OT: Great Patriotic War - the main front of World War II
.sergio.
13:31 | 08/ 05/ 2008
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The
approaching Victory Day always evokes disputes about the bloodiest war
in human history. One of the main issues is the sides' relative
contribution to victory, primarily, in the European theatre, which all
parties have acknowledged as the main battle ground of WWII.
These disputes are fierce because they are politicized - relations
between the Allies deteriorated soon after the war, which explains
their different views on its events. As a result, almost four years of
fighting on the Soviet-German front, or the Great Patriotic War - from
June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945 - have been assessed very differently.
Soviet experts certainly viewed this front as the most important of
all, but their Western colleagues regarded it as simply an important
one.
These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
But let's leave emotions aside, and analyze the importance of the
Soviet-German front without bias, using figures and the opinions of
the Allies' leaders.
First of all, we should emphasize the enormous scale of fighting on
this front. For quite some time, it was not comparable to other
battlefields. In the Second Battle of El Alamein (October 23 -
November 4, 1942), which Western experts consider as important as the
Battle of Stalingrad, a 220,000-strong Allied force was confronted by
116,000 Axis troops. The losses of the former and the latter were
13,600 and 38,000 respectively.
When the Soviet forces launched a counteroffensive on Stalingrad on
November 19, 1942, it had three fronts with more than 1.1 million
troops. The Axis troops were of almost a similar strength - the German
Army Group B, comprising two German, two Romanian, one Italian and one
Hungarian armies, had 1,011,000 officers and men. Soviet losses in the
counteroffensive were almost 486,000, including more than 150,000
dead. All in all, during the Battle of Stalingrad from the summer of
1942 to February 2, 1943, about 750,000 of Soviet troops were killed,
wounded, or missing. The Axis powers, which sustained an unprecedented
defeat, lost more than 850,000. More than 110,000 of them were taken
prisoner.
Another enormous battle unfolded on the Soviet-German front the
following summer - the Battle of the Kursk Bulge. Hoping to break
Soviet defenses and return the strategic initiative, the German army
started Operation Citadel, involving more than 800,000 people. The
number of Soviet troops reached 1.3 million. The aggregate Soviet
losses during the battle's defensive and offensive stages reached
600,000, including 180,000 killed in action. Germans lost about half a
million officers and men.
The Allied landing on Sicily, conducted at the same time, involved
about 160,000 people, while the confronting Axis troops had 300,000
Italian and about 40,000 German officers and men. All in all, more
than 24,000 Allied men were killed, wounded, or missing while 29,000
Axis troops were killed or wounded, and more than 140,000 were taken
prisoner - the Italian army began to surrender en masse.
The ratio of the scale of battles was the same after the Allied
landing in Normandy in the summer of 1944. The Allies had about
200,000 officers and men in Operation Cobra in July; the strength of
the confronting German troops was about the same.
In the meantime, the Soviet Union launched Operation Bagration, a
strategic offensive in Belarus with more than 2.3 million officers and
men against a 800,000-strong German force. Total Soviet losses in this
operation were 765,000 officers and men, including 178,000 dead. Total
German losses were more than 400,000, including about 300,000 dead.
The importance of a theatre of military operations is determined not
only by the strength of the troops involved and sustained losses, but
also by its impact on the course of the entire war. There is no doubt
that the Soviet-German front was the main theatre of WWII - it
involved from 60% to 80% of Germany's ground forces, half of its air
force, and at least a third of its navy. Allied leaders repeatedly
confirmed this fact themselves. These two excerpts from the
correspondence between the Soviet and Allied leaders need no comment.
"Received on February 23, 1943
F. ROOSEVELT TO J.V. STALIN
On behalf of the people of the United States I want to express to the
Red Army on its twenty fifth anniversary our profound admiration for
its magnificent achievements unsurpassed in all history. For many
months in spite of many tremendous losses in supplies, transportation
and territory, the Red Army denied victory to a most powerful enemy.
It checked him at Stalingrad, at Moscow, at Voronezh, in the Caucasus,
and finally at the immortal battle of Stalingrad the Red Army not only
defeated the enemy but launched the great offensive, which is still
moving forward along the whole front from the Baltic to the Black
Sea... Such achievements can only be accomplished by an army that has
skilful leadership, sound organization, adequate training and above
all determination to defeat the enemy no matter what the cost in self-
sacrifice. At the same time I also wish to pay tribute to the Russian
people from whom the Red Army springs and upon whom it is dependent
for its men, women and supplies. They, too, are giving their full
efforts to the war and are making the supreme sacrifice. The Red Army
and the Russian people have surely started the Hitler forces on the
road to ultimate defeat and have earned the lasting admiration of the
people of the United States."
"Received on February 23, 1945
PERSONAL MESSAGE FOR MARSHAL STALIN FROM MR. CHURCHILL
The Red Army celebrates its twenty-seventh anniversary amid triumphs
which have won the unstinted applause of their allies and have sealed
the doom of German militarism. Future generations will acknowledge
their debt to the Red Army as unreservedly as do we who have lived to
witness these proud achievements. I ask you, the great leader of a
great army, to salute them from me today, on the threshold of the
final victory."
Excerpts are quoted from the correspondence between the Chairman of
the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the Presidents of the U.S.A.
and Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of
1941-1945, Moscow, Foreign Language Publishing House, 1957,volume one
pgs. 305-306, volume two pgs. 57-58.
James D Burns
news:bdc99286-27a3-427e...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> One of the main issues is the sides' relative
> contribution to victory, primarily, in the European theatre, which all
> parties have acknowledged as the main battle ground of WWII.
>
>
I disagree, perhaps 50 years ago at the height of the Cold War there would
have been a public dispute due to political reasons, but today most scholars
and historians agree that the Soviet sacrifice during the war was the
greatest in terms of human costs. But the Western allies paid the highest
price in terms of national treasure (the top tax bracket in the US during
the war exceeded 90%), and without them paying that cost, the Soviets would
have surely collapsed. So in the end it was a combined effort and both sides
paid a high price, but there is no doubt, the Soviets lost the most people.
That said, I feel history (at least western histories) has done the Soviets
an injustice by tacitly overlooking their sacrifices because of the politics
of the Cold War. History is starting to correct the record, but at this
point in time most people in the world today could care less about WWII
anymore, so it's up the the scholars and historians to take the time to get
things right.
> These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
> cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
> occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
> categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
> losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
> tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
>
I'm not sure what to say about this, since the Soviet Union was just as
cruel and inhuman as the Nazi regime. One example would be the POW's from
Stalingrad, over 90,000 went into captivity, yet only about 5,000 were ever
seen again. I find it hard to morally sympathize with a nation over the
atrocities committed against their citizens when they committed equally
appalling atrocities against their opponents citizens. Of course the
majority of the Soviet people weren't the culprits, it was the evil Stalin
regime, so I do sympathize with the suffering of the Russian people. But in
the end it was their government and they did nothing to change it, so they
do bear some of the responsibility for what happened to the Germans under
Soviet control.
>
> The importance of a theatre of military operations is determined not
> only by the strength of the troops involved and sustained losses, but
> also by its impact on the course of the entire war. There is no doubt
> that the Soviet-German front was the main theatre of WWII - it
> involved from 60% to 80% of Germany's ground forces, half of its air
> force, and at least a third of its navy. Allied leaders repeatedly
> confirmed this fact themselves. These two excerpts from the
> correspondence between the Soviet and Allied leaders need no comment.
>
Yes this is true, but it was only the main land front in the war. Without
the huge allied expenditure to field a massive airforce and naval force (and
send massive quantities of lend lease material to the Soviets), the Soviets
would have quickly collapsed. And while the numbers of men involved on the
western front was much smaller than in the east, the western forces were far
more effective on a unit for unit basis due to the extra firepower that
backed up each unit. So the allies tied down a significant portion of the
German army in the west, which allowed the Soviets the ability to crush the
remaining Germans in the east.
Jim
Briarroot
>
> MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The
> approaching Victory Day always evokes disputes about the bloodiest war
> in human history. One of the main issues is the sides' relative
> contribution to victory, primarily, in the European theatre, which all
> parties have acknowledged as the main battle ground of WWII.
>
Nope. The battles in Europe did nothing to force the Japanese Empire to
surrender. The European Theater was not the whole war and the Eastern
Front was not the whole of the war in Europe.
> These disputes are fierce because they are politicized - relations
> between the Allies deteriorated soon after the war, which explains
> their different views on its events. As a result, almost four years of
> fighting on the Soviet-German front, or the Great Patriotic War - from
> June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945 - have been assessed very differently.
> Soviet experts certainly viewed this front as the most important of
> all, but their Western colleagues regarded it as simply an important
> one.
>
Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
> These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
> cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
> occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
> categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
> losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
> tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
>
Ah, so that explains the Red Army's policy of rape, pillage and murder
as they drove into German territory. Too bad it doesn't also explain
Stalin's policy of murdering his *own* citizens, before during and after
the war.
> But let's leave emotions aside, and analyze the importance of the
> Soviet-German front without bias, using figures and the opinions of
> the Allies' leaders.
>
Always a wise move - if you can handle it.
> First of all, we should emphasize the enormous scale of fighting on
> this front. For quite some time, it was not comparable to other
> battlefields. In the Second Battle of El Alamein (October 23 -
> November 4, 1942), which Western experts consider as important as the
> Battle of Stalingrad, a 220,000-strong Allied force was confronted by
> 116,000 Axis troops. The losses of the former and the latter were
> 13,600 and 38,000 respectively.
>
> When the Soviet forces launched a counteroffensive on Stalingrad on
> November 19, 1942, it had three fronts with more than 1.1 million
> troops. The Axis troops were of almost a similar strength - the German
> Army Group B, comprising two German, two Romanian, one Italian and one
> Hungarian armies, had 1,011,000 officers and men. Soviet losses in the
> counteroffensive were almost 486,000, including more than 150,000
> dead. All in all, during the Battle of Stalingrad from the summer of
> 1942 to February 2, 1943, about 750,000 of Soviet troops were killed,
> wounded, or missing. The Axis powers, which sustained an unprecedented
> defeat, lost more than 850,000. More than 110,000 of them were taken
> prisoner.
>
Yes, and about 250,000 Axis troops surrendered to the Anglo-Americans in
Tunisia in 1943. So what?
Among the many things which folks like you tend to overlook is the
enormous effort the Germans made in fighting the Anglo-American allies
in the west that *isn't* measured in terms of troop strength. Vast
amounts of resources, money and industrial man hours were spent in
mounting a colossal U-boat war - which failed. A similar effort was
undertaken in a vain attempt to stop the Anglo-American strategic
bombing campaign. The battle against daylight bombing shattered the
Luftwaffe and the combined results of the campaign destroyed a third of
German industrial output and created a tremendous burden on everything
else needed for the German war effort. Indeed, it has often been
speculated, that had the British and the Germans settled on a cease fire
agreement after the fall of France, thus avoiding bringing the US into
the war against Germany, Hitler might very well have been successful in
his attack on the Soviet Union. Any account that focuses solely on
numbers of troops deployed on each front fails to tell the whole story.
Yes, the Russians fought a series of very large battles against their
erstwhile ally, Hitler; and they managed to win eventually, though so
clumsily in terms of casualties that their victory nearly destroyed
them. So what?
--
"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective conscience
does
violence to the individual and is the first step toward
totalitarianism." - Herman Hesse
.sergio.
> ..sergio. wrote:
> >
> > MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The
> > approaching Victory Day always evokes disputes about the bloodiest war
> > in human history. One of the main issues is the sides' relative
> > contribution to victory, primarily, in the European theatre, which all
> > parties have acknowledged as the main battle ground of WWII.
> >
> Nope. The battles in Europe did nothing to force the Japanese Empire to
> surrender. The European Theater was not the whole war and the Eastern
> Front was not the whole of the war in Europe.
the Eastern Front was the main front in Europe.
> > These disputes are fierce because they are politicized - relations
> > between the Allies deteriorated soon after the war, which explains
> > their different views on its events. As a result, almost four years of
> > fighting on the Soviet-German front, or the Great Patriotic War - from
> > June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945 - have been assessed very differently.
> > Soviet experts certainly viewed this front as the most important of
> > all, but their Western colleagues regarded it as simply an important
> > one.
> >
> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
> > These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
> > cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
> > occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
> > categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
> > losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
> > tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
> >
> Ah, so that explains the Red Army's policy of rape, pillage and murder
> as they drove into German territory.
"policy"? could you show me Red Army's documents or orders to rape,
pillage and so on? you are a bit confused. Or simply in bad faith.
cut of the remaining bullshit you wrote.
--
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito
http://www.newsland.it/news segnala gli abusi ad ab...@newsland.it
.sergio.
> Yes this is true, but it was only the main land front in the war. Without
> the huge allied expenditure to field a massive airforce and naval force (and
> send massive quantities of lend lease material to the Soviets)
ROTFL!
> the Soviets
> would have quickly collapsed.
bullshit. Read Glantz.
And while the numbers of men involved on the
> western front was much smaller than in the east, the western forces were far
> more effective on a unit for unit basis due to the extra firepower that
> backed up each unit. So the allies tied down a significant portion of the
> German army in the west, which allowed the Soviets the ability to crush the
> remaining Germans in the east.
again : bullshit.
Jan Szkudliński
>> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
>> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
>> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
>
> and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
>
There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
Jan Szkudlinski
Giftzwerg
says...
> > Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
> > Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
> > and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
>
> and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
Britain? France?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The basic rule of press coverage [of Iraq] is that if there's fighting,
we must be losing."
- Glenn Reynolds
Giftzwerg
says...
> >And while the numbers of men involved on the
> > western front was much smaller than in the east, the western forces were far
> > more effective on a unit for unit basis due to the extra firepower that
> > backed up each unit. So the allies tied down a significant portion of the
> > German army in the west, which allowed the Soviets the ability to crush the
> > remaining Germans in the east.
>
> again : bullshit.
Pedro Dumbhead makes his biannual visit.
.sergio.
> In article <g08usc$vt...@news.newsland.it>, senzanome2...@yahoo.it
> says...
>
> > >And while the numbers of men involved on the
> > > western front was much smaller than in the east, the western forces were far
> > > more effective on a unit for unit basis due to the extra firepower that
> > > backed up each unit. So the allies tied down a significant portion of the
> > > German army in the west, which allowed the Soviets the ability to crush the
> > > remaining Germans in the east.
>
> > again : bullshit.
>
> Pedro
hello coward, are you still here?
.sergio.
> .sergio. pisze:
>
> >> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
> >> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
> >> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
>
> > and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
>
> There is a famous anecdote
it's easy to forget who helped Hitler before 1939 for you too, right?
Giftzwerg
Huh? I think you're losing something in the translation.
Briarroot
> Briarroot ha scritto:
>
>> ..sergio. wrote:
>>> MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The
>>> approaching Victory Day always evokes disputes about the bloodiest war
>>> in human history. One of the main issues is the sides' relative
>>> contribution to victory, primarily, in the European theatre, which all
>>> parties have acknowledged as the main battle ground of WWII.
>>>
>
>> Nope. The battles in Europe did nothing to force the Japanese Empire to
>> surrender. The European Theater was not the whole war and the Eastern
>> Front was not the whole of the war in Europe.
>
> the Eastern Front was the main front in Europe.
>
And as I said, the European Theater was not the whole of World War 2.
>>> These disputes are fierce because they are politicized - relations
>>> between the Allies deteriorated soon after the war, which explains
>>> their different views on its events. As a result, almost four years of
>>> fighting on the Soviet-German front, or the Great Patriotic War - from
>>> June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945 - have been assessed very differently.
>>> Soviet experts certainly viewed this front as the most important of
>>> all, but their Western colleagues regarded it as simply an important
>>> one.
>>>
>
>> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
>> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
>> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
>
> and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
>
The same people who created Czechoslovakia gave Hitler the Sudetenland
which never should have been part of Czechoslovakia in the first place.
After that, Hitler took the rest of the country without anyone's
permission, and I can't recall the Soviet Union making any protest.
They were too busy trying vainly to conquer the Finns.
>>> These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
>>> cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
>>> occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
>>> categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
>>> losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
>>> tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
>>>
>
>> Ah, so that explains the Red Army's policy of rape, pillage and murder
>> as they drove into German territory.
>
> "policy"? could you show me Red Army's documents or orders to rape,
> pillage and so on? you are a bit confused. Or simply in bad faith.
>
Can you show me any figures on how many Red Army soldiers were
prosecuted for any of those things, or are you trying to say nothing of
the sort ever took place? There are *volumes* of US and British records
detailing how many of their own soldiers were held accountable for such
things. You see, those things were *crimes* under Anglo-American
policy which was in stark contrast to Soviet policy.
> cut of the remaining bullshit you wrote.
>
Translation: Briar's points on the contribution of the Anglo-Americans
toward victory in Europe are indisputable.
--
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to
their own interest." - Adam Smith
Briarroot
>
> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
>
Hmm, let's see... Stalin's first 5 year plan for the collectivization of
agriculture resulted in 5 million deaths from starvation. Stalin's
desire to remain a dictator resulted in millions more deaths. How many
more? The figures are in the *tens* of millions. He did all that in
little more than 30 years. Good job, Comrade!
A couple of thousand lynchings over the course of a century, all of
which were *illegal* in the USA, are trotted out as a valid comparison!
<mega-boggle>
Jan Szkudlin'ski
> In article <g0950h$q5q$1...@news2.ipartners.pl>, rhe...@go2.pl says...
>
>>>> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
>>>> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
>>>> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
>>> and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
>>>
>> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
>> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
>> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
>
> Huh? I think you're losing something in the translation.
>
For some time I have been looking for a good translation of this joke,
and only thing I found was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan:And_you_are_lynching_negroes
We all had a good laugh at it before 1989.
Regards,
Jan Szkudlinski
Jan Szkudliński
No. I do not forget. However, taking a few square kilometers of
disputable land has nothing to do with the massive material help and
brutal invasions the Soviet Union performed in 1939-1941.
Jan Szkudlinski
.sergio.
because you're ignorant. Soviet Union was ready to help
Czechoslovakia.
> They were too busy trying vainly to conquer the Finns.
ROTFL! in 1938? come on...
>
> >>> These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
> >>> cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
> >>> occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
> >>> categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
> >>> losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
> >>> tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
>
> >> Ah, so that explains the Red Army's policy of rape, pillage and murder
> >> as they drove into German territory.
>
> > "policy"? could you show me Red Army's documents or orders to rape,
> > pillage and so on? you are a bit confused. Or simply in bad faith.
>
> Can you show me any figures on how many Red Army soldiers were
> prosecuted for any of those things,
before you add some other bullshit about Red Army soldiers read what
your German "heroes" did only in Bielorussia.
from http://www.armchairgeneral.com/ .
-------------------------------------------------
the ENGLISH version of the Soviet book of “Out of the Fire” (“Ia iz
ognennoi derevni”) by Ales Adamovich. (“I am from a village in flame”
if to use word-to-word translation but it was translated “Out of the
Fire” for some reasons – Rem. of Andrey)
Download and read it FREE.
Ales Adamovich is a very famous Byelorussian writer. He wrote books
about the time of German occupation of Byelorussia in 1941-44.
The famous in the West Soviet movie “Come and See” is based on one of
Ales Adamovich’s books.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16950&d=1167893990
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16951&d=1167894490
Sergio
Jan Szkudlin'ski
> Jan Szkudlin'ski wrote:
>>
>> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
>> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
>> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
>>
>
> Hmm, let's see... Stalin's first 5 year plan for the collectivization of
> agriculture resulted in 5 million deaths from starvation. Stalin's
> desire to remain a dictator resulted in millions more deaths. How many
> more? The figures are in the *tens* of millions. He did all that in
> little more than 30 years. Good job, Comrade!
>
> A couple of thousand lynchings over the course of a century, all of
> which were *illegal* in the USA, are trotted out as a valid comparison!
> <mega-boggle>
I believe you didn't catch the joke ;)
Regards,
JSz
.sergio.
> ..sergio. wrote:
> > Briarroot ha scritto:
> >> Ah, so that explains the Red Army's policy of rape, pillage and murder
> >> as they drove into German territory.
> >
> > "policy"? could you show me Red Army's documents or orders to rape,
> > pillage and so on? you are a bit confused. Or simply in bad faith.
> >
> Can you show me any figures on how many Red Army soldiers were
> prosecuted for any of those things,
so no orders to rape, to pillage from Red Army, right?
>or are you trying to say nothing of
> the sort ever took place? There are *volumes* of US and British records
> detailing how many of their own soldiers were held accountable for such
> things. You see, those things were *crimes* under Anglo-American
> policy which was in stark contrast to Soviet policy.
You're ignorant. Read Erickson "The road to Berlin" and you'll see that
also for Soviets those things were crimes.
--
visitate http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
.sergio.
> ..sergio. pisze:
> > On 12 Mag, 12:09, Jan Szkudliński <rhe...@go2.pl> wrote:
> >> .sergio. pisze:
> >>
> >>>> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
> >>>> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
> >>>> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
> >>> and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
> >> There is a famous anecdote
> >
> > it's easy to forget who helped Hitler before 1939 for you too, right?
> No. I do not forget.
good.
>However, taking a few square kilometers of
> disputable land has nothing
Oh well, plase like Renania, Austria, Czechoslovakia were few square
kilometres? ROTFL!
Giftzwerg
> >> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
> >> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
> >> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
> >
> > Huh? I think you're losing something in the translation.
> >
>
> For some time I have been looking for a good translation of this joke,
> and only thing I found was:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan:And_you_are_lynching_negroes
>
> We all had a good laugh at it before 1989.
I guess my question is, "Why is it funny?"
Giftzwerg
I don't think anyone is catching it.
Jan Szkudlin'ski
> Oh well, plase like Renania, Austria, Czechoslovakia were few square
> kilometres? ROTFL!
Actually I was referring to Teschen area. Yet still it has nothing to do
with Stalin's gargantuan crimes before or after September 1939.
Jan Szkudlinski
.sergio.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan:And_you_are_lynching_negroes
did you had a good laugh (of course before 1989) also for extermination of
Jews there in Poland?
Jan Szkudlin'ski
> In article <g09gcp$10ai$1...@news2.ipartners.pl>, rhe...@go2.pl says...
>
>>>> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
>>>> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
>>>> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
>>> Huh? I think you're losing something in the translation.
>>>
>> For some time I have been looking for a good translation of this joke,
>> and only thing I found was:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan:And_you_are_lynching_negroes
>>
>> We all had a good laugh at it before 1989.
>
> I guess my question is, "Why is it funny?"
>
Some things are simply impossible to translate, sadly. Perhaps if you
had ever lived in a communist country, heard some of the evening "news",
especially when they were talking about the West, you would have understood.
Regards,
Jan Szkudlinski
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <g09gcp$10ai$1...@news2.ipartners.pl>, rhe...@go2.pl says...
>
>> >> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
>> >> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
>> >> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
>> >
>> > Huh? I think you're losing something in the translation.
>> >
>>
>> For some time I have been looking for a good translation of this joke,
>> and only thing I found was:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan:And_you_are_lynching_negroes
>>
>> We all had a good laugh at it before 1989.
>
>I guess my question is, "Why is it funny?"
You had to be there, I got a smile out of it.
One of my favorites was talking to a lady who was the professional
shopper for a plant in East Germany where I spent a good bit of time.
Her 'job' was to stand in line during the day and buy groceries and
other items for the plant workers. One day she came in all excited
because she'd bought 30 toilet seats. When asked why she'd bought
them, her answer was 'because they were for sale'. Unless you
understand how the system worked, you won't see the humor (or logic)
behind that remark but I found it hilarious, as well as a damning
indictment of the system.
Rgds, Frank
Luca Morandini
>
> Pedro Dumbhead makes his biannual visit.
Dumbhead ? The consensus on Italian NGs has it that .sergio., far from
being a dumbhead, owns a rather complex personality.
Actually, .Sergio. seems to be a Nazi-Communist: faking membership of an
Italian Communist party (yes, there are many to choose from) while
having contacts with Nazi circles... perplexing, to say the least.
To sum it up: don't feed this red-brown troll.
Regards,
--------------------
Luca Morandini
www.lucamorandini.it
--------------------
.sergio.
>
> Actually, .Sergio. seems to be a Nazi-Communist: faking membership of an
> Italian Communist party (yes, there are many to choose from) while
> having contacts with Nazi circles...
something that you can prove, right scoundrel?
Luca Morandini
Actually, you were the one claiming the membership, not me.
As a general rule, I avoid talking to you on non-moderated NGs...
therefore, if you don't mind: PLONK !
.sergio.
> .sergio. wrote:
> > On 12 Mag, 17:23, Luca Morandini <lmorand...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> Actually, .Sergio. seems to be a Nazi-Communist: faking membership of an
> >> Italian Communist party (yes, there are many to choose from) while
> >> having contacts with Nazi circles...
>
> > something that you can prove, right scoundrel?
>
> Actually, you were the one claiming the membership, not me.
who else then? you or your mother must claim my membership, scoundrel?
Big Salad
> In article <g09gvf$10l0$3...@news2.ipartners.pl>, rhe...@go2.pl says...
>>>> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely
>>>> when a US listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the
>>>> life in Soviet Union is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and
>>>> you are lynching negroes".
>>>>
>>> Hmm, let's see... Stalin's first 5 year plan for the
>>> collectivization of agriculture resulted in 5 million deaths from
>>> starvation. Stalin's desire to remain a dictator resulted in
>>> millions more deaths. How many more? The figures are in the
>>> *tens* of millions. He did all that in little more than 30
>>> years. Good job, Comrade!
>>>
>>> A couple of thousand lynchings over the course of a century, all
>>> of which were *illegal* in the USA, are trotted out as a valid
>>> comparison! <mega-boggle>
>> I believe you didn't catch the joke ;)
>
> I don't think anyone is catching it.
>
Let me take a stab at this.
The JOKE is that the apparatus of the Soviet state considered it a valid
response to any criticism, no matter how great, to be something like
"Well, in America they lynch negroes."
It is the fact that it is so, as you say, mega-boggling-ly obvious to
anyone in occupied territory that this is nonsense, and yet the
ministers of propaganda could not see their fault in the logic, that
makes versions of this "argument" the punchline for a joke.
It can be difficult to laugh at cultural-specific humor from a foreign
culture - but it seems fairly easy to at least grasp the structure of
this one.
Giftzwerg
says...
> >> again : bullshit.
> >
> > Pedro Dumbhead makes his biannual visit.
>
> Dumbhead ? The consensus on Italian NGs has it that .sergio., far from
> being a dumbhead, owns a rather complex personality.
I don't have time for an in-depth psychological analysis. I just re-
plonk the little prick whenever he pops up; he's another weak little
nym-shifter.
> Actually, .Sergio. seems to be a Nazi-Communist: faking membership of an
> Italian Communist party (yes, there are many to choose from) while
> having contacts with Nazi circles... perplexing, to say the least.
A volative political mixture, Nazis and Commies being kinda the matter /
antimatter of the political world.
> To sum it up: don't feed this red-brown troll.
What you said.
Giftzwerg
> Some things are simply impossible to translate, sadly. Perhaps if you
> had ever lived in a communist country, heard some of the evening "news",
> especially when they were talking about the West, you would have understood.
My favorite:
What's 200 meters long and eats beets? The line at a Moscow butcher.
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> You had to be there, I got a smile out of it.
>
> One of my favorites was talking to a lady who was the professional
> shopper for a plant in East Germany where I spent a good bit of time.
> Her 'job' was to stand in line during the day and buy groceries and
> other items for the plant workers. One day she came in all excited
> because she'd bought 30 toilet seats. When asked why she'd bought
> them, her answer was 'because they were for sale'. Unless you
> understand how the system worked, you won't see the humor (or logic)
> behind that remark but I found it hilarious, as well as a damning
> indictment of the system.
Another favorite:
Three defendants face their judge in a People's Court. The judge asks
the first, "Why are you before me?"
The first defendant replies: "I was arrested for beating that old Jew,
Lev Zaslavsky."
The judge asks the second defendant the same question, and he replies,
"I was arrested for fighting; I was defending that old Jew, Lev
Zaslavsky."
The judge looks at the third defendant. "Why are you before the bar?"
"I'm Lev Zaslavsky."
.sergio.
> I don't have time for an in-depth psychological analysis. I just re-
> plonk the little prick whenever he pops up;
so said the Big Prick Giftzwerg that believes to the bullshit that a
scoundrel like Morandini wrote without any evidence ...
Giftzwerg
big....@hotmail.com says...
Another favorite of mine:
A man rushes in to the local division of the KGB. Asked to state his
business, he replies, "My talking parrot is missing." The KGB sergeant
replies, "A missing *parrot*? What is that to state security! Take it
up with the local police!" The man stammers, "I know ... I just want to
be on record that I disagree profoundly and officially with that bird."
Jan Szkudliński
> Three defendants face their judge in a People's Court. The judge asks
> the first, "Why are you before me?"
>
> The first defendant replies: "I was arrested for beating that old Jew,
> Lev Zaslavsky."
>
> The judge asks the second defendant the same question, and he replies,
> "I was arrested for fighting; I was defending that old Jew, Lev
> Zaslavsky."
>
> The judge looks at the third defendant. "Why are you before the bar?"
>
> "I'm Lev Zaslavsky."
>
:)
Question to Radio Yerevan:
Q: "Is it true that the famous poet, comrade X. committed suicide?"
A: "Yes, it's true. He shot himself fourteen times in the back with a
rifle".
Or (though a bit clumsy in my translation)
Q: "What is the difference between western democracy and people's
democracy?"
A: "People's democracy assures freedom of speech. Western democracy
assures freedom after the speech."
And:
Q: "Dear Radio Yerevan, why are you saying what you are saying?"
A: "Because we like our white bread at the shores of Black Sea"
(implicit: not the other way round).
There were times, until 1956 at least, when for such jokes one could get
at least five years of labour camp. I'm dead serious now.
From later times:
Q: "Is it true that Soviet Union is sending troops to Cuba?"
A: "No, it's a lie forged by American imperialists. However, it is true
that we have been repatriating some 50 000 Kuban Cossacs". [in Polish
and (IIRC) Russian adjectives "Cuban" and "Kuban" have same spelling and
prononuciation].
Regards,
Jan Szkudlinski
Giftzwerg
> There were times, until 1956 at least, when for such jokes one could get
> at least five years of labour camp. I'm dead serious now.
Three editors at Pravda discuss how to caption a photograph of Kruschev
visiting a pig farm. One says, "Comrade Kruschev stands amid swine
reared by Soviet Heroes of Agriculture." The other argues for, "Comrade
Kruschev, flanked on both sides by prize-winning pigs.
The last suggests, "Comrade Kruschev - fourth from left."
Bloodstar
One worker in Moscow knew that there was two TV channels. One official and
one forbidden. No one was allowed to watch second TV channell.
One day this worker returned home after long, hard labour in factory and he
sit to watch TV. And something has buggering him and he decided to see just
for a few seconds what is on that second, forbidden channel as first was
very boring.
And he switched TV on second channel : and there was a guy on TV pointing
finger at him "AND WHY YOU COMRADE DON'T WATCH FIRST CHANNEL!"
;o)))))
There was some joke as well on Radio Yerevan about Volga cars, something
"why we need so much water" but maybe our Polish friend know full story...
Jan Szkudliński
> My father told me this - it is some joke on Russians...
>
> One worker in Moscow knew that there was two TV channels. One official and
> one forbidden. No one was allowed to watch second TV channell.
> One day this worker returned home after long, hard labour in factory and he
> sit to watch TV. And something has buggering him and he decided to see just
> for a few seconds what is on that second, forbidden channel as first was
> very boring.
>
> And he switched TV on second channel : and there was a guy on TV pointing
> finger at him "AND WHY YOU COMRADE DON'T WATCH FIRST CHANNEL!"
>
> ;o)))))
:)
> There was some joke as well on Radio Yerevan about Volga cars,
Q: Is it true that in Moscow on the Red Square new volgas are given?
A: It's all perfectly true, but not in Moscow, but in Leningrad, not on
Red Square, but on Nevskii Prospekt, not Volgas, but bicycles, and not
given, but stolen.
something
> "why we need so much water" but maybe our Polish friend know full story...
That one I can't remember.
Regards,
JSz
Bloodstar
> That one I can't remember.
Ah I have found it:
Question on Radio Yerevan:
Does ordinary Russian citizen can have Volga? (play with word - Volga is
a brand of cars)
Answer: He can, but why he needs so much water!
I hope that our capitalist friends will understand this.
;)
Mario
James D Burns
news:g08usc$vtp$1...@news.newsland.it...
>
>
> bullshit. Read Glantz.
>
>
Setting aside your rude and obnoxious attitude, I'll take the time to reply.
I have read Glantz and obviously you have not.
I'll just point to page 285 of his book When Titans Clashed. He's discussing
the allied lend lease program and its importance to the Soviets ability to
achieve victory.
"Lend-Lease aid did not arrive in sufficient quantities to make the
difference between defeat and victory in 1941-1942; that achievement must be
attributed solely to the soviet people and to the iron nerve of Stalin,
Zhukov, Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, and their subordinates. As the war
continued, however, the United States and Great Britain provided many of the
implements of war and strategic raw materials necessary for Soviet victory.
Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals),
the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war
effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and
railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier
stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days."
He goes on to conclude that he believes the Soviets could have defeated the
Wehrmacht without the Lend-Lease aid in another 12-18 months on their own,
but I think he is overlooked the importance of the strategic bombing
campaign. Had the allies not smashed Germany's industries, I doubt the
Soviets could have beaten Germany on their own. He also fails to recognize a
huge percentage of Soviet trucks in 1944 and beyond were lend lease trucks.
Without those trucks, the Soviet army would have bogged down and never been
able to achieve a mechanized status with any of its units. The ability to
isolate and destroy German forces is what allowed the soviets to advance so
far and so fast in 1944-1945. Without trucks to keep supplies moving to the
units, they never could have achieved any of it.
Also while Glantz is a good source on the war in the east for western
readers, he is somewhat of a sycophant when it comes to the Soviet Union.
The fact he called Stalin a man of "iron will" when in fact Stalin
practically had a nervous breakdown when Germany invaded goes to show how
over the top his admiration for the man is. Stalin was a brutal murderous
coward and the Soviet Union won the war in spite of the man not because of
him.
The Soviet Union contributed greatly to the victory against Germany, but it
was not solely responsible and could never have won without their western
allies help. The west does tend to downplay and underestimate the importance
of Soviet involvement and the fact they could never have won the war
themselves without the Soviet Union, but it was a mutual victory and all
sides deserve credit for their efforts in the war. But the cold war policies
that clouded history for so long was a two way street. The Soviets also
downplayed and ignored western achievements.
Jim
Briarroot
> Briarroot ha scritto:
>
>> Can you show me any figures on how many Red Army soldiers were
>> prosecuted for any of those things,
>
> so no orders to rape, to pillage from Red Army, right?
>
You didn't answer the question. The Red Army didn't *need* "orders" to
murder, rape and pillage, and my point is that not only did their
superiors not try to stop it, they even *encouraged* it.
>> or are you trying to say nothing of
>> the sort ever took place? There are *volumes* of US and British records
>> detailing how many of their own soldiers were held accountable for such
>> things. You see, those things were *crimes* under Anglo-American
>> policy which was in stark contrast to Soviet policy.
>
> You're ignorant. Read Erickson "The road to Berlin" and you'll see that
> also for Soviets those things were crimes.
>
I've not only read Erickson, a well-known Soviet apologist, I've read
just about everything else ever written about the war - and so has
nearly everyone in this forum, for that matter!
--
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or
the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to
their own interest." - Adam Smith
Briarroot
Good job, Jim, but I think we're wasting our time. :-/
The evidence strongly suggests that this guy is just a troll, but taking
his lead for a moment: if raw numbers of troops were the sole yardstick
we used to measure "who won the war" we'd have to conclude that the
Chinese defeated the Japanese!
Briarroot
> On 12 Mag, 15:04, Briarroot <Briarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The same people who created Czechoslovakia gave Hitler the Sudetenland
>> which never should have been part of Czechoslovakia in the first place.
>> After that, Hitler took the rest of the country without anyone's
>> permission, and I can't recall the Soviet Union making any protest.
>
> because you're ignorant. Soviet Union was ready to help
> Czechoslovakia.
>
<laughter> The Soviet Union *didn't* help Czechoslovakia, did they?
>> They were too busy trying vainly to conquer the Finns.
>
> ROTFL! in 1938? come on...
>
Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in March *1939*
Briarroot
> Briarroot pisze:
>> Jan Szkudlin'ski wrote:
>>>
>>> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a
>>> US listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet
>>> Union is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching
>>> negroes".
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, let's see... Stalin's first 5 year plan for the collectivization
>> of agriculture resulted in 5 million deaths from starvation. Stalin's
>> desire to remain a dictator resulted in millions more deaths. How
>> many more? The figures are in the *tens* of millions. He did all
>> that in little more than 30 years. Good job, Comrade!
>>
>> A couple of thousand lynchings over the course of a century, all of
>> which were *illegal* in the USA, are trotted out as a valid
>> comparison! <mega-boggle>
>
> I believe you didn't catch the joke ;)
>
Probably not! ;-)
Briarroot
Ah. Thanks! ;-)
Giftzwerg
> > There was some joke as well on Radio Yerevan about Volga cars,
>
> Q: Is it true that in Moscow on the Red Square new volgas are given?
> A: It's all perfectly true, but not in Moscow, but in Leningrad, not on
> Red Square, but on Nevskii Prospekt, not Volgas, but bicycles, and not
> given, but stolen.
What do you call a Volga on top of a hill?
A miracle!
.sergio.
> .sergio. wrote:
> > On 12 Mag, 15:04, Briarroot <Briarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The same people who created Czechoslovakia gave Hitler the Sudetenland
> >> which never should have been part of Czechoslovakia in the first place.
> >> After that, Hitler took the rest of the country without anyone's
> >> permission, and I can't recall the Soviet Union making any protest.
>
> > because you're ignorant. Soviet Union was ready to help
> > Czechoslovakia.
>
> <laughter> The Soviet Union *didn't* help Czechoslovakia, did they?
get a good history book, ignorant. Soviet Union offered help to
Czechoslovakia .
.sergio.
> He goes on to conclude that he believes the Soviets could have defeated the
> Wehrmacht without the Lend-Lease aid in another 12-18 months on their own,
> but I think he is overlooked the importance of the strategic bombing
> campaign.
because you know more than Glantz, right? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!
>
> Also while Glantz is a good source on the war in the east for western
> readers, he is somewhat of a sycophant when it comes to the Soviet Union.
sure! Glantz is also a KGB agent for genius like you, not only a
sycophant. <g>
> The Soviet Union ... could never have won without their western
> allies help.
ROTFL!
.sergio.
> .sergio. wrote:
> > Briarroot ha scritto:
>
> >> Can you show me any figures on how many Red Army soldiers were
> >> prosecuted for any of those things,
>
> > so no orders to rape, to pillage from Red Army, right?
>
> You didn't answer the question.
So you still haven't found orders to rape and so on from Red Army ,
right troll ?
> The Red Army didn't *need* "orders" to
> murder, rape and pillage, and my point is that not only did their
> superiors not try to stop it, they even *encouraged* it.
prove it, scoundrel.
> >> or are you trying to say nothing of
> >> the sort ever took place? There are *volumes* of US and British records
> >> detailing how many of their own soldiers were held accountable for such
> >> things. You see, those things were *crimes* under Anglo-American
> >> policy which was in stark contrast to Soviet policy.
>
> > You're ignorant. Read Erickson "The road to Berlin" and you'll see that
> > also for Soviets those things were crimes.
>
> I've not only read Erickson, a well-known Soviet apologist,
Erickson, a well-known Soviet apologist???? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
now I understand why you are a scoundrel..,
James D Burns
news:eYidnbof4uDpT7XV...@posted.toastnet...
>
> Good job, Jim, but I think we're wasting our time. :-/
>
Agreed, it was a total waste of my time. I tried to be civil, but it's now
obvious to me he's not looking for civil discourse.
Jim
Gregor Whiley
<senzan...@yahoo.it> wrote:
>
>These disputes are fierce because they are politicized - relations
>between the Allies deteriorated soon after the war, which explains
>their different views on its events. As a result, almost four years of
>fighting on the Soviet-German front, or the Great Patriotic War - from
>June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945 - have been assessed very differently.
>Soviet experts certainly viewed this front as the most important of
>all, but their Western colleagues regarded it as simply an important
>one.
>
>These disputes are even more emotional because of the unprecedented
>cruelty, with which the Nazi troops treated POWs and civilians on the
>occupied territories. The Nazis were consistently exterminating both
>categories, and as a result the Soviet Union sustained unprecedented
>losses. The war became a real struggle for survival, and the emotional
>tensions still remain in the nation's mentality.
>
>But let's leave emotions aside, and analyze the importance of the
>Soviet-German front without bias, using figures and the opinions of
>the Allies' leaders.
Actually, I find nothing historically inaccurate in facts quoted in
the document itself and I think that its main thesis is also accurate.
The Russian Front was the main front of Word War II and WWII was won
because the Red Army opposed and eventually defeated the main German
forces in the field and forced their surrender. The numbers speak for
themselves. There is also the fact the Western Allies themselves
explicitly acknowledged Germany as the main enemy by adopting their
Germany first strategy when the US came into the war.
What the numbers don't do, and what this Russian document certainly
doesn't do, especially in its all too deceptive preamble, is tell the
whole story, something I'll address later.
However, the Russians are right, in my opinion, to be concerned that
the general historical understanding of WWII in the west, such as it
is, misses this point entirely.
I cringe, for example, when a documentary about D-Day talks about it
as 'the turning point in the whole war' or some similar piece of
hyperbole. It was nothing of the kind. Again in my opinion,
candidates for the critical points of WWII, in decreasing order of
relevance, are as follows:
1. Hitler's crazy decision to invade Russia in the first place
2. The Battle for Moscow
3. Stalingrad
4. Hitler's almost equally crazy decision to declare war on the US
(which is of course predicated on Japan's crazy decision to attack the
US as part of its war of expansion)
5. A tie between Kursk and the Second Front.
That being said, I think that by the time we get to point 3 on the
list, we are only affecting the timing of the war, not its eventual
outcome and so they're not really turning points. For instance, in
Operation Bagration, which resulted in the destruction of Army Center,
the Russians fielded 1.7 million men, for that operation alone. In the
same month, the Allies at Normandy landed about 160,000 men (according
to Wikipedia, used because I don't have unlimited time to re-read all
my books on the subject and which will be close enough for a raw
comparison). If D-Day had never happened, do we think that this would
ultimately have made a difference to the outcome on the Russian Front?
I certainly don't.
Now if people on this newsgroup disagree about this (as seems
inevitable in my experience) then this is not a problem since a group
like this will have read many books, played wargames on the subject
and generally have a basis for an informed opinion and a general
historical knowledge that many others lack. However, if you were to
rely on the National Geographic channel in my example, since
(inexplicably) not everybody plays wargames or has extensive libraries
of history books, then you would probably get a skewed understanding
of the war.
Now lets talk about what the self declared 'unbiased' historians left
out of their little narrative in the preamble that I've quoted from
above.
It is undeniably true that the Germans behaved in a brutal and inhuman
fashion towards the inhabitants of lands they conquered in Eastern
Europe. We know this because of an overwhelming amount of eyewitness
accounts from survivors, which no doubt Soviet historians have
documented and tabulated and accept as definitively true. There is an
equivalent and equally overwhelming mass of eyewitness accounts from
survivors of the Russian's equally brutal treatment of German
civilians as the Red Army swept through Germany and this must also be
accepted as definitively true, in the same way as the German genocide
against the Jews and other 'undesirables' or 'untermensch' and
Stalin's state terror against the so called Kulaks, or the Ukranians
or a long and depressing list of victims mounting into the many
millions of people. I mention these only as examples, the list is in
no way comprehensive.
It is not surprising that little or no documentary evidence, on office
notepaper, with agenda items such as 'genocide of Jews' or 'mass
liquidation of class enemies' and signed by Hitler or Stalin exists.
We don't need it to know what happened.
Incidentally, top of any comprehensive list of reasons for massive
Russian casualties in WWII would have to be Stalin's savage pre-war
purge of the Red Army, his complete denial of reality regarding the
obvious German preparations for invasion and his grossly incompetent
handling of the war in its early years. (We still see this
incompetence in 1942 when a premature and ill-considered Russian
offensive at Kharkov goes horribly wrong, as explored in our upcoming
game 'Karkov: Disaster on the Donets').
So leaving aside the game plug, which I couldn't resist, I'd like to
see discussion, on the central thesis about the relative importance of
the various fronts, separate from the discussion, if any is really
needed, about the self serving and selective preamble.
Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au
Luca Morandini
>
> I cringe, for example, when a documentary about D-Day talks about it
> as 'the turning point in the whole war' or some similar piece of
> hyperbole. It was nothing of the kind.
Absolutely, but History Channel docus make the same claim for almost
every battle they cover, tough they mostly pander to Anglo-Saxon audiences.
> If D-Day had never happened, do we think that this would
> ultimately have made a difference to the outcome on the Russian Front?
> I certainly don't.
Well, you have to add the strategic bombing campaign and the Leand-Lease
to the picture, By doing so, it is easy to realize how wafer-thin would
have been the Soviet advantage when the German war economy went into
high gear in 1943.
Just imagine: no raw material (Al, Cu) from the LL, no trucks and
locomotives (a major number of these items were supplied by US),
thousands of 88 guns pointing at Soviet tanks and not at allied bombers
(ditto for Nazi fighters), German war production unencumbered by
bombings and railway disruptions... would have the Soviets still won ?
Glantz said they would have nevertheless... I am far less certain:
fortunately, we'll never know.
Regards,
James D Burns
news:4829075c...@news-server.nsw.bigpond.net.au...
>
> That being said, I think that by the time we get to point 3 on the
> list, we are only affecting the timing of the war, not its eventual
> outcome and so they're not really turning points.
I respectfully have to disagree. In my opinion, without allied participation
in the war and their Lend-Lease aid, Russia would have lost the war.
The 1941 Soviet Army was basically annihilated along with all/most of its
logistics support. It happened again in 1942, though to a lesser extent, and
again its logistics support network and all its equipment was lost.
Two things then happened in 1943 that allowed the Soviets to first halt the
Germans and then overcome then.
The most important event that helped save Russian during 1943 was the allied
victory in the air over Europe. Tens of thousands of German planes and
pilots were destroyed and this broke the back of the Luftwaffe for the rest
of the war. A small cadre survived, but from 1943 onwards, Germany had no
hope of securing more than localized air superiority on any of the fronts.
The next most important thing for the Russian war effort was that allied
Lend-Lease kicked into high gear. The US aid in Lend-Lease to all its allies
was going out at about the rate of 1 billion per month. By 1944 the rate had
increased to about 1.5 billion per month. By June 1944, the US had lent out
28 billion in Lend-Lease aid to its allies.
I did a quick search on the web for some numbers and I found the above
information here:
http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Lend_Lease/LendLease2.htm
Of note was this sentence:
By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under
lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers;
and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles.
Now consider the fact that in June of 1944 prior to the allied landings, the
entire OB West (all German forces in France and the Low Countries) had just
12,000 trucks available for supply transport, and look what they achieved
with just those few trucks. Now you get a little notion of the importance of
those 300,000 trucks sent the Soviet Union.
Most bean counters count the tanks, but it's the trucks and trains that win
modern wars. In John Ellis' book, WWII a Statistical Survey, he lists the
entire Soviet war production of trucks and Lorries as 197,100 (120,000 of
those were built in 44 and 45). Without the allied Lend Lease program, there
would have been no mechanized Soviet Armies to throw against the Germans.
Without that capacity, Germany could have easily outmaneuvered the less than
mobile Soviets in every large battle and Russia would have never expelled
Germany from its borders and went on to take Berlin.
The lack of effective German air cover after 43, allowed the Soviet
offensives to achieve shattering successes and the allied trucks allowed the
Soviets to keep their armies fed and on the move.
Jim
Jan Szkudlin'ski
> By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under
> lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank
> destroyers; and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles.
>
> Now consider the fact that in June of 1944 prior to the allied landings,
> the entire OB West (all German forces in France and the Low Countries)
> had just 12,000 trucks available for supply transport, and look what
> they achieved with just those few trucks. Now you get a little notion of
> the importance of those 300,000 trucks sent the Soviet Union.
>
> Most bean counters count the tanks, but it's the trucks and trains that
> win modern wars. In John Ellis' book, WWII a Statistical Survey, he
> lists the entire Soviet war production of trucks and Lorries as 197,100
> (120,000 of those were built in 44 and 45). Without the allied Lend
> Lease program, there would have been no mechanized Soviet Armies to
> throw against the Germans.
>
> Without that capacity, Germany could have easily outmaneuvered the less
> than mobile Soviets in every large battle and Russia would have never
> expelled Germany from its borders and went on to take Berlin.
Rest assured, that before 1989 the "official line" in Poland (and I
guess in other countries east of the Iron Courtain) was carefully hiding
the facts about Allied lend-lease support, concentrating on obviously
lower tactical value of Allied-supplied tanks and claiming that Allied
support ammounted to not more than 10% of Soviet output. However, as you
and others have said, the crucial thing in Allied supplies were not
tanks, guns and planes, but trucks and rail engines.
Popular anecdote claimed that when Soviet soldiers asked what the
abbreviation U.S.A. painted on the vehicles stands for, the commisars
would say "Ubiyom Sobaku Adolfa" (We'll kill that dog Adolf). An urban
legend most probably, since the alphabet is different...
Nevertheless, the importance of the Eastern Front is indeed downplayed
in the West. Take for example the movie (and probably the novel as well)
"Fatherland", where it is claimed that the survival of the Third
Reich/Germania was due to the repelling of Overlord.
Regards,
JSz
eddys...@hotmail.com
> Now you get a little notion of the importance of
> those 300,000 trucks sent the Soviet Union.
>
> Most bean counters count the tanks, but it's the trucks and trains that win
> modern wars. In John Ellis' book, WWII a Statistical Survey, he lists the
> entire Soviet war production of trucks and Lorries as 197,100 (120,000 of
> those were built in 44 and 45). Without the allied Lend Lease program, there
> would have been no mechanized Soviet Armies to throw against the Germans.
A counter-argument is that since they were getting trucks and knew
they were getting trucks the focus of Soviet production went into
other gear but that they could have diverted part of their production
to trucks if they weren't getting any LL. That would have meant less
<insert whatever> so it would have a serious impact anyway. And they
were scraping the bottom of their manpower barrel as well, so material
became more and more important.
The biggest impact however, and it was mentioned in here already, was
the fact the Allies forced the Germans to divert a lot of resources to
the Western front. And by resources I don't mean manpower alone, but
also production capacity : from flak guns and planes to protect their
core industries, to the U-boat campaigns, to the need to research &
develop "wonder weapons" to a not unsignificant number of troops in
France.
No US involvement in the war means Germany keeps an edge in the East -
enough to force the USSR to sue for peace ? Unlikely, but not
impossible.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Nevertheless, the importance of the Eastern Front is indeed downplayed
> in the West.
Not really - just more attention is given to "our" side of the war,
which is kinda natural.
>Take for example the movie (and probably the novel as well)
> "Fatherland", where it is claimed that the survival of the Third
> Reich/Germania was due to the repelling of Overlord.
uh, in Fatherland the German summer offensive of 1942 is slightly more
successfull leading to a Soviet surrender in 1943.
Then they realize Enigma has been cracked leading to a successfull U-
Boat campaign which starves the UK leading to an armistice in 1944.
The third divergence from history is that Germany has an A-Bomb in
1946.
You'll realize all 3 divergences are needed to get the Allies out of
the way for the story to unfold, but there's no "D-Day repulse" in it
IIRC.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
.sergio.
right.
> What the numbers don't do, and what this Russian document certainly
> doesn't do, especially in its all too deceptive preamble, is tell the
> whole story, something I'll address later.
> However, the Russians are right, in my opinion, to be concerned that
> the general historical understanding of WWII in the west, such as it
> is, misses this point entirely.
> I cringe, for example, when a documentary about D-Day talks about it
> as 'the turning point in the whole war' or some similar piece of
> hyperbole. It was nothing of the kind.
just to add some info.
from the intro "Ostfront - Hitler's war on Russia 41-45", Charles
Winchester, Osprey.
:
"The Russian front was the decisive theatre of World War II. [cut] For
many
German families, World War II is
synonymous with the Russian front. It was where the overwhelming majority
of
German servicemen fought, and where most of their 3.9 million dead lie
buried [cut]
It is salutary to compare the scale of operations on the Russian front
with
those in western Europe. In August 1944 38 Allied divisions fighting on a
120km front in France encircled 20 German divisions and, after 27 days'
fighting, took
about 90,000 prisoners. At the same time the Soviet forces mounted three
offensives. Along the borders of Romania, 92 Soviet divisions and 6
tank/mechanised corps attacked 47 German and Romanian divisions on a
frontage of about
700km, encircling 18 German divisions and taking 100,000 prisoners in a
week. Meanwhile 86 Soviet divisions and 10 tank/mechanised corps were
attacking into southern Poland, destroying nearly 40 German divisions in
the
process. The
third Soviet offensive, which had been underway since 22 June, involved
172
divisions and 12 tank/mechanised corps in an advance of 600km along a
1,000km front: 67 German divisions were overwhelmed in the battle, 17
never
to reappear on the German order of battle. By late 1944 91 Allied
divisions
in France. Belgium and the Netherlands, faced 65 German divisions across a
400km front. In the east, 560 Soviet divisions were fighting 235 German
divi-
sions across a 3,200km front, and driving them rapidly westwards.Thus
there
is a strong argument that the Soviet Union had already won the war by
1944,
whether the western Allies finally opened a second front or not. The human
cost of the war is difficult for Americans or western Europeans to
imagine.
To compare the scale of casualties, about 2.5 per cent of the British
population was killed or injured during World War II; American casualties
were 0.6 per cent. In the USSR, the proportion was no less than 25 per
cent.
Another statistic gives pause for thought . Twice as many soldiers were
killed on the eastern front in 1941-45 than in all the theatres of war of
1914-18 put together."
> If D-Day had never happened, do we think that this would
> ultimately have made a difference to the outcome on the Russian Front?
> I certainly don't.
Till june 1944 Soviets fought alone and managed to resist first and push
back nazi armies.
In 1944 Germans and their allies were in full retreat from Russian Front.
You could easily read about the Soviet offensives in Glantz in chapter 12
and 13 or just see maps no.14 and no.15 .
> It is undeniably true that the Germans behaved in a brutal and inhuman
> fashion towards the inhabitants of lands they conquered in Eastern
> Europe. We know this because of an overwhelming amount of eyewitness
> accounts from survivors, which no doubt Soviet historians have
> documented and tabulated and accept as definitively true.
ok
>There is an
> equivalent and equally overwhelming mass of eyewitness accounts from
> survivors of the Russian's equally brutal treatment of German
> civilians as the Red Army swept through Germany and this must also be
> accepted as definitively true, in the same way as the German genocide
> against the Jews and other 'undesirables' or 'untermensch'
here I totally disagree with you.
Unless you show me where Red Army in Europe acted like Germans in USSR or
if they treated Germans like Jews or other 'undesirables' or 'untermensch'
There is no equivalence.
Give a look to the ENGLISH version of the Soviet book of "Out of the Fire"
("Ia iz ognennoi derevni") by Ales Adamovich. ("I am from a village in
flame" if to use word-to-word translation but it was translated "Out of
the Fire" for some reasons - Rem. of Andrey)
Download and read it FREE.
Ales Adamovich is a very famous Byelorussian writer. He wrote books about
the time of German occupation of Byelorussia in 1941-44.
The famous in the West Soviet movie "Come and See" is based on one of Ales
Adamovich's books.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16950&d=1167893990
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=16951&d=1167894490
> Incidentally, top of any comprehensive list of reasons for massive
> Russian casualties in WWII would have to be Stalin's savage pre-war
> purge of the Red Army,
uh? not the brutal and criminal German treatment of POW and the deported
Soviet people from occupied territories?
Sergio
--
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito
http://www.newsland.it/news segnala gli abusi ad ab...@newsland.it
Giftzwerg
gwhile...@ssg.com.au says...
> That being said, I think that by the time we get to point 3 on the
> list, we are only affecting the timing of the war, not its eventual
> outcome and so they're not really turning points. For instance, in
> Operation Bagration, which resulted in the destruction of Army Center,
> the Russians fielded 1.7 million men, for that operation alone. In the
> same month, the Allies at Normandy landed about 160,000 men (according
> to Wikipedia, used because I don't have unlimited time to re-read all
> my books on the subject and which will be close enough for a raw
> comparison).
Just a minute though. Far be it from me to defend the aimless hyperbole
surrounding D-Day in the popular media, there are a couple of points to
be made here:
(1) Comparing numbers of men involved in operations and concluding that
one was more important than another based on that is just silly. Yes,
the ponderous, tactically inept and badly-schooled Russian Army always
needed to employ ten times the men than the western allies did. So
what?
(2) D-Day led to the liberation of the whole of western Europe and an
entire civilization. Bagration led to the "liberation" - IE, the
transfer of the totalitarian hand holding the whip - of zillions of
hectares of virtually worthless, uncultivated grassland.
Giftzwerg
says...
> > I cringe, for example, when a documentary about D-Day talks about it
> > as 'the turning point in the whole war' or some similar piece of
> > hyperbole. It was nothing of the kind.
>
> Absolutely, but History Channel docus make the same claim for almost
> every battle they cover, tough they mostly pander to Anglo-Saxon audiences.
Hyperbole is their long suit, after all. But the problem is this TV
disease; I was visiting a friend in the hospital the other day, and the
other occupant of the room was watching "Wife Swap," and the narrator
actually said - I'm not kidding - something like:
"After the break, *the revelations you will take to your grave*."
Well, I *had* to stick around for that!
> > If D-Day had never happened, do we think that this would
> > ultimately have made a difference to the outcome on the Russian Front?
> > I certainly don't.
>
> Well, you have to add the strategic bombing campaign and the Leand-Lease
> to the picture, By doing so, it is easy to realize how wafer-thin would
> have been the Soviet advantage when the German war economy went into
> high gear in 1943.
Not to mention what Germany could have achieved had it made *maximum*
use of their defender's status. If they had made the Russians pay the
full price for every inch of real estate between the Volga and the
Vistula ...
> Just imagine: no raw material (Al, Cu) from the LL, no trucks and
> locomotives (a major number of these items were supplied by US),
> thousands of 88 guns pointing at Soviet tanks and not at allied bombers
> (ditto for Nazi fighters), German war production unencumbered by
> bombings and railway disruptions... would have the Soviets still won ?
>
> Glantz said they would have nevertheless... I am far less certain:
> fortunately, we'll never know.
And there's always a lot of dubious logic surrounding these questions.
Folks "reason" along the lines of:
"Allied strategic bombing reached a peak in 1944. German production
increased throughout 1944. Thus strategic bombing was worthless."
Giftzwerg
6d5d2d...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
> > Most bean counters count the tanks, but it's the trucks and trains that win
> > modern wars. In John Ellis' book, WWII a Statistical Survey, he lists the
> > entire Soviet war production of trucks and Lorries as 197,100 (120,000 of
> > those were built in 44 and 45). Without the allied Lend Lease program, there
> > would have been no mechanized Soviet Armies to throw against the Germans.
>
> A counter-argument is that since they were getting trucks and knew
> they were getting trucks the focus of Soviet production went into
> other gear but that they could have diverted part of their production
> to trucks if they weren't getting any LL. That would have meant less
> <insert whatever> so it would have a serious impact anyway.
Yeah, but that means this line of argument is self-refuting. Production
is fungible.
> The biggest impact however, and it was mentioned in here already, was
> the fact the Allies forced the Germans to divert a lot of resources to
> the Western front. And by resources I don't mean manpower alone, but
> also production capacity : from flak guns and planes to protect their
> core industries, to the U-boat campaigns, to the need to research &
> develop "wonder weapons" to a not unsignificant number of troops in
> France.
As I see it, the Germans had three chances to knock Russia out of the
war; Barbarossa, Stalingrad, and Kursk, each in turn of diminishing
likelihood of working.
Our thought experiment is simple. Imagine each of these actions. Think
carefully about how close each one came to success.
Now imagine each action with *no threat in the west*. Imagine each of
these operations with *every last German resource* devoted to them. Can
you craft a scenario where Russia collapses? I can.
Frank E
<jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I respectfully have to disagree. In my opinion, without allied participation
>in the war and their Lend-Lease aid, Russia would have lost the war.
>
>The 1941 Soviet Army was basically annihilated along with all/most of its
>logistics support. It happened again in 1942, though to a lesser extent, and
>again its logistics support network and all its equipment was lost.
And yet they still managed to hold at Moscow and, a year later, at
Stalingrad. I think the Russian front was pretty much decided before
lend-lease really kicked in. Did it help? Certainly. DId it change the
outcome of the war? I don't think so.
>Two things then happened in 1943 that allowed the Soviets to first halt the
>Germans and then overcome then.
>
>The most important event that helped save Russian during 1943 was the allied
>victory in the air over Europe. Tens of thousands of German planes and
>pilots were destroyed and this broke the back of the Luftwaffe for the rest
>of the war. A small cadre survived, but from 1943 onwards, Germany had no
>hope of securing more than localized air superiority on any of the fronts.
Your time line is off here. The Luftwaffe trounced the USAAF over
Schweinfurt in Oct 1943, three months after Kursk. The victory in the
air war didn't happen till early '44.
>The next most important thing for the Russian war effort was that allied
>Lend-Lease kicked into high gear. The US aid in Lend-Lease to all its allies
>was going out at about the rate of 1 billion per month. By 1944 the rate had
>increased to about 1.5 billion per month. By June 1944, the US had lent out
>28 billion in Lend-Lease aid to its allies.
>
>I did a quick search on the web for some numbers and I found the above
>information here:
>http://www.historians.org/projects/giroundtable/Lend_Lease/LendLease2.htm
>
>Of note was this sentence:
>
>By the end of June 1944 the United States had sent to the Soviets under
>lend-lease more than 11,000 planes; over 6,000 tanks and tank destroyers;
>and 300,000 trucks and other military vehicles.
>
>Now consider the fact that in June of 1944 prior to the allied landings, the
>entire OB West (all German forces in France and the Low Countries) had just
>12,000 trucks available for supply transport, and look what they achieved
>with just those few trucks. Now you get a little notion of the importance of
>those 300,000 trucks sent the Soviet Union.
>
>Most bean counters count the tanks, but it's the trucks and trains that win
>modern wars. In John Ellis' book, WWII a Statistical Survey, he lists the
>entire Soviet war production of trucks and Lorries as 197,100 (120,000 of
>those were built in 44 and 45). Without the allied Lend Lease program, there
>would have been no mechanized Soviet Armies to throw against the Germans.
Or maybe the Russians would have built their own trucks if the western
allies hadn't promised to send them via lend-lease?
Rgds, Frank
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >The most important event that helped save Russian during 1943 was the allied
> >victory in the air over Europe. Tens of thousands of German planes and
> >pilots were destroyed and this broke the back of the Luftwaffe for the rest
> >of the war. A small cadre survived, but from 1943 onwards, Germany had no
> >hope of securing more than localized air superiority on any of the fronts.
>
> Your time line is off here. The Luftwaffe trounced the USAAF over
> Schweinfurt in Oct 1943, three months after Kursk. The victory in the
> air war didn't happen till early '44.
I think the point is that every German plane - and there were tons of
them - that was "trouncing" the USAAF and the RAF in the west was
singularly unavailable for service against the Russians. Whether an FW-
190 was absent from Kursk because it was (a) shot down in France in
1942, or (b) flying against the B-17s at Schweinfurt, or (c) waiting for
a pilot because he'd been killed in 1941 against the British is a moot
point, from a Russian perspective.
.sergio.
>
> the ponderous, tactically inept and badly-schooled Russian Army
rotfl!!!!!!!!
.sergio.
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 01:48:28 -0700, "James D Burns"
> <jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I respectfully have to disagree. In my opinion, without allied
participation
> >in the war and their Lend-Lease aid, Russia would have lost the war.
> >
> >The 1941 Soviet Army was basically annihilated along with all/most of its
> >logistics support. It happened again in 1942, though to a lesser extent,
and
> >again its logistics support network and all its equipment was lost.
> And yet they still managed to hold at Moscow and, a year later, at
> Stalingrad. I think the Russian front was pretty much decided before
> lend-lease really kicked in. Did it help? Certainly. DId it change the
> outcome of the war? I don't think so.
right.
Even Overy admis that L&L help didn't arrive in sufficient quantities
before the end of 1942.
So saying that Soviet Army was basically annihilated is a big big bulls*it.
> >Two things then happened in 1943 that allowed the Soviets to first halt the
> >Germans and then overcome then.
> >
> >The most important event that helped save Russian during 1943 was the
allied
> >victory in the air over Europe. Tens of thousands of German planes and
> >pilots were destroyed and this broke the back of the Luftwaffe for the rest
> >of the war. A small cadre survived, but from 1943 onwards, Germany had no
> >hope of securing more than localized air superiority on any of the fronts.
> Your time line is off here. The Luftwaffe trounced the USAAF over
> Schweinfurt in Oct 1943, three months after Kursk. The victory in the
> air war didn't happen till early '44.
Right.
I agree again with you.
Btw, do you have read one of these books?
Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden,
1940-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Russian, Soviet, &
Post-Soviet Studies. Hardback edition (xxxiv+338 pp) 1996. Awarded the
Alec Nove Prize for 1997 by the British Association for Slavonic and East
European Studies. Paperback reprint 2000.
The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945. Co-editor,
with R.W.Davies (Birmingham) and S.G. Wheatcroft (Melbourne). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. Hardback and paperback editions (xxxii+381
pp.) 1994.
The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR
in World War II. With John Barber (Cambridge). London: Longman. Hardback
and paperback editions (xiii+245 pp) 1991.
Soviet Planning in Peace and War 1938-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Hardback edition (xiv+315 pp.) 1985. Paperback reprint
2000.
regards,
Sergio
Briarroot
> [snip some sensible observations]
> So leaving aside the game plug, which I couldn't resist, I'd like to
> see discussion, on the central thesis about the relative importance of
> the various fronts, separate from the discussion, if any is really
> needed, about the self serving and selective preamble.
>
The central question, which will undoubtedly be debated for centuries to
come, is whether the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would have won the war
in Europe if the Anglo-Americans had not been involved.
In my opinion, given how close the Germans came to total victory in 1941
in spite of their own lack of preparation, and if they had not tried to
wage a massive U-boat war in the Atlantic, and if they had not been
subject to the relentless bombing campaigns of '43-45, they might have
actually been able to defeat the Russians. And if the Soviet Union had
not been able to rely on Lend Lease supples, had not benefited from
large numbers of German troops stationed in the West in anticipation of
an invasion, had not benefited from large numbers of Axis troops lost in
a pointless North African campaign, and had they not benefited from the
efforts their opponent was expending as outlined above, they might very
well have lost to the Germans. I say *might* in both cases because there
are far too many variables to ever completely resolve the question.
As far as the idea that Europe was the decisive theater in World War 2,
that is an entirely Euro-centric point of view. I'm sure the Chinese
and numerous other East Asian peoples have a much different attitude!
The US is a former European colony and our traditions and customs, our
government, major religions and entire way of life are rooted in our
European heritage. It's only natural, therefore, that we took more
notice of the threat in Europe than we did the threat in Asia. I don't
think there's any doubt that Germany was a more dangerous opponent than
Japan, but neither country had any realistic chance to invade and
conquer the United States, so our efforts were directed first to
protecting our friends (the British) and second to protecting our
interests (the Pacific).
I don't know much about the general public's knowledge of the war or the
various theaters and who contributed what to which outcome. As far as I
can see, they don't care and that's perhaps as it should be. For my
part, even as a teenager I was always aware of the tremendous
contribution to Allied victory that was made by the Soviet Union, if for
no other reason than those many movies and TV shows where German
soldiers looked upon orders to the Eastern Front as a death sentence.
Since WW2 is my primary area of interest, I have been reading
extensively about it for decades and have never had an inclination to
short-change the Russians; however that does not mean I think they won
the war single-handedly or that they didn't need any help from the
British and Americans. The furor over claims that D-Day was "the
turning point" is an example of misjudgment compounded by partisanship.
D-Day *was* a turning point, that much is clear, but it might not have
proved so important had it not been for a host of other factors.
Speculation that if the Germans had not been fighting the Soviets D-Day
would have been impossible or far more difficult falls properly within
within the bounds of historical conjecture; it's nothing to get excited
about.
--
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
misery." - Winston Churchill
eddys...@hotmail.com
> It's only natural, therefore, that we took more
> notice of the threat in Europe than we did the threat in Asia. I don't
> think there's any doubt that Germany was a more dangerous opponent than
> Japan, but neither country had any realistic chance to invade and
> conquer the United States, so our efforts were directed first to
> protecting our friends (the British) and second to protecting our
> interests (the Pacific).
I've always wondered about the US "Germany first" policy. In my eyes
it didn't make political sense.
Got a book at home which identifies the 20 most needed raw resources
for war-making, how much the Axis controlled of it, how much was in
the hands of the Allies and how much could possibly be conquered by
the Axis.
Based on that analysis Germany was objectively indeed more dangerous
than Japan, but I can't imagine politicians taking those numbers into
account.
So, what was the deciding factor for the "Germany first" policy ?
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
Bria...@gmail.com says...
> The central question, which will undoubtedly be debated for centuries to
> come, is whether the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would have won the war
> in Europe if the Anglo-Americans had not been involved.
>
> In my opinion, given how close the Germans came to total victory in 1941
> in spite of their own lack of preparation, and if they had not tried to
> wage a massive U-boat war in the Atlantic, and if they had not been
> subject to the relentless bombing campaigns of '43-45, they might have
> actually been able to defeat the Russians.
That's my reasoning, as well. In my minds eye, I see every Ju-88 and
Me-109 lost over southern England in 1940 parked on airstrips in Poland.
How many was that? 1,500 or more? Not counting France, Norway, North
Africa, the Balkans? How many more German planes over Russia with peace
in the west? I don't think Russia would have lasted past 1941 with
another whole Luftwaffe-equivalent ranged against them. They almost
lost in any event.
Giftzwerg
e3b937...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, eddys...@hotmail.com
says...
I think the biggest factor is that the Japanese really weren't
threatening anything of decisive national importance to the USA. In
other words, imagine some almost unimaginable Japanese victory; such as
they sink our whole Pacific fleet, conquer China, invade and subjugate
Australia, stab Russia in the back, start marching across India.
That's so far-fetched that it almost makes people laugh - but even the
scenario above would have been less disastrous to US war efforts than
either:
(a) Germany knocks Britain out of the war - big, huge disaster.
(b) Germany knocks Russia out of the war - titanic, terrifying
disaster.
(c) Germany knocks *both* Britain and Russia out of the war.
Thus America's best assets - Britain and Russia - were threatened by
Germany. Japan was really threatening nothing that crucial.
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <kn0pSJ0mEqAzsP...@4ax.com>,
>fakea...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> Your time line is off here. The Luftwaffe trounced the USAAF over
>> Schweinfurt in Oct 1943, three months after Kursk. The victory in the
>> air war didn't happen till early '44.
>
>I think the point is that every German plane - and there were tons of
>them - that was "trouncing" the USAAF and the RAF in the west was
>singularly unavailable for service against the Russians.
I don't disagree with that but that's not what I was replying to.
There's a difference between saying that the allied bombing was
pulling resources from the eastern front (which is undeniably true)
and stating that:
>The most important event that helped save Russian during 1943 was the allied
>victory in the air over Europe.
No matter how you look at it, there was no victory in the air war
during 1943.
Rgds, Frank
Frank E
wrote:
>Btw, do you have read one of these books?
>
>Accounting for War: Soviet Production, Employment, and the Defence Burden,
>1940-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Russian, Soviet, &
>Post-Soviet Studies. Hardback edition (xxxiv+338 pp) 1996. Awarded the
>Alec Nove Prize for 1997 by the British Association for Slavonic and East
>European Studies. Paperback reprint 2000.
>
>The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union, 1913-1945. Co-editor,
>with R.W.Davies (Birmingham) and S.G. Wheatcroft (Melbourne). Cambridge:
>Cambridge University Press. Hardback and paperback editions (xxxii+381
>pp.) 1994.
>
>The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR
>in World War II. With John Barber (Cambridge). London: Longman. Hardback
>and paperback editions (xiii+245 pp) 1991.
>
>Soviet Planning in Peace and War 1938-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge
>University Press. Hardback edition (xiv+315 pp.) 1985. Paperback reprint
>2000.
Nope, I haven't read any of those.
Rgds, Frank
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> Thus America's best assets - Britain and Russia - were threatened by
> Germany. Japan was really threatening nothing that crucial.
Could well be - but it's again a purely (military) rational decision
taken by politicians and I have a hard time getting that possibility
through my thick skull :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Frank E
wrote:
>The central question, which will undoubtedly be debated for centuries to
>come, is whether the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would have won the war
>in Europe if the Anglo-Americans had not been involved.
>
>In my opinion, given how close the Germans came to total victory in 1941
>in spite of their own lack of preparation, and if they had not tried to
>wage a massive U-boat war in the Atlantic, and if they had not been
>subject to the relentless bombing campaigns of '43-45, they might have
>actually been able to defeat the Russians. And if the Soviet Union had
>not been able to rely on Lend Lease supples, had not benefited from
>large numbers of German troops stationed in the West in anticipation of
>an invasion, had not benefited from large numbers of Axis troops lost in
>a pointless North African campaign, and had they not benefited from the
>efforts their opponent was expending as outlined above, they might very
>well have lost to the Germans.
The problem I have with that is that you have to assume Germany still
had a chance of winning by 1943, which is when lend-lease and the air
war really started to kick in. I think the war was already decided at
that point.
>As far as the idea that Europe was the decisive theater in World War 2,
>that is an entirely Euro-centric point of view.
... which doesn't make it false. <g> If Nazi Germany controlled all
of Europe they would have been a much bigger threat than Japan being
in control of (most of) China and the South Pacific; which is
basically a 'best case' scenario for both of them.
Rgds, Frank
MJB
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22935bf91f8c8fa1989a4d@localhost...
Thus America's best assets - Britain and Russia - were threatened by
Germany. Japan was really threatening nothing that crucial.
MJB: I think it's even simpler than that - it's logistics. The Pacific war
was primarily a navy-marine event where the much more numerous US Army and
Air Force needed much more 'manuverable' land to make American
manufacturing / recruiting dominance most soundly felt. Even if the US had
decided on a pacific-first strategy how would the US have made it's
strength's known? Shipyards are by necessity located on the respective
coasts in the few deep-water ports of the country while tanks, planes,
artillery, guns and ammo can be manufactured everywhere and transported via
rail to where they need to go. It's simply faster and easier to train a
capable soldier / tanker / airman and equip him with a gun / a tank /
land-based plane than it is to train a sailor / marine / naval aviator and
equip him with an aircraft carrier / a landing craft / carrier-based plane.
For America to make it's greatest advantages felt the most quickly, men and
materials had to be land-based and that meant Europe and not the Pacific.
There is also the notion of 'doctrines' to be accounted for as well. The
USAAF at America's entrance into WW2 still believed that the unescorted
heavy bomber squadrons would always 'get through' and that 'percision
bombing' was the proper strategy. And there was no place in the Pacific for
the massive USAAF build-up to be staged and based except in Europe. Targets
in occuppied France and Germany were simply within the range of operations
of the existing American heavy bombers - the B29 was designed simply
becauses the vast distances in the Pacific seemed insurmountable when the
war against Japan began. Ditto for the Torch landings - transporting a US
Army to North Africa against no Axis naval opposition was possible in 1942 -
hard to imagine anything similar during the same time frame in the Pacific.
And even then it took almost a year to organize the african invasions.
<shrug>
--
MJB
Mr. Tin's Miniature Painting Workshop:
http://web.newsguy.com/Mrtinsworkshop/
Frank E
If Germany 'wins', they knock England and Russia out of the war and
the US stands alone. If Japan 'wins', they knock China and Australia
out of the war which doesn't really change anything in the long term.
Japan never had a chance to knock any of the major allied powers out
of the war, Germany did.
Rgds, Frank
James D Burns
news:+JMpSFPEueQdPyqFpcXMoJ50=l...@4ax.com...
>
> No matter how you look at it, there was no victory in the air war
> during 1943.
>
You are miss-interpreting my meaning, or I wasn't clear. The allies won the
air war in 1943 because of the massive fighting going on in the skies above
Germany during 1943. By 1944 it was decided, 1943 was the fight. You can't
pick a point in time and say victory occurred on this date and then
everything after that affected the war in Russia. The war in Russia was
being heavily affected by the air campaigns of 1943 over Germany. Germany
could no longer afford to send a large Luftwaffe to Russia once the daylight
bombing raids were underway in earnest. What day the fighting ended is a
mute issue for the point I was trying to make. Air superiority was no longer
guaranteed in Russia once the 43 campaigns were underway in the west.
Jim
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >The most important event that helped save Russian during 1943 was the allied
> >victory in the air over Europe.
>
> No matter how you look at it, there was no victory in the air war
> during 1943.
Nope. 1943 was pretty grim, air-wise, both in the RAF and the USAAF.
Giftzwerg
fakea...@hotmail.com says...
> >In my opinion, given how close the Germans came to total victory in 1941
> >in spite of their own lack of preparation, and if they had not tried to
> >wage a massive U-boat war in the Atlantic, and if they had not been
> >subject to the relentless bombing campaigns of '43-45, they might have
> >actually been able to defeat the Russians. And if the Soviet Union had
> >not been able to rely on Lend Lease supples, had not benefited from
> >large numbers of German troops stationed in the West in anticipation of
> >an invasion, had not benefited from large numbers of Axis troops lost in
> >a pointless North African campaign, and had they not benefited from the
> >efforts their opponent was expending as outlined above, they might very
> >well have lost to the Germans.
>
> The problem I have with that is that you have to assume Germany still
> had a chance of winning by 1943, which is when lend-lease and the air
> war really started to kick in. I think the war was already decided at
> that point.
The Germans didn't have a realistic hope of *winning* by 1943 ... but
there's really a huge potential difference between "not winning" and
"being unconditionally defeated." The practical (if best-case)
possibility for Germany at this point was "fighting the Russians to a
stalemate," and while *winning* was almost certainly out of the
question, I'm not so sure about a stalemate / separate peace.
.sergio.
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:39:58 -0400, Briarroot <Bria...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >The central question, which will undoubtedly be debated for centuries to
> >come, is whether the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would have won the war
> >in Europe if the Anglo-Americans had not been involved.
> >
> >In my opinion, given how close the Germans came to total victory in 1941
> >in spite of their own lack of preparation, and if they had not tried to
> >wage a massive U-boat war in the Atlantic, and if they had not been
> >subject to the relentless bombing campaigns of '43-45, they might have
> >actually been able to defeat the Russians. And if the Soviet Union had
> >not been able to rely on Lend Lease supples, had not benefited from
> >large numbers of German troops stationed in the West in anticipation of
> >an invasion, had not benefited from large numbers of Axis troops lost in
> >a pointless North African campaign, and had they not benefited from the
> >efforts their opponent was expending as outlined above, they might very
> >well have lost to the Germans.
> The problem I have with that is that you have to assume Germany still
> had a chance of winning by 1943, which is when lend-lease and the air
> war really started to kick in. I think the war was already decided at
> that point.
exactly.
> >As far as the idea that Europe was the decisive theater in World War 2,
> >that is an entirely Euro-centric point of view.
> .... which doesn't make it false. <g>
:)
> If Nazi Germany controlled all
> of Europe they would have been a much bigger threat than Japan being
> in control of (most of) China and the South Pacific; which is
> basically a 'best case' scenario for both of them.
correct.
Regards,
Big Salad
From "An Army at Dawn" - Rick Atkinson
"[]In 1938 a series of informal conversations with the British marked
the start of an increasing Anglo-American intimacy, nurtured by a
growing conviction in Washington that Germany was mortally dangerous and
that the Atlantic sea-lanes must always be controlled by friendly
forces. Among potential adversaries, Germany had the largest industrial
base and the greatest military capacity, and therefore posed the biggest
threat. A U.S. strategy paper of November 1940 concluded that if
Britain lost the war "the problem confronting us would be very great;
and while we might not lose everywhere, we might, possibly not win
anywhere'."
and
"Even the debacle at Pearl Harbor failed to shake the conviction of
Roosevelt and his military brain trust that "Germany first" was
conceptually sound, and this remained the most critical strategic
principle of the Second World War."
Frank E
<jburn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Frank E" <fakea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:+JMpSFPEueQdPyqFpcXMoJ50=l...@4ax.com...
>>
>> No matter how you look at it, there was no victory in the air war
>> during 1943.
>>
>
>You are miss-interpreting my meaning, or I wasn't clear. The allies won the
>air war in 1943 because of the massive fighting going on in the skies above
>Germany during 1943.
You have a strange definition of 'winning'. <g>
Rgds, Frank
.sergio.
lol
Frank E
<giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The problem I have with that is that you have to assume Germany still
>> had a chance of winning by 1943, which is when lend-lease and the air
>> war really started to kick in. I think the war was already decided at
>> that point.
>
>The Germans didn't have a realistic hope of *winning* by 1943 ... but
>there's really a huge potential difference between "not winning" and
>"being unconditionally defeated." The practical (if best-case)
>possibility for Germany at this point was "fighting the Russians to a
>stalemate," and while *winning* was almost certainly out of the
>question, I'm not so sure about a stalemate / separate peace.
Stalin never struck me as the forgiving type. <g>
Unless he was suddenly worried about some internal threat to his rule,
I don't see any incentive for him to try and cut a deal after
Stalingrad, certainly not after Kursk. I'd argue the opposite, that
Stalin wanted that external threat to rally his people, and if a few
million of them died along the way, he certainly didn't give a damn.
Heck, even after the war Stalin refused to admit that Hitler was dead
because he was still a convenient propaganda tool against the allies.
Rgds, Frank
smr
> Gregor Whiley wrote:
>>
>> I cringe, for example, when a documentary about D-Day talks about it
>> as 'the turning point in the whole war' or some similar piece of
>> hyperbole. It was nothing of the kind.
>
> Absolutely, but History Channel docus make the same claim for almost
> every battle they cover, tough they mostly pander to Anglo-Saxon audiences.
>
>
>> ultimately have made a difference to the outcome on the Russian Front?
>> I certainly don't.
>
> Well, you have to add the strategic bombing campaign and the Leand-Lease
> to the picture, By doing so, it is easy to realize how wafer-thin would
> have been the Soviet advantage when the German war economy went into
> high gear in 1943.
>
> locomotives (a major number of these items were supplied by US),
> thousands of 88 guns pointing at Soviet tanks and not at allied bombers
> (ditto for Nazi fighters), German war production unencumbered by
> bombings and railway disruptions... would have the Soviets still won ?
>
> Glantz said they would have nevertheless... I am far less certain:
> fortunately, we'll never know.
I think, if the Western Allies never got into the war, the odds of
Stalin going for a compromise peace would have been high (there is some
evidence that shows he was considering this in '41 and '42 anyways).
Regime survival was Stalin's first goal; if they could've stopped the
Germans or at least started inflicting massive losses on them, as I
think most would agree they could have with or without Lend-Lease, I
believe it would've been feasible for Stalin to acede to the loss of the
Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus and some other territories if it left him in
firm control of a rump USSR. Lenin set the precedent at Brest-Litovsk in
1917.
Whether or not Hitler would've settled for it is another question,
however.
--
smr
eddys...@hotmail.com
> eddyster...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On 13 mei, 15:04, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Thus America's best assets - Britain and Russia - were threatened
> >> by Germany. Japan was really threatening nothing that crucial.
>
> > Could well be - but it's again a purely (military) rational decision
> > taken by politicians and I have a hard time getting that possibility
> > through my thick skull :)
>
> From "An Army at Dawn" - Rick Atkinson
Read that one as well.
> "[]In 1938 a series of informal conversations with the British marked
> the start of an increasing Anglo-American intimacy, nurtured by a
> growing conviction in Washington that Germany was mortally dangerous and
> that the Atlantic sea-lanes must always be controlled by friendly
> forces. Among potential adversaries, Germany had the largest industrial
> base and the greatest military capacity, and therefore posed the biggest
> threat. A U.S. strategy paper of November 1940 concluded that if
> Britain lost the war "the problem confronting us would be very great;
> and while we might not lose everywhere, we might, possibly not win
> anywhere'."
Yup, all pre-war considerations - all technical & logical.
> and
>
> "Even the debacle at Pearl Harbor failed to shake the conviction of
> Roosevelt and his military brain trust that "Germany first" was
> conceptually sound, and this remained the most critical strategic
> principle of the Second World War."
So, in essence it remained a "Germany First" policy despite the
political implication of not putting the main effort on the guys who
bombed Pearl. Something tells me that would be a really hard sell in
today's environment but those were different times.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Ray O'Hara
"Jan Szkudlinski" <rhe...@go2.pl> wrote in message
news:g0950h$q5q$1...@news2.ipartners.pl...
> .sergio. pisze:
>
> >> Actually, relations between the Anglo-American allies and the Soviet
> >> Union were none to good *before* the war. Surely you remember Hitler
> >> and Stalin holding hands and dividing Poland between them?
> >
> > and you remember who helped hitler to get Chekoslovakia for free, right?
> >
>
> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a US
> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet Union
> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
>
> Jan Szkudlinski
and there is the famous anecdote of the soviets talking about u.s. racial
discrimination showed a film of an american innercity ghetto.
what the soviet people noticed was all the cars and electric appliances the
black underclass had and of which they only dreamed about.
it's funny , the soviets spent trillions to defend against the u.s. military
and then found when the invasion came in was in the form of michael jackson,
denin ,rock & roll and mickey d's.
Ray O'Hara
> In article <g09gcp$10ai$1...@news2.ipartners.pl>, rhe...@go2.pl says...
>
> > >> There is a famous anecdote about the "Radio Yerevan". Namely when a
US
> > >> listener asks Radio Yerevan: "is it true that the life in Soviet
Union
> > >> is miserable?", Radio Yerevan aswers: "and you are lynching negroes".
> > >
> > >
> >
> > For some time I have been looking for a good translation of this joke,
> > and only thing I found was:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slogan:And_you_are_lynching_negroes
> >
> > We all had a good laugh at it before 1989.
>
> I guess my question is, "Why is it funny?"
>
> --
because it was true.
Bartow W. Riggs
production (where the allies were never less than 150% of the the production
of the Axis - and 150%+ was the low point and occured in1940) that the Axis
lost the war long before 1943...
Luca Morandini
According to the November 1940 Adm. Stark's memo to Pres. Roosevelt,
Germany was more of a danger than Japan and it was already fighting with
US's best ally: end of the story.
In his words: <<... that if Britain wins decisively against Germany we
could win everywhere; but that if she loses the problem confronting us
would be very great; and while we might not lose everywhere, we might,
possibly, not win anywhere.
The defeat of Great Britain and the consequent disruption of the British
Empire would greatly weaken the military position of the United States
not only directly, by exposing the Western Hemisphere to attack, but
also indirectly, by its constricting effect on the American economy.>>
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/SP1941-42/chapter2.htm
Regards,
--------------------
Luca Morandini
www.lucamorandini.it
--------------------
Giftzwerg
bri...@surewest.net says...
> I think an argument can be made, based on allied vs axis GDP and industrial
> production (where the allies were never less than 150% of the the production
> of the Axis - and 150%+ was the low point and occured in1940) that the Axis
> lost the war long before 1943...
And notice that grand-strategic wargames always recognize these facts by
enforcing the ludicrous historical decision making by the German (or
Axis) player.
The canon is America's entry into the war; that has to rank as the
single stupidest, most gratuitous, least useful decision that Hitler
ever made - and the man was up to his ass in idiocy.
Forget America's potential for industry and war. In December of 1941,
it would have been stupid for Hitler to take on *Spain*; Germany needed
another enemy like I need a second port in my colon.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The Marine Corps far surpassed its recruiting goal last month and could
eventually be more than a year ahead of schedule in its plan to grow the
force to 202,000 members. All military services met or exceeded their
monthly recruiting goals in April, with the Marine Corps signing 142
percent of the number it was looking for."
- San Francisco Chronicle
"Translation for the NY Times headline: 'RECRUITING WOES CONTINUE'."
- Giftzwerg
Briarroot
4 things, IMO. First, Germany had at least a 50 year lead in
technological development, heavy industry and infrastructure over the
Japanese. Second, Japan was much further away from the USA, which
directly effected their ability to threaten the USA. And as I
mentioned, the US is a former European colony and our traditions and
customs, government, major religions and entire way of life are rooted
in our European heritage; thus third, sentiment dictated the US look to
"save" Europe first. Fourth, speculation about German atomic weapons
research.
Briarroot
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:39:58 -0400, Briarroot <Bria...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The central question, which will undoubtedly be debated for centuries to
>> come, is whether the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany would have won the war
>> in Europe if the Anglo-Americans had not been involved.
>>
>> In my opinion, given how close the Germans came to total victory in 1941
>> in spite of their own lack of preparation, and if they had not tried to
>> wage a massive U-boat war in the Atlantic, and if they had not been
>> subject to the relentless bombing campaigns of '43-45, they might have
>> actually been able to defeat the Russians. And if the Soviet Union had
>> not been able to rely on Lend Lease supples, had not benefited from
>> large numbers of German troops stationed in the West in anticipation of
>> an invasion, had not benefited from large numbers of Axis troops lost in
>> a pointless North African campaign, and had they not benefited from the
>> efforts their opponent was expending as outlined above, they might very
>> well have lost to the Germans.
>
> The problem I have with that is that you have to assume Germany still
> had a chance of winning by 1943, which is when lend-lease and the air
> war really started to kick in. I think the war was already decided at
> that point.
>
Actually no, I don't have to make that assumption. I think the salient
point is that Germany never turned its full attention on the Russians.
If Lord Halifax had accepted the offer to become Prime Minister, a cease
fire with Germany might have been forthcoming After all, the British
had no hope of defeating Nazi Germany alone and both sides knew it.
Logically, the British should have quit before they lost their
precarious hold on their Empire. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany wasted
*months* dilly-dallying around with no clear design for defeating the
British outright or for ending to the war. They even _shut_down_ much
of their armaments production after the fall of France (as Hitler had
promised). But because the British stubbornly refused to talk about
peace (thanks to Winston) they were forced to maintain pressure in the
West, and things eventually worked out, the U-boat campaign was a
*massive* diversion of resources which would have been better spent on
land warfare, and would have been had the Anglo-American threat
disappeared. Likewise, maintaining an air umbrella over the Reich
proved to be just as costly. Remember, one of the reasons that the
Allied strategic bombing campaign was less than decisive until 1944 was
*because* of the strength of the Luftwaffe, who should have been
supporting the Army which was they had been designed for and the
principle reason for their existence.
There are lots of other factors unrelated to whether or not Russia had
any allies; Hitler's myopic decisions and lack of strategic vision,
severe German manpower shortages, shortages of essential raw materials
because of the British blockade, along with the weak German economy are
just a few. Heck the Germans didn't even move to a 24/hour day schedule
for their armaments factories until the spring of 1943! There are
*dozens* of "what-ifs" which could be brought into play to produce a
German victory in 1941 or '42. Think of all those wargames you've
played! ;-)
>> As far as the idea that Europe was the decisive theater in World War 2,
>> that is an entirely Euro-centric point of view.
>
> ... which doesn't make it false. <g> If Nazi Germany controlled all
> of Europe they would have been a much bigger threat than Japan being
> in control of (most of) China and the South Pacific; which is
> basically a 'best case' scenario for both of them.
>
I agree, but then I'm an American. Were I Chinese (or even Australian),
I might take a very different view.
Gregor Whiley
The Russian Front is not the decisive front in WWII just because of
the numbers involved, although they tell a lot of the story. It is the
decisive front because it is there that the main German armies were
defeated so decisively that they were unable to prevent the occupation
of Germany and its forced surrender. Only the Russians were in a
position to do that.
To illustrate, let's imagine that Stalin does a Lenin and signs a
second treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Germans. Can anybody see the
Western Allies, acting on their own, having the military power to
invade and defeat a Germany that is master of all of western europe
and a large slab of the east?
In my opinion the only chance for a German victory is in the first
year of the war, and that chance is exceedingly low. The Russians
essentially did everything they could to promote a German victory,
purging the Red Army, avoiding any defensive preparations, sending
resources to the Germans as part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and then
there's Stalin's stupid orders which lead to large encirclement
battles and massive Soviet losses.
If we're free to play with history, why not imagine that somebody had
the balls to shoot Stalin straight after Barbarossa starts, as we are
told he fully expected to happen. The Soviets then conduct a sensible
fighting retreat, fully in accordance with their national military
character, and the Germans get nowhere near Moscow, despite all their
advantages.
So after 1941 there are no circumstances in which the Germans can
defeat the Russians and the German goose is well and truly cooked by
the end of 1942, with or without a Stalingrad, and without significant
amounts of Lend Lease assistance. The Russians have the men and
materials they need to grind out a victory against the Germans, and
subtracting some trucks or adding some planes, even in large numbers,
won't change the overall equation of victory.
As for Russian war crimes, I hardly know where to start but I think
the Katyn Forest Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Forest_Massacre set the pattern
early for Soviet behaviour in all countries occupied by the Red Army
on its way to Berlin. Only the details vary, the intent remains the
same, to destroy any group which could in way, actually or potentially
resist Soviet power.
A country which could march its own 'liberated' POWs straight from
German prison camps to Soviet gulags is surely jostling for a place on
the very lowest rungs of the moral ladder.
Gregor
Gregor Whiley
Vice President, Strategic Studies Group
http://www.ssg.com.au
Jan Szkudliński
The Russians have the men and
> materials they need to grind out a victory against the Germans, and
> subtracting some trucks or adding some planes, even in large numbers,
> won't change the overall equation of victory.
I'd rather say that lack of some crucial metals, trucks and rail engines
might have hampered Soviet military ability so much, that the war would
develop into a prolonged stalemate. But it's a moot point - we'll never
know.
>
> As for Russian war crimes, I hardly know where to start but I think
> the Katyn Forest Massacre
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Forest_Massacre set the pattern
> early for Soviet behaviour in all countries occupied by the Red Army
> on its way to Berlin. Only the details vary, the intent remains the
> same, to destroy any group which could in way, actually or potentially
> resist Soviet power.
>
> A country which could march its own 'liberated' POWs straight from
> German prison camps to Soviet gulags is surely jostling for a place on
> the very lowest rungs of the moral ladder.
I'd say "Soviet war crimes", not "Russian war crimes"; the latter
implies that all the Russians were responsible.
Katyn is only the best known (finally, since some years ago it was a
common notion in the West to blame it on Germans). Estonians, for
example, suffered more when one thinks of percentages.
Regards,
Jan Szkudlinski
.sergio.
> .sergio. pisze:
>
> > Oh well, plase like Renania, Austria, Czechoslovakia were few square
> > kilometres? ROTFL!
>
> Actually I was referring to Teschen area.
Oh you mean when Poland was ally of Hitler in stabbing the back of
Czechoslovakia, right? ok.
Briarroot
> The Russian Front is not the decisive front in WWII just because of
> the numbers involved, although they tell a lot of the story. It is the
> decisive front because it is there that the main German armies were
> defeated so decisively that they were unable to prevent the occupation
> of Germany and its forced surrender. Only the Russians were in a
> position to do that.
>
> To illustrate, let's imagine that Stalin does a Lenin and signs a
> second treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Germans. Can anybody see the
> Western Allies, acting on their own, having the military power to
> invade and defeat a Germany that is master of all of western europe
> and a large slab of the east?
>
An invasion might not have been necessary.
FLASH-FLASH-FLASH August 6 1945 - Berne Switzerland (AP) Reports today
from our correspondents in Germany indicate that the capital city of
Berlin was completely destroyed by some new form of Allied weapon.
Witnesses say that a huge flash appeared on the horizon, followed
several seconds later by a tremendous shock wave which knocked down
trees and overturned vehicles. A gigantic mushroom-shaped cloud over
the city is all that can be seen from a safe distance. All
communication with Berlin has ceased and the German police and Gestapo
are attempting to cordon off the area to prevent the panic stricken
residents of the surrounding zones from fleeing. Further reports,
including the whereabouts of the German Fuhrer and his key staff members
are expected soon. From Munich, Reichsminister Goering condemned the
attack as "a new Allied atrocity" and indicated that his Luftwaffe was
about to launch a retaliatory attack on London which, he said "will
shock the Allies and force them to the surrender table."
In London, Prime Minister Churchill rose in the House of Commons and
gravely told the assembled members: "This is not the end, but it *is*
the beginning of the end for the hellish Nazi Reich."
In Washington, President Truman was reported to have said: "They asked
for it, and by golly, now they're gonna take it in the teeth!"
> In my opinion the only chance for a German victory is in the first
> year of the war, and that chance is exceedingly low. The Russians
> essentially did everything they could to promote a German victory,
> purging the Red Army, avoiding any defensive preparations, sending
> resources to the Germans as part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and then
> there's Stalin's stupid orders which lead to large encirclement
> battles and massive Soviet losses.
>
Now just imagine if the Germans were prepared. They thought the entire
campaign would be over long before winter!
> If we're free to play with history, why not imagine that somebody had
> the balls to shoot Stalin straight after Barbarossa starts, as we are
> told he fully expected to happen. The Soviets then conduct a sensible
> fighting retreat, fully in accordance with their national military
> character, and the Germans get nowhere near Moscow, despite all their
> advantages.
>
Or somebody shot Hitler (and the two "Gs") and allowed the General Staff
to run the campaign.
> So after 1941 there are no circumstances in which the Germans can
> defeat the Russians and the German goose is well and truly cooked by
> the end of 1942, with or without a Stalingrad, and without significant
> amounts of Lend Lease assistance. The Russians have the men and
> materials they need to grind out a victory against the Germans, and
> subtracting some trucks or adding some planes, even in large numbers,
> won't change the overall equation of victory.
>
All this, IMO, is based on hindsight. Was it all so clear to those on
either side in 1942? I don't think so.
> As for Russian war crimes, I hardly know where to start but I think
> the Katyn Forest Massacre
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_Forest_Massacre set the pattern
> early for Soviet behaviour in all countries occupied by the Red Army
> on its way to Berlin. Only the details vary, the intent remains the
> same, to destroy any group which could in way, actually or potentially
> resist Soviet power.
>
> A country which could march its own 'liberated' POWs straight from
> German prison camps to Soviet gulags is surely jostling for a place on
> the very lowest rungs of the moral ladder.
>
You can say that again. When it comes to choosing who is more evil,
it's hard to find much difference between Hitler and Stalin. The best
that can be said about Stalin is that he fought against Hitler, but of
course that occurred only *after* Hitler had attacked him.
--
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of
his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others who have not
exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first
principle of association: the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of
his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson.
eddys...@hotmail.com
>
> FLASH-FLASH-FLASH August 6 1945 - Berne Switzerland (AP) Reports today
> from our correspondents in Germany indicate that the capital city of
> Berlin was completely destroyed by some new form of Allied weapon.
A bit tricky to send in a bomber with a nuke if the air defences are
still capable of bringing it down, with the possibility to give German
nuclear scientist a kick in the right direction. Or it fails to
detonate with the same result.
Both problems don't exist when nuking Japan which had no serious air
defences against a B-29 and no meaningfull nuclear program.
The alternate history novel "Luftwaffe Victorious" has the Allies nuke
Munich with a single bomber coming in from the south while a massive
1000+ planes raid is taking place elsewhere - still a big chance to
take.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Jan Szkudliński
Rather distorted explanation of events. Yet still it does not justify
that Soviet Union willingly allied itself to the Third Reich in 1939,
gave Hitler massive material assistance in 1939 - 1941, brutally annexed
half of Poland, part of
Rumania and entire Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, murdered a greater
part of the social elites of these four, deported hundreds of thousands
Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians and Romanians to Siberia or
GULAG where a very substantial number of them died, and waged an
aggressive war against Finland, which thanks to the courage of her army,
severe winter and georgaphy actually managed to keep her independence -
and that's ony a few of Soviet crimes. This terrible list is much, much
longer.
Listing instances of Western or Polish mistakes or even plainly stupid
actions does not change the fact, that Stalin's Soviet Union was a
brutal, totalitarian, criminal regime responsible for millions of
deaths. Even listing the undeniably great merit the Soviet Union has for
knocking out the Third Reich does not change that fact. I am always
astonished how some people happily overlook these murdered millions.
Especially when it comes to Russians, who were by far the biggest
victims of Lenin, Stalin, their cronies and their inhuman, evil ideology.
Jan Szkudlinski
Briarroot
> On 14 mei, 15:02, Briarroot <Briarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FLASH-FLASH-FLASH August 6 1945 - Berne Switzerland (AP) Reports today
>> from our correspondents in Germany indicate that the capital city of
>> Berlin was completely destroyed by some new form of Allied weapon.
>
> A bit tricky to send in a bomber with a nuke if the air defences are
> still capable of bringing it down, with the possibility to give German
> nuclear scientist a kick in the right direction. Or it fails to
> detonate with the same result.
>
I see no good reason why the Anglo-American air forces would not have
been able to destroy the Luftwaffe just as they did historically. Sure,
without a Russian Front the Germans would have had more resources to
devote to contesting the issue, but in no way could they hope to compete
with the productive capacity of the USA. As long as England remained
the "unsinkable aircraft carrier" the strategic bombing campaign would
have had the same results, perhaps at the cost of perhaps an extra 6 or
8 months.
> Both problems don't exist when nuking Japan which had no serious air
> defences against a B-29 and no meaningfull nuclear program.
>
> The alternate history novel "Luftwaffe Victorious" has the Allies nuke
> Munich with a single bomber coming in from the south while a massive
> 1000+ planes raid is taking place elsewhere - still a big chance to
> take.
>
The first atomic bombs were set to detonate when they reached low
altitude via a barometric trigger. If the Allies were worried about the
delivery plane being shot down over Germany, the procedure would have
been to arm the bomb while en route; then if the plane were shot down -
KABOOM!
.sergio.
> .sergio. pisze:
>
> > On 12 Mag, 16:08, Jan Szkudlin'ski <rhe...@go2.pl> wrote:
> >> .sergio. pisze:
>
> >>> Oh well, plase like Renania, Austria, Czechoslovakia were few
> >>> square kilometres? ROTFL!
> >> Actually I was referring to Teschen area.
>
> > Oh you mean when Poland was ally of Hitler in stabbing the back of
> > Czechoslovakia, right? ok.
>
> Rather distorted explanation of events.
I don't think so.
> Yet still it does not justify
> that Soviet Union willingly allied itself to the Third Reich in 1939,
While Poland helped Hitler even before USSR, right?
>
> Listing instances of Western or Polish mistakes or even plainly stupid
> actions does not change the fact, that Stalin's Soviet Union was a
> brutal, totalitarian, criminal regime
while THAT Poland regime was democratic and not racist, right?
ROTFL!!!!!!!!