Guest Derek L Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Nazi blitzkrieg methods were intended to reduce war operations to a minimum, reduce civilian deaths which were considered to be counterproductive and only made the enemy mode determined to fight, and reduce damage to a countries infrastructure. Those nutsy nazis... How well did Lightning War pan out in Stalingrad, or the Russian Front in general? Edited February 5, 2012 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 How well did Lightning War pan out in Stalingrad, or the Russian Front in general? Well I'm no military expert but they did go very far considering the scale of one nation fighting wars on multiple fronts, with limited resources and against overwhelming numbers. They did not lose the eastern front because of blitzkrieg, they lost because it dragged on and became a war of attrition. They had overextended themselves. Too much ambition, not enough logistic support. But consider the phenomenal quick victories it gave the Germans, when successfully implemented. Poland, France, and most of eastern Europe. Same thing can be shown in the 6 day war in the Golan heights. And the Iraq war, lead by General "Stormin Norman" Swartzkopf. All methods that employed swift surgical strikes intended to quickly overwhelm the enemy and bring a decisive victory in a short time, with minimal casualties. The point is, it shows there are other means of winning a war, through real, intelligent military techniques besides the outright barbarism you advocate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 ....The point is, it shows there are other means of winning a war, through real, intelligent military techniques besides the outright barbarism you advocate. Yeah, nobody would every accuse the Germans of any "barbarism" in that war...no suh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Yeah, nobody would every accuse the Germans of any "barbarism" in that war...no suh! Not like when Yanks bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Purely civilian "terror targets". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Well I'm no military expert but they did go very far considering the scale of one nation fighting wars on multiple fronts, with limited resources and against overwhelming numbers. They did not lose the eastern front because of blitzkrieg, they lost because it dragged on and became a war of attrition. They had overextended themselves. Too much ambition, not enough logistic support. But consider the phenomenal quick victories it gave the Germans, when successfully implemented. Poland, France, and most of eastern Europe. Same thing can be shown in the 6 day war in the Golan heights. And the Iraq war, lead by General "Stormin Norman" Swartzkopf. All methods that employed swift surgical strikes intended to quickly overwhelm the enemy and bring a decisive victory in a short time, with minimal casualties. The point is, it shows there are other means of winning a war, through real, intelligent military techniques besides the outright barbarism you advocate. You’re preaching to the converted……I do understand the complexities associated with AIR-LAND battle………That being said, what you’re confusing is who did what with respect to the Nazi’s…..The Wehrmacht’s (Regular Army) doctrine of Blitzkrieg was intended to overwhelm a conventional army, much like the initial invasion of Iraq was accomplished rather quick………..The Nazi’s relied not on their army to hold their conquests, but on the SS and Gestapo, which as alluded to by BC, were far from humane. As for Stalingrad and Russia itself, the transition between conventional and asymmetric warfare was never accomplished, in that once the conventional army became bogged down in the insurgency by the Soviets, they were unable to secure their rear areas, thus as you mentioned, became over extended and encircled, then ultimately cut-off……..The regular army was unable to ensure the front lines so as to establish an environment for the Gestapo to carry out it’s purpose………. For the Germans to have been successful, to break the pockets of Soviet resistance, they should have deployed chemical weapons on the tactical level………Ironically, this is what the Soviets had planned to do if they had ever required penetrating the Fulda Gap……..The amount of Chemical weapons they intended to use, were on such a scale that the German culture itself would cease to exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Not like when Yanks bombed Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Purely civilian "terror targets". Dresden was bombed by more than just "Yanks". You guys kill me..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) Dresden was bombed by more than just "Yanks". You guys kill me..... Indeed, I’d suggest to many here a quick reference search with Google-Fu using the keywords : Sir Arthur Harris/Bomber Command/RAF/RCAF……… Edited February 5, 2012 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Dresden was bombed by more than just "Yanks". You guys kill me..... Yeah, so US and the Brits. This matters how, in context of the debate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotspinTV Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 OK, but it is hardly a one-sided political affair. Canada's "natural ruling party" had its hands all over such things, including NAFTA and solicitations of foreign investment. I say again...EMD was never a Canadian company. This is why I wrote "Conservative" business practices with a capital "C". I blame Canadians for our fixed position as a subject of the British Empire before WW2 and lapdog to the U.S. during and after the cold war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotspinTV Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Nope...but you will keep watching American television forever! True, although I wonder how many actors, directors, writers and producers involved in your entertainment industry are Canadian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Like build a bigger nanny state then we have now? Would you rather our government spend the money on us, or someone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 True, although I wonder how many actors, directors, writers and producers involved in your entertainment industry are Canadian. What's your point? That Canadians not only watch American tv, but they're drawn to becoming a part of it as well? If you were referring to Canadian shows being picked up by American television networks, you'd have a point. I don't think that ever happens, though (if it does, Arctic Air should be picked up. Great show!).... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotspinTV Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 What's your point? That Canadians not only watch American tv, but they're drawn to becoming a part of it as well? If you were referring to Canadian shows being picked up by American television networks, you'd have a point. I don't think that ever happens, though (if it does, Arctic Air should be picked up. Great show!).... My point is that Americans are as influenced by other nations as they are an influence. How many American sketch shows are blatant rip offs of Monty Python's Flying Circus? How much American Culture is influenced by Mexico and other Latin American nations? Your pop music industry would not exist if it wasn't for African American blues and jazz and some of your most popular television shows feature actors, producers, writers and directors that are Canadian. In other words, they are influencing the way you think.... eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 My point is that Americans are as influenced by other nations as they are an influence. How many American sketch shows are blatant rip offs of Monty Python's Flying Circus? How much American Culture is influenced by Mexico and other Latin American nations? Your pop music industry would not exist if it wasn't for African American blues and jazz and some of your most popular television shows feature actors, producers, writers and directors that are Canadian. In other words, they are influencing the way you think.... eh? People from other nations are part of America, so I'm still not sure what your point is. Of course America has been influenced by other cultures - as I said, it's all part of the "American culture." But "ripping off" Monty Python, which America could certainly do without, IMO - is not the same as watching Monty Python; people in America produce the "rip-offs" and don't rely upon another nation to provide it for us. At least I believe that's the point bush_cheney was making. It's why, I'm guessing, your country has a law stating that every fifth song played on the radio must be by a Canadian born artist - so you don't get swallowed up completely by American entertainment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) You know what's ironic as we talk about whether or not Afghanistan is worth it, the Obama administration is about to hand over 5 prisoners currently held in Guantanamo Bay prison back to the Taliban, as a gesture of "good will" to encourage them to negotiate with the US. Who are these 5? Did they do anything as bad as Omar Khadr? Or worse? And sending them back to the Taliban! Will they be greeted as heroes? Will they get a parade? Will it reinforce pro-Taliban sentiment and moral? Most likely! The US is willing to do this, just to get the negotiations going. That should tell you something about the REAL state of affairs over there. Edited February 5, 2012 by Manny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) You know what's ironic as we talk about whether or not Afghanistan is worth it, the Obama administration is about to hand over 5 prisoners currently held in Guantanamo Bay prison back to the Taliban, as a gesture of "good will" to encourage them to negotiate with the US. Where have you read that they are going to be transferred back to the Taliban? I've read that they are being transferred out of Gitmo to a third country. Who are these 5? Did they do anything as bad as Omar Khadr? Or worse? From what I've read, they were on the "too dangerous to be released" list - and were handpicked by the Taliban. Edited February 5, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 (edited) From what I've read, they were on the "too dangerous to be released" list - and were handpicked by the Taliban. I meant it's being done as a concession to the Taliban. I read that they are being released to Qatar, or some place like that. It's possible that from there, they will eventually be released. The US won't have direct control over them any more. it is not unprecedented, I'm sure you know many have been released, and some returned to the battlefield already! Even if you doubt that they'll be released, there must be some reason why the Taliban would favour such a transfer to take place. Edited February 5, 2012 by Manny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 What's your point? That Canadians not only watch American tv, but they're drawn to becoming a part of it as well? If you were referring to Canadian shows being picked up by American television networks, you'd have a point. I don't think that ever happens, though (if it does, Arctic Air should be picked up. Great show!).... Shark Tank! Not that this has anything to do with Afganistan WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotspinTV Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 People from other nations are part of America, so I'm still not sure what your point is. Of course America has been influenced by other cultures - as I said, it's all part of the "American culture." But "ripping off" Monty Python, which America could certainly do without, IMO - is not the same as watching Monty Python; people in America produce the "rip-offs" and don't rely upon another nation to provide it for us. At least I believe that's the point bush_cheney was making. It's why, I'm guessing, your country has a law stating that every fifth song played on the radio must be by a Canadian born artist - so you don't get swallowed up completely by American entertainment. In order to rip off an idea you must first observe it. Like how Lenny Kravitz had to hear the Canadian band, the Guess Who, perform their song "American Woman" before he could perform his own rip off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Would you rather our government spend the money on us, or someone else? I’d rather the Government take less of our money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 True, although I wonder how many actors, directors, writers and producers involved in your entertainment industry are Canadian. As many who wish to be, as America has no "USA content" laws to protect its "culture". 312,000,000 > 34,000,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 As many who wish to be, as America has no "USA content" laws to protect its "culture". 312,000,000 > 34,000,000 Nor any need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Nor any need. That's right...I wonder why? More Canadians emigrate to the USA than the other way around, and it has 1/9th the population. Think about that for a minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 OK...I thought maybe you also frowned upon human organ trafficking, white slavery, or puppy mills. Just war profiteering...got it. These are examples of specific profiteering. Re-read what I said. Reasons don't have to be good. Overdone sticklerism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.