Karl Heidenreich wrote:...
Then there is a case to produce evidence that the US was able to place the "best" in every field. That´s why the Nowaki is so important, because a US BBs never demostrated the weight of their power against a peer in combat or why the Sherman has to be regarded, against all evidence, as a better tank when compared to the Tiger or why the Me 262 performance has to be dimished or the German contribution to the US Space Program ignored.
This Revisionist tendency is dangerous because of instead of producing the appropiate learning of the past mistakes it produces a false sense of unvulnerability. ...
Bottom line, the Germans, not being the equal to Excelence were tactically great and technologically proficient enough to have won in a one vs one basis. And this is important to recon in order to address the reasons of why things happened the way they did.
"No, Americans don`t know how to fight. After the Korean War, in particular, they have lost the capability to wage large scale war. They are pinning their hopes on the Atom Bomb and air power. But one cannot win a war with that. One needs infantry, and they don`t have much infantry; the infantry they do have is weak. They are fighting little Korea, and already people are weeping in the USA. What will happen if they start a large scale war? Then, perhaps, everyone will weep"
"The US has a population of 200 million people, but it cannot stand wars."
"In reading works by the burgeois writers on World War II, I have frequently noticed their inclination to play down the Red Army victory in the summer of 1943. They try to instill in their readers the idea that the Kursk Battle was just an ordinary, insignificant episode in the war; to these ends they either barely mention it or just skip it. Very rarely have I come across such books any real assesment of the Nazi plan of revenge for the summer of 1943 as an adventurous or a bankrupt end to the strategy of the fascist generals. But, as the saying has it, deeds speak louder than words. I would mention just one elementary fact: at the height of the Kursk Battle our Allies landed in Sicily and, on 17 August, crossed over into Italy. Could they have possibly done so with even half the forces against them that we had to contend with in the summer of 1943? I think not."
"there exist many good men who honestly believe that one may, by the aid of modern science, sit in the confort and ease in his office chair, and with little blocks of wood to represent men, or even with figures and algebraic symbols, master the great game of war..."
"In the closing days of the war my North Vietnamese Army counterpart crowed, "This just goes to prove you can`t stamp out a revolutionary idea with force,"
"That`s nonsense and you know it, " I replied. "In the thirteenth century Genghis Khan did a pretty good job of stamping out a revolutionary idea with force when the Moslems in Central Asia declared the jihad against him. He killed seventeen million people and turned the area into a howling desert for the next seven hundreds years.
"And you`d be hard pressed to find anyone in southern France today able to recite the Albigensian Code. When that heresy was put down in A.D. 1250 the military commander asked the bishop, "How do you tell the herectics from the true believers?" the terrible answer was, "Kill them all! GOd will know his own."
"You know, with our nuclear weapons, we had the capability many times over to wipe North Vietnam from the face of the map.
"We knew that" he said. "We also knew you`d never do it.
When it came to anything less than a nuclear war itself, our vaunted nuclear deterrent force had one critical flaw: it did not dether."
Karl Heidenreich wrote:The quotes I have wrote here, in this thread, had the goal of trying to explain why is so important for the US war historians to come up with the Ambrose`s Syndrome of trying to prove how military proficient the US was in WWII.
Because if it`s not, then there is nothing left but just defeats and misjudgements.
That`s why Major Bong HAS to be better than Hartmann,
or the Sherman better than the Tiger or South Dakota better than Bismarck.
In absence of Osama`s corpse or a clear victory against the taliban then you have to endure "Inglorious Bastards" in the cinema, returning to the good old days of the Hogan`s Heroes.
In case you didn't notice we were on the winning side in world war 2
??? Who has even brought that proposition forward? This is another classic stawman.
The facts stand for themselves in these cases.
You are waxing incoherent.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:I noticed that the US produced a diversion in Normandy in order to distract the Germans from the main front, which was in the East.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:five Shermans (Ronsons) in order to nail a single Tiger as in Viller Bocage and some many other scenarios
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Bismarck havng to sunk by the complete British Atlantic Fleet
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Revisionist tendencies and Ambrose Sindrome
1. One instigated by Hollywood to regard the Germans as plain stupid as the TV series Combat or Hogan´s Heroes or also as several high grossing motion pictures showed to the US public.
Hitler was blamed for everything, on one hand,
Having said that it is clear that the Germans were not the equal to Excelence (which is hard to me to accept).
In this paradigm then a US GI is to be regarded as a superior infrantry man if compared to a Waffen SS Panzergrenadier that fought for four years in the East against ten or fifteen times his numbers and endured several freezing winters
Then there is a case to produce evidence that the US was able to place the "best" in every field. That´s why the Nowaki is so important, because a US BBs never demostrated the weight of their power against a peer in combat
or why the Sherman has to be regarded, against all evidence, as a better tank when compared to the Tiger
Sometimes.Bottom line, the Germans, not being the equal to Excelence were tactically great and technologically proficient enough to have won in a one vs one basis.
alecsandros wrote: from German state-of-the-art technology ([i]that the Russians under Stalin claimed to have been created by their own engineers)
mkenny wrote:alecsandros wrote: from German state-of-the-art technology ([i]that the Russians under Stalin claimed to have been created by their own engineers)
The Russians had nothing to learn as regards tank technology. Their own medium and heavy tanks in 1941 completely outclassed the German types. Throughout the war they were able to up-gun and improvise on a scale thet shamed the German 'limited Edition' uber-panzers. No other nation got as much bang-for-a-buck than the Soviets.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest