yup, kr@cker WTF?!?! wii song
Poll
If the US hadn't entered WWII
| Europe would be speaking German | 33% | 33% - 67 | ||||
| Europe would be speaking Russian | 15% | 15% - 31 | ||||
| USSR would have liberated Europe | 16% | 16% - 33 | ||||
| World would be speaking German (eventually) | 15% | 15% - 31 | ||||
| World would be speaking Russian (eventually) | 3% | 3% - 6 | ||||
| Germany would share world with Japan | 8% | 8% - 17 | ||||
| Russia would share world with Japan | 1% | 1% - 3 | ||||
| World would be speaking Japanese | 5% | 5% - 10 | ||||
| Total: 198 | ||||||
Hmm.. annexed Europe would be a more appropriate option.Poll Selection wrote:
USSR would have liberated Europe.
If the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor, Europe would be speaking German or Russian. Although I seriously doubt that Roosevelt would've sat idly by while Europe, Africa and Asia were slowly being conquered by the Axis powers.
The UK would've been safe for the short-term, Germany had its hands full with the Eastern Front.
Without a major Pacific war, the Japanese would've been able to start a second front in the USSR. That second front would have been a massive help to the Germans. Considering Russians account for half of the dead from World War 2.. on just one front.. imagine the horrific nightmare of two fronts.
Without US participation in North Africa, British forces would eventually have to withdraw for homeland defense. This would've left the oil-rich Middle East in the hands of Germany - this would probably be the point of no return. With North Africa secure, I would think that the Afrika Korps would've been reassigned to the Eastern Front - leaving the rest of Africa to Italy and the Vichy French.
By this time American intervention might've been too late. With the Middle Eastern oil fields in control, Germany could finally fully fuel her navy.. which would spell disaster for trans-Atlantic supply convoys.
I don't really want to be the arrogant American that says "We saved your European ass in WW2".. but it's true. lol... sorry but it really is. That doesn't mean that we achieved victory solely because we joined the war in '41. If the RAF didn't kick the Luftwaffe's ass back in 1940.. the Allies would've been really screwed. If the Russians didn't win the battle for Stalingrad.. the Allies would've been in a serious mess. Victory in Europe would not have been possible without the collective effort of the US, UK, and the USSR.
Last edited by USAFDude_1988 (2006-07-11 08:19:59)
Maybe then, but everyone would have been tired of commies like they eventually did and fought free.USAFDude_1988 wrote:
Hmm.. annexed Europe would be a more appropriate option.Poll Selection wrote:
USSR would have liberated Europe.
which is more than a little different in outcome and spirit than liberating Europe. It was all the allies could do to get half of Germany away from them when we were involved.PBAsydney wrote:
Maybe then, but everyone would have been tired of commies like they eventually did and fought free.USAFDude_1988 wrote:
Hmm.. annexed Europe would be a more appropriate option.Poll Selection wrote:
USSR would have liberated Europe.
All the british women would have started fightin and slapped there arses hahaha
Never! I would have gone rambo into Europe and freed it on my own with a fishing knife and a big club.puckmercury wrote:
which is more than a little different in outcome and spirit than liberating Europe. It was all the allies could do to get half of Germany away from them when we were involved.PBAsydney wrote:
Maybe then, but everyone would have been tired of commies like they eventually did and fought free.USAFDude_1988 wrote:
Hmm.. annexed Europe would be a more appropriate option.
Don't forget a towel. You've always got to keep your towel about you.PBAsydney wrote:
Never! I would have gone rambo into Europe and freed it on my own with a fishing knife and a big club.puckmercury wrote:
which is more than a little different in outcome and spirit than liberating Europe. It was all the allies could do to get half of Germany away from them when we were involved.PBAsydney wrote:
Maybe then, but everyone would have been tired of commies like they eventually did and fought free.
You could have gone full blown Rambo with pungee sticks and an everlasting PKM!
"Remember, a towel makes an excellent hand-to-hand weapon"puckmercury wrote:
Don't forget a towel. You've always got to keep your towel about you.PBAsydney wrote:
Never! I would have gone rambo into Europe and freed it on my own with a fishing knife and a big club.puckmercury wrote:
which is more than a little different in outcome and spirit than liberating Europe. It was all the allies could do to get half of Germany away from them when we were involved.
Major Payne: The Nazi nuclear projects were far behind the Allies. They were not as centralized or as well-funded as the Manhattan Project. They were smart men who had an idea of what was needed, but they were probably years away from success. (The Soviets, also, were no where near having a functional weapon before the end of the war and, as ~Stags~ said, they owe a lot of their success in finally getting there to espionage of the US/Allied project.)
puckmercury: You said Britain was getting its ass handed to itself by Luftwaffe, that they were "fodder". THAT's why you got negative reactions, not your references to children's books. You were responding to aardfrith's point about Britain going neutral, suggesting that wasn't an option. I actually think that would have been a possibility, with different British leadership. Hitler had made odd alliances before, and with the British Lion putting up a tremendous fight, I think he might have agreed to a truce so they could focus elsewhere.
puckmercury: You said Britain was getting its ass handed to itself by Luftwaffe, that they were "fodder". THAT's why you got negative reactions, not your references to children's books. You were responding to aardfrith's point about Britain going neutral, suggesting that wasn't an option. I actually think that would have been a possibility, with different British leadership. Hitler had made odd alliances before, and with the British Lion putting up a tremendous fight, I think he might have agreed to a truce so they could focus elsewhere.
I respectfully disagree. The posts in reply contained nothing in reference to that so much as they did attack the books I chose to reference. I maintain what I said just as I maintain that the US in Pearl Harbor was not much more than fodder. At no time did I blame Britain or claim it as a failure, merely held it as a point of fact.
US in Pearl Harbor = Japanese screwing themselves six months down the road (they knew it too). They failed to destory our drydocks, oil tanks and subs. Which was vitally important to destory.
Russia, was still behind the world industrially. Although, they're leading tank designer commited suicide in 1934, that's why they named the tank the T-34... in honor of his year of death.
About the Atomic Bomb. Germany pretty much screwed themselves because of their policies, which caused many of their best scientists to flee, mostly to the US where we welcomed them, and put them to work. Russia... well they really didn't have any nuclear plans, at least none that could rival Germany's much less the US's.
It's a matter of conventional warfare. I think it might boil down to this, could Russia have produced enough T-34s in time to stop the German advance to the Volga River, where the German army would've solidified their positions? This is assuming Germany put it's full force against Russia instead of spliting it to fight Britian.
Note: Stalin pleaded with the west to invade Germany to start a true to front war to take pressure off of his front.
Second Note: I was too lazy to read all the post between my last post and this one. So if I missed anything vital to the discussion please bring it up again.
Russia, was still behind the world industrially. Although, they're leading tank designer commited suicide in 1934, that's why they named the tank the T-34... in honor of his year of death.
About the Atomic Bomb. Germany pretty much screwed themselves because of their policies, which caused many of their best scientists to flee, mostly to the US where we welcomed them, and put them to work. Russia... well they really didn't have any nuclear plans, at least none that could rival Germany's much less the US's.
It's a matter of conventional warfare. I think it might boil down to this, could Russia have produced enough T-34s in time to stop the German advance to the Volga River, where the German army would've solidified their positions? This is assuming Germany put it's full force against Russia instead of spliting it to fight Britian.
Note: Stalin pleaded with the west to invade Germany to start a true to front war to take pressure off of his front.
Second Note: I was too lazy to read all the post between my last post and this one. So if I missed anything vital to the discussion please bring it up again.
you know theres a conspiracy theory that roosevelt knew bout pearl harbour before it happened so he sent his most important ships (aircraft carriers) out that day for 'training' while his navy got an anal bashing. That would leave roosevelt free to declare war on japan and in turn germany.
just a conspiracy
just a conspiracy
@Stags: You know what? in T-34, the best overall tank of WWII, the "T" is for "Tank" and 34 is the year of first prototype. Not 34 to honour designer's death - he didn't even die in 1934! Where do you get this shit?
@ All those who think USSR had no weapons to arm the soldiers: Well, possibly, for the first 6 months of war is was nearly true, because a great amount of the arms factories were evacuated to the area behind Ural mountains, only to quickly begin the mass production of arms and equipment there. The best rifles, tanks, planes of WWII. I must say that the Red Army was very well equipped and outfitted to fight and destroy the enemy.
The true goal of US landing in Europe was to prevent the Soviets from taking control of the entire continent.
And I'm ready to laugh in the face of any american, who says it was US who defeated the Nazis. US was only sitting on it's ass (sorry for a dumb rhyme), until it was about time to go out there and stop the push of the Soviets, as I already said.
I do know that US gave a great amount of supplies to USSR, but USSR did not need supplies. It needed real military assistance, before 1944, when it was all clear who wins and who gets pwned.
@ All those who think USSR had no weapons to arm the soldiers: Well, possibly, for the first 6 months of war is was nearly true, because a great amount of the arms factories were evacuated to the area behind Ural mountains, only to quickly begin the mass production of arms and equipment there. The best rifles, tanks, planes of WWII. I must say that the Red Army was very well equipped and outfitted to fight and destroy the enemy.
The true goal of US landing in Europe was to prevent the Soviets from taking control of the entire continent.
And I'm ready to laugh in the face of any american, who says it was US who defeated the Nazis. US was only sitting on it's ass (sorry for a dumb rhyme), until it was about time to go out there and stop the push of the Soviets, as I already said.
I do know that US gave a great amount of supplies to USSR, but USSR did not need supplies. It needed real military assistance, before 1944, when it was all clear who wins and who gets pwned.
Last edited by Wasder (2006-07-11 13:15:23)
Best Rifles? Tanks? Planes? Maybe Tanks, certainly not rifles. The M-1 Garand is widely accepted as the most potent, portable and reliable weapons of WW2. Wasn't Russia still using Bolt Action rifles for most of the war?Wasder wrote:
@Stags: You know what? in T-34, the best overall tank of WWII, the "T" is for "Tank" and 34 is the year of first prototype. Not 34 to honour designer's death - he didn't even die in 1934! Where do you get this shit?
@ All those who think USSR had no weapons to arm the soldiers: Well, possibly, for the first 6 months of war is was nearly true, because a great amount of the arms factories were evacuated to the area behind Ural mountains, only to quickly begin the mass production of arms and equipment there. The best rifles, tanks, planes of WWII. I must say that the Red Army was very well equipped and outfitted to fight and destroy the enemy.
The true goal of US landing in Europe was to prevent the Soviets from taking control of the entire continent.
And I'm ready to laugh in the face of any american, who says it was US who defeated the Nazis. US was only sitting on it's ass (sorry for a dumb rhyme), until it was about time to go out there and stop the push of the Soviets, as I already said.
I do know that US gave a great amount of supplies to USSR, but USSR did not need supplies. It needed real military assistance, before 1944, when it was all clear who wins and who gets pwned.
Look, there are alot of impressed people who appreciate the tenacity and undeniable will put into practice by the Russian in WW2. Don't let that go, it's about all you have.
Should we talk about Russian prison camps? How many POW's disappeared after being taken captive?
Germany would've been all over Russia had the US not gotten involved. Without any involvement in Africa, Italy or the eventual D-Day invasion Russia would've been at the mercy of Nazi's and the rest of the world would've tremble in fear. Your resources, conscripted troops, weapon designs would've been in the hands of Germany had the US not gotten involved.
It's great to believe that Russia did WW2 by themselves. What would've happened if Japan had a free shot through China, complete control of the Aisa-Pacific rim and an invitation to expand into Russia's back door? Have you ever heard of the Battle of the Bulge? That stole many tanks, planes and troops that could've easily been knocking on Russia's front. Instead they were used to try and stop our advance through Western Europe. That's just one example, ask me for more.
It's beyond disrespectfull for the memories of those Americans, British and Canadians who died landing on D-Day for you to be completely illinformed. There was certainly realization by the European High Command that Russia would be happy marching right through Germany and straight to the channel. That's why we allowed you to take Berlin. There were several opprotunities for our divisions to smash through the weak german defense but how do you think that introduction would've turned out? Somehow I expect Stalin to have a different reaction than comraderie for his American counterparts if we had taken all of Germany.
Oh and by the way, thanks so much for offering the nations you "liberated" to give them thier freedom rather than 50+ years of oppression.
Scotch
russia is just too fucking huge. if they were overran in one place, they packed up and moved further east. they place their factories in the urals and bam, mass production was back on track.
Yes But this time loosing Moscow to an enemy was not an option.BattlefieldMedic wrote:
I think, that the only continent speaking Germany if the Americans had entered the war would be Africa. The Americans only really effected the war in Europe was through their constant bombing raids of German positions and cities.
My vote went to "Europe would be speaking Russian." For I doubt the Japanese would have dared to invade Russia after they'd conquered China. Germany would have still tried to invade Russia but I think that the Russians have a very simple yet effective strategy. One the have used twice already.
When invaded during Winter- retreat and fire from a distance.
Hitler used the exact same path as Napoleon, who happened to have failed miserably when he invaded Russia in 1812. Russians have so much land, they can just keep retreating and retreating until the enemy's army is just falls to the lack of survival sills they have.
Germans didn't not conceder Russian solders as POW's, but slave labor. So why should Russians be any different. German POW's where sent to laborer camps where some of them never left.-F8-Scotch wrote:
Best Rifles? Tanks? Planes? Maybe Tanks, certainly not rifles. The M-1 Garand is widely accepted as the most potent, portable and reliable weapons of WW2. Wasn't Russia still using Bolt Action rifles for most of the war?Wasder wrote:
@Stags: You know what? in T-34, the best overall tank of WWII, the "T" is for "Tank" and 34 is the year of first prototype. Not 34 to honour designer's death - he didn't even die in 1934! Where do you get this shit?
@ All those who think USSR had no weapons to arm the soldiers: Well, possibly, for the first 6 months of war is was nearly true, because a great amount of the arms factories were evacuated to the area behind Ural mountains, only to quickly begin the mass production of arms and equipment there. The best rifles, tanks, planes of WWII. I must say that the Red Army was very well equipped and outfitted to fight and destroy the enemy.
The true goal of US landing in Europe was to prevent the Soviets from taking control of the entire continent.
And I'm ready to laugh in the face of any American, who says it was US who defeated the Nazis. US was only sitting on it's ass (sorry for a dumb rhyme), until it was about time to go out there and stop the push of the Soviets, as I already said.
I do know that US gave a great amount of supplies to USSR, but USSR did not need supplies. It needed real military assistance, before 1944, when it was all clear who wins and who gets pwned.
Look, there are a lot of impressed people who appreciate the tenacity and undeniable will put into practice by the Russian in WW2. Don't let that go, it's about all you have.
Should we talk about Russian prison camps? How many POW's disappeared after being taken captive?
Germany would've been all over Russia had the US not gotten involved. Without any involvement in Africa, Italy or the eventual D-Day invasion Russia would've been at the mercy of Nazi's and the rest of the world would've tremble in fear. Your resources, conscripted troops, weapon designs would've been in the hands of Germany had the US not gotten involved.
It's great to believe that Russia did WW2 by themselves. What would've happened if Japan had a free shot through China, complete control of the Asia-Pacific rim and an invitation to expand into Russia's back door? Have you ever heard of the Battle of the Bulge? That stole many tanks, planes and troops that could've easily been knocking on Russia's front. Instead they were used to try and stop our advance through Western Europe. That's just one example, ask me for more.
It's beyond disrespectfully for the memories of those Americans, British and Canadians who died landing on D-Day for you to be completely ill informed. There was certainly realization by the European High Command that Russia would be happy marching right through Germany and straight to the channel. That's why we allowed you to take Berlin. There were several opportunities for our divisions to smash through the weak German defense but how do you think that introduction would've turned out? Somehow I expect Stalin to have a different reaction than camaraderie for his American counterparts if we had taken all of Germany.
Oh and by the way, thanks so much for offering the nations you "liberated" to give them their freedom rather than 50+ years of oppression.
Scotch
No disrespect meant to all soldiers who died on D-day. But if it wasn't for Eastern front, Normandy invasion would be a major failler.
BTW the only reason English and American troops start winning in Africa, because Germans start pulling their tank divisions from Africa and sending them to Eastern Front. Sorry to say but British and American troops had it easy compare to Red Army.
What you have yet to understand is that the USSR suffered about 20 million deaths, I think it was, where about half were civilian deaths. The US and British deaths combined make up only a fraction of what the USSR experienced. Also, keep in mind, the US suffered an estimated zero civilian deaths whereas the British suffered about 70,000, according to wikipedia. You think it was bad at D-Day? Try again, we were lucky as hell that we had the USSR was keeping the majority of the German military busy.-F8-Scotch wrote:
Best Rifles? Tanks? Planes? Maybe Tanks, certainly not rifles. The M-1 Garand is widely accepted as the most potent, portable and reliable weapons of WW2. Wasn't Russia still using Bolt Action rifles for most of the war?Wasder wrote:
@Stags: You know what? in T-34, the best overall tank of WWII, the "T" is for "Tank" and 34 is the year of first prototype. Not 34 to honour designer's death - he didn't even die in 1934! Where do you get this shit?
@ All those who think USSR had no weapons to arm the soldiers: Well, possibly, for the first 6 months of war is was nearly true, because a great amount of the arms factories were evacuated to the area behind Ural mountains, only to quickly begin the mass production of arms and equipment there. The best rifles, tanks, planes of WWII. I must say that the Red Army was very well equipped and outfitted to fight and destroy the enemy.
The true goal of US landing in Europe was to prevent the Soviets from taking control of the entire continent.
And I'm ready to laugh in the face of any american, who says it was US who defeated the Nazis. US was only sitting on it's ass (sorry for a dumb rhyme), until it was about time to go out there and stop the push of the Soviets, as I already said.
I do know that US gave a great amount of supplies to USSR, but USSR did not need supplies. It needed real military assistance, before 1944, when it was all clear who wins and who gets pwned.
Look, there are alot of impressed people who appreciate the tenacity and undeniable will put into practice by the Russian in WW2. Don't let that go, it's about all you have.
Should we talk about Russian prison camps? How many POW's disappeared after being taken captive?
Germany would've been all over Russia had the US not gotten involved. Without any involvement in Africa, Italy or the eventual D-Day invasion Russia would've been at the mercy of Nazi's and the rest of the world would've tremble in fear. Your resources, conscripted troops, weapon designs would've been in the hands of Germany had the US not gotten involved.
It's great to believe that Russia did WW2 by themselves. What would've happened if Japan had a free shot through China, complete control of the Aisa-Pacific rim and an invitation to expand into Russia's back door? Have you ever heard of the Battle of the Bulge? That stole many tanks, planes and troops that could've easily been knocking on Russia's front. Instead they were used to try and stop our advance through Western Europe. That's just one example, ask me for more.
It's beyond disrespectfull for the memories of those Americans, British and Canadians who died landing on D-Day for you to be completely illinformed. There was certainly realization by the European High Command that Russia would be happy marching right through Germany and straight to the channel. That's why we allowed you to take Berlin. There were several opprotunities for our divisions to smash through the weak german defense but how do you think that introduction would've turned out? Somehow I expect Stalin to have a different reaction than comraderie for his American counterparts if we had taken all of Germany.
Oh and by the way, thanks so much for offering the nations you "liberated" to give them thier freedom rather than 50+ years of oppression.
Scotch
The issue of a Communist-run Europe is completely different. The Russians earned their right to be proud and to remember their sacrifice in World War 2, you can't criticise him for that.
In reality, did the Western Allies have an overwhelming affect on the war in Europe? No, they didn't. What they did do was slightly level the playing field, take a fraction of the pressure off the Russians, and end the war several months before it would've.
As for your comment on the Battle of the Bulge, it was a failure in the most part due to poor planning by the Germans. If the operation had been performed as planned, it would've created a Bulge at least 3 or 4 times larger in the Western Front-lines than it was. Our soldiers did put pressure on the Germans, but again, if it wasn't for a screw up on their part, it would've been a much more costly and ugly situation. The true objective behind the German advance was to push the Allies all the way back to France, and eventually off of continental Europe. That Hitler was one crazy little man
Last edited by Spearhead (2006-07-11 16:00:49)
Russia was getting buttfucked until Stalingrad/Winter. If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel, it would have been over for England, then Hitler could have focused most of his manpower for an assault on Russia and drove the Russians back to the Urals, which was Hitlers plan from the get go.
What do you mean "If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel"? They did - there was the mass withdrawal at Dunkerque. It wasn't all over for England, as proved in the Battle of Britain. We prevailed, the Luftwaffe failed, all without US involvement.stryyker wrote:
Russia was getting buttfucked until Stalingrad/Winter. If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel, it would have been over for England, then Hitler could have focused most of his manpower for an assault on Russia and drove the Russians back to the Urals, which was Hitlers plan from the get go.
heh but the russians have a hell lot of man power and thats a major factor in war. but there are just too many variables to see precisly who would win... coz if japan attacked russia then its over for the alliesstryyker wrote:
Russia was getting buttfucked until Stalingrad/Winter. If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel, it would have been over for England, then Hitler could have focused most of his manpower for an assault on Russia and drove the Russians back to the Urals, which was Hitlers plan from the get go.
Hes partly right, they did push them all the way back to the channel but they didnt destroy the British/French troops there and let them escape. The German Genrals wanted to keep pushing forward but Hitler said stop(one of his many idiotic decisions). They could of all but destroyed the UK and the would of almost ran out of armed forces to defend from a attack. That would of let the Germans use all there strenghth against the Russians witch could of been won if Hitler hadnt made another idiotic decision and said they dont need winter gear because the war will be over before then. They pretty much ran out of supplies. If Rommel was in command of Germany they would of won EXCEPT Rommel was smart enough to know that he would not win against the allies. Pretty much Hitler screwed the Axis over + US involvement had a major part and that is what won the war.stryyker wrote:
Russia was getting buttfucked until Stalingrad/Winter. If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel, it would have been over for England, then Hitler could have focused most of his manpower for an assault on Russia and drove the Russians back to the Urals, which was Hitlers plan from the get go.
Spearhead
Awesome speech , +1 . At least someone realises what our grandfathers & grandmothers exepirienced...
Васдер
Успокойся , вспомни какой % на этом форуме составляют американцы . Им что-либо доказывать бесполезно , один умный человек на 5 страниц флуда...
p/s Кстати , говори конкретно - Т-34 лучший средний танк , о лучшем тяжёлом можно ещё и поспорить
Awesome speech , +1 . At least someone realises what our grandfathers & grandmothers exepirienced...
Васдер
Успокойся , вспомни какой % на этом форуме составляют американцы . Им что-либо доказывать бесполезно , один умный человек на 5 страниц флуда...
p/s Кстати , говори конкретно - Т-34 лучший средний танк , о лучшем тяжёлом можно ещё и поспорить
Last edited by Longbow (2006-07-11 16:31:08)
i mean, if they had completely wiped them all out.aardfrith wrote:
What do you mean "If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel"? They did - there was the mass withdrawal at Dunkerque. It wasn't all over for England, as proved in the Battle of Britain. We prevailed, the Luftwaffe failed, all without US involvement.stryyker wrote:
Russia was getting buttfucked until Stalingrad/Winter. If Germany could have pushed the French and English to the Channel, it would have been over for England, then Hitler could have focused most of his manpower for an assault on Russia and drove the Russians back to the Urals, which was Hitlers plan from the get go.
without the help of the US though, England alone could NOT have invaded France and retaken Fortress Europe