Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

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.

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......

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

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

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

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily. You beat us by turning our morality against us.

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 beat us by dividing our people (pictures of dead women and children do the trick). You beat us by being willing to sacrifice more than we are willing to sacrifice. You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.

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.

[Triggaaar]

I'm impressed that the disagreement here has been kept constructive (despite the odd patronising remark), it's quite an interesting read.

Originally Posted by Theshark888

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!

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.

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

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.

[Xilon_x]

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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

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.

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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Xilon_x

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'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."

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Triggaaar

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.

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

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by Splitter

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):

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

Russia is the only other nation, currently, who could pose a legitimate "end of the country" nuclear threat.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.