War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
zzeris
King Turd of Shit Hill
- 18,936
- 73,937
Hitler did cut manpower and supplies after the Sicily landing by the US/GB. The Battle of Smolensk and Battle of the Dnieper were after this and he could have used reinforcements to great effect. Also, here's a link for what we supposedly supplied to the Russians ourselveshttp://www.russiandogs.net/what-russ...ied-by-us.html. Fighting a single front compared to multiples is much easier as well.
Maybe the Russians could have beaten Germany without our help. They did have their amazing resilience and the T-34s. Maybe the better question is, could they have beaten Germany without our help, GB's help, and the losses Germany had in the Battle of Britain? I don't think they would have in that case.
Lol, damn that Tuco but I can't help myself. About as fucking useful of a conversation as was happening before(sorry guys).
Himeo
Vyemm Raider
- 3,263
- 2,802
Erronius
Macho Ma'am
- 16,491
- 42,462
If BrutulTM is BrutulTarewMarr (spelling? I can't fucking remember) from the early FOH forum days, then he prob has more forum cred then most of the people who came over to Rerolled have.
Feel free to carry on though, I still have another 20+ pages of shitposting in this thread to catch up on.
You meanthisK&P avatar that I shrunk down for Tuco, IIRC?
And you should be happy to have an avatar like that; Tuco is too kind. You know what kind of avatar you'd likely get from others on the forum.
I agree with you that in the commonly used vernacular napalm isn't a WMD (I don't consider it to be personally), but according to US Code, Title 18:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...B-sec2332a.htm
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-...B-sec2332a.htm
I mean, it sounds fucking ridiculous to me but who the hell knows?
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,805
- 150,514
Statements like that are kinda laughable when you put them in context. Even after D-day, more than 80% of his troops were still fighting on Eastern Front. 250+ German divisions on Eastern Front, something like 50-60 on Western Front during D-Day till the end of war. Amount of divisions transferred to Italy was 7 (out of 200+ on EF). It was basically a meaningless number. The war was won at Kursk before a single American or British boot stepped on European soil.
Sure they could have beaten Germany. German losses in BoB were around 1800 planes and at least 20,000+ over at Eastern Front (Russian archival data calculates it at 50,000) which might not be outside of realm of possibility considering that Luftwaffe lost close to 100,000 planes during the war. People just dont realize how miniscule Western front was compared to Eastern Front.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,805
- 150,514
The thousands of scenarios that people come up with where Hitler could have won just becomes ridiculous at some point. What if Hitler invaded 3 weeks earlier? What if Hitler didn't get tied in Yugoslavia for 3 weeks right before Barbarossa? What if Germans had winter clothing? What if he resumed attack on Moscow in 1942 instead of going for Stalingrad? What if he didn't fall for the Soviet bait at Kursk? What if, what if, what if. If people want "what ifs" so badly - they can go read Harry Turtledove.
Aaron
Goonsquad Officer
- 8,144
- 18,076
People who argue about weather or not Hitler could have won or not always forget one very important thing: The Bomb!
It is my personal view that the Germans were very fucking lucky to have lost the war, and to have lost it as early as they did. Why? Because the Manhattan Project was never aimed at Japan, it was always aimed at Germany, for the fear that the Germans might beat the Allies to the bomb. Had Germany still been in the war in August 1945, no matter if they were close to defeat or had taken over the USSR, the USA would have nuked them and Berlin/Hamburg/Whereverburg would glow in the dark now. And no, Germany was nowhere near getting a bomb. Now, perhaps Hitler would not have surrendered after a couple of blasts like the Japs did, but then the US would just have kept on lobbing them over whenever they came of the production line and in the end either Germany would have surrendered or all of Europe would would be uninhabitable for the next 2 billion years or so.
It is my personal view that the Germans were very fucking lucky to have lost the war, and to have lost it as early as they did. Why? Because the Manhattan Project was never aimed at Japan, it was always aimed at Germany, for the fear that the Germans might beat the Allies to the bomb. Had Germany still been in the war in August 1945, no matter if they were close to defeat or had taken over the USSR, the USA would have nuked them and Berlin/Hamburg/Whereverburg would glow in the dark now. And no, Germany was nowhere near getting a bomb. Now, perhaps Hitler would not have surrendered after a couple of blasts like the Japs did, but then the US would just have kept on lobbing them over whenever they came of the production line and in the end either Germany would have surrendered or all of Europe would would be uninhabitable for the next 2 billion years or so.
Reports on the Syrian rebels conflict with the portrait given by Secretary Kerry yesterday.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...98405L20130905
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
he would have probably murdered the inhabitants and let Germans colonize the east, that's why Leningrad was sieged and not occupied for example, it was an opportunity to get rid of as many of the inhabitants as possible without tying up alot more troops. the whole point was "lebensraum"
germans lost the war during the battle of the atlantic/battle of britian phase, specifically the atlantic, if even 1/2 the resources from the losing effort of the battle of britian where tasked to the battle of the atlantic in 1940 germany would have easily won the atlantic battle and probably forced britians capitulation. without a 2 front war, the war in the east becomes alot more winnable.
I believe it was kesslering who was asked by the soviets after the war what he thought the turning point of the war was, they expected him to say Stalingrad but he said it was the battle of britian for the same exact reason, it would have avoided a 2 front war to force england to capitulate.
albert speer also said that defending against the english/us air armada was equivalent by itself to a second front from the sheer amount of manpower and equipment that was needed to be used for defense.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,805
- 150,514
Fucking comical. It's a rare feat to get every single thing wrong but there you have it. Stupid assertions, spelling errors and all. Day in and day out, you are the undisputed King of the Retards.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,485
- 73,569
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,854
- 137,953
(what spelling errors? jesus you have a hard on for attacking me)
listen asshole prove me wrong by challenging the points made, not making baseless accusations O'king of the losers, I went to college for history as well.
there was no interest in occupying Leningrad
various theories have been forwarded about Nazi Germany's ultimate plans for Leningrad, including renaming the city Adolfsburg (as claimed by Soviet journalist Lev Bezymenski) [10] and making it the capital of the new Ingermanland province of the Reich in Generalplan Ost, it is clear that Hitler's intention was to utterly destroy the city and its population.According to a directive sent to Army Group North on 29 September, "After the defeat of Soviet Russia there can be no interest in the continued existence of this large urban center. [...] Following the city's encirclement, requests for surrender negotiations shall be denied, since the problem of relocating and feeding the population cannot and should not be solved by us. In this war for our very existence, we can have no interest in maintaining even a part of this very large urban population.
Even churchhill feared thebattle of the atlanticand if dernitz had started the war with the submarines he originally wanted
By November 1937, D?nitz became convinced that a major campaign against merchant shipping was practicable and began pressing for the conversion of the German fleet almost entirely to U-boats.[5] He advocated a strategy of attacking only merchant ships, targets relatively safe to attack. He pointed out that destroying Britain's fleet of oil tankers would starve the Royal Navy of supplies needed to run its ships, which would be just as effective as sinking them. He thought a German fleet of 300 of the newer Type VII U-boats could knock Britain out of the war
The Battle of the Atlantic was "the only thing that ever frightened me."
Winston Churchill.
Winston Churchill.
albert speer said exactly as i said
(7) Albert Speer, Spandau, the Secret Diaries (1976)
The real importance of the air war consisted in the fact that it opened a second front before the invasion of Europe. The front was the skies over Germany. Every square metre of the territory we controlled was a kind of front line. Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in position by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time.
The real importance of the air war consisted in the fact that it opened a second front before the invasion of Europe. The front was the skies over Germany. Every square metre of the territory we controlled was a kind of front line. Defence against air attacks required the production of thousands of anti-aircraft guns, the stockpiling of tremendous quantities of ammunition over the country, and holding in readiness hundreds of thousands of soldiers, who in addition had to stay in position by their guns, often totally inactive, for months at a time.
you're just as mad as the Russians when kesselring deflated their mongoloid ego by telling them the battle of britian was the turning point not Stalingrad, the war was lost by the decision to attack russia to begin with before finishing off england.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,805
- 150,514
1. Leningrad: Hitler didnt assault the city because he simply didn't have the manpower to attack and hold a city of 2.5M people. That's all there's to it. While you and Ganzenmuller (yeah i know about him) pretend like that was the plan all along, it wasn't. Ganzenmuller is a hack.
2. "Half the resources from BoB to BoA": This one is so stupid that I'm not sure where I should start disproving it. Is it the complete lack of context for "half of resources"? Is it because the whole isn't described thus there is no "half" to take a measurement of? What resources? And what would they be expended on? Was there a calculation done on diverting "half of resources" from Bob to BoA to come to this conclusion? This sounds like some drunk idiot would say at a bar while barely maintaining himself upright: "Yeah, well if Tony Romo would have passed for 200 more yards than last game, he would have been in the playoffs!" And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
3. Kesselring is an authority on turning points now it seems. Shocking that the commander of Luftwaffe would pick an aerial campaign as a turning point, a commander that's barely been to the East Front and probably placed little importance on land warfare. As opposed to just about every post-war historian who pegs Stalingrad as a turning point (Anglo-Saxons and Russians alike.)
4. Good ole' Speer. The architect who became the armaments minister. Or was that the other way around? Watched his factories burn day in and day out from RAF/USAF raids. And yet still managed to deliver the highest output of German materiel in 1944 even after 3 years of non stop bombing raids. How was that possible? How did he manage to do that? Is it possible that the bombing campaign in the West was overstated? Sure for Speer it was a second front in and of itself. Not for anyone else though.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I'm embarrassed for the school that let you graduate with a history degree. Frankly, I am embarrassed for my field as a whole because of you.
2. "Half the resources from BoB to BoA": This one is so stupid that I'm not sure where I should start disproving it. Is it the complete lack of context for "half of resources"? Is it because the whole isn't described thus there is no "half" to take a measurement of? What resources? And what would they be expended on? Was there a calculation done on diverting "half of resources" from Bob to BoA to come to this conclusion? This sounds like some drunk idiot would say at a bar while barely maintaining himself upright: "Yeah, well if Tony Romo would have passed for 200 more yards than last game, he would have been in the playoffs!" And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle.
3. Kesselring is an authority on turning points now it seems. Shocking that the commander of Luftwaffe would pick an aerial campaign as a turning point, a commander that's barely been to the East Front and probably placed little importance on land warfare. As opposed to just about every post-war historian who pegs Stalingrad as a turning point (Anglo-Saxons and Russians alike.)
4. Good ole' Speer. The architect who became the armaments minister. Or was that the other way around? Watched his factories burn day in and day out from RAF/USAF raids. And yet still managed to deliver the highest output of German materiel in 1944 even after 3 years of non stop bombing raids. How was that possible? How did he manage to do that? Is it possible that the bombing campaign in the West was overstated? Sure for Speer it was a second front in and of itself. Not for anyone else though.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I'm embarrassed for the school that let you graduate with a history degree. Frankly, I am embarrassed for my field as a whole because of you.