|
|  |
 |
Members: 6,450
Threads: 18,400
Posts: 230,111
Online: 223
Newest Member:
jrhess3 |
|
|
| What If? Alternate History: Speculate about WWII battles that never were. Could the Axis have won? What if Hitler had the bomb? |
August 18th, 2007, 07:00 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hanging the flag on the Reichstag!
Posts: 3,504
Salute!: 3
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plbogen
There is good arguments either way. The Soviets were a trans-national multi-ethnic regime, but it was dominated by Russia. The Soviets had a policy of "Russification" that led many like a Ukrainian friend of mine to grow up speaking Russian and have no knowledge of Ukrainian. Nazism was specifically about Germannic people. Now are the Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Austrians, Danes, etc. German? That is a tough question. The Nazis would have said yes, but now I doubt many would argue that they were. I think it is similar in trying to deciding between Commonwealth, British, and English. Each term has connotations that may or may not hold.
|
Not sure I understand your argument here...
__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler
|
August 18th, 2007, 08:44 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloniksp
Not sure I understand your argument here...
|
That it was hard to separate Nazi from German and Soviet from Russian. |
August 18th, 2007, 09:15 PM
|
|
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hanging the flag on the Reichstag!
Posts: 3,504
Salute!: 3
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plbogen
That it was hard to separate Nazi from German and Soviet from Russian.
|
So wouldnt then you say that it would only be fair to refer to both sides equally??
Example 1. Soviets vs the Nazis
Example 2. Russians vs the Germans
as apposed to..
Soviets vs Germans or Nazis vs the Russians?
__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler
|
August 18th, 2007, 09:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloniksp
So wouldnt then you say that it would only be fair to refer to both sides equally??
Example 1. Soviets vs the Nazis
Example 2. Russians vs the Germans
as apposed to..
Soviets vs Germans or Nazis vs the Russians?
|
Personally I'd prefer to use Soviets vs Nazis in general. And it does make more sense to use your examples, but I understand why someone may say Soviets vs Germans or Russians vs Nazis |
August 18th, 2007, 10:09 PM
|
|
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hanging the flag on the Reichstag!
Posts: 3,504
Salute!: 3
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plbogen
Personally I'd prefer to use Soviets vs Nazis in general. And it does make more sense to use your examples, but I understand why someone may say Soviets vs Germans or Russians vs Nazis
|
.... 
__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler
|
August 20th, 2007, 03:19 AM
|
 |
Good Ol' Boy  |
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Deep in the Heart of Dixie
Posts: 5,327
Salute!: 51
Saluted 48 Times in 41 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloniksp
I have said this before ( not to you IWD ), but its interesting how you stated the "Soviets more then the Germans" and not the " Russians more then the Nazi's "
Why not the " Soviets more then the Nazis??"
|
Soviets vs Germans could be correct terminology.
I am usually referred to as an American and that would be more or less a correct term, as "United Statean" doesn't flow very well. Persons from the British Isles are referred to as British or Britons. Both terms for citizens of the respective countries are derived from the name of the country, and although technically the Kingdom of Great Britain is now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britain is still in the name. I could provide many more similar terms (French, Canadian, Mexican, Thai, Indian)
During the war, the correct terms for the countries previously referenced were (Anglicized forms) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ( Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik using Latin alphabet) and German Reich (Deutsch Reich) and later Greater German Reich (Großdeutsches Reich). Since both Soviet and German are part of the name of the respective countries, then I would think the terms "Soviet" and "German" could be correct, when used together.
If we were to use the appelation "Nazi" when referring to armed forces lead by A Hitler, then "Communist" would be a better alternative for the armed forces lead by J Stalin, as both refer to the political nature of each country, as opposed to the ethnic makeup that Russian or German (when used in conjunction with each other) could imply.
Does any of this make sense, or have I more or less thrown more doo-doo on the wall?
As always,
__________________
Best Regards,
JW 
Flag of the State of Alabama
|
August 20th, 2007, 03:32 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
I think Britain shows the point exactly. Are the Scots, British?
Conversely with the 3rd Reich, are the Czechs, Nazis?
Now Soviet seems to definitely be the correct term, despite Moscow's Russification policies, since it really was more than Russia, wasn't it Ukrainians who took Berlin?
German seems wrong, unless the Dutch and Austrians are Germans.
Nazi seems wrong also, since the Wermacht is not necessarily Nazi (although as the war went on the difference between the definitely Nazi Wafen-SS and the Wermacht lessened), and it excludes the collobrators in occupied countries (Czech, Polish, Ukrainian, Dutch, French, etc).
It's a very complicated issue I think. Especially since some of the occupied nations that collaborated probably wouldn't like to be referred to as Nazis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipdigit
Soviets vs Germans could be correct terminology.
I am usually referred to as an American and that would be more or less a correct term, as "United Statean" doesn't flow very well. Persons from the British Isles are referred to as British or Britons. Both terms for citizens of the respective countries are derived from the name of the country, and although technically the Kingdom of Great Britain is now known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Britain is still in the name. I could provide many more similar terms (French, Canadian, Mexican, Thai, Indian)
During the war, the correct terms for the countries previously referenced were (Anglicized forms) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik using Latin alphabet) and German Reich (Deutsch Reich) and later Greater German Reich (Großdeutsches Reich). Since both Soviet and German are part of the name of the respective countries, then I would think the terms "Soviet" and "German" could be correct, when used together.
If we were to use the appelation "Nazi" when referring to armed forces lead by A Hitler, then "Communist" would be a better alternative for the armed forces lead by J Staliln, as both refer to the political nature of each country, as opposed to the ethnic makeup that Russian or German (when used in conjunction with each) other could imply.
Does any of this make sense, or have I more or less thrown more doo-doo on the wall?
As always,
|
|
August 20th, 2007, 03:41 AM
|
|
Good Ol' Boy |
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Deep in the Heart of Dixie
Posts: 5,327
Salute!: 51
Saluted 48 Times in 41 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
|
I think Britain shows the point exactly. Are the Scots, British?
|
I believe the Scots are British, just not English. Any of you Limey's want to comment on this?
One correction in my post above (31) Where I typed "German Reich (Deutsch Reich) and later Greater German Reich (Großdeutsches Reich)", it should have read "German Empire (Deutsch Reich) and later Greater German Empire (Großdeutsches Reich)", as the English translation of "reich" is "empire"
__________________
Best Regards,
JW
Flag of the State of Alabama
|
August 20th, 2007, 04:21 AM
|
|
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hanging the flag on the Reichstag!
Posts: 3,504
Salute!: 3
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipdigit
Does any of this make sense, or have I more or less thrown more doo-doo on the wall?
|
It does make sense and a very good argument...
How about this?
"German" is a nationality and this word was formed by the country of origin. During the times of Germany being an Empire called Gross Deutschland, germans still were the "#1" nationality, as per mr. Hitler, at least.
Britain is a country where britts were originally positioned as majority in terms of present nationalities, that's where the word "Britain" comes from.
There is no nationality (neither now nor in the past) as Soviets. This is political term, referring to political system where this particular citizen resides, having nothing else besides it. That's the difference.
For example one can say Americans vs. Soviets because neither one is a nationality. But not Germans vs Soviets as that would both be ethnically and politically incorrect, as Germans would be a referrence to ethnicity and Soviets would be a referrence to a political system.
Here is how you understand the difference, you can speak German but you cant speak Soviet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plbogen
wasn't it Ukrainians who took Berlin?
|
Wha made you come to this conclussion?
__________________
The war against Russia will be such that it cannot be conducted in a knightly fashion. This struggle is one of ideologies and racial differences and will have to be conducted with unprecedented, unmerciful and unrelenting harshness. -Adolf Hitler
|
August 20th, 2007, 12:41 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloniksp
Wha made you come to this conclussion?
|
I guess the question is was the 1st Ukrainian Front named for it's composition or for where it fought? |
August 20th, 2007, 01:28 PM
|
 |
Ace
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where Iron Crosses grow
Posts: 7,849
Salute!: 93
Saluted 75 Times in 55 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
The 1st Ukrainian Front was one of 4 Fronts (guess what, calles 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th  ) in which the part of the Red Army in Ukaine was subdivided. Further north you would find 4 Bielorussian Fronts. These were only convenient geographical designations, rather obsolete by the way as 1st Uk. Fr. for instance had already left Ukraine a few months back.
If we follow your reasoning I take it the Steppe Front formed before the battle of Kursk would have been formed of Steppians, and Voronezh Front would have been formed of Voronezhians
Back to Slipdigit's and Slonik's argument, I would say that the term British should not be entirely correct, as Britain is not the United Kingdom, it's the main island in it, there's still the other Uster bit in the Emerald Isle. A more strictly correct term would be Unitarian Subjects?
__________________
"On average it took five Panthers to take out a Sherman. Four would be in a ditch out of fuel or broken down, the fifth one just blows away the Sherman before breaking down." |
August 20th, 2007, 01:38 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Britannia
Posts: 2,362
Salute!: 31
Saluted 6 Times in 6 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Za Rodinu
Back to Slipdigit's and Slonik's argument, I would say that the term British should not be entirely correct, as Britain is not the United Kingdom, it's the main island in it, there's still the other Uster bit in the Emerald Isle. A more strictly correct term would be Unitarian Subjects?
|
Why dont we just say, UnitedkingdomofgreatBritainandnorthernirelanders?
|
August 20th, 2007, 03:31 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Za Rodinu
The 1st Ukrainian Front was one of 4 Fronts (guess what, calles 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th ) in which the part of the Red Army in Ukaine was subdivided. Further north you would find 4 Bielorussian Fronts. These were only convenient geographical designations, rather obsolete by the way as 1st Uk. Fr. for instance had already left Ukraine a few months back.
If we follow your reasoning I take it the Steppe Front formed before the battle of Kursk would have been formed of Steppians, and Voronezh Front would have been formed of Voronezhians
Back to Slipdigit's and Slonik's argument, I would say that the term British should not be entirely correct, as Britain is not the United Kingdom, it's the main island in it, there's still the other Uster bit in the Emerald Isle. A more strictly correct term would be Unitarian Subjects? |
No, it was more a bit of confusion given that the Army was formed in the Ukraine border regions, led by a Ukrainian for a period (Zukhov), and had a high number of Ukrainians in it. Similarly to how Rudder's Rangers was led by a Texan, formed in Texas, and compromised mostly of Texans but it wouldn't be considered a Texan force.
According to the Wikipedia article on the British Isles. The main island is Great Britain. So people from the main island would be the Greater British. While all people from Great Britain, Man, Orkney, the Shetlands, Wight, Scilly, etc, etc, would be British. Ireland's inclusion seems to be a matter of debate. Of more interest is this article: British Isles (terminology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which goes into great depth on the matter.
|
August 20th, 2007, 04:09 PM
|
 |
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion.
Posts: 1,991
Salute!: 39
Saluted 40 Times in 27 Posts
|
|
Set in the Silver Sea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Za Rodinu
Back to Slipdigit's and Slonik's argument, I would say that the term British should not be entirely correct, as Britain is not the United Kingdom, it's the main island in it, there's still the other Uster bit in the Emerald Isle. A more strictly correct term would be Unitarian Subjects?
|
I don't mind if you refer to us as 'Great British' at all Za. 
Though 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' is the full modern name of the country, all those within that geography are both 'British' & English/Northern Irish/Welsh/Scottish. It's the recent popular abbreviation to 'Brits' that I don't like.
(This is one of the more entertaining digressions I've seen a 'what if' take )
Oh yes, SD, Scots are definitely not English... for some odd reason we just ship them in to take over the Government .
Cheers,
Adam. |
August 20th, 2007, 04:14 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Set in a Silver Sea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Poop
Oh yes, SD, Scots are definitely not English... for some odd reason we just ship them in to take over the Government . |
Personally my Scotch-Irish blood makes me want to say that the Scots just got tired of out sourcing their government to the English ;-) |
August 20th, 2007, 04:17 PM
|
|
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion.
Posts: 1,991
Salute!: 39
Saluted 40 Times in 27 Posts
|
|
Re: Set in a Silver Sea.
I think they're encouraged because of their, ahem... 'fiscal caution'.
|
August 20th, 2007, 04:19 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bryan, TX
Posts: 46
Salute!: 0
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Set in a Silver Sea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Von Poop
I think they're encouraged because of their, ahem... 'fiscal caution'.
|
Given that reasoning, between my Ukrainian Jewish side of the family and the Scotch-Irish side of the family. I should make Scrooge look like a spendthrift :-P |
August 20th, 2007, 04:47 PM
|
|
WW2F Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hanging the flag on the Reichstag!
Posts: 3,504
Salute!: 3
Saluted 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Germany doesnt declare war on the U.S.
| |
