- 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 11:56 am to Mstate
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:56 am to Mstate
quote:
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
I think if Moscow falls, there is probably a coup against Stalin. No telling where things might have gone from there. The Battle of Moscow was a very close thing. It was probably the first battle turned by Lend-Lease: about 10% of the Soviet armor at Moscow was British.
To provide some perspective, after 1942, 80% of the aluminum that went into T-34 and KV-1 tank engines and aircraft came from the US. All of their high octane avgas, every drop of it. Almost every new locomotive and railcar they had from '42-'45 (and rail is the logistical key to fighting in Russia) came from the US. 2/3rds of their wheeled vehicles - look at pics of Berlin after they rolled in, almost every wheeled vehicle is US-built. Boots, food, you name it.
2
Posted on 4/14/26 at 12:01 pm to TheRealTigerHorn
Don't know why this just popped into my head, I remember reading that the UK just recently finished paying off their war debt they owed the USA from WW2.
Did the USSR ever repay us for everything we gave them to support their war effort? I assume not since the Cold War settled in.
Did the USSR ever repay us for everything we gave them to support their war effort? I assume not since the Cold War settled in.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 12:25 pm to TheRealTigerHorn
quote:
I think if Moscow falls, there is probably a coup against Stalin. No telling where things might have gone from there. The Battle of Moscow was a very close thing. It was probably the first battle turned by Lend-Lease: about 10% of the Soviet armor at Moscow was British.
That is a likely option as well. Stalin was incredibly paranoid about that. I do think people overestimate the shape of the German army outside of Moscow though. They were at the very end of a massively overstretched logistical train. Even without some of the British tanks there I think the soviets would still fend them off on their own.
Yea I think some British Matilda’s and valentines participated in the battle but the bigger impact was the actual raw materials we were sending them. 2nd part of your post is spot on as well. I remember reading that bit about how the soviets had virtually zero ability to refine the high octane fuel for their fighters.
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 12:37 pm to oleheat
Maybe but they still won the war
Posted on 4/14/26 at 12:44 pm to Mstate
The USA produced 90% of the aviation fuel in the war.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 1:36 pm to Blueghost1978
quote:
Wrong. In WWII, Germany’s biggest mistake was attacking Russia so soon in Operation Barbarossa. They got hung up for years and lost 1,000,000 men. It also got Russia involved.
Wiping out Russia was not merely an option. It was core Nazi doctrine that all other strategy revolved around. Invade Poland as a base of operations for Barbarossa. War in the west to secure the rear areas and free up troops for the Russia campaign.
Germany was a net importer of food. That, as much as anything, cost them defeat in WWI as the British naval blockade led to near starvation in Germany by 1918. Hitler was fixated on conquering enough agricultural space in the east so that Germany would never be in that position again. What he didn't see coming was the scientific revolution in agriculture which would allow more food to be produced on less land, making his rationale for conquest obsolete*
*At least in one sense. He had other reasons, eg, access to Russia's oil and subjugating the Slavs and Jews.
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 1:38 pm to dupergreenie
quote:Because I was only 4 years old then...
So why didn't you stop him if you were there!?!?!?!!!?1?11!?!!
Posted on 4/14/26 at 2:05 pm to Galloglaich
quote:
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.
Half a Globe. They lost in the Pacific to Japan, and without US support in Europe, might have had to withdraw all their assets to England, maybe not even able to defend Australia. Probably wouldn't have been able to stop the Germans in North Africa, which means the Germans could have conquered the Middle East.
They didn't even develop a tank that could fire an effective High Explosive shell until 1944. That's why the Sherman's were critical to them. British tanks could not effectively engage anti-tank crews, that's why Rommel's use of massed anti-tank weapons was so effective. They were soft targets the the British could not take them out from a tank without getting a lot of holes shot in them.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 3:27 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Yeah that was my point.
I wasn’t refuting you. I just wanted to point it out again.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 3:27 pm to Galloglaich
WW2 more recent and Hitler was bad.
Attacking Russia just before winter.
Two front war.
Lend lease
Japan attacking America and forcing Germany's hand.
Industrial mite of the United States
United States basically fought two front war and supplied the allies with probably 60% of the material necessary
The axis should have known better than to spread themselves so thin
Edit: Hitler's refusal to allow his officers to withdraw when necessary.along with him trying to make critical decisions.
This is a very complex topic to be short and concise on.
Attacking Russia just before winter.
Two front war.
Lend lease
Japan attacking America and forcing Germany's hand.
Industrial mite of the United States
United States basically fought two front war and supplied the allies with probably 60% of the material necessary
The axis should have known better than to spread themselves so thin
Edit: Hitler's refusal to allow his officers to withdraw when necessary.along with him trying to make critical decisions.
This is a very complex topic to be short and concise on.
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 3:31 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
t was hands down the entry of the United States and the USSR that sealed Germany's fate
Agreed and both (somewhat) self inflicted by Germany as Germany attacked the USSR to get them into the war and Japan attacked the US
Posted on 4/14/26 at 3:39 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
Wiping out Russia was not merely an option. It was core Nazi doctrine that all other strategy revolved around. Invade Poland as a base of operations for Barbarossa. War in the west to secure the rear areas and free up troops for the Russia campaign.
I don't think enough people in this thread understand that. Hitler didn't just wake up one day and decide to betray Stalin. Everything he had been working toward since his party came to power in Germany in 1933 was Operation Barbarossa. Russia was his ultimate objective. He would have gladly avoided war with Britain and France in the west if that meant a freehand to take on the Soviet Union in the east.
Hitler actually had something of a soft spot for the British Empire and wrote about them being a stabilizing force in the world in Mein Kampf.
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 9:32 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Hitler actually had something of a soft spot for the British Empire and wrote about them being a stabilizing force in the world in Mein Kampf.
He also respected America and our industrial might.
He really did not want to go to war against Britain. He respected the British quite fondly.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:30 pm to cfish140
quote:
Picked up John Keegan’s “The First World War” book recently. Excited to get into it as I know little about WW1 other than trench warfare and Franz Ferdinand
If you haven’t yet, listen to Blueprint to Armageddon on hardcore history.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:32 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I don't think enough people in this thread understand that. Hitler didn't just wake up one day and decide to betray Stalin. Everything he had been working toward since his party came to power in Germany in 1933 was Operation Barbarossa. Russia was his ultimate objective. He would have gladly avoided war with Britain and France in the west if that meant a freehand to take on the Soviet Union in the east.
He had quite the plans for the Slavs.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 1:33 am to Tiger Prawn
True. Anybody who thinks Germany didn’t have a chance to win the war is incorrect.. if Germany had used the ME262 correctly and earlier, it would have really changed things. Their fatal mistake was attacking east. If they never attack the Soviet Union, and (for arguments sake) the USSR never enters the war, it would have been a very different ending.
But, Germany never had enough oil to keep the war machine running. If they had found an alternate source, they could have stayed in the war. But as long as they had to rely on synthetic oil, their days were numbered.
I always wonder what would have happened if the assassination attention in July 44 had been successful, would we have accepted the surrender of the new powers. That would mean no Market Garden, no Hurtgen Forest, mo Battle of the Bulge..etc
But, Germany never had enough oil to keep the war machine running. If they had found an alternate source, they could have stayed in the war. But as long as they had to rely on synthetic oil, their days were numbered.
I always wonder what would have happened if the assassination attention in July 44 had been successful, would we have accepted the surrender of the new powers. That would mean no Market Garden, no Hurtgen Forest, mo Battle of the Bulge..etc
Posted on 4/15/26 at 1:49 am to Lou Loomis
The Allies announced their policy of unconditional surrender at the Casablanca conference in July of 1943. Accepting terms from a new German government would have meant reneging, as well as breaking with the Russians, who wouldn't have agreed under any circumstances...and we were still expecting to need Russian help in finishing off Japan. Hard to see how any of that would have gone well.
And again, there's no "what if" regarding Barbarossa. Hitler was always going to attack Russia. It was his ultimate strategic objective. Everything else was just setting the conditions for achieving that objective.
And again, there's no "what if" regarding Barbarossa. Hitler was always going to attack Russia. It was his ultimate strategic objective. Everything else was just setting the conditions for achieving that objective.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 4:32 am to SoDakHawk
quote:Sort of. We said they owed us a shite ton of money (like over $11B) and the Soviets countered with a ridiculously low amount, the parties settled at a little bit less than $1B, and the Russians finally paid the remaining balance off after the fall of the USSR.
Did the USSR ever repay us for everything we gave them to support their war effort? I assume not since the Cold War settled in.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 4:37 am to Lou Loomis
quote:
Their fatal mistake was attacking east. If they never attack the Soviet Union, and (for arguments sake) the USSR never enters the war, it would have been a very different ending.
So their fatal mistake was doing the one thing Hitler started the Second World War for?
Posted on 4/15/26 at 6:52 am to jizzle6609
WW I history is more fascinating than WWII IMHO. George vs his first cousin Willy ( who was actually an English Earl as well) Willy vs Nicky, another cousin. All over the murder of another distant relative - all of the Royal Houses of Europe were related.
We always think of Germany as THE bad guy, but if you read the history , Wilhelm wanted to avoid war as much as possible. The Russians it turns out were bigger culprits than anyone else. The British saw the war as a chance to control the Middle East so they put pressure on the Ottomans at Gallipoli, Palestine and in Mesopotamia......meanwhile the French do most of the dying for the Allies on the Western Front. Then there are the Communists lurking behind the scenes in Germany, Austria and Russia causing issues that lead to bigger problems by war's end.
Then there is the US who comes in at the end and gets to brag about being in the fight for 5 -6 months while taking some pretty obscene losses themselves.
I'm not even going to get into the "peace" part at the end. That's a separate soap opera.
We always think of Germany as THE bad guy, but if you read the history , Wilhelm wanted to avoid war as much as possible. The Russians it turns out were bigger culprits than anyone else. The British saw the war as a chance to control the Middle East so they put pressure on the Ottomans at Gallipoli, Palestine and in Mesopotamia......meanwhile the French do most of the dying for the Allies on the Western Front. Then there are the Communists lurking behind the scenes in Germany, Austria and Russia causing issues that lead to bigger problems by war's end.
Then there is the US who comes in at the end and gets to brag about being in the fight for 5 -6 months while taking some pretty obscene losses themselves.
I'm not even going to get into the "peace" part at the end. That's a separate soap opera.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News