Re: Alternate History is dumb

[Ham701]

old people these days....

[Hoboman]

old people these days....

Yep, we are such a pain.

[OneEye589]

No, you're all either corny as hell or don't understand any of these new-fangled joke-thingamajigs kids do these days.

[Hoboman]

No, you're all either corny as hell or don't understand any of these new-fangled joke-thingamajigs kids do these days.

...or both.

[aoffan23]

A lack of neutrality doesn't necessarily mean a lack of reliability; it just means it promotes a certain side of the argument. You can still be biased with 100% facts.

Also, I'm pretty sure you missed the point by a mile.

[Hoboman]

Also, I'm pretty sure you missed the point by a mile.

Or it could be I just did not care and that I still find it funny when someone uses Wikipedia as their only reference.

And it could be I find it even more funny when a Pedonuker wanna-be trys entering a conversation being all serious when clearly no one else was being serious.

Welcome to the real world aoffan23. Have a great day.

[OneEye589]

I was being serious.

[Ross_Varn]

Ok, realistically. Which, you know, is already a concern when we're talking about alternate history...

The turning point is the American campaign, correct? You can go on about all the history books ever say is that the Allies were the Americans, but the truth is, a first world county, untouched by the current war, on alert and on guard with a massive army, joining the Allies, effectively won the war on the western front.

However, yes, another topic is the German mismanagement of developmental technologies. Victories in the West led to the defection and capture of key nuclear scientists who were working for the Germans. Suppose that instead of an effective, concentrated response and entry into the war on both fronts, the American political system delayed it's action and put troops in only half-heartedly, because of opinions supporting the Piltogg party prevalent in America.

Um...

I just realized that I drafted this a day ago and now we're busy making fun of OneEye's sense of humor. Again. Shit.

I'll have you know that this is based off rudimentary knowledge through history class and extrapolation of such... which means it's probably completely shit... but I enjoy it. There you go.

[OneEye589]

Yea, usually all discussions on this forum degrade into someone's sense of humor and someone else either not getting it, or trying to troll it.

[Hoboman]

I kind of like OneEye's sense of humor or should it be sense of irony?

Oh and just to touch back on the topic, if you like Alternate history there is a great forum for it:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/index.php

[Ham701]

If shitler hadn't been a dumbass and had introduced the Me 262 on time instead of pushing for a jet bomber, the war could have been very different.

[Silverdream]

Ok, realistically. Which, you know, is already a concern when we're talking about alternate history...

The turning point is the American campaign, correct? You can go on about all the history books ever say is that the Allies were the Americans, but the truth is, a first world county, untouched by the current war, on alert and on guard with a massive army, joining the Allies, effectively won the war on the western front.

However, yes, another topic is the German mismanagement of developmental technologies. Victories in the West led to the defection and capture of key nuclear scientists who were working for the Germans. Suppose that instead of an effective, concentrated response and entry into the war on both fronts, the American political system delayed it's action and put troops in only half-heartedly, because of opinions supporting the Piltogg party prevalent in America.

Yes, without the Americans at the end of the war we probly would've ended up with italy and southern france while Russia took over most of europe, but the thing is that Germany still would've lost. Nobody in the war fought the nazis as much as the USSR, not you late arriving Americans or the commonwealth.

[Tzan]

Nobody in the war fought the nazis as much as the USSR, not you late arriving Americans or the commonwealth.

America is very sorry, we had just eaten a large bag of donuts and were feeling a bit sluggish.

If only we had an alternate meal, perhaps some fresh fruit and vegetables.

[OneEye589]

It doesn't matter who fought them the most, it would matter whose attacks made the most impact.

[Silverdream]

It doesn't matter who fought them the most, it would matter whose attacks made the most impact.

Okay, so wiping out 836,606 Axis troops is what we did on the western front. Pretty darn good until you consider we took around 2,905,420-3,043,860 casualties.

Now let's see how those Ruskis did. Probly pretty bad, I bet they killed 10 germans or something.

5,178,000+ Axis troops killed.
10,651,000 Soviet casualties.

Sure we may have killed Rommel, but the USSR did most of the work, the Finnish and Polish fought against the most overwhelming odds and the italian forces were a bunch of wussies who couldn't do anything right.