Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[K_Freddie]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

I can see from your first answer that you are not that up on European history as you think.

This is funny...
There are many theories of what could have been done during the phoney war and prior to that... the fact remains is that no one, including the USA (if you know your own political history up to 7th Dec 1941) was prepared for any war, except the Germans... they'd been preparing for years. The nazi party had a very effective intimidation network that work well locally, as well as internationally.

Albert Speer did say that if the allies attacked just after the Poland invasion they'd be 'wiped out', but the German bluff was so good that everyone shat themselves. If you do research the WW2 scenario a bit you will find the most effective campaigns were preceded by disinformation and doubt, on both sides.

The real warnings were sounded by the spy networks on both sides, but these were mostly ignored until too late.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by K_Freddie

...except the Germans... they'd been preparing for years.

Germany was about as unprepeared for World War 2 as any other country. Look at their levels of oil, steel, coal and armanents production. The General Staff had plans for war in the 1940's but Hitler took many gambles and the timetable was moved up!!

I don't want to get in a tit for tat argument here!!! My point is that France, backed up by GB, Italy and other "Allied" countries could have stopped Hitler very easily if some decisive action was taken in the early 30's....this was my whole comment that a few hundred lives lost in the early thirties could have averted the European World War with Germany. Now the Soviet Union is another thing!

Sure I know about deception, doubt and disinformation! Sometimes this can backfire...can you imagine Saddam Husseins reaction when he learned that the Allies were mobilizing to come to the aid of Kuwait! Priceless

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

Germany was about as unprepeared for World War 2 as any other country. Look at their levels of oil, steel, coal and armanents production. The General Staff had plans for war in the 1940's but Hitler took many gambles and the timetable was moved up!!

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War?

can you imagine Saddam Husseins reaction when he learned that the Allies were mobilizing to come to the aid of Kuwait!

Of course it was only about the sooo loved Kuwaitis.

Thats stinks of rank irrational hatred of the US.

No, actually not. This hate is reserved to treehugers and other do-gooders. In fact I had a discussion about this with Splitter.
But I don't have too many infos on the pacific war, I guess I'll do some research during the next few days.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War?

Well we DID win every major military engagement . But our heart wasn't in it. We weren't willing to do what it would take to actually win politically....too many civilian deaths would be involved. The North Vietnamese knew this and exploited it very well...just put those AA installations next to a school.

We used to give out t-shirts to our baseball players when I coached. They said "Go Hard or Go Home". Too bad politicians don't always understand such a simple concept.

Damned hippies....

Splitter

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Splitter

The North Vietnamese knew this and exploited it very well...just put those AA installations next to a school.
Splitter

Bro, you can't defeat your enemy without soldiers on his ground - it really doesn't matter where they put their AA(oder even SA).

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by swiss

Bros, you can't defeat your enemy without soldiers on his ground - it really doesn't matter where they put their AA(oder even SA).

When we bombed the snot out of 'em, they returned to the negotiating table. When we stopped because of political reasons, the negotiations fell apart.

You are right, you need boots on the ground to take and keep territory. But air power can make their job a LOT easier. But (another but), that's not why we lost.

We fought a limited war. When the bombing was increased against the north, protesters at home went nuts so we stopped bombing. Ho understood this from the start. He knew the war would be won on the streets of America, not the jungles of Vietnam. He knew we did not have the stomach, would not make the sacrifices, necessary to win the war. We would not sacrifice enough of our boys but more importantly, we would not be willing to do to North Vietnam what was needed to win.

He drew up the blue print for how to beat the US. NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily. You beat us by turning our morality against us. 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.

Saddam miscalculated (he wasn't that tough a nut to crack). Our present opponents relearned the lesson of Minh and are gambling that we will not be willing to do what is needed to win (they may be right too). All they have to do is outlast us, not beat us. Just like Minh.

We are leaving Iraq in July of 2011. The president said so. All the bad guys need to do is survive that long and move in to take over. That lesson was not lost on Pakistan who is negotiating with the terrorists (our enemy) in preparation for our future withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We just don't have the staying power. Then or now.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

Rolling Thunder was a dismal failure.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew2.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...rogram-failure

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...4a01p_0001.htm

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by Splitter

You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.

It is very ironic that as the enemy endures more casualties, Americans tend to get ready to leave the battle!? Might be a good thing...I don't know.

[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.

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by swiss

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938 Do not use 60 year old articles to prove your point. There is much good information about German production and plans for expansion and how the General staff was much afraid of Hitler.

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War? Tecnically the South lost the War.


Of course it was only about the sooo loved Kuwaitis. We did fly our flag on their tankers during the Iran-Iraq (oh, sorry 1st Gulf War) but you were not even born then See the history of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, for an interesting read!


No, actually not. This hate is reserved to treehugers and other do-gooders. In fact I had a discussion about this with Splitter.
But I don't have too many infos on the pacific war, I guess I'll do some research during the next few days.

Japan did some brutal business in Asia and received some brutal payback.