World War Two Nerds?

[Irish empire 48]

😅so this might sound weird but I was wondering if any  ye are into ww2 I mean big into it

maybe this page could become a debating ground about ww2 

I'm looking for chexier to be here all the waY!

[Matimele 17]

We're learning about WW2 at school right now

[Sneaky 82]

I'm interested in WW2, albeit I wouldn't call myself a nerd. 

If you want to debate, then here are some opinions on WW2 of mine:

• Germany could have won WW2, but only without Hitler. Even then, if they still had to invade USSR, they'd only win in the very unlikely scenario that they'd get Western support.
• Erwin Rommel is one of the most overrated Generals of all time.
• Heinz Guderian is what most people make Erwin Rommel out to be.
• Erich von Manstein was one of the most brilliant strategists of WW2 and one of the main reasons Germany was so successful.
• US involvement in the war could only be delayed, but not prevented.
• Germany could never ever have invaded mainland Britain, even with the destruction of the RAF.
• Hitler was the reason for both the success of Germany and the failure of it.
• Germany produced some of the best tanks of the war, but they were exactly the kind of tanks Germany did not need.
• The Sherman is underrated.
• While most people say Germany would have been better without Italy, I disagree. While Italy had one of the worst armies of WW2, it still did its own fair share of helping Germany. The Italian Navy kept the Royal Navy busy so Germany could focus on the ground aspect.
• Many people misunderstand the involvement of Baltics within WW2. The Courland Pocket saw very fierce combat, and the Latvian Legionnaires were some of the last German units surrendered. Let that sink in - the Courland Pocket held out until the Soviets had already reached Berlin.
• While Soviets had already won by then, D-Day was still an important part of the Allied efforts to end WW2.
• The nuking of Japan was fully and completely justified.
• Germany couldn't have gotten nukes, even if the Norwegian resistance members hadn't blown up the heavy water stations and what not.
• The Soviet Union had better tactics for the use of large scale tank assaults - Deep Operations/Soviet Deep Battle.
• There was no such thing as a "blitzkrieg" tactic - it was simply generals using the tanks at their disposal to their best ability.
• Germany was technologically superior to the Allies, but its resources deprived them of putting them to any use.

Please don't hate me for having an opinion.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Sneaky

[Irish empire 48]

 

10 hours ago, Sneaky said:

 

[Irish empire 48]

sorry that was a mistake I agree with you partly about the generals. But the overrating of Rommel is an outcome of British overrating of Montgomery who was the one who drove Rommel back from Egypt.

.especially here in Ireland and the U.K we are constantly given the opinion when studying world war two  Monty was the best general/one of the best. as a result of this we look further into Monty's combat career and we can see that he  was very successful(apart from in Holland). Monty was like Russia's Zhukov the pride of the nation.to boost his status further and to boost Britain's importance, they made Rommel out to be an amazing general and only a outstanding person like Bernard Montgomery could ever defeat him right?Rommel is overrated but I think that Montgomery is definitely the most overrated general of ww2

Rommel is actually my favourite general and I know a bit about his background. He performed great in the French campaign sometimes 32 miles ahead of the main advance. it was only here hitler noticed him.in one instance he took 10,000 French prisoners losing 36 men 

the German incursion Into north Africa was just meant to be on a support mission to help the beaten Italian troops(so a small army) but Rommel was given permission to launch attacks if he saw fit. as im sure you know he drove them back to Tobruk and el Alemain. even though he made these great territorial gains for the germans he is still very overrated, while people like guderian and manstein are underrated.i think guderan was actually a better general than manstein though

 

 

[Lonathan 1,284]

Jesus and I thought I was a nerd 

[JustAnUser 44]

20 hours ago, Sneaky said:

Germany could have won WW2, but only without Hitler. Even then, if they still had to invade USSR, they'd only win in the very unlikely scenario that they'd get Western support.

First of all, i'm only kind of a nerd as i like to learn about a lot of topics. But i believe that i'm knowledgable about WWII, at least more than the average. Here's my two cents:

Not really. Hitler didn't have a much more impact on the war than, let's say, generals. The war still couldn't have been won without Hitler.

 

Also, i don't think delaying the attack on the USSR will do you any good. Germany was running low on critical things and USSR was only getting stronger. While USSR was somewhat low on production of things related to military compared to Germany, their potential was greater. And Lebensraum.

20 hours ago, Sneaky said:

Germany produced some of the best tanks of the war, but they were exactly the kind of tanks Germany did not need.

Not really against it. Massproducing the tanks they already had would've been better for them. And not wasting their money on supertanks like Maus that can be destroyed by air attacks easily.

 

20 hours ago, Sneaky said:

The nuking of Japan was fully and completely justified.

Didn't they schedule a meeting 3 days later after the nuke? I don't think they were in a hurry after the first nuke.

 

20 hours ago, Sneaky said:

The Soviet Union had better tactics for the use of large scale tank assaults - Deep Operations/Soviet Deep Battle.

But they weren't able to use them. Good tactics, poor use. Germany was better in that regard, i think.

 

20 hours ago, Sneaky said:

There was no such thing as a "blitzkrieg" tactic - it was simply generals using the tanks at their disposal to their best ability.

True, but i think the Germans were the first to do the "Tanks first, infantry later." strategy.

 

20 hours ago, Sneaky said:

Please don't hate me for having an opinion.

I will not, don't worry.

[Sneaky 82]

4 hours ago, JustAnUser said:

Not really. Hitler didn't have a much more impact on the war than, let's say, generals. The war still couldn't have been won without Hitler.

 

 

Hence I said, "Hitler was the reason for both the success of Germany and the failure of it."

4 hours ago, JustAnUser said:

Also, i don't think delaying the attack on the USSR will do you any good. Germany was running low on critical things and USSR was only getting stronger. While USSR was somewhat low on production of things related to military compared to Germany, their potential was greater. And Lebensraum.

2

I never implied that Germany should have attacked later. I was implying that Germany could have won against the USSR only if they managed to get Western (that is, Allied) support.

4 hours ago, JustAnUser said:

Didn't they schedule a meeting 3 days later after the nuke? I don't think they were in a hurry after the first nuke.

 

I don't really see what point you're trying to make.

4 hours ago, JustAnUser said:

But they weren't able to use them. Good tactics, poor use. Germany was better in that regard, i think.

11

You seem to be arguing against a point I never made. Albeit, the Soviets were able to use deep operations - Operation Uranus.

4 hours ago, JustAnUser said:

True, but i think the Germans were the first to do the "Tanks first, infantry later." strategy.

1

It wasn't planned, however. Hitler was himself very surprised by the success of the Wehrmacht against France. He was not at all expecting such a sudden and successful thrust against France.

 

 

12 hours ago, Irish empire said:

sorry that was a mistake I agree with you partly about the generals. But the overrating of Rommel is an outcome of British overrating of Montgomery who was the one who drove Rommel back from Egypt.

.especially here in Ireland and the U.K we are constantly given the opinion when studying world war two  Monty was the best general/one of the best. as a result of this we look further into Monty's combat career and we can see that he  was very successful(apart from in Holland). Monty was like Russia's Zhukov the pride of the nation.to boost his status further and to boost Britain's importance, they made Rommel out to be an amazing general and only a outstanding person like Bernard Montgomery could ever defeat him right?Rommel is overrated but I think that Montgomery is definitely the most overrated general of ww2

Rommel is actually my favourite general and I know a bit about his background. He performed great in the French campaign sometimes 32 miles ahead of the main advance. it was only here hitler noticed him.in one instance he took 10,000 French prisoners losing 36 men 

the German incursion Into north Africa was just meant to be on a support mission to help the beaten Italian troops(so a small army) but Rommel was given permission to launch attacks if he saw fit. as im sure you know he drove them back to Tobruk and el Alemain. even though he made these great territorial gains for the germans he is still very overrated, while people like guderian and manstein are underrated.i think guderan was actually a better general than manstein though

 

 

16

1. Rommel was a good general, I agree, but my problem is that most people make him out as the reason for the success of German tanks, especially the Northern attack into France via the Benelux. You could have put any good general in place of Rommel and they would have done just as well as Rommel did, which is why I think Rommel is overrated - he was good, but not the reason for Germany's success.

2. You can't compare Guderian to Manstein at all. Guderian was a tactician, Manstein was a strategist. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

3. I definitely agree with your 2nd paragraph, though. Monty, Zhukov and Rommel were all "media generals", pride of the nation, as you said. Albeit, Zhukov did actually deserve his spot when compared to the state of the USSR.

Zhukov was not at all a great general. The reason he became so popular was that he was a good general when compared to everyone else the USSR had. The Great Purge left a massive hole in the commanding abilities of the USSR, and Zhukov was the only competent general they had, hence he was regarded as one of the best generals of WW2.

[BrakeCoachStudios 169]

On 1/19/2019 at 7:14 AM, Sneaky said:

 

• US involvement in the war could only be delayed, but not prevented.

Yup. American textbooks won't tell them that. XD

[WorkPlease 109]

On 1/22/2019 at 8:38 AM, BrakeCoachStudios said:

Yup. American textbooks won't tell them that. XD

Really? Damn, those textbooks must be trash.

[Abdulrahman 24]

I m interested in WW2 

 

[Lixobounce 9]

On 1/19/2019 at 10:48 PM, JustAnUser said:

Not really against it. Massproducing the tanks they already had would've been better for them. And not wasting their money on supertanks like Maus that can be destroyed by air attacks easily.

Mass producing the tanks are basically impossible for them, and their panzer 4's are already obselete by the time barbarossa started

[Lixobounce 9]

On 1/20/2019 at 3:32 AM, Sneaky said:

Zhukov was not at all a great general. The reason he became so popular was that he was a good general when compared to everyone else the USSR had. The Great Purge left a massive hole in the commanding abilities of the USSR, and Zhukov was the only competent general they had, hence he was regarded as one of the best generals of WW2.

Zhukov wasn't the only competent general, Konev was also decent

[Noobs Dudes 180]

On 1/18/2019 at 3:14 PM, Sneaky said:

I'm interested in WW2, albeit I wouldn't call myself a nerd. 

If you want to debate, then here are some opinions on WW2 of mine:

• Germany could have won WW2, but only without Hitler. Even then, if they still had to invade USSR, they'd only win in the very unlikely scenario that they'd get Western support.
• Erwin Rommel is one of the most overrated Generals of all time.
• Heinz Guderian is what most people make Erwin Rommel out to be.
• Erich von Manstein was one of the most brilliant strategists of WW2 and one of the main reasons Germany was so successful.
• US involvement in the war could only be delayed, but not prevented.
• Germany could never ever have invaded mainland Britain, even with the destruction of the RAF.
• Hitler was the reason for both the success of Germany and the failure of it.
• Germany produced some of the best tanks of the war, but they were exactly the kind of tanks Germany did not need.
• The Sherman is underrated.
• While most people say Germany would have been better without Italy, I disagree. While Italy had one of the worst armies of WW2, it still did its own fair share of helping Germany. The Italian Navy kept the Royal Navy busy so Germany could focus on the ground aspect.
• Many people misunderstand the involvement of Baltics within WW2. The Courland Pocket saw very fierce combat, and the Latvian Legionnaires were some of the last German units surrendered. Let that sink in - the Courland Pocket held out until the Soviets had already reached Berlin.
• While Soviets had already won by then, D-Day was still an important part of the Allied efforts to end WW2.
• The nuking of Japan was fully and completely justified.
• Germany couldn't have gotten nukes, even if the Norwegian resistance members hadn't blown up the heavy water stations and what not.
• The Soviet Union had better tactics for the use of large scale tank assaults - Deep Operations/Soviet Deep Battle.
• There was no such thing as a "blitzkrieg" tactic - it was simply generals using the tanks at their disposal to their best ability.
• Germany was technologically superior to the Allies, but its resources deprived them of putting them to any use.

Please don't hate me for having an opinion.

Never understood people who said we weren't justified in nuking Japan. Look at how hard they faught just defending some random islands. Now imagine that, but in Mainland Japan!