why people want to invade england, there is only crap on those islands
Maybe today numbers mean shit in war, but in 1941 the battles were decided in a great part by the size of the army. And remember that Hitler lost 1/4 of his forces of the Eastern front only in the battle of Stalingrad, approx. 850k.Commie Killer wrote:
Consider the fact that we(the US) supplied a fucking hell of alot of supplies to both Russia and the UK. It takes some dumb fuck scholar to think that numbers mean shit in war. Ask any soldier who has his head out of his ass and he will tell you that numbers dont mean shit. Listen to GS.sergeriver wrote:
Recently, a friend of mine recommended me to read the book Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory by Norman Davies. I searched the web for some reviews and I found this article.
This English historian basically says that UK and America were minor partners in the defeat of Nazis, and the real winners were the Soviets.
Some of the highlights are:
Both the British and the American public have long been told that “we won the war” and D-Day, in particular, has been built up as the decisive moment. 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. The 100 divisions that General George C Marshall and his staff set as their target for mobilisation were overshadowed 2.5:1 by German divisions and 3-4:1 by the Red Army’s divisions. The Third Reich was largely defeated not by the forces of liberal democracy, but by the forces of another mass-murdering tyranny. The liberators of Auschwitz were servants of a regime that ran a much larger network of concentration camps of its own. In the greater part of Europe one totalitarian tyranny was replaced by another. More often than not, the rhetoric of “freedom” and “liberation” was misplaced.
Did the Soviets defeat the Nazis mostly alone, or do UK and US deserve the same credit? I suppose we can't tell without reading the book, but what do you think of this new perpective on WWII? Please, don't flame because I didn't buy the book yet, and this is what Norman Davies thinks.
if you knew history more you would know that that incident occured years before the begining of WW2 smart guy...."if i know history more..."Last1Standing wrote:
Its true that Russians bought Jeeps and such from the United States- but they did have a humongous army- over fighting against japan earlier. If you knew history more you would realize they had large amounts of tanks and veteran, skilled men who fought against the japenese in manchuria. so when hitler decared war Stalin just moved his experienced (far more experienced than the americans were at the time) soldiers to the eastern front.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
what a bunch of crap. only a scholar who has no idea about military operations would simply look at the numbers and see who has the most and call the victor. The USSR couldnt have even had the ability to fight in the first place if it wasnt for the western allies and logistical support.
numbers do not and did not mean shit in ww2 either. fact: France had a larger army and airforce with more divisions and more tanks and artillery. fact: Nazi german forced french capitulation in 6 weeks, a smaller force. you dont have to serve to understand war, just have a military mind and look at things more than what hollywood shows which is Im very sad to say what 99% of yall think what combat is about
lets look at china then, HUGE amount of troops overrun and saw constant military defeat and occupation by the hands of the japanese empire. tiny little japan compared to huge china. you guys think human wave tactics work? they dont. shit look at the size of the ussr and look at the size of german (population and armed force as well) and ask, if soviet numbers were so god damn superior, then how did the USSR have the most amount of casualties then any of the rest of the allies.
lets look at china then, HUGE amount of troops overrun and saw constant military defeat and occupation by the hands of the japanese empire. tiny little japan compared to huge china. you guys think human wave tactics work? they dont. shit look at the size of the ussr and look at the size of german (population and armed force as well) and ask, if soviet numbers were so god damn superior, then how did the USSR have the most amount of casualties then any of the rest of the allies.
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-02 14:33:49)
Well, America didn't want to see a Nazi-controlled Europe. That would have been bad for us economically. We also didn't want our allies under the control of a dictator. So, we were fighting for our interests almost as much as we were for your country's and the rest of Europe's.Stormscythe wrote:
I agree that both world wars (and any war at all) were not justified.
The reasons were idiotic, the one for the first was even more of a nonsense as it started over a single person's death. The second one was more cruel and lead by such a inhumane idea, but there was a system and a will behind it, which makes it different.
Still, so far no one explained to me in what way (where, when, etc.) the Americans were forced to interfere.
I'm aware that the US were economic allies of the Brits - well, then you could argue that the Nazis were right to attack the US's trade ships (which would be logical but of course a strange thought today).
But one of your allies was in control of a dictator.Turquoise wrote:
Well, America didn't want to see a Nazi-controlled Europe. That would have been bad for us economically. We also didn't want our allies under the control of a dictator. So, we were fighting for our interests almost as much as we were for your country's and the rest of Europe's.Stormscythe wrote:
I agree that both world wars (and any war at all) were not justified.
The reasons were idiotic, the one for the first was even more of a nonsense as it started over a single person's death. The second one was more cruel and lead by such a inhumane idea, but there was a system and a will behind it, which makes it different.
Still, so far no one explained to me in what way (where, when, etc.) the Americans were forced to interfere.
I'm aware that the US were economic allies of the Brits - well, then you could argue that the Nazis were right to attack the US's trade ships (which would be logical but of course a strange thought today).
GunSlinger is correct. By the time of WW2 Poland had the second biggest army in the word, yet they were totally owned by german blitzkrieg tactics and stuka divebombers.
I recall reading about a polish officer who told his men that the german tanks were made of wood and painted with steel and so they attacked only to be owned^^ LOL
I recall reading about a polish officer who told his men that the german tanks were made of wood and painted with steel and so they attacked only to be owned^^ LOL
Go Bruins Beat The Trojans!
Yes... but Franz Ferdinand has 4 members, not just one... http://asdivision.ceu.edu/communication … dinand.jpg j/k^*AlphA*^ wrote:
WW1 didn't really start because Franz Ferdinand was killed, it was the "water drizzle that overflowed the bucket" < (couldn't find the good words for that one )
Well I want to preface my response to the OP here by saying I haven't read the entire thread, and that some of what I'm about to say has probably already been said.
I think all sides of the war deserve credit, but that Russia could have won by itself? Well, I'm not too sure about that. Certainly it would have been a very close war, but didn't Germany get stopped just outside of Moscow? If the air and ground divisions that were sitting on the French coast were able to be moved eastward that might have made the difference right at that moment.
Furthermore, Germany was forced to fight in North Africa to help the Italians versus the English and Americans, that is more war production and troops that could have been used on the eastern front. Through out much of this period the combined American and British air forces continued to bomb the German homeland night and day. This effect was great on war production, equipment, and resupply efforts through out Germany.
If you remove this effect on Germany's ability to produce arms, and reinforce their divisions on the eastern front then I think things may have gone differently. Perhaps not greatly, but definitely noticeably.
I think a better argument is that the war between Russia and Germany was the main front in the war, where the bulk of German troops were forced to fight and the fiercest and most savage combat was held. I would agree with that, but to say Russia won by itself is going a bit too far. I could also say that Hitler defeated Germany, if he wasn't so obsessed with Stalingrad it would have just been another speedbump that their armies rather than the meatgrinder it became.
I think all sides of the war deserve credit, but that Russia could have won by itself? Well, I'm not too sure about that. Certainly it would have been a very close war, but didn't Germany get stopped just outside of Moscow? If the air and ground divisions that were sitting on the French coast were able to be moved eastward that might have made the difference right at that moment.
Furthermore, Germany was forced to fight in North Africa to help the Italians versus the English and Americans, that is more war production and troops that could have been used on the eastern front. Through out much of this period the combined American and British air forces continued to bomb the German homeland night and day. This effect was great on war production, equipment, and resupply efforts through out Germany.
If you remove this effect on Germany's ability to produce arms, and reinforce their divisions on the eastern front then I think things may have gone differently. Perhaps not greatly, but definitely noticeably.
I think a better argument is that the war between Russia and Germany was the main front in the war, where the bulk of German troops were forced to fight and the fiercest and most savage combat was held. I would agree with that, but to say Russia won by itself is going a bit too far. I could also say that Hitler defeated Germany, if he wasn't so obsessed with Stalingrad it would have just been another speedbump that their armies rather than the meatgrinder it became.
Well, it is true that Stalin was a dictator, but we ended up fighting his country afterwards, just not directly.sergeriver wrote:
But one of your allies was in control of a dictator.Turquoise wrote:
Well, America didn't want to see a Nazi-controlled Europe. That would have been bad for us economically. We also didn't want our allies under the control of a dictator. So, we were fighting for our interests almost as much as we were for your country's and the rest of Europe's.Stormscythe wrote:
I agree that both world wars (and any war at all) were not justified.
The reasons were idiotic, the one for the first was even more of a nonsense as it started over a single person's death. The second one was more cruel and lead by such a inhumane idea, but there was a system and a will behind it, which makes it different.
Still, so far no one explained to me in what way (where, when, etc.) the Americans were forced to interfere.
I'm aware that the US were economic allies of the Brits - well, then you could argue that the Nazis were right to attack the US's trade ships (which would be logical but of course a strange thought today).
Straw that broke the camels back?^*AlphA*^ wrote:
WW1 didn't really start because Franz Ferdinand was killed, it was the "water drizzle that overflowed the bucket" < (couldn't find the good words for that one )
Do you think two Nazis went and they took control of Paris? Think again.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
numbers do not and did not mean shit in ww2 either. fact: France had a larger army and airforce with more divisions and more tanks and artillery. fact: Nazi german forced french capitulation in 6 weeks, a smaller force. you dont have to serve to understand war, just have a military mind and look at things more than what hollywood shows which is Im very sad to say what 99% of yall think what combat is about
lets look at china then, HUGE amount of troops overrun and saw constant military defeat and occupation by the hands of the japanese empire. tiny little japan compared to huge china. you guys think human wave tactics work? they dont. shit look at the size of the ussr and look at the size of german (population and armed force as well) and ask, if soviet numbers were so god damn superior, then how did the USSR have the most amount of casualties then any of the rest of the allies.
The German aerial attack of 13 May, with 1215 bomber sorties, the heaviest air bombardment the world had yet witnessed, is considered to have been very effective and key to the successful German river crossing. It was the most effective use of tactical air power yet demonstrated in warfare. The Battle of France is often hailed as the first historical instance of the Blitzkrieg tactic.
Russia had the greatest amount of casualties because among Russian casualties they count the millions that were killed by Stalin. Not even half the casualties of Russia in the WWII were inflicted by Hitler. Don't think that the average Russian soldier was unexperienced. And since you mentioned Hollywood movies, most of them show the D-Day as the decisive point of the war.
And in many ways... luck.Vilham wrote:
I believe no one has invaded England in 940 years... I think thats a record...Mogura wrote:
he would kick the hell out of brits asssergeriver wrote:
Well, the guy is an English historian who wrote several war books. With your viewpoint, only people who served can talk about war facts.
What would have happened if Hitler would have focused all his forces in Western Europe?
What about the like 40-50 wars England has been in since the start of that 940... does that not count for anything? I think it's more like best Navy and Airforce ever...Turquoise wrote:
And in many ways... luck.Vilham wrote:
I believe no one has invaded England in 940 years... I think thats a record...Mogura wrote:
he would kick the hell out of brits ass
For a long time, the U.K. had the best Navy for sure. I think that changed after WW2. I would say your Air Force is also very good (demonstrated primarily during WW1 and WW2), but again, I think ours is better.Vilham wrote:
What about the like 40-50 wars England has been in since the start of that 940... does that not count for anything? I think it's more like best Navy and Airforce ever...Turquoise wrote:
And in many ways... luck.Vilham wrote:
I believe no one has invaded England in 940 years... I think thats a record...
exactly, Tactics, not numbers are how wars have been won. attrition just causes more death.sergeriver wrote:
Do you think two Nazis went and they took control of Paris? Think again.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
numbers do not and did not mean shit in ww2 either. fact: France had a larger army and airforce with more divisions and more tanks and artillery. fact: Nazi german forced french capitulation in 6 weeks, a smaller force. you dont have to serve to understand war, just have a military mind and look at things more than what hollywood shows which is Im very sad to say what 99% of yall think what combat is about
lets look at china then, HUGE amount of troops overrun and saw constant military defeat and occupation by the hands of the japanese empire. tiny little japan compared to huge china. you guys think human wave tactics work? they dont. shit look at the size of the ussr and look at the size of german (population and armed force as well) and ask, if soviet numbers were so god damn superior, then how did the USSR have the most amount of casualties then any of the rest of the allies.
The German aerial attack of 13 May, with 1215 bomber sorties, the heaviest air bombardment the world had yet witnessed, is considered to have been very effective and key to the successful German river crossing. It was the most effective use of tactical air power yet demonstrated in warfare. The Battle of France is often hailed as the first historical instance of the Blitzkrieg tactic.
Russia had the greatest amount of casualties because among Russian casualties they count the millions that were killed by Stalin. Not even half the casualties of Russia in the WWII were inflicted by Hitler. Don't think that the average Russian soldier was unexperienced. And since you mentioned Hollywood movies, most of them show the D-Day as the decisive point of the war.
and about hollywood...i dont see where your getting. im saying hollywood is wrong in its depiction of war what does dday have to do with my point?
Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-02 15:02:00)
Soviet lost most and deserve som extra credit but that may be pushing it, in my opinion Norway contributed the most (Stopping production of Heavy Water).
They were too busy being oppressors to be invaded.Vilham wrote:
What about the like 40-50 wars England has been in since the start of that 940... does that not count for anything? I think it's more like best Navy and Airforce ever...Turquoise wrote:
And in many ways... luck.Vilham wrote:
I believe no one has invaded England in 940 years... I think thats a record...
It is a fact that the Russians indeed have played a very large part in the victory over the Nazis in WW2.
So did the US and so did the UK.
But of course it has always been so that almost all of the credit goes to the US. After the US, the UK.
Even though the Russians inflicted a huge amount of damage at Hitler's troops. And the chances are that the US probably would 've never gotten into Germany that fast, without the Russians fighting on the other front.
And let's not forget that it took the US a very long time to take control over France, while the Russians after winning back their 'own' territory, they advanced rather quickly and got in Berlin before the US did.
So chances are that without the Russians, the outcome would have been different.
So yes; the Russians deserve more credit than they are given.
But than again; so do many other countries/people/heroes/...
So did the US and so did the UK.
But of course it has always been so that almost all of the credit goes to the US. After the US, the UK.
Even though the Russians inflicted a huge amount of damage at Hitler's troops. And the chances are that the US probably would 've never gotten into Germany that fast, without the Russians fighting on the other front.
And let's not forget that it took the US a very long time to take control over France, while the Russians after winning back their 'own' territory, they advanced rather quickly and got in Berlin before the US did.
So chances are that without the Russians, the outcome would have been different.
So yes; the Russians deserve more credit than they are given.
But than again; so do many other countries/people/heroes/...
You don't think 1215 bombings are a number? Tactics are important, but also numbers are.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
exactly, Tactics, not numbers are how wars have been won. attrition just causes more death.sergeriver wrote:
Do you think two Nazis went and they took control of Paris? Think again.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
numbers do not and did not mean shit in ww2 either. fact: France had a larger army and airforce with more divisions and more tanks and artillery. fact: Nazi german forced french capitulation in 6 weeks, a smaller force. you dont have to serve to understand war, just have a military mind and look at things more than what hollywood shows which is Im very sad to say what 99% of yall think what combat is about
lets look at china then, HUGE amount of troops overrun and saw constant military defeat and occupation by the hands of the japanese empire. tiny little japan compared to huge china. you guys think human wave tactics work? they dont. shit look at the size of the ussr and look at the size of german (population and armed force as well) and ask, if soviet numbers were so god damn superior, then how did the USSR have the most amount of casualties then any of the rest of the allies.
The German aerial attack of 13 May, with 1215 bomber sorties, the heaviest air bombardment the world had yet witnessed, is considered to have been very effective and key to the successful German river crossing. It was the most effective use of tactical air power yet demonstrated in warfare. The Battle of France is often hailed as the first historical instance of the Blitzkrieg tactic.
Russia had the greatest amount of casualties because among Russian casualties they count the millions that were killed by Stalin. Not even half the casualties of Russia in the WWII were inflicted by Hitler. Don't think that the average Russian soldier was unexperienced. And since you mentioned Hollywood movies, most of them show the D-Day as the decisive point of the war.
If you really want to, go and give some credit of Germany's defeat to, Germany. Those that were fighting germans were also, germans themselves. Schindler's list is a good example. Heck, give credit to Hitler too, he was good at first, then he made some very poor decisions and in essence was his own downfall.WilhelmSissener wrote:
Soviet lost most and deserve som extra credit but that may be pushing it, in my opinion Norway contributed the most (Stopping production of Heavy Water).
and the french airforce was larger than the german luftwaffe
Thanks for admitting we were too busy owning to be owned.Miller wrote:
They were too busy being oppressors to be invaded.Vilham wrote:
What about the like 40-50 wars England has been in since the start of that 940... does that not count for anything? I think it's more like best Navy and Airforce ever...Turquoise wrote:
And in many ways... luck.
Both of you are wrong. ('cept you alpha; being a mod exempts you from wrongness jk) Neither side (UK v US) single handedly won the war. British ferocity in defending their country (which played in no small part to the defiance of their citizens, much is to be commended for their bravery), yet without Americas supplies, as well as their baptism of fire on D-Day (USA did have the hardest beaches to capture; I will argue all who dispute that. [I will, however, cede that UK did have serious airborne difficulties w/ regards to flooded areas, etc]), who knows how the war would've swung.^*AlphA*^ wrote:
get back to History Classd3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:
We (US) won...Techworld wrote:
We (UK) won
You (UK) helped a hell of a lot though...
my point, US/UK FTW.
that you had a place in the victory, agree.... but still, all the other people did nothing or what ?
Please this is called D&S, not see-who-can-alienateothersbysayinghiscountry'sthebest contest. THey said "keep a level head" for a reason.