What on Earth is going on in the world today? It's gone mad

[Jelenafan]

Did you forget WW1?

Well ar least ON a battlefield.

Which “single” army by itself defeated them in WW1 ? France? UK ? Russia? Didn't it take their armies with the timely wildcard huge boost from the States to defeat Germany. Before the US entered the war the Allies were to the point of exhaustion, Russia having withdrawn from the war and so were that *close* to defeat. Imo one of the main factors of the Allied treaties (France/UK/Russia) pre war was France’s acknowledgement that it couldnt match up against Germany single-handedly.

But yeah, there was 14 year gap between the wars when France had the “stronger” army until Nazi Germany rearmed itself.

 

[britbox]

Which “single” army by itself defeated them in WW1 ? France? UK ? Russia? Didn't it take their armies with the timely wildcard huge boost from the States to defeat Germany. Before the US entered the war the Allies were to the point of exhaustion, Russia having withdrawn from the war and so were that *close* to defeat. Imo one of the main factors of the Allied treaties (France/UK/Russia) pre war was France’s acknowledgement that it couldnt match up against Germany single-handedly.

By the same note, which "single army" defeated them in WW2? Spare us from the Hollywood nonsense.

 

[Federberg]

The last time we visited Europe and saw Germany efficiency and infrastructure, my wife quipped, "Remind me again how they Germans could have possibly lost the war? "

Nobody disputes the German Military was the single most powerful army in continental Europe for about 80 years until their defeat in WW11.

I specifically referred to “economic” might, especially with the economic integration thanks to the EU . As goes Germany so goes Europe, it’s the engine that drives the European economy and it holds up the Euro, dictating economic policy for the EU.

You certainly wouldn't say that pre World War 1 as the UK was the largest European economy per GDP and the world's strongest currency was the British Pound. Even pre WW11, a declining UK still clung to the pound as the reserve standard, though yea Germany had rebounded remarkably economically by then.

If you look today at Germany today, one could argue that without a strong standing army, 77 years later Germany "won" the war. Certainly alot of older Brits thought so when voting for Brexit and seemingly getting out of the thumb of German "domination".

I don't think that's accurate. If you're measuring by gross product then Germany had already overtaken the UK by the start of WW!. It probably still lagged the. UK in terms of per capita income, but it would have been a close run thing as it had been catching up with higher productivity numbers. The years between the two wars are a different story as the German economy suffered more than that of the. UK. But if your point was about the relative size of the German economy within Europe then I would certainly concede that in relative terms it is far larger now than it was then. Ironically demographics probably mean than the UK population will exceed that of Germany in the coming decades so the UK will likely surpass German output. But to be clear... Germany had a much larger population than the UK (almost double) before the onset of the Great War, which was the reason its output was larger

 

[britbox]

It might be uncomfortable for Westerners to compute... but the decisive factor in the defeat of Germany in WW2 was Russia. By a country mile.

 

[Jelenafan]

By the same note, which "single army" defeated them in WW2? Spare us from the Hollywood nonsense.

So sorry, the British Army would have whipped the German Army one on one. Happy now ? As Federberg stated , the Germans were stupid enough to fight a two front war.

 

[Federberg]

It might be uncomfortable for Westerners to compute... but the decisive factor in the defeat of Germany in WW2 was Russia. By a country mile.

that's the truth right there

 

[britbox]

So sorry, the British Army would have whipped the German Army one on one. Happy now ?

That's not what I'm saying at all. The British Army alone would never have defeated the Germans. The Russian Army defeated the Germans.

 

[Jelenafan]

It might be uncomfortable for Westerners to compute... but the decisive factor in the defeat of Germany in WW2 was Russia. By a country mile.

What were Russian casualties. 15-20 million? so Yea, one could see how Russians view Western versions of the war as pretty insulting.

I don't think that's accurate. If you're measuring by gross product then Germany had already overtaken the UK by the start of WW!. It probably still lagged the. UK in terms of per capita income, but it would have been a close run thing as it had been catching up with higher productivity numbers. The years between the two wars are a different story as the German economy suffered more than that of the. UK. But if your point was about the relative size of the German economy within Europe then I would certainly concede that in relative terms it is far larger now than it was then. Ironically demographics probably mean than the UK population will exceed that of Germany in the coming decades so the UK will likely surpass German output. But to be clear... Germany had a much larger population than the UK (almost double) before the onset of the Great War, which was the reason its output was larger

So You're saying that the current German population birth rate is far worse than the UK's ?

 

[Federberg]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The British Army alone would never have defeated the Germans. The Russian Army defeated the Germans.

to be fair it's probably more accurate to say that Nazi Germany's advances into Russia depleted and degraded their resources and led to their defeat. It was more them effing up than the Russian's actually kicking their a$$ Should have taken note of Napoleon's misadventures!

 

[Federberg]

What were Russian casualties. 15-20 million? so Yea, one could see how Russians view Western versions of the war as pretty insulting.


So You're saying that the current German population birth rate is far worse than the UK's ?

that's part of it. But also far more people want to immigrate to the UK. Vestiges of empire I guess. And those immigrants are multiplying rapidly

 

[Jelenafan]

That's not what I'm saying at all. The British Army alone would never have defeated the Germans. The Russian Army defeated the Germans.

I'm not disputing the Russian Army was THE Major factor. I do think Hitler was stupid enough to fight on several fronts. Now if you're saying that a one on one war exclusively between German and Russia, Russia would win, OK, I'll concede that's an arguable point, but that's neither here nor there, because it was a multiple national conflict involving multiple armies.

 

[britbox]

to be fair it's probably more accurate to say that Nazi Germany's advances into Russia depleted and degraded let to their defeat. It was more them effing up than the Russian's actually kicking their a$$ Should have taken note of Napoleon's misadventures!

Yes, on the last comment re: Napoleon, but the fact is that the Russians did kick ass. Eventually... once it became a life and death struggle. Stalingrad was possibly the greatest battle in modern human history... It's hard for anybody in modern culture to even remotely envisage the hardships and horror of that battle.

Don't poke the bear. And if you consider modern western values where men are viewed as "toxic" and people can't even tell the difference between a man and a woman, then I'd suggest don't get anywhere near poking the bear. Most men in the west would struggle to boil an egg in this day and age without instructions, let alone pick up a rifle.

 

[Federberg]

I'm not disputing the Russian Army was THE Major factor. I do think Hitler was stupid enough to fight on several fronts. Now if you're saying that a one on one war exclusively between German and Russia, Russia would win, OK, I'll concede that's an arguable point, but that's neither here nor there, because it was a multiple national conflict involving multiple armies.

I. think a one on one war between Germany at the time of WW2 would have resulted in a German win. They would have prosecuted the war very differently. The fact that they were fighting on multiple fronts influenced the way they fought the war against Russia. Basically they wanted to finish them off quickly in order to fight the more militarily competent and better resourced forces to their west

 

[britbox]

I. think a one on one war between Germany at the time of WW2 would have resulted in a German win. They would have prosecuted the war very differently. The fact that they were fighting on multiple fronts influenced the way they fought the war against Russia. Basically they wanted to finish them off quickly in order to fight the more militarily competent and better resourced forces to their west

Fair shout. I think that German military force was possibly the greatest military machine in modern times, and over-extended it's reach. Russia being it's doomsday...

My grandfather was a WW2 vet... never mentioned it until you asked him anything. He fought in North Africa, Italy (Battle of Cassino), Malta and Southern Europe. He had a lot of respect for the German military, not much for the Italian military. Saw the Russians as "scruffy" undisciplined, but big on numbers. He couldn't stand Churchill either... said the soldiers hated him... which was interesting.

 

[Federberg]

Fair shout. I think that German military force was possibly the greatest military machine in modern times, and over-extended it's reach. Russia being it's doomsday...

My grandfather was a WW2 vet... never mentioned it until you asked him anything. He fought in North Africa, Italy (Battle of Cassino), Malta and Southern Europe. He had a lot of respect for the German military, not much for the Italian military. Saw the Russians as "scruffy" undisciplined, but big on numbers. He couldn't stand Churchill either... said the soldiers hated him... which was interesting.

that is fascinating indeed about Churchill

 

[Kieran]

Fair shout. I think that German military force was possibly the greatest military machine in modern times, and over-extended it's reach. Russia being it's doomsday...

My grandfather was a WW2 vet... never mentioned it until you asked him anything. He fought in North Africa, Italy (Battle of Cassino), Malta and Southern Europe. He had a lot of respect for the German military, not much for the Italian military. Saw the Russians as "scruffy" undisciplined, but big on numbers. He couldn't stand Churchill either... said the soldiers hated him... which was interesting.

The Battle of Britain was its doomsday. If Hitler wins that, and controls the west, he’s got a chance to win the war. But it was the Battle of Britain, the British resistance to tyranny, that broke the war. After this, Hitler was trapped, after foolishly committing to fighting on two fronts.

There used to be people who’d say that Hitler was a military genius, but he wasn’t. He was inept and impatient. The Russians could throw bodies at the Germans and lost so many soldiers, which meant nothing to them. But the British resistance? The stuff of greatness, brother!

 

[Jelenafan]

The Battle of Britain was its doomsday. If Hitler wins that, and controls the west, he’s got a chance to win the war. But it was the Battle of Britain, the British resistance to tyranny, that broke the war. After this, Hitler was trapped, after foolishly committing to fighting on two fronts.

There used to be people who’d say that Hitler was a military genius, but he wasn’t. He was inept and impatient. The Russians could throw bodies at the Germans and lost so many soldiers, which meant nothing to them. But the British resistance? The stuff of greatness, brother!

There are a lot of "what if's".

Again 15-20 million Russian military and civilian casualties isn't nothing. *If* Germany vanquished Russia would it have mattered that the UK still stood, *IF* the US hadn't entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

The one thing is that the resources and logistics to mount multiple fronts was bound to bleed Germany, even if everything had gone right and they had been able to beat the Russians in the battlefield through 1942. I mean, how in the world would they have HELD Russia for an extended period of time, with the inevitable guerilla warfare and partisan uprisings/sniping, etc.

Great Britain didn't have the offensive capabilities to mount a full scale western front on their own.

My original point still stands, the German Army was the single dominant army in Europe, and one on one would have beaten any one single army.

 

[Kieran]

There are a lot of "what if's".

Again 15-20 million Russian military and civilian casualties isn't nothing. *If* Germany vanquished Russia would it have mattered that the UK still stood, *IF* the US hadn't entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

The one thing is that the resources and logistics to mount multiple fronts was bound to bleed Germany, even if everything had gone right and they had been able to beat the Russians in the battlefield through 1942. I mean, how in the world would they have HELD Russia for an extended period of time, with the inevitable guerilla warfare and partisan uprisings/sniping, etc.

Great Britain didn't have the offensive capabilities to mount a full scale western front on their own.

My original point still stands, the German Army was the single dominant army in Europe, and one on one would have beaten any one single army.

And yet, they couldn’t win the Battle of Britain. Bear in mind, Germany wasn’t fighting on two fronts when it began the Battle of Britain - it only attacked Russia after the failure to win that battle. The Blitz has stopped before Hitler attacked Russia. The Battle of Britain is one of the most heroic and crucial battles in human history.

And I don’t say the 20m Russian deaths are nothing - I said it “meant nothing to them”, meaning that to the Soviet leadership, it meant nothing. Stalin was responsible for even more Soviet deaths during his reign as tyrant. They died bravely, those soldiers.

It’s difficult to say what might have happened in your “what if” scenarios, but it has made for some entertaining alt-history novels and shows…

 

[britbox]

There are a lot of "what if's".

Again 15-20 million Russian military and civilian casualties isn't nothing. *If* Germany vanquished Russia would it have mattered that the UK still stood, *IF* the US hadn't entered the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor?

The one thing is that the resources and logistics to mount multiple fronts was bound to bleed Germany, even if everything had gone right and they had been able to beat the Russians in the battlefield through 1942. I mean, how in the world would they have HELD Russia for an extended period of time, with the inevitable guerilla warfare and partisan uprisings/sniping, etc.

Great Britain didn't have the offensive capabilities to mount a full scale western front on their own.

My original point still stands, the German Army was the single dominant army in Europe, and one on one would have beaten any one single army.

There is a lot of interesting commentary tucked away in various books and articles regarding some of the highly advanced military tech, that the Germans may have had but didn't actually use. Also, strange stories relating to Antarctica.

 

[Kieran]

There is a lot of interesting commentary tucked away in various books and articles regarding some of the highly advanced military tech, that the Germans may have had but didn't actually use. Also, strange stories relating to Antarctica.

If they had it, they’d have used it, I imagine. Especially if it would help them in the war. Nothing was beneath them…