NationStates Jolt Archive

Panzers, Stukas, and Tigers, oh my!

Post your hopelessly biased opinions here, now!

The Rats of Tobruk could kick Panzer arse.

Oh wait, they already did that... :D

Poland could have won! D:

Fuck Panzers, go go SUPER PERSHING!

Pssh, the T-34 would own the damned Super Pershing.

Hahahahaha, no Velkie, the SUPA PERSHING was a heavy tank that would have kapwned the T-34.

Feck, even the regular Pershing owned the T-34's ass in Korea. :O

Well, your mother was...was...in the ITALIAN AIR FORCE!

Best. War. Ever.

Would've been better if I were in it though:

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/bandofclowns.gif

Well, your mother was...was...in the ITALIAN AIR FORCE!

zing.


Band of clowns.....how do you think of this stuff?

Ahh, that's hysterical.

Fuck Panzers, go go SUPER PERSHING!
Yeah, erm, kind of made irrelevant by the fact that there were single-figure numbers of Super Pershings in the whole war, and the total kills of the Super Pershing are thus : 1 Königstiger and a Hetzer.

Wow. Amazing.




Anyway, well played the USSR, kind of poor show everyone else. USA didn't get involved until too late, UK did what it could, but with the constant bombardment of our cities and such, that wasn't all that much, and Germany made some schoolboy errors which resulted in its loss.

Oh and France and Italy - lol.

Band of clowns.....how do you think of this stuff?

Actually, it ws a gift from a fellow NSGer. Where he got it, I'm not sure. :p

Panzers, Stukas, and Tigers, oh my!

Post your hopelessly biased opinions here, now!

Meh. Is this really something to celebrate?

MY GRANDPA WAS AT D-DAY AND MY OTHER GRANDPA BOMBED THE NAZIS IN ITALY!!

AMERICA WON WW2!!!! ALL OTHER NATIONS ARE MADE OF FAIL!

Biased enough? :D

MY GRANDPA WAS AT D-DAY AND MY OTHER GRANDPA BOMBED THE NAZIS IN ITALY!!

AMERICA WON WW2!!!!

Biased enough?

Yes, that will do quite nicely.

I think WWII should be renamed the War of Polish aggression.

http://hi.is/~eos/Myndir/Hitler%20baby.jpg

Click Stand;13016785']I think WWII should be renamed the War of Polish aggression.

No no no! The War of Swiss aggression. We all know that the swiss provoked the Germans into invading Poland.

Damned Swiss, with their handy multi-tools, tasty chocolate, and cool watches...

Damned Swiss, with their handy multi-tools, tasty chocolate, and cool watches...

and bland bubbly cheese.

Click Stand;13016785']I think WWII should be renamed the War of Polish aggression.


No, it should be the war of Jewish agression. Its always the Jews fault. Remember kids, when in doubt blame the Jews. :p

Hmmm. My granddad was in the field at this time.......

My grandpa was a slave worker in the german factories :(

He lost all his teeth there :(

And my grandma used to help some people with hiding.


My other grandparents suffered a lot from the harsh winter in '44 since they weren't liberated yet and were cut off from all the food in the west of my country :(

Lots of suffering, but somehow I can still like those modern silly eastern neighbours of me :D :fluffle:

The Home Guard Would of beaten them on the Beaches

Oh comon, the P-51 Mustang and the Spitfire can pwn all!

Also my grandpa was in WW II, in the North Africa and European Theatre.

I hate to say this, but no way was the second of September 1939 the start of WWII.

There are two reasonable dates to set the beginning of the Second World War. The first, and the one I favour, is the date of the beginning of the first war of what became WWII. This occurred on July 7th 1937.

The second date is the date when the war became truly worldwide in scope. That would be December 7 1941.

Panzers, Stukas, and Tigers, oh my!

Post your hopelessly biased opinions here, now!



Hooray for global massacre and genocide!

I hate to say this, but no way was the second of September 1939 the start of WWII.

There are two reasonable dates to set the beginning of the Second World War. The first, and the one I favour, is the date of the beginning of the first war of what became WWII. This occurred on July 7th 1937.

The second date is the date when the war became truly worldwide in scope. That would be December 7 1941.

You mean the first of september right?

You mean the first of september right?

Sorry, yeah. It's the second here...and I've been up all night (sleepy...).

Sorry, yeah. It's the second here...and I've been up all night (sleepy...).

You know...as a History major, I agree with what you are saying as a date for the start of World War II being in 1937 but I also believe that World War I and World War II are all part of the same war with 20 year gap between them.

You know...as a History major, I agree with what you are saying as a date for the start of World War II being in 1937 but I also believe that World War I and World War II are all part of the same war with 20 year gap between them.

That's a valid position. Some of the german negotiators at Versailles were reputed to have said they'd be back here in twenty years (thank goodness Hitler ordered that damned train car burned).

I tend to disagree, however. My arguments are: First, there was an official peace treaty. It was badly designed, poorly thought out and utterly unfair, but it existed, it was signed, and it was, at least at first, enforced. This, to me, indicates an end to the war.

Second, I do not see the rise of Hitler as inevitable. The Weimar Republic was quite unlikely to survive, it is true; but assuming it did not, the socialists had as good a chance as the nationalists of gaining power, and their agenda did not include the "restoration" of Germany; if anything, I could see a political unification with Russia being more likely (which, admittedly, might also have led to war, but a significantly different one).

Third, even with Hitler in charge, he could still have been stopped without bloodshed at an early stage. Had the British and French enforced the Treaty of Versalles as stringently upon the Hitler government as they did upon the Bismarck government, he would never have been in a position to kick off WWII/Europe.

That's a valid position. Some of the german negotiators at Versailles were reputed to have said they'd be back here in twenty years (thank goodness Hitler ordered that damned train car burned).

I tend to disagree, however. My arguments are: First, there was an official peace treaty. It was badly designed, poorly thought out and utterly unfair, but it existed, it was signed, and it was, at least at first, enforced. This, to me, indicates an end to the war.

Second, I do not see the rise of Hitler as inevitable. The Weimar Republic was quite unlikely to survive, it is true; but assuming it did not, the socialists had as good a chance as the nationalists of gaining power, and their agenda did not include the "restoration" of Germany; if anything, I could see a political unification with Russia being more likely (which, admittedly, might also have led to war, but a significantly different one).

Third, even with Hitler in charge, he could still have been stopped without bloodshed at an early stage. Had the British and French enforced the Treaty of Versalles as stringently upon the Hitler government as they did upon the Bismarck government, he would never have been in a position to kick off WWII/Europe.

Um Bismark was not in office in the early twentieth century. Are you talking about the government that formed after the surrender of germany circa 1919?

Um Bismark was not in office in the early twentieth century. Are you talking about the government that formed after the surrender of germany circa 1919?

GAH! I meant von Hindenburg, sorry. My mind is wandering...

GAH! I meant von Hindenburg, sorry. My mind is wandering...

LOL! Its ok Dododecapod. That's why you have a history major here to make sure you see ya errors :D

LOL! Its ok Dododecapod. That's why you have a history major here to make sure you see ya errors :D

My thankfulness is overflowing.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, it annoys me when I make detail errors like that. I took History as a minor, and I really enjoyed it.

My thankfulness is overflowing.[/sarcasm]

Seriously, it annoys me when I make detail errors like that. I took History as a minor, and I really enjoyed it.

You know I ment nothing by my comment. But yea...errors like that would have annoyed me as well.

You know I ment nothing by my comment. But yea...errors like that would have annoyed me as well.

Thanks. Still I am interested - What do you consider of my argument?

That's a valid position. Some of the german negotiators at Versailles were reputed to have said they'd be back here in twenty years (thank goodness Hitler ordered that damned train car burned).

I am going to have to see a source on the train car burning.

I tend to disagree, however. My arguments are: First, there was an official peace treaty. It was badly designed, poorly thought out and utterly unfair, but it existed, it was signed, and it was, at least at first, enforced. This, to me, indicates an end to the war.

You are indeed correct but if you look at the list of alliances, there was very little movement on that front. Germany formed an alliace with Italy (who was neutral) and Japan (who was on the side of the allies in WWI). Versailles did end the war but it began to unravel, especially when it came to reperasions. I mean, America was giving Germany the money and getting it back from Germany. ingenious. But when one looks at the lead up to the second world war, it was nearly the same lead up as to the first world war. Only this time, you did not have an assassination. This time you had a sneak attack by Germany into Poland.

Second, I do not see the rise of Hitler as inevitable. The Weimar Republic was quite unlikely to survive, it is true; but assuming it did not, the socialists had as good a chance as the nationalists of gaining power, and their agenda did not include the "restoration" of Germany; if anything, I could see a political unification with Russia being more likely (which, admittedly, might also have led to war, but a significantly different one).

I disagree. The difference between the Socialists in Germany and in Russia is vast. For one thing, as far as I can see from my studies of Nazi Germany, the Socialists had no intentions of disbanding the electoral process nor banning all other political parties. They made one big mistake and that was agreeing to form a coalition with Hitler in '34 and agreed to by Hindenburg which gave Hitler the authority to do what he did. Hitler's power grab took even the Socialists by surprise.

Third, even with Hitler in charge, he could still have been stopped without bloodshed at an early stage. Had the British and French enforced the Treaty of Versalles as stringently upon the Hitler government as they did upon the Bismarck government, he would never have been in a position to kick off WWII/Europe.

And there in lies the whole thing. The Versailles treaty was not enforced as it shoudl have been. Another reason why some historians say that World War I and II were segments of the same war.

I've got a Wiki link that says the train car was destroyed by allied bombing of Berlin:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I"]

Sidebar, about 2/3's of the way down.

But I recall an alternate version of events from my studies. I'll see if I can find a better link - later. My brain needs sleep, and to the arms of Morpheus I go. Thank you for the critique though.

I've got a Wiki link that says the train car was destroyed by allied bombing of Berlin:

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I"]

Sidebar, about 2/3's of the way down.

But I recall an alternate version of events from my studies. I'll see if I can find a better link - later. My brain needs sleep, and to the arms of Morpheus I go. Thank you for the critique though.

Not a problem :) Sleep well.