|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 6, 2016 17:46:29 GMT
Care if I ask another Alternate History question?
If not, then here I go:
What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War (No matter how unprobable that may be)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 6, 2016 17:47:43 GMT
There's only one way the Japanese or the Soviets would ever fully surrender...And that way took until 1945 to fully develop and use. They would capitulate with " a huge boom " |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 6, 2016 17:47:44 GMT
Although some things are clearly impossible, even in Alt History But bassicly if the germans took Moscow the russians would crush them and germany would need to retreat because the germans would need to a huge force to get Moscow so if the russians destroy a huge chunk of the German Russuia would faster defeat the Germans and would reach Berlin faster can we agree with this?? No. Because given how many troops Russia sent to Moscow, its fall would weaken their army more than the Germans. They would be able to mount a resistance in the Ural mountains and further East, but not march on Berlin |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 6, 2016 17:52:27 GMT
But bassicly if the germans took Moscow the russians would crush them and germany would need to retreat because the germans would need to a huge force to get Moscow so if the russians destroy a huge chunk of the German Russuia would faster defeat the Germans and would reach Berlin faster can we agree with this?? No. Because given how many troops Russia sent to Moscow, its fall would weaken their army more than the Germans. They would be able to mount a resistance in the Ural mountains and further East, but not march on Berlin I wanted to say that the Russians did the same thing as in the napoleonic wars if the germans would take Moscow but it would be useless and time consuming but the russians have taken all of their forces away from Moscow and then surrounded the army in moscow to cut off their supply and crush the germans so the soviets would just push until they get to the old borders and if they have the power to get poland and SFR Yugoslavia back |
|
|
|
Post by Washington on Aug 6, 2016 17:55:25 GMT
Well true but say the luftwaffe was adapted to strategic bombing and destroyed industry moving to the urals then Siberia and resistance would be hopeless for the USSR, supposing Barbarossa was successful
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 6, 2016 17:58:28 GMT
Well true but say the luftwaffe was adapted to strategic bombing and destroyed industry moving to the urals then Siberia and resistance would be hopeless for the USSR, supposing Barbarossa was successful We all know that Barbarrosa would be AHuge failure because the Germans didnt have enough oil because Rommel didnt have enough supplies and reinforcments to capture cairo |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 6, 2016 18:00:10 GMT
No. Because given how many troops Russia sent to Moscow, its fall would weaken their army more than the Germans. They would be able to mount a resistance in the Ural mountains and further East, but not march on Berlin I wanted to say that the Russians did the same thing as in the napoleonic wars if the germans would take Moscow but it would be useless and time consuming but the russians have taken all of their forces away from Moscow and then surrounded the army in moscow to cut off their supply and crush the germans so the soviets would just push until they get to the old borders and if they have the power to get poland and SFR Yugoslavia back They used a vastly different strategy in 1812. In 1812, they let Napoleon in and destroyed his supply lines. In 1941, they tried to hold Hitler off |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 6, 2016 18:02:46 GMT
Ok I just want to say one thing I have got a small headache so I will stay off the history for some minutes
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 6, 2016 18:04:39 GMT
I wanted to say that the Russians did the same thing as in the napoleonic wars if the germans would take Moscow but it would be useless and time consuming but the russians have taken all of their forces away from Moscow and then surrounded the army in moscow to cut off their supply and crush the germans so the soviets would just push until they get to the old borders and if they have the power to get poland and SFR Yugoslavia back They used a vastly different strategy in 1812. In 1812, they let Napoleon in and destroyed his supply lines. In 1941, they tried to hold Hitler off But actually the Germans didnt have enoigh supplies themselves oil was missing and the woukd provavbly send a telegram to UK or USA to help them or the war is over and to take out german oil and steel supplies |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 6, 2016 18:07:33 GMT
They used a vastly different strategy in 1812. In 1812, they let Napoleon in and destroyed his supply lines. In 1941, they tried to hold Hitler off But actually the Germans didnt have enoigh supplies themselves oil was missing and the woukd provavbly send a telegram to UK or USA to help them or the war is over and to take out german oil and steel supplies Historical errors galore! If Soviet Army was smashed at Moscow, then taking the Caucasus oil fields would've been easy. And Hitler would never beg the west. He was too egotistical |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 6, 2016 18:08:09 GMT
I wanted to say that the Russians did the same thing as in the napoleonic wars if the germans would take Moscow but it would be useless and time consuming but the russians have taken all of their forces away from Moscow and then surrounded the army in moscow to cut off their supply and crush the germans so the soviets would just push until they get to the old borders and if they have the power to get poland and SFR Yugoslavia back They used a vastly different strategy in 1812. In 1812, they let Napoleon in and destroyed his supply lines. In 1941, they tried to hold Hitler off Very, VERY valid point. The Russians deliberately burned down Moscow so as to prevent the French from resupplying there, and when the French had to withdraw, the Russians just pursued them until something like a sixth of their army was left by the end of the campaign. In 1941, however, you have a two major differences between Barbarossa and the 1812 Campaign: 1. The Russians did not pursue the same strategy of scorched Earth or letting the French invade their territory. The Russians didn't burn down their cities usually, all though they might have if they knew how fast the German war machine was moving, and like Jean-Luc Picard said, they had a very different strategy. 2. Improved technology. In 1812, horse and buggy could only go so fast to its destination, hampering the transport of vital supplies to a war effort. In 1941, however, new methods of transportation such as the automobile and even the airplane resulted in the time for supplies to reach an army cut drastically. Also, this new technology also allowed troops to reach their destination much faster, and, because if the Germans took Moscow, the Russians really didn't have many railways or roads past Moscow I believe, meaning the Germans could reinforce their position much much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 6, 2016 18:08:56 GMT
But actually the Germans didnt have enoigh supplies themselves oil was missing and the woukd provavbly send a telegram to UK or USA to help them or the war is over and to take out german oil and steel supplies Historical errors galore! If Soviet Army was smashed at Moscow, then taking the Caucasus oil fields would've been easy. And Hitler would never beg the west. He was too egotistical Oh sorry for the error I didnt have much sleep and I am just tired and cant think straight |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 6, 2016 18:08:56 GMT
Care if I ask another Alternate History question? If not, then here I go: What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War (No matter how unprobable that may be)? North Korea gets smashed, North Vietnam also doesn't win, and China becomes the source of cheap labor for the US |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 6, 2016 18:11:29 GMT
Care if I ask another Alternate History question? If not, then here I go: What if the Nationalists won the Chinese Civil War (No matter how unprobable that may be)? North Korea gets smashed, North Vietnam also doesn't win, and China becomes the source of cheap labor for the US Agreed with the Korea part, Vietnam..maybe. Their guerrilla tactics, while not helping militarily so much, struck fear into the soldiers and made the American public very unhappy with the war's continuation. That being said, The Viet Cong got many supplies from the PRC, so I'm sort of divided on whether N. Vietnam would be defeated and annexed into S. Vietnam. I do believe that the N. Vietnamese would not invade S. Vietnam in 1975, however. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 6, 2016 18:13:19 GMT
Historical errors galore! If Soviet Army was smashed at Moscow, then taking the Caucasus oil fields would've been easy. And Hitler would never beg the west. He was too egotistical Oh sorry for the error I didnt have much sleep and I am just tired and cant think straight Happens to the best of us  |
|
