 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:25
|
|
So Stalin was a mass-murderer, IMO the worst of all time since he butchered his own people, at least Hitler slaughtered mostly other races.
Still, the issue here is on the battle. The Soviets defended the city for the same reason the Nazis attacked it: not its military value but as a symbol of Stalin's name. It might have seemed militarily mad to hold on to it ( from russian POV) as it was to assault it for months (german POV) but even as the battle started the battle had enourmous advantage to the soviets:
1) unable to defeat the Germans in terms of armour and mobility, the ideal situation was to stand and fight in a confined space where the Wehrmachts advantages would not be decisive
2) city fighting is bloody and long, the Germans did not have the manpower or the reserves to fight a prolonged battle in those circumstances, the Soviets did. The soviets could lose men at a prodigious rate and still win.
As for the US, they actually did fight a major city battle, nowhere are heavy as Stalingrad of course, but the Battle of Manila was pretty fierce. I don't know how many US troops died but over 100,000 civilans were killed.
If I were a general, my priority would be winning the war, but my soldier's lives would be a very close second. I would try to do evertyhing possible to minimize my casualties, and the only reason I would order full frontal Soviet-style slaughterhouse assaults would be if there were no other alternatives to victory. I don't think soviet infantry training was good enough to go for an Allied-style infantry doctrine. They were also more poorly equipped and supplied.
Add to this that Stalin in fact did not care much for his troops...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LaRusso
|
 |
appendix of Europe
May 2001
time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
So Stalin was a mass-murderer, IMO the worst of all time since he butchered his own people, at least Hitler slaughtered mostly other races. |
odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him
quote:
Still, the issue here is on the battle. The Soviets defended the city for the same reason the Nazis attacked it: not its military value but as a symbol of Stalin's name. . |
this crops up again and again. do you really think russians would surrender volgograd or czariczin but not stalingrad? mind you, stalino (now doneck) has already fallen by that time in ukraine. stalin did not sacrifice truckloads of infantry to defend that one
quote:
It might have seemed militarily mad to hold on to it ( from russian POV) as it was to assault it for months (german POV) but even as the battle started the battle had enourmous advantage to the soviets:
1) unable to defeat the Germans in terms of armour and mobility, the ideal situation was to stand and fight in a confined space where the Wehrmachts advantages would not be decisive
2) city fighting is bloody and long, the Germans did not have the manpower or the reserves to fight a prolonged battle in those circumstances, the Soviets did. The soviets could lose men at a prodigious rate and still win.. |
so you are saying that it actually made a LOT of military sense to defend the city and that it was a perfect spot to bleed germans to death. so stalin is guilty of losing troops in a fight with the BEST army there was in ww2.
quote:
As for the US, they actually did fight a major city battle, nowhere are heavy as Stalingrad of course, but the Battle of Manila was pretty fierce. I don't know how many US troops died but over 100,000 civilans were killed... |
according to your previous standards, killing foreigners is a tad better than killing your own people. that is why firebombing dresden suddenly looks less horrible in that perspective
quote:
If I were a general, my priority would be winning the war, but my soldier's lives would be a very close second. I would try to do evertyhing possible to minimize my casualties, and the only reason I would order full frontal Soviet-style slaughterhouse assaults would be if there were no other alternatives to victory. |
those alternatives have already been tried against the germans. e.g. french tried digging in. british occassionally surrendered (tobruk) and soviets tried it all. the only thing that really stopped germans was a deliberate all out defense, and the only thing that really pushed them back was a deliberate attack. some attacks soviets made were simply brilliant (like 1944 summer offensive) and some german attacks were suicidal (kursk). again, sometimes russians attacked with a disregard for human loss (berlin operation) and, you might say, political reasons. but then again, russians did not need a command to charge like mad on berlin, every single soldier wanted vengenace. for more on this, i reccomend a superb book bu cornelius ryan : the last battle.
quote:
I don't think soviet infantry training was good enough to go for an Allied-style infantry doctrine. They were also more poorly equipped and supplied.
Add to this that Stalin in fact did not care much for his troops... |
first sentence: ?. second sentence: they had guns and no chocolates in their backpacks. admittedly, russians got jeeps and light trucks from americans, but the rest of the equipment (light tanks) was useless
last sentence: because they were the only people standing between him and hitler?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:25
|
|
Something for the Russians honouring the sacrifice of Stalingrad/Volgograd:
Stalin Wasn’t Stalling c/w Stalingrad (picture sleeve - 1980 UK 7" stereo single) Rough Trade (RT 046)
prog/a capella, Robert Wyatt’s cover of a 1940s doo wop hit back with a poem about the battle of Stalingrad.
Well worth buying. Also both tracks appear on Wyatt's magnum opus, 'Nothing Can Stop Us' album:
'Wyatt lay low for the remainder of the '70s, finally reemerging at the turn of the decade with a series of four audacious Rough Trade singles. Those eight sides (two of which are performed by artists other than Wyatt) are collected on the Italian Robert Wyatt, and form the basis of Nothing Can Stop Us. Though basically a singles compilation with only one original composition, the latter is a cohesive and incredibly moving statement, with Wyatt's fragile, plaintive vocals breathing new life (and political content) into material as diverse as Chic's "At Last I Am Free," the obscure American gospel tune "Stalin Wasn't Stallin'," the folk song "Caimanera" (aka "Guantanamera") and the disquieting lynch-mob protest "Strange Fruit" (popularized by Billie Holiday). Though Wyatt personally adheres to a fairly ruthless strain of Stalinism, you'd never know it from the compassion and empathy that radiate from every groove of this record.
Nothing Can Stop Us was subsequently re-released with the significant inclusion of the Elvis Costello/Clive Langer-penned "Shipbuilding" (produced by Costello, Langer and Alan Winstanley), as subtle and insightful an anti-war song as anyone's ever written. The album's US version, released in 1986, ditches the poet Peter Blackman reading his "Stalingrad" and adds "Shipbuilding," plus its British 12-inch B-sides (interpretations of Thelonious Monk's "Round Midnight" and Eubie Blake's "Memories of You") and cover art.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
That's not his logic at all. He's saying that certain battles were quite unnecessary, such as the Battle for Berlin. He's saying that human wave tactics are brutal and uncivilized, not to often generally ineffective.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LaRusso
odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him
|
That's what I said in various posts back. Have you even read them?
quote:
this crops up again and again. do you really think russians would surrender volgograd or czariczin but not stalingrad? mind you, stalino (now doneck) has already fallen by that time in ukraine. stalin did not sacrifice truckloads of infantry to defend that one
|
It's not just the name, it's the history. Stalingrad was the largest Stalin-named city in the USSR. Stalin also had a personal attachment to the city because he helped defend it during the civil war.
quote:
so you are saying that it actually made a LOT of military sense to defend the city and that it was a perfect spot to bleed germans to death. so stalin is guilty of losing troops in a fight with the BEST army there was in ww2.
|
I made a HUGE amount of military sense to defend it knowing that the germans would give it all to take it. If the Soviets felt the Germans would have bypassed it, it would have made no sense to defend.
quote:
according to your previous standards, killing foreigners is a tad better than killing your own people. that is why firebombing dresden suddenly looks less horrible in that perspective
|
Yes. Can you imagine the RAF and USAAF bombing its own cities? Slaughter is evil, slaughtering your own countrymen is the utmost evil and the utmost stupid.
quote:
those alternatives have already been tried against the germans. e.g. french tried digging in. british occassionally surrendered (tobruk) and soviets tried it all. the only thing that really stopped germans was a deliberate all out defense, and the only thing that really pushed them back was a deliberate attack. some attacks soviets made were simply brilliant (like 1944 summer offensive) and some german attacks were suicidal (kursk). again, sometimes russians attacked with a disregard for human loss (berlin operation) and, you might say, political reasons. but then again, russians did not need a command to charge like mad on berlin, every single soldier wanted vengenace. for more on this, i reccomend a superb book bu cornelius ryan : the last battle.
|
Can you honestly believe the USSR cared more of its troops than the western allies? Pleeeease. Much of the idea of Soviet brutality might have been western propaganda but here's always a bit of truth in everything.
quote:
first sentence: ?. second sentence: they had guns and no chocolates in their backpacks. admittedly, russians got jeeps and light trucks from americans, but the rest of the equipment (light tanks) was useless
last sentence: because they were the only people standing between him and hitler?
|
the US had guns AND chocolate. But chocolate doesn't win wars. With the casualty rate the soviets sustained, it was impossible to maitain the levels of training and experience the western allies had. Most western troops were crap before the entered combat. Most western troops were crap when they entered combat. Most western troops were crap after they entered combat. But after months in western europe, italy, burma and the pacific, the average western infantryman was far superior than the average soviet one.
Equipment is another story. The soviets had more and far better tanks than the west. Infantry equipment was not as good but numbers made up for it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
David, don't be silly... Even without American involvement, the Russians would have beat the Germans back. |
Wrong. By 1944, Germany had over a million men in Italy and the Balkans, 46 divisions in France, including 9 Panzer divisions with 1500 tanks, over 450,000 men in Norway, a million men on air defense duties with thousands of anti-aircraft guns (88s that could be used in anti-tank roles), tens of thousands of men involved in the U-boat campaign with huge resources being poured into U-boats, and 80% of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength on anti-bomber duty in the West.
Additionally, involvement of the US provided the means for the early fall of Africa, and the shipment of a quarter million men there in 1942/43, as well as the capability for the invasions of Sicily and Italy. Add the losses incurred in those campaigns (hundreds of tanks, hundreds of aircraft, at least half a million men, and the country of Italy) to the forces in 1944, and it becomes even more significant.
In 1944, though, the Soviets did not have anything near that level of forces laying around idle or engaged in other sectors, and would have had nothing significant with which to counter.
But this assumes that the same historical outcome took place up to 1944. This is hardly accurate. Without US Lend Lease, the Soviet Union would have been much harder pressed from mid-1942 on. Further, with the lack of credible flank threats, Germany could have devoted a lot more reserves to the Eastern Front, including hundreds of thousands of men and thousands of tanks and fighters, in 1942. Monty would probably have eventually won in Africa, but it would have taken at least a couple more years.
The SU could probably have forced a stalemate, with Germany holding some of the most productive areas of Western Russia - such as arable regions of the Ukraine and parts of the Donets Basin.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-02-2003 18:09
|