Some questions about world war ii

[cozza 24]

*Scathes head in confusion*

Day-day Weird name.

[theavonlady 2]

Just a question. What does the D in D-day stand for

It was addressed to the Germans:

[cozza 24]

Where do u keep getting Simpson pictures from

[theavonlady 2]

Where do u keep getting Simpson pictures from

The Internet.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Where do u keep getting Simpson pictures from

[DarkLight 0]

-1945, Germany, under great pressure from East (Russia) and West (Allied forces) has to admit victory

Should I start speaking German?!  

Uhm... why the hell should you start doing that?

Oh well... sure if you feel like... go ahead

edit: ok i just realize what i wrote

Wow, i don't know what i was thinking at that time Guess it was some kind of mix between allied victory and admit defeat

Oh well, gonna edit it now

[cozza 24]

@ June 06 2004,18:10)]

Where do u keep getting Simpson pictures from

[mg]http://www.antville.org/img/ausfluss/internet.jpg[mg]

20 meteres. What is this place a gym.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

lol

This whole D-day thing is pretty confusing..

[quicksand 0]

I propose another question that has bogged my mind for a looong while..

What would have happend if Germany would have won World War 2?

I know it`s a touchy subject,but I am extremly curious nevertheless,I`ve tried to answer it myself or with the help of (reluctant) history teachers but the result hasn`t yet satisfied me.

-In a scenario where the Nazi Eastern front campaign would have been succesful,noticing from the first moment  potential of using those opposed to Stalin in the war and in the end capturing Moscow.(In reality Hitler was to stubbern and thought the russians were an inferior race that can not be useful,the change of mind came in 1944 when the war was already lost).

-The moral is great for Nazi soldiers,no shortages of equipment and men on the Western front because of the succeses in the East,leading to a repeled invasion of the Allied forces in France.

-V2 bomb is developed further along with other extraordinary prototypes UK is captured.

etc

So could have Nazi Germany impose it`s will on the rest of the world for a sustained time conditioned their war agenda would have gone in the right direction and how would the world look today?

<When my teacher finally got tired of my constant demand for an answer she told me to my shock that Romania would have had an extraordinary standard of life,explained the ties Antonescu had with Hitler and what we were promised to recive for our cooperation>

My theory:

I`ve thought URSS was my answer.After the death of Hitler other leaders more moderate would have succeded him willing for some concesions and changes in the Nazi mentallity distancing themselves from Hitler`s ideology but keeping him as a symbolic figure.

In time subdued countries that already had german mentallity implemented and of course pro-German gouverments would have been given more freedom of actions.So there we have it,what millions fought against an efficient Nazi

domination with no end near because of it`s extraordinary millitary and all the rest of the once superpowers crushed.

I know it`s rudimentary so that`s why I want to hear other opinons,most importantly were there any documents found with Hitler`s plans after the end of the war?

[Ironsight 1]

What would have happend if Germany would have won World War 2?

Wouldn't happen since the US had the A-bomb.

[cozza 24]

Some rumers go that Germany allmost had a A-Bomb. They propley drop it on London if they did and the British would fall apart and they would have won WW2

[DarkLight 0]

What were the US planning to do then? Nuke whole the Nazi empire? That means nuking half of the world... Well, not nuking half of the world. Europe, Russia and whatever other parts of our planet Hitler would've conquered...

Sure, you could say: "Do as we say or we nuke you"

But what if Hitler said: "Well screw you, bitches!"?

What would the US have done? Would they have nuked Europe? That's sooo fucking unrealistic, do you have any idea at all how horrible that would be? If you ask me, a bombs do more damage than hitler his 'empire'...

Not only does it kill a huuuge amount of innocent people, it also destroys everything near the blast... for the next XXXX years. Do you have any idea at all what the radiation does to nature? It completely fucks up nature... and yes, we are part of nature...

An a bomb is good to use as a bluff, but in the end, what if someone notices that you're bluffing... What will you do?

Nothing... Cuz you can't just nuke the world to pieces... Especially not with radioactive nukes...

Watch Hiroshima... Image that happening all over Europe, Russia, etc...

That would make the US the biggest bitch on this planet...

[Pathy 0]

No, you nuke Berlin or another city and wait for Hilter to surrender.......

Germany could have never won with the 2 fronts open. Just too much opposing it. The best they could have done was gone for a draw, so to speak.....that would be, a peace treaty between the western allies, and continued war with Russia maybe, i dont know....Germany would probably have repelled any seabourne invasion if it still had its forces left from Russia, as QuicksanD said, with good equipment and morale. However, do you honestly think that Germany would have then been in a position to invade Britain? A seabourne invasion requires 2 things. Air superiority and sea superiority. Germany had niether. Lets not forget just how large the Royal Navy was in comparison to the Kriegsmarine.

Germany therefore was in no position to launch an invasion. Instead, Germany would have been on the defensive all the time. Once the USA entered the war, Germany lost the chance to win, in my opinion.

Lol anyone really interested in "what-if" scenarios should try playing Strategic Command : European Theatre. You can be kicking ass in Russia, but as soon as the USA enters the war and troop build up starts in England, your f**d.....

[DarkLight 0]

No, you nuke Berlin or another city and wait for Hilter to surrender.......

This reminds me of something i was thinking about a while ago...

Why do you say nuke Berlin? Why did the US say nuke Hiroshima/Nagasaki (dunno the spelling of those but you know what i mean)?

Why not nuke militairy targets? Sure killing thousands and thousands of innocent lifes is a lot more impressing than killing thousand soldiers, but why?

Japan would've realized the incredible power of this bomb without so many innocent ppl dying, right? Why waste so many innocent lifes?

Now, i don't want a "was the atomic bomb a good thing or not" discussion, that's not what this topic is about... I'm just curious why a civilian target and not a militairy one...

So please, i'm not asking for a discussion (that'll end in a flame anyway), just an answer

Why not nuke militairy targets instead and spare the life of thousands?

You'd still see the huge explosion+radiation so the effect would still be there, right?

[Pathy 0]

The A-bombs use was hardly military.....as we can see from Hiroshima, its political.....im not saying that it would have been MY plan to nuke Berlin, BUT, we can see from history that the USA would probably have used it on a city.

Likewise, why did someone earlier say "Nuke London"? Because we all know that a Nuclear weapon to the capital city would almost certainly force a surrender. However, i added "or a major city", because the USA did not nuke Tokyo. If i was going to guess which city the USA might have nuked had a nuclear bomb been neccessary in Europe, i would not list Berlin as a first choice.

Reasons being, it is hard for a government to surrender, when its central body is a pile of radioactive dust. Instead, you blow up Cologne or somewhere like that, puts alot of pressure on the government, yet the government can still function because it was not the target.

[der bastler 0]

I propose another question that has bogged my mind for a looong while..

What would have happend if Germany would have won World War 2?

Read "Fatherland" (Vaterland) by Robert Harris...

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]That's right, 1964; this thriller, which would be exciting enough if set in 1944, takes on an added fascination because Robert Harris adopts the conceit that Germany defeated Britain, sending "Churchill and his gang of warmongers" scurrying off to Canada, leaving Nazi sympathizer King Edward VIII on the throne, and developed an atomic bomb in time to reach a post-Hiroshima stalemate with the United States. Subsequently, Germany forged the continental nations into a European Community, which it dominates economically but does not have to physically occupy, and entered a long Cold War with America, which allowed the German military to continue a lengthy campaign to pacify the quarrelsome populations of Eastern Europe, a campaign which is still going poorly and which has triggered increasingly successful terrorist movements. In this atmosphere of relative peace, Germany has had the opportunity to complete Albert Speer's massive building projects, including a German Arch of Triumph (49 French Arches would fit inside of it) and the Avenue of Victory (wider and 2.5 times longer than the Champs Elysees.)

..........................

No doubt this is how it happened; given the basic premise, it's incredible how little you have to tweak history to arrive at a plausible setting for the book. After all, Europe has been dominated economically by the Germans for decades. The European Community is a reality, including even a unified currency and a European Parliament, representing the opportunity for German (and French) bureaucrats to extend political control over the continent. A nuclear balance of terror surely would have kept America from invading Europe and, after a suitable period of huffy pretense, there surely would have been a significant segment of public opinion, particularly in academic intellectual circles, advocating detente--just as has actually happened with both the USSR and Red China. And just as the Holocaust failed to draw the U. S. into WWII in the first place, and just as the millions of victims of Russian and Chinese communist oppression failed to deter rapproachments with those countries, it's easy to believe that the "disappearance" of Europe's Jews would have little impact on an American/German détente.

The story is engrossing enough on it's own, but these speculations, and the subtle way in which they implicate the past sixty years of Western history, turn the book into a disturbing and subversive novel of ideas. Conservative historians--like Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes and Allan Bullock--have beaten their heads against a wall for years, demonstrating to an uncaring elite establishment how little the Soviet Union, Stalin and Communism differed from Nazi Germany, Hitler and Nazism. But this popular thriller makes the same points, and reveals the moral emptiness of our policy of détente, in a wonderfully imaginative way. What more can we ask of an author than that he entertain us and at the same time raise questions that trouble our souls?

derBastler thank you for your suggestion,all though it`s just fiction I am stuned that it matches almost perfectly my theory(I also thought of a "Cold war with America and terrorist movements).

In any case I`ll be sure to purchase this as soon as possible,it has excelent review ratings and it`s very probable an excelent read for my tastes.