EPTWorld War II History Thread - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Dbars
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On December 28 2011 13:56 Feartheguru wrote: I did not know "contributed greatly" = "would have lost without". Actually, if you consider those two phrases synonymous [which most of the debate seems to be about], it's still not inconsistent with the statement that Russia did most of the backwork. Let's consider the contribution from the Americans [considering them solely just to settle even the most extreme of positions]. It is reasonable to say that their efforts were necessary but not sufficient [in terms of logic - necessary and sufficient conditions]. Think of it this way: all the nations efforts are beams holding up a bridge. It's valid to say that both US and Soviet beams were both vital to keeping the bridge up - that without either beam, the bridge would have collapsed. The Soviet beam can still be larger and still support more weight, but it would still collapse without the key US plank. Let's say the Soviet plank upholds 70% of the weight, the US 30%. If you remove the US and have an object that would occupy 80% of the normal weight, the Soviets would still fall. Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright. http://books.google.com/books?id=-BN64vwKSkQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Note that the above is based off new data and studies published by Russian historians. | ||
|
TruePuffin
United States39 Posts
Also, I love the usual stereotypes about Americans: We are brainwashed, our history books are biased, etc. To the people making those assertions, have you ever taken a college level history course in the United States? You do realize that history is a legitimate field of study here, and that there are many respected academics and leading historians from the united states that are not "biased towards americans"? Do you even understand that we have higher education here are that there are many, many smart Americans that have a sophisticated understanding of the world and the way it works? Perhaps you have never conducted historical research in an american library on a university campus, because if you did, you would know that there are history books written by authors of various nationalities, even books written in other languages (gasp)? Maybe you would understand that historical research requires analysis of primary sources, and that we American hisorians don't get our information from a childrens' books. Just because some Americans watch Fox News doesn't mean that that is a reflection of our society. People are still capable of researching current events on their own, there are legitimate sources of news here that are not biased. Believe it or not, historical education extends beyond highschool in the United States. | ||
|
kornetka
Poland129 Posts
On December 28 2011 12:12 DoubleZee wrote: I find stories like this fascinating. From what I know about the waffen-ss it was mainly used as an elite unit to fight battles and the vast majority of the waffen-ss soldiers had nothing to do with war crimes. I hope no one takes this the wrong way but I think you should be proud of your grandfather for fighting for what he believed in and being a brave soldier. Also if you have any waffen-ss memorabilia laying around it is probably worth a fortune. I know a guy who makes a living buying/selling Nazi stuff and his biggest ticket items are waffen-ss and hitler jugend stuff. Not really. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS#War_crimes) Wafen-SS commited quite a few war crimes and was declared a criminal organisation in Nuremberg (excluding people froced to join it after 1943). | ||
|
TruePuffin
United States39 Posts
On December 28 2011 13:41 Fruscainte wrote: Yes of course I know the history books are bullshit. Russians did most of the heavy lifting -- however to underplay the American/Britain/Canadians efforts on the Western Front would be extremely ignorant.  Not all history books are bullshit, just most of the one's you read in high school. There are many, many good history books written in the United States, just as there are many produced elsewhere. | ||
|
colingrad
United States210 Posts
On December 28 2011 14:31 Dbars wrote: I always hear people talk about the Bismarck Battleship. But a lot of people havnt heard about the Tirpitz which was also a German battleship that was sunk. I did see something somewhere that you could buy things made from the metal of the Tirpitz battleship in Norway. they are of the same class, Tirpitz was actually survived longer but doesnt get quite so much press as its demise was not quite as spectacular as that of the Bismarck. Very interesting to see that both of the battleships were so feared by the british that they threw everything at them to destroy them, the Tirpitz spent a fair amount of the war under repair after being constantly harassed by the british airforce and submarine forces before finally being sung by waves of bombers | ||
|
Arunu
Netherlands111 Posts
have also always taken great interest in reading/ watching as much as i can about the two great wars. I've made a lot of trips to Dunkirk amongst others to get a view on how things were for the battling sides. Verdun was WW1 ofcourse but i like to know as much as i can about both of them. the bone ossuary was definately a very impressive and humbling site to visit, well worth any trip link for reference http://atlasobscura.com/place/douaumont-ossuary Lots of good comments and references in this thread already but would like to add at least one and maybe more when i'm not at work. The link below tells the short tale of general Sosabowski , i'm dutch myself but a few years ago there was a long documentary on television about him and i found the documentary to be heartbreaking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanisław_Sosabowski A polish general who fought in several battles during WW2 , ended up in exile in Britain with his polish paratrooper brigade (polish canadians and polish). He wanted to aid the (his) people of Warsaw during the polish uprising but was denied this by the british command mainly (supposedly ) because he had critisized Montgomory's operation Market Garden as being a suicide mission that was ill thought out. He joined in the operation after all because he otherwise would never be able to aid his people since he did not have his own transport planes and such. They fought bravely and fierce to cover the retreat of the british 1st airborne much to their own expense, their losses were about 40 % of the total unit. After the operation general Sosabowski was scapegoated, once again, most likely due to this nature to conflict with Montgomery. His repuatition was not " cleared " until very recently. I'm at work so i don't really have the time to dig to find the documentary nor do i know whether it has been released in any other language than Dutch but it is well worth the watch if you happen to find it. Just one the many, many tales from WW2 that deserve to be told in my opinion. will do some more digging when i get home. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
On December 28 2011 15:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Of course, one can take the extreme position that the Soviets would have won all on their own, but I disagree with this claim. Wars aren't won merely with tanks: the lend-lease was much more vital in supporting the soviets in a holistic sense. The Russians offered the man power and fought out the first-hand hard fight, and the Lend Lease provided much of the staples that kept them upright. Alternate history is hardly an exact science, but everything I've read about this subject has lead me to believe that the Russians would have defeated the Germans even while fighting alone. It would have taken them a lot longer and costed them a whole lot more, but in the end the result would have been the same. This is due to: 1) The germans could have never defeated the Red Army, it was too big and competent enough after 1941 to stand up to them. Most of the industrial output of Russia had been moved deep into the country, out of reach of the tactical german air force, so the only way the germans had to destroy all the russian equipment was the least effective, on the battlefield. 2) The only real chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was a massive political blow that would break Stalin's grip on power. They could have done this by a massive moral blow, like taking Moscow, bit in reality despite their best efforts they where never even close to doing this. Some recon units got close to Moscow, but to take it was a whole different matter as they would have had to sorround the city, siege it (see the siege of Leningrad to see how hard it was) while defending their overstretched line for a long time. 3) The fact that Nazi policy was so brutal towards slavs destroyed any chance of causing a civil war un Russia by acting like liberators from the Stalinist regime. It bassically forced millions of Russian to fight to the death for their family and their homeland and so they did. Please notice that when the germans were stopped in Moscow in 1941 Land Lease was barely starting, it's impact was very small back then but the germans were stopped non the less. This isn't some anti american rant, the US was still by far the single strongest industrial and military power during the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the russians still where more than capable on their own to beat the germans, quite simply because the germans didn't have the oil or other resources to sustain a prolongued war effort, the russians did, and so if the germans couldn't knock out Russia out of the war fast, and they couldn't, it was just a matter of time before the german's resources would be exhausted. | ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement - say hello to tragic end to WW2 | ||
|
DenSkumle
Norway108 Posts
| ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On December 28 2011 22:26 CrimsonLotus wrote: Alternate history is hardly an exact science, but everything I've read about this subject has lead me to believe that the Russians would have defeated the Germans even while fighting alone. It would have taken them a lot longer and costed them a whole lot more, but in the end the result would have been the same. This is due to: 1) The germans could have never defeated the Red Army, it was too big and competent enough after 1941 to stand up to them. Most of the industrial output of Russia had been moved deep into the country, out of reach of the tactical german air force, so the only way the germans had to destroy all the russian equipment was the least effective, on the battlefield. 2) The only real chance the Germans had to defeat Russia was a massive political blow that would break Stalin's grip on power. They could have done this by a massive moral blow, like taking Moscow, bit in reality despite their best efforts they where never even close to doing this. Some recon units got close to Moscow, but to take it was a whole different matter as they would have had to sorround the city, siege it (see the siege of Leningrad to see how hard it was) while defending their overstretched line for a long time. 3) The fact that Nazi policy was so brutal towards slavs destroyed any chance of causing a civil war un Russia by acting like liberators from the Stalinist regime. It bassically forced millions of Russian to fight to the death for their family and their homeland and so they did. Please notice that when the germans were stopped in Moscow in 1941 Land Lease was barely starting, it's impact was very small back then but the germans were stopped non the less. This isn't some anti american rant, the US was still by far the single strongest industrial and military power during the war. But that doesn't change the fact that the russians still where more than capable on their own to beat the germans, quite simply because the germans didn't have the oil or other resources to sustain a prolongued war effort, the russians did, and so if the germans couldn't knock out Russia out of the war fast, and they couldn't, it was just a matter of time before the german's resources would be exhausted. I hate discussing alternate history, but I feel that there is something amiss in yours, so I have to chime in. Even if we take all your assumptions for granted, you must realize that Germany didn't have the resources to fight the Soviet Union because the Western Allies were actually not neutral. The tank and aircraft production of Germany was actually constantly increasing throughout the war despite resource shortages and allied bombardment. The western allies cut the supply lines of Germany while at the same time securing those of the Soviet Union, it had massive impact on the war. I am just glad Germany lost the war, I probably wouldn't want to live in a Germany that has won it | ||
|
Feartheguru
Canada1334 Posts
On December 28 2011 23:22 Maenander wrote: I hate discussing alternate history, but I feel that there is something amiss in yours, so I have to chime in. Even if we take all your assumptions for granted, you must realize that Germany didn't have the resources to fight the Soviet Union because the Western Allies were actually not neutral. The tank and aircraft production of Germany was actually constantly increasing throughout the war despite resource shortages and allied bombardment. The western allies cut the supply lines of Germany while at the same time securing those of the Soviet Union, it had massive impact on the war. I am just glad Germany lost the war, I probably wouldn't want to live in a Germany that has won it I understand all arguments are essentially baseless in speculative history but you do not even attempt to link your argument to your conclusion, what you said is like me saying "The soviets are strong therefore they can take Germany on its own". I think 1) the Soviet Union turned the war around before major help kicked in 2) the Soviet Union only grows stronger with time while Germany grows weaker 3) D-Day happened when the war was won 4) Italy and Africa forced the Germans to reallocated an insignificant portion of troops If these 4 points are true is it possible to conclude with some certainty that the SU would have won without the West. So which of these are not true or is there a fallacy in my logic. | ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On December 28 2011 04:30 nalgene wrote: Hitler started the war too early. His armies in Africa were always saving Mussolini's ill trained army. ( It would have been good for Germany to train Italy's forces and use their resources. ) WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite. I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL: Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization. On Italians, as quoted in The Rommel Papers (1982) edited by Basil Henry Liddell Hart The German soldier has impressed the world, however the Italian Bersagliere soldier has impressed the German soldier. On the plaque dedicated to the Bersaglieri that fought at Mersa Matruh and Alamein. User was warned for this post | ||
|
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
On December 29 2011 00:24 BlitzerSC wrote: WHAT THE FUCK ? You don't know nothing about the Africans wars during WW2. German soldiers were a BUNCH OF PUSSIES ! They just kept retreating while stealing gas from italian tanks, but italians soldiers just stayed there and fought until the last bullet against english soldier even though english equipment was WAY BETTER that the italian one. Seriously, germans didn't save anyone in Africa, it's quite the opposite. I just leave you with some quotes by ROMMEL: Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way. | ||
|
Isillian
United Kingdom145 Posts
I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped. | ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On December 29 2011 00:30 wBsKillian wrote: Could you give a legitimate source for this (not a Rommel quote)? I haven't heard anything like this before and it doesn't seem to me that it was that way. Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler + I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^ On December 29 2011 01:02 Isillian wrote: I think it's difficult to hold the Italian soldiers in such a high regard, given that a force of 200,000 of them were defeated by a force of 30,000 British soliders commanded by Archibald Wavell who somehow managed take half of the Italian force as prisoner. I think a lose as staggering as that in early 1941 can't purely be a result of poor leadership of Italian generals and being less well equipped. What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc. I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army. At the end of the battle of El Alamein, Harry Zinder of Time magazine noted that the Italians paratroopers fought better than had been expected, and commented that: In the south, the famed Folgore parachute division fought to the last round of ammunition | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On December 29 2011 00:23 Feartheguru wrote: I understand all arguments are essentially baseless in speculative history but you do not even attempt to link your argument to your conclusion, what you said is like me saying "The soviets are strong therefore they can take Germany on its own". I think 1) the Soviet Union turned the war around before major help kicked in 2) the Soviet Union only grows stronger with time while Germany grows weaker 3) D-Day happened when the war was won 4) Italy and Africa forced the Germans to reallocated an insignificant portion of troops If these 4 points are true is it possible to conclude with some certainty that the SU would have won without the West. So which of these are not true or is there a fallacy in my logic. I just posted some snippets for thought because I am actually already tired of this discussion before it even started. But for you, I'll make a detailed post on the subject. So let's look at some details: Many of the German victories were not based on the tank force, but on air superiority. Now what would have been the impact if the western allies would not have participated in the war? Say, the UK signs a peace treaty right after France surrendered, just like Hitler wanted them to. The Battle of Britain and the invasion of Crete would never have happened, the air war in the Mediterranean and over Germany would never be fought. Now, in reality Operation Barbarossa was started with 4,389 aircraft, of which 2,598 were combat aircraft. In this scenario you can add 3000 aircraft and experienced pilots that were lost over Britain and Crete, as well as forces that would have been tied up in other theaters of war, probably doubling the initial strength of the Luftwaffe in the East. Aircraft production throughout the war: 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 total Germany 8,295 10,826 12,401 15,409 24,807 40,593 7,540 119,871 USSR 10,382 10,565 15,735 25,436 34,900 40,300 20,900 158,218 As you can see the numbers are quite close. Aluminum and aviation fuel are critical resources for building and maintaining an air fleet. It's interesting to know that the Soviet Union did get more than half of those resources from the Lend-Lease Agreement throughout the war, and much of the rest was still imported (but paid for, often by Western credits). Germany on the other hand was constantly short on fuel and the aluminum production was hampered by energy shortages. Now imagine Germany could actually buy oil, rubber and other resources on the world market and the Soviet Union wouldn't get raw materials for free, don't you think that would change the production numbers by quite a bit, as well as change the combat readiness of the air fleets? Not to mention German production would not be hampered by air raids and they wouldn't have constant aircraft losses against the more advanced fighters of the western powers. I, for one, can't imagine the Soviets getting air superiority anytime soon without western participation in the war. German air superiority, however, could change the situation in 1942 and 1943 quite drastically. And this is only one aspect of the war that was influenced by the western powers. Yes, the Soviet Union has shouldered the brunt of the war, but that does not mean it would have certainly won the war on its own. | ||
|
Isillian
United Kingdom145 Posts
On December 29 2011 01:22 BlitzerSC wrote: Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler + I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^ What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc. I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army. Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated. I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On December 29 2011 01:22 BlitzerSC wrote: Second battle of El Alamein. Folgore division is left alone by germans to fight the english allowing them to retreat with their tanks ( italian tanks had no gas ... who knows why...) + Show Spoiler + I don't have a specific internet source for that because it's what my grandpa told me, so i could be wrong ^^ What are you talking about ? Where did you pull those numbers off ? It's IMPOSSIBLE that GB had so few soldier given the fact that they had a lots of colonies, just think about it. As far as i know the british doubled the axis in pretty much everything. Double the troops, double the tanks ecc, better equipment, double anti-tanks weapons, ecc. I can't believe that there are still people who can't realize the "guts" that italians soldiers ( particulary the Folgore division) had against the english army. He didn't say that that was the entirety of the British army. He just said that 30k british beat 200k italians. The Germans were, afaik better equipped (superior weapons, as they were ready for war and the british were not), better drilled soldiers etc etc. Mind you Germany had double the population, and not as decentralized army. The British were all over the world having to guard their colonies from the slaves and locals and keeping them in check. Also the Germans took soldiers from conquered lands as well. | ||
|
BlitzerSC
Italy8800 Posts
On December 29 2011 01:48 Isillian wrote: Well, unless the history textbook next to me is simply lying, then it's safe to assume that the numbers are fairly accurate. I can assure you that the British did not double the axis forces in sheer numbers, given how streched thin Britain was at the time and had no help from France by that point as they had already capitulated. I'm not by any means questioning bravery of the Italian forces, merely that they were not paritularly succesful at that time and their failure in the region was what promoted Hitler to send General Rommel to support Italian forces in Libya. Ok, probably we are talking about different battles. I'm 100% sure that during the first and the second battle of el alamein the british had the biggest army. What battle are you talking about ? I did a little research and i wasn't able to find numbers like that. | ||
| ||
