so, you helped huh? (Warsaw Uprising)

[B17Skull12]

they still would have been routed.  You have 4 armies around StalinGrad compared to 9 russian armies in the area.  300000 men over a 2000 mile front isn't going to make much of a difference.  the 6th army was so overwhelmed the Arika Corp wouldn't have made much of a difference.

Lets see.
you have
254,745 in a single army surrounding stalingrad.  The Arika Korps wouldn't have been much help just more loss of troops.
254,745x9=2,292,705

im off, but still you get the general idea.  300,000 men wouldn't have helped at all.

Sheerman power not enough to win lol.  Yes it is.  Russia proved that.  The country with more men has more of a will to go on.  Germany didn't have the Man power to stop russia but you did have the Technolodgy if you want to call it that, to stop them.  It didn't did it?  The front was to Big the army to huge.  Germany was done in 43.  Stalingrad destroyed the army group South,  Army group Center was finish the Next year.  Army group north was begging hilter for help from the navy to get them outta Kurland.  Man power won the war.

[Toad]

Hey, if the Coulda, Woulda and Shoulda Divisions had been engaged, what result then?

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Angus
Wotan, you may need to read up on the desert war as well as looking at a map to understand a tad better.

The Germans got routed at Stalingrad....eventually. Do you think they would have been if their inital strength had been double? If the LW had been Twice as strong? If their supply lines and supply quantity had been double?

Look at the massive death and damage the red army and air force suffered from a force using roughly half it strength, the rest being scattered all over the place, from Norway to Africa.
 
Double combat sorties on the eastern front, no wonder, 2/3rd of the LW was there (rough number, cough)
However, quadruple losses on the western front.

What you're saying as far as I understand is that the Red army could have won WW2 on its own. Well, I still disagree.

As a rest, sheer manpower is also not enough to win a war.

 
It’s no secret your an Anglophile but Tunisia didn’t win the war. You need to read up. The Germans placed Tunisia on the back burner. Afrika Korp wasn’t receiving adequate supplies and after Torch the Germans were fighting delaying actions to tie up Allied forces. They fell back through Tunis. Even their losses were expected. The Germans followed that same pattern in Sicily (Husky) and up the "boot" of Italy.

The Germans maintained enough resistance to tie up Allied forces.

By '44 the situation in the east had already become critical for the Wehrmacht. It was during '44 where the largest portion of those 8000 were lost in the west.

Citing Caldwell's numbers out of context and without understanding the real military situation you are being woefully dishonest. Those 8000 losses in the west included losses to all causes and in particular those aircraft destroyed on the ground. Germany still produced 40000 aircraft in '44. More then at any other time.

Your exaggerations and distortions provide nothing to the discussion other then making yourself look silly.

Claiming the German withdrawal in North Africa was on the same scale as Kursk, Stalingrad is asinine. Regardless of whether the Afrika Korp fought on or was defeated their equipment and force would have still be tied up and no use to the Eastern Front. Claiming that the defeat in Tunisia was grander then what it was shows you have no understanding of what the German military Goals in Tunisia were following Torch.

I have no interest in once again shifting the direction of this discussion even further away from the original topic. It has changed direction 5 times already and I will bow out at this point.

[demaw1]

ROTFL......


     HEEY Borodaa how ya doin.....I did not want you to fell bad so I am going to explain somethin....I may be wrong but I think rino didnt mean russian kids were being taught current pc doctrine.

     He most likely meant our kids are. You see for the most part the left controls what is taught in our schools, and instead of teaching 2plus2 = 4.....their doin their darnest to teach  2 plus 2 =  3

[Boroda]

Originally posted by B17Skull12
Boroda here let me make it a little less complex for ya.

What did the guys you serve with think about it?

I don't serve. I work.   If you understand the difference

And I personally wasn't in the Army. I told you an opinion of my Father who served for 44 calendar years (1943-1987).

Attitude to Stalin and his govern are very different among Russians. Some people adore him (not very wise IMHO), some people damn him (not very wise either IMHO). This is a part of our History now.

My Grand-grand Father (father of my mother's mother) was declared an enemy of the People and sentenced 10 years w/o right to correspondence for "sabotage" on his railway line... It was cruel time.

People who want new Stalin to "clean up" the society and "restore order" usually don't understand that they will be the first to be arrested, mostly because they are useless loosers.

[bikekil]

Originally posted by Boroda What we have here now taught at schools is that Western allies won WWII with some little help from USSR. That's why I am sometimes so ugly about this subject. Imagine a XX century history text book with only 10 pages about WWII, and only 2 pages about Eastern front!

Boroda, don't get me wrong here... i hope you will see my point.

For me (as a Pole) Soviets started WW2 the same way Hitler did - by attacking Poland. As there is an agreement on the fact that Poland was attacked by both, Germans and Soviets (with addition of the mysterious pact they made) the question could be - would we have the WW2 without Russian involvement?
Stalin played it nice... at first he started the was on the Hitler side (as the was was against Poland) - you can not disagree here. But the Stalin knwe that Western Allies really need him... and then he swithed sides.

Now, maybe during that side switching he already have controll of Poland promised.. or maybe not... however at some point he had it promised.

Two points here:

1) could i say - Soviets put a great effort to end the war he started on a Hitler's side? (in the other way, Soviets worked well to clean the mess they did)

2) Western Allies (Allies of Poland) sold Poland to Stalin way before the uprising.. and during that, they already knwe what's going to happened with us? If so, is it cool to have a friend like this?

Just wanted to put some gasoline to the fire... but while i think of it, they questions are interestong imao

Oh, forgot to add, if hitler got GB or got to Moscow, the world would be different today...
Now, without compering the losses and so on, truth is that Soviet soldierssuffered way more and was forced to fight on much more uncomfortable terms that Brits did. Of course Germans on the Eastern front suffered from the same things.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Thrawn
demaw and Rino, please stop misrepresenting Wotan.  It's making you both look really silly.

     Since I haven't even quoted Wotan, kind of tough for me to
misrepresent him.  As for you, if you don't like what I have to say,
don't read it.

     As for looking silly, check a mirror sometime bud.

[Rino]

Originally posted by thrila
Well that isn't true.

     I guess you could put England in that category, if you felt
generous.  Not trying to be rude, but the UK forces at best
held a draw with Imperial Japan.  Technically, you are correct
however.

[Rino]

Originally posted by Boroda
PC reworked version? Let me tell you one thing, but please, don't get offended, eh?

What we have here now taught at schools is that Western allies won WWII with some little help from USSR. That's why I am sometimes so ugly about this subject. Imagine a XX century history text book with only 10 pages about WWII, and only 2 pages about Eastern front!

 

Bombing raids didn't stop or even severely damage German industry. Most of the experienced LW pilots were lost in Eastern front. Just read something about July-August 1941, LW units were demoralised by their losses, they have never met such opposition before. It's what they said, not "soviet propaganda".

 

Beautiful! YOU are an opportunist yourself!

Look, in Yalta, 1944, Stalin promised to start a war against Japan in no more then three months after victory in Europe. Manchurian operation started on August, 8th, one day before that. And it was Soviet Army that destroyed main Japanese ground forces, 1.5 million Quantung army, on heavly fortified positions and naturaly protected by Gobi desert and mountain ridges.

Please compare it to allied promises to open a second front in Europe in 1942.

If your army was unable to perform operations when 1.5 million enemy force is destroyed in two weeks with total losses of less then 9000 men on Soviet side - then don't you please call it "cherry-picking".

     Well, here we go.
     First, you can place alot of the blame on the west's ignorance
of the Eastern Front on the USSR's closed borders and paranoid
insistance on secrecy.  Kind of tough to report an absense of
information.

     Second, the Western air offensive most certainly damaged
heavily German oil and transportation industries.  Doesn't matter
how many planes and tanks you make if they're stuck at the
factory.

     Third, the Japanese army in Manchuria was a mainly infantry
force with lousy artillery and practically no anti-tank capability.
Since the Japanese were having a tough time getting the home
island forces supplied, I think it's reasonable to assume that the
"overseas" forces would be in no better shape.

     Fourth, the second front..what Stalin wanted and what was
possible are two different things.  In November 42, Operation
Torch started, then in 43 Sicily and Italy.  I guess some folks are
never happy.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Rino
I guess you could put England in that category, if you felt
generous.  Not trying to be rude, but the UK forces at best
held a draw with Imperial Japan.  Technically, you are correct
however.

Actually we were the first to check, then defeat the japanese army

 Tronsky

[Count]

2 Poles: If you will have choice to whom you want to be sold: USSR, UK, US, Germany, Japan or Zimbabve?

[bikekil]

Originally posted by Count
2 Poles: If you will have choice to whom you want to be sold: USSR, UK, US, Germany, Japan or Zimbabve?

one stupid question i can count here - i would really like to belong to your nation... so the answer is - Marsians

[Count]

I know it, i know it, they have embassy in Warsaw!

[Angus]

From Boroda:
"By a MARGIN!? 6th Army surrounded in Stalingrad, 300,000 men only as POWs is a victory by a margin?! Tell me any victory compared to Stalingrad on Western side, please!

Also please check the number of divisions that operated in Northern Africa and in Stalingrad operation. "

Well, consider this. Number of divisions don't tell all the story....

The Axis captured in Tunisia  were 250.000.

USSR lost over 1 million at Stalingrad.

Stalingrad occurs in the same frame as operation Torch.

British Victory at El-Alamein occurs in the time where the Germans are close to winning Stalingrad and are holding the center of the city.

When the Germans loose their southern flanks, the defenders there were romanian, - cavalry.


So, my point is:
The Germans would have won Stalingrad, had they not been tied up badly in N-Africa Their Force would have been roughly double.
Swap out that Romanian cavalry for Rommel, Von Arnim, 1000 tanks, 1000 Aircraft and 500.000 Axis troops and what outcome do you get?

[bikekil]

Originally posted by Count
I know it, i know it, they have embassy in Warsaw!

Dude, you are sooo smart. Your wisdom amazed me

I will agree. this should make you feel better.