Discussion in 'History' started by PoliticalChic, Dec 6, 2019.
A Russian front collapse would have meant the German final victory.
Total and indisputable winner respond.
One must read the books published BEFORE 1939, to find out that Nazi Germany was reaching the commercial preference of the rest of the world, making to the powerful unjust commercial trades imposed by England and the US of being rejected by those other nations.
On the other hand, Japan being so a great nation and was the king of the fishing industry, that the small country Haiti, fighting against the imperialism of England and US declared: "Lets us be fiery in protecting our national industry... Lets us be patriotic as fiercely as the Japanese are, and we shall become economically a Little Japan of the West Indies."
All of this before the war. After the war, the "revenge" of the winners was catastrophic to all those other nations which once wished their sovereign respected and obtain their economical freedom.
President Roosevelt was just kissing the butt of Russia because was needed as an ally in order to destroy Germany and Japan economical power.
no , its your Sralinist propaganda. it would have meant only that koba& hitler´d be dead in 1945 (46) both . which is great
Only Roosevelt groupies use that excuse.
"Between June 22, 1941, and January 31, 1942, the Germans had lost 6,000 airplanes and more than 3,200 tanks and similar vehicles; and no less than 918,000 men had been killed, wounded, or gone missing in action, amounting to 28.7 percent of the average strength of the army, namely, 3,2 million men.
(In the Soviet Union, Germany would lose no less than 10 million of its total 13.5 million men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner during the entire war; and the Red Army would end up claiming credit for 90 per cent of all Germans killed in the Second World War.)
Clive Ponting, 'Armageddon: The Second World War,' p. 130; Stephen E. Ambrose 'Americans at War,' p. 72. ”
And this, the only logical conclusion:
"....realistically middle sized Germany could not defeat the much larger Ussr in the long term. Germany would have eventually surrendered to the western allies to prevent total occupation by the USSR ..."
So did the Red Army really singlehandedly defeat the Third Reich Stuff I Done Wrote - The Michael A. Charles Online Presence (comment)
Clearly, any explanation of Roosevelt's pro-Soviet policy cannot rely on the fear of Stalin quitting the war.
So...one more Liberal myth put to rest......yet the worship of Roosevelt continues unabated.
Liberalism is based on the unthinking acceptance of myth and fabrication.
He's totally wrong.
As are you.
Stalin was providing the resources Hitler, Stalin's ally, used early on.
.. when Barbarossa started on June 22, the available (German) supplies of fuel, tires, spare parts etc., were only good enough for about two months.....
The Wehrmacht continued to advance, albeit very slowly, and by mid-November some units found themselves at only 30 kilometers from the capital. But the troops were now totally exhausted, and running out of supplies. Their commanders knew that it was simply impossible to take Moscow.
Hitler s Failed Blitzkrieg against the Soviet Union. The Battle of Moscow and Stalingrad Turning Point of World War II Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
72 Years Ago, December 1941: Turning Point of World War II
'The Victory of the Red Army in front of Moscow was a Major Break'…
by Jacques Pauwels
By attacking in June, Hitler had planned to avoid Russia's three greatest generals....December, January, and February.
Did I mention the Democrats Communists who openly sing the Internationale???
This represents at least half of the Democrat Party.
So reread your comment. That front was basically the world war, a Russian collapse would have freed many divisions. It is because the Russian warfare was not like the British or American. It was like sending so much cannon fodder to overfeed the cannons.
What point are you attempting to make?
Read again what you just wrote.
Now, make yourself a map and start locating the German troops, the Russian troops and the Western allies troops right in that moment.
There you have the German troops occupying European lands, and in Russia, there you have the Russian troops, and there you have the thousands of thousands Western allies troo...troo... oops! Where were the "bunch" of Western allies oops?
Wars are not won by bombings from airplanes like crazy but by troops taking control of the land.
Jacques Pauwels said what he wanted to say, but strategy of war doesn't work just with statistics.
What the heck are you saying?????
1. Stalin and Hitler were allies until Operation Barbarossa.
2. Hitler needed resources his middle-sized nation couldn't supply....the other totalitarian entity provided them.
3. Hitler gambled that he could take all of what he needed, conquer Russia, and the world.
4. To do so, he needed to do it in 2-3 months....Blitzkrieg.
5.Stalin was the smartest of the four dictators (Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Roosevelt).
His doctrines are in the ascendancy today.
6. Germany could never have forced Russia to surrender. Never.
Now....write in simple English.
What's your point?
Separate names with a comma.