Ever wondered what would happen if a nuke hit your city? Wonder no more!

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Hitler made such bad decisions such as invading the ussr because he was injected with a cocktail of drugs by his doctor including Crystal meth daily.

Watched a show on history channel that a synthetic version of meth in tablet form was given to German soldiers allowing them to fight for days on end without empathy. That's one of the reason blitzkrieg was so effective in the first 2 years of the war. But the tweaker soldiers became hopelessly addicted by 1942 and crashed hard when the supply lines were stretched in the east. They wrote letters home begging family and friends to send prevatin (the name for the meth). Was a fascinating show.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There is no way this is real.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

The Allies opened the second front mainly to prevent the Soviets from rolling across Germany and into Western Europe, as the USSR would have installed communist puppet governments in the Low Countries and France. It really wasn't primarily about winning the war (although that was part of it), it was mainly to prevent all of Europe from becoming a Soviet puppet. The war was definitely over after Stalingrad and Kursk.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

There is no way this is real.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Actually there's a lot of documentation that methamphetamines and other forms of were highly used by both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by BVS

Actually there's a lot of documentation that methamphetamines and other forms of were highly used by both sides.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Really? I've studied WWII a lot in school and I've never heard anything like that. Sounds like I'll have to do some research.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[U2DMfan]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

I said the war was pretty much won by the time the UK and US invaded. And I do think that the Western conventional wisdom about the war deemphasizes the Eastern Front. The Nazis lost 500,000 troops total in the Western Front. But in the East, at the Battle of Stalingrad, they lost 500,000 troops and had 100,000 troops taken prisoner and that's just one battle. The scale of the Eastern Front was so much larger than the Western Front. And once Germany began to be pushed back in the Eastern Front it was only a matter of time before they lost. What we did was simply speed up the time before the Nazis were defeated.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

That's an oversimplification. There's no question that folks in the West have been given a very Western-centric view of WW2, much of which almost totally ignores how the Russians beat down the Nazis. But saying the Western-centric view of the war is not the total picture is not an excuse to turn around offer the Eastern-centric view of the war.

History (written objectively) tells us that wars in general, but especially THAT war, are extremely complicated. As was the decision to drop the bombs in '45. People can have varying POVs on all these matters, but the only people that are wrong are being absolute about much any of it. For starters, that a Western front was even a possibility (against a very formidable foe) diluted Germany's ability to win in the East before the US/UK invaded. Allocation of resources is an undeniable factor in who wins and loses.

Also, casualty numbers are not always indicative of...(for lack of a better way to phrase it) who won the war more than someone else. It can simply be indicative of the tougher fight. The Germans were the better warriors than the Russians, and that is pretty much universally accepted amongst military 'experts' but let's suggest they were at least equals. Just imagine they had more equal numbers. And that goes for the Western front as well. Had the Allies faced the full power of the Nazis, it would have been...let's say a hell of a lot tougher to liberate France - alone.

It could also be said those casualties numbers are as imbalanced as they are because Germany was INVADING their foe in the East. You know...their backyard. While they were defending - while occupying in the West. Had they decided to invade the UK...do those casualties drastically go up? Of course they do. It might have been part of the reason they didn't do it - hence, a mark in the column of the Allies.

You can make these arguments say whatever you want to say, in terms of citing troop allotments and regiments, etc. Or...as you did...if you're going to use something like casualties to suit your purpose, why wouldn't someone just point out in reply - that the Allies went through the Germans on the Western front like a hot knife through butter? Didn't even take a year. And yet the Russians were bogged down for years...but then you'd have to take into the invasion/occupation dynamics. And then - you must admit that the casualties would necessarily be imbalanced. Thus, if you're being intellectually honest, it's not much evidence for what you're trying to pass off.

The bottom line is the logistics of what the Nazis could NOT do - greatly helped them to lose the war. That has to be part of this discussion. Part of that is not being able to rest easy when they knew the Allies were coming. The threat of the Allies actually kept the Russians in the fight. Truth.

We all won the war, and it doesn't really matter who won it more than the other. Let the Brits claim it. Let the Russians claim it. Let the Americans claim it. And let the Westerners claiming the Russians did it feel self-satisfied that they are somehow enlightened...as if they just watched a bunch of propaganda from "truth-tellers" like Oliver Stone.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

That's an oversimplification. There's no question that folks in the West have been given a very Western-centric view of WW2, much of which almost totally ignores how the Russians beat down the Nazis. But saying the Western-centric view of the war is not the total picture is not an excuse to turn around offer the Eastern-centric view of the war.



History (written objectively) tells us that wars in general, but especially THAT war, are extremely complicated. As was the decision to drop the bombs in '45. People can have varying POVs on all these matters, but the only people that are wrong are being absolute about much any of it.

Yes. Very good. Thank you.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Yes. Very good. Thank you.

Seconded.

[Kieran McConville]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

There is no way this is real.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yeah, I can usually only fight without empathy for six or seven hours on meth.

[Oregoropa]

Here is a what if scenario?

Hitler does not invade the Soviet Union in June 41'. Instead accelerates his rocketry and jet research. The me-262 goes into action sooner in greater numbers. The allies didn't get their strategic bombing going until late 42. This would be totally ineffective against the jet fighters. The Germans would have complete air superiority. There is then a small window where they could take Britain before the U.S. Masters its naval supply convoy strategy. Then they could further their ballistic missile technology beyond the V-2. I could see a Cold War breaking out between the U.S. And Germany. Then Germany could choose whether or not to invade the ussr.

On a side note Amazon streaming adapted Philip k dicks "the man in the high castle" which imagines the nazis and Japanese winning and splitting the country in half. Honestly the booked sucked. But the series is set in that universe and the pilot was very cool.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

Here is a what if scenario?

Hitler does not invade the Soviet Union in June 41'. Instead accelerates his rocketry and jet research. The me-262 goes into action sooner in greater numbers. The allies didn't get their strategic bombing going until late 42. This would be totally ineffective against the jet fighters. The Germans would have complete air superiority. There is then a small window where they could take Britain before the U.S. Masters its naval supply convoy strategy. Then they could further their ballistic missile technology beyond the V-2. I could see a Cold War breaking out between the U.S. And Germany. Then Germany could choose whether or not to invade the ussr.

On a side note Amazon streaming adapted Philip k dicks "the man in the high castle" which imagines the nazis and Japanese winning and splitting the country in half. Honestly the booked sucked. But the series is set in that universe and the pilot was very cool.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Have you ever heard of Harry Turtledove? He did an interesting alt-history series where aliens attacked the Earth during WWII. He also did one where the South won the Civil War and the Union and the South coexist as rivals. The timeline eventually ends with the Union defeating the South in WWII.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Oregoropa]

Yeah. I have heard of it. A whole timeline that starts with intelligence message not being intercepted. I'll have to check it out


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference