- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Hardcore History Youtube Video - "Which Had the Superior Military: 1st or 2nd WW Germany?"
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:09 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:09 am to TigerFanInSouthland
I'll say ww1
0
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:10 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Actually listening to the first part of his podcast on WWI and its the part where Germany first attacks Belgium, expecting no resistance, and then the Belgiums Slaughter their first invasion force.
Then a General pretty much saves the day. I assume he just dragged his giant brass balls into the fight and hid behind them when he was shot at
Then a General pretty much saves the day. I assume he just dragged his giant brass balls into the fight and hid behind them when he was shot at
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:28 am to TigerFanInSouthland
I’m sure he’ll take a nuanced approach but as I see it:
One stretched from France to Russia to N Africa.
One got held up east of Paris.
One stretched from France to Russia to N Africa.
One got held up east of Paris.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:35 am to TigerFanInSouthland
The German WW1 army might be the greatest army ever assembled. I would take them if everything else is equal
Posted on 10/24/17 at 8:35 am to TigerFanInSouthland
Franco-Prussian War Germany FTW
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:16 am to Ross
Meh, Germany has had their tanks built up to near mythological status over the years, when in truth most were over engineered, fuel leaking liabilities. Once they were finished blitzkrieging paper tigers and had to fight countries with real tanks, they didn't look so superior. The mid to late model Panthers were good, but the Tigers were unreliable pieces of junk that were never produced in large enough numbers for them to matter.
Their fighters were definitely good. All variants of the 109 were fine planes, but once again, both England and the US produced fighters just as if not more capable.
Germany just got a head start on researching and building war machines while everyone else was still reeling from WWI and an economic depression.
Their fighters were definitely good. All variants of the 109 were fine planes, but once again, both England and the US produced fighters just as if not more capable.
Germany just got a head start on researching and building war machines while everyone else was still reeling from WWI and an economic depression.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 9:19 am
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:23 am to fr33manator
Germany wins a quick victory over France/England and what's next?
Germany makes the allies sign an armistice. What happens next?
Germany keeps France or just their Eastern provinces? Germany gets Poland?
Everyone goes home happy?
It's all open to question. World a better place? Would there have been another war? There's a lot to think about right there.
Germany makes the allies sign an armistice. What happens next?
Germany keeps France or just their Eastern provinces? Germany gets Poland?
Everyone goes home happy?
It's all open to question. World a better place? Would there have been another war? There's a lot to think about right there.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:24 am to Ross
quote:
I feel like technological advances alone in fighter planes and tanks was so immense that it has to be WW2 Germany.
Yeah, but WW1 Germany used chlorine gas.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:25 am to SCLSUMuddogs
quote:
The German WW1 army might be the greatest army ever assembled. I would take them if everything else is equal
I agree 100%. In WWII Germany struck and had success against foes woefully unprepared for war. And once those foes recovered, they totally crushed Germany in a matter of months.
In WWI, Germany took on three fully mobilized world powers on two (really three) fronts and even after four years were still standing on foreign soil. Andceven then they'd already defeated one (Russia) and were only forced to sue for peace after four years of blockade and the US getting in the war.
This post was edited on 10/24/17 at 9:28 am
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:31 am to TigerFanInSouthland
That's a great question.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:39 am to doubleb
quote:
Germany makes the allies sign an armistice. What happens next? Germany keeps France or just their Eastern provinces? Germany gets Poland?
Germany probably gains a few territories. Maybe some colonies.
Austria-Hungary stays together. The Ottoman Empire hangs on.
The world is now fully aware of what devastation the new weapons tech can bring and it totally changes the face of warfare.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:56 am to fr33manator
quote:
I honestly thing that the world would have been a better place had Germany not been stopped at the Marne and the Schlieffen Plan had succeeded. The war doesn’t get prolonged and chew up as many lives. The Communists maybe don’t take over Russia. No Depression to enable Hitler and WW2...I don’t see the downside
Ehh, I can see the upside to that but the fact is WW1 brought everyone down a few notches, some entirely. It's hard to say how a Germany-dominated Europe would have played out.
Despite all that upside, that we can point out so clearly due to hindsight, there's probably some much bigger downside that is hard to fathom now. For example, the technological and military advances of a powerful and thriving post WW1 Germany could have been considerable. And it's not like we're talking about the good guys winning or anything.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 9:58 am to fr33manator
You think the Ottoman Empire would have stayed together? I do not.
I don't think the Czar stays in Russia either.
We were going to have a depression, that too would have brought turmoil.
As for the world waking up, I doubt that too. WWII came didn't it? So did Korea, and Viet Nam.
I don't think the Czar stays in Russia either.
We were going to have a depression, that too would have brought turmoil.
As for the world waking up, I doubt that too. WWII came didn't it? So did Korea, and Viet Nam.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:10 am to doubleb
quote:
You think the Ottoman Empire would have stayed together? I do not.
I agree with you here. Even before WWI, the Ottoman Empire was known as "the sick man of Europe". It was an empire tettering on collapse already.
quote:
I don't think the Czar stays in Russia either.
I'm not sure on this one. Before WWI broke out there was strife in Russia for sure but things were actually starting to stabilize right before WWI struck. I think without the added pressure of he War, the Romanov dynasty would have survived.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:19 am to doubleb
quote:
You think the Ottoman Empire would have stayed together? I do not.
I should have said a little while longer. I think they fracture, but maybe it works out better.
quote:
I don't think the Czar stays in Russia either.
The war was one of the factors that allowed the Bolsheviks to rise up (remember that Germany sent Lenin back to Russia in a sealed car). Maybe it would only prolong the inevitable but I think things hang on for a while longer.
[img] We were going to have a depression, that too would have brought turmoil. [/img]
There’s a worldwide depression if WW1 isn’t a prolonged conflict?
quote:
As for the world waking up, I doubt that too. WWII came didn't it? So did Korea, and Viet Nam.
Literally all aftershocks of the aftermath of WW1
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:24 am to fr33manator
quote:
Literally all aftershocks of the aftermath of WW1
Perhaps with the single exception of the Falklands Islands War, I think you could consider virtually every war that has started after 1914 as an aftershock of WWI.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:35 am to Darth_Vader
I do
Posted on 10/24/17 at 10:49 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Now, he's not trying to say which would win in a straight up fight, he's trying to broach the topic of which was better in their days.
Seems like a simple enough conclusion to make but probably best that you explained it anyway considering the IQ of this board.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 11:10 am to doubleb
The Great Depression was a direct result of the huge military spending bubble that popped once the Great War ended.
It's difficult to see how the world would have evolved following a German victory in 1914. What happens to France in that scenario? She would have been humiliated by Germany twice within 50 years. Would the resulting unrest cause France to become the hotbed for the rise of fascism? And consider that we could have seen a world where nuclear weapons were developed without an accompanying experience of the all-encompassing horror of total war. It is possible that the memory of the devastation wrought by two world wars is all that has prevented a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Put another way, do you think that if Germany had been in possession of nuclear weapons in 1914, she would not have used them? I think it is extremely likely that she would have. And the other combatant nations would have as well. They wouldn't have known any better.
It's difficult to see how the world would have evolved following a German victory in 1914. What happens to France in that scenario? She would have been humiliated by Germany twice within 50 years. Would the resulting unrest cause France to become the hotbed for the rise of fascism? And consider that we could have seen a world where nuclear weapons were developed without an accompanying experience of the all-encompassing horror of total war. It is possible that the memory of the devastation wrought by two world wars is all that has prevented a full-scale nuclear exchange.
Put another way, do you think that if Germany had been in possession of nuclear weapons in 1914, she would not have used them? I think it is extremely likely that she would have. And the other combatant nations would have as well. They wouldn't have known any better.
Posted on 10/24/17 at 11:29 am to fr33manator
quote:
I honestly thing that the world would have been a better place had Germany not been stopped at the Marne and the Schlieffen Plan had succeeded.
The war doesn’t get prolonged and chew up as many lives. The Communists maybe don’t take over Russia. No Depression to enable Hitler and WW2...I don’t see the downside
Who is to say a Hitler wouldn't have sprung up in Britain or France and done the same thing? It's also pretty unlikely it would have prevented the Communists from eventually taking over Russia though it may have delayed it for a while.
Those warmongering Huns wouldn't have stopped until somebody stopped them.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News