 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
serb,
Here we go again 
quote:
Bullsh*t.
It was well prepared. It started at night and first time in history large light projectors were used there. |
You are referring to the battle of Seelow Heights where Zhukov had the "brilliant" idea to use searchlights to disorient the Germans. And this worked to a small degree, against the least experienced Germans, such as the Volksstrum.
What you of course don't mention, is that these huge searchlights (143 of them), did more to disorient the Soviets. They were so bright the soldiers couldn't turn around, and they were also blinded from the front because the light reflected off of the smoke and dust from the bombardment.
Please get your facts straight.
quote:
Well, perhaps I oversimplificated a bit. |
What, YOU? Oversimplify? Nah! 
quote:
they prefered to stay and continue the fight. |
No they didn't. They wanted to break out, but Hitler ordered them to stay. Field Marshal von Paulus would have probably broken out anyway if Manstein got within 20 miles of Stalingrad.
quote:
Almost 60 years ago their president said that:"... courage, fortitude and devotion of defenders of Stalingrad will inspire forever in hearts of all free people. Their glorious victory stemmed the tide of invasion and marked the turning point in war of Allied Nations against the forces of aggression." |
Believe me, Roosevelt used propaganda too. He was basically sucking up to the Soviets, whom he wanted concessions from, especially in the area of attacking Japan.
But in any case, FDR was no more qualified than Stalin to talk about the strategic situation, reasons for victory and defeat, etc. He was a politician, not a strategist, economist, soldier, etc., and he did not have the advantage of looking back on the event from many years later.
quote:
In accordance with David, Russians saved their asses because of weather and American trucks, |
Well, the Germans were stopped at Moscow because of bad weather, and lost in the East because of Lend Lease, as well as Western Allied landings in France, Sicily, Italy, and Africa.
quote:
And American victorious army could single handenly defeat nazi, because US military is the best military force in human history. |
Wars have to do with economics and industrial potential more than they do with the size of one's army. And it is a fact that the United States was by far the greatest industrial power of the war. In fact, by 1945 the US accounted for approximately 50% of the world's GNP. That is, a country with a smaller population than the Soviet Union was producing as much as the rest of the world combined. The US also had the atomic bomb. I don't doubt for a second that the US could have defeated Germany without Soviet help.
quote:
In 1941 Hitler ordered to TOOK Moscow, not to seige it. And they lost about 1 million of soldiers and didn't acheived their goal. Now compare it with Russian 300 000 and completed goal. |
Completely different situation. Don't be ridiculous. We both know the situation before Moscow in 1941 was far different from the situation before Berlin in 1945
quote:
Do you know how Russians called your Shermans? "Zazhigalka" Which means 'lighter". Do you know which the first thing Russian tankists do when they received new Sherman? They remove leather interior out of tank. Because your Shermans fire like lighters if were hit and ther was no chance for crew to survive. |
So what? The Red Army still equipped an entire corps with them, as well as various other units, not to mention various British light tanks. One reason for this was that they were far more reliable - ie, would last longer - than Russian tanks, which were built to roll into battle, last about 3 months, and if they weren't destroyed by then they'd be virtually unusable anyway.
quote:
You are quite a dreamer David. your theories sometimes are very funny. Americans could have won war in 1944? |
If Patton could have rolled into Southern Germany, when the Germans had virtually no troops in Germany or on the West Wall, I certainly think the war could have been ended.
quote:
Americans could easily won war vs. Red Army in Europe in 1945? USA could wipe the floor with Russia? |
Looking at it from an economic and industrial standpoint, the Soviet Union was a midget compared to the United States. As I've said before, army sizes don't really matter in the long run - especially when you have no replacements, as was the case with the Red Army.
quote:
Btw, if so, then why did you stoped? Why you didn't finished war in 1944, if you could. Don't have balls for that? |
As usual, you don't bother to check your facts. Eisenhower had to manage a coalition of forces, not just one army, and it just so happened that Patton and Montgomery hated each other. The decision to divert resources towards Monty's Operation Market Garden was in many ways political.
quote:
Then what you was waiting for? Stalin asked about this since the beggining of war. Why you jamped in war only when it was absolutely clear that nothing could stop Russians? Why you just seat and watch how millions of people killing each other, if you could stop this and save those people? |
Do you understand NOTHING about logistics and supply? Obviously you do not. Do you understand ANYTHING about the need for the US Army to get battle experience before taking on forces in France? Obviously not. A landing in 1942 was impossible for reasons of training, shipping, and logistics, and a landing in 1943 was impossible because of shipping, logistics, and decisions made in 1942 to open a front in Africa, which had a very real long-term effect upon the number of German forces in the East.
quote:
you think Soviets didn't have air superiority during Berlin offence? |
It's no secret that the US and Britain were far better than the Russians with regards to the use of tactical air power.
Arrian,
quote:
If Nazi Germany had concentrated on one front at a time w/o intereference, the outcome of the war would most likely have been different. |
Again, because of economic and industrial realities, as well as ever growing US tactical and strategic airpower and atomic weapons, it is unlikely in the extreme that Germany could have defeated the Western Allies.
On the other hand, due to economic and industrial realities, as well as other factors, it is highly unlikely that the Soviet Union by itself could have defeated Germany.
quote:
Britain and the US knew that keeping the USSR fighting was crucial to their prospects for success, based on what happened in WWI, when Russia surrendered. The Germans were then able to unleash their eastern forces on the western front, and damn near won the war. |
No they didn't. I tried to argue that point once, and Chris62 proved me wrong. Germany had no chance, even after transferring troops from the Eastern Front.
quote:
If Hitler had managed to win in the East, the UK & US would have faced a much stronger "Fortress Europe" assuming Hitler didn't manage to successfully invade Britain. |
By this point, even assuming a great German victory and an attempted invasion of Britain in 1942 or 1943, British and American air power was WAY too strong, and the Germans did not have the amphibious or airborne or naval forces to invade anyway.
Ned,
quote:
Thereafter, Lend Lease certainly helped the Soviets roll back the Germans primarily due to the locomotives, rails and trucks. But, as I suggested, it would have been sufficient simply for the Soviets to tie the German Army up deep in Russian territory, while the Allies landed in France and took Berlin. A rollback was not necessary. Think of how the world would have been different if the USSR had never even come close to Poland, let alone Berlin. |
Which sorta reinforces my point that the Soviet Union could achieve no better than stalemate on its own, in the best case scenario.
Saint Marcus,
quote:
weren't the total supplies the USSR got in the Lend Lease deal about 1% of their total production in the war? I remember reading it somewhere, I'll look it up. |
 No.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Fair enough Imran, I just don't know if the USSR really got these things in quanities that could really tip the scales in either direction. After all, the archangel run was proved quite deadly for the majority of the convoys who attempted it.
Plus there is the question of whether or not the USSR could have won without these supplies. If they could have, that defeats her arguement altogether. And based on a preponderence of these facts, I would find it quite likely that the USSR could have won without lend-lease. |
The USSR was in severe danger of losing until Stalingrad, and it was really a matter of logistics - the USSR couldn't undertake an offensive of any nature without mass preparation and stockpiling, so every bit of materiel and transport removed from Soviet preparations equaled delay in offensives and counter-offensives.
Put another way - the Soviets could have produced the items that they got under lend-lease, but only by diverting production capacity from something else, like T-34's and Katyushas. The "cost" doesn't matter - comparing Ford trucks to T-34's on a cost basis is silly, especially between a market priced capitalist economy and a centrally planned priced communist one. The real comparisons would be in factory square footage, man-hours of direct and indirect labor, (especially skilled labor), and utilization of machine tools. Having to waste space, skilled labor and machine tools on truck transmissions when you could be producing tank transmissions is not a good thing.
Another way of looking at logistics is those mass artillery barrages they were so fond of - imagine starting offensives (like the big push against Army Group Center in 1944) with less artillery prep, leaving more German defenders intact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
quote:
I don't know David, I keep seeing the statistics that Americans giving about 11 billion in aid comparted to about 200 billion in total Soviet war expenditures. So it was probably closer to 5%.
Of course 5% of 200 billion is still a large ammount though. |
A large amount that came at a critical time and allowed the Soviet Union to produce critical items for the war effort. One thing Lend Lease provided was enough food to feed an army of 12 million men for five years - imagine what would have happened without that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
DF,
I said it is likely the outcome would have been different. I didn't say "Germany would have won." I think a stalemate of some sort would have been more likely. Germany certainly wouldn't have invaded an conquered the US. But absent an Eastern Front, could we have managed to successful invade and conquer them? Further, even if we could have, it would no doubt have been much bloodier and taken longer. It is also a lot more likely that we would have used nuclear weapons on Germany.
If Germany had either not attacked Russia or had managed to beat them, the Nazis would have had the opportunity to consolidate their hold on Europe and its industrial capacity... which would have gone a long way toward redressing their deficiencies (such as naval power, air power, etc). In order to still have an Allied victory, the UK & US would have had to successfully invade Europe. So all the Germans had to do was fend that invasion off in order to prevent the Allied victory you are so sure would still have happened.
And this ignores the possibility of Britain falling. If, for instance, Hitler had half a brain and decided to finish with the UK before attacking the USSR, he may have been able to pull it off (rolling with this "if he had half a brain" theory, he also would not have ordered the Luftwaffe to stop bombing airfields & factories in order to bomb cities instead).
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Che, I thought they had settled with the communists. Wasn't there a cease fire agreement between the communist government in St. Petersburg and Berlin? |
Just because the Communists in St. Petersburg agreed to it doesn't mean the communists in Kiev agreed to it, or in Minsk or elsewhere. Especially since the Germans were putting Communists to the bayonett. The Communists in the occupied territory launched liberation struggles, as did the anarchists. The entire eight month period of German occupation was filled with sabotage and guerilla war and reprisals.
The Germans were able to move some troops away, but they weren't able to shift the bulk of their forces. If they had, they would have practically doubled the number of forces on the Western front, and nothing would have stopped them.
It was a gamble on Germany's part. They bit off more than they could chew, but they felt they needed to control the Slavic breadbaskets of Poland, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine. If there hadn't been a total collapse of Russian production (which is what precipitated the Russian collapse in the first place) as well as Communist resistence, maybe it could have saved them by staving off the bread riots that eventually ended the war.
It was a gamble either way. If they had accepted Russia's terms of no annexations, no reparations, they could have moved all their troops West, but would have left themselves open for Communist influence on their border.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JCG
|
 |
between a rock and a hard place
Feb 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
Soviet Russia would have won even with no lend-lease. Probably up to a year and a half-later, probably not.
I think I've posted something about this before, though....Next question? j/k
EDIT:
In specific:
Germany still made too many serious screw-ups on their own, Hitler was still alive and contributing to said screw-ups, lend-lease certainly made the Soviet victory much much much easier but didn't "save them from the jaws of inevitable defeat", and I repeat: Germany still made too many serious screw-ups on their own.
It's truly amazing how they thought they even had a realistic chance at conquering Russia in 1941...
Last edited by JCG on 16-10-2002 at 05:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I don't know the answer to this question. But my simple guess is yes, they could have. The reason I say this is that Lend Lease apparently did not begin until 1942 - what month, I do not know. |
Lend lease was pass into law March 11, 1941, However my Encyclopedia does not state which month it started to ship material to Europe.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Arrian, I don't negate that lend-lease was important, even very, although I wouldn't call it crucial. |
I'm 100% agree.
quote:
But I mind if any of the sides (Russia and America) says about the other "We saved your butts", "You'd have lost without us" or "if we hadn't won in <battle1>, you would have lost <battle2>". This is ridiculous, just like the opinion I once heard from an UK guy, that "the Britains won the war with a little help from the US and Russia". All allied powers put their weight in the victory. |
Of course, it was allied victory. But why people like David are always saying smth like this: "you are shity warriors, without our refregirators all of you would be dead now"?
quote:
And about the "we are the greatest" propaganda... See, I said the same propaganda thing to Serb. It seems to exist in every large power. Be it America, Russia, even UK, not to talk about France, le Grand Nation. |
Of course it exist and I realize that I'm affected by this. Some people just can't admit it or absolutely unaware that they are brainwashed. *looks in David's direction *
quote:
But understand, if I meet a dude on the street, who repeats to say "face it, I'm the greatest and you and all others are scum", I may not hit in his face because he's indeed stronger than me, but he hardly ever will be my friend. And that's the answer to all this why-does-everyone-hate-Americans stuff. Be nice to us and we'll be nice to you, that simple. |
I know two such dudes Imran and David.
quote:
And finally: I'm not anti-american, not at all. The United States are a fascinating country, and although I would never move over the pond, I enjoyed my short staying and I have a couple of dear friends there. What makes some of my statements sound anti-american is, that I can't stand this pride stuff and that I'm consequently anti-war (except in civ games that is  ) and therefor believe, that this fascinating country is led by, well let's say it not using bad words, a sick and greedy government. |
You are anti-American
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:23
|
|
Arrian,
quote:
I said it is likely the outcome would have been different. I didn't say "Germany would have won." I think a stalemate of some sort would have been more likely. |
And I must disagree. US and British airpower ruled the skies over Europe by 1944, both at night and in the daytime. Strategic bombers were heavily hitting transportation, industry, etc., and tactical aircraft were ranging over France, all protected by P-51s.
Further, without Russia, Lend Lease would not have inhibited US production, and the US would have been even more massive in terms of military equipment.
Once Swedish iron ore was cut off to Germany, as well as Turkish chromium, Germany would have been in major trouble. In my opinion, given enough Allied support to Sweden and Turkey, those countries could have been convinced to sell all of their excess iron ore and chromium to the US.
quote:
Further, even if we could have, it would no doubt have been much bloodier and taken longer. |
Possibly, although possibly not. If we had simply dropped atomic bombs on Germany, that likely would have been it, especially if we got Hitler and some of the higher ranking Nazis. If the German military took charge of Germany, it's quite likely they would have ended the war.
quote:
If Germany had either not attacked Russia or had managed to beat them, the Nazis would have had the opportunity to consolidate their hold on Europe and its industrial capacity |
Which was still nowhere near the capacity of the US and Britain, and it ignores the fact that many vital resources came from outside of Continental Europe.
quote:
which would have gone a long way toward redressing their deficiencies (such as naval power, air power, etc). |
Not without sacrificing large parts of their army. Even as early as 1912 or so, the Germans recognized that they could not maintain their position as the greatest land power AND challenge Britain at sea. Throw air power into the equation and this is even more significant.
quote:
order to still have an Allied victory, the UK & US would have had to successfully invade Europe. |
Why? The US didn't have to invade Japan, and Japan was certainly less likely to surrender than Germany, given their culture.
quote:
And this ignores the possibility of Britain falling. If, for instance, Hitler had half a brain and decided to finish with the UK before attacking the USSR, he may have been able to pull it off (rolling with this "if he had half a brain" theory, he also would not have ordered the Luftwaffe to stop bombing airfields & factories in order to bomb cities instead). |
Even with air superiority it's still doubtful he could have pulled off Sealion, due to a lack of transport craft and naval power.
Sandman,
quote:
Anyone without a patriotic axe to grind knows that it was the SU's industrial base which was the key factor in their victory. This stuff about lease-lend is pure fantasy. |
If you want to talk about a massive industrial base, look at the US, not Russia. Russia was puny in comparison. Russia's victory was more due to America's industrial and economic base rather than its own.
JCG,
quote:
Soviet Russia would have won even with no lend-lease. Probably up to a year and a half-later, probably not.
I think I've posted something about this before, though....Next question? |
Look! Unfounded Assertion Man! Ruuuuun!
quote:
To just scratch the surface, Moscow wasn't the key to defeating the Russians....never was, never will be. |
In 1941, Moscow was a major communications and transportation hub, the central point for the north-south and east-west rail lines. To take this away would have deprived the Red Army of much of its mobility, which could easily have cost them the war.
quote:
The city would have been at least torched by the retreating Russians themselves making it useless for anything, and the Siberians coming back from the East would have kicked out any Germans still in the city. |
The Siberians were already on the Moscow front at the beginning of Operation Typhoon, and most of them died during Typhoon or the Russian counterattack in the winter anyway.
quote:
Yes, it would have seriously impaired transport and communications, but are you arguing that the Russians would have simply given up and raised the white flag? No. Would they try to reconquer Moscow? Yes. |
But you just said they would have torched the city on their way out. Even if they got it back, it would still be wrecked as a transportation hub, now wouldn't it?
quote:
You think that the Siberians wouldn't have attacked and defeated the seriously underequipped, tired and exhausted Germans that would have been "holding" whatever remained of Moscow |
The Siberian troops were ALREADY THERE, and if the Germans had taken Moscow, would have been mostly DEAD after the fall of Moscow.
quote:
The Germans would have been forced to get the heck out of Moscow, and they would have to hold the line over the winter, as per Hitler's orders, but at considerable number of kms away from the city. No big change from real life. |
Doubtful, considering the Soviets would have had far less forces to counterattack with, would not have had their central transportation hub, and would have been starting from further back.
But even if that's true, it would have been a massive net gain for the Germans, because it would have crippled the Russian transportation center for at least a few months, and probably longer.
serb,
quote:
You are crazy, and have no idea wtf are you talking about. |
Ah yes, your usual response. Funny how anyone on this forum with any grounding in history says the same about you 
quote:
Just seat and listen David's bs theories how American tanks saved Moscow in 1941? |
Never once have I said US tanks were the key to the SU's victory.
quote:
or his bs theory that Russians weren't able to beat nazi alone, while USA esialy could. |
It's all industry and economics, and the US was light years ahead of Germany and Russia in all of those fields (and was pretty much equal to every other nation in the world, combined, by 1945, and was still growing).
quote:
But why people like David are always saying smth like this: "you are shity warriors, without our refregirators all of you would be dead now"? |
Refridgerators had nothing to do with it, and you know I never said that. Let's stick to what I DO say, not what you WANT me to say.
quote:
Some people just can't admit it or absolutely unaware that they are brainwashed. |
Pot, kettle, black.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-10-2002 21:24
|