How do you think it would be if...

Méo · 12-19-09, 07:24 PM

I don't see why the U.S. would have bombed Britain, France or Poland.

My point is that it would have been possible for Germany to win the war in western Europe with QUICK campaigns. But once they (or he?) declared war on the Soviet Union and the United States in the same year, I really don't see how they could have won the war. (of course at that time they were not fully aware of what we know today, including the nuclear weapon).

karamazovnew · 12-19-09, 10:13 PM

Norway and France were defeated almost by luck. It's hard to say if Hitler was a lucky imbecile or an unlucky military genius. But his men did come very close to winning. The war was changed on the following occasions:

- spearing Dunkirk
- not shooting that fat idiot Goering
- bombing London instead of airfields
- declaring war on Russia
- declaring war on USA
- Stalingrad
- D-Day
- the Holocaust
- too many resources lost on high tech tanks and planes, rockets and UFO's

As a tactical military move, without the Holocaust he would've had almost a million more soldiers, less resistance from conquered countries, and maybe trains would've transported supplies to troops instead of... you know. They did have amazing soldiers and honorable commanders (Doenitz being just one of those). Without the atrocities, even after loosing, our view of the Nazies might've been very very different. As it was tho, I'm glad they lost and I feel sorry for the millions of brave soldiers that now bare the Nazi taint.

Good side:
- European Union
uhmm... that's about it I guess...

Bad side:
- US of mf A has ruled the world since then (BAD)
- actually, the CIA
- Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain, the Hot Cold war (if the K19 guys and Sergej Preminin hadn't sacrificed themselves in reactor rooms, we'd be living in Fallout 3 right now)
- fuked up Middle East
- terrorism and the disproportionate anti-terrorism responsible for Iraq
- Jay-pop

That's not to say that if Germany had beaten England we wouldn't be fighting now for the Fatherworld Army in a 50 year war with USJAP Empire in the steppes of Mongolia.

Dowly · 12-20-09, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

I don't see why the U.S. would have bombed Britain, France or Poland.

Because Germany would have spread out their production facilities and armies all over the Europe. So, for the nukes to have any effect (instead of pissing people off) you'd want to hit targets that matter. It would be different from Japan, where Japan was isolated in it's island where it could've been nuked over and over again without collateral damage in terms of other nations. But if you'd want to hit germany hard with nukes, and I mean HARD, there'd be collateral damage to the countries next to it. Which would, like I already said, give a huge propaganda asset to the germans to say the americans are here to kill every one no matter if you're german or not. You cant win the war with nukes (well you can if you destroy the whole europe, but that's out of question) and it would be soon necessary to deploy troops to the ground. Would you welcome soldiers from a nation that just nuked you, with open arms? I dont think so.

karamazovnew · 12-20-09, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

Trivial: Actually the first bombing of London was an accident. The Luftwaffe pilot took it for military area thus bombed it.

Then the British bombed Berlin in retaliation and then Hitler ordered a full campaign against London.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

So, for the nukes to have any effect (instead of pissing people off) you'd want to hit targets that matter.
Would you welcome soldiers from a nation that just nuked you, with open arms? I dont think so.

I'd just bomb Hitler's quarters. But remember that Enola Gay had a smooth flight over the ocean to Hiroshima. A bomber flying across Europe to Berlin with a nuclear bomb on board would be a huge risk.
The Japanese did welcome the Americans but... I wouldn't. On the other hand, everybody was tired of war. And the difference between a nuclear bomb and a firestorm like the one in Dresden is that a nuclear bomb kills you quicker and leaves a smooth terrain ready for reconstruction.

That was a joke of course, and a bad one.

Méo · 12-20-09, 11:33 PM

@Dowly

I understand your point of view, but with all my respect, I still disagree with you.

I think I can make a summary of the debate here in 3 points:

1) Where the U.S. could have strike with the atomic bomb?

2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland?

3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby?

1) Where the U.S. could have strike with an atomic bomb?

Correct me if i'm wrong but most (if not all) of German's main production facilities (tanks, aircrafts, submarines, etc.) were located in Germany or Austria.

About the armies, in a nuclear war, armies are much less important, In WWI 90% of victims were in the military. With weapons of mass destruction, 90% of victims are civilians (of course enemy civil population).

When the Nazi party came to power, they had the support of 43.9% of the German people. So they didn't even had the support of the majority of their own people.

So if Germany would have been struck by a large scale nuclear attack without even being unable to reply or to do the same on U.S. soil, the effect on the German population would have been awful. I think that dissent would have risen to an intolerable level (otherwise it would have been a mass suicide). In a such case they (the German people) would probably seek for survival and not for nazi ideology. I guess dissent would have been extremely high among military leaders too (they did not agree all with Hitler).

So to me, it's obvious, in that case, the best target would have been Germany.

2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland?

Some argue that the defence of the German sky was tight, well the reason behind all this is simple: they were being continuously bombed!!!

If Germany would not have been bombed at all (or very few) there would have been no reason to put a colossal effort in defending the German sky (assuming they were not aware that U.S. had the atomic bomb). the U.S. could simply pretend to avoid provocation.

And as I said earlier, there are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no accurate computer guided missiles.

So, for these reasons, I believe it could have been possible for the U.S. to launch a large scale nuclear sneak attack on the German homeland.

3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby?

The U.S. knew that populations in occupied countries had the potential of being future allies (Patton said it to his troops before they landed in North Africa). It is possible to strike a zone in a country (in which the enemy could be) without a direct hit on important urban zones. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsity_40pc.png

Even though, I don't think this would have been a necessity.

In some comments it seems like occupying a country is no big deal!!

I'm gonna retake my example about Finland & Soviet Union.

Imagine (again) that if your country would have been invaded by USSR:
thousands (if not hundred thousand) of soldiers killed, executions, Finnish villages burned, Finnish women raped, etc. These things are not easily forgivable for a population.

If the U.S. would have bombed Leningrad, there would probably have some nuclear fallout in Finland, but I really don't think it would have been enough for the Finnish people to forgive everything and join the Soviets ranks.

Edit: And I can hardly imagine a population joining a former oppressor who is in the impossibility to reply with the same magnitude.

Freiwillige · 12-21-09, 06:07 AM

Time for my two cents. Firstly any honest historian would tell you that the Germans having plans of world conquest is ridicules WWII propaganda and belongs with the Nazi had UFO crowds. Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain, So what makes one think that they could invade North America!

Hitlers aims were and always had been East. Lebensraum he called it. I think it was for Hitler pre WWII about gaining back territory's lost to Germany in the east after WWI and gaining whatever else he could gain from the deal. Also Communism is and was the ideological enemy of National Socialism. So anything to destroy communism in Europe I think he would have went for foaming at the mouth. In fact many men volunteered to fight with Germany from occupied nations such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ukrain etc to fight against Communism.
It was a bit more common than many would admit today.

August · 12-21-09, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain

I think that if they had achieved air supremacy over the channel and southern England they would have been able to invade.

Quote:

So what makes one think that they could invade North America!

I agree that mounting an invasion force from 3000 miles away would have been most difficult.

Raptor1 · 12-21-09, 10:55 AM

1. Why wouldn't Germany's skies be defended by the Luftwaffe if they had won the ground war. Where else would the planes be?

2. Support for the Nazis would certainly grow if they had actually won the land war, the morale of the population would be very high in this case.

3. A single large nuclear attack, unless it could cripple the enemy's ability to wage war, would serve little purpose against a population whose morale is high from victory other than to make them angry and even more willing to fight.

Consider yourself a German, your fatherland just defeated every other nation in Europe. Now, the only enemies that resist you are on the other side of the sea, and they just brutally murdered a million of your countrymen. Are you going to immediately surrender or wish to see those that bombed you wiped from the earth?

It is only the sustained bombing, which would be nearly impossible to properly execute, that would eventually break the population's spirit.

--

Had Germany achieved air superiority over the Channel, they could very well have crossed it. What would happen once they land is another matter, but competently done an invasion of Britain could succeed. An invasion of America would be possible through a number of routes, but it would be extremely risky.

Lt.Fillipidis · 12-21-09, 09:22 PM

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.

@Karamazovnew
There s a BBC series about WW2 events, going around these days in Greece.
A book along with a compilation of artificially colored film parts. One each week. Although i read about it in internet, its there too.
Just like you said, after the accidental bombing of London (instead of military areas), Churchill ordered a retaliation. By the next day the order was carried out and Hitler was still unaware about the bombing of London itself. So Hitler thought Churchill started it and retaliated and the story goes on.

Raptor1 · 12-22-09, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.

You have a source for this?

Méo · 12-22-09, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

@ Meo
There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks.
Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there.
Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb.

You're telling a story without saying where did it supposedly happen, when did it supposedly happen and what are your sources???

BTW an atomic bomb can be seen several hundred kilometers away, if it really happen, there should have some witnesses?

Edit: @Raptor we almost have though the same at almost the same time...

Dowly · 12-22-09, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

You're telling a story without saying where did it supposedly happen, when did it supposedly happen and what are your sources???

BTW an atomic bomb can be seen several hundred kilometers away, if it really happen, there should have some witnesses?

I did some digging and surprise surprise found a post about it on the AboveTopSecret's site (conspiracy site

). The 19th Infantry Regiment was supposedly nuked 150km south of Kursk few days prior to the Battle of Kursk.

If the soviets found a whole regiment "burnt to charcoal" why havent we heard about it?

Why there's no eyewitnesses (except for that "japanese observer")?

Link to the topic:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502254/pg1

Méo · 12-22-09, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I did some digging and surprise surprise found a post about it on the AboveTopSecret's site (conspiracy site

). The 19th Infantry Regiment was supposedly nuked 150km south of Kursk few days prior to the Battle of Kursk.

If the soviets found a whole regiment "burnt to charcoal" why havent we heard about it?

Why there's no eyewitnesses (except for that "japanese observer")?

Link to the topic:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502254/pg1

Remember me someone at work (who is a fan of those sites...) already told me that all electronic stuff we have today (computers, cell phone, etc) was based on Alien technology

Right the Americans have found an UFO in 1948...

He was telling me: ''How do you explain that first TV and electronic stuff had been implemented around that those years...''

Torplexed · 12-22-09, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I did some digging and surprise surprise found a post about it on the AboveTopSecret's site (conspiracy site

). The 19th Infantry Regiment was supposedly nuked 150km south of Kursk few days prior to the Battle of Kursk.

If the soviets found a whole regiment "burnt to charcoal" why havent we heard about it?

Why there's no eyewitnesses (except for that "japanese observer")?

Link to the topic:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread502254/pg1

Abovetopsecret along with godlikeproductions are famous for being sites where the fringe types go to feed off each other's conspiratorial fantasies and delusions. They're the ones preparing for the world to end in 2012, and when that date passes will probably already have another doomsday date in place to moan about.

Given Hitler's penchant for grand political gestures why would the Germans waste a nuclear weapon on an obscure Soviet infantry regiment in the field when in 1943 they could still have easily hit Moscow, Leningrad or London? Why did they never use it again?

Lt.Fillipidis · 12-22-09, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Méo

You're telling a story without saying where did it supposedly happen, when did it supposedly happen and what are your sources???

BTW an atomic bomb can be seen several hundred kilometers away, if it really happen, there should have some witnesses?

Edit: @Raptor we almost have though the same at almost the same time...

150km South East of Kursk, 2 days before the Battle of Kursk.
Here are a few links. They dont mentrion the bombing of Kursk itself though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4348497.stm

And here's a YouTube Video that has some pictures of the epicenter.

The only part im sure that its missunderstood its the V2/A-something, which was infact a simple V2 with a range extention (the A-something lower part of the rocket which was similar to what Space Busses use today.)

Nazi Germany evolved as none else did back then. When they lost the war, many patterns and schematics that were captured were still advanced compared to what the allies had. A reason to seize them.
And then, there's the cold war. A reason to hide them.
In a race for power between the Soviet Union and USA, its vital to keep all you can classified. Even things that they discovered years ago.
If the base is provided and you have the knowledge to use it, you're bound to discover whatever you want.

I dont know what you think, but i dont think that the scientists all over the world have discovered so few in so many years with so much knowledge provided. I think they're just classified.

12-19-09, 07:24 PM	#1
Méo Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,153 Downloads: 258 Uploads: 0	I don't see why the U.S. would have bombed Britain, France or Poland. My point is that it would have been possible for Germany to win the war in western Europe with QUICK campaigns. But once they (or he?) declared war on the Soviet Union and the United States in the same year, I really don't see how they could have won the war. (of course at that time they were not fully aware of what we know today, including the nuclear weapon). Last edited by Méo; 12-20-09 at 12:36 AM.

12-20-09, 11:33 PM	#5
Méo Ace of the Deep Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Quebec City Posts: 1,153 Downloads: 258 Uploads: 0	@Dowly I understand your point of view, but with all my respect, I still disagree with you. I think I can make a summary of the debate here in 3 points: 1) Where the U.S. could have strike with the atomic bomb? 2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland? 3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby? 1) Where the U.S. could have strike with an atomic bomb? Correct me if i'm wrong but most (if not all) of German's main production facilities (tanks, aircrafts, submarines, etc.) were located in Germany or Austria. About the armies, in a nuclear war, armies are much less important, In WWI 90% of victims were in the military. With weapons of mass destruction, 90% of victims are civilians (of course enemy civil population). When the Nazi party came to power, they had the support of 43.9% of the German people. So they didn't even had the support of the majority of their own people. So if Germany would have been struck by a large scale nuclear attack without even being unable to reply or to do the same on U.S. soil, the effect on the German population would have been awful. I think that dissent would have risen to an intolerable level (otherwise it would have been a mass suicide). In a such case they (the German people) would probably seek for survival and not for nazi ideology. I guess dissent would have been extremely high among military leaders too (they did not agree all with Hitler). So to me, it's obvious, in that case, the best target would have been Germany. 2) Could the U.S. been able to make a large scale nuclear attack on the German homeland? Some argue that the defence of the German sky was tight, well the reason behind all this is simple: they were being continuously bombed!!! If Germany would not have been bombed at all (or very few) there would have been no reason to put a colossal effort in defending the German sky (assuming they were not aware that U.S. had the atomic bomb). the U.S. could simply pretend to avoid provocation. And as I said earlier, there are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no accurate computer guided missiles. So, for these reasons, I believe it could have been possible for the U.S. to launch a large scale nuclear sneak attack on the German homeland. 3) What would have been the reaction of the population in occupied countries nearby? The U.S. knew that populations in occupied countries had the potential of being future allies (Patton said it to his troops before they landed in North Africa). It is possible to strike a zone in a country (in which the enemy could be) without a direct hit on important urban zones. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsity_40pc.png Even though, I don't think this would have been a necessity. In some comments it seems like occupying a country is no big deal!! I'm gonna retake my example about Finland & Soviet Union. Imagine (again) that if your country would have been invaded by USSR: thousands (if not hundred thousand) of soldiers killed, executions, Finnish villages burned, Finnish women raped, etc. These things are not easily forgivable for a population. If the U.S. would have bombed Leningrad, there would probably have some nuclear fallout in Finland, but I really don't think it would have been enough for the Finnish people to forgive everything and join the Soviets ranks. Edit: And I can hardly imagine a population joining a former oppressor who is in the impossibility to reply with the same magnitude. Last edited by Méo; 12-21-09 at 02:42 AM.

12-21-09, 10:55 AM	#8
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Stavka Posts: 8,211 Downloads: 13 Uploads: 0	1. Why wouldn't Germany's skies be defended by the Luftwaffe if they had won the ground war. Where else would the planes be? 2. Support for the Nazis would certainly grow if they had actually won the land war, the morale of the population would be very high in this case. 3. A single large nuclear attack, unless it could cripple the enemy's ability to wage war, would serve little purpose against a population whose morale is high from victory other than to make them angry and even more willing to fight. Consider yourself a German, your fatherland just defeated every other nation in Europe. Now, the only enemies that resist you are on the other side of the sea, and they just brutally murdered a million of your countrymen. Are you going to immediately surrender or wish to see those that bombed you wiped from the earth? It is only the sustained bombing, which would be nearly impossible to properly execute, that would eventually break the population's spirit. -- Had Germany achieved air superiority over the Channel, they could very well have crossed it. What would happen once they land is another matter, but competently done an invasion of Britain could succeed. An invasion of America would be possible through a number of routes, but it would be extremely risky. __________________ Current Eastern Front status: Probable Victory

12-19-09, 10:13 PM	#2
karamazovnew The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,403 Downloads: 151 Uploads: 0	Norway and France were defeated almost by luck. It's hard to say if Hitler was a lucky imbecile or an unlucky military genius. But his men did come very close to winning. The war was changed on the following occasions: - spearing Dunkirk - not shooting that fat idiot Goering - bombing London instead of airfields - declaring war on Russia - declaring war on USA - Stalingrad - D-Day - the Holocaust - too many resources lost on high tech tanks and planes, rockets and UFO's As a tactical military move, without the Holocaust he would've had almost a million more soldiers, less resistance from conquered countries, and maybe trains would've transported supplies to troops instead of... you know. They did have amazing soldiers and honorable commanders (Doenitz being just one of those). Without the atrocities, even after loosing, our view of the Nazies might've been very very different. As it was tho, I'm glad they lost and I feel sorry for the millions of brave soldiers that now bare the Nazi taint. Good side: - European Union uhmm... that's about it I guess... Bad side: - US of mf A has ruled the world since then (BAD) - actually, the CIA - Soviet Union, the Iron Curtain, the Hot Cold war (if the K19 guys and Sergej Preminin hadn't sacrificed themselves in reactor rooms, we'd be living in Fallout 3 right now) - fuked up Middle East - terrorism and the disproportionate anti-terrorism responsible for Iraq - Jay-pop That's not to say that if Germany had beaten England we wouldn't be fighting now for the Fatherworld Army in a 50 year war with USJAP Empire in the steppes of Mongolia.

12-21-09, 06:07 AM	#6
Freiwillige The Old Man Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phx. Az Posts: 1,458 Downloads: 24 Uploads: 0	Time for my two cents. Firstly any honest historian would tell you that the Germans having plans of world conquest is ridicules WWII propaganda and belongs with the Nazi had UFO crowds. Firstly they couldn't cross a thirty mile channel to invade England even if they did win the Battle of Britain, So what makes one think that they could invade North America! Hitlers aims were and always had been East. Lebensraum he called it. I think it was for Hitler pre WWII about gaining back territory's lost to Germany in the east after WWI and gaining whatever else he could gain from the deal. Also Communism is and was the ideological enemy of National Socialism. So anything to destroy communism in Europe I think he would have went for foaming at the mouth. In fact many men volunteered to fight with Germany from occupied nations such as Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, Spain, Russia, Ukrain etc to fight against Communism. It was a bit more common than many would admit today.

12-21-09, 09:22 PM	#9
Lt.Fillipidis Weps Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Veria, Greece Posts: 365 Downloads: 44 Uploads: 0	@ Meo There are quite a few photographs taken in the epicenter, some time after the impact. You can see the scorched earth and the standing tree trunks. Them and the sudden loss of the entire 19th Soviet Regiment are a good proof that a weapon with devastating power was used there. Unless you believe on the Nazi UFOs, the only reasonable scenario i can think of is that of the a-bomb. @Karamazovnew There s a BBC series about WW2 events, going around these days in Greece. A book along with a compilation of artificially colored film parts. One each week. Although i read about it in internet, its there too. Just like you said, after the accidental bombing of London (instead of military areas), Churchill ordered a retaliation. By the next day the order was carried out and Hitler was still unaware about the bombing of London itself. So Hitler thought Churchill started it and retaliated and the story goes on.