Should the USA have teamed with the Germans

[ESay]

It most certainly would have been nuked. And all that just to free Poland?

After WWII Poland gained the territory - Danzig, the Polish Corridor, the parts of Prussia. It became an ethnically homogeneous nation - without the Germans, Jews (who survived the Holocaust), Ukrainians and so on. It more than compensated its loses of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus.

It is very convenient to portray Poland as a victim. But definitely, it wasn't worth of nuking Moscow.

"Portray?" Dude...are you on fucking crack? Poland traded 5 years of Nazi occupation for fifty years of Soviet occupation. Absolutely and unequivocally yes, a free Poland would be worth leveling Moscow.

No, I am not. And not only Poland but the whole Eastern Europe found itself under the Soviets thumb.

And I can repeat what I said above - under the communists Poland gained the territory and became an ethnically homogeneous nation they are so proud of now.

Poland is free now. Without another big war and nuclear bombs. You can calm down and be happy.

You are either incapable of understanding my post, or playing stupid.

Well, I hope that neither-nor. What is about your part?

 

[~Mantis~]

yes

Hitler and National Socialism were dead.

The battle weary troops could have been rotated out, the factories producing the arms could have been relatively quickly brought back on line, the allies had air supremacy over the entirety of Europe and would have had no challenge laying the Soviet Air Force to waste.

Patton was right.

I agree. I have the huge benefit of looking at this through the hindsight lens. Would living under a Hitler style system really be worse than what we have now? Not in my book. What we have now and where we're heading is what Hitler was fighting against, international communism. I guess we'll never know but I do believe the wrong side won, the USA fought on the wrong side - we betrayed our own.

 

[harmonica]

..it's not like the US would be moving through France, a FRIENDLY country, ..they would be moving through the enemy country--a very LARGE country...no way they are taking it over

The problem with that idea, is that most of the Soviet population hated Stalin and his government more than they hated even the Germans. The Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators and if Hilar had an ounce of brains he could have had millions of Ukrainians fighting Stalin. If the US was invading. all those Russian hating republics would have declared for the US and Stalin and his Russians would have been the ones fighting in a hostile countryside. The only reason the republics fought for Stalin is that Hitler was worse than Stalin.

hahahahah----so the US invades Russia and the Russians will LOVE us!!!
hahahahahahahahah

 

[Dayton3]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

absolutely not. Nazi Germany with the resources of the Soviet Union at their disposal and no continental opposition left would've become danged near invincible. It is entirely possible that Hitler's dream of the "old world" (led by Germany) would've gone to war against the "new world" (led by the United States) for final global supremacy.

Not even the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would've protected the U.S. then

Hitler had zero navy and could not even take the UK

That is a fact.
For 1941.

But not an indefinite state of affairs. Especially if Nazi Germany had the resources of the Soviet Union and no continental opposition.

 

[harmonica]

yes

Hitler and National Socialism were dead.

The battle weary troops could have been rotated out, the factories producing the arms could have been relatively quickly brought back on line, the allies had air supremacy over the entirety of Europe and would have had no challenge laying the Soviet Air Force to waste.

Patton was right.

we can't even win in Afghanistan......you people don't know history/etc....it's not that simple..Russia was too big/etc
...over 2 times the size of the US.....
Napoleon took over Moscow and still lost

Napoleon took Moscow and lost for the same reason the Germans couldn't beat the Soviets. Both relied on horses for their logistic tails. A horse can't get more than a couple of days travel from a rail or river head before it's eating every pound of cargo it can haul. The US Army relied on trucks for their logistics (the Soviets relied on Lend Lease American trucks for their logistics in their end of war offensives) a truck can operate a lot further from a rail or river head and haul a lot more than a horse.
As for Afghanistan, historically, the only way to "win" there is to kill off all the population and resettle it with your own people. Our modern ROEs don't permit anywhere near that level of fighting. With WWII style ROEs, the US could have pacified the country to a large extent.

more hahahhahahaha
exactly --just like Vietnam---Afghanistan is unwinnable
the Russians lost there, and the Brits
..even with WW2 ROEs, you are not going to win

...TRUCKS!!!! we just went over this!!!!! look at the previous post on trucks
..the US didn't have enough of anything to win in RUSSIA--look at the map I posted!! I've got news for you--Russia was a BIG country

 

[harmonica]

.....hey, people..the farther you go the more logistics it takes EXPONENTIALLY!! and your forces get weaker/vulnerable

..it's not like the US would be moving through France, a FRIENDLY country, ..they would be moving through the enemy country--a very LARGE country...no way they are taking it over

The problem with that idea, is that most of the Soviet population hated Stalin and his government more than they hated even the Germans. The Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators and if Hilar had an ounce of brains he could have had millions of Ukrainians fighting Stalin. If the US was invading. all those Russian hating republics would have declared for the US and Stalin and his Russians would have been the ones fighting in a hostile countryside. The only reason the republics fought for Stalin is that Hitler was worse than Stalin.

.....Stalin murdered hundreds of thousands of Russians--AND because of his collectivism policies, many thousands more starved--PRE-WW2
..Stalin got rid of a lot his generals!!!!!
.

 

[g5000]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

We would not have had to ally with Germany to defeat the Soviets. They were severely depleted after WWII and we had The Bomb.

We could have rolled right over them.

 

[Quasar44]

.....hey, people..the farther you go the more logistics it takes EXPONENTIALLY!! and your forces get weaker/vulnerable

..it's not like the US would be moving through France, a FRIENDLY country, ..they would be moving through the enemy country--a very LARGE country...no way they are taking it over

The problem with that idea, is that most of the Soviet population hated Stalin and his government more than they hated even the Germans. The Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators and if Hilar had an ounce of brains he could have had millions of Ukrainians fighting Stalin. If the US was invading. all those Russian hating republics would have declared for the US and Stalin and his Russians would have been the ones fighting in a hostile countryside. The only reason the republics fought for Stalin is that Hitler was worse than Stalin.

.....Stalin murdered hundreds of thousands of Russians--AND because of his collectivism policies, many thousands more starved--PRE-WW2
..Stalin got rid of a lot his generals!!!!!
.

Stalin killed around 15 million Russians and several million Ukrainians

 

[Quasar44]

Mao killed maybe 40 million ..plus

 

[harmonica]

.....hey, people..the farther you go the more logistics it takes EXPONENTIALLY!! and your forces get weaker/vulnerable

..it's not like the US would be moving through France, a FRIENDLY country, ..they would be moving through the enemy country--a very LARGE country...no way they are taking it over

The problem with that idea, is that most of the Soviet population hated Stalin and his government more than they hated even the Germans. The Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators and if Hilar had an ounce of brains he could have had millions of Ukrainians fighting Stalin. If the US was invading. all those Russian hating republics would have declared for the US and Stalin and his Russians would have been the ones fighting in a hostile countryside. The only reason the republics fought for Stalin is that Hitler was worse than Stalin.

.....Stalin murdered hundreds of thousands of Russians--AND because of his collectivism policies, many thousands more starved--PRE-WW2
..Stalin got rid of a lot his generals!!!!!
.

....Stalin killed around 15 million Russians and several million Ukrainians

and they still fought for him---because the Germans not only invaded them, but also stabbed them in the back!! like the Japanese did at Pearl

 

[AZrailwhale]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

The Germans in France were short of everything. Nothing with a black and white cross on it could move in daylight and survive. Hitler Jugend Division lost fifty percent of it's vehicles and many tanks trying to move less than fifty miles to it's jumping off position near Caen. Take a look at photos of German vehicles in Normandy, they looked like mobile haystacks or trees there was so much foliage on them to hide them from allied airpower.

 

[harmonica]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

We would not have had to ally with Germany to defeat the Soviets. They were severely depleted after WWII and we had The Bomb.

We could have rolled right over them.

not rolling over anyone....you people have a problem with Geography

 

[AZrailwhale]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

They were starving when they left Russia...........Air power can massively damage the supply chain........why is that so hard for you to grasp.

Both sides had issues........and Under Lend Lease we helped Russia with logistics during the War....as I've already posted.........

hahahhahahahah---the US and England mainly used their long range bombers in Europe--NOT Russia......

Correct, but the RAF and 8th Air Force hammered German railway lines and marshalling yards. That hampered supplies moving towards both the Eastern and Western fronts. Plus the main reason the Western Allies didn't use their heavy bombers on the Eastern Front is that Stalin refused to grant even temporary basing rights. The the couple of occasions Western Allied bombers were staged through Soviet fields, the official hostility made operations almost impossible/

 

[harmonica]

.....we bombed the hell out of Germany with long range bombers and they still managed logistics very well
..bombing usually does not win wars

Yes they did...Which renders your argument about logistics moot....Vital German and western European rail lines would have been up and running post haste.

.....if bombing won wars, WW2 should've been over BEFORE the Russians got to Berlin...we ''ran out'' of incendiaries and targets in Japan from bombing--and no surrender...and after the ABombs, the vote was still TIED 3-3 for surrender
..no, the bombing did not win the war--the ground action did in the ETO and the ''''''A-Bombs'''''' in the Pacific --and that was not conventional bombing

Wars are won from all aspects of War..........airpower being a major part of it..........

Can't get supplies if your rails and rail bridges are getting blown up daily........nor build weapons of War when the you are carpet bombed.........

While it can't kill all the soldiers on the ground........it sure as hell can starve them and leave them without ammo.

didn't starve the Germans and they got their ammo

The Germans in France were short of everything. Nothing with a black and white cross on it could move in daylight and survive. Hitler Jugend Division lost fifty percent of it's vehicles and many tanks trying to move less than fifty miles to it's jumping off position near Caen. Take a look at photos of German vehicles in Normandy, they looked like mobile haystacks or trees there was so much foliage on them to hide them from allied airpower.

..they Germans were fighting the 2 largest countries in the world PLUS--and they did well in defense
...the Germans defeated 2 large nations ''quickly'' in the Battle for France---when the odds were LESS against them ......the Germans were good....and they did a phenomenal/amazing job in doing what they did in Russia...
AND--AND if hitler had not have meddled around, they would've done even better:
----he meddled with the Normandy defense, wanting offensives--same with the Battle of the Bulge--and Stalingrad.....
..the Germans did a monumental job of logistics in Russia/etc---especially in the Battle of the Bulge at creating 3 armies under the air power noses of the Allies.

 

[harmonica]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

absolutely not. Nazi Germany with the resources of the Soviet Union at their disposal and no continental opposition left would've become danged near invincible. It is entirely possible that Hitler's dream of the "old world" (led by Germany) would've gone to war against the "new world" (led by the United States) for final global supremacy.

Not even the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would've protected the U.S. then

Hitler had zero navy and could not even take the UK

That is a fact.
For 1941.

But not an indefinite state of affairs. Especially if Nazi Germany had the resources of the Soviet Union and no continental opposition.

jesus christ people--let's give Germany some Stealth bombers while were at it
..Germany did not have a powerful/etc navy--fact--you can't change that

 

[Dayton3]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

absolutely not. Nazi Germany with the resources of the Soviet Union at their disposal and no continental opposition left would've become danged near invincible. It is entirely possible that Hitler's dream of the "old world" (led by Germany) would've gone to war against the "new world" (led by the United States) for final global supremacy.

Not even the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would've protected the U.S. then

Hitler had zero navy and could not even take the UK

That is a fact.
For 1941.

But not an indefinite state of affairs. Especially if Nazi Germany had the resources of the Soviet Union and no continental opposition.

jesus christ people--let's give Germany some Stealth bombers while were at it
..Germany did not have a powerful/etc navy--fact--you can't change that

They could (and would've) built one over time.

 

[harmonica]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

absolutely not. Nazi Germany with the resources of the Soviet Union at their disposal and no continental opposition left would've become danged near invincible. It is entirely possible that Hitler's dream of the "old world" (led by Germany) would've gone to war against the "new world" (led by the United States) for final global supremacy.

Not even the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would've protected the U.S. then

you are deranged.....
..Germany couldn't cross the Channel and you say they are going to go across the Atlantic????!!!!!!!!

 

[harmonica]

yes

Hitler and National Socialism were dead.

The battle weary troops could have been rotated out, the factories producing the arms could have been relatively quickly brought back on line, the allies had air supremacy over the entirety of Europe and would have had no challenge laying the Soviet Air Force to waste.

Patton was right.

we can't even win in Afghanistan......you people don't know history/etc....it's not that simple..Russia was too big/etc
...over 2 times the size of the US.....
Napoleon took over Moscow and still lost

Napoleon didn't have air power and the Red Ball Express.

the US isn't taking over Russia at all --not even close

 

[Dayton3]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

absolutely not. Nazi Germany with the resources of the Soviet Union at their disposal and no continental opposition left would've become danged near invincible. It is entirely possible that Hitler's dream of the "old world" (led by Germany) would've gone to war against the "new world" (led by the United States) for final global supremacy.

Not even the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would've protected the U.S. then

you are deranged.....
..Germany couldn't cross the Channel and you say they are going to go across the Atlantic????!!!!!!!!

The German navy you claimed didn't exist almost starved out the British by using submarines. And they didn't even go all out to build up their submarine fleet.

 

[harmonica]

To destroy and obliterate Stalin and communism ??
Did we attack the wrong the nation.
We could have dealt with Germany after ??

absolutely not. Nazi Germany with the resources of the Soviet Union at their disposal and no continental opposition left would've become danged near invincible. It is entirely possible that Hitler's dream of the "old world" (led by Germany) would've gone to war against the "new world" (led by the United States) for final global supremacy.

Not even the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would've protected the U.S. then

you are deranged.....
..Germany couldn't cross the Channel and you say they are going to go across the Atlantic????!!!!!!!!

The German navy you claimed didn't exist almost starved out the British by using submarines. And they didn't even go all out to build up their submarine fleet.

still didn't get across the Channel--did they