Announcement

Ryan
Member
+1,230|6178|Alberta, Canada

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.

Last edited by Ryan (2007-03-26 17:28:14)

l41e
Member
+677|5984

Pre-Battle of the Bulge intelligence failure, for one.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|5891
Paid attention to radar blips approaching Hawaii?
RedTwizzler
I do it for the lulz.
+124|5873|Chicago
Although the events at the time probably wouldn't have allowed an alternate strategy, the mass Japanese civilian killings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the development of nuclear arms were not good things by any means. However, they were acceptable since it would have been virtually impossible to win a ground war in Japan.
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|5891
Intervening on the side of the Spanish Republic in the Spanish Civil War, nipping Hitler and Mussolini in the bud before they ever got properly started.
Velker
Accused aimbot user
+31|5609|Ohio
Hindsight is 20/20, but the best solution (in my opinion) would have to be what could have been done right before the German war machine got its momentum. England, France, and Russia should have set Hitler in his place as soon as he started to push west, taking over whatever country he felt like. In an effort to appease Hitler, the three countries backed off and hoped he would eventually be fulfilled in his conquest for territory. Had the leaders of France, England, Russia (possibly backed up by the U.S.) met the Nazis with military force the moment Hitler tried to widen the German border I believe a lot of trouble could have been avoided. WWII probably would have still been waged, but not to the scale that we know it was. Hitler would have been without strongholds in several other countries, been without the resources of those countries, and would not have been able to have his troops already "battle hardened" by the time that an oppositional force arrived for confrontation.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6025|Tampa Bay Florida

k30dxedle wrote:

Pre-Battle of the Bulge intelligence failure, for one.
Actually there was very little the Allies could've done before the German counterattack.  All of their messages and transmissions were kept very secret up until the eve of the attack.

A better example of Allied intelligence failure would be Operation Market Garden.  Complete failure of intelligence, most blame should go to the Brits for that one.  The Allies completely F'ed up.  Read the book "A Bridge Too Far", it is entirely about how the Allies screwed up the operation.
R0lyP0ly
Member
+161|5989|USA

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.
Stay true to the Russian non-agression pact.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5740|North Carolina

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.
We could have properly rebuilt Germany after WW1....
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6025|Tampa Bay Florida

Turquoise wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.

What do you guys think could have been done better in WWII?
Things that could have increased the overall casualty loss, increased the number of battles won, etc.

I guess you could post things from any war as well.
We could have properly rebuilt Germany after WW1....
QFT... that was the biggest F up of all.  +1
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|5740|North Carolina
Thanks...    Yeah, if the League of Nations had actually worked, then there probably would never have been a WW2 other than the Pacific conflict.
Smitty5613
Member
+46|5862|Middle of nowhere, California
Sent all the gays to Germany around 1939
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6025|Tampa Bay Florida

Turquoise wrote:

Thanks...    Yeah, if the League of Nations had actually worked, then there probably would never have been a WW2 other than the Pacific conflict.
Probably no Israel, either

How different the world would be..........
ATG
Banned
+5,233|5864|Global Command
Given the fact that the atomic bomb ushered in 50 years free of major world wide conflict an ended the war I'd say it should have been used sooner.

A santuary should have been provided to the European jews.
The League of NAtions could have purchased land deep in Brazil and they could have settled there perhaps avoiding decades of conflict and the coming mushroom clouds.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6025|Tampa Bay Florida
I agree ATG... heck, give them USA land if they wanted it.  Just not that place in the sand with arabs living on it...
CoronadoSEAL
pics or it didn't happen
+207|5853|USA

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.
then you shouldn't have to give a disclaimer, should you?
ATG
Banned
+5,233|5864|Global Command

Spearhead wrote:

I agree ATG... heck, give them USA land if they wanted it.  Just not that place in the sand with arabs living on it...
It's a pity they couldn't just say " Oiy , let's Exodus. "

They have a lot of money, they could buy the land. They could probably do more good farming and land usage that is being done now in the Amazon.
Havok
Nymphomaniac Treatment Specialist
+302|6010|Florida, United States

CoronadoSEAL wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Tried to find something like this, but couldn't.
then you shouldn't have to give a disclaimer, should you?
I think he said that in case he was wrong.  Had he not said it and he was wrong, many people would flame his thread.

On topic, I think the idea of not bashing Germany with the Treaty of Versailles would have been most effective.  Without the Germans fighting in the west, Japan would never have had the balls to attack Pearl Harbor.
Belx
Member
+4|6013|New York, New York
Not that I don't agree that the Treaty of Versailles was a huge mistake, hindsight allows us to see a mistake.  There was a long chain of events between that and the rise of Hitler and WW2, and would be close to impossible to predict that another and worse world war would happen after the treaty.
Reaper Hilarus
Member
+0|5683

k30dxedle wrote:

Pre-Battle of the Bulge intelligence failure, for one.
But was the Battle of the Bulge such a bad thing?  It did funnel lots of Germany's remaining armour in the west, and lots of men and material into a single area.  Eisenhower (I think it was him) thought the event should be taken advantage of, for exactly this reason.

RedTwizzler wrote:

Although the events at the time probably wouldn't have allowed an alternate strategy, the mass Japanese civilian killings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the development of nuclear arms were not good things by any means. However, they were acceptable since it would have been virtually impossible to win a ground war in Japan.
Yes, most people (who know what they are talking about) would agree with it being impossible to win a ground war in Japan, however:  events at the time did offer alternate strategies.  There are historians that say Japan, like Britain in 1940-1, could have been strangled due to the destruction of their merchant shipping.  The question though is how long would it take for the Japanese government to surrender?
And like ATG and I say below, that weapon may very well have prevented the Third World War happening several years later, maybe about the time of the Korean War.  As horrible as it is, the nuclear arm might have saved many millions.

ATG wrote:

Given the fact that the atomic bomb ushered in 50 years free of major world wide conflict an ended the war I'd say it should have been used sooner.
I agree completely with this, except for it being used sooner, which is just my opinion, no real basis for it yet.  I think it was used at the right time.

EDIT: and for any one interested in WWII history go to
http://forum.axishistory.com/
It seems to be down right now, but that shouldn't last long.

Last edited by Reaper Hilarus (2007-03-26 19:57:00)

chaosdragon001
Whee
+53|5844|Los Angeles, California
Maybe if they followed the Kellogg Briand pact. (look that one up, you'll know what I mean).

Then again... Japan actually moved first. Not Germany.
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|5702|Columbus, Ohio

CameronPoe wrote:

Paid attention to radar blips approaching Hawaii?
Bah....it was B-17's private. 
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6101|Cambridge (UK)
Put VW engines in the front of the car.
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6055|California

I think we should have done a dual pincer move into Southern Europe. Instead of invading Italy, we could have gone in Greece as well, pushed the Italians out of the war, and then moved up south through France and the remainder of the Ottoman Empire to meet the D-Day troops. That would have cut off most of Hitler's Fortress Europe into small chunks.

The SE Europe force could have met with the Russians in the Hungary/Poland region, and drove into Berlin.

It would essentially end how it ended in the first place, but Just a little sooner.
NemeSiS-Factor
Favorite Weapon? Pistol
+29|6005|Everett, WA, US
Aiming one of the atom bombs for Tokyo, instead of some back country town?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard