FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Significant turning point in World war 2 ?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ed-monkeyCouple
over a year ago

Hailsham

May really is fucked then

Battling Europe and parliament!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Declining War on the USA no way Germany could match the manpower and industrial might of the US.

I think those two events where the big turning point also the Battle of Britain made a big impact as Hitler was still watching his back from Britain and there would of been no invasion of mainland Europe if Britain fell.

LJ

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When the billionaires decided enough was enough (for now) is the turning point of all wars.....War is good business.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts."

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Summer 1940 being unable to defeat the RAF in the battle of Britain meant he could not invade Britain which shifted his focus to russia. If hed have won that there wouldnt have been 2 fronts.

However removing rommel from command also caused major failures that still could have turned the war if he had not done so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts."

But they nearly pulled it off. Just didn't get to Moscow in time . Later he split his forces at Stalingrad. Had they kept the Japanese as a threat in the east, the Soviets would have been split. Job done.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Every time Jane Gay stripped off was a turning point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well you can. Germany managed it quite successfully in WW1, despite losing the overall war.

The Mongols fought multiple wars on multiple fronts, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, British, Americans and Japanese.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well you can. Germany managed it quite successfully in WW1, despite losing the overall war.

The Mongols fought multiple wars on multiple fronts, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, British, Americans and Japanese."

They were before we had the opportunity to bomb the fuck out of each other from the air though

The aeroplane played a huge part in bringing war home

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Pearl Harbour, pulled the US into the war.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

military historian Anthony Beevou and World War II historian Richard Overy both agree that Stalingrad was the turning point of WWII not necessarily a strategic Turning Point but a symbolic one as the message that Russia could be saved and Germany could be defeated went around the world

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe "

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

"

interesting point about Russia..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well you can. Germany managed it quite successfully in WW1, despite losing the overall war.

The Mongols fought multiple wars on multiple fronts, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, British, Americans and Japanese.

They were before we had the opportunity to bomb the fuck out of each other from the air though

The aeroplane played a huge part in bringing war home "

Americans, British and Japanese were fighting wars on multiple fronts during ww2. Europe/Pacific Western Europe/North Africa Pacific/Chinese Mainland

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"May really is fucked then

Battling Europe and parliament!!"

shes been fucked for some time, its possibly why we haven't made a progress.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well you can. Germany managed it quite successfully in WW1, despite losing the overall war.

The Mongols fought multiple wars on multiple fronts, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, British, Americans and Japanese.

They were before we had the opportunity to bomb the fuck out of each other from the air though

The aeroplane played a huge part in bringing war home

Americans, British and Japanese were fighting wars on multiple fronts during ww2. Europe/Pacific Western Europe/North Africa Pacific/Chinese Mainland"

Quite right Ghengis

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

German defeat in North Africa..the beginning of the end.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I would like to say it was splitting his forces during Operation Blau the second summer offensive. This was after the Soviet counter offensive at Moscow. The Germans made tremendous gains and inflicted heavy losses on the Russians. During this drive towards the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus. I do wonder if they could have pulled it of and maybe reached Baku's oil fields. If Hitler had not ordered the capture of Stalingrad, and just left Army Group B to carry on securing that flank. If he had also sent 11 army to back up Army Group B on the drive to Baku. Instead of sending it towards Leningrad. I think they had a real chance of taking or destroying those fields and knocking the Russians out of the war.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Well you can. Germany managed it quite successfully in WW1, despite losing the overall war.

The Mongols fought multiple wars on multiple fronts, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, British, Americans and Japanese.

They were before we had the opportunity to bomb the fuck out of each other from the air though

The aeroplane played a huge part in bringing war home

Americans, British and Japanese were fighting wars on multiple fronts during ww2. Europe/Pacific Western Europe/North Africa Pacific/Chinese Mainland

Quite right Ghengis "
.

apart from that wasn't the main question. nicely avoided.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I would like to say it was splitting his forces during Operation Blau the second summer offensive. This was after the Soviet counter offensive at Moscow. The Germans made tremendous gains and inflicted heavy losses on the Russians. During this drive towards the Russian oil fields in the Caucasus. I do wonder if they could have pulled it of and maybe reached Baku's oil fields. If Hitler had not ordered the capture of Stalingrad, and just left Army Group B to carry on securing that flank. If he had also sent 11 army to back up Army Group B on the drive to Baku. Instead of sending it towards Leningrad. I think they had a real chance of taking or destroying those fields and knocking the Russians out of the war. "
seems to be the Stalingrad/oil fields decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts."

Invading Russia in the Winter is just a bad idea in general.

Even without the war on 2 fronts, I doubt he would have managed it at the time of year

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

Significant turning point of WWII (in europe) was the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad. Hitler never again was able to continue his march forwards and began a slow, but long retreat that accelerated after the catastrophic loss at the battle of Kursk.

Interesting how in western textbooks the Battle of Britain or the invasion of Normandy are made out to be bigger triumphs than they really were. While important, the fact is the soviets did most of the heavy lifting and 70% of the german army was on the eastern front. 27 million dead on the Soviet side are losses that stagger the mind....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Well you can. Germany managed it quite successfully in WW1, despite losing the overall war.

The Mongols fought multiple wars on multiple fronts, as did the Greeks, Romans, Vikings, British, Americans and Japanese.

They were before we had the opportunity to bomb the fuck out of each other from the air though

The aeroplane played a huge part in bringing war home

Americans, British and Japanese were fighting wars on multiple fronts during ww2. Europe/Pacific Western Europe/North Africa Pacific/Chinese Mainland

Quite right Ghengis .

apart from that wasn't the main question. nicely avoided."

Not avoided. I'm unsure. Attacking Russia was a fatal mistake, but one they had to attempt as it was on the cards anyway. So I only answered the side statement about two fronts that I was certain about. Not being picky OP, I like the post

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"May really is fucked then

Battling Europe and parliament!!

shes been fucked for some time, its possibly why we haven't made a progress.

"

May inherited this calamitous problem...I feel some sympathy towards her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Significant turning point of WWII (in europe) was the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad. Hitler never again was able to continue his march forwards and began a slow, but long retreat that accelerated after the catastrophic loss at the battle of Kursk.

Interesting how in western textbooks the Battle of Britain or the invasion of Normandy are made out to be bigger triumphs than they really were. While important, the fact is the soviets did most of the heavy lifting and 70% of the german army was on the eastern front. 27 million dead on the Soviet side are losses that stagger the mind...."

Would be something (nice wrong word really) to think we have learned as a species never again that amount of people but sadly doubtful.. I fear the babies of today will face the next world war.I hope not,but ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest


"Significant turning point of WWII (in europe) was the Nazi defeat at Stalingrad. Hitler never again was able to continue his march forwards and began a slow, but long retreat that accelerated after the catastrophic loss at the battle of Kursk.

Interesting how in western textbooks the Battle of Britain or the invasion of Normandy are made out to be bigger triumphs than they really were. While important, the fact is the soviets did most of the heavy lifting and 70% of the german army was on the eastern front. 27 million dead on the Soviet side are losses that stagger the mind....

Would be something (nice wrong word really) to think we have learned as a species never again that amount of people but sadly doubtful.. I fear the babies of today will face the next world war.I hope not,but ...."

If they do it'll be the last one anyone ever wages. There won't be anyone around afterwards to record history.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

History is like the bible. Look hard enough and you’re sure to find something that backs up your point of view.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

The sinking of the Bismark had a big part in it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

"

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nderIwonder.Man
over a year ago

2nd City

when Hitler made a deal with American to hand over all his scientists and tech in exchange for complete anonymity and freedom in Argentina

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Doesn’t Germany have a better standard of living than us?

And if we were German we would be bilingual cos they all know our parlez.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Victory at El Alamein: Winston Churchill said of this victory:

"Now this is not the end;

it is not even the beginning of the end.

But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

After the war, he wrote: "Before Alamein we never had a victory. After Alamein, we never had a defeat."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evil_u_knowMan
over a year ago

city


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts."

But the USA did it, fighting Japan and Germany?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened"

He had to take on Russia. He knew better than any other world leader at the time what kind of leader Stalin was and his intentions. Germany have had to take into account the full strength of the Big Red Machine once before remember.

WW1 was a product of Franco/Russian aggression towards Germany. WW1 Germany was making a pre-emptive strike in self defence. In order that they AVOID A WAR ON TWO FRONTS. It almost fucking worked as well.

Hitler would have been all too aware of this, given he was fighting in the trenches of WW1.

I imagine his attack on Russia was a pre-emptive strike in order to eradicate Russian changes in diplomacy behind closed doors. That or he didn't trust Stalin not to shaft him from behind. So shafted him first.

The operation was never intended to see a Russian Winter and very nearly worked.

Both Germany's of WW1 and WW2 were gifted with some brilliant strategists. Hitler gambled and lost, but very nearly won. I don't think it was out of greed, or hatred, though he clearly hated the Russians more than most and blames the rise of communism for Germany's loss of WW1 (arguable), funny that Soviet Russia was most likely his downfall.

** I think the capture and deciphering of Enigma probably had a very large role to play in the demise of the 3rd Reich. Managing to use the data gathered selectively, so as not to draw attention. Learning all that we could before making it quite clear we had intercepted their comms **

That, plus the awakening of the slumbering giants Russia and the US. Hitler didn't have a chance.

Germany of WW1 were arguably fighting for survival, fighting for a political stalemate to survive as an independant Nation.

Both fought a battle on two/more fronts and did outstanding militarily.

Shame it took the deaths of billions of people to find that out and that as a planet of people.. Weve not learnt a fucking thing from it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened

He had to take on Russia. He knew better than any other world leader at the time what kind of leader Stalin was and his intentions. Germany have had to take into account the full strength of the Big Red Machine once before remember.

WW1 was a product of Franco/Russian aggression towards Germany. WW1 Germany was making a pre-emptive strike in self defence. In order that they AVOID A WAR ON TWO FRONTS. It almost fucking worked as well.

Hitler would have been all too aware of this, given he was fighting in the trenches of WW1.

I imagine his attack on Russia was a pre-emptive strike in order to eradicate Russian changes in diplomacy behind closed doors. That or he didn't trust Stalin not to shaft him from behind. So shafted him first.

The operation was never intended to see a Russian Winter and very nearly worked.

Both Germany's of WW1 and WW2 were gifted with some brilliant strategists. Hitler gambled and lost, but very nearly won. I don't think it was out of greed, or hatred, though he clearly hated the Russians more than most and blames the rise of communism for Germany's loss of WW1 (arguable), funny that Soviet Russia was most likely his downfall.

** I think the capture and deciphering of Enigma probably had a very large role to play in the demise of the 3rd Reich. Managing to use the data gathered selectively, so as not to draw attention. Learning all that we could before making it quite clear we had intercepted their comms **

That, plus the awakening of the slumbering giants Russia and the US. Hitler didn't have a chance.

Germany of WW1 were arguably fighting for survival, fighting for a political stalemate to survive as an independant Nation.

Both fought a battle on two/more fronts and did outstanding militarily.

Shame it took the deaths of billions of people to find that out and that as a planet of people.. Weve not learnt a fucking thing from it. "

Think you're making your own history, not sure it happened exactly like that

And I'm not sure we haven't learned anything, Germany certainly have

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened

He had to take on Russia. He knew better than any other world leader at the time what kind of leader Stalin was and his intentions. Germany have had to take into account the full strength of the Big Red Machine once before remember.

WW1 was a product of Franco/Russian aggression towards Germany. WW1 Germany was making a pre-emptive strike in self defence. In order that they AVOID A WAR ON TWO FRONTS. It almost fucking worked as well.

Hitler would have been all too aware of this, given he was fighting in the trenches of WW1.

I imagine his attack on Russia was a pre-emptive strike in order to eradicate Russian changes in diplomacy behind closed doors. That or he didn't trust Stalin not to shaft him from behind. So shafted him first.

The operation was never intended to see a Russian Winter and very nearly worked.

Both Germany's of WW1 and WW2 were gifted with some brilliant strategists. Hitler gambled and lost, but very nearly won. I don't think it was out of greed, or hatred, though he clearly hated the Russians more than most and blames the rise of communism for Germany's loss of WW1 (arguable), funny that Soviet Russia was most likely his downfall.

** I think the capture and deciphering of Enigma probably had a very large role to play in the demise of the 3rd Reich. Managing to use the data gathered selectively, so as not to draw attention. Learning all that we could before making it quite clear we had intercepted their comms **

That, plus the awakening of the slumbering giants Russia and the US. Hitler didn't have a chance.

Germany of WW1 were arguably fighting for survival, fighting for a political stalemate to survive as an independant Nation.

Both fought a battle on two/more fronts and did outstanding militarily.

Shame it took the deaths of billions of people to find that out and that as a planet of people.. Weve not learnt a fucking thing from it.

Think you're making your own history, not sure it happened exactly like that

And I'm not sure we haven't learned anything, Germany certainly have"

Am I?

Have they?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

But the USA did it, fighting Japan and Germany?"

I've already conceded that.What I should have said it's not a good idea to fight a war on two fronts Napoleon learnt that.it's the actual turning point of the war I'm more interested in as thats still debated

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Hitler wrote in 1925 in Mein Kampf about lebensraum (living space in Russia) it became a bestseller in 1933 one would have thought Stalin or his officers would have heeded his writings..Stalin didn't believe it when he was told that Germany was invading them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened

He had to take on Russia. He knew better than any other world leader at the time what kind of leader Stalin was and his intentions. Germany have had to take into account the full strength of the Big Red Machine once before remember.

WW1 was a product of Franco/Russian aggression towards Germany. WW1 Germany was making a pre-emptive strike in self defence. In order that they AVOID A WAR ON TWO FRONTS. It almost fucking worked as well.

Hitler would have been all too aware of this, given he was fighting in the trenches of WW1.

I imagine his attack on Russia was a pre-emptive strike in order to eradicate Russian changes in diplomacy behind closed doors. That or he didn't trust Stalin not to shaft him from behind. So shafted him first.

The operation was never intended to see a Russian Winter and very nearly worked.

Both Germany's of WW1 and WW2 were gifted with some brilliant strategists. Hitler gambled and lost, but very nearly won. I don't think it was out of greed, or hatred, though he clearly hated the Russians more than most and blames the rise of communism for Germany's loss of WW1 (arguable), funny that Soviet Russia was most likely his downfall.

** I think the capture and deciphering of Enigma probably had a very large role to play in the demise of the 3rd Reich. Managing to use the data gathered selectively, so as not to draw attention. Learning all that we could before making it quite clear we had intercepted their comms **

That, plus the awakening of the slumbering giants Russia and the US. Hitler didn't have a chance.

Germany of WW1 were arguably fighting for survival, fighting for a political stalemate to survive as an independant Nation.

Both fought a battle on two/more fronts and did outstanding militarily.

Shame it took the deaths of billions of people to find that out and that as a planet of people.. Weve not learnt a fucking thing from it.

Think you're making your own history, not sure it happened exactly like that

And I'm not sure we haven't learned anything, Germany certainly have

Am I?

Have they?"

Yup

And yes, Germany are a very Liberal country now, and how many wars have they been involved in since?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Hitler wrote in 1925 in Mein Kampf about lebensraum (living space in Russia) it became a bestseller in 1933 one would have thought Stalin or his officers would have heeded his writings..Stalin didn't believe it when he was told that Germany was invading them"

They had signed a peace treaty and it was a surprise attack

Biggest volatile movement of military troops in history, I wonder if it would be possible to pull a surprise like that nowadays

Someone would probably leak it on Facebook

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

So is this about the causes, or the eventual termination of WW II OP?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Americans getting involved

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *2000ManMan
over a year ago

Worthing

The Russian Winter of 1941. It stopped Hitler from reaching Moscow and became the turning point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Americans getting involved "

That's what the Americans like people to think

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"So is this about the causes, or the eventual termination of WW II OP?"

it's just people's opinions or takes on the turning point of the Second World War.. could still be something that's not been mentioned yet. any tangents on the subject are fine as usually interesting.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ

[Removed by poster at 25/04/19 20:19:21]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"The Americans getting involved "

They only got involved cos the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Americans getting involved

They only got involved cos the Japs bombed Pearl Harbour "

Agreed but They still got involved, and it is a significant turning point of ww2

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The USA were indirectly supportive of GB prior to Pearl Harbour Roosevelt wanted to be more actively involved but there was considerable opposition in the US senate and the country as a whole

Pearl Harbour changed the course of the war.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest

The Germans haven't learned much i'm afraid. If they had they would've left NATO as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed but instead they've actively pushed for NATO's expansion right up to the Russian border where currently german battalions are a mere 150km from St Petersburg. Russia has been invaded from Europe on three occasions with frightening consequences. Moral of the story...don't poke the Russian bear. It never ends well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Pearl Harbour, pulled the US into the war."

Agree with this. The US didn't just bring military might to the war but financial support too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The USA were indirectly supportive of GB prior to Pearl Harbour Roosevelt wanted to be more actively involved but there was considerable opposition in the US senate and the country as a whole

Pearl Harbour changed the course of the war. "

They were also supportive to the Germans. In both World Wars. The USA made a fortune out of both wars and has benefited ever since.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The USA were indirectly supportive of GB prior to Pearl Harbour Roosevelt wanted to be more actively involved but there was considerable opposition in the US senate and the country as a whole

Pearl Harbour changed the course of the war.

They were also supportive to the Germans. In both World Wars. The USA made a fortune out of both wars and has benefited ever since. "

As I said earlier in this post...War is good business.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The USA were indirectly supportive of GB prior to Pearl Harbour Roosevelt wanted to be more actively involved but there was considerable opposition in the US senate and the country as a whole

Pearl Harbour changed the course of the war.

They were also supportive to the Germans. In both World Wars. The USA made a fortune out of both wars and has benefited ever since.

As I said earlier in this post...War is good business."

Sad but true.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Shame humanity can't mobilise for peace, as effectively as it can for war.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ce WingerMan
over a year ago

P.O. Box DE1 0NQ


"As I said earlier in this post...War is good business."

I'm skint, should I declare war on Belgium?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Isn't that the bloke who knicked the Black Pearl from Capt Jack Sparrow?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The turning point of ww2 was when The UK deployed people from the commonwealth like the gurkhas, indians and pakistanis to bail them out the sh1t. That is the reality whether its a bitter pill or not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When it finished ....that was pretty significant

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I'm surprised nobody has said one significant turning point of the war was Hiroshima.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"As I said earlier in this post...War is good business.

I'm skint, should I declare war on Belgium? "

.

if you would please

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When Britain ruled the seas a Britain, Halford MacKinder theorised that to fully rule the world you needed to dominate the world island. That is the Asian continent and Africa combined. He realised that an expanding Russia and China would one day become the dominant powers.

Thus wasn't lost on the Germans who also saw the British as an octopus strangling the global world.

When Germany made peace with the Russian revolutionaries in 1917 they grabbed a huge portion of the Russian western provinces. These were given back after the end of WW1.

Hitler inherited the German desire to occupy the heartland which is why he launched Operation Barbarossa. At that time he rightly thought of the USSR as weak. Weather and fresh Siberian divisions halted his army outside of Moscow.

The Heartland theory continues to dominate works politics with the USA seeking to contain both Russia and China by alliances and strategically placed bases.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest


"I'm surprised nobody has said one significant turning point of the war was Hiroshima."

Hiroshima was a sadistic act and one of the greatest war crimes in history. Japan was ready to surrender with one condition: that they keep their emperor as a figurehead. America refused and demanded an unconditional one. Dropping the bomb served no military purpose and was meant to send a message to the Soviets and the rest of the world that the american century was here.

Truman was a slimy crook and one of the worst presidents in American history. If there's a hell, I hope he's rotting there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm surprised nobody has said one significant turning point of the war was Hiroshima.

Hiroshima was a sadistic act and one of the greatest war crimes in history. Japan was ready to surrender with one condition: that they keep their emperor as a figurehead. America refused and demanded an

unconditional one. Dropping the bomb served no military purpose and was meant to send a message to the Soviets and the rest of the world that the american century was here.

Truman was a slimy crook and one of the worst presidents in American history. If

there's a hell, I hope he's rotting there."

Indeed...Japan was doing it's best to surrender from not long after Germany surrendered but Truman needed a pretext to carry on with the Manhattan project. He ignored surrender declarations from the Japanese because he needed to test his A bomb and as you rightly say...put the shits upthe commies.

It is also widely regarded by historians these days that the reason Hitler made the decision to attack russia when he did was because russia was all set to invade west. The reason hitler initially made such huge gains in territory to the east is because the red army was set up for attack and not defence. Then the winter set in and haulted the german offensive allowing the red army to re-group, re-supply and fortify it's position.

Anti war . Com

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest


"I'm surprised nobody has said one significant turning point of the war was Hiroshima.

Hiroshima was a sadistic act and one of the greatest war crimes in history. Japan was ready to surrender with one condition: that they keep their emperor as a figurehead. America refused and demanded an

unconditional one. Dropping the bomb served no military purpose and was meant to send a message to the Soviets and the rest of the world that the american century was here.

Truman was a slimy crook and one of the worst presidents in American history. If

there's a hell, I hope he's rotting there.

Indeed...Japan was doing it's best to surrender from not long after Germany surrendered but Truman needed a pretext to carry on with the Manhattan project. He ignored surrender declarations from the Japanese because he needed to test his A bomb and as you rightly say...put the shits upthe commies.

It is also widely regarded by historians these days that the reason Hitler made the decision to attack russia when he did was because russia was all set to invade west. The reason hitler initially made such huge gains in territory to the east is because the red army was set up for attack and not defence. Then the winter set in and haulted the german offensive allowing the red army to re-group, re-supply and fortify it's position.

Anti war . Com"

To say that Russia was set to invade west is a convenient re-writing of history. Hitler despised communism and considered the slavic races as inferior. Germany had long planned to invade Russia, and had they succeeded, the Genocide of Jews would've paled in comparison.

The Ribventrop-Molotov pact and non aggression treaty was merely to buy time so the Soviets could better prepare for the onslaught that was to come. The initial success of operation Barbarossa was to be expected given the german army's superb training, leadership and combat experience. The fact that the soviet border was 1509+ miles long also made invading much easier for the attacker.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edmark07Man
over a year ago

liverpool

Enjoying this thread. I agree Stalingrad was the major turning point but for Britain it was not losing the battle of the Atlantic. War games played out with German generals after the war show even of Germany had control of the skies an invasion would of failed. They had no way of getting tanks and machinery across I think it floundered about 15 miles from the south coast beeches. Starving us out the war by controlling the seas almost worked tho. Thank god we cracked the naval enigma and cpt Jonnie walker hunted the u boats so successfully....eventually

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

you'd have thought killing Hitler would have made a Turning Point but apparently Churchill thought it best not to as Hitlerwas making such bad decisions

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hatYorkLadMan
over a year ago

York

The initial phase of Barbarossa was very successful, the axis were advancing hundreds of miles a day and capturing tens of thousands of Soviet prisoners. The mistake was getting bogged down in Stalingrad with no winter clothing and resupply, and Hitler refusing to let the 6th army pull back and regroup for a spring offensive, instead they were encircled and destroyed.

Even after that though the Germans had the Russians pretty much on the ropes at the battle of Kursk in 1943, until the allies landed in Italy and Hitler diverted his reserves there, losing them the initiative at Kursk and blunting the offensive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm surprised nobody has said one significant turning point of the war was Hiroshima.

Hiroshima was a sadistic act and one of the greatest war crimes in history. Japan was ready to surrender with one condition: that they keep their emperor as a figurehead. America refused and demanded an unconditional one. Dropping the bomb served no military purpose and was meant to send a message to the Soviets and the rest of the world that the american century was here.

Truman was a slimy crook and one of the worst presidents in American history. If there's a hell, I hope he's rotting there."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to pretty much all Japanese thoughts of fighting to the death. The firebombing campaign by America saw a lot more Japanese civilian deaths than either bomb did. You could argue they saved Japanese and American lives in that sense.

Also Japan was never a United nation in the build up to, or during WW2. Military and civilian factions fighting and assassinating one another for control. It's what made diplomacy so hard. Only the Emperor could take full control, but refused to do so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest


"The initial phase of Barbarossa was very successful, the axis were advancing hundreds of miles a day and capturing tens of thousands of Soviet prisoners. The mistake was getting bogged down in Stalingrad with no winter clothing and resupply, and Hitler refusing to let the 6th army pull back and regroup for a spring offensive, instead they were encircled and destroyed.

Even after that though the Germans had the Russians pretty much on the ropes at the battle of Kursk in 1943, until the allies landed in Italy and Hitler diverted his reserves there, losing them the initiative at Kursk and blunting the offensive."

The germans had no hope of success at Kursk. The soviets knew where they'd attack and had plenty of time to prepare and had greater numbers to hold a heavily fortified line. They also had Vatutin commanding. Even the germans called him the "grand master". The Luthewsffe no longer had air superiority either. It was doomed to fail in the end. Sure the germans had the fearsome Tiger tank, but it's numbers were too small to make a difference.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When my grandfather realised his girlfriend was pregnant. .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"When my grandfather realised his girlfriend was pregnant. ."

.

what was the codename for that ?

operation.......?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"When my grandfather realised his girlfriend was pregnant. .

.

what was the codename for that ?

operation.......?"

At tactical retreat?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Operation shotgun if he'd been caught by her dad!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened

He had to take on Russia. He knew better than any other world leader at the time what kind of leader Stalin was and his intentions. Germany have had to take into account the full strength of the Big Red Machine once before remember.

WW1 was a product of Franco/Russian aggression towards Germany. WW1 Germany was making a pre-emptive strike in self defence. In order that they AVOID A WAR ON TWO FRONTS. It almost fucking worked as well.

Hitler would have been all too aware of this, given he was fighting in the trenches of WW1.

I imagine his attack on Russia was a pre-emptive strike in order to eradicate Russian changes in diplomacy behind closed doors. That or he didn't trust Stalin not to shaft him from behind. So shafted him first.

The operation was never intended to see a Russian Winter and very nearly worked.

Both Germany's of WW1 and WW2 were gifted with some brilliant strategists. Hitler gambled and lost, but very nearly won. I don't think it was out of greed, or hatred, though he clearly hated the Russians more than most and blames the rise of communism for Germany's loss of WW1 (arguable), funny that Soviet Russia was most likely his downfall.

** I think the capture and deciphering of Enigma probably had a very large role to play in the demise of the 3rd Reich. Managing to use the data gathered selectively, so as not to draw attention. Learning all that we could before making it quite clear we had intercepted their comms **

That, plus the awakening of the slumbering giants Russia and the US. Hitler didn't have a chance.

Germany of WW1 were arguably fighting for survival, fighting for a political stalemate to survive as an independant Nation.

Both fought a battle on two/more fronts and did outstanding militarily.

Shame it took the deaths of billions of people to find that out and that as a planet of people.. Weve not learnt a fucking thing from it. "

I thought in Mein Kampf he blamed the Jews for the loss of WWI more than (but also) the communists.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Operation Barbarossa. Hitler's invasion of Russia 22.June 1941.History showed you cannot fight a war on two fronts.

I agree, he got greedy, we'd be all speaking German now if he would have been happy with Western Europe

No we wouldn't, Russia and Germany would have always gone to war, and Russia would have always beaten Germany. It was one of Hitlers key plans, to expand East to gain lebensraum for the Ayran Race. The war in the West was originally conceived to prevent having to fight on two fronts, German thinking being that the French would be easily beaten and the British wouldn't have the stomach to fight.

If Hitler had stuck with single front warfare then he'd have got to the channel but still made it no further West. Then he would have still attacked Russia, the trouble for Germany is that it never had the economy or, more importantly, the resources to match the USSR.

One prevailing theory is that if the war had panned out this way (i.e the British had sued for peace and the US hadnt become involved in the European theatre) Russia would have beaten Germany and then possibly rolled up all the way to the Atlantic coast.

And then we might have all been speaking Russian, da comrade.

Maybe Hitler would always have attacked Russia, point of the thread is was the attacking of Russia the beginning of the end, which I happen to think it was

And I'm not sure Russia would always have beaten Germany, they got the upper hand with a lot of help from the British

He got too greedy too soon, too many victories made him too big for his boots

And thank your lucky stars that's what happened

He had to take on Russia. He knew better than any other world leader at the time what kind of leader Stalin was and his intentions. Germany have had to take into account the full strength of the Big Red Machine once before remember.

WW1 was a product of Franco/Russian aggression towards Germany. WW1 Germany was making a pre-emptive strike in self defence. In order that they AVOID A WAR ON TWO FRONTS. It almost fucking worked as well.

Hitler would have been all too aware of this, given he was fighting in the trenches of WW1.

I imagine his attack on Russia was a pre-emptive strike in order to eradicate Russian changes in diplomacy behind closed doors. That or he didn't trust Stalin not to shaft him from behind. So shafted him first.

The operation was never intended to see a Russian Winter and very nearly worked.

Both Germany's of WW1 and WW2 were gifted with some brilliant strategists. Hitler gambled and lost, but very nearly won. I don't think it was out of greed, or hatred, though he clearly hated the Russians more than most and blames the rise of communism for Germany's loss of WW1 (arguable), funny that Soviet Russia was most likely his downfall.

** I think the capture and deciphering of Enigma probably had a very large role to play in the demise of the 3rd Reich. Managing to use the data gathered selectively, so as not to draw attention. Learning all that we could before making it quite clear we had intercepted their comms **

That, plus the awakening of the slumbering giants Russia and the US. Hitler didn't have a chance.

Germany of WW1 were arguably fighting for survival, fighting for a political stalemate to survive as an independant Nation.

Both fought a battle on two/more fronts and did outstanding militarily.

Shame it took the deaths of billions of people to find that out and that as a planet of people.. Weve not learnt a fucking thing from it.

I thought in Mein Kampf he blamed the Jews for the loss of WWI more than (but also) the communists."

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression he hated the Jews largely because he saw them as the harbingers of Communism? Killer of his Nations victory. In addition to all the usual stuff the Jewish community have been accused of in the past by other Leaders in History.

I'm not making this stuff up, merely repeating what I've read and heard. I'm no Historian, just a keen amateur.

I listen to a lot of Hard-core History podcast by Dan Carlin. Taught me a fair bit about WW1 from the German and French perspectives and a fair bit about the Eastern Front and Japan in WW2 I was never taught in school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hilloutMan
over a year ago

All over the place! Northwesr, , Southwest


"I listen to a lot of Hard-core History podcast by Dan Carlin. Taught me a fair bit about WW1 from the German and French perspectives and a fair bit about the Eastern Front and Japan in WW2 I was never taught in school. "

A few other tidbits that are conveniently left out of western history books:

1- Jews initially were supporters and financial backers of the Nazis in the early 1930's

2- American industrialists were heavy backers and financiers of the Nazi war machine.

3- Hitler actually admired the British and wanted them on his side, though in a submissive role.

4- Just as the war ended, Churchill floated the idea of operation unthinkable that envisaged a surprise attack on the soviets by American, british and german forces at the end of WWII. So much for allies?

5- Operation dropshot was an american plan to launch a sneak attack on the Soviet Union in 1949 with the nukes they had at the time to annihilate over 100 major cities and completely destroy the country. Why were the Russians desperate to get their nukes? Had they not developed them, this would probably have happened.

6- The Soviet Union petitioned to join NATO in its infancy to make up a collective security agreement. Western nations refused and thus the Warsaw Pact was formed. Cold war begins.

Why is this all important? It helps to put in context a lot of today's current geopolitical tension, and that western nations are not the noble and just entities that media and entertainment make them out to be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I listen to a lot of Hard-core History podcast by Dan Carlin. Taught me a fair bit about WW1 from the German and French perspectives and a fair bit about the Eastern Front and Japan in WW2 I was never taught in school.

A few other tidbits that are conveniently left out of western history books:

1- Jews initially were supporters and financial backers of the Nazis in the early 1930's

2- American industrialists were heavy backers and financiers of the Nazi war machine.

3- Hitler actually admired the British and wanted them on his side, though in a submissive role.

4- Just as the war ended, Churchill floated the idea of operation unthinkable that envisaged a surprise attack on the soviets by American, british and german forces at the end of WWII. So much for allies?

5- Operation dropshot was an american plan to launch a sneak attack on the Soviet Union in 1949 with the nukes they had at the time to annihilate over 100 major cities and completely destroy the country. Why were the Russians desperate to get their nukes? Had they not developed them, this would probably have happened.

6- The Soviet Union petitioned to join NATO in its infancy to make up a collective security agreement. Western nations refused and thus the Warsaw Pact was formed. Cold war begins.

Why is this all important? It helps to put in context a lot of today's current geopolitical tension, and that western nations are not the noble and just entities that media and entertainment make them out to be."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Heil Schicklgruber!!

Adolf Hitler was almost Adolf schicklgruber, his father Aloise was born out of wedlock, to Maria Anna Schicklgruber and giving her surname. When aged 40 Aloise adopted the last name of his stepfather Heidler. On legal documents 'Hitler' was given as the new name ,the reason for the spelling change is unknown.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Heil Schicklgruber!!

Adolf Hitler was almost Adolf schicklgruber, his father Aloise was born out of wedlock, to Maria Anna Schicklgruber and giving her surname. When aged 40 Aloise adopted the last name of his stepfather Heidler. On legal documents 'Hitler' was given as the new name ,the reason for the spelling change is unknown.

"

(should have been on World War II facts thread, never mind.)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top