I would agree with Perf's assessment that the German Army lost the War in the East. The Wehrmacht came close to oversoming Russia in 1941 but the men that were lost even at this early stage were irreplacable. The Forces in the west were depleted to make good the numbers. It is almost ridiculous to assume that no war would have been fought between Stalin and Hitler, but an Allied Invasion against a strengthened Wehrmacht, SS and Luftwaffe may have had a different conclusion indeed.
Originally posted by Gotthard Heinrici@Sep 7 2005, 08:44 AM It is almost ridiculous to assume that no war would have been fought between Stalin and Hitler, but an Allied Invasion against a strengthened Wehrmacht, SS and Luftwaffe may have had a different conclusion indeed. [post=38713]Quoted post[/post] I think if Russia had collapsed, or D-Day had failed -- Germany would have won the war.
D-Day had failed -- Germany would have won the war. Eisenhower had made plans on the basis that D-day failed, he thought that it would be year before they could mount another landing. Given the tactical situation in 1944, even if the landings had failed, the Germans were on the defensive in the East and given Hitler's mentality then he would have kept the France based troops there. Also, and it is a big if, the prisoners captured on D-day, would have caused all sorts of logistical problems. There would have been the necessity of regrouping and re-supplying the German units involved. No doubt there wouldhave been a step up in the bobmber offensive against germany in responce as it would have been the Allies only method of attack under the circumstances.
Plant-Pilot, i dont know how many times your parents drop you as a child but it must atleast be in the high 4 figures If any human on earth should read a book it should be you Richard, J, Overy Russia's War He is a british professor that has translated the Soviet archives the German Archives and read the Western ones and written a book called Russia's war in 1997 go read it. First The Soviet Army grew from 1937 to 1941 from 1.9 million to 4.5 but the offcier core grew only from 60k to 160k the mass waves that you think of were only used in 1941 after the offensive of the 5 of december which the Soviets the sleves launched without any help from america what so ever in any form pushed back the nazies alot. Also as it clearly states in the book is that the leand lease program only kicked in for real in 1943 Also and this is important so you will probably miss it because of the brain damage your parents gave you The Amry grew much faster then the Officer core did and also the trainers for the Equipment were them Sleves only reciving traning and were in no way capable of traning the men under them in usage of the equipment The Purges hade a minimal effect only 8 k off the 33 k were killed and but the end of 1940 most of the ones not killed were sent back in duty. And Since you will never read the book or even this sentance i must point out that it was nazi propaganda that blamed their defeat on the weather which you so beatifully continue but this is ofcurse worng the Nazies could never admit that Soviet tactis went from beeing were to poor to much superior to Nazi ones And you seem to forget that the Soviets fought in the exact same weather and that they won in all types of weather Kursk was during the Summer and who won there? And what was going on in normady during the battle of kursk in 1943? Do you know? And the battle for africa only hade some 40k casulties on both sides that is about 3 days of fighting on the eastern front And your biggest problem is that you do not have the capacity to understand that the Soviets changed and imrpoved their tactics many times And ofcurse there is no chans in hell that you know that During 1941-1942 the Nazies ALLWAYS hade more men, equipment then the Soviets did and that after 1j an 1942 the Nazies lost more Soldiers then the Soviets did Also the nazies were never alone Rumania and Hungry hade lots of men Italy lost more men there then in Italy and Bulgaria also hade a small nummber there Just read the book!
Point to clarify Max: In Tunisia in 1943 ,the Axis Forces lost more men at that surrender than at Stalingrad. Whilst you may have a different view to Plant-Pilot, please dont get personal, its not a nice thing to do. images/smilies/default/biggrin.gif
MaxPower, You have voiced your opinion, as you have every right to do. Opinions are however, ten-a-penny and I am more likely to listen to one that is forwarded with some civility than one laced with personal insults. Your opinion from what I can make out is based on the reading of ONE book. Hardly a balanced and impartial grounding to disagree with my comments so scornfully. Unfortunatly I am also very unlikely to be in any rush to read any book recomended in such a negetive way. I'm sure you won't be offended by that as you are of the opinion that I am unable to read anyway. Maybe you could point out the significance of the pretty pictures for me in you offensive and patronizing manner. I'll put your lack of understanding of the spirit of this forum down to your low number of posts and your obvious need for attention seeking. You may be able to interact a little better with people, yes even those that you don't actually agree with, if you could find your way to accept that there are other opinions around and remain civil when posting.
I find it funny that the people who seem totally pro-russian are the ones who get personal so quickly or indeed take one source and flog it to death. Anyone for a spot of Suvorov???? images/smilies/default/tongue.gif
One book my ass I have also read the American armies studies on ww2 Also it is YOU who most likely hasent studied anything It mus be pointed out that In Britan and in Germany they teach in Universities that the soviets Played the biggest and most significant part and also they say that most of your statements are myths created by the cold war Sweden the country that i Live in also teaches the same thing and i Do Belive USA also does it but i am certain that you havent studied history in any University in any Country on earth http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#nom From the American army And for the low nummber of posts cleary if anything points to your lack of intelligence I JUST JOINED<------------------------------------ Look to the top and read Agust storm Now he clearly says that the waves is a myth and well just read it made by the american amry
(Reverend Bob @ Oct 19 2005, 11:42 AM) [post=40204]Wow.....on a lighter note: Does this forum have a Spell check feature??? Cheers Rev Bob [/b] There used to be just above the + / - on the bottom left. It will return with the new look board I have no doubt. Cheers.
(MaxPower @ Oct 19 2005, 01:52 AM) [post=40198]One book my ass I have also read the American armies studies on ww2 Also it is YOU who most likely hasent studied anything It mus be pointed out that In Britan and in Germany they teach in Universities that the soviets Played the biggest and most significant part and also they say that most of your statements are myths created by the cold war Sweden the country that i Live in also teaches the same thing and i Do Belive USA also does it but i am certain that you havent studied history in any University in any Country on earth http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#nom From the American army And for the low nummber of posts cleary if anything points to your lack of intelligence I JUST JOINED<------------------------------------ Look to the top and read Agust storm Now he clearly says that the waves is a myth and well just read it made by the american amry [/b] I understand that you have just joined. I can see by the date. But the comment on low post numbers was a reference to you not having understood the 'spirit & feel' of the forum yet. I could also only quote you as taking your opinion from one book, because that was the only book you forwarded as a reference for your 'argument'. You however have decided that you know my standard of education, my experience in life and a fair deal about how my parents treated me as a child. All of which could be classed as an arrogance that is not expected from someone who is quoting their education as grounds for their arguments being better founded than others. An education should have given you the ability of assessing other points of view, rather than just dismissing them as wrong on the grounds that you have read from books that the 'americans are wrong'. For your information I am British, and have spent many years here in Germany with the British Army. Any notion I have of the Soviet 'human wave' attacks is not only taken from books which you say made the stories up, but also from one or two German witnesses I have spoken to who reinforced that idea during conversations with them. One of which was still caught between the luck he had in surviving such an action and the sheer waste of human life he had to take part in in order to do so. You enjoy your education, but don't waste it by assuming that a formal education gives you the right to tell people that you have never met that they are wrong in such an impolite way. Without experience your education, which has not finished yet because it never will, is only a grounding for life. Without a little generosity to listen and accept that others also have an opinion, you will ultimatly have less chance to forward your own ideas, as people just won't want to listen to someone who is rude when forwarding their 'opinion' as the only 'fact'.
(spidge @ Oct 19 2005, 03:53 AM) [post=40206](Reverend Bob @ Oct 19 2005, 11:42 AM) [post=40204]Wow.....on a lighter note: Does this forum have a Spell check feature??? Cheers Rev Bob [/b] There used to be just above the + / - on the bottom left. It will return with the new look board I have no doubt. Cheers. [/b] I can't wait!
And these witnesses did they see the whole picture? Did they know everything Or were they just 2 grunts? Also just read what the american army says it is all there under the diffrent topics, Agust Or read what Joh Ericson has written, the British Professor Or Richard Overy has written Or just go to any university in any British City and tell them that they are all wrong and that you are so right And name these books of yours Also you dont seem to have bothered reading any of the refrences i gave you which if anything proves that you dont know or wish to know how the war was wactually fought You seem to forget that in the first 4.5 months over 500 divisions fought on a much bigger scale of battle then anything before And if the Soviets were sending in mass tactis as you so say then why did they losse less men then the Germans after jan 1 1942? Or just read what Gotthard Heinrici posted, he replies to you comments to Just go to the imperial museum and talk to the people working there
Max, Again, your tone doen't instill the desire to go and do your work for you. Why should I go out of my way to see that you are rigth when you can't even pay anyone any normal civilities. You are oh so educated and quote several books. You are stating categorically that there were NO human wave attacks during the russian campaign. Well there you go. Why do I need to bother reading your sources when you are telling me that they state that there was no such tactic. I'll just have to consider the words of the two old soldiers I talked to as lies. They didn't have to face that tactic during the retreat from the Soviet Union. Strange that two unconnected witnesses came up with similar stories. What are the cances of me meeting the only two who experienced (or according to you thought they did!) this tactic out of the millions of soldiers on the eastern front. And to think that you only consider the words of Generals and Profesors as the truth, the people who are the least likely to have to face such tactics themselves. This is called a forum, for the exchange of ideas. Not a stage for you to tell everyone that they are wrong and you are right. I hope you never have to wear a uniform and have to endure the horrors of war. You'd then find out that at such times 'right' and 'wrong' don't really have much meaning and having read the book is not the way to win, surviving is. Survival in this life is a lot easier with a little civility, or wasn't that in any of your books?
Go here http://www.cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...g/ARMSTRONG.asp Read the first paragraf The U.S. Army believes that deception is a vital part of military operations. Field Manual 100-5, Operations, acknowledges that the Soviet Army mastered operational deception in World War II You mass tactis theory goes right out the window And Just because 2 of your drinkig friends told you their part of the story dosent mean they knew anything unless they were a part of the OKW Just read the links this is the official of the official in the oficcial under the official suronded by the official and US ARMY Official statement And you are telling me that you know better? Why are British Universities teaching the opposet of what you are saying? And if they are so wrong why don you just go and tell them that And Richard Overy's book Russia's war is not A book but THE book and he is a british professor that has won many prizes for his work in history And I pitty the British army for haveing such an ignorant person who cant learn new things or understand that he might be wrong http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp Just read the foreword on Agust storm and you will see that the official US statement totally aand absolutely proves that you know nothing Or read Fighting the Russians in Winter just the first few paragraphs prove you so wrong Leavenworth Papers are published by the Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-6900. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not neccessarily those of the Department of Defnse or any element thereof. Leavenworth Papers are available from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Leavenworth Papers US ISSN 0195 3451 To prove it is official The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge"-which is false in both cases! Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by the "inferior" Russians. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp Our view of the war in the east derives from the German experiences of 1941 and 1942, when blitzkrieg exploited the benefits of surprise against a desperate and crudely fashioned Soviet defense. It is the view of a Guderian, a Mellenthin, a Balck, and a Manstein, all heroes of Western military history, but heroes whose operational and tactical successes partially blinded them to strategic realities. By 1943-44, their "glorious" experiences had ceased. As their operational feats dried up after 1942, the Germans had to settle for tactical victories set against a background of strategic disasters. Yet the views of the 1941 conquerors, their early impressions generalized to characterize the nature of the entire war in the east, remain the accepted views. The successors to these men, the Schoeners, the Heinricis, the defenders of 1944 and 1945, those who presided over impending disaster, wrote no memoirs of widespread notoriety, for their experiences were neither memorable nor glorious. Their impressions and those of countless field grade officers who faced the realities of 1944-45 are all but lost. This imbalanced view of German operations in the east imparts a reassuring, though inaccurate, image of the Soviets. We have gazed in awe at the exploits of those Germans who later wrote their personal apologies, and in doing so we have forgotten the larger truth: their nation lost the war-and lost it primarily in the east against what they portrayed as the "artless" Soviets. No more needs to be said But I will say more Our neglect of Soviet operations in World War 11, in general-and in Manchuria, in particular-testifies not only to our apathy toward history and the past in general, but also to our particular blindness to the Soviet experience. That blindness, born of the biases we bring to the study of World War 11, is a dangerous phenomenon. How can we learn if we refuse to see the lessons of our past for our future? Just read the bloody paper and you will see http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/cs...tz3/glantz3.asp Yes i know it is about Manchuria but he so clearlypoints out that westerners know very little about what actually happened I didnt say they were no mass waves but not masse waves as you see it because 2 men could not have seen millions running also i said after 41 and there were never any mass waves and ofcruse only the Generals and professors know because the Gereals saw the whole picture and the professors have dedicated the their whole life to it.
Firstly, maybe you can post something without personal insults some time. Maybe then you won't look less educated than you'd have us believe. Secondly, I would hope you'd havev a little more respect for WW2 vererans, from any side, than to discribe them as "my drinking buddies" without any knowledge them or what they have endured. Much more than you ever will no doubt. You really are giving yourself a reputation as an unthinking, less than educated loud noise with no respect for anyone else's opinion. You sound like the idea that the US or the Soviet Army "believes that deception is a vital part of military operations". This is no surprise as it has been a valid tactic since ancient times. Anything to make your own forces look weak in the place they are strongest or in a completely different pace all together. That it in any way contradicts the soviet tactic of human wave attacks is beyond me. The forward of the paper on August Storm explains that the Soviets had learned from "four blood-soaked years of fighting against the Germans" and had perfected their mobile tactics for use in Manchuria. If you can't learn from four years hard fighting then you are going to have a hard time in any war. But again, at no point does it deny the use of human wave attacks and it is strange that you wish to prove what happened in europe by a paper on what happened in Manchuria later. Not a very academic method for one who boasts his education as a qualification for being 'right'. You quote the papers as proof of what the "official" policy and doctrine of the US military but in the same post you quote the paper as "views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not neccessarily those of the Department of Defnse or any element thereof". Which is a little ambigious to say the least. You say that it is commonly assumed by the Americans, French and the Germans that the both the French and the Germans were beaten by the Winter and not the Russians. Again, not the case. The winter was obviously a contributing factor, but it was mainly the overly extended lines of communication and logistics that, combined with the increased supply needs during winter and the increased determination of a people forced to defend their capital that contributed to both defeats. For one who stands on a box and shouts other opinions down with so many personal insults, you would be better to back your arguments with something with a few less holes in. Either that or try and claim back some money on that education you keep on telling us is so good. I hope your next post has less in the way of insult although I doubt it, that is of course if I bother to read it.
It is not my statment at all i just ctrl c ctrl v form the paper fight the russians in winter http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp Also Soviet Night operations are nice to read Most of the things in my last post were ctrl c ctrl v from the Us army it is easy to see which was ctrlc ctrl v because it has no speeling mistakes
First it is not I saying that this sentance it is taken from the Fight the Russians in Winter paper which you missed that i said http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Chew/CHEW.asp Everything that is correctly spellt is from a paper do you understand And not from me I am Ctrl C ctrl V for you right now with undesbutieful evidence Introduction The Russian winter defeated Napoleon, as every Frenchman knows. It also defeated Hitler, as most Germans know. Many Americans share that "knowledge"-which is false in both cases! Those popular myths illustrate the uncritical acceptance and perpetuation of rationalizations designed to obscure the fact that those "invincible" Western military paragons were humbled by the "inferior" Russians. This paper will not discuss either of those ill-fated campaigns in detail. However, in regard to the claims of "General Winter," it should be noted that the main body of Napoleon's Grande Armée, initially at least 378,000 strong, diminished by half during the first eight weeks of his invasion before the major battle of the campaign. This decrease was partly due to garrisoning supply centers, but disease, desertions, and casualties sustained in various minor actions caused thousands of losses. At Borodino on 7 September 1812 - the only major engagement fought in Russia-Napoleon could muster no more than 135,000 troops, and he lost at least 30,000 of them to gain a narrow and Pyrrhic victory almost 600 miles deep in hostile territory. The sequels were his uncontested and self-defeating occupation of Moscow and his humiliating retreat, which began on 19 October, before the first severe frosts later that month6 and the first snow on 5 November If you argue with this there is no point in haveing any discussion with you Also you seem to totally forget that Russian and later Soviet soldiers actually killed The French and later the Axis by shooting at them
