Blood and Iron

[Diogenes]

repost? An interesting article about the non participation of Germans in D-Day celebrations last summer.







Blood & Iron
by Taki Theodoracopulos (http://www.takimag.com/blogs/Theodoracopulos) on June 06, 2009


Today is the 65th anniversary of D-Day, but I find it strange that it is being commemorated without the Germans. It takes two to tango and two to fight, except back then, when it took the Americans, British, Canadians, and French, not to mention the Polish airforce to subdue the Wehrmacht.

Here’s what Alan Clark, a member of Parliament and well known military historian, wrote 25 years ago about the battle in Normandy: “Whole British units collapsed under pressure. American boys, undertrained and green, were no match for tough SS elite German troops. One could see the difference even in the corpses spread evenly over the landscape. The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless.”
When Clark wrote this (he died ten years ago) it somehow went unnoticed. Today it seems incredible. Our 24-hour media woiuld have hounded Clark out of office that morning. Yet Alan Clark was a very respected historian.

He wrote history as he researched it, not in order to escape the slings and arrows of such scumbags as Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman. Twenty-five years later, a far greater historian, Anthony Beevor, has just published a magnificent book about D-Day. He confirms what Clark was talking about. Beevor relates how the Americans had very high levels of what is called combat exhaustion but what the great General Patton called cowardice. According to American General Burton, “the Germans are staying in there just by the guts of their soldiers. We outnumber them 10 to 1 in infantry, 50 to 1 in artillery and we have total superiority on the air. The Germans are not moving and the SS among them are the bravest.”

Well, it’s nice to read it at last. The German defenders fought to the last because they listened to the orders of their NCO’s, and unlike the Allied forces, did not wait for orders from up top. And there is another reason. Most of the troopers had family back in Germany that had been killed from the air raids of the Anglo-Americans. They knew the truth, that women, children and old people were being incinerated daily from orders by Churchill and Roosevelt. So they took their revenge as best they could killing young Americans, Brits, and Canadians thrown into battle by power-hungry leaders luxuriating back home. Facing annihilation, the Germans fought with incredible courage and devotion to duty, and lost 240,000 men in the process.

Germany deserved to be invited, but the petty French, personified by the disgusting and vain-glorious midget Sarkozy, have yet again stolen the glory for their cowardly selves.


http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/blood_iron/

[TR1]

Anthony Beevor, a far greater historian? lol

"They knew the truth, that women, children and old people were being incinerated daily from orders by Churchill and Roosevelt."

poor poor germans.

[tluassa]

And you didnt invite us to the Dunkirk celebration either ... wait, you dont celebrate Dunkirk ?

[Robert.V]

The German defenders fought to the last because they listened to the orders of their NCO’s, and unlike the Allied forces, did not wait for orders from up top.


Yeah....



....and I never heard of Anthony Beevor.



Edit


He has a book about Stalingrad, is it any good ?

[Indiana Jones]

Naja. Sensational, in part flat out nonsensical and obviously tailored for a laymen audience. Just a couple of points:

American boys, undertrained and green, were no match for tough SS elite German troops.
Virtually all US servicemen to hit the beach at D-Day had received far more extensive training than their counterparts. It can be very well argued that it was partially of lesser quality, but the point stands.


The German defenders fought to the last
240,000 men in the process.
Some of course did. Many did not. Several units, escpecially among the Ostbataillone, actually folded after token resistance and surrendered en bloc.
Total German casualties under OB West (that means: Including southern France and the retreat) from June to August 31st, 1944:
KIA: 23 019 WIA: 67 060 MIA: 198 616
Of course, not all MIA are POWs. A substantial proportion were however.

One could see the difference even in the corpses spread evenly over the landscape. The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless The Waffen SS indeed maintained imposing physical standards. However they were hardly typical of the mid-44 German armed forces, whose standards had decreased dramatically, even to the point of fielding several formations of invalids. Younger recruits in particular were often weakly and malnourished.

poor poor germans.
I thought you had a bit more sense.
Regards,
IJ.

[Kitsune]

poor poor germans.
Well, their death is every bit as lamentable as the one of poor, poor Soviet citizens. Or any other human beings for that matter.



Otherwise...

I agree with most of the article. The fighting prowess of the German armed forces of the time is amazing, and can hardly be overestimated. Just look at the numbers, look up how utterly superior the Western Allies alone were in men, material, guns, tanks, planes, fuel and ammunition. And yet, wherever they encountered the Germans they had great problems, wether in Africa ("Kasserine Pass"), Italy ("Monte Cassino"), in Normandy (more or less the whole thing), in Holland ("Market Garden"), in Belgium ("Battle of the Bulge") or Germany ("Hürtgen Forest"). Everywhere. In the end they had usually to resort to massive bombing and shelling, killing for example more French civilians than the Luftwaffe killed British ones in the process.

This doesn't even take into account that the overly glorified Western Allies did at no time fight against more than a third of the German armed forces. Or that they entered the fray in earnest only when the Germans had already lost millions of solders against the Sovietunion. If you then consider that the American soldiers showed strong signs of combat fatigue after only half a year of fighting an numerically inferior enemy, one begins to understand how impressive the Wehrmachts performance actually was. Frankly, the truth of the matter is, had the odds been even, the Germans would have won. And had the odds been reversed, the Western Allies would have been defeated in record time.

So some praise is entirely in order, especially after countless Hollywood movies have tried to show us the Germans/Nazis of the time as ugly, stupid cowards (with skinhead haircuts if "Saving Privat Ryan" is any guide), who were at best able to snipe out of some holes before trying to run away. In so far I do agree with the article. But I am not so sure about its basic message: that the Germans should partake in the celebration of the Normandy landings.

What is their to celebrate for us? We were defeated, after all. Our liberation from evil Hitler? The truth is that no Allied leader and no Allied soldier of the time wanted to "liberate" the Germans. They wanted to crush them, and they did - although Stalin's Sovietunion ended up doing most of the work. And with that totalitarian state did the Western Allies then divide up Germany and all of Europe. Our cities were downright systematically destroyed. A quarter of our national territory was taken away forever (after having already lost one sixth of it after WWI). 15 million Germans were subjected to ethnic cleansing of which 1.5 to 2 million died in the process. Germany was thoroughly ripped off, as far as its technology was concerned, military or otherwise, cut to pieces and turned into some half-souvereign fracturized states living in the constant fear of ending up as battlefield of WWIII. In the new world order, Germany received no permanent seat in the UN security council, as Britain and France did, not even after reunification and decades of democracy (but it is generously allowed to pay almost as much for that organisation as both these nations together).

If America had tried to end the war as soon as possible (preferably after assassinating Hitler, which they explicitely not even attempted), had done something against Stalin's armies marching westward instead of systematically helping them to the last, and had allowed Germany to stay a whole and souvereign nation, I would feel gratitude. But seeing as things worked out...what is there to celebrate for us Germans on Normandy beach? And to celebrate is what the others want to do there, right? How do Americans whose ancestors wore the grey uniform in the civil war think about "celebrating" at Ge1tisburg or Appomattox? (For some reason this editor refuses to write down the word *****sburg - has it already come so far that it is considered politically incorrect to mention this battle? Perhaps those Southrons do have a more influential lobby than I thought.)

If Monsieur Sarkozy wants to have all the glory for himself (wether a few months ago or again next year), let him have it. We Germans shouldn't spoil the party.

[T.S.C.Plage]

Interesting summary!

Btw, G-e-t-t-y-s-b-u-r-g gets censored because of problems that occured with an "image provider" that uses the same five letters at the beginning of its name. At least as far as I know.

[West Texican]

Didn't the Germans retreat to the moon to regroup? Did the LCROSS impact upset someone?

Seriously isn't this article really just egos and sour grapes going at each other?

[baboon6]

I wouldn't take anything Taki writes seriously- or Alan Clark for that matter.

[Seek]

Why is this rubbish even discussed here? that's clearly some jackass pushing his own little agenda "on behalf" of the germans...

[Holycrusader]

"The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless.”

Necrophil or something...???

[SineJustitia]

"The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless.”

Necrophil or something...???

I for one prefer my SS-soldiers lifeless.

But seriously: what's Taki's point? Bringing in the Germans for commemoration seems like a good thing to me, for that underlines the very point of commemoration: never again. But glorifying the SS seems like a rather clumsy attempt to achieve that goal...

[Gammelpreusse]

The SS as an organisation deserves nothing but scorn. Individual members may have been alright, not all have been monsters, as Günther Grass, for example, is living proof for. But this is not because of the SS, but despite them. I share no love for them whatsoever, especially with such a monstreous ideologic background.

As for the regular german army compared to the allies (british, american, russian), there is not much difference in their approach to civilians. In this regard the Nuremberg trials were a complete joke not as in their results, as I agree to the morales applied there, but as it was so extremly one sided it gives the term winners justice a whole new meaning. Had the charges been evenly applied, a lot of allied military personal and polititians would have been in real trouble.

About all these movies....it's interesting that the reality pretty much was exactly the opposite as was shown in the movies from Casablanca right up to Saving Private Ryan....individually acting germans against drones of folks unable to operate without direct orders.

[tluassa]

The SS as an organisation deserves nothing but scorn. Individual members may have been alright, not all have been monsters, as Günther Grass, for example, is living proof for. But this is not because of the SS, but despite them. I share no love for them whatsoever, especially with such a monstreous ideologic background.

As for the regular german army compared to the allies (british, american, russian), there is not much difference in their approach to civilians. In this regard the Nuremberg trials were a complete joke not as in their results, as I agree to the morales applied there, but as it was so extremly one sided it gives the term winners justice a whole new meaning. Had the charges been evenly applied, a lot of allied military personal and polititians would have been in real trouble.

About all these movies....it's interesting that the reality pretty much was exactly the opposite as was shown in the movies from Casablanca right up to Saving Private Ryan....individually acting germans against drones of folks unable to operate without direct orders.

well spoken.

[saturnin]

Yeah....



....and I never heard of Anthony Beevor.

Edit

He has a book about Stalingrad, is it any good ?

Quite good, interesting reading especially for referencees. Be aware of comments from some russian fans on book. They don´t like when some parts of history is mentioned. Overall it provide good starting point to learn something on that period although it´s needed to compare facts with different sources to get your own point of view.

[Robert.V]

Quite good, interesting reading especially for referencees. Be aware of comments from some russian fans on book. They don´t like when some parts of history is mentioned. Overall it provide good starting point to learn something on that period although it´s needed to compare facts with different sources to get your own point of view.

Alright i'll check it out. I've read plenty about stalingrad and I heard plenty of stories from the vets.


So it better be not wast of my time ...or else. p-)

[saturnin]

Alright i'll check it out. I've read plenty about stalingrad and I heard plenty of stories from the vets.


So it better be not wast of my time ...or else. p-)

When I was kid and got this interesst in military - what was available in local libraries were mostly old soviet books from 60´s, 70´s, 80´s and some czechs. It was quite interessting to see how history serves current needs. Orinal soviet books from early 60´s was often more precise/open and included more dirty thing that it´s reedition from 70´s, 80´s. When new books from west started to be widespread it was for me as a small kid interesting to compare, actually quite a good school that prime sources and qualite historical work is rare and must be appreciated. And also that same fact can be interpreted in many different ways.

[Kaplanr]

repost? An interesting article about the non participation of Germans in D-Day celebrations last summer.

. . .
He wrote history as he researched it, not in order to escape the slings and arrows of such scumbags as Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman . . .

Sends my Juice meter into the red zone. Wasn't aware that Dershowitz or Foxman have any contributory roles in modern WWII historical research. The glorius SS necro-fancy kind of did me in on the article. Maybe the next one will deal with the honorable application of Bushido in China during the war.

[TR1]

Why waste your time with Beevor (very poor work for the most part) when you can read something much better in Glantz.

[Robert.V]

I have already read most of Glantz's works.

[TR1]

Then you will not enjoy that of Beevor.

[Robert.V]

Too late I already ordered his book about Stalingrad.

[saturnin]

Why waste your time with Beevor (very poor work for the most part) when you can read something much better in Glantz.

you say that Beevor did poor work and then recomend Glanzt?? huh, serious TR1 is not so serious at the momentp-)

Glanzt´s books about east front are very simplified to say at least. Sometimes he even simply copy old soviet statements and don´t even try to look at them closely.

Robert V. I don´t think you did mistake with Beevor´s book. Post what you think about book when you will finish it.

[Jacknola]

... American boys, undertrained and green, were no match for tough SS elite German troops. One could see the difference even in the corpses spread evenly over the landscape. The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless.”

the Germans are staying in there just by the guts of their soldiers. We outnumber them 10 to 1 in infantry, 50 to 1 in artillery and we have total superiority on the air. The Germans are not moving and the SS among them are the bravest.”

...The German defenders fought to the last because they listened to the orders of their NCO’s, and unlike the Allied forces, did not wait for orders from up top. So they took their revenge as best they could killing young Americans, Brits, and Canadians thrown into battle by power-hungry leaders luxuriating back home. Facing annihilation, the Germans fought with incredible courage and devotion to duty, and lost 240,000 men in the process.

This is the saddest, most fantasy-based pile I've ever read about Normandy. "Green poorly trained American troops?" Tell that to the 82nd, 101st Airborne, et al. "Allied troops thrown into battle by power hungry leaders...?" This is just discredited Soviet era class warfare retoric.. I suggest trying that line of BS on some of the 90 year-old vets and see how fast they take a swing at you.

"Brave Germans...following NCOs while Americans waited for officer leadership"... This is totally untrue on the western front and actually reverses the truth ... It was American forces who depended on the NCO. Furthermore, the Germans were fighting defensively in hedgegrove territory which was the most difficult terraine ever contested by modern armies. They did no better than the Allied armies would have done had the situation been reversed. And while the artillery of the allies was superior, the German tanks and anti-tank equipment was far superior to the allies.

The truth is the German performance was unremarkable. On D-day they universally sat idle, awaiting orders, while scattered, light Airborne forces overran their crucial objectives using squad sized elements against full companies. And remember that the Germans were annilated and pocketed in Normandy (not by "10-1 odds" either) losing more troops than any other single battle in WWII including all the battles on the Eastern Front.

Re: Russians... they likely would have been defeated and enslaved without the western front and/or the lend lease aid from the west. Lets us get real about the Russians accomplishments... They did not face "two-thirds of the German Army," and certainly did not face "two-thirds of the German armed forces." And they definitively did not face even one-half of the German war-making effort. They did not have to fight a huge second war in the Pacific, or a huge resources-draining naval war in the N.Atlantic.

Furthermore, the Russians did not maerially contribute to the stragetic bombing campaign, or naval-warfare and blockade,etc., that crippled the German war effort equally in the east as in the west. Imagine the result on the Russian front if the Germans had not had to build and man u-boats, naval forces, coastal defense, V-1s, V-2s, fight in N.Africa, Italy, the N.Atlantic and keep major air force, naval resources and 50 plus divisions in France not to mention Italy, Norway, etc.

The truth is the Soviet war effort was pedestrian ... a draconian dictatorship-driven war fought by zombies lacking independent decision-making ability. At best, it was simply a frontal assault effort by a mechanically illiterate society, assisted greatly by Hitler's personnal miltary vanity. The Soviet front succeeded mainly by sacrificing millions of soldiers and civilians while depending on Western shipments of 100,000 trucks, planes, engines, supplies, etc. at GREAT costs in men and ships.

The confusion about Soviet v Western allies is simply armchair analysis that counts only numbers rather than logistics, and resource commitments. Such analysis ignores the allies contribution to sapping the strength of the German warmaking effort using air, naval, and western ground campaigns... It is pretty much a Soviet era bunch of propaganda that has been adopted by the revionist fellow-traveler western-university based "historian"-professorial-left.

Please... I suggest confining this type of revionist history to the fever swamps of the hate-the-West-especially-the-US blogs. Nothing in the original post.. from superman-German-physiques to Germans- fighting-for-revenge-for-bombings (not mentioned ANYWHERE in period coorespondance..), to power hungry Allied leaders, to German NCO v Allied officer leadership, etc., is remotely true.

[TR1]

Biggest pile of nonsense on the web.

[Kilgor]

Alright i'll check it out. I've read plenty about stalingrad and I heard plenty of stories from the vets.


So it better be not wast of my time ...or else. p-)

Beevor is ok, but I think Richard Overy's books are a better read.

[therifleman]

Beevor's Stalingrad is really quite good. He is quite unpopular with the Russians because he discusses Red Army-perpetrated atrocities, those particular ones against German civilians in the later days of the war. However, he does not go about this without explaining German-perpetrated atrocities against Russian civilians as well.

[saturnin]

Biggest pile of nonsense on the web.

I suppose this is reaction to Jacknola.

As for Glanzt some of his books are really superb as for example: Red Storm Over the Balkans: The Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania, Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars. Some are interessting to read: From the Don to the Dnepr: Soviet Offensive Operations.

Glanzt concentrate on operational, strategical view of how Red army "works". In this aspect he is arguably best western author. If Robert V. expect detail day-by-day quality operational description of specific operations around Stalingrad area he will be probably quite disappointed with Beevor.:-( Beevor writing is in this aspect only sketchy. My original point was that if somebody wants to understand what stalingrad battle was about only military point of view is not enough. This is not critism of Glanzt as in what he do he is really elite, but History is about people and Beevor provide in this aspect good complement to Glantz. His writing style is also more readable, oriented on regular non-military readers. His book about Stalingrad battle it is not studie and have many "side-stories" which in some aspect neglect his work. Still I would not call it poor work as TR1. His book is more story about Stalingrad than detailed, perfect historical study (in comparison to Glantz books) - but for non-military enthusastic it is actually usefull.

btw. I start to read Alexej Isajev´s book on 1941/42 operations, will be interesting reading (I hope so)

[TR1]

i suppose this is reaction to jacknola.

indeed. The comedic value of that post is good though.
as for glanzt some of his books are really superb as for example: Red storm over the balkans: Red storm over the balkans: the failed soviet invasion of romania, zhukov's greatest defeat: The red army's epic disaster in operation mars. Some are interessting to read: From the don to the dnepr: Soviet offensive operations.

i am noticing a trend...p-)

. . . . .........

[saturnin]

I am afraid that you see what you want to see. :| You should not be so suspicious, it´s actually not healthy my friend. :hug:I have read many Glantz book and picked upt those which I reread recently. If you check it it quite normal for Glantz to title book suspicious way for sensible Russians. For example: Colossus Reborn: The Red Army at War or Stalingrad: How the Red Army Survived the German Onslaught - still his book are not biased in german favour, I hope we can agree there?

[TR1]

I was jesting, of course not.

[saturnin]

it´s part of central europe x Russia game on this forum I suppose :). Btw I wish I could read russian, my friend posted me nice book on T-72 but can´t find if there is any possiblity that this will be published in english language.

[Holycrusader]

Biggest pile of nonsense on the web.

Fully agree..

[Gammelpreusse]

... American boys, undertrained and green, were no match for tough SS elite German troops. One could see the difference even in the corpses spread evenly over the landscape. The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless.”

the Germans are staying in there just by the guts of their soldiers. We outnumber them 10 to 1 in infantry, 50 to 1 in artillery and we have total superiority on the air. The Germans are not moving and the SS among them are the bravest.”

...The German defenders fought to the last because they listened to the orders of their NCO’s, and unlike the Allied forces, did not wait for orders from up top. So they took their revenge as best they could killing young Americans, Brits, and Canadians thrown into battle by power-hungry leaders luxuriating back home. Facing annihilation, the Germans fought with incredible courage and devotion to duty, and lost 240,000 men in the process.

This is the saddest, most fantasy-based pile I've ever read about Normandy. "Green poorly trained American troops?" Tell that to the 82nd, 101st Airborne, et al. "Allied troops thrown into battle by power hungry leaders...?" This is just discredited Soviet era class warfare retoric.. I suggest trying that line of BS on some of the 90 year-old vets and see how fast they take a swing at you.

"Brave Germans...following NCOs while Americans waited for officer leadership"... This is totally untrue on the western front and actually reverses the truth ... It was American forces who depended on the NCO. Furthermore, the Germans were fighting defensively in hedgegrove territory which was the most difficult terraine ever contested by modern armies. They did no better than the Allied armies would have done had the situation been reversed. And while the artillery of the allies was superior, the German tanks and anti-tank equipment was far superior to the allies.

The truth is the German performance was unremarkable. On D-day they universally sat idle, awaiting orders, while scattered, light Airborne forces overran their crucial objectives using squad sized elements against full companies. And remember that the Germans were annilated and pocketed in Normandy (not by "10-1 odds" either) losing more troops than any other single battle in WWII including all the battles on the Eastern Front.

Re: Russians... they likely would have been defeated and enslaved without the western front and/or the lend lease aid from the west. Lets us get real about the Russians accomplishments... They did not face "two-thirds of the German Army," and certainly did not face "two-thirds of the German armed forces." And they definitively did not face even one-half of the German war-making effort. They did not have to fight a huge second war in the Pacific, or a huge resources-draining naval war in the N.Atlantic.

Furthermore, the Russians did not maerially contribute to the stragetic bombing campaign, or naval-warfare and blockade,etc., that crippled the German war effort equally in the east as in the west. Imagine the result on the Russian front if the Germans had not had to build and man u-boats, naval forces, coastal defense, V-1s, V-2s, fight in N.Africa, Italy, the N.Atlantic and keep major air force, naval resources and 50 plus divisions in France not to mention Italy, Norway, etc.

The truth is the Soviet war effort was pedestrian ... a draconian dictatorship-driven war fought by zombies lacking independent decision-making ability. At best, it was simply a frontal assault effort by a mechanically illiterate society, assisted greatly by Hitler's personnal miltary vanity. The Soviet front succeeded mainly by sacrificing millions of soldiers and civilians while depending on Western shipments of 100,000 trucks, planes, engines, supplies, etc. at GREAT costs in men and ships.

The confusion about Soviet v Western allies is simply armchair analysis that counts only numbers rather than logistics, and resource commitments. Such analysis ignores the allies contribution to sapping the strength of the German warmaking effort using air, naval, and western ground campaigns... It is pretty much a Soviet era bunch of propaganda that has been adopted by the revionist fellow-traveler western-university based "historian"-professorial-left.

Please... I suggest confining this type of revionist history to the fever swamps of the hate-the-West-especially-the-US blogs. Nothing in the original post.. from superman-German-physiques to Germans- fighting-for-revenge-for-bombings (not mentioned ANYWHERE in period coorespondance..), to power hungry Allied leaders, to German NCO v Allied officer leadership, etc., is remotely true.

k, different reality. happens to some people.
Hollywood really needs to get its act together in some regards.

[James]

For some reason this editor refuses to write down the word *****sburg - has it already come so far that it is considered politically incorrect to mention this battle? Perhaps those Southrons do have a more influential lobby than I thought.

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the battle, it's just to prevent hotlinking to G*tty Images.


We can talk all day long about how superior German soldiers were to anything the Allies had, but that doesn't change the fact that Germany was completely and utterly conquered by those lackadaisical, cowardly allied soldiers. Adolf Hitler started a war, and Germany paid.

Someone mentioned what might have happened had there been parity between Germany and the Allies. I'll tell you - the first atomic weapons would have been dropped on Germany, not Japan, and Germany would still have been defeated in the end.

[Gammelpreusse]

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the battle, it's just to prevent hotlinking to G*tty Images.


We can talk all day long about how superior German soldiers were to anything the Allies had, but that doesn't change the fact that Germany was completely and utterly conquered by those lackadaisical, cowardly allied soldiers. Adolf Hitler started a war, and Germany paid.

Someone mentioned what might have happened had there been parity between Germany and the Allies. I'll tell you - the first atomic weapons would have been dropped on Germany, not Japan, and Germany would still have been defeated in the end.

I doubt the bomb would have fallen on Germany in such a scenario that quickly

1. The first US atomic bomb was build of material caputered from a german U-Boat en route to Japan.

2. Unlike Japan, Germany had the means to retaliate with huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that were never used in the war. The V2 was a more then a capable delivering vehicle. (as a side note, neither by the british)

3. Hogan's Heroes is not an historic document.

And another note, it is interesting to observe how much the british/american bring up the argument of "you lost!" whenever it comes to discussion the war. That typical last ditch argument when everything else fails. Unluckily nobody takes that serious but yourself.

[baboon6]

I doubt the bomb would have fallen on Germany in such a scenario that quickly

1. The first US atomic bomb was build of material caputered from a german U-Boat en route to Japan.

2. Unlike Japan, Germany had the means to retaliate with huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that were never used in the war. The V2 was a more then a capable delivering vehicle. (as a side note, neither by the british)

3. Hogan's Heroes is not an historic document.

And another note, it is interesting to observe how much the british/american bring up the argument of "you lost!" whenever it comes to discussion the war. That typical last ditch argument when everything else fails. Unluckily nobody takes that serious but yourself.

What is the ultimate objective of war if not to win? Winning the war is what it's all about. The world would be a very different place if the Allies had not won World War II so in the end that's all that really matters.

[Gammelpreusse]

What is the ultimate objective of war if not to win? Winning the war is what it's all about. The world would be a very different place if the Allies had not won World War II so in the end that's all that really matters.


Absolutely agreed in this regard. And to throw you a bone, I personally actually am happy we lost. I enjoy beeing active on international forums, reading other opinions and exchange ideas, all impossible under an authocratic regime. Not to speak of all the cultural achievements of this country that were undone by the Nazis, the greatest traitors of the german people I can imagine.

But if the debate is over military performance and any specifics or details are brushed away with a borad generalized argument as soon it moves into regions uncomfortable to some, then one has to question the integrity of said "victors". Or their complexes. And if you expect Germans to despise the Nazis just to do the former allies a favor or play along for harmonies sake and thus everything else relating to this time period, I have to seriously dissapoint you.

[Lokos]

They did not face "two-thirds of the German Army," and certainly did not face "two-thirds of the German armed forces."

... Yes, they did.

Allow me to illustrate:

Rudiger Overmans' data on German losses in 1944:

Western Front: 244,891
Eastern Front: 1,232,946

Divisions deployed (by theater):

Year Germany East West Norway Finland S-East Africa Italy

Jun 1944 7 150 66 12 8 24 0 27
Jul 1944 19 124 69 11 8 23 0 27
Aug 1944 2 130 72 10 8 21 0 29
Sep 1944 2 127 64 11 8 20 0 25
Oct 1944 1 134 67 11 8 20 0 25
Nov 1944 2 133 70 18 0 21 0 26
Dec 1944 2 135 76 17 0 22 0 25


Lets us get real about the Russians accomplishments...

By all means.


Such analysis ignores the allies contribution to sapping the strength of the German warmaking effort using air, naval, and western ground campaigns...

While your 'analysis' manages to gloss over the front that caused 80% of Germany's total losses.


I am afraid that you see what you want to see.

No, I'm afraid he sees the obvious: the only Glantz books you find value in are the ones in which he deconstructs Soviet defeats. In fact, David Glantz is an excellent historian and his work on the Eastern Front is authoritative.


This is not critism of Glanzt as in what he do he is really elite, but History is about people and Beevor provide in this aspect good complement to Glantz. His writing style is also more readable, oriented on regular non-military readers.

It's lovely that the 'people factor' is something you get a kick out of when reading military history. Col. Glantz does not get caught up in the humanity of the military history he writes. If it wasn't obviously intentional, it would be an omission, I agree.


Beevor's Stalingrad is really quite good. He is quite unpopular with the Russians because he discusses Red Army-perpetrated atrocities, those particular ones against German civilians in the later days of the war. However, he does not go about this without explaining German-perpetrated atrocities against Russian civilians as well.

You seem to be confusing Beevor's Stalingrad with his other EF opus (Berlin).


Glanzt´s books about east front are very simplified to say at least.

What, now?

Setting aside 'When Titans Clashed' (which was a very general look over the EF as a whole across a period of four years), which of Glantz's books can be called 'simplified'?

He's done a strategic/tactical/operational study of August Storm (~1,000 pages, taken together), a brand new look at the Stalingrad campaign (trilogy and 'prequel', together, 2,300 pages on the subject), a research project on the RKKA just before the start of the war (~400 pages), 'Colossus Reborn' analysing the 1942-1943 rebirth of the RKKA as an institution (~800 pages) and countless other operational works (Korsun, Leningrad, Kursk) each a serious research project in its own right...

What's 'simplified' about them, pray tell?

L.

[saturnin]

"No, I'm afraid he sees the obvious: the only Glantz books you find value in are the ones in which he deconstructs Soviet defeats. In fact, David Glantz is an excellent historian and his work on the Eastern Front is authoritative."

I mentioned books I recently readed, those they come first in my mind when typing examples of his good work (I already mentioned this). I am quite surprised that somebody like you Lokos whose posts on MP.net I enjoy (they are quite leisurely) is so easy to jump to such conclusion about somebody else. Please read my original post again:

"as for glanzt some of his books are really superb as for example: Red storm over the balkans: Red storm over the balkans: the failed soviet invasion of romania, zhukov's greatest defeat: The red army's epic disasterin operation mars. Some are interessting to read: From the don to the dnepr: Soviet offensive operations."


"Setting aside 'When Titans Clashed' (which was a very general look over the EF as a whole across a period of four years), which of Glantz's books can be called 'simplified'?"

this is book I had in mind when typing of simplified work. It is true that when I look back in original post i found that I typed books instead of book, when speaking about his book on east front.


"It's lovely that the 'people factor' is something you get a kick out of when reading military history. Col. Glantz does not get caught up in the humanity of the military history he writes. If it wasn't obviously intentional, it would be an omission, I agree."

first read original post of Robert V, before he mentioned that he already read many Glantz´s books. I get this immpresion that he just want some book about Stalingrad battle and do not want another accurate, long study of military operation. To put it simply just some HISTORICAL book (history of Stalingrad is NOT only about movement of xxx regiment on xxyyzzzz day to xzw point with specific TO&E and orders etc.) which speak also about people, "atmosfere" etc. - so if you would want to reccomend somebody (who I wrongly(?) expected to be just regular reader not military enthusiastic) historical book on Stalingrad would you pick up Beevor or Glantz? (I already mentioned that Beevor is more readable than Glantz for obvious reason)

[socom6]

Come on Jacknola, why did u have to spoil a good thing by being so dismissive of the great Soviet war effort. You make the same mistake the Soviets did when they thought wrongly that the Western Allies had a easy go of it when those same Western Allies had another nasty and brutal war in the far east and pacific to contend with in addition to dealing with the Germans.

I may agree that the Soviets were put on the back foot and flummoxed by the German warmachine at first. But they learned the hard way by taking the heavy blows and returning them twice fold. I for one will always respect the sacrifices made by the Russian people in defeating the nazis in the Great Patriotic War.

As for that dumbass article about Allied combat performance in Normandy, I will be dismissive of that because the facts are clear, the Germans did fight a good defensive war there yes because of terrain, good discipline, and very good equipment. But the Anglo Americans also battled tenaciously and wore them down in the Bocage and scattered the Germans out of there, the Germans lost a lot of men and equipment in the west which were hard to replace.

Ya know I hate these revisionist articles, they always deny facts and make people angry.

[California Joe]

Regardless of your point of view on the "allied" effort, the descriptions of the SS in that article are gayer than the Tom of Finland thread.

[tanks_alot]

Regardless of your point of view on the "allied" effort, the descriptions of the SS in that article are gayer than the Tom of Finland thread.


The SS’s physical splendor was obvious even as they lay lifeless
That would be gay necrophilia, that's a whole new level....

[Jacknola]

I'm not dismissive of the Soviet contribution, suffering or accomplishments during the war. 20 million dead, every single structure between the border and Moscow destroyed is evidence of their struggle.

But... the Soviet era propaganda would have the world believe they essentially conquered Germany by themselves, facing "80 percent of the German forces" (or some such statistic) with the Western Allies dithering until the USSR was bled white and only coming in for an easy cakewalk to pick up pieces of the post war pie.

That is not only simplistic, it is erroneous. World Wars are fought by totally mobilized industrial societies. The technical and industrial effort required to fight the Allies in the N. Atlantic, along the coasts etc. meant industrial capacity that was not used against Russia.

Numbers of troops committed, or casualties caused on this or that front, is not necessarily the best way of judging percent of effort... rather it is number and complexity of machines ratio against total "machine power" ... The "machine power" the Germans were forced to keep committed in the West during their Russian campaign, including naval and air assets, were on composite of equal military weight as those committed in the East.

Furthermore the comparison of "casualties caused.." "divisions committed," etc., is also misleading. Such statistics ignore the contributions of ... say ... the strategic bombing campaign and the damage to German infrastructure... etc. It also ignores other equally important statistics in favor of Roman era accounting.

For example, if "casualties caused" is a statistic that determines effectiveness in War, then the Iranians were far more effective against the Iraqis in their war, than was the Desert-Storm coalition a few years later ... and the US should have won in Vietnam. Such "casualty statistics" are basically meaningless and can as easily reflect stalemate (as in WWI) as war progress.

Again... imagine Britain forced from the War at the Battle of Britain... could the Soviet Union have survived? Would the Germans have gotten the A-bomb? Would the industrial power used to make submarines have been used to make tanks?

The Soviet era position that they almost single handedly won the war is braggadocios at best and does not even publicly acknowledge the life support of the lend lease equipment ... over 100,000 trucks and 500,000 Studebaker engines for instance...

The West has long acknowledged the Soviet accomplishments... but one must keep them in perspective... the Soviets suffered terribly from poor military performance and really never did equalize with the Germans man to man, unlike the western forces. They could not have beaten the Germans alone.

But perhaps the reverse is also true... if the Soviet Union had surrendered, perhaps Normandy would have failed... maybe ... but the continous overwhelming skyrocket growth of Allied airpower may have eventually made a moot point of any quantity of ground equipment and divisions..

But the thing that started this line.... about magnificent dead SS trooper phsyiques in Normandy, poor Allied performance, etc. was about as fruity as a pineapple frappe.

And the whole thing about combat fatigue, superior individual German infantryman in Normandy is imaginary and is insulting to those Allied troops and is probably embarrassing to German vets. Note: Despite the Germans fighting mostly defensively in Normandy, KIA and WIA casualties for the Allies and Germans in Normandy were about equal... unlike the Eastern front where the Russians suffered at least three casualties for every one they inflicted on the Germans... right up to the last campaign of the War.

If the paragraphs that launched this line are a true example of the quality of that man's research... he needs to be put away... he is a delusional Teutonic-phile who's writings parrot National Socialist superman imagery, proven false and thoroughly foolish ... and I say that as a historian of the Normandy campaign.

[Elbs]

1. The first US atomic bomb was build of material caputered from a german U-Boat en route to Japan.


Do you have a source for that? I have never heard of this...

[Jacknola]

Do you have a source for that? I have never heard of this...


You've never heard of it because it is total balogna. More imaginary post-war teutonic children stories.

This line is similar to ones started occasionally by some youngster from Japan about how "the Japanese were never conquered and if the main islands had been invaded, the invasion would have been defeated..." etc.
Such juvinile estimates of war are only tolerable because they are made by warfare-illiterates.

I am reminded of something that happened after the US War Between the States. Ex-Confederate General A.S. Johnson was confonted in a New Orleans hotel about 1880 by a young Southerner who raved on about how the "South would rise again!" etc. He asked the young man what unit of the Confederate army he had been in. The young man said he had not been old enough to serve but he and his friends were "not intimidated by the DamnYankees."

General Johnson stared at him and slowly drawed, "Sir, you may not be intimidated, but I sure as hell am...."

(Side note: I was about 12 years old before I learned that Damnyankees was actually two words).

[Elbs]

You've never heard of it because it is total balogna. More imaginery post-war teutonic children stories.


Hehe I thought I had detected the faint odor of bull****...

[TR1]

Yeah you did, when reading Jacknolas posts. More nonsense from him.

[Lokos]

Numbers of troops committed, or casualties caused on this or that front, is not necessarily the best way of judging percent of effort...

That's simply untrue - at least in this case. At every stage of the campaign, the Eastern Front was emphasized over the Western. Possibly the only period that would warrant exception would be the short build-up to and for the duration of the Ardennes Offensive.


Such statistics ignore the contributions of ... say ... the strategic bombing campaign and the damage to German infrastructure... etc. It also ignores other equally important statistics in favor of Roman era accounting.

They don't 'ignore' it, they contextualize it. Unlike some, I was not dismissive of any (least of all W. Allied) contribution to the war effort. Historically, all these elements played a role. Looking over the wording of your post, however, one gets the sense that the Soviets just did the manual labor, while the Western Allies did all the real work.

Perhaps that's not what you're angling for, but that's how it's coming across.

Secondly, such statistics serve to rebut assertions such as:


They did not face "two-thirds of the German Army,"

... which they did, and - for most of the war - more than two thirds.


so if you would want to reccomend somebody (who I wrongly(?) expected to be just regular reader not military enthusiastic) historical book on Stalingrad would you pick up Beevor or Glantz?

Glantz, every time. Why? Because I'm not a child who needs to be reminded on every second page about how terrible the Soviet system was. It's patronizing.


The West has long acknowledged the Soviet accomplishments...

No, it hasn't. That's why John Erickson and David Glantz made the monumental efforts they did.


the Soviets suffered terribly from poor military performance and really never did equalize with the Germans man to man, unlike the western forces. They could not have beaten the Germans alone.

What rubbish.

Remind me of the significant WA contribution to the war pre-Kursk.

I'm not denigrating anything by asking, but I am asking.


But perhaps the reverse is also true... if the Soviet Union had surrendered, perhaps Normandy would have failed... maybe ... but the continous overwhelming skyrocket growth of Allied airpower may have eventually made a moot point of any quantity of ground equipment and divisions..


... That just shows a basic misunderstanding of WW2 realities.


unlike the Eastern front where the Russians suffered at least three casualties for every one they inflicted on the Germans... right up to the last campaign of the War.

Care to back that up with some statistics, my friend? Or a source?

I can tell you right now, it's untrue, and you'll look the fool - but please, try.

L.

[Recon0321]

Yeah....



....and I never heard of Anthony Beevor.



Edit


He has a book about Stalingrad, is it any good ?

I enjoyed it.

[James]

I doubt the bomb would have fallen on Germany in such a scenario that quickly

1. The first US atomic bomb was build of material caputered from a german U-Boat en route to Japan.

Actually, the first was built of plutonium from Hanford in the state of Washington. While the U.S. did capture some Uranium from Germany, that which was used in Little Boy came from Congo and was enriched in Oak Ridge, TN.


2. Unlike Japan, Germany had the means to retaliate with huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that were never used in the war. The V2 was a more then a capable delivering vehicle. (as a side note, neither by the british)

We had chemical weapons in theater too. The whole Manhattan project started and moved forward because of the fears that Germany was doing the same thing.


3. Hogan's Heroes is not an historic document.
I'm not sure what this is a reference to.


And another note, it is interesting to observe how much the british/american bring up the argument of "you lost!" whenever it comes to discussion the war. That typical last ditch argument when everything else fails. Unluckily nobody takes that serious but yourself.

As the Brit's used to say, the proof is in the pudding.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. I believe most serious, reputable historians would agree with me on that fact as well. Adolf Hitler ate his PPK and Admiral Doenitz surrendered all German forces in May 1945. Fact.

I'm not saying that Germany didn't field a fine army in WWII. I'm saying that it didn't matter.

[Holycrusader]

That would be gay necrophilia, that's a whole new level....

You guys scare me to dead... Now I want my body to be cremated. Just in case...

[DPM_Sheep]

Hehe I thought I had detected the faint odor of bull****...


None of the plutonium or uranium used in the Manhattan Project came from captured sources.

The Nazis did send several U boats carrying technical experts, mercury and Uranium ore from Norway to Japan. But thanks to the Norwegian resistance, Bletchley Park and ULTRA, the allies knew all about them and were able to intecept most. In fact, during one such interception the Submarine HMS Venturer became the only submarine to sink another while submerged.*

The Norwegians currently have a clean up underway as mercury from several wrecks is cotaminating their coastal waters.

*Barring any classified cold war shennanigans...

[Gammelpreusse]

Do you have a source for that? I have never heard of this...

Just google for U-234. You should be able to find enough material on the subject.

[Gammelpreusse]

Actually, the first was built of plutonium from Hanford in the state of Washington. While the U.S. did capture some Uranium from Germany, that which was used in Little Boy came from Congo and was enriched in Oak Ridge, TN.

Agreed to the Plutonium Bomb, about the uranium one, a ah.




We had chemical weapons in theater too. The whole Manhattan project started and moved forward because of the fears that Germany was doing the same thing. Yes you had. Especially the british had huge stockpiles of chemical weapons. Had the A-bomb been dropped the european theater would have become really, really ugly.
And given the argument of dropping those bombs started over the theorey that both sides had comparable material and menpower capabilities, this chance became even slimmer.

Unlike the Japanese, Hitler was a madman. He rather saw all of Germany destroyed, even by himself, then backing down.




It's not an argument, it's a fact. I believe most serious, reputable historians would agree with me on that fact as well. Adolf Hitler ate his PPK and Admiral Doenitz surrendered all German forces in May 1945. Fact.

I'm not saying that Germany didn't field a fine army in WWII. I'm saying that it didn't matter.And there we are completly off topic. If for you only the end result counts, fine with me. But's completly missing the argument. As my teacher back in school would have said towards an exam over army performance, with the only argument coming up beeing "B won, A lost!", the result would have been F, sit down, topic failed.



I'm not sure what this is a reference to.


The inability for any objectivity caused by decades of hollywood indoctrination and HUAH! nationalism.

[James]

If for you only the end result counts, fine with me. But's completly missing the argument. As my teacher back in school would have said towards an exam over army performance, with the only argument coming up beeing "B won, A lost!", the result would have been F, sit down, topic failed.

How do you think an army's performance during wartime should be measured, if not by victory or defeat? I suppose if you limited your definition and argued about what the best army in the world was from 1939 to 1942, then the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS were indeed the best, but that seems kind of artificial to me. As an historian, I prefer to look at an entire event - in this case, a war that lasted almost 6 years, not a selection of individual days or battles.


The inability for any objectivity caused by decades of hollywood indoctrination and HUAH! nationalism.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you trying to say that Germany didn't surrender in 1945 and wasn't occupied by the Allies? This is historical fact, not a Hollywood story.

[Holycrusader]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you trying to say that Germany didn't surrender in 1945 and wasn't occupied by the Allies? This is historical fact, not a Hollywood story.

Hollywood lies. Evrybody knows that allies were defeated by very goodlooking SS-zombies.*

;)

*That historical event was well documented in Nazi zombies minigame in Call of duty 5.

[T.S.C.Plage]

You've never heard of it because it is total balogna. More imaginary post-war teutonic children stories.
I suggest you should search for U-234...


Cargo

The cargo to be carried by U-234 was determined by a special commission, the Marine Sonder Dienst Ausland, established towards the end of 1944, at which time the submarine's officers were informed that they were to make a special voyage to Japan. When loading was completed, the submarine's officers estimated that they were carrying 240 tons of cargo plus sufficient diesel fuel and provisions for a six- to nine-month voyage.

The cargo included technical drawings, examples of the newest electric torpedoes, one crated Me 262 jet aircraft, a Henschel Hs 293 glide bomb, and what was listed on the US Unloading Manifest as 560 kg of uranium oxide. As evidenced by Hirschfeld and Brooks in the 1997 book Hirschfeld, Wolfgang Hirschfeld reportedly watched the loading into the boat's cylindrical mine shafts of about 50 lead cubes with 9 inches (230 mm) sides, and "U-235" painted on each: according to cables sent from the dockyard, these containers held "U-powder". However, according to author and historian Joseph M. Scalia, who discovered a formerly secret cable message at Portsmouth Navy Yard, the uranium oxide had been stored in gold-lined cylinders; this document is discussed in Hitler's Terror Weapons. The exact characteristics of the uranium remain unknown; it has been suggested by Scalia, and historians Carl Boyd and Akihiko Yoshida that it may not have been weapons-grade material and was instead intended for use as a catalyst in the production of synthetic methanol for aviation fuel. When the cargo had been loaded, U-234 carried out additional trials near Kiel, then returned to Kiel where her passengers came aboard.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234
It is assumed that this amount was used to build the atomic bomb that got later dropped over Hiroshima.

[Scoobz187]

Hmm this article is quit .... strange. I dont want to downsize the millitary effort of german troops in battle of normandy but i guess the 65th anniversary has not to be for the germans at all. Its a anniversary for the beginning liberation of france and not for the best damn battle between Allies and Axis in france during ww2 neither the best army in this battle.

Nothing more to say

[Gammelpreusse]

How do you think an army's performance during wartime should be measured, if not by victory or defeat? I suppose if you limited your definition and argued about what the best army in the world was from 1939 to 1942, then the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS were indeed the best, but that seems kind of artificial to me. As an historian, I prefer to look at an entire event - in this case, a war that lasted almost 6 years, not a selection of individual days or battles.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you trying to say that Germany didn't surrender in 1945 and wasn't occupied by the Allies? This is historical fact, not a Hollywood story.

heh, you are really serious, aren't you? :bash:

If in the US and Britian performance assessment is solely done based upon the end result, then I am not wondering why these two countries are so seriously lagging behind in development nowadays. That attitude is so lacking in professionalism it's a insult to common sense. Worst of all, by gooing this road you certainly manage to learn nothing out of mistakes.

The US, the british Empire and the USSR won because all together they had such a krass material and manpower advantage there was nothing to be done. And still, it took them "6" years to get Germany down. Find me a similiar example of open warware with similiar odds in history requiring that much time for success. End result my ass.

[nemowork]

Nobody is arguing the Germans had a very good infantry force or indeed the army to back it up, the average German recruit might have been practising infantry tactics since they were 12 years old in the Hitler youth, they certainly had been working and toughening up in a military based heirarchy since that age.

They were culturally unified, had common values and could improvise and adapt at small unit levels in a way allied troops who were largely militarised civilians with at most 2 or 3 years theoretical experience never could.

the point is that the Germans started off on the offensive with organisational superiority and a huge psychological advantage as well as technical superiority in most areas.

It took till 1942 for Allies to match and halt the Germans, the fight back only took 2 years.

And no matter how much you claim its important to concentrate on the best army the war was being fought on numerous fronts such as Naval, aerial, intelligence and political and while the ground war was the essential one the allies were able to equal and force back the heer forces while in all other areas they were totally routed and destroyed.

Claiming some sort of moral victory because the infantry were still fighting is no more relevant in WW2 than it was in WW1 and claiming the forces were undefeated and the army was stabbed in the back.

When the enemy is in your capital its kind of a good sign that your not winning.

[Gammelpreusse]

Nobody is arguing the Germans had a very good infantry force or indeed the army to back it up, the average German recruit might have been practising infantry tactics since they were 12 years old in the Hitler youth, they certainly had been working and toughening up in a military based heirarchy since that age.

They were culturally unified, had common values and could improvise and adapt at small unit levels in a way allied troops who were largely militarised civilians with at most 2 or 3 years theoretical experience never could.

the point is that the Germans started off on the offensive with organisational superiority and a huge psychological advantage as well as technical superiority in most areas.

It took till 1942 for Allies to match and halt the Germans, the fight back only took 2 years.

And no matter how much you claim its important to concentrate on the best army the war was being fought on numerous fronts such as Naval, aerial, intelligence and political and while the ground war was the essential one the allies were able to equal and force back the heer forces while in all other areas they were totally routed and destroyed.

Claiming some sort of moral victory because the infantry were still fighting is no more relevant in WW2 than it was in WW1 and claiming the forces were undefeated and the army was stabbed in the back.

When the enemy is in your capital its kind of a good sign that your not winning.

Nice points, but you obviously are in the wrong debate.

[James]

heh, you are really serious, aren't you? :bash:

If in the US and Britian performance assessment is solely done based upon the end result, then I am not wondering why these two countries are so seriously lagging behind in development nowadays. That attitude is so lacking in professionalism it's a insult to common sense. Worst of all, by gooing this road you certainly manage to learn nothing out of mistakes.

The US, the british Empire and the USSR won because all together they had such a krass material and manpower advantage there was nothing to be done. And still, it took them "6" years to get Germany down. Find me a similiar example of open warware with similiar odds in history requiring that much time for success. End result my ass.

Ok, you need to pump the brakes and be polite. No one in this thread has given you cause to be unpleasant. There's also no need to sling mud at the U.S. and Britain now. To be fair, the United States really didn't do any fighting until 1942, and we were busy fighting in the Pacific too. If we're measuring purely by the number of years it takes to defeat an enemy, I suppose one could argue that the Taliban are better soldiers than the Wehrmacht, but I don't think that's the case.

What would you base success on in this case? Setting aside for the moment the fact that German Army was defeated and lost the war, what were some things that they were successful at? I think this is the third time I've asked, and I'm genuinely curious about what you think. In business, it's the person who closes the deal or wins the contract. In sports, it's the athlete who wins the race, or the team who wins the game. The quality of an army as a whole isn't based solely on the quality of the individual soldier, but the whole organization, and, in the case of total war, the whole nation behind the army. So, in the case of WWII, the amount of men and material absolutely played a large role in victory - no one is arguing otherwise. In the case of America in particular, that's the way we used to fight wars; if it's worth doing, go all out and win. The whole point of fighting a war is to make your enemy do what you want him to do, i.e. win. Perhaps we can agree that the German Army was good at fighting battles but that Germany was bad at waging war.

[nemowork]

I usually am



The US, the british Empire and the USSR won because all together they had such a krass material and manpower advantage there was nothing to be done. And still, it took them "6" years to get Germany down. Find me a similiar example of open warware with similiar odds in history requiring that much time for success. End result my ass.

All i'm saying is that it was a war the German state actively struggled to start, they declared war on the USA, invaded Russia and the only reason Britain was fighting Germany is because they invaded our stated ally.

Complaining that the enemy outnumbered and outproduced you seems a little disingenuous when you actively chose that enemy?

[baboon6]

Nice points, but you obviously are in the wrong debate.

There is no debate. You're in a one-man competition, the aim of which seems to be to prove how much of a complete fcukwit you are.

[DPM_Sheep]

I suggest you should search for U-234...

Yes we, or, I already mentioned the U-Boat shipments earlier. The bit we're raising eyebrows at and wanting proof of is this bit:


It is assumed that this amount was used to build the atomic bomb that got later dropped over Hiroshima.

[Stevey1]

No one doubts that the Germans fought well, but the article itself is outrageous propaganda. This sort of article is straying very close to the 'victim' mentality that blighted Germany after WW1. The quote below barely deserves a response.


Most of the troopers had family back in Germany that had been killed from the air raids of the Anglo-Americans. They knew the truth, that women, children and old people were being incinerated daily from orders by Churchill and Roosevelt. So they took their revenge as best they could killing young Americans, Brits, and Canadians thrown into battle by power-hungry leaders luxuriating back home.

Doesn't the author remember who slaughtered civilians at Guernica? Who unleashed unprovoked Blitzkrieg on Europe? Who killed Jews by the millions? Germany wasn't a victim of anything in WW2. That's why, although the German veterans deserve utmost respect, their attendance at memorial functions is more controversial.

Furthermore, the Germans were not uber-soldiers by virtue of being maginficent German specimens :roll:. Any other military that had so effectively embraced the revolution in military strategy heralded by mechanization would have achieved similar success. The Allies had to play catch-up for a while. When a well trained, but comparatively tiny, British Expeditionary Force faced a hugely larger German force at the start of WW1 it dealt it a very bloody nose indeed. That didn't mean that the Germans were inferior men.

In 1944 the Germans had supremely good defensive terrain to operate in. In turn the Germans remarked on how, for example, once British forces got into a defensive position during the campaign, they just could not be dislodged- sound familiar? Odds of even 10-1 are not that great when a machine-gun in a hedgerow could wipe out a company or a Panzer camoflaged in rubble could pick off Allied tanks.



If in the US and Britian performance assessment is solely done based upon the end result, then I am not wondering why these two countries are so seriously lagging behind in development nowadays.


I have huge respect for Germany and its history, but such comments are uncalled for. I think you'll find that 'backward' Britain has had more success in warfare that Prussia/Germany. And contrary to the ridiculous article I would not claim that this fact makes the average Briton braver than the average German.

[Gammelpreusse]

There is no debate. You're in a one-man competition, the aim of which seems to be to prove how much of a complete fcukwit you are.

Sorry for your hurting, but trying to run a debate and all what comes is in return is unrelated wise assing and broadsword arguments where needles are required, then patience is stretched to a limit.

"so let's asses combat performance"

=>

"you lost!"

"complaining about numbers!"

..neither show a profound knowledge of the topic at hand nor does is it exactly create enough respect for politeness.

[Gammelpreusse]

No one doubts that the Germans fought well, but the article itself is outrageous propaganda. This sort of article is straying very close to the 'victim' mentality that blighted Germany after WW1. The quote below barely deserves a response.



Doesn't the author remember who slaughtered civilians at Guernica? Who unleashed unprovoked Blitzkrieg on Europe? Who killed Jews by the millions? Germany wasn't a victim of anything in WW2. That's why, although the German veterans deserve utmost respect, their attendance at memorial functions is more controversial.

Furthermore, the Germans were not uber-soldiers by virtue of being maginficent German specimens :roll:. Any other military that had so effectively embraced the revolution in military strategy heralded by mechanization would have achieved similar success. The Allies had to play catch-up for a while. When a well trained, but comparatively tiny, British Expeditionary Force faced a hugely larger German force at the start of WW1 it dealt it a very bloody nose indeed. That didn't mean that the Germans were inferior men.

In 1944 the Germans had supremely good defensive terrain to operate in. In turn the Germans remarked on how, for example, once British forces got into a defensive position during the campaign, they just could not be dislodged- sound familiar? Odds of even 10-1 are not that great when a machine-gun in a hedgerow could wipe out a company or a Panzer camoflaged in rubble could pick off Allied tanks.



I have huge respect for Germany and its history, but such comments are uncalled for. I think you'll find that 'backward' Britain has had more success in warfare that Prussia/Germany. And contrary to the ridiculous article I would not claim that this fact makes the average Briton braver than the average German.

my apologies to those that actually do care to differentiate. And agreed to most in this post. Especially the "maginficent German specimens" part. It's just a matter of attitudes, tactics and training, nothing else. Every people could do that.

[Stevey1]

the front that caused 80% of Germany's total losses.



The Russians deserve huge credit and greater recognition in the West for breaking the back of the Nazi War machine.

The West, however, could never have afforded the huge reverses and collapses that the Russians had to endure 1941-2 before prevailing. The capture of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops (I believe the Germans held over 2 million Russian POWs at one point) was not a mortal blow, where such losses would have ended wars in the West several times over.

[Lokos]

The West, however, could never have afforded the huge reverses and collapses that the Russians had to endure 1941-2 before prevailing.

I believe you're correct. The Soviet ability to generate forces was impressive, to say the least. The Germans were bewildered, at the time.

L.

[CG51]

The West, however, could never have afforded the huge reverses and collapses that the Russians had to endure 1941-2 before prevailing. The capture of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops (I believe the Germans held over 2 million Russian POWs at one point) was not a mortal blow, where such losses would have ended wars in the West several times over.

Uh, you're forgetting the fact that this was on Russian soil. It did not take long for the Russian's to figure out how the Nazi's would treat them if they did capitulate. It was a fight against genocide.

Your comparison is not just and is pure speculation.

I seem to remember the Ukrainian's treating the Germans as liberators at the early stages of the conflict. Huge failure on the German high command in not exploiting this.

Before you bring France into this, they did not have the huge territory like the Russians and could not trade space for time.

[Gammelpreusse]

Uh, you're forgetting the fact that this was on Russian soil. It did not take long for the Russian's to figure out how the Nazi's would treat them if they did capitulate. It was a fight against genocide.

Your comparison is not just and is pure speculation.

I seem to remember the Ukrainian's treating the Germans as liberators at the early stages of the conflict. Huge failure on the German high command in not exploiting this.

Before you bring France into this, they did not have the huge territory like the Russians and could not trade space for time.


Agreed. If you look at world war I, only 20 years prior, the loss pictures looked even grimmer then during most of the eastern front struggle. Authocratic Regimes, Germany back then included, constantly tend to underestimate the western fighting spirit.

[Harry Henkel]

I've noticed a few people talk about combat effectiveness (in ratio). If I recall correctly, that ratio was 2:1 in favor of the Germans during the entire war, right?

Or does someone have a reliable source proving otherwise?

[T.S.C.Plage]

Yes we, or, I already mentioned the U-Boat shipments earlier. The bit we're raising eyebrows at and wanting proof of is this bit:

It is assumed that this amount was used to build the atomic bomb that got later dropped over Hiroshima.
How should I proof it? I don't have access to the "Manhattan Project" files or the records of Oak Ridge. The only thing I can do is refere you to watch the TV documentation "U-234 Hitler's last submarine" for example and start your own search from there. You can begin with part 6 on youtube at about 3:30. I don't know what else to show you then eye-witness accounts from people who were there. I wouldn't call people like physicist and Nobelprize holder Hans Bethe, Major John Landsdale etc. untrustworthy.

[saturnin]

I've noticed a few people talk about combat effectiveness (in ratio). If I recall correctly, that ratio was 2:1 in favor of the Germans during the entire war, right?

Or does someone have a reliable source proving otherwise?


I presume that you speak about ratio of KIA/WIA/MIA and POW? If so this ratio was rapidly chanching during campaigns on different fronts. After large encirclement operation in east front (1941) this ratio was severalfold in favour of german forces. I don´t have acces to my library now but german losses (KIA) during starting months of opeation Barbarossa were about ~50000. In July about 20000 (operation started on 22. ...). ((losses were about twice as much as in May, June in 1940.)). In comparison with soviets this was RELATIVELY "accectable", actually germans expected higher losses for starting operations if I am not mistaken.

on the other hand what really count is how much opponent forces you put out of effective action. This doensn´t only mean KIA/WIA but also POW. And in this aspect ratio was even more in german favours with almost astronomical ratio (especially after September 1941)- but this is only one point of view.
Germans were really effective in dealing with enemy forces they faced on battlefield, but this wasn´t one ("two") battlefield like in France - it was Russia where there was need for relatively separated successive operations. And with this we get to point that similar ratios are not much of use on east front. Soviets were able to repeated ressurection of their armed forces. It looks nice if you "put out of action" five enemy soldiers in exchange for one of your own, but if next months there are another ten enemy soldiers and then another.... . If red army would defend France with same numbers, equipment and defending plan as French in 1941 it would be defeated as well - first because it would be even more quickly short of sources (this is offcourse open subject to discussion) and because it would be quickly left without foul territory. (well, actually battle in France can be devided into decisive action and latter occupation of territory after main battle was over - for second part soviets could be maybe better opponent giving somehow better resistence to defeatism. It could also other way if we look how some soviets units split up when sittuation was desperate during Barborassa).
So ratio is not much of use to determine how battle end up. It is also not good to say how war end up. But it says something about how country will look like after war. Soviets get victory. They get influence in east europe and big part of central. They became superpower. But they ended up with devastated population and they actually untill today bear this load. Demography is something you can´t cheat.
For many different reasons red army wasn´t able to be such a opponent in 1941 as it could be (Lokos can provide you good explanation). For those many reasons ratio was in german favour and even with victory at the end people in Russia (and Ukraine with took large portion of actual losses among citizens) had to suffer under occupation and prolonged war.

in 1944 ratio started to turn in Allies favour. I am not sure of accurate numbers but during Bagration operation this ratio shouldn´t be in much favour of Germans but i only quess without my library (you can for sure find relevant information on web.)

EDIT: after quick search this what can help you to see losses. But to estimate ratio is something really hard as you have to match relevant losses taken during operations - problem is that germans and soviets definition of concrete opeation differes - in dates, location etc.

http://soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/ (russian language)

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html (huh, I was close with those numbers)

[baboon6]

Sorry for your hurting, but trying to run a debate and all what comes is in return is unrelated wise assing and broadsword arguments where needles are required, then patience is stretched to a limit.

"so let's asses combat performance"

=>

"you lost!"

"complaining about numbers!"

..neither show a profound knowledge of the topic at hand nor does is it exactly create enough respect for politeness.

Everyone knows the Germans were great soldiers. Everyone knows they served a sick regime. Everyone knows they lost the war. So what is the debate about? You seem to want everyone to fawn over your precious little Nazi army. Grow up.

[Jacknola]

Professor Lokos: We have moved a long way from theoriginal light-weight pseudo-historical article that seemed to imply Nazi-superman qualities to Geramn infantry soldiers in Normandy... a concept of laughable accuracy. However, allow me to reply to your queries.

..At every stage of the campaign, the Eastern Front was emphasized over the Western.

This statement illustrates a widespread misconception. Your sentence has no context or a meaning that can be easily understood. What do you intend to say? Do you mean that at every stage the Eastern front got the emphasis in … say … submarines? That is ridiculous of course, but it is an interprtation that could easily be reached if one accepted your rather sloppy statement .... and it illustrates a common problem in WWII comparative force discussions... poorly thought-out sentence construction and a failure to agree on termenology not to mention process.

In your statment, I suspect (but donn't know for sure) that you are simply referring to numbers and divisions, number of Generals, or some such … not industrial output and commitment of National effort, and that you think the measures you use to base your unsubstantiated statement is self evident, not requiring explanation or rigourous examination. Not true my friend.

My thesis is that attempts to judge WWII national military “emphasis” based on numbers, divisions, casualties, etc., instead of industrial logistics is simply a serious arm chair mistake. Amateurs talk divisions, pros talk logistics.

...however, one gets the sense that the Soviets just did the manual labor, while the Western Allies did all the real work.

Perhaps that's not what you're angling for, but that's how it's coming across...

I see your point. No, that is not what I want to convey nor is it my belief. The Soviet effort, frontal and unsubtle as it may have been in practice, was of primary importance in strategically fixing the German ground forces. And the struggle on that front was indeed tragically titanic.

But the point I want to make is that the commonly advanced figure of “75 percent” of the “German Army” expended on the Eastern Front is not a concept that has meaning in modern warfare theory. Those that talk numbers, macro-casualty ratios, etc., I believe have not given a lot of thought about underlying source of power for modern mobile total warfare.

I advanced my thesis hoping that some of the more thoughtful people on this board might question the commonly banded concepts of German force ratios on the several "fronts," and even question the relevance of that type of scorecard. But perhaps thinking about a new nymerical way of rating historical military force is unpopular at todays colleges.

"Casualties," or “casualties caused,” is especially meaningless for judgement of percent committment, etc ... unless you are in a true attrition war. In 1940, I would suspect the Germans suffered more actual battlefield combat “casualties,” excluding POWs, in France then did the French Army… yet they overran France in one month.

Thus quoting German losses in … say 1944... on the two fronts gives little useful information as to who is being more “effective.” It only definitely illustrates slaughter, not military prowess. I well know that the Russians did more than their share, a ponderous part. But they were helped a great deal by lend lease early and often and even certain of their leading military lights acknowledge the indispensable nature of that aid.

the Soviets suffered terribly from poor military performance and really never did equalize with the Germans man to man, unlike the western forces. They could not have beaten the Germans alone.

What rubbish.

Remind me of the significant WA contribution to the war pre-Kursk.

I suggest that you look up the German logistic, construction, industrial complex dedicated to the German total war effort. Then I suggest you develop a method of quantifying that logistic base. Next, break out that portion that can be identified as directly involved with supporting the Eastern Front. Then quantify the portion directly commited in supporting the battle of the Atlantic, E-boats, naval support, building and manning the Atlantic wall, support of Italian debacles, air and naval assets, etc.

Then to the force ratio on the eastern front, take the delivery of equipment to Russia from the Allies into account … you can develop your own algorithm ( I’ve got one… but not ready for publication). When you have the force ratios quantified, let me know what you find.

I’ve done it and the data, if at all correct, provides an unusual, perhaps revolutionary look at the German national war effort. I’m not sure that even the Germans knew how little of their industrial effort was focused on the Eastern front. If my figures are correct, the Germans may have been able to perhaps at least double their combat power on the Eastern Front at any point in time from the begining of Barbarrossa, given even obvious industrial mobilization and concentration on that objective. This implies that at least half the German effort was directed elsewhere.

Of course part of the inefficiency may be attributed to well known German industrial organization errors and lack of full mobilization until relatively late in the war. Regardless, I believe the statement that the Russians faced "75 percent of the German war effort" to be wrong. Perhaps a case could be made for 50 percent pre Kursk. BUT... by correting the historical record, I am not denigrating the Russian achievement... What is dishonorable with Russia facing ... say ... 50 percent rather than 75 percent?

... That just shows a basic misunderstanding of WW2 realities.

I sincerely doubt I have any basic misunderstandings about WWII. My theses just do not parrot some of the simplistic views of the war propagated for mass consumption.

The underlying force reality of WWII is properly measured in the application of industrial power. The Germans failed to mobilize their industry in the most effective way… such as early use of women in factories. The US invented entirely new ways to use its industrial power. That is why the ultimate invasion of Europe would probably have succeeded even if Russia had been sidelined.

Care to back that up with some statistics, my friend? Or a source?

I can tell you right now, it's untrue, and you'll look the fool - but please, try.

I have a lot of sources including some obscure official US analyses and publications. Unit v Unit, or individual-German-soldier v individual-Russian- soldier, the German was the deadlier in combat by a substantial margin.

This does not mean the German was a combat superman and to leap to that conclusion is to read something into the above statement that is not there. The ratio has multiple causes… one being the defensive nature of the German effort, and another being the almost universal Russian disregard of casualties (when a Russian General who failed would be garroted by order of Stalin et. al., it didn’t exactly make that General very concerned with the casualties suffered by his men.)

In contrast, by the Normandy battle, the Western Allies had reached parity in unit v unit, or individual v individual effectiveness with the German forces, and their overall material advantage gave their forces a force multiplier (but remember that in particular systems the Germans retained an advantage for months… tanks for instance).

Again that is not attributable to foolish combat notions about "wonderful SS physiques, or Rambo-Special Ops-Ranger, or whatever. It is because of a complex series of factors and doctines … and is partly a result of the Western emphasis on mechanization and firepower rather than expending human assets to achieve goals.

But, because you seem so quickly and completely convinced in... say ... 5 minutes, that my theses developed over years from research on many disciplines and levels is untrue, and that I look the fool, I’ll just quietly allow you to find your own statistics, discover the facts, develop a ranking method, etc.

Regards.

Re: Tri’s AH comments in this and most lines…

Characterized by banal lightweight snap comments, irrelevant, unsubstantiated, opinionated, name-calling, and especially marked by a lack of thought. Foolish lad definitely NOT anyone to take seriously.

[James]

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/2425/hitlerjugendaged13captu.jpg (http://img188.imageshack.us/i/hitlerjugendaged13captu.jpg/)

[Gammelpreusse]

Everyone knows the Germans were great soldiers. Everyone knows they served a sick regime. Everyone knows they lost the war. So what is the debate about? You seem to want everyone to fawn over your precious little Nazi army. Grow up.

Do me a favor? Get over your complexes before posting.

[James]

Do me a favor? Get over your complexes before posting.

If you're going to do nothing more than insult other members instead of answering questions that have been put to you reasonably any number of times, please stop posting in this thread.

[Stevey1]

Uh, you're forgetting the fact that this was on Russian soil. It did not take long for the Russian's to figure out how the Nazi's would treat them if they did capitulate. It was a fight against genocide.

Your comparison is not just and is pure speculation.

I seem to remember the Ukrainian's treating the Germans as liberators at the early stages of the conflict. Huge failure on the German high command in not exploiting this.

Before you bring France into this, they did not have the huge territory like the Russians and could not trade space for time.

I didn't mean to suggest that the Russians fought better than the Western Allies. My point was exactly that the Russians could sustain losses in POWs etc that would have gutted Western Armies: because of the size of that country and its available manpower resources. Singapore is seen as the worst defeat in British military history: around 150,000 commonwealth and British troops captured by the Japanese. Those sorts of numbers were dwarfed by regular Russian encirclement and capture by the Germans in the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign. If any other country had 2 million men in German POW camps they would not have been able to keep fighting:for practical reasons.

[Gammelpreusse]

If you're going to do nothing more than insult other members instead of answering questions that have been put to you reasonably any number of times, please stop posting in this thread.

If you folks stop beeing self rightous hypocrits that hardly contribute anything themselves but whiningl, complains and cheap arguments, I may do that. I was not the one calling others ****w*ts and Nazi lovers and I do not see any value in going into details based on such a level. If you want to return to reason, cool. If you want to continue on this road, enjoy the mud alone.

[Gammelpreusse]

I didn't mean to suggest that the Russians fought better than the Western Allies. My point was exactly that the Russians could sustain losses in POWs etc that would have gutted Western Armies: because of the size of that country and its available manpower resources. Singapore is seen as the worst defeat in British military history: around 150,000 commonwealth and British troops captured by the Japanese. Those sorts of numbers were dwarfed by regular Russian encirclement and capture by the Germans in the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign. If any other country had 2 million men in German POW camps they would not have been able to keep fighting:for practical reasons.

Again I have to bring up the example of WWI, where these numbers actually were achieved. Not nessecarily in POWs, but in KIAs for sure. Both France and Britian fought to the brink of collaps. I think it is reasonable to argue that had France found itself in a similiar role as Russia did, with enough room to maneuever, France would have stuck to the fight much longer.

[CG51]

I didn't mean to suggest that the Russians fought better than the Western Allies. My point was exactly that the Russians could sustain losses in POWs etc that would have gutted Western Armies: because of the size of that country and its available manpower resources. Singapore is seen as the worst defeat in British military history: around 150,000 commonwealth and British troops captured by the Japanese. Those sorts of numbers were dwarfed by regular Russian encirclement and capture by the Germans in the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign. If any other country had 2 million men in German POW camps they would not have been able to keep fighting:for practical reasons.

You missed the point that I was conveying. I said noting about the Russians fighting better. I stated that they were fighting for their very survival on their own soil. Difference. There brits lost more troops than the Americans with a much smaller population base and continued to fight to the end of the war. They fought in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Africa, Europe and Asia. America fought in all those theaters as well and had nearly ten million men in arms by the Normandy campaign and lost 405,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen in theaters around the globe for real estate that was not her own soil.

Not only did we fight and die on foreign soil, we supplied our allies with huge quantities of food stuffs, and materials. We gave the SU more trucks than it could produce so they concentrated their resources on building tanks and artillery. Russia produces little in the way of cargo and warships unlike the western powers and used the resources that would be used on building a navy on building tanks and artillery.

[Robert.V]

We gave the SU more trucks than it could produce s


No you did not.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4492482&postcount=109

[James]

If you folks stop beeing self rightous hypocrits that hardly contribute anything themselves but whiningl, complains and cheap arguments, I may do that. I was not the one calling others ****w*ts and Nazi lovers and I do not see any value in going into details based on such a level. If you want to return to reason, cool. If you want to continue on this road, enjoy the mud alone.

That was really uncalled for.

[oldsoak]

Let me see.
In the East - Yep, Germany caught the Soviets on the wrong foot. Yes it was desperate times as the Soviets will agree. But they came back from the brink, fought back and stuck their flag over Berlin. The Russians demonstrated tremendous powers of recuperation and drive.
Western allies in Europe ? - The Nazis had 3 years familiarity with the ground before we ever set foot there. It was never going to be a cakewalk - not against someone who is more familar with the terrain and has the advantage of being able to select the best defensive positions before you rock up. They dont tell you that you need a 3 or 4 to 1 advantage in assualting a defensive postion for nothing. But, together with the Soviets, we put a stop to WW2.
Everyone knows the Germans wrote new chapters in warfare, everyone knows they had good troops, good gear and were a first class army. However, the Soviets and the Western allies didnt do too badly either. Lets hear less of this revisionism and let grandaddies war stay that way and move on.

[Jaguar]

The Soviet effort, frontal and unsubtle as it may have been in practice, was of primary importance in strategically fixing the German ground forces. And the struggle on that front was indeed tragically titanic.

Jack, Soviet military art was exactly the contrary of what you are saying. For example, the "Storm" in "Operation Desert Storm" came from the "Storm" in "Operation August Storm" because the later provided inspiration, concrete guidance and a virtual model for the former. So...

[Gammelpreusse]

That was really uncalled for.


and this was....?


There is no debate. You're in a one-man competition, the aim of which seems to be to prove how much of a complete fcukwit you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Especially the hypocrit part. :cantbeli:

[Mousepad]

Subscribed. Looking forward for new info from Lokos and Jacknola discussion.

[oldsoak]

It can be informative - IF we play the ball and not the man.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Jack, Soviet military art was exactly the contrary of what you are saying. For example, the "Storm" in "Operation Desert Storm" came from the "Storm" in "Operation August Storm" because the later provided inspiration, concrete guidance and a virtual model for the former. So...

I've heard this claimed several times without a source, and have found no mention of this in any history of the Gulf War. Do you have a source?

[Jaguar]

Megaraptor;4500615']I've heard this claimed several times without a source, and have found no mention of this in any history of the Gulf War. Do you have a source?

Should have mentioned it, David Glantz The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945 and Soviet Operational and Tactical Combat in Manchuria, 1945.

[Rittmester]

I agree with most of the article. The fighting prowess of the German armed forces of the time is amazing, and can hardly be overestimated. Just look at the numbers, look up how utterly superior the Western Allies alone were in men, material, guns, tanks, planes, fuel and ammunition. And yet, wherever they encountered the Germans they had great problems, wether in Africa ("Kasserine Pass"), Italy ("Monte Cassino"), in Normandy (more or less the whole thing), in Holland ("Market Garden"), in Belgium ("Battle of the Bulge") or Germany ("Hürtgen Forest"). Everywhere. In the end they had usually to resort to massive bombing and shelling, killing for example more French civilians than the Luftwaffe killed British ones in the process.

This doesn't even take into account that the overly glorified Western Allies did at no time fight against more than a third of the German armed forces. Or that they entered the fray in earnest only when the Germans had already lost millions of solders against the Sovietunion. If you then consider that the American soldiers showed strong signs of combat fatigue after only half a year of fighting an numerically inferior enemy, one begins to understand how impressive the Wehrmachts performance actually was. Frankly, the truth of the matter is, had the odds been even, the Germans would have won. And had the odds been reversed, the Western Allies would have been defeated in record time.

So some praise is entirely in order, especially after countless Hollywood movies have tried to show us the Germans/Nazis of the time as ugly, stupid cowards (with skinhead haircuts if "Saving Privat Ryan" is any guide), who were at best able to snipe out of some holes before trying to run away. In so far I do agree with the article. But I am not so sure about its basic message: that the Germans should partake in the celebration of the Normandy landings.

What is their to celebrate for us? We were defeated, after all. Our liberation from evil Hitler? The truth is that no Allied leader and no Allied soldier of the time wanted to "liberate" the Germans. They wanted to crush them, and they did - although Stalin's Sovietunion ended up doing most of the work. And with that totalitarian state did the Western Allies then divide up Germany and all of Europe. Our cities were downright systematically destroyed. A quarter of our national territory was taken away forever (after having already lost one sixth of it after WWI). 15 million Germans were subjected to ethnic cleansing of which 1.5 to 2 million died in the process. Germany was thoroughly ripped off, as far as its technology was concerned, military or otherwise, cut to pieces and turned into some half-souvereign fracturized states living in the constant fear of ending up as battlefield of WWIII. In the new world order, Germany received no permanent seat in the UN security council, as Britain and France did, not even after reunification and decades of democracy (but it is generously allowed to pay almost as much for that organisation as both these nations together).

If America had tried to end the war as soon as possible (preferably after assassinating Hitler, which they explicitely not even attempted), had done something against Stalin's armies marching westward instead of systematically helping them to the last, and had allowed Germany to stay a whole and souvereign nation, I would feel gratitude. But seeing as things worked out...what is there to celebrate for us Germans on Normandy beach? And to celebrate is what the others want to do there, right? How do Americans whose ancestors wore the grey uniform in the civil war think about "celebrating" at Ge1tisburg or Appomattox? (For some reason this editor refuses to write down the word *****sburg - has it already come so far that it is considered politically incorrect to mention this battle? Perhaps those Southrons do have a more influential lobby than I thought.)

If Monsieur Sarkozy wants to have all the glory for himself (wether a few months ago or again next year), let him have it. We Germans shouldn't spoil the party.

Well said.

[Jacknola]

I think a good deal of the above post is a strange interpretation and a little victimology in nature.

But, for the record on the subject of the German veterens being allowed to officially attend the 50th and/or 65th anniversary of Normandy Invasion, I was for allowing a German role in the event. And I say that as a Vietnam combat vet whose father was KIA in Normandy.

http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/42548/2793513880103673033S600x600Q85.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2793513880103673033XyPYoY)

http://inlinethumb60.webshots.com/42683/2576074800103673033S600x600Q85.jpg (http://news.webshots.com/photo/2576074800103673033taygih)

After the American Civil War, on the 50th Anniversary of Gttsburg battle, thousands of ex-confederate troops participated in the ceremony on site. Indeed, several thousand ex-confeds re-enacted Longstreets Assault (Pickets charge), again crossing the fields in line of battle toward the stone wall manned solidly by Unionists veterans (yeh there were some fist fights at the wall, a few stones thrown, but not much). It was the last time a true rendetion of the "rebel yell" has been heard on this earth.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/gett/getttour/sidebar/reunion13.htm

Also on that 50th Anniversary, the captured Confederate battle flags were returned to the States after being held by the Federals.

The feelings in the US after the WBTS, both North and South, were almost as ... bitter and dynamic ... as those existing in Europe and America post WWII. But, there comes a time when the idealogical imperatives can and should be set aside.

Given the passage of time, and the dumping of the theories of both Naziism and Communism onto the ash heaps of history, reconcilling the German vets who wished to return to Normandy would have been appropriate. I would have loved to interveiw some of them, especially any survivors of the 91st Division, on their experiences during the first few days of the invasion. It is still my hope to do so, though it will have to be very soon.

[Whitcomb]

And you didnt invite us to the Dunkirk celebration either ... wait, you dont celebrate Dunkirk ?

Cant forget the Dieppe party

[Rittmester]

Why was gammepreusse suspended? The infractions rather came from the other side of the debate table - as well as the majority of provocations. Who is the moderator behind this?

[johanness]

I think a good deal of the above post is a strange interpretation and a little victimology in nature.


Sure, your way for lookink at some parts of WWll has a truth of it's owen ....

but you really think your father's life is worth two or three or twenty Trucks delivered
to fight against the Nazis?

Human Lifes worth against Trucks?

Maybe you recognice there were humans who fought the war, which have relatives and beloved ones who died, and their first thought was for sure not "thanks for the trucks".

The real price in a war is payed in blood.

[Mango Madness]

Sure, your way for lookink at some parts of WWll has a truth of it's owen ....

but you really think your father's life is worth two or three or twenty Trucks delivered
to fight against the Nazis?

Human Lifes worth against Trucks?

Maybe you recognice there were humans who fought the war, which have relatives and beloved ones who died, and their first thought was for sure not "thanks for the trucks".

The real price in a war is payed in blood.

Yes. You can imagine how Americans would (even more than they already do) portray themselves as the victors if their situations and the numbers were reversed and 80-90% of all Nazi casualties occurred on their front, or if they lost 27 million vs 400,000 Soviets.

Historians recognise the overwhelming contribution to victory the Soviets made to victory in WWII, and with the end of the cold war the Soviets role is starting to get more recognition in west after decades of them being "the enemy" preventing them from fully acknowledging it. As for lend lease, most of the stuff arrived after 43', when the Soviets had the initiative and had absorbed the enormous Nazi punishment in the dark days of 41-42, not to mention the amount shipped through lend lease was a tiny fraction of the Soviet Union's domestic wartime production. Not to mention trying to equate "goods" to lives is sheer ridiculousness.

Saying that "the western allies would have won if the Soviets didn't" is speculation, it didn't happen. The fact is that it was not them that "won" WWII, it was the Soviets, and British historian Richard Overy writes that it was on the Eastern Front that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/07/russia.secondworldwar

Of course the US, holed up in North America surrounded by water, was never going to be invaded by Germany. If there was no Soviet Union in play to destroy 80-90% of the Germans then the US would not have (would not have allowed millions to die overseas) and could not have (80-90% of Germans died on the Eastern Front and most of their military machine was concentrated on supporting it. With no SU this manpower and military production would have been free to defend their European gains) successfully attacked Germany. The Americans would not have the stomach for the kind of fight the Germans-Soviets had. The emphasis the Soviets placed on the collective and their "motherland", inspired by their centuries of history of repelling enormous invasions, and knowing that they would be wiped out by the Germans if they lost, which wouldn't have happened to the "racially superior" Americans, was why they had the tremendous endurance for hardship and sacrifice that Americans could not have sustained.

[California Joe]

Why was gammepreusse suspended? The infractions rather came from the other side of the debate table - as well as the majority of provocations. Who is the moderator behind this?

James gave him one after repeatedly asking him to behave and answer the questions posed to him

I gave him the other one after he whined about it.

Don't like it? Tough. He can come back in 2 weeks and regale us with tales of dead sexy SS men.


Yes. You can imagine how Americans would (even more than they already do) portray themselves as the victors if their situations and the numbers were reversed and 80-90% of all Nazi casualties occurred on their front, or if they lost 27 million vs 400,000 Soviets.

Historians recognise the overwhelming contribution to victory the Soviets made to victory in WWII, and with the end of the cold war the Soviets role is starting to get more recognition in west after decades of them being "the enemy" preventing them from fully acknowledging it. As for lend lease, most of the stuff arrived after 43', when the Soviets had the initiative and had absorbed the enormous Nazi punishment in the dark days of 41-42, not to mention the amount shipped through lend lease was a tiny fraction of the Soviet Union's domestic wartime production. Not to mention trying to equate "goods" to lives is sheer ridiculousness.

Saying that "the western allies would have won if the Soviets didn't" is speculation, it didn't happen. The fact is that it was not them that "won" WWII, it was the Soviets, and British historian Richard Overy writes that it was on the Eastern Front that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/07/russia.secondworldwar

Of course the US, holed up in North America surrounded by water, was never going to be invaded by Germany. If there was no Soviet Union in play to destroy 80-90% of the Germans then the US would not have (would not have allowed millions to die overseas) and could not have (80-90% of Germans died on the Eastern Front and most of their military machine was concentrated on supporting it. With no SU this manpower and military production would have been free to defend their European gains) successfully attacked Germany. The Americans would not have the stomach for the kind of fight the Germans-Soviets had. The emphasis the Soviets placed on the collective and their "motherland", inspired by their centuries of history of repelling enormous invasions, and knowing that they would be wiped out by the Germans if they lost, which wouldn't have happened to the "racially superior" Americans, was why they had the tremendous endurance for hardship and sacrifice that Americans could not have sustained.

How do you know what the Americans had the stomach for, you unbelievable ****. You dismiss "speculation" and then proceed to speculate about the intestinal fortitude of the US in a derogatory manner because they were fortunate enough to have an ocean between them and Europe.

Frankly, I stay out of these silly ass discussions because I don't have the historical acumen that many of our members do to accurately discuss them, not that it seems to matter to a lot of you, and they always devolve into some weird nationalistic **** measuring contest but you do yourself and the memory of everyone who fought and died there a disservice with scurrilous remarks like those above.

[CG51]

Yes. You can imagine how Americans would (even more than they already do) portray themselves as the victors if their situations and the numbers were reversed and 80-90% of all Nazi casualties occurred on their front, or if they lost 27 million vs 400,000 Soviets.

Historians recognise the overwhelming contribution to victory the Soviets made to victory in WWII, and with the end of the cold war the Soviets role is starting to get more recognition in west after decades of them being "the enemy" preventing them from fully acknowledging it. As for lend lease, most of the stuff arrived after 43', when the Soviets had the initiative and had absorbed the enormous Nazi punishment in the dark days of 41-42, not to mention the amount shipped through lend lease was a tiny fraction of the Soviet Union's domestic wartime production. Not to mention trying to equate "goods" to lives is sheer ridiculousness.

Saying that "the western allies would have won if the Soviets didn't" is speculation, it didn't happen. The fact is that it was not them that "won" WWII, it was the Soviets, and British historian Richard Overy writes that it was on the Eastern Front that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/07/russia.secondworldwar

Of course the US, holed up in North America surrounded by water, was never going to be invaded by Germany. If there was no Soviet Union in play to destroy 80-90% of the Germans then the US would not have (would not have allowed millions to die overseas) and could not have (80-90% of Germans died on the Eastern Front and most of their military machine was concentrated on supporting it. With no SU this manpower and military production would have been free to defend their European gains) successfully attacked Germany. The Americans would not have the stomach for the kind of fight the Germans-Soviets had. The emphasis the Soviets placed on the collective and their "motherland", inspired by their centuries of history of repelling enormous invasions, and knowing that they would be wiped out by the Germans if they lost, which wouldn't have happened to the "racially superior" Americans, was why they had the tremendous endurance for hardship and sacrifice that Americans could not have sustained.

Some of the most loud mouth garbage on the net right there. Not worth the read. What a joke.

[Jacknola]

.

Saying that "the western allies would have won if the Soviets didn't" is speculation, it didn't happen. The fact is that it was not them that "won" WWII, it was the Soviets, and British historian Richard Overy writes that it was on the Eastern Front that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/07/russia.secondworldwar

Of course the US, holed up in North America surrounded by water, was never going to be invaded by Germany. If there was no Soviet Union in play to destroy 80-90% of the Germans then the US would not have (would not have allowed millions to die overseas) and could not have (80-90% of Germans died on the Eastern Front and most of their military machine was concentrated on supporting it. With no SU this manpower and military production would have been free to defend their European gains) successfully attacked Germany. The Americans would not have the stomach for the kind of fight the Germans-Soviets had. The emphasis the Soviets placed on the collective and their "motherland", inspired by their centuries of history of repelling enormous invasions, and knowing that they would be wiped out by the Germans if they lost, which wouldn't have happened to the "racially superior" Americans, was why they had the tremendous endurance for hardship and sacrifice that Americans could not have sustained.


MANGO, I've read some stupid, brain-addled, propaganda induced, ignorant and foolish things in my life, but this little screed justs about beats anything i've ever seen related to WWII. Mango, I congratulate you for being the biggest sheep on Orwell's Animal Farm. You have added nothing to the appreciation of Russian sacrafice during WWII... All you have done was confirm that Soviet era history education was simply in the service of the state, and those who went through it came out with the equivalant of an intellectual lobotomy.

The only reason I got into this discussion was because I could not stand the arrogant imaginary thesis of the original post… the one that claimed Nazi German infantry superman status in Normandy, complete with "magnificent physique when dead."

But then came the equally imaginary thesis; i.e. the Soviet-Union-single-handedly-won-the-war… which led me to introduce some small glimpse of something I've been studying periodically, to try to bring some balance to those who unfortunately were only exposed to Soviet era interpretations of WWII.

Well, with the above post by MANGO, we have somewhat predictably “progressed” from certain people claming the Soviets faced "75 percent of the German Army," to claims of "80 percent of the German Armed Forces," now to 90 percent of the German National military effort." What the heck... lets just round up to 100 percent.

Furthermore, it doesn’t seem enough to claim “90 percent,” but then this MANGO-parvenu has to further denigrate the apparently "zero-to-10percent" contribution of the Western Allies … and claim that the whole war was fought totally in the Soviet Union and the west was evidently just a bunch of dilettantes and wanna bees, because they were racially pure or somesuch weird mouthings (interesting thought that.. especially after the 1936 Berlin Olympics).

I have always been fascinated by Russia, its history, its people. I’ve always been repulsed by the Soviet Union, its ideology, leaders, mass murders, gulags, and amorality, along with it's committment to rearranging truth. One thing I remember about the Russians I’ve met decades ago during the Soviet era (and universally liked and enjoyed their company and converstation) was that none of them had much of an idea about the Pacific war, and darn few of them knew much about WWII in the West prior to Barbarossa. (And of course darn few of them had heard of Stalin’s pact with Hitler before the start of the war.)

BUT… I’m tired of trying to bring balance to the historical perspective of those people how have no historical perspective to balance … Besides, how can such people understand when you propose quantifying and comparing the military power of … say … a submarine ... to a Tiger tank? Does building one sub, crewing, supporting, arming, supplying it, organizing its action with others, conducting research on snorkles and upgrading its technology, etc., equal 10 Tiger tanks? or 100? or 1000? What about the scientific effort to produce V-1s,V-2s, etc? What about air assests and garrisons, etc.? Hummmm 90 percent... incredible that someone could actually believe that.

If you want to believe that the Soviets faced 90 percent of the German effort, and won the war singlehandedly, fine. If you have no idea of the speed of the development of the Western Air power and what that meant on the WWII battlefield, you join a long line of military people who didn’t understand it either at the time. At the front of that line were numerous Germany generals, educated in war on the Eastern front, who transferred to the Western front and were suddenly confronted and overwhelmed with the consequences of 3-dimension warfare. Rommel himself was the one who talked most about it.

If you think that Britain, their Allies, and the US once roused by Pearl Harbor and once blood was shed, were going to allow Germany to control Europe even if they had succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union, you have little knowledge or appreciation of certain qualities of the WWII American character. I assure you that Germany would have ultimately seen a rain of weapons and machines that you cannot imagine... even nuclear weapons if necessary. OMG.. at the end of the war, both the Germans and the Soviet troops were still using horses for god's sake!

The Soviet armed forces contributed mightily to the victory after losses that crippled their country for generations... partly because of terrible mistakes by their own leaders. And that has been recognized in the West by even casual students of the war. But the forces of Stalin-Soviets were unlikely to have won that war had they alone faced Germany. It was close enough in Russia as it was … without doubling (or more) the German power by removing the Western powers from consideration.


Finally, I'll parapharse Churchill and say this... if you want to have some idea of what the American people can stomach, study the American Civil War. BUT don't let me pop your ignorant little balloon... believe what you want or what your were programed. My only spur is that I truly dislike crappy, pseudo, invented fake, lying, history... something Mango et. al. seems to relish.


PS: Professor Lokos, I would enjoy continuing our more fact based discussion sometime.

[Mango Madness]

How do you know what the Americans had the stomach for, you unbelievable ****. You dismiss "speculation" and then proceed to speculate about the intestinal fortitude of the US in a derogatory manner because they were fortunate enough to have an ocean between them and Europe.

I don't "know" what they had the stomach for, but I gave you the reasons for why.

Neither the Americans nor any country in its position would have fought Germans at the height of their power anyway, it is one thing attacking Germany with other allies when it has been mortally wounded by the Soviet Union and sustaining 135,000 casualties, it is another thing attacking an overseas country that doesn't threaten you at the height of their power which will cause you millions of casualties.

The speculation on my part was dismissing Jacknola's speculation that the allies would have won without the SU, hence saying that speculation is speculation, everyone can have an opinion, whereas what actually occurred was that the Soviet Union defeated 80-90% of the Germans.

[Elbs]

whereas what actually occurred was that the Soviet Union defeated 80-90% of the Germans.

You're just embarrassing yourself.

[Mango Madness]

whereas what actually occurred was that the Soviet Union defeated 80-90% of the Germans.


You're just embarrassing yourself.

80 percent, usually a common figure given. http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/World-leaders-gather-as-Russia-remembers/2005/05/08/1115491042992.html

93 percent, Russian historian Valentin Falin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm

[Mango Madness]

MANGO, I've read some stupid, brain-addled, propaganda induced, ignorant and foolish things in my life, but this little screed justs about beats anything i've ever seen related to WWII. Mango, I congratulate you for being the biggest sheep on Orwell's Animal Farm. You have added nothing to the appreciation of Russian sacrafice during WWII... All you have done was confirm that Soviet era history education was simply in the service of the state, and those who went through it came out with the equivalant of an intellectual lobotomy.

The only reason I got into this discussion was because I could not stand the arrogant imaginary thesis of the original post… the one that claimed Nazi German infantry superman status in Normandy, complete with "magnificent physique when dead."

But then came the equally imaginary thesis; i.e. the Soviet-Union-single-handedly-won-the-war… which led me to introduce some small glimpse of some work I’ve been doing periodically to try to bring some balance to those who unfortunately were only exposed to Soviet era interpretations of WWII.

Well, with the above post, we have predictably “progressed” from certain people claming the Soviets faced "75 percent of the German Army," to claims of "80 percent of the German Armed Forces," now to 90 percent of the German National military effort." What the heck... lets just round up to 100 percent.

Furthermore, it doesn’t seem enough to claim “90 percent,” but then this MANGO-parvenu has to denigrate the contribution of the Western Allies to zero, … and claim that the whole war was fought in the Soviet Union and the west was evidently just a bunch of dilettantes and wanna bees, because they were racially pure or somesuch weird mouthings (interesting thought that.. especially after the 1936 Berlin Olympics).

I have always been fascinated by Russia, its history, its people. I’ve always been repulsed by the Soviet Union, its ideology, leaders, and amorality along with it's committment to rearranging truth. One thing I remember about the Russians I’ve met decades ago during the Soviet era was that none of them had any idea about the Pacific war, and darn few of them knew much about WWII in the West prior to Barbarossa. And of course darn few of them had heard of Stalin’s pact with Hitler before the start of the war.

BUT… I’m tired of trying to bring balance to the historical perspective of those people how have no historical perspective to balance … which perfectly matches their historical knowledge. Besides… how does one quantify and compare the military power of … say … a submarine ... to a Tiger tank? Does building one sub, crewing, supporting, arming, supplying it, organizing its action with others etc., equal 10 Tiger tanks or 100? What about the scientific effort to produce V-1s,V-2s, etc? What about air assests and garrisons, etc.? Hummmm 90 percent... incredible that someone could actually believe that.

If you want to believe that the Soviets faced 90 percent of the German effort, and won the war singlehandedly, fine. If you have no idea of the speed of the development of the Western Air power and what that meant on the WWII battlefield, you join a long line of military people who didn’t understand it either at the time. At the front of that line were numerous Germany generals, educated in war on the Eastern front, who transferred to the Western front and were suddenly confronted and overwhelmed with the consequences of 3-dimension warfare. Rommel himself was the one who talked most about it.

If you think that Britain, their Allies, and the US once roused by Pearl Harbor and once blood was shed, was going to allow Germany to control Europe even if they had succeeded in defeating the Soviet Union, you have little knowledge or appreciation of certain qualities of the WWII American character. I assure you that Germany would have ultimately seen a rain of weapons and machines that you cannot imagine... even nuclear weapons if necessary. OMG.. at the end of the war, both the Germans and the Soviet troops were still using horses for god's sake!

The Soviet armed forces contributed mightily to the victory after losses that crippled their country for generations... partly because of terrible mistakes by their own leaders. And that has been recognized in the West by even casual students of the war. But the forces of Stalin-Soviets were unlikely to have won that war had they alone faced Germany. It was close enough in Russia as it was … without doubling (or more) the German power by removing the Western powers from consideration.

But don’t let me pop you little balloon… believe what you want… its not like it is true, or real, or even matters much now does it? My only spur is a dislike of crappy, pseudo, made to order history, which is what some seem to relish. Calm down.


has to denigrate the contribution of the Western Allies to zero, … and claim that the whole war was fought in the Soviet Union and the west was evidently just a bunch of dilettantes and wanna bees, because they were racially pure or somesuch weird mouthingsYeah, ok. What I ACTUALLY said was....

"which wouldn't have happened to the "racially superior" Americans"

This is in reference to the Germans considering the Slavs "subhuman", which is why the Germans treatment of Soviet civilians and POWs was so brutal while French, British and Americans were considered more or less the Germans racial equal, and were treated much better. This contributed to the Soviets "stomach" for sacrifice, as once the news about the German atrocities against POWs and civilians came round they would often fought to the death rather than surrender.


But then came the equally imaginary thesis; i.e. the Soviet-Union-single-handedly-won-the-warWhat I ACTUALLY said was...
"the overwhelming contribution to victory the Soviets made to victory in WWII"

Note, "contribution", I didn't say they single-handedly won, I said their contribution to victory was by far the largest.


Furthermore, it doesn’t seem enough to claim “90 percent,” but then this MANGO-parvenu has to denigrate the contribution of the Western Allies to zero … and claim that the whole war was fought in the Soviet UnionI never said that.

[socom6]

Yes. You can imagine how Americans would (even more than they already do) portray themselves as the victors if their situations and the numbers were reversed and 80-90% of all Nazi casualties occurred on their front, or if they lost 27 million vs 400,000 Soviets.

Historians recognise the overwhelming contribution to victory the Soviets made to victory in WWII, and with the end of the cold war the Soviets role is starting to get more recognition in west after decades of them being "the enemy" preventing them from fully acknowledging it. As for lend lease, most of the stuff arrived after 43', when the Soviets had the initiative and had absorbed the enormous Nazi punishment in the dark days of 41-42, not to mention the amount shipped through lend lease was a tiny fraction of the Soviet Union's domestic wartime production. Not to mention trying to equate "goods" to lives is sheer ridiculousness.

Saying that "the western allies would have won if the Soviets didn't" is speculation, it didn't happen. The fact is that it was not them that "won" WWII, it was the Soviets, and British historian Richard Overy writes that it was on the Eastern Front that the war was won or lost, for if the Red Army had not succeeded against all odds in halting the Germans in 1941 and then inflicting the first major defeats at Stalingrad and Kursk in 1943, it is difficult to see how the western democracies, Britain and the US, could have expelled Germany from its new empire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/07/russia.secondworldwar

Of course the US, holed up in North America surrounded by water, was never going to be invaded by Germany. If there was no Soviet Union in play to destroy 80-90% of the Germans then the US would not have (would not have allowed millions to die overseas) and could not have (80-90% of Germans died on the Eastern Front and most of their military machine was concentrated on supporting it. With no SU this manpower and military production would have been free to defend their European gains) successfully attacked Germany. The Americans would not have the stomach for the kind of fight the Germans-Soviets had. The emphasis the Soviets placed on the collective and their "motherland", inspired by their centuries of history of repelling enormous invasions, and knowing that they would be wiped out by the Germans if they lost, which wouldn't have happened to the "racially superior" Americans, was why they had the tremendous endurance for hardship and sacrifice that Americans could not have sustained.

Jesus Christ! It seems since this year a bunch of idiots have invaded this forum. Where the hell do these nubs come from?

[TR1]

I dont know, but anyone calling the Soviet effort to the war pedestrian is a Grade A, disrespectful idiot. End of story.

[ThatHistoryDude]

I am always amazed by how long these discussions go on and how vitriolic they seem to get. Removing the Western Allies from the equation is just too big a variable to even have a rational discussion on.

In June of 1944 Germany was fielding 306 divisions you had 85-93 German Divisions in France/The low Countries and Italy defending against the Western Allies. There were about 150 on the Eastern Front, not counting the 20+ that were deployed in the Balkans/Greece area which at this point could almost be considered the eastern front but were not deployed in active fighting against the Russians. The rest were either in Germany or occupation forces around the rest of Europe.

Assuming that Germany did not have to defend against an allied invasion and could have freed up say half those 93 divisions how would this have changed the Eastern front? Would Operation Bagration been as successful if there had been more German troops available? I doubt the war would have shifted in Germany's favor but could it have dragged on long enough to cause a negotiated peace?

Or you can go further with this. What would have changed without Western Strategic bombing? At the very least the Germans could have moved troops and material from Germany to the front quicker without hits on major rail hubs like Hanover. How much more industry could the Germans have devoted to building planes and tanks if they had not been devoted to U-boats, V-1s, and V-2s most of which were used almost exclusively against the Western powers? How much Russian industry would have been diverted from tanks, planes, and guns without the trucks and locomotives from lend lease?

Did the Russians do the lion's share of the fighting? Yes. Could the Russians have won without the Western Allies? Impossible to say. Could the West have beaten Germany without Russia? Again impossible to say.

[TR1]

Why is it impossible to say? USSR survived against, and started making significant offenses against the German and Axis threat during 1942 and 1943, when the Allied contribution to the land war was minimal.

[ThatHistoryDude]

Why is it impossible to say? USSR survived against, and started making significant offenses against the German and Axis threat during 1942 and 1943, when the Allied contribution to the land war was minimal.

And in 1942 there averaged about 40 divisions in France/Benelux. So can you say with certainty that things might not have been different if the Nazis had an additional 20 divisions to throw at the Russians? How about in 1943 when there averaged about 50 in France and 20 in Italy? Would 35 divisions have changed much in Russia? Can you say for sure? Do you have a what if machine that will tell you? No? Well then it is impossible to say.

[Robert.V]

You're just embarrassing yourself.

What wrong with what he said ?



ThatHistoryDude put it nicely though, and this topic should be locked by now.



Robert V. I don´t think you did mistake with Beevor´s book. Post what you think about book when you will finish it.


I'll let you know.


Beevor is ok, but I think Richard Overy's books are a better read

Thanks, i'll check his work out.