Oh yeah- I forgot- France is the only place on the planet to get uranium from. Also forgot why France would control an element that had no practical use. Also forgot that Germany took France rather quickly when the plan was unleashed... Yeah- Germany would NEVER have developed the A-Bomb... sigh.
"Cornered the market" is not the same as "being the sole source". No practical use? Really? Both from here. From what I remember France possessed something over 90% of the uranium that wasn't still in the ground. Which is irrelevant since you stated specifically France didn't fall until 1940. IIRC most of the uranium was shipped out before the invasion. Do try to read what YOU wrote as well as what I wrote. And please, try to keep your chronology in order: on one hand you're saying the Germans could have worked on developing the bomb in the '30s and on the other you're claiming uranium had no use in that same period. FYI Szilard suggested the idea of a nuclear weapon in 1933 and patented it in 1934.
Those pictures of deliriously happy cheering crowds weren't phoney. Most ordinary Germans loved Hitler. As production rose and unemployment fell under the Nazis, socialist intellectuals and hardliners lost their former supporters. Overwhelmingly, Hitler made Germans feel good about themselves. The Soviet pictures were phoney. If they were not the product of "Socialist realism" art, they were doctored, or the crowds were the favoured Party Faithful shipped in for the purpose. In Byelorussia and the Ukraine the Russians were not always liked, and the Jews who constituted most of the Party Hierarchy and were overrepresented among local officialdom were widely despised. For many people, life was harder and nastier and more fearful than it had been under the Tsars. The Germans soldiers who led the attack on the Soviet Union were often surprised to be welcomed initially as liberators. Unfortunately, the Germans had not been trained to play the role of liberators; they had been told they were fighting an inferior Slavic people. Soviet propaganda rallied the Russian people against the Hun. Atheist Stalin spoke of defending "Holy Russia". Russian patriotism was stirred. Hitler's chance had lain with fighting not a war of conquest but a war of liberation (that is to say, a war which presented itself as one of liberation). Yet no effort at all was put into the propaganda effort that was necessary, even though hatred of Jewish Bolshevism was rife throughout the Soviet Union. Ukraine had been the victim of the worst excesses of the Soviet regime as farms were collectivised, "kulaks" were executed, and millions starved to death. Its people, above all, were ripe for liberation. The Germans should have made allies of them from the start.
Very true. If Hitler had treated Ukrainians with even a pinch more kindness that the Soviets he could have had no partisan problems in the south and more than a few Cossacks joining.
Quite true. The U.S war machine produced: 300,000 Aircraft 88,000 Landing Craft 215 Submarines 147 Aircraft Carriers 952 Warships 86,333 Tanks 531,000,000 Tons of bombs 12,573,000 Rifles/Carbines (Russia could have used some.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) I absolutely agree. If Stalingrad fell, Moscow and Leningrad would continue. And Vise Versa. I am curious as to why Cairo was part of your response, as it fell to the Germans sometime during the war, and is not nor ever was part of the USSR. They were doomed the minute they attacked the U.S. Interesting. I was unaware of the legislation on the issue. I did know about them supplying UK and China though. I think Hitler's big mistake was declaring war on the U.S. He could have took Europe if he hadn't done that. Japan would have lost, but Russia, and possibly the UK could have been beaten without U.S intervention.
Totally disagree there, the Russians did more to stop germany than any other country, Americans used British Engines in there planes.. its was a coalition between UK, USA and Russia, and to say that America can take all the glory of the victory is just not right.
Really? Did the Russians defeated Germany in North Africa? Italy? France? Holland? The Ardennes? No. Russia was beaten back to three cities: Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Moscow. America since they landed in Normandy, only moved forward. Exception of Market Garden since that was a failure on Montgomery's part. I am NOT saying that Russia and the UK weren't deciding factors, but to say that Russia was THE major player, is incredibly naive.
I think you are confusing deaths with progress in the war. Just because a great number on soldiers die in a particuar war effort, it does not mean that they were more important in winning the war than their counterparts. The Soviets lost amost 2 soldiers for every German solider that died in the war. The Soviet military and civilian deaths attributed to the war is just astounding. And was due in no small part to the policies of the tyrannt running the country. The Soviet Union received over 11 billion dollars from the US between 1943 and 1945. That amount was only exceeded by the aid to the Brittish...roughly a third of what the Brits received. Without American aid/supplies the Soviets would have been toast. Using your soliders as cannon fodder is does not mean or make you a signficant contributor to military victory. If fact, history shows the opposite...just look at what it did for Japan. http://www.historynet.com/russias-l...d-to-the-ussr-in-world-war-ii-book-review.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_dead
Japan didn't have nearly the resources and manpower of the United States. They couldn't replace what was lost, and their production speed is a lot slower then the US'.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2stats.htm The German military suffered around 2,800,000 killed. Of these around 2,000,000 died on the Eastern Front, 300,000 died on other fronts, and 500,000 died in captivity. The Soviet Union suffered 14,500,000 killed total. Of these 3,330,000 died in captivity. That makes it 7 to 1.
Apologies. Germany was figthing in North Africa. Had Cairo fallen, and the British lost in that theater, the end of the war would still have been the same, merely delayed by a few months. ~String
It's ok. Yeah, I don't know why Hitler tried to take Africa. There wasn't much to gain, it exhausted their fuel, and it spread them thinner.
The allies would have probably lost if the Germans had used the 30,000 tons of nerve gas they had produced. The 30,000 tons figure may be a bit high. I have seen figures from 15,000 to over 30,000.
If Hitler would have waited 5 more years and developed his uber weapons first it would have been completely different. Fortunately for the allies, Hitler contracted either Parkinson's Disease or advanced stages of Syphilis or both and it effected his judgement.
