Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RMF who wrote (191719)	7/15/2006 3:27:06 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

They were the guys that won the war for Europe. I don't disagree that the Russians bore the brunt of the German military might. But we bore the brunt of defeating the Japanese. And Russia only decided to declare war on Japan in August, 1945 (two days AFTER we bombed Hiroshima) launching a massive military campaign that took them all the way into Korea. globalsecurity.org And guess what.. that's why N. Korea exists as a nation to this day.. Hawk

To: RMF who wrote (191719)	7/15/2006 5:44:14 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi RMF; Re: "If they had just folded then we would have had to decide if we wanted to try and invade against a Germany that had just ONE front...us. We probably would have held off in that case until we had the A-bomb." While Hawk is an idiot for publicly claiming that the US experience in WW2 was a "land war in Asia", but I'm not at all convinced that we would not have been able to beat Germany in WW2 without the Russians. The Russians beat the Germans largely by a sort of attrition. If it had been up to just us and the British, it would have been a very different war, but I'm not so sure that the outcome would have been that much different. The USSR contributed almost nothing to the naval war. Japan would still have fallen on schedule. In fact, if we'd concentrated our efforts there instead of in Europe they'd have fallen maybe a year earlier. The way to beat the Germans in France would have been to produce huge amounts of tactical air power. A complete dominance of the air is sufficient to allow a landing. Towards the end of the war, when US production really got going, this is precisely what happened. In 1942, the first year of the war for the US, but the third year for Germany, US aircraft production was already triple that of Germany. And only 1/5 of US production was fighter aircraft. In contrast, German production was very strongly tilted towards fighter aircraft even as early as that year. I think that a primary error made by the Allies during the war was to spend too much money on long range bombers (that were quite ineffective) and not enough money on very effective ground attack and fighter aircraft. Even without nuclear weapons, our advantages in aircraft technology would eventually have won the war. But no question that at the rate that the technology was developed, we would have ended up nuking Berlin. -- Carl