PDA

View Full Version : 66 years ago today...



na85
06-06-2010, 08:02 PM
Sixty-six years ago today, on a Tuesday, the Allied powers invaded Normandy, France in undertaking the largest amphibious invasion of all time.

It's a very sobering thought to consider the vast swaths of young men cut down by machine gun fire in defense of our freedom to simulate their struggles electronically in the comfort of our homes 66 years from then.

ytareh
06-07-2010, 04:19 AM
Yeah it boggles the mind ...must have been some sight from the air ...RIP all...

Erkki_M
06-07-2010, 06:09 AM
And just four days later, another massive operation was begun at East front, in which nearly a million men would be taking part together with 2,000 aircraft and thousands of tanks and armored vehicles as well as naval units.

Invasion Normandy was massive, but it overshadows other battles, of equal or nearly the same scale and significance. The unimaginably named Vyborg-Patrozavodsk Offensive is one of them. If a schoolboy is asked to name 3 greatest battles of WW2, answers are, probably, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge and El Alamein, with a possible "Stalingrad was big too".

ytareh
06-07-2010, 07:34 AM
Vyborg-Patrozavodsk Offensive?Yes its ironic that even after years of general interest in this Eastern Front born sim Id never heard of it ...

irR4tiOn4L
06-07-2010, 08:06 AM
Yeah i have to say, after looking at the Eastern Front my view of WWII has shifted a bit;

Soviet Russia won the European war
Other allies were 'also rans'.


Just think - between Barbarossa and Berlin, the Eastern front involved armies of something like 15 million men.

Even after the Normandy landings, the Russians were facing something like 3-5 million in German armies. The Allies faced something like 800 000.

Its just a complete joke to say D-Day was the most important battle of the War, or that the Russians werent already winning and would have sued for peace. The Russians didnt just continue, they raced the Allies to Berlin. The objectives of D-Day were more geopolitics.

Theres a very good reason the Red Army was considered too powerful even for the combined Allied armies - and that the Allies investigated as much.


If i had to name the most important land battles of WWII now, theyd all be on the Eastern Front.

If i considered all types, id say Stalingrad, Moscow, Atlantic (uboats and raiders like Bismarck). Some popular choices like the Battle of Britain seem of little consequence when considered against losses in merchant shipping, let alone that Germany did not have the wherewithal or disposition to invade

DuxCorvan
06-07-2010, 08:32 AM
According to my calendar, you're a day too late... ;-) (Normandy is in the same date and time zone as my country).

thefruitbat
06-07-2010, 08:33 AM
D-day defined where the iron curtain fell no more no less. It didn't win the war, that was won in the east at least as far as the ETO goes.

Still a remarkable achievement non the less.

na85
06-07-2010, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Yeah i have to say, after looking at the Eastern Front my view of WWII has shifted a bit;

Soviet Russia won the European war
Other allies were 'also rans'.


Just think - between Barbarossa and Berlin, the Eastern front involved armies of something like 15 million men.

Even after the Normandy landings, the Russians were facing something like 3-5 million in German armies. The Allies faced something like 800 000.

Its just a complete joke to say D-Day was the most important battle of the War, or that the Russians werent already winning and would have sued for peace. The Russians didnt just continue, they raced the Allies to Berlin. The objectives of D-Day were more geopolitics.

Theres a very good reason the Red Army was considered too powerful even for the combined Allied armies - and that the Allies investigated as much.


If i had to name the most important land battles of WWII now, theyd all be on the Eastern Front.

If i considered all types, id say Stalingrad, Moscow, Atlantic (uboats and raiders like Bismarck). Some popular choices like the Battle of Britain seem of little consequence when considered against losses in merchant shipping, let alone that Germany did not have the wherewithal or disposition to invade

You're correct and I agree that the Eastern front was the most important front of the war, but that's not to say any other theatre was unimportant.

The fact that 30 000 of my countrymen risked their lives storming Juno beach makes D-Day somewhat more personally relevant than say the battle of Stalingrad, important and massive though it may have been.

I also disagree that the D-Day objectives were more geopolitics than military.

Tjaika
06-07-2010, 11:57 AM
Lets not forget that Sovjet was allied to Hitler-Germany and helped in the attack against Poland. Naval bases were available to Germans against allied countries. That Russia lost so many, is also a result of the disrespect of human life of the sovjet leaders as anything else. The number died in political motivated starvation in the 20ties and up is unknown, but not unsignificant vs the losses in WWII.

The Battle of Britain is very important, "small" as it is, because at that point Britain was alone against the axis. If they had lost, US probably wouldnt entered Europe later on when Japan attacked. Sovjet would not have won then.

On the contrary, if Sovjet-Germany were united the whole war, it is not certain that they would have won. Who knows?

But, it is beyond doubt that the people in Sovjet union did most to end the war, and paid the most heavy price. The reason it was so heavy was because of Stalin.

Wildnoob
06-07-2010, 02:35 PM
The Soviets were the biggest victorious?

First thing for people who think that: how we could put the USSR in a superior position over the other Allies when were are talking about a WORLD WAR?

The Eastern Front was a consequence of the Western Front.

If you put the Western Allies as useless then we are not in WWII anymore, but in a hypothetic conflict between Nazi Germany and the USSR!

Yeah, the Germans lost 70% of their troops in the East...

How about the other 30% the Western Allies were holding plus the entery Japanese forces?

Maybe if Hitler had this contingent it's very likely he could beat the soviets, but wait... for those things happen we should had an exact WWII sceneario in this hypothetic war.. can we confirm everything would happen exactly like in WWII?

An example of how everything was conected: the Siberian troops in Moscow were transfered because Richard Sorge told Stalin the Japanese were not planning an agression for the momment. Yeah... the supossed isolated PTO maybe had direct consequences in the fate of the Eastern Front.

How about the Lend Lease, critical for the Soviets... the Western Allies making the Germans redirect resourcers more and more like in Kursk by the invasion of Italy?

Just a few examples for we understand that the conflict is not named a WORLD WAR in vain, and see an isolated Eastern Front is just a "what if?" alternative history discussion. Interesting but really not factual.

X32Wright
06-07-2010, 03:11 PM
Yup without the Lend Lease Soviet Russia would have had a hard time opposing the German tanks. They certainly would have been able to develop them but not at the critical time of late 42-44. It would have taken them more time to counter the Wehrmacht and defnitely not in 43-45 time frame.

Also need mentioning that the USA did the most of the heavy industrial lifting in developing,supplying and transporting these arms,goods and planes. FDR almost gave up on the British had they not attcked and sunk the French Fleet at Algeria (Attack on Mers-el-Kébir), FDR gave Churhill 50 old Destoyers after this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stalin had alot of men to spare while FDR had alot of industrial might to spare while Churchill had alot of honor and fighting spirit to give.

Plus it was stupid of Hitler to open a two front war with Berlin in the middle that was very very stupid and good for us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erkki_M
06-07-2010, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by X32Wright:
Yup without the Lend Lease Soviet Russia would have had a hard time opposing the German tanks. They certainly would have been able to develop them but not at the critical time of late 42-44. It would have taken them more time to counter the Wehrmacht and defnitely not in 43-45 time frame.

Ehh, when it came to main battle armor, the American and British tanks were nowhere close to Soviet ones in 41/42, let alone German(which was not, then, much ahead of the Russians). In theoretical 1 vs. 1 fights the Western hardware stood some chances, but in field conditions of the East front, they didnt get even close(not that the German would have been much better...). They had the same problem with the P-39s: the engine lifetime was very short as the Allison could barely burn the Soviet fuels, and they needed to use the lend-lease imported fuels to run them.

Also, I never said that the East Front was practically the whole WW2. It wasnt. But it was bigger than all the other fronts, combined, and the few thousand lend-leased aircraft and armor were a mere drop in the sea in what the Soviet Union produced all by itself. But just to name some battles that were no smaller than any known West front battle, we all know Kursk, Provkorova, Stalingrad, Kharkov, 2nd Kharkov, 3rd Kharkov, Sevastopol, Vyazma, Kuban bridgehead, Kiev, Kurland Pocket, Korsun Pocket, Rostov, Voronez and the many more battles of the greatest, and without a doubt at the same the most barbaric, brutal, and many other superlative adjectives of dumb, silly, useless and big, single fought conflict ever. But no, it did not happen in a vacuum. Not one conflict does.

The Soviets themselves appreciated the lend-leased SPAM and other dry foods the most, the pilots flying the lend-lease aircraft from the US would fill literally every available hole in the aircraft with it: ie. many P-39s would fly with wings and fuselage full of food instead of guns and ammo. Especially their special units such as partisans were given it.

TinyTim
06-07-2010, 04:18 PM
Only during battle of Stalingrad the Red Army and the Wermacht each lost more troops than western allies combined during entire war.

I'd fully agree with Irational here. Yeah, one of the goals of Normandy was to fight nazism. The other one however, no less important, was to prevent the western Europe fall to the Soviets - after battle of Kursk it was a no brainer that Germany will fall even if they achieve a cease fire on western front - Soviet Union was unstoppable by then.

D-Day was a brilliant move - both a move of second world war versus a current enemy the nazi Germany, and also against the the emerging future enemy of the cold war, the Soviet Union.

The same could be said for atomic bombing of Japan (without which Japan would fall to the Soviets), or for bombing of Dresden in february 1945 (since it was obvious that's the largest German city to fall under Soviets after the end of the war). These were all shaping geopolitics of the world after WW2.

danjama
06-07-2010, 05:59 PM
It boggles the mind, that anybody could lable the Battle Of Britain as insignificant.

The fact is, if they Germans had achieved supreme control of the air, they would have invaded Britain. It would have been a very different war once that happened.

DKoor
06-07-2010, 06:03 PM
Hehe... guys I like to bring it down to personal level.

For that that gets killed or crippled for the rest of his life it doesn't matter if he is a single casualty in the war, I symphatize with those guys not the countries, war chiefs, armies and so on... all those abstract things that ultimately means nothing without those very men dying for them.

Facts are facts, one cannot argue with facts... you wanna know what was the biggest battle (manpower wise)? Look at the wikipedia and similar places... you to know what was the biggest tank battle? Biggest air battle?

But most important battles?
Well... as I said... there were many important battles, those lesser battles leading to bigger battles and so on... who are we to tell?
War isn't sporadic battles that hold significance for themselves, war is series of linked events, one shouldn't forget that...

I will use some simple analogy... when some team wins World Cup in soccer (BTW it begins in South Africa in a few days http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif) ... well if England wins media would say "Rooney brought the football home" etc. if Argentina wins, national hero will be Messi... but the really sad truth is that all players in team contributed but the world really only remember the goalscorers and most attractive players (usually midfielders) while def.midfielders, defenders, full backs alike are soon forgotten in spite of the fact that they contributed enormously and after all they were those that "prepared terrain" for their goalscorers and most attractive players.

World is full of such examples, war isn't the exception.

R_Target
06-07-2010, 06:38 PM
Not to mention that nine days after Normandy, the Saipan campaign began, which was nearly the size of the U.S. commitment to Overlord. And it was mounted 1,000 miles from any U.S. bases.

Leyte landed about the same number of troops as Overlord. Luzon and Okinawa even more...

Wildnoob
06-07-2010, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by X32Wright:
Yup without the Lend Lease Soviet Russia would have had a hard time opposing the German tanks. They certainly would have been able to develop them but not at the critical time of late 42-44. It would have taken them more time to counter the Wehrmacht and defnitely not in 43-45 time frame.

Ehh, when it came to main battle armor, the American and British tanks were nowhere close to Soviet ones in 41/42, let alone German(which was not, then, much ahead of the Russians). In theoretical 1 vs. 1 fights the Western hardware stood some chances, but in field conditions of the East front, they didnt get even close(not that the German would have been much better...). They had the same problem with the P-39s: the engine lifetime was very short as the Allison could barely burn the Soviet fuels, and they needed to use the lend-lease imported fuels to run them.

Also, I never said that the East Front was practically the whole WW2. It wasnt. But it was bigger than all the other fronts, combined, and the few thousand lend-leased aircraft and armor were a mere drop in the sea in what the Soviet Union produced all by itself. But just to name some battles that were no smaller than any known West front battle, we all know Kursk, Provkorova, Stalingrad, Kharkov, 2nd Kharkov, 3rd Kharkov, Sevastopol, Vyazma, Kuban bridgehead, Kiev, Kurland Pocket, Korsun Pocket, Rostov, Voronez and the many more battles of the greatest, and without a doubt at the same the most barbaric, brutal, and many other superlative adjectives of dumb, silly, useless and big, single fought conflict ever. But no, it did not happen in a vacuum. Not one conflict does.

The Soviets themselves appreciated the lend-leased SPAM and other dry foods the most, the pilots flying the lend-lease aircraft from the US would fill literally every available hole in the aircraft with it: ie. many P-39s would fly with wings and fuselage full of food instead of guns and ammo. Especially their special units such as partisans were given it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease):

The USSR was highly dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically shut down rail equipment production: only about 92 locomotives were produced. 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 railcars were supplied under Lend-Lease. The USSR had a pre-war stock of over 25,000 locomotives and 600,000 railcars. The Lend-Lease stock did not start being shipped until 1944. Likewise, the Soviet air force received 18,700 aircraft, which amounted to about 14% of Soviet aircraft production (19% for military aircraft).

Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. Indeed by 1945 nearly two-thirds of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2 1/2 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. U.S. supplies of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.

Weapons had their value, but logistical suport was the vital Lend Lease benefite.

WTE_Galway
06-07-2010, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
The fact is, if they Germans had achieved supreme control of the air, they would have invaded Britain. It would have been a very different war once that happened.

Highly debatable.

Sealion involved crossing the channel under fire in open flat bottomed Rhine River barges that swamped with the slightest swell. Not just crossing to the beach from ships like D-Day but crossing the entire channel.

Even many German high command thought it a joke.

The Battle of Britain achieved a lot. Under a successful sustained bombing campaign the British may have been forced into some sort of unsatisfactory arrangement with Hitler keeping them out of the war.

Invasion by the Reich or surrender are both unlikely though.

danjama
06-07-2010, 07:07 PM
Well the plan was to invade.

You say they'd be crossing the channel "Under fire", but if air superiority had been won by the Germans, it's well known that the British Army coastal defence/home defence, would have been pretty useless against an invading force, after losing the majority of their (outdated) equipment at Dunkirk.

I do agree, it's debateable, but if they had had superiority in the air, I for one believe that Hitler was enough of a mad man to see it through.

WTE_Galway
06-07-2010, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
Well the plan was to invade.

You say they'd be crossing the channel "Under fire", but if air superiority had been won by the Germans, it's well known that the British Army coastal defence/home defence, would have been pretty useless against an invading force, after losing the majority of their (outdated) equipment at Dunkirk.

I do agree, it's debateable, but if they had had superiority in the air, I for one believe that Hitler was enough of a mad man to see it through.

Well under fire wasn't necessarily just shore guns and aircraft there was also the fleet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

This is a subject that is hotly debated by experts in the field ... but many claim the Operation Sealion barges would probably have swamped even in ideal conditions without being shot at.

sabre365
06-07-2010, 08:07 PM
This conversation is very cool. And while the debate goes on, if the allies had lost we could not have this discussion at all.

RIP to all of the men and women, no matter the country - no matter the battle, who died in the name of freedom.

Waldo.Pepper
06-07-2010, 08:15 PM
Not everything written by a person who achieves the occupation of Professor is correct. For example, I had a fairly lively exchange with a Professor a week or so ago on another forum about D-Day. He was trying to suggest that the success or failure of D-day was entirely dependent on whether the Omaha Beach landings succeeded or failed. If Omaha failed, so would the D-day landings and the entire second front, he contended.

But this article is well worth your time. Especially as it may change your mind on a few things. Interestingly in the Soviet Union, which arguably came the closest to loosing of the Allied powers. The prevailing attitude is that they could not have lost the struggle. While those of us in Western Allied nations seem to think that the Allies JUST squeaked out a victory. Which of course the author contends is not the case. Even going so far as to say ...

"But as far as the war as a whole is concerned, the Soviets are right: the chances of a complete Nazi triumph were certainly extremely small, and probably non-existent."

Read and decide for yourself.

Was World War II a near-run thing?
Author: Alan J. Levine
Journal of Strategic Studies. Volume 8, Issue 1 March 1985 , pages 38 - 63

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=GSZIROWO

irR4tiOn4L
06-07-2010, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by na85:
You're correct and I agree that the Eastern front was the most important front of the war, but that's not to say any other theatre was unimportant.

The fact that 30 000 of my countrymen risked their lives storming Juno beach makes D-Day somewhat more personally relevant than say the battle of Stalingrad, important and massive though it may have been.

I also disagree that the D-Day objectives were more geopolitics than military.

Of course there were huge sacrifices made all round, and i understand personal relevance.

When i said 'more about geopolitics', i am talking about military aims with a geopolitical end.

What was that end? It is fairly clear that one of the major objectives of D-day was a mistrust of Stalin (rightfully) leading to the freeing of as much of Europe as possible, pre-empting any takeover (ie iron curtain).

D-day served to put the Western allies in the European theatre and at the bargaining table at Malta


Originally posted by Tjaika:
The Battle of Britain is very important, "small" as it is, because at that point Britain was alone against the axis. If they had lost, US probably wouldnt entered Europe later on when Japan attacked. Sovjet would not have won then.

I agree with your other points, but the battle of britain - referring to the RAF's battles against the luftwaffe - was not as important as is often made out. The threat of invasion was not nearly as pressing as percieved, as post war documents showed. The British considered it important, not necessarily the Germans. It was a symbolic victory, not necessarily an important strategic one

For Great Britain's continued participation in the war, i think the battle for the Atlantic was MUCH more important. It was losses in merchant shipping that threatened to knock the UK out of the war and it was the defeat of the Uboats and surface raiders in the Atlantic that counted most to Germany and the UK

If the Germans had won control of the Atlantic, Britain would have been starved into submission and US troops, aircraft and economic contributions could not have entered the European war


Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Read and decide for yourself.

Thats not what people behind the curtain were taught.
"As exponents of a deterministic ideology?!" What does that mean? That Soviet posturing about how they could not afford to lose the 'Great patriotic war' meant they didnt think it was possible?

It should be clear to anyone that the Eastern front, at least initially, was a very close run thing. Had Moscow been lost and the Soviets pushed beyond the Urals, how could this not have been seen as a German victory?

WTE_Galway
06-07-2010, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Not everything written by a person who achieves the occupation of Professor is correct.

Very true especially if they are commenting outside their own narrow field of expertise. The most reliable sources are usually competent high ranking military officers who were directly involved in the conflict in question.

On the other hand as a general rule of thumb, when lacking expert military commentary I tend to trust academic opinion on Military History more than that of Hollywood or the facts as presented by some anonymous game designer. Its all relative really http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

danjama
06-07-2010, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by sabre365:
This conversation is very cool.

This is also up for debate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Waldo.Pepper
06-07-2010, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
"As exponents of a deterministic ideology?!" What does that mean? That Soviet posturing about how they could not afford to lose the 'Great patriotic war' meant they didn't think it was possible?

Yes exactly. "Inevitable triumph of the mighty Soviet Union" etc.


Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
It should be clear to anyone that the Eastern front, at least initially, was a very close run thing. Had Moscow been lost and the Soviets pushed beyond the Urals, how could this not have been seen as a German victory?

Of course! Hence the irony. However, a German victory against the Soviet Union does not mean a victory for the Axis powers during WW2. But it is curious, that of the major allied nations the one which came closet to total defeat, the Soviet Union, the prevailing attitude is essentially that they could not lose.

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 04:05 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
But it is curious, that of the major allied nations the one which came closet to total defeat, the Soviet Union, the prevailing attitude is essentially that they could not
lose.

But what im saying is I dont think thats true.

I think the attitude behind the curtain was that they simply could not AFFORD to lose, and that this determination was what led to victory. Its meant in the sense 'if we lose its all over, we cant afford to allow that'. "We cannot lose" cant be taken literally!

I think this is one of those things where the Soviets are yet again portrayed as reckless or stupid. Thats not the case, they most definitely knew that the bulk of WWII fell on them, and that it was a bloody close affair.


On another note, who would you guys say was the most important strategist/general of WWII? Id say Zhukov, but there are a lot of candidates

horseback
06-08-2010, 11:34 AM
The D-Day landings should not be minimized just because the Western Allies didn’t take the sheer numbers of casualties that the Soviets were taking routinely on the Eastern Front. As pointed out in earlier posts, a significant portion of Soviet casualties were the direct result of their choice of tactics, although given what I’ve been recently reading about the Italian campaign, sheer stupidity and bloody mindedness were not the exclusive province of Stalin and his generals by any means.

While in retrospect it appears that the Normandy landings were almost bound to be successful, at the time the Allied leadership were not so sure that the Germans hadn’t learned from missed opportunities at Anzio and Salerno, or that their deception campaigns and interdiction of rail transport to the landing areas would be effective. They certainly all had their D-Day disaster contingencies all mapped out, just in case.

As for who did the most to destroy Fascism/Nazism, how should we score the contest? Most casualties taken (and/or self inflicted) (USSR), or greatest cultural-political price paid for the longest time (Eastern Europe by a mile), most treasure and resources provided (USA), or the greatest sacrifices in proportion to size/most inspirational (Great Britain).

In most cases, a country’s contribution to the war effort was a direct function of its location and economic capacity. The Soviet Union shared a border with Germany; they hardly got to choose whether to be invaded and fight a long bloody war any more than a United States crippled by the Great Depression and internal worries was able to be proactive in what were considered European affairs until the Axis decided to declare war on them.

Defeat of the Axis was hardly a foregone conclusion; if Britain and France decided not to follow up on their threats on Poland’s behalf, it can be argued that fascism could have become the dominant political philosophy on the planet. Ditto if the Germans win the Battle of Britain by concentrating on RAF airfields within fifty miles of the Channel coast; the Commonwealth might have been neutralized and the Germans and Italians would get to consolidate their power in Europe before turning on Russia.

In 1941, had the Germans concentrated their forces and driven straight for Moscow and/or the Caucasus oil fields instead of fighting on the broader front, or simply had a better logistics system, Hitler might well have knocked the Soviets out of the fight early on. You might also consider that Stalin might have completely disintegrated that summer and the Soviet war effort would have fractured significantly, with truly dire results.

What would have happened if the Japanese decided to send a third strike at Pearl Harbor and took out the oil storage and the shipyard facilities? The ripple effect would have been enormous. Operating out of Pearl, the US carriers were able to range into Japanese held territory and catch them by surprise at Coral Sea and Midway, getting enormously lucky on both occasions and setting the tone for the rest of the Pacific war. Lose those battles, or never even fight them, and the Pacific contest requires more American resources that would have gone to Britain, Torch and Lend-Lease.

Lots of Russians starve, and get less trucks, fuel and ammunition without Lend-Lease and the U-Boats continue to ravage the Atlantic well into 1943/44, because the US Navy has all of its resources in the Pacific. The Normandy invasion might not have come until 1945, and the Soviets might not have been able to mount the kind of offensives that sap Germany’s manpower to oppose it.

I think we all got lucky, all things considered.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
06-08-2010, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The D-Day landings should not be minimized just because the Western Allies didn’t take the sheer numbers of casualties that the Soviets were taking routinely on the Eastern Front. As pointed out in earlier posts, a significant portion of Soviet casualties were the direct result of their choice of tactics, although given what I’ve been recently reading about the Italian campaign, sheer stupidity and bloody mindedness were not the exclusive province of Stalin and his generals by any means.

While in retrospect it appears that the Normandy landings were almost bound to be successful, at the time the Allied leadership were not so sure that the Germans hadn’t learned from missed opportunities at Anzio and Salerno, or that their deception campaigns and interdiction of rail transport to the landing areas would be effective. They certainly all had their D-Day disaster contingencies all mapped out, just in case.

As for who did the most to destroy Fascism/Nazism, how should we score the contest? Most casualties taken (and/or self inflicted) (USSR), or greatest cultural-political price paid for the longest time (Eastern Europe by a mile), most treasure and resources provided (USA), or the greatest sacrifices in proportion to size/most inspirational (Great Britain).

In most cases, a country’s contribution to the war effort was a direct function of its location and economic capacity. The Soviet Union shared a border with Germany; they hardly got to choose whether to be invaded and fight a long bloody war any more than a United States crippled by the Great Depression and internal worries was able to be proactive in what were considered European affairs until the Axis decided to declare war on them.

Defeat of the Axis was hardly a foregone conclusion; if Britain and France decided not to follow up on their threats on Poland’s behalf, it can be argued that fascism could have become the dominant political philosophy on the planet. Ditto if the Germans win the Battle of Britain by concentrating on RAF airfields within fifty miles of the Channel coast; the Commonwealth might have been neutralized and the Germans and Italians would get to consolidate their power in Europe before turning on Russia.

In 1941, had the Germans concentrated their forces and driven straight for Moscow and/or the Caucasus oil fields instead of fighting on the broader front, or simply had a better logistics system, Hitler might well have knocked the Soviets out of the fight early on. You might also consider that Stalin might have completely disintegrated that summer and the Soviet war effort would have fractured significantly, with truly dire results.

What would have happened if the Japanese decided to send a third strike at Pearl Harbor and took out the oil storage and the shipyard facilities? The ripple effect would have been enormous. Operating out of Pearl, the US carriers were able to range into Japanese held territory and catch them by surprise at Coral Sea and Midway, getting enormously lucky on both occasions and setting the tone for the rest of the Pacific war. Lose those battles, or never even fight them, and the Pacific contest requires more American resources that would have gone to Britain, Torch and Lend-Lease.

Lots of Russians starve, and get less trucks, fuel and ammunition without Lend-Lease and the U-Boats continue to ravage the Atlantic well into 1943/44, because the US Navy has all of its resources in the Pacific. The Normandy invasion might not have come until 1945, and the Soviets might not have been able to mount the kind of offensives that sap Germany’s manpower to oppose it.

I think we all got lucky, all things considered.

cheers

horseback

+1

TheGrunch
06-08-2010, 12:05 PM
+1000 horseback. Nevertheless, outside this forum at least the war on the Eastern Front is very underappreciated.

R_Target
06-08-2010, 12:06 PM
Not to mention the millions of Japanese and Chinese fighting on the Asian mainland.

danjama
06-08-2010, 04:26 PM
Great post, Horse.

Ba5tard5word
06-08-2010, 04:49 PM
I dunno how I feel about D-Day being used as an excuse for an international whizzing match but whatever.

A lot of the Russian casualties in WW2 were definitely self-inflicted and due to poor training and weaponry and supply.

And if you're from the UK of course you're going to consider the Battle of Britain to be a major event in the war because your nation managed to beat its way back from the brink despite being seemingly outmatched, and if you're from Russia you're going to see the BoB as pretty insignificant and consider Stalingrad etc. to be way more important.

Are modern Russians very critical of the fact that their leadership in WW2 put them in such a terrible situation such that they faced the massive losses that they did?

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
The D-Day landings should not be minimized just because the Western Allies didn’t take the sheer numbers of casualties that the Soviets were taking routinely on the Eastern Front. As pointed out in earlier posts, a significant portion of Soviet casualties were the direct result of their choice of tactics

This kind of argument is often unfortunate denigration of the Soviet effort.

I wonder how England or the US would have fared had 5 million German troops at the peak of German might invaded - maybe like France?

Obviously the Soviets were going to take casualties, no matter what, when they were caught by surprise and outclassed by the Wehrmacht in Barbarossa.


But more importantly, I never suggested the Soviets deserved recognition because of THEIR losses, i said they deserved recognition because THEY destroyed the vast majority of GERMAN armies.

As I pointed out earlier, D-Day faced German armies of maybe 800,000 - the other 3-5 million were all on the Eastern Front. Its abundantly clear that no matter what recognition of sacrifice you heap, the fact is that the Western front and other European theatres were just side stages. Centre stage was the Eastern Front, where 15 million in armies clashed, and thats where the Wehrmacht and Nazi Germany was defeated.

D-Day was a an operation aimed at liberating Europe just as the Soviets broke the back of the Germans. It was launched a year or two late in what was probably a cynical effort to have the Soviets expend themselves first, and was all about who owned Europe afterward. In that sense it failed only because the Soviet counterattacks and drive into Germany were unprecedented in speed and unexpectedly successful; allowing the Soviets to grab half of Europe first



It is the role the Soviets played in halting and destroying the German juggernaught that deserves recognition, not their role as fatalities!

Given how poorly France and the British performed even against a Wehrmacht that was not at that stage more powerful, and the narrow escape at Dunkirk, i find it questionable that you choose to denigrate the Soviets as sacrificing their own men through stupidity.

Bad tactics and pointless sacrifice certainly did occur, we are all aware of the 'you have the ammo, i have the gun, noone is to retreat' cliches.

But I ask you how any of the other nations would have responded under such a land onslaught? Would they have the stomach for such casualties? These tactics and mistakes were born of desperation - it is hardly fair to blame the Soviets for that.

Certainly the Soviets failed in the first few months of Barbarossa, as sizeable armies were destroyed due to immobility and not being war ready. But given how the Nazis had rolled over Western and Eastern Europe, this was hardly unique.

For the Americans and the British, what can ultimately be said is that distance was what allowed you to stay at arms length. Had that not been the case, how confident do you feel your armies would have been able to stave off the onslaught, as the Soviets had?


These things should be considered before inconsiderate scorn is heaped on the Soviets. Their resistance was absolutely remarkable

jensenpark
06-08-2010, 06:53 PM
I would suggest people read Waldo's recommended Journal and Antony Beevor's excellent book: D-Day, the Battle for Normandy.

Beevor's research, quoting several Soviet documents, leaders, etc dispels a lot the talk/CW/myth that Normandy was a sideshow to the Eastern Front.

He does not take away from Soviet sacrifices - but does address this line of thinking.

And those who have read Beevor know he does his research.

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
I would suggest people read Waldo's recommended Journal and Antony Beevor's excellent book: D-Day, the Battle for Normandy.

Beevor's research, quoting several Soviet documents, leaders, etc dispels a lot the talk/CW/myth that Normandy was a sideshow to the Eastern Front.

He does not take away from Soviet sacrifices - but does address this line of thinking.

And those who have read Beevor know he does his research.

What is the argument? That the Soviets would have given up without a second front, or sued for peace?

These arguments are not new, and have been disputed. Even if that were true, which the race to Berlin suggests wasnt, the simple fact remains that D-Day still only accounted for some 800,000 German troops. The rest were destroyed in the East. A theatre with one fifth of the armies of another is a side stage, pure and simple

And as ive pointed out, denigration of Soviet tactics and equipment are seriously unfair when considered against the performance of French and British armies. The Soviets couldnt hide behind a Channel of water and a powerful fleet - the losses they were taking in every kind of resource, including land and leadership, make it unsurprising that their resistance was at times desperate.

Ponder on how the Allies would have faired if it had been their territory that was being invaded. Lack of air superiority, sherman tanks; casualties would have been equally enormous.

It is true that Stalin was a dictator, a menace to his people who also wiped out the best of the Red Army's leadership. But the Allies just werent in a position to do any better if it had been their nations facing invasion

In fact, id hazard that facing such an onslaught, they might well have capitulated.

DrHerb
06-08-2010, 07:15 PM
RE: BoB.... everything would have been different if London wasn't bombed and the Luftwaffe stuck to what they were targeting prior to cities.

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 07:18 PM
In response to Horse, i recognise most of what you are saying and agree.

However, when it comes to 'scoring' the contest, i would squarely say 'score by what mattered' - where and by whom were the German armies destroyed?

It is abundantly clear that by this measure the most important contributions, by far, were Soviet in the European theatre, and US in the Pacific


Originally posted by DrHerb:
RE: BoB.... everything would have been different if London wasn't bombed and the Luftwaffe stuck to what they were targeting prior to cities.

Not everything - Germany still could not invade, nor could its suppression of the RAF be turned rapidly to advantage.

If Britain did not capitulate, it was still necessary to force her to by starvation of merchant shipping in the Atlantic or invasion through an operation that was later shown unrealistic and not a priority.

With the failure of the Atlantic U-boat campaign, the American bombers would still have started coming and D-Day could still have occurred.

So in the greater scheme of things, little depended directly on the outcome of the air war

Symbolically - perhaps the BoB prevented British capitulation by raising morale - but i dont think Nazi Germany ever managed to squeeze her enough to do that, even if Britain lost the BoB

R_Target
06-08-2010, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
It was launched a year or two late in what was probably a cynical effort to have the Soviets expend themselves first, and was all about who owned Europe afterward.

It wasn't launched a year or two late; it was launched when enough men and equipment were in place for a reasonable chance of success. The Americans agitated for an attack in 1942, and again in 1943 when Churchill's plan for Sicily and Italy were vigorously opposed by U.S. generals. The British idea was that attacking without sufficient force would be a waste, and as Dieppe showed, they were right.

Saying that the Western Allies conspired to let the Soviets bleed Germany so that they could roll in afterwords and mop up the spoils is about as silly as saying that the Soviets conspired to let the U.S. bleed Japan so that they could get Manchuria for free.

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
It was launched a year or two late in what was probably a cynical effort to have the Soviets expend themselves first, and was all about who owned Europe afterward.

It wasn't launched a year or two late; it was launched when enough men and equipment were in place for a reasonable chance of success. The Americans agitated for an attack in 1942, and again in 1943 when Churchill's plan for Sicily and Italy were vigorously opposed by U.S. generals. The British idea was that attacking without sufficient force would be a waste, and as Dieppe showed, they were right.

Saying that the Western Allies conspired to let the Soviets bleed Germany so that they could roll in afterwords and mop up the spoils is about as silly as saying that the Soviets conspired to let the U.S. bleed Japan so that they could get Manchuria for free. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although i would say it is analogous, the intention is certainly different if there are military reasons for not launching the attack.

However, in practical terms the outcomes are the same - who afforded the Allies such a luxury, to be able to wait for overwhelming force? If one of your allies is suffering as the Soviets were, and you continue to amass for an overwhelming assault, that is in many ways waiting for your ally to do the hard yards

And if indeed the operation were not viable a day earlier - as you seem to suggest, for lack of a Germany crippled sufficiently, need i remind you that this tends to show it was merely a side stage, not an operation critical to the overall outcome?

D-Day was an operation delayed for geopolitical reasons or an operation that was merely ancillary to the main confrontation, take your pick really

EDIT: It may seem i am myself denigrating D-Day or other theatres. That is not my intention! I am merely trying to point out that, when it comes down to it, without the Eastern front victory in Europe, short of the nuclear bomb turning things around (although an unpestered Germany may have had one of its own, or a ceasefire might have been reached first) any intervention on the mainland and victory would have been impossible.

However, conversely, without D-day or the BoB, Britain would still be free and the Soviets would still have won. If Britain had fallen, then those extra western armies on the eastern front might have tipped the scales and caused a Soviet loss. But i dont think invasion was a real threat.

Of course it was a 'world' war, and all contributions were important. But i believe that it simply must be mentioned that in Europe, Western Allied contributions accounted for only a fraction of what won the war - the destruction of German armies.

The bulk of the war simply was fought and won in the East - this was recognised by both the Soviets and Germany


The fact that this was in many ways not recognised by the West, and the Eastern front is denigrated and underappreciated in the West, is an injustice

R_Target
06-08-2010, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
However, in practical terms the outcomes are the same - who afforded the Allies such a luxury, to be able to wait for overwhelming force? If one of your allies is suffering as the Soviets were, and you continue to amass for an overwhelming assault, that is in many ways waiting for your ally to do the hard yards.

After the summer campaigns of 1942 petered out, the Soviets were able to do exactly that: marshal their forces to attack where and when they chose. The months of preparation for Kursk would be the most obvious example.


And if indeed the operation were not viable a day earlier - as you seem to suggest, for lack of a Germany crippled sufficiently, need i remind you that this tends to show it was merely a side stage, not an operation critical to the overall outcome?

Not for lack of a sufficiently crippled Germany, but for a lack of what the Western Allies considered a strong enough invasion force.


D-Day was an operation delayed for geopolitical reasons...

Can you cite some correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt that supports your position that Overlord was deliberately delayed?


EDIT: It may seem i am myself denigrating D-Day or other theatres. That is not my intention! I am merely trying to point out that, when it comes down to it, without the Eastern front victory in Europe, short of the nuclear bomb turning things around (although an unpestered Germany may have had one of its own, or a ceasefire might have been reached first) any intervention on the mainland and victory would have been impossible.

Things would definitely have gone differently without the huge Soviet contribution.


Of course it was a 'world' war, and all contributions were important. But i believe that it simply must be mentioned that in Europe, Western Allied contributions accounted for only a fraction of what won the war - the destruction of German armies.

It should also be mentioned that the western front was only a part of allied efforts. The U.S. in particular was conducting massive naval operations and amphibious invasions in the Pacific by 1944.


The bulk of the war simply was fought and won in the East - this was recognised by both the Soviets and Germany

The bulk of the European war, yes. Of course the Eastern Front lasted four times as long as the Western Front.


The fact that this was in many ways not recognised by the West, and the Eastern front is denigrated and underappreciated in the West, is an injustice

Can't agree with that. Maybe to the man on the street, but those who are interested in the subject are well aware of what the Soviets did.

M_Gunz
06-08-2010, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by Erkki_M:
the few thousand lend-leased aircraft and armor were a mere drop in the sea in what the Soviet Union produced all by itself.

You don't count the bulk of deliveries to Russia then, enormous amounts of material, fuel, explosives, ammo, massive
amounts of things necessary but in short quantity even later in the country that sent them.

Try not to forget the Battle of the Atlantic and all that was lost there.
Or the Pacific War which in scale and ferocity was huge even if purely in terms of lives lost not as 'great'.

D-Day invasion was very welcome news in Russia. It was a turning point in the war, a big one among the many.

As far as what people in this country.. a lot of our history is unknown to them and much of the rest is in some
twisted form or other. Consider the numbers that echo the "Tea Party" beliefs! And they are only one such segment.

jensenpark
06-08-2010, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jensenpark:
I would suggest people read Waldo's recommended Journal and Antony Beevor's excellent book: D-Day, the Battle for Normandy.

Beevor's research, quoting several Soviet documents, leaders, etc dispels a lot the talk/CW/myth that Normandy was a sideshow to the Eastern Front.

He does not take away from Soviet sacrifices - but does address this line of thinking.

And those who have read Beevor know he does his research.

What is the argument? That the Soviets would have given up without a second front, or sued for peace?

These arguments are not new, and have been disputed. Even if that were true, which the race to Berlin suggests wasnt, the simple fact remains that D-Day still only accounted for some 800,000 German troops. The rest were destroyed in the East. A theatre with one fifth of the armies of another is a side stage, pure and simple

And as ive pointed out, denigration of Soviet tactics and equipment are seriously unfair when considered against the performance of French and British armies. The Soviets couldnt hide behind a Channel of water and a powerful fleet - the losses they were taking in every kind of resource, including land and leadership, make it unsurprising that their resistance was at times desperate.

Ponder on how the Allies would have faired if it had been their territory that was being invaded. Lack of air superiority, sherman tanks; casualties would have been equally enormous.

It is true that Stalin was a dictator, a menace to his people who also wiped out the best of the Red Army's leadership. But the Allies just werent in a position to do any better if it had been their nations facing invasion

In fact, id hazard that facing such an onslaught, they might well have capitulated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is not an argument. I am suggesting people - and I guess you - read the journal Waldo posted and read the suggested book.

It dispels such myths that being propagated here. For example - Beevor states Rundstedt had over 1.5 million under his command for the defense of Normandy and France - not 800,000. And the Brits faced the largest concentration of Panzer divisions since Kursk in their sector. The 1.5 million Rundstedt had also does not include those in Italy - nor those the western Allies later battled in the low countries and Germany. You imply - though I may be misinterpreting it - that the Allies only faced 800,000 total in the west by stating the rest of the Germans outside of 800,000 were engaged in the East.

WTE_Galway
06-08-2010, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Or the Pacific War which in scale and ferocity was huge even if purely in terms of lives lost not as 'great'.


The pacific War only accounted for some 20% or so of US war effort. It was never seen as the major front even by the US.

Waldo.Pepper
06-08-2010, 08:50 PM
It wasn't launched a year or two late;

Gosh! I would actually say that it was launched late, intentionally. I think that Stalin's suspicion of the Western Allies (Churchill in particular) was spot on. Churchill's attitude was (I paraphrase) "What's the hurry? Let the Russians have all the fun." He did everything he could to put off the major landing that D-day was for as long as he could.

R_Target
06-08-2010, 09:26 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The pacific War only accounted for some 20% or so of US war effort. It was never seen as the major front even by the US.

Can you share your source for this?

horseback
06-08-2010, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
In response to Horse, i recognise most of what you are saying and agree.

However, when it comes to 'scoring' the contest, i would squarely say 'score by what mattered' - where and by whom were the German armies destroyed?

It is abundantly clear that by this measure the most important contributions, by far, were Soviet in the European theatre, and US in the Pacific I'm going to ask a few questions:

1. Why do you feel that the celebration of the Normandy landings in some way denigrates what the Russians were doing at the same time?

2. Who do you think was feeding, fueling, clothing and to a large extent, arming those Russians who destroyed the German armies in Russia? (hint: it wasn't Bolivia)

3. Do you think for one moment that the Soviet Union, if its geographic location were traded with that of the United States, would have even considered performing the several roles that the United States did, much less been capable of them?

The same thing that created delays for direct US involvement in ground combat in Europe was one of the greatest factors in the German defeat in the east; logistics. Their supply system was never adequate for the task of conquering so distant and so vast a country, while the Americans could not deploy a single soldier into combat without first having to transport him and everything he needed across at the very least a couple thousand miles of ocean.

Yet they did it, while simultaneously feeding and supplying their allies and whatever civilians were found within the territories they took from the Axis. They also provided a very large proportion of the pilot and aircrew training facilities for their allies and picked up the tab for the care and feeding of most enemy prisoners of war.

Like a lot of people today, you seem to assume that the US military was the same animal in 1942 as it was in 1945; that we simply kept the thousands of Mustangs, B-17s and hordes of combat ready troops back until the British were totally exhausted and the Russians looked like they were going to take too big a chunk of Europe.

It takes time to build a real war making army and transform a mostly rural population into the arsenal of democracy. It took the US about two years, or about 18 months less than most military professionals of the time expected (and 12 months longer than Churchill and FDR demanded).

We fought a Godawful bloody (and painfully inept) campaign in North Africa & Italy on a shoestring before we could invade France, and lost close to a hundred thousand men in the air war during the same period. Never mind what was going on in the Pacific at the same time, and let's not forget that we lost almost as many men to disease and accidents as we did in combat...

You fight the war you have to fight, and the Americans and British fulfilled their roles and did what was necessary to win. Maybe we wouldn't have done as well as the Soviets did if the shoe were on the other foot, but we'd still eventually be picking pieces of German @ss out of that shoe, while I'd be hard-pressed to imagine the Soviets even rooting us on if they had been on the other side of the Atlantic from the Germans.

cheers

horseback

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
It should also be mentioned that the western front was only a part of allied efforts. The U.S. in particular was conducting massive naval operations and amphibious invasions in the Pacific by 1944.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The bulk of the war simply was fought and won in the East - this was recognised by both the Soviets and Germany

The bulk of the European war, yes. Of course the Eastern Front lasted four times as long as the Western Front.


The fact that this was in many ways not recognised by the West, and the Eastern front is denigrated and underappreciated in the West, is an injustice

Can't agree with that. Maybe to the man on the street, but those who are interested in the subject are well aware of what the Soviets did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I knew far more about the Pacific war than I did about the European theatre, let alone the Eastern front, for quite a while

As i posted on the previous page, the greatest contributions to the Allied effort in WWII were Soviet in Europe and US in the Pacific.

But on the injustice - i believe it goes far beyond the ordinary man. Even those who ought to know better put across a history that suggests incompetence and stupidity in Soviet efforts where Western Allies are given far more leeway.

And that injustice exists even if historians present an accurate picture; official discourse and public perception has long disregarded and even denigrated Soviet efforts, which is not fair



Originally posted by horseback:
Like a lot of people today, you seem to assume that the US military was the same animal in 1942 as it was in 1945; that we simply kept the thousands of Mustangs, B-17s and hordes of combat ready troops back until the British were totally exhausted and the Russians looked like they were going to take too big a chunk of Europe.


We fought a Godawful bloody (and painfully inept) campaign in North Africa & Italy on a shoestring before we could invade France, and lost close to a hundred thousand men in the air war during the same period. Never mind what was going on in the Pacific at the same time, and let's not forget that we lost almost as many men to disease and accidents as we did in combat...

You fight the war you have to fight, and the Americans and British fulfilled their roles and did what was necessary to win. Maybe we wouldn't have done as well as the Soviets did if the shoe were on the other foot, but we'd still eventually be picking pieces of German @ss out of that shoe, while I'd be hard-pressed to imagine the Soviets even rooting us on if they had been on the other side of the Atlantic from the Germans.

Your words betray what i mean in the first place.

You charge the Soviets of not sticking up for others when the US isolationist policies refused to do just that.

You talk using 'we'

It is clear that you are seeing things from that perspective.



I would ask you some questions of my own; why is it said that the Eastern front is under recognised if what you say is true?

What did your own countrymen teach you about the Soviet efforts - that they won the European war, or that their efforts were marred by incompetence, perhaps with a tinge of an observation of superiority?

Did you not display the kind of disregard i talk about when you say 'wed still eventually be picking pieces of German *** out of that shoe'?

Did i not point out that with the tanks, equipment and army you had in 1942, you would very likely have lost? Unlike the Soviets?


I would challenge you all to this - i would say that if any other nation or even democratic system had been where Soviet Russia was in 1941 when facing Barbarossa, it would not have prevailed against the German onslaught.

The Soviet people demonstrated a resilience far above that which might have been expected from the other Allies

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
You imply - though I may be misinterpreting it - that the Allies only faced 800,000 total in the west by stating the rest of the Germans outside of 800,000 were engaged in the East.

I am sorry if my figures are not entirely accurate (although the 1.5 million figure i distinctly remember were not complete units - 800 000 was the strength, but id have to look that up) and yes, i did leave out africa etc.

But this does not change that even if the figure stood at 2.5 million, that would still have been something like one third of the total German armies lost in the East.

And with the Russian defeats of those armies, another 2.5 million would not have prevented a Russian victory in Europe, even lacking D-Day.

As such the operation is of secondary importance to German defeat, which the Russian efforts had ensured.

However, it was of critical importance for the future of Europe.


That is not to suggest D-Day was a small operation or did not help. It is to say that it was quite simply dwarfed by the importance of the Eastern front


AS for the Pacific - It may not have been quite as large as the European theatre, but i would not rate its importance as less, certainly not with Asia at stake.

However, the Soviet struggle was undoubtedly harder

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It wasn't launched a year or two late;

Gosh! I would actually say that it was launched late, intentionally. I think that Stalin's suspicion of the Western Allies (Churchill in particular) was spot on. Churchill's attitude was (I paraphrase) "What's the hurry? Let the Russians have all the fun." He did everything he could to put off the major landing that D-day was for as long as he could. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id heard this also. I do not have a source however

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 10:33 PM
So i decided to correct my figures a little. It wasnt 15 million troops on the Eastern front. It was 15 MILLION DEAD on the Eastern front.


But lets engage in a little arithmatic;

Western Front 1944-1945
1,500,000 German troops using your and wikipedia's figures
5,412,000 Allied troops by the end
500,000 dead total including all beligerents - about 300 000 German

Eastern Front 1941-1945
5,000,000 Germans dead
9,000,000 Russians dead


So in other words, 16x as many Germans died on the Eastern front as the Western. 30x as many troops were killed in the Eastern than the Western front.

10x as many German and Russian soldiers died as THERE WERE EVEN German soldiers on the Western Front.

Not to mention with the eventual strength of the Western Front deployment, it was a relative cakewalk


How is this anything BUT a side stage?

Waldo.Pepper
06-08-2010, 10:35 PM
Id heard this also. I do not have a source however

Bodyguard of Lies by Anthony Cave Brown. (Though flawed on many levels.)

WTE_Galway
06-08-2010, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
The pacific War only accounted for some 20% or so of US war effort. It was never seen as the major front even by the US.

Can you share your source for this? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was the basis of Rainbow 5 already planned out in 1939, a defensive war in the Pacific with a concentrated effort to defeat the Axis in Europe.

Early war the "Germany First" policy got endorsement all round:


http://www.pacificwar.org.au/G...t/GermanyFirst.html: (http://www.pacificwar.org.au/GermanyFirst/GermanyFirst.html:)
Less than two weeks after he won an unprecedented third term in office in November 1940, President Roosevelt received a private briefing from the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Harold R. Stark. Stark warned Roosevelt that failure by the United States to aid Britain against Germany would almost certainly lead to Britain's defeat and German domination of the whole of Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Stark argued that American aid to Britain should include actual participation in the war in Europe and North Africa by US armed forces. Stark also argued that top priority should be given to defeating Germany regardless of any threat that might arise from Japan.

Admiral Stark's advice that the defeat of Nazi Germany should be the top priority of the United States even in the event of war with Japan was accepted by President Roosevelt, and formally designated as "Plan D". The plan acquired the designation "D" simply because it followed the numbering in Stark's formal memorandum to the President. However, Plan D was effectively an implementation of the American military’s Rainbow -5 strategic war plan. Rainbow -5 stipulated as its premise that the United States was engaged in war against the three Axis powers, Japan, Germany and Italy. This plan specified that American military power would be deployed against Germany and Italy as a priority even if Japan had already entered the war as their ally. Until Germany and Italy were defeated, Rainbow -5 required the United States to adopt a defensive posture in the Pacific behind lines linking Hawaii to Alaska and Panama. The Rainbow -5 war plan clearly involved abandoning everything west of Hawaii to the Japanese, including the Philippines and Australia.

The US Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, supported Plan D and President Roosevelt authorized talks between the American and British military chiefs of staff to implement Plan D. In March 1941, the American and British chiefs of staff met secretly and agreed that the Americans would join Britain in pursuing a "Germany First" war strategy if the United States was drawn into World War II as an ally of Britain.

The "Germany First" war strategy was not announced to the American public for a number of reasons. One compelling reason for secrecy was the fact that the United States was not yet at war with Germany. There would also have been major political risks for Roosevelt in disclosing the proposed war strategy. Apart from attracting the fury of the powerful isolationist and peace lobbies, it would have been an admission that America's army in the Philippines would be abandoned to its fate in the event of a Japanese attack.

As the United States increased its military support for Britain during 1941, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill foresaw the probability that the Americans would be drawn into the conflict with Germany and Italy as an ally of Britain. In that event, Churchill strongly supported adoption by the Anglo-American Allies of a "Germany First" war strategy. Churchill appreciated that this war strategy would put Australia, British Malaya, the Philippines, and the rest of South-East Asia at serious risk of Japanese occupation if Japan entered the war on the side of Germany and Italy. However, this prospect does not appear to have greatly concerned Churchill whose top war priorities were the defence of Britain, Egypt, Palestine, the Suez Canal, and India.


Some factions of the US Navy by '42 eventually disagreed ...
http://www.pacificwar.org.au/G...NavyWarStrategy.html (http://www.pacificwar.org.au/GermanyFirst/US_NavyWarStrategy.html)

But in the end ...


In the first week of May 1942, President Roosevelt did an extraordinary backflip on US Pacific War policy. Perhaps influenced by very heavy American shipping losses from German U-boat activities in the Atlantic, Roosevelt reaffirmed priority for Churchill’s "Germany First" war strategy. By making this decision, Roosevelt effectively declared Port Moresby, the Australian mainland, Hawaii, and all of the island groups between them to be hostages to fortune. Denied significant military resources by Roosevelt from early May 1942, Admiral King would have to try to save Australia, Port Moresby, and Hawaii from Japanese attack and occupation with the meagre resources already available to him, including all that remained of his Pacific Fleet after the devastating Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor.

The 20% figure came from a 1940's US movie documentary I don't have a link to that breakdown online.

JtD
06-08-2010, 11:23 PM
I think 20% for Pacific doesn't mean 80% went to Europe.

Lots of money was spent in the US, R&D, maintenance, training. For instance, would the Manhattan project be included in the 20%?

WTE_Galway
06-08-2010, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
I think 20% for Pacific doesn't mean 80% went to Europe.

Lots of money was spent in the US, R&D, maintenance, training. For instance, would the Manhattan project be included in the 20%?

I would have to dig out the documentary again and its on VHS video tape unfortunately. I assume the other 80% also included lend lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union.

The precise numbers are not that important the point is the ETO got significantly more resources than the PTO. A German dominated Europe was seen as a far greater threat than a Japanese dominated pacific.

Waldo.Pepper
06-08-2010, 11:38 PM
The precise numbers are not that important the point is the ETO got significantly more resources than the PTO. .

Sorry but I don't agree. The policy agreed to was supposed to be Europe first. However, the actual policy was a roughly equal split of resources by the Americans.

JtD
06-08-2010, 11:45 PM
Early on I'd agree (1942). Mid war I think the larger chunk went to Europe.

Maybe we shouldn't all rely on a VHS documentary, there's plenty of other sources around. Anyone care enough to dig through them?

irR4tiOn4L
06-08-2010, 11:50 PM
Regardless the resources poured into it, one thing is clear

Despite whatever euro-centric view might have been prevalent at the time, a Japanese Asia would have been a very dangerous and formidable thing - considering they werent exactly Mother Theresa when it came to genocide.

The Pacific theatre was as important to the people of Asia as European was to those of Europe. To the US both were important.

The Pacific theatre may not have been quite as tough and not needed quite as many resources as the European, and it wasnt nearly the struggle the European was for the Soviets, but it was still something that, had it not been for the US, we would have regretted today


I think it is definitely fair to rank the US as the country that made the greatest contribution to WWII, alongside the Soviets

Waldo.Pepper
06-09-2010, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
Maybe we shouldn't all rely on a VHS documentary, there's plenty of other sources around. Anyone care enough to dig through them?

I was trying! Anyway in an effort to support this opinion of mine ...

"The policy agreed to was supposed to be Europe first. However, the actual policy was a roughly equal split of resources by the Americans."

To be clear I think that resources became MORE equally divided as the war went on. (Not more for Europe.)

From Command Decisions By Martin Blumenson et al page 47.

"Though the President had not given his approval, the decision on the course the United States would follow in the event it was "compelled to resort to war" had, in effect, been made. The United States would make the main effort in the Atlantic and European area where the major enemy, Germany, was located. Just how the final blow would be delivered was not yet known, bu the Americans expected it would require a large-scale ground offensive. In the Pacific and Far East, United States strategy would be defensive, with greatest emphasis on the area encompassed by the strategic triangle, Alaska-Hawaii-Panama. Implicit in this concept was acceptance of the loss of the Philippines, Wake, and Guam. Thus, in a period of less than three years, the Pacific orientation of U.S. strategy, developed over a period of many years, was completely reversed. By mid-1941, in response to the threat from Europe, the eyes of American strategists were focused on the Atlantic. It was there, they believed, that the war in which the United States was certain to be involved would be decided.

These expectations were more than fulfilled. Though the war when it came opened with an attack in the Pacific, the President and his military advisers made it clear at the outset in the first of the wartime conferences with the British held at Washington in December 1941-January 1942 (ARCADIA) that they would stand by their decision to defeat Germany first. Not once during the course of the war was this decision (ED - by Waldo -- I think the word 'decision' in this passage should be changed to policy based on the next quote) successfully challenged."

From Joint Logistics in the Pacific Theater". in Alan Gropman. The Big 'L' — American Logistics in World War II. page 304.

The Europe First strategy remained in effect throughout the war, however the terms "holding action" and "limited offensive" in the Pacific were subject to various interpretations and modifications of plans by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and at allied leaders conferences. This resulted in considerable competition for resources, particularly in the latter stages of the war as operations were greatly accelerated in both theaters. Frequent conflicts arose among the senior commanders of the Pacific and European Theaters as well as within the Joint and Combined Chiefs of Staff.



-----

All this high falutin research is really cutting into my porn time.

JtD
06-09-2010, 09:21 AM
A few numbers for the USAAF (please consider that USN and USMC are not part of this)

Sorties: 72% against Germany, 28% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t118.htm)

Tons of bombs dropped: 76% against Germany, 24% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t140.htm)

Ammo expended: 63% against Germany, 37% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t149.htm)

Combat losses: 80% against Germany, 20% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t158.htm)

Flying time total: 25% overseas, 75% continental USA (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t173.htm)

Flying time overseas: 69% against Germany, 31% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t175.htm)

Fuel consumption: 63% continental USA, 37% overseas (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t184.htm)

Fuel consumption: 70% against Germany, 30% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t185.htm)

About a third of the US war effort went into aircraft. The above tables indicate that
a) Most of the resources were used at home.
b) About three quarters of the USAAF was used against Germany, at least for as long as Germany participated.
c) Someone else go dig up the same type of records for the Naval aviation. Will probably even things out quite a bit.
d) And someone dig up the same type of records for the USN and US Army, so we can get a complete picture.

mortoma
06-09-2010, 10:23 AM
The eastern front may have been more significant but I respect the way us Americans fought the battles we did, along with the Brits and Canadians. We fought with regard to minimizing losses. The Soviets leaders simply threw millions of troops and tanks out there with no regard for heavy losses. They didn't care about the lives of their soldiers, it's apparent.

horseback
06-09-2010, 10:44 AM
Your words betray what i mean in the first place.

You charge the Soviets of not sticking up for others when the US isolationist policies refused to do just that. In 1939, the Soviet Union was a German ally; it assisted in the invasion of Poland, it took over the Baltic states, and took a big chunk of Finland’s territory at gunpoint. It was a terroristic regime ruled by a psychopath who built a cult of personality that Hitler openly envied. It ignored monstrosities on its own borders unless it suited or justified its own ends to act upon them.

American isolationism was almost the direct result of the fact that most Americans were descendents of people who left Europe because of its systemic injustices and territorial squabbles. Given that the Great War appeared to most of them to be a means for Britain and France to misspend American sons the same way they had misspent their own sons in order to protect their respective empires against another empire, they were going to be skeptical of any effort to involve them in another war between imperial ambitions.

And they were in the process of recovering from an enormous economic slump; they had more immediate concerns than some sputtering German nationalist four thousand miles away.

Britain and France were Great Powers and it was happening in their front yard. All they would want from America was our sons, not our opinions or (non financial) input.

You talk using 'we'

It is clear that you are seeing things from that perspective.

I would ask you some questions of my own; why is it said that the Eastern front is under recognised if what you say is true?

What did your own countrymen teach you about the Soviet efforts - that they won the European war, or that their efforts were marred by incompetence, perhaps with a tinge of an observation of superiority? Well, I am an American; I don't buy into that kumbaya/one world song and dance, so yes, I used we. I consider myself entitled to, given that all the men in my family have served in the US Air Force or Navy, and that my uncles all fought in the Pacific in WWII (my grandfathers served in France in WWI, and my father was barely 14 on VJ Day--he did 20 years in the Air Force, retiring in 1971).

99% of the reason is that the Soviets kept as much as possible secret, and what information they did release was so heavily larded with propaganda that it was less than credible. We didn’t get a clear idea about what they had, and what they did with it for almost 50 years, and even now, much of what is translated is so turgid that it is nearly unreadable. I just finished Red Star Against the Swastika, which was a terrific story nearly ruined by an almost word for word translation without considerations for grammar, cultural context or clarity that a native English speaker translating from the original Russian would have provided. Attack of the Airacobras was if anything even worse in that respect. Every third phrase was some collectivist slogan thrown in the way corporate buzzwords are piled into a business’s employee handbook. English grammar was apparently a secondary concern for the editors.

It's hard to get traction with the western public if you don't make a basic effort to make your message palatable.

If the Russians want their efforts to be fully appreciated, they shouldn’t have kept them secret, and they should make an effort to make the information available and reliable.

I went to school during the peak of the Cold War; I took Russian as my elective foreign language, and my primary hobby all my life has been WWII aviation and scale modeling, and finding anything about Soviet efforts during WWII usually meant poring through German sources, which were rarely complementary. The information we now have has come in the last 15 years, and it is still heavily colored with contradictions and propaganda. Naturally, I have a less than admiring attitude about Stalin’s military, and an abiding suspicion of the Russian version of events or the capabilities of their equipment when it clearly contradicts our own records.
Did you not display the kind of disregard i talk about when you say 'wed still eventually be picking pieces of German *** out of that shoe'?
Did i not point out that with the tanks, equipment and army you had in 1942, you would very likely have lost? Unlike the Soviets? I would disagree with your basic concept. Given that we did not have Hitler on our borders, and that he would have to come to us at the end of a much longer and even more tenuous supply line than he had in Russia and the Ukraine, and that his generals would have had to deal with an equally wide and VASTLY less hospitable terrain and climate plus a more heavily armed and much more industrialized general population that wouldn’t need commissars with machine guns to encourage them to resist, I’d have say that I like our chances. A LOT.

Around 20% of the young men between 19 and 35 who were evaluated for American military service during WWII were classified as unfit due to conditions related to childhood malnutrition during the Depression. Many of them would have become 1-A the moment a German soldier set foot on a New Jersey or Carolina beach.

Even if Hitler’s Germany was on our border, or had demonstrated a will and capacity to attack us from across the Atlantic, you have to concede that the isolationist attitudes that constricted our military readiness in 1942 would have been much less prevalent and far less powerful. The Soviet Union was an expansionist power at the outset of WWII, and had a proportionally enormous army and air force in place in June 1941; they had so much military equipment and manpower along their borders that most Germans who fought in the Barbarossa campaign were convinced that they had forestalled a Soviet invasion of Germany that summer. While the US would probably be less militarized, its preparedness would be a lot closer to that achieved in late1943 than what was in place behind the Atlantic moat in 1942. AND it wouldn’t have to devote remotely as much manpower and industrial effort to transporting men and their equipment across the sea.

You’d also have to consider that some of the leadership would have been used differently; Joseph Stillwell was considered by George Marshall to be the best candidate for leadership of the Torch landings, the job that Eisenhower got. Stillwell had a gift for languages though, and FDR thought him more useful advising Chiang Kai-Shek and keeping the Chinese in the war. Vinegar Joe would have had his combat command early on in your scenario, and given what combat record he had, he would have been at least as effective as Patton thought he was.

In either case, the depth of defense, terrain, population size, technical sophistication and industrial capacity equation favors the US and Commonwealth over Germany and its allies far more than it did the Soviet Union.
I would challenge you all to this - i would say that if any other nation or even democratic system had been where Soviet Russia was in 1941 when facing Barbarossa, it would not have prevailed against the German onslaught.

The Soviet people demonstrated a resilience far above that which might have been expected from the other Allies No disrespect to the Soviet people, but many of them had a gun at their head. How they would have reacted without it, or if the Germans had not practically conducted a war of extermination against them is an open question.

Again, we have a pretty clear record of where and how the Germans (okay, mostly Hitler) erred in the invasion of the Soviet Union, and how Stalin’s personal ineptitude allowed him to get off the hook several times after the invasion, much less how Stalin set the table for the Germans even before the war started.

With anything like the same population distribution, depth of defense and industrial capacity at their hands, Churchill or FDR arguably would have made fewer mistakes, given their generals more freedom of action and rallied the population to fight and resist more effectively. And let’s be clear: in the case of an invasion, the political gloves would come off. The allied democracies were sensitive to casualties because every casualty was the son or husband or friend of a registered voter; losses had a negative effect on a leader’s chances of holding office, a concern that Stalin never had. That consideration goes out the window when you’re invaded, and Americans in 1942 were a lot closer to their grandfathers who fought the Civil War and the Indian wars than they are to Americans of today.

The size of the land campaigns in the Soviet Union were dictated by the sheer size of the front, and the relatively flat and under populated territory it covered (and let’s be honest here: neither side gave a rat’s patoot about the civilian population there). In western Europe, the Allies there were constricted by a much longer supply line, the time it took for the US industries to adapt to a wartime footing, the elimination of the U-Boat threat, the conscription, modernization, preparation and transportation of the American military, a narrower front, more heavily populated (with mostly friendly civilian nationals) battlefields already prepared for a defensive campaign by a competent opponent who had been waiting for them for three years. The terrain was generally less suited for the tanks and overland maneuvers (Allied Headquarters was forever reminding their troops that they were crossing private property, and to avoid wanton destruction of that property—not a consideration that Zhukov or any German commander had from his High Command).

Finally, you also have the basic fact that American troops particularly fought for an abstract idea or their buddies much more than for hearth and home. America was basically safe in the near term, in a way that no European or British city or village could hope to be. Britons and Russians had a visceral understanding of what they were trying to protect, and it affected the way they fought.

Americans had to learn to hate, and it affected the way they fought. In the event that it was their homes and families directly threatened, the levels of American violence would probably have gone up exponentially.

Once again, thank you for hijacking this thread.

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
06-09-2010, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
They didn't care about the lives of their soldiers, it's apparent.

I agree with this as long as the they in "they didn't care" is Stalin. The citizenry cared a great deal but do remember that Stalin's Soviet Union was as dictatorial and locked down as Germany under Hitler. Also in 1941-42 the Soviet Union had no other option but to shovel lives down the rabbit hole. Later in the war. (perhaps) they could have built up reserves and changed their tactics to reduce their casualties. However, at this stage of the war Stalin is revealed to all, except for the most blind of us, as not caring about the lives of anyone who may be standing in the the way of the political/military objectives he thought vital enough for the future well being and survival of the Soviet Union.

M_Gunz
06-09-2010, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
American isolationism was almost the direct result of the fact that most Americans were descendents of people who left Europe because of its systemic injustices and territorial squabbles.

And nothing to do with any huge famines or opportunities of land or jobs or just being dumped out of prison to get
rid of them or being given huge land grants and dragging people over to work the place and make them rich.

Everyone was Pilgrims, uh-huh, who were not repressive in any way whatsoever and still aren't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

horseback
06-09-2010, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
American isolationism was almost the direct result of the fact that most Americans were descendents of people who left Europe because of its systemic injustices and territorial squabbles.

And nothing to do with any huge famines or opportunities of land or jobs or just being dumped out of prison to get
rid of them or being given huge land grants and dragging people over to work the place and make them rich.

Everyone was Pilgrims, uh-huh, who were not repressive in any way whatsoever and still aren't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Moving ever farther from the original topic, 'most' Americans would hardly include the direct descendents of the aristocrats who were given huge land grants (and from where I sit, that particular term refers to grants given by the Kings of Spain, not England--most English aristocrats granted lands made their fortunes, sold the land and returned to England).

There's also the issue of wars. Europe had the Napoleonic conflicts and several lesser wars and clashes which affected the poor and middle classes far more than the elites; America might have had some violent places on the frontiers, but except for the Civil War (which was still fought by a minority of the eligible men), suffered no major wars or wastage from them. That would have seemed mighty attractive to a young family man on the Franco-German border well into the 20th century.

But mostly, in the 19th century, America was a desireable place to go because (and this is a direct quote from my German born great grandfather) "the rich and powerful ones did not take most of what you make, and they cannot take what already you have; working hard pays off here". He became a successful small business owner after starting from almost nothing when he reached Ellis Island. Had he stayed, he could never have advanced any higher socially or economically than where his father and grandfather already were.

I won't speak much to the Irish Potato Famine, except to point out that it was a shorter trip to England, and most of the Irish apparently preferred a chance in America.

Working class America has usually had more to offer than working class Europe. It had and has, its inequities, but by and large just coming here makes you better off than staying in most other parts of the world. It's always been a matter of what you can have and achieve here versus what you can have and achieve there.

20 million illegal immigrants can't be wrong.

cheers

horseback

Ba5tard5word
06-09-2010, 02:08 PM
What did the USSR do against Japan after 1939 again? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif


Anyway, great posts by horseback in this thread.

It's interesting reading but again I don't really like how off topic this has gotten. Irrational if you want you could make a topic on the anniversary of a major Russian offensive and my guess is that everyone here would raise their glass and salute the dead and nobody would change the subject and start ranting about how great the Western forces were in comparison.

Erkki_M
06-09-2010, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
But mostly, in the 19th century, America was a desireable place to go because (and this is a direct quote from my German born great grandfather) "the rich and powerful ones did not take most of what you make, and they cannot take what already you have; working hard pays off here". He became a successful small business owner after starting from almost nothing when he reached Ellis Island. Had he stayed, he could never have advanced any higher socially or economically than where his father and grandfather already were.

I won't speak much to the Irish Potato Famine, except to point out that it was a shorter trip to England, and most of the Irish apparently preferred a chance in America.

Working class America has usually had more to offer than working class Europe. It had and has, its inequities, but by and large just coming here makes you better off than staying in most other parts of the world. It's always been a matter of what you can have and achieve here versus what you can have and achieve there.

20 million illegal immigrants can't be wrong.

Great post by horseback. How about us all agreeing once again that the America rules, and stop the useless arguing over it...

horseback
06-09-2010, 02:55 PM
How about us all agreeing once again that the America rules, and stop the useless arguing over it... I have a better idea. Why doesn't everyone just feel secure enough in their own national worth to not feel threatened every time a Yank speaks of his country's virtues.

It saddens me that so few have anything positive to say about their own nation's values and contributions to the world, preferring to **** America instead. I mean, most Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries can kick our arses at cricket...

cheers

horseback

Waldo.Pepper
06-09-2010, 03:15 PM
It saddens me that so few have anything positive to say about their own nation's values and contributions to the world, preferring to **** America instead.

Don't be sad. I'll help!

The Canada of WW2 had a population of 11 million, yet the nation had 1 million in uniform. None of the Allies reached their D-day objectives. Canadian forces came closet. How's that?

Oh and here are some on topic pictures of what some D-day sites look like today.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/PointduHoc.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/PointduHocBunker.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/OmahaBeachCemetery.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/OmahaBeach5.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/OmahaBeach4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/OmahaBeach3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/OmahaBeach2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/OmahaBeach1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/Bunker.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/BunkerColleville.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/Arromanches.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/WaldoPepper/book/D-day/arromanches-GoldBeach.jpg

JtD
06-09-2010, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

I have a better idea. Why doesn't everyone just feel secure enough in their own national worth to not feel threatened every time a Yank speaks of his country's virtues.

Face it, the US guys you see most frequently abroad are wearing a uniform and are waving a gun.

horseback
06-09-2010, 03:55 PM
...and yet I've hardly ever shot anyone for disagreeing with me.

By the way, it was my annoying little brother Billy and the BB barely penetrated his skin (though you wouldn't have believed it from the way he screamed...).

cheers

horseback

TheGrunch
06-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
...and yet I've hardly ever shot anyone for disagreeing with me.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

irR4tiOn4L
06-10-2010, 06:57 AM
Originally posted by mortoma:
The eastern front may have been more significant but I respect the way us Americans fought the battles we did, along with the Brits and Canadians. We fought with regard to minimizing losses. The Soviets leaders simply threw millions of troops and tanks out there with no regard for heavy losses. They didn't care about the lives of their soldiers, it's apparent.

In such desperate circumstances, i doubt any other approach would have got the job done. I would think your own leaders would do much the same, or capitulate

For clarity i responded to an off topic comment, not necessarily dragging the conversation off myself.

I do find that some of you hold ingrained views not about the military significance, but inherent 'worth' of your nation's role in WWII. I can see i will not change that view. Some of you do not realise you denigrate the Soviets when, in the same breath, you acknowledge what they faced while judging that it could have been done better; by others, by different leaders, or by different nations. I am not Russian and do not seek to excuse Stalin or the Soviet regime. Certain aspects are easily judged as reprehensible. But I also give them benefit of doubt over their achievements in the Eastern front.

What i originally said was actually simple. Whatever the worth of Western Allied efforts, they were playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front.

I did not set out to compare the two on equal terms. I do not believe this could credibly be done by those whose industry lay across protective barriers and fought in a war away from home ground. Ditto for American boyscout 'we would have thrashed them' reassurances. Everyone made sacrifices, but these were of an order of magnitude and importance higher on the Eastern front. What is the relevant criteria to apply to Soviet efforts? Those of Normandy, where an eventual army of 5 million Allied troops and Allied air superiority faced 1.5 million Germans? Hardly seems fair

Militarily the Eastern front was the most significant front in the war, and the Soviets bore the brunt of that responsibility. It is a simple statement


Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How about us all agreeing once again that the America rules, and stop the useless arguing over it... I have a better idea. Why doesn't everyone just feel secure enough in their own national worth to not feel threatened every time a Yank speaks of his country's virtues.

It saddens me that so few have anything positive to say about their own nation's values and contributions to the world, preferring to **** America instead. I mean, most Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries can kick our arses at cricket...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why does it always have to be about the Americans? The original discussion was on the Soviets and the Eastern front

Granted, that original discussion were off topic. However, this seems quite another leap

M_Gunz
06-10-2010, 10:03 AM
The Bitish had the Channel. The Russians had general Winter, Colonel Mud and extreme distances.

On D-Day and the following weeks 5 million Allied troops had to attack from water to often fortified, guarded land.
You want to call that kitty litter compared to any other action then you don't know much about war.

If you count -all- of the Allied fronts, actions and enemies then the total is more than minor. That includes naval
and air operations worldwide and goes way beyond counting soldier's noses.

na85
06-10-2010, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:

The original discussion was on the Soviets and the Eastern front

Try again, skippy. The original discussion was about D-Day.

horseback
06-10-2010, 01:01 PM
Let's be nice, and try to remember that the Soviet soldiers that irR4tiOn4L is trying to recognize died for our freedom just as much as the men who landed in Normandy. God knows that their people have hardly enjoyed anything like those same freedoms as yet.

I pray that someday soon, they will.

irR4, we'll just have to agree to disagree. For the record, though, the Soviet Union obtained a very significant percentage of their logististics via the western allies. Although they stood on their own for most of 1941, western supplies started pouring in in spite of submarine and air attacks on the convoys. Without that aid, the Soviet troops would not have been capable of the feats of arms they did perform.

And by the way, it is a military axiom that one attacks with at least a three to one advantage over the defender; if you check, I'm sure you'll find that the Red Army usually doubled or tripled that ratio when attacking German positions.

cheers

horseback

Wildnoob
06-10-2010, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What i originally said was actually simple. Whatever the worth of Western Allied efforts, they were playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front.

Now I ask you what would happen if the Western Allies that we just "playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front" were not holding the Japanese in the Pacific?

Surely they would attack the Soviets with full strength.

You can tell what consequences this attack would bring to the course of WORLD WAR II?

I don't agree with your minimization of the Western Allies efforts and put this example to show you that everything was conected and indirect things could have influenced more in the victory than direct ones.

The Allies Won the War: US, UK, USSR, China... and so many others Allied nations that give their contribution like my country. The war was won by them. Without their help no way the Soviets would be able to destroy the Axis forces by themselves.

Thei did the major direct contribution, but direct contribution and total contribution are very different things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wildnoob
06-10-2010, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What i originally said was actually simple. Whatever the worth of Western Allied efforts, they were playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front.

Now I ask you what would happen if the Western Allies that we just "playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front" were not holding the Japanese in the Pacific?

Surely they would attack the Soviets with full strength.

You can tell what consequences this attack would bring to the course of WORLD WAR II?

I don't agree with your minimization of the Western Allies efforts and put this example to show you that everything was conected and indirect things could have influenced more in the victory than direct ones.

The Allies Won the War: US, UK, USSR, China... and so many others Allied nations that give their contribution like my country. The war was won by them. Without their help no way the Soviets would be able to destroy the Axis forces by themselves.

And always remember: the Soviets did the major direct contribution, but direct contribution and total contribution are very different things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wildnoob
06-10-2010, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What i originally said was actually simple. Whatever the worth of Western Allied efforts, they were playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front.

Now I ask you what would happen if the Western Allies that we just "playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front" were not holding the Japanese in the Pacific?

Surely they would attack the Soviets with full strength.

You can tell what consequences this attack would bring to the course of WORLD WAR II?

I don't agree with your minimization of the Western Allies efforts and put this example to show you that everything was conected and indirect things could have influenced more in the victory than direct ones.

The Allies Won the War: US, UK, USSR, China... and so many others Allied nations that give their contribution like my country. The war was won by them. Without their help no way the Soviets would be able to destroy the Axis forces by themselves.

And always remember: the Soviets did the major direct contribution, but direct contribution and total contribution are very different things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif[/QUOTE]

Wildnoob
06-10-2010, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by Wildnoob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What i originally said was actually simple. Whatever the worth of Western Allied efforts, they were playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front.

Now I ask you what would happen if the Western Allies that we just "playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front" were not holding the Japanese in the Pacific?

Surely they would attack the Soviets with full strength.

You can tell what consequences this attack would bring to the course of WORLD WAR II?

I don't agree with your minimization of the Western Allies efforts and put this example to show you that everything was conected and indirect things could have influenced more in the victory than direct ones.

The Allies Won the War: US, UK, USSR, China... and so many others Allied nations that give their contribution like my country. The war was won by them. Without their help no way the Soviets would be able to destroy the Axis forces by themselves.

And always remember: the Soviets did the major direct contribution, but direct contribution and total contribution are very different things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wildnoob
06-10-2010, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
What i originally said was actually simple. Whatever the worth of Western Allied efforts, they were playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front.

Now I ask you what would happen if the Western Allies that we just "playing in kitty litter compared to the Eastern front" were not holding the Japanese in the Pacific?

Surely they would attack the Soviets with full strength.

You can tell what consequences this attack would bring to the course of WORLD WAR II?

I don't agree with your minimization of the Western Allies efforts and ask you those questions for you see how the non presence of the Western Allies in a secondary theater could have made this secondary theater bring a victory for the primary and therefore how everything in the war happen like in a chain reaction and why we cannot see the things other way than that.

So the truth is the ALLIES won the War: US, UK, USSR, China... and so many other Allied nations that give their contribution like my country. The war was won by them. Without their help no way the Soviets would be able to destroy the Axis forces by themselves.

And always remember: the Soviets did the major direct contribution, but direct contribution and total contribution are very different things. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WTE_Galway
06-10-2010, 05:10 PM
We never had these discussions before the P51 entered the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

deepo_HP
06-10-2010, 08:45 PM
wildnoob, that's a lot of asking! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

is it only me, or... meanwhile i even suspect the forum to add the last post another time whenever i switch pages.

irR4tiOn4L
06-11-2010, 03:25 AM
I apologise for that choice of words. It did not convey the point


First - ive already split the overall effort as most influenced by Soviets in Europe and US in pacific. So i do recognise that

Second, i only meant to refer to second front in Europe, as well as the auxiliary fronts. I should not have called any front in a deadly war 'kitty litter', but i meant to express that strategically, these were much simpler and much more in favour of the Western Allies than the desperate and close fought struggle on the Eastern front.

The Normandy landings were not 'easy', but neither were amphibious assaults by Soviet or US marines throughout the Black Sea and the Pacific. Guadalcanal was also a very difficult battle - yet strategically it was of very limited significance. The landings in Normandy were far beyond these in scope and a lot rode on them - but not nearly as much as concurrent operations being launched on the eastern front. Few i think could argue Normandy was more important than Stalingrad or Kursk - yet these were only part of the Eastern front.

Moreoever, once the landings were made the Western front was characterised by a strong Allied overmatch. Once again, within a year the Allies had 5 million troops in France, and they never faced much more than 1.5 million Germans.


Overall, the Western front never saw the ferocity that the Soviets had to go through on the Eastern front, and thats what i mean to say when i said 'kitty litter' - the Western Allies were not as extensively tested in Normandy as the Soviets were in Barbarossa and beyond

M_Gunz
06-11-2010, 04:19 AM
Does the Allied bombing offensive count?

irR4tiOn4L
06-11-2010, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Does the Allied bombing offensive count?

When did it begin in earnest, on a large scale?

In the particularly crucial years of 1941 and 1942, it was my impression it had limited effect from the point of view of the Eastern front, except in withholding assets that went into protecting Germany

Even beyond that, some people argue German industrial production thrived regardless until synthetic oil production became a target. Heres what wikipedia has to say

Nevertheless, RAF Bomber Command had a limited effect on German industrial production, and was no more successful at breaking Germany's will to fight than the Luftwaffe was at breaking Britain's
I wouldnt agree. I think bombing, and particularly the B17's of the 8th, had a very sizeable effect.

But Germany was still able to supply its armies and it was the destruction of those armies that was paramount. Allied bombing helped the Soviets (a lot), particularly later on, but it was not what saved them in the crucial early years.


It had a particularly destructive effect on the Luftwaffe, but again, limited effect on industrial output until late into the war

M_Gunz
06-11-2010, 07:28 AM
When did it begin in earnest, on a large scale?

Well before D-Day Normandy.

You can adjust terms all you want to play at points but that doesn't change who did how much in the war.
Battle in Russia did not end in 1942 either. Kursk was July 1943, Bagration was much later. Focus on one
part or another on leads to poor conclusions and kitty litter statements.

But Germany was still able to supply its armies and it was the destruction of those armies that was paramount. Allied bombing helped the Soviets (a lot), particularly later on, but it was not what saved them in the crucial early years.

Lack of supply plagued the Germans once the supply lines got long. Of course they didn't really stretch so badly in the
start. Not enough planes and fuel to airlift even a fraction of supplies needed was behind the loss of an entire German
army and heavy German losses every winter in Russia. Winter gear never got properly delivered, not what I call 'able to
supply its armies'. German logistics is one of the major factors that kept them from winning in Russia.

Monty_Thrud
06-11-2010, 07:56 AM
Great Photos Waldo, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif TFP... i'd love to do the Normandy to Berlin tour, preferably on my Motorcycle with a big heap of cash and a red hot Babe on pillion, well i've got the Bike. I see it as work in progress.

Erkki_M
06-11-2010, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
When did it begin in earnest, on a large scale?

Well before D-Day Normandy.

You can adjust terms all you want to play at points but that doesn't change who did how much in the war.
Battle in Russia did not end in 1942 either. Kursk was July 1943, Bagration was much later. Focus on one
part or another on leads to poor conclusions and kitty litter statements.

But Germany was still able to supply its armies and it was the destruction of those armies that was paramount. Allied bombing helped the Soviets (a lot), particularly later on, but it was not what saved them in the crucial early years.

Lack of supply plagued the Germans once the supply lines got long. Of course they didn't really stretch so badly in the
start. Not enough planes and fuel to airlift even a fraction of supplies needed was behind the loss of an entire German
army and heavy German losses every winter in Russia. Winter gear never got properly delivered, not what I call 'able to
supply its armies'. German logistics is one of the major factors that kept them from winning in Russia.

The Soviets lost heavily to the General Winter too. The winter in Ukraine for example is fairly mild, most men from there lacked the clothing and equipment to survive, let alone fight, elsewhere. Fortunately, the situation was even worse to the Germans, who still used "iron boots", short trousers and T-shirts.

Dont forget, this was supposed to be an "overrun war, max 2 weeks" by superior winter equipped and trained Soviets.

http://umami.fi/wp-content/uploads/talvisodan-muistomerkkis-575x383.jpg

EDIT: it seems my signature picture has been deleted. I just wonder why? EDIT2: seems the signature is unchecked, and I cant select it. The selection instantly disappears.

horseback
06-11-2010, 11:47 AM
Here's my formulation, undoubtedly over generalized:

A) The German logistics train into the Soviet Union was inadequate by the time the fall rains of 1941 began, and never improved.

B) The Soviets fought with what they had on hand until early winter of 1941-2, at which point Lend-Lease help from both the Commonwealth and the United States began arriving. This started out as a trickle but by mid 1943 became a veritable flood of foodstuffs, fuel, metals, clothing and various types of transport and military equipment. These supplies not only helped the Red Army to keep fighting, they kept a great many of the Soviet Union's civilians from starving.

C) Western Allied operations in North African and then in Italy diverted several German divisions from the east, and the threat of Allied invasion occupied several more in places as diverse as Norway and Greece, coupled with their support and supplying resistance groups throughout the occupied countries of northern, western, and southern Europe.

D) Western Allied air forces diverted the bulk of LW resources to defense of the Reich, rather than allowing it to support the armies in Russia. This includes a truly staggering number of antiaircraft artillary, the resources of which might otherwise have been used for artillary and ammunition in the east.

E) Besides diverting the LW, the air campaigns also performed the major strategic warfare effort against the German warmaking and transportation capability. This further crippled the already inadequate German logistics train into the Soviet Union, by limiting what could be sent and the means by which it could be sent.

F) Finally, they did this by transporting the bulk of their own men and equipment much farther than the Germans were sending their men and equipment into the Soviet Union.

G) The Germans could not have won in the East without the men and supplies destroyed by or diverted to defend against the Western Allies. Even with that, the Soviets could not have won nearly so soon, if at all, without the supplies and weapons provided by the Western Allies.

H) Without either contribution by the West, Hitler might have gotten his liebensram (is that the correct term and spelling?--feel free to correct me, someone) and the massacre of the Jews would have been small potatoes compared to the extermination of a hundred million or more Ukrainians, Russians and various other Slavic peoples.

Not as glamorous as fighting huge armored battles on the steppes and taking enormous casualties, but hard, dirty, dangerous and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">absolutely necessary work.</span>

And that's a small part of why we celebrate the Normandy invasion, boys and girls. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

cheers

horseback

JtD
06-11-2010, 11:51 AM
"Lebensraum".

horseback
06-11-2010, 11:55 AM
Danke, bolshoi spacebo, gracias, domo arigato, merci, ta, thank you.

cheers

horseback

JtD
06-11-2010, 12:07 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Gern geschehen, c ???????c???e?, de nada, do itashimashi?e, de rien, my pleisure.

Maybe you just edit your first post and then we delete these three, makes it better to read for everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

horseback
06-11-2010, 12:11 PM
No way. I need to spam a little to get over 4600 posts.

cheers

horseback

M2morris
06-11-2010, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
Great Photos Waldo, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif TFP... i'd love to do the Normandy to Berlin tour, preferably on my Motorcycle with a big heap of cash and a red hot Babe on pillion, well i've got the Bike. I see it as work in progress.
Normandy is a must-see, at least as a great start. There's a good museum in St Mere Eglise and you can probably still find stuff lying around on the beaches. I found an old rusty machine gun barrel in the high grass area of Utah beach about ten years ago. A French guy with a detector was finding rifle rounds nearby. I plan to go back with a metal detector some day.

M_Gunz
06-11-2010, 02:30 PM
There's been some good Dunkirk documentaries on usenet lately including one on the Little Ships as part
of the anniversary trip some of the originals made. The BBC one from 2004 though... brutal.

irR4tiOn4L
06-12-2010, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
German logistics is one of the major factors that kept them from winning in Russia.

Thats right, and Allied bombing efforts never affected the logistics of the Eastern front until the Soviets had already fought off the bulk of the Wehrmacht!

Ie - we cannot say that without the bombing campaign, the Soviets would have lost - we can, however, say the opposite - that without the Soviets, the bombing campaign would have failed.

Still, it was important, especially in diverting assets from the Eastern front.

irR4tiOn4L
06-12-2010, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Here's my formulation, undoubtedly over generalized:

A) The German logistics train into the Soviet Union was inadequate by the time the fall rains of 1941 began, and never improved.

B) The Soviets fought with what they had on hand until early winter of 1941-2, at which point Lend-Lease help from both the Commonwealth and the United States began arriving. This started out as a trickle but by mid 1943 became a veritable flood of foodstuffs, fuel, metals, clothing and various types of transport and military equipment. These supplies not only helped the Red Army to keep fighting, they kept a great many of the Soviet Union's civilians from starving.

C) Western Allied operations in North African and then in Italy diverted several German divisions from the east, and the threat of Allied invasion occupied several more in places as diverse as Norway and Greece, coupled with their support and supplying resistance groups throughout the occupied countries of northern, western, and southern Europe.

D) Western Allied air forces diverted the bulk of LW resources to defense of the Reich, rather than allowing it to support the armies in Russia. This includes a truly staggering number of antiaircraft artillary, the resources of which might otherwise have been used for artillary and ammunition in the east.

E) Besides diverting the LW, the air campaigns also performed the major strategic warfare effort against the German warmaking and transportation capability. This further crippled the already inadequate German logistics train into the Soviet Union, by limiting what could be sent and the means by which it could be sent.

F) Finally, they did this by transporting the bulk of their own men and equipment much farther than the Germans were sending their men and equipment into the Soviet Union.

G) The Germans could not have won in the East without the men and supplies destroyed by or diverted to defend against the Western Allies. Even with that, the Soviets could not have won nearly so soon, if at all, without the supplies and weapons provided by the Western Allies.

H) Without either contribution by the West, Hitler might have gotten his liebensram (is that the correct term and spelling?--feel free to correct me, someone) and the massacre of the Jews would have been small potatoes compared to the extermination of a hundred million or more Ukrainians, Russians and various other Slavic peoples.

Not as glamorous as fighting huge armored battles on the steppes and taking enormous casualties, but hard, dirty, dangerous and <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">absolutely necessary work.</span>




Originally posted by horseback:
And that's a small part of why we celebrate the Normandy invasion, boys and girls. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

cheers

horseback

Have you noticed how your formulation does not support your conclusion?

My approach is simple - as the most important clash in Europe, by far, victory could not have been attained without the Eastern front. So unless you can say about an operation that 'without it, we could not have won', you have to look at its effect on the all important Eastern front.


From that angle, BoB being lost would not have resulted in British invasion, thus the allied bombings, which i recognised as important from the start (although more important in effect on luftwaffe) would still have occured

The battle for the atlantic, which none of you mention, was far more important and capable of knocking Britain out, and thus focussing German resources to crushing the soviets

D-Day was too late, and more about racing to the finish line then ensuring it was reached. Diversion of resources and luftwaffe was important, but not caused by D-day but the mere threat - it would have occured even if D-day never had. From that angle Africa was more significant than D-Day

US industrial output was crucial to all of WWII. It helped on the eastern front, allied bombing campaign, atlantic, pacific etc

The Pacific theatre was as important as the European, with the US having the primary contribution


Could the war have been won without Allied participation? No, very likely not, but then that wasnt what i said.

What i said was that in Europe the Soviet contribution dwarfed the others, yet Normandy or Africa are far more well known. This familiarity with the Western fronts and lack of familiarity with the Eastern can produce skewed conceptions of relative importance. It does not matter that these operations were ALSO important when saying that they were, nevertheless, auxiliary to the main front.

I am not saying we should not celebrate Normandy or that it is over-celebrated, i am saying it is relatively over-celebrated, when compared to the Eastern front.

I also think that Soviet efforts are subject to bias and denigration that further undermines their recognition. There is an attitude of 'yeah they died and destroyed the most, but they made a lot of mistakes and wouldnt have had to die so much if they didnt, so we dont want to say they won the war; if it had been us, i bet we would have beaten the Germans much sooner'. And then as a result, the Eastern front gets ignored as the result of incompetence.



I think thats just attrocious, and unjust. I think Horseback shows how this bias and lack of understanding can be present even in otherwise good opinions. Heres a particular extract;


Not as glamorous as fighting huge armored battles on the steppes and taking enormous casualties, but hard, dirty, dangerous and absolutely necessary work.

Industrial output the hard part and fighting and dying in bleak steppes by the millions the 'glamour'?

You only have to reverse a few such opinions; about the ineptitude of the Soviets compared to the allies, about the 'ease' of a closely fought front with 15 million dead (soldiers), about the results of a loss in the BoB, about the 'exhaustion' of the Russians and their willingess and ability to go on without a D-day in the west - to once again reach that inevitable conclusion that the Soviet contribution ought to be the one sung most loudly about

M_Gunz
06-12-2010, 03:15 AM
IIRC the Germans got to the gates of Stalingrad more than once.
Actually if some other of Hitlers strategic bungles in Russia had not been made, then Moscow might well have fallen.
He spread his forces too evenly, too far before securing a coup. Not sending winter gear right from the start or very
soon thereafter was another good one, the sheer distances involved should have made clear that Barbarossa was not
going to be over before the fall rains slowed the Germans to a crawl.
IMO Hitler had neither planning nor preparation for really large-scale war. If they had tried then they wouldn't have
gone beyond unification of Germany. But since he wrote his insane Kampf book and sold those loose ideas, Adolph was
committed to bigger and bigger blunders.

Consider the effort made by the US and Britain in the Battle for the Atlantic to both Britain and the USSR including
the delivery route from Britain to Russia. How many ships, how much crew, how much supplies including that lost to
weather was only part of the Allied effort and began in earnest in 1940. During the Allied bombing campaign which was
a major effort, much of German production increased. How much more without that effort and how much would have gone
East? Ask yourself why the Russians were able to reverse the war by mid-1943, they did not do it all alone.

The US may have gotten into Africa and Europe late but the British were going at it before then. How many German
divisions were tied up in Africa that could have been in Russia? How much fuel, ammunition, logistics train and
aircraft?

I really don't think that the efforts of the US or Britain were relatively inconsequential at all.

Same token though, the US did not make the difference a lot of Americans have maintained that it did, which would be
at least 50% to 90% of the total effort worldwide. But we're not all that stupid here... or loud... or childish.

horseback
06-12-2010, 03:38 PM
Have you noticed how your formulation does not support your conclusion?
My conclusion was sarcasm...

My formulation apparently went right over you head.

To boil it down:

The Germans' chances of beating the Soviet Union improve exponentially if it can apply all of its air power, plus its technological and logistical strength in the East while holding the Commonwealth at arm's length. Adding the United States to its official enemies list was emphatically not in their best interests.

Every AA gun that has to be used to defend against the RAF or USAAF costs the Germans an artillary piece (and its ammunition) in the east. Every additional man who must be in Norway, or the Netherlands or France, Italy or Greece to defend against a potential landing by the western allies is a man (and his required support chain of several other persons) that cannot be used to fight the Soviets. Every U boat built is treasure and metals and industrial effort that could have been applied to building tanks and guns for panzer divisions. Every pilot and aircrewman wounded and killed defending against the western Allied air forces is a man who could have been bombing or strafing Red Army columns or positions much more safely.

Every truck, railcar or vehicle needed to defend the western marches of the Reich, along with the lubricating oils and fuel they burn is an asset that the Germans could not apply to the destruction of the Red Army and its air forces.

Now add in the destruction and distraction the western allies caused on top of that, the wastage in people and industrial production, the loss of oil refineries and fuel production.

Now subtract from the Soviet Union's war effort the manpower required to build an additional 10-14% of its air forces, produce the railstock and trucks it needed to transport its troops and their supplies, the money and manpower it took to produce the food the Red Army and the civilian population that supported them needed. Subtract also the technologies that came to the Soviets in the form of radios, field telephones and the other little modern innovations that came with examples of Allied aircraft. Take away the metals and refined fuels, the tanks, guns and ammunition, plus the uniforms and warm blankets and clothing that came in via Lend Lease.

Having added and subtracted all those things, does Stalin win the war? Does the Red Army sweep to victory in 1945, '46, or does it meet the Americans and British on the outskirts of Kiev after three atomic bombs are dropped on major German strongholds, with a Soviet population halved and the Red Army barely worthy of note as a fighting force?

The Western Allies could have let Stalin fight his own war, or required a true allied command structure as they had in the west before sending him so much as a loaf of bread. It would have cost them millions of dollars less and thousands fewer casualties spent in transporting those good to the USSR and allowed them to use the extra production and manpower to liberate Europe sooner and more completely. Even in retrospect 70 years later, it is unclear whether this was not really the better path.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
06-12-2010, 04:41 PM
I thought that the US was sending aid to Britain before Dec 7 1941 and that the command structure in the west was not
decided until after then.

Other than that, I strongly agree with Horseback's summation.

As far as the idea that the Russians had the Germans beat by end of 1942... maybe true only because of all the other
things that went down before and since, see Horseback's post for details.

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Having added and subtracted all those things, does Stalin win the war? Does the Red Army sweep to victory in 1945, '46, or does it meet the Americans and British on the outskirts of Kiev after three atomic bombs are dropped on major German strongholds, with a Soviet population halved and the Red Army barely worthy of note as a fighting force?

The Western Allies could have let Stalin fight his own war, or required a true allied command structure as they had in the west before sending him so much as a loaf of bread. It would have cost them millions of dollars less and thousands fewer casualties spent in transporting those good to the USSR and allowed them to use the extra production and manpower to liberate Europe sooner and more completely. Even in retrospect 70 years later, it is unclear whether this was not really the better path.



The way you simply assume America would have won regardless is staggering. If the Soviets had lost with Barbarossa, how exactly would those nuclear bombs have been delivered? What of Germany's own efforts for a bomb?

It is exactly this attitude of 'we did it all' that just irks me to no end, and insults the legacy of people who did FAR more than your loud mouthed countrymen.

Without the Soviets, you would never have won in Europe in the first place, and Germany would have been the pre-eminent world power alongside. Ponder THAT when you advocate whether 'it really was the better path'

You say your previous conclusion was a joke that i missed - is this 'one of those jokes' too? Or are you seriously advocating that the Allies should have left the Soviets high and dry?

I also find it interesting that you refuse to accept D-day may have been delayed for this reason, yet here you are summarising the policy yourself


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Consider the effort made by the US and Britain in the Battle for the Atlantic to both Britain and the USSR including
the delivery route from Britain to Russia. How many ships, how much crew, how much supplies including that lost to
weather was only part of the Allied effort and began in earnest in 1940. During the Allied bombing campaign which was
a major effort, much of German production increased. How much more without that effort and how much would have gone
East? Ask yourself why the Russians were able to reverse the war by mid-1943, they did not do it all alone.

The US may have gotten into Africa and Europe late but the British were going at it before then. How many German
divisions were tied up in Africa that could have been in Russia? How much fuel, ammunition, logistics train and
aircraft?

I really don't think that the efforts of the US or Britain were relatively inconsequential at all.

Same token though, the US did not make the difference a lot of Americans have maintained that it did, which would be
at least 50% to 90% of the total effort worldwide. But we're not all that stupid here... or loud... or childish.

These are basically arguments ive raised!

A) I also said that the importance of some operations, like D-day and BoB, are over-represented relative to the Eastern front, and that the Soviet contribution has never been properly recognised. Consider horsheback's unflinching belief in the superiority of the allies against this - perhaps i do have a point after all, that Soviet efforts are far too often denigrated or belittled as 'we would have done better'?

B) Ive said quite a few times that the battle for the Atlantic was far more important than the BoB, and that this was one of the major contributions to the success of the Eastern front, enabling Britain to remain in the war and provide a great deal of support/diversion

In that vein i have also noted that Africa and other operations were more important than D-day, because they came at a much more crucial time and diverted resources from Barbarossa. (along with the scatterbrained approach of Hitler, and other factors)

Recall that i never said the Soviets won ALONE - I said their contribution was relatively underrecognised, considering it was by far the most important - particularly in comparison with D-day.

JtD
06-13-2010, 12:06 PM
How did it get there?

http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/dday_06_07/d36_00Page03.jpg

(http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/dday_06_07/d36_00Page03.jpg)

M_Gunz
06-13-2010, 01:19 PM
breaking news: the ENTIRE Russian effort dwarfs D-Day! more at 11.

horseback
06-13-2010, 07:44 PM
The way you simply assume America would have won regardless is staggering. If the Soviets had lost with Barbarossa, how exactly would those nuclear bombs have been delivered? What of Germany's own efforts for a bomb?

It is exactly this attitude of 'we did it all' that just irks me to no end, and insults the legacy of people who did FAR more than your loud mouthed countrymen.

Without the Soviets, you would never have won in Europe in the first place, and Germany would have been the pre-eminent world power alongside. Ponder THAT when you advocate whether 'it really was the better path'

You say your previous conclusion was a joke that i missed - is this 'one of those jokes' too? Or are you seriously advocating that the Allies should have left the Soviets high and dry?

I also find it interesting that you refuse to accept D-day may have been delayed for this reason, yet here you are summarising the policy yourself My conclusion that “…that's a small part of why we celebrate the Normandy invasion, boys and girls” was intended to get back to the original subject.

The reason D-Day took as long as it did was that:

A)A great deal of American production and transport capacity was diverted to the Soviet Union from before Day One, without conditions. In the first year of the war, that meant that finished war materials not immediately needed for direct support of US operations went to Stalin, and a significant portion of that went to the bottom of the Atlantic and the Arctic Sea around Murmansk. This had a direct effect on training resources and shipping available to send supplies and men elsewhere in the world. Remember, the US and Canada were feeding & supplying Britain as well as the Soviet Union during those years, along with fighting a war across 5,000 miles of the Pacific at the same time. We lost a great many ships and skilled merchant seamen supplying the Soviets and they were hard to replace during that first 18 months of the war.

B)Roosevelt and Churchill were wasting a great many trained and experienced troops in Italy in penny-packets because they were trying to appease Stalin’s demands for a second front without listening to the generals’ and field marshals’ advice that to succeed in Italy would take more resources up front than they were willing to spare from preparations for the invasion of France. Instead, operations in Italy proceeded on a shoestring, which resulted in thousands more casualties than the diversion of a relative few (albeit first rate) German divisions could really justify. As I pointed out, there was a requirement for a three to one advantage for an attacker to reasonably expect to succeed; the first year of operations in Italy, the ratio was often little better than 1.5 to 1. For experienced defenders holding the high ground against relatively inexperienced troops…

C)The Battle of the Atlantic was pretty much won by early summer of 1943, but that only meant that the flow of men and supplies for D-Day could finally start; this included the fighters needed to destroy the Luftwaffe. 8th AF Fighter Command had 3 fighter groups in June of 1943; it more than doubled that number by that December.

D)The Luftwaffe was still a potent force until the spring of 1944. Just as the German Army maintained that it could not hope to successfully invade (a badly depleted, particularly in terms of ground forces) Britain across the Channel unless the RAF was destroyed, so too did the Allied military leadership require the destruction of German air power before a cross Channel invasion could be attempted. I will go no further lest someone’s knee jerks and we are inundated with arguments over whether I’m saying that “the Mustang won teh war!”

E)For every American or (non-British) Commonwealth man carrying a rifle or riding a tank into combat, there were 15-20 people necessary to get him there and then feed & equip him while he was fighting over 3,000 miles (or about 4800Km) from his homeland. Those same people, plus many others, were also providing a great deal of direct and indirect support for Soviet combatants.

As for the A-bomb, the German atomic bomb effort went down a blind alley, and nothing that happened in Europe would have affected the US efforts in Chicago and then New Mexico. That means that we would still have 3 bombs available to the USAAF by summer of 1945 regardless, as well as Allied control of the skies over Germany. Those bombs were intended for Germany in the first place, but those who wish to impute some sort of racist motivations to the A-bombing of Japan have tended to drown that fact out most of the time.

As for the ‘we could have taken a different path’ argument, the industrial & logistical capacity to successfully wage a long war against the United States or even just the Commonwealth was just not there for the Germans without almost divine intervention in the form of major technological breakthroughs. Britain was already out-producing Germany in war materiel in 1941, and with American Lend-Lease and the rest of the Commonwealth gearing up to their full potentials, the weight of metal lies against Germany, barring a collapse of Allied will. Germany could not effectively project its power across the Channel; how could it possibly hope to project it across the Atlantic?

Stalin made demand after demand of the Western Allies for weapons, materiel, foodstuffs and technology without giving anything to them outside of his waging war on the Germans who invaded his country, while loudly proclaiming that the Soviet people were doing it all by themselves. It’s been repeatedly pointed out on these boards that Soviet aircraft machine guns and cannon were significantly better than the Browning and Hispano designs used by the Western air forces—why weren’t the Soviet designs offered as a partial repayment of their aid? How about the T-34? It had to be easier to make in large numbers than the Sherman.

Assuming that these designs were that much superior, British and American arms companies could have been pumping those guns and tanks out in huge numbers.

And those are just a couple of examples.

Imagine a Mustang sporting six 12.7mm UBs or four 20mm ShVaK cannons. It might have been really capable of winning teh war then…

But I digress. If one measures the industrial capacity of the Soviet Union in 1941, factors in the educational levels of the average Soviet worker and the quality of Soviet craftsmanship against German/European Axis industrial capacity, factors in the educational levels of German, Austrian and central European Axis allies and the qualities of their craftsmanship… things don’t look so good. Add in the fact that the only bodies of water the Germans have to cross to invade the USSR are rivers no wider than 2000m, and the Soviets are hip-deep in alligators even before we shoot most of their generals and execute or imprison thousands of their most skilled and educated workers.

Finally, I never maintained that the Soviet contribution was unimportant or compared it to “kitty litter” or accused all those old Red Army veterans who still wear their old medals (or their children) of being “loud-mouthed”.

I am simply defending Anglo-American contributions to the victory in a thread that was started to celebrate the successful invasion of Normandy.

I am pointedly NOT trashing a thread about Soviet contributions to the destruction of Germany.

cheers

horseback

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
breaking news: the ENTIRE Russian effort dwarfs D-Day! more at 11.

Yep, and yet D-day is celebrated as practically the most important operation of the war while arrogant americans like Horseback reckon they could have won without the Soviets, and that the soviets were a bunch of incompetent fools anyway (nevermind the whipping the British and French recieved and the disaster at dunkirk, or the fact that 1.5 million Germans held ground against an allied army of 5 million enough to scar them to this day, or the very poor equipment the US entered the war with)

Perhaps people like horseback forget that THE VERY REASON D-day, or the battle for the atlantic, or the British isles remaining in the war, or the allied bombing raids - the very reason ANY of these were possible was BECAUSE of the Eastern front. If the Soviets had lost there, as im sure the British, French or US would have in their shoes (democracies dont have such a stomach for casualties, nor were these anywhere near remotely ready) then the other allied efforts would have been jeopardised.

As for the nuclear bomb - Germany's progress was unwound by bombing, but this subject remains controversial.

However, the war might well have been over before 1945 if the Germans had won in Barbarossa, it might have been difficult to deliver a B29 to Germany, particularly with German jets about, and theres no guarantee the Germans would have capitulated.

So perhaps youd better rethink how much you needed the Soviets to win, despite all youve said about how youre not denigrating their efforts - when you say you could have won without them and should have left them to be cut down by Germany (how much more inflammatory can you get? how much more of a superiority complex can you americans have, thinking you shouldnt have helped the soviets because you didnt like the competition after the war) you are most DEFINITELY denigrating their entire role in the war.

And once again, you are ignoring what Churchill said about the delay of D-day - it was certainly geopolitical in aim.

Yes this thread is originally about D-day. So? It is relevant that d-day is an overstated contribution and the Soviet contribution is understated. Do i hear you saying 'Yes, we absolutely needed the Soviets to win on the Eastern front'? No. Despite everything youre saying pointing out how crucial it was, and everything pointing toward the limited significance of d-day (lower even than africa) except in geopolitical terms, you cannot bring yourself to say that

horseback
06-13-2010, 08:17 PM
In that vein i have also noted that Africa and other operations were more important than D-day, because they came at a much more crucial time and diverted resources from Barbarossa. (along with the scatterbrained approach of Hitler, and other factors)

Recall that i never said the Soviets won ALONE - I said their contribution was relatively underrecognised, considering it was by far the most important - particularly in comparison with D-day. I never disagreed that the BoB or D-Day are over-represented in the West. I suspect that they are practically ignored in the East, or minimized in the same vein you are taking. In the case of the Battle of Britain, it may be because the Soviets were more or less Axis sympathizers, if not specifically German allies at that time.

I don't think that the BoB ever came up in my posts, although one could make some very strong arguments that without it and its symbolic importance, a great many other things would never have been accomplished, possibly including Lend-Lease or the successful prosecution of the Battle of the Atlantic.

However, it is to be expected that on an English language forum, the accomplishments of English speaking peoples will get more exposure.

As I have pointed out earlier, the Soviets systematically hid their light under a bushel for 50 years, so in terms of public relations, they have a lot of catching up to do in the English speaking and reading world. So far, a lot of the assertions and information lack supporting details and are loaded with the sort of bombast and defensiveness that makes it hard to sympathize with their version of events.

It is too often a reflection of Stalin's personal paranoia rather than a narration of history.

M_Gunz, I recently finished Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn about Torch and the North Africa campaigns following it, and am two-thirds of the way through his Day of Battle. Lend-Lease was going strong to both Britain and the USSR well before Pearl Harbor, but from what I've read, it looks to me as though FDR had an understanding with Churchill about who was to be the lead dog pulling the allied sleigh once America entered the war.

As I recall, there was a face-to-face meeting between them in the late summer of 1941, and several 'unofficial' conferences between the leading lights of the MoD and the Department of War, including GEN Marshall and the then CNO, ADM Stark. I do know that the Americans were quite determined not to play second fiddle to the British in this war. It shows up in almost every private diary or recorded correspondance entry about the British participation in combined commands.

There were misunderstanding and incorrect assumptions galore in that alliance between people who supposedly shared the same language and a common heritage.

cheers

horseback

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that vein i have also noted that Africa and other operations were more important than D-day, because they came at a much more crucial time and diverted resources from Barbarossa. (along with the scatterbrained approach of Hitler, and other factors)

Recall that i never said the Soviets won ALONE - I said their contribution was relatively underrecognised, considering it was by far the most important - particularly in comparison with D-day. I never disagreed that the BoB or D-Day are over-represented in the West. I suspect that they are practically ignored in the East, or minimized in the same vein you are taking. In the case of the Battle of Britain, it may be because the Soviets were more or less Axis sympathizers, if not specifically German allies at that time.

I don't think that the BoB ever came up in my posts, although one could make some very strong arguments that without it and its symbolic importance, a great many other things would never have been accomplished, possibly including Lend-Lease or the successful prosecution of the Battle of the Atlantic.

However, it is to be expected that on an English language forum, the accomplishments of English speaking peoples will get more exposure.

As I have pointed out earlier, the Soviets systematically hid their light under a bushel for 50 years, so in terms of public relations, they have a lot of catching up to do in the English speaking and reading world.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This i can agree with. With the caveat that these achievements are lessened, not minimised, in the East because, obviously, the Russians believe the Eastern front was where the war was won (or could have been lost, and id agree)

However, regardless national bias, these achievements were simply not equal militarily. The Eastern front was far more important than all other fronts combined, let alone individually. To afford more status to just d-day, just because american and commmonwealth troops were involved, is still not a fair representation of the actual situation, whereas to afford more status to barbarossa and the rest of the eastern front, at the expense of other important contributions, is still more correct

But if you know this, then how can you say that the Soviets should have been left without support? Do you comprehend the tragic consequences for all Europe that would have followed?

It is this discord between what you say happened and the conclusions you draw that leads me to protest. The Soviets were absolutely necessary to the victory in Europe and it is simply wrong for the other allies to heap scorn on their efforts or posit that they were a superior force and would have done better. There is absolutely no proof in this - it would have been a tall order to ask even Americans to find another 10 million troops in 6 months once an initial 5 million had been decimated, or to accept 10 million casualties in troops alone, not counting the massacre of civilian populations. That is why these other Allies, whose contributions were not equal militarily, let alone in desperate suffering, should not be so hasty to criticise

Yet criticise is exactly what they have done

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 08:37 PM
This post in another forum pretty much sums it up for me;



They did the majority of the fighting against germany and without the defeats in the Soviet Union the western allies would have most likely failed to liberate europe, but without the aid of the west its nowhere near as likely that the Soviet Union would have defeated Germany. Or at least they would have suffered even more.
But I can imagine why russians can sometimes get upset by the 'America won the war all by itself' attitude seen in popular media. After all, the horrible death toll portrayed on D-day movies is about what happened in Stalingrad on a daily basis for months.

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 08:43 PM
And another post


See, this it the type of attitude that sometimes grates. Objectively, it was the USSR that broke the back of the German army. It was the Red army that stopped the germans before moscow, before the US actively entered the war and it was the Red Army that fought the majority of the german army and against whom the best divisions were arrayed.
The North africa campaign was pretty much over by the time the US joined in so the first real relief given to the russians was the italian campaign, which was mostly a stalemate until the end, not tying up that much of the german army, so for over 3 years it was purely the russians that truly fought the germans, and had they'd stopped the western allies would never have succeeded in either italy or france.

How is this hating the US? They did help. They did shorten the war. Its just that when you look at who were the major contributers to the allies in WW2 europe they end up either second place or third, depending on how you look at things and there is a case to be made that possibly without US assistance the european war would still have been lost by germany, but that is pure speculative fiction.

Why do you hate the russians so much that you cannot stomach that they actually did most of the work in that theathre of the war?


If those millions of Axis soldiers and all those planes and Leopard tanks and fuel supplies had been available for the Western front the war of attrition would have dragged on years. Indeed, if Germany had successfully invaded Britain in 41 instead of attacking Russia there would have been nowhere to launch D Day from. The Eastern front was essential to beating Germany - in saying so does not make Stalin a good guy. However, in an effort to emphasis that Stalin was a bad guy it does no one any good to deny the sacrifice of ordinary Russians in repelling the German attack. Indeed it might look callous like indifference to immense suffering


But see this is were urban legend comes to play a part. Most historians agree that the grave marker was the battle of Stalingrad, where by the end of it, the Luftwaffe lost nearly a 1000 aircraft and virtually their entire ability to transport supplies and troops for the rest of the war.

horseback
06-13-2010, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In that vein i have also noted that Africa and other operations were more important than D-day, because they came at a much more crucial time and diverted resources from Barbarossa. (along with the scatterbrained approach of Hitler, and other factors)

Recall that i never said the Soviets won ALONE - I said their contribution was relatively underrecognised, considering it was by far the most important - particularly in comparison with D-day. I never disagreed that the BoB or D-Day are over-represented in the West. I suspect that they are practically ignored in the East, or minimized in the same vein you are taking. In the case of the Battle of Britain, it may be because the Soviets were more or less Axis sympathizers, if not specifically German allies at that time.

I don't think that the BoB ever came up in my posts, although one could make some very strong arguments that without it and its symbolic importance, a great many other things would never have been accomplished, possibly including Lend-Lease or the successful prosecution of the Battle of the Atlantic.

However, it is to be expected that on an English language forum, the accomplishments of English speaking peoples will get more exposure.

As I have pointed out earlier, the Soviets systematically hid their light under a bushel for 50 years, so in terms of public relations, they have a lot of catching up to do in the English speaking and reading world.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This i can agree with. With the caveat that these achievements are lessened, not minimised, in the East because, obviously, the Russians believe the Eastern front was where the war was won (or could have been lost, and id agree)

But if you know this, then how can you say that the Soviets should have been left without support?

Do you comprehend the tragic consequences for all Europe that would have followed? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I din't say that they should have, I said that they could have. If FDR had died in 1942--and he easily could have, his successor (can't remember the guy's name for the life of me, but he was replaced by Truman in 1944) would probably not have had the patience that Roosevelt had with Stalin's demands--frankly, the man was considered a political hack, and just maintaining the Anglo-American Alliance might have been beyond his capacity.

The best case scenario in that eventuality might have been him letting George Marshall and ADM King run things regarding the war effort, and neither of those gentlemen always agreed with FDR's policies vis a vis the Soviet Union and its requirements. They were much more cold blooded about some important things.

As for tragic consequences for Europe, a great many see the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe as a very great tragedy in its own right.

cheers

horseback

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 09:01 PM
Coming FROM the iron curtain, i can tell you that not NEARLY as many see these 'tragic consequences' as your propaganda had you believe.

First off, the Soviet union was a complicated entity, although Russian dominance was a major factor. Lets take Czech rep. as an example. The fact of the matter is that people VOTED for the communist party because of a GREAT SENSE OF GRATITUDE for the role of the Red army in liberating them. There were no free elections after that, however this is more akin to how the Nazis gained power than sheer occupation.

The fact of the matter is that in that generation, including in America, there was strong support for communism (socialism actually, it was not full blown communism), and our grandparents willingly accepted it. In the case of the Czech rep, left to its own devices the communist government would have collapsed in 1967. After that date, the Czechs considered themselves occupied, and the really heated period began. It is, however, a serious mistake to think the Soviets simply occupied all these nations.

Even with that history, the people of most of these countries (save poland, for obvious reasons) still regarded the Soviets as liberators in wwii, as well as the western allies. They did not think they were suffering a 'great tragedy' when the soviets came


One thing that is often forgotten about 'communism' is that it was a popularist ideological movement, not merely the brainchild of lenin/stalin and an oppressive regime. My grandparents and many others deeply believed in this system, even as it broke down - to their dying day in fact. Yet my family was well aware of the way the system failed and began to persecute people in a misguided attempt to protect itself from its own faults. Both sides of my family were largely persona non grata with the regime. My father had to work in a mine for a year to go to university (it 'cleansed' his record, making him proletariat). But this flawed thinking was popular worldwide, and in your country it was likewise persecution that, ironically, befell the people of the other spectrum. For how else can we describe America's crackdown? It was not very different from what occured behind the curtain. Even to this day the communists manage 20% support at times, largely from the older generations. Socialism/communism was a failed movement, not just an occupation or a 'tragedy'


What i would tell you is that modern Czechs have a very finely balanced perspective of the failings of BOTH systems, and the interplay between them. They are subject to neither propaganda or blind belief in either capitalist or communist (especially calls for pure) structures. Likewise for Russians.

Many in the West have, however, suffered from their own propaganda, and continue to hold deep seated views about the superiority of their system and righteousness of their views. They often regard the Soviet union with fear, trepidation or denigration, including those who were once under it

I think thats a big mistake. The cold war and its propaganda was the real tragedy

AndyJWest
06-13-2010, 09:14 PM
Careful, irR4tiOn4L, you might cause the sky to fall in with postings like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If the Soviet Union was a 'complicated entity', rather than an evil dictatorship (though in theory it could have been both), simplistic 'we won' arguments become less meaningful, and instead people start asking awkward questions like 'won what?', 'who are we?' and 'how come they get the loot, while we get the casualties'? Then it stops being about 'nations', and becomes about people instead. I doubt if many people were fighting for an abstract 'nation' anyway, regardless of the labels on their uniform. Most people have more sense than that...

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by AndyJWest:
Careful, irR4tiOn4L, you might cause the sky to fall in with postings like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If the Soviet Union was a 'complicated entity', rather than an evil dictatorship (though in theory it could have been both), simplistic 'we won' arguments become less meaningful, and instead people start asking awkward questions like 'won what?', 'who are we?' and 'how come they get the loot, while we get the casualties'? Then it stops being about 'nations', and becomes about people instead. I doubt if many people were fighting for an abstract 'nation' anyway, regardless of the labels on their uniform. Most people have more sense than that...

Thats right, it is these deep questions that we will need to ask in time. We ought to learn from the failure of communism and the horror of fascism, but also the injustice, commercialisation and dehumanisation of capitalism, about what makes a worthwhile society.

Nonetheless, WWII is where a lot of this came to head for people, and it was not a simple story. Most Russian soldiers fought for the motherland, for where they came from. This was also something that ran through the Soviet union, whether we like it or not, not of nations but of a peoples with a common history - it is no accident that the iron curtain ended in slavic countries - which doesnt fit very nicely with multiculturalism. This is a problem in itself - how do you abandon prejudice without undermining tradition?

What motivated the Soviet soldier was a lot more than oppression, however, and this was likewise with the Soviet union

M_Gunz
06-13-2010, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
breaking news: the ENTIRE Russian effort dwarfs D-Day! more at 11.

Yep, and yet D-day is celebrated as practically the most important operation of the war while arrogant americans like Horseback reckon they could have won without the Soviets, and that the soviets were a bunch of incompetent fools anyway (nevermind the whipping the British and French recieved and the disaster at dunkirk, or the fact that 1.5 million Germans held ground against an allied army of 5 million enough to scar them to this day, or the very poor equipment the US entered the war with)

Perhaps people like horseback forget that THE VERY REASON D-day, or the battle for the atlantic, or the British isles remaining in the war, or the allied bombing raids - the very reason ANY of these were possible was BECAUSE of the Eastern front. If the Soviets had lost there, as im sure the British, French or US would have in their shoes (democracies dont have such a stomach for casualties, nor were these anywhere near remotely ready) then the other allied efforts would have been jeopardised.

As for the nuclear bomb - Germany's progress was unwound by bombing, but this subject remains controversial.

However, the war might well have been over before 1945 if the Germans had won in Barbarossa, it might have been difficult to deliver a B29 to Germany, particularly with German jets about, and theres no guarantee the Germans would have capitulated.

So perhaps youd better rethink how much you needed the Soviets to win, despite all youve said about how youre not denigrating their efforts - when you say you could have won without them and should have left them to be cut down by Germany (how much more inflammatory can you get? how much more of a superiority complex can you americans have, thinking you shouldnt have helped the soviets because you didnt like the competition after the war) you are most DEFINITELY denigrating their entire role in the war.

And once again, you are ignoring what Churchill said about the delay of D-day - it was certainly geopolitical in aim.

Yes this thread is originally about D-day. So? It is relevant that d-day is an overstated contribution and the Soviet contribution is understated. Do i hear you saying 'Yes, we absolutely needed the Soviets to win on the Eastern front'? No. Despite everything youre saying pointing out how crucial it was, and everything pointing toward the limited significance of d-day (lower even than africa) except in geopolitical terms, you cannot bring yourself to say that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you bother understanding what anyone else writes rather than going by your own jumbled impressions?

The British couldn't have held out except for the Russian Front? Did something happen where 1941 came before 1940?

Allies had no stomach for losses? In a few weeks the over 400,000 troops of the BEF lost OVER HALF THEIR NUMBER and
most all their equipment and yet, get this, Britain did not surrender and amazing tale here, Germany was unable to
invade Britain and took major losses in aircraft and aircrew!

But oh yeah, that must have been because of the East Front!

And the Blitz raids clear into spring 1941, somehow the British held up through all that because of the war in Russia
that did not start until JULY 1941.

You accuse perhaps me of writing things I did not or did you forget who you were replying to or just think everyone
else would?

Did you know that the US commanders wanted to invade Europe in 1943 and it took the British quite a while to get them
to see sense? WTH, they knew how things were from experience.

German atomic bomb development went down the heavy water route. They missed out on gas diffusion. They never even got
a reactor going. Allied bombing wasn't the cause, improper science and engineering was.


It is relevant that d-day is an overstated contribution and the Soviet contribution is understated.

You need to separate what other people wrote from what you think about what they wrote.
You also need to spend time learning the history in between the bits you look up and remember.

Lastly I kind of wonder where you were brought up and where you live. Iran perhaps? Or somewhere they do a lot of work
with lead or mercury or maybe make or use large amounts of industrial solvents? Or perhaps a distillery or something
less legal?

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 10:22 PM
This series of posts was particularly interesting in that other forum


So I went back and dug up Glantz and tooze and took a second look.

To begin with, as Glantz points out - German production had only just began to meet the needs of the Eastern front, and there were insufficent Tigers with the 88s but with no closein weapon that made them extremely vulnerable to assault by infantry. This, combined with the various design and logistical problems made the Tigers too few to make any serious difference.[1]

Secondly, Soviet Intel was as near total as it got, with over-flight reconnaisence, with an efficent heirachy of Staff officers to analyse the data and plan accordingly. Supplementing the Tank Brigades were Anti-tank units, engineer "destroyer" units and with each headquaters having a fully deployed communications network.[footone]Ibid.[/footnote]

As a sign of how well dug in the Soviets were, there were 3200 mines for every kilometer by the time the battle began.

Soviet numbers were 3:1 in men and 1.5:1 in tanks, with a 2.5:1 advantage in mortars, artillery and the like.

Glantz goes into further details with regard to the preparation and plans of the Stavka and provides additional evidence than once the battle was joined, there could have been only one possible and serious outcome. Namely that the Soviets would win decisively, even with heavy losses.

So to wrap up, it is highly unlikely if not impossible for the Germans to break the Kursk salient.

However let us in indulge in some counterfactual reasoning and assume that the Germans through some miracle actually pulled off a decisive victory, what next?

Well we can turn to Tooze for that. By Mid-1943 German production was already peaking, with its highest outputs since the beginning of the war, however so were the Soviets - except they had even begin to get into full gear yet..

Averaging out the production between 1942 to 44 we have the Soviets producing:

1. 77.5 Tanks for Germany's 35.2
2. 306.5 Mortars for Germany's 66
3. 84.8 Combat Aircraft for Germany's 65
4. 1254 Machine Guns (Squad Assisted) for Germany's 889.

Most of the other figures follow the same theme with the Soviets out-producing the Germans by a 1.5 to 2.5 ratio to 1 Ratio. [2]

Now to Manpower - The Soviets had the decisive advantage earlier in the war, but this was squandered due to the lack of expereince on the part of the officer corps, the transitional nature of the army, and the lack of effective C&C systems.

By the Third period of the war - post Kursk, the Soviets had both the manpower and the expereince, with massed infantry assaults becominf far few - 'seen as a failure on the part of Red army officers' when it happened - combined arms and complex manuevering was the order of the day by that time, even with a severe man power shortage, the soviets were henceforth permanently on the offensive and the reason for this is because they became far more sophisticated in thier planning - Strategic, Operational and Tactical.

The new armies raised became more and more combined arms affairs - which meant a significant reduction in infantry by relying on "economies of force" as Glantz puts it.[3]

So now, imagine the situation where it is the Germans post Kursk that need to commit to the attack - apart from the standard 3:1 numerical superiority that is generally required, the Germans were now confronted with an enemy that had sharpened its skills to the point where it was far and away more advanced than German doctrine. Combine this with the massive output on the part of the Soviet industry -- well you get the picture.

Finally to the U.S lend lease program -yes it did help. However it helped by allowing Soviet forces to penetrate deeper into German held territory and provide relief to forward units - hence expiditing the logistical tail.

It should be noted however, as Glantz and Tooze both concur - that this was merely speeding up the inevitable process of the Soviets systematically grinding down the Germans -albiet at a far higher cost in men and materials - not to mention time - than without the lend lease program.

Finally regarding morale. Well its a non-issue. For the Germans this was a war of anhilation pure and simple. TO do - as Hitler HIMSELF put it - to the Slavs what the Europeans did to the Native Americans. You either fight or you die. And under such circumstances the Slavs have never ever chosen the second option.



The Germans threw everything they could at the Soviets at Kursk, basically all in the frontline, and stripping most heavy equipment from the rest of the front. And yet the Soviets still had entire armies just as operational reserve. The Soviet manpower "shortages" more realistically means they weren't relying on ethnic Slavs. That still left them millions upon millions of potential recruits.

It says a lot that the damage to the Germans was not battlefield losses per se, but the fact that they couldn't even hope to repair the damaged equipment quickly enough. Their manpower shortage, already evident, was a direct result of Stalingrad - over 10% of the German army, maybe nearer 20%, had been lost in that catastrophe.

Really, the German army at Kursk was like an exhausted boxer trying for one last flurry. Even had they won (which as pointed out above they were almost guaranteed not to), it's questionable whether they could have even exploited the victory, and it would not have saved them from the vast imbalance in men and material grinding them down.



It is true that the casualty figures for the Soviets were very high, but the reasons are far more complicated than what Fergusson implies. To begin with - while the Germans no longer had any decisive advantages in terms of technology or numbers, they still had (on the whole) the best officer corps there was. There was no running away from that fact, simply because they could draw on a long and well grounded C&C system that provided them some degree of parity with the Soviets who had to re-learn the entire process thanks to Stalin's psychopathic tendencies.

Specifically regarding the battle, the point as Glantz illustrates ( and I am crudely simplifying henceforth) was that it was a serious of assaults and counter-assaults, with the Germans as viscous in their defense as their assaults, with a few square kilometers of territory being won and lost often in the space of a few days.

More importantly, the largest number of Soviet losses were in pursuit of retreating German forces, this was the result of a major and serious ****-up by the Soviets who - probably drunk on victory- decided in a moment of madness to abandon the very tactics and strategies that had acquitted them so well till then.

They charged after the retreating Germans with no real intel, exhausted troops , badly supplied armored units, poor communications and a host of other FUBARs that resulted in a sizeable bulk of the casualties. They won the battle with a reasonable margin of success, it was the stupidity that followed that ruined the final casualty scores.

Ironically enough, as they pursued the Germans they came up against the same degrees of formidable resistance that they the soviets had initially setup thanks to the Manstien's planning, worse still as the logistics got stretched further and further - the weather came in...no one said that the weather only favors the Russians...

In any case this is somewhat academic, a Soviet loss at Kursk in no way implies that the Germans would have been able to capitalize on the victory, as they themselves were streched to the breaking point in terms of logistics and materials. Whats more important is that while German output had effectively peaked by '43, Soviet output was no where near to reaching its maximum and even then was outproducing the Germans.

Again, this is all a bit of an over-simplification - there was more too it than that, but quite frankly Germany and more precisely Hitler had very little chance of winning against the soviets once they had failed to take the industrial heartlands. Russia was just too damn massive and the Urals was surprisingly a long way away...

A final note: The effectiveness of the German army cannot be ignored. And despite the fact that it did not have any serious technical advantage it was probably the most professional army in all of Europe, the Czechs included.

However, if France hadnt fallen the way it did, we wouldnt be having this conversation and despite American media to the contrary, the French were not some bunch of "cheese eating surrender monkeys" they lost for two main reasons: Manstien's strategic genius combined with PURE SIMPLE BLOODY STUPID DUMB LUCK.

To be brief: The Whole idea of the Blitzkrieg was one gigantic myth. The Germans had no intention of playing out a armored thrust because as Tooze demonstrated - most of the damn industry was focused on Artillery and Infantry weapons NOT tanks. That only began much later, the Germans intended to actually try and knock down the Maginot line, and they had actually got a bloody nose from the Poles if it wasnt for the Soviet-Nazi pact.

What happened was that the French shot down an officer corps aircraft and it was suspected that they now knew all of Germany's plans. Manstien then put it to Hitler that they bypass the whole line altogether and attack straight away with what ever they have with the Tank corps leading the charge, on the French side the officers not realizing what the hell was going on decided to toss a large section of thier troops into the fray and would up meeting head on the German assault - the French High command then basically panicked and made matters worse by scattering the remainder of thier forces believing that they were faced with a multi-pronged attack, leaving thier flanks vulnerable.

Where ever the Germans met French resistance - including along the line - they were thrown back - the Char B Tank was more than a match for the German armor, and were generally avoided altogether - French troops dug in and held ground - but by then their Command and the government basically surrendered believing that they were overwhelmed.

If it was not for the fall of France as it did in that fashion, with most of the German army intact as well as French industry, well -- Hitler A.K.A Emile as he was code-named by certain officers - would have had a bullet in his head by 1941

horseback
06-13-2010, 10:31 PM
My "propaganda"?

I've caught hell from more than one non-Polish resident of eastern Europe on these boards over the last 8 years precisely because the western allies did not take or withhold more territory from the Russians in 1945, and I defended my country's decisions in that regard. Their parents and grandparents emphatically did NOT welcome the Soviets, and according to one young man, spent most of their lives 'waiting for the Americans to come.' I don't think that was propaganda.

One might acknowledge that the Soviets were not exactly pouring the milk of human kindness out for most of the former subject states/allies of the Germans in the late 1940s, or that an awful lot of young women 'liberated' across the Balkans and Poland in 1945-46 seem not to have survived the experience, but maybe Czechs were the exception.

We are at an impasse here. You are the product of a system that was heavily influenced by the Soviets, and learned their version of events from your earliest childhood. I won't even attempt to tell you that at least part of what you got drilled into your little head was a crock of...

I arrived in England at age seven, a few months after the 20th anniversary of the Battle of Britain (my father was a career USAF enlisted man) and saw lots of American and British cemetaries across western Europe with a very clear & immediate understanding of how far those men had to come just to die for somebody else's freedom (we flew across the Atlantic in a twenty year old C-47--landing at Newfoundland, Iceland, Scotland before finally arriving at RAF Mildenhall). We lived in Britain for four years, and I got a serious dose of other cultures. I also got to see sections of London that had still not been repaired from the Blitz of 1940 and the V-2s of 1944-45.

I've been reading and studying the air war ever since.

As my father and uncles served, I did my time in the US Navy from 1975-1981, and saw the Soviet Navy first hand from the deck of a Fast Frigate. Their ships weren't built for long term operations in blue water or the preservation of the 'people's' freedom of the seas, but to temporarily deprive someone else of their freedom of movement and commerce and then to die rather messily.

It was about that time that I picked up a few books about naval warfare and the Pacific theater, seeing as how I was visiting those locations. You develop a fresh understanding of logistics when you're on a ship that has to refuel every week at sea of normal cruising, and have to help carry the tons of supplies you and 250 other guys consume every week down into the hold from the little flight deck on the fantail where the helos hover and unload.

Take it from me, you haven't lived until you've looked forward to not having powdered sour cream for your baked potato and coffee (or anything else) that doesn't taste strongly of JP5 fuel.

I also got to see the Far East. Much of it was dingy, compared to western Europe, but not as dingy as what I saw of Eastern Europe in the '80s and '90s (admittedly not much) while working as a field engineer with a major defense contractor. I don't know how things are now, but even the 'better' former communist countries were a good step down from their western neighbors economically.

But hey, maybe in retrospect, they weren't so bad. I'm sure that Stalin's paranoid delusions never affected YOUR culture, or that your air, soil and water were polluted like huge chunks of the former Soviet Union and its other satellite states, and that the free exchange of ideas and opinions without looking over your shoulder for possible informers was never part of your life or that of your parents.

So sure, tell yourself that if Stalin failed, the whole world would have been under German control by 1950. Then go look at wartime newreel films of the multiple fleets of hundreds of ships that the Americans were deploying in both the Atlantic and the Pacific at the same time, and consider for a moment that neither Germany or the Soviet Union ever had the capacity to build and man those ships and never had to in their great war of mutual destruction.

Now think about how much farther it is from Berlin to New York than it is from Berlin to Moscow especially without land to travel across, and how difficult it would be to get past those fleets without at least as many ships, the men to crew them, and a naval tradition to guide and train them. I'll even let you pretend that the Nazis were not always corrupt, usually inefficient and generally murderously stupid at critical moments.

cheers

horseback

M_Gunz
06-13-2010, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
M_Gunz, I recently finished Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn about Torch and the North Africa campaigns following it, and am two-thirds of the way through his Day of Battle. Lend-Lease was going strong to both Britain and the USSR well before Pearl Harbor, but from what I've read, it looks to me as though FDR had an understanding with Churchill about who was to be the lead dog pulling the allied sleigh once America entered the war.

And aid flowed before any command agreements were made, even before the US entered the war.


As I recall, there was a face-to-face meeting between them in the late summer of 1941, and several 'unofficial' conferences between the leading lights of the MoD and the Department of War, including GEN Marshall and the then CNO, ADM Stark. I do know that the Americans were quite determined not to play second fiddle to the British in this war. It shows up in almost every private diary or recorded correspondance entry about the British participation in combined commands.

Aid was flowing to Britain before 1941. When did Marshall get his job? That loaf of bread got sent, be sure.


There were misunderstanding and incorrect assumptions galore in that alliance between people who supposedly shared the same language and a common heritage.

And a lot of pig-headedness and loads of profiteering as well. Venality and war go hand in hand, still do.

One thing not often noted in the histories was that FDR had been convinced by Albert Einstein about the developments on
atomic fission in Germany in 1939 and since. He couldn't tell about it, it was closely guarded to say the least. What
was written in open or merely classified to secret documents and given in speeches of the time does not reflect that
and I don't know what else. It should suffice to say that FDR and some leaders said and did what they said and did for
very good reasons of their own.

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The British couldn't have held out except for the Russian Front? Did something happen where 1941 came before 1940?

Are you REALLY that short sighted? You think the UK had won when the BoB and battle for the Atlantic were over?

A Germany that had won Barbarossa in 1941/42 would have have vast swathes of resources and land, and been able to focus those on closing the threat on the Western front.

This would have meant;

A) Prevention of the allied bombing through increased focus on the Luftwaffe - no eastern front or stalingrad to divert those precious planes/industrial capacity. German jets might have been harrassing Britain

B) No possibility for D-day, with the shift of most of the 5 million in Barbarossa to the anticipated western front

C) Increased support for naval operations and possible early deployment of the Type XXI Uboat, which might well have shifted the battle for the atlantic.

D) Possible preparations for an invasion of Britain. Since this would be the focus and could be conducted under likely air superiority, it would be a far more sophisticated operation than the possible invasion after Bob

E) Possible end to the war with Germany in control of Europe


Furthermore, the very FACT that Hitler intended to invade the Soviets, not UK, was what saved Britain. Not the Bob. If the focus had been on an invasion of Britain from the start;

A) The Germans would have assaulted the armies at Dunkirk, instead of allowing them to escape in the hope of an early end of British participation

B) The Germans would have prepared far more serious plans for an amphibious crossing, with much more preparation.

C) Nothing would have been held back because of a planned operation in Russia

The Eastern front occupying the brunt of German efforts was very significant!


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Allies had no stomach for losses? In a few weeks the over 400,000 troops of the BEF lost OVER HALF THEIR NUMBER and
most all their equipment and yet, get this, Britain did not surrender and amazing tale here, Germany was unable to
invade Britain and took major losses in aircraft and aircrew!

Try 10 million soldiers dead, then talk to me about stomach for casualties.

The Germans let the British escape at Dunkirk in the hopes of a diplomatic end to hostilities. Furthermore, it is somewhat silly to say Bob wsa significant if you claim the British would not have given up anyway - if that is the case, the Bob was not very significant, as Germany could not invade at that point regardless.

By the way, that was the argument i made from the start - that the Bob was not significant, as Britain could not be invaded credibly at that point. It is not your revelation here


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
But oh yeah, that must have been because of the East Front!

And the Blitz raids clear into spring 1941, somehow the British held up through all that because of the war in Russia
that did not start until JULY 1941.

Hmm, so by the same logic D-Day had no contribution to Soviet victory, as the Soviet victory was already assured by 1944? Do you realise even i havent said that?

Clearly a lot of resources were not being directed against Britain.


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Did you know that the US commanders wanted to invade Europe in 1943 and it took the British quite a while to get them
to see sense? WTH, they knew how things were from experience.

See the sense of letting the Russians do all the work is what i would say, but even assuming the causes were military - that only goes to show that had Barbarossa been successful, D-day would not have been. Which only goes to show that the Eastern front dwarfed the importance of D-day


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
German atomic bomb development went down the heavy water route. They missed out on gas diffusion. They never even got
a reactor going. Allied bombing wasn't the cause, improper science and engineering was.


I am aware of this problem, and the controversy around it.

Even accepting no German bomb, a Germany with Jets would have been a difficult target, and a Germany that won in Barbarossa would likely have won the war and achieved some ceasefire already


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is relevant that d-day is an overstated contribution and the Soviet contribution is understated.

You need to separate what other people wrote from what you think about what they wrote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the conclusion from what youve been saying - D-day was not militarily sound without the German army crushed on the Eastern front means its less important


Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Lastly I kind of wonder where you were brought up and where you live. Iran perhaps? Or somewhere they do a lot of work
with lead or mercury or maybe make or use large amounts of industrial solvents? Or perhaps a distillery or something
less legal?

Worth answering? No. Perhaps when you are serious i will answer. Why dont you volunteer your history (British?)

M_Gunz
06-13-2010, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Coming FROM the iron curtain, i can tell you that not NEARLY as many see these 'tragic consequences' as your propaganda had you believe.

And you had no propaganda affecting your view including about just what you write there? Oh wonderful!

I had friends who made it out of Poland in the 70's. They can tell you it was no happyland under Soviet rule.
How many other peoples took the chance to revolt? You can ask my neighbor who had to leave Hungary in 1955.

TOP of the list is the history of what happened in 1989. We got propaganda about that but only from one political party bent
on taking credit for what they did not cause. If anyone tells you that a majority of Americans believed the party line, they
are either ignorant or lying. But you have shown a marked ability to believe what you want and to substitute emotion for logic.

Any continued war regardless of what country fell would have been to the largest amount a matter of economy and production.
The Axis was not going to win in the long run. Best thing that happened was that only two atomic bombs were dropped because
there could have been many more and that would have been a massively greater tragedy than the war as it was.

Insanity, stupidity and greed caused the war. That began with the terms of armistice of WWI and was elevated in 1925.
If sense had prevailed then Hitler would never have come to power. But that's not the end of it. Stalin's plans would have
had an even larger war going starting in 1950. Want to guess how bad the world would be now if that happened? I DON'T!

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
My "propaganda"?

I've caught hell from more than one non-Polish resident of eastern Europe on these boards over the last 8 years precisely because the western allies did not take or withhold more territory from the Russians in 1945, and I defended my country's decisions in that regard. Their parents and grandparents emphatically did NOT welcome the Soviets, and according to one young man, spent most of their lives 'waiting for the Americans to come.' I don't think that was propaganda.

One might acknowledge that the Soviets were not exactly pouring the milk of human kindness out for most of the former subject states/allies of the Germans in the late 1940s, or that an awful lot of young women 'liberated' across the Balkans and Poland in 1945-46 seem not to have survived the experience, but maybe Czechs were the exception.

I have specifically excepted Poland already. Short memory?


We are at an impasse here. You are the product of a system that was heavily influenced by the Soviets, and learned their version of events from your earliest childhood. I won't even attempt to tell you that at least part of what you got drilled into your little head was a crock of...

Hardly. My family was against the regime, i left for Australia when i was 6 and i attended year 1 (which was far more intensive than in Australia, despite the prejudice against eastern european education). The rest i learnt in Australia.

Nothing got 'drilled' into me. It is in fact your views on people being 'drilled' that got drilled into you.


I arrived in England at age seven, a few months after the 20th anniversary of the Battle of Britain (my father was a career USAF enlisted man) and saw lots of American and British cemetaries across western Europe with a very clear & immediate understanding of how far those men had to come just to die for somebody else's freedom (we flew across the Atlantic in a twenty year old C-47--landing at Newfoundland, Iceland, Scotland before finally arriving at RAF Mildenhall). We lived in Britain for four years, and I got a serious dose of other cultures. I also got to see sections of London that had still not been repaired from the Blitz of 1940 and the V-2s of 1944-45.

I've been reading and studying the air war ever since.

As my father and uncles served, I did my time in the US Navy from 1975-1981, and saw the Soviet Navy first hand from the deck of a Fast Frigate. Their ships weren't built for long term operations in blue water or the preservation of the 'people's' freedom of the seas, but to temporarily deprive someone else of their freedom of movement and commerce and then to die rather messily.

It was about that time that I picked up a few books about naval warfare and the Pacific theater, seeing as how I was visiting those locations. You develop a fresh understanding of logistics when you're on a ship that has to refuel every week at sea of normal cruising, and have to help carry the tons of supplies you and 250 other guys consume every week down into the hold from the little flight deck on the fantail where the helos hover and unload.

Take it from me, you haven't lived until you've looked forward to not having powdered sour cream for your baked potato and coffee (or anything else) that doesn't taste strongly of JP5 fuel.

I also got to see the Far East. Much of it was dingy, compared to western Europe, but not as dingy as what I saw of Eastern Europe in the '80s and '90s (admittedly not much) while working as a field engineer with a major defense contractor. I don't know how things are now, but even the 'better' former communist countries were a good step down from their western neighbors economically.

But hey, maybe in retrospect, they weren't so bad. I'm sure that Stalin's paranoid delusions never affected YOUR culture, or that your air, soil and water were polluted like huge chunks of the former Soviet Union and its other satellite states, and that the free exchange of ideas and opinions without looking over your shoulder for possible informers was never part of your life or that of your parents.




Your life story i have no problem with

But your understanding of the Soviet bloc is extremely limited. You fail to understand the finer points of what Communism was about and why it failed.



So sure, tell yourself that if Stalin failed, the whole world would have been under German control by 1950. Then go look at wartime newreel films of the multiple fleets of hundreds of ships that the Americans were deploying in both the Atlantic and the Pacific at the same time, and consider for a moment that neither Germany or the Soviet Union ever had the capacity to build and man those ships and never had to in their great war of mutual destruction.

Now think about how much farther it is from Berlin to New York than it is from Berlin to Moscow especially without land to travel across, and how difficult it would be to get past those fleets without at least as many ships, the men to crew them, and a naval tradition to guide and train them. I'll even let you pretend that the Nazis were not always corrupt, usually inefficient and generally murderously stupid at critical moments.

cheers

horseback

Dramatic much?

I said Europe would have been under German control. How would carriers dislodge them, exactly? Like the Royal Navy did? (obviously, it didnt)


Your uninformed conclusions about the inefficiencies of every armed force except that of the US and Commonwealth is staggering. You continue to argue the Soviets and now even the Nazis were incompetent.

Of course, the fact that assessments of the possibility of the Western Allied army defeating the Red Army were done, and indicated that the Western Allies could not hope to win, even with an army of 5 million that had only fought 1.5 million Germans - well it goes to show that they simply werent as incompetent as you hold


Oh and on naval tradition - both Germany and Russia possessed these. How else do you think they built their battleships, submarines etc?

irR4tiOn4L
06-13-2010, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
Coming FROM the iron curtain, i can tell you that not NEARLY as many see these 'tragic consequences' as your propaganda had you believe.

And you had no propaganda affecting your view including about just what you write there? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not Soviet. If anything, Western

M_Gunz
06-14-2010, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
The British couldn't have held out except for the Russian Front? Did something happen where 1941 came before 1940?

Are you REALLY that short sighted? You think the UK had won when the BoB and battle for the Atlantic were over? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They held out against the full force Germany was able to exert and continue so even after BoB was over.
They got stronger. They bombed Germany before Barbarossa. They got more aid, the Commonwealth countries ALL got into
production and the US brought presence to Britain even as it prosecuted a major war in the Pacific.


A Germany that had won Barbarossa in 1941/42 would have have vast swathes of resources and land, and been able to focus those on closing the threat on the Western front.

Somehow they would have done so with minor losses as well? Dream on!


This would have meant;

A) Prevention of the allied bombing through increased focus on the Luftwaffe - no eastern front or stalingrad to divert those precious planes/industrial capacity. German jets might have been harrassing Britain

B) No possibility for D-day, with the shift of most of the 5 million in Barbarossa to the anticipated western front

C) Increased support for naval operations and possible early deployment of the Type XXI Uboat, which might well have shifted the battle for the atlantic.

D) Possible preparations for an invasion of Britain. Since this would be the focus and could be conducted under likely air superiority, it would be a far more sophisticated operation than the possible invasion after Bob

E) Possible end to the war with Germany in control of Europe

Policing and garrisoning all the captured territory as well as turning it to production? For no real effort I suppose?
Just like the highly war-productive regions they already had captured where they had no resistance... oh.. wait....

Somehow the anti-U-boat operations of Britain and the US would not have happened if Russia had been taken?

Possible losing yet another attempt at invading Britain. Or did they learn to grow trained pilots and aircrew on trees?

E) Possible, possible, possible.


Furthermore, the very FACT that Hitler intended to invade the Soviets, not UK, was what saved Britain. Not the Bob.

You really don't like to BS small, do you? That was another tremendous whopper in a long line of whoppers you've posted.
As much as many in the west don't know about WWII in the east, you are the other side of the same small-change coin.


If the focus had been on an invasion of Britain from the start;

A) The Germans would have assaulted the armies at Dunkirk, instead of allowing them to escape in the hope of an early end of British participation

You don't know why that happened. From German Army officers that survived the war: some commanders ordered the attack
in a way that had Hitler feeling insecure about his position. It was HIS order to give, not theirs. Under the old way
the General Staff directs the military. If you understand about Hitler, his insanity, he had to to be everything.
From direct quotes by surviving German officers there was NEVER a time when Hitler wanted to let up on the British.
NEVER.


B) The Germans would have prepared far more serious plans for an amphibious crossing, with much more preparation.

And a magically expanded navy to make it remotely possible too.


C) Nothing would have been held back because of a planned operation in Russia

The Eastern front occupying the brunt of German efforts was very significant!

What was held back the first time when Britain was the least prepared and able to defend itself?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Allies had no stomach for losses? In a few weeks the over 400,000 troops of the BEF lost OVER HALF THEIR NUMBER and
most all their equipment and yet, get this, Britain did not surrender and amazing tale here, Germany was unable to
invade Britain and took major losses in aircraft and aircrew!

Try 10 million soldiers dead, then talk to me about stomach for casualties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Try 5 million PURGED before then. That is not stomach, that is blood thirst to sacrifice your own people at gun point
rather than give up. Same way that Hitler sacrificed his own nation even down to shooting anyone who got out of line.

You compare that to the Allies and throw numbers up? The Commonwealth and the US and the Free French and Polish and
many-many others did freely what massed divisions of Russians did at gun point. Not only that but millions did so
who were not directly threatened by an attacking enemy, but just out of outrage against the Axis forces. And they
did so and kept doing so even while those around them were slaughtered. I have relatives who were there. When 100
of you go in and only 2 come back out and yet the next day you go back again of your own free will -- that is guts!

You try and disgrace that, you only end up coming off as stupid and arrogant. I do you credit wondering what has
affected your brain when perhaps I should not.


The Germans let the British escape at Dunkirk in the hopes of a diplomatic end to hostilities.

Complete Bull$#!t!


Furthermore, it is somewhat silly to say Bob wsa significant if you claim the British would not have given up anyway - if that is the case, the Bob was not very significant, as Germany could not invade at that point regardless.

It was a major turning point of the war and the first such. Failing to take Britain or get them to become neutral
as a huge strategic defeat for Hitler. Without being able to seal off the western approach to Europe, Germany was
doomed to lose. The only question was when, not if.


By the way, that was the argument i made from the start - that the Bob was not significant, as Britain could not be invaded credibly at that point.

You have no idea of the significance and you fail to credit the full truth of the matter.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
But oh yeah, that must have been because of the East Front!

And the Blitz raids clear into spring 1941, somehow the British held up through all that because of the war in Russia
that did not start until JULY 1941.

Hmm, so by the same logic D-Day had no contribution to Soviet victory, as the Soviet victory was already assured by 1944? Do you realise even i havent said that? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin did not believe that victory was assured before D-Day. If he had been then the last thing he would have wanted
was Allied armies in a Europe he could have taken ALL of.


Clearly a lot of resources were not being directed against Britain.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif What is clear to you perhaps. But you seem to know little about the war in the west or the reality there
or the people except for the trash you've been fed.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Did you know that the US commanders wanted to invade Europe in 1943 and it took the British quite a while to get them
to see sense? WTH, they knew how things were from experience.

See the sense of letting the Russians do all the work is what i would say, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that is quicker than finding out the truth. Just lean to your prejudices even as you whine about others doing
likewise even when they are not!


but even assuming the causes were military - that only goes to show that had Barbarossa been successful, D-day would not have been. Which only goes to show that the Eastern front dwarfed the importance of D-day


And with that I quit debating with you. It is useless. I might as well discuss pollution with a republican.

irR4tiOn4L
06-14-2010, 02:45 AM
M_Gunz how can you misquote and dramatise on the one hand, then accuse on the other?

A) I did not say they would do so with minimal losses. I said that the British alone could NOT have defeated the Germans. You disagree? Then explain why you also posit that D-day could not have occured earlier. If D-day were impossible, how could the British and Americans retake Europe? And again, with Barbarossa over, the Germans may well have found a diplomatic end to the war.

These are 'what ifs' - but certainly no worse than claiming that you could have won without the Soviets! Now THAT is a tall order! How would that have been done?

B)The anti-uboat operations would certainly have occured - but you do not appear to be familiar with the Type XXI uboat. It was absolutely revolutionary, and even late in the war managed to sail right by a battle group.

Had the development and production of weapons such as these been accelerated after a swift victory in Barbarossa, they might have entered the war in 1944 in support of a Germany not strained in the Eastern front, and caused havoc in the Atlantic.

These were the first subs with sonar ranging and faster underwater, on which post war subs were based - they could manage 17 knots underwater, where the Type VII could manage 7, and they could cruise underwater for 200nm, where previous subs could do so for something like 60nm. They would have caused havoc.

C) The plans for barbarossa certainly contributed to the Bob. In the same way the threat of invasion diverted resources to Normandy. This is not an unusual statement. This did not win the air battle, but it achieved something much more important - Germany did not develop the necessary landing/transport craft to even enact an invasion.

Had Germany planned from the beginning to invade Britain, they would have wiped out the armies at Dunkirk, leaving the British isles weakened and short of manpower, and then undertaken a serious effort to invade. They would not have diverted resources to the blitz, they would not have abandoned the Bob until they had air superiority sufficient to launch an invasion. This threat was averted because Germany's plans lay in the East. THAT is why i say the Barbarossa plans saved Britain

D) Regarding Dunkirk - this is open to debate as to why, but regardless, a Germany hell bent on invasion would have done more

The true reason for Hitler's decision to halt the German armour is a matter of debate. One theory is that Von Rundstedt and Hitler agreed to conserve the armour for Fall Rot, an operation to the south.[13][14] Another theory, which has recently been disputed, was that Hitler was still trying to establish diplomatic peace with Britain before Operation Barbarossa. Brian Bond stated:

Few historians now accept the view that Hitler's behaviour was influenced by the desire to let the British off lightly in hope that they would then accept a compromise peace. True, in his political testament dated 26 February 1945 Hitler lamented that Churchill was "quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit" in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF at Dunkirk, but this hardly squares with the contemporary record. Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket, while the Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the English forces across the channel


E) You obviously are not even familiar with the casualty numbers. I did not include the purged. I did not include even casualties. I included SOLELY the number of DEAD Soviet soldiers as a result of the war on the Eastern front - as against 5 million German dead. The true casualties, including Civilians, ran into tens and included purges. This is not my figure.

Once again, the 300 000 lost on the Western front pale in comparison. Do not talk about disgracing - I have done no such thing, while you have done much of that suggesting the Soviets should have been left to die.

What i SAID was that 'other allies would not have had the stomach for such casualties' - this means that their SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT and SOCIAL ORDER, as well as their not being accustomed to such death (no recent revolution), along with the fact they were democracies, not ruled by people like Stalin, means that, whatever the value of the contribution, it is likely they would have capitulated to avoid further casualties, or saw breakdown of morale.

Stalin's actions, however reprehensible, have to understood in that horrid niche that is forcing discipline and fighting to the death. Propaganda of what the Germans would do to them had a very large impact on the Russian soldiers' continued resistance - it is an article of faith, not fact, to say that British or American soldiers, let alone their governments, witnessing the slaughter, lacking these measures, would have kept on fighting.

F) Germany was not doomed to lose. You have failed to show why this should be so, had they won Barbarossa. Lacking the Eastern front, how would you have invaded or attacked Germany?

G) Bob in the sense of the air war was a significant symbolic, not strategic victory. Had the British lost, they were still not likely to capitulate. Im sure you wouldnt argue otherwise.

H) Russian victory, by 1944, is widely considered inevitable. Stalin wanted D-day much earlier, when it finally came, he wasnt liable to complain. Instead, the Soviets raced to Berlin

I) The trash being what is read in Western books and media? That is where my knowledge comes from.

Once again, the threat of invasion against Britain was not credible, nor was Germany geared toward it. Germany aimed to knock Britain out by loss of morale and starvation, and failing that, it would move on with its real plans - 'lebensraum' - subjugation of the slavs to the East. The kind of bloodthirst that dominated that struggle for survival in the East was not something encountered to such an extent in the West

J) There have already been sources given for Churchill's assertions that there was no need to step in too early, and let the Russians fight it.

And once again - if the reasons were military, then UNTIL the russians had broken the Germans, this plan was not even a possibility!

So all in all, D-day was either delayed for geopolitical reasons or an operation that could not have been launched without the Russians.

K) Do what you like. I dont like Republicans, so dont compare me to one. In any case, if you twist what i say and then answer, you will find yourself outraged.



What i have said is, once again;

The importance of the Eastern front, militarily, dwarfed the other fronts, including D-day and BoB.

Given this, the denigration of Russian efforts and and their relative dimunition compared to the western front, is unfair

WWII was a composite effort with countless sacrifices. However, the sacrifices on the Eastern Front, and in China, were particularly large, and deserve more recognition then they have recieved.

Strategically, the much celebrated D-day and BoB are not as important as their status would imply. Many other operations dwarf their contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

irR4tiOn4L
06-14-2010, 02:59 AM
I have tried to address all your points but really, what it comes down to is - I never said the efforts of each and every individual, regardless of nation (and that includes Germany) was not noble or an important sacrifice. On the contrary, each was critically important - even the German deaths. Few can deny that many Germans fought for what they believed about their country, just as the Allies did.

Yet even here, we can say that some fronts were characterised by much greater suffering, and it is belittling this to not acknowledge that

Strategically, we cant say all efforts were equally important to the outcome, even if we appreciate all of them

Market Garden did not win the war, yet we do not denigrate this effort. The Eastern front did, yet we do. Both had aspects that were botched. Ironic

For the Generals on the ground, they did not celebrate Market Garden, they mourned. And that realisation is what drives a recognition of the Eastern front - what else can you say but that these people did the best they could, and did the most to win that war?

M_Gunz
06-14-2010, 08:41 AM
Soviet Union never achieved Communism. Only Socialism. Communism requires dissolution of centralized state.
That is what Karl Marx wrote if you bother to read.

It is okay. Many backers of any ideology don't know what they support. They turn it all into popularity contests
and who can spin the tales most appealing to the least common IQ.

Gammelpreusse
06-14-2010, 10:06 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png


That said, does an event that ended 65 years ago justify a battle of words like this? Russia was Germany's main enemy and percieved as such before, during and after the war. The war on the eastern front was lost in 43, if not 41, long before the western war machinery really got started. The rest is details.

M_Gunz
06-14-2010, 10:55 AM
Losses do not win wars for those who took the losses so why parade death counts?
The goal is to make the other side die for their cause. If you fight 2:1 and win then you did not
lose because the other side had more deaths.

How many Chinese died trying to 'liberate' South Korea compared to NATO troops? Does that mean
that NATO lost? Perhaps so, they lost half the country.

Did Hitler beat Stalin because Stalin killed less Russians in purges than Hitler did through war?
What other insanity can death counts simply be waved at as some form of victory?

Better you show the majority German soldier dead or captured fighting in Russia, the tanks,
artillery, planes and other equipment necessary to fight efficiently lost to Germany in Russia,
the fuel and ammo and logistics wasted.

Does the losses of any country make even a single death from another any less?

Gammelpreusse
06-14-2010, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Losses do not win wars for those who took the losses so why parade death counts?
The goal is to make the other side die for their cause. If you fight 2:1 and win then you did not
lose because the other side had more deaths.

How many Chinese died trying to 'liberate' South Korea compared to NATO troops? Does that mean
that NATO lost? Perhaps so, they lost half the country.

Did Hitler beat Stalin because Stalin killed less Russians in purges than Hitler did through war?
What other insanity can death counts simply be waved at as some form of victory?

Better you show the majority German soldier dead or captured fighting in Russia, the tanks,
artillery, planes and other equipment necessary to fight efficiently lost to Germany in Russia,
the fuel and ammo and logistics wasted.

Does the losses of any country make even a single death from another any less?

Hmm, maybe there is some kind of miscommunication going on. Are we talking the contribution and sacrifices of the single soviet or western allied soldier here or the contribution and sacrifices of the countries as a whole? Big difference there. The one does not equal the other.

M_Gunz
06-14-2010, 04:04 PM
I don't think that comparing losses tells about winning and I don't think that any loss should be belittled by
any number of losses elsewhere. And I think you need to count more than enemy killed on battlefields to tell
effectiveness by participants too.

Had Germany not attacked Russia, Russia would certainly have attacked Germany before long once the war started
or within a decade had it not. Between Hitler and Stalin it was a no-win situation for both Germany and Russia.

WTE_Galway
06-14-2010, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
A few numbers for the USAAF (please consider that USN and USMC are not part of this)

Sorties: 72% against Germany, 28% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t118.htm)

Tons of bombs dropped: 76% against Germany, 24% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t140.htm)

Ammo expended: 63% against Germany, 37% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t149.htm)

Combat losses: 80% against Germany, 20% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t158.htm)

Flying time total: 25% overseas, 75% continental USA (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t173.htm)

Flying time overseas: 69% against Germany, 31% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t175.htm)

Fuel consumption: 63% continental USA, 37% overseas (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t184.htm)

Fuel consumption: 70% against Germany, 30% against Japan (http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t185.htm)

About a third of the US war effort went into aircraft. The above tables indicate that
a) Most of the resources were used at home.
b) About three quarters of the USAAF was used against Germany, at least for as long as Germany participated.
c) Someone else go dig up the same type of records for the Naval aviation. Will probably even things out quite a bit.
d) And someone dig up the same type of records for the USN and US Army, so we can get a complete picture.


That kind of fits my impression over the years from a number of sources but I really do not have the time at present to look up the stats just to argue with people who prefer to see the Pacific War as bigger than it was.

The original documentary I referred to was a 1943/1944 US DoD release so may have been biased by propaganda but I doubt it.

Among other things as an Australian we are acutely aware how critical our own Government was of the lack of commitment of the Americans and British to the Pacific War, especially prior to the Battle of the Coral Sea.

M_Gunz
06-14-2010, 09:38 PM
Pacific war was more about ships. But you have to understand how many planes you can get out of the same resources
and time it takes to build one destroyer for example.

Satire Mode ON:

Be sure some of us feel really terrible about the Japanese invasion of and great land battles in Australia. Oh.. wait...
that was the Philippines wasn't it? And French Indo-China. And Burma. And Singapore. And New Guinea. But not Australia
for some reason like oh gee they must have been stopped.
How many ships were involved in the invasion of Iwo Jima, or the invasion of Okinawa, or Saipan for that matter?
Compare to the fleet used at Normandy but find out how many.

But understand that none of that was anything really much compared to the big battles in Russia. Not as long either.
Siege of Leningrad, over 900 days. Stalingrad from July 42 to Feb 43. D-Day landings and breakout... nothing compared,
a cakewalk in the breeze, stupid Americans don't realize how small and kitty litter it really was, etc....

Satire Mode OFF:

and all because someone DARED to post an anniversary of D-Day thread and call it a great event of WWII.

JtD
06-14-2010, 10:21 PM
Pacific war was more about ships. But you have to understand how many planes you can get out of the same resources and time it takes to build one destroyer for example.

Depending on the types, about 50.

Also, I'd consider the Atlantic a part of the European war effort, and the US had plenty of ships there, too. Not as famous as the ones in the Pacific battles, but just as important.

WTE_Galway
06-14-2010, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pacific war was more about ships. But you have to understand how many planes you can get out of the same resources and time it takes to build one destroyer for example.

Depending on the types, about 50.

Also, I'd consider the Atlantic a part of the European war effort, and the US had plenty of ships there, too. Not as famous as the ones in the Pacific battles, but just as important. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You would also include the Liberty Ship's in that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Yeah welded not riveted so dodgy and cheap, but a LOT of them were churned out.

R_Target
06-15-2010, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by JtD:
A few numbers for the USAAF (please consider that USN and USMC are not part of this)

Sorties: 72% against Germany, 28% against Japan

If you add in USN and USMC, it's about 1.69 million vs. Germany, and .93 million vs. Japan.


Tons of bombs dropped: 76% against Germany, 24% against Japan

Even adding in USN and USMC doesn't change this much, about 28%. It's not too surprising considering that massively inefficient area bombing was little used in the Pacific, and was contrary to the USN pinpoint approach. Atlantic fleet sorties and tonnage are less than one percent of total USN sorties.


Ammo expended: 63% against Germany, 37% against Japan.

Including USN and USMC brings this to about 53% and 47%.


Combat losses: 80% against Germany, 20% against Japan

About 68%/32% with USN and Marines. What can I say? Navy pilots were better! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

So much for 20%......

R_Target
06-15-2010, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Among other things as an Australian we are acutely aware how critical our own Government was of the lack of commitment of the Americans and British to the Pacific War, especially prior to the Battle of the Coral Sea.

As an American, we're acutely aware of how little there was to send. Despite this lack of commitment, four of the five major carrier battles of the war were fought and the tide was turned at Guadalcanal before any U.S. soldiers saw any Germans.....

irR4tiOn4L
06-15-2010, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Soviet Union never achieved Communism. Only Socialism. Communism requires dissolution of centralized state.
That is what Karl Marx wrote if you bother to read.

It is okay. Many backers of any ideology don't know what they support. They turn it all into popularity contests
and who can spin the tales most appealing to the least common IQ.

Once again you show that you have fundamentally not understood my post.

This time i will quote myself;

Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
The fact of the matter is that in that generation, including in America, there was strong support for communism (socialism actually, it was not full blown communism), and our grandparents willingly accepted it. In the case of the Czech rep, left to its own devices the communist government would have collapsed in 1967.

Yet again you take something ive said first and repeatedly - like the Atlantic battle being crucial, and then throw it in my face as something i forgot.


It was very commonly referred to as the communist party - even if these were socialist republics. Thats why the term is used.

Only a pedant would take offence to that, without adressing anything else

irR4tiOn4L
06-15-2010, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Losses do not win wars for those who took the losses so why parade death counts?
The goal is to make the other side die for their cause. If you fight 2:1 and win then you did not
lose because the other side had more deaths.

How many Chinese died trying to 'liberate' South Korea compared to NATO troops? Does that mean
that NATO lost? Perhaps so, they lost half the country.

Did Hitler beat Stalin because Stalin killed less Russians in purges than Hitler did through war?
What other insanity can death counts simply be waved at as some form of victory?

Better you show the majority German soldier dead or captured fighting in Russia, the tanks,
artillery, planes and other equipment necessary to fight efficiently lost to Germany in Russia,
the fuel and ammo and logistics wasted.

Does the losses of any country make even a single death from another any less?

How hard are you trying to miss the point? Someone had to fight is the point

And besides - its been said like a million times that while 1.5 million germans were on the western front, 10 million were defeated on the eastern.

That counts for something

irR4tiOn4L
06-15-2010, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
and all because someone DARED to post an anniversary of D-Day thread and call it a great event of WWII.

Oh really? Well let me quote how all this got started;

Waldo.Pepper
06-15-2010, 02:29 AM
I wonder if this thread will outlast WW2? Six years? Hmmm.

Gammelpreusse
06-15-2010, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
I don't think that comparing losses tells about winning and I don't think that any loss should be belittled by
any number of losses elsewhere. And I think you need to count more than enemy killed on battlefields to tell
effectiveness by participants too.

Agreed, but I posted this graph not for comparing numbers and judgement on this basis, but to give a feeing of scope here. German losses are corresponsing, depending on source between 70 and 90 percent of all german losses appeared on the eastern front. And given that the Wehrmacht did not exactly send its ill equipped training units to the eastern front, I dare say that also tells a bit about the sheer size of the eastern front.




Had Germany not attacked Russia, Russia would certainly have attacked Germany before long once the war started
or within a decade had it not. Between Hitler and Stalin it was a no-win situation for both Germany and Russia.

Most possible, but speculative nevertheless. I do not think "what ifs" are a propper method to judge events.

M_Gunz
06-15-2010, 06:00 AM
From what I understand of Stalin's 5 and 10 year plans of massive military buildup, his target date was in 1950.

However if Hitler had stayed busy westward, IMO Stalin would have taken some time to recover his armies from the
purge, get the T-34's and other new equipment pipelining out (without having moved the factories, much sooner
than did happen) and started seizing territory... besides Poland. If he rolled starting in 1943-45, he could have
taken most or all of Europe by storm. Keeping it is my idea of the "what if"! But Stalin had more forces to do
that with than Hitler.

Gammelpreusse
06-15-2010, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
From what I understand of Stalin's 5 and 10 year plans of massive military buildup, his target date was in 1950.

However if Hitler had stayed busy westward, IMO Stalin would have taken some time to recover his armies from the
purge, get the T-34's and other new equipment pipelining out (without having moved the factories, much sooner
than did happen) and started seizing territory... besides Poland. If he rolled starting in 1943-45, he could have
taken most or all of Europe by storm. Keeping it is my idea of the "what if"! But Stalin had more forces to do
that with than Hitler.

as I said, very possible. there is more then one account available theorizing about Stalin wanting to sit out the westfront struggle to then topple the exhausted nations. But that still remains a what if. You have to judge on facts, what happend, not what might have happend if something elese did not happen. Else it becomes a matter of subjective opinion.

JtD
06-15-2010, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
[Info on USN statistics]

Thanks for that! Could you share the source of your info, in particular if the numbers are available online? I'd be very interested.


...four of the five major carrier battles of the war were fought and the tide was turned at Guadalcanal before any U.S. soldiers saw any Germans.....

I'm getting your point and agree with it, but as a fact that is wrong, considering that U.S. soldiers saw German U-Boats well before the US even entered the war.

R_Target
06-15-2010, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
Thanks for that! Could you share the source of your info, in particular if the numbers are available online? I'd be very interested.

What you're looking for is "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics"; it should be available at the USN website. Unfortunately, due to postwar budget cuts,
it's not anywhere near as comprehensive as the USAAF data.


I'm getting your point and agree with it, but as a fact that is wrong, considering that U.S. soldiers saw German U-Boats well before the US even entered the war.

True, I should have clarified. There was no major action before Torch in Nov. 1942.

JtD
06-15-2010, 01:25 PM
Got it, thanks. 110 pages of pdf, well worth a read!

M_Gunz
06-16-2010, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
and all because someone DARED to post an anniversary of D-Day thread and call it a great event of WWII.

Oh really? Well let me quote how all this got started; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been waiting for that quote. Let me help you there sunshine. Erkki made a comment and you ran it for a cheap goal.

Original Post and the next four:


na85

Posted Sun June 06 2010 22:02
Sixty-six years ago today, on a Tuesday, the Allied powers invaded Normandy, France in undertaking the largest amphibious invasion of all time.

It's a very sobering thought to consider the vast swaths of young men cut down by machine gun fire in defense of our freedom to simulate their struggles electronically in the comfort of our homes 66 years from then.



ytareh

Posted Mon June 07 2010 06:19 Hide Post
Yeah it boggles the mind ...must have been some sight from the air ...RIP all...


and then the D-Day wasn't so important derail/hijack/reply to what was never posted begins------


Erkki_M
Picture of Erkki_M

Posted Mon June 07 2010 08:09 Hide Post
And just four days later, another massive operation was begun at East front, in which nearly a million men would be taking part together with 2,000 aircraft and thousands of tanks and armored vehicles as well as naval units.

Invasion Normandy was massive, but it overshadows other battles, of equal or nearly the same scale and significance. The unimaginably named Vyborg-Patrozavodsk Offensive is one of them. If a schoolboy is asked to name 3 greatest battles of WW2, answers are, probably, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge and El Alamein, with a possible "Stalingrad was big too".



ytareh

Posted Mon June 07 2010 09:34 Hide Post
Vyborg-Patrozavodsk Offensive?Yes its ironic that even after years of general interest in this Eastern Front born sim Id never heard of it ...

and here it turns into put-down of all Allies except Russia as 'also rans' and disputing what was not stated:


irR4tiOn4L

Posted Mon June 07 2010 10:06 Hide Post
Yeah i have to say, after looking at the Eastern Front my view of WWII has shifted a bit;

Soviet Russia won the European war
Other allies were 'also rans'.


Just think - between Barbarossa and Berlin, the Eastern front involved armies of something like 15 million men.

Even after the Normandy landings, the Russians were facing something like 3-5 million in German armies. The Allies faced something like 800 000.

Its just a complete joke to say D-Day was the most important battle of the War, or that the Russians werent already winning and would have sued for peace. The Russians didnt just continue, they raced the Allies to Berlin. The objectives of D-Day were more geopolitics.

Theres a very good reason the Red Army was considered too powerful even for the combined Allied armies - and that the Allies investigated as much.


If i had to name the most important land battles of WWII now, theyd all be on the Eastern Front.

If i considered all types, id say Stalingrad, Moscow, Atlantic (uboats and raiders like Bismarck). Some popular choices like the Battle of Britain seem of little consequence when considered against losses in merchant shipping, let alone that Germany did not have the wherewithal or disposition to invade

BTW, na85 is Canadian, Erkki I think is Finnish, I can't say about ytareh who also did not write "most important battle".

Don't even have to tap the knee to see the foot go up. Just mention name of a battle and the reflex operates.
One does it and the next kicks higher.

Here is the original text again: Sixty-six years ago today, on a Tuesday, the Allied powers invaded Normandy, France in undertaking the largest amphibious invasion of all time.

How does that translate to: most important battle of the War? Only with major prejudice or coming from Planet Troll.

horseback
06-16-2010, 01:47 PM
My response was delayed by the need to clear my cookies before using the new & improved login, but better late than never.
I have specifically excepted Poland already. Short memory? I said non-Polish residents of Eastern Europe. I said Poland and the Balkans; I could have easily added the areas of Finland and the Baltic states as well. I left out Germany and Austria entirely, although I consider that female civilians as young as 8 there might not have had a lot to say about who was running their country, and official exhortations to gang rape and murder them was undoubtedly excessive.
Hardly. My family was against the regime, i left for Australia when i was 6 and i attended year 1 (which was far more intensive than in Australia, despite the prejudice against eastern european education). The rest i learnt in Australia.

Nothing got 'drilled' into me. It is in fact your views on people being 'drilled' that got drilled into you. You led me to believe that you had been raised in the Czech Republic; one hallmark of the former socialist republics was that everything and everyone was politicized and propagandized at every opportunity to the point that the ‘proper’ point of view was taken for granted by all but the most critical thinkers. I have no prejudice against the scholastic standards of eastern European education—in my experience, they do a fine job in the languages, science and arts.

I do question their interpretation of history and economics which are often heavily filtered through the lens of ‘scientific socialism’.

I didn’t get indoctrinated in that way; I have observed what was in front of me, did some research on what wasn’t and didn’t get caught up in fashions and fads. I understand that the American system has its warts, but I’ve seen a lot more of the other societies in this world than most of my countrymen, and I’d judge that for size and density, we generally have fewer warts per capita overall than the overwhelming majority of human societies. Of course, we have been a stable democracy for longer than most other countries, even those in Europe and we did it with a much wider variety of languages and cultures joining into the process.

I’m starting to think that it may be beyond most people’s capacity to understand America without being an American without coming here and being changed by the experience.

Your life story i have no problem with

But your understanding of the Soviet bloc is extremely limited. You fail to understand the finer points of what Communism was about and why it failed. Funny, I don’t recall making any statements about why communism failed, although there is no doubt that we would be in disagreement about why it failed or why I think it always will.
Dramatic much?

I said Europe would have been under German control. How would carriers dislodge them, exactly? Like the Royal Navy did? (obviously, it didnt) I did not speak of carriers dislodging the Germans, although without carriers and enormous supporting fleets, the Germans could NEVER hope to project their military power across the North Sea, much less the Atlantic. The image I wanted to convey was how much industrial capacity was required to build the vast majority of those ships in less than three years and then man those ships with competent seamen, while simultaneously building two major armies, providing the major share of the free world’s industrial output and growing a sufficient surplus of crops and livestock to feed not only those armies and navies, but much of your Allied partners’ populations as well.

Compared to that, German and Soviet production combined were pretty much a drop in the bucket.

The distances involved also seem to have gone right by you; in 1945, a flight by C-47 from New York state to Newfoundland to Iceland to Scotland and finally ending in East Anglia took around 24 hours, just as the flight I took as a seven year old took my family in 1961. That is a hell of a long way, and distances are the key to supply lines and schedules. The complication of long air or sea miles makes the problems of supplying fighting armies that much greater, but the western allies fully mastered the problem by mid 1943 to the point that they carried a critical portion of the Red Army’s logistical burden for it to war’s end, and then undertook to feed and put a devastated Europe back on its feet over the next 4 or 5 years as well.
Your uninformed conclusions about the inefficiencies of every armed force except that of the US and Commonwealth is staggering. You continue to argue the Soviets and now even the Nazis were incompetent. Actually, my emphasis was not on the militaries, but on the societies and regimes they served; both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were reflections of the paranoia and neuroses of the men who ruled them. The German government was riddled with Nazi cronyism and corruption, which further sapped an already overstrained economy. The Soviets were subject to the profoundly weird fears and unlimited power of Stalin and his cronies, except that Stalin kept a closer eye on his partners in crime than Hitler could have dreamed of. These things have inevitable consequences and none of them are positive.
People tend to forget that there has to be a civilian economy to fuel a fighting military; there still has to be food production to feed factory workers and soldiers, there has to be transport to move the food and the weapons, there have to be people drilling for oil and refining fuels, there have to be people making cloth and glass and bricks and mortar and constructing buildings and repairing roads and so on above and beyond that which is produced for and used on the front lines. Both German and Soviet societies were crippled in their efforts, and not just because their enemies were targeting them too.

You admit that Stalin and Hitler made enormous errors at the beginning of the Eastern conflict that essentially cancelled each other out, correct? They dictated what their marshals did, and never fully released control. Only Stalin’s slightly more stable personality, plus western aid, plus manpower and defensive depth that Hitler never fully comprehended allowed the Soviets to prevail.

Or more accurately, those factors prevented the Soviets from failing without even more help from Hitler.
Of course, the fact that assessments of the possibility of the Western Allied army defeating the Red Army were done, and indicated that the Western Allies could not hope to win, even with an army of 5 million that had only fought 1.5 million Germans - well it goes to show that they simply werent as incompetent as you hold I didn’t say that they were incompetent; I said that Stalin was, he was the man in charge, and like my ex wife he had a whim of iron. I also pointed out that they were heavily dependent upon Western aid in several key areas, and like the guy who is one paycheck from being out on the street, they would have become less effective very quickly without that aid. I made no claims about the possibility of the Western Allies holding back the Red Army if it decided it wanted to go to Calais for summer vacation in 1945—and if you check on the threads covering that subject, you’ll find that I never have, without assuming some major changes in the historic record of troop & ship deployments and so on.

Could the western allies have successfully invaded Europe against Germany after the hypothetical defeat of the Soviet Union? I think yes, again with a few changes in the assumptions they were making in preparing for the historical D-Day.

They would have had to commit to quarantining the Japanese Empire with much more limited forces until the Nazis were beaten and permit the widespread use of Naval aviation and Marine ground troops against the Germans (legend has it that George Marshall threatened to resign in 1944 if a single Marine landed in France; he would definitely have had to rethink that position). June 1944 would have been out of the question, though, and it would be the summer of 1945 at the earliest before the invasion of France could be mounted. And Naval aviation would be a very critical factor there; at low and medium altitudes, the Hellcat, Bearcat and F4U-4 were much more effective both for ground attack and air to air than the standard USAAF fighters of the period were, even the planned versions that never got pushed forward because the Allies were winning with the versions they already had…

I do NOT think that the Nazis would have been able to gear up their industry effectively while under a continuing siege from the air, supplemented by B-29s, P-80s, Meteors & Vampires. My reading indicates that while the Germans did increase their output in 1944-45, the cost of that output increased, while true efficiency suffered. They were diverting resources from food production to armaments, and from one necessity to meet a slightly more urgent or politically favored one, and that is a losing strategy for the long term. A year to eighteen months is not enough time to make use of the croplands in the Ukraine or effectively consolidate and absorb what industrial and agricultural capacity captive Europe had while still fighting a war for survival. The Nazis appear to have been slowly asphyxiating the goose that laid the golden egg rather than killing it quickly, but they were definitely killing it.

As I pointed out, the Nazis were quite corrupt as administrators, even many of the more competent ones. They persisted in self-destructive behavior even as the end was obviously coming because they were ultimately fantasists waiting for some German superweapon or for the western Allies to join with them against the Soviets. Destruction of Stalin’s regime would not result in Soviet industrial capacity being diverted to immediate German use.

I would expect that the Soviets would have continued with the scorched earth policy, but even if it was not destroyed in the course of the war, I think that they still would have been largely unused by the Germans.

You may have heard the story of the German tank manufacturer’s appraisal of the T-34:

As I recall, after a thorough examination of an intact T-34 brought back from the front, what they said was something along the lines of “Yes, we could build something like that, but of course, it would never pass our quality standards.”

I think that it’s safe to say that we would not have been seeing T-34s or Stalin tanks rolling out of factories with iron crosses on them, or brand new Il-10 Sturmoviks flying with swastikas on their tails no matter what happened.

Now I understand that the combatant numbers on the Eastern Front dwarf what was done in the west, but I also understand that the logistical efforts in the west (which had an enormous effect on the eastern battlefront, whether you wish to acknowlege it or not) dwarf those in the East.

It is said that amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics.

What are you studying?

Just getting the allied armies to D-Day was an incredible feat of arms, and that is why it is celebrated, as much as for the bravery and combat.

cheers

horseback

jensenpark
06-18-2010, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
I wonder if this thread will outlast WW2? Six years? Hmmm.

Waldo, I am sure people are building graphs and arguments right now to back up or deny that this thread will go six years.

Erkki_M
06-19-2010, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by irR4tiOn4L:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by M_Gunz:
and all because someone DARED to post an anniversary of D-Day thread and call it a great event of WWII.

Oh really? Well let me quote how all this got started; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been waiting for that quote. Let me help you there sunshine. Erkki made a comment and you ran it for a cheap goal.

Original Post and the next four:


na85

Posted Sun June 06 2010 22:02
Sixty-six years ago today, on a Tuesday, the Allied powers invaded Normandy, France in undertaking the largest amphibious invasion of all time.

It's a very sobering thought to consider the vast swaths of young men cut down by machine gun fire in defense of our freedom to simulate their struggles electronically in the comfort of our homes 66 years from then.



ytareh

Posted Mon June 07 2010 06:19 Hide Post
Yeah it boggles the mind ...must have been some sight from the air ...RIP all...


and then the D-Day wasn't so important derail/hijack/reply to what was never posted begins------


Erkki_M
Picture of Erkki_M

Posted Mon June 07 2010 08:09 Hide Post
And just four days later, another massive operation was begun at East front, in which nearly a million men would be taking part together with 2,000 aircraft and thousands of tanks and armored vehicles as well as naval units.

Invasion Normandy was massive, but it overshadows other battles, of equal or nearly the same scale and significance. The unimaginably named Vyborg-Patrozavodsk Offensive is one of them. If a schoolboy is asked to name 3 greatest battles of WW2, answers are, probably, Normandy, Battle of the Bulge and El Alamein, with a possible "Stalingrad was big too".



ytareh

Posted Mon June 07 2010 09:34 Hide Post
Vyborg-Patrozavodsk Offensive?Yes its ironic that even after years of general interest in this Eastern Front born sim Id never heard of it ...

and here it turns into put-down of all Allies except Russia as 'also rans' and disputing what was not stated:


irR4tiOn4L

Posted Mon June 07 2010 10:06 Hide Post
Yeah i have to say, after looking at the Eastern Front my view of WWII has shifted a bit;

Soviet Russia won the European war
Other allies were 'also rans'.


Just think - between Barbarossa and Berlin, the Eastern front involved armies of something like 15 million men.

Even after the Normandy landings, the Russians were facing something like 3-5 million in German armies. The Allies faced something like 800 000.

Its just a complete joke to say D-Day was the most important battle of the War, or that the Russians werent already winning and would have sued for peace. The Russians didnt just continue, they raced the Allies to Berlin. The objectives of D-Day were more geopolitics.

Theres a very good reason the Red Army was considered too powerful even for the combined Allied armies - and that the Allies investigated as much.


If i had to name the most important land battles of WWII now, theyd all be on the Eastern Front.

If i considered all types, id say Stalingrad, Moscow, Atlantic (uboats and raiders like Bismarck). Some popular choices like the Battle of Britain seem of little consequence when considered against losses in merchant shipping, let alone that Germany did not have the wherewithal or disposition to invade

BTW, na85 is Canadian, Erkki I think is Finnish, I can't say about ytareh who also did not write "most important battle".

Don't even have to tap the knee to see the foot go up. Just mention name of a battle and the reflex operates.
One does it and the next kicks higher.

Here is the original text again: Sixty-six years ago today, on a Tuesday, the Allied powers invaded Normandy, France in undertaking the largest amphibious invasion of all time.

How does that translate to: most important battle of the War? Only with major prejudice or coming from Planet Troll. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never said Normandy wasnt big, or important. My idea was to raise discussion on why do people every year remember Normandy, Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbor and VE day together with English literature and TV shows, history classes in the school. And, unfortunately, here too. Remember the name of the game we play, Forgotten Battles?

I have to admit I was a bit provocative, but I didnt expect quite the kind of conversation we've had here. I should have, but on the other hand, I guess that after all it was, here, inevitable, even if I had written my original post as neutrally as I could have.

RIP them all, the American AB trooper who fought for freedom in Normandy, the SS-man for the survival of his Fatherland, the Japanese for the honor of his ancestors at some forgotten island, and, the last but not the least, also the unknown Ukrainian farmer who opposed the Blitzkrieg machine or the Nordic winter. Not one of them fought for the "evil" voluntarily.

EDIT: perhaps I should add, that numerous times in HyperLobby and some other places I've been told that my country fought for the "evil", and that those from my family who fell were all pussies, idiots, cowards and whatnot. I have not, and I will not, tell a Russian or someone from ex-Soviet states that those 350,000+ who fell as KIA or MIA against my country died in vain, for a crazy dictator, trying to conquer a mostly agricultural country that fought for its plain existence at governmental, geographical, cultural and linqual levels. Anyone who has been to "conquered" parts of Karelia knows what I mean.

With the above, I hope nobody no longer thinks my intention was to somehow dishonor the fallen Americans at Normandy or the Western front(not those few for Normandy was a last-stand fight against the invasion), or their cause. It was not.

M_Gunz
06-19-2010, 09:33 AM
You should see the kind of praise Avalon Hill gave the Finns in the designer notes of the the old Panzer Leader
series module where the Finns were introduced. All were considered as elite in moral and skill, some of if not the
best soldiers on average in the world. And the Russians were no slouches either though their units were companies
to the rest being platoons, otherwise there would be too many counters on the board. Again, those being the army
regulars where special units differed. And old Avalon Hill backed their decisions up in those designers notes,
this was over 30 years ago BTW. I still have those games packed away in boxes too. Dunno if they have value yet
and it only took about 25 years for decent computer versions of the old board games to appear.

SheerLuckHolmes
06-21-2010, 12:42 AM
21.6.1944 russian partisans attacket a finnish village named Nousunkylä. Village was home of 32 person (mainly women, children and old men), with no military personnel in village. All were killed very brutally. Soviet mjilitary officials announced that their partisan heroes have destroyed an important military camp.

irR4tiOn4L
01-07-2011, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
Here is the original text again: Sixty-six years ago today, on a Tuesday, the Allied powers invaded Normandy, France in undertaking the largest amphibious invasion of all time.

How does that translate to: most important battle of the War? Only with major prejudice or coming from Planet Troll.

Going to do a bit of necro here. It is curious that i never provided that quote - very unlike me.

From what i remember though, my point was more about the fact that the THREAD itself - and so many like it on English forums - were primarily concerned with the comparatively minor Western front which, though important, seemed to come at the cost of recognition of many Russian-German battles, which frankly won the war but are often hardly mentioned.

That reaction was knee-jerk and to a certain degree underestimated the knowledge of many forum members but i do believe - from being Australian - that the eastern front is very unappreciated - particularly with the demonization, rightly or wrongly, of the USSR post war.

However, like Don Quixote i appear to have been fighting windmills - it is, when one thinks about it, completely normal and natural for a nation to focus primarily on the contributions of those closest to it in culture or affinity. There is no more sinister in celebrating D-Day for an average American or Australian than not knowing about the strength of Czechoslovak industry and the significance of its stand down, or the comparatively massive size of the Eastern conflict to the much smaller D-Day front. What I was responding to had nothing to do with the thread; it came more from everyday interactions where i grew tired of the anti-eastern Europe crap that never quite died after 1989. Like many Eastern Europeans find, in an anglo saxon nation it is very difficult to have slavic culture fully recognized. There is an underlying prejudice that is quite irritating, and in any case it is difficult for these people to understand the link even a emigrated Czech feels almost immediately for fellow slavs - the concept of race and cultural affinity is quite discredited these days, probably unfairly in a case of political correctness gone mad.

For why should we not mention cultural or racial differences and address them when they bubble under the surface of almost all our major world issues and equality is a front that de facto does not exist and is not worked toward?

It is a peculiarity of American and British culture and economic systems that poor intentions and inequality are justified through a front of equal treatment. These societies are highly unequal and their foreign policies certainly do not treat other peoples' equally.

This is the underlying current that I was responding to and critizing the underlying superiority narrative of Anglo Saxon culture, whether it be the UK, US, Canada or Australia - i know Australia in particular well, and love them as I do, aussies can be startlingly arrogant when it comes to their world view.

Maybe it is an economic narrative - economic performance is equated to superior culture - but something leads many westerners to exalt their accomplishments far above others.

I failed to appreciate the way my words would be seen, and i should not have begun such a discussion in this thread, which had nothing to do with that topic. I did not pay much attention to the fact that others would not see that it was this narrative i objected to, not anything explicitly said in the thread. For that i must apologize.

But i was also wrong to imply as knowing preference that is natural, instinctive and common to all cultures - preference for one's own achievements. The people of this thread or of the US or Australia do not intentionally ignore USSR contributions so much as they simply focus on what is nearest to them personally. I should have thought of that.

My perspective takes issue with that because i wanted as clear a view of that history as possible, and felt that the size and popularity of US perspectives on WWII was obstructing that - but what has this to do with the thread?

Wrong place, wrong time for me to bring up what i did. Sorry about that.

Wildnoob
01-07-2011, 06:22 AM
hich frankly won the war but are often hardly mentioned.

Ahhhhh, PLEASE, this again no!

Ansewer me: how the hell the Russians would face Germany with it's full strength (75% of the Wehrmacht was committed in the Barbarossa), the Italians as well, the Japanese and all the other Axis members and without the LL and without the bombing?!

The combined strength of all those Axis powers, would outproduce the Russians easily, which was their only advantage at start of the historical war. And actually, the Axis powers combined outproduced the Russians historically, even with they receiving modern industrial machinery from the West, and raw materials, such as a lot of steel, which helped them to built thousands of tanks, and a lot of other types of military equipment. Not to mention the bombing. They would produce less, they would have to divided their industry for produce a lot equiment such as locomotives, explosives, trucks, and many other fundamental itens the the LL provided, and also divided them between the Germans and their allies in the West, and the Japanese in the East. Also, Me 262s and other German toys would hit the scene soon and in great numbers

I don't know, everything could have happened, but at least we can say for sure: the chances of the USSR were VERY low to face the Axis alone.

I don't like from this kind of discussion, because it is simply non sense. People who keep saying this, don't considerate SEVERAL factors which are complex and they don't even imaginate, such as those I mentioned above. They only keep saying "they have more casualities" (which is in part due to Stalin's conduct of employ his forces at start, as 60% of the casualities were in the Barbarossa, and also unexperience by the Red Armed Forces), "most of the German casualities were in the EF", "the Western Allies couldn't accept high casualities" (WWI of course, is nothing), some even said the Western Allied soldier was inferior, and all sort of BS. People need to conciliate the things with the chaos theory, so they would understand that everything was important. The Allies won the war, not the Russians, not the Americans, not the British, not any of them alone, but all of them, all of them were fundamental in some way!

FoolTrottel
01-07-2011, 09:28 AM
Going to do a bit of necro here.
No you don't.