llllllLordlllllDeathllll
New Member
Uhm, this thread gave me cancer, OP please please go read a history book
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
World War 2
- Thread starter JustTin
- Start date
Joshthekiller
Well-Known Member
Op must have misspoken must be WW3 wth this new group of people Called the Natzi. (Must be pretty BA to make such a resurgence over night)
TX-Bacon-Narwhal-Nutella-TX
Well-Known Member
ToddStlllluvsBacon said:TX-Bacon-Narwhal-Nutella-TX said:ToddStlllluvsBacon said:they couldn't take England and England had little compared to Russia.
Well, considering, they came within 40 miles of Moscow during the fall of 41 without all of their power or generals, logic would Dictate that they would have taken Moscow an steam rolled the rest of Russia.
Naw ...Remember Stalingrad? And remember Germany thought they were gonna roll right through Stalingrad ....by the time the Germans got there it was already a starving city.
I think Stalingrad is a sewerage case where a single city that could not be encircled was able to outlast the Nazi storm. There were however, several cases of nearly 1 million Soviet troops being encircled and surrendering which also could have happened, as it didn't have the Volga behind it. The simple brutality of successful full siege warfare would have overtaken Moscow, but the world will never know.
Joshthekiller
Well-Known Member
Ok yeah also Epic Rap Battles of history also taught me You dumb mother F***** didn't Napoleon let you know if you want to conquer Russia you better f***** pack some winter clothes.
ToddStlllluvsBacon
Well-Known Member
Battle of Stalingrad (per Wikipedia lol)
It is often regarded as the single largest and bloodiest battle in the history of warfare. The heavy losses inflicted on the German Wehrmacht make it arguably the most strategically decisive battle of the whole war
And remember it was already a starving city primarily defended by civilians when German troops arrived there
It is often regarded as the single largest and bloodiest battle in the history of warfare. The heavy losses inflicted on the German Wehrmacht make it arguably the most strategically decisive battle of the whole war
And remember it was already a starving city primarily defended by civilians when German troops arrived there
Nathan_WINNING
Well-Known Member
Dictatorships can be good in the first decade of power, but after that they lose all their creativity and become backwards. Napoleon is a good example of this - he made awesome changes to European laws but after a while in power, the lack of debates made the country more inefficient.
Germany wouldn't have made science go faster - they would have made it go slower.
Great black/Jewish/Slavic/pro-democratic/communist/Asian scientists would not have made their great discoveries, and the lack of debate in society would have greatly slowed social progress.
Germany wouldn't have made science go faster - they would have made it go slower.
Great black/Jewish/Slavic/pro-democratic/communist/Asian scientists would not have made their great discoveries, and the lack of debate in society would have greatly slowed social progress.
Crowfeeder
Well-Known Member
^Mhm
AshtonRocks
Well-Known Member
HATE said:Some people took this thread way too seriously
wrath_oG_Grave
Well-Known Member
ToddStlllluvsBacon said:Centurion said:Crowfeeder said:Lack of war? The Russians held their own. They would continue to fight, for years, and at the cost of millions of lives.
Yes, but had the Axis had the full power of their armies against Russia, they would've eventually succeeded.
Kind of doubt it ...Axis "powers" other then Germany who you referring to ..Italy? lol. Japan wouldn't have been much help, their ground forces weren't really all that ...we beat them with almost strictly Naval power. If WW2 was strictly Russia against Germany amd no one else involved there's a good chance Russia could've beaten them on their own.
You're wrong, if Germany brought their winter clothes they could have defeated the Soviets even while fighting on another front.
wrath_oG_Grave
Well-Known Member
Nathan_WINNING said:Dictatorships can be good in the first decade of power, but after that they lose all their creativity and become backwards. Napoleon is a good example of this - he made awesome changes to European laws but after a while in power, the lack of debates made the country more inefficient.
Germany wouldn't have made science go faster - they would have made it go slower.
Great black/Jewish/Slavic/pro-democratic/communist/Asian scientists would not have made their great discoveries, and the lack of debate in society would have greatly slowed social progress.
That's flawed, for example, Rome had a good dictatorship for over a century until Nero came along, and do you really believe that if one person wasn't alive to discover it, it wouldn't be discovered? Well that's insane, it would have just been discovered by someone else
Delete this post.Joshthekiller said:Ok yeah also Epic Rap Battles of history also taught me You dumb mother didn't Napoleon let you know if you want to conquer Russia you better pack some winter clothes.
-Septentrio-
Well-Known Member
Ok op this is one of those special kind of stupid threads.
Technology wouldn't have advanced with the Germans winning. Did Germany have some interesting developments ? Yes but they lacked anything like a stable research goals . It was determined by the whims of a madman and his coterie of minions.
Technology wouldn't have advanced with the Germans winning. Did Germany have some interesting developments ? Yes but they lacked anything like a stable research goals . It was determined by the whims of a madman and his coterie of minions.
Capturing Britain was a military impossibility. Sure jet fighters would of helped Germany but half of the German ground forces would of been destroyed crossing the channel, and that's before the Royal Navy or the RAF would even engage them.Centurion said:ToddStlllluvsBacon said:they couldn't take England and England had little compared to Russia.
With the help of jet fighter technology that could've become a different story very quickly
O_o_____Frog____o_0
Well-Known Member
quigamalathedestroyer said:.O_o_____Frog____o_0 said:I'm Japanese and I'm glad the yanks won. It allowed me to travel there and experience the pleasures of American women.
you're glad your country got nuked unecasseraly?
Now where exactly do I say that, you moron? Nukes or no nukes, the Japanese military government were off their rockers and needed to go. They burden just as much responsibility for the bomb as does America does.
FnR__LaDyAsHx
Well-Known Member
OH JAJAJAJA HEIL
TX-Bacon-Narwhal-Nutella-TX
Well-Known Member
-V- said:Capturing Britain was a military impossibility. Sure jet fighters would of helped Germany but half of the German ground forces would of been destroyed crossing the channel, and that's before the Royal Navy or the RAF would even engage them.Centurion said:ToddStlllluvsBacon said:they couldn't take England and England had little compared to Russia.
With the help of jet fighter technology that could've become a different story very quickly
Brits are so cocky about their homelands defense. If Hitler had continued bombing the airfields and radar, Britain likely would have fell.
While it would of made it harder that was largely a myth. Germany always underestimated the RAF numbers and amount of replacements available while the RAF always overestimated the German numbers and their production capabilities which led people to believe the RAF was always on the verge of collapse. The Luftwaffe started with more planes but it couldn't keep up with the industrial might of the empire and assistance from allied countries.
Between 8 and 23 August the RAF lost 204 aircraft and 104 pilots, but they produced 476 new fighters. The Luftwaffe lost 397 aircraft and 623 pilots, but they only produced 313 new aircraft.
As for airfields being bombed, they were mostly dirt airfields that were functional again within 24 hours. So changing tactics to bombing cities didn't really effect the final outcome of the battle anyway.
Let's assume you are right tho, even if the RAF was knocked out of the fight how were the Germans going to invade the island? The channel alone would of sunk over half the invasion force before the remnants of the RAF and the Royal Navy targeted them, by the time they would of reached England there would be too few of the Germans left to gain any ground.
Between 8 and 23 August the RAF lost 204 aircraft and 104 pilots, but they produced 476 new fighters. The Luftwaffe lost 397 aircraft and 623 pilots, but they only produced 313 new aircraft.
As for airfields being bombed, they were mostly dirt airfields that were functional again within 24 hours. So changing tactics to bombing cities didn't really effect the final outcome of the battle anyway.
Let's assume you are right tho, even if the RAF was knocked out of the fight how were the Germans going to invade the island? The channel alone would of sunk over half the invasion force before the remnants of the RAF and the Royal Navy targeted them, by the time they would of reached England there would be too few of the Germans left to gain any ground.