WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Eastern front starts in 1942

Posted by: Iamandi November 11, 2004 10:35 am

What effect had for war with UK?
What effect had for Germany allies?
What may was beginning of war?
etc.

Denes can you give as a scenario - with your aviation knowledge?

Iama

Posted by: D13-th_Toppy November 11, 2004 07:42 pm

u mean if Germany would have invaded USSR in 1942?
hm... maybe up to that point a second Battle of Britain would have started, and considddering the lessons the german might have learned already, it would have ended ina favourable manner for germany, not necesarily by invading Briatin, but forcing Churchill si accept an armistice.
about Germany's allies... probably Germany togheter with the italians would have been able to push the alies out of N Afrika, maybe also forcing them to commit to a ceasefire or even a favourable peace for Germany.
If the supposition above would have realized, most probably, Germany and its allies, (unbothered by the brits over france, and in Afrika and without the danger of a landing in Normandy or anywhere else) would have been able to put up enough troops and materials to take Moskow, Leningrad and Stalingrad, and push further into Russia.Togheter with the development of new technologies like jets, and superiour tanks, might have meant a total German domination of Europe and Asia. Also i really doubt Hitler would still be alive, or at least not leading Germany.
as u can see there are lots of "if", "would", "might" etc... also it might have been the other way around........

Posted by: Dénes November 11, 2004 08:30 pm

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Nov 11 2004, 04:35 PM)

Denes can you give as a scenario - with your aviation knowledge?

Sorry, I am not a fan of the 'what-if' history.
History is (should be) an exact science, not a place for 'what-ifs'.

Lt. Col. Dénes

Posted by: Alexandru H. November 12, 2004 03:48 pm

An exact science? Not possible... It is quite possible to observe all the outcomes of a certain event, yet we can make few suppositions about the nature (or, more exactly causes) of the event. Documents and historical evidence is harder to uncover than mathematical formula. In my book, that places history among astrology, not physics...

Posted by: Dénes November 12, 2004 04:02 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Nov 12 2004, 09:48 PM)

Documents and historical evidence is harder to uncover than mathematical formula.

I beg to disagree with that.
Documents and historical evidence - at least for the part several hundred years - are not that hard to uncover.
Properly interpreting them is difficult, as few historians are really knowledgeable and totally impartial.

And history is an attemp to retrace the exact events that happened only one way. Therefore it (should) be an exact science. In my opinion, at least.

Here is the definition of history, as given by Encyclopaedia Britannica:

QUOTE

the discipline that studies the chronological record of events (as affecting a nation or people), based on a critical examination of source materials and usually presenting an explanation of their causes.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9040600&query=history&ct=

Lt. Col. Dénes

Posted by: Iamandi November 17, 2004 09:48 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ Nov 11 2004, 08:30 PM)

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Nov 11 2004, 04:35 PM)

Denes can you give as a scenario - with your aviation knowledge?

Sorry, I am not a fan of the 'what-if' history.
History is (should be) an exact science, not a place for 'what-ifs'.

Lt. Col. Dénes

"what if's" are just mind exercises. Why do you have knowledge, if you don't try to do some kind of this mind ex.???
Your point of view are well welcome, and have some weight. So, give it a try.

Iama

Posted by: Chandernagore December 03, 2004 12:06 am

In my opinion east front in 42 gives you only 3 years in place of 4 to do the job before you get nuclearized

Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2005 08:17 pm

QUOTE (D13-th_Toppy @ Nov 11 2004, 07:42 PM)

If anyone wants to conduct a somewhat professional "what if" scenario, one has to do it as scientifically, historically and politically as possible.
In this case it means separating the variable at hand -- "Barbarossa" in different time frames -- from all the other events, which stay the same.

So, we can only make a serious "what if" scenario only if we analyse the impact of the changed schedule of the campaign, not remake the whole Barbarossa campaign by "what if"-ing whole other campaigns with their own fixed characteristics and strong points-weak points relationships, and thus adding more units and supplies, by eliminating the second front factor etc.

Posted by: Indrid April 16, 2005 08:22 pm

i do not get it, imperialist. you say that should one desire to conduct a what if scenarion, he must do it historically. well, if one does that historically, where is the "what if"?

Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2005 08:35 pm

QUOTE (Indrid @ Apr 16 2005, 08:22 PM)

i do not get it, imperialist. you say that should one desire to conduct a what if scenarion, he must do it historically. well, if one does that historically, where is the "what if"?

you do it with historically known facts -- there was no jet fighter at the time, so including a jet fighter in a "what if" Barbarossa campaign is childish. There were only a number of divisions available for Barbarossa, so changing the number of divisions available means already going out of the Barbarossa "what if", which is all about time.

Early 1942 vs. mid-1941, with the same no. of troops, with the same lack of bombers, etc. -- what if there was more time?

You will see that applying this kind of strict "what ifs" will actually make you see mistakes, overlooked possibilities, chance, tactical details affecting the strategic outcome etc. Things that have a certain "lessons learned" utility, not sci-fi cool, but unrealistic stuff...

The biggest SF "what if" -- what if the war didnt start?

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 16, 2005 09:02 pm

OK, I agree with this "what-if" scenario. Let's think it over.

First of all, why would Hitler postpone his russian campaign for one year? He wanted to take care of USSR quicklier because the russians were beginning to catch up militarily (just imagine a polish border filled with T-34 tank divisions). The only way he wouldn't have attacked: a) realised that the russian bear is not an easy target (I'd say impossible, judging after the Barbarossa event, when all reports about the russian army were dismissed as fairytales)

making an understanding with the russians, against Great Britain. Now, he proposed this one time to Molotov, getting a stern refusal. But...

a) A "what-if" scenario is an alernative history based on the valability of one event, in our case a german attack against USSR in 1942. So, in order for this to happen, I think that a limited german-russian alliance directed against Great Britain is the sole factor.

Why would Germany lose another year? Well, I think he would have been convinced to take perpherical actions, especially in North Africa, Spain or Turkey. But, in this case, the attack against USSR in 1942 wouldn't have been a glorious advancement but a war of positions, with great Kursk-like battles in the Polish area. My bet? I dare to say that Great Britain and Germany would have suceeded to make peace, in order to drive the russian scrooge out of Central Europe.

Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2005 09:34 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 16 2005, 09:02 PM)

Dont jump to other "what-ifs" (an alliance with USSR against Britain in '41 ) from the "what-if" at hand.
Hitler could have used the rest of 1941 with other minor engagements in Africa and over England, but that didnt mean he couldnt have continued to better prepare his Barbarossa (like preparing for winter clothing or something like that).
The second impact of that waiting time -- the weather. If we take the weather as something unchangeable by human intervention, we can compare the weather situation of 1941 with 1942.
Was 1941 the year with the harshest winter of the century in Russia? Was the 1942 winter milder?
The third impact of this "what-if" -- the length of the campaign. A campaign started in spring 1942 would have added whole months of fighting. What impact would that have had?

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 16, 2005 09:36 pm

But you can't have a valid "what if" hypotesis if you don't have a reasonable explanation for it. I, for one, don't see Hitler doing the Barbarossa one year later unless he had managed to come to terms with Stalin in 1940-1941.

Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2005 09:42 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 16 2005, 09:36 PM)

Its no use doing that, because we want to see how a changed variable (time) in the case study affects its outcome, not what should have happened to reach that changed variable (cause for that you'd have to create more variables and include other events not included in this case study)... it would be pointless doing that, cause then you;d have to change more, and more, back and back in time, and you lose focus.

p.s. reasonable "what-ifs" do not/should not exist by definition, cause you start from the unreasonable assumption that you can analyse a different situational branch with the basics of the branch of time evolution which that event happening as it did created;

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 16, 2005 10:08 pm

But how can we look at the outcome of our first assumption if we don't know every variable that may influence its result? For example, a better relation with USSR might mean for Germany better tanks, more resources. If we want to see a "what-if" situation evolving, we can't very well start from scrap. I already said that the best way to do it is by looking at the reasons why Hitler never initated Barbarossa in 1942, and the subsequent military and political decisions that might have followed.

What use could this discussion have if we wouldn't look at it at least from reasonable perspectives, if not from historical models?

Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2005 10:42 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 16 2005, 10:08 PM)

Were there better prototypes at that time?
Did the start of the war in June 41 actually cause the end of those projects?
What does the relation with USSR has to do with the qualitative tank production?
Beware, you might already be losing your focus in unrelated "what ifs".

or maybe not; so explain what you mean, with some examples maybe...

take care

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 16, 2005 10:53 pm

Ok, let's say that Hitler is forced into maintaining the "friendship" with USSR because he or his staff realise something we know now to have been true: either that a two-front war spells certain doom for the IIIrd Reich, either that the USSR forces are impossible to beat with the current technological advances. The Russians accept to make life difficult for the British in Persia and Afghanistan, which forces the british high command to relinquish some of its advanced key zones in those areas, just to maintain the lifeline of the Empire. Meanwhile, the two superpowers make some industrial and military trades, and I can very well imagine a young german colonel, impressed by the russian T34s and making a full detailed report about them to Guderian. Or maybe an aircraft model taken to Leningrad to be examined...

Posted by: Imperialist April 16, 2005 11:16 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 16 2005, 10:53 PM)

QUOTE

The topic and the "what if" has as a starting point war in 1942 against the USSR.
Dont go off-topic.

QUOTE

The Russians accept to make life difficult for the British in Persia and Afghanistan, which forces the british high command to relinquish some of its advanced key zones in those areas, just to maintain the lifeline of the Empire.

Has nothing to do with the topic, you're going outside the theatre we discuss here.

QUOTE

Meanwhile, the two superpowers make some industrial and military trades, and I can very well imagine a young german colonel, impressed by the russian T34s and making a full detailed report about them to Guderian.

We are not in an imagination contest.

Also, the T-34 production started in mid-1940!!! Unless there was a full detailed report by June 1941 of the T-34s awesome power, there's no point in considering one before 1942.

Or even if we do, the campaign wouldnt have started in the autumn/winter of 1941 just because of that report. It still would have started in 1942!!!

So Alex, no offense intended, but stop philosophising too much, and stick to military history and military thinking, even in an "what if" scenario.

Remember: better preparations; different weather; longer campaign.

These are one of the only things we can reasonably analyse.

I'd be interested if someone knows why there was a lack of winter-clothing supply.

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 16, 2005 11:29 pm

I think you really don't understand. Let me ask you this then: how many men and equipment could Germany spare for such a campaign? You must, in this case, consider other theaters of activity, other fronts, losses from the previous campaigns. But you want to picture it without the necessary requirements...Fine, do it! I'm sure it would prove quite interesting

QUOTE

So Alex, no offense intended, but stop philosophising too much, and stick to military history and military thinking, even in an "what if" scenario.

If this is philosophy, I might have mistaken my career. No, my dear Imperialist, this is the romanian "rupere a firului in patru". Because what you do with this is not military thinking, just an exercise of imagination. I could very well say "Well, Germany would conquer Moscow because they would have obtained new winter gear" but prove nothing. Keep trying, I've seen better!

Posted by: Indrid April 17, 2005 04:52 am

is this thread going sour as well?

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 08:18 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 16 2005, 11:29 PM)

Alex, please understand that this topic is about 'Eastern front starts in 1942" not "The Mother of All What Ifs on All the Fronts; Lets What If the Whole War".
If you want to engage is such a mega-what if be my guest, open a new topic.

Otherwise, please understand that we are considering AS FIXED the forces available for Barbarossa, but we only change the time...

QUOTE

You must, in this case, consider other theaters of activity, other fronts, losses from the previous campaigns.

Considering that the number of troops available for the actual Barbarossa WAS influenced by previous campaigns, and we leave that number UNCHANGED, but only change the time of the campaign, I see no point in IMAGINING other campaigns or the outcome of other campaigns, in this case study...

take care

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 08:22 am

Aha, I finally understand you. So you want to completely erase one year worth of military campaigns, technological breakthroughs or political interventions just to make a "what-if" scenario? You want Germany to attack in the same way, Russia to be as incapable as in RL, you want the same officers...

Ah, you do understand this is a futile work. I tend to agree with Denes in this one. If you don't make it reasonable, it's worthless...But do tell your thoughts about such a campaign

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 08:37 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 17 2005, 08:22 AM)

QUOTE

Ah, you do understand this is a futile work. I tend to agree with Denes in this one. If you don't make it reasonable, it's worthless...

I think I made it as reasonable as possible, you on the other hand have done your best to scuttle this topic too... all I can see is you trying to make it unreasonable and worthless by trying to confuse the focus of this topic; start talking about Afghanistan, peace with Russia; British bases... and you call my approach unreasonable...

QUOTE

You want Germany to attack in the same way, Russia to be as incapable as in RL, you want the same officers...

Aha... so I clarified whats with the number of troops and other fronts, and now you go after... the officers.

By the way... Barbarossa was a plan. That is... it described the way in which Germany was to attack. So yes, the plan stays the same, only the time of the campaign changes. So, Germany attacks in the same way.

p.s. What do you want exactly?

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 08:50 am

I want to discuss this like a real possibility. From my point of view, the same plan in 1942 would have failed and the front would have become a static attrition battlefield. This is all.

No, you haven't made it reasonable. You just said something like "Let's say in 1944 the germans attack USA with tactical nukes". I think it would be worthwhile to see how in hell would have Germany obtained those things. If that is not explainable, the original hypotesis becomes void. I participated on many "what-ifs" projects with several people, plus I've watched some really gifted scenarios (like the Shattered World project, great read if you have the time), so I have really not the interest in making limited and imaginative assumptions about such topics.

QUOTE

Imperialist, think about what you are trying to portray: the greatest military front in history. By ignoring everything else, as if the British would have remained in stasis form for one year. How about Pearl Harbour and the Americans?

QUOTE

Aha... so I clarified whats with the number of troops and other fronts, and now you go after... the officers.

You want the same number of troops in 1942 that existed in 1941. Witht the same equipment, same gear, same weapons, same tanks, same officers, same plan. Isn't it reasonable to say that you may end up with the same outcome?

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 08:56 am

http://www.geocities.com/cypher_zzz/shattered/shattered.htm

The link to the Shattered World Scenario....Excellent read!

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 09:05 am

QUOTE

No, you haven't made it reasonable. You just said something like "Let's say in 1944 the germans attack USA with tactical nukes". I think it would be worthwhile to see how in hell would have Germany obtained those things. If that is not explainable, the original hypotesis becomes void.

I never said something like that.

QUOTE

I participated on many "what-ifs" projects with several people, plus I've watched some really gifted scenarios (like the Shattered World project, great read if you have the time), so I have really not the interest in making limited and imaginative assumptions about such topics.

Well, fine. Then get your a** off this topic and start your own mega-world-wide what if project, and enlighten us with your know-how.

QUOTE

You are persisting in your attitude.
Dont make me waste time and effort to explain things that are out of this case study. If you have interesting input to make, YOU come and say exactly what material impact the British had on the war in the east.
Say something worthwhile for change, some interesting info, some data... stop hi-jacking other people's threads.

QUOTE

And you continue to ignore that this topic is about the time factor...

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 09:20 am

OK, I'll leave you and your thread alone. One small piece of advice: you really shouldn't open threads asking for cooperation, when you are the "lone wolf" type. We already clashed some time ago when you asked why no one makes a political movement of honest people. I think the answer is obvious: maybe some people don't earn their place among honest people, being too occupied in forging insults (do you think expressions like "Then get your a** off this topic and start your own mega-world-wide what if project, and enlighten us with your know-how." are really necessary?).

By the way, it was your responsability to create the scenario, since you started the topic, not me. Bye!

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 09:29 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 17 2005, 09:20 AM)

Alex, I'm hard to annoy, but you really annoyed me. Review your attitude in this topic, read back the messages, and you'll see I answered all your questions up to a point when you really went off-topic... and you did not participate with info, but only came up with more and more off-topic, unrelated and diversionary questions.
And after I answered them and asked you whats up with those questions, you came with more and more...

Look back -- your tank question; your troop number question; your same way of attack question... and maybe others.
With what did you come in exchange? You continued to extend the off-topic discussion -- Pearl Harbour etc.

So sorry for being so blunt in my previous "advice", but you really push people's buttons...

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 09:36 am

Well, maybe we are not suited for alternative scenarios and should stop this.

QUOTE

So sorry for being so blunt in my previous "advice", but you really push people's buttons...

Are you kidding? I think you miss the point of discussion, debate or controversy (be careful, our university is not the best place to learn how to behave). So you insult (or beat people, like that thief in the bus) like every mobster or lowly character out there. If you can't take it, you are free to throw down the towel (which you incidently did, when you finished the discussion like a "manele" listener).

Bad example...

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 09:41 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 17 2005, 09:36 AM)

Well, maybe we are not suited for alternative scenarios and should stop this.

QUOTE

So sorry for being so blunt in my previous "advice", but you really push people's buttons...

I finished no discussion... I only said that if you admit you;re not interested in this type of limited scenario, why are you hanging around this topic?
I also said that if you have real info and real analysis, please come up with it, stop the endless trail of sometimes off-topic questions.
And please, dont give me that victim's attitude, you're not impressing me...

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 10:53 am

I think that in the case of a 1942 Barbarossa, the germans would have used this plan.

Posted by: Victor April 17, 2005 03:25 pm

I suggest you both calm down and stop this nonsense. It isn't productive.

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 05:40 pm

***

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 17, 2005 06:09 pm

It's a better Barbarossa because it's a later Barbarossa.

Posted by: Indrid April 17, 2005 06:10 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Apr 17 2005, 07:40 PM)

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 17 2005, 10:53 AM)

I think that in the case of a 1942 Barbarossa, the germans would have used this plan.

Its seems the same Barbarossa to me...

p.s. what program did you use?

Microsoft paint, imo

seriously guys, if you put so many brakes on the car you should not worry it does not move. i mean, for a scenarion in which nothing seems to happen for one year, than one should use only the technologies at the time.

hell, it makes no sense....

Posted by: C-2 April 17, 2005 07:08 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 17 2005, 06:09 PM)

It's a better Barbarossa because it's a later Barbarossa.

A better Barbarosa is an earlier one...
If they wouldn't start it in late summer but in early spring ,who knows,maybee Stalingrad was in Moskow.

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 07:43 pm

***

Posted by: Imperialist April 17, 2005 07:48 pm

***

Posted by: Iamandi April 18, 2005 09:24 am

Hello boys, nice to see something was developing on this..

But, i don't like this little fight between Imperialist and Alexandru H., like Victor says - isn't productive.

Alexandru - this topic was starded by me, and not by Imperialist, so stop acusing him. Change your target, to me ("vei paste iarba pe care o cunosti"

). About one of your posts, i want to say: before ww2 germans and russians have good military relations. And, the real problem was not because germans don't know enough about russians... but, was because russians know to much.. They buyed from Germany a lot of military technology, including prototypes, for study at home by reverse engenereeng. They buyed warships, planes, etc., and developed a lot using germans exeperience, even used germans mistakes to not do in russia the same things.
And, T-34 like another succesfull tanks of ww2 was based on USA mistake to ignore Mr. Christy with his revolutionary projects in tank industry.

Iama

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 18, 2005 09:41 am

Ignoring the last post, I think that Germany would have lost big time starting the war in 1942.

Posted by: Imperialist April 18, 2005 09:52 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 18 2005, 09:41 AM)

Ignoring the last post, I think that Germany would have lost big time starting the war in 1942.

Based on...?

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 18, 2005 10:39 am

... God!

Posted by: Imperialist April 18, 2005 10:45 am

***

Posted by: Alexandru H. April 18, 2005 11:15 am

All I hear from you is chit-chat... What about the topic? Do you have any thoughts regarding it? I'm quite curious.

Posted by: Imperialist April 18, 2005 01:57 pm

***

Posted by: Imperialist May 19, 2005 05:40 am

QUOTE (Iamandi @ Apr 18 2005, 09:24 AM)

And, the real problem was not because germans don't know enough about russians... but, was because russians know to much.. They buyed from Germany a lot of military technology, including prototypes, for study at home by reverse engenereeng. They buyed warships, planes, etc., and developed a lot using germans exeperience, even used germans mistakes to not do in russia the same things.

Yes, Iama, but the germans had no other way to pull the shirt out of this.
The oil-for-food, sorry, oil-for-weapons/tech programme was based on the germans giving the soviets military technology and the soviets giving the germans a lot of oil, raw materials and agricultural products.
As Hitler decided to launch Barbarossa, he banned the export of any military technology to the Russians. But undoubtedly something could have slipped through before that, not to mention the cooperation in the interwr period.
But from what I've read I didnt see any reverse engineering from the russians. They had their tank models pretty figured out, they only made some adjustments or compared them with the german ones.
Does that qualify for reverse engineering? I mean, I do not know the term very well...

Posted by: Imperialist June 10, 2005 05:30 pm

While away, I found this site:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/2941/map.htm

And this picture:

user posted image

Looks familiar... oops...

Posted by: Indrid June 10, 2005 06:57 pm

haha...somebody got caught

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 10, 2005 07:22 pm

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Apr 17 2005, 11:53 AM)

I think that in the case of a 1942 Barbarossa, the germans would have used this plan.

This is my original post.... As you can see, it has not a single mention about me making that map ....except for the name encrusted on the map (yes, Imperialist, you are on the verge of proving my wickidness and bad manners) ..... BUT

May I point you to the name of the saved pic in the imageshack server: imperialistjoke4hn.gif

Yes, Imperialist, the joke is on you....

(let's see if you figure out what the 4hn stands for)... Do you thing I'm stupid enough to copy some guy's drawing off the internet, which can be easily found on the first pages of a simple google search for "barbarossa" and claim it to be mine? You must believe I'm a moron!

... btw, since I am a romanian, I shouldn't have written "Rumania" like that...

You should do something else with your time, frankly spending so much on this trivial matter is laughable...

I know, here is my assignment: using google images and the key word "voltron", find me a certain IRC channel on a certain IRC server from where you can download old 80s cartoons (like Thundarr or Centurions)

Edit:

QUOTE (Indrid)

haha...somebody got caught

I think I should laugh, because you actually believed I drew that (in spite of the fact that I had already told you about it several weeks ago)... Oh my God, I'm overachieving!

no wonder, seeing the people I'm competing against

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2005 03:56 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Jun 10 2005, 07:22 PM)

May I point you to the name of the saved pic in the imageshack server: imperialistjoke4hn.gif

Yes, Imperialist, the joke is on you....

... btw, since I am a romanian, I shouldn't have written "Rumania" like that...

You should do something else with your time, frankly spending so much on this trivial matter is laughable...

QUOTE (Indrid)

haha...somebody got caught

I think I should laugh, because you actually believed I drew that (in spite of the fact that I had already told you about it several weeks ago)... Oh my God, I'm overachieving!

no wonder, seeing the people I'm competing against

No, thats not the name of the pic, so save your breath.
And I did not find this image googleing, cause I truly thought you made that stuff I did not go around checking it. It was pure luck that I ended up on that page hence my surprise at what I found...
As for the rest of your post, I dont intend to start arguing with you, the images speak for themselves, the idea is that you lied and put your name on somebody else's work. That may be a trivial matter for you... "Dar e penibil"! If I were you, I'd shut up.

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 11, 2005 04:25 am

QUOTE

No, thats not the name of the pic, so save your breath.

Boy, you are a hard cookie.... Click right-button of the mouse on the picture, select properties....

Edit: and no, I didn't stay all night to wait for you, I have to write a 15 page essay so it figures...

Posted by: Indrid June 11, 2005 04:25 am

Alex, i have no recollection of the time when you showed me that map, but i cannot say that you did not. you may have and i have forgotten about it. sorry, you know i have a lot on my mind these days...

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2005 04:29 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Jun 11 2005, 04:25 AM)

QUOTE

No, thats not the name of the pic, so save your breath.

I dont know, and I dont care how that came about...
I know the pics name is map2 on my harddrive, and I have no way of controlling who or how it is placed on Imageshack.
I suspect you have something to do with it, nevertheless. But I dont care, thats a detail.

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 11, 2005 04:33 am

Aoleu!!! The great conspiracy theorist doesn't even know how to run a piece of electronics...

Try this link: http://img113.echo.cx/img113/6536/imperialistjoke4hn.gif

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2005 04:38 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Jun 11 2005, 04:33 AM)

Aoleu!!! The great conspiracy theorist doesn't even know how to run a piece of electronics...

Try this link: http://img113.echo.cx/img113/6536/imperialistjoke4hn.gif

OK, so you named your Alexandru H signed map imperialistjoke4hn.
Read my lips: what-ever, so-what??? This aint the Jokes Forum. You edited and you signed that map, I came with a link for the original map.
Now you can go on trying to find your usual "it was a joke" excuses. For me the subject is closed, all I wanted to say and show, I did. Now I have my own papers to write. Cheers!

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 11, 2005 04:58 am

Well, you really don't get it: Let me explain...

a) Earlier in the thread: You ("By the way... Barbarossa was a plan. That is... it described the way in which Germany was to attack. So yes, the plan stays the same, only the time of the campaign changes. So, Germany attacks in the same way.")

B ) Me (You want the same number of troops in 1942 that existed in 1941. Witht the same equipment, same gear, same weapons, same tanks, same officers, same plan. Isn't it reasonable to say that you may end up with the same outcome?

)

c) You (I finished no discussion... I only said that if you admit you;re not interested in this type of limited scenario, why are you hanging around this topic?
I also said that if you have real info and real analysis, please come up with it, stop the endless trail of sometimes off-topic questions.)

d) Me (The map + I think that in the case of a 1942 Barbarossa, the germans would have used this plan. )

Let me tell you this and for the last time: You acted like a moron in this thread, dismissing every attempt of making the scenario at least plausible if not historical. In spite of my efforts of trying to prove that it is of no use of discussing a 1942 Nazi victory in the East without a very different Barbarossa 1941, you just kept going and going with the "limited" madness factor, asking me at the end to leave if I don't bring something useful to the conversation, like real info and real analysis.

Which I did. Let me explain to you how irony works. You take a picture some guy drew of the real historical 1941-1942 Campaign. You place your name on it just to appear genuine. You insert a very serious explanation (ergo the ... I think that in the case of a 1942 Barbarossa, the germans would have used this plan.), that seems to make you interested of what the other one has to say, but actually you laugh your ass off because you just polluted his fantasy construction with real historical facts and the only alternative for a 1942 German Eastern offensive. Not a fantasy one, the only one, which happens to be the historical one as well. But you also upload the picture into the imageshack account of the site with a catchy name (like Imperialistjoke, well, nothing beats the truth) that saves you a lot of trouble later on (as I can see now) but also will maybe manage to inflict some pains later on (which it will, when everyone will see this thread

).

Now, be assured I care less for your opinions, as mistaken-riddled they can be. But I am just amazed at the length someone will reach just to get back on his nemesis... But you were wrong. I know how to protect myself well too good. I have premonition, lying skills, experience and, most of all, a destiny...

Move along, now! You've been Sarmatiz'd!

Posted by: Indrid June 11, 2005 05:02 am

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 11, 2005 05:13 am

QUOTE

You talk about the Alex, you're talking about a show
That's hyped and tight
Posters are sweating so pass them a wipe
Or a book to learn
How to make his badass wish
To burn the world
Be his alter-ego or you might as well quit

That's the word,because you know
U can't touch Me
Why you standing there, man?
U can't touch Me
Yo,sound the bells, school is in, sucker

Break it down

Stop. . . Sarmatiz'd

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2005 05:19 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Jun 11 2005, 04:58 AM)

Are you bringing the whole thread back into this silly message? Now, if you want to reopen this thread about campaign in 1942, just say so.

As for your excuses, save those too they are infantile. You posted an image with your name on it. No one was going to save it on its hdd or jump on it to see what was the name of the file on Imageshak.
And even if someone did that, so what? The map was still signed Alexandru H, and you named it imperialistjoke, where is the info about it being taken from somewhere/somebody else???? Nowhere.

You are not my nemesis, and like I said, the pictures say it all. What you did is not a "crime" but it sure says a lot about your character.

Have a good day.

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 11, 2005 05:39 am

Ok, I already am late with my essay...let's leave it on another time, when both you and I will have time to spare...

But I still say I am right about the 1942 scenario....

And about the drawing (I'm turning my serious mood up)... the strange part is that you assumed it was my creation based on my name written on it. Now, I am no lawyer, but even I could tell you that a simple name written on a bench or a document cannot be considered as the proprietory evidence of an individual. Making a cartoon and writing on it George Bush tells me nothing about the originator of the cartoon, but, if it would have some basic structural underlines, like the word "by" before the name, the evidence of at least the person that drew it (as you can see, I did not say in any post that I drew it, you just assumed that because I had my name on it....).

Now, I agree that works of art are different, since we accept the name at the bottom right of the picture as the name of the true artist. But in reality, the art specialists are never satisfied with ownership, until they discover real documents....

Why do I write such boring things? Well, maybe because I have no mood for explaining the reasons the american community has failed. So, I'll put here something someone else wrote about a similar accusation: "You see, after writing +300 or so pages of original material, every now and then I like to steal a few bits from someone famous just to see if I can sneak it in under the radar. What I didn't count on was that an astute reader such as yourself would read my text and find some great conspiracy brewing".

Imperialist, you say I am not your nemesis. Yet you return on the forum and your first thing on the agenda is to attack me. You can't understand that I really had no single advantage to gain from that drawing (since I didn't brag about it, since I did not enforce my ownership over it) except one: as a tool against one of your arguments.

Read along all my texts I made for this forum. In spite of what the moderators, you and other people are thinking about me, and my character (which is strange, because all my life I wanted to be an insensitive, stupid, low jerk and never suceeded at this), I think that what I've written deserved more than bans, warnings or infatuation.

QUOTE (Indrid)

Well, Gabi, that's too bad... you had much on your mind, yet did not forget to have a good laugh... Hmmm... right

Posted by: Imperialist June 11, 2005 05:58 am

QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Jun 11 2005, 05:39 AM)

And about the drawing (I'm turning my serious mood up)... the strange part is that you assumed it was my creation based on my name written on it. Now, I am no lawyer, but even I could tell you that a simple name written on a bench or a document cannot be considered as the proprietory evidence of an individual.

Imperialist, you say I am not your nemesis. Yet you return on the forum and your first thing on the agenda is to attack me. You can't understand that I really had no single advantage to gain from that drawing (since I didn't brag about it, since I did not enforce my ownership over it) except one: as a tool against one of your arguments.

Read along all my texts I made for this forum. In spite of what the moderators, you and other people are thinking about me, and my character (which is strange, because all my life I wanted to be an insensitive, stupid, low jerk and never suceeded at this), I think that what I've written deserved more than bans, warnings or infatuation.

About the drawing... you provided no link, no source, and you put your name on it. Hmm... sure, we dumb people on the forum thought its yours.

About the nemesis... No, I posted other things too, you are not my obsession, but like I said, I was truly surprised when I accidentally ended up on that site and found that map. I thought truth has to be told.

About your texts... I have nothing for or against them. The idea is that you ran enough jokes and pranks and unsuccessful ironies with enough members of this forum which is not a Joke Forum. And people get banned or completely excluded because they dont have your sense of humour or because they are rightly annoyed with it.

Posted by: dragos June 11, 2005 08:46 am

Stop posting off-topic messages. This is a warning.

Posted by: Victor June 11, 2005 11:14 am

Alexandru H., I expect you to edit your post with the image and provide the real source for it.

Imperialist, thanks for bringing this up.