World War II

nah, if hitler didnt hate stalin so much they would have lost extremely quickly.

if you mean that he was good for british morale and he gave good speeches then yeah he did a good job, but considering he was appointed after the outbreak WW2 i would say that he was appointed to win the war
 
Which is what he did therefore he did his job well. :monster:
And I doubt Britain would've been invaded by the Germans even if Hitler didn't hate Stalin. The Royal Navy is just too stout a force. Any invasion force would've been turned away.
But whatever.
 
british navy would have been raped, by the german pilots and most of the navy was in the pacific, only reason they wernt invaded was operation barbarossa
 
I want to set up a World War II thread for this now that I've found someone to actually discuss it with. :)

But I'll have to disagree. Most of the Royal Navy was in the Mediterranean and the Home Islands in Scotland. The Naval High Command thought that the Pacific theatre was secondary. And the quality of the ships in the Atlantic were pretty new compared to those in the Pacific with a couple of exceptions in holdovers from WWI.

And yah, Barbarossa, which wouldn't have happened in 1941 if it wasn't for the British turning back the Luftwaffe.

To all others: I'll move our posts to a new WWII thread.
 
nah barbarossa was just a diversion, hitler had already planned it, he originally didnt want to go to war with the UK but because of the causes of WW2 which im not going to go into, they did go to war.

Hitler hated communists as he was a fascist, ironic really as extreme right wing and left wing are very similar, but there is proof of his hatred of communism ie blaming communists for burning down the reichstag.
germany and USSR had made the molotov non agression pact where they said they wouldnt go to war, but im pretty sure hitler never was going to keep going along with that.
so he used the battle of britain and the threat of operation sealion as a diversion whilst he moved some of his panzer divisions close to the USSR's oilfields in Kazahkstan,
 
I wouldn't say the Battle of Britain was a diversion, but I genuinely thought it was a planned maneuver to knock the West out of the war and therefore knock out a salient of resistance once his war on the U.S.S.R. began. One of the German war aims was to not get into a two-front war which cost them in the First World War, so it doesn't follow that Hitler would attack Britain and not conquer it in the end because it was just a diversion.

But yeah, Hitler was planning on attacking Russia in the first place. It was just a matter of when and what circumstances.
 
i dont think hitler or anyone should have been to bothered about france, maginot line lol.
and the germans had the von schleifen plan for WW1.

the battle of britain was an attempt to gain aerial superiority over britain, which they would have if hitler hadnt decided to bomb cities instead of airfields.
after germany lost the battle of britain, they used their continued bombing offense as a diversion, so that the russians wouldnt expect an attack.
as i said before, there was never any threat of a war on two fronts as germany defeated france before thinking about russia, although the british continued to bomb germany to help the russians out, the west didnt fight germany much on land until after the D-Day landings
 
The Russian invasion was a big fiasco. Well, mainly because of the weather. The Russian winter killed Hitler's troops as it did Nepoleon's years before. But the Russians had heavy casualties as well. The big difference was that the Russian troops were equipped to handle the weather. While the German troops were not. So in the end, the Russians just pushed on back to Germany. A short synopis I know. The only people who could successfully conquer Russia were the Monguls. They invaded from the east.
 
and thats russia after 20 million had been killed by stalins purges, most of them were officers in the army, tis why germany slaughtered the russians at first
 
Not to mention the fact that Stalin did absolutely nothing for the people of Leningrad (now called St Petersburg again). Who were held in a German blockade for months. I believe they were not alone either.

Stalin was worse of a monster than Hitler ever was. But history has gone easy on him. Even Kruschev, when he took over after Stalin's death, decided to rename places named after him. Because he felt Stalin was a monster. This was the guy who worked directly with him.
 
Last edited:
Stalin was worse of a monster than Hitler ever was. But history has gone easy on him
Click to expand...
i know, stalin killed at least 20million russians, but Hitler's murder of the jews was systematic and planned, whereas stalin was mad and power crazy. also the fact that was on the allies side helped to ensure his reputation wasnt seen as bad universally.

Because he felt Stalin was a monster. This was the guy who worked directly with him
Click to expand...
and what he did to poor trotsky, all the russians were terrified of him, he mispronounced agricultural wrong, and everyone else copied him so they wouldnt be executed
 
Well, if anything was working for the Russians back then, it was the sheer amounts of troops they could put in the field of battle at any one time. When the war broke out in 1941 between the two, Russia still had massive amounts of troops stationed in the East to protect against Japan so when those were called to the West, the numerical superiority was just so overwhelming.

Not to mention the fact that Soviet production was so high that I'm assuming for every Soviet tank destroyed, there were another 3 to replace it the time the day was out.

Not much to say on the Aeroflot. They folded a couple days after Barbarossa began. :P

Needless to say, big mistake for Hitler. Wasn't he supposed to just take Moscow then worry about the oil fields in the south later on? He just bypassed the capital to get the oil....
 
Wasn't he supposed to just take Moscow then worry about the oil fields in the south later on? He just bypassed the capital to get the oil....<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Click to expand...
i think both, if possible, if you capture your enemy's capital then you win almost, tis what he did with france, but he also tried to get the russian's oilfields, as the oil from there was the only oil the russians were getting, and germany could always do with more oil, so killing two birds with 1 stone really.
 
Well, Moscow was the communications hub so cutting it off would cut off communications for the Soviets. Winning the war is much more important than getting more oil, especially since the Germans were already only a couple of miles from Moscow. :P
 
Invading Russia was a huge mistake to begin with. Yes, the Russians had the manpower and production. Not to mention that the US supplied them with equipment as well. Mainly in the way of vehicles and transports.

I am not sure Hitler would of gotten much from Moscow. The Russians would of just left it first and did their famous scorched earth policy.
 
Winning the war is much more important than getting more oil
Click to expand...
you kinga didnt get what i meant there, all russia's oil came from those oil fields in the south, so without the oil from those fields, russia was helpless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top