People hate the Reich because it was Evil with a face. Stalin was an unspeakable bastard who deserved to burn in hell. Mao deserves to burn in an even hotter lava pit. Neither of them come close to the horror that was the Third Reich. Stalin, Mao, and most of the other despicable mass killers in human history killed for rather pointless political reasons and/or massive paranoia.
Hitler and the Reich killed based on being born in an ethnic group they disliked. What is actually surprising is that more revoltion isn't felt toward Imperial Japan, which committed enormous war crimes against people for the sin of not being Japanese.
Hitler and the SS look tame compared to Stalin and Beria in comparison sure they Nazis were completely bat shit but Stalin was completely fucking insane. How many did he kill 30-40- 50 million of his OWN people.
My revulsion for the Nazi fans was said so very well by Calbear.
Could Germany have invaded Britain in 1942/1943 if...
If Germany decides not to go east and that Sealion is not going to happen, then the LW might start demanding the development of heavier and heavier bombers and more capable fighters in order to destroy the country's ability to rebuild.
But this wouldn't be something that would bear fruit until 1943 when the effects of no invasion and no USA DOW really start sinking in. With no invasion in the cards, the British would be able to devote naval assets elsewhere.
Meanwhile, in North Africa...?
Wait. I just read the first few paragraphs of that . An attack on India über super effective double critical hits Britain . Wot da hell. I must write a parody of a troll story now!*winces* you're going to make me do it ain't you...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=234421 Best Axiswank thread EU. (Seriously it is a comedy goldmine. As you can tell, later on we gave up trying to educate the writer and just ended out having a laugh. Also it gave rise to the term NotNazi's.)
Oh and don't forget this drumroll of 'dafuq!?' moments:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=230089&highlight=Frisian+Islands
although then again the OP was basically a troll and trying to get people who like the WAllies to react angrilly and start arguing. Instead folks just picked everything he wrote apart.
YOU BROUGHT THIS ON YOURSELF!
Or s/he honestly missed it. As for it not being a Sea Lion thread I can kind of see what was meant by that if you considered Sea Lion to be merely the late 1940/early 1941 operation and not the overarching goal of invading the UK, so if it was a couple years later with very different conditions then not think of it as a continuation but completely distinct thing. But nice of you to jump to the worst possible assumption and accuse them of lying in their very first post.No. What you actually did was deliberately ignore the sticky at the top of this forum and what you actually did was deliberately lie when you claimed this wasn't a Sealion thread.
Hitler and the SS look tame compared to Stalin and Beria in comparison sure they Nazis were completely bat shit but Stalin was completely fucking insane. How many did he kill 30-40- 50 million of his OWN people.
The Luftwaffe lacked any kind of strategic direction or purpose that would allow it to execute a focused strategic campaign against Britain; in essence it had no figure like Arthur Harris to take singular control over operations. Instead it had a number of leaders, some intelligent and some not, who had very different ideas on how the air campaign should be carried out. The shift from the Battle of Britain to the Blitz was one example of a failure to maintain a singular strategic goal; the Luftwaffe was by no means materially defeated, but it did lose the will to maintain its campaign of air superiority operations. Likewise during the Blitz itself German efforts were diluted by attacks against shipping, industrial targets, civilians, transportation, etc. Without any method to accurately identify how much damage was being done, the Luftwaffe was fighting blind and attacked based off of the varied opinions of those in charge rather than material results.
As Britain received material aid from the US, and eventual US entry into the war, it became better able to counter the Luftwaffe. The Luftwaffe could have maintained a campaign in 1941 against Britain without destroying itself; it would have been costly and killed many skilled pilots, and achieved few results, but it still could have done it. By 1942-43 the costs had become so massive that Luftwaffe raids against Britain for the remainder of the war were self destructive.
And the KM never contemplated that. The Z plan viewed for the twin goals of superiority over the Soviet Baltic (mostly) and Northern Fleets while retaining a commerce raiding capability. That's why the GZ was such a strange design, being meant, like the soviet Kiev class carriers of the 70s, to support bastion defence or assist Surface Action Groups.
In fact, the Z Plan KM looks a lot like the 70/80s soviet navy, with much the same goals and limitations when facing the Western navies.
ummmm.......diesel boats spend most of their time upon the surface,bobbing and rolling aroundNot in a submarine you can,t.
ummmm.......diesel boats spend most of their time upon the surface,bobbing and rolling around![]()
Or s/he honestly missed it.
[This is not a sea lion thread!!
But nice of you to jump to the worst possible assumption and accuse them of lying in their very first post.
Agree about the lack of strategic direction with the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain.
However, I struggle to see how the Luftwaffe could have continued the BoB into 1941 without pretty much ceasing to exist. The quality/leadership of the Luftwaffe was quickly getting itself killed or captured over Britain. Losses of especially Bf-109's were bigger then the replacements built whilst OTOH Fighter Command was actually growing during the BoB. Further the Luftwaffe hardly had any reserves, unlike the French or British f.ex.
According to "The most dangerous enemy" several of the high ranking leaders of the Luftwaffe calculated that they needed killratio's of 5:1 in order to win the BoB.
Do you have any sources for this?
Why did they add that proviso if they truly didn't know?
Just as it's nice for you to play the White Knight and provide them with an excuse: "I really didn't know about Sealion even though I specifically mentioned it in my post. Cross my heart and hope to die."
Wow ok so that was my first post on this forum, and I am amazed at how hostile, aggressive and frankly offensive some people are. I presented a "what if" scenario with not entirely outrageous parameters and some people just went crazy! What's that about?!
I personally don't believe that Germany would have prevailed in my scenario and I certainly don't wish they had! What I was expecting was a rational discussion as to what might have happened.... Is that too much to ask?! Apparently so.
And I find this morbid fascination with the destruction of Great Britain highly offensive. I would put it in the same category with those who post Confederate victory threads in pre 1900. They may spin a gloss of intellectual curiosity but there's all too often an unhealthy fascination with a thoroughly unpleasant regime underlying it.
Agree about the lack of strategic direction with the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain.
However, I struggle to see how the Luftwaffe could have continued the BoB into 1941 without pretty much ceasing to exist. The quality/leadership of the Luftwaffe was quickly getting itself killed or captured over Britain. Losses of especially Bf-109's were bigger then the replacements built whilst OTOH Fighter Command was actually growing during the BoB. Further the Luftwaffe hardly had any reserves, unlike the French or British f.ex.
Hitler and the SS look tame compared to Stalin and Beria in comparison sure they Nazis were completely bat shit but Stalin was completely fucking insane. How many did he kill 30-40- 50 million of his OWN people.