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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-13-2005, 11:04 AM   #111
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

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 01-13-2005, 05:03 PM   #112
tomhorn
Registered 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
Old 01-14-2005, 03:36 PM   #113
gceaves
Registered Member
 
gceaves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 47
Default Re: Fischer MRX 650: Would you buy one?



I ride a Hyosung GV250. It's Hyosung's 250cc "cruiser"-style bike. This model's sold as an "Alpha Sports" in the US and as an "Aquila" or "Mirage" in Europe and elsewhere.



My engine's great. It always starts immediately (given the battery's fully charged). I've had no problems over two years of daily use and abuse.



(Non-engine problems, though, include a post-crash battery leaking water, a carburator clogged with black carbonated muck, coughing acceleration, a foot peg snapped off, rear suspension bottoming out with fat passengers on board, a short circuit in the tankbag/stereo draining the battery, and a plastic wheel guard that snapped when someone drove into me.)



The bike is great for touring, commuting and even for leaning _way_ over when cornering along mountain roads.



I'm glad to see the Hyosung engine being considered as a serious race engine. Warms my heart to know my little 250cc has a racer in its blood.





-gregory



Seoul, Korea

Hyosung GV250
gceaves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2005, 08:49 AM   #114
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

You are getting this tragically wrong. It was only for one man, and one man alone that the English did not agree to peace. In the beginning British were doing very badly indeed, losing their planes and losing their merchant ships. GW himself commented (=admitted the possibility) that if they lose England they will fight from the colonies.



When Hess flied to Scotland offering peace observed one cabinet member: "Only fool or a poet would refuse peace at this moment".



But what did GW do, doggedly bit the cigar and the rest is history. Without UK as the launch pad, they would still greet you in German in Paris today: "hände hoch, amerikaner".



- cruiz-euro
anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2005, 08:06 AM   #115
pdad13
Founding Member
 
pdad13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,754
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

I'm assuming by "GW" you mean Churchill.



Oh, please. Whether Churchill was the lone voice or not makes not one bit of difference. But the fact is that Churchill was summoned to power by elements from all political parties, and supported by the public, as a REACTION to the failed Nazi-appeasement policies of Chamberlain. As long as he was running the show, the British were not going to surrender. They were holding out until the U.S. entered the war, despite what one cabinet member may have said.



And why do you keep insisting that the Germans were superior based on their early success? None of the allied nations were prepared for war. Britain was the least prepared. The Germans militarized when everyone else had gutted their millitaries, and then essentially sucker-punched Europe. With all of those advantages, they still managed to lose.
pdad13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2005, 03:55 AM   #116
anrajala
Founding Member
 
anrajala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,490
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

The point about my drivel about Winston was that it was veeery close that England would have agreed to peace. Had there been another prime minister, the chances for peace would have been 95%. Because that would have been the rational choice. Why? Because Britan had not lost any territory and was not about to gain anything either. People were openly asking was it worth sacrificing their country for Poland that did not exist any more.



And had peace happened, Herr Hitler would have beaten Russia without lend-lease. Yes, he was a maniac, yes he was throughly evil, but yes, he almost won the war.



About the competency of Wehrmacht? They were the guys who dunnit. Had Rommel had only 3-1 disadvantage he would have won. Yes, he showed it many times. Same thing with the eastern front. They took Crete with 10-1 disadvantage. They held the Italy front over similar odds. Had there been only 5-1 disadvantage in Normandy they would have prevailed.



Damn lucky for us Europeans they lost. After running out of Jews and gypsies they would have exterminated most of the peoples of Europe one by one.



- cruiz-euro

anrajala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2005, 06:49 AM   #117
pdad13
Founding Member
 
pdad13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,754
Default Re: Not lame at all on both counts.

You know, I think we're looking at this from two different points of view. You are taking a very tactical view on things. Yes, the Germans were largely an excellent force in the field, but very short-term in their outlook. But I feel you are essentially counting body bags, which as us Americans learned so painfully in Vietnam, is not really how to win a war. However, from a stragegic point of view, which I prefer, the Germans had a number of fatal flaws. You also prefer to engage in supposition, like what if Churchill wasn't leading Britain? Well, to me, that is completely immaterial. You can't remove the strengths or weaknesses of one side or the other and then come to a definitive conclusion based on what didn't happen. And while it is interesting, and valid, to wonder what would or could of transpired, drawing conclusions from that alone is essentially revising history.



So, to end this debate on a consiliatory note, I would say that we are both correct to a degree, which was the point of my original post. If you'd like to get a taste of my view, read "Why the Germans Lose at War" by Kenneth Macksey. It's a very plodding read, ponderous at many points, but it's very comprehensive and worth reading if you're interested.
pdad13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

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