BF2S Forums English Historian says "Hitler was defeated by the Russians"

sergeriver wrote:

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.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-12-02 13:45:39)

Turquoise wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

I'm of course willing to change my attitude if you can explain me what wars were justified.

WW1 was not justified, but our involvement in it was.  The same goes for WW2.

It's rare for a war to be "necessary", but America does have a responsibility to help its allies.

sergeriver wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

Something that I haven't seen said yet is one of the biggest reasons for Germany's defeat at Stalingrad was because of the terrible winters that the Soviet Union had.  The Germans were wipping the Soviets ass untill the winter set in and they couldn't sustain supply lines, equipment would freeze up, and soldiers would get sick and not be able to fight.  The weather was the biggest reason for Germany's defeat in Stalingrad.

Yes, weather was a factor but I think you are not giving credit to the Soviet soldiers.

Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad was also revealing in terms of the discipline and determination of both the German and Soviet armies. The Soviets first defended Stalingrad against a fierce German onslaught. So great were Soviet losses that at points in time the life expectancy of a newly arrived soldier was less than a day, yet discipline was maintained and soldiers gave their lives rather than retreat. On the other side, the German Army showed remarkable discipline after being surrounded. It was the first time that it had operated under adverse conditions of such scale. Short of food and clothing, during the latter part of the siege many German soldiers literally starved or froze to death. Yet, discipline and obedience to authority prevailed, until finally at the very end when resistance no longer served any useful purpose, to save the lives of his remaining men Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus disobeyed Hitler and surrendered.

Stormscythe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

I'm of course willing to change my attitude if you can explain me what wars were justified.

WW1 was not justified, but our involvement in it was.  The same goes for WW2.

It's rare for a war to be "necessary", but America does have a responsibility to help its allies.

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).

^*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 )

Stormscythe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

I'm of course willing to change my attitude if you can explain me what wars were justified.

WW1 was not justified, but our involvement in it was.  The same goes for WW2.

It's rare for a war to be "necessary", but America does have a responsibility to help its allies.

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).

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-12-02 14:26:01)

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.

sergeriver wrote:

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.

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?

Mogura wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

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.

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?

he would kick the hell out of brits ass