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  
•       •       •

4633 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-31 01:57:07 PM  
2 votes:
0363a8f.netsolhost.com
2013-01-31 11:33:39 AM  
2 votes:
And it's nobody's business but the Russians.
2013-01-31 02:29:57 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:27:27 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:23:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:10:12 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:00:05 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:55:30 PM  
1 vote:
80% of the boys born in 1923 were gone at wars end. Wow, that is unbelievable.
2013-01-31 01:53:33 PM  
1 vote:
What?  No "Istanbul not Constantinople" references yet?

You're failing, Fark.

snark
2013-01-31 01:18:56 PM  
1 vote:
www.acus.org

Eine zweite Chance!  Vorwärts nach Stalingrad!  Marschieren!!
2013-01-31 12:20:55 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:57:02 AM  
1 vote:
To be fair, it was a pretty damned epic battle.  Hard to imagine an allied victory in WW2 without the Soviets.
 
Displayed 12 of 12 comments

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