Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Stalingrad, Wehrmacht, Red Army, geographical renaming  
•       •       •

4637 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 1:28 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report