Hitler could not have stopped. Even if Hitler conquered the world he would have to find another way to continue conquering whether that be building pyramids to honor himself or taking still yet more thorough control of everybody's lives. The same is true for Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein and would have been true for Dick Cheney and 2 out of 3 men throughout the world if they had the opportunity and self confidence that Hitler had. Even if conquering the world goes against your ideals you can always find a reason to justify doing so. All we need is some power and a bunch of yes men telling us how great we are and why it is so important that we conquer and before we even understand what we are doing we will find ourselves trying to conquer. Why stop when you can conquer more and be still yet greater?
How far would Hitler have gone?
- Thread starter The Flemster
- Start date
Hitler could not have stopped. Even if Hitler conquered the world he would have to find another way to continue conquering whether that be building pyramids to honor himself or taking still yet more thorough control of everybody's lives. The same is true for Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Saddam Hussein and would have been true for Dick Cheney and 2 out of 3 men throughout the world if they had the opportunity and self confidence that Hitler had. Even if conquering the world goes against your ideals you can always find a reason to justify doing so. All we need is some power and a bunch of yes men telling us how great we are and why it is so important that we conquer and before we even understand what we are doing we will find ourselves trying to conquer. Why stop when you can conquer more and be still yet greater?
Defeated?
Er, we were still in the war. As shown by, among other things, the Battle of Britain.
Quite possibly. So you're saying that the Battle of Britain won WWII because it slowed Hitler's invasion of Russia until too late?
He wasn't ready to invade Russia in 1940.
Not quite that number.
And are you of the opinion that the only men we had were evacuees from Dunkirk?
Nope, that was the BEF, not the entire army...
So you're unfamiliar with the concept of "force in being"?
Ho ho. That's one way of phrasing it.
All of which has nothing at all to do with my points on the Germans getting nuclear weapons, their use of jet-powered aircraft or the Battle of Britain.
But if you want to reply to things I didn't say (or even imply) that's your prerogative.
* That would be why they supplied them with so much technology then?
Last edited:
I love how many people really don't have a fuckin clue in these WWII threads.
1940 Russia VS Germany would have been interesting, but I suspect not successful as 1941 Barbarossa (even though it started late).
Stalin was expecting a double cross right after the Poland campaign and wasn't pleasantly relieved it didn't happen, and his army was mobilized (taking his section of Poland - the strategically useless part). It would have been a tougher fight with less surprise right off the bat. PZ MK II and MKIIIs would have to drive right up in front of most russian tanks to kill them. the PZIV(main tank in Barbarossa) was much better. Not to mention the vast improvements in tank killers to 41'.
Why? Just as in 41' it still a dumb move as Stalin gave Hitler more goodies every year than he would EVER be able to drag from Russia.
1940 Russia VS Germany would have been interesting, but I suspect not successful as 1941 Barbarossa (even though it started late).
Stalin was expecting a double cross right after the Poland campaign and wasn't pleasantly relieved it didn't happen, and his army was mobilized (taking his section of Poland - the strategically useless part). It would have been a tougher fight with less surprise right off the bat. PZ MK II and MKIIIs would have to drive right up in front of most russian tanks to kill them. the PZIV(main tank in Barbarossa) was much better. Not to mention the vast improvements in tank killers to 41'.
Why? Just as in 41' it still a dumb move as Stalin gave Hitler more goodies every year than he would EVER be able to drag from Russia.
Just saw the edit.
A large number of Soviet casualties were effectively "self-inflicted" through poor tactics/ doctrine.
Yeah. I wonder how many they'd have lost if Stalin had listened to Sorge, or hadn't executed the vast majority of his officer corps (especially the competent ones).fellowtraveler said:
How many would they have lost if they'd worked at it sensibly instead of simply throwing men at the city?
A large number of Soviet casualties were effectively "self-inflicted" through poor tactics/ doctrine.
Hear hear.
:worship:
Defeated?
Er, we were still in the war. As shown by, among other things, the Battle of Britain.
Quite possibly. So you're saying that the Battle of Britain won WWII because it slowed Hitler's invasion of Russia until too late?
He wasn't ready to invade Russia in 1940.
Not quite that number.
And are you of the opinion that the only men we had were evacuees from Dunkirk?
Nope, that was the BEF, not the entire army...
So you're unfamiliar with the concept of "force in being"?
Ho ho. That's one way of phrasing it.
All of which has nothing at all to do with my points on the Germans getting nuclear weapons, their use of jet-powered aircraft or the Battle of Britain.
But if you want to reply to things I didn't say (or even imply) that's your prerogative.
* That would be why they supplied them with so much technology then?
reply: THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN helped buy some time for the Russians to build those very important T-34 TANKS, among other things such as move their factories and such. You keep misinterpreting me and I do the same with you and I admit it. THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN was a decisive point in the war for the reason I just stated. It was a big mistake to commit the German armed forces to anything other than defeating Russia that summer of 1940. In my opinion the Russians would have crumbled as had France and Britain and all the rest of them. The Russians had about one year to mobilize or 10 months , something like that. Hitler got overconfident or something. And HITLER made other crucial errors against the advise of the German High Command even after BARBAROSSA GOT UNDER WAY. Lucky for us all.
But this all set the stage for the NOT SO COLD WAR THAT FOLLOWED. Now Russia was the big threat to THE FREE WORLD as it was called. I was a participant in the VIET NAM WAR, and for those of us involved in it, it was a very real war as was THE KOREAN WAR. But, hey, screw it because I am going to open myself up to all the KNOW IT ALLS who know NOTHING about any of that. Gee, you guys read all about it and MUST KNOW far more than I do about all this. I AM BEING SARCASTIC lest some fool out there not understand me. ...traveler
Like nietzschefan said: the Germans weren't up to it.
They had fewer tanks, and of lower combat quality. T-34 was already in service.
Was a threat or was perceived as a threat?
They spent most of the Cold War shitting bricks in case NATO went East.
REPLY: You are a fool. The Russians NEVER shit bricks, they kick ass. And so does the USA. You live in a fools world of BS. ...TRAVELER
Hmm, not according to the official ex-Soviet documents released since the Wall came down.
Right. That explains why they own Afghanistan. Or why their army isn't composed largely of alcoholics that'll drink brake fluid in lieu of real drink. Or why their pilots get more than around ten hours a year flying time, or why their army isn't selling equipment off as fast as possible on the black markets of Europe.
Depends, if you consider being an accredited defence analyst with a track record going back decades to be BS in a fool's world then yes. Otherwise no.
I met plenty of you officers and know it alls who did not know crap when it came to fighting a battle. You think too much and actually do not know what to do when under attack. It was ALWAYS US ENLISTED MEN who saw what needed to be done and did it, ALWAYS. Many times I saw a squad leader toss his radio aside, grab his rifle and tell his radio man to do the same and get with it. Things happen so very fast there is nothing to talk about. NOTHING. Here they come , kill the bastards. ...traveler
Still making ridiculous assumptions.
Not one word of which addresses the point I made, let alone refutes it.
Lots of enlisted people are fucking drunks too and do all kinds of stupid as shit things.
An enlisted man got our entire Airborne Regiment disbanded in Canada. Ok the Media did it, but they jumped on his actions to do so.
An enlisted man got our entire Airborne Regiment disbanded in Canada. Ok the Media did it, but they jumped on his actions to do so.
REPLY: So this was a battle that the enlisted men screwed up ? How are they drunk on a battlefield ? Are you telling me you were given alcoholic beverages in the field, in combat situations ? ...traveler....PS ....I spoke with a man who had done 2 deployments to Iraq and he spoke highly of the Canadians. I find it hard to believe that they would allow themselves to be drunk in a combat situation, but, I was an American Marine so I really do not know.
Last edited:
REPLY: You don`t know what you are talking about. The T-34s were not available in any numbers until sept. 1941. Check it out for yourself. As I said,if Germany had attacked Russia after finishing off France and the BEF they could not have been stopped THAT SUMMER OF 1940. France surrendered July 10,1940......traveler
Canada is not participating in Dubya's folly.Fortunately, Stephen Harper was not prime minister at the time, so we did not swallow the WMD and 9/11 hysteria and lies that formed the basis for that tragic war.
And you don't read. I stated it was already in production.
For the record there were 115 produced in '40, compared with 268 Pzkpfw IV (with a short-barrelled 75mm gun - no match for T-34's armour).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
2,800 produced in '41, compared with 467 Pzkpfw IV (still with the short gun).
Let's see: (1939 strengths given)
Russia ~ 3,000 tanks (many with the 45mm gun capable of killing ANY German tank of the period).
Germany ~ 1,700 (the vast majority (well over 50%, going by production figures probably nearer 80%) of which were Pzkpfw I & II, the former armed with machine guns only, the latter with a 20mm cannon: not the most effective tank-killing weapon).
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/wwii/production.asp
Keep trying...
Last edited:
I was thinkin more about the KV tanks, which the Germans had problems with in 41'...would be even worse in 40'
Talking about all this makes me unhappy.They seem to know more than I do.
Last edited:
Oh yeah, the KV series. About 150 of those around IIRC.
Ouch!
Scaramouche
Registered Member
Hitler's religion: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm