Yet another WW2 thread

[Tipsy]

You use spelling and grammar like that and you expect me to take that as a legitimate argument?

Yes, what a brilliant idea! Let us all attack the people who don't speak English as their first language for well, not speaking English as their first language. He would probably prefer if you debated in his native tongue, but I think he is doing far better at speaking English than you would be doing if you tried to debate Portuguese with him.

Now to put my opinion on this matter, for the second time. If you use the scenario of the Germans versus the Soviets, then it would just be a matter of time before the Germans won. The Germans wouldn't have needed to take over the Soviet Union, just survive, which I put my faith in that Germany would survive against the Soviet Union. But if not take over the Soviet Union, what would they do? The answer to that, destroy it. They would end this theater in a similar fashion to how the Allies finished off Japan. Inside of War World II there was a war to see who could develop an atomic bomb first. To see my evidence on why they could check my posts on the first two pages of this thread. I think one verses one, the Germans could take the Soviets.

The other argument would be that German may have been able to take the Soviet Union one verse one with strength of arms, but I am not going to argue this because I am more knowledgeable in the German atomic program then their strength of arms.

On the other side, the Allies (excluding the Soviet Union) did not have the infrastructure to support the war like Germany had. In my opinion, the Axis versus the Allies without the Soviet Union, could easily overrun the Allies. Not to mention the United States probably would end up being on its' own because of the whole stance of not entering the war until Pearl Harbor. Not to mention this would deprive the Allies of many of the technological advances England made during World War II for fighting against submarines.

In conclusion, I believe that the Soviet Union played the biggest role in World War II, but could not have taken on the Axis one verse one.

 

[shimshimheyxD]

I think US and British were more strategic and more offensive and russians were all in or all out.

 

[Ashigaru]

Yes, what a brilliant idea! Let us all attack the people who don't speak English as their first language for well, not speaking English as their first language. He would probably prefer if you debated in his native tongue, but I think he is doing far better at speaking English than you would be doing if you tried to debate Portuguese with him.

Not the point. If he uses English he should learn to do it properly.

 

[TheJanitor]

Err.... everytime he does type here is English is improving marginally. He IS learning to 'do it properly'. Tispy we can only make very crude assumptions about things that 'could' happen it is entirely possible that Germany could've won all the allies if such and such happened, Britain might've allied with Germany which could've won them the war but they didn't for various reasons. If Russia was somehow pitted against Germany alone then maybe the Germans could of won but Russia was very strong and detirmined so anything could've of happened during the war to turn the sides. Germany could of made a major military blunder forcing them to retreat and be defeated but one can only speculate.

 

[Tipsy]

I was only responding to the scenarios that had already been presented. The point of my post was that the Soviet Union did have the most important role in World War II, but most likely could not have taken on the Axis in a one versus one fight. I am trying to point out to people that most important role does not mean who could fight the axis alone and survive, it means who well, had the most important role.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

D-Day didn't start the western front. Ever heard of the battle of Britain? :rolleyes

when plains flew over britain and bombed them? Taht wasn't opening the western front, that was an attack on Britain. britain was na Island, they had no ground forces in france therefore no front.

 

[TheJanitor]

Pan, it was numerous battles to the west of Europe. Where Germanies best pilots were killed, what else is a front? It was Germany trying to Eliminate the last of the western Europe, advancing from france. There were bombings on Germany aswell, it was just not a conventional land battle thats all without air superiority any side would lose.

 

[Bapes]

Topic Starter, Why is your avatar a s******??? That gets me mad.

 

[Ashigaru]

when plains flew over britain and bombed them? Taht wasn't opening the western front, that was an attack on Britain. britain was na Island, they had no ground forces in france therefore no front.

Do you have any idea what that battle did to the germans?

Topic Starter, Why is your avatar a s******??? That gets me mad.

Then you are an idiot.

 

[amrtin77]

ashigaru has a point, yes, the russians were fighting the germans on the east before the "western front" was truly opened. thats true, but pan, what hurt the germans in russia was their air force was spread so thin... i personally dont think germany could have taken russia even with the full concentration of the luftwaffe. but it certianly would have been much easier for the germans on the eastern front up until winter. then it got too cold for planes to fly anyway. russia is a big country. germany had its troops spread all over it, and supplying them with food and clothing and ammo and everything they needed got increasingly more difficult as the pushed further into russia. when winter came and vehicles werent working reliably enough, that was the end. hitler refused to allow his soldiers to retreat. yet hitler had no way of supplying his soldiers. they were ****ed. they couldnt fight without supplies, they couldnt retreat to resupply. the largest ground operation in history got decimated by the russians because they werent supplied properly. they were doing great early on, one reason is the suprise attack into russia and stalins slow reaction. another rason is they were well trained soldiers with good equipment and supplies. later on the germans had no supply lines, and had no way to fight the russians. i think if hitler had allowed his army to fall back into germany they would be fighting the defensive war, have been supplied and fed, and would have done much better.

 

[Kuzmich]

If it wasn't for the western front Russia would have been crushed, even Stalin knew that. Fighting to a pointless death is heroic? thats a new one...

Oh really? Do you have a statement by Stalin saying that? Because you see, i read a number of books on Stalin and a number of books on World War 2. Russia was fully capable of defending itself without physical help from the allies. (meaning western front) Your supplies were 100 times more useful then your military actions. Sorry but thats a fact i am not discrediting American and British effort i am just saying how it is. And since you only fought 20 % of total German forces with other 80 percent on Eastern front, the facts state that your military actions were less important then those of USSR.

And just so you wouldn't be disillusioned about the amount of supplies you gave us. Weaponry wise you gave us almost nothing. You did give us a whole load of food (most of which was never used) and some good trucks as well as different metals but thats about it. That was very helpful and probably saved thousands of Russian lives but it was not essential to our victory.

The biggest accomplishment you made was to defeat Luftwahhen, period. Of course even with Luftwahen at full power Russian air force would eventually win, just because we had more people and resources then Germany. But that would slow down our victory a lot.

Ashigaru i ask you to please read some books before posting again, i really do not want to have to take time to proove you wrong.

Armtin, ah Germans were on the defensive starting from 1943, we went across a number of countries before we got to Germany itself.

Do you have any idea what that battle did to the germans?

Do you know the basic rules of war? Wars are not won and countries are not occupied by planes. Plus you're talking about a time period then planes were considered first of all support units for infantry troops, the same as tanks.

 

[DB]

Russia was fully capable of defending itself without physical help from the allies.

Your supplies were 100 times more useful then your military actions. Sorry but thats a fact i am not discrediting American and British effort i am just saying how it is.

it was not essential to our victory.

Of course even with Luftwahen at full power Russian air force would eventually win, just because we had more people and resources then Germany. But that would slow down our victory a lot.

All of your information is hearsay. Please use facts next time you try to argue. It seems like you're just pulling all this imformation out of your ass.

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Well, I say no one talked about Portugal! Although not an indirect influence in WWII, Portugal didn't let Hitler use him as a base to launch attacks on gibraltar (he couldn't do it from Spain cause they were recovering from the civil war and Germany couldn't afford to pay spain what they wanted) so, when our then dictator Salazar declined the offer from Hitler (and kept the old aliance with England) Hitler threatened to invade Portugal and, still we didn't surrender (actually, Salazar knew Hitler was bluffing because without Francos support he couldn't so shit to Portugal)!! So you see, had we surrendered and the panorama of WWII would be quite different.

Ashigaru: Contigo falo em Português por isso se queres dizer qualquer merda diz na minha lingua materna a ver se te safas anormal!

Cheers

 

[B~E]

Indeed, with the control of gibraltar, the germans may have won the mediteranean, thus winning africa, thus preventing the allies from invading Italy, thus preventing Italy from ever switching side, thus making the invasion of France by the Allies a real frigging nightmare. =)

 

[Kuzmich]

All of your information is hearsay. Please use facts next time you try to argue. It seems like you're just pulling all this imformation out of your ass.

I am using facts, all i said is true. Its quite simple to grasp, really.

But please do present your own facts in counter argument, or try to disproove mine. You're most welcome.

 

[DB]

I am using facts, all i said is true. Its quite simple to grasp, really.

But please do present your own facts in counter argument, or try to disproove mine. You're most welcome.

I already have proven your argument wrong by pointing out your information is based on nothing. You have yet to say anything about your sources. Besides, nobody can truely know what would have happened if something hadn't occured.

 

[Kuzmich]

My information is based on my personal knowledge (which obviously far exceedes yours) and that includes books i read and what i learned during my education. If you wish me to provide you a link to a website, sure i will do so. However you have disillusioned yourself into think that you prooved me wrong, without stating your own argument. In order for you to proove me wrong you yourself have to find not one but several sources of information that contradict my argument. I will give you few sources of information, few are books, few are websites. Here is the list:

Books (jsut a couple):
1. "Stalin, history of 20th century Russia"- Edward Radzinsky (Russian)
2. "The Russo-German War, 1941-45" -Albert Seaton (English)

Web sources:

http://www.strelna.ru/en/chronology_navy/238/1

As for my assumptions on what would happen they are simply most probable scenarios, based on simple logic, i can not be 100% sure what would happen but i am completely fine with my 99.9%.

 

[Ashigaru]

Do you know the basic rules of war? Wars are not won and countries are not occupied by planes. Plus you're talking about a time period then planes were considered first of all support units for infantry troops, the same as tanks.

I wouldn't recommend you try and say you know how to fight a war better than me. Have you heard of the blitz, yeah tanks were useds as the primary unit, kicked some serious ass as well. What good is infantry without any support? They serve no purpose other than to add to the casualties list.

If Stalin didn't want a second front then why was he trying to get help from the Brits?

Ashigaru: Contigo falo em Português por isso se queres dizer qualquer merda diz na minha lingua materna a ver se te safas anormal!

Por favor morra, estúpido...

 

[Homem mAIOR]

Look af course Stallin would want a second front... why wouldn't he?? it would only make things easier... but understand this; how were the Germans suppose to win a war when they had very scarse or even no ressuplies?? Better yet; how would he win with winter on his tail??
Please he was doomed from the moment he decided the time to attack russia was in mid summer... and when he decided not to sponsor the evolution of the first assault rifle (stg44) or when he didn't want for the jet plane to be created... and so on and so on... he made a lot of tactical errors during the war and those, costed him the war.

Btw.: Então conheces dicinários electrónicos né?? Traduz lá isto:
Mandas bocas pa caralho mas a tua mãe depois vem aqui ao menino para me compensar...

 

[Ashigaru]

Btw.: Então conheces dicinários electrónicos né?? Traduz lá isto:
Mandas bocas pa caralho mas a tua mãe depois vem aqui ao menino para me compensar...

You dare temp my wrath :angry