A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hiroshima V. Berlin.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 24th 03, 05:40 AM
Charles Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Hiroshima V. Berlin.

For those who think it woudl have been such a wonderful idea to
invade, I call up the image of the Battle Of Berlin. One source
states:
*Berlin’s fate was sealed, but the resistance continued. Fighting was
heavy, with house-to-house and hand-to-hand combat. The Soviets
sustained 305,000 dead; the Germans sustained as many as 325,000,
including civilians.

*

That would have been *so* much more human, especially when you
woudl have to add the toll of the beach lands, every other city, and
village, to say nothing of reducing the army in China.

Ads
  #2  
Old December 24th 03, 01:42 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..
For those who think it woudl have been such a wonderful idea to
invade, I call up the image of the Battle Of Berlin. One source
states:
*Berlin?s fate was sealed, but the resistance continued. Fighting was
heavy, with house-to-house and hand-to-hand combat. The Soviets
sustained 305,000 dead; the Germans sustained as many as 325,000,
including civilians.


Your source is outdated. When the Russian archives were opened the
reality of the Battle of Berlin was far more grim. The Red Army lost
30,000 alone on the Seelowe Heights and a staggering 600,000 overall.
Please note that during the entire war the Germans managed a 4-to-1
kill ratio against the Russians. It is now estimated Russia lost 32
million alone during WW2.
Although Berlin fell and Germany lost the war, the German cost was
actually low overall compared to the total destruction Germany wrought
on Western Europe and Russia. Germany was also hit by 1.3MT of bombs,
far more than the Japanese atomic bombs, and survived intact.

*

That would have been *so* much more human, especially when you
woudl have to add the toll of the beach lands, every other city, and
village, to say nothing of reducing the army in China.


I agree with you there. The Japanese probably would have fought even
more tenaciously for their Emperor than the Germans did for Hitler,
who actually had already forsaken his own elite Waffen SS and the
German people as a whole.

Rob
  #4  
Old December 26th 03, 04:26 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(B2431) wrote in message ...
From:
(robert arndt)

snip

Germany was also hit by 1.3MT of bombs,
far more than the Japanese atomic bombs, and survived intact.

Apples and oranges. The number of atomic bombing targets was exactly 2 versus
how many targets in Germany?


The firebombing of Dresden alone is estimated greater than at least 1
(if not both) of the atom bombs (225,000 killed) and the firebombing
of Tokyo in the March '45 raid killed over 100,000- more than
Nagasaki.

As for surviving "intact" Germany was a shambles. The infrastucture at all
levels was destroyed or severely damaged, the Nazi bureaucracy was gone etc.
Face it, the German state was in a coma and on life support.


Yes, the cities and much of the industry was destroyed but Germany
didn't seek surrender after the firepower displayed by the Dresden
bombing nor other 1000 bomber raids. Germany was in the process of
moving its remaining capabilities into the forests and huge
underground facilities in Thuringia that were immune from Allied
bombing when news came of Hitler's suicide and the reality of the end
came. Still, large parts of the German forces didn't surrender until
after VE day or took months to get them back to Germany. In the end
Germany still held Norway, Denmark, British islands, Helgoland, parts
of northern/central Germany, Austria, and what was Prussia. There were
literally thousands of aircraft under construction underground and
thousands of missiles stored at various depots. U-boats were still
being launched and crewed.
Japan, OTOH, didn't have the industry of the Third Reich and had to
protect its islands independently. The construction of housing in
Japan was also largely wood which burned easily in conventional
bombing raids let alone the atomic bombs. And Japan was also facing
the Soviet invasion which IMO was the final straw that broke the
camel's back.
Germany continued to fight until ordered to by Donitz. But the
Japanese would have continued to fight until the death under its
military leadership because the Japanese Council could only surrender
if the vote was unanimous- which the military would not agree to. Only
the direct intervention of Emperor Hirohito ended the war.

Rob

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

  #5  
Old December 26th 03, 08:54 PM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (robert arndt)
Date: 12/26/2003 10:26 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote in message
...
From:
(robert arndt)

snip

Germany was also hit by 1.3MT of bombs,
far more than the Japanese atomic bombs, and survived intact.

Apples and oranges. The number of atomic bombing targets was exactly 2

versus
how many targets in Germany?


The firebombing of Dresden alone is estimated greater than at least 1
(if not both) of the atom bombs (225,000 killed) and the firebombing
of Tokyo in the March '45 raid killed over 100,000- more than
Nagasaki.

As for surviving "intact" Germany was a shambles. The infrastucture at all
levels was destroyed or severely damaged, the Nazi bureaucracy was gone

etc.
Face it, the German state was in a coma and on life support.


Yes, the cities and much of the industry was destroyed but Germany
didn't seek surrender after the firepower displayed by the Dresden
bombing nor other 1000 bomber raids. Germany was in the process of
moving its remaining capabilities into the forests and huge
underground facilities in Thuringia that were immune from Allied
bombing when news came of Hitler's suicide and the reality of the end
came. Still, large parts of the German forces didn't surrender until
after VE day or took months to get them back to Germany. In the end
Germany still held Norway, Denmark, British islands, Helgoland, parts
of northern/central Germany, Austria, and what was Prussia. There were
literally thousands of aircraft under construction underground and
thousands of missiles stored at various depots. U-boats were still
being launched and crewed.
Japan, OTOH, didn't have the industry of the Third Reich and had to
protect its islands independently. The construction of housing in
Japan was also largely wood which burned easily in conventional
bombing raids let alone the atomic bombs. And Japan was also facing
the Soviet invasion which IMO was the final straw that broke the
camel's back.
Germany continued to fight until ordered to by Donitz. But the
Japanese would have continued to fight until the death under its
military leadership because the Japanese Council could only surrender
if the vote was unanimous- which the military would not agree to. Only
the direct intervention of Emperor Hirohito ended the war.

Rob

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Look, your admiration for the Nazis doesn't change the fact that Germany was
not "intact."

The fuel that should have been used training new pilots was used by front line
aircraft which were being flown by increasingly fewer experienced pilots and
dropping out of the skies in huge numbers. Those "thousands" of aircraft being
built underground, actually dozens, had no hope of ever saving your beloved
Reich. Had they gone into service many would have been destroyed in accidents
or by air strikes before ever seeing combat.

Your observation that Germany still occupied territory beyond its borders is no
different from Japan at the time they surrendered.

If Germany was so "intact" why was the Marshal Plan needed?

Admire those Nazi pigs all you want, but at least be honest with their actual
track record.

By the way, those late war submarines were a waste of money and resources.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
  #6  
Old December 27th 03, 12:57 AM
Charles Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 26 Dec 2003 20:54:28 GMT, (B2431) wrote:



Look, your admiration for the Nazis doesn't change the fact that Germany was
not "intact."

The fuel that should have been used training new pilots was used by front line
aircraft which were being flown by increasingly fewer experienced pilots and
dropping out of the skies in huge numbers. Those "thousands" of aircraft being
built underground, actually dozens, had no hope of ever saving your beloved
Reich. Had they gone into service many would have been destroyed in accidents
or by air strikes before ever seeing combat.


Or been jumped by U.S. fighters-- I'm given to understand that one
of the favorite late war US tactics was to wait until the german
fighers, low on gas, we're returning to their base, and then destroy
them.




Your observation that Germany still occupied territory beyond its borders is no
different from Japan at the time they surrendered.

If Germany was so "intact" why was the Marshal Plan needed?

well, to be fair, the Marshal plan was deisgned to avoid much of
what had trasnpired before WWII-- well fed, prosperous people are less
likely to elect dictators.
IMO, of all the US foreign aid ever spent, the Marshal plan and the
aid that went to Japan (don't know if it actually had an official
name) has got to go down as the most cost effective aid we ever gave
anyone.



Admire those Nazi pigs all you want, but at least be honest with their actual
track record.

By the way, those late war submarines were a waste of money and resources.


If Germany had started their late war aircraft production by 1943,
and the late war subs by 1943 (when they could have been built), the
war might have stretched out considerably longer-- but ended the same
i the end. The biggest difference is that we would have seen the
first A-bombs used over Germany, not Japan.
Of course, apologists often fail to note that th reason why such
programs were not instituted (hell, for that matter why Germanydidn't
go on a full wartime footing until 1943) was part and parcel of the
Nazi leadership.



Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Here's a question--until I got to college, I recall reading all
these books about german wartime production, how incredible it was,
etc. Every movie has a secret german production, etc, etc.
why is that, given that Germany had perhaps the LEAST effecient
system of R&D and most especially, of allocating resources of any fo
the major powers of WWII?
  #7  
Old December 27th 03, 01:52 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


From: Charles Gray



Here's a question--until I got to college, I recall reading all
these books about german wartime production, how incredible it was,
etc. Every movie has a secret german production, etc, etc.
why is that, given that Germany had perhaps the LEAST effecient
system of R&D and most especially, of allocating resources of any fo
the major powers of WWII?

The short answer was that Hitler controlled the purse strings and that the
generals had to stand in line to kiss his corroded ass. Furthermore Hitler was
a legend in his own mind and made decisions which had no bearing on reality.

Example of the former: he watched a V-2 launch and was unimpressed so it got no
serious money. He put more money into the V-1 because his favourite butt buddy
Goering talked him into it. By the time he changed his mind it was too late.

Example of the latter: Hitler decided that all Me-262s should be bombers until
it was too late. Had he authorized the fighter version first and earlier in the
war they might have put the money into making it a better airplane instead of
wasting it on projects like the Me-163.

Another thing was he had his generals and admirals conviced the war was not
going to start until 1947 or 1948. He decided to not go with advanced
technology as early as he could have for that reason.

Grand Admiral Raeder, head of the navy, believed him and had planned a balanced
navy to include the u-boats Doenitz wanted and aircraft carriers. In reality
only one aircraft carrier was built but never went into service because fatso
Goering convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe could cover all the navy's needs. There
were experiments with carrier aircraft early on, but the R&D monies were taken
away for other projects.

Basically the R&D monies available to the Reich were spread out on various
useless programs which only got more hairbrained as the war went on.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements me Military Aviation 146 January 15th 04 10:13 PM
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements) B2431 Military Aviation 100 January 12th 04 01:48 PM
Hiroshima justified? (Invasion should have been attempted at the very least if not carried thru) Greg Moritz Military Aviation 29 December 31st 03 05:56 PM
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements) Dick Locke Military Aviation 4 December 27th 03 07:52 AM
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and othermagnificent technological achievements) mrraveltay Military Aviation 7 December 23rd 03 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.