If it wasn't for the "commies" destroying the German Army then alot more GIs would have bought the farm, if that's a correct use of an Americanism, just rememeber that.
That's why it's ok for Za to 'defend' the 'commies' as you say.
Some of these 'What If 'threads are really daft, this one being one of the daftest.

__________________

In the spirit of the 'What if' question, I believe that that Germans could have defeated the allied landings. Terry made the point concerning allied naval power. Even with that trump, if the Germans had their air force well supplied and intact, that would have been enough to push back the allied trump card. Look at Omaha beach, it was almost withdrawn due to the stubborn defenses and the inability to move off the beach. The allied warships could not hit everywhere. Even they were limited.

So in answer to Top Cat's question, yes, the Germans would have prevailed if all sides were equal. This is the same in saying that France would have prevailed if all sides were equal. At worst, it ends up in a stalemate. But, it isn't the resources that guarantee victories, it is solid and intelligent leadership in using the resources at hand and hitting the enemy where they least expect it.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

Thanks T.A. My point being thet the Line was not constructed of only "WWI trenches" as implied by Pact. There was more to it then that.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

I'm the "Confederate with a pipe"!! LOL

Defending commies is defending commies, don't put your own spin on it. Thanks for acknowledging Ronald Reagan's quote about them being 'The 'EVIL' Empire'.

POS, what do you know about Soviet Russia before, during and after Stalin's reign and why are you so quick to point out that all Russians are "Commies"?

__________________
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

Well if the Germans had the same amount of resorces as the allies then Operations Overlord and Torch would be unmitigated disasters for the allies.

The wording of the original question states this so that means that the Luftwaffe has the same capacity of strategic heavy bombing campains as the combined forces of the RAF and USAAF plus this also means that the German navy has the same amount of vessels as to intercept all those invasion vessels and take on the allied ships of war. But i said before that Germany must have won in the east or at best not carried out Barbarossa.

I know Stalin slaughtered his own people in the mass numbers before and after WWII, let alone his reign of terror on the Russian people.

I would suggest that you drop off what the Soviets did to themselves, you are not going to win an argument, if this is tied up with the holocaust, the reason is that no-one cares a crap what happened to those who were murdered by the two worst regimes in history and that was the Soviet Union and Communist China these teo regimes alone are responsible for the approximate deaths of 190 million people almost four times that of WWII, China a Communist Regime since invading Tibet has murdered 10 million Tibetans 4 milloin more than the holocaust, Stalin is attributed to killing 25 to 30 million of his own. I bet there is not one bloody memorial in China and Moscow commemorating those butchered, no international day of Sorry, i mean the Chinese Communist Regime can murder 10,000 folk in Tieneman Square and in less that 15 years gets the Olympics, go figure, I'll finnish up by saying yes the Nazi Regime was bad but the two Communist Regimes made the Nazis out to be a group of ammateurs.

wow, thanks for making my point.

No problem, now back to the original question.

Deaths according to the Tibetan government in exile are approimately 1.2 million over a 30 year period not 10 million.
C3) How many Tibetans have died as a result of the Chinese occupation?

And in Russia there are memorials to the victim of Stalin.
Putin visits memorial to victims of Stalinist Great Terror - International Herald Tribune

There's no comparing the Holocaust, because nothing match the systematic brutality and organization of Nazi Germany.

even though Putin is trying to resurrect Communist Russia.

agreed , and no im not one of them, i agree the sherman was a great tank and the tiger did have many flaws(eg.such as the tracks clogging with mud or snow) well no tank was perfect in every regard. plus i do like the M3 grant though werent they only used by the marines? plus all the allied aircraft especially the Spitfire Mk II which i think was better then the Me109 (obviously except at high altitude).

Only for the reason that I didn't delete that bit from the quote.

In WW2 the Soviets were our Allies, not angels I agree, but without them the war would have lasted a lot longer with more alot Western Allied dead.
The West needed the USSR to kill Germans the USSR needed the might of US industry to help arm and equip it's forces.
As this is a WW2 forum I will defend 'commies' and attack any form of Nazi sympathy.

If this was a Cold War topic on the other hand...

__________________

I agree with you here because it is true more of the western allies would have died and the war would might have continued longer however.


As for this should I bring up the attoricties the Red army soldiers commited on the german people, just as the germans did to the russians. They were just as bad as one another, and we can not defend then in anyway(thats either of the two parties) you have contradicted yourself with the defend the commies but attack the nazi quote, so its ok for a commie to do wrong but not a nazi(p.s I am in no way defending the nazi party here). What if the English commited such attoricties would we defend them or critisis them? Both the nazi and commie armies deployed the 'Scorched Earth policy' and rapped and killed ciliviians, both treated the enemy as though they were nothing, so who is better, the one that helped us win? What if the roles of the two sides were reversed would that mean your position would be reversed to?

Im just trying to understand how it is ok for one man but not another.

Okay, it is not that the government of Stalin is being defended for its actions against its citizens, they were atrocious to say the least. But there will not be the expresssed perception that Nazism would be savior of the West, nor will there be expressions of admiration for, or a longing for the return of, the civilian leadership of the Third Reich, or one like it, in this forum.

I think that anyone reading posts in this forum would be surprised at the political leanings of the members. On a personal note, I am about as far to the right as one can get politically, the current US Republican party is liberal to me and I am currently wearing this T-shirt, for I am fan of Ronaldus Magnus.


I do not like commmunism in any form and I have even voiced a strong dislike of socialism, but I cannot fail to recognize the contribution of the soldier of the Red Army.

Now that I have said this, get this thread back on track.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

just curious I understand why because of what the nazi's did and all but why it this so, for eg.( i cant say the nazi should rise and talk over the world with hitler as there head of state) i do not in anyway believe this as I have said i. because I am a capitalist in every way and a democratic but dosn't that cross over free speech?

Im just wondering

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

More chickenshit.

Vladimir Putin quotes
Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain - Pesquisa do Google

__________________

"Free Speech", as secured by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution*, is pertinent only where citizen or business interaction with the US Governement is concerned, not between two private citizens. Our ability to "speak freely" within the confines of this forum are subject to the largess of the owner or his representatives.

* I use this example as the forum is owned and operated within the United States.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW