What if history scenarios

Nuggs Bunny

Premium Platinum
Oct 12, 2015
4,426
6,586
live at the Greek
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys
The obvious answer is that the US would have dropped a fat boy on Moscow, if it came to that, after VE day. Then Leningrad, then Stalingrad, then Kiev and so on until the Soviets surrendered. I'm guessing they would have forced the Soviets to sign a peace without even needing to cross into Poland.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thegibbsgamble

I beg to meg
Oct 28, 2017
4,628
2,637
AFL Club
Adelaide
Yep the Germans problem was that they couldn't absorb their losses as much as the Russians could.
Germany were fine. It was the Romanian and Hungarians at stalingtad that cost Germany. They were about to hit it big, getting all that oil. Russians would of ended up over the urals and effectively isolated.

Germans were one division short of destroying the Russian attack on kursk a few Months later. They would of waltzed into Stalingtad unchecked. Wermach absorbed and destroyed the Russians attacking kursk. But had nothing to exploit the Russians on their knees.
 

Thegibbsgamble

I beg to meg
Oct 28, 2017
4,628
2,637
AFL Club
Adelaide
* What response do we get to Sep 11?
* Does he invade Iraq as well?
* Does he try to curb climate change?
* Does American-Russian relations not decline?

Do these things set the world on a different course?
September 11 wouldn't of happened.
There policy at the time different to what hillary took as sec of state.

Yes more renewable energy investment and drug reform.

Russia never been sure about who they are and their place in the world.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 9, 2006
12,058
4,206
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
How many of the Wehrmacht (of decent quality) were left at the end of WW2?
You'd be surprised,many thousands I'd say all over western Europe , dreading the Soviet advance. They weren't all Waffen SS Divisions of murdering Nazi fanatics. The majority would have been non political German citizens , fighting in the name of their country, a terrible political way to follow agreed, but they weren't all out their doing their anti world crimes , those bastards were recruited especially, so I believe that re arming the regular army , would have been accepted, and if a bloody big if! IF PATTON HAD GOT HIS WAY , Ike stopped that.
But there are always gung ho men NOT TOTALLY IN CHARGE.
Look at McArthur, I think he wanted to use a nuke or two in Korea , Truman his boss moved him on.
Even Westmoreland, I think , asked to use nukes in Vietnam, not 100% on that one.

But the Germans suffered pretty badly under the Russian invasion, and as per usual some didn't deserve to treated like that, but humans are brutal animals.

Yep, I reckon the Germans would have come to the party, and help to take the Allies further , but it didn't!
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 9, 2006
12,058
4,206
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Yep the Germans problem was that they couldn't absorb their losses as much as the Russians could.
Germany lost the Russian war against the Russian winter, they thought they'd walk through Russia , blitzkrieg style, they didn't but at the start they were right in it, maybe even complacent that the Russians would fall over easily, it took longer and then the weather changed. Bogged them down, stuffed up their supply lines they headed into someone else's oil fields to the south east I think, Hitler split his divisions/armies, his planning was crap, his generals knew it, one of them surrendered to save the lives of his army, most of those prisoners would die in captivity.
So the tank? The idea of big gunned Panzers, who fought the Soviets who had smaller and more maneuverable T-34 tanks at the battle of Kursk and reamed the German army and its one or two allies, really the Germans were out numbered and out maneuvered. Numbers were the advantage in tanks and size that time!
All that happened from Hitlers mud and sludge disaster of a Russian winter.
How dumb was Hitler, how easily he believed his army was invincible? Poor old Poland easy meat, he surprised them and every one else the French and the Brits, he outsmarted the politicians in the thirties, walked into Austria and Czechoslovakia barely firing a shot, and he must have thought all his good luck had turned up at once.
But the stupid nut case, invades Belgium and France traps a British army on Dunkirk beaches and then turn around and says , hey we'll spring a little surprise on dopey Joe Stalin.
And now days as more and more comes out about WW2 history, we find that his military had extreme luck because Germany's military were not really ready , he went a couple of years too soon. And the stupid man thought he couldn't lose, thank heaven he did go in 1939, and not later when he was a totally full strength, in recent readings of the history of WW 2 which surprises me, the Nazi's were on the road to defeat, way before people think, Russia was a disaster. Then of course the drongo AFTER PEARL HARBOUR OFFICIALLY declares war on the biggest developing industrial nation on earth, the USA what the hell did he expect.
AND WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT POOR SILLY MISLED GEORGE BUSH AND IRAQ, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, YES , BUT HE WAS NO NAZI , BUT HE THOUGHT THE WAY TO HANDLE TERRORISM WAS SEND IN HALF A MILLION SOLDIERS TO IRAQ, WELL THAT WAR IS STILL ON, WE'VE SEEN ISIS, and Al Qaeda, Boko Harem lots of crap around, what George should have done was send his specialists under ground and hunted down world wide each and every known or suspected terrorist, arrested or killed them, like Mossad do.
Maybe bombing Afghanistan was not a good idea, he had no choice but to do that. Because they knew that Osama was there somewhere.
NOW!!!!!!!
I'd like to discuss the saturation bombing of the West Coast Eagles last weekend , but the Hawks have put their planes in the hanger for summer!
 

iluvparis

Premium Platinum
Apr 1, 2005
28,152
20,207
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Calgary Flames, Man Utd
Actually the German tanks flogged the s**t out of the Russian tanks at Kursk - it's just that the Russians had 3 times as many
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Happy Mastenator

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 16, 2010
14,289
15,594
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
Actually the German tanks flogged the s**t out of the Russian tanks at Kursk - it's just that the Russians had 3 times as many
That’s the thing though, they t-34 was produced at levels where they could suffer the losses and still win.

Doing some digging through Wikipedia looks like Russia produced more tanks in 1942 alone than Germany did in 1941-1945. Germany just couldn’t compete with that level of production
 

Present Not Past

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 3, 2010
6,809
4,645
Sydney
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Chicago Cubs
There was one German general that summed up the War in Russia like this:
Imagine an elephant fighting an army of ants.
The elephant will kill millions of ants however, in the end, the ants will always consume the elephant.
 

Ice-Wolf

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 19, 2007
13,930
10,699
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
That’s the thing though, they t-34 was produced at levels where they could suffer the losses and still win.

Doing some digging through Wikipedia looks like Russia produced more tanks in 1942 alone than Germany did in 1941-1945. Germany just couldn’t compete with that level of production
Exactly even if the Germans tanks and at guns could maintain a 5-1 kill ratio on Russian Armour it didn't matter because the Russians could maintain a even better ratio on replacement tanks. And they were willing to take those losses.
 

JoondalupJ

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 9, 2006
12,058
4,206
Perth
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats basketball
Actually the German tanks flogged the s**t out of the Russian tanks at Kursk - it's just that the Russians had 3 times as many
Yes they did have more tanks and they were faster and more maneuverable, and eventually over came the Germans , the point was about numbers against numbers. So more tanks over less tanks won! Even if the Panzers were a devastating weapon?
Who ever had more or had less is not the point, the Nazis lost.

But looking at released documents over the last few years about WW2 history , I would say the Nazis were beginning to lose the war, around the time they got belted in the Soviet Union, against a horde, with nothing left but to survive, and a leader, Stalin , who didn't give a s**t about anybody
AND!!! Who was he fighting against , hah, another pea brained idiot who ran into the Russian winter. Thought he was a strategist, as well.
Both these murderous bast***s engaged in paranoid idiocy removing generals and sacking people around them, Stalin had purged his military earlier, and Hitler sacked one eastern front general ( and more than one) because he surrendered his army to the Russians instead of having them slaughtered, and the poor misled mongrels probably would have stayed and fought until they were all dead.
So Kursk and tanks and all the nonsense about machinery and numbers was fought for a big STUFF ALL, the dead numbers on all sides is what you look at and its a pity Stalin and Hitler weren't both drowned at birth!
 

Rob R

All Australian
Aug 17, 2009
729
645
AFL Club
Hawthorn
If the top of my head I think the issue is that the Russians had one of the best tanks, and had much more of them then anyone else combined. They would have just kept rolling and would have been very hard for the allies to stop them
Except their highly centralised structure would.have struggled after Moscow and probably Kiev got the bombs they went to Hiroshima & Nagasaki with more to follow.

On SM-G570F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Top Bottom