If Hitler had died in the summer of 1939 how would he be remembered?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Aircraft, mechanical breakdowns, mines, manuever warfare, heavy artillery...

I honestly have never read a single account of a T-34 taking out a Tiger, let alone reliably in general combat. If you can point one out I'd be interested.



Model?

No, a real Stug! Fort Lauderdale will tremble before me! Yes a model, Tamiya, 1/35.

[chequita guevara]

A T-34/76 needed to get within 600 yards to be able to have a kill shot on a tiger. Obviously the 85s could stand off a bit further. That's what the Soviets discovered at Kursk, which drove the development of the 85s.

Artillery could easily kill a German tank, because they couldn't move and hit an enemy tank. Their standard mode of fighting was to find a nice spot, park, and then shoot. So they'd be sitting ducks for artillery.

Shermans, apparently, could move and fire at the same time, but they were less accurate.

[Maniac]

Serb is right about British foreign policy.

[OzzyKP]

Historical what if threads.

Tank threads.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb


USA wasn't an exception.

Hmm...none of the other countries had very lightly armored vehicles with big guns though,

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by TheStinger


What Britain was supposed to enter into an war 4 years before rearmanent was complete.

Yeah, because fighting the bare-bones Germany military in '38 is such a worse idea than fighting them(signifigantly more modernixed) in '39.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Lonestar

Hmm...none of the other countries had very lightly armored vehicles with big guns though,

Germany had a whole bunch of tank destroyers which were basically a gun on top of a tank chassis. The guns were in fixed turrets rather than rotating like the US TDs, but the turret armor was light, and only located on front and sides. They mounted guns that were bigger than what most of the tanks at the time had.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon


Germany had a whole bunch of tank destroyers which were basically a gun on top of a tank chassis. The guns were in fixed turrets rather than rotating like the US TDs, but the turret armor was light, and only located on front and sides. They mounted guns that were bigger than what most of the tanks at the time had.

But not paper-thin like US TDs, and the Germans simply used the saved weight from lack of a turret to add more armor.

[Lord Avalon]

No, I'm not talking about hull-mounted guns. I'm talking about guns with little armor on TOP of the chassis: e.g., Panzerjaeger, Marder, Nashorn.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Well, American artillery was notoriously accurate(relative to the Commies and Axis), and we had stuff like TOT down pat.

Since I used the same, well, upgraded system, I'm quite aware of this.

Second, you don't have to "destroy" armor to knock it out(forgetting for the moment there were many, many engagements when American Arty did just that), rendering a tank immobile is just as good as destroying it, often times.

Well, I was lazy and assumed that you could figure out that I meant armoured vehicles - about immobilisation, you are quite right, problem is to enough rounds into the area. That is easy enough along a defense line, but not when on the move.

Third, my Dad was a career Artillery guy(22 years) in the USMC, and he's one of those guys that goes on rants about the historical accuracy of video games...speficially the relative ineffectiveness of the 105mm against German armor in Company of Heroes.

I'll take what I've read in the history books(Army at Dawn, the Day of Battle) and the word of a 20year+ professional over a conscript with 9 months with a single M101.

Well, compared to your dad, I'm surely a beginner, but I at least have some experience with the subject, wich isn't always the case here at OT It actally almost cost me a broken nose because I'm left eye dominant.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Serb

There was a joint German-Polish operation to invade Czechoslovakia instead.

Excuse me I forgot to add Poland to the list of Hitler's friends.

In the 30s, Poland both tried to make an offensive alliance against Hitler with France (France refused), and defensive alliance against Germany with Tchechoslovakia (Tchechoslovakia refused, as it believed Poland is more vulnerable to german attack).
Moreover, Poland refused Germany alliance against Soviet Union, though it was offered Ukraine, access to Black Sea etc.

Poland only took Cieszyn region when it was clear Tchechoslovakia is going to fall anyway, and since Hitler wanted to take this region as well. Earlier, Poland demanded stop of persecution of Poles there only, but czech attitude is best summed up by a quote of memoire of tchechoslovakian representative in Warsaw, Girsa, to his gouverment, it ran about like this "make the policy harsher and give them as concessions things that, up till now, were obvious"
Polish demands were extremly limited, taking only the things Poland was granted by 1918 czech-polish accord (and which was taken by Tchechoslovakia by force in 1919), and a couple villages. In Slovakia, Poland took virtually nothing, deciding that, unlike Czechs, Slovakians are friendly towards Poland and it should not be spoilt by claims to several polish-speaking, but not conscious of their nationality, regions over the border.

Originally posted by Serb

Oh, really? MRP WAS EXACTLY THE SAME - buying time after YOU, ONCE AGAIN - YOU refused to made a joint effort to stop Hitler. USSR was the only country who proclaimed it will fulfill its ally obligations in case of German attack vs. Czechoslovakia and you guys just betrayed Czechs and sold them without a sinle shot. Hitler had no chance in simultaneous war vs. UK, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and USSR. If you and French stayed cool and ordered your Polish pet to give a right of passage to Red Army through Poland in case of German agression there would be no WW2 at all.

But there would be, but You'd be right saying the starting position of the allies would be better.

Poland didn't want to give SU passage for two reasons. First, Beck believed he should continue the policy of Pilsudski, who, after he realised joint attack on Germany with France was not possible, decided on policy of "equal distance" between Poland-Germany and Poland-USSR.
this policy has proven not to be possible in the country that lied exactly between them and must have been the place of the confrontation.

Secondly, Poland couldn't just get SU right of passage and stay neutral. Germany would see it as declaration of war and would be right about it. In result, Poland would be the one to take the load of fighting against Hitler and being ravaged by war on its back, with no guarantee of help from outside.

Thirdly, Poland was afraid that if it's let Red Army in, it'd never go away, and possibly take away eastern polish provinces. And further SU policy proved that these fears were not without a reason.

I can understand if You claim that SU was afraid of German attack, and that it occupied Poland to not let Germans too close to Moscow. But, then:
- why did SU engage in action of cleansing eastern Poland of Poles, moving them to inner Russia and Kazakhstan?
- why did SU engage in action of extermination of polish intelligentsia, and military officers?
- why did SU insist on keeping newly acquired territories after it was in war with Germany already?
- why did SU enslave Poland and all the other countries of central and eastern Europe?

1) You won't find a single word of permission of Soviet invasion to Poland in a secret clause of MRP. Not a single word.

No, it was said euphemistically, that in case of territorial-political changes in the territory of polish state, new border between Germany and USRR will be (on an exactly described line in the middle of Poland.
Yes, but there's no word of agression

ür den Fall einer territorial-politischen Umgestaltung
der zum polnischen Staat gehörenden Gebiete werden die
Interessensphären Deutschlands und der UdSSR ungefähr durch
die Linie der Flüsse Pissa, Narew, Weichsel und San
abgegrenzt. Die Frage, ob die beiderseitigen Interessen die
Erhaltung eines unabhängigen polnischen Staates erwünscht
ei-scheinen lassen und wie dieser Staat abzugrenzen wäre,
kann endgültig erst im Laufe der weiteren politischen
Entwicklung geklärt werden. In jedem Falle werden beide
Regierungen diese Frage im Wege einer freundschaftlichen
Verständigung lösen.

http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/sowjetunion/vertrag/nichtangriffspakt.php

2) You didn't need such clause in the Munich agreement. It was a betrayal "agreement". The whole point was to make Germany stronger and to turn its aggressive sight on the east towards Russia.

No, it was to appease Germany and not go to war - only.
UK and France were not interested in Hitler's victory over Poland or SU, it would make him too strong and dangerous.
You might be interested iin the idea that Stalin, signing pact with Berlin, hoped that Hitler would attack UK, and it could stab him in the back...

3) Poland didn't need a secret clause either when they attacked the USSR in 20's and captured those lands we returned in 1939. They attacked us and stole our lands, in 1939 we did the same to them and just returned what was righfully ours. They got what they deserved. Simple as that.

Huh? Soviet Russia officially declared that partages of Poland were illegal, null and void. And pre-partages Poland was 2,5 times bigger than the one after ww1. Therefore, it's not Poland who stole SU's land (SU was a new state and had no control over these lands anyway), but in fact Poland gave SU much of the lands it had valid, accepted by SU too, claim to. If You do mind that Poland was re-established in historical shape, largely, but not completely reduced to fit ethnical conditions, look at Czechoslovakia, where Czechs got all their historical lands and more, and You do seem to mind that they had to let it go in 1938. Why? Because it's not SU that would benefit from the loss of czech-controlled territory. Had there been independant and not-communist state between Poland and state ruled from Moscow, Moscow would be first to fight for polish control of Wolyn or Polesie.
Also, look at Russia itself. Why doesn't it give away Caucasus region? Or Karelia? Or most of Siberia?

If SU was keen on freeing nations from foreign rule, why did give Wilno/Vilnius region, with clear polish majority, to Lithuania, with only historical claim to it, and Belarus? Why it gave Lwow (Lwiw) and entire Podole to Ukraine, though they were majorly polish?

The answer is simple: because thanks to that, it could keep these cities and lands in its hands.
Even russian XIX-century revolutionaries, dekabrists etc, with mouths full of freedom of nations, when it came to anything, of all the nations of Russia could only think of independance of Poland, because it had strong traditions of its own statehood. That's nice for Poland, but wrong.
The same, world was aware that Poland is something different from Russia, as well as Balkan nations. but it was not aware that Ukraine, Lithuania or Estonia have their own history. That's why SU could keep Lithuania, but it could not keep entire Poland. And that's why it was beneficial for Soviet Union to cut Poland as much it could on the eastern side.

On the other hand, for the same reason SU had interest in having Poland increased on the western side, because it was after ww2 in its clear control, while the fate of Germany was not very clear. In fact, Poland owes much to Stalin in this matter and, when it comes to territory, we should praise God for the fact that Soviets and Allies met on Elbe, and not on Bug. If they had, Poland would be 1/2 of current size, probably.

One important matter is that every state has a tradition of "once acquired is ours, and we'll never let it go" attitude, when it comes to territory. That's why elites of former Russian Empire never stopped thinking of pre-ww1 borders of the state they grew in as the right borders of their state. Serb is well example of this. Please note, that, apart from loss of automous Poland and Finland, USSR's post-ww2 borders are almost exactly the same as pre-ww1 ones of Romanovs' Russia. And almost the same Stalin wanted in 1939. They simply considered it as THEIR LAND. As Serb does. Who lived there, what the inhabitants wanted, what was the earlier history of those lands, that was a secondary matter.

Anyway, Soviets wanted to attack Poland in other to pave the way to worldwide revolution. To help revolution in Germany Soviets needed to.
Do You disagree with that, Serb? If You do, if You believe it was about border only, how do You explain the fact that SU, when had Bialystok captured and was sure of capturing Warsaw, had established the gouverment of Polish Soviet Republic with Marchlewski and Kon?

And if Poland "got what it deserved", why don't You claim the same about Tchechoslovakia?

[Ecthy]

Of all studied historians I have heard of, Heresson is the most nationalist in his aims. His rhetorics full of boring details about some national heroes, his theme always apologetic about his own country's politics, whatever they were, he's the poster boy for the 21st century Eastern European nationalist. And this he probably considers praise.

[Heresson]

[Ecthy]

And on it goes

Do you honestly think this isn't a well-known fact of history? Or are you just trying to smug off with your facsimiles?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Of all studied historians I have heard of, Heresson is the most nationalist in his aims. His rhetorics full of boring details about some national heroes, his theme always apologetic about his own country's politics, whatever they were, he's the poster boy for the 21st century Eastern European nationalist. And this he probably considers praise.

there are things my state or people of the same nationality did, and I will never praise it. I was the first to mention Jedwabne and Lambinowice on this forum, so your claims are completely unfounded, especially if You compare me to Serb. What You said is simple offence, and is simply stupid, especially that in the short time, You could not read my entire post, at least with care. Please, tell me where here am I wrong, and we can discuss. With claims like yours, having no backing, I can hardly discuss. You're being stereotypical of me, which probably goes back to your views of Poles in general. Just like when I was constantly thought here as anti-gay, because I was defending catholic church in another matters, and no-one would believe me I am not a gay-basher if I was not actually gay.