Jayex said: StopDropAndBowl said: stopdropandbowl's words here Let us not forget, during WWII the Soviets were considered unprepared, had little to no airforce, and were facing the strongest military and technological power on the planet--Germany--in full force. With ancient weaponry and a will to defend the fatherland, the Soviets (not just the Russians) bore the brunt of the war. Historians agree that if the US had not entered the war, the USSR would still beat Nazi Germany, but at a higher cost of population. America's entry to the war prevented excessive bloodshed on the Soviets' part. The reason all this Cold War nonsense went down is simply because Americans hated Communism, and the Soviets were bitter towards the Americans for 1) entering the war so late 2) interfering with their plans 3) judging their country and ideals. The Soviets didn't defeat the Germans. The Russian winter did. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Jayex said: Let us not forget, during WWII the Soviets were considered unprepared, had little to no airforce, and were facing the strongest military and technological power on the planet--Germany--in full force. With ancient weaponry and a will to defend the fatherland, the Soviets (not just the Russians) bore the brunt of the war. Historians agree that if the US had not entered the war, the USSR would still beat Nazi Germany, but at a higher cost of population. America's entry to the war prevented excessive bloodshed on the Soviets' part. The reason all this Cold War nonsense went down is simply because Americans hated Communism, and the Soviets were bitter towards the Americans for 1) entering the war so late 2) interfering with their plans 3) judging their country and ideals. The Soviets didn't defeat the Germans. The Russian winter did. That two front war and poor planning of German leadership though. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Jayex said: Let us not forget, during WWII the Soviets were considered unprepared, had little to no airforce, and were facing the strongest military and technological power on the planet--Germany--in full force. With ancient weaponry and a will to defend the fatherland, the Soviets (not just the Russians) bore the brunt of the war. Historians agree that if the US had not entered the war, the USSR would still beat Nazi Germany, but at a higher cost of population. America's entry to the war prevented excessive bloodshed on the Soviets' part. The reason all this Cold War nonsense went down is simply because Americans hated Communism, and the Soviets were bitter towards the Americans for 1) entering the war so late 2) interfering with their plans 3) judging their country and ideals. The Soviets didn't defeat the Germans. The Russian winter did. I doubt it. Our winter only hastened the defeat of the Germans. Remember that the Germans had planned to take Russia before the Winter set in, but we held them off until it did? Most of the armies did not even pack Winter Clothing to deal with the weather. And at first, they did blitzkreig their way through much of the Western plains, but please. |
I stand with Freedom, no matter the cost, no matter the price. |
NebulaC3I said: Drunk_Samurai said: The Soviets didn't defeat the Germans. The Russian winter did. That two front war and poor planning of German leadership though.[/quote] This. The Nazi leadership was arrogant and thought they could roflstomp the Soviets--in a large part, they were right to think that, what with the wretched state the Red Army was. The Red Army had WWI equipment for the most part, as well as outdated and ancient fighter planes. It wasn't until later in the war that more famous Russian military inventions played a significant part in the war. Albeit, even still they were quite crude in effect. |
JayexJan 1, 2015 11:09 AM
| I stand with Freedom, no matter the cost, no matter the price. |
| Germany was defeated by Hitler being a moron. Hitler's failure to take Britain, coupled with the inherent flaws of National Socialism (that it was too nationalistic to take hold in the general populations of the countries he conquered) forced him into an attack on the Soviet Union. His generals suggested one plan of attack (taking Moscow), while Hitler supported an opposite plan of conducting a two-front action of securing Leningrad and the Lower Dnieper (industrial area). Both plans had their advantages, but Hitler's had the flaw of breaking away from the maxim that all operations should be flexible and threaten multiple objectives from a single and central line. Even so, the early part of the invasion was astoundingly successful. They captured 300,000 soldiers at Minsk, and then a bold action by Guderian allowed them to crush Smolensk and take an additional 180,000 soldiers. Moscow lay open for the taking, only 200 miles ahead. Guderian, Hoth, and Bock all pushed for a mad dash to Moscow, to secure the nerve-center of Stalin's power before the Soviet Army could rally and prepare a defense. Hitler, however, though that it would be best to use the threat against Moscow to bring troops away from Leningrad, and then, taking the flanks of Leningrad and the Ukraine, he would converge upon Moscow and crush it. It wasn't a terrible plan, but it was too complicated and wide-spread, thus creating a fatal inflexibility. With bad weather and a stiffening of resistance by the Red Army, the already short window of time was closing quickly. Early successes in Kiev (the capture of 600,000 soldiers) bolstered Hitler's plan and made him and his generals optimistic, but also took valuable time away from them. The winter was coming, and Moscow remained untaken. Hitler did not consider Moscow to be very important, but ordered the push toward it in November. The convergence of forces turned an indirect approach strategy into a direct approach, predictable and easily checked by the Red Army. The offensive stagnated and the Germans were unable to continue. Now Hitler's generals proposed an establishment of defensive perimeters, or even a full withdrawal to Poland. This was unpalatable to Hitler, who feared a loss of prestige if he withdrew. Common sense dictates that such a withdrawal would have been strategically brilliant, forcing the Russians to fight a retreating army to retake territory they had already lost. Hitler's plan was to move against the Caucuses and Stalingrad, a shrewd move economically, but a silly one strategically. For one, it forced an offensive that he did not have the resources to carry out, and for another it was a direct approach which gave the defenders the moral and strategic advantage. One again, the lure of taking a major city, this one bearing the name of Stalin himself, was too seductive for Hitler to ignore. Consequently, he ordered direct assaults upon Stalingrad, and when he was unable to take it, simultaneously bolstered the morale of his enemy while sapping the morale of his own army. The Soviet counter-attack was inevitable, and very successful. Even then, Hitler could have saved himself by ordering an elastic withdrawal. The Russians were incredibly simple-minded in their strategy for the most part, and Stalin himself was the cause of much of this. He simply wanted the invading Germans expelled, and his generals, fearful of their lives and desperate to prove themselves to him, were more than willing to accept this foolish strategy. The Germans, with their mobility and superior training, could have used strategic withdrawal to bring the Russians forward, and the strike back, inflicting massive damage while largely saving themselves. By rolling back onto their own supply lines, they would be both protected and secure; while the Russians would naturally be stretching themselves forward, risking outrunning their own supply lines. In fact, this happened multiple times, but Hitler's distrust with the strategy of retreat did not allow the counter-attacks of his generals to succeed. Hitler never could countenance a strategic withdrawal. He loved the offense, and barring that, wanted static, inelastic defense. Coupled with the fact that he was now facing a massive threat on the Western front, with the fall of Italy and the invasion of France; he was incapable of securing his gains, or even holding his own territory. His downfall was now assured. TL;DR: Hitler, Nazi ideology, the two-front war, and bad weather were what lost WW2. The Red Army had almost nothing to do with it. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: Hitler, Nazi ideology, the two-front war, and bad weather were what lost WW2. The Red Army had almost nothing to do with it. History would beg to differ. Even Churchill said the USSR was the leading cause for the Defeat of Germany. Then again I suspect you are one of those Americans that belive that bullshit quote of "All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years." Nevermind that one time the White House got set on fire..or the whole been in debt most of its history stuff.. Also you are incorrect on the Retreats, A number of times Hitler did allow the Army to do what it wanted. And time and time again Soviet forces shortly regained it or crushed them. Or the German retreat and counter Offensive of 1942 never happend, and niether did the Attempts at Kursk. I'm sure D-Day was the crowning jewel that won it all. But oh well, history revisions at its finest. |
RedArmyShogunJan 1, 2015 1:34 PM
RedArmyShogun said: Which is why I've stopped trying to discuss this with him. I too am American, but he is either a troll or very overt patriot who severely undervalues all other outside nations.snip |
| "Dakimakura aren't meant for fucking." -Moog, January 2015 When a site's moderators warn you for condemning a troll, you know their moderators need to be changed out. |
RedArmyShogun said: History would beg to differ. Even Churchill said the USSR was the leading cause for the Defeat of Germany. Churchill was a general? Who knew? RedArmyShogun said: Then again I suspect you are one of those Americans that belive that bullshit quote of "All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years." Lincoln said it. I don't know if I believe it unconditionally, but as of now it is true, yes. At the time it was most likely true. Not for the reasons most might think. American exceptionalism was less responsible for our defense at that time than the fact that we were an ocean away from the rest of the world. As for our current state, as I said earlier in this thread; America's military might is just too overwhelming for the rest of the world to even hope for an invasion. There is simply not enough ships for them to even attempt a seaborne invasion, and a land invasion from either Canada or Mexico would be extraordinarily difficult due to terrain. Add in the fact that we have the capability to attack any country on Earth and you have a very risky scenario for any invading force. You bring up the debt as if that negates the quote. Finish the quote: if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. Our debt would be an example of us committing slow suicide. By all means though, if you think there is some scenario in which a force today could invade and secure a foothold in the US, please, enlighten us by explaining it. It's very, very easy to just say: "Lol you believe this quote, and that quote is stupid" without ever explaining why it's stupid or untrue. RedArmyShogun said: Also you are incorrect on the Retreats, A number of times Hitler did allow the Army to do what it wanted. And time and time again Soviet forces shortly regained it or crushed them. I already talked about that. Hitler was not supportive of these schemes, and by the time he finally did allow a (limited) retreat, the Germans had already stretched their war-making capacities to their utter limit and had lost much of their mobility. Even vastly outnumbered and hampered, the Germans were still able to inflict massive casualties upon the attacking Red Army. RedArmyShogun said: Or the German retreat and counter Offensive of 1942 never happend, and niether did the Attempts at Kursk. The retreat of 1942 was less of a retreat and more of an expulsion by the Russians. The generals suggested either a defensive posture or a full withdrawal back to Poland. They were overruled and thus commenced the attack on the Caucuses and Stalingrad. It began with magnificent success, until the focus on Stalingrad, which led to a one-dimensional push, which allowed the Russians to easily defend. The Germans had set themselves up for a counter. It was the that Halder suggested they cut their losses and take up defensive postures for the winter. Hitler replaced him with Zeitzler, who was more willing to go along with the now-impossible plan of taking Stalingrad. The counter of November was wildly successful, sure, but not because of the skill of the Russian commanders. It was wildly successful because the Germans were under-supplied, over-extended, and morally exhausted after already failing to take the city. Even then, the Russians made the same mistake as the Germans, and over-extended themselves, which is why in February of 1943, Manstein was able to check the Russian counter with his brilliant Kharkov counter-stroke. Outnumbered 8 to 1, he was able to repulse the Russians and save the retreat from becoming a rout. Manstein then argued for a bold action of thinning the resources at the Mius River, between Donetz and the Sea of Azov, the next likely target of the Russian advance. He suggested they allow the Russians to take the region, and then when they over-extended themselves, counter with all possible strength from the Kiev region onto their northern flank. The plan was too bold for Hitler, so he instead decided to make the grab at Kursk. Manstein suggested that if the plan were to work, they must strike in early May, immediately after the mud dried, before the Russians could regroup. Model, the commander of the 9th army wanted to delay the action until more tanks could be brought in. Hitler, ever the coward, agreed, and delayed the action until July, by which time the Russians were able to secure their position in the Kursk region. The Kursk attempt was foolish in that it was purely offensive, and very predictable. It was a direct approach upon an enemy that expected them. It was NOT a defensive counter, like Manstein had argued for. As the Soviets, now enjoying a massive advantage in numbers, were able to push the Germans back, Hitler again rejected any elastic withdrawals, instead desperate to protect the manganese ore mines in the southern Dnieper salient. Every time Manstein attempted a counter-stroke, it was either indecisive or parried because Hitler was desperate to hang on to his gains and refused to let Manstein fall-back and attempt a true counter against an over-extended Red Army. Finally, Hitler relieved Manstein of command, saying that yard-by-yard resistance was more necessary than skillful maneuver. Any involved study of the tactics and strategies of the Russian campaigns will result in only one conclusion: the Germans defeated themselves. The Red Army was not magnificent in it's capabilities or leadership, it was simply able to devour a foe when it was delivered to them on a platter. The German generals were far, far superior to any other generals in the war. Given a true, free reign, it is highly unlikely that Russia would have been able to repulse them so easily, or that the Allies would have been able to make such decisive moves in the Western theater. RedArmyShogun said: I'm sure D-Day was the crowning jewel that won it all. But oh well, history revisions at its finest. The invasion of Normandy was a good strategic move, but it was not brilliant or the "moment that won the war". As of yet you haven't given a single real response to the facts I've put forward, nor even a true response to the analysis of the facts. A quote by Churchill notwithstanding. Wayponpon said: Which is why I've stopped trying to discuss this with him. I too am American, but he is either a troll or very overt patriot who severely undervalues all other outside nations. I don't undervalue outside nations. I undervalue the Soviet propaganda that their brilliant and magnificent Red Army beat the Germans, forced the Japanese to surrender, and saved the world from fascism. The truth is that the Germans beat themselves, the Japanese surrendered because the Americans had already roundly beaten them, and the world was "saved" from fascism only to live under the equally dangerous, and equally evil, specter of communism for fifty years. We traded the German wolf for the Russian bear. |
StopDropAndBowlJan 1, 2015 6:31 PM
| Let's go bowling. |
| All you are posting is figures and your own opinions. I could do the same but we'll just be bouncing back and forth. I could name books you'll just name others. I will say I am in agreement with Hitlers antics being what costed the Germans dearly. But ultimately It was Soviet Will, Numbers, and Industry that pushed the Germans out. Had Hitler not been a factor, the Soviets would have likely willingly turned against Stalin and Joined the Thrid Reich. I'm not disputing any of those. Nor the quality of German Generals overall. However to say the USSR did nothing of its own violation but only given German Mistakes is not only absurd it is insane and insulting. The USSR built far more tanks and had far more infantry and attack fighters than the Germans, and the allies in most cases, and often of better quality. The T-34 versus say the Comet or Sherman isn't a contest at all. Also they did for better or worse, liberate the whole of Eastern Europe in the worst fighting of the war. From Moscow to Berlin, and nothing would have stopped that tied, the USSR number to number had an inferior officer corp, but had Generals the likes of Zhukov, Vatutin and Konev, who not only learned the means of modern warfare but beat the Germans at their own game. The Soviet Soldier pushed the Germans back under conditions that would have broken most allied soldiers. They took millions of losses and fought 3/4s of the German Army. The US and UK barely could do much on the Western Front, and might I add that was against in all cases reserve and damaged units. When the DID fight hardcore units, it always ended in axis Victory or Defeat as they ran out of gas. Arnhem, the Bulge, and various side battles in France come to mind, as well as the inability for US forces to advance north of the Po river in Italy. Had those forces not been fighting the USSR the US wouldn't of fared well. That wasn't all "Well Hitler". As to the Japanese, They were prepaired to keep fighting even after the bombs, even a coup was attempted by a lone group of officers, that is documented. And The Russians did in Weeks what the US couldn't in Years and overran the whole of Manchurian. Which was then handed over to the PLA which made China what it is today. It DID directly factor in. Albit most of the fighting in the Pacific was the US. As most of it in Europe was the USSR. As to beating Facism. The USSR made Prussian East Germany, and the US willingly hired former Nazis to the CIA and West German Military. Facism didn't die, it sets under different names in capitals all over the world. As to the rest of your remarks. A Quote from Chairman Mao. "Quanity has a quality all of its own." But in this case you are baddly mistaken. And to be frank, I'm not a teacher. I don't have to debate or prove shit. Thats what googles for. The Soviet contribution to the War WAS needed and as important as that of the other Allies and vise versa. |
RedArmyShogunJan 1, 2015 6:53 PM
| I'll agree insofar as the idea that Germany could not have, by itself, defeated the Soviet Union. Russia was simply too large and too heavily populated for a total collapse. However, without the Allies, the USSR could never have defeated Germany. Supposing a fantasy scenario in which Britain and the USA signed peace treaties with Nazi Germany, the Russians and Germans would have fought for years, back and forth, deep in Soviet territory and probably without any decisive conclusion until they eventually devolved into a stalemate, probably somewhere close to where they started (in Poland). One thing to remember about Soviet industry is that it was heavily subsidized by the lend-lease of America. I'm not saying this to brag up America. For a very long time, historians of WW2 overemphasized the role America played in defeating Germany, and under-emphasized the role of the Eastern theater. America, by itself, could almost certainly not have invaded and crushed the Germans. The expense of a massive, continental invasion are simply too high for any one nation to be able to handle the burden entirely on it's own. As for the T-34... it was a good tank. It was not the "best" tank in the war, because such a statement ignores the fact that no single tank is the "best" tank for all situations. As far as medium-tanks go, it was serviceable and effective. The argument that it was a better overall tank than the Sherman could be made, but it certainly was not miles ahead. Throughout the war, the T-34 (and the T-34/76 and T-34/85) were at a 1:3 KDR disadvantage with their German counterparts. For every German tank destroyed, 3-5 T-38s were destroyed. Even accounting for the extreme skill of the German tank commanders and units, that means the T-34 was not miles ahead of the competition. It was technically inferior to the equivalent German tanks. As for the losses the Russians suffered and overcame... to be expected. Of course the free, democratic nations of Great Britain and the USA would not have tolerated losing millions of soldiers in a purely offensive war. The Soviets were a totalitarian dictatorship, fighting a defensive war in their homeland. Of course they tolerated exorbitant loss of life... they were faced with total annihilation and their government did not have to answer to the populace. The American and British governments were not fighting for their homeland, and they did have to answer to their respective populace. Millions dead in a European war would have been outrageous to the average American at home, and likely would have resulted in a complete withdrawal from the European theater. That doesn't speak highly of the Soviets, it speaks poorly of them. Stalin was willing to sacrifice millions of his own people to retain control over them. Americans were not willing to sacrifice millions of their own people to free France. Entirely different scenarios. As for Allied losses. You're partially right. The raw recruits of the USA were often overpowered by the the battle-hardened Nazi soldiers who were fighting a defensive war. The Allies still managed to maintain a constant and steady pressure against the Nazi's however, and actually produced an equal or greater amount of losses as the Russians. The USSR killed far more German soldiers, while the USA and other Allies took far more prisoners. A PoW is as effectively useless as a dead soldier. The Allies of the Western Theater were highly concerned about loss of life, so their advances were slow, steady, and secure. With few exceptions, they did not attempt bold, high-risk maneuvers. In contrast the Soviet Union was fully willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers and civilians to dislodge German positions. The USSR did not "liberate" Eastern Europe. They conquered it. Just because the Germans conquered it first doesn't mean the Soviet's were any less an invasion force, or any less brutal in their conquering. Like I said before: they traded the wolf for the bear. The USSR's involvement in the war was due to Hitler breaking their pact. The USSR defeating the German armies was due to a variety of factors, almost none of which include the superiority of the Red Army, and the USSR's "victory" eventually resulted in it's own dissolution. Were there brave and honorable and bad-ass Russian soldiers? Of course. There were thousands of them. Tens of thousands. Just like there were tens of thousands of brave and honorable and bad-ass German, British, US, etc. soldiers. Were there good Russian commanders? Yes. The Germans probably had the best generals in the war, but all sides had their good commanders and their shitty ones. The difference here is that the Allies were democrats who actually liberated people, and the Germans and Soviets were dictatorships that conquered. |
| Let's go bowling. |
StopDropAndBowl said: America is the good guy, USSR is the bad guy. Here's the biggest difference, SDAB. USSR fought to defend its homeland, America was coming to free its allies. That's the mentality that differs, hands down. Looking back, my great-grandfather told me that back in the Battle of Stalingrad, he and his compatriots were willing to fight to the death. Not only were they swept in nationalistic fervor, Stalingrad was his home, his people, he was not willing to give it up. This speaks highly NOT OF THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT--but the Soviets themselves. That's the biggest difference. We are willing to sacrifice for the safety of our homeland. Notice how the majority of losses happened on our soil? That's because we paid for our lack of technological advantages and experience in blood, until we had a more experienced and better equipped army towards the end of the war. Also, Germany executed millions of Slavs, we are "unterschmen." Americans, of whom many are German, Anglo-Saxon, and other nationalities, are not considered as much--besides America was alot farther. The T-34, yes, it lacked a lot. However, the T-34/85 was considered an equal to the Panzer IV, so much the Germans created the "Panzer 5" or "Panther" to counter the T-34/85. Let's not forget the KV-1, which had practically no competitor for much of the early campaign. But as you said, and I said as well--the biggest mistake was in the leadership. The field troops knew the problems of pushing when Winter was setting in--instead Hitler's decision to take Moscow before Winter arrived was the biggest mistake the Germany military command could make. Poor planning and arrogance accounted a large part for the German loss |
| I stand with Freedom, no matter the cost, no matter the price. |
| Whats with the talk of these past armies? |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| That is a good question.. We likely should have another topic for this or move on. Anyways to the rest, I don't mind taking it to comments or PM, but one thing I want to clear up. The T-34 was the best tank of the Allied forces. The Sherman was a One Hit Wonder, also not true on the leadlease, that helped the soviets mostly in food items. The Bulk of Soviet Steel was from the Russian Interior normally with "Make More T-34's and IL-2's or you'll be shot!" from Stalin. If I had to say there was a best tank of the War in terms of overall ability, then thats the Panther. |
| Of course he's still barking empty threats at us. Why am I not surprised *eyeroll*. There's a lot I want to say, but it's probably not worth saying, so, I'll leave it at that. |
Click my sig  |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |