Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Misc News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-11-2005, 01:06 PM   #101
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

The Nazis persecuted some of their best nuclear scientists because they were Jewish. The Scientists went to Britain and the US.



The Nazis never let the crying need for railroad rolling stock to move their troops get in the way of the program to exterminate the Jews and other "genetic inferiors".



The Germans got beaten in every engagement with the US, except for Kasserine Pass. Rather than bypass Stalingrad they blew the war with Russia by investing the city. Then Hitler wouldn't allow a defensive retreat, allowing the Germans to get bagged in Russia, thus sealing his doom. There are many examples of the Nazis' stupidity.



Well heck for that matter in the late 30s the French and Brits couldn't give Hitler everything he wanted fast enough. Germany was even getting its African colonies back when the fool Hitler attacked Poland.



They were very efficient. Given a task they could probably organize and pull it off better than anybody. Being efficient doesn't mean being smart. One of the diry little secrets is that wars are seldom "won". They are usually lost by the worst blunderers. Japan's worst blunder was attacking the US at all, for example. We'd never have gotten into the war at all without that "brilliant strategy". And the Japanese commander didn't even carry out his mission anyhow by destroying the fuel facilities at Pearl Harbor.



Hitler was Austrian. Maybe he was merely carrying out an elaborate plan to destroy Germany. He did a pretty good job of it. That could explain many of his decisions.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 01-11-2005, 08:38 PM   #102
Blake_1
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 87
Default Re: Fischer MRX 650: Would you buy one?

Not a chance. Korean engine? I'd much rather have a Buell or an air cooled Duc or Beemer or Guzzi.



I hate radiators and having to adjust valves and oily messy final drive chains that you have to keep in adjustment and lubricated.



Those old fashioned wet sump engines and their radiators are butt-ugly.



The dry sump V-Twin Buell powerplant is state of the art beautiful.



American? Not with a Korean engine it ain't, not really.



__________________
\'97 Buell M2 Cyclone
Blake_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2005, 09:42 PM   #103
jungkvist
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 955
Default Re: Izz problem whiff MuZ, I think?

That place is scary. Hell, plague was like a day-off for those poor SOBs.



Russins Anonymous: "Hello, my name is Ivan. I'd be better off dead!"
__________________
Yeah, well, you can get up and leave, DEAL WITH IT!
jungkvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2005, 10:04 AM   #104
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Wehrmacht was the more competent army.



They occupied almost whole of Europe, and would have got England as well had it not been for the channel. They were at the gates of Moscow and had a big chunk of North Africa. Bloody amazing feat.



Obviously they were stretched too far and couldn´t keep it up. When the D-day came, they had already had 2 million casualities. That´s like a big number. Still, in the western front they killed 2 for each one of their own dead. The gringos never got a breakthrough in Italy although the krauts were 1-10 underdogs.



- cruiz-euro

anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2005, 12:01 PM   #105
seruzawa
The Toad

 
seruzawa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: 8501 ft.
Posts: 17,461
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Well, good. Maybe you'll be able to welcome them in your neighborhood again soon.
__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."
seruzawa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2005, 12:57 PM   #106
pdad13
Founding Member
 
pdad13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,754
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Well, let's see. The Nazi's had been building up their military at an alarming clip for most of the 30s while the England was making collection-agency calls for the WWI reparations, Chamberlin was playing patsy cake with Hitler, and the French were drinking wine behind the "impenetrable" Magenot Line. I think the Germans had the jump on the Allies, don't you? Hell, the U.S. was still using horse calvary up to the time we entered the war.



In fact, the Wehrmact was not the more competent army. They were effective to a degree. Strategically and tactically they were outsmarted at almost every turn. The rigid German command structure was too slow and politicized to be effective in the big picture. The Allies, particulary the Americans, allowed their officers, non-coms and even enlisted men to innovate and make decisions on the fly based on infomation they had in real time and to correct errors more quickly than the Germans in most situations.



The Germans should have smashed the British and French at Dunkirk. They let them get away. Then the Luftwaffe was shot to hell in the Battle of Britain, despite overwhelming numbers. D-Day was an unmitigated disaster. The Germans fell hook line and sinker for every ruse the Allies threw at them, wouldn't listen to Rommel (the only one who believed that the invasion was coming through Normandy) and then held two tank divisions in reserve instead of sending them towards the Allies. Best part, Rommel, "the genius" wasn't even there! He was in Germany at his wife's birthday party! He figured the Allies would never attack at low tide, so he thought he could take a few days off.



By the way, your assertion that the Germans were 1-10 underdogs in Italy is not really true. Defending forces only need a fraction of the forces of that of an attacking force. I would imagine that a defender's advantage would even increase in the event of a seaborn invasion.



As an attacking force will usually have more casuaties than a defending force (unless the attackers have an absolutely overwheming advantage), your 2:1 kill ratio doesn't mean much. And the massive German counter attack during the Battle of the Bulge resulted in a huge number of Allied dead and wounded, but was ultimately a last-gasp gambit.



I could go on and on, but I'll make one last point: Don't you think it was unwise to try and conquer an entire continent, and expect to occupy it forever, with the amount of men and material Germany could reasonably produce? They were doomed from the begining.
pdad13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2005, 09:34 AM   #107
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Hmmm... the D-day was a success because of the overwhelming force. Total sea and air supremacy and crushing magnitude of material and manpower. Couldn´t have failed. Unlike the popular belief that the gringos and limeys hold so dear, the main body of the nazi army was in fact somewhere else i.e. in Russia, where it had been all but consumed fighting most desperate and horrific battles already for three years. The rest of the army was spread thinly in Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Romania, France etc.



Hell, they were so short of resources that the bunkers at Normandy were manned mostly by "voluntary" Poles and Russians. As one German general dryly noted: "If we ask a Russian to fight the Americans for the Germans in France, we are asking a lot". How true. That they managed to give hell in Omaha and Utah as much as they did is a testament for the wehrmacht´s (unfortunate) efficiency.



There has been plenty of discussion of the two panzer divisions, whether they should have been closer to the beach as Rommel wanted, and receiving the collective fire of the allied big naval guns, or further back where their movement was severely hindered by the allied air. This is like discussing whether Titanic would have been better of the band playing in the bow instead of the aft.



To answer your question: Unwise yes, but it was a gamble that they took. One different twist of the tale, like England agreeing to peace, or Hitler going straight to Moscow, would have meant 1000 year Reich. And us two would still today be mortal enemies.



- cruiz-euro

anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2005, 09:37 AM   #108
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

They already are in our neighborhood, but they are different breed now. Like 180 degrees different. They are the most anti-militaristic people you can imagine. And for a reason.



- cruiz-euro
anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2005, 12:04 PM   #109
pdad13
Founding Member
 
pdad13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,754
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

Sorry, can't agree. Given the conditions, geograhical features, and the highly defensible fortified positions of the flawed-but-still formidable Atlantic Wall, the Normandy invasion was no sure thing. Storming unprotected over an open beach with gun implacements reigning fire from high on the bluffs was a dangerous proposition no matter what.



The Germans had no one to blame but themselves for their lack of air power. They sqandered their air crews and equipment. The fact that they resorted to conscripting conquered Russians, Poles and Frenchmen (you forgot the French) because much of their better forces were mired in the disaster that was the Eastern Front, to me, seems to underscore a certain type of incompetence.



As much as you deride the "popular belief of Gringos and Limeys," there is also a certain mythology that has grown around the German military of WWII. For example, Rommel, was, in large part, a product of propaganda. His superiors viewed him as an excellent tactician, but impulsive and terrible with logisitics. This often undermined his "brilliance." In fact, he was soundly defeated in N. Africa, despite having far superior equipment and defensive advantages. Many members of the General Staff were sycophants or politicians. The command structure throughout much of the war was a mess. Field commanders were also not immune to mistakes, some of which contributed to the failures in Russia. (Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not make all of those decisions.) And the Germans' military intelligence services were almost laughable.



Let's also give some credit to the Allies for the Herculean task of the D-Day invasion (amongst many other things.) The Mulberry harbors alone were a nearly incomprehensible feat, much less the planning and counter-intelligence that preceded June 6th.



And speculating about what could of happened teaches us nothing really about what did happen. England would have never agreed to peace. And even if the Germans had won the war, I doubt they would have been able to secure the whole of Europe and Russia by force for too long.



Forgive me, I'm not saying that the German military was ineffective, just that a clear asertation that they were a superior military force is not supportable. They didn't lose the war because they were better.







pdad13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2005, 06:03 PM   #110
tomhorn
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 72
Default Re: This is fun...

That's right, only $10,000. But wait, if you call within the next 30 minutes, we'll give you this Excelsior-Henderson t-shirt (valued at $350 and sure to be a collectors item!) for only $4.95! Call now operators are standing by!
tomhorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off