- 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: Why is WW1 Germany overshadowed by WW2 Germany
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:45 am to Galloglaich
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:45 am to Galloglaich
quote:
There was no chance of WW2 Germany winning after the British decided to fight until the end
Churchill bought the Allies time
Russia bought the Allies bodies
If memory serves, Hitler was a dumbass to attack Russia before finishing off Britain. Once the Eastern Front opens, 60+ % of the German Army was committed there. I think when D Day happened, less than 20 % of the German Army was there. End of Germany was Stalingrad (Summer of 42 to Winter of 43) and Kursk (Summer of 43). The crushing defeat at Kursk put the Russian Army on the Offense and the German Army on defense. War was over then, contraction from then on.
1
Posted on 4/14/26 at 6:57 am to LSURussian
quote:
And I've stood on the exact spot on the sidewalk in Sarajevo, Bosnia where Gavrilo fired his pistol into Archduke Franz Ferdinand's car, mortally wounding him, on June 28, 1914.
So why didn't you stop him if you were there!?!?!?!!!?1?11!?!!
(This is obviously sarcasm)
Posted on 4/14/26 at 7:23 am to Galloglaich
quote:
England couldn’t invade the continent after the battle of London, but they damn sure had the time and resources to do so later.
The "resources" they had later came from the US. They wouldn't have had them if the US hadn't opened the Atlantic trade routes with our Navy and Air Force. One example was the Sherman tank. The British won many critical battles at least in part because of Sherman tanks, not because of the tactical superiority of the Sherman, but because of the operational superiority of the Sherman and the US logistics system that kept it and other weapons systems operating at a high level in the field under combat conditions. Liberty ships is another example. Escort carriers. Lend-Lease. England could probably never have countered the U-Boat threat without the US. They developed effective weapons and countermeasures, but they would have had to spread everything much thinner, and the US wouldn't be supplying them through Liberty Ships.
Without the US, England bleeds out during any invasion. They could have never run the Germans out of France by the end of 1944.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 7:36 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
If memory serves, Hitler was a dumbass to attack Russia before finishing off Britain.
He had no way of finishing off the UK without an invasion.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 7:40 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
He had no way of finishing off the UK without an invasion.
I agree, that said, invade UK or make peace with UK, before picking fight with Russia.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 8:17 am to cfish140
If you are really interested in the subject, I would recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. "Blueprint for Armageddon" parts 1-6.
I didn't know much about WWI before listening, and they were incredibly detailed.
I didn't know much about WWI before listening, and they were incredibly detailed.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 8:23 am to CharlesUFarley
quote:
The "resources" they had later came from the US. They wouldn't have had them if the US hadn't opened the Atlantic trade routes with our Navy and Air Force. One example was the Sherman tank. The British won many critical battles at least in part because of Sherman tanks, not because of the tactical superiority of the Sherman, but because of the operational superiority of the Sherman and the US logistics system that kept it and other weapons systems operating at a high level in the field under combat conditions. Liberty ships is another example. Escort carriers. Lend-Lease. England could probably never have countered the U-Boat threat without the US. They developed effective weapons and countermeasures, but they would have had to spread everything much thinner, and the US wouldn't be supplying them through Liberty Ships. Without the US, England bleeds out during any invasion. They could have never run the Germans out of France by the end of 1944.
To continue the war at that pace, yes they needed the US. If the war was carried on without the US, the British would’ve still won, but at a much slower and devastating pace. You are forgetting that The British Empire still had a globe of resources & population at its disposal while Germany was over extended with time being a negative factor.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 8:26 am to CharlesUFarley
Britain would have never liberated Europe without The United States but there is no reality where Germany invades and conquers Britain either. After the Battle of Britain if without the Entries of the United States and the USSR the best each side could hope for was a negotiated peace where Germany kept continental Europe and Britain remained safe. Neither side possessed the ability to conquer the other at that point.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:16 am to udtiger
quote:
The world would have been a much better place if Germany had won WWI before the USA got involved.
Considering how badly things turned out after WWI, hard to disagree. Europe has never recovered.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:07 am to biglego
WW1 Museum in Kansas City is a must visit for anybody interested in this topic. Plan to spend an entire day there, possibly two. I spent 6 hours there and felt I just scratched the surface. Also, be prepared to feel totally depressed for a couple of days and a few restless nights sleeping. It's an extremely somber place if you get into it and let the enormity and gravity seep in.
I would agree that the world might be a better place if the USA had stayed out of WW1 and Germany would have "won" or at least sued for peace in a stalemate. The Treaty of Versailles would have never happened and set the stage for Hitler and WW2.
Wonder what that timeline looks like.
I would agree that the world might be a better place if the USA had stayed out of WW1 and Germany would have "won" or at least sued for peace in a stalemate. The Treaty of Versailles would have never happened and set the stage for Hitler and WW2.
Wonder what that timeline looks like.
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 10:08 am
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:22 am to SoDakHawk
quote:
I would agree that the world might be a better place if the USA had stayed out of WW1 and Germany would have "won" or at least sued for peace in a stalemate. The Treaty of Versailles would have never happened and set the stage for Hitler and WW2.
the rise of Hitler was certainly terrible and the Nazis did awful things, but that was something of an acute pain in the grand scheme of things. the truly terrible thing that came out of WW1 was the rise of communism on a large scale. THAT is the pain that we are still dealing with in today's world, while the impacts of Nazi Germany are largely gone.
edit - corrected WW2 to WW1
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 12:59 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:44 am to OGtigerfan87
quote:
Britain would have never liberated Europe without The United States but there is no reality where Germany invades and conquers Britain either. After the Battle of Britain if without the Entries of the United States and the USSR the best each side could hope for was a negotiated peace where Germany kept continental Europe and Britain remained safe. Neither side possessed the ability to conquer the other at that point.
The British empire outnumbered the Germans 6 to 1 and the German reich was overextended and couldn’t just sit there and wait. It would’ve been a tough matchup, but it’s not impossible.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:48 am to Galloglaich
quote:
The British empire outnumbered the Germans 6 to 1 and the German reich was overextended
you cant call the German reich overextended and then also count every human that fell under the British empire in your math. the British Empire had been overextended for 50+ years by that point.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:01 am to biglego
quote:
Europe has never recovered.
And never will. Too many millions of prime aged men (18-25) died fighting those two wars.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:01 am to ThatTahoeOverThere
quote:
Because history is written by the victors and the communist won WW2.
Russia may have still defeated Germany- but had the U.S. not sent them tanks, trucks, weapons, medical equipment, and FOOD, Soviet losses would've likely been much worse than the already horrific 27 million dead they suffered during that awful struggle. Their push west would have slowed, and likely turned into an even worse meat grinder.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:04 am to grizzlylongcut
quote:
The USSR was at least every bit as evil as the national socialists.
Yeah that was my point.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:08 am to oleheat
quote:
Russia may have still defeated Germany- but had the U.S. not sent them tanks, trucks, weapons, medical equipment, and FOOD
I think it’s possible the soviets could’ve just kept evacuating east and held out long enough but they absolutely would not have been able to go on the offensive like they did without the massive amount of supplies we were sending them.
They would not have had the fuel, food or trucks to do so. Now, the Germans were stretched incredibly thin too and also had massive resource shortages so they wouldn’t have been able to crush them completely. Probably would’ve been an even nastier stalemate somewhere in Russia
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:14 am to Galloglaich
The German economy was the largest in Europe by a large margin. That was only magnified by the additions of Norway, Denmark, France, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, etc. If we are supposing no US involvement and no Operation Barbarossa, England settles with a brokered peace in a couple years.
Churchill had one aim, and one aim only: preservation of the Empire. England was near bankrupt from WWI. Without America in the mix, there's no path to victory for Britain.
Churchill had one aim, and one aim only: preservation of the Empire. England was near bankrupt from WWI. Without America in the mix, there's no path to victory for Britain.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:36 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Claims of significant Jewish flight to German-occupied Poland are simply not true. Hundreds of thousands of Polish citizens, to include 300,000 Jews, fled Nazi-occupied Poland and into the Soviet zone of occupation. While conditions were harsh in the Soviet zone, only 65,000 Jewish refugees at most returned to the German zone of occupation when given a chance to by the Soviet Union.
Read Morehouse's well-researched "Devil's Alliance" and get back to me. You completely fail to note how many of the 300k who initially fled were already dead or on their way to gulags by the time the offer was made to return, which would have been most of them.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:47 am to Galloglaich
quote:
To continue the war at that pace, yes they needed the US. If the war was carried on without the US, the British would’ve still won, but at a much slower and devastating pace. You are forgetting that The British Empire still had a globe of resources & population at its disposal while Germany was over extended with time being a negative factor.
Without the US, Japan would have eventually taken the ANZACs out of the war, either through conquest or naval superiority, and India was already on the verge of revolt. Britain wouldn't have had much of an empire left without US entry, and Churchill knew it.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News