world war 2 casualties

[Shift]

ok ok ok, fine, i get the picture, people will read it, im wrong...

/flees

 

[NeptuneUK]

It is rare that I should make a statement of which is on a more personal scale, but sooner or later a point is reached where one begins to lack patience. While it is obvious that you took very little time or thought to throw together what we see now, I will not be so careless.
It is accepted by a few philosophers that stealing is a crime that is much greater than murder, because stealing encompasses that of stealing life, truth and love. It might be common to post with little or no care for any impression you make, but the majority shouldn't affect us in such global fashion and you are still stealing by making such a vague statement.

First of all, I should ask if you even took a look at Germany's war doctrine and USSR's? To wash up your first point I would like to point out that USSR's squad formations were that of which are used today: fire teams. Instead of a leading MG like in the German army the Russian army had a squad leader and LMGs to either side of him leading a pair of "Strelkov". If this tactic sounds pre-civil war style to you, I guess most countries are still pretty shallow on tactics, eh? Another part of the doctrine you most probably missed is that Germany did not attack with superior weaponry or tactics, rather superior veracity (Blitzkrieg). This was perhaps what won them the battle of France where the Panzer III was not superior to its French counter-part and in many ways France was superior by number and weapon.

A point mentioned not relating to your un-descriptive post is the idea of "Not one step back", the reasoning for this wasn't because Stalin was a big baddie like it is commonly advertised, but because there wasn't anywhere further to retreat to from Stalingrad (Syberia wasn't an option, because without infrastructure the USSR would fall.) ;therefore, a policy was put in to make sure the Soviets won. Another point for active assault was the fact that if the Soviet forces did not actively fight and liberate ,even more people would die of starvation in Leningrad. I cannot but muse the question: Do you take the victors as fools? Perhaps you are hoping for some personal success based on this module?

Second is of course, the lack of weapons. This is an amusing point mostly because it is only found in -Democratic- literature. I am sure that you as before have not looked at the statistics either. From what little is understood of the quick advance into Russia, the trouble wasn't a lack of weaponry, but rather a lack of produced modern weaponry because at the time there was an ongoing modernization of the army. Weapons on land were in no shape or form suffering , because Germany had not even bothered to revise their tactic for the more open areas of Russia. For example, the anti-tank rifle which was believed to be an old and inferior weapon was commonly sought after by Germans because of its range, a factor the panzerfaust lacked. In this section id like to simply say that the lack of weaponry, was too short of a period to give Germany the upper hand. By late 1942 most German weaponry was hopelessly outclassed in number and fire power which partially explains why the last advance was in 1942. A few examples would be: The t-34 which created the idea of a main battle tank capable of both dealing with infantry and armor (A quality other allied tanks severely lacked), the Yak series which were eventually considered second to no other fighter , Pe-2 which was designed in 4 days to become a very common dive bomber, the PPSH-42 (and later the PPS-43) which had double the effective distance of the MP-40. It's enough to say that most types of -best- weaponry in WW2 are credited to Russia.

The last point is that of which I would expect someone of zeal to throw at me in the middle of a hopeless argument. If you did not know, it has been always common practice to shoot deserters on the spot or in front of their comrades to make sure it does not happen again. While you can speak from a civilian point of view, I think you should at first take in what a soldier is and what a soldier does. It is perhaps best told in "The Moon is Down" where a young lieutenant is told of his status as a resource and that ultimately his pursuing personal interests (Along with all young men) will make the army fall apart and lose. The strongest point of the Soviet army was complete trust in the commanding officer and an ability to be competent. Whether or not this was efficient is a talk for beggars, after all, who won?To finish off this section I would wish to offer this question: Is the leader supposed to baby his congregation with lies and pats when they see bloodshed daily or should he harden their soul to the truth? I am sure you will say the latter, but deeply you are a coward who would never stand for it.

I would like to offer you that Germany by the end of its war campaign would have to recruit women and boys to its army. 4-7 million would not be enough dead men to make this tactic valid. Most Russian research and common sense agrees with the fact that Nazis were most interested in massive slaughter (As mostly any nation does) to demoralize its enemy, civilians would be a simple target, this tactic instead enraged the Russian army; therefore, it is obvious that civilians were priority targets and it was not the German firepower that created casualties , rather the lowly tactics they used. You might like to believe that Russians killed and raped civilians but in Germany, in many places, stand monuments to the merciful Russian soldier carrying a little German girl out of harms way. The Russian doctrine assigned a death penalty on the spot for rape and murder of civilians. It was the other allies that gave many people the perception of barbarians bombing out cities and then terrorizing the populace. To support this I would like to offer that America's part of Berlin had to mostly be fully rebuilt due to being burned out completely.

I would only wonder what kind of a cretin says the things commonly said, do they wish that USSR would have fallen or do they wish to spite the victors? At the time of final victory the USSR had more men and military equipment than the whole world combined, if it wanted to, it could crush America and Britain quite easily. As much as people would like to believe it, an atom bomb against Moscow would have no chance of ever reaching its target due to complete air superiority on the Russian side.

On a personal note I would like to say that your general pessimistic outlook on how to improve society through tweaking/complaining is quite pathetic. In the said case we have a victor and yet you continuously choose to instead seek what went wrong instead of what went right, and that by itself is coloring yourself as someone who aims to be better through belittlement rather than enlightenment. I would like to say that while my roots are what initiated this prolonged attack it would be rather honorless for anyone to shoot at me for that. Others might wish to water the roots of other people who they perceive as victims and let themselves become a parasite host, I on the other hand wish to water my own roots because it is what created me, not someone else's. Those who wish to change this simple fact are optimistic at the wrong moment and are quite hopeless , most likely your hunt for the truth is also hopeless, because you posted in a thread not out of being helpful but out of interests of common opinion.

Finally, I would wish to acquire some humility for my own people and say that I did not intercept your statement out of any good feeling of respect for you or your attached opinion, but rather to somewhat orchestrate understanding of how crass and morally detached your disrespect for the capabilities of the Soviet people truly are. I figure that the first seeds of respect can only be planted through edification, kicking heroics in the groin does not make you a heroic asshole, simply a waste of matter. I hope that you some day divert your study of failure to a more meritorious study of success, so far, you have failed.

you win.

a little hostile... but he speaks truth



stalin was well known for mass murdering etc, but he was very aware of his actions. he cared little about the deaths of millions.

"In the Soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than advance." excellent tactic, the army couldnt NOT push through the germans

"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. " probably his most famous quote, he's right

 

[Puzzlemaker]

Nice essay!

 

[Danimal]

First of, if you actually typed all that out for the sake of a forum topic hten thats just....strange. Second of all, I didn't even bother, and no one else will even bother to read it. So third of all, if you did type all that out then you have wasted your time

Shut your mouth, I read it and he's right.

 

[Dog--]

It is rare that I should make a statement of which is on a more personal scale, but sooner or later a point is reached where one begins to lack patience. While it is obvious that you took very little time or thought to throw together what we see now, I will not be so careless.
It is accepted by a few philosophers that stealing is a crime that is much greater than murder, because stealing encompasses that of stealing life, truth and love. It might be common to post with little or no care for any impression you make, but the majority shouldn't affect us in such global fashion and you are still stealing by making such a vague statement.

First of all, I should ask if you even took a look at Germany's war doctrine and USSR's? To wash up your first point I would like to point out that USSR's squad formations were that of which are used today: fire teams. Instead of a leading MG like in the German army the Russian army had a squad leader and LMGs to either side of him leading a pair of "Strelkov". If this tactic sounds pre-civil war style to you, I guess most countries are still pretty shallow on tactics, eh? Another part of the doctrine you most probably missed is that Germany did not attack with superior weaponry or tactics, rather superior veracity (Blitzkrieg). This was perhaps what won them the battle of France where the Panzer III was not superior to its French counter-part and in many ways France was superior by number and weapon.

A point mentioned not relating to your un-descriptive post is the idea of "Not one step back", the reasoning for this wasn't because Stalin was a big baddie like it is commonly advertised, but because there wasn't anywhere further to retreat to from Stalingrad (Syberia wasn't an option, because without infrastructure the USSR would fall.) ;therefore, a policy was put in to make sure the Soviets won. Another point for active assault was the fact that if the Soviet forces did not actively fight and liberate ,even more people would die of starvation in Leningrad. I cannot but muse the question: Do you take the victors as fools? Perhaps you are hoping for some personal success based on this module?

Second is of course, the lack of weapons. This is an amusing point mostly because it is only found in -Democratic- literature. I am sure that you as before have not looked at the statistics either. From what little is understood of the quick advance into Russia, the trouble wasn't a lack of weaponry, but rather a lack of produced modern weaponry because at the time there was an ongoing modernization of the army. Weapons on land were in no shape or form suffering , because Germany had not even bothered to revise their tactic for the more open areas of Russia. For example, the anti-tank rifle which was believed to be an old and inferior weapon was commonly sought after by Germans because of its range, a factor the panzerfaust lacked. In this section id like to simply say that the lack of weaponry, was too short of a period to give Germany the upper hand. By late 1942 most German weaponry was hopelessly outclassed in number and fire power which partially explains why the last advance was in 1942. A few examples would be: The t-34 which created the idea of a main battle tank capable of both dealing with infantry and armor (A quality other allied tanks severely lacked), the Yak series which were eventually considered second to no other fighter , Pe-2 which was designed in 4 days to become a very common dive bomber, the PPSH-42 (and later the PPS-43) which had double the effective distance of the MP-40. It's enough to say that most types of -best- weaponry in WW2 are credited to Russia.

The last point is that of which I would expect someone of zeal to throw at me in the middle of a hopeless argument. If you did not know, it has been always common practice to shoot deserters on the spot or in front of their comrades to make sure it does not happen again. While you can speak from a civilian point of view, I think you should at first take in what a soldier is and what a soldier does. It is perhaps best told in "The Moon is Down" where a young lieutenant is told of his status as a resource and that ultimately his pursuing personal interests (Along with all young men) will make the army fall apart and lose. The strongest point of the Soviet army was complete trust in the commanding officer and an ability to be competent. Whether or not this was efficient is a talk for beggars, after all, who won?To finish off this section I would wish to offer this question: Is the leader supposed to baby his congregation with lies and pats when they see bloodshed daily or should he harden their soul to the truth? I am sure you will say the latter, but deeply you are a coward who would never stand for it.

I would like to offer you that Germany by the end of its war campaign would have to recruit women and boys to its army. 4-7 million would not be enough dead men to make this tactic valid. Most Russian research and common sense agrees with the fact that Nazis were most interested in massive slaughter (As mostly any nation does) to demoralize its enemy, civilians would be a simple target, this tactic instead enraged the Russian army; therefore, it is obvious that civilians were priority targets and it was not the German firepower that created casualties , rather the lowly tactics they used. You might like to believe that Russians killed and raped civilians but in Germany, in many places, stand monuments to the merciful Russian soldier carrying a little German girl out of harms way. The Russian doctrine assigned a death penalty on the spot for rape and murder of civilians. It was the other allies that gave many people the perception of barbarians bombing out cities and then terrorizing the populace. To support this I would like to offer that America's part of Berlin had to mostly be fully rebuilt due to being burned out completely.

I would only wonder what kind of a cretin says the things commonly said, do they wish that USSR would have fallen or do they wish to spite the victors? At the time of final victory the USSR had more men and military equipment than the whole world combined, if it wanted to, it could crush America and Britain quite easily. As much as people would like to believe it, an atom bomb against Moscow would have no chance of ever reaching its target due to complete air superiority on the Russian side.

On a personal note I would like to say that your general pessimistic outlook on how to improve society through tweaking/complaining is quite pathetic. In the said case we have a victor and yet you continuously choose to instead seek what went wrong instead of what went right, and that by itself is coloring yourself as someone who aims to be better through belittlement rather than enlightenment. I would like to say that while my roots are what initiated this prolonged attack it would be rather honorless for anyone to shoot at me for that. Others might wish to water the roots of other people who they perceive as victims and let themselves become a parasite host, I on the other hand wish to water my own roots because it is what created me, not someone else's. Those who wish to change this simple fact are optimistic at the wrong moment and are quite hopeless , most likely your hunt for the truth is also hopeless, because you posted in a thread not out of being helpful but out of interests of common opinion.

Finally, I would wish to acquire some humility for my own people and say that I did not intercept your statement out of any good feeling of respect for you or your attached opinion, but rather to somewhat orchestrate understanding of how crass and morally detached your disrespect for the capabilities of the Soviet people truly are. I figure that the first seeds of respect can only be planted through edification, kicking heroics in the groin does not make you a heroic asshole, simply a waste of matter. I hope that you some day divert your study of failure to a more meritorious study of success, so far, you have failed.

Why do people keep quoting it? Trying to make the page longer?

 

[evil^milk]

Long Quote

I gather that is the truth, Cave Canem.

 

[bigburpco]

Long Quote.

I too, believe so.


...

- Danimal

 

[Razor]

It is rare that I should make a statement of which is on a more personal scale, but sooner or later a point is reached where one begins to lack patience. While it is obvious that you took very little time or thought to throw together what we see now, I will not be so careless.
It is accepted by a few philosophers that stealing is a crime that is much greater than murder, because stealing encompasses that of stealing life, truth and love. It might be common to post with little or no care for any impression you make, but the majority shouldn't affect us in such global fashion and you are still stealing by making such a vague statement.

First of all, I should ask if you even took a look at Germany's war doctrine and USSR's? To wash up your first point I would like to point out that USSR's squad formations were that of which are used today: fire teams. Instead of a leading MG like in the German army the Russian army had a squad leader and LMGs to either side of him leading a pair of "Strelkov". If this tactic sounds pre-civil war style to you, I guess most countries are still pretty shallow on tactics, eh? Another part of the doctrine you most probably missed is that Germany did not attack with superior weaponry or tactics, rather superior veracity (Blitzkrieg). This was perhaps what won them the battle of France where the Panzer III was not superior to its French counter-part and in many ways France was superior by number and weapon.

A point mentioned not relating to your un-descriptive post is the idea of "Not one step back", the reasoning for this wasn't because Stalin was a big baddie like it is commonly advertised, but because there wasn't anywhere further to retreat to from Stalingrad (Syberia wasn't an option, because without infrastructure the USSR would fall.) ;therefore, a policy was put in to make sure the Soviets won. Another point for active assault was the fact that if the Soviet forces did not actively fight and liberate ,even more people would die of starvation in Leningrad. I cannot but muse the question: Do you take the victors as fools? Perhaps you are hoping for some personal success based on this module?

Second is of course, the lack of weapons. This is an amusing point mostly because it is only found in -Democratic- literature. I am sure that you as before have not looked at the statistics either. From what little is understood of the quick advance into Russia, the trouble wasn't a lack of weaponry, but rather a lack of produced modern weaponry because at the time there was an ongoing modernization of the army. Weapons on land were in no shape or form suffering , because Germany had not even bothered to revise their tactic for the more open areas of Russia. For example, the anti-tank rifle which was believed to be an old and inferior weapon was commonly sought after by Germans because of its range, a factor the panzerfaust lacked. In this section id like to simply say that the lack of weaponry, was too short of a period to give Germany the upper hand. By late 1942 most German weaponry was hopelessly outclassed in number and fire power which partially explains why the last advance was in 1942. A few examples would be: The t-34 which created the idea of a main battle tank capable of both dealing with infantry and armor (A quality other allied tanks severely lacked), the Yak series which were eventually considered second to no other fighter , Pe-2 which was designed in 4 days to become a very common dive bomber, the PPSH-42 (and later the PPS-43) which had double the effective distance of the MP-40. It's enough to say that most types of -best- weaponry in WW2 are credited to Russia.

The last point is that of which I would expect someone of zeal to throw at me in the middle of a hopeless argument. If you did not know, it has been always common practice to shoot deserters on the spot or in front of their comrades to make sure it does not happen again. While you can speak from a civilian point of view, I think you should at first take in what a soldier is and what a soldier does. It is perhaps best told in "The Moon is Down" where a young lieutenant is told of his status as a resource and that ultimately his pursuing personal interests (Along with all young men) will make the army fall apart and lose. The strongest point of the Soviet army was complete trust in the commanding officer and an ability to be competent. Whether or not this was efficient is a talk for beggars, after all, who won?To finish off this section I would wish to offer this question: Is the leader supposed to baby his congregation with lies and pats when they see bloodshed daily or should he harden their soul to the truth? I am sure you will say the latter, but deeply you are a coward who would never stand for it.

I would like to offer you that Germany by the end of its war campaign would have to recruit women and boys to its army. 4-7 million would not be enough dead men to make this tactic valid. Most Russian research and common sense agrees with the fact that Nazis were most interested in massive slaughter (As mostly any nation does) to demoralize its enemy, civilians would be a simple target, this tactic instead enraged the Russian army; therefore, it is obvious that civilians were priority targets and it was not the German firepower that created casualties , rather the lowly tactics they used. You might like to believe that Russians killed and raped civilians but in Germany, in many places, stand monuments to the merciful Russian soldier carrying a little German girl out of harms way. The Russian doctrine assigned a death penalty on the spot for rape and murder of civilians. It was the other allies that gave many people the perception of barbarians bombing out cities and then terrorizing the populace. To support this I would like to offer that America's part of Berlin had to mostly be fully rebuilt due to being burned out completely.

I would only wonder what kind of a cretin says the things commonly said, do they wish that USSR would have fallen or do they wish to spite the victors? At the time of final victory the USSR had more men and military equipment than the whole world combined, if it wanted to, it could crush America and Britain quite easily. As much as people would like to believe it, an atom bomb against Moscow would have no chance of ever reaching its target due to complete air superiority on the Russian side.

On a personal note I would like to say that your general pessimistic outlook on how to improve society through tweaking/complaining is quite pathetic. In the said case we have a victor and yet you continuously choose to instead seek what went wrong instead of what went right, and that by itself is coloring yourself as someone who aims to be better through belittlement rather than enlightenment. I would like to say that while my roots are what initiated this prolonged attack it would be rather honorless for anyone to shoot at me for that. Others might wish to water the roots of other people who they perceive as victims and let themselves become a parasite host, I on the other hand wish to water my own roots because it is what created me, not someone else's. Those who wish to change this simple fact are optimistic at the wrong moment and are quite hopeless , most likely your hunt for the truth is also hopeless, because you posted in a thread not out of being helpful but out of interests of common opinion.

Finally, I would wish to acquire some humility for my own people and say that I did not intercept your statement out of any good feeling of respect for you or your attached opinion, but rather to somewhat orchestrate understanding of how crass and morally detached your disrespect for the capabilities of the Soviet people truly are. I figure that the first seeds of respect can only be planted through edification, kicking heroics in the groin does not make you a heroic asshole, simply a waste of matter. I hope that you some day divert your study of failure to a more meritorious study of success, so far, you have failed.

What you seemed to have forgotten was that even though Germany had no aircover at all in 44 and 45 anywhere in Europe and even though they were poor in supplies, German tanks were still destroying Soviet tanks at a rate of 3 - 1, Allied tanks at a rate of 4 - 1, and when you look at the Tiger 10 - 1. Unfortunately though, the Allies and the Soviets could replace 10 tanks more quickly than Germany could replace 1 Tiger or even a Panzer IV or a Panther.

From the huge amount of information around, the Soviets won due to superior numbers, lots of luck, bad overal strategy by the Germans, the German supply line being stretched to thin and getting far to bogged down in places like Stalingrad, underestimating the Soviet forces and being ill equipped for the Soviet winter, this is in noway undermining the courage and ferocity that the Soviet soldiers fought back the Nazis, especially in places where they knew that they couldn't retreat anymore - such as Stalingrad. Another major factor that came into account was the lack of any long range, heavy bombers that the Luftwaffe had. The Luftwaffe had some fantastic medium bombers such as the Heinkel 111, but the heavy bombers either never got out of the drawingboard/prototype stage or lacked any sort of proper numbers at all. The lack of long range heavy bombers ment that Germany could not hit tank and weapon factories deep inside the Soviet Union, so the Soviets could produce tanks and armaments relatively unhindered - something Germany could only dream of due to British and American bombing.

What a lot of people also seem to forgot was that Germany and the Soviet Union were allies before WW2 and actually had a joint tank factory in the Soviet Union where German and Soviet engineers worked together. The Soviet Union also helped Germany in the invasion of Poland as well in 1939 and was one of the only nations to really fight for both sides during the war, although not allied with Germany, they did, as stated above help Germany with the invasion of Poland and also had a non-aggression pact which was signed in Aug 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-German_cooperation

 

[Evo]

Having read 'Stalingrad' by Anthony Beevor i can draw my own conclusions from the fiasco of the Eastern Front...and with 'The Fall of Berlin' (same author) the Soviet offensive on the Germans. Both are great reads

In short:
The failure of the German's to take Moscow put tremendous pressure on the Paulus' Souther Army to get Stalingrad....they failed due to the Soviet spirit, grit determination and the fact that once winter set in supplies were running dangerously low and the Soviet encirclement ended any chance of success in the Easter Front for Germany

 

[Shift]

Actaully on a point made before, the Germans actually could retreate out of Stalingrad. There was a point before the Russians put a complete encirclement around Stalingrad where the German generals had the opporuntity to retreate before being completely cut-off, but Hitler ordered they stay and fight to the last man, and because of that, thousands of stranded German soldiers straved, froze, were killed or even worse, captured by the Russians. Stalingrad had no real significance for the German Offensive other than it was on the Volger, the reason it was fought over so ruthlessly was because Hitler had an obession over it because it beared the name of Stalin, he put it down a personal fight between himself and Stalin, and because of that many, MANY, soldiers lost their lives.

What people also fail to realize that it was not the German generals fault at all, it was Hitlers influence over all of the orders taking place, I mean face it, he was a rubbish leader when it came to military scenerios, sure he won a great victory in Europe but that was against poor opposition, but against the might of the USSR, things were different. First of all he miscalculated the time it would take to take ALL of the USSR and although he Germans were literally rampaging through hopeless Russian defences, only within a kilometre of Moscow did the Russian winter hit to which caused the German advance to halt completely, after a struggle to Moscow and losing the battle, they were counter-atacked continusly and gradually knocked back. What im getting at ultimately is that the German generals predicted that the Russians were about to launch a major counter-attack across the entire front, and pleaded with Hitler to allow the German Army to retreate to a better defensive position to try and absorb it but Hitler had an obsession with not giving up land.

So dont blame the generals, because the German generals fighting on the Eastern Front were some of the greatest military generals of modern times.

 

[Evo]

Stalingrad had no real significance for the German Offensive other than it was on the Volger, the reason it was fought over so ruthlessly was because Hitler had an obession over it because it beared the name of Stalin, he put it down a personal fight between himself and Stalin, and because of that many, MANY, soldiers lost their lives.

Stalingrad had a massive significance to the German offensive because it was on the Volga river. If Paulus' 6th Army had been able to capture Stalingrad they would've been able to secure a foothold on the other side of the river and as such making the Southern section of the Easter Front open again for fluid fighting, Blitzkrieg instead of getting bogged down in the street to street fights of Stalingrad. Also being able to control the river would've given the German's control over a key part of Soviet Central-Asian support tightening their grip on Russian supplies which were running as low as the Germans'.

What people also fail to realize that it was not the German generals fault at all, it was Hitlers influence over all of the orders taking place

Fair point, but a Generals' prime objective should be to ensure his troops suceed in their objective with a minimum loss of life, and in Paulus' he knew that he was fighting a losing battle in Stalingrad, but instead of defying Hitler he preceded to stay in Stalingrad. Paulus was a weak General who refused to stand up to Hitler. He failed his troops to be blunt.

After the failure of the push on Moscow the German's needed a sucess at Stalingrad or Leningrad in the North to have a chance of getting a grip on Russia. However Hitler and the Generals were to an extent morons who believed in Goering's promises of supplying the 6th Army via the Lufftwaffe, underestimated the might and determination of the Soviet's, all in all Hitler's distrust of his General's led to their failure. If he had trusted Paulus and von Mainstein then the Stalingrad situation could've been saved

So dont blame the generals, because the German generals fighting on the Eastern Front were some of the greatest military generals of modern times.

Paulus was a crap General who had long lost the belief of his officers and men, Manstein would've been a much better leader for the Stalingrad offensive. Hitler's lack of trust in them led to their downfall, as did their incompetance, many being loyal Nazi's and not great military General's. Look at Gleischaltung and the Oath of Alleigance which ripped the heart and soul out of the Army replacing great tacticians like Bloomberg with Nazi's looking to climb the political ladder

 

[Shift]

Very good points, I think I went wrong with making good generals. I think what I should have said was that normal soldiers who were fighting there became very good leaders, because if you say is true about bad leadership from higher up, then a lot of the main leadership of men would have come from lower down, thus making great leaders within the lower ranks. I mean if a German who had fought on the Eastern Front was stationed in Western Europe as a Sgt or a Lt then most of the soldiers would not test him, they would know he must be a heck of a fighter and a leader to have survived on the Eastern Front.

 

[Evo]

Very good points, I think I went wrong with making good generals. I think what I should have said was that normal soldiers who were fighting there became very good leaders, because if you say is true about bad leadership from higher up, then a lot of the main leadership of men would have come from lower down, thus making great leaders within the lower ranks. I mean if a German who had fought on the Eastern Front was stationed in Western Europe as a Sgt or a Lt then most of the soldiers would not test him, they would know he must be a heck of a fighter and a leader to have survived on the Eastern Front.

Yeah, from what i've read it was the lower ranks that were the ones running the show on the ground. Of course there were some very good Generals in the German Army, Rommel (who was involved in the July Bomb Plot but died in Normandy before D-Day) and those who worked their way up from the bottom were good, it was the Hiterlites who kissed ass all the time that were the crap ones

 

[Shift]

Yeah, from what i've read it was the lower ranks that were the ones running the show on the ground. Of course there were some very good Generals in the German Army, Rommel (who was involved in the July Bomb Plot but died in Normandy before D-Day) and those who worked their way up from the bottom were good, it was the Hiterlites who kissed ass all the time that were the crap ones

I thought Rommel committed suicide in Germany because Hitler found out he was involved in the plot to take his life, and gave him a choice to either be hanged or something a face a shameful death or commit suicide and have a heroes funeral, and he chose to commit suicide. Well thats what I have heard, but either way, yeah he was Germany's greatest general at the time, and the only reason Monty beat him in Africa was because Monte had a lot more men and resources than poor old Rommel had.

 

[Evo]

I thought Rommel committed suicide in Germany because Hitler found out he was involved in the plot to take his life, and gave him a choice to either be hanged or something a face a shameful death or commit suicide and have a heroes funeral, and he chose to commit suicide. Well thats what I have heard, but either way, yeah he was Germany's greatest general at the time, and the only reason Monty beat him in Africa was because Monte had a lot more men and resources than poor old Rommel had.

No that was one of the in-depth conspirators....gah forgotten his name now...Beck i think

Rommel got his by a Spitfire/Hurricane while riding in a jeep in Normandy :hmph:

 

[CookieCuttah]

What you seemed to have forgotten was that even though Germany had no aircover at all in 44 and 45 anywhere in Europe and even though they were poor in supplies, German tanks were still destroying Soviet tanks at a rate of 3 - 1, Allied tanks at a rate of 4 - 1, and when you look at the Tiger 10 - 1. Unfortunately though, the Allies and the Soviets could replace 10 tanks more quickly than Germany could replace 1 Tiger or even a Panzer IV or a Panther.

From the huge amount of information around, the Soviets won due to superior numbers, lots of luck, bad overal strategy by the Germans, the German supply line being stretched to thin and getting far to bogged down in places like Stalingrad, underestimating the Soviet forces and being ill equipped for the Soviet winter, this is in noway undermining the courage and ferocity that the Soviet soldiers fought back the Nazis, especially in places where they knew that they couldn't retreat anymore - such as Stalingrad. Another major factor that came into account was the lack of any long range, heavy bombers that the Luftwaffe had. The Luftwaffe had some fantastic medium bombers such as the Heinkel 111, but the heavy bombers either never got out of the drawingboard/prototype stage or lacked any sort of proper numbers at all. The lack of long range heavy bombers ment that Germany could not hit tank and weapon factories deep inside the Soviet Union, so the Soviets could produce tanks and armaments relatively unhindered - something Germany could only dream of due to British and American bombing.

What a lot of people also seem to forgot was that Germany and the Soviet Union were allies before WW2 and actually had a joint tank factory in the Soviet Union where German and Soviet engineers worked together. The Soviet Union also helped Germany in the invasion of Poland as well in 1939 and was one of the only nations to really fight for both sides during the war, although not allied with Germany, they did, as stated above help Germany with the invasion of Poland and also had a non-aggression pact which was signed in Aug 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-German_cooperation

After reading your post and agreeing with most of it, id like to add on to the general theme of what we are speaking about. There are many factors you pointed out while also forgetting to point out even more important ones such as the idea of how tanks worked, the German allies and more depth on the German supply lines. While I do admire you responding with an educated post, I would wish to correct you on a few points also.

While it is true that German tanks often "enjoyed" a knock-out ratio more than Soviet tanks, you forget that the ratio you pointed to was not a destroyed tank ratio. It was enough to knock the track out to consider the tank knocked out and as you understand, this was a problem fixed very quickly in the Soviet army; therefore, while the ratio is impressive it is not actual to how many tanks were lost. You have to also remember that Soviet tanks were advancing and it was generally accepted that the airmen fight the tanks while the land tanks support. To add on to all of this, Soviets aimed to destroy both the tank and kill its whole crew, Germany did not have this leisure and the casualties weren't so high with Russian tank crewmen.

Your second point of which Russia was of superior number was only true towards later years. The Soviet Union was attacked by 6 countries at once and it was Germany who had the superior amount of troops and equipment due to 6 countries at once producing for it.


Luck? I don't think so, there has never been a full advance on Russia and to say that it was luck saving the Russian people for the past millenia, that's kind of like saying that it isn't luck but a birthright.

Lack of long range bombers is correct, but you're searching for the wrong reason. The true reason of a lack of long range bombing was that by May of 1942 Russia had the first rocket interceptor in the world, it never entered mass production because Germany knowing of this efficient weapon did not bother making such bombers.

The supply lines to Russia were many times hindered by partisans actively destroying railways and generally terrorizing the German service men. This not only depleted Germans of any peace of mind, but also added on to the casualties of winter, disease and death through lack of ammunition. Germans ironically quickly adapted the tactics they had seen used so liberally in Stalingrad, they would fight with anything at hand.

Your point on Poland seems a rather moral one. What you forget is that the USSR was neither interested in salvation of any particular race of people nor was it interested in losing without gain. At the time when Poland was invaded the USSR would be incapable of fighting the Germans and the additional land would be a more benefitting border against the German attack. What many fail to understand is that Stalin always knew Hitler would attack him sooner or later, he was simply stalling and was not in with the Nazis as you suggest.

From my studies I think that the true reasoning to Nazi's losing was not so much Hitler's inadequacy as the lack of a back-up plan. Towards the end of the war tactics were shifting to more defensive, armored weapons while the initial assault weaponry proved to be nearly useless against the Soviet advance. Another trouble was with Britain in America ,which had served quite reliable on leasing planes/tanks to the USSR (Although the policy in my opinion was a few steps too ridiculous price wise.) , the trouble with these two countries for Germany is that it was difficult to fight on two fronts. While both armies weren't a large threat to Germany before D-day, Germany did have to keep a garrison there limiting the soldiers fighting in the east.

Having partially covered all this id like to say that I in no way seek to belittle the German, American or British abilities. Germany's later innovations of technology were a marvel of their time, only lacking use because of a lack of good pilots and number. America while 3 years too late to attack Normandy did help with the general chaos and disorganization of Europe, albeit later instead took advantage of this, but that's another subject. Britain is quite amazing in that they used practically every resource they had at hand and still were able to mount a fight under complete inferiority.

On my personal commentary I would like to say that the Soviet Union while a very efficient fighting, educational and scientific force always was a tad cold to live in. While the tactics of WW2 had arguably saved the day for many people, the general policies had been too rough on the common people. The general decadence after 1975 wasn't that America had the upper hand, rather that Russian communism was a step too realistic, anti-superstitious and honest. While in America many musing ideas have developed over the years that never have taken root, the USSR instead did little for this, but this isn't a bad thing at all. The fall of the USSR is simply logical progression just as the fall of Czarism was a century ago, it is natural and forever being in one system will only create a limbo that eventually drives all its citizens to insanity.

Anyhow, last of all I would like to thank all those who have read what I wrote, because that is why I wrote it. Such a strong base of support is one of the great things about being part of the forum.

 

[Razor]

After reading your post and agreeing with most of it, id like to add on to the general theme of what we are speaking about. There are many factors you pointed out while also forgetting to point out even more important ones such as the idea of how tanks worked, the German allies and more depth on the German supply lines. While I do admire you responding with an educated post, I would wish to correct you on a few points also.

While it is true that German tanks often "enjoyed" a knock-out ratio more than Soviet tanks, you forget that the ratio you pointed to was not a destroyed tank ratio. It was enough to knock the track out to consider the tank knocked out and as you understand, this was a problem fixed very quickly in the Soviet army; therefore, while the ratio is impressive it is not actual to how many tanks were lost. You have to also remember that Soviet tanks were advancing and it was generally accepted that the airmen fight the tanks while the land tanks support. To add on to all of this, Soviets aimed to destroy both the tank and kill its whole crew, Germany did not have this leisure and the casualties weren't so high with Russian tank crewmen.

Your second point of which Russia was of superior number was only true towards later years. The Soviet Union was attacked by 6 countries at once and it was Germany who had the superior amount of troops and equipment due to 6 countries at once producing for it.


Luck? I don't think so, there has never been a full advance on Russia and to say that it was luck saving the Russian people for the past millenia, that's kind of like saying that it isn't luck but a birthright.

Lack of long range bombers is correct, but you're searching for the wrong reason. The true reason of a lack of long range bombing was that by May of 1942 Russia had the first rocket interceptor in the world, it never entered mass production because Germany knowing of this efficient weapon did not bother making such bombers.

The supply lines to Russia were many times hindered by partisans actively destroying railways and generally terrorizing the German service men. This not only depleted Germans of any peace of mind, but also added on to the casualties of winter, disease and death through lack of ammunition. Germans ironically quickly adapted the tactics they had seen used so liberally in Stalingrad, they would fight with anything at hand.

Your point on Poland seems a rather moral one. What you forget is that the USSR was neither interested in salvation of any particular race of people nor was it interested in losing without gain. At the time when Poland was invaded the USSR would be incapable of fighting the Germans and the additional land would be a more benefitting border against the German attack. What many fail to understand is that Stalin always knew Hitler would attack him sooner or later, he was simply stalling and was not in with the Nazis as you suggest.

From my studies I think that the true reasoning to Nazi's losing was not so much Hitler's inadequacy as the lack of a back-up plan. Towards the end of the war tactics were shifting to more defensive, armored weapons while the initial assault weaponry proved to be nearly useless against the Soviet advance. Another trouble was with Britain in America ,which had served quite reliable on leasing planes/tanks to the USSR (Although the policy in my opinion was a few steps too ridiculous price wise.) , the trouble with these two countries for Germany is that it was difficult to fight on two fronts. While both armies weren't a large threat to Germany before D-day, Germany did have to keep a garrison there limiting the soldiers fighting in the east.

Having partially covered all this id like to say that I in no way seek to belittle the German, American or British abilities. Germany's later innovations of technology were a marvel of their time, only lacking use because of a lack of good pilots and number. America while 3 years too late to attack Normandy did help with the general chaos and disorganization of Europe, albeit later instead took advantage of this, but that's another subject. Britain is quite amazing in that they used practically every resource they had at hand and still were able to mount a fight under complete inferiority.

On my personal commentary I would like to say that the Soviet Union while a very efficient fighting, educational and scientific force always was a tad cold to live in. While the tactics of WW2 had arguably saved the day for many people, the general policies had been too rough on the common people. The general decadence after 1975 wasn't that America had the upper hand, rather that Russian communism was a step too realistic, anti-superstitious and honest. While in America many musing ideas have developed over the years that never have taken root, the USSR instead did little for this, but this isn't a bad thing at all. The fall of the USSR is simply logical progression just as the fall of Czarism was a century ago, it is natural and forever being in one system will only create a limbo that eventually drives all its citizens to insanity.

Anyhow, last of all I would like to thank all those who have read what I wrote, because that is why I wrote it. Such a strong base of support is one of the great things about being part of the forum.

I would definately have to agree, the Soviet army was definately an army not to be underestimated, something Hitler did at the very beginning of the Barbarosa campaign, i mean look at the campaigns later on in the war with the USSR fighting Japan, Japanese troops had little to no success. I also very much doubt the war would of ended as it did if it wasn't for the invasion of the Soviet Union, if Hitler and his generals could concentrate their man power in Western Europe, Italy and Northern Africa, D-day might never have happened, and if it did, would of most probably of been a failure.

I think the best strategy would of been to take Western Europe and North Africa entirely, and then just support the Japanese with their fights against America. The advantage of doing that was America could be kept at arms reach, thanks to the Atlantic, and by 1945/46, Germany could be rolling at their atomic weapons and putting it on the tips of the longer range V2 or even their Amerika bomber which could hit New York and Washington DC from France. Invading the Soviet Union, you had a huge massive army that was ready to fight and well equipped and you had no ocean to slow or stop their progress.

 

[Puzzlemaker]

This thread is awsome. It needs to be stickied.

 

[Shift]

Yeah with a warning sign

*WARNING* ESSAY POSTS BE HERE! *WARNING*

^^

 

[gick]

No that was one of the in-depth conspirators....gah forgotten his name now...Beck i think

Rommel got his by a Spitfire/Hurricane while riding in a jeep in Normandy :hmph:

Not quite. Rommel's staff car was strafed by an RAF plane on 17 July '44, Rommel suffered serious head injuries and was hospitalized. While he was recovering in hospital the bomb plot business went off. It's still up for deabte as to wether Rommel was actually involved in the plot itself, but we do know that by this point of the war he was vocally critical of the Nazi leadership, and most of his aides were heavily involved. Hitler knew about this and gave Rommel a choice - go through a sham trial and be executed (along with his entire family and staff) or commit suicide. He chose the latter.

 

[Evo]

Not quite. Rommel's staff car was strafed by an RAF plane on 17 July '44, and Rommel suffered serious head injuries, and was hospitalized. While he was recovering in hospital the bomb plot business went off. It's still up for deabte as to wether Rommel was actually involved in the plot itself, but we do know that by this point of the war he was vocally critical of the Nazi leadership, and most of his aides were heavily involved. Hitler knew about this and gave Rommel a choice - go through a sham trial and be executed (along with his entire family and staff) or commit suicide. He chose the latter.

Ahh, thought my reasoning was a bit too easy :frog:

 

[Cole]

Anyhow, last of all I would like to thank all those who have read what I wrote, because that is why I wrote it. Such a strong base of support is one of the great things about being part of the forum.

Anytime. I love reading well educated posts, especially when it comes to WW2.