What if Germany has won WW I

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Black Baron: Faceman, here you are mistaken. First of all the equipment of RA was the best . Tanks were superb, and that was tank war. T-34 and KV had no rivals. The legends about crappy equipment are legends. Bt-7M could have gone 700 km. No single tank could have achieved 60% of it.

Yes the Russians had the best tanks, but they did not have lots of it until late in the war. USSR was preparing for the possibility of war like every other major player, Germany was preparing for assault.

WW2 was caused by stalin as well as hitler. Who signed M-R pact? Who for heavens sake signed rappalo agreement? USSR.

Maybe Molotov and Ribbentrop were behind all this Again, I view the M-R pact as an understandable treaty looking back in history.

Trotzki's idea-lets wage a constant war with hope of spreading communism. For example -war russia-poland. Trozkii urged RA to go for berlin. The famous battle cry-"daesh Varshavu! Daesh berlin", i.e-lets go to warsaw (sp?), lets attack berlin. But hey! Germany is a neutral state. It was ripe for a revolution, if Pilsudsky lost the war, RA had to enter Berlin and make a revolution. With the economical situation there it should have been easy. But to the sorrow of RA it had Tukhachevsky as a commander. Needless to say that the dolt lost the battle and the war.

I agree, I meant "missionary" in a more HernandoCortez way

Again-Stalin did not want to create a model state. name one state that got the communistic regime without bloodbath. There is no such one. No one wants it, that is all. So the idea of a model state was doomed to failure.

Yes he did. I never said he didn't want the communists in other countries to revolt. What he wanted was to create a model state to inspire (and support) Communist revolutions around the globe. Whereas Trotzki was the one who wanted to conquer the globe.

Stalin had to have a major war, so he could take over the globe, As the results of such a war. Hitler takes over Europe--->europe Stalin liberates with a knife in Hitlers back, Europe [img]smile.gif[/img] Then stalin stays, and woe to the one that says-"uncle jo, go home"!

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. It's rather hard to say 60-70 years afterwards.

USSR was prepared 100% for an ambush (i strike first) war. Hitler merely hit first.

So how did the Germans advance onto Stalingrad? If Stalin was that well prepared he could just have thrown all his superior tanks to the frontline and chased them right back to Poland.
When I "prepare" for a war one thing I make sure is that every soldier has a gun

BTW-Stalin occupied lituania, estonia and ambushed poland in his turn. So your point is rather invalid. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Touche. Point taken.

My point is that stalin and communists are as much responsible for ww2 as hitler. 50-50.

No they're not.
Because they didn't attack!
No matter what they intended by letting Hitler attack first and what they had planned to do if Hitler did or didn't.
Every attack that brought a major player into the war was performed by either Germany or Japan.
Germany attacked France, England and USSR and they declared total war and set their subs on American ships in the Atlantic.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
And to draw an analogy:
Some people claim that the US military did know about the attack but let it happen so they'd have a reason for the war. Even if that had been the case, the fact remains that JAPAN attacked and started the war.
In the end what counts are you're actions and not what youwere thinking while the other ones were doing.

[Black Baron]

Originally posted by Faceman: quote: Originally posted by Black Baron: Faceman, here you are mistaken. 1.First of all the equipment of RA was the best . Tanks were superb, and that was tank war. T-34 and KV had no rivals. The legends about crappy equipment are legends. Bt-7M could have gone 700 km. No single tank could have achieved 60% of it.

Yes the Russians had the best tanks, but they did not have lots of it until late in the war. USSR was preparing for the possibility of war like every other major player, Germany was preparing for assault.

2.WW2 was caused by stalin as well as hitler. Who signed M-R pact? Who for heavens sake signed rappalo agreement? USSR.

Maybe Molotov and Ribbentrop were behind all this Again, I view the M-R pact as an understandable treaty looking back in history.

3.Trotzki's idea-lets wage a constant war with hope of spreading communism. For example -war russia-poland. Trozkii urged RA to go for berlin. The famous battle cry-"daesh Varshavu! Daesh berlin", i.e-lets go to warsaw (sp?), lets attack berlin. But hey! Germany is a neutral state. It was ripe for a revolution, if Pilsudsky lost the war, RA had to enter Berlin and make a revolution. With the economical situation there it should have been easy. But to the sorrow of RA it had Tukhachevsky as a commander. Needless to say that the dolt lost the battle and the war.

I agree, I meant "missionary" in a more HernandoCortez way

4.Again-Stalin did not want to create a model state. name one state that got the communistic regime without bloodbath. There is no such one. No one wants it, that is all. So the idea of a model state was doomed to failure.

Yes he did. I never said he didn't want the communists in other countries to revolt. What he wanted was to create a model state to inspire (and support) Communist revolutions around the globe. Whereas Trotzki was the one who wanted to conquer the globe.

5.Stalin had to have a major war, so he could take over the globe, As the results of such a war. Hitler takes over Europe--->europe Stalin liberates with a knife in Hitlers back, Europe [img]smile.gif[/img] Then stalin stays, and woe to the one that says-"uncle jo, go home"!

Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. It's rather hard to say 60-70 years afterwards.


6.

USSR was prepared 100% for an ambush (i strike first) war. Hitler merely hit first.

So how did the Germans advance onto Stalingrad? If Stalin was that well prepared he could just have thrown all his superior tanks to the frontline and chased them right back to Poland.
When I "prepare" for a war one thing I make sure is that every soldier has a gun


7.

BTW-Stalin occupied lituania, estonia and ambushed poland in his turn. So your point is rather invalid. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Touche. Point taken.

8.

My point is that stalin and communists are as much responsible for ww2 as hitler. 50-50.

No they're not.
Because they didn't attack!
No matter what they intended by letting Hitler attack first and what they had planned to do if Hitler did or didn't.
Every attack that brought a major player into the war was performed by either Germany or Japan.
Germany attacked France, England and USSR and they declared total war and set their subs on American ships in the Atlantic.
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
And to draw an analogy:
Some people claim that the US military did know about the attack but let it happen so they'd have a reason for the war. Even if that had been the case, the fact remains that JAPAN attacked and started the war.
In the end what counts are you're actions and not what youwere thinking while the other ones were doing. [/QUOTE]1.Incorrect. When you say-"did not have lots of it until late in the war", you mean that in 22.6.1941 they did not have superior tanks. Stalin had 1000+ of t-34 and kv. How many tanks hitler had? 4000+ in total . stalin had 1000+ t-34 and kv, more than 5000 bt7, and in total stalin had 20000+ (!!!!)
tanks, when the other tanks apart from the ones i mentioned above where at the very least equal to the german tanks.
Another point. what do you mean by "lots"? Stalin had as much as he needed to. he had 5 times more than hitler. Stalin also had amphibe tanks that could swim. he had 4000 of them. t-40, t-37a and t-38. They could swim. A totally new idea for that time. Hitlers tanks were crap and too few. Stalins- lots and good.


2.?????. M and R lived in a dictatorship regimes. they could have not make any plans of their own. Besides stalin signed the map of "regions of influence".
The pact was nothing understandable. It is a pact for agression, pact that his aim was to open a war.


4.my whole posts idea was to convince you that stalin wanted war. Not a "revolution", without assistance in that time it was doomed to failure.


5.My point is that i can prove it.


6.When stalin prepared for a war he prepared for an agressive war, not for a defensive one. Please tell me your sourse about 1 gun for 3 people in 22.6.1941. khurshchov's tales don't count.
Stalin could have not throw his tanks. He had to prepare at least another 2 month. The tanks had no fuel, it was waaaaay behind them, no ammo etc. Hitler caught Stalin with pants down. Should he waited 60 more days then... krunch!!


8.Stalin backstabbed poland, took all the baltic countries and invaded finland, and took bukovina. I call it agression. I call it waging war. So they did not resist apart from finland. So?

[ 05-12-2004, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Black Baron ]

[Kakero]

If Germany has won WW I. More than 3/4 of the world will be under the German Empire rule. assuming that German can gain all the conquered nation's colonies in most part of the world too.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Kakero: If Germany has won WW I. More than 3/4 of the world will be under the German Empire rule. assuming that German can gain all the conquered nation's colonies in most part of the world too.

You think? I'd imagine they would have become so irrecoverably (is that even a word?) bankrupted after fighting long and hard enough to become the sole victors of the WW1 that they would have been forced to abandone most of their unprofitable colonial aspirations, at least that would have been the case in the Pacific.

Stretch too far, fall out of your tree.

[Kakero]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Kakero: If Germany has won WW I. More than 3/4 of the world will be under the German Empire rule. assuming that German can gain all the conquered nation's colonies in most part of the world too.

You think? I'd imagine they would have become so irrecoverably (is that even a word?) bankrupted after fighting long and hard enough to become the sole victors of the WW1 that they would have been forced to abandone most of their unprofitable colonial aspirations, at least that would have been the case in the Pacific.

Stretch too far, fall out of your tree. [/QUOTE]Yes I think so, why? since Germany lost WW1. Germany have to give out it's colonies in China to Japan ( just for example ). Now let's turn things around. Germany won WW1. Those losing countries will have to give out their colonies to Germany.

This is of course profitable to Germany in the long run. Imagine all the vast resources those colonies can give to Germany ( why do you think European Countries so eagerly want colonies in the first place? )

[ 05-12-2004, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Kakero ]

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Kakero: This is of course profitable to Germany in the long run. Imagine all the vast resources those colonies can give to Germany ( why do you think European Countries so eagerly want colonies in the first place? )

Because they thought they were profitable, at first. Over time though, they came to realise that they were more of a burden than anything. Hence Britain slowly cutting it's ties with most of its colonies over the course of the 20th century, and why the age of direct governmental colonialism inevitably came to a worldwide end.

Of course, global corporate capitalism is another story altogether... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Khazadman Risen]

Hierophanr is right. The damage done by the war would have caused the colonies of these European nations to revert to self-rule.
In the end, the only countries that would have really made out would have been the ones not to take part in the war. Namely the US.

[arjen]

Black Baron, i dont think you are correct in stating that communists caused ww1. All the experts on this subject, and I know where to look because I'm a historian myself, agree that the tensions in Europe leading to ww1 were based on nationalism or had economic backgrounds, not class-conflict.

First: France wanted the province of Alsace-Lotharingen back, which they had to give to Germany after the war of 1870 (which France so humiliatingly lost, this idea is known throughout french politics at that time asa the 'revanche', the revenge and all french politicians wanted to strike back at the germans that had humiliated them. Just some small sidenote: the unification of Germany reached its peak in Paris, where the german conquerors declared the German Second Empire in Versailles!)

Second: The slavic people in the Austrian-Hungarian empire wanted independence

Third: Germany wanted its share of colonies like most othern western european countries

Fourth: Britain feared Germany would overtake them as the main supplier of industrial goods in the world, leaving them wirth less income from exports

Most historians and certainly the most famous of them agree that these four points were the main reasons behind the war, that culminated into armed conflict after the assasination of the austrian-hungarian prince. By the way communism only started to become well popular after 1917.

furthermore, I doubt your claim that russians didnt want communism, they might have been very disappointed at the way it came to fruit in russia, turning into a dictatorship. But before that, when the communists hadnt rose to power yet, the hatred of the russian peasants and workmen towards the almost feudal state of the country must have been large.

[arjen]

About the colony thinggie in WW2. just an example that its not working like that: conquer the mother-country and getting its colonies too.

Germany invaded and occupied the Netherlands, yet the Dutch largest, and very rich colony, The Dutch-East Indies became 'independent' under Japanese 'protection'. Same goes for Malaysia, and Vietnam.

[Kakero]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by Kakero: This is of course profitable to Germany in the long run. Imagine all the vast resources those colonies can give to Germany ( why do you think European Countries so eagerly want colonies in the first place? )

Because they thought they were profitable, at first. Over time though, they came to realise that they were more of a burden than anything. Hence Britain slowly cutting it's ties with most of its colonies over the course of the 20th century, and why the age of direct governmental colonialism inevitably came to a worldwide end.

Of course, global corporate capitalism is another story altogether... [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Not really, we are talking what if here. yes, what if ( things that might happen ). As you say, Britain cutting it's ties with most of it's colonies. why? because the colonies is bleeding britain's of it's valuable monetary units. okay Now what if Germany have won, would the same problem will happen to Germany too? What if it does not happen to Germany? What if if Germany got a sound good economy plan? Remember, the question is what if. in what if, anything can happen.