic agreements were the order of the day. The remainder of Czechoslovakia was, in my view 'sacrificed' to give Britain time.

Britain needed time because in 37/38, the British military was in no fit state to take on the Werhmacht in a land war, and France simply wished to stay safe behind the Maginot Line, fearing a return to the conditions of 1914-18. No-one expected Germany to simply go around this line through Neutral States.

Even when we were given time, the combined forces of France and the British Expeditionary Force were unable to hold back the Blitzkrieg tactics of Guderian and co.
This is why it surprised me that it was thought that an earlier intervention would have cost only 'a few hundred lives'.
It's highly possible that an earlier, more overt intervention (although I can't envisage what form this would have taken) would have seen a return to the attrition of 14-18, albeit more mechanised.
Britain and France could easily have lost, as they did in France in 1940, leaving them in a worse state than post Dunkirk, and either way, Hitler would still have gone for the Soviet Union.
It's clear in 'Mein Kampf' that this, together with the destruction of 'World Jewry', was his main goal in life.

What seems to be forgotten is that from June 1944, after three years of terrible attrition in the east, and the combined forces of the British Commonwealth and the US in the West, it still took almost a further year to defeat Germany.
An earlier intervention could easily have led to a much greater catastrophe, as destruction of the British armed forces on land in Europe would probably have led to Britain under Chamberlain negotiating terms with Hitler. The US would have then been unable to launch a second front from Britain.
Hitler would only then need to concentrate on Russia, and may have won. Then he could have gone on to assist his Japanese allies in the east, but only after eliminating the 'untermensch Slavs' as well as the Jewish population.

Of course this is all conjecture......

As far as the Russian pilot goes, I take the view that if any of us had witnessed the destruction of our country's men and women over three years of total war as Russians did, we wouldn't hesitate to do the same.
It's Human Nature, which isn't as nice on a fundamental level as some people would like to believe.;)

If you researched this topic you would be very surprised how unready Germany was for war and how close the German General Staff came to overthrowing Hitler before the invasion of Poland.

I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!

I know that this is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Euros, but Hitler could have been easily defeated by some Allied action in the 1930's; that was my only point! My "alternate" universe may have made the world a more dangerous place, with no Hitler buffer against the Soviet Union or some other unintended consequences:)

Thank you for your thread!
And looking forward to the next, please keep producing and posting.

Regards

Viking

So if a burglar robs you by coming through the wide open window in the backyard, your burglarproof steel front-door served it's purpose as well?

Optimistic point of view. :grin:

Actually the combined forces of France, Belgium, Holland and the British Expeditionary Force held out only a week or two more than Poland all alone had managed. The Poles inflicted proportionally more casualties for their size as well, with around 10,000 Germans killed in Poland versus 30-40,000 killed in France against much greater odds. In addition the Poles manage to destroy or temporarily take out of action 25% of the Luftwaffe. The Poles did far far better than later propaganda about "cavalry and biplanes against armor" would suggest.

More significantly, at the time of first invading Poland, Heinz Guderian and co were all (surprise surprise) over in Poland. Hitler took a huge risk against the advice of his own military and left the western border with France undefended during the Polish campaign. This was a massive gamble hoping that the French and British would hold back on attacking until they felt more prepared. The gamble paid off.

In other words an attack by the French/British at the time Germany was tied up in Poland may well have succeeded.

This will be a great read.. cannot wait..:grin:

Interesting.. would you have any idea who's going to buffer the rest of the world from the current aggressor :rolleyes:

Cheers for the read m8:)

Agree with most of your post, although Britain and France would not have gone against the wishes of Belgium and Holland in order to go around the 'Siegfried line', which although in the process of being built from 37-39 and into 1940, even with the commitment of forces elsewhere would still have been left reasonably manned.
This is why I said I 'can't envisage what form this would take' in the previous post, as the only other option available would be to plan a seaborne invasion of either northern Germany or Poland itself for which neither Britain nor France were equipped. The fleet would have been harried every step of the way, outside of the range of effective fighter cover
Attempting to go through the Siegfried Line, could easily have resulted in 14-18 conditions for a short time. Then once the main German Forces returned from Poland......

I believe that Hitler would have been overthrown at some point. There was no need for the Allies to advance all the way to Berlin...once the Rhine was encircled, Germany would have collapsed. The Siegfried Line was not all that it was cracked up to be.

Well, maybe China or a resurgent Russia could protect you from us ( you are talking about US right?!):grin:

What do you think beating someone militarily is? Do you think it requires incapacitating every single soldier? The will of the people becomes particularly important when nuclear weapns are an option.

You're looking at wars against much smaller nations, incapable of attacking US soil. Hoefully we'll never find out how invincible the US military may or may not be.

I'm impressed that the disagreement here has been kept constructive (despite the odd patronising remark), it's quite an interesting read.When the Maginot Line was designed, the intention was to prevent invasion - not to inconvenience the Germans by making them go around it. It completely failed its purpose.

Which Europeans are you thinking of? The French, Italians and British? The Brits wouldn't feel bad for not declaring war in the 30's.

during france progect the maginot line in Italy Mussolini project the Littoria line to italy alps for German attak to italy.
sorry wikipedia have only italian and german lenguagge for this document.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallo_Alpino_in_Alto_Adige

immagine if German during WW2 attak Italy from alps For German is very difficoult acces in italy.
Mussolini thought and imagined that France would resist the German attack but France has sold so Germany had annexed Austria and also threatened Italy.

I am not that well learned about the Maginot Line, but all the information I have states that the intention was to give France time to mobilise and force a German attack through neutral countries; which would trigger a British/positive World reaction. By forcing the attack through the Lowlands France got the armies of Holland and Belgium and was able to concentrate forces. I know that Belgium and Holland were not too happy about it and this may have caused the rift lasting until 1940. I don't think that France was so naive to think that it could just stop German plans from invasion with the Maginot Line...why create DCR's and DLM's if there was no need for limited offensive action?

My Euro comment was just how I find it shocking that so many people today (Europeans) seem to believe that Germany was invincible and fully prepared for war in 1939....and there was nothing that the Allies could do to stop Hitler.

I'm sure Mussolini was worried about German speaking parts of Italy!

Italy would have done much better as an Ally than a Axis in my opinion (not just because the Axis lost the war- LOL). I have read about some Italians wanting to get "involved" to protect Catholic Poland but am not sure to what extent that was really happening on the Italian "street."

It's not the large militaries that give us trouble. Assuming the US fights some sort of defensive battle (like an invasion of South Korea by NK backed by China):

Russia is the only other nation, currently, who could pose a legitimate "end of the country" nuclear threat. Strategic nukes are a different animal so let's take that off the table for discussion. A strategic nuclear exchange could not be won because of massive retaliation.

The two largest militaries in the world, other than the US, are China and North Korea (to the best of my knowledge). If either, or somehow both, decided to test the US militarily they would lose because wherever they massed their troops, those troops would die en-mass.

Stealth weapons (planes) and cruise missiles would take out command and control. Those and the bombers would take out transportation bottlenecks trapping the armor. Then the "dumb" weapons would do the butchery.

Nah, what the US has trouble with is smaller, insurgent type adversaries. We have to "go get" those forces which takes boots on the ground where fighting gets bloody for the attacker. The opposing forces also tend to mingle with the civilian population which further ties the hands of the attacker (the US DOES seek to avoid civilian casualties no matter what silly prejudices are present in the world). These opponents hide among civilians and then pop out to attack US forces...that's a hard nut to crack because superior weaponry is a much smaller factor in victory.

Military attacks on US soil are just impossible at the moment and for any foreseeable future. I know it's the dream of some for the US to get its' "come upin's", but no combined military alliance in the world could take and hold any US territory. First, the military, including the National Guard would fight desperately. Maybe more importantly, our civilians are armed to a great extent with around 40% of households having firearms.

Civilians rarely pose a direct threat to military forces, but present a huge thorn in the side of occupying military forces (see the Liberator pistols dropped into France in WWII). Theoretically, we could arm every adult civilian with privately owned firearms. A rifle behind every blade of grass. We are safe from occupation :).

Interestingly, Britain found itself with a disarmed population as WWII broke out and sought to quickly remedy the situation (Lend Lease and private firearms from the US).

Speaking pragmatically, you don't take on a force like the US military directly. You chip away at its' foundation which is the American populace's whimsical opinion. With the right nudge here and there, we do a great job of tearing ourselves apart all by ourselves :). Parade any civilian deaths before American cameras, make us feel guilty. Claim we targeted schools and hospitals. Put your forces among the population, use them as shields.

Wait us out. Our public has a short attention span. We don't like the thought of your civilians dying. Many of us feel guilty about having the power to defeat any other nation. Our left will join you in your criticisms in short order. We will start fighting your battle in our media. Ask Minh.

One thing that should never be done by an opponent is to commit and act that unites the population. In the short term, that's when we become dangerous to an opponent. But again, just wait.

Splitter

The large militaries do not give the US trouble, because (thankfully) you're not at war with them.

Why do you think that other nuclear countries could not pose a threat to you? Any country with nuclear weapons, that the US was aggressive towards, would pose a threat to the US.

It depends what form the war would take. Your statement was that "no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily". That doesn't narrow down what type of war it was. For example, if the US wanted to invade China, as the US invaded Iraq (say for example the US objected to China claiming Taiwan as its own), and Russia decided to fight with China, you think that you could not be beaten militarily? If you were dropping bombs on China, as you (and my country) did on Iraq, you'd find bombs were landing on US soil too, and that may not go down to well. You might find pressure to withdraw your troops from China. Now the fact is, that if China invaded Taiwan, the US would not invade China, because the US knows it is not invincible.

Well let's ignore those who'd actually like a war of any sort anywhere for a second, and stick to the point. Firstly, an enemy doesn't need to want to hold US territory in order for it to be a target. And if the US invaded Russia or China, attacks on US soil are a given, not an impossibility.

interesting how a reconnaissance pilot triggered a WW3 scenario.

I really like reading about personal war experiences, it gives a good image how life was at the front and the actual aerial combat. Too bad all that info will slowly disappear as less people care about WW2 and the stories will no longer be told by the ones who were there.

Sven

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war. Driving out aggressors is always easier than taking and holding territory. Just ask the Germans and Russians of WWII :).

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

Attacks on US soil would have to be either clandestine or with ICBM's (or subs). I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion. Even getting enough troops across intervening oceans would be impossible. Such an invasion is just not a winning scenario for an adversary.

China could do damage with their ICBMs, but they would cease to exist in return and I don't think they are crazy (plus they are outgunned on the nuclear front for the time being). Little Kim in NK doesn't have the delivery means to do much damage even though he is crazy enough to do it.

The larger threat to the West is WMD's showing up in an urban area. Cargo containers at a dock, sneaked over the border (Mexico/US) in a backpack or tractor trailer, or on board an airliner and airburst. These kinds of threats usually do not come form other nations but rather factions secretly supported by nations.

War has changed in the years since WWII. People generally wore uniforms then and fought battles. Small nations were prey to large nations in many instances who were looking for colonies. Wars were usually wars of conquest. Civilian casualties were accepted on all sides. Men like the Russian fighter pilot that started this wayward thread were fighting for the very survival of their nation, not a fanatical idea.

Yes, he strafed retreating enemy troops, but they were soldiers just like him. As we become more civilized perhaps we become less civilized?

Splitter

You didn't make that caveat when you made the statement that "NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily", and that is what I was disagreeing with.

Who is talking about occupying US soil? You said that no two country alliance could beat the US militarily, and I'm simply saying that if the US provoked Russia or China (eg, attacked their homeland), they could also attack US soil. I'm not suggesting for a minute they'd want to occupy. You can't assume that if such a terrible set of circumstances ever (which is a mighty long time) did occur, the US would simply nuke the enemy into oblivion, because the enemy could do the same to the US.

Many in the US likes to think that it is kindly policing the world, but we all know it's not as simple as that. If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened. There are other countries where atrocities occur, and war is not waged, either because there is not the finacial incentive, or because the US doesn't have the military capability.

....or is it because US interests are not threatened?

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose. The good news is that nuclear weapons possessed by the the major powers actually keep them from trying to invade one another.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism. So.....tell me why we should care about world opinion? Because, let's face again, someone is always going to criticize the US to further their own agenda. There are many who think the US military should just be a puppet of the UN.

Always there when they need us :).

Of course. Should we have just let our Western-way of civilization collapse or held hostage by some third world despot gaining control of over half the oil reserves in the world?? It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars. We are not happy about policing the world but this goes back to getting dragged into two world wars and not letting that happen again:rolleyes:

Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves:)

If we were as terrible as many in the Euro-left believe, we would have taken over Iraq oil and not paid them a cent for it...we didn't even get a discount on it:confused:

"Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves"

Well, maybe next time 'cause I paid $2.75 a gallon today and I don't understand why it has gone back up. I think that as long as we are accused of such things in any case we should at some point prove them right :o.

Splitter

Nicely said. It is about time that the European Union started to do some heavy lifting and protect themselves and their interests militarily. When the oilfields in the Middle East are lost, the Euros will be in much worse shape than North America. Stop knocking your Ally and start worrying about the real threats to European civilization. Someday we will not be there to get your chestnuts out of the fire:-P

We should have taken over Iraqi oil until the cost of the war was paid. That's my opinion:)

Do you know Saudi paid for that invasion..aka.. the Bin Ladens :rolleyes:

Not a moment to soon..........................................as we wave you goodbye... tralala

Shark.. I really think you must be some really naive/indoctrinated person, or just a troll.
You should consult a variety of different sources of information, especially if these sources are a conflict of interest. ;)

Ah yes of course, the american way to roll, well.. roll .. more like 'shoot'. Anyway, as long as I can see South Park for my weekly laugh all is just fine.

I have to agree though, the Iraq war was not wrong, the US covered it up a bit, what at some point is understandable.

Indeed, and likewise if you attacked another major power in the same way, you would not win. Fortunately neither situation is about to happen, I am simply stating that your earlier statement ("NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily") was not correct without specific context.

Well you weren't generally criticised for going to war with Iraq in '91, and the US don't face the criticism for the last war with Iraq alone. But it is hardly surprisng (or undesirable) that going to war attracts criticism.

Who here is doing that?

What? The US joined the second world war because it was attacked. No allied country wanted to be involved, and some joined without the threat of attack.

Has anyone here said that Iraq were innocent?

Who are you talking to? I'm British and I am aware who the threats to civilisation are and are not. I share the same opinions on human rights as most western civilisations. I know that the British were lied to in order to progress with the last gulf war, and I do not knock the US any more than I do the British, and I'm not even close to a Euro leftie. And as for heavy lifting, Britain (as EU example) has done far more than it should, given that it is a tiny mino.

The US do put themselves forward as world police, and like all other countries, the US do things that they shouldn't, and that are sometimes in the interest of their leaders, and not the people from their, or any other country. The US therefore gets a lot of criticism from around the world, mostly undeserved, but sometimes fair. I appreciate that this puts a lot of Americans on the defensive (it's natural to be defensive when criticised, particularly when a lot of the criticism is unjust), but don't assume that everyone that thinks one war was unjustified suddenly thinks that the US are evil and not an ally.

Just to set the record straight, a quote you attributed to me in your last post was a post from someone else that I quoted :).

Your last paragraph is pretty much spot on.

If you look around, there is a LOT of US bashing going on. When I say bashing, I am not talking about questioning foreign policy here and there, I am talking about "bigoted" comments painting the US intents as evil. We go to war for oil, we kill civilians will nilly, we pollute the world, we try to turn everyone into Christians, you name it. And when I say there is a lot of hatred in the western world for the US, you know there will be a bunch of people who read it and think, "the US brought it all on themselves". Some may even type that if they were openly honest.

The crud we endure on pretty much any forum (or the world stage for that matter) is no different than "bigoted", ignorant statements that could be made about any nationality. Yet, it seems ok to the bash the US even when such statements about other nationalities would not be tolerated.

It just gets old, as you said.

Funny thing is, a lot of the people who tend to espouse these close minded views preach tolerance for every other situation lol.

Anyway, good thread even if it did wander far and wide. I'm out, back to airplanes.

Splitter

Fixed.

I think it's a viscious circle (lots of generalisations to follow, all IMO only of course). The US are unfairly criticised so much that many Americans are permanatly on the defensive, and don't readily accept the bits of criticism that are justified. Not accepting fair criticism makes on-lookers feel that Americans are arrogant and believe they are better than everyone, and have a given right to police the world etc.

Most Europeans that criticise the US are aware that generally what the US stands for is good. For example, in the World Cup in 1998, the US palyed Iran, and our pubs were packed with people (including me) supporting Iran. That's because it's funny, and we like supporting the underdog. But don't mis-interpret that into thinking we agree with Iran's values more than the US's.

Question: What does the Iraq war in common with WWII reconaissance pilots?

And regarding the Iraq war. Like any war, wars are ALWAYS unjust for the receiving party. A soldier has to know that he risks his life. It's not that president Bush came with a gun and forced people to join the Army and fight for him.
However, the civillians that got killed could not decide. The rapes, the abuses, chemical weapons, uranium enriched ammunition, etc.
I'd say the population of Iraq took a pounding. Before the war, during the war and now during the "cleanup" phase as well.

So the only real answer is: The war has nothing to do with rconaissance pilots. It's completely off topic.
And the second answer is probably: only time will tell if the Iraq war was "just" or just a slaughter.

No one, aside from time, can tell if good comes out of a war or not. And please keep in mind, humans are NOT the only lifeforms on this planet. Even if the "good" side wins and continues to literally destory the whole planet nothing is won by that.

Well, he wasn't.
Germany would not have allowed the encirclement of the Rhineland, and intelligence regarding the Siegfried line is available now, whereas we don't know what level of intelligence information the allies had then.

We may as well debate whether if Gavrilo Princip had been unsuccessful in assassinating Franz Ferdinand, there would have been no First War, no Treaty of Versailles, no rise of Hitler to power and thus no Second War.

What happened, happened. Endless debate of 'what if's' ain't gonna change much.
If you consider it Britain and France's faults that things escalated to the level they did, carry on, but I still think this is far too simplistic a perspective.

Anyway, back to America......

Good conversation guys...sometimes it's good to "mix it up" and defend the homeland a little:grin:

The "evil" USA bit does get old after a while, but it is to be expected on a mixed US/Euro forum such as this and all over the internet. Don't be shocked if an American stands up once in a while and acts "arrogant." I guess it is so ingrained in some Euros minds that they don't even realize that they are bashing the US and it does put us in a constant defensive mode as Triggaar said:-P

That's all for me, can't wait for SOW to be released:)

Come on, has someone in this thread made any suggestion that the US are evil? Could you quote where someone is bashing the US? (I'm not saying they haven't I just haven't seen it, and I don't think I have, so please quote where it's happened)

Trig, I am not going to call out any individual and I specifically wrote my post (not the one you quoted but mine was similar) in an effort not to offend any individual.

My guess is that if you did a search on this board on "oil", "US", "Iran", "Iraq", "Israel", and some other associated terms, you would see what some have said. Sometimes the comments are direct, sometimes code words are used.

Hey, it's ok though. I understand a lot of the criticism and some of it I agree with (dangling participle anyone?). What I never understand is blind prejudice. I'm happy to carry on any foreign policy discussions or simple exchanges of ideas via PM or elsewhere. While this discussion has been good AND civil, unfortunately this thread got horribly derailed and as a participant, I apologize to the OP.

For the record, I love talking to people from elsewhere in the world. We generally have a lot of totally different experiences and perspectives and I usually find such discussions educational and interesting.

Splitter

I wasn't asking you :) I was asking the shark. I partly wanted to check he didn't think I was suggesting the US are evil.

I'm only referring to this thread. Theshark says that the "evil" USA bit does get old after a while, but it is to be expected on a mixed US/Euro forum. I don't think it is to be expected that Europeans say the US are evil, I think the statement suggests that any criticism of foreign policy can be met with a 'ok, whatever you Euro leftie'.

Guilty :oops: