Stalingrad remembered. - Page 6

Joseph · February 7, 2003, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I can tell you that without the Soviet Union, the Allies (US+Britain+minor allies) still would have defeated Germany, without a great deal of extra fighting.

Yes, however we would have used our Nuc on them. We did have a larger pop. than Germany, but for the same reason we nuc Japan because Truman did not want to kill an extra million taking Japan by invasion.

The Vagabond · February 7, 2003, 22:45

The SU excluded, it would have been stalemate: the Nazis would not have been able to progress outside of continental Europe, while the Allies would not have been able to invade the continent either.

Of course, if you take into account the A-bomb invention, then the Allies would have been able to blackmail Germany into the surrender.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 23:44

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I can tell you that without the Soviet Union, the Allies (US+Britain+minor allies) still would have defeated Germany, without a great deal of extra fighting.

No great deal of extra fighting? So how did you expect to destroy the 200+ divisions fighting in the East? Magic?

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 02:32

Quote:

No great deal of extra fighting? So how did you expect to destroy the 200+ divisions fighting in the East? Magic?

No, I expect to end the war by destroying the Nazi leadership through an atomic bomb.

Zevico · February 8, 2003, 10:02

Why not just rename it something Russian, but not Stalingrad? the guy killed more people than Hitler for crying out loud. It can be WWII related but something more to do with the soldeirs or the battle than Stalin himself. Voila.

Master Zen · February 8, 2003, 12:48

Well, if you're going to talk about A-Bombs then why the hell are we discussing hypothetical scenarios with the Germans winning? Once the A-Bomb comes into play the whole question is moot.

BUUUUUT,

consider this:

Russia loses in 1941 or 42. Germany reinforces the Afrika Corps and kickes the British out of the middle east. The mediterranean becomes an Axis lake. Would the Germans been able to try an invasion of England under these conditions in 1942 before the British recovered and the US began building up troops in the UK?

Az · February 8, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Why not just rename it something Russian, but not Stalingrad? the guy killed more people than Hitler for crying out loud.

that's not true. And mind you, I hate Stalin. His people put my greatgrandfather in prison for nothing.

DAVOUT · February 8, 2003, 13:07

History will remember the battle of Stalingrad whatever name is given to the place where it was fought. And as for the turning point of WWII, it can be said literaly that the German armies turned back at this point.

notyoueither · February 8, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Why not just rename it something Russian, but not Stalingrad? the guy killed more people than Hitler for crying out loud.

that's not true. And mind you, I hate Stalin. His people put my greatgrandfather in prison for nothing.

Actually, it is true. Stalin and his cohorts killed more in the collectivisation of the Ukraine than died in the Holocaust. And that was just in a few years during the 30s in one region. It is difficult to believe, but it is sadly the case.

The highest estimates of Stalin's death toll upon his own people approach 60 million. More reasonable numbers are between 20 to 30 million, IIRC.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:36

Quote:

Well, if you're going to talk about A-Bombs then why the hell are we discussing hypothetical scenarios with the Germans winning? Once the A-Bomb comes into play the whole question is moot.

Not if the US isn't involved in the war. The Soviets got the Abomb historically in 1949. I see no way they could survive that long against Germany, and even if they did, they would not have the capacity to build a bomb (even with all of their espionage).

Quote:

Russia loses in 1941 or 42. Germany reinforces the Afrika Corps and kickes the British out of the middle east. The mediterranean becomes an Axis lake. Would the Germans been able to try an invasion of England under these conditions in 1942 before the British recovered and the US began building up troops in the UK?

No. Britain was outproducing the Germans in terms of fighters even in 1940/41. Further, the Germans couldn't have significantly reinforced and supplied Africa for an offensive until they won sea superiority in the Med, and that meant taking out Malta and destroying the Royal Navy, and, to a greater extent, depending on the Regina Marina. None of these things were likely.

Yes, I suppose Germany could concentrate all of their resources on an air and sea buildup, but this would take years, and even then, I doubt they could match the combined Royal Navy and USN, and RAF and USAAF. In fact, I know they couldn't - historically, the US was outproducing Britain, the Commonwealth, and Germany COMBINED in aircraft production by 1942 (and nearly so in 1941 when they weren't even in the war). In fact, by 1945, the US was outproducing Britain, the British Commonwealth, Germany, and the Soviet Union combined in aircraft production, and were near doing so in 1944.

Nubclear · February 8, 2003, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Actually, it is true. Stalin and his cohorts killed more in the collectivisation of the Ukraine than died in the Holocaust. And that was just in a few years during the 30s in one region. It is difficult to believe, but it is sadly the case.

The highest estimates of Stalin's death toll upon his own people approach 60 million. More reasonable numbers are between 20 to 30 million, IIRC.

The highest estimates I've ever seen for the holocaust are 100 million.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:42

Yes, and people also deny the Holocaust, but we don't believe that, do we?

notyoueither · February 8, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

The highest estimates I've ever seen for the holocaust are 100 million.

Counting what?

Nubclear · February 8, 2003, 20:44

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, and people also deny the Holocaust, but we don't believe that, do we?

Thats completly irrelevant. People have debated "Whos the biggest baddie?" for many years, and you can find sources to make either Stalin or Hitler be the "baddiest of them all".

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:48

Yes, and you can find sources stating that neither of them did anything wrong at all. The point is, we ignore sources that are clearly ridiculous, and estimates of 100 million killed in the Holocaust and only a million or two killed by Stalin are clearly silly.

Nubclear · February 8, 2003, 20:50

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, and you can find sources stating that neither of them did anything wrong at all. The point is, we ignore sources that are clearly ridiculous, and estimates of 100 million killed in the Holocaust and only a million or two killed by Stalin are clearly silly.

Right, but I'm trying to say that we'll never know whos the baddiest of the bad. Oh well.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:51

They were equally evil. Fair enough?

Nubclear · February 8, 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
They were equally evil. Fair enough?

I'll settle for that.

David Floyd · February 8, 2003, 20:53

Damn, if it were only this easy to reach a conclusion with Serb

notyoueither · February 8, 2003, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Right, but I'm trying to say that we'll never know whos the baddiest of the bad. Oh well.

I'll accept the equally bad for the purposes of this thread. However, I suspect that some people may not wish to find out who was worse.

Propaganda · February 8, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000

I'll settle for that.

I wouldn't. I'd rather believe historians who have had access to the Soviet Archives, like Mr. Zemskov and Mr. Dugin, rather than fascists and nationalists the likes of Solzhenitsyn and Conquest.

notyoueither · February 8, 2003, 22:39

Nevermind. Wrong thread for this.

LaRusso · February 9, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Yes it did happen, and Hitler was just as crazy as Stalin. During the first few years of the war Stalin even ordered the imprisonment and execution of soldiers who tried to escape back to Soviet lines when their units were overrun and bypassed by the German blitzkrieg. By his command it was automatically assumed that such soldiers were traitors.

Please read my post next time more carefully. I only said that they NEVER used this on people who charged forward and had their charge repulsed (as portrayed in the movie). Security squads were placed behind defenders, not attackers.

LaRusso · February 9, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, I can tell you that without the Soviet Union, the Allies (US+Britain+minor allies) still would have defeated Germany, without a great deal of extra fighting.

hitler's germany or iraq?