 |
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
Where is David and his brilliant theory- "we saved your asses, we've won the war"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
Ok, my five cents to this highly intlectual disscusion:
1) Hitler couldn't won WW2 as long as he attacked SU.
2) The calim that locals on occupied territories would have treat Germans better if there would no genocide against them is incorect. In 1812 Napoleon thought that his forces will be treat as liberators of feodal serfs who suffered from Tzar atrocities (Russia abolished feodal serf system and gave freedom to peasants only in 1861). Insted of this those serf among their masters (aristocrats) kicked Napoleon's ass. It's Russian mentality. You will never understand this.
3) No attack SU untill 1944 or smth like this is bs too. The main goal for Stalin was to win as much time as possible to re-arm Red Army. We had unmatched examples of weaponry before the war. T-34, Il-2, our regular artilery was the best artilery in the world not to mention Katyusha (btw, no one had missile artilery in 1941 except SU, no to mention this techonlogy was known and was tested in 1936 by SU) If Hitler didn't attacked in 1941, in 1942 he faced absolutely new Red Army- equiped (in needed quantities) with far superior weaponry then Wermacht.
4) US, SU and Germany would had A-bomb at the same time, if there was no war vs. SU. Incorect to. If SU didn't lost 27 000 000 mlns people and if Russia wasn'r burned by the war, if its industrial capacity wasn't so hard damaged- we've gained this toy first. Even so hard damaged country was able to win space race with USA- a country which weren't damaged at all during war. Considering if there was no war at East, no losses, no damage to industry- SU kick everyone asses even now.
5) I'm dead drunk right now. My congrats to all Muslim people of the World. Have a nice holiday guys. I don't know what you think about this, but we- Orthodox Christians celabrate this holiday too in solidary. I am absolutely serious. I wouldn't type the name of this holiday, bcs I guess I'll type it wrong on Enlish and somebody will find this offensive.
Have a nice holiday.
EDITED.
Last edited by Serb on 06-12-2002 at 12:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
I forget to mention, today is 61 aniversary of beggining of Soviet's Moscow counter offensive- a battle wher untill this time unbeatable Wermach gained his first devastating deafeat and lost one million soldiers, a battle which ruined Hitlers hopes for blitz-kreige and his hopes for victory.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
Yeah, damn right. This sneak attack was damn sucesufull for Lufth-Wafe. Majority of Russian planes were destroeyed on airfields (Thank's to Stalin ans his order to move airfields as close as possible to frontier. I guess it's another sign that he prfered to fight an offensive war, not a defensive one). In fact, Soviets were forced to completele re-build its air force afte first days of war, because majority of planes were lost after first Lufth-Wafe (don't care how to type it properely) attack.
If Hitler gave him another year Red Army equipe its AF with newest examples of weaponry and could (and I guess this is what Stalin hopes for) have a devastating first strike against Hitler's forces. So, th eargument- Hitler should wait and didn't attack SU, I (imhp) consider as incorect, because in this case Red Army would be a much more therat for Hitler, then it was in 1941. He has no time and he thought he could destroy it, untill it''s too late.
This is my opinion and as you all well known I'm dead drunk right now, but there is no way in hell, I'll change my opinion tomorrow, Because it's true. Anybody who is disagree, don't be shy come and get some.
Azazel,
Da nuy na huy vse, ti kogda nibud pil vodku, mnogo, MNOGO vodki? Yebat moy sizy nos, no zdes -34C. A tut eshe kuch prazdnikov.
Koroch mne vse po-hui. Ya poshel pit dalshe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anodyne
If Hitler hadn't treated the people of occupied Ukraine, Belarus and Poland like total shit, he would've had 50+ million (not sure of the population at that time) more allies against the SU... |
Not quite. Before the war, in exchange for Gdańsk and railway through Pomerania, Hitler offered us alliance and entire Ukraine after the war. Even then, no-one wanted this. No-one would go after Hitler after his invasion. Byeloruthenians had, and have, no national identity. Ukrainians had, and though yes, Hitler didn't give them all that they wanted, He didn't treat them all that bad in comparison to Poles (Byeloruthenians were treated better as well). Still, many many many Ukrainians and a million Russians fought on Hitler's side.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:24
|
|
Where did you get this million?
Last edited by Serb on 06-12-2002 at 08:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
Just a couple of points.
There seems to be a consensus that Hitler's best chance of winning would have been to keep both the US and the USSR out of the war. However, most believe that the USSR would have attacked Hitler anyway. I am not sure of this. After the Non Agression pact, Stalin seemed to believe that the USSR and Germany would cooperate in defeating the UK, Holland and France worldwide. So, I believe it is possible that the USSR and Germany could have continued to coordinate their attacks.
For example, in Sept. 1941, the USSR and the Brits took Iran in a joint invasion. But, if, instead, the USSR were still cooperating with Germany, it could have been the USSR alone in Iran. This would have placed the UK/Arab alliance under a lot of pressure with a Soviet army on their borders.
At this point, Stalin could have launched a major offense into either or both the ME or India. Either by itself would have been a devastaing blow to the UK simply because it would require a major diversion of its resources to defend against the USSR.
It is also clear that the US was at "war" against Germany and Italy by the summer of '42, even before Hitler's invasion of the USSR. (Lend Lease in March, National Emergency declaration in May, freezing of German assets in early June) This is another major reason why Hitler's invasion of the USSR was stupid. He should have called a halt then and focused on defeating the UK/US alliance.
The US and the UK focused on airpower to defeat Germany. Airpower eventually destroyed Germany and severely reduced its capacity to fight - especially when their oil production was knocked out. Germany should have built up its own airforce to prevent this from happening, but also to turn the tables on the UK/US. Long range bombers could have devastated England just as much as long range bombers devastated Germany. As well, long range bombers would have dominated the Atlantic and been at least as effective if not more effective than submarines in killing the convoys.
Even so, with both the US and UK building aircraft at huge rates from '41 on, it would have required a major, sustained effort for Germany to win the airwar. This, in part, is why I suggested an earlier conversion to jets. The jet bomber could fly higher and faster than conventional fighters rendering them almost invulnerable to British and US piston fighters. The German airforce would have dominated until the Allies caught up.
Regardless, as soon as Germany achieved air supremacy and had sufficient transport capacity, it need to launch its invasion of the UK. I think this was doable by '42. But certainly, a German invasion in '41 was doomed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
The US and the UK focused on airpower to defeat Germany. Airpower eventually destroyed Germany and severely reduced its capacity to fight - especially when their oil production was knocked out. Germany should have built up its own airforce to prevent this from happening, but also to turn the tables on the UK/US. Long range bombers could have devastated England just as much as long range bombers devastated Germany. As well, long range bombers would have dominated the Atlantic and been at least as effective if not more effective than submarines in killing the convoys. |
Strategic bombing did not defeat Germany. It's industrial output continued rising until the end of the war, despite the bombing campaign. The raids on the oil refineries were one of the few successes.
The Germans lacked any large strategic bombers, so their raids were always going to be less effective than a British or American raid.
Strategic bombers are not effective against ships, the target is too small, and the plane is too high.
quote:
Even so, with both the US and UK building aircraft at huge rates from '41 on, it would have required a major, sustained effort for Germany to win the airwar. This, in part, is why I suggested an earlier conversion to jets. The jet bomber could fly higher and faster than conventional fighters rendering them almost invulnerable to British and US piston fighters. The German airforce would have dominated until the Allies caught up. |
A major sustained effort was not on the cards. Hitler was haunted by the collapse of Germany in the First World War.
The jet fighters were hardly invulnerable. The propellor fighters could still outmanuever them, and the jets were vulnerable to attack when taking off and landing.
quote:
Regardless, as soon as Germany achieved air supremacy and had sufficient transport capacity, it need to launch its invasion of the UK. I think this was doable by '42. But certainly, a German invasion in '41 was doomed. |
The problem with this scenario is that you think that Britain would remain static for a year. The Germans could hardly hide a massive navy building programme (which would probably take far longer than one year), and in the meantime, Britain would improve the defenses and the army would grow far too large for any German attack to succeed. The Germans would also not have their high quality tanks developed as a response to the T-34.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Andy-Man
|
 |
Tory Party of 'Poly
Jul 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
As to the first point, would the UK have declared war on the USSR if it invaded Iran without British "permission"?
I think this is highly unlikely given that they did not declare war after USSR invasions of Poland, Finland and IIRC Romania. The US and the UK were trying to get the USSR to come over the the Allied side. Nothing would have provoked the Allies into a declaration of war on the USSR, IMHO.
As to Stalin invading Germany - certainly the UK and the US would have welcomed such an invasion. But the UK and the US were anti-communist almost as much as Germany. Why would Stalin switch sides? Everyone here simply states that the USSR would have invaded Germany at some point in time. But is this really true?
Observe that that the USSR did not invade the West after the cold war began. Why? It certainly could have won - at least initially - because of its overwhelming superiority in Europe. But it did not. This tells me that it was not inevitable that the USSR would attack Hitler - especially if Germany made the major investments in air power and nuclear weapons they should have done. The German air force would simply have destroyed a Soviet invasion. |
The USSR wouldn't have invaded Iran for reasons stated, so what would have happened if they had seems a moot point. And remember, the UK didn't declare war on russia for poland and finland because they were not in the british sphere of influence.
And yes it is true, Stalin was going to invade, I beleive he was even setting up air bases for the invasion, and if he wasn't hostile to hitler, I hardly think stalin would have erected that massive line of fortifications/troops that the germans just smashed through.
The reason that the USSR didn't invade europe in 1945 is because if they had, the USA would have nuked them to hell.
And if Germany would have been so capable at defeating a Soviet invasion, how come a comparitivly backward and deficcient army made up largly of non-proffesional soldiers, lack of wepons and ammo, and lack of leadership just steamrollerd into berlin between 1943-45?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
The AndyMan, On the USSR '43 - '45, the USSR had by then come a very long way and had superiority over the Germans in numbers of troops and tanks. As Kursk proved, the Germans could no longer conduct a major offensive. But in mobile warfare, the advantage is to the party on the offensive.
As to nuking Russia, I think this all changed in '49 when the Russians got bomb as well. They still did not attack.
As to Iran, you a probably right. The USSR probably did not want a war with the UK. But this is also consistent with not wanting a war with Germany which at that time had the means of defeating the USSR which the UK did not. If the USSR was avoiding war with the UK, it surely was avoiding war with Germany as well.
Building fortifications in the West on the frontier with Germany is more consistent with a defensive strategy than an offensive strategy. If they wanted an offensive strategy, they needed to invest heavily in infrastructure such as railways and roads so that supplies could flow smoothly to the front. They would have also moved critical defense industries deeper into the USSR. This they did not do until the Germans attacked.
Last edited by Ned on 06-12-2002 at 01:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Sandman, If the Germans developed long-range jet bombers earlier, the UK would have been totally defenseless against them until they developed their own high altitude jets. |
The Germans would have had to sacrifice research in some other area. Tank design maybe? Or how about ground support aircraft?
In any case, the higher the altitude the less effective the bombing.
quote:
I am not certain why long range bombers would not have been effective against convoys. The Germans had developed radio-guided missiles that could be "flown" into ships. Also, they could have developed, as had the Japanese, low level torpedo attacks on shipping. The bombers did not have to use conventional bombs. |
If long range bombers attack from a low altitude, they are a snack for anti-aircraft guns.
You seem to be thinking of small torpedo bomber and dive bomber craft, which would have insufficient fuel to 'control the Atlantic'.
In an era without good navigation equipment, there's no sense in sending planes with limited fuel supplies over the open ocean, where they can easily be lost.
quote:
As to the Allied airpower, it was highly effective. The crippling of German oil supplies and ball bearing production was cited by every high level German as the major reason they lost the war. Many also cited the crippling of their transportation system. |
Yet their industrial production continued to rise. It also increased German resolve to fight to the bitter end, and assisted Hitler's propaganda machine. The Germans also decentralised their production and moved it out of range of bomber attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:24
|
|
I am surprised by some of the notions that drift around here...
When trying to think of changes in history, you can't possibly assume that all factors remain independent. Take Serbs' claim that by 1944, without a war, the SU would still have had SU-152's, IS-2's and so forth: why? These weapon systems were designed during the war, due to how the war was going. Same for German {Panthers, or jets, or American and British weapons for that matter. Once you decide to change one event you better provide damn good reasons why an event that happeend in real life still would have happend, without the same given consequences. NO one here has done so. So you can't assume the US would still have nukes in '45, or the SU in 49, or assume B-29's or Il-2 flyoing around just cause they came out of thin air...
Germany was stronger than both the UK and France. Once a War with France was won, and areas like Central Europe under German control or allied to germany, the effectivness of any blocaked would have been minimal.
I agree with Kepler what whether Germany would have ever won the war is a question of German aims. Ifw e assume their aims remain the same, I think winning the war would have been difficult. After all, their aim was the complete remaking of Europe, the extermination of whole nations and the extermination of whole ideas. This is a huge things to do, even for a rich, modern state like Germany. And it woul meet with immense opposition.
As I said before, Germany should have waited to knock the UK significantly out of the war, if just for a few years, to iundertake thier eastern campaign, a cmapaign that was inevitable. There is a fine book that speaks about Russian diplomacy from 37-41 Grand Delusion by Gabriel Gorodetsky that shows how the SU was trying to better postion itself as the European balance of power changed, mainly agaisnt it as Germanys eucred Yugoslavia and Romania. I think many miss the fact the the SU viewed the UK as much of a threat as Germany until very late, including interpreting UK moves towards Turkey as anti-Soviet moves.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-12-2002 17:31
But I still don't believe Russia had that many bombers. 
his knowledge based on 'civ scenarios. '
|