Who was the worst dictator during World War 2? When answering this, consider the number of their own people they killed, their methods of imprisonment, 'racial cleansing', and, most importantly, how they led their country.
Please log in to post a reply.
'Cos Russia in infinitely big and has near-infinite manpower. It's all about industry and manpower.Quasi-duck wrote:
Surely if most of a "superior" army were there they should've won if they were actually any good? This would mean that Germany threw nearly everything they had at the USSR and still lost.Pablo22510 wrote:
'Cos 85-90% of German troops were there.
MihailMD wrote:
Why haven't they tried to "liberate" Western Europe in 1939-1943?) they just rushed to occupy western Europe before USSR did it, as Red army had already crushed the Germans and was moving west fast
The British fought against the Germans since 1939 the Soviet Union does not. The Soviet Union invaded Poland with Germany. In 1944, the British army and the United States attacked the German positions and liberated France.
He's talking about the Americans not the British, and you're correct, in 1944 America/The Allies did liberate France but that was when Germany's fate was already sealed.Maximilien wrote:
The British fought against the Germans since 1939 the Soviet Union does not. The Soviet Union invaded Poland with Germany. In 1944, the British army and the United States attacked the German positions and liberated France.MihailMD wrote:
Why haven't they tried to "liberate" Western Europe in 1939-1943?
It's possible.Not A Communist wrote:
in 1944 America/The Allies did liberate France but that was when Germany's fate was already sealed.
It is fact. Otherwise the so called "allies" would have never had enough courage to even attempt to "liberate" Western EuropeMaximilien wrote:
It's possible.Not A Communist wrote:
in 1944 America/The Allies did liberate France but that was when Germany's fate was already sealed.
Why can't I vote? I think it's Hitler though. Holocaust, murdering of Russians, ya know, all that horrific stuff... Hitler was also elected democratically.
We have no idea if that's true.MihailMD wrote:
It is fact. Otherwise the so called "allies" would have never had enough courage to even attempt to "liberate" Western EuropeMaximilien wrote:
It's possible.Not A Communist wrote:
in 1944 America/The Allies did liberate France but that was when Germany's fate was already sealed.
Hitler was crazy. If he actually planned it out well, he could've easily won Operation Barbarossa.Quasi-duck wrote:
Surely if most of a "superior" army were there they should've won if they were actually any good? This would mean that Germany threw nearly everything they had at the USSR and still lost.Pablo22510 wrote:
'Cos 85-90% of German troops were there.
The British were fighting the Germans since the beginning of the war and they had managed to destroy completely the German Navy, the Allies managed to gain ground because they fought successfully.MihailMD wrote:
It is fact. Otherwise the so called "allies" would have never had enough courage to even attempt to "liberate" Western Europe
Please show me any ground that allies gained in Europe before 1944, when germany's faith was already sealed.Maximilien wrote:
The British were fighting the Germans since the beginning of the war and they had managed to destroy completely the German Navy, the Allies managed to gain ground because they fought successfully.MihailMD wrote:
It is fact. Otherwise the so called "allies" would have never had enough courage to even attempt to "liberate" Western Europe
What I do know is that the allies surrendered all of Europe in three months to HItler, and evacuated the remains of their armies to UK, leaving thousands of Heavy guns and military equipment in the hands of Germans.
Look, there is zero chance. It is one thing to defeat a nations army, it is a completely different thing to subdue a nation. Look how much damage some terrorists in towels with Kalashnikov's and IED's did to the US. Can you imagine a population of millions striking out at the Germans? Don't forget Russia has it's size and terrain to deal with. Russians know how to fight in taiga, Germans on the other hand are stopped by mud.Kehsct wrote:
Hitler was crazy. If he actually planned it out well, he could've easily won Operation Barbarossa.
Another thing is the supply lines, they would simply be stretched too thin for the Germans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_OffensiveMihailMD wrote:
Please show me any ground that allies gained in Europe before 1944,
They retreated afterwards and it was only a token effort.Maximilien wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
The ground was not held for very long.Maximilien wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid
My point EXACTLYQuasi-duck wrote:
They retreated afterwards and it was only a token effort.Maximilien wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_OffensiveThe ground was not held for very long.Maximilien wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nazaire_Raid
)is this all you got ?Maximilien wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_OffensiveMihailMD wrote:
Please show me any ground that allies gained in Europe before 1944,
)) some small raid and unsuccessful offensive... You are only making my point stronger.Their only success until 1944 ( when everybody knew that the war is over, as Germans were pretty much defeated by USSR alone )was a successful run for their lives they made to UK,, giving up all of Europe.Maximilien wrote:
the Allies managed to gain ground because they fought successfully.
Allied offensive in 1944 was a great example of land grabbing, as it was only reason they opened a second front, preventing USSR from taking all of Europe
Finaly someone who agrees!Kehsct wrote:
Hitler was crazy. If he actually planned it out well, he could've easily won Operation Barbarossa.
As I said before:Pablo22510 wrote:
Finaly someone who agrees!Kehsct wrote:
Hitler was crazy. If he actually planned it out well, he could've easily won Operation Barbarossa.
Look, there is zero chance. It is one thing to defeat a nations army, it
is a completely different thing to subdue a nation. Look how much
damage some terrorists in towels with Kalashnikov's and IED's did to the
US. Can you imagine a population of millions striking out at the
Germans? Don't forget Russia has it's size and terrain to deal with.
Russians know how to fight in taiga, Germans on the other hand are
stopped by mud.
Another thing is the supply lines, they would simply be stretched too thin for the Germans.
If it wasn't for Hitler, Moscow and Leningrad would have fallen. However, it would have been very hard for the whole of the USSR to be conquered. But maybe with Japan's help it would have been possible.
Hahahaha! Four words: Manchuria and Khalkin Ghol.Pablo22510 wrote:
But maybe with Japan's help it would have been possible.
Ruso-Japanese War. That was a serious war. The last two, the Japs didn't even try.Quasi-duck wrote:
Hahahaha! Four words: Manchuria and Khalkin Ghol.Pablo22510 wrote:
But maybe with Japan's help it would have been possible.
Please log in to post a reply.
