New History Channel Program

[fudgums]

Three to six months perhaps? A few more dead Russians? The Allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe proved a failure. It wasn't until late 1944 that the German industry really started to feel the impact and by that time all the important battles on the Eastern Front had already been lost by the Germans and they were in full retreat. Moscow 1941-42, Stalingrad 1942, Kursk 1943. Truth be told the only important American contribution to the victory in Europe was the lend-lease support given to the Russians.

So your biased against Americans(didn't mean people) but all in favor that the Ruskies won the whole thing? Correct?

[Die Hard]

So your biased against Americans but all in favor that the Ruskies won the whole thing? Correct?

The Russians would have won regardless of what I or you think. Many argue, and not without reason, that Germany lost the war at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 before America even joined the war. There are a few interesting threads on that very subject if I remember correctly. I think Angus wrote a paper on the Eastern Front or something.

[Anaxogoras]

Ethics in Journalism seems like a Oxymoron in todays standards of Journalism, It's all about the sensationalism and the WOW factor, Throw it out there and prove it True or False later , Theres no ethics anymore its about "ratings"

You're talking about cable TV, and I agree with you there.  But it would be ludicrous to use cable TV as the standard for journalistic ethics.  Come to your senses.  I'm talking about a commitment to impartiality that is the hallmark of ethics for the professions of journalist and historian.

Just because what you see on TV is crap, doesn't mean that what TV is pretending to be is crap.  Imitations of the real thing do usually suck, you know.

[DREDger]

I don't mean this in any sarcastic or derogatory manner but do you watch the History Channel?

Me?  Hell no, I don't watch that propaganda.   

I like some of their science programs, like The Universe.  Also the Modern Marvels is pretty cool, being a geeky civil engineer that I am.  Some of their biographies I found interesting.

[Shuffler]

But it was the best fighter by a 100 miles (per hour). The P-51 didn't win the war either (contrary to what you may have heard on TV).

Speed does not make it best. It was slow to get there and used very little. I'm sure they used much more criteria.

[Shuffler]

The Russians would have won regardless of what I or you think. Many argue, and not without reason, that Germany lost the war at the Battle of Moscow in 1941 before America even joined the war. There are a few interesting threads on that very subject if I remember correctly. I think Angus wrote a paper on the Eastern Front or something.

You think? Seemed they were short on planes, vehicles and supplies.

[Die Hard]

Speed does not make it best. It was slow to get there and used very little. I'm sure they used much more criteria.

They didn't even mention the 262 at all... and it was the first operational jet fighter in the world. The most revolutionary leap forward in aviation technology in WWII, perhaps of all time. But somehow the F-18 made it to number 3. Yes... the third best fighter in all of history is the F-18!

Yeah right.

[Die Hard]

You think? Seemed they were short on planes, vehicles and supplies.

Why don't you dig up Angus' threads on the subject. Let's not hijack this thread further.

[DREDger]

Let's not hijack this thread further.

You have permission to hijack my thread, it's interesting discussion and the thread has nowhere else to go anyway.

[Die Hard]

I think I'll need Skuzzy's permission... probably in triplicate.

[Die Hard]

I find charts like this one very telling of who pulled their weight in the war:

[crazyivan]

You think? Seemed they were short on planes, vehicles and supplies.

And imagine  if the Luftwaffe had concentrated on Russia rather than another front with England. Russia would've had no airpower. No factories left, and supply lines  cut in half.IMO

And that charts misleading. Germany took over 11 countries. How is that not pulling their weight more.  Quality over quantity:rolleyes:


As for the history channel. Life after people was interesting for 10 mins. Did we really need a whole series. 30 days after people. The queen of Englands Corkies are still alive.

[Die Hard]

And imagine  if the Luftwaffe had concentrated on Russia rather than another front with England. Russia would've had no airpower. No factories left, and supply lines  cut in half.IMO

Based on what facts? The Luftwaffe was not "concentrated" in the west. At any point in time except during the Ardenne offensive and operation Bodenplatte more than two thirds of the Luftwaffe was on the Eastern Front. For most of the war only two JG's were stationed in France. The air war over western europe was a sideshow to the air war i the east. During the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943 the Luftwaffe deployed 2,110 aircraft. The Soviets committed 2,792 aircraft to the battle. Almost at the same time in the west the Mighty Eight launched 376 B-17's and 267 P-47 on the first big raid on Schweinfurt and Regensburg. They were met by around 400 German fighters.

[Die Hard]

And that charts misleading. Germany took over 11 countries. How is that not pulling their weight more.  Quality over quantity:rolleyes:

Germany has the second highest number of military deaths on the chart, second only to the Soviets. What's your point?

[Die Hard]

Heh... did some digging. At Kursk the Luftwaffe lost 609 aircraft; that's almost the entire strength of the 8th AAF at the time... in one battle.