|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Sept 25, 2019 23:38:30 GMT
I say they did not. Without help from the US and the UK they'd have been quickly defeated. For that matter they'd have lost quickly but for Hitler's mistakes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 0:28:31 GMT
It's more complicated than that.
Hitler's tactics were a big factor in fucking up.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Sept 26, 2019 8:19:17 GMT
Clearly they won.
Who supplies the stuff is irrelevant to who won.
You can ask 'could they have won without all the stuff the Brits fearlessly transported across the Arctic because the Americans were only interested in selling stuff rather than helping?' and that would be a valid question, but whether they won or not is indisputable.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 26, 2019 9:42:41 GMT
Clearly they won. Who supplies the stuff is irrelevant to who won. You can ask 'could they have won without all the stuff the Brits fearlessly transported across the Arctic because the Americans were only interested in selling stuff rather than helping?' and that would be a valid question, but whether they won or not is indisputable. Although the Americans certainly made a lot of money out of the UK as did Canada... (only paid off in 2006) "The US loaned $4.33bn (£2.2bn) to Britain in 1945, while Canada loaned US$1.19 bn (£607m) in 1946, at a rate of 2% annual interest. Upon the final payments, the UK will have paid back a total of $7.5bn (£3.8bn) to the US and US$2 bn (£1bn) to Canada." And they had to be forced into the war by Japan, none of the 3 countries could have won without the others assistance and the lunacy of continuing "Blitzkrieg" tactics after the initial phase when the German army was obviously outrunning it's supply chain and the complete unpreparedness for Russian winter conditions. It would have been nice if once the war was over the US and Canada could have let the loans go interest free as a nod to the fact of what the UK achieved whilst others twiddled their thumbs. Anyway, fuck Russia, the back stabbing bastards were forced into the war like the US, this time through German treachery, how many countries actually did the right thing rather than get forced into it.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Sept 26, 2019 9:54:14 GMT
Although the Americans certainly made a lot of money out of the UK Now now, this thread is not for America-bashing. Now now comrade, this thread is not for motherland-bashing.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Sept 26, 2019 12:47:17 GMT
Although the Americans certainly made a lot of money out of the UK Now now, this thread is not for America-bashing. Now now comrade, this thread is not for motherland-bashing. Who can I bash? The Germans? Sweden?
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Sept 26, 2019 21:32:40 GMT
Clearly they won. Who supplies the stuff is irrelevant to who won. You can ask 'could they have won without all the stuff the Brits fearlessly transported across the Arctic because the Americans were only interested in selling stuff rather than helping?' and that would be a valid question, but whether they won or not is indisputable. You think they'd have been just fine fighting with bows and arrows, or with slingshots perhaps? Materiel is of the essence in warfare and this has been known for many centuries. Without help the Russians could not have defended themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Sept 26, 2019 21:39:25 GMT
A very reasonable rate of interest on loans made after the war i.e. after any potential danger to North America had passed. These loans were acts of generosity, as everyone recognized at the time and any decent person would now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 18:22:42 GMT
I have a question. Historical revisionists claim that it was fear of the Soviets, not the atom bomb that made Japan surrender. My question is did the Soviets even have the capability to launch an assault on the Japanese home islands?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2019 3:41:05 GMT
I say they did not. Without help from the US and the UK they'd have been quickly defeated. For that matter they'd have lost quickly but for Hitler's mistakes. I disagree though about their defeat. The Soviets were different from the NAZIs, because they put an even lesser value on life. If the only way to stop a tank was to form a "dogpile" on it, they would, no matter how many people it took, because they felt and had people to "burn". And the biggest weapon in Russia's defense arsenal is the country itself. The massive size of the country enabled them to just fall back to the point where logistics became tenuous threads, then send in "partisans" to cut the threads and let the weather do the rest.
|
|
|
Post by ayatollah on Nov 16, 2019 0:47:20 GMT
The UK should've offered peace after the fall of France provided Germany abandon all territory to it's west.
America should've never gotten involved.
Hitler and Stalin could've battled it out. Russia would've won a long war.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Nov 16, 2019 4:48:18 GMT
But there wouldn't have been a long war. With the UK and US out of the picture, Germany would have conquered European Russia and forced Stalin to sue for peace. That would leave the new Greater Germany with a huge territory and immense population, self-sufficient in oil and highly industrialized, in short, probably the most powerful country in the world. As threats go it would be even worse than some missiles on Cuba.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Nov 16, 2019 16:58:19 GMT
But there wouldn't have been a long war. With the UK and US out of the picture, Germany would have conquered European Russia and forced Stalin to sue for peace. That would leave the new Greater Germany with a huge territory and immense population, self-sufficient in oil and highly industrialized, in short, probably the most powerful country in the world. As threats go it would be even worse than some missiles on Cuba. Hitler was looking at a conflict with the USA about 15 years down the road.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Nov 16, 2019 18:09:33 GMT
But there wouldn't have been a long war. With the UK and US out of the picture, Germany would have conquered European Russia and forced Stalin to sue for peace. Huh? UK and US pretty much were out of the picture. Apart from bombing German citizens and the occupational army in France, we weren't doing any damage to the German fighting army. It was all on the eastern front and taking a resounding beating from the Russians. I know we like to think "we won the war", but that means "we were on the winning side", not "we did the winning". It was Russia that destroyed the German fighting army.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Nov 16, 2019 22:41:19 GMT
Completely wrong, Monkeys, for two reasons.
1. It was generally agreed, not in bars and clubs but among serious military men, that Germany would defeat Russia fairly quickly. In the event, when Barbarossa failed it was because it started two months too late. This was because of the revolution in Yugoslavia, which Germany had to spend two months suppressing - a revolution fomented by Britain.
2. Russia was dependent on materiel from the UK and US, materiel of every kind, aircraft, trucks, tanks.
|
|