Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Zrudo View Post
    In my opinion, survival of the Third Reich might have been better. Maybe I am biased for living in country which was under influence of USSR. Third Reich without Hitler was nothing, like a religion without god... It would quickly disappear. And Hitler didn't have much time to live anyway, he had several health problems.
    Check the word Lebensraum in the wiki, and think that Slovakia would become German Lebensraum after the hypothetical Nazi victory. You don't need Hitler to keep that program going.

    As i said earlier, give me any day a leader that will kill me for my political ideas rather than a leader that will kill me for my birth circumstances. I can always shut up about the politics, but i cannot change my genetics nor my disabilities.

    And on the debate of Soviets defeating Germany... Well, if the Germans started operation Barbarossa when they wanted, around 2-3 month earlier they would have destroyed the Soviets.
    I am not certain that they could have defeated the soviets, but they certainly could have made it better: taking Moscow and retaining Stalingrad, and reaching the Caucasian oil. They could have forced a peace treaty with a purely Siberian USSR... but they would have still lost in the end, because while they would be busy building up strength for a successful Sea Lion (it would take years), the Soviets would be building up strength to restart the war.

    In any case, Germany was doomed from the moment that Britain and France decided to actually honor their word to Poland and declare war on Germany. Hitler really wasn't expecting them to, not until Poland was occupied. He was also counting on the possibility that since the Soviets had invaded Poland too, they would aquiesce to a German-controlled Poland as lesser evil.

    But that failed to happen, and the British and French still kept their war declarations after the Soviets invaded. Then Hitler was hoping to hit them hard enough as to force a not-too-harsh surrender: the conquest of Norway and Belgium. That still didn't sent them to the negotiation table. Then Hitler hoped that striking France hard enough would scare the British, and get a peace with the Brits and a surrender from France. That didn't happen, and France only surrendered when completely overrun. Then Hitler STILL thought he could force Britain into peace talks by bombing southern England and threatening to do a (completely impossible at the time) amphibian invasion. And that didn't happen.
    Why was Hitler hoping and hoping? Because he didn't want a war in the West in the first place. In the Nazi ideology, the only war is the war in the East, against the weaker eastern countries and Russia, to convert them into German Lebensraum. To convert the natives of those lands into serfs for German landowners who would live a ruralized life.

    If any of those expectations had happened, if France and Britain had agreed to sign a peace treaty with the Nazis (unlikely, they knew in the long run they would win, because they outproduced Germany), if Germany could have started the war with the USSR during 1940 (when the industrial advantage was still German), history might have gone differently.

  2. #82
    Banned This name sucks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    A basement in Canada
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by rowaasr13 View Post
    For your sake, I hope not a single of armchair politic or "alternate" history fan from this thread will ever met a living Russian war veteran. You'll need an ambulance.
    I'd be very disappointed in myself if I lost a fight to someone born in the 1920s

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Methanar View Post
    I'd be very disappointed in myself if I lost a fight to someone born in the 1920s
    I would be particularly afraid if they were already dead. An undead soviet soldier? *shudder*

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by jotabe View Post
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deep_battle

    The idea that the USSR won against Germany by throwing bodies at them is no more true than saying that the French are surrender monkeys. The Germans had an edge in technology in certain aspects, and their military doctrine was exceptional for the time. But soviets also had very competitive military technology, and Deep Battle operations proved itself able to outmanouvre the German tactics (best example is the battle of Kursk).



    It's true that the Soviets could shrug off losses better than the Germans. But that's because the Nazis drove Germany into a war they couldn't win.
    Another problem the axis had is that they had little to no corperation with each other. Had Germany worked with Japan and the Japanese managed to open a second front against the soviets, the chances of an axis controled Europe would had been greater but still bleak

  5. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigzoman20 View Post
    Another problem the axis had is that they had little to no corperation with each other. Had Germany worked with Japan and the Japanese managed to open a second front against the soviets, the chances of an axis controled Europe would had been greater but still bleak
    That's really not possible. Even at the worst times of the eastern front, the Soviets had a sizeable garrison at the Japanese border. The Japanese military was aware they didn't have the power to even think of attacking the Soviets: when they asked the overseer of the region of Manchuria what would be needed for the Japanese to attack the USSR, he replied "That the Germans have taken Moscow, and that the remains of the USSR are in civil war".
    Think how the Japanese were having problems with the Chinese on the land war, and China was far from unified: you had the communists, the nationalists, and many warlords in the areas outside of the control of the main Chinese factions. And they couldn't finish off the Chinese resistence.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Baiyn View Post
    For a start, he was less paranoid than Stalin and likely would not have purged the military as extensively and would have probably listened to the people calling for the production of tanks over the use of horse-drawn Gatling guns... >.<'
    Yes not to purge all would help. What Gatling guns source please? More tanks? USSR did have the worlds largest tank fleet over 20 000 AFV and 2000+ of them was advance tank like KV-1 and T-34 before the German Invasion.

  7. #87
    Fluffy Kitten Baiyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    York, Blighty
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    Yes not to purge all would help. What Gatling guns source please? More tanks? USSR did have the worlds largest tank fleet over 20 000 AFV and 2000+ of them was advance tank like KV-1 and T-34 before the German Invasion.
    Gatling was the wrong 'general' phrase to use there. My mistake. I meant more generally that right up to the start of the war, Stalin favoured the advice of those championing WWI era machine guns and Howitzers. He put great faith in old generals obsessed with the now dated Civil War weaponry like Budyonny and Kulik. Kulik "denounced the invaluable new Katyusha rockets: 'What the hell do you need rocket artillery for? The main thing is the horse-drawn gun.'" (Simon Sebag Montefiore - Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar p.338-339).
    He even had people who rightly disagreed with their ideas arrested. Kulik, who had taken some bad information as factual, "demanded stopping all production of conventional guns and switching to the 107mm howitzers from World War I.". The Armaments Commissar, Boris Vannikov, "explained that it was unlikely the Germans had updated their armour as swiftly as Kulik suggested: the 76mm remained the best." He accused them of "tolerating disarmament in the face of an approaching war.". Zhdanov and Kulik, who were closer to Stalin labelled his criticisms as 'sabotage' and he was arrested (same book p.351). But, when the war broke out on 22 June 1941, Stalin realised how badly he had shot himself in the foot by ignoring the criticism of his favoured lackeys and Vannikov was released 3 days later and appointed First Deputy People's Commissar for Ammunition.
    It was bumbling and flippant starting and stopping of projects like this, combined with a harmful fear of antagonising the Germans by putting the army into a state of readiness near the borders, that made Stalin's leadership in the period so devastatingly incompetent, costing millions of lives needlessly, and lead to the embarrassment of the German air force hitting every Russian airfield in the first waves of the assault before a single plane could be gotten off the ground.

  8. #88
    I wouldn't put the credit at the feet of a single man - least of all Stalin, for reasons others could explain much better than me. I notice a lot of talk about America winning the Second World War, but never "FDR won the war" - perhaps because FDR is out of favour in a post-Reagan conservative climate?

    I have much more respect for Tsar Alexander I, although obviously Napoleon didn't present the threat of mass killing and genocide that Hitler did, and some still think Europe would be a better place if Napoleon had succeeded (not me)! Ironically, Tsar Alexander was quite liberal minded - that is liberal in the liberal sense of the word rather than in the current Arctic Daishi parlance.
    Last edited by Rainiothon; 2013-05-18 at 09:58 AM.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by rainiothon View Post
    ... but never "FDR won the war" - perhaps because FDR is out of favour in a post-Reagan conservative climate?
    Perhaps your own views are coloring your thinking. Most Americans are not as shallow and condescending as the prevailing liberal climate the US media presents might have you believe. FDR is pretty much universally considered to be one of our greatest presidents - despite the social programs many people don't like because they have grown out of control and are crushing us financially. (It is worth noting that his social welfare program was passed by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority, something like 87-13, and its scope at the time was quite limited.) He is viewed as such specifically because of his leadership during World War II.

    I have to be honest, you are the only person I have heard use a term like 'post-Reagan conservative climate', and I live in Boston. Reagan was 25 years ago. Where are you learning this stuff?

    That said, the reason why people don't say FDR won the war is likely because he was not a megalomaniac who demanded that he receive the credit for everything that was accomplished by his countrymen. One delightful characteristic of a great leader is that they do not have to take credit for what their charges do, it accretes to them naturally. Further, he was very reluctant to enter WW II, as the American people were very much against getting involved in another European war.

    If you want to get a better understanding of how these things can happen, look at the current travails of the Obama administration. After 4 years of vilifying anyone who disagreed with his political agenda, suggesting that they were evil, breaking the law, etc, all these cases are now coming out that various branches government that report up to his administration were indeed singling out his political opponents for harassment and persecution. The people at the top all claim ignorance, yet they acknowledge, in each case, there there was an organized effort to 1)suppress the Benghazi story, 2) deny conservative groups funding, 3) spy on the media. How does such a thing arise organically without direct orders from the top? The problem with cults of personality is that it makes it really easy for people to do bad things because the prevailing atmosphere makes it acceptable - even morally appropriate - to do so.
    Last edited by Ayonel; 2013-05-18 at 10:23 AM.

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Ayonel View Post
    Perhaps your own views are coloring your thinking. Most Americans are not as shallow and condescending as the prevailing liberal climate the US media presents might have you believe. FDR is pretty much universally considered to be one of our greatest presidents - despite the social programs many people don't like because they have grown out of control and are crushing us financially. (It is worth noting that his social welfare program was passed by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority, something like 87-13, and its scope at the time was quite limited.) He is viewed as such specifically because of his leadership during World War II.

    I have to be honest, you are the only person I have heard use a term like 'post-Reagan conservative climate', and I live in Boston. Reagan was 25 years ago. Where are you learning this stuff?

    That said, the reason why people don't say FDR won the war is likely because he was not a megalomaniac who demanded that he receive the credit for everything that was accomplished by his countrymen. One delightful characteristic of a great leader is that they do not have to take credit for what their charges do, it accretes to them naturally. Further, he was very reluctant to enter WW II, as the American people were very much against getting involved in another European war.

    If you want to get a better understanding of how these things can happen, look at the current travails of the Obama administration. After 4 years of vilifying anyone who disagreed with his political agenda, suggesting that they were evil, breaking the law, etc, all these cases are now coming out that various branches government that report up to his administration were indeed singling out his political opponents for harassment and persecution. The people at the top all claim ignorance, yet they acknowledge, in each case, there there was an organized effort to 1)suppress the Benghazi story, 2) deny conservative groups funding, 3) spy on the media. How does such a thing arise organically without direct orders from the top? The problem with cults of personality is that it makes it really easy for people to do bad things because the prevailing atmosphere makes it acceptable - even morally appropriate - to do so.

    Fair enough. The "post-Reagan conservative climate" was pretty much improvised right there, and pretty poorly phrased I might add. My knowledge of the Clinton and Obama adminstrations is that there have been persistent attempts to undermine their adminstrations, with vehement accusations of fraud, corruption and accusing them of promoting socialism. I assumed that because FDR had implemented heavy public spending programs he had fallen out of favour, and Reagan's popularity and reputation for "winning the cold war" had led his ideology to trump Roosevelt in recent years. I barely see Roosevelt mentioned on these forums, compared to Churchill, but perhaps that is a good indication of people avoiding idolization.

    I'm not very keen on the Obama adminstration myself, but it feels like the Republicans are using their power in congress to undermine any of his aims, with no good reason - and people are giving them a free ride and praising their high principles while Obama's considered the bad guy. Speaking as a foreigner it is difficult to gauge, but I don't think his cult of personality is working - he seems to be constantly frustrated in his aims, although I would agree that much of the media has been too kind to him.
    Last edited by Rainiothon; 2013-05-18 at 11:09 AM.

  11. #91
    The Lightbringer Whitey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Ayonel View Post
    Perhaps your own views are coloring your thinking. Most Americans are not as shallow and condescending as the prevailing liberal climate the US media presents might have you believe. FDR is pretty much universally considered to be one of our greatest presidents - despite the social programs many people don't like because they have grown out of control and are crushing us financially. (It is worth noting that his social welfare program was passed by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority, something like 87-13, and its scope at the time was quite limited.) He is viewed as such specifically because of his leadership during World War II.
    Having read quite a bit about FDR I can't but tip my hat to him. I don't even think he would've made the final decision to bomb Japan like Truman did.
    Also if you think the social programs are to blame for the state of the economy, you're waaaay off.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ayonel View Post
    If you want to get a better understanding of how these things can happen, look at the current travails of the Obama administration. After 4 years of vilifying anyone who disagreed with his political agenda, suggesting that they were evil, breaking the law, etc, all these cases are now coming out that various branches government that report up to his administration were indeed singling out his political opponents for harassment and persecution. The people at the top all claim ignorance, yet they acknowledge, in each case, there there was an organized effort to 1)suppress the Benghazi story, 2) deny conservative groups funding, 3) spy on the media. How does such a thing arise organically without direct orders from the top? The problem with cults of personality is that it makes it really easy for people to do bad things because the prevailing atmosphere makes it acceptable - even morally appropriate - to do so.
    What is this I don't even
    WBMA - Leave our beards alone

    Battletag - Whitey#2918 - feel free to add me, I'm a social animal


  12. #92
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,093
    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    60,000,000 people died in world war II. a war which HITLER started. so yes it already exceeds his count almost 3 TIMES OVER.
    That picture shows the numbers of countries own people that were killed by the Dictator. WWII does not count in that at all and is not applicable
    Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men: Jean Rostand. Yeah, Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour!.
    Classic: "The tank is the driver, the healer is the fuel, and the DPS are the kids sitting in the back seat screaming and asking if they're there yet."
    Irony >> "do they even realize that having a state religion IS THE REASON WE LEFT BRITTEN? god these people are idiots"

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey View Post
    Having read quite a bit about FDR I can't but tip my hat to him. I don't even think he would've made the final decision to bomb Japan like Truman did.
    The fire bombing of Japan that started in March 1945, a tactic to inflict maximum damage regardless of civilian casualties, was under FDR watch, maybe he did approved it use or was to sick/dying to restrain the US military to use the tactic, so if FDR did lived a bit longer there will still be heavy bombing of Japan.

  14. #94
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,093
    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey View Post
    Stalin had nothing to do with Germans not being able to overcome Russians, winter did it, even partisans played a bigger part than the actual army.
    The only thing Russian army had going for them was sheer numbers, and even that wasn't enough to compensate for how inadequate it was. Take a look at WWII Finland vs. Russia for example. It's not just that the Finnish were beastly (which they were), the Russians just couldn't keep their shit together in the field.
    Indeed quite true and that was due to the Military being decapitated leadership wise by Stalin's Purges
    Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men: Jean Rostand. Yeah, Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair colour!.
    Classic: "The tank is the driver, the healer is the fuel, and the DPS are the kids sitting in the back seat screaming and asking if they're there yet."
    Irony >> "do they even realize that having a state religion IS THE REASON WE LEFT BRITTEN? god these people are idiots"

  15. #95
    Mechagnome Thulyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Somewhere in Norway.
    Posts
    532
    Stalin was evil, but Mao Zedong.... No-one compares to him. Not even Hitler/Stalin compared. They don't even come close compared. Hitler + Stalin's = 40 Million dead.
    Mao Zedong alone = 78.

  16. #96
    The Lightbringer Razorice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Over there --->
    Posts
    3,158
    Russia just crushed Hitler because they had the numbers. All they did was zerg the shit out of Nazis.

  17. #97
    The Lightbringer Whitey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,269
    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    The fire bombing of Japan that started in March 1945, a tactic to inflict maximum damage regardless of civilian casualties, was under FDR watch, maybe he did approved it use or was to sick/dying to restrain the US military to use the tactic, so if FDR did lived a bit longer there will still be heavy bombing of Japan.
    Ah damn I always forget the fire bombings.
    WBMA - Leave our beards alone

    Battletag - Whitey#2918 - feel free to add me, I'm a social animal


  18. #98
    Yes, he was evil.
    If somebody is such an idiot, that they/he/she think that lives are less worth than shiny new buildings, then I wont even feel sorry for them.

  19. #99
    Many people do not know that Fidel Castro slaughtered his own people and threw them in concentration camps. Castro is as evil as Hitler and Stalin.

    The difference is that Hitler lost WW2 and was killed, so his crimes are focused on. Stalin helped win WW2, so his crimes aren't talked about as much. Castro never went to war (except against his own people), still lives today, and his society still exists today. Many Americans want to normalize trade relations with Cuba. Many other nations have no problem working with Cuba.

    I have to think these are strong guidelines to follow. Had Hitler not had to fight Stalin, was able to wage a 1 front war and conquer the UK and control all of Europe, and stop there, history would simply remember Hitler differently. Most people would never have heard of the Jewish concentration camps, just like most people today have never heard of Castro's Cuban concentration camps. Many people would say the war was a long time ago and let's normalize trade relations with the Nazis. Other nations would have normalized trade relations with a german Europe decades ago.

    more on Castro's camps in Cuba:

    Military Units to Aid Production were forced labor concentration camps established by Fidel Castro's communist rule, from November 1965 to July 1968.

    They were a way to eliminate alleged "bourgeois" and "counter-revolutionary" values in the Cuban population. First, people were thrown into overcrowded cells at police stations and later taken to secret police facilities, movie houses, stadiums, warehouses, and similar locations. They were photographed, fingerprinted and forced to sign a confession declaring themselves the "scum of society" in exchange for their temporary release until they were summoned to the concentration camps.[30] Those who refused to sign were physically and psychologically tortured.[30]

    Beginning in November 1965, already classified people started to arrive by train, bus, truck and other police and military vehicles.[30]

    "Social deviants" such as homosexuals, vagrants, Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious missionaries were imprisoned in these concentration camps, where they would be "reeducated".[31]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ent_camps#Cuba

    So I wouldn't call Stalin a savior as much as saying that the history books would read differently today.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Grummgug View Post
    Many people do not know that Fidel Castro slaughtered his own people and threw them in concentration camps. Castro is as evil as Hitler and Stalin.

    The difference is that Hitler lost WW2 and was killed, so his crimes are focused on. Stalin helped win WW2, so his crimes aren't talked about as much. Castro never went to war (except against his own people), still lives today, and his society still exists today. Many Americans want to normalize trade relations with Cuba. Many other nations have no problem working with Cuba.

    I have to think these are strong guidelines to follow. Had Hitler not had to fight Stalin, was able to wage a 1 front war and conquer the UK and control all of Europe, and stop there, history would simply remember Hitler differently. Most people would never have heard of the Jewish concentration camps, just like most people today have never heard of Castro's Cuban concentration camps. Many people would say the war was a long time ago and let's normalize trade relations with the Nazis. Other nations would have normalized trade relations with a german Europe decades ago.

    more on Castro's camps in Cuba.


    So I wouldn't call Stalin a savior as much as saying that the history books would read differently today.
    I think you are over-estimating the "history is written by the victors" adage, even if there is a basic truth behind it. We knew about Colonel Mengistu and Augusto Pinochet's atrocities during the Cold War, regardless of the fact that one was endorsed by the Soviets and the other the Americans. I have heard about (but not yet read) a book called Against all Hope, written by Armando Valladaras, describing his and other prisoners treatment at the hand of the Cuban government. People know about these things, even if some choose to blind themselves to it. Another thing to consider is the scale of atrocities. There were numerous lesser 20th century despots like Mengistu and Pincohet, responsible for similar and worse atrocities. But we tend to look at Mao, Hitler and Stalin for the sheer scale of the destruction they unleashed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •