|
|
Ask me...
Feb 14, 2021 16:16:37 GMT
via mobile
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Feb 14, 2021 16:16:37 GMT
By worse, I mean that there would be more people dead. In addition Germany would most definitely not own all the territory it conquered. It would own a fraction, and set up the rest as puppets. However in the long term, I would say there would be less dead. Interestingly, both of these happened because Woodrow Wilson became President of the USA... Why would there be less dead in long term? In the long term, Germany's power would fizzle out, putting a mostly peaceful end to a reign of terror, rather than everyone starving to death during it's collapse. However, the first few years would be horrifying. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Feb 14, 2021 16:19:15 GMT
Why would there be less dead in long term? In the long term, Germany's power would fizzle out, putting a mostly peaceful end to a reign of terror, rather than everyone starving to death during it's collapse. However, the first few years would be horrifying. What if Germany was destroyed and the allies fought with Soviets in Germany itself? |
|
|
|
Ask me...
Feb 14, 2021 16:43:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Feb 14, 2021 16:43:02 GMT
In the long term, Germany's power would fizzle out, putting a mostly peaceful end to a reign of terror, rather than everyone starving to death during it's collapse. However, the first few years would be horrifying. What if Germany was destroyed and the allies fought with Soviets in Germany itself? Highly unlikely. The Germans already almost beat the Soviets virtually by themselves, so with the help of Britain, France, Spain, America, and the rest it would be an assured win. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Feb 14, 2021 16:45:47 GMT
What if Germany was destroyed and the allies fought with Soviets in Germany itself? Highly unlikely. The Germans already almost beat the Soviets virtually by themselves, so with the help of Britain, France, Spain, America, and the rest it would be an assured win. I think that the allies would be blamed for continued aggression and would probably withdraw when they would reach the Soviet border. Then they would give independence for all conquered countries, causing unnecessary casualties |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Feb 26, 2021 0:17:52 GMT
Anything else to keep this thread alive?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2021 1:00:57 GMT
Anything else to keep this thread alive? Why... Doesn't anyone seem interested in this except you, Napolean I and Don Vito Corleone? You can start a discussion |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Feb 26, 2021 14:01:04 GMT
Anything else to keep this thread alive? Why... Doesn't anyone seem interested in this except you, Napolean I and Don Vito Corleone? You can start a discussion Idunno, maybe nobody knows me well enough... |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Feb 27, 2021 6:37:41 GMT
Why... Doesn't anyone seem interested in this except you, Napolean I and Don Vito Corleone? You can start a discussion Idunno, maybe nobody knows me well enough... *Cough**Cough* You disgrace me brother. |
|
|
|
Ask me...
Feb 27, 2021 9:55:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 9:55:54 GMT
Ok so, just to get started, Gerd von Rundstedt, what are your thoughts on operation Barbarossa. People say that attacking the Soviet union was a blunder. But I don't believe so. Because All of Europe was under Hitler and Britain was going defensive. Attacking Yugoslavia at that time cost him the war. Another reason why he lost the war was that his allies were laggards. Italy failed miserably in Mediterranean and Japan awoke a sleeping giant in USA. I think that Declaring war on USA was a blunder and so was attacking Yugoslavia just before Operation Barbarossa just to satisfy his personal ego is not appreciated to say the least. Finally I got someone to talk about my favourite subject - ww2 Then you are not an expert of ww2 IMO . Invasion of Yugoslavia cost Germany barely 200 soldiers and Hitler did not wanted to attack Yugoslavia, he put pressure on Prince Regent Paul to sign tripartite pact but he wanted remain neutral since he did not wanted to upset Britain France or Germany but after Fall of France, Germany became more influential in Europe and no one in Europe( except Britain ofcourse) wanted war with Germany . When Italian invasion of Greece became defence of Albania and British began sending help to Greece, Hitler was worried about Romanian oil (Romaniam oilfields were in Range of Salonika but Greeks did not allow British to put planes as they feared this will provoke Germany, instead Greeks allowed British planes in Crete which did not helped them against invasion but also provoked Germany since they feared that they might British planes in Salonika ) and his southern flank , Hence he pressurised both Bulgarians and Yugoslavians to sign tripartite pact , especially the Yugoslavians since they had railway infrastructure to quickly deploy German troops on Greek front and then redeploy them for invasion of USSR. Paul ultimately accepted Hitler's demands and signed it but he was toppled from power by an allegedly British backed coup and then Yugoslavia left the pact only to become an enemy of the third Reich. Yugoslavians then planned most militarily irrational plan to defend whole Yugoslavian border ( except Greek border) of 1600 km instead of cooperating with Allies by only defending southern part as the British and Greeks wanted. Yugoslavia had 1 million men in their army which could have solved the man power problem of allies , axis would have tough time defeating allies with Yugoslav Manpower, British equipment and Greek courage. This did not help that many Croat soldiers also joined the Germans. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Feb 27, 2021 10:05:18 GMT
Ok so, just to get started, Gerd von Rundstedt , what are your thoughts on operation Barbarossa. People say that attacking the Soviet union was a blunder. But I don't believe so. Because All of Europe was under Hitler and Britain was going defensive. Attacking Yugoslavia at that time cost him the war. Another reason why he lost the war was that his allies were laggards. Italy failed miserably in Mediterranean and Japan awoke a sleeping giant in USA. I think that Declaring war on USA was a blunder and so was attacking Yugoslavia just before Operation Barbarossa just to satisfy his personal ego is not appreciated to say the least. Finally I got someone to talk about my favourite subject - ww2 Then you are not an expert of ww2 IMO . Invasion of Yugoslavia cost Germany barely 200 soldiers and Hitler did not wanted to attack Yugoslavia, he put pressure on Prince Regent Paul to sign tripartite pact but he wanted remain neutral since he did not wanted to upset Britain France or Germany but after Fall of France, Germany became more influential in Europe and no one in Europe( except Britain ofcourse) wanted war with Germany . When Italian invasion of Greece became defence of Albania and British began sending help to Greece, Hitler was worried about Romanian oil (Romaniam oilfields were in Range of Salonika but Greeks did not allow British to put planes as they feared this will provoke Germany, instead Greeks allowed British planes in Crete which did not helped them against invasion but also provoked Germany since they feared that they might British planes in Salonika ) and his southern flank , Hence he pressurised both Bulgarians and Yugoslavians to sign tripartite pact , especially the Yugoslavians since they had railway infrastructure to quickly deploy German troops on Greek front and then redeploy them for invasion of USSR. Paul ultimately accepted Hitler's demands and signed it but he was toppled from power by an alleged British backed coup and then Yugoslavia left the pact only to become an enemy of the third Reich. Yugoslavians then planned most military irrational plan to defend whole Yugoslavian border ( except Greek border) of 1600 km instead of cooperating with Allies by only southern part as the British and Greeks wanted. Yugoslavia had 1 million men in their army which could have solved the man power problem of allies , axis would have tough time defeating allies with Yugoslav Manpower, British equipment and Greek courage. Some Croats also joined the Germans. That's right. But that invasion delayed Barbarossa. The Russian weather cost them a lot and eventually, it played a key role in the retreat of Nazis. If they hadn't done that, then they might have been successful in Barbarossa. It might not have been that severe. |
|
|
|
Ask me...
Feb 27, 2021 10:06:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 10:06:22 GMT
Then you are not an expert of ww2 IMO . Invasion of Yugoslavia cost Germany barely 200 soldiers and Hitler did not wanted to attack Yugoslavia, he put pressure on Prince Regent Paul to sign tripartite pact but he wanted remain neutral since he did not wanted to upset Britain France or Germany but after Fall of France, Germany became more influential in Europe and no one in Europe( except Britain ofcourse) wanted war with Germany . When Italian invasion of Greece became defence of Albania and British began sending help to Greece, Hitler was worried about Romanian oil (Romaniam oilfields were in Range of Salonika but Greeks did not allow British to put planes as they feared this will provoke Germany, instead Greeks allowed British planes in Crete which did not helped them against invasion but also provoked Germany since they feared that they might British planes in Salonika ) and his southern flank , Hence he pressurised both Bulgarians and Yugoslavians to sign tripartite pact , especially the Yugoslavians since they had railway infrastructure to quickly deploy German troops on Greek front and then redeploy them for invasion of USSR. Paul ultimately accepted Hitler's demands and signed it but he was toppled from power by an alleged British backed coup and then Yugoslavia left the pact only to become an enemy of the third Reich. Yugoslavians then planned most military irrational plan to defend whole Yugoslavian border ( except Greek border) of 1600 km instead of cooperating with Allies by only southern part as the British and Greeks wanted. Yugoslavia had 1 million men in their army which could have solved the man power problem of allies , axis would have tough time defeating allies with Yugoslav Manpower, British equipment and Greek courage. Some Croats also joined the Germans. That's right. But that invasion delayed Barbarossa. The Russian weather cost them a lot and eventually, it played a key role in the retreat of Nazis. If they hadn't done that, then they might have been successful in Barbarossa. It might not have been that severe. No , Barabarossa was planned for June originally. As of winter , it is only a legend and it's role is exaggerated, mud played bigger role than winter |
|
|
|
Ask me...
Feb 27, 2021 10:09:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 10:09:43 GMT
There were lots of reasons
1. German military was basically divided into 2 parts, one motorised , the other Unmotorised, the motorised army was small ( some 10 per cent ) while rest was Unmotorised. Motorised army quickly Blitzkrieged through Soviet lines but Unmotorised part lagged behind and the gap became larger and larger as they went into Soviet union.
2. Resources- Soviet Union has way more manpower and resources than Germany.
3. Poor infrastructure- This made problem even bigger. Germany has shortages already and Poor Roads of USSR made the situation even worse as it even slowed the motorised part and slowed the process of sending supplies. Many roads which were listed as Matalled roads were actually unmettaled.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Feb 27, 2021 10:11:27 GMT
That's right. But that invasion delayed Barbarossa. The Russian weather cost them a lot and eventually, it played a key role in the retreat of Nazis. If they hadn't done that, then they might have been successful in Barbarossa. It might not have been that severe. No , Barabarossa was planned for June originally Ah...you are wrong there. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa |
|
|
|
Ask me...
Feb 27, 2021 10:12:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 10:12:32 GMT
You believe Wikipedia, lol Winter did not play as much role as it is said |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Feb 27, 2021 10:14:20 GMT
You believe Wikipedia, lol Winter did not play as much role as it is said I do have a 1400 page book if you want! Most of my WW2 knowledge is based on that |
|
