View Full Version: Scinario match: Hitler takes Europe

Haven Of Wiidom > Non-Fiction > Scinario match: Hitler takes Europe

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Scinario match: Hitler takes Europe
Description: and now he wants the rest of the world.


hamboy - June 3, 2008 04:01 PM (GMT)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

granobulax - June 3, 2008 04:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 3 2008, 04:01 PM)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

I would have to say yes, Hitler would be stopped. My reasoning for this is simple, atom bomb. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. If things had turned out different in Europe, I believe Berlin would have had one droped there too. And another, and another, until the war had ended. Brutal, yes, but that's probably what would have happened if Hitler had won in Europe.

Darth Pool - June 3, 2008 06:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 3 2008, 04:01 PM)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

I would have to say yes, Hitler would be stopped. My reasoning for this is simple, atom bomb. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. If things had turned out different in Europe, I believe Berlin would have had one droped there too. And another, and another, until the war had ended. Brutal, yes, but that's probably what would have happened if Hitler had won in Europe.

My thoughts exactly, though I'm sure everyone would then Hate the USA for destroying one of the oldest empires that was standing at the time....

Wingman - June 3, 2008 07:10 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 3 2008, 04:01 PM)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

I would have to say yes, Hitler would be stopped. My reasoning for this is simple, atom bomb. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. If things had turned out different in Europe, I believe Berlin would have had one droped there too. And another, and another, until the war had ended. Brutal, yes, but that's probably what would have happened if Hitler had won in Europe.

My thoughts exactly, though I'm sure everyone would then Hate the USA for destroying one of the oldest empires that was standing at the time....

And my answer to that is...


Bite me.

The atomic bomb was brutal, yes, and it killed many civilians, but it drove home to the Japanese population, all 30 million of them, that resistance will, quite simply, result in the extinction of the Japanese nation as a whole. We just needed a president with the balls to give the order. Thank God for Harry Truman.

People don't realize alot, especially ill informed citizens, that the Japanese people, both soldiers and civilians, every man, woman, and child, were willing to fight, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, to keep US soldiers from dirtying their sacred homeland. Children were being taught how to fight fires and construct booby traps. Women and housewives were being instructed in the ways to use long, hooked spears to cut the legs off of US soldiers, as well as how to lure them into their homes, and kill them with household objects. THousands of old, worn out planes were being loaded with explosives and bombs. On coasts across the country, they would flown down long ski jumps, and then, piloted by university students, both male and female, flown into US troop transports and warships sitting off the beaches. Hundreds of manned and remote controlled suicide powerboats were loaded with explosives and stationed in coves and inlets up and down the coast of the home islands, ready to streak out and smash into approaching US landing craft. Non soldiers over the age of ten were all required to spend time each day in the town square practicing thrusting with long, reed thin bamboo spears into mannequins looking like US soldiers.


Now you tell me. Does this sound like a society that would just roll over and surrender, as many so called "historians" and professors are claiming today, thus making the atomic bombs unnecessary and a horrid waste of life? Does this sound like a society that was in the process of surrendering secretly with the US when the first bomb fell, an assumption made by others who resent our dropping "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"?

Hell no!!

This sounds like a society who was determined to sacrifice every soul in it to keep invading "devils" from stepping foot on their shores. This also sounds like a society one which a conventional Allied attack, even with huge numbers, would have taken horrendous casualties. With well over one million Allied soldiers and close to thirty million Japanese soldiers and civilians fighting to the death, you can see that the battle to take the Japanese home islands would have been the single largest war time loss of life in the history of warfare. The way to remedy this? Show the Japanese a weapon that is so horrific and destructive in it's power that they cannot hope to stand against it. In short, the atomic bombs broke the Japanese's will. They knew that if they continued to fight, they would all be annihilated. Emperor Hirohito, a very wise man, realized the futility of the situation and surrendered, sparing his citizens from destruction.


Man, that was a long winded response. Sorry. But once I start on a history subject, it's hard for me to stop. That's how I feel on the subject. Take from it what you wish.

Darth Pool - June 3, 2008 07:23 PM (GMT)
And why do you think they where doing that? Would you want an invading army killing people in your home state? I doubt it, if the US was actually a losse coilition, then I'm sure you would fight back like the rest of the civilions in the country. What they did was not surprising in times of war.

Though I'm sure carpet bombing is so much more useful when even though the civilions where aggressive and hateful, killing them all outright with atom bombs is the right thing to do. Not just Going in their with men and taking out the military bases and things that would be a threat and then leaving. No the US does what it always does, just kills everything in sight and then leaves.

Wingman - June 3, 2008 07:27 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 03:23 PM)
And why do you think they where doing that? Would you want an invading army killing people in your home state? I doubt it, if the US was actually a losse coilition, then I'm sure you would fight back like the rest of the civilions in the country. What they did was not surprising in times of war.

Though I'm sure carpet bombing is so much more useful when even though the civilions where aggressive and hateful, killing them all outright with atom bombs is the right thing to do. Not just Going in their with men and taking out the military bases and things that would be a threat and then leaving. No the US does what it always does, just kills everything in sight and then leaves.

Correction: the US takes out the threat. In this case, nearly every person in the country was a threat. It's sad, but it was the Bushido warrior code of their heritage, and the fact that they were all willing to die for their emperor.

Much like today's struggle against the Jihadists. In Iraq, they all wear civilian clothes, so you don't know who to shoot at. Sometimes, things happen.

Darth Pool - June 3, 2008 07:42 PM (GMT)
Your right I guess, never really did like the way the US did their fighting though :S

Wingman - June 3, 2008 08:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 03:42 PM)
Your right I guess, never really did like the way the US did their fighting though :S

Why's that?

super_wolverine_Man - June 3, 2008 10:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 07:42 PM)
Your right I guess, never really did like the way the US did their fighting though :S

because our stupid goverment doesn't let the military do their job,i'm not bragging, but if they could we could make sure, that every country would be afraid to step outta line (more on this topic, in "why china doesn't stand a chance, in the history forum"

super_wolverine_Man - June 3, 2008 10:23 PM (GMT)
Britain failed!!! whether you like to admit or now that's an extremely heavy blow. Japan and germany would have undoubtedly launched an attack on France, Russia,or... america. They would've pounded the allied forces until the us was forced to do something drastic, aka nuclear bomb...bomb equals win right WRONG!! i highly doubt that if a nuclear bomb had been availible it would have ended the war prior to 1944, it was a sequence of events, one thing had to happen or else the other wouldn't, and to me Britain was a key to victory in that war. Without them, i think the war would've lasted much longer, fighting would've eventually come to us soil. Yes eventually i think the allied forces would have won, but instead of it ending in 1945, it would've ended in 1955. Just my thought ya' know

Wingman - June 3, 2008 11:53 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 06:23 PM)
Britain failed!!! whether you like to admit or now that's an extremely heavy blow. Japan and germany would have undoubtedly launched an attack on France, Russia,or... america. They would've pounded the allied forces until the us was forced to do something drastic, aka nuclear bomb...bomb equals win right WRONG!! i highly doubt that if a nuclear bomb had been availible it would have ended the war prior to 1944, it was a sequence of events, one thing had to happen or else the other wouldn't, and to me Britain was a key to victory in that war. Without them, i think the war would've lasted much longer, fighting would've eventually come to us soil. Yes eventually i think the allied forces would have won, but instead of it ending in 1945, it would've ended in 1955. Just my thought ya' know

Excellent insight. You're right on the money.

Wingman - June 3, 2008 11:55 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 07:42 PM)
Your right I guess, never really did like the way the US did their fighting though :S

because our stupid goverment doesn't let the military do their job,i'm not bragging, but if they could we could make sure, that every country would be afraid to step outta line (more on this topic, in "why china doesn't stand a chance, in the history forum"

You're right here, too. The politicians, who couldn't put a magazine in a gun if their life depended on it, still think of themselves as smart enough to hamstring and tell our military leaders how they should fight.

Gamer709 - June 3, 2008 11:55 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 07:10 PM)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 3 2008, 04:01 PM)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

I would have to say yes, Hitler would be stopped. My reasoning for this is simple, atom bomb. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. If things had turned out different in Europe, I believe Berlin would have had one droped there too. And another, and another, until the war had ended. Brutal, yes, but that's probably what would have happened if Hitler had won in Europe.

My thoughts exactly, though I'm sure everyone would then Hate the USA for destroying one of the oldest empires that was standing at the time....

And my answer to that is...


Bite me.

The atomic bomb was brutal, yes, and it killed many civilians, but it drove home to the Japanese population, all 30 million of them, that resistance will, quite simply, result in the extinction of the Japanese nation as a whole. We just needed a president with the balls to give the order. Thank God for Harry Truman.

People don't realize alot, especially ill informed citizens, that the Japanese people, both soldiers and civilians, every man, woman, and child, were willing to fight, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, to keep US soldiers from dirtying their sacred homeland. Children were being taught how to fight fires and construct booby traps. Women and housewives were being instructed in the ways to use long, hooked spears to cut the legs off of US soldiers, as well as how to lure them into their homes, and kill them with household objects. THousands of old, worn out planes were being loaded with explosives and bombs. On coasts across the country, they would flown down long ski jumps, and then, piloted by university students, both male and female, flown into US troop transports and warships sitting off the beaches. Hundreds of manned and remote controlled suicide powerboats were loaded with explosives and stationed in coves and inlets up and down the coast of the home islands, ready to streak out and smash into approaching US landing craft. Non soldiers over the age of ten were all required to spend time each day in the town square practicing thrusting with long, reed thin bamboo spears into mannequins looking like US soldiers.


Now you tell me. Does this sound like a society that would just roll over and surrender, as many so called "historians" and professors are claiming today, thus making the atomic bombs unnecessary and a horrid waste of life? Does this sound like a society that was in the process of surrendering secretly with the US when the first bomb fell, an assumption made by others who resent our dropping "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"?

Hell no!!

This sounds like a society who was determined to sacrifice every soul in it to keep invading "devils" from stepping foot on their shores. This also sounds like a society one which a conventional Allied attack, even with huge numbers, would have taken horrendous casualties. With well over one million Allied soldiers and close to thirty million Japanese soldiers and civilians fighting to the death, you can see that the battle to take the Japanese home islands would have been the single largest war time loss of life in the history of warfare. The way to remedy this? Show the Japanese a weapon that is so horrific and destructive in it's power that they cannot hope to stand against it. In short, the atomic bombs broke the Japanese's will. They knew that if they continued to fight, they would all be annihilated. Emperor Hirohito, a very wise man, realized the futility of the situation and surrendered, sparing his citizens from destruction.


Man, that was a long winded response. Sorry. But once I start on a history subject, it's hard for me to stop. That's how I feel on the subject. Take from it what you wish.

Go on...

Interesting, very interesting

Wingman - June 4, 2008 12:44 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Gamer709 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 07:10 PM)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 3 2008, 04:01 PM)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

I would have to say yes, Hitler would be stopped. My reasoning for this is simple, atom bomb. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. If things had turned out different in Europe, I believe Berlin would have had one droped there too. And another, and another, until the war had ended. Brutal, yes, but that's probably what would have happened if Hitler had won in Europe.

My thoughts exactly, though I'm sure everyone would then Hate the USA for destroying one of the oldest empires that was standing at the time....

And my answer to that is...


Bite me.

The atomic bomb was brutal, yes, and it killed many civilians, but it drove home to the Japanese population, all 30 million of them, that resistance will, quite simply, result in the extinction of the Japanese nation as a whole. We just needed a president with the balls to give the order. Thank God for Harry Truman.

People don't realize alot, especially ill informed citizens, that the Japanese people, both soldiers and civilians, every man, woman, and child, were willing to fight, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, to keep US soldiers from dirtying their sacred homeland. Children were being taught how to fight fires and construct booby traps. Women and housewives were being instructed in the ways to use long, hooked spears to cut the legs off of US soldiers, as well as how to lure them into their homes, and kill them with household objects. THousands of old, worn out planes were being loaded with explosives and bombs. On coasts across the country, they would flown down long ski jumps, and then, piloted by university students, both male and female, flown into US troop transports and warships sitting off the beaches. Hundreds of manned and remote controlled suicide powerboats were loaded with explosives and stationed in coves and inlets up and down the coast of the home islands, ready to streak out and smash into approaching US landing craft. Non soldiers over the age of ten were all required to spend time each day in the town square practicing thrusting with long, reed thin bamboo spears into mannequins looking like US soldiers.


Now you tell me. Does this sound like a society that would just roll over and surrender, as many so called "historians" and professors are claiming today, thus making the atomic bombs unnecessary and a horrid waste of life? Does this sound like a society that was in the process of surrendering secretly with the US when the first bomb fell, an assumption made by others who resent our dropping "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"?

Hell no!!

This sounds like a society who was determined to sacrifice every soul in it to keep invading "devils" from stepping foot on their shores. This also sounds like a society one which a conventional Allied attack, even with huge numbers, would have taken horrendous casualties. With well over one million Allied soldiers and close to thirty million Japanese soldiers and civilians fighting to the death, you can see that the battle to take the Japanese home islands would have been the single largest war time loss of life in the history of warfare. The way to remedy this? Show the Japanese a weapon that is so horrific and destructive in it's power that they cannot hope to stand against it. In short, the atomic bombs broke the Japanese's will. They knew that if they continued to fight, they would all be annihilated. Emperor Hirohito, a very wise man, realized the futility of the situation and surrendered, sparing his citizens from destruction.


Man, that was a long winded response. Sorry. But once I start on a history subject, it's hard for me to stop. That's how I feel on the subject. Take from it what you wish.

Go on...

Interesting, very interesting

Are you serious?

Really, are you serious?

Thats nice of you. Everybody in my church youth group gives me a hard time because I'm a self titled history geek. I say, "Hey, I just want to stay informed of what happened before, so I don't make their mistakes in the future". As you can probably guess, I use the quote "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" a lot. Most of them don't even know what the heck it means.

*sigh*

It's really tough being so smart. Is it that way for you too, Gamer? B) B)

super_wolverine_Man - June 4, 2008 02:38 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 11:53 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 06:23 PM)
Britain failed!!! whether you like to admit or now that's an extremely heavy blow. Japan and germany would have undoubtedly launched an attack on France, Russia,or... america. They would've pounded the allied forces until the us was forced to do something drastic, aka nuclear bomb...bomb equals win right WRONG!! i highly doubt that if a nuclear bomb had been availible it would have ended the war prior to 1944, it was a sequence of events, one thing had to happen or else the other wouldn't, and to me Britain was a key to victory in that war. Without them, i think the war would've lasted much longer, fighting would've eventually come to us soil. Yes eventually i think the allied forces would have won, but instead of it ending in 1945, it would've ended in 1955. Just my thought ya' know

Excellent insight. You're right on the money.

golly gee schucks :lol:

super_wolverine_Man - June 4, 2008 02:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 11:55 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 3 2008, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 07:42 PM)
Your right I guess, never really did like the way the US did their fighting though :S

because our stupid goverment doesn't let the military do their job,i'm not bragging, but if they could we could make sure, that every country would be afraid to step outta line (more on this topic, in "why china doesn't stand a chance, in the history forum"

You're right here, too. The politicians, who couldn't put a magazine in a gun if their life depended on it, still think of themselves as smart enough to hamstring and tell our military leaders how they should fight.

kind of ironic, since the constituion states the goverments only job should be protecting the states from foreign and domestic threats, way to screw that up. one thing and they ruin it

Gamer709 - June 4, 2008 08:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 4 2008, 12:44 AM)
QUOTE (Gamer709 @ Jun 3 2008, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 3 2008, 07:10 PM)
QUOTE (Darth Pool @ Jun 3 2008, 02:24 PM)
QUOTE (granobulax @ Jun 3 2008, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 3 2008, 04:01 PM)
OK, what if Hitler had been successful? Britain falls, Churchill is forced to (reluctantly) flee the country, and escape to the USA. Unfortunately, due to their attempt in helping Britain, Americas' army has took a heavy hit, most the men she sent to Europe are now dead or broken. Russia is similarly effected, her armies scattered and defeated.
Now, Hitler has his eyes on the rest of the world. Only the (now demoralised and much smaller than before) forces of the USA, the USSR, as well as the less significant countries, now stand in his way. Can they stop him?

I would have to say yes, Hitler would be stopped. My reasoning for this is simple, atom bomb. The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war in the Pacific. If things had turned out different in Europe, I believe Berlin would have had one droped there too. And another, and another, until the war had ended. Brutal, yes, but that's probably what would have happened if Hitler had won in Europe.

My thoughts exactly, though I'm sure everyone would then Hate the USA for destroying one of the oldest empires that was standing at the time....

And my answer to that is...


Bite me.

The atomic bomb was brutal, yes, and it killed many civilians, but it drove home to the Japanese population, all 30 million of them, that resistance will, quite simply, result in the extinction of the Japanese nation as a whole. We just needed a president with the balls to give the order. Thank God for Harry Truman.

People don't realize alot, especially ill informed citizens, that the Japanese people, both soldiers and civilians, every man, woman, and child, were willing to fight, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, to keep US soldiers from dirtying their sacred homeland. Children were being taught how to fight fires and construct booby traps. Women and housewives were being instructed in the ways to use long, hooked spears to cut the legs off of US soldiers, as well as how to lure them into their homes, and kill them with household objects. THousands of old, worn out planes were being loaded with explosives and bombs. On coasts across the country, they would flown down long ski jumps, and then, piloted by university students, both male and female, flown into US troop transports and warships sitting off the beaches. Hundreds of manned and remote controlled suicide powerboats were loaded with explosives and stationed in coves and inlets up and down the coast of the home islands, ready to streak out and smash into approaching US landing craft. Non soldiers over the age of ten were all required to spend time each day in the town square practicing thrusting with long, reed thin bamboo spears into mannequins looking like US soldiers.


Now you tell me. Does this sound like a society that would just roll over and surrender, as many so called "historians" and professors are claiming today, thus making the atomic bombs unnecessary and a horrid waste of life? Does this sound like a society that was in the process of surrendering secretly with the US when the first bomb fell, an assumption made by others who resent our dropping "Little Boy" and "Fat Man"?

Hell no!!

This sounds like a society who was determined to sacrifice every soul in it to keep invading "devils" from stepping foot on their shores. This also sounds like a society one which a conventional Allied attack, even with huge numbers, would have taken horrendous casualties. With well over one million Allied soldiers and close to thirty million Japanese soldiers and civilians fighting to the death, you can see that the battle to take the Japanese home islands would have been the single largest war time loss of life in the history of warfare. The way to remedy this? Show the Japanese a weapon that is so horrific and destructive in it's power that they cannot hope to stand against it. In short, the atomic bombs broke the Japanese's will. They knew that if they continued to fight, they would all be annihilated. Emperor Hirohito, a very wise man, realized the futility of the situation and surrendered, sparing his citizens from destruction.


Man, that was a long winded response. Sorry. But once I start on a history subject, it's hard for me to stop. That's how I feel on the subject. Take from it what you wish.

Go on...

Interesting, very interesting

Are you serious?

Really, are you serious?

Thats nice of you. Everybody in my church youth group gives me a hard time because I'm a self titled history geek. I say, "Hey, I just want to stay informed of what happened before, so I don't make their mistakes in the future". As you can probably guess, I use the quote "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it" a lot. Most of them don't even know what the heck it means.

*sigh*

It's really tough being so smart. Is it that way for you too, Gamer? B) B)

1. I wasn't insulting you, it actually was interesting.

2. Yes, it is hard i am prolly the smartest guy in my class.
I'm kind of a math/science whiz, yet i dont like scinece that much.
However there are good sides to it too!
Did you know that on average girls are smarter than guys?
My friend disagreed, saying if we put a bunch of guys like Gamer709 (me) into a room full of girls, the guys would Defenitely be smarter.

Smart-ness has its ups and downs.

super_wolverine_Man - June 4, 2008 11:15 PM (GMT)
true but it's so much more fun being smart

Gamer709 - June 7, 2008 07:13 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 4 2008, 11:15 PM)
true but it's so much more fun being smart

Now that i can agree on.

Guardian Of Nesh - June 8, 2008 05:15 PM (GMT)
Allies win: Why U.S.A. we never lose and a draw is not an option here.

Wingman - June 8, 2008 06:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Guardian Of Nesh @ Jun 8 2008, 01:15 PM)
Allies win: Why U.S.A. we never lose and a draw is not an option here.

Right on.

We would've won in Vietnam, too, and we were kicking the VC's butts, but the hippies raised such a ruckus that our spineless leaders pulled everybody out.

hamboy - June 8, 2008 10:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 8 2008, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Guardian Of Nesh @ Jun 8 2008, 01:15 PM)
Allies win: Why U.S.A. we never lose and a draw is not an option here.

Right on.

We would've won in Vietnam, too, and we were kicking the VC's butts, but the hippies raised such a ruckus that our spineless leaders pulled everybody out.

Keep in mind you are taught your history in America. I was taught that you lost... badly. The conditions were too poor, the Guerilla warfare had taken it's toll, the Tet offencive had taken the US by surprise an done damage, the soldiers had poor moral, and were not a fully trained fighting force (conscription does not a good army make), kids were being murdered. Just keep in mind where you are taught this stuff... I'm fully willing to admit that the Somme was a very bad day for Britain.

Guardian Of Nesh - June 9, 2008 01:47 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 8 2008, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 8 2008, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Guardian Of Nesh @ Jun 8 2008, 01:15 PM)
Allies win: Why U.S.A. we never lose and a draw is not an option here.

Right on.

We would've won in Vietnam, too, and we were kicking the VC's butts, but the hippies raised such a ruckus that our spineless leaders pulled everybody out.

Keep in mind you are taught your history in America. I was taught that you lost... badly. The conditions were too poor, the Guerilla warfare had taken it's toll, the Tet offencive had taken the US by surprise an done damage, the soldiers had poor moral, and were not a fully trained fighting force (conscription does not a good army make), kids were being murdered. Just keep in mind where you are taught this stuff... I'm fully willing to admit that the Somme was a very bad day for Britain.

I was saying we didn't lose not that we were wining that was wingy.

Wingman - June 9, 2008 12:37 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 8 2008, 06:02 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 8 2008, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Guardian Of Nesh @ Jun 8 2008, 01:15 PM)
Allies win: Why U.S.A. we never lose and a draw is not an option here.

Right on.

We would've won in Vietnam, too, and we were kicking the VC's butts, but the hippies raised such a ruckus that our spineless leaders pulled everybody out.

Keep in mind you are taught your history in America. I was taught that you lost... badly. The conditions were too poor, the Guerilla warfare had taken it's toll, the Tet offencive had taken the US by surprise an done damage, the soldiers had poor moral, and were not a fully trained fighting force (conscription does not a good army make), kids were being murdered. Just keep in mind where you are taught this stuff... I'm fully willing to admit that the Somme was a very bad day for Britain.

I am actually homeschooled, so I search out my sources of history from good authors.

Two of your points are correct. Yes, guerillas were taking their toll, and our moral was low, but ONLy because of the sucky conditions back home. IF you risking your life for your country, and you see a crapload of hippies marching on the Washington Monument, protesting what you're doing and praising the "poor Vietnamese you're butchering", I'm sure your moral would suffer as well.

It's true that in it's early stages, the Tet Offensive took the US completely by surprise. Certain intelligence errors and overconfidence led to us thinking that they were on the retreat. But when the y attacked, the US troops were quick in counterattacking and driving back the foe. You have to see that this attempt by the VC at full fledged, frontal, massed assault against a country that uses the same tactic ended disastiously. They failed to gain their objectives, and while the US suffered 40,000 casualties, both dead and wounded, the VC lost some 400,000, and the VC's ability to fight as a coherant force was destroyed for at least three years.

And the Somme wasn't as bad as you're saying it to be. Everybody makes mistakes, and you learned from them. Don't march on machine gun bunkers in formation, at a walking pace, without direct artillery fire.

hamboy - June 9, 2008 01:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 9 2008, 12:37 PM)

And the Somme wasn't as bad as you're saying it to be. Everybody makes mistakes, and you learned from them. Don't march on machine gun bunkers in formation, at a walking pace, without direct artillery fire.

Actually, it was due to them thinking they has already destroyed the Germans with artillery fire- when in fact they had retreated to the trench behind, so the week long bombardment had just churned up some land. They went over the top expecting to just walk in and capture the trench, as well as maybe one or two survivors, and were shocked to find that they hadn't already wiped them out (and thus were gunned down). Huge numbers dies, all for about 15 feet of land, which was eventually taken back by the Germans.

super_wolverine_Man - June 9, 2008 04:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 8 2008, 10:02 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 8 2008, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE (Guardian Of Nesh @ Jun 8 2008, 01:15 PM)
Allies win: Why U.S.A. we never lose and a draw is not an option here.

Right on.

We would've won in Vietnam, too, and we were kicking the VC's butts, but the hippies raised such a ruckus that our spineless leaders pulled everybody out.

Keep in mind you are taught your history in America. I was taught that you lost... badly. The conditions were too poor, the Guerilla warfare had taken it's toll, the Tet offencive had taken the US by surprise an done damage, the soldiers had poor moral, and were not a fully trained fighting force (conscription does not a good army make), kids were being murdered. Just keep in mind where you are taught this stuff... I'm fully willing to admit that the Somme was a very bad day for Britain.

the key thing there hammy is that the soldiers didn't really want to fight because our folks back home, weren't supporting them

hamboy - June 9, 2008 05:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 9 2008, 04:30 PM)

the key thing there hammy is that the soldiers didn't really want to fight because our folks back home, weren't supporting them

To be fair (beware shocking image below) they had perfectly good reasons not to support them.

super_wolverine_Man - June 9, 2008 07:40 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 9 2008, 05:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 9 2008, 04:30 PM)

the key thing there hammy is that the soldiers didn't really want to fight because our folks back home, weren't supporting them

To be fair (beware shocking image below) they had perfectly good reasons not to support them.

crying kids? :blink: is that why we lost the war

hamboy - June 9, 2008 09:00 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 9 2008, 07:40 PM)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 9 2008, 05:25 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 9 2008, 04:30 PM)

the key thing there hammy is that the soldiers didn't really want to fight because our folks back home, weren't supporting them

To be fair (beware shocking image below) they had perfectly good reasons not to support them.

crying kids? :blink: is that why we lost the war

That's Napalm. The US army dropped it all over Vietnam, onto towns and villages. It burnt clothes. It burns skin. It killed children. People are still being born with defects today because of it. Turn safe search off on Google images and search for Napalm. Truly sickening stuff.
Then there is the My Lai massacre of 1968. It was a little village in Viet Nam. The US thought the residents were Vietcong sympathisers. At Lieutenant Cally's direction, the US soldiers shot and beat to death 200-500 men, women and children. The USA tried to cover it up, but in November 1969, the public found out about it. Cally was sentenced to life imprisonment... but was let out three years later.

super_wolverine_Man - June 9, 2008 09:20 PM (GMT)
that's the brutality of war i'm afraid , and the vietnam citizens also would attack us soldiers without warning, so yeah what we did was mean, and terrible, but it might have been neccesary. now i'm not saying what we did is right , but in war nothing is right

hamboy - June 9, 2008 09:43 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 9 2008, 09:20 PM)
that's the brutality of war i'm afraid , and the vietnam citizens also would attack us soldiers without warning, so yeah what we did was mean, and terrible, but it might have been neccesary. now i'm not saying what we did is right , but in war nothing is right

Napalm? Possibly. The My Lai massacre? That was simply the soldiers venting the frustration they had due to the terrible conditions, which is inexcusable. And the whole point of the war? Slow down communism.

Wingman - June 10, 2008 02:05 AM (GMT)
Come on, hammy. I don't want to bring this up, but I will mention what the British did to the African natives in Africa during your empire building and colonization during the 1800s. For example, machine guns and hollow point rifle bullets were looked at as horrific and banned for a while for European warfare. But the British made an exception for "savages" and "barbarians", and used them to great effect.

Napalm was the best way to burn the rainforest and clear away brush. The VC used the terrain to great effect. We removed the terrain, and took an advantage. In warfare, don't give your enemy a chance.

And what super_wolvie said was absolutely true. The VC fought with no rules and no qualms about killing women and children if it suited them.

hamboy - June 10, 2008 06:41 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 10 2008, 02:05 AM)
Come on, hammy. I don't want to bring this up, but I will mention what the British did to the African natives in Africa during your empire building and colonization during the 1800s. For example, machine guns and hollow point rifle bullets were looked at as horrific and banned for a while for European warfare. But the British made an exception for "savages" and "barbarians", and used them to great effect.

Napalm was the best way to burn the rainforest and clear away brush. The VC used the terrain to great effect. We removed the terrain, and took an advantage. In warfare, don't give your enemy a chance.

And what super_wolvie said was absolutely true. The VC fought with no rules and no qualms about killing women and children if it suited them.

Yes, you can bring it up. The British did a lot of bad things in the building of their Empire (and they still lost a couple of battles against the spear and shield wielding Zulus). But that's in the past, so I'm not offended about it being brought up. So is Vietnam. I'm not insinuating that that is what modern day US army is like, but it is what they did 40 years ago.

Wingman - June 10, 2008 12:12 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 10 2008, 02:41 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 10 2008, 02:05 AM)
Come on, hammy. I don't want to bring this up, but I will mention what the British did to the African natives in Africa during your empire building and colonization during the 1800s. For example, machine guns and hollow point rifle bullets were looked at as horrific and banned for a while for European warfare. But the British made an exception for "savages" and "barbarians", and used them to great effect.

Napalm was the best way to burn the rainforest and clear away brush. The VC used the terrain to great effect. We removed the terrain, and took an advantage. In warfare, don't give your enemy a chance.

And what super_wolvie said was absolutely true. The VC fought with no rules and no qualms about killing women and children if it suited them.

Yes, you can bring it up. The British did a lot of bad things in the building of their Empire (and they still lost a couple of battles against the spear and shield wielding Zulus). But that's in the past, so I'm not offended about it being brought up. So is Vietnam. I'm not insinuating that that is what modern day US army is like, but it is what they did 40 years ago.

Fair enough. Just always remember, WAR is HELL. Senator Bob Dole once said, "War is hell, and it is the responsibility of those who are spared it's wrath to teach future generations that lesson". I strive to do that, but many in today's society expect you to just walk into a country and not take a single casualty.

Back on topic. In many ways, fighting the VC was like fighting the Jihadists today. They blend in with the local population, ready to stab you in the back at a moment's notice. As such, you are forced to treat nearly the entire population with suspicion. It's a sad fact, but true. When you do that, s**t happens. I apologize for the language, but that is so true in war. And also remember that in most of the battles America, and Britain as well, have engaged in, the kill ratio is almost always very lopsided in our favor. That's one of the most important things in war: not how many people you lose, but how many you kill. For instance, a classic example is when 182 British soldiers armed with repeating Henry-Martini rifles held of nearly 4000 Zulu impi's at the Battle of Rourke's Drift. They held that ground for nearly two days, until help arrrived, and dealt incredible damage to the Zulus. Even when the Army Rangers and Delta Force operatives were trapped in Mogadishu, they lost 18 Rangers, a sad and tragic loss, of course, but estimates say that they killed between 1000 and 3000 SLA members. With a force of only about 100 men!

hamboy - June 10, 2008 02:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 10 2008, 12:12 PM)
Back on topic. In many ways, fighting the VC was like fighting the Jihadists today. They blend in with the local population, ready to stab you in the back at a moment's notice. As such, you are forced to treat nearly the entire population with suspicion. It's a sad fact, but true. When you do that, s**t happens. I apologize for the language, but that is so true in war. And also remember that in most of the battles America, and Britain as well, have engaged in, the kill ratio is almost always very lopsided in our favor. That's one of the most important things in war: not how many people you lose, but how many you kill. For instance, a classic example is when 182 British soldiers armed with repeating Henry-Martini rifles held of nearly 4000 Zulu impi's at the Battle of Rourke's Drift. They held that ground for nearly two days, until help arrrived, and dealt incredible damage to the Zulus. Even when the Army Rangers and Delta Force operatives were trapped in Mogadishu, they lost 18 Rangers, a sad and tragic loss, of course, but estimates say that they killed between 1000 and 3000 SLA members. With a force of only about 100 men!

To be fair, the war in Iraq is a much better showing for the wet than Vietnam. The Iraqi forces were steamrolled with ease, all that's left are some terrorist groups. The people are getting on better with the US than in Vietnam (Remember the statues of Saddam being pulled down?) plus, with the exception of some terrorist attacks, life is relatively back to normal for them. Iraq is going well, in my opinion.

Wingman - June 11, 2008 12:52 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (hamboy @ Jun 10 2008, 10:35 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 10 2008, 12:12 PM)
Back on topic. In many ways, fighting the VC was like fighting the Jihadists today. They blend in with the local population, ready to stab you in the back at a moment's notice. As such, you are forced to treat nearly the entire population with suspicion. It's a sad fact, but true. When you do that, s**t happens. I apologize for the language, but that is so true in war. And also remember that in most of the battles America, and Britain as well, have engaged in, the kill ratio is almost always very lopsided in our favor. That's one of the most important things in war: not how many people you lose, but how many you kill. For instance, a classic example is when 182 British soldiers armed with repeating Henry-Martini rifles held of nearly 4000 Zulu impi's at the Battle of Rourke's Drift. They held that ground for nearly two days, until help arrrived, and dealt incredible damage to the Zulus. Even when the Army Rangers and Delta Force operatives were trapped in Mogadishu, they lost 18 Rangers, a sad and tragic loss, of course, but estimates say that they killed between 1000 and 3000 SLA members. With a force of only about 100 men!

To be fair, the war in Iraq is a much better showing for the wet than Vietnam. The Iraqi forces were steamrolled with ease, all that's left are some terrorist groups. The people are getting on better with the US than in Vietnam (Remember the statues of Saddam being pulled down?) plus, with the exception of some terrorist attacks, life is relatively back to normal for them. Iraq is going well, in my opinion.

And you would be correct in that assumption. The troops are constantly adapting and counter-adapting to the changing tactics of the insurgency. Whenever they change tactics (from large army, to large militia, to small guerilla fighting, to attempting to cause civil war, to ambush, to roadside bombs), shows that we're doing something right over there. It means that we're hampering their ability to fight well enough that they have to keep playing a different ballgame.

And Iraq has gone better than Vietnam, but the North Vietnamese were better equipped, in comparison to the US forces, than the Iraqis were. Up to date MiG 21s, RPGs, T-55 or T-62 tanks, and all the Kalashnikovs they can carry, vs. now thirty year old T-55s, -62s, and newer, but still older, T-72s, and MiG-27's and 23s. No contest against the 21st century United States military.

super_wolverine_Man - June 11, 2008 01:29 PM (GMT)
once again the u.s military could've crushed iraq, and their allies, in just a few weeks time, our soldiers are better trained then theirs our technology is more advanced. However, we are fighting a war where a bullet, is not the weapon it is the word of mouth, and the pen. I'm not really sure how to explain it but the political correctness of america's society has dampened our ability to fight the war the way it was supposed to, and our enemies see that and they are using against us, to make new enemies, and in turn more trouble for us

Wingman - June 11, 2008 03:52 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 11 2008, 09:29 AM)
once again the u.s military could've crushed iraq, and their allies, in just a few weeks time, our soldiers are better trained then theirs our technology is more advanced. However, we are fighting a war where a bullet, is not the weapon it is the word of mouth, and the pen. I'm not really sure how to explain it but the political correctness of america's society has dampened our ability to fight the war the way it was supposed to, and our enemies see that and they are using against us, to make new enemies, and in turn more trouble for us

So, so, SO, SO true.


It's almost like Vietnam now. The fight is going great, but most of the public, and the media, are just hoping, praying, and willing the troops to lose the fight and come home.

super_wolverine_Man - June 12, 2008 12:25 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 11 2008, 03:52 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 11 2008, 09:29 AM)
once again the u.s military could've crushed iraq, and their allies, in just a few weeks time, our soldiers are better trained then theirs our technology is more advanced. However, we are fighting a war where a bullet, is not the weapon it is the word of mouth, and the pen. I'm not really sure how to explain it but the political correctness of america's society has dampened our ability to fight the war the way it was supposed to, and our enemies see that and they are using against us, to make new enemies, and in turn more trouble for us

So, so, SO, SO true.


It's almost like Vietnam now. The fight is going great, but most of the public, and the media, are just hoping, praying, and willing the troops to lose the fight and come home.

i'm not sure but i thinl it's more like this


user posted image

Wingman - June 12, 2008 03:56 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 11 2008, 08:25 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Jun 11 2008, 03:52 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Jun 11 2008, 09:29 AM)
once again the u.s military could've crushed iraq, and their allies, in just a few weeks time, our soldiers are better trained then theirs our technology is more advanced. However, we are fighting a war where a bullet, is not the weapon it is the word of mouth, and the pen. I'm not really sure how to explain it but the political correctness of america's society has dampened our ability to fight the war the way it was supposed to, and our enemies see that and they are using against us, to make new enemies, and in turn more trouble for us

So, so, SO, SO true.


It's almost like Vietnam now. The fight is going great, but most of the public, and the media, are just hoping, praying, and willing the troops to lose the fight and come home.

i'm not sure but i thinl it's more like this


user posted image

That's exactly right. But if we withdraw, a power vacuum is left in Iraq for some vicious warlord or ruler to fill, kill many more than we have, and give the terrorists to fight us here, at home, rather than in a far off country.

Where'd you get that comic? Post a link or something.




Hosted for free by zIFBoards