Skip to content


If Germany Nevery Invaded Russia


Moderator: Edpow1


Postby Dark Angel » Thu Oct 28, 2004 9:28 pm

Thank you my friend...always like being involved in a good discussion that gets the grey matter ticking over [:)]
Dark Angel
Hauptman
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:23 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby TheDuke » Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:12 am

welcome m8... a very intellectually challenging thread indeed...

certainly beats the 'DOOM3' threads [:D]
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland


Postby Dark Angel » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:49 am

lmao indeed it does
Dark Angel
Hauptman
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:23 am
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Kapten Nordstrom » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:54 pm

Jawohl![:D]
User avatar
Kapten Nordstrom
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Sweden


Postby Silvio » Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:19 am

i hate hypothetical theories of Germany [}:)]
User avatar
Silvio
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 6:55 am
Location: Canada


Postby TheDuke » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:21 am

why Silvio... because it scares you... bekaus van dai ve vill duu it proparlii und ruul ze woarld [}:)]. Although it looks like Busch is going to beat us to it... [xx(]

On a more serious note, this thread is great because you really need to know your stuff - the likes of Dark Angel and others, inclduign myself have spent years on the subject to try and get a handle on it... and it's just nice to see if the Nazi strategy would ever have successeded and the general conclusion is that implosion would have been the most likely cause leaving an Iraque type envrinoment just accross the entire continent.

On another note - as you've guessed I am German - I think the best thing that happened to Germany people in that period where the American and English - if it handedneed been for them we'd most probably all be speaking Russian.... and there was little difference between Stalin and Hitler. This was even know to most sane people in '45 - my Grandfather had the incredible luck as he was seriously injured (sounds odd I know) on the Russian front and as he was moved back from medic centre to medic centre (blown out churckes and barns) and as he was moved back the last town fell to the russian... untill the within a few days the way was over and he was picked up by the Americans. Then of course most of the Allies wanted Germany leveled (of what was left) but the American decided to rebuild the country give it proper leadership and create a strong wall against the Russians (who, thanks to Hitler - where right within Europe, i.e. Eastern Germany)...

What this thread teaches us too is that propaganda ad indoctrination is a very dangerous thing (it took millions to cause the carnage of WWII) and what's all the more scary is that people in general havn't moved on... i.e. learned from history. As one historian once said, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes".

Btw, the utlimate book on the history is A New History by Michael Burley... even got my review on it on Amazon... boast [^] (aka Phillip Fischer)

The Duke : ))
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland


Postby Edpow1 » Mon Nov 01, 2004 3:41 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by TheDuke</i>
<br /> Then of course most of the Allies wanted Germany leveled (of what was left) but the American decided to rebuild the country give it proper leadership and create a strong wall against the Russians (who, thanks to Hitler - where right within Europe, i.e. Eastern Germany)...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Good points, but I think that is a often used myth that America wanted Europe rebuilt and the others wanted to see Germany levelled. Certainly Britain and France had seen more of the effects of World War 2 via bombing and rationing than the Americans would, however there was a remarkable deal of respect for the German soldiers and people - "They were simply better than we were. Every Allied soldier fighitng the Germans knew that this was so, and did not regard it in any way as humiliating... We were amatuers...fighting the best professionals in the business. We blasted our way into Europe with minimum of finesse and a maximum of high explosive." - Prof. Sir. Michael Howard who fought in ww2.

On a ground level the Allied troops were generally man for man not as dedicated as the Axis, not wanting to die, and not as well led. Churchill stopped any US invasion of France from 1942 - 1943 because they simply could not take the Germans on with such close numbers, El Alamain also represents the huge advantgae in equipment, men and tactical planning needed by the Allies to beat the Germans.

On the Russian front advantages of 7-1 from 1943 onwards did not break the German defences as these odds would have in 1914-1918. German soldiers were capable of bold, grand strategic plans, Allied volunteers and conscripts could simply not perform these as well, and their commanders were in control of thousands, not millions of men - this is where Germany, and later Russia were so successful.

The point of this is that the Allies bred a healthy respect for the German soldiers, and their fear of dying led to a inability to advance, and thus a expansion of the myth that the Germans were vastly superior soldiers, Russians did not fear them in the same way after 1942 because they would attack and gain miles at a time, not simply yards as the allies would.

When the Allies finally got into Germany the Americans were more blood thirsty than the British, there was a suprising lack of hostility once the adreniline of action had subsided. Between soldiers relations between Britsh and Germans were very good, diplomatically they were strained. By this I mean that Britain was capable of bombing Germany as it only affected them indirectly, it was not a direct kill. Only 30% of casulaties in WW2 were from bullets, 59% were from indirect fire, e.g. artillery and mortars - Men were willing to fire at shapes and objects, not at men they could see, because they didn't like the idea of killing and they didn't want to kill Germans.

The Germans were enthralled with barbourousity that Hitler installed in them, had the British and American amateurs had this same drive then there would be no cause for the idea of a "liberating war" - This is what we have in Iraq today, a professional army, trained to kill, fighting the amatuers, only this time we are the professionals.

My main point is that America were not the ones wanting to rebuild Germany, Britain had wanted this in 1919 after VErsailles and wanted it again, France wanted Germany contained once and for all, and Americans wanted isolationism, but the war in Japan stoped this from occuring.

The bombing of Dresden, seen by many as a sign of British hatred of the Germans, is actually more likely to be a sign of British strength against the Russians, who could have taken more of Europe.


The point of view for the standard allied soldier, as David Kenyon Webster points out, is that the main problems of WW1 arose from the failure to sort out a proper treaty, and the failure to take the war to the German people, they needed to fight through Germany to bring them to total collapse to dispell any myths of Germany possibly winning the war, such as those of the 1918 November Criminals.

Britsh soldiers were keen to rebuild Germany, as it was Britain that mistrusted the USSR most, not America - they saw Uncle Joe as a good guy, we saw him as that bastard who took our money in 1918 and never paid it back - we went to war with Russia in 1919-21 over this matter and Churchill hated the Communists. Interesting to note that British feeling towards Germany led to them being off rationing quicker than we were due to forced trade by our industries - America only gets interested in USSR when they declare war on Japan in May 45 and take Manchuria away from the Americans and the lovely oil supplies and access to China that it held.


Food for thought lads

Edd
User avatar
Edpow1
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Edpow1 » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:57 pm

I do enjoy these counterfactual arguements we put together - no one can be right or wrong when it comes to a hypothetical proposal, for example this one, if germany never invaded Russia - Countless possibilities, yet we keep returning to historcal fact - shows great understanding of these events from all participants!
User avatar
Edpow1
Herr Oberst
 
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:58 pm
Location: United Kingdom


Postby Nameless1 » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:08 pm

I think you got a point on the "muslim issue" from the mid towards the ending of war the SS had Auxillary units and companies comprosing of muslim and even hindus. This book I picked up on the SS in a used book store has loads of inforamtion on this very topic and
it still smells of MOLD!!!![:D]

JEEP SAID

----Mid-war the nazis changed tack from being "anti-semitic" to being "anti-jewish", so they would look better to the non-judaic semitic peoples of the Middle East. I know it was done for obvious strategic reasons, but there is no evidence I know of to suggest that nazi germany was interested in exterminating arabs: quite the reverse, Himmler thought very highly of the muslim religion as being "good for soldiers".-----
Nameless1
Unteroffizier
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 8:37 am
Location: Canada


Postby TheDuke » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:44 am

Edpow1... wow!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">that is a often used myth that America wanted Europe rebuilt <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

slight correction here - the Marshal plan poured millions into Germany which allowed to the economic miracle (my Grandmother was only just telling me about it the other day where within 5-8 years they went from extreem poverty to wealth) - had it been for France, they would have made it agricultural only and extracted huge reperations.

Also, whilst the Uk, France where squabling over not wanting to build a european army the American just went and let Germany rebuild its own - which for quite justificable reasons caused great concern to all the neighbours... seing that it was used twice for ill intent... once due to diplimatic incompetence and the second time for pure evil.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Only 30% of casulaties in WW2 were from bullets, 59% were from indirect fire, e.g. artillery and mortars - Men were willing to fire at shapes and objects, not at men they could see, because they didn't like the idea of killing and they didn't want to kill Germans.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Very interresting stats - it goes to show that killing is NOT a natural instinct - I saw a very interresting program once that explained how soldiers where thought to kill, but when they then went to a 'live' envrinoment they either couldn't or felt horofied by their actions.

What really sucks about war's though is that the people perpetrating it are never the ones doing the killing or getting shot at - it's usually some mothers 19 year old son.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The bombing of Dresden, seen by many as a sign of British hatred of the Germans, is actually more likely to be a sign of British strength against the Russians, who could have taken more of Europe.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

interresting slant, I always interpereted it as a sign to Stalin that the western allies where doing their bit as Stalin was getting frustrated that Russia was doing the largest part of the battle (at a guess I'd say 70% of the conflict from 39-45 was in the eastern front)...

I think the dropping of the nuclear bomb was a real deterrant.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">main problems of WW1 arose from the failure to sort out a proper treaty<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

text book stuff here - given the right political environment the extreem rights will always surface.

Would love to write more but must go and do some work... [;)]

The Duke : ))
TheDuke
Volksturm
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 11:03 pm
Location: Ireland

Previous

Return to Board index

Return to ww2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest