| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Was D-Day necessary?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Was D-Day necessary?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
Author
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 19:41
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 
Far to late to make much difference to who, the Soviets? By 1944 the Red Army was beginning to face some of the same problems the British Army faced, lack of replacements for existing formations. While the Soviet Union had a relatively large population compared to Germany, it wasn't unlimited. Stalin's callous approach of using lives to win victories had bleed the nation white.
 
 
Such problem didn't exist. Moreover, large territories lliberated from the German occupation actually significantly increased Rad Army's "human resources."
 
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 None of the very powerful units destroyed by the Allies during Normandy were available for deployment in the east during the Soviet offensive of summer 1944. After the destruction of most of Panzer Lehr there were no instructors left to teach armored warfare in Germany.
 
Well. On the other hand some of the very poweful units deployed in the East due to the Soviet offensive in Belorussia and later in Ukraine and Romania were not available for the fighting in the West. It would be rather accurate to say that both the USSR and the Western Allies complimented each other's efforts.
 
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 WW II was a mulit-front war fought over six years, the first two of which the Soviets were German ALLIES. It was won on multiple fronts because no one nation had the power or strength to defeat Germany.
 
In the end, however, it were the Soviet people who suffered the most from the Nazism (also how should I call Mr. Neville Chamberlain in 1938 for giving Czechoslovakia to Germany? Hitler's ally and good friend?). There is also no doubt by the spring of 1944 that the USSR was totally capable of defeating Germany by its own. However, D-Day significantly, expedited the victory and saved the lifes of God knows of how many Soviet soldiers. 
 
All the allies should be credited for victory. Just the Soviet sacrifice and effort was statistically greater.
 
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 19:47
well technically Chamberlain didn't gave Czechoslovakia to Germany, he gave only the German-inhabited border regions to Germany and there's nothing wrong with that unless you insist on medieval feudal borders. the latter occupation of core-Czechoslovakia was illegal and this is what led to the change of relations with Nazi Germany which led to the guarantee of Poland and ultimately ww2.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 20:04
Yes. I insist that it was very wrong. "Medieval feudal borders" were established according to the international law. Which should have been respected. No matter what. In any case, it was not the business of Germany, France and Italy of what to cut from the territory of the sovereign Czech state and what to leave.
That "pacification" provoked Hitler's and Polish occupation of Czechoslovakia and later the attack of Poland including the decision of Stalin to "correct" the "unfair" Polish-Soviet border.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 20:04

In reality, the czechs didn't have the backbone to fight and the French were willing to fight between each other rather than fighting the Germans. The czechs had a 1 million strong army and as much armour as the Germans but chose to succumb to Hitler. The Finns had the courage to go to a war they were sure to lose when the same situation occured to them.

As for the sources, the book is exclusively about the Leibstandarte not the war and gave accurate information about it.

Al-Jassas

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02 Aug 2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5244
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 20:11
well first of there was no international law in the middle ages and secondly France in the late 17th century and Italy in the late 19th century has violated borders and annexed foreign territory based on the fact that those territories were inhabited by their own people. where was international law back then? even in modern times we see the violation of medieval borders, like Kosvo-Serbia, also based on ethnic grounds.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 20:15
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

In reality, the czechs didn't have the backbone to fight and the French were willing to fight between each other rather than fighting the Germans. The czechs had a 1 million strong army and as much armour as the Germans but chose to succumb to Hitler. The Finns had the courage to go to a war they were sure to lose when the same situation occured to them.

Czechs felt bertrayed. And they thought (very reasonable) that Czech republic didn't have a chance against the German assault. The whole Czecj military doctrine was based on the coordination with the French allies. This is one point.

Another point is the weak Czech government. We can't say that it adequately represented the will of the nation at that time. Czech population was actually willing to fight, but the Czech cabinet,cowardly decided to succumb.
 
And the final point. Much of the success of Finns in the winter war (which they still lost BTW) depended on a terrain and a very difficult weather conditions.
 
Czechoslovakian geography lacked the forests and lakes of Finland let alone it's terrible winter. If the Soviet assault would be directed against an imaginary Finnland located in a mild Central European climate conditions, there is no doubt that it would be crashed within (maximum) several weeks
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 20:20
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

well first of there was no international law in the middle ages and secondly France in the late 17th century and Italy in the late 19th century has violated borders and annexed foreign territory based on the fact that those territories were inhabited by their own people. where was international law back then? even in modern times we see the violation of medieval borders, like Kosvo-Serbia, also based on ethnic grounds.
 
My point is exactly that such actions are unacceptable. The borders should be respected. Otherwise almost every power even in modern Europe can attack another one based on a excuse that "those borders are unfair, they annexed them from us 100 years ago and that it's historically not right, this our own historical land etc."
 
And in the 20th century the principles of the international law were very well established.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 20:36
The Finns had an amateur volunteer army with little weapons and no allies. They fough the most mechanized and modern of all armies then and did a good job and lost. They knew they would lose and yet fought on.
 
If the czechs fought the French would have been forced to fight with them since the Brits will force them.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 21:00
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

well technically Chamberlain didn't gave Czechoslovakia to Germany, he gave only the German-inhabited border regions to Germany and there's nothing wrong with that unless you insist on medieval feudal borders. the latter occupation of core-Czechoslovakia was illegal and this is what led to the change of relations with Nazi Germany which led to the guarantee of Poland and ultimately ww2.
 
That's a nice rationale Timujin but hardly constitutes a sound defense of Chamberlain's cavalier attitude in 1938. Here is an interesting book with a novel thesis: The Czechs had only themselves to blame through their failure to co-operate with British policy prior to 1933!
 
Gábor Bátonyi. Britain and Central Europe, 1918-1934 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999).
 
It is interesting that in discussing the "medieval feudal borders", there is silence over the details of the 1925 Locarno accords, which although they guaranteed the inviolabilty of borders in the West, set delimitations of Germany's borders elsewhere as a function of "arbitration". There a "defense" of your position with regard to Sarmat's challenge.


Edited by drgonzaga - 29 Jun 2009 at 21:02
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 21:04
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Finns had an amateur volunteer army with little weapons and no allies. They fough the most mechanized and modern of all armies then and did a good job and lost. They knew they would lose and yet fought on.
 
Finnish army was quite strong. With very high morale and soldiers that were perfectly fit for the winter warfare. Their small arms arsenal was actually better than the Soviet one. And it was only after the Winter was that the Soviet generals realized the importance and practicability of submashine guns (before they were neglected and called "gangsters weapons" by the Soviet military establishment). Moreover, the design the original design of the Finnish submashine guns was used to create the Soviet PPSh submashine gun.
 
Finnish fortifications like Mannerheim line were comparable to Maginot line and proved impregnable for the Soviet tanks during te first stage of the war. Freezing conditions of the Finnish winter also didn't allow the Red Army to fully realize its air superiority.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

If the czechs fought the French would have been forced to fight with them since the Brits will force them.
 
Al-Jassas
 
I don't agree with that statement at all. Czechs got a clear message that if they wanted to fight, they would by by their own. Moreover, even if France declared a war on Germany it would most likely would something similar to the Phonny war of 1939.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
ResoundingEagle View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ResoundingEagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jun 2009 at 21:20
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Originally posted by ResoundingEagle ResoundingEagle wrote:


Did D-Day have an effect on the war?  - Certainly it did, it was a massive operation, but realistically, it came far too late to make much difference, save for the people of France, and any country liberated by the Allies who were naturally looking to avoid Stalin's rule in place of Hitler's, which may not be much much better.
 
Far to late to make much difference to who, the Soviets? By 1944 the Red Army was beginning to face some of the same problems the British Army faced, lack of replacements for existing formations. While the Soviet Union had a relatively large population compared to Germany, it wasn't unlimited. Stalin's callous approach of using lives to win victories had bleed the nation white.
 
None of the very powerful units destroyed by the Allies during Normandy were available for deployment in the east during the Soviet offensive of summer 1944. After the destruction of most of Panzer Lehr there were no instructors left to teach armored warfare in Germany.
 
WW II was a mulit-front war fought over six years, the first two of which the Soviets were German ALLIES. It was won on multiple fronts because no one nation had the power or strength to defeat Germany.
 
One of the real tragedies of WW II is that one of the finest armies to ever to see service fought in defence of one of the worst causes in history.


You raise excellent points. =)

I am, of course, well aware of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and can fluidly detail all of its stages and protocols, including the diplomatic efforts well before the pact was signed when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. I'm rather ashamed that you may have thought I was that ignorant. =P

The Russian people had the worst possible conditions, and had overcome the worst possible odds in the entire war. That takes nothing away from the Allies whatsoever, but its fact.  Russia never had any choice - and the Russian people had shown that despite all possible hardship, they would overcome - or they would perish to the very last man and woman. Neither Hitler or Stalin afforded them much choice, nor did the circumstances even if one was completely removed from their political influences and arbitrations.

Just as you mentioned, certainly by the end of the war with Germany in 1945, in even worse shape manpower wise, (Stalin had certainly bled the nation white well before then, you are quite correct) Russia still went on to push the Japanese out of the entire expanse outside of their islands with very little time in between conflicts. That was no small operation either, yet they still succeeded. How did they do it? I can talk about factors and variables all I like, which will answer that question, but it still baffles one's sense of belief they did so given their conditions, which is  something that defies almost all expectionary standard, just as it did since 1941 - But, they did. That is why I think it was possible. If they had survived the worse, it is probable they would survive the better.

I must reprieve my statement though of saying they 'definitively' would have won without the allies, because that is something outside my certain knowing. You raise an excellent point to consider there, and I must acknowledge it. I can say its possible, and offer why to whatever degree I like, but I cannot say for certain. So I hope you, and the others will accept my correction in reply.

Your points in the third paragraph are exquisite, and certainly correct. While it was small numbers in comparison to the eastern front, those were formiddable units the Allies faced which were equal to at least 3 - 5  times their number of lesser soldiers. The lack of seasoned veterans to train others too was certainly becoming apparent in Germany's mobile divisions.

As to your last statement I could not agree more. That's a rather eloquent way of putting things and certainly correct.

Thanks for your throughtful reply, as it has certainly offered something for my improvement.
**

On a side note seperate from this response -
I could just be silly, but in case anyone thinks I am defending political parties, or silly nationalistic sentiments - I actually care nothing for either, and think both are utterly useless to the world.  No one fought at Normandy or the many battlegrounds of the east and died for Stalin or Roosevelt, or for Russia and America. Nor did they die for capitalism or communism -  they died for the world.

Those weren't Stalin's or Russia's heroes, they were the world's heroes. Just like anyone else who fought the Axis powers including the Allies.

Every July 4th and Memorial Day, as I will do this year, I do much in remembrance of The Allies. And I don't do it because I'm American, I do it because like them, I am a human being, and their death was so I could walk upon the earth today without having to endure copius suffering and wield assault rifles. The people of Russia are largely resposnible for this as well, and were the first and last to fight them.

Why should I not recognize this? Does it take anything away from what the Allies did? Of course not. But I cannot help but feel that Russia is left entirely unrecognized for their efforts and why. They are viewed as a 'communist' army or 'Stalin's Big Red Machine' which is hardly who most of them really were with individual study. Anybody who fought there, Allied or Russian, knows it was about death or life, continued war or continued peace, and politics ment nothing to soldiers on the lines. And here's a little proof of just that. ;)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e334/spectral_reverie/3215190649_20542dca65.jpg
The one rare occassion where American and Russian forces met each other some 200 kilometers south of Berlin in 1945. They dont appear too concerned about who was the better, or undermining each other. Perhaps we should all learn from their lesson.


Back to Top
TheRedBaron View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 15 May 2007
Location: British Eire
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheRedBaron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 09:48
Originally posted by ResoundingEagle ResoundingEagle wrote:

Originally posted by TheRedBaron TheRedBaron wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 

Cooper, Matthew. Hitler's Elite: Leibstandarte SS. Excellent and concise book about the division with lots of stats.

 
 
This would be the 1975 book that he wrote with James Lucas (never a man to let reality get in the way of a good story...).
 
Sorry, but the book is very outdated in regards research into LAH.
 
If you mean his awful coffee table book on the LAH published in 2001... Then that aint any better.
 
 
For those wanting to look at LAH then I would recommend Patrick Agte's 'Panzer Commanders of the Liebstandarte', Micheal Reynolds coverage of them or the Heimdal book.
 
For a more personal look at them, then 'Wenn Alle Bruder Schweigen' provides some very rare and unseen photographs.
 
 
As regards losses at Kursk, then Zetterling's book 'Kursk 1943' provides the same indepth analysis as his work on Normandy.


Excellent. I haven't picked these up yet so thank you for your reccomendation. =) I'll be sure to have a look. Who's the author of the second one you mentioned?
 
Mr Eagle,
 
Wenn Alle Bruder Schweigen was published by a collective of Waffen-SS veterans who pulled together a great many sets of personal photographs.
 
It was originally very limited in issue but I think it was reprinted as the picture content appealed to a wider audience.
 
I will get you the ISBN number when I go home.
 
Reynolds has done excellent work on the actions of 1st SS in Normandy and the Bulge, possibly one of the best appraisals written so far of their combat service.
 
The Agte book tends to concentrate on the panzer Commanders of the LAH and of the attached Heavy Panzer Battalions, but it does give some very interesting combat accounts, many actual after action reports including Wittman's from Villers-Bocage and a German viewpoint of all the major engagements of the division. Agte is somewhat biased in his appraisal, but that doesnt take away from the mine of information that book provides with personal testimony and battlefield reports.
 
 
The Waffen-SS are one of the big sellers for publishers. Stick those runes on the cover and teh book will sell... This has led to alot of dross and dull books being published in the last 25 years that have just regurgiatated previous books.
 
However among the piles of crud, there are some excellent studies of Waffen-SS combat performance to be found. Since the end of the Cold War a great many sources have been opened up to the historian and the increase in popularity of the Waffen-SS as far as book sales go, has led many more veterans to allow their photos to be published and to give their accounts.
 
I have been collecting research and books on the Waffen-SS for the last 25 years and the change in presentation and content is remarkable.
 
Thanksfully there are several well balanced accounts so we no longer have to look on books like 'Waffen SS - Hitlers Samurai' as a source of information... Wink
Back to Top
ResoundingEagle View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ResoundingEagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 16:26
Thanks Red Baron!! =)

I'd be most happy for anything else you'd wish to share. If you want you can note me the number for ease of posting.

I do like expanding my resources Clap
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 18:43
Originally posted by ResoundingEagle ResoundingEagle wrote:

I do not deny the ferocity of the Nazi forces that the Allies faced in the first, and concurrent stages of the Normandy Breakout, but fierce and certainly bloody as they may have been, they were undeniably on a far smaller scale.
 
Normandy was the continuation of an Allied war effort that had spanned the globe and was huge in scale. From there the Allies in the west went on to destroy significant Nazi forces in the field and ultimately the ability of Germany to produce weapons when the Ruhr was taken.
Quote There is one thing I would like to make clear , in reagrds to your last statement. I quote this from a previous discussion with someone I've enjoyed talking to here.

"Don't get me wrong, I greatly love my heroes who fought on D-Day and in the Allied Forces, and the brave souls who liberated a good bit of western Europe. Their accomplishments were by no means insignificant as they were. My studies are for them too. But we did not have Nazis breaking into our homes and raping our wives, torturing us, and slaughtering our children. Only to then take over our homes for villainy or burn them. Although Roosevelt was far from perfect, we also didn't have a leader who was additionally causing us horribly worse suffering and incalcuable losses with his blunders. " *end quote*

I dont recall the Allies, save the Free French or Polish, being able to say anything remotely close to the same, and even then Russia's situation is stand alone. They were pushed well beyond all conceivable limits, and through the end of 1941, and through Stalingrad as you mentioned in 1942, they were at their weakest. They should have collapsed economically, politically, militarily, and completely as a people - at least 2x over. By 1942, Russia had lost near 1.5 times their original service strength of around 6 Million men. And this does not account for the millions of civilians who died, and whose numbers were actually larger than soldier death. They were afforded no quarter or mercy of any sort, ever, civilian or soldier, and they were pushed near the brink of utter extinction as an entire people.
 
I'm not questioning the sacrifice the Soviet people made, often due to incompetent and brutal leadership, just the statements that the vast western Allies contribution both in terms of men and material had little to do with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Let's not forget that until june 1941 the Soviets were defacto allies of Hitler. If not for the victory in the Battle of Britain there would have been no base to launch the massive aerial campaign against Germany or prevent its' controlling the maritime routes into Europe. Thousands of sailors from western nations died very lonely and terrible deaths making the convoy runs into Murmansk alone to bring some of the billions of dollars worth of weapons and supplies that allowed the Soviets to make it through the darkest years.
 
The Soviet Union was never alone after june 1941, even though it had stood on the sidelines and watched as the Nazis had come very close to taking control of all western Europe in 1940.

Quote Considering the many advantages the Allies had in a shrewd and certainly drastically revealling comparison, thats a very unfair statement.
 
What, that the western Allies paid a fraction of the cost at Normandy than the Soviets did in Stalingrad? It was a statement of fact not a judgement on Soviet soldiers. They were poorly led and were saddled with a leadership that thought you could apply nonsensical political ideologies to combat. Having political commisars as parts of units may have made sense from a state control veiwpoint, but it was a waste of resources and often interfered with operations. Killing or imprisoning much of his officer corps in 1938 also left the Red Army chronically short of qualified field commanders and staff officers while going up against a nation with the best officer corps the world has ever seen.

Quote This comment of losses in 1942, though certainly fairly accurate, is a nice way of avoiding the  horrible mass death that occured for the Nazis after that at the hands of the Soviets, and certainly disregarding the conditions both forces faced, their scale, as well as all the the other very important and logical variables considered, such as the few I have mentioned above.
 
Of course the land war in the east was massive in scale, but so was the war in the west which also encompassed the Battle of the North Atlantic-which was crucial to the steady supply of material to Britain AND the Soviet Union- and the North Africa campaign which ultimately saw the capture of roughly the same of amount of German force as at Stalingrad in Tunisia.
 
While it had limited immeditate effect on German production the aerial campaign against Germany did require the Nazis to commit large amounts of resources of men and material which weren't available for use in the east.
 
I think you have a fairly limited understanding of the scale of WW II and a very Russo-centric view for someone who claims to be American.
 







 


Edited by DukeC - 30 Jun 2009 at 19:02
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 20:32
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 
Of course the land war in the east was massive in scale, but so was the war in the west which also encompassed the Battle of the North Atlantic-which was crucial to the steady supply of material to Britain AND the Soviet Union- and the North Africa campaign which ultimately saw the capture of roughly the same of amount of German force as at Stalingrad in Tunisia.
 
Either way you are joking or you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't compare the scales of the land war in the West [before June 6, 1944] to what was happening in the Eastern front.
 
And nobody really doubts that inlcuding American scholars.
 
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

I think you have a fairly limited understanding of the scale of WW II and a very Russo-centric view for someone who claims to be American.
 
 
It's very unfortunate and to my regret, but I see that it's you who have "a fairly limited understanding of the scale of WW II" and also a  quite "russophobic view" as well.
 
Giving some credit to the Eastern Front is not "Russo-centric" at all. Just the facts are that the whole war for the IIId Reich was "Russo-centric" and all the other theaters had the 2nd rate importance at best.
 
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 20:43
Just another quote from a professional American historian and an expert from the US Military History Institute. I don't think you can condemn such a person in "Russo-centrism."
 
 
The German invasion of the Soviet Union contributed significantly to the Nazi's ultimate defeat as the front consumed vast amounts of manpower and material. Over 80% of the Wehrmacht's World War II casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front. Likewise, the invasion eased pressure on the other Allies and gave them a valuable ally in the east.


Edited by Sarmat - 30 Jun 2009 at 20:43
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jun 2009 at 20:50
Hello Sarmat. Western allies aside for the moment, Soviet sacrifice and contribution to war was important and significant to say the least. I've been watching the military channel lately and one show had a history of the eastern front. Before Operation Barbarossa Stalin had purged most of his experienced officer corps. Is that true? After initial setbacks, Hitler's mistakes were immense. An attack on Lenningrad was delayed and most of his generals didn't want to strech east of the volga.

Some of the key Soviet turning points:

Marshal Zhukov's leadership and the overabundance of T-34s made life hell for Manstein at Kursk.

Resistance at Stalingrad

Massive Production of T-34s, Ilyushin Shturmovik, and Yak 3.




Back to Top
ResoundingEagle View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ResoundingEagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009 at 01:25
I'll let Sarmat give the full run down, but I'll offer a couple things. The Eastern Front takes years of study to understand, and there's so much to things that its difficult to get any quick cap.

Yes, one of Stalin's blunders was undeniably ordering a mass 'purge' of his forces, starting in 1929, which was a result of at least 70% of his generals and officers, killed or thrown into the GUlags, with a bit of torture likely in way if you got the latter. One of the men to survive such treatment was one of Stalin's eventual top leaders of the entire war, and undeniably responsible for many victories - Rokossovsky. One of my personal favorites I might add, on a seperate note.

It is important to note though though 'why' this happened, and something many westerners are unaware of.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was the revolt led by Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin, against the, then, Czarist government, which became horribly corrupt and apathetic to its people. After WW1, the Russian people had had enough of such violence and tyranny, and overthrew the Czars, into which Lenin took place, though his idea was far beyond dictatorships or anything close to Stalin's policies.

And here's something most westerner's dont know and isnt often said, - Stalin stole his position. When Lenin grew ill from heart disease, Stalin altered and changed his documents, and even worse was what he didwith Lenin's final will and testament - which he withheld from everyone illegally. Years later the evidence is revealed, and shows Lenin had wanted Stalin gone for quite some time, and issued several edicts removing him from any power while he was sick, and Stalin had visited him. Lenin's major efforts against Stalin presumably began, when Stalin orchestrated the first attack on what is now Georgia, behind Lenin's back, after already rattling his trust.

After Stalin took power, there was much hatred against the Czars, and radical fellow as Stalin was, he wanted to remove any potential threats or 'traitors' from his ranks. As a result, it ended up going far beyond the Old Czar officers who had joined the Red Army. (The Czars army in the Russian Revolution is referred to as the 'White Army' by westerners in appropriation.) I say, Stalin was trying to get rid of anyone who may know what he did. =P But Ican't prove that and thats only specualtion. The rest is, however, unfortunately, fact.

Arguably, a definite major turning point, was the first time that the Wehrmacht had ever grinded to a halt by military opposition. And it was at Moscow in 1941. Stalingrad often leaves Moscow overshadowed, and believe me it takes nothing at all away from Stalingrad. But moscow was the first battle the Soviets definitely won. The Germans would never get to Moscow, and no matter how hard they tried, they were stuck. It was also the first time the Soviet Army really seen a great morale boost.

Messages were passed along rather quickly, that the Red Army had held, and was successfully holding back a rather considerable number of the enemy at Moscow, and showed no signs of breaking, thoughcasulaties were certainly large. It was also one of the most interesting battles because of the large use of calvary troops. Yes calvary - with horses and sabres. =P No joke! Several Red Army and Cossack calvary divisions fought in WW2, and there were quite a few in  Moscow.

The enemy were not only a bit miffed by the Russians tenacity at Moscow, but rather fightened by the brave fellows on horseback who cut someone in halves in one slice, and lsung themselves un der their saddles to avoid enemy fire and deceiev the Germans. I realize this sounds grandiose, but it is certainly true. =) The evidence is certainly there, from multiple channels.

For the very first time the mighty Nazi war machine was stopped, and even pushed back. Though it wasnt a considerable distance (in regards to Soviet proportions) it was an important event, that shook the overconfidence of Hitler's forces.

And as well all know, it would not be the last. Especially at the hands of the Russians, and certainly many more of the world's fighters who would only a year or so later start to get a chance to return the favor to the Nazis as well. =)


Back to Top
ResoundingEagle View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 27 Jun 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 131
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ResoundingEagle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009 at 06:51
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

Originally posted by ResoundingEagle ResoundingEagle wrote:

I do not deny the ferocity of the Nazi forces that the Allies faced in the first, and concurrent stages of the Normandy Breakout, but fierce and certainly bloody as they may have been, they were undeniably on a far smaller scale.
 
Normandy was the continuation of an Allied war effort that had spanned the globe and was huge in scale. From there the Allies in the west went on to destroy significant Nazi forces in the field and ultimately the ability of Germany to produce weapons when the Ruhr was taken.
Quote There is one thing I would like to make clear , in reagrds to your last statement. I quote this from a previous discussion with someone I've enjoyed talking to here.

"Don't get me wrong, I greatly love my heroes who fought on D-Day and in the Allied Forces, and the brave souls who liberated a good bit of western Europe. Their accomplishments were by no means insignificant as they were. My studies are for them too. But we did not have Nazis breaking into our homes and raping our wives, torturing us, and slaughtering our children. Only to then take over our homes for villainy or burn them. Although Roosevelt was far from perfect, we also didn't have a leader who was additionally causing us horribly worse suffering and incalcuable losses with his blunders. " *end quote*

I dont recall the Allies, save the Free French or Polish, being able to say anything remotely close to the same, and even then Russia's situation is stand alone. They were pushed well beyond all conceivable limits, and through the end of 1941, and through Stalingrad as you mentioned in 1942, they were at their weakest. They should have collapsed economically, politically, militarily, and completely as a people - at least 2x over. By 1942, Russia had lost near 1.5 times their original service strength of around 6 Million men. And this does not account for the millions of civilians who died, and whose numbers were actually larger than soldier death. They were afforded no quarter or mercy of any sort, ever, civilian or soldier, and they were pushed near the brink of utter extinction as an entire people.
 
I'm not questioning the sacrifice the Soviet people made, often due to incompetent and brutal leadership, just the statements that the vast western Allies contribution both in terms of men and material had little to do with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Let's not forget that until june 1941 the Soviets were defacto allies of Hitler. If not for the victory in the Battle of Britain there would have been no base to launch the massive aerial campaign against Germany or prevent its' controlling the maritime routes into Europe. Thousands of sailors from western nations died very lonely and terrible deaths making the convoy runs into Murmansk alone to bring some of the billions of dollars worth of weapons and supplies that allowed the Soviets to make it through the darkest years.
 
The Soviet Union was never alone after june 1941, even though it had stood on the sidelines and watched as the Nazis had come very close to taking control of all western Europe in 1940.

Quote Considering the many advantages the Allies had in a shrewd and certainly drastically revealling comparison, thats a very unfair statement.
 
What, that the western Allies paid a fraction of the cost at Normandy than the Soviets did in Stalingrad? It was a statement of fact not a judgement on Soviet soldiers. They were poorly led and were saddled with a leadership that thought you could apply nonsensical political ideologies to combat. Having political commisars as parts of units may have made sense from a state control veiwpoint, but it was a waste of resources and often interfered with operations. Killing or imprisoning much of his officer corps in 1938 also left the Red Army chronically short of qualified field commanders and staff officers while going up against a nation with the best officer corps the world has ever seen.

Quote This comment of losses in 1942, though certainly fairly accurate, is a nice way of avoiding the  horrible mass death that occured for the Nazis after that at the hands of the Soviets, and certainly disregarding the conditions both forces faced, their scale, as well as all the the other very important and logical variables considered, such as the few I have mentioned above.
 
Of course the land war in the east was massive in scale, but so was the war in the west which also encompassed the Battle of the North Atlantic-which was crucial to the steady supply of material to Britain AND the Soviet Union- and the North Africa campaign which ultimately saw the capture of roughly the same of amount of German force as at Stalingrad in Tunisia.
 
While it had limited immeditate effect on German production the aerial campaign against Germany did require the Nazis to commit large amounts of resources of men and material which weren't available for use in the east.
 
I think you have a fairly limited understanding of the scale of WW II and a very Russo-centric view for someone who claims to be American.
 


I never denied any of the things you mention. Nor do I recall doing such. If anything its more of a testament to the drastic differences between forces.  Although I may question some of your figures.
As to Stavka's many mishaps and forthcomings, you are 'preaching to the choir', my friend.  I am thinking you are not reading my posts thoroughly, or my corrections in response to others.

I don't see how any of this changes what both sides did. There were innumerable factors to each campaign. With all due respect, sincerely, you raise excellent historical points and capture my undivided attention, but then mention 'bad things' the 'USSR' did, which seems off topic from your original intent and I am confused what you are convincing me of as highly intelligent as it certainly seems to be.

I must make clear, not necessarily directed at you, sir, that the USSR and 'Soviets' did not make any of the decisions, rather than which bullets they would like shot at them. Stalin and Stavka did...ok, mostly Stalin. =P I dont think anyone was doing this intentionally at all, but their is a big difference, and it does matter to correct history. Similar to reasons why I often mention Nazi's or Hitler instead of Germans. You could call it a silly play on political correctness, which in some ways it is, but because of the scope of Soviet reputation in the west and unfair common associations, I could understand many Russians feeling offended when their is no differentiation, as I have somewhat mentioned in a previous post.

In all fairness, some Allied generals and soldiers deserve far more credit than they ever received, and people like Eisenhower sat back and got all the credit instead, or the credit was pushed off on Patton when he was at least 150 kilometres away engaging different componets of Nazi forces. I could be someone who has taken notice to this, and both written my congressman, and worked with others to analyze American histories as a part of group research projects as  a young American student some years ago.

You may assume I am ignorant to these things, which you are free to do, but it does not mean I am so, just because I have not mentioned years worth of material for anyone to study in but one topic.

As to your last comment, how silly you are. LOL If your other comment was fair, which I do not think it was, this one is even more so unfair. I don't take offense but that's highly speculative.
For all you know, I may come from a family of American veterans, and correspond often with American and British historians, besides spending copious hours of research in the US Library of Congress database. You also could be highly unaware of my extensive study into Allied operations as an American, before even studying the Soviet Union. You could also be unaware of my enrollment and current pursuit of an American degree at an American college.
You could also place a wager on your incenuation of me lying, let alone about me being American, so I can provide evidence of my birth and citizenship here, where I have lived all my life, except as child for a few years, when I was in Italy because my father was in the United States military. If you don't believe me, please, by all means place your wager. =P Especially if you have excellent historical items you are looking to get rid of.

And perhaps we should be objective in our arguemnts like gentlemen, and not make personal accusations? I would be most appreciative. You are obviously highly intelligent and perhaps I could learn from you, so I am sure we can correspond with each other in better ways than this.



Back to Top
TheRedBaron View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 15 May 2007
Location: British Eire
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheRedBaron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2009 at 11:14
Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

 
Of course the land war in the east was massive in scale, but so was the war in the west which also encompassed the Battle of the North Atlantic-which was crucial to the steady supply of material to Britain AND the Soviet Union- and the North Africa campaign which ultimately saw the capture of roughly the same of amount of German force as at Stalingrad in Tunisia.
 
I think you have a fairly limited understanding of the scale of WW II and a very Russo-centric view for someone who claims to be American.
 
 
 
Total AXIS losses in Tunisia were in the region of 275,000, with 125,000 German troops taken prisoner.
 
Total AXIS losses at Stalingrad were 850,000 with a total of 400,000 German troops taken prisoner.
 
 
So no, the two losses were not of the same amount.
 
 
As for the xenophobic comment... Well that just goes to show your bigotted nature Im afraid. Sadly the USA didnt win WW2 on its own...


Edited by TheRedBaron - 01 Jul 2009 at 11:15
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 02:25
Good points by TheRedBaron and ResoundingEagle !  Thumbs Up
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 02:35
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Hello Sarmat. Western allies aside for the moment, Soviet sacrifice and contribution to war was important and significant to say the least. I've been watching the military channel lately and one show had a history of the eastern front. Before Operation Barbarossa Stalin had purged most of his experienced officer corps. Is that true?
Yes, that is true and this is one of the main reasons of the Barbarossa debacle according to some views. Though after the war had started most of the arrested offices (who were not executed) were freed from Gulag and sent to the front
 
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

After initial setbacks, Hitler's mistakes were immense. An attack on Lenningrad was delayed and most of his generals didn't want to strech east of the volga.
 
Yes, after the battle of Moscow military "genious" of furher fails him again and again. Though one has to say that the summer-autumn campaign in its initial stage was quite succesful.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Some of the key Soviet turning points:

Marshal Zhukov's leadership and the overabundance of T-34s made life hell for Manstein at Kursk.
Starting from 1942 T-34 was already the Soviet main battle tank.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Resistance at Stalingrad
Yes, this was the turning point.

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Massive Production of T-34s, Ilyushin Shturmovik, and Yak 3.
Right, and also small weapons like PPSh submachine gun.




Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 06:23
Hello to you all
 
First of all, only 90k POWs were taken in Stalingrad not 400k.
 
Second, the total number of casualties throuhout 42 was 1 million and throughout 42 there were many operations besides Stalingrad.
 
Third, Losses in Stalingrad for the Germans were about 700k and this covers the entire campaign (from July 42 to Feb 43). Most of the losses occured in 43.
 
Fourth, in the same period, the Germans and their Italian allies lost 350k men in NA. Total axis losses in NA from 1940 until May 1943 were about 900k men.
 
Fifth, percentage wise, the axis lost almost 90% of all it resources in NA and nearly 100% in the period of Stalingrad. The loss in Stalingrad was about 60%.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
TheRedBaron View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 15 May 2007
Location: British Eire
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheRedBaron Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 09:38
But thats not what was mentioned.
 
The poster said that as many men were taken prisoner in Tunisia as at Stalingrad.
 
My mistake on the German POWs at Stalingrad, it was indeed 91,000. My figure included KIA and WIA and MIA.
 
The losses in North Africa contained a large amount of Italian troops. Total Axis losses in North Africa were 950,000. Of this total, German losses were 12,808 killed, an unknown number wounded and 101,784 captured (note the captured figure is only for Tunisia and does not include around 15,000 previous German POWs).
 
Now if we take the total killed in North Africa, 12,808, and compare it to the KIA for just Sixth Army during the Stalingrad/Operation Blau was around 130,000 KIA.
 
Nuff said methinks.
 
 
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 09:54
Total axis dead from July 42 to May 43 in NA was 63000 most were german.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 19:20
Originally posted by Sarmat Sarmat wrote:

 
Either way you are joking or you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't compare the scales of the land war in the West [before June 6, 1944] to what was happening in the Eastern front.
 
And nobody really doubts that inlcuding American scholars.
 
It was a multi-dimensional war that in it's own way was just as epic as what was going on in the east.  
 
Quote It's very unfortunate and to my regret, but I see that it's you who have "a fairly limited understanding of the scale of WW II" and also a  quite "russophobic view" as well.
 
I don't have a problem with Russia, I just think Americans that feel as strongly about the Rodina as resoundingeagle tend to be Russian.LOL
 
Quote Giving some credit to the Eastern Front is not "Russo-centric" at all. Just the facts are that the whole war for the IIId Reich was "Russo-centric" and all the other theaters had the 2nd rate importance at best.
 
It is when it's done by removing credit from other nations.
 
The war in the east didn't even start until June 1941, until that time the Soviets were solidly on the side of Hitler.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Jul 2009 at 21:44

I gave the quote below from the American military historian who doesn't seem to have any Russian blood, and who said that "Nazis suffered 80% of their casualties on the Eastern Front."

I don't think that this actually has to do with any ethnic affinity; it's just the statistics.

And why do you stress all the time that "the Soviet were solidly on the side of Hitler."  The Soviets were not solidly on the side of Hitler. Both Stalin and Hitler viewed "Non-aggression pact" as buying of time before the inevitable clash. It's also known that Hitler always viewed USSR for many reasons (Communism, Slavic population, "Jewish control") etc. as his main and the only one real enemy.

Why do you also neglect the events before WWII that let to the USSR-Germany pact. Why do you neglect Munich, the reluctancy of the West to conclude an anti-Nazi arrangement with the Soviets? Why do you neglect the fact that England and France  bogged down Czech-Soviet military anti-Nazi cooperation? Why do you neglect the fact that Poland openly supported Hitlers aggression against the Czech republic that added to Stalin's fear of a massive Western coalition against the USSR?
 
Why do you neglect all that? Why do you put all the blame on the Soviet side?  Stalin was a bloody criminal of course, who should be regarded as an international terrorist and a torturer of whole nations.
 
But it would be too hypocratical to put all the blame on him only, while claiming that all the other players in that drama where good and innocent and only Stalin was such a villain.
 
The responsibility for the causes that let to WWII and enernous sufferings of millions of people (most of whom were nationals of the USSR BTW) should be failry distributed not only between the Mr. Chairman-Butcher Stalin and his team but also between the hypocratical and cynical Western governments and politicians.
Σαρμάτ

Back to Top
Knights View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4089
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Knights Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2009 at 00:34
Hi everyone - some good discussion taking place here. Just thought I'd remind everyone to be wary about posting personal remarks, particularly in regards to insulting other members' knowledge and making assumptions about their convictions.

Many thanks, and please continue discussing Smile

- Knights -
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2009 at 02:29
Originally posted by Knights Knights wrote:

Hi everyone - some good discussion taking place here. Just thought I'd remind everyone to be wary about posting personal remarks, particularly in regards to insulting other members' knowledge and making assumptions about their convictions.

Many thanks, and please continue discussing Smile

- Knights -


 Clap
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Location: Alberta, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1980
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2009 at 18:48
Back to the topic at hand which is D-Day and not an endless rehashing of who did more of what in WW II.
 
Of course D-Day was neccessary.
 
The whole war in the west was a progression towards a second front in Europe and was supported and even demanded by Stalin since 1942. It took the Allies in the west until 1944 to build up the ground, air and naval forces to make a cross channel landing possible and while that was going on significant Axis forces were being tied down and eliminated in the Mediterranian, North Atlantic and in the air over Europe. The fortunes of all the allies were advancing as the war progressed, not just the Soviets.
 
Without the 2nd rate fronts as Sarmat so eloquently puts it, the Red Army would have been deprived of most of it wheeled transports that allowed it to out-maneuver the still mostly horse-drawn Wehrmacth in 1944-45. Most of the communications gear to coordinate the massive Soviet armies wouldn't have been present or much of the rolling stock that allowed deployment and resupply of the Soviet ground and air forces or the millions of tires which the Soviet forces ran on. It also would have faced significantly larger German forces throughout the war that possibly could have resulted in a stalemate or even defeat in the east.
 
While the bulk of German land forces were destroyed in the east, the Normandy landing ensured that Hitler did not have a significant strategic reserve for deployment in the east in the summer of 1944. One of the reasons the Soviets offensives did so well is there were no German armies available to plug the holes in the front which grew to massive proportions. 
 


Edited by DukeC - 03 Jul 2009 at 18:54
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 11>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.086 seconds.