06-06-2003 14:59									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Sleep well.

	06-06-2003 15:16									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Without the British still fighting in the early days of Barbarossa the Germans could have deployed even more troops, planes and tanks. We all know how close the Germans actually came to taking Moscow, if they had the extra forces - who knows where they might have got to...?

More importantly for Russia's survival in WW2 was the fact that the Japanese were too busy fighting the Chinese to deploy troops against Russia's eastern regions. This allowed Russia to transport a whole army from that region and use to defend itself against Germany. Without that army and being attacked on two fronts, I can't see how Russia would have survived.

Regarding the convoys to russia, I'm pretty sure most historians believe they were important in helping the Russians fight back the Germans though without direct statistical sources I'd be hesitant to claim to what degree.

Oh and in WW1, the Russians had plenty of men, very little guns and totally incompetent Generals. If it wasnt so tragic, their continuous blunderings in the face of an inferior sized enemy would make you laugh.

--

Never knew that Congress might have voted German as its working language. What was the reasoning behind that?

	06-06-2003 16:14									#34
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel Without the British still fighting in the early days of Barbarossa the Germans could have deployed even more troops, planes and tanks. We all know how close the Germans actually came to taking Moscow, if they had the extra forces - who knows where they might have got to...?

Facts please. Which German forces are you talking about. How big those forces were and where exactly they were fighting British forces. Germans concentrated a five million army on Soviet border in 1941. And already outnambered Soviet forces located beyond the German-Soviet frontier. I doubt they had more or less sugnificient forces that could be used in Barbarossa and that were critical for their success.

quote: More importantly for Russia's survival in WW2 was the fact that the Japanese were too busy fighting the Chinese to deploy troops against Russia's eastern regions. This allowed Russia to transport a whole army from that region and use to defend itself against Germany. Without that army and being attacked on two fronts, I can't see how Russia would have survived.

I don't see how credit for this goes to GB or USA. It was SU who supported China in its war vs. Japan. It was Soviet instructors and soldiers who fought in China vs. Japan and it was Soviet bombers who sunk Japanese cruisers and bombed their ports and finnaly it was Red Army who defeated IJA on Hassan lake and Khalkin-Gol river when Japanese were trying to test combat strengh of regular Soviet forces.
So, your point?

quote: Regarding the convoys to russia, I'm pretty sure most historians believe they were important in helping the Russians fight back the Germans though without direct statistical sources I'd be hesitant to claim to what degree.

There is a huge difference between "important" and "critical for Russia survival". Even if it was critical (WHICH IT WASN'T) it doesn't give right to Yanks to shout everywhere that they saved everyone asses.

quote: Oh and in WW1, the Russians had plenty of men, very little guns and totally incompetent Generals.

I wouldn't call Brusilov an incompetent general.

quote: If it wasnt so tragic, their continuous blunderings in the face of an inferior sized enemy would make you laugh.

I wouldn't call Russian summer offensive of 1916 a blundering also, because it was in many ways revolutionary and was very well planed and well executed.
I still don't receive answer about at least aproximately close success of American army in WW1 (infliction of 1,5 million casualties to enemy with kill/loss ratio of 3/1).

The end of threadjack.

	06-06-2003 16:23									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Let me put it this way, no nation will ever be able to conquer the U.S. by direct military action.

Never is a mighty long time...

	06-06-2003 16:27									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Serb Facts please. Which German forces are you talking about. How big those forces were and where there were fighting British forces. Germans concentrated a five million army on Soviet board in 1941. And already had outnambered Soviet forces located beyond frontier. I doubt they had more or less sugnificient forces which could be used in Barbarossa and wich were critical for their success.

how many troops were based in Western Europe, how many tanks and possibly most important, how many fighter & bomber squadrons? If there was no need to guard Western Europe from the British ( & later ) US forces then they could have deployed far more firepower against the Russian formations. Plus Hitler had a tendancy to make generals deviate from their strategic objectives to seize other tactical targets he thought better ( e.g. the encircling of millions of russians in the first few weeks/months of the operation ), with more units they'd not have been forced to do so. The panzers might have arrived at Moscow up to 4 to 6 weeks earlier making the capture of it far more likely to succeed.

quote: Originally posted by Serb I don't see how credit for this goes to GB or USA. It was SU who supported China in its war vs. Japan. It was Soviet instructors and soldiers who fought in China vs. Japan and it was Soviet bombers who sunk Japanese cruisers and bombed their ports and finnaly it was Red Army who defeated IJA on Hassan lake and Khalkin-Gol river when Japanese "tested" combat strengh of regular Soviet forces. So, your point?

sheeh, i put no spin on it but just mentioned the facts. you're the one who is being defensive about this seeing criticisms and barbs where none exist. the plain fact is that without that eastern army being there to defend moscow, then the russian army would have been extremely hard pressed to hold off the german invaders.

quote: Originally posted by Serb There is a huge difference between "important" and "critical for Russia survival". Even if it was critical (which it wasn't) it doesn't give right to Yanks to shout everywhere that they saved everyone asses.

I dislike the Americans claiming they solely won WWI and WWII as much as anyone, especially when they claim WWI was 1917-1918 or the recent spate of gung-ho american history re-write films

quote: Originally posted by Serb I wouldn't call Brusilov an incompetent general. I wouldn't call Russian summer offensive of 1916 a blundering also, because it was in many ways revolutionary and was very well planed and well executed.

from what i remember of the history books I've read they let an inferior sized german army trounce two russian armies piecemeal because of poor generalling and non-existant communications security ( giving the germans vital tactical information ). I'd reread and quote the relevant bits but im at work so it'd be have to wait til > 5pm.

remember im not trying to prove that the British or US won the war, just quoting the facts as best I know them ( being a major history buff and devourer of many books on this subject ).

	06-06-2003 16:43									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

It certainly meant that Americans don't need to learn a foreign language. Probably for the best.

	06-06-2003 16:46									#38
	Suffering from ads?

quote: The US Congress almost voted to use German as its working language. I believe it failed by only a few votes.

Thats an Urban Legend to protect 'American Culture'
http://www.watzmann.net/scg/german-by-one-vote.html

	06-06-2003 17:06									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel Without the British still fighting in the early days of Barbarossa the Germans could have deployed even more troops, planes and tanks. We all know how close the Germans actually came to taking Moscow, if they had the extra forces - who knows where they might have got to...?

The German did not take Moscow because they needed extra forces, but simply because they were not properly clothed and equipped for the Russian winter.

	06-06-2003 17:13									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT The German did not take Moscow because they needed extra forces, but simply because they were not properly clothed and equipped for the Russian winter.

That's not true, panzers ( under Guderian? ) were racing towards Moscow but were forced by Hitler to turn south and assist in encircling enemy formations. it was a full 4 weeks I believe before they were able to resume their drive on the Russian capital. If they had not been diverted, they would have reached Moscow far earlier and thus before Russian reinforcements did and before the population of Moscow was drafted in to build anti-tank defences around the city.

	06-06-2003 17:28									#41
	Re: The British Empire Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd British had a right to an empire

had a right to a empire.

I have never believed in right-ethics, but do some nation/country/state have/other a right to a empire?

	06-06-2003 17:30									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I doubt that Guderians Panzergruppe 2 would have taken Moscow, even if it was not diverted. First, you can't take a city like Moscow with tanks and motorized infantry only, you need lots and lots of infantry for that, and somehow I doubt that the Soviets would have given up their capital without fight this time (like they did with Napoleon). Second, the supply path was already long enough and the infantry was lagging far behind. Third, for the same reason, there was no hope for an adequate help from Luftwaffe.

The panzer armies were good for deep blows in open terrain, but not for taking big cities.

	06-06-2003 17:34									#43
	Inflate your Upload Space

WW1...my fave...

LordMerciless:
"Had the US stayed stayed out of WW1, the Entente would have never beaten Germany. British morale were crushed after the defeat after the 3rd battle of Ypres and 2/3 of French army mutinied in 1917. A stalemate at Western front implied German victory since they grabbed the entire Ukraine."

The British army of 1918 was a considerably better force than previously. If morale was so low then how come we managed to stand against the German assaults in March and April? Similarly with the French. The restructuring of allied command under Foch changed the war far more than the appearance of the US.

Finally a stalemate in the West would have been a disaster for Germany, which is why they tried to win outright in 1918. A stalemate would have ended with a German revolution in 1919 through starvation, even with the Ukraine, never mind the shakiness of Austria-Hungary.

"Despite Americans entering the war in the following year and supporting the Entente with almost unlimited weapons, you Russkies still collapsed in 1917."

Of these weapons bugger all got to the Russians...more importantly the US was rubbish at even supplying the weapons the Russians ordered in the first 2 years of the war. Quick at taking the money, but incredibly slack at supplying the goods...not that we were much better.

As for unlimited weapons, the entente provided all its own weaponry, and a lot of the US ones as well. To the extent that the British and French forces had to cut the number of horses per supply carriage so that they could give the distinctly ill-equipped US army some.

Demerzel:
"...from what i remember of the history books I've read they let an inferior sized german army trounce two russian armies piecemeal because of poor generalling and non-existant communications security."

Somewhat correct, but that was August 1914...Serb is talking about summer 1916, during which Brusilov used a strategy that was later to be picked up by Ludendorff and used at Caporetto in '17 and the western front in '18. Brusilov recognised the problems with launching offensives on narrow fronts against modern weapons, before anyone else did.

Sadly the Russian Empire was already in big trouble internally by that point. Going through what amounts to an industrial revolution at high speed at the same time as fighting a major war is not a good thing.

"If it wasnt so tragic, their continuous blunderings in the face of an inferior sized enemy would make you laugh."

Believe me, there was pretty much no one on either side who wasn't incompetent when it came to that war.

Serb:
"And this war wasn't a major factor for victory of Bolshevick's revolution."

Bull...the continuation of the war by Kerensky was the main factor for Bolshevik success. They wouldn't have had a cat in hells chance if he'd pulled out of the war.

	06-06-2003 17:38									#44
	Tired of ads?

the panzers could have enveloped the city with their supporting infantry preventing russian reinforcements and then awaited follow up infantry.

the german airforce would obviously be dependant on its support units leapfrogging forward to create new airstrips as fast as possible.

i agree that the suppy lines were pretty tenuous indeed but I think without Hitler's continual interference and more airpower, the Germans would have succeeded.

	06-06-2003 18:32									#45
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Serb Yes it was, but in the first place- if there were no British colonists and British setlements on North American continent they would never declared independence and would never formed their own state. Of course you can't blame USSR for Taliban. All credit for this goes to USA and CIA.

Gotcha sucker!

So, the US wouldn't exist without British colonists? What about Spanish, French, Dutch, German and Irish colonists? Don't they ever form breakaway colonies?

So, which side is which? The side that initiates the conflict, or the side which supports ir? Or the side which does neither?

The Taliban would not exist without the USSR. Action and reaction. But to BLAME the USSR for the formation of the Taliban is a mistake.

It's the same one you made, oh narrow minded Serb.

	06-06-2003 18:40									#46
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

****ing ****, man.

-Arrian

	06-06-2003 18:44									#47
	Increase Your PM Length

Repeat after Serb: Russia is the mightiest nation the planet has ever seen. Their leaders were all inspired geniuses, there have NEVER been any mass deaths or persecutions of Rus citizens by their enlightened leaders (all American Hollywood hype, cos you know....we have nothing better to do), EVERY modern invention stems from Mother Russia, Russian equipment is, bar none, the BEST in the world....everything from commercial airplanes to tanks to rifles to toasters. That's why we se so many Russian brand names on our shelves, you see, and why so many European airlines use those Russian-made jets!

All hail Mother Russia!!!!!

-=Vel=-
PS: Oh, and in a similar vein, the USA really IS the Great Satan, responsible for every ill the world has known since about 1776. Every time a world leader catches a cold or has an attack of gas....yep....that would be the fault of the pigs in the USA....

	06-06-2003 18:46									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

A complete threadjacking in progress!!

I think the Soviet role in WWI and WWII would make a great thread. Unfortunately, I was expecting to discuss the British role in colonizing Africa. Oh well...

	06-06-2003 18:48									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: My BS detector always brakes when I read your trools. So you have no proof for your lies then? I thought as much. Here's what the actual percentages of vital equipment supplied to the Soviets by us Americans. 80% of all canned meat.

Seeing as the Red Army fought mostly on Kasha, that was very nice of the Yanks but I'm sure they could have done without it.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 92% of all railroad locomotives, rolling stock and rails.

This I find unbelievable. Didn't the Soviets have a different railway gauge?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 57% of all aviation fuel.

Possible. I'm not in a position to challenge.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 53% of all explosives.

Oh C'MON! If there's one thing Uncle Joe always liked it was a big bang. Plus, take the calibre sizes of russian hardware into consideration and you can see there's NO WAY that lot would fit through Murmansk and Arkangel.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 74% of all truck transport.

Enterirely possible. 400,000 Studebakers is a hell of a lot.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 88% of all radio equipment.

Possible, but not exactly high priority from a "Shock Army! THAT WAY!" point of view.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten [QUOTE] Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 53% of all copper. 56% of all aluminum. 60+% of all automotive fuel.

Again, not in a position to challenge. I suspect these figures are not fully checkable - first you have to work out how much left, how much arrived, and how much of the relavant 5 year plan was bs.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 74% of all vehicle tires.

Possible, with the note that's non-AFV tires.

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 12% of all armored vehicles.

This one I find very hard to swallow. That's at least 3,000+ AFVs - are you sure all this would fit through the bottlenecks?

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten 14% of all combat aircraft.

Beats me why they bothered, given the massive superiority of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front for much of the war.

	06-06-2003 18:48									#50
	Put an end to popups!

I'll some up Britain in Africa.

We came along took what wasn't ours, ruled for a bit and then left far too quickly and without any thought o what would come next.

	06-06-2003 18:55									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Damn...Stinger beat me to it!

That was pretty much what I was going to say. We might have done a better job than many of the other European powers, but we still did a rubbish job...

	06-06-2003 19:04									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger I'll some up Britain in Africa. We came along took what wasn't ours, ruled for a bit and then left far too quickly and without any thought o what would come next.

Well, I think that US pressure had a lot to do with the quick exit. Overall, I think that the British experience in Africa was a positive one. It is my understanding that many government functions are still carried out by British nationals.

In addition, I believe that the British presence provided a unifying effect in many parts of the continent that would have seen great bloodshed without it.

	06-06-2003 19:10									#53
	Re: The British Empire Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd was the presence of the British positive or negative, overall, in terms of the development/"civilization" of regions such as Africa, India, Australia/NZ, US, Canada, etc.? Whaddya think?

The origins of the Middle East mess we currently find ourselves in largely flowed from thier actions. I'd say it was an overall negative effect on the region.

	06-06-2003 19:14									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

"It is my understanding that many government functions are still carried out by British nationals."

Not sure about that. Most West African (OK, Ghana and Nigeria) countries are pretty solidly run by the locals.

"In addition, I believe that the British presence provided a unifying effect in many parts of the continent that would have seen great bloodshed without it."

The countries formed by the European division of sub-Saharan Africa were (and are) complete figments. There has been an awful lot of bloodshed caused by these lines on maps. For a couple of examples from British colonies look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)...

	06-06-2003 19:22									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tolls ""In addition, I believe that the British presence provided a unifying effect in many parts of the continent that would have seen great bloodshed without it." The countries formed by the European division of sub-Saharan Africa were (and are) complete figments. There has been an awful lot of bloodshed caused by these lines on maps. For a couple of examples from British colonies look at Nigeria and Zimbabwe (Rhodesia)...

I agree that there is bloodshed now. IMO it would have been worse without some kind of starting point for a nation that the Europeans provided. Eventually Africa would have sorted it out as they are trying to do today. Providing some type of framework, I believe, has lessened the bloodshed in the long run.

	06-06-2003 19:28									#56
	Increase Your PM Length

But the frameworks for the nations already existed in the shape of the old kingdoms, all of which were swept away, while we favoured the minor emirs and chiefs because they were easier to handle.

The failure to take this into account was the start of the mistakes...it was to continue with our failure to draw the locals into the administration, resulting, at the end, in the civil wars and complete failures in terms of governance that occurred on independence. We handed government over to people who had little to no experience of it...and that is our fault.

It's not as if we didn't have experience of using locals in government...we ruled India like that for years, which is why its independence has been slightly more successful.

	06-06-2003 19:51									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Tolls But the frameworks for the nations already existed in the shape of the old kingdoms

I didn't realize that this was the case. I had always been taught that a great part of the continent was ruled by local tribal organizations that were to small in scope to represent the foundings of a nation state.

quote: It's not as if we didn't have experience of using locals in government...we ruled India like that for years, which is why its independence has been slightly more successful.

This faliure is likely due to not having a pool of literate and qualified people to draw from. If educational systems had been installed to provide a local pool of talent then I think that colonials would have tapped into it. While I am sure that there was some effort on this front, it may have proved to large a cultural shift to have been possible to take hold in the time frame of the colonial era.

	06-06-2003 19:53									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

See....everything would have just been all hunky-dory if we'd let the Ruskies conquer the world. They're inherently superior, and would not have made the mistakes that the foolish Brits and Americans have....

-=Vel=-

	06-06-2003 20:02									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"I didn't realize that this was the case. I had always been taught that a great part of the continent was ruled by local tribal organizations that were to small in scope to represent the foundings of a nation state."

The city states of Northern Nigeria were unified (I believe) by the time we arrived, and southern Ghana (into Nigeria) had the fairly solid Asante. But we weren't there for the good of the locals...we were there for the resources.

"This faliure is likely due to not having a pool of literate and qualified people to draw from. If educational systems had been installed to provide a local pool of talent then I think that colonials would have tapped into it. While I am sure that there was some effort on this front, it may have proved to large a cultural shift to have been possible to take hold in the time frame of the colonial era."

We provided schooling in India to train the locals up to be civil servants...there was schooling in Africa as well, but it was always cut short. I mean, we were there for decades, and yet failed to build anything.

	06-06-2003 20:03									#60
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by TheStinger I'll some up Britain in Africa. We came along took what wasn't ours, ruled for a bit and then left far too quickly and without any thought o what would come next.

Most of Africa was never part of the British Empire.

Agreed, the nations were drawn up across trivbal and cultural boundaries.

Some African states have retained their borders with minimal bloodshed (Nigeria, South Africa). Some haven't. (Uganda probably the worst ex-Brit state for this, although their are plenty others).