OT: Amelia Earhart?

WhiteBus

Heisman
Oct 4, 2011
39,520
21,922
113
I said "from the U.S. perspective". You want to talk about reading comprehension some more?
I know you said about the US perspective. My post about the Movie Dunkirk is from a WWII perspective. This thread started about Emelia Earhart and morphed into all of WWII.
EE crashed and died. Conspiracy theorists on all things WWII are crazy but by all reports this Dunkirk movie is awesome.
 

RU_DIO

Heisman
Sep 1, 2002
17,101
17,438
113
The allies would have been wiped out at Dunkirk if it was a little later in the war. Hitler wasnt intent on killing all the French and British troops like he was later in the war when he realized Britain would never surrender unless they were completely destroyed.
 

WhiteBus

Heisman
Oct 4, 2011
39,520
21,922
113
The allies would have been wiped out at Dunkirk if it was a little later in the war. Hitler wasnt intent on killing all the French and British troops like he was later in the war when he realized Britain would never surrender unless they were completely destroyed.
Dunkirk was not about Hitler not wanting kill French and British. Dunkirk was about troops and supplies catching up to the front of the German army lines which gave a pause for the Dunkirk evacuation even happening.
 

RU4Real

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
50,955
30,734
0
I know you said about the US perspective. My post about the Movie Dunkirk is from a WWII perspective. This thread started about Emelia Earhart and morphed into all of WWII.
EE crashed and died. Conspiracy theorists on all things WWII are crazy but by all reports this Dunkirk movie is awesome.

You complained about misinformation regarding the Russians. The Russians had nothing to do with Dunkirk, ergo there are no misperceptions that will be corrected by the movie.

And I guarantee you that the movie will not be entirely factual. They never are.
 

RU_DIO

Heisman
Sep 1, 2002
17,101
17,438
113
Dunkirk was not about Hitler not wanting kill French and British. Dunkirk was about troops and supplies catching up to the front of the German army lines which gave a pause for the Dunkirk evacuation even happening.

I'm a huge World War 2 history guy. I've read many theories on this battle. One of the ones I think is true is the version in my previous post. Remember, history is written by the victors and the official version is not always the truth.

Of course,

I'm probably wrong.
 

RU4Real

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
50,955
30,734
0
I'm a huge World War 2 history guy. I've read many theories on this battle. One of the ones I think is true is the version in my previous post. Remember, history is written by the victors and the official version is not always the truth.

Of course,

I'm probably wrong.

I think you're probably right, in a manner of speaking. By that I mean that in mid-1940 Hitler wasn't particularly enamored of the idea of the U.S. entering the war, mindful of how we changed the balance in the previous war. It's likely that a wholesale massacre of Allied forces at Dunkirk would have pushed Roosevelt into playing a more active role.
 

WhiteBus

Heisman
Oct 4, 2011
39,520
21,922
113
You complained about misinformation regarding the Russians. The Russians had nothing to do with Dunkirk, ergo there are no misperceptions that will be corrected by the movie.

And I guarantee you that the movie will not be entirely factual. They never are.
Different posts. You are a better speed reader then I am.
And I agree about movies are nevet entirely factual. The Longest Day kept to the facts, was the best of it's kind. Not many do. So many people think JFK was factual. Instead it was about a nut job in New Orleans
 

WhiteBus

Heisman
Oct 4, 2011
39,520
21,922
113
People think that the US Declaration of War on 12/8/41 required them to declare war on Germany. It did not. President Roosevelt never mentioned Germany in his speach. The Tripartite Agreement between Japan and Germany did not require Germany to declare war on any country that was at war with Japan. In fact they never did before Hitler on his own declared war with the US on 12/11/41. On his own. Without consulting many of his military leaders. One of many stupid moves from the former regimental messenger of WWI.
 

Colbert17!

Heisman
Aug 30, 2014
17,422
18,876
113
Conventional wisdom says that Dunkirk was made possible by Goering. He convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could cut off the troops from England and control the Channel. If Hitler let the Panzers loose it wouldn't have been a massacre, it would have been a mass surrender like Bataan and Singapore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LC-88

Colbert17!

Heisman
Aug 30, 2014
17,422
18,876
113
People think that the US Declaration of War on 12/8/41 required them to declare war on Germany. It did not. President Roosevelt never mentioned Germany in his speach. The Tripartite Agreement between Japan and Germany did not require Germany to declare war on any country that was at war with Japan. In fact they never did before Hitler on his own declared war with the US on 12/11/41. On his own. Without consulting many of his military leaders. One of many stupid moves from the former regimental messenger of WWI.

Germans had very little respect for the US military until the end of the Tunisian Campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MYHATINTHERING

RU4Real

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
50,955
30,734
0
Conventional wisdom says that Dunkirk was made possible by Goering. He convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could cut off the troops from England and control the Channel. If Hitler let the Panzers loose it wouldn't have been a massacre, it would have been a mass surrender like Bataan and Singapore.

They should have been successful. The fact that they failed is pretty suggestive of the Luftwaffe's true makeup.
 

WhiteBus

Heisman
Oct 4, 2011
39,520
21,922
113
Conventional wisdom says that Dunkirk was made possible by Goering. He convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could cut off the troops from England and control the Channel. If Hitler let the Panzers loose it wouldn't have been a massacre, it would have been a mass surrender like Bataan and Singapore.
The Panzers were let loose but running out of supplies (gas) and enfantry They moved so fast the rest fell behind.
 

MYHATINTHERING

All-Conference
Mar 25, 2015
9,163
4,042
0
Conventional wisdom says that Dunkirk was made possible by Goering. He convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could cut off the troops from England and control the Channel. If Hitler let the Panzers loose it wouldn't have been a massacre, it would have been a mass surrender like Bataan and Singapore.
this

it's amazing how little people really know about this war
 

MYHATINTHERING

All-Conference
Mar 25, 2015
9,163
4,042
0
Japan had 700,000 well entrenched troops in Manchuria. They were ready to fight.
The simple fact is the atomic bombs ended the war which saved millions of lives.
the terrain would have been their biggest ally there as Russia would was superior to them in every aspect. Although, their Eastern armies were not nearly as well equipped as the Western armies. then again, they'd of moved what they needed. We should have let them play it out and then dropped the bombs
 

GoodOl'Rutgers

Heisman
Sep 11, 2006
123,974
19,586
0
Take off your red white and blue colored glasses and try a little critical thinkng.

If you don't understand how brutal you must be to win a fight to the death, no one can help you.

Germany bombed civilians.. so we did too. Japan committed many atrocities.. so we showed them there was a cost to that.

No one wants to do those things juts to do them.. it is a question of winning the war and ending it as quickly as possible.. while not being the first to raise the level of aggression.

Atomic bombs.. totally justified. As you noted, we had firebombed Japan's cities and manufacturing centers and that did not drive them to capitulate even though they must have known they would lose and that we could accept nothing but total victory. Using the atom bombs changed that.. and it took two of them to do so.. even though those bombs were not more destructive than the firebombing raids.

At the end of the first Gulf War I heard a co-worker complaining about the projected number of Iraqi dead compared to American dead. I forget the exact numbers tossed around at the time, but including deaths from the lasting effects of lost infrastructure.. the numbers were going to be something like 100K military and 100K civilians in the aftermath.. compared to 149 American dead.

So I asked him, and am now asking you... you are now President of the United States.. you are brought 2 options for a war plan to defeat Iraq who has just invaded an ally, Kuwait and threatens another, Saudi Arabia.

Option A: (what really happened) 100K Iraqi dead and 149 Americans

Option B: 25K Iraqi dead and 25K American dead

Both options result in victory and the same political outcome and results in treaties, etc. Exactly the same result, just number of dead differs.

Which do you choose?
 

LC-88

All-Conference
Apr 24, 2010
7,160
2,795
0
Conventional wisdom says that Dunkirk was made possible by Goering. He convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could cut off the troops from England and control the Channel. If Hitler let the Panzers loose it wouldn't have been a massacre, it would have been a mass surrender like Bataan and Singapore.
IMHO, it was on Goering for the most part (and Hitler for going along with it). Goering did it again when he claimed he could keep the encircled troops ay Stalingrad supplied by air. Didn't work out, again.
 

Caliknight

Hall of Famer
Sep 21, 2001
197,018
149,070
113
Incidentally, the guy who is claiming to have found the first piece of her plane is Martin Daly, the biggest wave pioneer there is. That guy has discovered more great surf spots than anyone in history.
 

ponyfoot19

Senior
Dec 19, 2007
2,596
509
0
If this thread is any indication, our disjointed Congress is truly representative of it's electorate. How a thread about Amelia Earhart devolves into a discussion of what constitutes offensive nomenclature, firebombing cities, the use of the atomic bomb, military strategy and Dunkirk is beyond me. The History Channel Show last night was interesting. I hope some you watched it.
 

MYHATINTHERING

All-Conference
Mar 25, 2015
9,163
4,042
0
If this thread is any indication, our disjointed Congress is truly representative of it's electorate. How a thread about Amelia Earhart devolves into a discussion of what constitutes offensive nomenclature, firebombing cities, the use of the atomic bomb, military strategy and Dunkirk is beyond me. The History Channel Show last night was interesting. I hope some you watched it.
nah, what you are seeing is years of liberal bs coming to fruition. How anyone could argue that during a war as grand in scope as WW2 and with such evil, that there would be anything wrong with saving American lives over others is surreal.
 

Scarlet_Scourge

Heisman
May 25, 2012
26,524
13,604
0
If this thread is any indication, our disjointed Congress is truly representative of it's electorate. How a thread about Amelia Earhart devolves into a discussion of what constitutes offensive nomenclature, firebombing cities, the use of the atomic bomb, military strategy and Dunkirk is beyond me. The History Channel Show last night was interesting. I hope some you watched it.

Welcome to the internet!
 

32Mine

Freshman
Jan 31, 2004
222
92
0
The first night airmail service utilized an airport built about three miles north of Rutgers Stadium called Hadley Field (then in Piscataway, today in South Plainfield). Later the airport would also host airshows. In 1932, a flyer sent their Lockheed Vega 5B down from Newark Airport with an assistant to later fly in an airshow. But, in the end, the pilot couldn't make the show.

Yep... the person was Amelia Earhart and that plane was the one she soloed in across the Atlantic.

Also, Jimmy Doolittle was invited to the airshow but couldn't shake free from prior commitments.

World War I flying ace (shot down nine planes and a balloon according to the April 1, 1931 Daily Home News) and, later, Naval Reserves Rear Admiral Ken Unger ran the Aviation School there. During Unger's show, he had to parachute out of his plane that was breaking up. He not only landed safely, he was back up in the air with a new plane within an hour after the crash.
 

32Mine

Freshman
Jan 31, 2004
222
92
0
The first "air mail" was when letters were air mailed from Perth Amboy to South Amboy.
 

GoodOl'Rutgers

Heisman
Sep 11, 2006
123,974
19,586
0
The Panzers were let loose but running out of supplies (gas) and enfantry They moved so fast the rest fell behind.
That's what I always understood about it. And that Hitler then figured he should have attacked Russia first and other oil sources to be able to properly fuel his war engine.
 

RU4Real

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
50,955
30,734
0
That's what I always understood about it. And that Hitler then figured he should have attacked Russia first and other oil sources to be able to properly fuel his war engine.

Not the first armored assault to outrun its supply lines.
 

Wolv RU

All-Conference
Nov 7, 2003
7,761
2,218
0
They should have been successful. The fact that they failed is pretty suggestive of the Luftwaffe's true makeup.

True makeup = generally inferior aircraft, no heavy bomber ever built, but tons of quantity so they seem really scary. Oh, and terrible leadership at the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redking

Wolv RU

All-Conference
Nov 7, 2003
7,761
2,218
0
People think that the US Declaration of War on 12/8/41 required them to declare war on Germany. It did not. President Roosevelt never mentioned Germany in his speach. The Tripartite Agreement between Japan and Germany did not require Germany to declare war on any country that was at war with Japan. In fact they never did before Hitler on his own declared war with the US on 12/11/41. On his own. Without consulting many of his military leaders. One of many stupid moves from the former regimental messenger of WWI.

One interesting thought is what happens on the Eastern front with Operation Blue if U.S. had not sent aid to USSR after Pearl Harbor. Possibly no big surrender at Stalingrad, which would have at least prolonged the Eastern Front by another year or two? Capture of Baku?
 

WhiteBus

Heisman
Oct 4, 2011
39,520
21,922
113
One interesting thought is what happens on the Eastern front with Operation Blue if U.S. had not sent aid to USSR after Pearl Harbor. Possibly no big surrender at Stalingrad, which would have at least prolonged the Eastern Front by another year or two? Capture of Baku?
I think the biggest factor that changed the USSR fortunes was getting the word that Japan was not going to invade. That freed up millions of troops to be brought into the battle with Germany.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redking

LevaosLectures

All-Conference
Jun 28, 2015
3,977
3,156
0
nah, what you are seeing is years of liberal bs coming to fruition. How anyone could argue that during a war as grand in scope as WW2 and with such evil, that there would be anything wrong with saving American lives over others is surreal.

So the firebombing of Dresden saved American lives? Sorry, I won't kowtow to your toddler's jingoism. I have a functioning brain. An innocent human life is an innocent human life. End of story. This all began because someone callously used the slur japs. This usage was defended on the grounds that the Japanese were "evil." Well, I won't argue with that, but American hands are soaked in blood.
 

RU4Real

Heisman
Jul 25, 2001
50,955
30,734
0
I don't think it was ever intended for Dresden to develop into a full-scale conflagration. The British bombing tactics were well-known, and in fact, were the same as the German tactics. Where the USAAF dropped high-explosive bombs almost exclusively, the British and Germans dropped a mix of high explosive and fuel bombs, the latter being basically enormous (up to 4000 lbs) drums of oil. The idea was that the oil provided an incendiary accelerant, while the high explosive provided both an ignition source and served to ventilate structures to help the flames spread.

In February of 1945 Dresden was, compared to other German cities, relatively untouched by heavy bombing. The Germans were in full retreat on all fronts and Dresden was, by all accounts, still supplying materials to the German army. Its selection as a target was thus assured.

Inflicting civilian casualties was also a function of British military doctrine, inasmuch as RAF bombing was concerned. You can bomb factories and the enemy will rebuild them. You can bomb railroads and the enemy will rebuild them. If you bomb the people who work in those factories and on those railroads, and kill them, the enemy can't rebuild them.