World War II

Discussion in 'Historical Events Coffee House' started by NateAwesome, Feb 13, 2011.

Page 4 of 16

  1. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    Germany lost at Stalingrad.
    Link, Mar 10, 2011
    #61

  2. NateAwesome Active Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    Another grave mistake Hitler made indeed. Going after Stalingrad instead of Moscow....

    Tsk.....
    NateAwesome, Mar 10, 2011
    #62

  3. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    First of all i want to say Yugoslavia never joined the Axis powers. If you are thinking of the puppet Croatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independen ... of_Croatia) state the germans made after conquering Yugoslavia then please say that in the future as it is most certanly not Yugoslavia
    Second, America would have gone to war with Japan certanly after Pearl Harbour, so the Japanese would most probably not be able to engage the Soviet Union making it more likely the Soviet Union can stand up to Germany. Unless we are to say America didnt go to war with Japan either. But it is likely USA would go to war with Japan without Pearl Harbour anyway. (They were already suppling training, weapons and supplies, planes... to chinese forces) and the want to join the war in Europe was pretty high in the USA as many people were from Europe.
    lukakiwi, Mar 11, 2011
    #63

  4. Scotty993 New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    38
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Napoleon took Moscow and it made no difference.
    Scotty993, Mar 11, 2011
    #64

  5. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    That was only because the Russians had burned Moscow to the ground. If they had not, Napoleon could have taken trhe food and supplies of Moscow and wait the winter out there, which was the reason he rushed to Moscow in the dead of winter...to find supplies. Hitler should have taken Moscow instead of going to Leningrad and Stalingrad. Also during the Napoleonic Wars, St. Petersburg (Leningrad) was the capital of Russia I believe.
    slydessertfox, Mar 14, 2011
    #65

  6. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    i think by the napoleonic wars the capital was moved back to Moscow
    lukakiwi, Mar 15, 2011
    #66

  7. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    No, St.Petersburg was russian capital untill revolution, when it was moved to moscow. Also stalingrad was in 1942-43, battle of moscow in 41. you probably mean kiev? Eighter way i highly doubth that woul make anu diference at all. Besides they would leave their flank open, where is majority of soviet forces
    D3adtrap, Mar 16, 2011
    #67

  8. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    if they took moscow the soviet union would be severly cripled, all communication was based on going to Moscow, so even if the majority of the forces would be on their flank, they wouldnt be able to fidght like a proper army, and easily overrun.
    lukakiwi, Mar 17, 2011
    #68

  9. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    , First of all you are assuming they actualy can take moscow. Yeah thats not gona happen and hitler never intended to take moscow by force, but starve them witch takes months if not years and would leave line extremly thin considering that guderian had to take objectives hunderet miles behind moscow. Besides they would just move hq, like they did in actual battle for moscow. Your theories are based on "what ifs" witch is happy fantacy world that is completly not in tuch with reality ps. I write this /w my mobile
    D3adtrap, Mar 17, 2011
    #69

  10. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    I thought we were talking about what the german generals wanted to do not Hitler, and that was mainly to take Moscow as soon as possible, anyway, youre theory is also a what if so dont acuse me of fantasising.
    lukakiwi, Mar 17, 2011
    #70

  11. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    My theory is not a what if, it is what would.
    D3adtrap, Mar 17, 2011
    #71

  12. lukakiwi Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    98
    what would is a term which is not good to use, one can never know what would hava happened like what in the past if something was different, even the most likely result of a change in history cant be 100% certain to say that that is what would have happened, only what is a posibility that that would happen, therefor it is very selfish and stuborn to say only your idea is 'what would' and others plausible ideas are fantasies. Not meaning to insult you, this is just a general statement.
    lukakiwi, Mar 18, 2011
    #72

  13. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    True, true.

    Lets just say we have our own views on how thing could go
    D3adtrap, Mar 18, 2011
    #73

  14. Link NO SWAG

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,515
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    134
    Location:
    Koprulu Sector
    Thats an empty phrase. It means absolutely nothing. What if and what would mean the exact same.
    Link, Mar 18, 2011
    #74

  15. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    Moscow was the key in my opinion. Like mentioned before, if u take Moscow, the Soviets cannot function as properly as they were able to with Moscow. Also, when the Germans reached Moscow, the Russians were still in dissaray. If Hitler ran straight into Moscow at that point, then the Soviets are less likely to mass a counterattack, and the Germans could move supplies in to survive the Russian winter.
    slydessertfox, Mar 18, 2011
    #75

  16. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap


    1. HQ can and was moved from moscow.
    2. Both sides were in dissaray, like two drunken men who have beaten eachother to shadow from its formerself
    3. Siberian troops are fresh, fully equiped and not yet commited (Witch did turn tide of battle)
    4. Hitler would take Moscow by force, but starve it to death like St. Petersburg (Leningrad)
    D3adtrap, Mar 18, 2011
    #76

  17. slydessertfox Total War Branch Head

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Message Count:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    1,425
    Trophy Points:
    373
    Location:
    Mars
    but in the beginnning the germans were not in dissaray
    slydessertfox, Mar 19, 2011
    #77

  18. D3adtrap www.twitter.com/d3adtrap | Mr. Choc: Coco Fruits

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    www.Twitter.com/d3adtrap
    Not at the begining, but by the desember of 1941 its army was shadow of itself. They lost 500 middle officers (Very vital people, who lead soldiers on battlefield) every week. By the 1942 they had 1/3 of them alive. These people are from that 100 000 strong army that was allowed to exist after WW1. These people are the best of the best, and germany has no way to make up for all the experience and leadership it has lost.

    Not to say Red Army was in good shape by anymeans. From 1941 campaing hardly anyone survived (alive, not wounded nor prisoner) to 45. But they had that Siberian army that was not been committed, its in its full strenght, unlike any german army that was (desparetly) trying to smash itself against soviets.
    In a one way soviets were lucky that armies they lost had all obsolite equipment. They have not yet received T-34's (First made in 1940) and at begining of Barbarossa soviets had total of 300 of them. By mid-late 1942 new soviet armies were mostly fully equiped. In 1941 Stalin orders all factories move to Urals that seized the production, and thats why men in some units had to share single rifle with two of his comrades. Those days are long gone by 1943 though.
    D3adtrap, Mar 19, 2011
    #78

  19. PantherFan15 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I got a question wat if the French held the line do U think it would end up being ww1 all over again or something different
    PantherFan15, Mar 27, 2011
    #79

  20. VladimirLenin New Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2011
    Message Count:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Acworth, Georgia
    The possibility of that is near impossible due to the imbecilic tactics and reliance on the Maginot line by the French, however if they managed to confront the Germans I do not believe that it would have been like WW1, due to the sheer advancement in mobile warfare made by the Germans.
    VladimirLenin, Mar 27, 2011
    #80
Page 4 of 16

Share This Page

Facebook: