Staredit Network

what are you talking about ?

Ok, I meant in comparison to stuff like the Eastern Front, the Middle East saw little action. I didn't necessarily mean "no" action - just a small amount compared to the real battles of World War II.

Uh oh Felagund! Guess YOU better check the topic before you post!

ya seriously felagund... check the topic and read the other posts... We mentioned the current conflict in this thread earlier. Also That lil' comment wasn't for you, it was at stalingrad.

Nazis invaded Russia for oil, period. Rommel was suppose to drive the British out of North Africa and travel through the middle east to link up with forces in Russia.

What he said. Except Euro, you were saying I was denying that the ME didn't have oil or something? "Isn't there a war going on there?"



How was I being a conspiracy theorist anyways? I only said, IF Germany was JUST after oil, they probably could have invaded Middle Eastern countries. They would have had much better odds because German armor could move through the desert better than most allies' could.



No, not really. Oil was a factor but Hitler felt that Russia was becoming too powerful and he jumped the gun on attacking the USSR. Communism was the enemy, SLAVS were the enemy. Russia? Check-check.

Ok, this topic is seriously about World War II. I don't care what you guys came up with - that's what the original post was about. Make your own topic if you want to talk about something else.

Maybe take your own advice?

This is why i hate arguing with kiddies... They never know what the hell is going on. You said "If they wanted oil, they should of went to the ME" and I replied "Isn't there a war going on there?" As in what do you think we're there for?

Euro, kiddies are people younger than you. I don't think there are many of those on these forums.

Edit: And when did Kellimus become your lover?

Well anyway, the Middle East was largely overlooked during World War II. Hitler was a bit... pressed... to extend his reach that far.

Euro is 16. I'm 18. So you're all kiddies to me. Be quiet.

I think you have it wrong. Euro usually defends me.

And Hitler WANTED the Middle East, it's obvious. Why else would he take over North Eastern Africa??

Even if he wanted it, that doesn't change the fact that no major action occurred there. Also, it acted as a buffer for Italy.

This still seems like a useless topic, if it didn't happend it didn't happen. Good to go?

+

Hitler would eventually lose power even tho if he did gain world control, look what happend to Rome. Great Britain and all the other world powers.

There's a problem with your theory. If Hitler gained world control, he wouldn't have any potentially devastating enemies to deal with. Rome had to deal with the Germanic tribes and Great Britian had to deal with France, Spain, Germany(Prussia before 1870), Russia and it's colonies all over the world.

You forget one thing: Hitler wanted to erriadicate certain ethnic, religious, and belief groups. They would rise along with people that believed in their cause. (IE: their friends,, family, whatnot.)

Those people would not have easy means of overthrowing Hitler. With Hitler in control, and having all armed forces at his disposal. There'd need to be a great amount of people against Hitler.

Also take note that many pople simpathized with Hitler. He brought social and government change. He increased not only Germany's economy, but the whole World's.

If I lived during the time, Hitler would not have anything against me, so I wouldn't have anything against him. The only people who were against him were Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and Communists. The Communist Community was small, all you had to do is take down their leaders and the population would go around freely.

The german war machine and its supporters were powerful, but not that powerful. Even with countries captured, do you think a conscripted army from a random country that didn't even want to crush an uprising force in Greater Germany that proved to be a threat would fight? I think they might even rise against the Germans. See, it's not just all about money, it's about empathy, sympathy, and knowing what's right and wrong.

Revolutions, as it would be the case in our scenario, are won by arms, men and wars. Not one country has gained it's Independence or change in government without some sort of conflict.

Hitler would be in command of all nations, as would be his goal of achieving World Domination. It took USA, Russia, Great Britian and many other nations who took minor roles in the war 6 years to bring down Hitler. I really do think that these armies had a very tough time dealing with the Nazis and they were among the most powerfull in the world.

I highly doubt that a conscript army without any major weapons could do much damage.

Also, many people wouldn't care about Hitler's political status. There is nothing wrong with Fascism and the Nazi party. If Hitler hadn't ordered Himmler to deal with the Jews(Not specifically kill them), then what would you think of him? Most people say that Hitler is bad because he ordered the killings of Jews. But besides that, what bad did he do?

Is it because you are white, have blond hair, blue eyes, and are a non-jew (or other minority?) I would have wanted to fight against him because of his beliefs and because of the atrocities commited.


Your point?


You have to remember that the Germans developed a new kind of warfare, it completed changed the meaning of conventional warfare through the means of communication, the use of armor, and support. This "lightning" warfare was completely new to the old styled French, Polish, etc. etc. Their armies were out-dated with the mind set that spreading the defenses (linear defenses) would hold the Germans back. Also note that the US entered the war in 1941.

On another note, Hitler took on Russia with the the understanding that Russia would fall from a swift attack, I have this Blitzkrieg book that quotes him saying "All you have to do is kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will crumble to the ground." Remember how Russia was considered to have a poorly trained and supplied army.

And remember the -40 & -50 degreese cold. Hitler must have forgot about it.

No, he didn't forget about it. They wanted to fight in the summer.

They wanted to fight in summer, but he should think before invading: "but if we don't take over Moscow by the beginning of winter?...". They were totally UNPREPARED to fight in winter, so I said that. They didn't even have warm clothes.

And how is calling me an idiot helping the discussion ?

Yes - some people are getting a bit worked-up about this issue. Calm down a bit or I'll have to start hitting you with the warn stick.

Like I said, if they didn't strech their forces and supplies out so far, they would have gotten atleast somewhere in Russia. But to take Moscow would be almost impossible without a month long bombing campaign. Every house in the city was fortified and ready to be defend from invaders. The germans would have paid high in blood to take Moscow.

It was not only the horrible preparation for the russian winter but also the fact that the russians burned all their fields as they fled back to StalinGrad leaving the Germans with no available resources