You call a truce and then come forth with something like this, you are inconsistent, either there is a truce or there is notQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
You call a truce and then come forth with something like this, you are inconsistent, either there is a truce or there is notQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Cease fire Boyz
The major role was played by Russia. By far. That's not what I "think", it's what actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
A truce you did not reply to. But it’s no big deal. Mutual respect is now the watchword. I’m all in.
Other than playing no role at all in the Atlantic, the skies over Germany, Africa, Sicily, and the entire Pacific theater of operations, then yeah they played the major role. And as you say, it’s not what I think but how it was.
If this is sarcasm challenging Russia's role in the war, then you know very little about WW2. You claim you know, but your words show you really don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You got THAT right!Quote:
And as you say, it’s not what I think but how it was.
I’m glad you agree! My description was how it was.
Russia did indeed play a major role in WW2 and I don't challenge that at all. To say they played THE major role is what I question. They had the enormous advantage of only having to fight on one front while the U.S. and, to a lessor extent, the U.K. had to fight globally. But the Soviets certainly ground down the Germans in the east. There is no question but that is true.
What, do you think I hang on your every word? So defensive. Such an offer shouldn't need an instant reply, mere moving on should be enough if you were genuineQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Funny how the War was decided once America entered.Quote:
The major role was played by Russia.
Most History buffs, understand the North African campaign (German loss) spelled the end of any German Victory.
God was the Major player.
Dunkirk, severe Russian winter, storm in the Atlantic surfaced 90 subs, starting an invasion during a storm...catching the Germans off guard.
Russia would have ended the European campaign eventually but the allies ensured a quicker victory and the freedom of Europe. America won the Pacific war.
Stalingrad was the real precursor of German failure, it bled the Germans and put paid to their invincibility
The greater part of combat in WWII took place on the Eastern Front. 600 German divisions were destroyed. The Germans suffered eight to nine million casualties which were 75% of their total wartime losses. In comparison, the contribution of Stalin’s western allies to the defeat of Germany was of far lesser importance. German vulnerability was exposed terribly during the Red Army's 1941–1942 Moscow counter-offensive - and it’s unlikely Germany would have won the war even if it had captured Moscow. And that was when Lend-Lease was just beginning. Even after the Anglo-American invasion of France in June 1944 there were still three times as many enemy soldiers serving on the Eastern Front as in the West.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Britain and the United States did supply a huge quantity of material aid to the USSR that greatly facilitated the Soviet victory over Germany. The Soviets would have won regardless, as the Eastern Front for the Germans was unwinnable after the Battle of Stalingrad, before most of the aid to the USSR arrived. But Lend-Lease also certainly helped shorten the war and saved lives.
“If the Western Allies had not provided equipment and invaded northwest Europe, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht,” American military historian David Glantz noted. “The result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers would have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches rather than meeting the Allies at the Elbe.”
A few points. Your figure of 600 divisions destroyed is an exaggeration since the Germans never had more than 300 divisions at any one time, and never more than 200 in the east. The Russian winter stopped the Germans in 41/42 more than the Russians did. The Luftwaffe was destroyed as much in the air war over Germany as it was at the Eastern front. But your assertion that the Soviets would have eventually won is possible. If Germany had been able to maintain open trade and access to foreign sources of military and industrial supplies, all of which was denied them in the Atlantic, and if German industry had been able to operate unhindered by the devastating Allied bombing campaign, then those conditions would have made a difference. So you can't limit your thinking to just the ground war, and that is my primary point. Still, your point is well taken. I just don't cling to it as tenaciously as you do.
https://www.axishistory.com/axis-nat...n-world-war-ii
Was this your source? You seemed to quote it verbatim in several places.
https://www.historyireland.com/20th-...-world-war-ii/
Blitzkrieg was war on the cheap . It worked but could not be maintained without resources . That is why the Germans were wasting manpower in Africa . They wanted to eventually capture ME oil.
Same was true in Russia . Hitler had to spit his forces in 3 . One group to secure the Baltics . One group was sent to capture the flag in Moscow Eventually he had to sent many forces to Stalingrad with the ultimate goal of capturing the oil fields at Baku .
Oli was Hitler's real downfall.
The USSR undoubtedly made the biggest human sacrifice.
According to many of the top Nazi and German military leaders: Speer, Goering, Keitel, Jodl, Doenitz, Allied airpower was the decisive factor in the Germans losing the war.
YouGov recently conducted a poll in seven European nations, including France, Britain and Germany, as well as the United States, and asked respondents whether the US, the United Kingdom or the Sovient Union (USSR) contributed most to the defeat of Germany in WWII. The survey finds that no more than 27% in any of the countries believed the USSR contributed most, and in six out of the eight countries surveyed the US was the most popular response.
True, but I think his main purpose was for Propaganda, Stalingrad bore Stalin's name.Quote:
sent many forces to Stalingrad with the ultimate goal of capturing the oil fields at Baku .
Thank you for the correction on the number of German divisions - it was a typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Asking "respondents" in a poll which country was most responsible for winning the war is just short of wacky. As already noted, Americans think the US was the main winner in the war. This is due to the fact that their information comes primarily from Hollywood movies. Cultural biases in each nation are responsible for their respective opinions.
Getting a random sampling of 1500 adults on this question is a waste of time. Asking an objective sampling of military historians will definitely show that Russia was easily the chief winner in WWII. Why people ignore facts and prefer their own opinions is par for the course.
This conversation has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. I'm sorry I started it.
If you want to be that basic about Hitler's downfall, it was starting the war in the first place, then micro-managing it after Stalingrad.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Ridiculous. Not true.Quote:
Asking an objective sampling of military historians will definitely show that Russia was easily the chief winner in WWII.
Where does that put you?Quote:
Asking "respondents" in a poll which country was most responsible for winning the war is just short of wacky
It is still much debated.
Yes, the War in Russia- Russia was the clear winner (Even though Finland came out ahead). Having to do with the WORLD WAR, America was the Chief player.
The losers (German Generals) Know that it was allied air that brought them to their knees.
Just as it is today; Air Superiority is a sure winner.
Only when Germany was forced out of Africa was it understood (Historians) that they lost the War.
Stalingrad had more to do with Morale.
With that I would agree. The micro-managing started even before Stalingrad. It become so overdone that even relatively small German units could not retreat without Hitler's direct approval.Quote:
If you want to be that basic about Hitler's downfall, it was starting the war in the first place, then micro-managing it after Stalingrad.
I might agree with that as well. Many People Believe, Starting a War with "Russia" was his greatest Blunder.Quote:
Hitler's downfall, it was starting the war in the first place
If I remember Correctly, Russia Declined an Offensive War and chose to be Friends, then ended up fighting for their very survival...In a War of defense.
There is no prestige to call on in a defensive war.
Germany Surrendered to America First (nee nurr nee nurr nee nurr). Stalin refused to accept the surrender agreement, and forced the Germans to sign another one the follow day.
Remembering, Russia Declared War on Japan in 1945...Total lack of Participation.
I'm sticking to my premise that 6 weeks of Blitzkrieg left German oil supplies severely depleted . His gamble of breaking the Molotov Treaty was specifically to drive south to Azerbaijan and to seize Baku and the Caucasus (which were also the goal of Rommel's push through North Africa ) . . Just invading Poland consumed 64% of German reserve . They prolonged the war somewhat by being inventive with synthetic oil from coal . The Allied bombing campaign destroyed that capability .
Was any German unit given permission to retreat?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It was Much Worse for the Russians.
Stalin, ordered ( "Not a step back!") that any soldier attempting to withdraw from battle or retreat without authorization would be declared a “traitor to the Soviet Union” and shot. A rule, which decreed that cowards were to be “liquidated on the spot.” Any troops who retreated were to be shelled or gunned down by so-called “blocking detachments”—special units who were positioned behind their own lines and charged with shooting any soldier who tried to flee.
The Total amount of Exactions, amounted to the strength of approximately 15 divisions.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 PM. |