Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: World War II Question

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Northern Greece Macedonia Drama
    Posts
    271

    Default World War II Question

    Let's say that "Operation Overlord" never happened . Which of course means that the Normady landing didn't happend , how would the War go ???

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Well, how do you think it would have went?

    A Western Allied army all dressed up and no where to go?

    What exactly are you asking? What if the US, British-Commonwealth and the assorted Free armies never went to battle on the ground with das West Heer?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Northern Greece Macedonia Drama
    Posts
    271

    Default Re: World War II Question

    if the western allies , believe that the Pacific Front , was "difficult" and sent the greatest part of the army there . I know it sounds stupid but i thought i should hear other guys opinions

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Northern Greece Macedonia Drama
    Posts
    271

    Default Re: World War II Question

    i just saw the "second part" of your post . yeah that's exactly what i am asking .
    if the only enemy for the German army was the Russians .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kallinikosdrama1992 View Post
    if the western allies , believe that the Pacific Front , was "difficult" and sent the greatest part of the army there . I know it sounds stupid but i thought i should hear other guys opinions
    What was actually committed to the Pacific won, so extra forces wouldn't have altered that apart perhaps from doing it sooner.

    The European forces weren't going to be committed to the Pacific as America and Britain had agreed the 'Germany First' policy before the war and confirmed it repeatedly during the war.

    American and British non-war strategic interests lay primarily in Europe, so that was always where their main thrust and main commitment of forces would be.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    517

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kallinikosdrama1992 View Post
    Let's say that "Operation Overlord" never happened . Which of course means that the Normady landing didn't happend , how would the War go ???
    It is frequently discussed issue in the context of WWII. In my opinion there are no doubts that the German-Soviet war in Europe would have continued after May 1945. However, Germany and its ally states were sure to be defeated by the Soviets anyway. Under such circumstances all the European countries would have been liberated and turned into new republics within the USSR in accordance to the baggings of local working classes.

    In fact "Operation Overlord" meant the long-term strategic defeat for the Soviet regime and prevented spreading Soviet control over the bulk of Europe. Everyone knows "who controls Europe controls the world". At that time the Soviet system missed the last chance to gain control over Europe and thus failed to gain control over the world.
    One should consider the Soviet miliary superiority over Germans during the whole war and the Soviet military performance, the extent of human and material losses the Soviet union to the extent of its miserable gainings in Europe as well as the destiny of the USSR - the full degenaration of the Soviet system and its collapse within 40 years.
    The irony is that the USSR was a semi-loser of WWII just after the end of WWII and was an absolute loser in a medium-term perspective.

    Lots of people consider Stalin a great political leader, say that his Soviet regime turned the USSR into a superpower. Though it was Stalin who ceded Europe to the US and thus doomed the rottened Soviet system for death. The Red Army defeated Germany and its ally states at an immense price and Stalin simply presented victory to the US and Britain. So apart from being butchers for the population of the USSR Stalin and his commies were a bunch of mere political losers and bankrupts.

    Today it is clear that the only global winner of WWII is the USA that has successfully imposed its so-called democratic project on the world. The Soviets only helped the US to achieve victory by defeating Axis powers in Europe and then completely rottened and demised.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Oh Kato , you've come back
    Where have you been al this time you?
    I hope your were not banned?..
    BTW so as i understand your point was that STalin has losed his chance to include all the Europe to he USSR when he let the Allies to open Second front in Normandy?
    But as we know Stalin continiously bored both the CHurchill and Ropsewelt to start the Secong front as soon as they can.
    Since 1942 he persisted the seconf front to be opened.
    So in you mind he was a finished idiot - to ask allies to prevent him to capture all the Europe?
    BTW did yopu hear the last news from Ukraine?
    The SVR published the list of "whom bring the guilt for holodomore"
    Have you seen this list?

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Kato View Post
    Today it is clear that the only global winner of WWII is the USA that has successfully imposed its so-called democratic project on the world. The Soviets only helped the US to achieve victory by defeating Axis powers in Europe and then completely rottened and demised.
    Of course Yankees did nothing to beat the Germany
    Every soviet schoolchildren knew it perfectly. You as a former soviet child has adopted it very well.
    The "semi-loser" USSR was so loser that accidentally has fu..ked the GErmany and its allies ALONE.
    Than Uncle Sam just come here ..Stalin presented him a victory
    Nickdfresh , you shall love comride Stalin who alone defeated the alls powers and presenter you the victory in Europe
    I get crazy when hear the kato's logic..The "rotten USSR" ALONE win all the Axis...

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Aachen/Aken/Aix-la-Chapelle
    Posts
    2,966

    Default Re: World War II Question

    If the western allies wouldn't have attacked in Normandy, maybe big Uncle Joe would have become that pissed off that he'd declared war on everyone. He wanted this second front like crazy!
    "I just ran out of ammo. I will ram this one. Good bye, we'll meet in Valhalla." - Major Heinrich Ehrler, April 4, 1945

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Of course Yankees did nothing to beat the Germany
    Every soviet schoolchildren knew it perfectly. You as a former soviet child has adopted it very well.
    The "semi-loser" USSR was so loser that accidentally has fu..ked the GErmany and its allies ALONE.
    Than Uncle Sam just come here ..Stalin presented him a victory
    Nickdfresh , you shall love comride Stalin who alone defeated the alls powers and presenter you the victory in Europe
    I get crazy when hear the kato's logic..The "rotten USSR" ALONE win all the Axis...
    I'm personally thankful that Marshal Stalin was nice and gracious enough to leave a few German soldiers alive for the US to kill.

    Very sporting of him.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by kallinikosdrama1992 View Post
    if the western allies , believe that the Pacific Front , was "difficult" and sent the greatest part of the army there . I know it sounds stupid but i thought i should hear other guys opinions
    There were some increasing frustrated and disgruntled Anglo-phobic American officers such as Admiral King that wanted to allocate most of the resources of the Pacific after the US lost the Anglo-American argument about whether to proceed into France in 1942 like the US Army wanted too -- as much as resources would permit (not enough). Or whether to carry on the war in North Africa and then to Italy itself, as the British ultimately favored the Mediterranean strategy. But this was never a serious consideration as of a shift to the Pacific by the senior US political-military leadership. The more existential enemy was clearly the German state...

    In any case, I also thought you might be asking for alternate landing venues to France such as the Balkans or Norway...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    517

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    BTW so as i understand your point was that STalin has losed his chance to include all the Europe to he USSR when he let the Allies to open Second front in Normandy?
    But as we know Stalin continiously bored both the CHurchill and Ropsewelt to start the Secong front as soon as they can.
    Since 1942 he persisted the seconf front to be opened.
    So in you mind he was a finished idiot - to ask allies to prevent him to capture all the Europe?
    Quite correct. As we know the Soviet system has its global project - global communistic revolution. In practice it meant spreading Soviet system across the whole world. As a result of WWII the US got control over the Pacific region and much of Europe with incomparably lower losses than the the ones of the USSR. The British Empire has become totally dependent from the US during WWII. The Latin America remained under the US control. Under such conditions the global Soviet project could not be realised. The USSR was created to be the base for realising this one project and for nothing else. The sence of the USSR's existence vanished alongside with all the prospects for the global communistic revolution as a result of WWII.
    Last edited by Kato; 07-25-2008 at 11:56 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    517

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    The "semi-loser" USSR was so loser that accidentally has fu..ked the GErmany and its allies ALONE.
    The USSR had been developing its military build-up using its vast resources and turning its population into slaves for two decades before WWII. It accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy's territory in 1941. Germany started to restore its military build-up only in the mid 1930s and had much less resources. Considering these factors as well as the first stage of Soviet-German war and the proportion of Soviet losses Stalin and his regime turn out to be criminally inefficient, incompetent lacking any political and military foresight.


    I get crazy when hear the kato's logic..The "rotten USSR" ALONE win all the Axis.
    Stalin and his commies were able to turn the rottening USSR into powerful zombie but absolutely failed to use this zombie for its life and death matter - the global communistic revolution that can prolong the life of this zombie for a long period of time.

    Than Uncle Sam just come here ..Stalin presented him a victory
    Nickdfresh , you shall love comride Stalin who alone defeated the alls powers and presenter you the victory in Europe
    Few Americans love losers.
    Last edited by Kato; 07-25-2008 at 11:53 AM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Kato View Post
    The USSR had been developing its military build-up using its vast resources and turning its population into slaves for two decades before WWII. It accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy's territory in 1941.
    Wait on.

    How did the USSR turn its population into slaves for two decades before WWII (which means that a Soviet government was in consistent control from 1921)?

    If they were all slaves, who was in the armed forces?

    If the Soviets "accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy's territory in 1941", why was there so much fighting on Soviet soil after 1941?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kato View Post
    Stalin and his commies were able to turn the rottening USSR into powerful zombie but absolutely failed to use this zombie for its life and death matter - the global communistic revolution that can prolong the life of this zombie for a long period of time.
    A possible reason for the failure of the Soviet zombies to take over the world in the 1940's might be that they were slightly occupied in dealing with some rather insistent Germans who seemed rather determined to conquer the USSR, and Russia, which tended to put the COMINTERN and its aims of global revolution on the back burner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kato View Post
    Few Americans love losers.
    How is this relevant to the failure of Soviet zombies to take over the world?

    Anyway, America lost in Vietnam but that hasn't stopped national respect for their men who fell there.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    517

    Default Re: World War II Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Wait on.

    How did the USSR turn its population into slaves for two decades before WWII (which means that a Soviet government was in consistent control from 1921)?
    Well, if we take a person, abolish his right to private property, confiscate his property, make him to work for food, prohibit him to change job on his own, prohibit to change the place of living without the consent from authorities he will become a de-facto slave.



    If they were all slaves, who was in the armed forces?
    Before 1861 the Moscovian tsar army was menned by serfs. The Armed Forces can be formed from slaves and even gain victories. The army in many Oriental despothies were formed this way.

    If the Soviets "accumulated more than enough military power to realise its pre-war strategy of quick victory over enemy in enemy's territory in 1941", why was there so much fighting on Soviet soil after 1941?
    The Soviets failed to convert their military superiority into quick victory. Soviet tanks could easily reach Roumanian oil-fields in a preventive strike before june 22 1941 and cut off Germans from their main source of oil. The defeat of Germany and the occupation of Europe would be matter of several weeks then.
    Last edited by Kato; 07-25-2008 at 06:25 PM.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •