Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/13/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    well you have missed / forgotten the secretly recorded discussion between Hitler and Mannerheim when Hitler was in Finland . he knew the Russian military was vast but the German intelligence had missed. and the operation barnarossa was a at the point not wanted operation but a necessary gamble. Molotov and tlstalin was putting massive pressure on Hitler to give them Bulgaria and it's oilfields cause Hitler had given support to Finland and broken the secret sections of the Molotov ribbentrop accord. it's an interesting listen if you are a military historian. take a note on Mannerheim reaction to when Hitler describes the Russian factory output. also Hitler had info that Stalin was planning to invade Germany himself but clustered by purging the officer corps
  2. 1 point
    Thank you for the info. Use of CS gas I am well aware of specifically with tunnels in Vietnam. What is claimed by Cambodian Government is that these "Chemical bombs" are causing serious burns and death. I know of no such bomb used by US since WW1. https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50108643/more-chemical-bomb-sites-found/
  3. 1 point
    Phillip, you will get no argument from me about McArthur. I think the general of the era that summed him up the most was General Eisenhower when he said that he studied dramatics under McArthur for four years.
  4. 1 point
    I had previously read about Denmark's involvement in the Vietnam War, but all I read was of stories like this - http://thetandd.com/news/topnews/it-was-just-rough-denmark-veteran-still-thinks-about-classmates/article_e4190b07-431e-5829-988b-5a9020e8807c.html Officially, Denmark was not part of the southern military, but of course, articles like above show they were. I am yet to find anything off the internet that shows Denmark was an active participant in combat in that war. I met a guy in Saigon in 2016 from Denmark. He claims he was one of 8,000 Danish soldiers seconded to the US military to fight in Vietnam. The above article supports a basis of truth to this. This guy told me he served a year in Vietnam as a combat soldier under secondment wearing a US uniform. I simply can't find a reference I would hang my hat on.. I understand only through hear-say and through direct conversations with guys who claimed they served there that other combat soldiers were seconded from Canada, England, France, Norway and Sweden to serve as (pretend) US soldiers in the war. I would really love to find some documentation to show this actually occurred.
  5. 1 point
    Giving you the benefit of the doubt - do you want to clarify your question? Perhaps English is not your native language and you are trying to have a reasonable discussion. Of course we know that the U.S. cannot "put a ban" on weapons - those are internationally negotiated treaties. The U.S. has unilaterally decided to NOT use some weapons due to our feelings about the side effects, etc of those weapons.
  6. 1 point
    My father, Richard S. Stuart flew PBY 5-A Catalinas for Squadron VP-92 in the Caribbean. One of his squadron mates, Gordon Fiss crippled the U-94 off the southern coast of Haiti. At the time VP-92 was assisting convoys carrying oil and other petroleum products in the Caribbean from Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago and Aruba, where Royal Dutch Shell was operating a refinery. Their mission was important since WWII literally ran on oil.
  7. 1 point
    Oh, please. You should first, perhaps, look into who first used chemical weapons in warfare and when. Then, perhaps, you should read up on the international efforts since that usage for armaments control and limitations. Frankly an internet forum is hardly the place to embark on a topic upon which entire college courses are taught. You also might want to learn to discern between a "nuke", a nuclear device, and and an atomic bomb; if you knew your ordnance you would know they are not the same thing. Unless, of course, your purpose is just a feeble anti-American screed. If so, you should say so.
  8. 1 point
    Italy under Mussolini was hardly a success story, even if Churchill and Roosevelt liked him for a time. How come they were so miserable during the war? It began so well with Abessinia...but what happened then? Could he have made something different?
  9. 1 point
    It came down to a lot of iffy decisions made by Hitler but this is easy to say with hindsight.
  10. 1 point
    The Nazis lost WW2 because Hitler, (a bloody incompetent corporal), insisted on detailing the specifics of campaigns. While the plans laid down by Wehrmacht's general staff won them France Hitler insisted on letting the British expeditionary force escape when he let Göring take the lead in bombing them. Not only did they botch the plans Luftwaffe had for reducing British defenses when they reordered to bomb cities as petty revenge, but they insisted on a two front war with operation Barbarrossa, nay, a three front war when they went to the aid of Mussolini before Barbarossa. Then there were the grandiose schemes. Building giant guns and giant tanks. While at the same time Hitler stopped the production of assault rifles and jeg fighters. Last but not least, spending logistical resources on cruel and cowardly genocide against civilians. I repeat: Hitler lost the war all by himself.
  11. 1 point
    To me it is the Sherman tank, it was used by all the Allies and was available in massive numbers.