|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 12, 2021 19:52:09 GMT
The Nazis had no chance to take Britain. The only way they could win is if they somehow convinced the western powers that communism was worse than Nazism. This was actually the prevailing view in Britain and America at the time (not in France). Ideology is not primary in this sort of questions. If Western Allies supported USSR and not 3 Reich, it means that it was more profitable for them to continue investing in Soviet industrialisation and becoming Russian gold and grain rather than getting an over-powered Germany with protectionist policy, which would close the whole gigantic European market for Anglo-Americans. Also Germans were more likely to become a serious concurrent for British and American naval dominance than Soviets, who had most of their navy in closed Black and Baltic Seas. In other words Germany defeating USSR would strengthen enormously, while USSR defeating Germany was a lesser threat to Western Allies. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 12, 2021 19:54:33 GMT
i mean the operation overlord. germans got two fronts then, the eastern and now the western. hitler had a chance to the eastern front. but with having 2 fronts now, nazis were critically weakened d day was the decesicive day of ww2. the landing in normandy. from that day, allied forces gained the upper hand Hitler had no (really, NOT A SINGLE ONE) hypothetical chance on Eastern Front since failure of Citadel in summer 1943 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 19:58:33 GMT
i mean the operation overlord. germans got two fronts then, the eastern and now the western. hitler had a chance to the eastern front. but with having 2 fronts now, nazis were critically weakened d day was the decesicive day of ww2. the landing in normandy. from that day, allied forces gained the upper hand Hitler had no (really, NOT A SINGLE ONE) hypothetical chances on Eastern Front since failure of Citadel in summer 1943 he still had some army in reserves to continue war on eastern front. but d day brought the new western front, which was too much for german military to handle. so turning point and reason, why germany lost ww2 |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 20:01:30 GMT
The Nazis had no chance to take Britain. The only way they could win is if they somehow convinced the western powers that communism was worse than Nazism. This was actually the prevailing view in Britain and America at the time (not in France). Ideology is not primary in this sort of questions. If Western Allies supported USSR and not 3 Reich, it means that it was more profitable for them to continue investing in Soviet industrialisation and becoming Russian gold and grain rather than getting an over-powered Germany with protectionist policy, which would close the whole gigantic European market for Anglo-Americans. Also Germans were more likely to become a serious concurrent for British and American naval dominance than Soviets, who had most of their navy in closed Black and Baltic Seas. In other words Germany defeating USSR would strengthen enormously, while USSR defeating Germany was a lesser threat to Western Allies. ussr never were able to defeat nazi reich alone. western allies could have done it alone, without the ussr |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 12, 2021 20:02:07 GMT
Hitler had no (really, NOT A SINGLE ONE) hypothetical chances on Eastern Front since failure of Citadel in summer 1943 he still had some army in reserves to continue war on eastern front. but d day brought the new western front, which was too much for german military to handle. so turning point and reason, why germany lost ww2 I can’t imagine any scenario, how Germans could defeat USSR in 1943 or later, even without the second front. And I know enough about Eastern Front to insist on considering this estimation right. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 20:03:48 GMT
he still had some army in reserves to continue war on eastern front. but d day brought the new western front, which was too much for german military to handle. so turning point and reason, why germany lost ww2 I can’t imagine any scenario, how Germans could defeat USSR in 1943 or later, even without the second front. And I know enough about Eastern Front to insist on considering this estimation right. lol. there was still chance with the armies in reserves. you just dont read what i say, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 20:04:28 GMT
be as ignorant as you want. it only makes me angry, boy
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Dec 12, 2021 20:09:11 GMT
I can’t imagine any scenario, how Germans could defeat USSR in 1943 or later, even without the second front. And I know enough about Eastern Front to insist on considering this estimation right. Yeah, Germany was already way past its prime in early 1944, before the Allies decided to open a second front. And I think they had more important things to worry about, like Italy, for example, that was already a second front for the Allies. But based on the USSR's KDR if Germany was able to hold out for another 2 years they MAYBE could have survived the Soviet assault cause they'd eventually run out of people |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 12, 2021 20:10:07 GMT
Ideology is not primary in this sort of questions. If Western Allies supported USSR and not 3 Reich, it means that it was more profitable for them to continue investing in Soviet industrialisation and becoming Russian gold and grain rather than getting an over-powered Germany with protectionist policy, which would close the whole gigantic European market for Anglo-Americans. Also Germans were more likely to become a serious concurrent for British and American naval dominance than Soviets, who had most of their navy in closed Black and Baltic Seas. In other words Germany defeating USSR would strengthen enormously, while USSR defeating Germany was a lesser threat to Western Allies. ussr never were able to defeat nazi reich alone. western allies could have done it alone, without the ussr Normandy defences were poorly manned, when Allies landed in 1944, and it still became a blood bath. Therefore it’s hard for me to imagine an Allied landing in Europe without Eastern Front having already defeated most German forces. Though maybe Allies would still be able to win WW2, who knows. But USSR could win without Western Allies. Battles for Moscow and Stalingrad were won with barely any lend-lease. But of course the war would last much longer and take even more lives. Therefore I thank Western Allies for probably saving my ancestors from being killed in that harder alternate war and thus allowing me to be born. God, let our nations live in peace and friendship! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 20:12:29 GMT
lol we dont need to have same opinion, do we?
its only argumentation, you can never proof what is truth
|
|
|
|
Post by Thortilla on Dec 12, 2021 20:14:59 GMT
the turning point in ww2 was the d day. operation overlord. until then, it was more par to par. apart from the landing in italy few months before. loosing italy meant for nazis loosing influence into south, to africa. thats why germany lost ww2 the war was already lost in June of 1941. If you fight the British don't look for the Russians. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 12, 2021 20:15:37 GMT
Ideology is not primary in this sort of questions. If Western Allies supported USSR and not 3 Reich, it means that it was more profitable for them to continue investing in Soviet industrialisation and becoming Russian gold and grain rather than getting an over-powered Germany with protectionist policy, which would close the whole gigantic European market for Anglo-Americans. Also Germans were more likely to become a serious concurrent for British and American naval dominance than Soviets, who had most of their navy in closed Black and Baltic Seas. In other words Germany defeating USSR would strengthen enormously, while USSR defeating Germany was a lesser threat to Western Allies. ussr never were able to defeat nazi reich alone. western allies could have done it alone, without the ussr That is so false on so many levels. One, the Soviets did way more to end the war than the Western allies and probably could have done it with no help at all. In addition, Germany was a western power, and had the manpower to make Fortress Europe, had the Soviet Union not existed, impenetrable. A weak defense can often beat a strong attack if conducted well. |
|
|
|
Post by alexandrvasilevski on Dec 12, 2021 20:15:45 GMT
I can’t imagine any scenario, how Germans could defeat USSR in 1943 or later, even without the second front. And I know enough about Eastern Front to insist on considering this estimation right. lol. there was still chance with the armies in reserves. you just dont read what i say, do you? Germans tried to decisively defeat USSR three times without any Second Front - in summer campaigns of 1941, 1942 and 1943. Why would they succeed another time, when all conditions would get worse and worse for them? I’m not ignorant and I understood your point, but those reserves were few and thus not capable of turning the tide decisively. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 20:15:53 GMT
so basically, i mean: tell me what you want, i can always tell the opposite tactic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2021 20:17:16 GMT
you all tell me b u l l s h i t
i am tired of discussing with you and i dont want either
|
|
