The Soviets did do the heavy lifting.

I think a huge factor though was our cheap mass production. It cost lives, but saved steel/resources. Germany overengineered everything. While their tanks, etc. would whip anything we had head to head, we took the approach that each time they blow up a tank, we'd put two in its place.

9/26/2006 5:28:44 PM

We were definitely a production economy at that time. Largely from that mobilization of resources. "Build it and they will come."

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 5:48:05 PM

i seriously think we should start rationing shit off to prepare for world war 3

america will be a better country because of it

9/26/2006 5:54:11 PM

Quote :

"here are COUNTLESS times when Hitler overrode the judgement of his field commanders, and basically ordered them to attempt stupid/suicidal/impossible missions."

after France, hitler assumed that if he make a huge move on someone they wouldnt fight till the end and would just give up early. he took this into account when ordering impossible missions. basically planned to bluff his way through.

9/26/2006 6:08:24 PM

Quote :

"I think a huge factor though was our cheap mass production"

Also that our mass production was effectively safe from any kind of reasonable and large attack. The US being brought into the war was a death blow to the Axis. It's frightening to think that it was not even inevitable. It's sad that the moral imperative to do what's right and stop the extermination or domination of millions upon millions wouldn't have done it.

Quote :

"basically planned to bluff his way through."

Some historians posit that he did not intend to bluff. It has been suggested that Hitler was so dellusional by that point that he beleived Germany to have far greater might than it really did. This is support in his later years when he begins ordering brigades and panzer divisions to march that did not actually exist. He'd mere start adding divisions to planning maps where he needed them and order his generals to deploy or move them.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 6:11 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2006 6:09:22 PM

Quote :

"At first observation, it seems the Axis lost WWII more than we won it."

Fear the Jewish conspiracy...

9/26/2006 6:13:07 PM

Quote :

"he beleived Germany to have far greater might than it really did."

i think if you take out the word germany and put in iran that would still fit

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 6:15 PM. Reason : like in modern day terms i mean]

9/26/2006 6:15:09 PM

^^ And you should. Seriously, what conspiracy is so calculated, grand, and vast that it involves letting 6 million of its own adherents die for a temporary and fragile world dominance at best, and only negligible world dominance at worst?

This is the stuff of fiction for a reason, man.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ...]

9/26/2006 6:16:42 PM

Time and lives were irrelevent to the Soviet Union. They sent unarmed soldiers, wave after wave, to German lines and those that didn't go were shot by their own officers. Would they have gone after Europe? Absolutely because Stalin aggressively lobbied to keep Eastern European countries 'freed' of Germans under Russian control. Hence, the Cold War.

They would have pushed through all of Europe uncontested.

9/26/2006 6:21:46 PM

indiana jones clearly shows that hitler invested too much in trying to get religious artifacts that would cause crazy ass destruction and not enough on whips, badass hats, and sean connery.

9/26/2006 9:57:29 PM

Quote :

"after France, hitler assumed that if he make a huge move on someone they wouldnt fight till the end and would just give up early. he took this into account when ordering impossible missions. basically planned to bluff his way through."

boy - talk about a mistake to extrapolate french cowardice to the rest of the free world

9/26/2006 10:03:33 PM

Allies' Population: a lot
Axis Population: a little


Game over.

9/26/2006 10:13:49 PM

18th century,
Britain's Population: a little
India's Population: a lot


Game over.

wait...

9/26/2006 10:20:09 PM

^ thats like saying the europeans had no chance in North America.

9/26/2006 10:21:24 PM

^^ What does you generalization have to do with my statement about a specific situation?

9/26/2006 10:48:34 PM

i'm suprised no one really mentioned that fact that Germany really had no surface fleet to speak of when they went to war

honestly, what a bunch of assholes

how you gonna conduct war without a reasonable navy?

9/26/2006 11:11:26 PM

^ they laid the keels of several aircraft carriers during the war, but ultimately cancelled the projects

had the germans pursued naval dominance and the invasion of britain rather than the conquest of eurasia they would have been fine.

9/26/2006 11:59:02 PM

i dont think the world today would be very different if they won the "war". the third reich never would have lasted and after a while it wouldve been overthrown. it would've been that instead of the cold war and wouldn't have lasted 40 years.

9/27/2006 12:23:04 AM

your opinions would mean a lot more if you backed them up with anything at all.

check this out:

the carthaginians would have invented fiber optic cable had the romans not wrecked their shit.

see that? i can also make unsubstantiated claims with absolutely no evidence or explanation.

9/27/2006 1:02:01 AM

Dunkirk

[/thread]

9/27/2006 1:19:48 AM

another mistake by the germans was using the new jet powered aircrafts for bombers instead of fighters...they would have dominated the skies

9/27/2006 2:10:02 AM

^ anothe brilliant idea that can be traced straight to Hitler

9/27/2006 7:45:43 AM

we won the war because we were good, the nazis were evil, and good always wins

jesus it's not that hard

9/27/2006 11:39:35 AM

^ Anyone else hear the drum riff after reading that? Two staccato'd snares and a short muffled cymbol crash?

9/27/2006 11:45:37 AM

that's the why of the thing

the rest of you are really talking about how

9/27/2006 11:47:54 AM

how would be "we stormed the beaches etc etc"

9/27/2006 1:39:12 PM

Quote :

"^ is why the allies won"

Please tell me you're joking.

9/27/2006 3:49:06 PM

The Battle of Stalingrad and a nuclear bomb.

Quote :

"we won the war because we were good, the nazis were evil, and good always wins"

If good always triumphs over evil, why does Carolina beat us in basketball?

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : /]

9/27/2006 6:00:00 PM

Nuclear bombs had very little to do with winning WWII.

9/27/2006 6:34:14 PM

Or freeing India from British Imperialism.

9/27/2006 6:36:15 PM

^^ Oh jesus christ, are you still drinking that koolaid?

9/27/2006 7:03:49 PM

apparently

9/27/2006 7:16:12 PM

Quote :

"^^ Oh jesus christ, are you still drinking that koolaid?"

You should try some.

Btw, are you suggesting that we might have lost the war without Little Boy and Fat Man?

9/27/2006 7:16:25 PM

Europe was 100% won. Japan was 85% won.

You can't tell me that the bomb was the deciding factor in the war.

9/27/2006 7:17:17 PM

We won because hitler wen't insane and pulled most of the offense from the beaches to a bullshit defensive. That's why rommel planned to kill him, later. But, rommel, would've killed anyone for a shot at patton.

9/27/2006 7:17:28 PM

Mr. Joshua is bitter because I pwnt him in this thread:

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=421131&page=5#9059328

9/27/2006 7:22:58 PM

Quote :

"We won because hitler wen't insane and pulled most of the offense from the beaches to a bullshit defensive. That's why rommel planned to kill him, later. But, rommel, would've killed anyone for a shot at patton. "

its rumored that rommel wasn't really that great of a gerneral...that any other general in his place would have had similar out come....he was also a very strange person and his men avoided him like the plague

9/27/2006 7:41:56 PM

Quote :

"are you suggesting that we might have lost the war without Little Boy and Fat Man?"

Where did I suggest that? Yes, the allies probably would have won, however, saying that the atomic bombs didn't hasten the end of the war is ludicrous.

Quote :

"Mr. Joshua is bitter because I pwnt him in this thread"

Where is the pwntage in that thread? The simple fact is that I got tired of debating a topic with someone who was clinging so hard to what they read in a single revisionist history book that they overlooked the obvious. You should try reading more than one view of history if you want to have any idea what you are talking about.

9/27/2006 10:35:28 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the allies probably would have won"

Probably? You think it's possible Japan would have kicked the shit out of the US, Europe, and the USSR if we hadn't nuked 'em?

Quote :

"however, saying that the atomic bombs didn't hasten the end of the war is ludicrous."

Where did I suggest that?

Quote :

"Where is the pwntage in that thread?"

Search for posts by GoldenViper.

Quote :

"The simple fact is that I got tired of debating a topic with someone who was clinging so hard to what they read in a single revisionist history book that they overlooked the obvious."

You still don't have any idea what you're talking about. I didn't use just a single book, and the book I used heavily wasn't revisionist.

You made false claims. I called you out of them and provided evidence. Quite reasonably, you gave up. That's how the thread went.

9/27/2006 10:45:39 PM

Quote :

"Probably? You think it's possible Japan would have kicked the shit out of the US, Europe, and the USSR if we hadn't nuked 'em?"

No, but their plan was to make an allied invasion as costly as possible, potentially creating casualties high enough for the allies to drop the notion of unconditional surrender and allow an armistice where the emperor would still stay in power. This is fact.

Quote :

"Where did I suggest that?"

Isn't that your position? That the atomic bombs were irrelevant, rather that it was the Russian entry into the Pacific war that lead to the Japanese surrender?

Quote :

"Search for posts by GoldenViper."

aha. cute.

Quote :

"You still don't have any idea what you're talking about. I didn't use just a single book, and the book I used heavily wasn't revisionist."

Yes you did, you wouldn't shut up about how great Hasegawa is and how he did more research, blah blah blah. You even went so far as to call my ideas "trditionalist".

Quote :

"You made false claims."

Where? If you look back you'll see that you don't even know the true casualty figures for WWII. Do you even know the dates of it?

Quote :

"I called you out of them and provided evidence."

Where?

Quote :

"Quite reasonably, you gave up. That's how the thread went."

I gave up because there really is no hope for someone who clings to a sinking ship like you. You read a book. Great. However, that hardly makes you an expert on squat.

Stop playing with your swords and pick up another few books if you want to know what you are talking about.

9/27/2006 11:01:12 PM

Quote :

"No, but their plan was to make an allied invasion as costly as possible, potentially creating casualties high enough for the allies to drop the notion of unconditional surrender and allow an armistice where the emperor would still stay in power. This is fact."

It sounds like the Allies still would have won, boss.

And you really think that strategy would have been successful once the Soviet got involved?

Quote :

"Isn't that your position? That the atomic bombs were irrelevant, rather that it was the Russian entry into the Pacific war that lead to the Japanese surrender?"

No. I do think the nukes shortened the war somewhat, though maybe diplomacy could have ended it quicker. I do believe that Soviet entry was a major factor.

Quote :

"Yes you did, you wouldn't shut up about how great Hasegawa is and how he did more research, blah blah blah."

If you think I used mainly Hasegawa's book, you obviously weren't paying attention at all. You are correct, however, that Hasegawa is a revisionist.

Quote :

"You even went so far as to call my ideas "trditionalist"."

They are traditionalist.

Quote :

"Where? If you look back you'll see that you don't even know the true casualty figures for WWII."

Still grasping at straws, huh?

Quote :

"Do you even know the dates of it?"

Early 60s, right? Or was it 50s?

Quote :

"Where?"

All over the place. Reading is your friend. You claimed historians agreed about certain things. I cited historians who disagreed. It was quite clear.

Quote :

"Stop playing with your swords and pick up another few books if you want to know what you are talking about."

I cited a fucking article that reviewed the literature. There's no way you can honestly claim I used only one book.

It makes me sad to know that you studied history at my university.

9/27/2006 11:43:15 PM

Quote :

"It sounds like the Allies still would have won, boss."

Where was I arguing that the allies would have lost, brainiac?

Quote :

"No. I do think the nukes shortened the war somewhat, though maybe diplomacy could have ended it quicker. I do believe that Soviet entry was a major factor."

My mistake, you're the guy who ignores all of the social, cultural, and historical clues and instead believes that the Japanese were ready to lay down their weapons without an invasion.

Quote :

"If you think I used mainly Hasegawa's book, you obviously weren't paying attention at all."

You cited two people. Thats hardly a compelling case.

Quote :

"Still grasping at straws, huh?"

So when I pointed out that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, it was really an act of desperation? Brilliant.

Quote :

"You claimed historians agreed about certain things. I cited historians who disagreed. It was quite clear."

When I said agreed you should have understood that a consensus exists amongst the historian community. The fact that some revisionist can come out of left field with a silly claim doesn't change that.

Quote :

"I cited a fucking article that reviewed the literature. There's no way you can honestly claim I used only one book."

You cited a fucking article?!?!?! Wowzers!!!

Quote :

"Stop playing with your swords and pick up another few books if you want to know what you are talking about."

9/28/2006 12:38:44 AM

Quote :

"Where was I arguing that the allies would have lost, brainiac?"

So we agree that Little Boy and Fat Man were not a major reason for the success of the allies in WWII?

Quote :

"My mistake, you're the guy who ignores all of the social, cultural, and historical clues and instead believes that the Japanese were ready to lay down their weapons without an invasion."

That's me.

Quote :

"So when I pointed out that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, it was really an act of desperation? Brilliant."

As I said, the figure number I looked at initially probably only counted battle deaths. Either way, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the rest of the debate.

Quote :

"When I said agreed you should have understood that a consensus exists amongst the historian community. The fact that some revisionist can come out of left field with a silly claim doesn't change that."

If you actually looked at the evidence I cited, you would realize this is not the case at all. If a consensus exists among historians, it certainly doesn't support your point of view.

Quote :

"You cited a fucking article?!?!?! Wowzers!!!"

That reviewed the literature on the subject. Of course, despite being published in peer-viewed journal, it obviously came from some revisionist kook. And this kook clearly lied about the positions of other historians.

Quote :

"It makes me sad to know that you studied history at my university."

9/28/2006 12:57:07 AM

what if at the end of the war the bad guys were like ok we might have lost now but we will just wait for them to fuck it up themselves and take over

9/28/2006 1:19:54 AM

Quote :

"So we agree that Little Boy and Fat Man were not a major reason for the success of the allies in WWII?"

Victory was inevitable by 1945. However, the fact that the war ended before allied troops set foot on the island is largely due to the bombs.

Quote :

"As I said, the figure number I looked at initially probably only counted battle deaths. Either way, it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do with the rest of the debate."

You're right. Its ridiculous for me to expect you to have your facts straight before trying to debate a subject.

Quote :

"If a consensus exists among historians, it certainly doesn't support your point of view."

Really? Prove it. Find me a poll of historians.

Quote :

"That reviewed the literature on the subject. Of course, despite being published in peer-viewed journal, it obviously came from some revisionist kook. And this kook clearly lied about the positions of other historians."

The opinion of Samuel J Walker is the gospel truth now. I'll write that down.

Go sharpen your swords and fight some pumpkins because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

9/28/2006 1:40:07 AM

Quote :

"You're right. Its ridiculous for me to expect you to have your facts straight before trying to debate a subject."

Perhaps you understand bolded text?

As I said, the figure number I looked at initially probably only counted battle deaths.

It's not as if I contested the full count once you mentioned it.

Quote :

"Really? Prove it. Find me a poll of historians."

Walker's survey is probably as close as you can get. As you can see from it, there are people on all sides. Traditionalists, revisionists, and folks in the middle.

Quote :

"The opinion of Samuel J Walker is the gospel truth now. I'll write that down."

You should. Taking Walker seriously would greatly improve your understanding of the subject.

9/28/2006 2:18:01 AM

Quote :

"As I said, the figure number I looked at initially probably only counted battle deaths."

Or you just pulled that number out of your ass and made an excuse when I called you out.

Quote :

"Walker's survey is probably as close as you can get."

You never showed any kind of survey. You posted a quote of Walker making an unsubstantiated generalization to support his position.

Quote :

"Taking Walker seriously would greatly improve your understanding of the subject."

I take him seriously, however, I don't put him on a higher plane than everyone else just because he tells me what I want to hear.

Again, go sharpen your swords and fight some pumpkins because you clearly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.

9/28/2006 2:29:32 AM

Quote :

"Or you just pulled that number out of your ass and made an excuse when I called you out."

Nah, I googled it. Yeah, I should been a little more careful, but I was probably in a rush.

Quote :

"You never showed any kind of survey. You posted a quote of Walker making an unsubstantiated generalization to support his position."

Your inability to read rather impressive.

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/13737.html

Quote :

"I take him seriously, however, I don't put him on a higher plane than everyone else just because he tells me what I want to hear."

That's only because he doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

9/28/2006 3:41:01 AM

^^&^^^ you tools just had to go and gay up what had been a relatively interesting thread... WTG WTFG

9/28/2006 11:01:38 AM

Since multi-front war, attacking russia in winter, etc has already been mentioned, I'll go another route....

Our production was far greater than the Axis. We were able to turn our factories from making consumer goods to making tanks, planes, and munitions and really crank out the goods. Certainly helped us win the war.

9/28/2006 4:32:09 PM