If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The city that was Tsaritsyn for a long time, then Stalingrad, then Volgograd, is once again Stalingrad, but only for 5 days a year   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 143
    More: Interesting, Stalingrad, Wehrmacht, Red Army, geographical renaming  
•       •       •

4580 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 1:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-31 11:33:39 AM
And it's nobody's business but the Russians.
 
2013-01-31 11:56:39 AM
 
2013-01-31 11:57:02 AM
To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.
 
2013-01-31 12:20:55 PM

nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.


Now you've done it. Listen... you hear that? Thats the sound of 800 comments coming, debating the role of each individual nation on both sides of the conflict. And none of them right.
 
2013-01-31 12:38:15 PM
"Those cannot be your only shoes. What am I saying? It's Russia. People probably come from miles around just to get their picture taken in those. "
 
2013-01-31 12:45:30 PM

nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.


They were the ones who saved us from the Nazi.

Or perhaps Hitler was trying to save us from Stalin!

Did ya ever think of that, history?? Huh?
 
2013-01-31 01:03:12 PM

Krymson Tyde: And it's nobody's business but the Russians.


*shakes tiny fist*
 
2013-01-31 01:18:56 PM
www.acus.org

Eine zweite Chance!  Vorwärts nach Stalingrad!  Marschieren!!
 
2013-01-31 01:34:22 PM
Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.
 
2013-01-31 01:34:37 PM

nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.


www.military-art.com

/nyet-nyet Soviet
 
2013-01-31 01:36:38 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.


Russia has nice looking cities?

/I mean they have some nice individual buildings
//Kiev is nice enough I guess
 
2013-01-31 01:37:34 PM

Slaxl: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Now you've done it. Listen... you hear that? Thats the sound of 800 comments coming, debating the role of each individual nation on both sides of the conflict. And none of them right.


kinda like The Stigg and ducks.
 
2013-01-31 01:38:42 PM

Zombie DJ: "Those cannot be your only shoes. What am I saying? It's Russia. People probably come from miles around just to get their picture taken in those. "


Thanks for that, Sterling.
 
2013-01-31 01:38:51 PM
Better tell Mr. Hilter.

/not much fun in Stalingrad, no.
 
2013-01-31 01:40:19 PM

ha-ha-guy: Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.

Russia has nice looking cities?

/I mean they have some nice individual buildings
//Kiev is nice enough I guess



Never been, but I doubt it. Kiev is in the Ukraine.  Accidently refered to a Ukrainenian(sp) girl as Russian once, oh boy did she get pissed.
 
2013-01-31 01:42:38 PM
Well, Istanbul was once Constantinople...
 
2013-01-31 01:44:20 PM
Stop changing city names Russia! It gets confusing when I'm making plans to never visit you.
 
2013-01-31 01:45:21 PM

nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.


Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.
 
2013-01-31 01:48:14 PM

brandied: Well, Istanbul was once Constantinople...



Link
 
2013-01-31 01:48:44 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.


Brutalism everywhere.

Just in case the Germans try to invade again.
 
2013-01-31 01:51:31 PM
Why'd they change it? I can't say.
 
2013-01-31 01:52:16 PM
Anybody mention that even old New York was once New Amsterdam?

/maybe they liked it better that way.
 
2013-01-31 01:53:31 PM
pop quiz, what's 1+1+4?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-31 01:53:33 PM
What?  No "Istanbul not Constantinople" references yet?

You're failing, Fark.

snark
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-31 01:54:17 PM

HenryFnord: pop quiz, what's 1+1+4?


It's 5 according to the AP style manual and that's the story I am sticking to.
 
2013-01-31 01:55:27 PM

d23: What?  No "Istanbul not Constantinople" references yet?

You're failing, Fark.

snark


Did you miss the very first thing typed in this thread?
 
2013-01-31 01:55:30 PM
80% of the boys born in 1923 were gone at wars end. Wow, that is unbelievable.
 
2013-01-31 01:55:48 PM

Krymson Tyde: And it's nobody's business but the Russians.


My favorite version
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-01-31 01:56:12 PM

Lionel Mandrake: d23: What?  No "Istanbul not Constantinople" references yet?

You're failing, Fark.

snark

Did you miss the very first thing typed in this thread?


did you miss the word "snark?"
 
2013-01-31 01:57:07 PM
0363a8f.netsolhost.com
 
2013-01-31 01:57:13 PM

d23: HenryFnord: pop quiz, what's 1+1+4?

It's 5 according to the AP style manual and that's the story I am sticking to.


Given that the Battle of Stalingrad was fought between July 42 and Feb 43, where does 9 May come in as anything other than an additional day?
 
2013-01-31 01:58:27 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: brandied: Well, Istanbul was once Constantinople...


Link




Link
 
2013-01-31 01:59:21 PM
"Lenin was better"

/meh
 
2013-01-31 02:00:05 PM

HenryFnord: pop quiz, what's 1+1+4?


I guess I didn't grasp that May 9 Victory Day and the battle commemoration day were not the same day.

/subby, owning it
 
2013-01-31 02:00:08 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.


No, city builds YOU.
 
2013-01-31 02:00:11 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Never been, but I doubt it. Kiev is in the Ukraine.  Accidently refered to a Ukrainenian(sp) girl as Russian once, oh boy did she get pissed.


It was Soviet though and had its post war rebuilding done by the Soviets though.
 
2013-01-31 02:00:35 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

Whoops! I was meant to be in the previous comment.
 
2013-01-31 02:01:47 PM

Slaxl: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Now you've done it. Listen... you hear that? Thats the sound of 800 comments coming, debating the role of each individual nation on both sides of the conflict. And none of them right.


If it wasn't for Luxemborg...
 
2013-01-31 02:02:50 PM
St. Petersburg (no, not the one in Florida) is still part of surrounded by Leningrad oblast.
 
2013-01-31 02:03:15 PM
Only the Mongols are allowed to successfully invade Russia in winter. Everyone else can fark right off.
 
2013-01-31 02:04:42 PM

AbiNormal: [0363a8f.netsolhost.com image 600x450]


russian female soldiers versus female idf troops.

battlefield: bathtub full of honey

weapon of choice:
 
2013-01-31 02:06:23 PM
Germany never had a chance to winn WWII, even without the USSR.  No matter what, by Aug 1945 the US/UK have nuclear weapons.
 
2013-01-31 02:07:40 PM

All2morrowsparTs: Slaxl: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Now you've done it. Listen... you hear that? Thats the sound of 800 comments coming, debating the role of each individual nation on both sides of the conflict. And none of them right.

If it wasn't for Luxemborg...


The Nukaluk tribe in the remote highlands of Papua-New Guinea were vital to the Allies victory. They ate a lot of Japanese pilots. Sure, they ate some Americans and Australians too. But they ate more Japanese, and without that effort, the Japanese would own San Francisco.
 
2013-01-31 02:08:04 PM

d23: Lionel Mandrake: d23: What?  No "Istanbul not Constantinople" references yet?

You're failing, Fark.

snark

Did you miss the very first thing typed in this thread?

did you miss the word "snark?"


You need to work on your snark-foo.
 
2013-01-31 02:08:58 PM
I was at the war memorial in Stalingrad and some guy asked me to take his photo in front of it. He was a grizzly old Russian. i guess he was a soldier or conscript. Anyhow, he was in the frame but kind of blurry so I asked him to take one step back. As soon as he did, some old commissar appeared and shot him.

But it was a hell of a great photo.
 
2013-01-31 02:09:03 PM

CygnusDarius: AbiNormal: [0363a8f.netsolhost.com image 600x450]

russian female soldiers versus female idf troops.

battlefield: bathtub full of honey

weapon of choice:

  My penis
 
2013-01-31 02:10:12 PM

ikonoqlast: Germany never had a chance to winn WWII, even without the USSR.  No matter what, by Aug 1945 the US/UK have nuclear weapons.


But without the Russians taking up the majority of Germany's attention, and therefore industrial capacity, maybe the Germans have nuclear weapons sooner.
 
2013-01-31 02:11:35 PM
Eh, just call it Kingstown already.
 
2013-01-31 02:12:08 PM
This is not Kiev
This is not Leningrad
This is STALINGRAD, it carries the name of the Boss.

www.chamberofreviews.com
 
2013-01-31 02:13:52 PM
I'm just shocked the Russians haven't changed Moscow to Putingrad yet.
 
2013-01-31 02:16:58 PM

Odd Bird: This is not Kiev
This is not Leningrad
This is STALINGRAD, it carries the name of the Boss.


Springsteengrad?
 
2013-01-31 02:19:39 PM
Tsounds good to me.
 
2013-01-31 02:23:30 PM

Magorn: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.


The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.
 
2013-01-31 02:27:27 PM

SuperChuck: ikonoqlast: Germany never had a chance to winn WWII, even without the USSR.  No matter what, by Aug 1945 the US/UK have nuclear weapons.

But without the Russians taking up the majority of Germany's attention, and therefore industrial capacity, maybe the Germans have nuclear weapons sooner.


in point of fact they very likely WOULD have had them but for the efforts of one grimly determined Norwegian named Knut Haukelid,  who might well have actually saved the world single-handedly, by planting a bomb on the ferry carrying all Nazi germany's heavy water, even knowing he was going to cause a large number of civilian casualties, many of who would be friends and neighbors of his.
 
2013-01-31 02:27:45 PM

Lionel Mandrake: d23: What?  No "Istanbul not Constantinople" references yet?

You're failing, Fark.

snark

Did you miss the very first thing typed in this thread?


He always starts when I want to begin
 
2013-01-31 02:27:47 PM
media.screened.com
 
2013-01-31 02:29:08 PM

Krymson Tyde: And it's nobody's business but the Russians.


But I'm afraid of the Russians.
I can't sleep at night.
So afraid of the Russians.
Afraid we've got to fight.
 
2013-01-31 02:29:57 PM

malaktaus: Magorn: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.

The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.


Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.
 
2013-01-31 02:31:54 PM

malaktaus: Magorn: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.

The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.


Agreed about Germany's lack of naval resources, but IF Germany had been able to Take out Russia as quickly as they first thought they would,  when they reached the Pacific, they would have had the Navy of the Japanese allies at their disposal, and at least part of WWII might have been a combined German-Japanese invasion of the US West Coast at a time when the US military was still a hollow shell and hadn't really got that whole "arsenal of Democracy" thing up and running
 
2013-01-31 02:34:12 PM
So, a Russian historian was sent to interview survivors of the Great War.  He arranged a meeting with some of the old men in town and sat the first one down to ask him some basic questions

"Where were you born, comrade?"
"I was born in St. Petersburg"
"And where did you grow up?"
"I grew up in Petrograd"
"Excellent- And where did you live during the Great War?"
"I lived in Leningrad"
"Great- where do you live today?
"St. Petersburg..."
 
2013-01-31 02:34:23 PM

malaktaus: Magorn: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.

The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.


Not arguing your points, just offering counterpoints:
1) If Germany didn't have to deal with the Russians, eastern front resources could have been moved to the west.
2) Without the US, Brittan would've lost a war of attrition with a Germany.
3) The time needed for Germany to build a navy capable of invading Brittan would be drastically reduced without an eastern front commitment.

As you said; Germany would likely still have lost even with these variable changes, but it would have een a much different ending.

/not an expert in history or military doctrine.
 
2013-01-31 02:36:53 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-31 02:41:42 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: ha-ha-guy: Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.

Russia has nice looking cities?

/I mean they have some nice individual buildings
//Kiev is nice enough I guess


Never been, but I doubt it. Kiev is in the Ukraine.  Accidently refered to a Ukrainenian(sp) girl as Russian once, oh boy did she get pissed.


It seems like, around here, people from Eastern Europe just say that they're from Russia because they don't want anybody in flyover country to get confused.
 
2013-01-31 02:44:29 PM

HenryFnord: d23: HenryFnord: pop quiz, what's 1+1+4?

It's 5 according to the AP style manual and that's the story I am sticking to.

Given that the Battle of Stalingrad was fought between July 42 and Feb 43, where does 9 May come in as anything other than an additional day?


VE day.
 
2013-01-31 02:44:31 PM
The Allies would have beat the French in WWII with or without the help of the Russians.
 
2013-01-31 02:44:53 PM

cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.


The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.
 
2013-01-31 02:47:05 PM

Magorn: Agreed about Germany's lack of naval resources, but IF Germany had been able to Take out Russia as quickly as they first thought they would,  when they reached the Pacific, they would have had the Navy of the Japanese allies at their disposal, and at least part of WWII might have been a combined German-Japanese invasion of the US West Coast at a time when the US military was still a hollow shell and hadn't really got that whole "arsenal of Democracy" thing up and running


Germany didn't have the manpower or resources for something like that, especially when you consider how many people you would need to do even a halfassed job of occupying Russia. The conquest of Russia wouldn't have helped with resources either, at least not immediately. The Nazis had hoped to add the resources and industry of conquered nations to their own, but they were generally disappointed with the results. Conquered people tend not to work very hard for their conquerors, oddly enough. It would have taken them years to prepare for an invasion of the United States, and by that time it would no longer have been possible anyway.

Magorn: in point of fact they very likely WOULD have had them but for the efforts of one grimly determined Norwegian named Knut Haukelid,  who might well have actually saved the world single-handedly, by planting a bomb on the ferry carrying all Nazi germany's heavy water, even knowing he was going to cause a large number of civilian casualties, many of who would be friends and neighbors of his.


Everything else aside, the Germans simply didn't have enough uranium to realistically produce bombs. They barely had enough to achieve fission. Haukelid's bombing was just the icing on the cake.
 
2013-01-31 02:48:36 PM

Odd Bird: As you said; Germany would likely still have lost even with these variable changes, but it would have een a much different ending.


The Cold War ends a lot differently in a world where the Soviet Union's population wasn't used against the Nazis human wave style but the West had to fight the Germans to the death.  Although I'd say the West was smart enough not to let themselves lose entire generations of people and would have brokered a peace deal.  Sooner or later fascism and communism was going to have it out, especially since they rubbed up against each other.  I always wondered if the UK would have eventually gone with "You know what?  fark France."
 
2013-01-31 02:50:49 PM
"Magorn: Agreed about Germany's lack of naval resources, but IF Germany had been able to Take out Russia as quickly as they first thought they would,  when they reached the Pacific, they would have had the Navy of the Japanese allies at their disposal, and at least part of WWII might have been a combined German-Japanese invasion of the US West Coast at a time when the US military was still a hollow shell and hadn't really got that whole "arsenal of Democracy" thing up and running "

Um, yeah, no.
 
2013-01-31 02:51:23 PM

Magorn: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.


Well, it would come down to nukes.  Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would have been Berlin.
 
2013-01-31 02:53:19 PM

Odd Bird: 2) Without the US, Brittan would've lost a war of attrition with a Germany.
3) The time needed for Germany to build a navy capable of invading Brittan would be drastically reduced without an eastern front commitment.


Well, we're talking about WW2 without Russia, not without the US. And it takes at least a few years to build a navy, there are no shortcuts. This is because it takes years to build a single battleship, it isn't just resources.
 
2013-01-31 02:54:10 PM

ha-ha-guy: cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.

The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.


Couldn't have gone much worse than it already had for the Russians.
 
2013-01-31 02:57:18 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.


From the pictures I've seen it was pretty much already built in the Soviet style.
 
2013-01-31 02:57:34 PM
Alexi! Take Third Squad. Hurry up and fix the telephone wire and meet me at the City Hall!
 
2013-01-31 02:58:07 PM
It's a sad day on Fark when no one wants to make fun of the French.
 
2013-01-31 02:59:42 PM

ha-ha-guy: cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.

The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.


That would have been too early. The increased chaos in Russia would have been offset by a corresponding lack of preparation by the Germans. The purges were over even before the invasion of Poland, so Germany would have had to go through that first and also would have had to worry about France and England at their backs. Not to mention they would have been invading with troops that didn't have the advantage of the seasoning the received during the invasion of France.
 
2013-01-31 02:59:46 PM
Well, Drake was too clever for the German fleet...
 
2013-01-31 03:00:14 PM

malaktaus: The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.



You're talking as if America was in the war from the start and fully mobilized toward Germany's defeat. They didn't join until December 7, 1941 and not because of Germany. A more interesting discussion would be whether the United States would have joined the war at all if Japan had not invaded Pearl Harbor. No United States, no Manhatten Project, no atomic weapons. Understand, also, that the new weapons development came about primarily due to the logistics of conducting warfare across a vast ocean. Therefore, armor and field troops were not as essential as aircraft carriers, long range fighters, heavy bombers, amphibious assault tactics, strategic bombing (and what and how it bombed cf. napalm), and of course atomic weapons.... all of which were put into good use in the European Theatre but might not have come about at all if the United States hadn't decided to throw its economy into war production, research and development. I mean, let's be realistic: The Germans and British were excellent at bombing each other but it was the Yanks who made it glorious, genocidal art.

So while the United States provided much money, men, supplies and equipment especially in operations Anzio (Italy) and Overlord (Normandy), their prime interest was always the Pacific Theatre of Operations and they didn't actually throw their entire weight into Europe.

Make no mistake: Despite appalling losses, it was the Soviet Red Army that broke the back of the Wehrmacht and liberated Europe. Britain was a stalemate and the United States was largely occupied elsewhere.
 
2013-01-31 03:01:37 PM

ha-ha-guy: cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.

The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.



I think if the Germans had gone into Russian and acted as 'liberators' instead of, well Nazis, things might have gone very differently.  The Soviet peoples had been brutalized by Stalin and I think a substantial portion of the population would have at least been ambivalent towards the Germans, if they were treated decently.  Instead, the Germans unleased the SS on the Soviet populations, leading to scorched earth and a war of annihilation.
 
2013-01-31 03:09:02 PM

ha-ha-guy: Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.

Russia has nice looking cities?

/I mean they have some nice individual buildings
//Kiev is nice enough I guess


Kiev, Ukraine is beautiful, but St. Petersburg is a nice looking city. Even the older parts of Moscow that escaped replacement with Soviet buildings are fairly nice too. Volgograd is ugly as hell, however
 
2013-01-31 03:10:13 PM
Victory against Nazi Germany was all but guaranteed. The only thing the Soviets ensured was that it didnt happen in 1950 and that Germany didnt get to meet Mr. Atomic Bomb.

People SERIOUSLY underestimate Germany's logistical inadequacy when it comes to WW2.
 
2013-01-31 03:12:10 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: ha-ha-guy: cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.

The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.


I think if the Germans had gone into Russian and acted as 'liberators' instead of, well Nazis, things might have gone very differently.  The Soviet peoples had been brutalized by Stalin and I think a substantial portion of the population would have at least been ambivalent towards the Germans, if they were treated decently.  Instead, the Germans unleased the SS on the Soviet populations, leading to scorched earth and a war of annihilation.


In a book I once read about Guerilla warfare, a particular paragraph sticks in my memory today:  "When the Nazis invaded the USSR, many of the people living in the areas they invaded came out and greeted them as liberators with bread and salt.  When the Nazis, began to treat them with brutality and contempt as occupied an people rather than allies, those same peasants turned into one of the most effective and deadly guerilla forces the world has ever known"
 
2013-01-31 03:17:21 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: ha-ha-guy: cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.

The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.


I think if the Germans had gone into Russian and acted as 'liberators' instead of, well Nazis, things might have gone very differently.  The Soviet peoples had been brutalized by Stalin and I think a substantial portion of the population would have at least been ambivalent towards the Germans, if they were treated decently.  Instead, the Germans unleased the SS on the Soviet populations, leading to scorched earth and a war of annihilation.


Yeah, as it turns out the only thing Germans hated more than Jews was Slavs. If they hadn't gone off on them, potentially there would have been a second Russian revolution. The biggest counterfactual history point I wished would happen would be for the Germans to take Moscow and execute that treacherous Stalin, then promptly lose. They were only ten miles short.
 
2013-01-31 03:18:05 PM
Doesnt matter WHEN the Germans attack the USSR. They are still attempting to drive a mostly horse bound army, over a thousand kilometers into hostile country with the worlds shiattiest supply capacity. The ONLY thing that could have offset that was massive civilian assistance from the slavic population and what with that whole 'untermensch' thing going the Nazi's werent going to gain that.
 
2013-01-31 03:19:30 PM

Ishkur: You're talking as if America was in the war from the start and fully mobilized toward Germany's defeat. They didn't join until December 7, 1941 and not because of Germany. A more interesting discussion would be whether the United States would have joined the war at all if Japan had not invaded Pearl Harbor. No United States, no Manhatten Project, no atomic weapons. Understand, also, that the new weapons development came about primarily due to the logistics of conducting warfare across a vast ocean. Therefore, armor and field troops were not as essential as aircraft carriers, long range fighters, heavy bombers, amphibious assault tactics, strategic bombing (and what and how it bombed cf. napalm), and of course atomic weapons.... all of which were put into good use in the European Theatre but might not have come about at all if the United States hadn't decided to throw its economy into war production, research and development. I mean, let's be realistic: The Germans and British were excellent at bombing each other but it was the Yanks who made it glorious, genocidal art.


Roosevelt was doing all he could to get into the war in Europe. Pearl Harbor just accelareated it. Lend Lease started before Pearl Harbor and the Germans were hitting the convoys awfully hard. Eventually, we would have gotten tired of it and gotten into the war for the same reason we went into WW1.
 
2013-01-31 03:21:36 PM
Ishkur:Brutalism everywhere.

And that's just the women!
 
2013-01-31 03:24:16 PM

Subtle_Canary: People SERIOUSLY underestimate Germany's logistical inadequacy when it comes to WW2.


Actually, they were very logistically adequate. They were easily the most efficient of all the participating war economies. But they knew they didn't have the money, resources or labor power to fight a protracted war. Hell, blitzkrieg was invented not out of some brilliant strategery but out of necessity -- it was the only way they calculated they could win: Through short, cheap, lightning fast campaigns.

The Allies, meanwhile, were very inefficient, very sloppy, their commanders constantly bickered and operations often blundered and stumbled along. Nothing went right -- the war gave us the acronyms FUBAR and SNAFU for a reason. Eisenhower once remarked that "Plans are useless but planning is essential" meaning... it's never going to go the way you draw it up but it's good to have an understanding of what you're trying to achieve anyway.

But if there's one thing they did have it was an almost inexhaustible supply of resources and labor. It didn't matter how bad the Allies fought, they could always replenish supplies and replace troops. Germany didn't have that luxury and they knew that they would lose through attrition -- something they were trying to avoid from the outset but they inevitably got bogged down in the Motherland.
 
2013-01-31 03:24:36 PM

ha-ha-guy: I always wondered if the UK would have eventually gone with "You know what?  fark France."


Historically, their opinion always was 'fark France' but they needed to maintain France if for nothing else than to act as a buffer from the rest of the barbarians on the mainland.
 
2013-01-31 03:28:04 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: brandied: Well, Istanbul was once Constantinople...


Link


Thanks.  Now I've got the earworm.  Won't be wasted, though.

/musician

//Even old New York, was once New Hampster Dam
 
2013-01-31 03:28:36 PM

LemSkroob: And that's just the women!


laugh.

/something about Russian women: They don't age well. They go from smoking hot to babushka in about 20 years. Must be all that boiled cabbage.
 
2013-01-31 03:30:20 PM

Subtle_Canary: Doesnt matter WHEN the Germans attack the USSR. They are still attempting to drive a mostly horse bound army, over a thousand kilometers into hostile country with the worlds shiattiest supply capacity. The ONLY thing that could have offset that was massive civilian assistance from the slavic population and what with that whole 'untermensch' thing going the Nazi's werent going to gain that.


Ironically the guy from whom Hitler took most of his racial theories and served as his early mentor regarded the Russians as good solid Aryans, his original vision was to forge a grand Russian-German-Japanese Alliance and use it to take over the world.  Now leaving aside the sheer impossibility of the egos of Stalin and Hitler existing side-by-side, it wasn't a bad plan, but Hitler's aforesaid ego farked it up by invading Russia.
 
2013-01-31 03:30:42 PM

Ishkur: The Germans and British were excellent at bombing each other but it was the Yanks who made it glorious, genocidal art.


The Germans actually kinda sucked at bombing. They had no long range strategic bombers whatsoever, choosing instead to use their scarce resources to produce dive bombers to support ground troops. Part of the reason the Blitz was relatively ineffective was that their bombers weren't designed for that sort of thing, and their payloads were tiny compared to, say, a B-17.

Ishkur: Make no mistake: Despite appalling losses, it was the Soviet Red Army that broke the back of the Wehrmacht and liberated Europe.


Oh, no one's disputing that. The question is, What would have happened if they hadn't? You're right that the USA's focus on the Pacific would have kept the heat off Germany for a while, but in the end I don't think that would be enough. If nothing else, the development of nuclear weapons would have finished them, and they simply had no way to bring the war to a successful end before that. They started the war with so many disadvantages that it really was insane for them to initiate the conflict.
 
2013-01-31 03:36:42 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: ha-ha-guy: cgraves67: Opportunist that Stalin was, I doubt that Russia would've stayed out of it, even if Operation Barbarossa hadn't happened, especially once the tide turned against Germany. Stalin would've wanted to grab the rest of Poland, the Balkans, and a chunk of Germany once the Germans dedicated their resources to fight the Americans and Brits in the West.

The alternate history I've always been interested in was if Germany had gone into the USSR right after Stalin purged the army and managed to sell their invasion as protecting capitalism against communism (to keep France and the UK out).  The Red Army was pretty bad when Barbarossa launched, but if you'd done it right after Stalin killed everyone and the command structure was a blank sheet of paper I wonder how things would have gone.


I think if the Germans had gone into Russian and acted as 'liberators' instead of, well Nazis, things might have gone very differently.  The Soviet peoples had been brutalized by Stalin and I think a substantial portion of the population would have at least been ambivalent towards the Germans, if they were treated decently.  Instead, the Germans unleased the SS on the Soviet populations, leading to scorched earth and a war of annihilation.


Yeah really the Nazis didn't need to conquer Russia. What they needed was a regime there wouldn't stab them in the back while they were busy with other projects, which meant you needed to get rid of Stalin.  Burning the place to the ground or trying to stick a friendly regime in place were both options on the table.  The friendly regime one is a bit better in that you can then buy raw materials off the Russians (and oil).  A different Russian policy could have changed things for Hitler.
 
2013-01-31 03:37:45 PM

SuperChuck: Roosevelt was doing all he could to get into the war in Europe. Pearl Harbor just accelareated it. Lend Lease started before Pearl Harbor and the Germans were hitting the convoys awfully hard. Eventually, we would have gotten tired of it and gotten into the war for the same reason we went into WW1.


Yes, but that's not full-on mobilization and if the United States had entered the war against Germany and not Japan there would have been entirely different weapons development. Understand that most of the new weapons tech (including atomic weapons) came about due to the cumbersome issue of "how do we conduct a war across 7000 miles of water?" So war production focused on supply logistics, long-term campaigning, stamina, duration and explosive one-shot power (since it was logistically prohibitive to reach some places). Carriers ie: mobile islands do not have the same kind of effectiveness in the North Sea.

If Europe had become the prime theatre instead of the Pacific, yes the war would have been different and the Allies would still have won. But the sense of urgency to develop napalm, super bombers, atomic weapons et. al. would not have been there (they might not have even seen the need to pursue a Manhatten Project at all) and the claims that Germany would have been a glass parking lot by 1950 is making a lot of assumptions about war necessity.
 
2013-01-31 03:40:00 PM
Oh, no one's disputing that. The question is, What would have happened if they hadn't? You're right that the USA's focus on the Pacific would have kept the heat off Germany for a while, but in the end I don't think that would be enough. If nothing else, the development of nuclear weapons would have finished them, and they simply had no way to bring the war to a successful end before that. They started the war with so many disadvantages that it really was insane for them to initiate the conflict.

USA didn't focus on the Pacific. Europe First is a pretty well known element of the strategy decided on by the US and UK during the early stages of the war.
 
2013-01-31 03:41:37 PM

Ishkur: Actually, they were very logistically adequate. They were easily the most efficient of all the participating war economies.


I'm pretty sure just about any historian would seriously dispute this. To use one example, the Germans had numerous "wonder weapon" projects, most of which never really got anywhere at all. They did waste scarce resources, though. The thing is, in the Nazi system men who were high up on the totem pole would carve out personal fiefdoms and would not only refuse to cooperate with each other, they would deliberately undermine each other. Hitler encouraged this sort of behavior because he was an idiot and he thought it would cause the strong to rise to the top. It led to dysfunction, corruption, and waste on a massive scale.
 
2013-01-31 03:42:31 PM

ha-ha-guy: Yeah really the Nazis didn't need to conquer Russia. What they needed was a regime there wouldn't stab them in the back while they were busy with other projects, which meant you needed to get rid of Stalin. Burning the place to the ground or trying to stick a friendly regime in place were both options on the table. The friendly regime one is a bit better in that you can then buy raw materials off the Russians (and oil). A different Russian policy could have changed things for Hitler.


Then did Stalin's regime was unfriendly to Hitler?
 
2013-01-31 03:46:10 PM

malaktaus: Oh, no one's disputing that. The question is, What would have happened if they hadn't? You're right that the USA's focus on the Pacific would have kept the heat off Germany for a while, but in the end I don't think that would be enough. If nothing else, the development of nuclear weapons would have finished them, and they simply had no way to bring the war to a successful end before that. They started the war with so many disadvantages that it really was insane for them to initiate the conflict.


Well, let's say, then, that Fascism and Bolshevism retain the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, they carve Eastern Europe up like a pie, and Fortress Europe is secured. What happens?

Well, we have a stalemate so stubborn I can quite literally see the Brits going "You know what? ...fark the French." And would the Americans care either? They're fighting Japan and would not likely see the point in a diverting resources to another theatre if all hostilities suddenly calm down.

Japan gets clobbered, and then we have the Western Europe invasion to end all invasions. That is, until the Yanks arrive and they bring their new toys....
 
2013-01-31 03:46:57 PM

AbiNormal: [0363a8f.netsolhost.com image 600x450]


media.tumblr.com
No penis:
djscreamtv.com  media.desura.com
 
2013-01-31 03:48:02 PM
Ah, good old Stalin.  He's probably yucking it up in heaven with Ty Cobb and Mao.

Amazing book on Stalingrad: Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor.  Total turn pager if you are into this part of history.  His description and reporting of all the personal details of the frontline grunts and all the ways to die if you were in that particular battle: KIA, starved, executed by your own people (if you were Russian), taken prisoner to endure a slow death.  Fun stuff.

It was also turned into a Hollywood movie, which wasn't very good.
 
2013-01-31 03:49:46 PM

Ishkur: Subtle_Canary: People SERIOUSLY underestimate Germany's logistical inadequacy when it comes to WW2.

Actually, they were very logistically adequate. They were easily the most efficient of all the participating war economies. But they knew they didn't have the money, resources or labor power to fight a protracted war. Hell, blitzkrieg was invented not out of some brilliant strategery but out of necessity -- it was the only way they calculated they could win: Through short, cheap, lightning fast campaigns.

The Allies, meanwhile, were very inefficient, very sloppy, their commanders constantly bickered and operations often blundered and stumbled along. Nothing went right -- the war gave us the acronyms FUBAR and SNAFU for a reason. Eisenhower once remarked that "Plans are useless but planning is essential" meaning... it's never going to go the way you draw it up but it's good to have an understanding of what you're trying to achieve anyway.

But if there's one thing they did have it was an almost inexhaustible supply of resources and labor. It didn't matter how bad the Allies fought, they could always replenish supplies and replace troops. Germany didn't have that luxury and they knew that they would lose through attrition -- something they were trying to avoid from the outset but they inevitably got bogged down in the Motherland.


Bull. The Germans never had superiority of arms in any theatre they fought. Mostly because of production issues but a large part because of ad hoc supply.
North Africa for example never saw the Germans fighting anything near full strength. Because German aerial capacity was a joke and because its naval merchant fleet was basically a non-entity. the DAK was a glorified speed bump that the allied powers simply hounded to death because the OKW couldnt keep up with the battlefield expenditures of little more than 2 divisions worth of troops.

Barbarossa was even worse. A lot of people remember that during the first winter on the Eastern Front, that most of the German Army was still fighting in summer wear without coats. This wasnt because the Wermacht forgot about seasons, its because the supply carriage ability of germany depended a helluva lot on rail transport and with partisans along the entire length of your rear, train shipment deliveries were constantly getting destroyed or delayed. The entire Stalingrad campaign was mostly waged not because of ego-centric ideals such as sacking your enemies namesake city, but because Stalingrad was a major rail and logistic hub that the German army sorely needed to continue fighting that far from home.

Blitzkrieg btw wasnt a german invention. it was simply the natural occurence of warfare when reliable, portable communications, efficient engines for mechanized formations, and aircraft come into play. Whats ironic is that other than the Battle of France, Germany very seldom employed 'blitzkrieg tactics' preferring to rely on mass attacks to break the enemy center and to roll up the flanks with reserve forces in encircling actions.
 
2013-01-31 03:50:00 PM

malaktaus: I'm pretty sure just about any historian would seriously dispute this.


Well, I got it from AJP Taylor, so I don't know what to say.
 
2013-01-31 03:50:08 PM

malaktaus: Ishkur: Actually, they were very logistically adequate. They were easily the most efficient of all the participating war economies.

I'm pretty sure just about any historian would seriously dispute this. To use one example, the Germans had numerous "wonder weapon" projects, most of which never really got anywhere at all. They did waste scarce resources, though. The thing is, in the Nazi system men who were high up on the totem pole would carve out personal fiefdoms and would not only refuse to cooperate with each other, they would deliberately undermine each other. Hitler encouraged this sort of behavior because he was an idiot and he thought it would cause the strong to rise to the top. It led to dysfunction, corruption, and waste on a massive scale.



Hitler also encouraged it because if your underlings are busy plotting against each other, they've not plotting against the boss.  Survival first.
 
2013-01-31 03:50:29 PM

Magorn: Ironically the guy from whom Hitler took most of his racial theories and served as his early mentor regarded the Russians as good solid Aryans


And why not, after all it was Russians who uncovered the indisputable proof that Jews are trying to take over the world
 
2013-01-31 03:50:56 PM

SuperChuck: Oh, no one's disputing that. The question is, What would have happened if they hadn't? You're right that the USA's focus on the Pacific would have kept the heat off Germany for a while, but in the end I don't think that would be enough. If nothing else, the development of nuclear weapons would have finished them, and they simply had no way to bring the war to a successful end before that. They started the war with so many disadvantages that it really was insane for them to initiate the conflict.

USA didn't focus on the Pacific. Europe First is a pretty well known element of the strategy decided on by the US and UK during the early stages of the war.


Europe First was largely bullshiat intended to placate the British (and Soviets, for that matter). In practice the United States concentrated its resources on Japan in the early part of the war.
 
2013-01-31 03:55:52 PM

Ishkur: malaktaus: I'm pretty sure just about any historian would seriously dispute this.

Well, I got it from AJP Taylor, so I don't know what to say.


He's been dead for a long time, and he didn't have access to as many primary resources as modern historians. I can say with certainty that Richard Evans would dispute your assertion.
 
2013-01-31 03:59:06 PM

Subtle_Canary: The Germans never had superiority of arms in any theatre they fought.


That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they were the most economical, and they were (comparatively speaking)

The Allies plan was simply to out-spend the Axis, and they did.
 
2013-01-31 04:00:13 PM

malaktaus: He's been dead for a long time, and he didn't have access to as many primary resources as modern historians. I can say with certainty that Richard Evans would dispute your assertion.


Yes, because primary sources improve with age.
 
2013-01-31 04:00:42 PM
Thank heavens for the Natashas, as they're known in SoCal.

tezini.com
 
2013-01-31 04:05:13 PM

Ishkur: malaktaus: He's been dead for a long time, and he didn't have access to as many primary resources as modern historians. I can say with certainty that Richard Evans would dispute your assertion.

Yes, because primary sources improve with age.


Primary resources sometimes become available with age. After the fall of communism, for instance, a lot of resources that hadn't been available to Western historians suddenly became available. Or consider Victor Klemperer's diaries; they're considered a particularly good source for information on life in the Third Reich, and they weren't published until 1995.
 
2013-01-31 04:19:44 PM
OscarTamerz Thank heavens for the Natashas, as they're known in SoCal.

As a Southern Californian resident, please do go on.
 
2013-01-31 04:21:08 PM

Ishkur: Subtle_Canary: The Germans never had superiority of arms in any theatre they fought.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they were the most economical, and they were (comparatively speaking)

The Allies plan was simply to out-spend the Axis, and they did.


How so? Economical would have been the reliance on 2 or 3 vehicle types for a given task IF that. For example, in figher interceptor, the Luftwaffe had to train and equip and arm, Me-109's of which about 3-5 variants with different armament and capability were in service at any given time. Fw-190 with another 3-4 variants. toss outs like the Me262, and night fighters like the various 110 offerings. The US flew primarily P-47's and P-51's of which weapon commonality meant that they could receive resupply from any branch of the service since we didnt manufacture specif rounds for specific variants of a specific gun model like the Germans did. Fly your 109 Gustav with 20mm into a base with 190a4's? tough shiat for you if the air raid siren went off because the 20mm rounds between the two werent the same nor were the cannon themselves interchangable despite being near copies of each other.

armored divisions having to work through PzIII's PzIV,s Tigers, Panthers, a handful of assault guns and each one being radically different from the other? it drained German resources and the end result was that the Panzer divisions never had enough tanks when they needed them or worse yet, had the wrong tanks at the wrong time. You arent exploiting a breakthrough in a slow moving tiger, your panthers are breaking down en route to the engagement, you have 4 different variants of the PzIV with 3 different guns between them.

The Germans had WAY too many different programs going at any one time most of them with over lapping mission requirements and some of them with bad mission requirements. The most successful AFV they produced was the Stug III but they decided to build monsters like the JT. The Panther was ridiculously unreliable and even when it DID work was mostly a specialized Anti Tank vehicle with a gun far in excess of what it needed to do the job it did. The Tiger was a mobile pillbox while the tanks the Germans DID need badly, infantry support vehicles like the Pz IV were never being produced in numbers to match the Sherman, or the T-34.
 
2013-01-31 04:21:15 PM

malaktaus: Ishkur: malaktaus:

Primary resources sometimes become available with age. After the fall of communism, for instance, a lot of resources that hadn't been available to Western historians suddenly became available. Or consider Victor Klemperer's diaries; they're considered a particularly good source for information on life in the Third Reich, and they weren't published until 1995.



Yes, I like the parts where he recounts piloting his Heinkel bomber.
 
2013-01-31 04:32:53 PM

Subtle_Canary: How so?


Dude, you're geeking out about weapons that have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Slow your roll, homes.

I mean the Germans didn't have the luxury of doing something like Dieppe, you know, just for the hell of it (really, just to gather intelligence).
 
2013-01-31 04:34:31 PM

malaktaus: Primary resources sometimes become available with age


But mostly they just die, and the problem with historical events as they drift farther back in time is they get lampshaded by second and third generations of commentators who have the benefit of hindsight and seeing the ultimate ramifications and consequences from which they can retcon their neo-theories.

As we are doing right now.
 
2013-01-31 04:38:29 PM

Subtle_Canary: How so? Economical would have been the reliance on 2 or 3 vehicle types for a given task IF that. For example, in figher interceptor, the Luftwaffe had to train and equip and arm, Me-109's of which about 3-5 variants with different armament and capability were in service at any given time. Fw-190 with another 3-4 variants. toss outs like the Me262, and night fighters like the various 110 offerings. The US flew primarily P-47's and P-51's of which weapon commonality meant that they could receive resupply from any branch of the service since we didnt manufacture specif rounds for specific variants of a specific gun model like the Germans did. Fly your 109 Gustav with 20mm into a base with 190a4's? tough shiat for you if the air raid siren went off because the 20mm rounds between the two werent the same nor were the cannon themselves interchangable despite being near copies of each other.

armored divisions having to work through PzIII's PzIV,s Tigers, Panthers, a handful of assault guns and each one being radically different from the other? it drained German resources and the end result was that the Panzer divisions never had enough tanks when they needed them or worse yet, had the wrong tanks at the wrong time. You arent exploiting a breakthrough in a slow moving tiger, your panthers are breaking down en route to the engagement, you have 4 different variants of the PzIV with 3 different guns between them.

The Germans had WAY too many different programs going at any one time most of them with over lapping mission requirements and some of them with bad mission requirements. The most successful AFV they produced was the Stug III but they decided to build monsters like the JT. The Panther was ridiculously unreliable and even when it DID work was mostly a specialized Anti Tank vehicle with a gun far in excess of what it needed to do the job it did. The Tiger was a mobile pillbox while the tanks the Germans DID need badly, infantry support vehicles like the Pz IV were ...


Oh, and:

All of this makes it look that much more impressive that they were able to take Europe at all.

After all, if the Germans were that bad at fighting a war, what was the Allies' excuse?
 
2013-01-31 04:38:58 PM

Harry Freakstorm: I was at the war memorial in Stalingrad and some guy asked me to take his photo in front of it. He was a grizzly old Russian. i guess he was a soldier or conscript. Anyhow, he was in the frame but kind of blurry so I asked him to take one step back. As soon as he did, some old commissar appeared and shot him.

But it was a hell of a great photo.


Nice one!  I did not see that coming.

//I will steal and repeat this joke...  :)
 
2013-01-31 04:44:59 PM

Ishkur: After all, if the Germans were that bad at fighting a war, what was the Allies' excuse?


France
 
2013-01-31 04:53:48 PM

Ishkur: malaktaus: Primary resources sometimes become available with age

But mostly they just die, and the problem with historical events as they drift farther back in time is they get lampshaded by second and third generations of commentators who have the benefit of hindsight and seeing the ultimate ramifications and consequences from which they can retcon their neo-theories.

As we are doing right now.


So historians typically just go around interviewing witnesses and not writing things down, then? I wasn't aware that was how it worked, thank you so much for enlightening me. I was under the impression that witnesses were only relevant to history if they left some sort of record, but perhaps I was wrong.I always thought that historians generally believed a certain distance from events was necessary to get a truly unbiased, definitive historical account, but I suppose a random dude on the internet knows better.

Clash City Farker: Yes, I like the parts where he recounts piloting his Heinkel bomber.


Your sarcastic objection is completely irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Ishkur: All of this makes it look that much more impressive that they were able to take Europe at all.


They weren't.
 
2013-01-31 05:08:20 PM

Ishkur: ctually, they were very logistically adequate


Not so sure about that...iirc one of their biggest issues was all the different designs of their vehicles. Different models of tank were of completely different design and required a full set of spares (and sometimes maintenance guys) for each and nothing was interchangeable. One of the advances of the allies (especially the Russians) was a) limiting the models of vehicle in the field and b) having multiple interchangeable spares reducing the need to transport stuff.

It's no good having half your tanks unavailable with a shed full of useless spare parts.

They also didn't cope well with the different train gauges, fuel supply, and a general lack of vehicles (they really did rely mostly on horses for logistics, and not russian horses that didn't die in winter).

Also any discussion of Eastern Front logistics has to mention not only the lack of winter gear, but the lack of ability to procure and deliver it quickly. Not having it at the start of winter is much less of a big deal than not having it in the middle.
 
2013-01-31 05:16:59 PM

Magorn: Subtle_Canary: Doesnt matter WHEN the Germans attack the USSR. They are still attempting to drive a mostly horse bound army, over a thousand kilometers into hostile country with the worlds shiattiest supply capacity. The ONLY thing that could have offset that was massive civilian assistance from the slavic population and what with that whole 'untermensch' thing going the Nazi's werent going to gain that.

Ironically the guy from whom Hitler took most of his racial theories and served as his early mentor regarded the Russians as good solid Aryans, his original vision was to forge a grand Russian-German-Japanese Alliance and use it to take over the world.  Now leaving aside the sheer impossibility of the egos of Stalin and Hitler existing side-by-side, it wasn't a bad plan, but Hitler's aforesaid ego farked it up by invading Russia.


In Mein Kampf Hitler was already talking about taking over the East and subjugating the inhabitants. And the drang nach Osten was a German dream before Hitler.  Sure, the Nazis shouldn't have invaded the USSR, but that was sort of the whole point of Naziism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drang_nach_Osten
 
2013-01-31 05:17:15 PM

Magorn: malaktaus: Magorn: nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.

Without the Soviets? Easy.  Stalin was incredibly incompetent in matters of strategy and his pruges of the his officer corps left him with a nigh-incompetent fighting force at the beginning of the war.   Without Russia?  No chance.  The landmass and population Mother Russia was a great black hole that sucked in the entire Wehrmacht and bogged it down, and Old Man Winter in all its Russian glory was the executioner.

The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.

Agreed about Germany's lack of na ...


Unlikely.  The Japanese didn't have the capacity to build the needed troop- and tank-lift cargo ships and oilers during PEACETIME, let alone after our subs worked out their torpedo issues in '42.

They had the samurai fighting spirit...but a fatal disdain for the logistics necessary to modern industrialized warfare.
 
2013-01-31 05:21:54 PM

Ishkur: malaktaus: The Germans, however, were completely incapable of launching an invasion of Britain. It would've taken them years to build a sufficiently powerful navy, and their air force wasn't enough by itself. The Brits probably could have held out more or less indefinitely. Furthermore, the German atomic weapon program was crippled by a lack of uranium and Hitler's distrust of "Jewish" physics. Without the Russians, the Germans still would have lost, but half of Europe might have been turned into a glass parking lot instead of merely being devastated. I say might have because it's entirely possible that Britain and the United States could have handled Germany without such extreme measures. We had huge advantages in manpower and resources, and an industrial base that dwarfed that of Germany. None of that would have changed even if the Soviets were not a factor. The whole course of the war would be completely different, and our casualties would of course have been much higher, but it's far from clear that Germany would have won. People always remember that the Soviets lost over 20 million men, but it's a mistake to think that such a sacrifice was inevitable. The Soviet commanders were incredibly profligate with the lives of their men, for one thing, and the early stages of the war were especially devastating because they were so unprepared. Neither would be the case in a purely Anglo-American war.


You're talking as if America was in the war from the start and fully mobilized toward Germany's defeat. They didn't join until December 7, 1941 and not because of Germany. A more interesting discussion would be whether the United States would have joined the war at all if Japan had not invaded Pearl Harbor. No United States, no Manhatten Project, no atomic weapons. Understand, also, that the new weapons development came about primarily due to the logistics of conducting warfare across a vast ocean. Therefore, armor and field troops were not as essential as aircraft carrier ...


You make some interesting points.  However, I recall reading somewhere our primary focus WAS the European theater, with about a 70/30 split in resources.
 
2013-01-31 05:27:03 PM

SirEattonHogg: Ah, good old Stalin.  He's probably yucking it up in heaven with Ty Cobb and Mao.

Amazing book on Stalingrad: Stalingrad by Anthony Beevor.  Total turn pager if you are into this part of history.  His description and reporting of all the personal details of the frontline grunts and all the ways to die if you were in that particular battle: KIA, starved, executed by your own people (if you were Russian), taken prisoner to endure a slow death.  Fun stuff.

It was also turned into a Hollywood movie, which wasn't very good.


Beevor's book is outstanding.

Afa the movie, you sure you aren't thinking of Enemy at the Gates?  not as good, but still decent book, poor movie.
 
2013-01-31 05:29:50 PM
Is this where we get on our knees and praise the country that helped start WW2?

Excellent.
 
2013-01-31 05:43:30 PM
So what we're saying that it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

/obscure?
//can't believe I'm first with this...
 
2013-01-31 05:51:24 PM

malaktaus: So historians typically just go around interviewing witnesses and not writing things down, then?


Considering 99.999% of all the living witnesses to any notable historical event are dead, I don't see how that is very possible.
 
2013-01-31 05:55:08 PM

SuperChuck: France


Oh sure, blame France for everything.
 
2013-01-31 06:04:40 PM

Ishkur: Yes, because primary sources improve with age.


Depends if you're reading something written post soviet or not. After the fall of communism, a lot of primary sources became available to western scholars that were locked up previously
 
2013-01-31 06:15:16 PM

DustBunny: Ishkur: Yes, because primary sources improve with age.

Depends if you're reading something written post soviet or not. After the fall of communism, a lot of primary sources became available to western scholars that were locked up previously


There's good possibility that some sources, for example those concerning Soviet-Nazi collaboration, were hidden
 
2013-01-31 06:50:11 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: Man, I bet that is an ugly city today. Completely destroyed in WWII and rebuilt in the Soviet 'style'.


Still better looking than Detroit

Also, I'm from St Petersburg, you want beautiful buildings, go there.

/no, not Florida
 
2013-01-31 07:23:27 PM

vice_magnet: Eh, just call it Kingstown already.


Vulvagrad?
 
2013-01-31 07:29:05 PM
img294.imageshack.us
img230.imageshack.us
i287.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-31 07:33:02 PM

Ishkur: Subtle_Canary: The Germans never had superiority of arms in any theatre they fought.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they were the most economical, and they were (comparatively speaking)

The Allies plan was simply to out-spend the Axis, and they did.


Quantity has a quality all its own
 
2013-01-31 07:41:52 PM

DustBunny: Ishkur: Yes, because primary sources improve with age.

Depends if you're reading something written post soviet or not. After the fall of communism, a lot of primary sources became available to western scholars that were locked up previously


Primary sources also run the risk of being the most biased since they are always the most affected by the events described.

Tricky beast, that history. Difficult to see. Always in motion, it is.
 
2013-01-31 09:44:07 PM
Thank goodness, a few days a year they don't have to listen to Volgon poetry.
 
2013-01-31 09:54:11 PM
i651.photobucket.com


From wikipedia:

The NKVD contained the regular, public police force of the USSR (including traffic police, firefighting, border guards and archives) but is better known for the activities of the Gulag and the Main Directorate for State Security (GUGB), which eventually became the Committee for State Security (KGB). It conducted mass extrajudicial executions, ran the Gulag system of forced labor camps, suppressed underground resistance, conducted mass deportations of entire nationalities and Kulaks to unpopulated regions of the country, guarded state borders, conducted espionage and political assassinations abroad, was responsible for influencing foreign governments, and enforced Stalinist policy within communist movements in other countries.

 
2013-01-31 11:20:11 PM
F*ck communism.
 
2013-02-01 12:40:38 AM

ha-ha-guy: The Cold War ends a lot differently in a world where the Soviet Union's population wasn't used against the Nazis human wave style but the West had to fight the Germans to the death. Although I'd say the West was smart enough not to let themselves lose entire generations of people and would have brokered a peace deal.


That's insane, the US would have obliterated Berlin on Aug 6th 1945 and that would have been that.

Novart: Is this where we get on our knees and praise the country that helped start WW2?


No this is where we remember the sons of potato farmers drafted into the Red Army, sent to Stalingrad without any training or weapons, who none the less held the German Sixth army by the nose long enough for Zhukov to pull off operation Saturn.  For every one of them that died, maybe a 100 other lives were spared.
 
2013-02-01 04:35:55 AM

nekom: To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.


I can easily imagine an allied victory but the US and UK would have to have taken the kind of casualties that the Soviets did, and it would have taken longer than 1945
 
2013-02-02 12:15:51 AM
This might be hard to grasp, but Hitler was a "British" agent. Hitler's grandfather was Nathan Meyer Rothschild. The Rothschilds could only marry within their extended family so they had illegitimate children who functioned as anonymous agents. Hitler spent February to November 1912 being brainwashed and trained at the British Military Psych-Ops War School at Tavistock in Devon and in Ireland. His sister-in-law describes him as completely wasted when he came to them immediately afterward.

Wars are plotted decades in advance and orchestrated to achieve the following goals: destruction of nations and natural elites, depopulation, degradation, power and profit from the carnage.

We cannot understand the world until we appreciate that most leaders are traitors and that mankind is victim of a diabolical conspiracy on an unspeakable scale. It's time we stopped fighting each other and addressed the real enemy.
 
2013-02-02 09:53:37 PM

Deep Contact: This might be hard to grasp, but Hitler was a "British" agent. Hitler's grandfather was Nathan Meyer Rothschild. The Rothschilds could only marry within their extended family so they had illegitimate children who functioned as anonymous agents. Hitler spent February to November 1912 being brainwashed and trained at the British Military Psych-Ops War School at Tavistock in Devon and in Ireland. His sister-in-law describes him as completely wasted when he came to them immediately afterward.

Wars are plotted decades in advance and orchestrated to achieve the following goals: destruction of nations and natural elites, depopulation, degradation, power and profit from the carnage.

We cannot understand the world until we appreciate that most leaders are traitors and that mankind is victim of a diabolical conspiracy on an unspeakable scale. It's time we stopped fighting each other and addressed the real enemy.


Off the meds again, are we Deep Contact? The plot to MGS 4 is not historically accurate.
 
2013-02-03 05:08:31 PM

Deep Contact: This might be hard to grasp, but Hitler was a "British" agent. Hitler's grandfather was Nathan Meyer Rothschild. The Rothschilds could only marry within their extended family so they had illegitimate children who functioned as anonymous agents. Hitler spent February to November 1912 being brainwashed and trained at the British Military Psych-Ops War School at Tavistock in Devon and in Ireland. His sister-in-law describes him as completely wasted when he came to them immediately afterward.

Wars are plotted decades in advance and orchestrated to achieve the following goals: destruction of nations and natural elites, depopulation, degradation, power and profit from the carnage.

We cannot understand the world until we appreciate that most leaders are traitors and that mankind is victim of a diabolical conspiracy on an unspeakable scale. It's time we stopped fighting each other and addressed the real enemy.


www.lolbrary.com
 
Displayed 143 of 143 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report