Yet another WW2 thread

[Johnny]

please do not focus on just the european side of the battle, there was also a large portion of ww2 fought on the pacific vs japan. russia was the pawns in a game of chess, in which the US was the king; the only countries that survived vs Germany were britian, because of the US's lend-lease act, and Russia, because they had pure amounts of men (which ended up dieing)

Russia struggled to keep the Germans at bay, they had the home-front advantage, during their cold-ass winter. The reason Russia was so mad at the US is because they didnt help Russia as much as Russia wanted to...


A better debatable topic would have been:

Should have the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

that would be more a judgement on morals rather than a judgement on biased opinions + facts...

 

[B)ushid(o]

Russia struggled to keep the Germans at bay, they had the home-front advantage, during their cold-ass winter.

You do realize that the Russian Winter contributed to only a portion of the German defeat, right? Russian Industry was moved to the Urals, which was instrumental in the Russian counter-offensive. The German Army could have successfully broken through the Soviet lines and retreated during one point in the Battle of Stalingrad. Even if the Germans had started in the Spring, at the rate the Germans were going before the Russian Winter hit, the Ural Mountains were at least 6 months away, which doesn't account for the stretching of the supply line, attacks on supply lines, how successful Russian defenses would have been, the Luftwaffe would have had an extremely difficult time flying recon missions over Russia the further east they had to go, the amount of men that would have needed to be drawn out from North Africa, Western Europe, and the Baltic States, and bombing missions in the Urals probably would have been difficult.

The reason Russia was so mad at the US is because they didnt help Russia as much as Russia wanted to...

The Soviet Union never liked to US, and the US never liked them.

 

[Tipsy]

To add onto what Bushido said...

russia was the pawns in a game of chess, in which the US was the king;

Please go into more depth here, you seem to be implying with this ‘pawns’ and ‘king’ talk that in some way the United States had some sort of 'control' over the Soviet Union. Please specify exactly what you meant by this with solid support.

the only countries that survived vs Germany were britian, because of the US's lend-lease act,

Actually I have to disagree with this. The most important reason Britain survived the initial onslaught was due to their geography, the fact that there was the English Channel between Great Britain and continental Europe. Further on this, the Battle of Britain forced the Germans to call off plans to invade Britain. And if you will respond by saying that the lend-lease act helped this, it wasn't passed until roughly a year after this occurred.

Other than this, I think Bushido covered the rest.

 

[Undead Cheese]

Further on this, the Battle of Britain forced the Germans to call off plans to invade Britain. And if you will respond by saying that the lend-lease act helped this, it wasn't passed until roughly a year after this occurred.

Not the lend-lease act, but pilots and planes from other nations played a fairly large role. 1 out of every 4 planes/pilots fighting against Germany in the Battle of Britain weren't British.

 

[Tipsy]

Not the lend-lease act, but pilots and planes from other nations played a fairly large role. 1 out of every 4 planes/pilots fighting against Germany in the Battle of Britain weren't British.

I was mostly responding to this:

the only countries that survived vs Germany were britian, because of the US's lend-lease act, and Russia, because they had pure amounts of men (which ended up dieing)

I am just trying to point out that the United States is not responsible for the winning of the Battle of Britain.

 

[Kuzmich]

Since my intelligence far exceeds your own I will "dumb it down" for you.

Loosing a battle is a good way to gain allies, it can also bring your people closer together and improve their resolve. This of course is assuming you are a charismatic leader.

Winning a battle through immoral means is likely to have the inverse of that.

You are hillarious, and judging by your conclusions no older then 11. Loosing a battle has tremendous negative effects on soldier's morale. Want proof? Well maybe you should notice how during WW2, then germans were winning battles they were not surrendering, once they started loosing, they started surrendering. Does that give you any thoughts?

Gaining allies and loosing battles is not at all proportional, you can gain an ally by winning a battle, like Germans did with Hungary, France, Romania and so on. Plus this has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. You trying to sound smart gave me a good laugh though, thanks.

please do not focus on just the european side of the battle, there was also a large portion of ww2 fought on the pacific vs japan. russia was the pawns in a game of chess, in which the US was the king; the only countries that survived vs Germany were britian, because of the US's lend-lease act, and Russia, because they had pure amounts of men (which ended up dieing)

Russia struggled to keep the Germans at bay, they had the home-front advantage, during their cold-ass winter. The reason Russia was so mad at the US is because they didnt help Russia as much as Russia wanted to...

You seem like a man who thinks that he knows what he is talking about, but unfortunately you don't. Okay here we go again. First of all, the pacific, it was a useless front, simply useless, but since US got attacked and then got its hands dirty it was the only right thing to do, and the only thing to dive inside the dirtpile instead of leaving it alone. No sarcasm implied.

First of all, we only had homefront advantage until 1943, before we kicked ther Germans out of our land and started pushing them out of theirs. US contribution to the war in Europe is minimal. By D-day, Stalingrad has already happened, German war machine was reduced by over a half after being defeated by Russian forces. D-day made almost no difference.

 

[B~E]

D-Day Occupied 1 300 000 germans soldiers in france, how can you deny that ? It may not have changed the outcome of the russian march, but it certainly wan't "minimal", as you so tactly said. Kuzmich, you'll never convince anyone to adopte your position if you word your message in the most agressing and abrasive way possible. Here, you're defending a version of the war that, according to most people, is what really happened. Yet, you failed to shut him up. And I dont think its because he isn't smart as the next guy, I think it because of your inflaming attitude.

And in case anyone still had doubt, would any of the Big Tree wouldn't have helped each other, the Germans would have won. So koddu to the germans.

 

[B)ushid(o]

You seem like a man who thinks that he knows what he is talking about, but unfortunately you don't. Okay here we go again. First of all, the pacific, it was a useless front, simply useless, but since US got attacked and then got its hands dirty it was the only right thing to do, and the only thing to dive inside the dirtpile instead of leaving it alone. No sarcasm implied.

I'm guessing we should have just let the Japanese continue their expansion, right? Though the U.S didn't fight in the Pacific to liberate Southeast Asia, we still helped prevent Japan from expanding further and further into Asia.

 

[Ashigaru]

You are hillarious, and judging by your conclusions no older then 11. Loosing a battle has tremendous negative effects on soldier's morale. Want proof? Well maybe you should notice how during WW2, then germans were winning battles they were not surrendering, once they started loosing, they started surrendering. Does that give you any thoughts?

Gaining allies and loosing battles is not at all proportional, you can gain an ally by winning a battle, like Germans did with Hungary, France, Romania and so on. Plus this has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. You trying to sound smart gave me a good laugh though, thanks.

I can only assume you missed that last bit... Hitler was not charasmatic, he only had a few loyal generals.

I would perfer not to go into details because I haven't the patience to indulge your ignorant mind, it has been filled with propaganda for far to long. But if I must...

Cao Caos execution of his grain officer.

A battle was lost by a roman army, who disreguarded orders, and attacked the enemy. They lost and every 12th soldier was executed. Suprisingly enough this was a huge boost to moral.

If you dont know what you speak of then do us a favor and remain silent.

You clearly only know about WW2, I on the other know about the three kingdoms, ww2, korean war, the crusades, the mongols, the hun, nobunaga, along with countless other wars and people.

So in closing...

You trying to sound smart gave me a good laugh though, thanks.

 

[Kuzmich]

D-Day Occupied 1 300 000 germans soldiers in france, how can you deny that ? It may not have changed the outcome of the russian march, but it certainly wan't "minimal", as you so tactly said. Kuzmich, you'll never convince anyone to adopte your position if you word your message in the most agressing and abrasive way possible. Here, you're defending a version of the war that, according to most people, is what really happened. Yet, you failed to shut him up. And I dont think its because he isn't smart as the next guy, I think it because of your inflaming attitude.

And in case anyone still had doubt, would any of the Big Tree wouldn't have helped each other, the Germans would have won. So koddu to the germans.

Compared to the amounts of German man on the eastern front the number is minimal, about 80% less infact. I am sorry, Ashigaru is ignorant and i don't like ignorant people. I'll try to do something about it.

I can only assume you missed that last bit... Hitler was not charasmatic, he only had a few loyal generals.

I would perfer not to go into details because I haven't the patience to indulge your ignorant mind, it has been filled with propaganda for far to long. But if I must...

Oh God, you are laughable. Hitler was not charismatic? Then how the hell did he convince 80 million Germans to make him their supremem ruler, to kill Jews and Eastern Europeans, to fight the damn war, and to commit the atrocities they did. Yes those officers turned on him, but the very fact that they were once loyal to him and the fact that he made a nation of 80 million people fanatical about his ideas, already means that he was a charismatic. Try using logic, its fun.

Cao Caos execution of his grain officer.

A battle was lost by a roman army, who disreguarded orders, and attacked the enemy. They lost and every 12th soldier was executed. Suprisingly enough this was a huge boost to moral.

If you dont know what you speak of then do us a favor and remain silent.

You clearly only know about WW2, I on the other know about the three kingdoms, ww2, korean war, the crusades, the mongols, the hun, nobunaga, along with countless other wars and people.

I am not familiar with the particular incident, but even if it happened still loss of a battle means loos of morale, that is a rule, every rule has a few exeptions. Then the Germans lost the battle at Stalingrad, hundreds of thousands of them surrendered because of low morale. Soviet Union advanced through polland and other nations between Germany and USSR with lightning speed, coverin hundreds of miles in matter of weeks. German troops were either retreating or surrendering. Loss has tremendous effects on morale.

How do you know the extent of my knowledge? You don't. Compared to me you seriously do not know anything, exept what dreamed up or were taught by your inferior system of education. But if you want to have another debate on one of those topics, then please start a thread, i would love to proove you wrong again. You are like a 5 year old kid poking at the adult's leg, asking for candy. I can't believe i am intertained by you, but since i am, let the games continue.

@Black: How the hell do you expect me to put up with this fool? I'd like to teach him, but he simply sticks to his bs and doesn't want to learn.

I'm guessing we should have just let the Japanese continue their expansion, right? Though the U.S didn't fight in the Pacific to liberate Southeast Asia, we still helped prevent Japan from expanding further and further into Asia.

Do you suggest that Japan had any chance of winning a war with USSR? That is completely absurd. We had bigger population, bigger army, better technology.

 

[FaceInTheDark]

To sum it up all of the above, It was a combined effort of the Allies that defeated the Germans and Japanese. The A-Bomb prolly just speeded things faster to end the war. To say who played a bigger role, I would say the US and Russia. Britain did but few contributions were made.

 

[amrtin77]

if im not mistaken there were 3million some german soldiers in operation barbarossa.

1million german soldiers on the western front during dday isnt nothing compared to that.


hitlers downfall was definately invading russia before the uk and north africa was taken care of.. russia should have been last, so he could focus as much as possible on that front.

 

[Kuzmich]

There wasn't 1 million Germans during D-day, that was during the invasion of Normandy as a whole. As for that 3 million figure, that is what Hitler came into Russia with, he sent numerous reinforcements during his compain.

 

[Firebat]

I'd have to say that the US could be capable of defeating Germany alone. Not because I'm from the US but because the US and Germany are pretty far apart, a major invasion would be next to impossible. Also after Japan surrendered that would mean Germany would be fighting 2 fronts causing them to split there forces in half. Knowing that Hitler relied on the blitzkrieg he would have to come up with a new plan, and we know Hitler sucks at planning. However if it came down to the US and Germany fighting only each other atomic weapons would have played a huge role.

what are you tripping about man, germany didnt have any atomic weapons because the whole team of german scientists, who where working on it, (among them 90% Jews) fled to the US to escape the regime.

The US could have defeated Germany but with a lot of casualties, and many other problems, lets just be happy its over, ok?

And i must say this but your avatar is quite wrong, both ethically and historically. Germans started "pwning Jews" in 1933, when Hitler came to power he already started introducing anti-Jewish laws, and then the situation has just risen, dunno why you chose 1940, but the high point of the Holocaust was 1942, when the germans wet their pants, and quickly gassed a couple of 500 000 jews more

 

[Ashigaru]

And i must say this but your avatar is quite wrong, both ethically and historically. Germans started "pwning Jews" in 1933, when Hitler came to power he already started introducing anti-Jewish laws, and then the situation has just risen, dunno why you chose 1940, but the high point of the Holocaust was 1942, when the germans wet their pants, and quickly gassed a couple of 500 000 jews more

1940 looked better.

Oh God, you are laughable. Hitler was not charismatic? Then how the hell did he convince 80 million Germans to make him their supremem ruler, to kill Jews and Eastern Europeans, to fight the damn war, and to commit the atrocities they did. Yes those officers turned on him, but the very fact that they were once loyal to him and the fact that he made a nation of 80 million people fanatical about his ideas, already means that he was a charismatic. Try using logic, its fun.

How do you explain the lack of loyalty his generals had then?.

How do you know the extent of my knowledge?

All your referneces are about ww2, its safe to assume its all you know about.

Compared to me you seriously do not know anything, exept what dreamed up or were taught by your inferior system of education. But if you want to have another debate on one of those topics, then please start a thread, i would love to proove you wrong again. You are like a 5 year old kid poking at the adult's leg, asking for candy. I can't believe i am intertained by you, but since i am, let the games continue.

Yes, google works wonders doesn't it.

 

[Firebat]

1940 looked better.

How do you explain the lack of loyalty his generals had then?.

All your referneces are about ww2, its safe to assume its all you know about.

Yes, google works wonders doesn't it.

They knew the real hitler, the people didnt

 

[Kuzmich]

How do you explain the lack of loyalty his generals had then?.

Germany was loosing and they wanted to save their own asses, morale fell because they lost numerous battles, there was no rise in morale and new allies as you claim can be caused by the loss of a battle.

All your referneces are about ww2, its safe to assume its all you know about.

This is a thread about world war 2, yes in this case my references are about world war 2, once again, use logic, its really, really fun.

Also Germans were never close to develping an A-bomb for one the project was cancelled in 1939 and reopened then it was already too late, second German scientists went in a wrong direction, they planned to use heavy water as the radioactive material, heavy water producing factories were easily bombed and destroyed by the allies.

 

[Ashigaru]

This is a thread about world war 2, yes in this case my references are about world war 2, once again, use logic, its really, really fun.

Most people that are trying to debate and not simply trying to belittle anothers intellegence can bring references from thing not directly related to the subject at hand.

I am growing quite tired of this childish game.

 

[Kuzmich]

Most people that are trying to debate and not simply trying to belittle anothers intellegence can bring references from thing not directly related to the subject at hand.

The only one who did it was you and it had almost nothing to do with the topic of discussion. There is no possible way for you to know what most people who are trying to debate do, because you are too young and quite frankly are not very good at debating. But since you want me to cross-reference, sure.

Levon wars, Eastern Europe, Western Catholic knights established a Levon orden in today's Poland and wanted to attack the Slavic tribes in order to convert them. They were winnig at first, entered Kievan Rus, captured several towns but were stopped at Omsk, from Omsk they were repelled by an alliance of Slavs lead by Kievan Kniazi, lost a series of battles, one of the more famous ones was on the Volga river, were demoralized to a point of commiting mass suicide and eventually they're orden perished.

Examples are so numerous all you need to do is to open a history book and read.

If you're tired feel free to end this, your irrational whining is an annoyance to me as well.

 

[Ashigaru]

If you're tired feel free to end this, your irrational whining is an annoyance to me as well.

I'll be the bigger man and just ignore that.