Who started both World Wars?

[aggle-rithm]

The history of WW2 needs a total overhaul, everything was different then we were led to believe:

....

- Versailles was designed to make Germany impotent.

This is not different from what we were led to believe.

- Versailles was the reason for the rise of Hitler, as Lloyd George correctly predicted; the defense against 'Jewish Bolshevism' was the 2nd reason.

Nor is this, although 'Jewish Bolshevism' is a complete fantasy. You disagree? Name the Jewish Bolsheviks.

- Hitler identified correctly the Jews as the ferment behind Bolshevism, hence the deportations, which was a dum move, the Anne Franks are harmless; instead he should have limited himself to the elite just as the Soviets did with the Polish elite, and send them to Madagaskar. Or he should have copied the behavior of Putin when he put the predators where they belong.

How about if he took action against criminal behavior rather than ethnicity? That way you would be punishing people for what they actually did.

- The anti-Jewish measures by the Nazis had mobilized international Jewry everywhere at an early stage; war between Germany and the US had been planned soon after the rise of Hitler by Roosevelt and his Jewish advisors.

Yes, such powerful men as the governor of New York state, the Secretary of the Treasury, and ONE of the Supreme Court justices...with all that pure, concentrated evil in one room, there's no telling how far they would go!

- There were serious negotiations going on between Berlin and London about the Danzig issue that failed in the end. Main reason for failure was that because of the backing by Britain and the US the Poles had no incentive whatsoever to give in to reasonable German demands.

Did it ever occur to you that the Poles didn't consider it reasonable?

- Hitler was forced to attack the USSR, otherwise he had been attacked by the USSR, thus having the advantage of surprise and first strike.

Yes, he only jumped the gun by about four years.

- The war with Japan was provoked via the oil-embargo followed by impossible conditions from the side of the Americans; the Japanse had to face the choice: either completely abandon their empire or attack PH.

This is no different from what high school history books tell us.

The US WANTED Japan to abandon its empire, as it was threatening the sovereinty of US allies. Hence, the embargo, a NON-VIOLENT response to Japanese aggression.

You seem to think that there are only two possible responses to any diplomatic crisis: Bashing heads, or caving in.

- Pearl Harbour was a LIHOP pur sang. As a result Roosevelt and his Jewish gang got the war as desired and in addition the main prize, war with Germany. And while Europe was destroying itself in a war, the US (and hence the Jews) could rise to world prominence on the cheap.

And it only cost the lives of six million Jews.

- After the war a new power structure arose around the USA/USSR dualism; the role of the Jews in the USSR gradually diminished since the thirties and after the war antisemitism grew stronger causing most Russian Jews to emigrate to Israel or the US.

As you can see from watching "Fiddler on the Roof", the Russians had a history of gentle treatment of the Jews until then...

- The USSR collapsed leaving the USA as the sole super power,

Not disputed by history, and has nothing to do with WWII.

fully under control of the Jews

Please define what you mean by "the Jews". Be specific. If you keep making vague references to some shadowy group, there is no way to verify such sweeping statements as this.

- 9/11 was the next step in an attempt to transform superpower USA in global hegemon.

No, this was the last thing al Qaeda wanted, and it has nothing to do with WWII.

This attempt is in the process of failing.

No, it is in the process of being explained away be you, because it never actually existed.

- Thanks to the rise of the internet the role of the Jews is now declining as it circumventsJewish media power.

Translation: Any idiot can put anything they want on the Internet and claim it is true.

- There will be no Jewish led NWO,

We have not been led to believe otherwise, and it has nothing to do with WWII.

instead we are going to see a multi-polar world of 8 blocks as described by Samuel Huntington.

Given your inability to understand the past and the present, you'll pardon me if I'm skeptical of your predictions for the future.

The US is going to collapse and fall apart much the same way as the USSR did earlier, due to imperial overstretch.

First of all, the US is NOT imperialistic. If they were, then why did it voluntarily give Cuba and the Phillipines their independence?

(You don't have to answer right away. I'll give you a moment to learn about what history says about Cuba and the Phillipines.)

Second, even if the US was imperialistic and is overstretched, then how do you know they will follow the USSR model and not the British one? The British empire is no more, but the UK is still going strong.

Epic fail all around.

Here's a suggestion for you: If you want to lecture us about history, open up a freakin' history book!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Shermans were very good tanks.

I suppose, but I can understand some consternation over the fact that Sherman tank shells bounced off of German tanks, while German tank shells went through Shermans like a knife through butter.*

I guess the problem was that the BEST American tanks were no match for the BEST German tanks. Unfortunately for the Germans, the best German tanks weren't in enough supply to stop the Allies.

I've heard another problem for the US was it took awhile to build the capacity to forge large turrets. Until then, tanks were plentiful but lacked firepower.


*Recently I was watching "Band of Brothers". In the middle of an intense firefight, one of the soldiers cried excitedly, "Here come the Shermans!" I thought he said "Germans", and couldn't understand why he was so happy about it.

 

[ddt]

Utterly irrelevant argumentation. Ddt does not like publisher, hence statements made in books in publishers portfolio can't be true. I am sure my skeptic friends here have a name for this kind of defective argumentation.

The publisher is relevant. If this is a quality publication, why didn't the author go to Bertelsmann or Rowolt or dtv or any of the other reputable German publishers?And secondly, the publisher wrote the text you quoted. It's a very small outfit, so the political leanings of its owner are very relevant; most likely, he wrote the text himself.

One of the plausible scenario's, indeed. I have the 'old icebreaker' on my shelve, never found time to read it. Maybe I will. Will start with the IHR articles.

Not "plausible scenario's". It's the scenario you've been claiming here for several pages now. Without any proof. So, put up or shut up!

So has 9/11.

I am not endorsing Suvorov yet. We will see.

Will you take back this lie yourself and apologize for it, or do I have to quote from your previous posts that you're endorsing him?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I suppose, but I can understand some consternation over the fact that Sherman tank shells bounced off of German tanks, while German tank shells went through Shermans like a knife through butter.*

Shermans could kill Tigers but it took a little training to find out how. And they were more than a match for the PKZW IVs and STUGs. The US-produced tank killers did well against the Tigers when they didn't get full of themselves and decide to be tank hunters.

 

[dudalb]

How about the Sherman Tank? Rolling caskets, they called them.

On the plus side, there were a whoooole lot of them.

BUt the SHerman did have it's virtues. It was dependable, easy to maintain, and there were lots,lots, of them. When they were upgunned(no debate, the original version had a very mediocre main gun), they were actually a pretty good tank, as good as the PZ IV, which made up the bulk of the German Tank Forced until the end of the war, despite the fame of the Panther and the Tiger.
ANd the SHerman could be upgraded. That was a delieberate design point; the designers in 1941 noticied the rate that tanks could become out dated on the battlefield, and delibertly made the SHerman easily upgradable.

 

[dudalb]

Shermans could kill Tigers but it took a little training to find out how. And they were more than a match for the PKZW IVs and STUGs. The US-produced tank killers did well against the Tigers when they didn't get full of themselves and decide to be tank hunters.

Always loved Oddball's dissertation on Armored Tactics in "Kelly's Heros".

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Always loved Oddball's dissertation on Armored Tactics in "Kelly's Heros".

Oddball wasn't exactly motivated by a desire for the team victory.

 

[aggle-rithm]

BUt the SHerman did have it's virtues. It was dependable, easy to maintain, and there were lots,lots, of them. When they were upgunned(no debate, the original version had a very mediocre main gun), they were actually a pretty good tank, as good as the PZ IV, which made up the bulk of the German Tank Forced until the end of the war, despite the fame of the Panther and the Tiger.

I would imagine that, in a war of attrition, a smaller tank would be your best bet. You could make more of them, they would use less fuel, and they would be more maneuverable.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I would imagine that, in a war of attrition, a smaller tank would be your best bet. You could make more of them, they would use less fuel, and they would be more maneuverable.

Infantry tank vs. scout tank. An interesting debate in the '20s and '30s.

 

[Corsair 115]

The history of WW2 needs a total overhaul, everything was different then we were led to believe...

No, the history as it stands is perfectly fine. The trouble lies in you believing all sorts of utter nonsense which has been disproven time and again in this very thread.

- Hitler was forced to attack the USSR, otherwise he had been attacked by the USSR, thus having the advantage of surprise and first strike.

Repeating myself from just a few posts ago:

'Forced' to invade? You do realize how long it took to assemble the forces the Germans used, don't you? You don't put into position 150 divisions over a weekend.

Besides, you seem to have overlooked the one universal truth in military matters: defence is easier than offence. With the right defences, you can sit back and let the enemy come to you and chew them up quite effectively. Look no further than Dieppe or Omaha Beach for examples where the defenders made the most of their built-in advantage and made the attackers pay dearly.

The rule-of-thumb is that the attacker needs a three-to-one superiority in force to stand a good chance of winning.

The Germans could have simply fortified their eastern frontier with the appropriate defences and let the Russians bleed themselves dry attacking it. The German military was quite adept in conducting defensive battles, as the Western Allies learned in the Normandy campaign.

But rather than do this, the Germans rushed into an ill-prepared, insufficiently supported assault with inadequate forces. Congratulations, your theory makes them even more stupid than in my original assertion.

The war with Japan was provoked via the oil-embargo followed by impossible conditions from the side of the Americans; the Japanse had to face the choice: either completely abandon their empire or attack PH.

And how exactly did the U.S. convince Yamamoto to make the attack on Pearl Harbor the opening move of the war? Did they write him a big cheque? If Yamamoto had not been in command, Pearl Harbor would not have happened.

The original Japanese war plans called for assaults on the Philippines. This was intended to draw the U.S. Navy across the Pacific in response, and a pitched battle in and around Japanese waters the result. The U.S. original battle plans ("War Plan Orange") were for that same scenario: a Japanese assault on the Philippines and the USN sailing across the Pacific in response to do battle.

Yamamoto was the one to realize that such a scenario was unlikely to win the war for Japan. It's only hope was to put as much of the U.S. fleet out of action right from the start so as to buy Japan enough time to create a defensive perimeter which would be too costly for the U.S. to breach.

Pearl Harbour was a LIHOP pur sang.

This claim fails both on facts and logic. The U.S. willingly let its prime Pacific fleet units be put out of commission at the very start of the war, when those units would be needed most, and when the replacements for any of those units lost would not be available for many months? Does that make even a speck of sense? Moreover, it was risking having its prime Pacific naval base put out of action for many months, which makes your theory even more idiotic.

The U.S. Navy still viewed the battleship as the main weapon in naval warfare. Even the Japanese themselves mostly thought that way, hence the construction of the Yamato and Mushashi superbattleships. The Shinano would have been the third; it underwent conversion to an aircraft carrier after the IJN's defeat at Midway. A fourth unnamed vessel of the class was being constructed right up until Pearl Harbor; afterwards, the Japanese realized the project was consuming too many valuable resources which were needed elsewhere so the fourth ship was cancelled, with the hull being about 30% complete at the time.

The IJN had ambitious plans for a battleship class even more powerful than the Yamato, which would have carried a main battery of six 20" guns. They were originally to have been laid down in late 1941 or early 1942, but enormous effort that would have been required for such behemoths, combined with Japan's disastrous defeat at Midway, meant that these vessels were left on the drawing board.

But it does nevertheless indicate just how much the Japanese regarded the battleship as the prime weapon in naval warfare.

The record of U.S. Navy design and shipbuilding shows a similar emphasis on battleships until after the Coral Sea and Midway battles conclusively demonstrated that the aircraft carrier was now the primary weapon of naval warfare. The Montana class battleships were not officially cancelled until July of 1943. As it was, the USN would have had six Iowa class battleships, but work on the Kentucky and Illinois wasn't begun until late in the war, so neither was completed by the time the war ended. (Both were ultimately scrapped before being completed.)

 

[Andy_Ross]

I suppose, but I can understand some consternation over the fact that Sherman tank shells bounced off of German tanks, while German tank shells went through Shermans like a knife through butter.*

I guess the problem was that the BEST American tanks were no match for the BEST German tanks. Unfortunately for the Germans, the best German tanks weren't in enough supply to stop the Allies.

I've heard another problem for the US was it took awhile to build the capacity to forge large turrets. Until then, tanks were plentiful but lacked firepower.


*Recently I was watching "Band of Brothers". In the middle of an intense firefight, one of the soldiers cried excitedly, "Here come the Shermans!" I thought he said "Germans", and couldn't understand why he was so happy about it.

It would depend on what tank the Sherman was fighting and ehat version of the Sherman it was. later Shermans had an uprated High Velocity 76 mm gun instead of the General Purpose 75.

It also depends what you mean by the 'best' German Tank. In my opinion it is the late model PzIV. It had a good gun, decent armour and was reliable.
Tigers had a big gun and thick frontal armour but were unreliable, slow and had a slow turret traverse. Panthers had a very good gun and thick frontal armour but were very unreliable and weak at the sides. Tiger 2 had a huge gun and lots of armour but was incredibly unreliable.

Germany learned the wrong lessons from the Desert battles and the fighting on the Eastern Front. In these battles (esp the Desert) the opposing forces saw each other coming from a long distance and met head on. Panther and Tiger 2 were designed with very long range guns and lots of armour at the front. In the West most fighting was in close country allowing tanks to be surprised and ambushed from the rear or sides at close range. Long guns, slow traverse and weak side armour are not good combinations.

As Gawdzilla has posted the US also had the 'tank Destroyer Force' They were mobile tracked AT guns, (in form they were tanks with an open turret)
Their job was to protect the infantry and Tanks in an advance against enemy armour. Once the line was broken then the tanks were supposed to exploit the breakthrough, this was an obsolete tactic by 1944 and it did cost a lot of casualties until a 'universal' tank was available. Britain mounted the 17 pounder AT gun into a Sherman turret to produce the 'Firefly'. these were issued 1 to 4 alongside 'standard' Shermans, they could pentetrate any german armour up to the end of the war.

As it happens it was the RAF 2nd TAF with its Rocket Firing Typhoons and tempests that destroyed most German Armour. My Uncle Harold was a Forward Observation Officer with them at D-Day.

 

[aggle-rithm]

This thread is quite unusual. Stretches of reasonable discussion about the weaponry, tactics, and politics of WWII, punctuated by the bizarre claims and insanse rants of an anti-Semitic revisionist.

Gotta love the JREF forums.

 

[aggle-rithm]

As it happens it was the RAF 2nd TAF with its Rocket Firing Typhoons and tempests that destroyed most German Armour. My Uncle Harold was a Forward Observation Officer with them at D-Day.

Wow...that sounds like a REALLY dangerous job.

 

[dafydd]

This thread is quite unusual. Stretches of reasonable discussion about the weaponry, tactics, and politics of WWII, punctuated by the bizarre claims and insanse rants of an anti-Semitic revisionist.

Gotta love the JREF forums.

I think that this thread is the usual mixture of information mixed with wetting myself laughing at the nutters.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This thread is quite unusual. Stretches of reasonable discussion about the weaponry, tactics, and politics of WWII, punctuated by the bizarre claims and insanse rants of an anti-Semitic revisionist.

Gotta love the JREF forums.

It's mostly us talking over nix/11's head. We've actually read a book or two on the topic.

 

[dudalb]

A little off topic. But that is to be expected when you get WW2 Armor freaks together......
WHy do I suspect a few other wargamers are here?

 

[SpitfireIX]

A little off topic. But that is to be expected when you get WW2 Armor freaks together......
WHy do I suspect a few other wargamers are here?

Guilty.

 

[dudalb]

Guilty.

Probably not as guilty as I am.
Can you say Advance Squad Leader? Probably the most complex game ever designed by the mind of man. ANd I am big player of it.

 

[MG1962]

A little off topic. But that is to be expected when you get WW2 Armor freaks together......
WHy do I suspect a few other wargamers are here?

This is nothing, try a war film forum, people will trash a film because a BF109 had the wrong style lug nuts on the engine cowling

But yeah a war gamer from way back - been playing WINSPWW2 for years

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This is nothing, try a war film forum, people will trash a film because a BF109 had the wrong style lug nuts on the engine cowling

And you can get perma-banned for saying you liked the "Tiger" in "Kelly's Heroes".