[Truth?]

I think you missed the SS Sarcasm! Look there it goes!

*points as the boat sails away.*

If there is anything I hate more then communists its pompous jackasses who want people to grovel because they served. Of all the men I know in the service none of them ever mention it ever during anything thats why A) I don't believe Brook or B) he is the REMF I said he was.

Anyways what Brook needs to do is actually talk to some WWII vets instead of posting his babble and also read a lot. I would suggest Robert Citino's German Way of War, Achtung! Panzer and Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian, Blitzkrieg Legend by Karl-Heinz Frieser. You know people who actually know stuff about the Wehrmacht instead of idiotic assumptions that they sucked. Anyways Brook if they sucked then how fuckin bad did the US Military suck for it to brag about beating Waffen-SS units that had been destroyed on the Ost Front then reconstituted with Conscripts?

[Far-Right Sage]

This is basically why I do not take seriously those 'historians' who claim that Stalin was planning to attack Germany in 1941

Ah, but Stalin's intentions toward Nazi Germany weren't enough to prevent Operation Barbarossa, now were they? The Soviet Union did have imperialistic ambitions, as it demonstrated in Poland, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and particularly, in Finland. Stalin may not have been a huge risk-taker, but Hitler was(with legitimate reason), and German generals had witnessed Soviet aggression firsthand, in Poland. The important thing is not what Stalin was willing to do, but what Hitler thought he was willing to do. In 1941, there was a legitimate fear that the Soviet Union would strike first, and thus, there was a belief that Hitler had to act in the defense of the Reich from the proliferation of European Bolshevism. He launched a "pre-emptive strike", if you will.

[PBVBROOK]

If there is anything I hate more then communists its pompous jackasses who want people to grovel because they served. Of all the men I know in the service none of them ever mention it ever during anything thats why A) I don't believe Brook or B) he is the REMF I said he was.

No moderators on this forum?

Too Bad.

Well little man. You are not worth my time. You lack the knowledge to debate with me. Too bad really. After 20 years in the Army and two wars I am not about to let some armchair general who is all of 14 years old lecture me.

Tell it to this forum. There are plenty here who will listen to your tripe. And even more who know what you are full of.

Bye bye sonny

[Truth?]

Well little man. You are not worth my time. You lack the knowledge to debate with me. Too bad really. After 20 years in the Army and two wars I am not about to let some armchair general who is all of 14 years old lecture me.

Haha Dear Lord listen to yourself. You have no addressed one point I have even posted if anything the mods are being very lenient towards you. All you have done since entering this thread is ad-homming me while not using any facts other then using ye olde expert defense which doesn't prove anything only that you refuse to debate because you "know all". Bloody hell and I thought some of the guys I knew from the Rhodesian Conflict were thick.

[PBVBROOK]

guys I knew from the Rhodesian Conflict

[Thunderhawk]

double trouble...

[Thunderhawk]

Back to Topic


The French army at the time was a mixed bag of offensive and defencive units and mindset. The Char B had extremely thick front armour, yet thin side and rear armour. Their airforce was a mishmash of old, new and British. Petain had used his position of power (minister of defence, and other times 'adviser' on military matters) to put the French military on a defencive footing - the one he knew. Petain or those like him ran the French military from the mid 20s till.. the French resistance. It is why the French went on the defencive.

Now, for France to intervene in 1938 their politicians and military men would have to be for it. Petain wanted Germany to attack the French Maginot line, not France attack Germany. For France to have made war against Germany in 1938 (right before, during or after the annexation of Czechoslovakia) the French military would had to have been willing to attack. I dont mean "declare war and sit behind Maginot line" - I mean attack. Petain would not have invaded Germany. Attack/skirmish, yeah - to draw the germans into the French defensive kill zone. That however would not help Czechoslovakia (just as it did not help Poland either).

For an Allied offensive against Germany in 1938 the QAllied military commanders would need to be modern. Hart(British) and deGualle understood the necessities and art of mechanized and manouver warfare in that time. Had they been in command (or higher up with more clout) then an allied offensive might have had steam and potential. Without offensive and modern thinking men, Allied "action" in 1938 would have been just as meaningless as it was in 1939.

[Zagadka]

The USSR could never have successfully invaded Europe, it has always lacked the infrastructure to compete with the West. War is as much about economics as it is about tactics, and the USSR just couldn't match the Allies.

What planet are you from? The Soviet military had far, far more and generally better armored units than "the Allies" (America). They also had many millions of people to mobilize, even into certain death. The USSR also had/has the greatest wealth of untapped minerals, oil, etc. If ANYONE could have won a war of attrition against the US, it was the Soviets.

Battles on the Eastern Front make battles in the Western and Southern fronts look like minor skirmishes.

Prime example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk

3,600 tanks Soviet and 1.3 million Soviet infantry. In ONE battle.

1.5 million troops in Stalingrad. ~750,000 casualties on each side. Around 2.5 million soldiers in the battle.

The Allies had the advantage of far superior air and naval power... but bombing a factory near the Urals would be a hard stretch - flying, what, 1,500 miles? 2,000? Over hostile territory? And I'm sure the Soviets would have continued the German engineers of jet power, rocketry, etc.

America had around 1 million casualties and 300,00 dead in the entire war. That's, like, one battle.

[Oxymoron]

Zagadka couldnt say it better myself. Even though I did .

[Thunderhawk]

The USSR also had/has the greatest wealth of untapped minerals, oil, etc. If ANYONE could have won a war of attrition against the US, it was the Soviets.

Key words there Zag. Untapped => little/no infrastructure set up to exploit those resources. They are there for the exploiting, but its rather ard to set up mines and infrstructure to do so while you are being bombed. moving an existing factory is alot easier then cutting a mine and building refineries/smelters/etc from scratch.

Furthermore, the Allies at the end of the war were no longer commanded by WW1-thinking men. The allies would not have fought a war of attrition.


Feel free to get back to the topic of allied intervention in 1938 though..

[Zagadka]

Key words there Zag. Untapped => little/no infrastructure set up to exploit those resources. They are there for the exploiting, but its rather to set up mines and infrstructure to do so, while you are being bombed.

Soviet industrial output at the end of the war was greater than America's, and tapping those resources - which are mostly around the Urals and Siberia, well out of range of any Allied aircraft, it'd just be a matter of time.

Feel free to get back to the topic of allied intervention in 1938 though..

Had the Phoney War been real? Or intervention before that?

I *highly* doubt that. While the Nazis weren't at their peak of power, the French proved to be fodder, and the Brits lacked the numbers of men and armored unites to foil Germany (which, of course, could concentrate all of its power in the West). At the time, not only did Germany have better tanks, better mechanized tactics - it also had far better aircraft.

Outgunned, outmanned?

No way.

[PBVBROOK]

Soviet industrial output at the end of the war was greater than America's, and tapping those resources - which are mostly around the Urals and Siberia, well out of range of any Allied aircraft, it'd just be a matter of time.

This is just not true. Where did you get your figures? The Soviet Union had some considerable industrial capacity but it was nothing like the US. Not even close. Be a bit logical. Where did this capacity go? Did the Soviet union become an economic superpower based upon this capacity and your unlimitied resources. No. They were a third world country with the bomb. They are little more than that now. Did they take this massive manufacturing power and ignite their economy? Nope. Why? Didn't have it. In the 1940's on until recently you couldn't buy a car in Russia unless you were rich and that car sucked. Their military equipment sucked and was defeated everytime it came up against western technology. The average Russian citizen couldn't buy consumer goods to save their life. Where did this massive capacity go? Not building weapons, housing, consmer goods, whatever.

Hitler did not want a war with England. He was surprised when he got one after Poland. If the allies had opposed Germany over Hitler's early annexations he would have backed down.

[Thunderhawk]

which are mostly around the Urals and Siberia, well out of range of any Allied aircraft, it'd just be a matter of time.

You know many of those resources are still untapped, right?
You know why? because it was costly and hard to do. Not that the USSR would care about cost during war, but the difficulty in setting up the infrastructure to tap them was sufficiently hard that the soviets, over their 70 or so years of existance, set up token facilities only - and shut them down in the late 80s.

While the Nazis weren't at their peak of power, the French proved to be fodder,

How were the French fodder?
being routed by superior enemy concentrated forces does not make them fodder.

Germany (which, of course, could concentrate all of its power in the West).

They were invading/occupying Czechoslovakia, they could not concentrate all their forces. And that assumes they wouldnt be worried about intervention by Poland.

At the time, not only did Germany have better tanks

At the time, the French Char B was arguably the best tank on the field. Panzer IIIs had to manouver around them to strike at their sides (weaker armour there) as frontal shots tended to stun the crew for a while, yet leave the tank operational.
(Panzer IVs were still mostly equiped for anti-infantry role, and even the anti-tank variant was in short numbers)

better mechanized tactics

Based on work by DeGualle and Hart. The allies had access to the same tactical knowledge.

[Truth?]

Based on work by DeGualle and Hart. The allies had access to the same tactical knowledge.

In fact it was Hart who inspired Guderian to come up with his idea of independent Panzer Divisions.