well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.sergeriver wrote:
Everyone who is saying that the perspective given by this English historian is BS, without even reading the article. The man is not just talking about numbers, he's talking about real facts. If you think about that, it makes sense. I mean, the soviets defeated Hitler back to Berlin taking 80% of all Nazis casualties during the WWII, and the things would have been different if Hitler wouldn't have fought the Russians.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
who ya addressing?sergeriver wrote:
OMG, please this English guy is not saying UK and US did nothing to win the war. Did you even read the article? I don't pretend you to read the book, but at least read the article. The guy is just saying that soviets crashed Hitler forces from Russia to Berlin. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all his forces to western Europe? That's the point. Stop with the "this guy is talking about numbers". Read the article. And prove me wrong. Prove that Europe wouldn't be talking German if Hitler would have focused in Western Europe.
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.sergeriver wrote:
Everyone who is saying that the perspective given by this English historian is BS, without even reading the article. The man is not just talking about numbers, he's talking about real facts. If you think about that, it makes sense. I mean, the soviets defeated Hitler back to Berlin taking 80% of all Nazis casualties during the WWII, and the things would have been different if Hitler wouldn't have fought the Russians.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
who ya addressing?
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
I agree numbers are not the sole unit of measure. The balance must include the entire efforts of all combatants and the ramifications.sergeriver wrote:
Everyone who is saying that the perspective given by this English historian is BS, without even reading the article. The man is not just talking about numbers, he's talking about real facts. If you think about that, it makes sense. I mean, the soviets defeated Hitler back to Berlin taking 80% of all Nazis casualties during the WWII, and the things would have been different if Hitler wouldn't have fought the Russians.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
who ya addressing?sergeriver wrote:
OMG, please this English guy is not saying UK and US did nothing to win the war. Did you even read the article? I don't pretend you to read the book, but at least read the article. The guy is just saying that soviets crashed Hitler forces from Russia to Berlin. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all his forces to western Europe? That's the point. Stop with the "this guy is talking about numbers". Read the article. And prove me wrong. Prove that Europe wouldn't be talking German if Hitler would have focused in Western Europe.
The Russians could not have beaten Germany back to Berlin without massive aid and the destruction of German factories, railroads and other strategic reserves which prevented German forces from sustained effort. If it was Germany v Russia I can agree Germany could not have beaten Russia past the first Winter without help, so also the Russians would not be able to push Germany much past Polish borders without help.
The what-if scenarios must include the whole balance shift. If Russia was alone the Germans would have had an A-Bomb, jets and V1/2 rockets; they would have the oil fields and other natural resources that were spent or inderdicted. Nope Russia didn't do it all or even most, but they damn sure did their share and thanks for that. Just take the result as is and be glad the Nazis didn't win.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-03 15:21:19)
thats a pretty huge chapter in an old book i read. from what Ive understood, german and the USSR were destined to fight and everybody in their respective countries knew that war was gonna happen. in all actuality (again from shit that Ive read personally, not no copy/paste) germany never wanted war with the UK. Germany's ultimate goal was france and the USSR so war was expected to happen. when Germany attacked they jumped the gun by a few years ( I think hitler planned the invasion of the USSR in 1944 before things got out of hand i guess)sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.sergeriver wrote:
Everyone who is saying that the perspective given by this English historian is BS, without even reading the article. The man is not just talking about numbers, he's talking about real facts. If you think about that, it makes sense. I mean, the soviets defeated Hitler back to Berlin taking 80% of all Nazis casualties during the WWII, and the things would have been different if Hitler wouldn't have fought the Russians.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of the british isles would never have worked, I dont think. for one thing, the germans didnt have any decent amphibious capablities. Shit, their infantry wouldnt even have unloaded off of landing craft, they were floating in barges. and no way in hell an airborne assault would have worked. ask anybody (other than airborne troops), airborne operations are a logistical nightmare and people would be suprised if they were actually succesful.
I think the brits would have fended off the nazis for quite a long while and if american military forces were commited, i honestly dont think they could have taken the island. The soviet union had a huge army, but they could barely supply it. If it wasnt for american logistical support, they would have capitulated very early, I think, call me wrong...meh. human waves dont win wars and thats all the red army was, one massive human wave. Lets not forget, Russia was defeated by germany not even 30 years prior to ww2
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-03 15:16:04)
wasn't there a tiny bit of internal strife going on in Russia at that time? (1917)GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
thats a pretty huge chapter in an old book i read. from what Ive understood, german and the USSR were destined to fight and everybody in their respective countries knew that war was gonna happen. in all actuality (again from shit that Ive read personally, not no copy/paste) germany never wanted war with the UK. Germany's ultimate goal was france and the USSR so war was expected to happen. when Germany attacked they jumped the gun by a few years ( I think hitler planned the invasion of the USSR in 1944 before things got out of hand i guess)sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of the british isles would never have worked, I dont think. for one thing, the germans didnt have any decent amphibious capablities. Shit, their infantry wouldnt even have unloaded off of landing craft, they were floating in barges. and no way in hell an airborne assault would have worked. ask anybody (other than airborne troops), airborne operations are a logistical nightmare and people would be suprised if they were actually succesful.
I think the brits would have fended off the nazis for quite a long while and if american military forces were commited, i honestly dont think they could have taken the island. The soviet union had a huge army, but they could barely supply it. If it wasnt for american logistical support, they would have capitulated very early, I think, call me wrong...meh. human waves dont win wars and thats all the red army was, one massive human wave. Lets not forget, Russia was defeated by germany not even 30 years prior to ww2
I will copy and paste from this English guy if you don't mind.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
thats a pretty huge chapter in an old book i read. from what Ive understood, german and the USSR were destined to fight and everybody in their respective countries knew that war was gonna happen. in all actuality (again from shit that Ive read personally, not no copy/paste) germany never wanted war with the UK. Germany's ultimate goal was france and the USSR so war was expected to happen. when Germany attacked they jumped the gun by a few years ( I think hitler planned the invasion of the USSR in 1944 before things got out of hand i guess)sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of the british isles would never have worked, I dont think. for one thing, the germans didnt have any decent amphibious capablities. Shit, their infantry wouldnt even have unloaded off of landing craft, they were floating in barges. and no way in hell an airborne assault would have worked. ask anybody (other than airborne troops), airborne operations are a logistical nightmare and people would be suprised if they were actually succesful.
I think the brits would have fended off the nazis for quite a long while and if american military forces were commited, i honestly dont think they could have taken the island. The soviet union had a huge army, but they could barely supply it. If it wasnt for american logistical support, they would have capitulated very early, I think, call me wrong...meh. human waves dont win wars and thats all the red army was, one massive human wave. Lets not forget, Russia was defeated by germany not even 30 years prior to ww2
In reality, in the first 22 months of fighting when the Wehrmacht attacked and occupied eight countries, the Red Army attacked and occupied five. These manifest aggressions make nonsense of any claims of neutrality or of defensive responses to the provocations of others. In November 1939, for example, Stalin’s unprovoked invasion of Finland resulted in a war that lasted for twice as long as any of Hitler’s early campaigns. Similarly, the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 was no mere “strengthening of the defences” or “readjustment of frontiers”. It was a brutal act of depredation that destroyed three sovereign European states, together with a quarter of their population. All these events were facilitated by the Nazi-Soviet pact, which gave Stalin the same licence for banditry in the Soviet sphere that Hitler was exploiting in the German. Proportions, however, are crucial. Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%. Furthermore, since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99, the British contribution to victory must have been in the region of 5%-6%. Britons who imagine that “we won the war” need to think again. Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it.
I think the thought the English historian has is pretty damn correct. The US tactic by FDR was to let the russian army bleed the German army dry before committing US forces. The russian army wouldn't have survived without the support given by the US indurstiral might that had cranked up in the late 30's, But the russian manpower was highly critical for bringing the might from the German army. Hitler had no choice but to invade russia, due to its vast natural resources that hitler was in short supply of. Even if he could have committed his entire force into the western front, he didn't have the resources available for a long term effort. The victory conditions were obtained by the ALLIES, not one force. And let's not forget the US was fighting Japan virtually alone by the middle of 1945. I wouldnt not credit one nationality army for the victory in Europe. Russia supplied the manpower to bleed the German Army dry, paving the way for the invasion of Europe. Britain provided valuable industrial power, and staging points for the invasion, as well as valuable intelligence. the US provided vast industrial might, tactical support, and strategic valuies as well. No one country could have obtained victory.
the main reason I hate that statement is that fact that purportes the whole "numbers matter" thing that ercks me personally. casualty percentages is a really terrible way to base an argument on overall victory. i hate hearing death numbers thrown about so matter of factly, seriously, that 20% to 80% yadda yadda nonsense is silly. Like I said, only somebody who sees combat by casualty reports like this english scholar has no idea about military operations.sergeriver wrote:
I will copy and paste from this English guy if you don't mind.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
thats a pretty huge chapter in an old book i read. from what Ive understood, german and the USSR were destined to fight and everybody in their respective countries knew that war was gonna happen. in all actuality (again from shit that Ive read personally, not no copy/paste) germany never wanted war with the UK. Germany's ultimate goal was france and the USSR so war was expected to happen. when Germany attacked they jumped the gun by a few years ( I think hitler planned the invasion of the USSR in 1944 before things got out of hand i guess)sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
Operation Sealion, the planned invasion of the british isles would never have worked, I dont think. for one thing, the germans didnt have any decent amphibious capablities. Shit, their infantry wouldnt even have unloaded off of landing craft, they were floating in barges. and no way in hell an airborne assault would have worked. ask anybody (other than airborne troops), airborne operations are a logistical nightmare and people would be suprised if they were actually succesful.
I think the brits would have fended off the nazis for quite a long while and if american military forces were commited, i honestly dont think they could have taken the island. The soviet union had a huge army, but they could barely supply it. If it wasnt for american logistical support, they would have capitulated very early, I think, call me wrong...meh. human waves dont win wars and thats all the red army was, one massive human wave. Lets not forget, Russia was defeated by germany not even 30 years prior to ww2
In reality, in the first 22 months of fighting when the Wehrmacht attacked and occupied eight countries, the Red Army attacked and occupied five. These manifest aggressions make nonsense of any claims of neutrality or of defensive responses to the provocations of others. In November 1939, for example, Stalin’s unprovoked invasion of Finland resulted in a war that lasted for twice as long as any of Hitler’s early campaigns. Similarly, the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in 1940 was no mere “strengthening of the defences” or “readjustment of frontiers”. It was a brutal act of depredation that destroyed three sovereign European states, together with a quarter of their population. All these events were facilitated by the Nazi-Soviet pact, which gave Stalin the same licence for banditry in the Soviet sphere that Hitler was exploiting in the German. Proportions, however, are crucial. Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%. Furthermore, since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99, the British contribution to victory must have been in the region of 5%-6%. Britons who imagine that “we won the war” need to think again. Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it.
and the soviets were notorious for shelling and killing their own troops on their rush to berlin, i might hazard a guess and state that your english scholar makes no distinction between friendly fire and kia's caused by enemy action.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-03 15:32:55)
sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-03 15:40:20)
perfect post. perfect.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plain does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted dismisses that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
Also, Russia, didn't win the war, either did the US or British commonwealth. The Allies won WWII, with out the 3 Major country's working together the war would have been lost.
~ Do you not know that in the service … one must always choose the lesser of two weevils?
The same thing that would've happened if he focused solely on Eastern Europe -- he would've overrun them, regardless of any winter. Only difference is that his New Germany Empire (USSR) would crumble more easily than that of a New Germany EMpire (Europe), due to the greater chance of brutal civil war, on account for those Russian peasants.sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.sergeriver wrote:
Everyone who is saying that the perspective given by this English historian is BS, without even reading the article. The man is not just talking about numbers, he's talking about real facts. If you think about that, it makes sense. I mean, the soviets defeated Hitler back to Berlin taking 80% of all Nazis casualties during the WWII, and the things would have been different if Hitler wouldn't have fought the Russians.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
lol OK I finished my last reply too soon....
Event Davies uses simplistic force ratios and percentages to make his point in the paragraph before he states " Crude number do not tell everything". He is using at most battalion level tactical force ratio logic to make a World War Combined Force balance argument. He says "bombing didn't bring the Germans to their knees.." lol this guy is a gem. No disussion on morale of the working populace of Germany, no production data, nothing but tactical forces engaged. Logistics wins wars Mr. Davies not bullets, Frederick the Great new that 300 years ago where ya been?
On review of the Davies' article in detail and a scan of his biography is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Davies
I am ready to conclude that he is using a literary version of the Marxian Dialectic in an attempt to swing the Eurp-American centricity back to the middle by diminishing significant factors of Warfighting. http://www.reference.com/search?db=web& … +dialectic
Event Davies uses simplistic force ratios and percentages to make his point in the paragraph before he states " Crude number do not tell everything". He is using at most battalion level tactical force ratio logic to make a World War Combined Force balance argument. He says "bombing didn't bring the Germans to their knees.." lol this guy is a gem. No disussion on morale of the working populace of Germany, no production data, nothing but tactical forces engaged. Logistics wins wars Mr. Davies not bullets, Frederick the Great new that 300 years ago where ya been?
On review of the Davies' article in detail and a scan of his biography is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Davies
I am ready to conclude that he is using a literary version of the Marxian Dialectic in an attempt to swing the Eurp-American centricity back to the middle by diminishing significant factors of Warfighting. http://www.reference.com/search?db=web& … +dialectic
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-03 16:04:14)
I cited this for the last part in order to demonstrate that this English historian doesn't base his case only in numbers.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver that passage does not explain how the lend lease program allowed the soviets to take on German armor/air until they had their own production going, also with aid from allies.
Further, the significant reduction of German resources and warfighting production capability by the other allies GAVE THE RUSSIANS an advantage on the Eastern Front. One plane does not equal 17 men and 10,000kg of bombs, it equals 200 ground casualites, the reduction or stoppage of manufacture of Panther tanks and munitions, slowed resupply to blown bridges and rails.... this is 4 dimensional math at least. The synergy gained by Eastern Frontline attrition expanded exponentially by the lack of replacements/reffitting of said attrited forces equals success on the ground. There is no other way to measure it without choosing to ignore all the facts in full effect. And we haven't even started talking about Russian morale. All those beans and bullets that were sent had to give them an uplift, don't you agree?
The author's passage you quoted ignores that with a dismissive phrase "Of course, crude numbers do not explain everything. The western powers were strong in some departments, notably in naval and air forces, and less strong in others. American industrial output was one of the marvels of the war; and all members of the allied coalition, including the Soviet Union, benefited greatly from it." lol
sergeriver,
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it. I haven't read the book but the article fails to prove a Russian one-sided win.
I say again we were all dead-meat if we hadn't banded together when we did.
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it. I haven't read the book but the article fails to prove a Russian one-sided win.
I say again we were all dead-meat if we hadn't banded together when we did.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-03 16:13:46)
I don't think the Germans would have defeated the Russians in that case. Russia had the largest army and the winter. They would have won anyway.R0lyP0ly wrote:
The same thing that would've happened if he focused solely on Eastern Europe -- he would've overrun them, regardless of any winter. Only difference is that his New Germany Empire (USSR) would crumble more easily than that of a New Germany EMpire (Europe), due to the greater chance of brutal civil war, on account for those Russian peasants.sergeriver wrote:
You take things too personal. I agree US never had the threat of a potential German occupation. US was planning to get into the war in 1943 as far as I know, but Pearl Harbor changed plans and you had to get involved in 1941. Anyway, you can't deny that the perspective of this guy has some logical arguments within.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
well then thats me. I know a whole lot about this era of history to confidantly say that its a stupid statement. Without anyone of the major allies, germany might have been victorious. I didnt read the article, sorry. I think thats a slap in the face for any allied soldier to even dignify that with critical thought. But I must say, out of the three major allies, the US was the only one that didnt really have a potential occupation with german victory.
In WWII the 2 largest Armies were the Red Army and the German Army. You didn't answer my question. What would have happened if Hitler would have sent all of his forces to Western Europe instead of attacking Russia with most of his Army.
The nazi's defeated themselves, the red army just got to do the cleanup work. Their failed attempt to move into Russia left their forces spread out too thin, and demolished.
The reason you don't really hear about Russia really cleaning up and slapping the Third Reich into place, is because of the horrid things that occured on the march west. I don't recall the exact #, but Russia had the mindset that the citizens were corrupted from having been conquered by the nazi's. Millions of people were raped, pillaged, and murdered during Russia's march towards Berlin. It's because of this, and blind patriotism, that you don't hear more about Russia's contributions to the war in a brighter light. Those commie's can't have done something better then us!
The reason you don't really hear about Russia really cleaning up and slapping the Third Reich into place, is because of the horrid things that occured on the march west. I don't recall the exact #, but Russia had the mindset that the citizens were corrupted from having been conquered by the nazi's. Millions of people were raped, pillaged, and murdered during Russia's march towards Berlin. It's because of this, and blind patriotism, that you don't hear more about Russia's contributions to the war in a brighter light. Those commie's can't have done something better then us!
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver,
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it.
they sure the hell killed more people than the nazis ever could have dreamedsergeriver wrote:
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver,
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it.
I said I didn't read the book and that I based my comments on the article but for some reason the last sentence you quoted me with is missing....I will say it again here to make clear "I haven't read the book but the article fails to prove a Russian one-sided win. "sergeriver wrote:
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver,
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it.
I am basing my argument on his article failing to make the argument by IGNORING significant factors. His numbers are simplistic militarily speaking and he uses the "insignificant" percentages as an excuse to avoid accounting for other allied conritbution in context.
Last edited by OpsChief (2006-12-03 16:26:08)
They sure did.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
they sure the hell killed more people than the nazis ever could have dreamedsergeriver wrote:
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver,
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it.
qft...sergeriver wrote:
They sure did.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
they sure the hell killed more people than the nazis ever could have dreamedsergeriver wrote:
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.
Well, I suppose we should read the book. As a matter of fact I always thought that Soviets could have defeated Hitler alone. That's why I found this book interesting. But that's my opinion, and I think we will never know it.OpsChief wrote:
I said I didn't read the book and that I based my comments on the article but for some reason the last sentence you quoted me with is missing....I will say it again here to make clear "I haven't read the book but the article fails to prove a Russian one-sided win. "sergeriver wrote:
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.OpsChief wrote:
sergeriver,
...except he does presicely that. Read it again. He says crude numbers don't tell the story but then he fails to account for significant numbers/factors, then presents simple percentages to dismiss this contribution and tries to make his argument ignoring it.
I can go with that...sergeriver wrote:
Well, I suppose we should read the book. As a matter of fact I always thought that Soviets could have defeated Hitler alone. That's why I found this book interesting. But that's my opinion, and I think we will never know it.OpsChief wrote:
I said I didn't read the book and that I based my comments on the article but for some reason the last sentence you quoted me with is missing....I will say it again here to make clear "I haven't read the book but the article fails to prove a Russian one-sided win. "sergeriver wrote:
You are basing your whole case against his argumentation in the numbers factor, and we didn't read his book, just an article about it. The guy is not saying US and UK did nothing to defeat the Nazis, he's just saying that Soviets did more.
On the other hand you will find it interesting many years ago we ran a simulation that showed the Western Allies combined with a "freed" allied non-nazi Germany and China could have defeated the Soviet Union by 1948!!! lmao
I can't for the life of me remember why we ran it, but this topic reminded me of it.
To see what the USSR could have done v Germany alone look at strategic production/logistics and infrastructure values. The Russians may be able to defend against almost any single county in Winter but neither can they project forces succesfully outside their borders against a unified similarly equiped enemy.