Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Paris Island
    Posts
    64

    Default 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    I think if Hitler did not use the last of his army in the Ardan offincive that they may have been able to win the war. But maybe not.



    What do you think.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    I assume you mean the Ardennes offensive? If so, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference - the Germans didn't have a hope short of an intervention by Alien Space Bats!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aachen/Aken/Aix-la-Chapelle
    Posts
    2,966

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    It wouldn't have made a difference for the outcome of the war wether the offensive in the Ardennes would have been launched or not. The war was lost for germany on the first day having enemies from different directions, west and east. If the war had lasted longer, they possibly had the chance to improve the "Wunderwaffen" (wonder weapons). Maybe the A-bomb would have been produced by Germany but then not only the Axis would have lost the war but mankind.
    "I just ran out of ammo. I will ram this one. Good bye, we'll meet in Valhalla." - Major Heinrich Ehrler, April 4, 1945

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,403

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    I assume you mean the Ardennes offensive? If so, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference - the Germans didn't have a hope short of an intervention by Alien Space Bats!
    Well, they did have that flying saucer with plasma ray guns coming on line!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    OK, so you guys actually want a serious answer? If the war had lasted more than a couple of months longer, it would be Berlin rather than Hiroshima which would have got the first dose of Instant Sunrise. Until around January 1945 or so the plan was always that the first atomic weapons would have been delivered by B-29s operating of of RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by flamethrowerguy View Post
    Maybe the A-bomb would have been produced by Germany but then not only the Axis would have lost the war but mankind.
    The Nazis had stopped attempting to product an atomic bomb by 1943.
    Due to mistakes in their nuclear scientists calculations, they considered any weapon to be too impractical, and the timespan needed to make it too long, for it to be of use in the war they were fighting.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
    Due to mistakes in their nuclear scientists calculations, they considered any weapon to be too impractical, and the timespan needed to make it too long, for it to be of use in the war they were fighting.
    That's downright charitable. Heisenberg may have been OK as a theoretical physicist at times, but when it came to a nuclear weapons programme he was a total clown. He badly miscalculated the critical mass of U235, and IMHO both his correspondence with Bohr* and the Farm Hall transcripts demonstrate that he was committed to Germany getting a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, their investigation into what to use as a moderator was also incompetent - they ruled out Graphite after the testing they did used samples badly contaminated with Boron and Cadmium (both ravenous neutron absorbers) and they thought there was no way of obtaining purer graphite. This being at a time when the Manhattan project already had hundreds of tonnes of extremely pure Graphite made from Petroleum Coke.

    Incidentally, there's a vaguely amusing side-story with the Petroleum Coke which illustrates the problems with super-priority projects. General Groves or Robert Oppenheimer (can't remember which) got hold of the people who supplied the stuff (IIRC it was DuPont, but not sure) and, on asking what the highest priority of anyone else wanting it was, got told "C". His reply was that he could give them an "A" now, and an "AAA" by the end of the week - leaving the suppliers rather shellshocked. This got a rather peeved reply from his procurement guys shortly afterwards asking him not to do this in future. The problem wasn't getting it to him in time - a lower priority would do that - but disruption elsewhere in the system coupled with it arriving sooner than he could make use of it. The Germans had many similar problems with resource constraints later in the war, but these were settled by the various little fiefs fighting it out rather than some overarching body deciding what was actually needed as in the US or UK.



    *
    Quote Originally Posted by Werner Heisenberg
    History legitimizes Germany to rule Europe and later the world. Only a nation that rules ruthlessly can maintain itself. Democracy cannot develop sufficient energy to rule Europe. There are, therefore, only two possibilities: Germany and Russia, and perhaps a Europe under German leadership is the lesser evil. (Blood and Water, Dan Kurzman, 1997, p. 35, ISBN 0-8050-3206-1)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27 View Post
    OK, so you guys actually want a serious answer? If the war had lasted more than a couple of months longer, it would be Berlin rather than Hiroshima which would have got the first dose of Instant Sunrise. Until around January 1945 or so the plan was always that the first atomic weapons would have been delivered by B-29s operating of of RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland.
    Since your talking about the Atomic Bomb, I decided to get involved with this thread. Now that we are talking about nuking Germany, I would like to point out that the Americans would not have nuked Germany as the issue of surrender was only with the japanese. the Russians and all the alied forces would have had no problem defeating the Germans because of proximity and resources but the Russians were not really involved much with the Japanese and the Americans would not have wasted the A-bomb on Germany unless there was no Japan involvement in the first place. Given the choice, the Americans would have unquestionably nuked Japan over Germany. Germany would never have seen instant sunrise.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Uh huh. Which is why if you dig through the planning documents you'll find that until it became clear that Germany would be beaten before the weapons were ready all plans were for an attack on Germany.
    Indeed, Germany only eventually surrendered when it was virtually all occupied - small pockets of Germany and Scandinavia were all there was under German control when the surrender actually came on Lüneburg heath.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    If Truman bombed Germany then we wouldn't have had enough A-bombs to blast Japan. What would we of done then? I think Truman would have changed his mind anyways and concentrated on bombing Japan, given the circumstances.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    If Truman bombed Germany then we wouldn't have had enough A-bombs to blast Japan. What would we of done then?
    Errr.... made more? The only reason that the US stopped producing atomic weapons postwar was to allow them to transfer the gas diffustion and reprocessing plants to peacetime safety standards. Had they not done so then they would have been able to produce a couple of weapons a month - delaying the surrender of Japan by about 4 weeks.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,112

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    No I don't think so. Your statement that Japan would have surrendered in 4 weeks is not likely. After the first 2 atomic bombs, America would have taken mths to produce more atomic bombs. Not that it makes any difference i.e. mths or weeks, but I really don't think America could make a third bomb in 1 mth after the first 2 were built, as per my readings on the atomic issue during WW-2.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    Now that we are talking about nuking Germany, I would like to point out that the Americans would not have nuked Germany as the issue of surrender was only with the japanese.
    The surrender terms offered to both Germany and Japan were the same, unconditional surrender.



    the Russians and all the alied forces would have had no problem defeating the Germans because of proximity and resources but the Russians were not really involved much with the Japanese and the Americans would not have wasted the A-bomb on Germany unless there was no Japan involvement in the first place.
    The USA started to build an atom bomb due to fears that German had the capabilities to build one, at no point did the US ever consider the Japanese had any realistic chance of building a working atomic weapon.
    Even when Japan was winning battle after battle in the early days of the pacific war, the USA still considered Germany her most dangerous enemy.



    Given the choice, the Americans would have unquestionably nuked Japan over Germany. Germany would never have seen instant sunrise.
    Nonsense.
    The atom bomb was built due to the German threat. If the Germans had still possessed a significant military capability when the bombs were ready, they would had been used on Germany.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aachen/Aken/Aix-la-Chapelle
    Posts
    2,966

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by herman2 View Post
    Now that we are talking about nuking Germany, I would like to point out that the Americans would not have nuked Germany as the issue of surrender was only with the japanese.
    Well, depending on which german city to be nuked, it would have meant "semi-nuking" Denmark, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Switzerland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands as well...
    "I just ran out of ammo. I will ram this one. Good bye, we'll meet in Valhalla." - Major Heinrich Ehrler, April 4, 1945

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    251

    Default Re: 1944, If the war lasted another 8 monthsm, would we have lost the war?

    Quote Originally Posted by flamethrowerguy View Post
    Well, depending on which german city to be nuked, it would have meant "semi-nuking" Denmark, Poland, Chechoslovakia, Switzerland, France, Belgium and the Netherlands as well...
    interesting point, if America was to nuke Germany late in the war (say post market-garden) was their anywhere on German soil that they could bomb and not risk fallout effecting other already liberated countries?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •