What was Joe Biden Thinking?

[walksalone]

There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden.

 

 

Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call.

I agree so far as going into Pakistan without approval from the Pakistanis. I think that was the main difference in this raid. The decision was made (and correctly I think) that the Pakistan government might tip Osama off about the raid.

 

If the raid had failed and Bin Laden was not in the compound . . . the Pakistanis would have been absolutely furious. It was much harder for them to act indignant and rattle their sabers when it was revealed that Bin Laden was living comfortably and within sight of the Pakistani West Point.

 

In that way it was audacious. Failure . . . and the US-Pakistan relationship would have been even more strained. It might have even been irretrievably broken.

 

Pakistan cannot be trusted, point blank. Either they're helping Al Qaeda or their giving their nuclear secrets to North Korea.

[carlfense]

There was nothing audacious about giving the go ahead to get Bin Laden.

 

 

Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call.

I agree so far as going into Pakistan without approval from the Pakistanis. I think that was the main difference in this raid. The decision was made (and correctly I think) that the Pakistan government might tip Osama off about the raid.

 

If the raid had failed and Bin Laden was not in the compound . . . the Pakistanis would have been absolutely furious. It was much harder for them to act indignant and rattle their sabers when it was revealed that Bin Laden was living comfortably and within sight of the Pakistani West Point.

 

In that way it was audacious. Failure . . . and the US-Pakistan relationship would have been even more strained. It might have even been irretrievably broken.

 

Pakistan cannot be trusted, point blank. Either they're helping Al Qaeda or their giving their nuclear secrets to North Korea.

I agree that we can't trust them.

[carlfense]

The ETO hinged on that entire invasion being successful.

Just a minor point . . . but I think only the English, Canadian, and US contribution in the ETO hinged on the invasion being successful. The Russians would have defeated Germany by themselves if Overlord had failed but it would have taken much longer.

 

I respectfully disagree. Without the fear of us invading, what were the Canadians or Brits really going to do, since Dunkirk had been such a success. The Russians wouldn't have been able to defeat the Germans due to the fact that the krauts only had a one front to worry about. Thats what killed the Germans was the fact that they were actually fighting a war on 3 fronts. Without any real threat from the Brits or the Canadians, they'd have been able to shift their power more twords the eastern front.

Could be. I think the Red Army engaged and defeated approximately 80% of the Wehrmacht in WWII. The German units that were tied down in France were often second rate troops (or foreign conscripts) while the cream of the German army fought and died on the Eastern Front.

 

Hard to say.

[walksalone]

The ETO hinged on that entire invasion being successful.

Just a minor point . . . but I think only the English, Canadian, and US contribution in the ETO hinged on the invasion being successful. The Russians would have defeated Germany by themselves if Overlord had failed but it would have taken much longer.

 

I respectfully disagree. Without the fear of us invading, what were the Canadians or Brits really going to do, since Dunkirk had been such a success. The Russians wouldn't have been able to defeat the Germans due to the fact that the krauts only had a one front to worry about. Thats what killed the Germans was the fact that they were actually fighting a war on 3 fronts. Without any real threat from the Brits or the Canadians, they'd have been able to shift their power more twords the eastern front.

Could be. I think the Red Army engaged and defeated approximately 80% of the Wehrmacht in WWII. The German units that were tied down in France were often second rate troops (or foreign conscripts) while the cream of the German army fought and died on the Eastern Front.

 

Hard to say.

 

You're forgetting the Afrika Corp, those guys weren't national gaurd or anything, they were pretty good. Not to mention Rommel wouldn't have been wasted in North Africa.

[carlfense]

The ETO hinged on that entire invasion being successful.

Just a minor point . . . but I think only the English, Canadian, and US contribution in the ETO hinged on the invasion being successful. The Russians would have defeated Germany by themselves if Overlord had failed but it would have taken much longer.

 

I respectfully disagree. Without the fear of us invading, what were the Canadians or Brits really going to do, since Dunkirk had been such a success. The Russians wouldn't have been able to defeat the Germans due to the fact that the krauts only had a one front to worry about. Thats what killed the Germans was the fact that they were actually fighting a war on 3 fronts. Without any real threat from the Brits or the Canadians, they'd have been able to shift their power more twords the eastern front.

Could be. I think the Red Army engaged and defeated approximately 80% of the Wehrmacht in WWII. The German units that were tied down in France were often second rate troops (or foreign conscripts) while the cream of the German army fought and died on the Eastern Front.

 

Hard to say.

 

You're forgetting the Afrika Corp, those guys weren't national gaurd or anything, they were pretty good. Not to mention Rommel wouldn't have been wasted in North Africa.

But what does the success or failure of Overlord have to do with the Afrika Corps (who I agree were very good)? I was just saying that D-Day didn't have to succeed for Germany to be defeated. It certainly sped their demise . . . but the Russians had already stopped them and were starting to roll them back. The German/Polish conscript troops that were in France were tied down until after our hypothetical D-Day defeat regardless of the outcome.

[walksalone]

But what does the success or failure of Overlord have to do with the Afrika Corps (who I agree were very good)? I was just saying that D-Day didn't have to succeed for Germany to be defeated. It certainly sped their demise . . . but the Russians had already stopped them and were starting to roll them back. The German/Polish conscript troops that were in France were tied down until after our hypothetical D-Day defeat regardless of the outcome.

 

This all started by you down playing the importance of "Overlord" and the importance of the operation in the Allied victory in the ETO. D-Day totally had to succeed. Without it, Hitler doesn't have to commit any troops from the defense of the western "borders". Then without having to worry about Britain or the Canadians mounting any kind of invasion, he takes the best troops from the other area (Western Europe and Africa) and throws them into the mix into the Eastern Front, which makes it even more difficult for the Russians.

['SkersRule]

But what does the success or failure of Overlord have to do with the Afrika Corps (who I agree were very good)? I was just saying that D-Day didn't have to succeed for Germany to be defeated. It certainly sped their demise . . . but the Russians had already stopped them and were starting to roll them back. The troops that were in France were tied down until after our hypothetical D-Day defeat regardless of the outcome.

 

Talk about coincidence! Last night I was watching the Military Channel and they showed a program detailing the events leading up to the Normandy invasion. Long story short, Rommel and his forces were initially dispatched to Normandy to reinforce German positions there. It was only through the actions of a double agent who fed the Nazi high command bogus information through an entirely fabricated ring of spies that convinced the Nazi's to recall Rommel and send him back to what is now essentially Calais. The Allies even bombed the shnikees out of that beach to "sell" it as the invasion point. This double agent was so good he convinced the Nazi's to recall Rommel and there is nearly universal agreement among military historians that if Rommel had been allowed to proceed to Normany then D-Day more than likely would have failed. That's not to say that Germany would have won the war but it would have been a crushing defeat for the Allies.

[carlfense]

But what does the success or failure of Overlord have to do with the Afrika Corps (who I agree were very good)? I was just saying that D-Day didn't have to succeed for Germany to be defeated. It certainly sped their demise . . . but the Russians had already stopped them and were starting to roll them back. The German/Polish conscript troops that were in France were tied down until after our hypothetical D-Day defeat regardless of the outcome.

 

This all started by you down playing the importance of "Overlord" and the importance of the operation in the Allied victory in the ETO. D-Day totally had to succeed. Without it, Hitler doesn't have to commit any troops from the defense of the western "borders". Then without having to worry about Britain or the Canadians mounting any kind of invasion, he takes the best troops from the other area (Western Europe and Africa) and throws them into the mix into the Eastern Front, which makes it even more difficult for the Russians.

I'm fine with your analysis . . . I don't agree but we'll never know the answer . . . but I'm still not sure how the troops in Africa were tied down by the success or failure of Overlord. (If you're talking about Rommel himself, I agree that he was one of Germany's best tactical commanders.)

 

I definitely agree that if Overlord had failed it would have been more difficult for the Russians.

 

Here's our common ground: The success of Overlord virtually guaranteed the defeat of Germany and greatly shortened the war. I think that Russia would have won in a much longer fight if Overlord had failed. You think that Russia could not defeat Germany without a successful D-Day invasion. That's fine.

 

 

 

Edit: And to bring it full circle, there is no way in hell that killing Bin Laden is more historically significant than D-Day. Bin Laden was important . . . but it pales in comparison to Normandy.

[walksalone]

But what does the success or failure of Overlord have to do with the Afrika Corps (who I agree were very good)? I was just saying that D-Day didn't have to succeed for Germany to be defeated. It certainly sped their demise . . . but the Russians had already stopped them and were starting to roll them back. The German/Polish conscript troops that were in France were tied down until after our hypothetical D-Day defeat regardless of the outcome.

 

This all started by you down playing the importance of "Overlord" and the importance of the operation in the Allied victory in the ETO. D-Day totally had to succeed. Without it, Hitler doesn't have to commit any troops from the defense of the western "borders". Then without having to worry about Britain or the Canadians mounting any kind of invasion, he takes the best troops from the other area (Western Europe and Africa) and throws them into the mix into the Eastern Front, which makes it even more difficult for the Russians.

I'm fine with your analysis . . . I don't agree but we'll never know the answer . . . but I'm still not sure how the troops in Africa were tied down by the success or failure of Overlord. (If you're talking about Rommel himself, I agree that he was one of Germany's best tactical commanders.)

 

I definitely agree that if Overlord had failed it would have been more difficult for the Russians.

 

Here's our common ground: The success of Overlord virtually guaranteed the defeat of Germany and greatly shortened the war. I think that Russia would have won in a much longer fight if Overlord had failed. You think that Russia could not defeat Germany without a successful D-Day invasion. That's fine.

 

Another reason I get such a kick out of games that let you replay WWII (Axis & Allies for example) and seeing the tactical variations.

[walksalone]

talk about coincidence! Last night I was watching the Military Channel and they showed a program detailing the events leading up to the Normandy invasion. Long story short, Rommel and his forces were initially dispatched to Normandy to reinforce German positions there. It was only through the actions of a double agent who fed the Nazi high command bogus information through an entirely fabricated ring of spies that convinced the Nazi's to recall Rommel and send him back to what is now essentially Calais. The Allies even bombed the shnikees out of that beach to "sell" it as the invasion point. This double agent was so good he convinced the Nazi's to recall Rommel and there is nearly universal agreement among military historians that if Rommel had been allowed to proceed to Normany then D-Day more than likely would have failed. That's not to say that Germany would have won the war but it would have been a crushing defeat for the Allies.

 

Thats pretty awesome. I wish I could have seen it.

[knapplc]

It's been a long time since I was digging into the history of the fall of the Third Reich, but I don't know that Russia could have defeated the Germans alone had Overlord not succeeded. Yes, they were making gains in the East, but those gains were built on the three-part front that Germany was fighting. The Germans were a terribly potent force even with the loss at Stalingrad and even with fighting on three fronts. Had they not had to commit huge amounts of men and materiel to the Western Front, I don't think the Russians had the ability to sustain their push.

 

Let's say Overlord doesn't happen. The Germans have Britain bottled up across the Channel and can keep a defensive force in France and Belgium. That frees much of the Panzer crews and the bulk of the Waffen SS to move to the Eastern Front earlier perhaps meaning a different outcome in Stalingrad, and an already beleaguered Soviet army has to fight across all of Eastern Europe against the core of Hitler's fighting forces, instead of just half or one third.

 

Certainly Stalingrad and Kursk were devastating blows to the Germans, but just think what happens if Kursk turns out differently - instead of the Germans being cut off and surrounded suddenly the Soviets are, and with the cream of the German armored corps fully invested on the Eastern Front, Kursk could have turned out very differently - another Stalingrad, only in favor of the Germans.

 

If Germans are able to mount their attacks months earlier rather than waiting for the SS units to arrive, the Soviet defenses around Kursk wouldn't have been nearly as effective. From there it's anyone's guess what happens.

 

Remember, this is the same Soviet army that had difficulty defeating the Finns just three years earlier. They were battle-hardened in that time and Stalingrad taught them cruel lessons, but they weren't (in my opinion) entirely up to defeating a fully-equipped and top-of-the-line German blitzkrieg. That same vast Russian interior that defeated the Germans and Napoleon back in the day would have worked against the Russians if they were suddenly thrown into the defensive. That's a tremendous amount of space to defend. Room to strategically retreat, sure, but you've got to fuel and supply those troops at the same time.

 

Bah. I talk myself into circles. I could have either side winning depending on the time of day I write about it.

[knapplc]

You guys ever read up on Operation Mincemeat? If you're in to talking about spying during WWII, Mincemeat was a huge deception by the Allies.

[walksalone]

It's been a long time since I was digging into the history of the fall of the Third Reich, but I don't know that Russia could have defeated the Germans alone had Overlord not succeeded. Yes, they were making gains in the East, but those gains were built on the three-part front that Germany was fighting. The Germans were a terribly potent force even with the loss at Stalingrad and even with fighting on three fronts. Had they not had to commit huge amounts of men and materiel to the Western Front, I don't think the Russians had the ability to sustain their push.

 

Let's say Overlord doesn't happen. The Germans have Britain bottled up across the Channel and can keep a defensive force in France and Belgium. That frees much of the Panzer crews and the bulk of the Waffen SS to move to the Eastern Front earlier perhaps meaning a different outcome in Stalingrad, and an already beleaguered Soviet army has to fight across all of Eastern Europe against the core of Hitler's fighting forces, instead of just half or one third.

 

Certainly Stalingrad and Kursk were devastating blows to the Germans, but just think what happens if Kursk turns out differently - instead of the Germans being cut off and surrounded suddenly the Soviets are, and with the cream of the German armored corps fully invested on the Eastern Front, Kursk could have turned out very differently - another Stalingrad, only in favor of the Germans.

 

If Germans are able to mount their attacks months earlier rather than waiting for the SS units to arrive, the Soviet defenses around Kursk wouldn't have been nearly as effective. From there it's anyone's guess what happens.

 

Remember, this is the same Soviet army that had difficulty defeating the Finns just three years earlier. They were battle-hardened in that time and Stalingrad taught them cruel lessons, but they weren't (in my opinion) entirely up to defeating a fully-equipped and top-of-the-line German blitzkrieg. That same vast Russian interior that defeated the Germans and Napoleon back in the day would have worked against the Russians if they were suddenly thrown into the defensive. That's a tremendous amount of space to defend. Room to strategically retreat, sure, but you've got to fuel and supply those troops at the same time.

 

Bah. I talk myself into circles. I could have either side winning depending on the time of day I write about it.

 

So could I. Even if the Russians are able to hang on against the Germans, this war, should it go on unimpeded, and without any outside interference, goes on till the early to mid 50's, in my estimation.

[walksalone]

You guys ever read up on Operation Mincemeat? If you're in to talking about spying during WWII, Mincemeat was a huge deception by the Allies.

 

Familiar with the name, just haven't dug into it though.

[walksalone]

by the way, if I could, i'd change the title of this thread to, "What was Joe Biden thinking and the effect of it on the ETO during WWII"