CALM Discussion of the Eastern Front.

Sounds like a good idea, but I would like to point out, that if my Granny's reading...... there's something seriously psychic going on :mellow:

 

We have to have a look at all the threads, so any wrong doing will be either deleted or edited

 

someone can tell me the story of kursk?

 

Wow, that's a bit of a challenge, isn't it? That takes some telling

I would suggest you do as I did and buy a couple of books on the subject, I recommend "The Battle of Kursk", D. Glatz + J.House, 280 pages + 120 pages on notes, appendixes and charts! Some 15 dollars in Abebooks or ebay.

 

Wow, that's a bit of a challenge, isn't it? That takes some telling

I agree, why not start with something a little bit less intense before hitting the BIG stuff? :mellow:

 

What about the importance of the Volga?

 

I know nadda about the Eastern Front, so teach me.

 

Well, that one is easier! The Volga is a very large river which in our context was of the prime importance as a waterway for barge traffic, and of prime importance too for power generation. It provides easy transportation to a large number of important cities along the way (list at bottom), some of whose names will be easily recognisable by us, except Volgograd which is goold old Stalingrad renamed by Khrushchev!

As I said there was a large amount of barge traffic along it, and the cutting of this was one of the reasons for the Stalingrad operation, but as we know that one did not work too well. Major cities beside S. would be Astrakhan for the oil, Gorky (now Nizhny Novgorod again) famous for the GAZ (Gorkii Avtomobil Zhavod - Gorky Automobile Plant) trucks and a tank plant too, at least, Kazan and Stavropol (now Togliatti) were also industrial centres.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cities_on_the_Volga

 

Cheers ZR, i think I'm going to enjoy this thread.

 

Wow, that's a bit of a challenge, isn't it? That takes some telling

I would suggest you do as I did and buy a couple of books on the subject, I recommend "The Battle of Kursk", D. Glatz + J.House, 280 pages + 120 pages on notes, appendixes and charts! Some 15 dollars in Abebooks or ebay.

There is also "The Battle for KursK" - the Soviet general Staff Study, David Glantz and Harold Orenstein. 3.95 from British Heart foundation Charity shop in Surgeons hall Edinburgh!

 

Politics will inevitably flare up (50 years of cold war will do that) but there is now 'the politics thread' where shouting can be tolerated, could the M
Personally, I never thought the objections to Russia in WWII had anything to do with the Cold War but I always thought their WWII behavior was sufficient to fully merit their reputation. I always thought bringing up the Cold War was a scheme by the Soviet-advocates to muddy the water and avoid answering the manifold objections raised on Russia's dubious WWII actions (military style, lack of humanity, etc) in hopes of making it look like an unfounded bias. You have to admit, the pro-Russian guys have a tough "row to hoe" in defending Russia's WWII activity, politically, militarily, socially, etc. Seems superflous to go beyond that other than to illustrate their consistency.

 

That seems totally plausible jimbo. Lets not also forget that soviet Russia always viewed the democratic west an enemy just as much as Nazi Germany before the war. The USSR still believed in western hostility towards her.

 

Personally, I never thought the objections to Russia in WWII had anything to do with the Cold War but I always thought their WWII behavior was sufficient to fully merit their reputation. I always thought bringing up the Cold War was a scheme by the Soviet-advocates to muddy the water and avoid answering the manifold objections raised on Russia's dubious WWII actions (military style, lack of humanity, etc) in hopes of making it look like an unfounded bias. You have to admit, the pro-Russian guys have a tough "row to hoe" in defending Russia's WWII activity, politically, militarily, socially, etc. Seems superflous to go beyond that other than to illustrate their consistency.

Simple. I don't even try to defend or justify Soviet morality, inhumanity, etc. I am already entirely aware of that, but I keep it separate from study of military history. I don't necessarily have to like or condone those less agreable facets, so it's no use trying to hit me with that particular type of stone as that will only generate hot air and will sidetrack what would be an interesting topic until a moderator loses patience and locks the thread. If I want to discuss or defend Soviet politics (unlikely), I'll go to the appropriate political section of the forum, here that is a waste of time.

Can I provide an analogy? If I want to discuss the II SS-Panzerkorps at Kursk I certainly can not be expected to go at great lengths about death camps or Gestapo torture. That's not related, that's for another thread, this discussion is purely military.

If we don't have to damn the nazis whenever we discuss Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS military actions in this forum we do we need to jump up foam in the mouth whenever someone speaks about the Red Army? What are we, pavlovian lab test dogs?

Is that ok?

 

Excellent thread Von Poop and yes lets discuss this in a calm fashion!!!!! There is always the belief for example that the Russian Campaign simply consisted of Barbarossa, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and the End when loads took place in between!

 

sounded good and calm to me.
Pavlovian response not required just 'cos someone mentioned the Red Army.
I am now thinking about raspberry pavolvas... I am ready for my next lesson on the Eastern Front. ZR gave me a nice concise explanation of the main objectives, but what happened? Why did Hitler decide to invade? I've seen several arguments for this, but i can't decide which was the most likely. Somebody please explain to me. Kitty

 

Next you are going to ask for the Shanghai phone directory, aren't you? All right, which arguments did you say you saw, so I won't have to repeat myself!

 

Sorry ZR, i can't recall them in detail. Some seemed to say Hitler invaded because he viewed Russians as inferior, some for land, others for the hell of it. Some that Russia instigated it... I'd like your opinion as you seem to be very concise and historically accurate with your details.
As to the Shanghai phone book, I'd prefer the Hong Kong one.

 

I suppose the best thing would be to read some bibliography on the subject. What comes to mind are Ian Kershaw's Hitler: Nemesis and Kenneth Macksey's Why Germans Lose at War, plus several other East Front histories.

In fact this is a very complicated story, as there was not a single reason, rather a complex of reasons, where sidelines sometimes become mainlines, and thoughts snowball into decisions, whereas previous decisions are discarded.

Germany was at war with Britain, but it was supposed that GB was kept afloat with the hope the Soviet Union would come to its rescue. It was feared that as Germany would be embroiled with a more prolonged invasion and battle with Britain (the Battle of Britain proper had already failed) and as Seelöwe was not possible within the near timeframe, in order to defeat GB and wrap up the war, Seelöwe was then indefinitely postponed (goods traffic was already being affected by the immobilization of som many barges in the channel ports), and attention was turned to eliminating Britain’s only prop - as Hitler saw it - and clearing the rear from an enemy. So Germany turned to that quick and easy matter that defeating the SU was supposed to be, as a prelude to a serious invasion of the British Isles.

Of course there is also that other reason often given, the Lebensraum (vital space) question, to be fulfilled by conquering land in the East, but I don't think this was taken seriously by anyone.