Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Discussions
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:08 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I give up........No one wants to engage the "what if" question, on the terms of it being what if
That makes no sense, both Balsamo and I did so.
/// No. You both engage what if on a limited basis overly tied in my view to what was....the way things did turn out.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I don't know the history, as well as you folks
And that is what keeps tripping you up.
///No, just playing a different game, or making a different guess/supposition.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Yes...I was using Hitlers attack on USSR as the starting point. Peace Pact same thing. Hitler lost the war when he invaded USSR. the only option then in a counterfactual is NOT TO INVADE USSR. Seems rather simple and direct.
Except that choice is not grounded in reality.
//// Correct: exactly what if is all about: counterfactuals. Once you break with reality, how far you go is the full exploration.
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Bobbo, the problem is due to your lack of knowledge. Hitler always focused on the USSR, he considered them to be an enormous threat plus he wanted access to their land and resources. He considered this the only way Germany could ever be self-sustaining with the added bonus of eradicating the Judeo-Bolshevik threat. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was nothing more than a convenience, a pragmatic way of keeping the Soviets out of the warwhile he dealt with the West.
Exactly, and not invading USSR until the West was (fully) dealt with is an option that is not legitimately just dismissed. You take the what if in a positive way to see how far you can push it. No worries: Hitler will still have lost the war in the real world.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:18 pm

All right, gotta drop this for now. I actually do have real work to do.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 7:49 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I give up........No one wants to engage the "what if" question, on the terms of it being what if


That makes no sense, both Balsamo and I did so. /// No. You both engage what if on a limited basis overly tied in my view to what was....the way things did turn out.
Because that’s what we have to go with.......

Bobbo, where is the disconnect here? I can’t change reality. The reality is that Germany didn’t have the ability to wage war the way you think they could. Having another go at Britain in a Battle of Britain Part II wasn’t practical. It also wasn’t practical to build a fleet necessary to successfully invade Britain because they didn’t have the means to do so. You get that Britain was a major naval power during the war, right?

My logic on this is based on what they could do with the forces they had available to them.
I don't know the history, as well as you folks


And that is what keeps tripping you up. ///No, just playing a different game, or making a different guess/supposition.
No, bobbo, it’s tripping you up. You don’t understand Hitler’s motivation in all this and what he ultimately wanted. Not invading the USSR was not an option based upon Hitler’s beliefs and goals.

Yes...I was using Hitlers attack on USSR as the starting point. Peace Pact same thing. Hitler lost the war when he invaded USSR. the only option then in a counterfactual is NOT TO INVADE USSR. Seems rather simple and direct.


Except that choice is not grounded in reality. //// Correct: exactly what if is all about: counterfactuals. Once you break with reality, how far you go is the full exploration.
OK, how about this then.
The Germans create a race of genetically enhanced rabid bunny rabbits that swim to England and eat all the produce on the island. All the British people die of starvation and Hitler wins. Next Hitler sends them to the USSR and they eat all the produce there. All the Soviet citizens die of starvation and Hitler wins. The Germans celebrate their victory by having the largest rabbit stew ever cooked by mankind. The end.

This is what I think they would look like:
Image
the problem is due to your lack of knowledge. Hitler always focused on the USSR, he considered them to be an enormous threat plus he wanted access to their land and resources. He considered this the only way Germany could ever be self-sustaining with the added bonus of eradicating the Judeo-Bolshevik threat. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was nothing more than a convenience, a pragmatic way of keeping the Soviets out of the war while he dealt with the West. Exactly, and not invading USSR until the West was (fully) dealt with is an option that is not legitimately just dismissed. You take the what if in a positive way to see how far you can push it. No worries: Hitler will still have lost the war in the real world.
So....let’s see. Your option is to drop everything, build more planes and ships and invade Great Britain.

Got it. How long do you think that would take?
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:42 pm

Jeff, I appreciate your fresh go at this, but you are just repeating what you have already said. And what you say is totally valid ((I have to guess because.........I know nothing)) but still "stuck" on reality. Not the fantasy of counterfactuals. Its easier for me to disconnect myself from your reality because I don't have the factual nuts and bolts holding me in place. But, in good faith, you spent the time, so I will too.

1. Postby Jeffk 1970 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:49 pm
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
I give up........No one wants to engage the "what if" question, on the terms of it being what if


That makes no sense, both Balsamo and I did so. /// No. You both engage what if on a limited basis overly tied in my view to what was....the way things did turn out.



Because that’s what we have to go with.......

Bobbo, where is the disconnect here? I can’t change reality.
the WHOLE POINT of a conterfactual is that it is NOT BASED ON REALITY. Hitler did invade USSR....so to say Let's suppose he did not and he had a Peace Pact THAT WORKED with Stalin? You cannot base any response after that on the limitations of reality because the entire premises is: fantasy. Now lets be reasonable? Total fantasy....or just enough to consider the possibilities? I say the later. Now, in Alt World: the day after Hitler did not attack USSR, USSR could have attacked him? War ends even earlier....but if you wan't to play with the what if...you make the best case of cooperation between Hitler and Stalin. Does that mean that Hitler gets 1000 T-34 tanks overnight?..............or airplanes..........or oil.......and all the rest. The more tied to what actually happened you are, the less benefit you give these options. The more free to imagine you are, the more benefit you give these options. Two widely different orientations to the point that two people can call it "what if" BUT they are doing very different almost opposing game scenarios.

Its all down to what you assume. Thats why in current Military War Games the "rules" are clearly set forth almost guaranteeing the outcome. When you let the enemy go commando they will operate "outside the box" and all too often defeat the superior force.
Having another go at Britain in a Battle of Britain Part II wasn’t practical.
I never argued for a BB2. It was just a lose thread I commented on as it would be a question as the new situation is evaluated. New being: Hitler and Stalin united with Europe defeated and mainland Asia totally dominated. How can you imagine work on that after you have invested so much in the details of what did happen?
You don’t understand Hitler’s motivation in all this and what he ultimately wanted. Not invading the USSR was not an option based upon Hitler’s beliefs and goals.
Thats Just Wrong. ((Note the simple caps, not all caps, and not with color or bold?)) WITHIN REALITY: Hitler could have just delayed his attack on USSR. See how much more supportive Uncle Joe could be coaxed into doing. No change at all in Hitler temperament or desire, just a recognition it was too risky to fight a two front war. Wait for armistice/peace negotiations/peace with Britain/USA ....THEN attack USSR. Why Not? Outside Reality: Hmmm....don't even need to go there.

I have belatedly recognized I don't know the history well enough to play the game GROUNDED in reality. The mirror image is: you don't know counterfactuals well enough to play the same game let loose in fantasy.

I re-read my first post in the OP. Better than I remembered
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:03 pm

Boobs, you wrote:
WITHIN REALITY: Hitler could have just delayed his attack on USSR. See how much more supportive Uncle Joe could be coaxed into doing. No change at all in Hitler temperament or desire, just a recognition it was too risky to fight a two front war. Wait for armistice/peace negotiations/peace with Britain/USA ....THEN attack USSR. Why Not? Outside Reality: Hmmm....don't even need to go there.

Me thinks one has to take this reality into account before suggesting "a way forward" for any future cooperation between NS Germany and the SU. Here's a thumbnail sketch:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balsamo » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:44 pm

Bobo:
the WHOLE POINT of a conterfactual is that it is NOT BASED ON REALITY. Hitler did invade USSR....so to say Let's suppose he did not and he had a Peace Pact THAT WORKED with Stalin? You cannot base any response after that on the limitations of reality because the entire premises is: fantasy. Now lets be reasonable? Total fantasy..
Just like i said, you want it your way and your way only, even if this way has nothing to do with the OP.
As i said, there is no interest in those kind of games.
To base an alternative history on fictional characters - in your example - Stalin and Hitler being the best buddies in the world - is just plain stupid.
So to end it, let's jump at the conclusion: If Stalin was so in love with Hitler for agreeing to provide him with everything he would need, including the plans of his T-34, they might have found a agreement to share the territories from Brest to Vladivostok or even create the Union of the Soviet National Socialist States of Eurasia... USNSSE sounds good!
Happy?

You should really create a blog of yours and publish your monologues there.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:07 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:I agree with Jeff on this one...Moscow was not just a point on a map, it was THE center of the poor communication network of the Soviet Union. This is where the Transiberian led to... Without Moscow, the Red Army would have been in a dramatic position regarding its mobility.
Then, there is indeed the political aspect of this loss. The Bolshevik regime was not as strong as it looked like and it could have collapsed, even if only because the loss of Moscow would have fragmented the Soviet State.

One should also not forget the massive material support provided by the western Allies, especially trucks and fuel. In Jeff scenario, there would not be any. So it is really hard to say. The USA provided 45% of the trucks used by the Red Army or 410.000 pieces, which will be essential for the speed of the Soviet's "Blitzkrieg", along with no less than 2.6 million tons of fuel.

Actually, the key in our hypothesis relies on the neutralization of Great Britain, and in consequence, on the neutrality of the USA in the European conflict. If the Mediterranean sea is controlled by the Axis then it could have exploited a naval superiority (with the combined navy of Italy, Romania, in the Black sea and pose a thread to the Caucasus as well as shorting the supply route using Odessa or Sevastopol or even Rostov as supply hubs. This would have solved the supply nightmare the Nazis were facing.

That is a lot of IF of course, right Bobo?
But the Allies supply effort wasn't tied up with the defense of Moscow? I would have agreed with Jeff and you until reading Erickson and Bellamy . . . their arguments convinced me otherwise.
LOL...My first sentence in this thread was that Germany lost the world as soon as September 39...
Of course, if too much confronted with what really happened, nothing Jeff or I say make real sense.

I mentioned the lend lease toward the USSR because it had not been mention before. It was meant in a more global perspective, that is the whole Russian campaign. I have not read Erickson, but i know Bellamy's Absolute war, if this is the book you read,

Bellamy's book did not strike me as excellent, but then, as we all agree that in the real world, that is that Barbarossa as it was launched with insufficient forces on the German side had close to 0% chance to succeed, i don't think scholarship is any help in the current discussion.

Jeffk and i are basing our alternative on an alternative world in which Great Britain would have been neutralized, and Stalin the only one remaining fighting Nazi Germany. An Axis occupying the middle East oil fields, having secured the Mediterranean Sea and its naval route through the Black sea and even the Azov Sea, having gained the esteem and support from the whole Muslim world by having dealt with the Jews in Palestine, gaining access of military bases on multiple borders of the USSR...Barbarossa would have been conceived differently, and in this context, the fall of Moscow would have done the trick.

Now, i am pretty sure that Jeffk would agree that in the real world, there would be a difference between taking Moscow and keeping it along with the whole front enough time to force Stalin into surrender.
Then of course, in the real life what was left of Army Group center was just stuck in the mud, and even then had not the operational strength to take the city.

Still, in the event that Hilter had the strength to take Moscow, and to hold it, and holding the front. (again a lot of If's i am not sure were taken into consideration by Bellamy in his book), i am not sure that Stalin Regime would have survived it.

As Jeff pointed out, without Moscow, there would have been no way to supply the Northern front, and Leningrad would have fallen. those two blows would have killed the Regime had it managed to survived the first, and i would then not be surprise if a lot of general Vlassov would have popped up all around.

Again, with no western front, no aerial threats from western allies, with close bases, the luftwaffe would have maintained its superiority, and Moscow taken the burden of supplies would have been on the Soviets, instead of the Nazis.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23266
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:15 am

Balsamo wrote:LOL...My first sentence in this thread was that Germany lost the world as soon as September 39...
I am closer to that than to the Moscow idea LOL
Balsamo wrote:I mentioned the lend lease toward the USSR because it had not been mention before.
Lend-lease was IMO very important.
Balsamo wrote: I have not read Erickson, but i know Bellamy's Absolute war, if this is the book you read,
Yes, it is good, Erickson is great.
Balsamo wrote:Bellamy's book did not strike me as excellent,
Good, not great. A nice 1-volume, somewhat episodic treatment. As noted, Erickson's 2 volumes are really awesome.
Balsamo wrote:Jeffk and i are basing our alternative on an alternative world in which Great Britain would have been neutralized, and Stalin the only one remaining fighting Nazi Germany. An Axis occupying the middle East oil fields, having secured the Mediterranean Sea and its naval route through the Black sea and even the Azov Sea, having gained the esteem and support from the whole Muslim world by having dealt with the Jews in Palestine, gaining access of military bases on multiple borders of the USSR...Barbarossa would have been conceived differently, and in this context, the fall of Moscow would have done the trick.
Too many "ifs" for me . . . I read his remark differently, more focused on what would have happened had Moscow been taken given the other aspects of the war remaining the same.
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:48 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Too many "ifs" for me . . . I read his remark differently, more focused on what would have happened had Moscow been taken given the other aspects of the war remaining the same.
Sorry, I thought I was clear on that.

My assumption was always that Britain was eliminated in some way. I gave the Mediterranean option like Balsamo only I went in a different direction geographically.

In my scenario Britain and by extension the U.S. no longer exists as threats. I think if Britain wasn’t there then the U.S. wouldn’t engage Germany on its own. I think the U.S. turns towards the Pacific to meet the Japanese threat.

BTW in my alternate timeline that stays on schedule. I think the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor, Singapore, etc. Their timetable stays the same due to the U.S. embargo, the Japanese only possessed enough fuel for 12-18 months of combat action in December of 1941 (if I remember correctly).

I thought about Lend/Lease. Without Britain and with a war of their own would the U.S. extended Lend/Lease to the Soviets? I don’t know. If the U.S. doesn’t then it does make the supply situation more difficult for the Soviets.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23266
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:05 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Too many "ifs" for me . . . I read his remark differently, more focused on what would have happened had Moscow been taken given the other aspects of the war remaining the same.
Sorry, I thought I was clear on that.
You may have been and I missed it. :) I guess I didn't realize that you were making that "only chance" comment in the context of the earlier paragraphs of the post (IIRC).
Jeffk 1970 wrote:My assumption was always that Britain was eliminated in some way. I gave the Mediterranean option like Balsamo only I went in a different direction geographically.

In my scenario Britain and by extension the U.S. no longer exists as threats. I think if Britain wasn’t there then the U.S. wouldn’t engage Germany on its own. I think the U.S. turns towards the Pacific to meet the Japanese threat.

BTW in my alternate timeline that stays on schedule. I think the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor, Singapore, etc. Their timetable stays the same due to the U.S. embargo, the Japanese only possessed enough fuel for 12-18 months of combat action in December of 1941 (if I remember correctly).

I thought about Lend/Lease. Without Britain and with a war of their own would the U.S. extended Lend/Lease to the Soviets? I don’t know. If the U.S. doesn’t then it does make the supply situation more difficult for the Soviets.
Which is taking us, I fear, to bobboland. I think I see where I got lost . . .

In grad school we learned - admittedly eons ago - that in counterfactual history, you change a key fact - like RRs not being available in the 19th century (I think that was Fogel in his book on RRs in the US) - to understand the variable that's been changed. We didn't change multiple variables, for fear of 1) exiting to almost fiction and 2) confusing what we learn. But, honestly, we pretty much stayed away for overly speculative scenarios. Fogel (if I'm recalling correctly), being an econometrician, supported his scenarios with dense data analysis. There was another book that did some of this stuff too, I think, Douglass North's Economic Growth of the United States, and also work done around cotton/slavery at the time.

But - my spotty memory of grad school aside - where I stop tracking is when this gets too speculative for all the reasons you and Balsamo have so well stated!
"It was still at the stage of clubs and fists, hurrah, tala"

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:59 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Jeff, I appreciate your fresh go at this,
I am nice fellow.
but you are just repeating what you have already said.
I keep hoping somewhere along the way it will sink in.
And what you say is totally valid ((I have to guess because.........I know nothing)) but still "stuck" on reality.
That’s odd because my wife frequently tells me I have only a tenuous grip on reality. I think she’s kidding......
Not the fantasy of counterfactuals.
What, you didn’t like the bunny thing? I thought that was an excellent use of my imagination.
Its easier for me to disconnect myself from your reality
Nobody wants to be connected to my reality so that’s probably a good thing.

the WHOLE POINT of a conterfactual is that it is NOT BASED ON REALITY.
You didn’t like the bunny rabbit thing? How about Germany allies itself with elves from Middle Earth? Dragons? Klingons? The Empire?
Hitler did invade USSR....so to say Let's suppose he did not and he had a Peace Pact THAT WORKED with Stalin? You cannot base any response after that on the limitations of reality because the entire premises is: fantasy.
What you are trying to say is “Non-Aggression Pact.”

All right.
Now lets be reasonable? Total fantasy....or just enough to consider the possibilities? I say the later.
All right.
Now, in Alt World: the day after Hitler did not attack USSR, USSR could have attacked him? War ends even earlier....but if you wan't to play with the what if..
Actually if the USSR attacked Germany it would have ended in disaster. Stalin gutted the officer corps during the Great Purge. The Red Army got much better real quick (there’s nothing like incentive) but if Stalin attempted such a thing in 1941 or 1942 against the German Army they would’ve handed him his ass. It took a good two years under extreme pressure to get the Red Army ready for large scale offensives. It also took massive U.S. aid in the form of motor vehicles to make the Red Army a mobile force capable of such offensives.
.you make the best case of cooperation between Hitler and Stalin.
All right.
Does that mean that Hitler gets 1000 T-34 tanks overnight?.............

All right. Elves. Dragons. Klingons.
.or airplanes.......
If I might interject just a tiny bit of reality into what you are saying...
Bobbo, the trade agreement between the USSR and Germany did not include the sale of war materials from the USSR. The Germans did throw in war materials to the Soviets (ironic, right?) in the form of blue prints to a battleship, the frame and components to another and planes. At least I think it included planes, maybe Balsamo knows. The Soviets supplies the Germans with raw materials, fuel and food.
Carry on. Wizards. The Rebel Alliance.
...or oil.......and all the rest.
All right. That’s actually historically accurate.
The more tied to what actually happened you are, the less benefit you give these options. The more free to imagine you are, the more benefit you give these options. Two widely different orientations to the point that two people can call it "what if" BUT they are doing very different almost opposing game scenarios.
All right.


New being: Hitler and Stalin united with Europe defeated and mainland Asia totally dominated. How can you imagine work on that after you have invested so much in the details of what did happen?
All right.


WITHIN REALITY: Hitler could have just delayed his attack on USSR. See how much more supportive Uncle Joe could be coaxed into doing. No change at all in Hitler temperament or desire, just a recognition it was too risky to fight a two front war. Wait for armistice/peace negotiations/peace with Britain/USA ....THEN attack USSR. Why Not? Outside Reality: Hmmm....don't even need to go there.
That’s what I’ve been saying.....
I have belatedly recognized I don't know the history well enough to play the game GROUNDED in reality. The mirror image is: you don't know counterfactuals well enough to play the same game let loose in fantasy.
Got it.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:18 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeffk 1970 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Too many "ifs" for me . . . I read his remark differently, more focused on what would have happened had Moscow been taken given the other aspects of the war remaining the same.
Sorry, I thought I was clear on that.
You may have been and I missed it. :) I guess I didn't realize that you were making that "only chance" comment in the context of the earlier paragraphs of the post (IIRC).
Jeffk 1970 wrote:My assumption was always that Britain was eliminated in some way. I gave the Mediterranean option like Balsamo only I went in a different direction geographically.

In my scenario Britain and by extension the U.S. no longer exists as threats. I think if Britain wasn’t there then the U.S. wouldn’t engage Germany on its own. I think the U.S. turns towards the Pacific to meet the Japanese threat.

BTW in my alternate timeline that stays on schedule. I think the Japanese still attack Pearl Harbor, Singapore, etc. Their timetable stays the same due to the U.S. embargo, the Japanese only possessed enough fuel for 12-18 months of combat action in December of 1941 (if I remember correctly).

I thought about Lend/Lease. Without Britain and with a war of their own would the U.S. extended Lend/Lease to the Soviets? I don’t know. If the U.S. doesn’t then it does make the supply situation more difficult for the Soviets.
Which is taking us, I fear, to bobboland. I think I see where I got lost . . .

In grad school we learned - admittedly eons ago - that in counterfactual history, you change a key fact - like RRs not being available in the 19th century (I think that was Fogel in his book on RRs in the US) - to understand the variable that's been changed. We didn't change multiple variables, for fear of 1) exiting to almost fiction and 2) confusing what we learn. But, honestly, we pretty much stayed away for overly speculative scenarios. Fogel (if I'm recalling correctly), being an econometrician, supported his scenarios with dense data analysis. There was another book that did some of this stuff too, I think, Douglass North's Economic Growth of the United States, and also work done around cotton/slavery at the time.

But - my spotty memory of grad school aside - where I stop tracking is when this gets too speculative for all the reasons you and Balsamo have so well stated!
Is is/was indeed a silly, although funny, exercise although it has some "historical roots" as it is at the core of famous Otto Skorzeny memoirs. If you are able to find a copy at a decent price, it is quite well a worth reading.
He wrote that Hitler missed the opportunity right in 1940, although Nazi as he was he still thought that a victory was possible by 1945.

But to conclude of our alternative, contrary to what it might seem, i do not think Jeffk or i did change that many factors, we just based on the supposition that Hitler might have had a PLAN for the West by 1940 while he had none.
All Jeffk and i did was to envision what Hitler could have done between June 1940 and June 1941 had he had such a plan.

User avatar
Balsamo
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1914
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balsamo » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:26 am

Jeffk:
Actually if the USSR attacked Germany it would have ended in disaster. Stalin gutted the officer corps during the Great Purge. The Red Army got much better real quick (there’s nothing like incentive) but if Stalin attempted such a thing in 1941 or 1942 against the German Army they would’ve handed him his ass. It took a good two years under extreme pressure to get the Red Army ready for large scale offensives. It also took massive U.S. aid in the form of motor vehicles to make the Red Army a mobile force capable of such offensives.
This is where we would disagree, my friend... ;)

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:09 am

Balsamo wrote:Jeffk:
Actually if the USSR attacked Germany it would have ended in disaster. Stalin gutted the officer corps during the Great Purge. The Red Army got much better real quick (there’s nothing like incentive) but if Stalin attempted such a thing in 1941 or 1942 against the German Army they would’ve handed him his ass. It took a good two years under extreme pressure to get the Red Army ready for large scale offensives. It also took massive U.S. aid in the form of motor vehicles to make the Red Army a mobile force capable of such offensives.
This is where we would disagree, my friend... ;)
Not likely.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:12 am

If you had balls, you'd make a direct link and usually I would reject that as well. If you can't summarize on your own: copy and paste what you think is relevant.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:44 am

Balsamo wrote:Bobo:
the WHOLE POINT of a conterfactual is that it is NOT BASED ON REALITY. Hitler did invade USSR....so to say Let's suppose he did not and he had a Peace Pact THAT WORKED with Stalin? You cannot base any response after that on the limitations of reality because the entire premises is: fantasy. Now lets be reasonable? Total fantasy..
Just like i said, you want it your way and your way only, even if this way has nothing to do with the OP.
As i said, there is no interest in those kind of games.
Sorry Balsamo if someone having a different opinion than yours is so offensive to you. Hard to do the foot work necessary if you refuse to get off your high horse. If you don't like the game: don't play. But there is too much overlap between "Germany could not have" ((oh what a powerful position that stakes out)) and "what if". Its the same territory with different rules. As close to reality as possible is the better more powerful game. an alternative: have fun pointing out how baseless some what if is and the conclusions that flow therefrom are, pat the offender on the head, and feel good about yourself and the knowledge you helped to spread. Instead, of what you do spread.

If you don't like the game: don't play. Take your additional repetitive wailing on this point here: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464


Balsamo wrote: To base an alternative history on fictional characters - in your example - Stalin and Hitler being the best buddies in the world - is just plain stupid.
There you go again: creating strawman (men!) arguments actually counter to what was clearly said. Kinda your own counterfactual going there, on what should be grounded in Reality. Why aren't you grounded in Reality Balsamo? Balsnomore does it by providing half quotes and claiming agreement. Why don't you respond to what is actually said instead of playing the game that you do?

Inquiring minds want to know.


Balsamo wrote: If Stalin was so in love with Hitler for agreeing to provide him with everything he would need, including the plans of his T-34, they might have found a agreement to share the territories from Brest to Vladivostok or even create the Union of the Soviet National Socialist States of Eurasia... USNSSE sounds good!
Happy?
Again, you only demonstrate you don't know how to play the game. You are taking the extreme fantasy position. Really rather childish. simply not attacking Hitler would have GREATLY IMPROVED Germany's position in consolidating his gains in Europe and deciding what to do with Britain and with the USA as that threat would have developed====>differently from what we all know happened.


Balsamo wrote: Happy?
Almost always. I get pleasure from helping those who need it rather than bully them. Try it. but on the relevant issue: No. I like what if's to be more nuanced than pants on the ground stupid.

Balsamo wrote: You should really create a blog of yours and publish your monologues there.
Please follow your own advice and post your concerns here: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:55 am

Jeffk 1970 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Jeff, I appreciate your fresh go at this,
I am nice fellow.
A good sense of humor keeps one grounded, sane, happy. Self-deprecating, even more.

I skimmed the bunny rabbit so fast, I basically didn't read it. If there is a nugget of corn in that pile you want to eat: pick it out. aka: you can waste your time as you wish. I have a pull towards substance and a repulsion from BS.
What you are trying to say is “Non-Aggression Pact.”
Ha, ha..............notwithstanding what I JUST posted: I do love the word play........in this case, with my own perverted twist. People being people.
Actually if the USSR attacked Germany it would have ended in disaster.
I agree. Just an emphasis that once you change a basic fact of History, there is no telling where it goes. ...... for sure. Back to what I did mention: there is no right or wrong in counterfactuals, better to think in terms of probabilities.

The "limited information problem solving" is about comfort with ambiguity.
Does that mean that Hitler gets 1000 T-34 tanks overnight?.............
All right. Elves. Dragons. Klingons.
Don't go all Balsamo on me; read what was clearly said.

re trade with USSR: the MAIN BENEFIT: was avoiding a two front war. Real simple. Grounded in reality (the benefits that is.)
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:15 am

Balsamo wrote:Jeffk:
Actually if the USSR attacked Germany it would have ended in disaster.
Balmoral95 wrote: Not likely.
Three folks fully engaged in the Counterfactual......but bobbo is advised to leave the forum and publish his own monologue. Any whiff of complete hypocrisy????

Surprisingly, A discussion of this behavior is not taking place here: "Has the HD Forum become too Inbred" viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464

EDIT: lmftf, me: as dripping sarcasm just doesn't travel well thru the intertubes: "Not surprisingly........"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
If you had balls, you'd make a direct link and usually I would reject that as well. If you can't summarize on your own: copy and paste what you think is relevant.
Fack off, do your own homework.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:35 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
If you had balls, you'd make a direct link and usually I would reject that as well. If you can't summarize on your own: copy and paste what you think is relevant.
Fack off, do your own homework.
Ha, ha.....yes THAT is the VERY POINT. Jeebus, it doesn't get more inbred than this.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:38 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
If you had balls, you'd make a direct link and usually I would reject that as well. If you can't summarize on your own: copy and paste what you think is relevant.
Fack off, do your own homework.
Ha, ha.....yes THAT is the VERY POINT. Jeebus, it doesn't get more inbred than this.

And you come up substandard every time.

User avatar
Aaron Richards
Poster
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:03 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Aaron Richards » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:40 am

From what I understand the oilfields in the Middle East were back in the 1940s not nearly developed enough to really attract the attention of European powers, one of the reasons Hitler was eyeing Baku over anything in the ME. I think it would have taken the Germans years to start using the ME's resources.
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel "Holocaust Documents", where I fight back the sea of antisemitism & conspiracy theories that has taken over its comment section: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTBlSX ... Un5jIhWm7g
I compile rebuttals to popular holocaust denier canards here: https://siraaronrichards.imgur.com

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:50 am

Thank You AR. I have the feeling you won't get the cat calls and put down I did....so thanks.

I post actually to comment that a closer to reality "smaller what if" might be for Hitler to invade USSR specifically to get the resources rather than go after the political structure? Say that right out for whatever effect that might have.

Course I know nothing and am not currently reading a book on the subject. Ha, ha................
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:53 am

AR: I just noticed your signature line. I'll give it a look with interest.

B: take your school yard comebacks to: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 Just trying to keep the trash in one place.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:56 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:AR: I just noticed your signature line. I'll give it a look with interest.

B: take your school yard comebacks to: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 Just trying to keep the trash in one place.
Why bother, you've been bringing trash to every subforum here for 3 years.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:02 am

Balmoral95 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:AR: I just noticed your signature line. I'll give it a look with interest.

B: take your school yard comebacks to: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 Just trying to keep the trash in one place.
Why bother, you've been bringing trash to every subforum here for 3 years.
B: take your school yard comebacks to: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 Just trying to keep the trash in one place. You do understand such comments are off topic? And the Link is set up specifically to give you full license to make the snappy rejoinders you do??? No??????????? .....smell which way the wind is blowing.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:10 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Balmoral95 wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:AR: I just noticed your signature line. I'll give it a look with interest.

B: take your school yard comebacks to: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 Just trying to keep the trash in one place.
Why bother, you've been bringing trash to every subforum here for 3 years.
B: take your school yard comebacks to: viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 Just trying to keep the trash in one place. You do understand such comments are off topic? And the Link is set up specifically to give you full license to make the snappy rejoinders you do??? No??????????? .....smell which way the wind is blowing.

No.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:21 am

B: people can agree or disagree on a subject and develop blinding bias towards people or subjects. Still, unless totally insane there are objective facts most people can see. Stop being tedious.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:33 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:B: Stop being tedious.

:lol:

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:37 am

Heh, heh........going non-verbal is very beneficial. Uncouth drops out, and all you have left is juvenile.

Again I say: you do realize, everyone can see you?

Good boy.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Balmoral95
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2469
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 4:14 am
Location: The Free Nambia Healthcare Nirvana

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Balmoral95 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:43 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Heh, heh........going non-verbal is very beneficial. Uncouth drops out, and all you have left is juvenile.

Again I say: you do realize, everyone can see you?

Good boy.
Glad ya like it, boy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:50 am

Bals: I hereby put you on Ignore. Not the button type where ever that is, I will see your posts and respond when they rise to the level of substantive contribution. You are still invited to post your nonsense at viewtopic.php?f=39&t=29464 You are already at the mindless repetition stage, but I might even respond to you in the right thread. Kinda like a staring contest?

Ha, ha: Like the good HMO series Barry: "I will stop xxxx, "right now!"
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:21 pm

Aaron Richards wrote:From what I understand the oilfields in the Middle East were back in the 1940s not nearly developed enough to really attract the attention of European powers, one of the reasons Hitler was eyeing Baku over anything in the ME. I think it would have taken the Germans years to start using the ME's resources.

Aaron:
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/the ... iddle-east

I think it was enough to attract Hitler’s attention. It was also closer so it was easier to access than Baku.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:00 pm

well......that link tells us diddly squat. Is that what you relied on? I would think not.

there wasn't all that much oil until after the war.

Here is an on point discussion. Not the best authoritive source, but the first one with numbers....and they sound: just like you guys.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 0&start=15
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:49 pm

Balsamo wrote:Jeffk:
Actually if the USSR attacked Germany it would have ended in disaster. Stalin gutted the officer corps during the Great Purge. The Red Army got much better real quick (there’s nothing like incentive) but if Stalin attempted such a thing in 1941 or 1942 against the German Army they would’ve handed him his ass. It took a good two years under extreme pressure to get the Red Army ready for large scale offensives. It also took massive U.S. aid in the form of motor vehicles to make the Red Army a mobile force capable of such offensives.
This is where we would disagree, my friend... ;)
I looked at the condition of the Red Army during the early 1940’s to come to that conclusion. Their tanks and planes had no radios, their infantry and officers were poorly trained and they were poorly equipped. Imagine lugging that army over the border to face a well-trained, fairly well-equipped Wehrmacht.

Look at how often and how quickly the German Army recovered on the Eastern Front, Balsamo. This is with a Red Army operating on interior lines so supply is much less of an issue. Even after Stalingrad Manstein halted and then counterattacked the Red Army to retake Kharkov in 1943.

I don’t see the Red Army successfully attacking the Wehrmacht at a point where it was at its peak readiness.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:58 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:well......that link tells us diddly squat.
Gee, I’m sorry, bobbo. Was that not up to your exacting standards?

I’ll tell you what, before I post any more links I’ll run them past you first. You can tell me yes or no and I’ll tell you to go blow it out your pie hole.
Is that what you relied on? I would think not.
You would be right. I didn’t. I read up on it a few days ago but I thought Aaron might want a quick view on a timeline.
there wasn't all that much oil until after the war.
That doesn’t matter. There was oil being drilled and available to the Germans. They were desperate for fuel and any oil they could collect from the Middle East was still more than they could collect from solely European sources. Anything they could get added to their ability to continue the war with the added bonus of keeping it from the British.
Here is an on point discussion. Not the best authoritive source, but the first one with numbers....and they sound: just like you guys.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic ... 0&start=15
That’s nice. Good for them, I disagree with some of their conclusions for the reasons I gave above.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:04 pm

I'm sorry Jeff but a timeline alone which is all I saw at the link tells you nothing about how much oil there was. No help.... to anyone. Simple facts. And no.....don't bother me with relevancy checking your work. I'll do that when a post/link is interesting/responsive to some active point.

Why don't you admit to simple error/laziness? The path to expertise is loaded with them, aka: no big deal.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Jeff, I appreciate your fresh go at this,


I am nice fellow.

A good sense of humor keeps one grounded, sane, happy. Self-deprecating, even more.
I am happy. It’s OK to question my sanity.
I skimmed the bunny rabbit so fast, I basically didn't read it.
I’m disappointed. I put some real thought into that.
I have a pull towards substance and a repulsion from BS.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
What you are trying to say is “Non-Aggression Pact.” Ha, ha..............notwithstanding what I JUST posted: I do love the word play........in this case, with my own perverted twist. People being people.
Yeah, I don’t care.

Does that mean that Hitler gets 1000 T-34 tanks overnight?.............
All right. Elves. Dragons. Klingons.

Don't go all Balsamo on me; read what was clearly said.

re trade with USSR: the MAIN BENEFIT: was avoiding a two front war. Real simple. Grounded in reality (the benefits that is.)
I can’t think of a single reason why Stalin would trade those tanks to the Germans.
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9588
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:09 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I'm sorry Jeff but a timeline alone which is all I saw at the link tells you nothing about how much oil there was. No help.... to anyone. Simple facts. And no.....don't bother me with relevancy checking your work. I'll do that when a post/link is interesting/responsive to some active point.

Why don't you admit to simple error/laziness? The path to expertise is loaded with them, aka: no big deal.

Can I just tell you to go blow it out your pie hole?
“I noticed this morning that a group of our Landsberg friends have been given their freedom this morning. These include...Schubert, Jost and Nosske. Schubert confessed to...supervising the execution of about 800 Jews...(referring to the order to clean up Simferopol)...Schubert managed to kill all the Jews (by Christmas 1941). Nosske was the one the other defendants called the biggest bloodhound....
Noel, Noel, what the hell.”
Benjamin Ferencz in a letter to Telford Taylor, December 1951

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 15605
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Why Germany couldn't have won the war

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:11 pm

Jeffk 1970 wrote: I can’t think of a single reason why Stalin would trade those tanks to the Germans.
Amusing: you answered your own question.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?