This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kprev24
1
« on: August 03, 2014, 02:40:43 PM »
Sudetenland had belonged to Germany until 1806 and between 1815 - 1866. After WWI, the Treaty of Versailles took Sudetenland from Germany and gave it to Czechoslovakia.
There were also many Germans living in Sudetenland.
Hard question if a country has ownership of a certain piece of land due to that ethnicity living in that place for a long time.
In this case, since Sudetenland was taken from Germany it was the right thing to take it back.
Wrong...
The Sudentenland was never part of Germany... the only thing close to it was the HRE but it still belonged to Bohemia at that point. From 1804 Bohemia (including Sudeten) was part of Austria(-Hungary later). After WW2 the Treaty of Versailles dismantled Austria-Hungary into all the small states and Czechslovakia got formed. Claims got fabricated through funding of Nationalists/Seperatists. He wanted to create a Crisis/Incident to justify a ceding to Germany. -> That's why many people currently draw references with Putin doing the exact same thing in Ukraine.
Was it fabricated enought that even Chamberlain was in agreement? If I remember correctly, he thought Hitlers claims were justified? Or was he trying to keep "peace for our time"
2
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:38:40 AM »
Nevermind,got it, please lock this thread, or don't, idk but I'm not checking it anymore
3
« on: July 29, 2014, 07:32:56 PM »
From the Wikipedia page:
"In 1938, Adolf Hitler demanded control of the Sudetenland. Britain and France ceded control in the Appeasement at the Munich Conference, ignoring the military alliance Czechoslovakia had with France. In 1939, the remainder ("rump") of Czechoslovakia was invaded by Nazi Germany and divided into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the puppet Slovak State. Much of Slovakia and all of Subcarpathian Ruthenia were annexed by Hungary. Poland occupied Zaolzie, an area with Polish minority, in October 1938."
So, in 2014, what's your opinion? Was Hitler justified in claiming the Sudetenland? Should France and the UK have stiffened and stood by Czechoslovakia?
4
« on: July 27, 2014, 05:36:49 PM »
So I wish to make some maps, and, if there good enough, post them here. I wish to use relics stock maps as a reference point. So I downloaded corsix and got a missing dll file error. So I used the dll fixer, and got the file. Here's the stupid question: where do I put this file?
5
« on: July 01, 2014, 09:29:52 PM »
...
6
« on: July 01, 2014, 04:12:10 AM »
So I have this great idea for a map, but it requires one of relics smaller maps. I extracted the map using corsix, and installed the smap fixer patch. However, when I try to paste the map, all I get are the outlines for objects, splats ect. What am I doing wrong?
7
« on: August 17, 2013, 09:44:04 PM »
Without land and lease red army wouldnt have survived the winter 1941/42...
USA send locomotives, railcars, fuel, tanks, rubber, planes and most important trucks.
I saw a statistic (think it was an us book about the red army?) about the land and lease program for the Udssr. In 1944 more than 75% of soviet locomotives were us land and lease locomotives. Round about 50% of trucks, jeeps and cars were land and lease materials. All in all US land and lease helped red army to survive the material causalities caused by the german offensives.
Out of my view without land and lease red army wouldnt have survived the war or had been able to start counter offensives "so early" in the war.
This just makes the Cold War even more absurd. Makes me proud to be American though! 
8
« on: August 17, 2013, 07:52:08 PM »
The Maus is one of the good examples for Hitler's idea (or perversions of the idea) that quality will always beat quantity.
There were no plans to mass produce the Maus. The Maus should be a hammer to smash down enemies waves of tanks.
A rolling fortress with enough firepower to stop a russian tank formation. That was the idea of the Maus not the idea
of an real battle tank. A lot of german generals try to argument against this tanks but non of them had success. Hitler's
hubris favoured those monster tanks instate of real main battle tanks.
So he had a wille for super-heavy tanks? I suppose the engineering was there, except the engine power or the resources at the time. Speaking of resources, this is another burning question, did the U.S have a lend-lease act with the U.S.S.R? The katyusha was based off the American truck "studebaker", and I thought I saw somewhere that they used some Sherman's?
9
« on: August 17, 2013, 07:26:45 PM »
Well we stole it cause 'Mercia XD lol but I guess "to the victor go the spoils"
10
« on: August 17, 2013, 05:21:40 PM »
Yes I agree, some of their advanced weaponry was oversized and over-engineered. For instance, the panzer 8, had that seen action, it most likely wouldn't have performed well in anything other than perfect conditions. It was simply too heavy and too big for any engine. I guess we should just be glad they made these mistakes, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather not have a fascist controlled world.
11
« on: August 16, 2013, 09:59:32 PM »
Yes, assault guns like the stug or stuH are very good on the defensive, their low profile is easy to camouflage, and the fixed turret is harder to use on the offensive. Perhaps the Germans should have focused more on the Panzer V auf.A rather than heavy tanks. The soviets can produce 10,000 T-34s a month, and the Americans about the same for the Sherman's, however the Sherman was inferior to the T-34. I think what the Germans failed to realize is that it doesn't matter how an elephant could take out 10+ T-34s, if the enemy sends 20 more to counter it.
12
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:29:36 AM »
The second world war wasnt decided by the Tiger tank (or lost).
The biggest advantage of the allies in WW2 was Hitler.
How true
13
« on: August 16, 2013, 04:28:46 AM »
I think I worded the quandary wrong. I know there was a lot more to WW2 than the tiger, I was more asking if people thought producing the tank in such high numbers instead of easer to produce tanks like the Panzer 3 and 4 or even the panther. I suppose I got my answer anyway but I do agree they needed an answer the the t-34 and KV series tanks, because the panzer 2 wasn't cutting it. Or perhaps would it have been better as a breakthrough unit like it's original intention. Gosh after reading my question it did seem like I asked if it was the reason he whole Heer came crashing down, I know I'm new but trust me I'm not that stupid.
14
« on: August 15, 2013, 02:27:44 PM »
I have been pondering this for a while and I realize that while the tiger 1 was a rather effective tank, was it also partly the reason for Germany's downfall? It cost 250,800 RM consumed plenty of petrol, resources, manpower, and most importantly there were only 1,347. A panzer 4 cost 90,000 RM, a panther roughly 110,000 RM. In addition, the Germans had no engine capable of powering the 56.9 tonnes beast. So if the Germans had not produced the Tiger, maybe perhaps produced hetzers, panzer 4 and 5s, or even the stug 3s (4s were more defensive, if I remember correctly) would the war have had a different outcome?
15
« on: August 12, 2013, 03:03:18 PM »
Ah yes, how foolish of me , like making a cake with no icing, a pie with no filling. Thank you once again! 
|
Show Posts