At 6/22/05 05:29 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote: 2. Did the nuclear attacks save more lives than they killed?

No matter how I look at it, I can't answer 'yes' to either of them, especially the latter. Plus, the nuclear bombings accelerated the arms race and intensified the forthcoming Cold War.

The general view is that a full scale invasion of Japan wouldve resulted in even worse casualties. The Japanese wouldve fought to the death and loss wouldve been tremendoud. But I actually agree with you. I could never imagine authorising such an attack

Sorry if this point has been posted before since I did no read the entire thread.

Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States during the pearl harbor attack, might have let the attack happen. He did this to have reason to enter the war. Not all of America wanted to enter another war before the pearl harbor attack.

Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States during the pearl harbor attack, might have let the attack happen. He did this to have reason to enter the war. Not all of America wanted to enter another war before the pearl harbor attack.

Theodore Roosevelt

you mean FDR right. man as a brit i knew this.

At 6/22/05 01:59 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/22/05 01:36 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Let's think. How about the Katyn Massacre? How about Stalin's...

How do you suggest we enfore any Geneva Convention things like this on Russia? Start another world war? And honestly, thats Russia. I know they did these things. What I am concerned with is you are lumping the Americans and British in with the Germans and Japanese and such, which I disagree with.

The Nuremberg Trials.

Please direct your attention to Article Six. Note that Soviet Russia is guilty of all three charges. Also note that the western Allies were guilty of "war crimes," and in particular: murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

Also note that they are guilty of "crimes against humanity," and in particular: deportation (Japanese Americans), and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Incidently, that last line means that the Allies reserve the right to charge members of other countries based on their own laws, not those that existed in the accused's country of origin. Therefore, subordinates that are following orders or laws are nontheless criminals.

The firebombings of non-military German cities.

There is no such thing as a non military city. No such thing in total war. Not one.

Actually, there are. Even during total war there are targets that must be considered civilian, otherwise German atrocities in the east should not have been penalized. Double standard, anyone?

The use of the atomic bombs on civilian targets?

Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima had military targets. So that is all that is needed if ya ask me to be legal. Plus it was a total war and these were extremely extenuating circumstances. So that is not in the same boat as other abuses.

Having military targets in them hardly calls for the destruction of entire cities at a time. The Allies were rather fond of doing that, even before the atomic bomb. The destruction of the Blitz paled in comparison to the Allied bombings of both Japan and Germany. They would destroy entire cities at a time, regardless of the military merit of doing so.

They did have some good leaders, but Stalin was not one of them.

Horrible for the people, good for the country and its power.

You're doing some selective reading, aren't you? Stalin weakened the Soviet Union dramatically until the war motivated his people. It was the war, not Stalin, that got results in Russia. Stalin killed millions and millions of his own people. He beheaded the Red Army. His reign before the war is essentially his war against his own people in order to centralize his power.

See above.

Its still opinion.

You even said that Stalin was horrible for the people. Hitler was not, considering that he dramatically increased the standard of living for the German people. Stalin was concerned only with getting more and more power. He didn't care how many people had to die for him to gain and maintain it. Almost twice as many people died from collectivized farming as from the Nazi concentration camps. Even if both of those things never happened, Stalin was a terrible leader. For the majority of his reign, he was presiding over an ever-weakening nation. Even Lenin was against leaving Stalin in charge. It's common for people to try to justify Stalin by forgetting all about the tens of millions that he killed and all the selfish and genuine evil that he perpetuated.

At 6/22/05 05:29 PM, Aapo_Joki wrote: There are two things that bother me:
1. After Germany's surrender, did Japan pose such a formidable threat that using atomic bombs against them was necessary?

The longer you give them to fortify, the more dangerous they get. Plus, Russia was coming in from the West. I dont think Japan would be the same if it was communist today. Dont forget, Japan still had offensive capabilites. Not as much, but they still could pose a threat.

2. Did the nuclear attacks save more lives than they killed?

Estimates of how many GI's would be killed stated off at 500,000 and would only get higher from there. How many Japanese would be killed probably are at least 2 to 4 times that. AT LEAST.

Yes, the bombs and the surrendur saved TONS more lives.

And Jake, for some reason I think you think Im some Stalin admirer. Well, the only reason I am arguing about this is because I seem to think you admire Hitler and despise Stalin. I feel they are both the same and neither deserve any admiration. And Hitler better for his people? Yeah, I guess you could say that if you werent Jewish, werent drafted, and werent bombed. Sorry, Hitler was horrible for his people, just as Stalin was.

You cant selectively look at his history. No matter what he did for Germany pre war, it is all outweighed by his actions in war. Same with Stalin. No matter what he did for his country during the war, it doesnt matter. Everything he did before and after outweighs that.

And about Nuremburg. I still dont think there were any Germans who were charged for the types of crimes you were describing the Allies (minus USSR) committing. When I think of war crimes, I think of executing POW's, genocide, not bombing cities, no matter who is there. Just my views on who and why war crimes were executed.

And, plus, they started the war, I think retaliation is less chargable and is less responsible. I mean, they are the victors and not the starters of the war.

I definately despise Stalin, you hit the nail on the head there. I do admire some things about Hitler, but as a statesman, not a military leader. It is impressive how quickly he was able to get Germany back on her feet, and how he was able to inspire a generation into following him. If the war never happened, Hitler would be remembered better than any of the Allied leaders. That's all I'm saying. At least before the war Hitler wasn't killing his own people in droves, while Stalin was. Considering that it was the war that brought America and Russia out of the Depression, and that Chamberlain was kind of a wiener, Hitler was the only one that really transformed his country. Ironically, had it not been for the war, America wouldn't be as powerful as it is today, and nor would the USSR have become as powerful as it did.

Quite a few Germans were actually charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes for the reasons I stated above. I used to have a list of them, but I'll have to get back to you once I find it. I mean, even Rudolf Hess was charged with war crimes! Rudolf Hess flew to England to try to negotiate peace, and they still sentenced him to life in prison. Meanwhile, the Allied commanders that ordered the destruction of German and Japanese cities are not only walking free, but are praised for their actions. That's the part that I find ridiculous. Especially since they charged people for complying with the official stance of the government they lived under.

At 6/22/05 10:40 PM, Jerconjake wrote: At least before the war Hitler wasn't killing his own people in droves, while Stalin was. Considering that it was the war that...

Thats my point though. You cant selectively look at history. Nothing about Hitler makes me admire him, despite his remarkable acheivements. Same could be said for any other leader like that, including Stalin.

I mean, even Rudolf Hess was charged with war crimes!

He was also like the number three leader in the Nazi Party rising during the early Nazi years. Cant forget that : /

Meanwhile, the Allied commanders that ordered the destruction of German and Japanese cities are not only walking free, but are praised for their actions. That's the part that I find ridiculous.

I think they are allowed some extra liberties. They didnt start the war and they were trying to end a war they didnt start, like I already noted.

At 6/22/05 10:50 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/22/05 10:40 PM, Jerconjake wrote: At least before the war Hitler wasn't killing his own people in droves, while Stalin was. Considering that it was the war that...

Thats my point though. You cant selectively look at history. Nothing about Hitler makes me admire him, despite his remarkable acheivements. Same could be said for any other leader like that, including Stalin.

True, but there's more to admire about Hitler than war, while with Stalin, Chruchill and Roosevelt, that's not so.

I mean, even Rudolf Hess was charged with war crimes!

He was also like the number three leader in the Nazi Party rising during the early Nazi years. Cant forget that : /

So? How does that merit his being charged with war crimes? Also, in the early years, the Nazi party was good for Germany as a whole. Hess didn't deserve to be punished for that part of it.

Meanwhile, the Allied commanders that ordered the destruction of German and Japanese cities are not only walking free, but are praised for their actions. That's the part that I find ridiculous.

I think they are allowed some extra liberties. They didnt start the war and they were trying to end a war they didnt start, like I already noted.

True, but there's a difference between ending a war and going after revenge. There were numerous targets that the Allies bombed to virtual non-existence for no other reason than revenge.

At 6/23/05 01:02 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: if hitler allied himslef with stalin, the world war would be very interesting.

He did, at one time.....
You saw how that went...

At 6/23/05 01:02 AM, marchingtyrants wrote: if hitler allied himslef with stalin, the world war would be very interesting.

Yep, he did. And both of them were just itching for a chance to betray each other.

At 6/23/05 12:57 AM, Jerconjake wrote: True, but there's a difference between ending a war and going after revenge. There were numerous targets that the Allies bombed to virtual non-existence for no other reason than revenge.

That was mostly the British and no one can say they werent justified. I mean, a war was brought on their doorstep they never wanted. Like I said, extra liberties.

At 6/23/05 02:16 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/23/05 12:57 AM, Jerconjake wrote: True, but there's a difference between ending a war and going after revenge. There were numerous targets that the Allies bombed to virtual non-existence for no other reason than revenge.

That was mostly the British and no one can say they werent justified. I mean, a war was brought on their doorstep they never wanted. Like I said, extra liberties.

Not exactly. Britain chose to declare war on Germany because of it's invasion of Poland. Britain was offered peace by Hitler at least twice, and chose to decline. Hitler indirectly offered Roosevelt the opportunity to mediate the peace process between Germany and Britain. Germany made numerous efforts, including Hess' flight, for peace. Even the blitz of England was originally designed to soften them up for peace negotiations, not invasion. That's why the plans for Sea Lion never really got too serious.

long living thread this is!

At 6/23/05 05:42 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Britain chose to declare war on Germany because of it's invasion of Poland. Britain was offered peace by Hitler at least twice, and chose to decline.

Hitler knew full well what would happen if he decided to do anything other than annex the Sudantenland. He was directly told WAR would be brought if he decided to ignore international treaties and bodies.

So I fail to see how Britain is any at fault for the war Hitler decided to instigate.

Germany made numerous efforts, including Hess' flight, for peace.

Even Hitler called him insane. Hess was never sanctioned by the Germans to try to sue for peace. So I wouldnt call that an example of suing for peace.

Even the blitz of England was originally designed to soften them up for peace negotiations, not invasion.

Im not sure I really agree with that to much. But thats your opinion.

That's why the plans for Sea Lion never really got too serious.

Or it could be just as easily said Hitler turned his eye east and decided to take out his true, precieved enemy, the Communists.

I think your a little to infatuated with Hitler, in my opinion. And I think that is kinda sad. People are starting to admire what he did again. Just goes to show you how the lessons of history wear off over time.

Nothing about Hitler is worth admiring.

At 6/23/05 06:32 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/23/05 05:42 AM, Jerconjake wrote: Britain chose to declare war on Germany because of it's invasion of Poland. Britain was offered peace by Hitler at least twice, and chose to decline.

Hitler knew full well what would happen if he decided to do anything other than annex the Sudantenland. He was directly told WAR would be brought if he decided to ignore international treaties and bodies.

So I fail to see how Britain is any at fault for the war Hitler decided to instigate.

Yes, that's true. However, Britain failed to persue peaceful options, just like Hitler did. Don't mistakenly think that the British and French actually cared about Poland. Poland was never the issue for Hitler either, it was merely a means to an end, which was of course the invasion of Russia. It's actually ironic that if he had been able to invade Russia right after Poland, he wouldn't have been ready.

Germany made numerous efforts, including Hess' flight, for peace.

Even Hitler called him insane. Hess was never sanctioned by the Germans to try to sue for peace. So I wouldnt call that an example of suing for peace.

Hess told Hitler to call him insane in a note that he left shortly before his flight. It's true that it wasn't Hitler's idea and that he had no knowledge of it, but it does reflect the willingness of many of the top officials to have peace before war.

Even the blitz of England was originally designed to soften them up for peace negotiations, not invasion.

Im not sure I really agree with that to much. But thats your opinion.

Actually, it's not. In depth investigation will show quite clearly that the invasion wasn't serious, in terms of troops and resources committed. Also, their bombing strategy changed several times, but it was initially an attempt to starve the Brits into peace negotiations. British defenses were too tough and so the Germans changed their tactics several times before they started bombing cities. By that time however, the British knew that they could hold them off and therefore the German strategy quite completely backfired.

That's why the plans for Sea Lion never really got too serious.

Or it could be just as easily said Hitler turned his eye east and decided to take out his true, precieved enemy, the Communists.

I think your a little to infatuated with Hitler, in my opinion. And I think that is kinda sad. People are starting to admire what he did again. Just goes to show you how the lessons of history wear off over time.

Nothing about Hitler is worth admiring.

Exactly, the plan was not serious because his eyes had always been on Russia. I'm quite sure that the plan had already been delayed much longer than he would have liked. Also, the British were considered to be Aryan, much like the Norwegians and Danes.

Now let me explain. If reciting historical fact makes me a Nazi, then call me one. If talking about what really happened makes me evil, then I'm evil. Pity me all you like for not having my eyes and ears closed to what I may not want to hear. I think it's much more sad for people to sit in willful ignorance because the truth is different than what they want it to be. All I've done here is stated fact, and it's amazing how people will scorn me for that. Who are the real Nazis?

At 6/23/05 10:15 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Actually, it's not.

Yeah it is. I have never once in anything I read encountered anything that suggests Hitler was trying to get peace with the UK.

In depth investigation will show quite clearly that the invasion wasn't serious, in terms of troops and resources committed.

That has less to do with peace and more to do with insanity and Russia.

Also, their bombing strategy changed several times, but it was initially an attempt to starve the Brits into peace negotiations.

I know that for a fact to be wrong. The initial targets of the bombing raids were the radar centers, the marshalling yards for the planes, the airfileds. And the Luftwaffe got very close to being able to knocking out the capability for the Brits to retaliate against their air raids. Then some of Germany got bombed and Hitler went all psycho and decided to start attacking their cities. You could argue he was going for peace when he decided to start hitting the cities and I would agree. However, I think the Brits knew he would be back sooner or later and thus never tried to sue for peace.

British defenses were too tough and so the Germans changed their tactics several times before they started bombing cities. By that time however, the British knew that they could hold them off and therefore the German strategy quite completely backfired.

That's why the plans for Sea Lion never really got too serious.

Because they never gained complete control of the air. Not because of any peace stuff.

Exactly, the plan was not serious because his eyes had always been on Russia.

Probably true he never went fully into attacking Britain, but that doesnt mean Operation Sea Lion was a complete sham. I still beleive full well if they gained control of the air, or at least more of it, they would have invaded.

Now let me explain. If reciting historical fact makes me a Nazi, then call me one. If talking about what really happened makes me evil, then I'm evil.

I never said I pity you, I never called you a Nazi, I never called you evil. I only was saying how you like to look at Hitler in to good a light, like he is some master tactican, like he is worht admiring (like you even said you do, to an extent). I just see that as foolhardy. And that is my point.

Also, we can't forget, on the subject of troop placement, Hitler was aiding Mussolini in Albania and North Africa at the time, and he was serious about wanting the Suez Canal....

At 6/23/05 10:34 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/23/05 10:15 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Actually, it's not.

Yeah it is. I have never once in anything I read encountered anything that suggests Hitler was trying to get peace with the UK.

http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1939/oct39/06oct39.htm

He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

In depth investigation will show quite clearly that the invasion wasn't serious, in terms of troops and resources committed.

That has less to do with peace and more to do with insanity and Russia.

I personally believe that the buildup was for show. One more bargaining chip to convince the British that peace was the best option.

Also, their bombing strategy changed several times, but it was initially an attempt to starve the Brits into peace negotiations.

I know that for a fact to be wrong. The initial targets of the bombing raids were the radar centers, the marshalling yards for the planes, the airfileds. And the Luftwaffe got very close to being able to knocking out the capability for the Brits to retaliate against their air raids. Then some of Germany got bombed and Hitler went all psycho and decided to start attacking their cities. You could argue he was going for peace when he decided to start hitting the cities and I would agree. However, I think the Brits knew he would be back sooner or later and thus never tried to sue for peace.

You can't know that for a fact, because what I am telling you is true. The radar centers were not the first target, because the Germans didn't fully contemplate their pivotal usefulness yet. The airfields were after that. I'm telling you, go look it up. The Luftwaffe did indeed get close, but they didn't change tactics because of British bombing. The air strategy had little to do with Hitler and everything to do with Goering. Goering is the one who laid all the plans for the air war in Britain.

British defenses were too tough and so the Germans changed their tactics several times before they started bombing cities. By that time however, the British knew that they could hold them off and therefore the German strategy quite completely backfired.

That's why the plans for Sea Lion never really got too serious.

Because they never gained complete control of the air. Not because of any peace stuff.

Exactly, the plan was not serious because his eyes had always been on Russia.

Probably true he never went fully into attacking Britain, but that doesnt mean Operation Sea Lion was a complete sham. I still beleive full well if they gained control of the air, or at least more of it, they would have invaded.

It's very possible that if it was going to be easy, they would have done it. In fact, history shows us that Hitler was very open to invading easy targets that would not detract from his real goals. Britain fit neither of those criteria. Even if they won the air war, amphibious invasions are not a German specialty. They would also have needed to destroy the Royal Navy and overcome stiff British land resistance, with their professional army having escaped from Dunkirk. Incidently, one could argue that the inexplicable stoppage at Dunkirk was a show of good faith by Hitler towards the British, but that was not the only factor.

Now let me explain. If reciting historical fact makes me a Nazi, then call me one. If talking about what really happened makes me evil, then I'm evil.

I never said I pity you, I never called you a Nazi, I never called you evil. I only was saying how you like to look at Hitler in to good a light, like he is some master tactican, like he is worht admiring (like you even said you do, to an extent). I just see that as foolhardy. And that is my point.

Ever heard the expression "don't throw the baby out with the bath water?" Also, I never said that he was a master tactician. I specifically stated that he wasn't. He was an excellent statesman, however. He achieved in peace time what the USSR, America, Canada, and numerous other nations were only able to achieve through the war.

At 6/24/05 12:29 AM, fastbow wrote: Also, we can't forget, on the subject of troop placement, Hitler was aiding Mussolini in Albania and North Africa at the time, and he was serious about wanting the Suez Canal....

Not so. They never had the intention of crossing the Suez Canal, I've seen members of the former High Command state that. The whole purpose of being in Africa was to help Mussolini and cover the southern flank of Europe.

At 6/24/05 06:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

This was mainly due to the change in leadership. Neville Chamberlain was more interested in sueing for peace and followed the policy of appeasement prior to the war. For a long time before the war, Churchill was in favour of confronting Germany. So its no wonder he didn't surrender. If he did, we wouldn't have had one of the greatest PM speeches of all time

At 6/24/05 06:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1939/oct39/06oct39.htm

He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

Thats all jsut statesmen speech bullshit. He knew full well he was braking his treaty with Britain and France to stop with the Sudatenland so he KNEW a fight was coming. He knew he was starting a war against them. Its not like they were going to give him free reign to capture whatever.

It stated he attacked Poland to adjust the injustice of the Versailles treaty? Laughable. East Prussia use to be there, but to take land Germany never owned in the name of the injustice of the Versailles Treaty is, well, dumb.

At 6/25/05 02:22 AM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/24/05 06:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1939/oct39/06oct39.htm

He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

Thats all jsut statesmen speech bullshit. He knew full well he was braking his treaty with Britain and France to stop with the Sudatenland so he KNEW a fight was coming. He knew he was starting a war against them. Its not like they were going to give him free reign to capture whatever.

It stated he attacked Poland to adjust the injustice of the Versailles treaty? Laughable. East Prussia use to be there, but to take land Germany never owned in the name of the injustice of the Versailles Treaty is, well, dumb.

Hitler had already broken that agreement before September 1939 when he invaded the remainder of Czechoslovakia. Britain and France did nothing. He was gambling that the British and French wouldn't actually react to his invasion of Poland, and they had given him plenty of reason to think so. He was half-right, in that neither nation cared enough to come to the aid of Poland. When he offered peace the first time, Poland had already been subdued. There was then no reason for them to be at war. It seems to me that the western Allies only wanted to stop him when he was allied with the Soviet Union. Up to that point, his being a buffer between the west and communism gave him a huge amount of freedom. In my opinion, it was the Nazi-Soviet Pact that scared the French and British into maintaining the war.

That being said, if the invasion of Poland had appeared to be what it was - a staging point for the invasion of Russia - the British and French might not have declared war in the first place, or they would certainly have been more open to peace negotiations. Fear of communism was so heavy in the west, that it's part of the reason France fell so easily. Many people in France were willing to accept Hitler's invasion in order to ensure that their own communists didn't take power. Therefore, if the invasion of Poland didn't appear to be aiding the communists, Hitler's peace offering may well have been accepted.

At 6/24/05 07:01 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote:

At 6/24/05 06:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

This was mainly due to the change in leadership...

The first offer of peace was made while Chamberlain was still in power, on October 6th, 1939.

So I fail to see how Britain is any at fault for the war Hitler decided to instigate.

I guess it was just indirect really, Chamberlain's policy of appeasement gave Hitler a false sense of security, making him believe that he was able to conquer without fear of reprisal. They're not really at fault per se, but they could have done more by taking a stand early, something Churchill surely would have done. Kind of like President Hoover, he did more than any other president before him to help bring the US out of the depression, but he didn't do enough...except the difference in that analogy is that Chamberlain did nothing but appease.

JERRY: Vomitting is not a deal breaker. If Hitler had vomitted on Chamberlain, Chamberlain still would have given him Czechoslovakia.

GEORGE: Chamberlain...you could hold his head in the toilet, he'd still give you half of Europe.-Seinfeld

For comedic effect : P

At 6/24/05 06:10 PM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 6/24/05 12:29 AM, fastbow wrote: Also, we can't forget, on the subject of troop placement, Hitler was aiding Mussolini in Albania and North Africa at the time, and he was serious about wanting the Suez Canal....

Not so. They never had the intention of crossing the Suez Canal, I've seen members of the former High Command state that. The whole purpose of being in Africa was to help Mussolini and cover the southern flank of Europe.

What was Mussolini trying to do? Cross the Suez Canal. And, if given the opprotunity, he would have gladly taken it...

At 6/25/05 08:43 PM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 6/24/05 07:01 PM, LedgendaryLukus wrote:

At 6/24/05 06:01 PM, Jerconjake wrote: He would offer peace one more time after conquering France. The refusal of Britain to accept peace was confusing to the Nazis, since they spent all their time claiming that all they wanted was peace.

This was mainly due to the change in leadership...

The first offer of peace was made while Chamberlain was still in power, on October 6th, 1939.

Hitler had hardly finished off Poland at that point. Of course they weren't going to accept a peace.

At 6/26/05 04:24 AM, HailHail1997 wrote:

:but they could have done more by taking a stand early, something Churchill surely would have done.

The whole point of the appeasement policy was to buy time for Britain and France to prepare their armies. They were in no state to challenge Hitler at the time of the Munich crisis. This is why they waited until Poland to declare war on Germany

At 6/26/05 09:31 AM, commie-hentai wrote: lol. can anyone tell me whats the greatest weapon used in WW2? i think its the PPSH,T-34, sherman tank, tiger tank and MP40

you gotta be bloody jokeing. The sherman that thing was a bloody deathtrap. it had almost 0 armor, it was slow and it't weaponry was weak too. the only thing the yanks had in favor with it was the fact that it was fast and easy to produce. The tiger tank on the other hand was a good tank but had some problems, it was slow, hard to repair and produce and expansive. that's why so few of them were made. While the t-34 tank was a good weapon all around it had no major weaknesses yet it didn't have any major achievments either. While the mp40 sub machine gun was okay for it's time. it had a large clip but was inaccurate and didn't do as much dammage as a thompsone or a BAR.

and whats the most liable and useless weapon used in WW2? i think its the thompson SMG and japanese small tanks.

you gotta be kidding me the thompson or tommy gun wasn't useless that was one of the crowning points of the american sub machine gun armament. that gun was great. nice accuracy, large stopping power and low recoil. the only bad thing about it was the small magazine. also the jap tanks did blow very bad.

At 6/26/05 07:51 AM, fastbow wrote:

At 6/24/05 06:10 PM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 6/24/05 12:29 AM, fastbow wrote:

What was Mussolini trying to do? Cross the Suez Canal. And, if given the opprotunity, he would have gladly taken it...

Mussolini was trying to capture Egypt and then open a route between it and Abyssinia through the Sudan.

At 6/26/05 09:31 AM, commie-hentai wrote: lol. can anyone tell me whats the greatest weapon used in WW2? i think its the PPSH,T-34, sherman tank, tiger tank and MP40

The V2 Rocket, not because of its battle effectiveness, but because of the sheer leap forward in technology that it represented. The same would be true for the Me262.

and whats the most liable and useless weapon used in WW2? i think its the thompson SMG and japanese small tanks.

The Thompson was a pretty bad war implement. It was used mostly to glamorize the war, since the gangters in the US used them. It was far too heavy for war, which is why the BAR was issued.