- 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
0
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:42 pm to Hogtastic Voyage
quote:
I believe part of Europe would still be under Nazi rule.
You're wrong here. The third reich fragments and withers after Herr Hitlers eventual death or assassination.
Resistance pockets rise up and are secretly supplied and funded by German enemies or Nazi defectors who want a change in power.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:42 pm to asurob1
quote:Dude no one can knock out the Soviets. They are truly an unbeatable army, especially on their own turf. Ask Napoleon how that went for him.
The Germans failed to knock out the Soviets quickly and it was all over after that...it just took a few years to go down.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:44 pm to Huey Lewis
quote:
Fact is...U.S. invasion into Europe did comparatively little to cause a German defeat. More like it stopped Russia's westward advancement.
True, but the air war of attrition which destroyed the Luftwaffe would of never happened as well. Also the manpower involved in the fortifications was formidable. To me when Zhukov blooded the Japanese so badly in the east that 18 divisions of armor and infantry were able to be moved into the fight against Germany the gig was up.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:44 pm to fr33manator
quote:Russia would have continued to advance and eventually occupied more of western Europe
I believe part of Europe would still be under Nazi rule.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:47 pm to OWLFAN86
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:49 pm to OWLFAN86
OWLFAN86
Do you have to start with the names?
No he didn't fight the Soviets he fought the Tsars Armed forces. But the common themes still applied. Russia had a lot of real estate to give up and cold brutal winters.
The Germans plans for Barbarossa were two months behind schedule and that two months were critical.
quote:
fricktard
Do you have to start with the names?
No he didn't fight the Soviets he fought the Tsars Armed forces. But the common themes still applied. Russia had a lot of real estate to give up and cold brutal winters.
The Germans plans for Barbarossa were two months behind schedule and that two months were critical.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:51 pm to LaFlyer
quote:He knew what I was implying, but he always has to be a douche
LaFlyer
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:51 pm to Kcrad
quote:
The Germans would have destroyed the Soviet Union.
The Germans had already lost that front when they diverted the attack from Moscow to Stalingrad. By that time the Russians were beating the Germans strategically.
The allies couldn't have beaten Japan, but Germany would've fallen on the western front eventually. Colonialism being the reason why.. the Europeans, with allies, would've eventually outlasted the dwindling German numbers.
This post was edited on 7/25/14 at 11:56 pm
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:51 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:the man speaks truth
He knew what I was implying, but he always has to be a douche
wow all of a sudden are we getting sensitive ?
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:55 pm to OWLFAN86
Sounds like you're getting sensitive
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:56 pm to Nativebullet
Yes, but it would have taken a lot longer
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:00 am to Boudin
[quote]Boudin Would the Allies have won WWII without America getting involved? quote: The Germans would have destroyed the Soviet Union. The Germans had already lost that front when they diverted the attack from Moscow to Stalingrad. By that time the Russians were beating the Germans strategically.
___________________________________________________
I agree that Stalingrad was a disaster and was only so important because it was named after Stalin. Shifting away from Moscow and the oil fields of the south were serious mistakes.
Give your line of thinking regarding the strategic aspects. Is it because of Japan not being a threat in the east?
___________________________________________________
I agree that Stalingrad was a disaster and was only so important because it was named after Stalin. Shifting away from Moscow and the oil fields of the south were serious mistakes.
Give your line of thinking regarding the strategic aspects. Is it because of Japan not being a threat in the east?
This post was edited on 7/26/14 at 12:01 am
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:03 am to OWLFAN86
quote:
soviets didn't even exist at this time
When Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin addessed his nation, asking his people to fight for "mother Russia" and not "the Soviet Union"
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:05 am to Boudin
quote:was that when Napoleon invaded ?
When Germany attacked the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin addessed his nation, asking his people to fight for "mother Russia" and not "the Soviet Union"
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:09 am to LaFlyer
quote:
Give your line of thinking regarding the strategic aspects. Is it because of Japan not being a threat in the east?
I'm not sure what you're asking, and most others probably know more than me.
I'd think eventually the Royal Air Force would've/could've done to Japan what we did.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:12 am to OWLFAN86
quote:
was that when Napoleon invaded ?
No
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:14 am to Boudin
I win 
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:14 am to OWLFAN86
You totally fricked up page 2 for us
Posted on 7/26/14 at 12:19 am to OWLFAN86
and the question really should clarify the level of American involvement.
Are we talking just arming the allies or engaging in the hot war.
As has been mentioned America selling arms to Britain kept England going until the US got involved directly.
Had the US not sold arms the British would have likely built armament factories in Canada with US capitol. HAD the Allies survived the additional time that would have taken the outcome would be the same.
Are we talking just arming the allies or engaging in the hot war.
As has been mentioned America selling arms to Britain kept England going until the US got involved directly.
Had the US not sold arms the British would have likely built armament factories in Canada with US capitol. HAD the Allies survived the additional time that would have taken the outcome would be the same.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News