British Historian: Soviet Union could have won WWII alone but at a much slower pace - GoFuckYourself.com

rogueteens · 05-21-2016, 05:02 AM

cannot be bothered to watch but does he take into account the Germans bad timing? if they had attacked and consolidated during the good weather AND the Germans didn't have two fronts to man then I'm pretty sure that the result could have been very different.

klinton · 05-21-2016, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdultKing

Rochard · 05-21-2016, 08:40 AM

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

The Nazi military was on a roll, plowed through Poland and was heading towards Moscow. You could argue that without a second front or the potential of a second front, they might have even taken Moscow - they came close. Without the threat of a second front with the US / UK attacking from the west, Germany could have freed up millions of troops. However, at a certain point you have to understand the then Soviet Union was massive, had a large industrial base, lots of territory, and nearly unlimited manpower. Nazi Germany just didn't physically have the manpower to occupy the Soviet Union; It was just too large.

The Soviet Union could have beat back Germany all on it's own, but it would have taken a long time and the cost would have been great. No one suffered more during World War Two than the Soviet Union, and they would have paid a lot a more.

pimpmaster9000 · 05-21-2016, 09:38 AM

russia would have taken japan after taking berlin its the #1 reason the USA nuked jap fishermen 2x so as to claim that they won WW2

just a punk · 05-21-2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

British Historian: Soviet Union could have won WWII alone but at a much slower pace

Is it was a secret for someone?

dyna mo · 05-21-2016, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

a stupid question posed to a stupid historian. it's a completely backwards view and reasoning. germany attacked both the west and the east. it's not like the west couldn't have participated. that historian is talking out of his ass making comments like that. if nazis didn't have a western front then the situation would have been vastly different on the eastern front.

crockett · 05-21-2016, 11:28 AM

You have to be kidding me.. The Russians were bombed into rubble. The Germans had land and air dominance. The only reason the Russians survived, was because Hitler was forced to send the majority of the luftwaffle to North Africa because the US and Brits were taking away the oil resources Hitler needed.

With out the US and Brits in Africa, the Germans would of finished off the rest of Russia. After the Germans had no air cover they became sitting ducks.

This is one of the reasons the US is so involved in the MI. Not just for the money from oil, but to cock block the next Hitler from having oil resources to do world wide warfare.

Like it or not, our rag tag control of the MI has stopped WW3 and beyond from happening.

klinton · 05-21-2016, 12:05 PM

agree. without western front Nazis would take Moscow in few weeks and make slaves of Russian Slavs !

or worse

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

if nazis didn't have a western front then the situation would have been vastly different on the eastern front.

ZiggiZiggiCrew · 05-22-2016, 02:33 AM

Do not forgot Mongolian support for Russians! Soviet Union got 500.000 horses, 300 kg gold and 100.000$ from Mongolia

And why you speak about Germany only? Against Soviet Union Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Italy, Finland officially were at war. And millions of volunteers from all Europe. For example, against the Soviet Union about 100.000 French were at war

Meanwile in France

Meanwile in Russia

05-21-2016, 04:43 AM	#1
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	British Historian: Soviet Union could have won WWII alone but at a much slower pace __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

05-21-2016, 05:02 AM	#3
rogueteens So fucking bland Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: England Posts: 8,005	cannot be bothered to watch but does he take into account the Germans bad timing? if they had attacked and consolidated during the good weather AND the Germans didn't have two fronts to man then I'm pretty sure that the result could have been very different. __________________ Free traffic and backlinks from one of the fastest growing adult pinsites on the net - SAUCY PICTURES! Easily my best performing webcam sponsor - CLICK HERE!!

05-21-2016, 08:40 AM	#5
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,996	This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The Nazi military was on a roll, plowed through Poland and was heading towards Moscow. You could argue that without a second front or the potential of a second front, they might have even taken Moscow - they came close. Without the threat of a second front with the US / UK attacking from the west, Germany could have freed up millions of troops. However, at a certain point you have to understand the then Soviet Union was massive, had a large industrial base, lots of territory, and nearly unlimited manpower. Nazi Germany just didn't physically have the manpower to occupy the Soviet Union; It was just too large. The Soviet Union could have beat back Germany all on it's own, but it would have taken a long time and the cost would have been great. No one suffered more during World War Two than the Soviet Union, and they would have paid a lot a more. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

05-21-2016, 09:38 AM	#6
pimpmaster9000 Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 26,732	russia would have taken japan after taking berlin its the #1 reason the USA nuked jap fishermen 2x so as to claim that they won WW2 __________________ Report a suspicious cracker: Click Here

05-22-2016, 02:33 AM	#11
ZiggiZiggiCrew Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 3,138	Do not forgot Mongolian support for Russians! Soviet Union got 500.000 horses, 300 kg gold and 100.000$ from Mongolia And why you speak about Germany only? Against Soviet Union Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Italy, Finland officially were at war. And millions of volunteers from all Europe. For example, against the Soviet Union about 100.000 French were at war Meanwile in France Meanwile in Russia __________________ ZiggiZiggiCrew Hi-End Exclusive Content From Russia Since 1999 telegramm: @VP1963 e-mail: [email protected] skype: panvlm

05-21-2016, 04:54 AM	#2
AdultKing Raise Your Weapon Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Outback Australia Posts: 15,601

05-21-2016, 11:28 AM	#9
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	You have to be kidding me.. The Russians were bombed into rubble. The Germans had land and air dominance. The only reason the Russians survived, was because Hitler was forced to send the majority of the luftwaffle to North Africa because the US and Brits were taking away the oil resources Hitler needed. With out the US and Brits in Africa, the Germans would of finished off the rest of Russia. After the Germans had no air cover they became sitting ducks. This is one of the reasons the US is so involved in the MI. Not just for the money from oil, but to cock block the next Hitler from having oil resources to do world wide warfare. Like it or not, our rag tag control of the MI has stopped WW3 and beyond from happening.