If Johnson and Jeffries had fought close to their primes...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cross_trainer, Jan 29, 2014.


Page 9 of 15
  1. janitor

    janitor VIP Member

    71,997
    28,008
    Feb 15, 2006
    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected

    This content is protected
     
    janitor, Feb 5, 2014
    janitor, Feb 5, 2014
    #121
  2. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    Not often we agree J, but wholeheartedly agree with you and McGrain in this Johnson/Jeffries thread :lol:

    It's quite scary that we weren't far from having either a Soviet or Nazi completely controlled Europe. If the Soviet's win as they did, do they then invade Britain without US backing?

    I'm not sure if Us gets involved in Europe without Pearl Harbour, the political feeling about the mass loss of life and massive cost of it may have made it politically an unwise option. It certainly would be delayed.

    And then imagine if the Nazi sympathising Kennedy gets into power before Pearl Harbour and the US and Germany became Allies.

    Then there's the possibility of the appeasers in Britain winning out. And what if Britain had allied itself with Germany in WW1 instead of the traditional enemy of France. Or even ally with Germany in WW2 as the Nazi's wanted.

    Germany were really the strongest European nation but couldn't get a good alliance for life of them.

    So many ifs and buts
     
    PowerPuncher, Feb 5, 2014
    PowerPuncher, Feb 5, 2014
    #122
  3. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    PowerPuncher, Feb 5, 2014
    PowerPuncher, Feb 5, 2014
    #123
  4. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    279
    Jul 22, 2004
    The US did little in the East, they supplied Russia with some weapons but that was about it. Russia won mainly through massively outnumbering the Germans shipping them in from everywhere when they were most at threat. They also started producing their own weapons much more efficiently by this stage.
     
    PowerPuncher, Feb 5, 2014
    PowerPuncher, Feb 5, 2014
    #124
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,833
    51,937
    Mar 21, 2007
    Pretty much. Between them, these are enough to stretch Germany greatly.


    Sure. I've already conceded that the Allies cannot win the war in the traditional sense without American aid, probably. I do also believe that the Germans were so stretched once Moscow froze that they could not do so either.

    Not really, because that is total fantasy. My position is firmly based upon the reality of what actually occurred (up until a point).


    Who knows what that adds up to, but it better be an astronomical figure. I'll bet it produces less than the literal defence of Berlin, but it could be higher. It shouldn't be astronomical.



    And I will just reiterate that there is no scenario imaginable where Germany industry isn't being bombed.

    I would also like to add that reduced bombing does not provide access to Ukrainian metal, something Germany did not have after 1943,I believe and that coal is still in pitifully short supply. In other words, the two shortages that most impacted the Germans are still rampant.

    I'd also like to point out that in terms of armour German production would have to more than double under Speer who presumably still tries to put that diastrous XXI into production and presumably still has to work with an insane boss who wants him to build giant tanks that won't work.



    Still way lower than the other lot.



    Which is a bit like saying Johnson would lose to Jeffries because he lost to Hart, given the Russian experience of the forties.
     
    McGrain, Feb 5, 2014
    McGrain, Feb 5, 2014
    #125
  6. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    12,906
    6,253
    Jun 30, 2005
    But not nearly as much as land armies marching through France.


    That's fair. Yeah.

    That's also fair. Germany isn't winning this war. Drawing is, I think, still a possibility without the United States...if the Germans are lucky or careful.


    Yeah, your version is more plausible, but that wasn't really the issue. We were discussing whether Britain could have won with the US variable removed. An unrealistic restriction to begin with, since the US wasn't staying out.

    Once you imposed that restriction, one must follow the logic to its conclusion, I think.

    Occasionally -- though of course not in your case, McGrain -- this argument comes up in an "our country should deserve the credit" kinda way. Like the nationalist version of fans rooting for rival sports teams. Under those circumstances, it's definitely fairer to ask whether Germany could have won with American support when allocating "credit". So I mentioned it as an aside.



    Germany produced thousands upon thousands of fighters to defend itself against bombers. And the anti-aircraft guns were a non-negligible part of the war effort, too. (Along with lots of high-tech stuff like the thousands of ME-262 jets, antiaircraft missile projects, etc.)

    Just from diverted production effort alone, Germany probably could have built and sent LOTS of extra air support, anti-tank weapons, and/or tanks eastward.




    Nor is there any scenario imaginable where Bomber Command can do anything close to the damage that the combined USAF/RAF effort did.


    His insane boss puttered around with Maus tanks and the like, but Speer had already whittled most weapons systems down to a few proven models by '44.




    Here's the thing, though. Germany doesn't need to equal or surpass Allied production. It just needs to build enough weapons to resupply its tactically (and, until Bagration or so, operationally) superior troops...and eke out a draw.

    That's doable.







    The sad fact of it is that the late-war Germans -- a horse drawn army -- could be as nimble as the increasingly mechanized Russians. In a knife fight, the Germans extract every smidgeon of advantage from their individually superior troops, just as they had in '14-'17.

    Though I admit that the Kaiserreich's soldiers in WWI were probably made of tougher stuff than their genocidal kids from WWII.

    (Just as the Russians might have been a little nastier under Stalin.)
     
    cross_trainer, Feb 6, 2014
    cross_trainer, Feb 6, 2014
    #126
  7. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    12,906
    6,253
    Jun 30, 2005
    This is a cool article. Thanks.

    The most relevant section, IMO:

    The Imperial German Navy under Grand Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz expanded greatly from 1898 to 1906 but was never large enough to carry out the plans. The German Army under Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen, responsible for at least 100,000 troops in the invasion, was certain the proposal would end in defeat.

    I cannot foresee any amount of naval buildup that would have made a cross-Atlantic invasion logistically sane. Maybe if the Germans somehow had the Royal Navy AND the Americans were totally oblivious and disarmed AND the British and several Latin American countries shared their naval bases with Germany. Maybe.
     
    cross_trainer, Feb 6, 2014
    cross_trainer, Feb 6, 2014
    #127
  8. mattdonnellon

    mattdonnellon Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,779
    2,119
    Dec 2, 2006
    The only senario that I see Jeff hving a chance is in a finish fight and even then I think he gets too beaten up to take it.
    PS Am i in the wrong thread?l
     
    mattdonnellon, Feb 6, 2014
    mattdonnellon, Feb 6, 2014
    #128
  9. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    The American Ambassador in GB was pro German There was an active German Bund organising rallies,as evidenced when Louis prepared to fight Schmeling the second time.
    There is no compelling evidence to suggest the USA would have declared war on Germany if Japan had not attacked them. They were very late entering both conflicts .
    That is not a criticism just a fact.
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #129
  10. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    Ja!
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #130
  11. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    Simplistic explanation from a simpleton .

    The USA did not," aid GB" they were forced into the war by the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbour you moron.

    Churchill, imo was a great wartime leader, he stiffened the publics morale and epitomised the spirit of "never surrender". Do you want to compare him to some of your political leaders ? FDR being wanked off by his secretary, Ike keeping a long time mistress . JFK, a serial womanizer, ordering aides to go down on his staff while he watched,Old Bill getting a blow job and then denying it to the American people? And that's three of your better Presidents.We won't even mention Dubya, or old Ronnie who grassed up his fellow actors to the HUAAC.I seem to remember Grant was known to drink a bit too.

    Bottom line my country entered into two wars honouring agreements to defend two neutral countries ,Belgium and Poland. Not very long ago Obama drew a red line in the sand concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Whether he was right or wrong to do so is immaterial , the fact is he then erased that line.



    The USA loaned not one cent for the reconstruction of Gt Britain, you know as much about your own history as you do about boxing ,**** all.
    MET MET MET MET MET MET How many more ****ing times.
    I can speak better German than you can write English!
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #131
  12. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    You might want to read this and edit it ,I suggest a match for the editing.
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #132
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    What stopped Germany from invading GB was the Royal Navy, and the rate that GB was replacing their planes,The Germans had already crossed the Channel to occupy Jersey and Guernsey for 5 years. The British Nuclear project was in its infancy and would have no bearing on the war. Operation Vegetarian was a worst case scenario designed to be used in Germany as retaliation should the Axis use chemical weapons against us .It was never designed for, or intended to be used in the UK and would have been totally disastrous to the British population should it have been used here.

    Ukrainian Slavs were employed at most of the death camps as guards and executioners.Particularly in Poland

    Sobibor for example had only 20 SS staff , but 100 Ukrainian guards. The Germans found uses for these people.
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #133
  14. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    Because that is my opinion does not make it ignorant.After Dunkirk GB was in a very bad place..
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #134
  15. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member

    98,716
    30,652
    Jun 2, 2006
    Germany never established ,"control of the seas", which was a crucial factor it their not invading GB.
     
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    mcvey, Feb 6, 2014
    #135
Page 9 of 15