Let's talk about World War II

[Prometheus]

Why did we land in Normandy when the Soviets would have taken Berlin regardless? I was discussing this with a close friend recently, and we both arrived at the same conclusions. I believe D-Day is not what we think it was. I want to hear some answers though before elaborating my opinion. So what do you think?

[Nikola_]

You defeated the wrong enemy, yanks

[Prometheus]

You defeated the wrong enemy, yanks

Go on, I am interested in what you have to say.

[bladefd]

Why did we land in Normandy when the Soviets would have taken Berlin regardless? I was discussing this with a close friend recently, and we both arrived at the same conclusions. I believe D-Day is not what we think it was. I want to hear some answers though before elaborating my opinion. So what do you think?

Nazis had to divide between the 2 front all-out assault of D-Day/Soviet push. Don't forget, allies were also pushing up from the south from Italy. Germany had also lost Scandinavia by then so allies had air bases up there too, providing air/submarine assaults from the north. It essentially became a 4-front war for Germany by 1944. Their airforce, Luftwaffe, was spread thin trying to stop everything at once and couldn't group up for offensive assaults.

D-day/Soviet push were the two main assaults, cornering the beast.

[SomeBlackDude]

the Soviets would have taken Berlin regardless?

that was the reason. it was a race to get to hitler's ass/seize control of europe. it was basically the beginning of the cold war. if the allies hadn't swept through the west, stalin prob woulda gobbled up a ton of land (more than he did) and claim it for himself. then he might've been the dominant force in the west as well as the east.

churchill, roosevelt, de gaulle, etc weren't about to sit on their hands and watch stalin basically accomplish what adolf's incompetent drugged up ass failed to do.

[Levity]

because "stormin norman(dy)" has that ring to it you just cant pass up

[Prometheus]

Nazis had to divide between the 2 front all-out assault of D-Day/Soviet push. Don't forget, allies were also pushing up from the south from Italy. Germany had also lost Scandinavia by then so allies had air bases up there too, providing air/submarine assaults from the north. It essentially became a 4-front war for Germany by 1944. Their airforce, Luftwaffe, was spread thin trying to stop everything at once and couldn't group up for offensive assaults.

D-day/Soviet push were the two main assaults, cornering the beast.

My point is that even without the Allies landing in France, the Soviets seemingly would have crushed the Nazis anyway. They failed at all three of their strategic goals in Barbarossa, Hitler left the 6th army in Stalingrad even when evac was feasible, and at that point Nazi morale plummeted. The Soviets had been smashing the German front for over 14 months when we landed. So why the need for it? The USA and the UK were trying to minimize casualties, and still had Japan to worry about. Why sacrifice so many men to help the Soviets (who were disturbingly comfortable losing millions of men) when they were winning anyway? D-Day was extremely costly. I believe there was another, longer-viewed motive. I want to see if anyone else comes up with it.

[Prometheus]

that was the reason. it was a race to get to hitler's ass/seize control of europe. it was basically the beginning of the cold war. if the allies hadn't swept through the west, stalin prob woulda gobbled up a ton of land (more than he did) and claim it for himself. then he might've been the dominant force in the west as well as the east.

churchill, roosevelt, de gaulle, etc weren't about to sit on their hands and watch stalin basically accomplish what adolf's incompetent drugged up ass failed to do.

Started my last post before you said this, but yes. We have a winner.

D-Day is deeply misunderstood. We may have been shooting at Germans, but that move was a strategic campaign against the Soviets.

[SomeBlackDude]

Started my last post before you said this, but yes. We have a winner.

D-Day is deeply misunderstood. We may have been shooting at Germans, but that move was a strategic campaign against the Soviets.

pretty much. as soon as junkie adolf stupidly launched operation barbarossa before he had total control of the western front and he was pushed back by zhukov, ww2 in europe was for all intent and purpose over. everyone knew it with the exception of crackhead adolf who was high off like a dozen different narcotics 24/7.

so after that was settled, the allies knew it was only a matter of time before the soviets overran the nazis and were pushing into western europe, getting some free real estate.

d-day was just the beginning of the communist/rusher containment strategy that defined the 2nd half of the last century. that's when the cold war really began.

[Prometheus]

pretty much. as soon as junkie adolf stupidly launched operation barbarossa before he had total control of the western front and he was pushed back by zhukov, ww2 in europe was for all intent and purpose over. everyone knew it with the exception of crackhead adolf who was high off like a dozen different narcotics 24/7.

so after that was settled, the allies knew it was only a matter of time before the soviets overran the nazis and were pushing into western europe, getting some free real estate.

d-day was just the beginning of the communist/rusher containment strategy that defined the 2nd half of the last century. that's when the cold war really began.

Barbarossa was definitely a mistake, but in terms of the Nazis succeeding vs. failing overall, it really was inconsequential. Germany was doomed as soon as the Japanese attacked the States. Nothing anyone did would have been able to overcome the juggernaut that the USA became overnight. Waaaaay too much military production capacity.

[MaxFly]

churchill, roosevelt, de gaulle, etc weren't about to sit on their hands and watch stalin basically accomplish what adolf's incompetent drugged up ass failed to do.

Basically this...

[SomeBlackDude]

Barbarossa was definitely a mistake, but in terms of the Nazis succeeding vs. failing overall, it really was inconsequential. Germany was doomed as soon as the Japanese attacked the States. Nothing anyone did would have been able to overcome the juggernaut that the USA became overnight. Waaaaay too much military production capacity.

yeah if the axis powers had better, less arrogant, more sober/less paranoid leaders they might've won. barbarossa and pearl harbor were completely unnecessary. absolutely backfired on them.

stalin and the yankees were perfectly happy to sit back and watch the action from afar.

[Prometheus]

yeah if the axis powers had better, less arrogant, more sober/less paranoid leaders they might've won. barbarossa and pearl harbor were completely unnecessary. absolutely backfired on them.

stalin and the yankees were perfectly happy to sit back and watch the action from afar.

It actually seems as though Barbarossa was winnable for the Nazis, they just made a series of terrible blunders. That, and the Soviets had the tactical advantage of being more afraid of their own dictator than they were of the Germans.

EDIT: Also, Sea Lion would have probably been even more disastrous than Barbarossa. Britain's navy was extremely dominant, and the logistical problems involved with attempting to invade the island likely would have been insurmountable. Don't forget, the Germans AND Italians (lol) both went the entire war without ever building a single aircraft carrier.

Pearl Harbor though... yeah. Very very stupid decision. Like shooting a sleeping polar bear with a bb gun.

[bladefd]

It actually seems as though Barbarossa was winnable for the Nazis, they just made a series of terrible blunders. That, and the Soviets had the tactical advantage of being more afraid of their own dictator than they were of the Germans.

EDIT: Also, Sea Lion would have probably been even more disastrous than Barbarossa. Britain's navy was extremely dominant, and the logistical problems involved with attempting to invade the island likely would have been insurmountable. Don't forget, the Germans AND Italians (lol) both went the entire war without ever building a single aircraft carrier.

Pearl Harbor though... yeah. Very very stupid decision. Like shooting a sleeping polar bear with a bb gun.

Quite a few battles were very much winnable for Germany. D-day for instance could have been a wipeout, had the Germans sent in their Panzer units, but only Hitler had command of those units. The generals were afraid to wake up Hitler and waited until it was too late.

Now the Japs were outmatched and never had a chance. Nothing could have saved them at any point. Midway was a curbstomp along with the battle near the Philippines (some bay). Japs were in over their heads. I do give my respects for how they fought at Iwo Jima and Okinawa though - they wouldn't stop or give up, really something..

As for Germany not building aircraft carriers, they had a different plan in mind. Germany built couple MASSIVE superships. They were planning on building a fleet of superships. Good in concept but not practicality - they were not very maneuverable and hard to supply. British went hunting for the 2 the Germans built. Germany did not realize the days of destroyers had ended, to be replaced by aircraft carriers. Germany had the best airforce in the world easily, surprised they didn't focus on maximizing arguably their greatest strength - the Luftwaffe.

[Prometheus]

Germany had the best airforce in the world easily, surprised they didn't focus on maximizing arguably their greatest strength - the Luftwaffe.

This is not true at all. If you're talking about 1939 when fighting began in Europe, Britain and Germany both had very strong airborne forces, but British bombers and fighters had far superior range and load capacity. If you're talking about the war as a whole, the allies air advantage was absolutely staggering... 90% of all the aviation fuel and more than 90% of all air force personnel in the entire war was on the side of the Allies.

The myth of the Luftwaffe's supremacy was a result of their early succes vs. Poland, Denmark, Holland, Yugoslavia, etc... countries which were all surprise attacked, had little-to-no mobilization or preparations for war, and were neighbors within range of German air bases. They never built a four-engine bomber, and therefore never had the capacity to effectively cover the distance and deliver the loads necessary to cripple British production. They couldn't threaten Moscow, a thousand miles from Berlin, without first conducting massive ground operations to establish proximity. They were not remotely close to having any ability to reach America.

At no point in World War II did Germany have air or naval superiority to Britain alone. They were behind in technology from the start, and were matched and quickly exceeded in numbers.