Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: bikekil on August 02, 2004, 02:56:01 AM
-
If you have a while, read this:
http://www.warsawuprising.com/
then, here is something that happened now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3941897.stm
so... like in 1939 our allies could not help us better? I mean.. imagine you being one of those brave men, fighting there to realise that after all you are the only ones who care?
then you wait 60 long years and you are hunted by our "Red Friends" as being in the AK (Home Army) was seen as a crime by commies... you can not say about it as it's a crime to remember the uprising... so you waiting that 60 years to hear what? " Uh.. well.. maybe you just shoudn't do it?"
and you know what? i say,Poland doesn't need apology. What Poland needs is good memory to trust no allies.
p.s. Big goes to the Germans. You appologised for that was many many more times that it was needed and you are still doing it. I think it's about the time to say just "we do remember".. again.
-
oh, and if "we should put the history straight" - who broke the ENIGMA?
:)
-
Originally posted by bikekil
oh, and if "we should put the history straight" - who broke the ENIGMA?
:)
Jon Bon Jovi and some black US Navy submariner, of course! Duh! Havent you seen U571?
-
...yeah... we better use no allies...
-
Originally posted by bikekil
oh, and if "we should put the history straight" - who broke the ENIGMA?
:)
The guys at Bletchly Park. Your question should have been "Who supplied the British with their first Enigma machine.
so... like in 1939 our allies could not help us better?
Okay, how exactly did you expect them to do that, keeping in mind they only have about 27 days to do something in?
-
in 1939 or with the uprising?
if we are talking about the uprising, if you find an answer on a question "how much our Allies" did to help", it will become clear what else could be done if there was a will to help.
To put it the other way - i believe if that was the Brits fighting there, other Brits would do everything to help them! and i'm sure they would :) No offence meant here, actually it something that i hope every nation should do if them people are in need. I've used Brits in the example as somethng that should inspire you :)
-
if we are talking about the IX.1939 - come on... you could do ANYTHING MORE then declaring a war.
Poland were slaved by Hitler and the so called allies lived the "everyday" lifes in theyr homes. Now that's a friendship :)
Is there a saying "with the friends like this, who needs an enemies"?
correct me if i misstyped.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Okay, how exactly did you expect them to do that, keeping in mind they only have about 27 days to do something in?
A small time frame did exist. France/GB had a much larger capacity to wage war. Their economy had much more depth than width (not a whole lot of bite, but an ability to weather the storm for a much longer period). Germany had more width (stockpiled weapons/resources for quick bursts of engagements). But that was only one reason.
As a general rule, going on the experience of the first world war, France and GB saw the attacking force would lose twice as many men/resources.. A defensive, passive stance for the allies would set the tone for the the early years of the war. This was coupled with the sheer unwillingness to fight. "An entire generation lost" 25~ years prior... it was still fresh in their minds.
[edit]: oy, like bike said, 1939 or 1944?[/edit]
-
You were expecting help from 1939 France? Come on.. They couldnt even help themslves with 8 extra months to prepare and fighting on their home soil..
Yes, 1944 was fcked up, but blame the commies for that, the allies couldnt have done much at that time.
-
of course there is a reason behind every action (or a lack of action).
But. What do you think an Ally should be like?
Of course, maybe it's just my faith, but i believe Poland would go to was if Hitler strike France. Not becauae i'm a fool , who believe that we could hurt Hitler much.. but because i believe We could help our Ally that way.... give them aq chance.. give him more time... gived more time for the others to join. In the past, Poland risked more to help friends (aka Sobieski and Wiena an an example).
Now if it would be opposite to what i believe... i would be ashamed now and i would keep my head down... as it's a great shame to leave your friend behind.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes, 1944 was fcked up, but blame the commies for that, the allies couldnt have done much at that time.
So, please tell me... WHEN was a right time when our Allies coud do ANY(fckng)THING for us? Not in 39? not in 44? not in 46 when we were sold to Soviets? Geeee... i think we should love our allies for everything the did for us...
Oh, excuse me, they let our met to fight in their armies (AKA BoB) to save them... thank you for that. that fact was a heroic act of bravery in a field of "saving the friend"
sorry for being ironic.
oh, and to be sure you know what i mean by Allies - SOVIETS WERE NOT OUR ALLIES! they've come here to slave us (and they did).
Oh, and it;s nothing more then "putting a history straight".
I have no hard feelings for British, French or the Russion people (for any generation). :)
-
The Soviets were not your friends, they did not come to help you or to liberate you. They came to conquer you. They did so on september 17 and they did so again on their way to berlin in 1944. So I hope that settles the russian part of it.
As far as the western allies, in august 1944 they were kind of busy in france and italy. A country called germany stood between their ground forces and warsaw. What would you have wished they do? Bomb warsaw from 25,000 feet?
Which brings us back to the russians. They were right there. The only thing between them and Warsaw was the Vistula river and they didnt help. They werent ur friends, they were your conquerors, just waiting for you and the germans to bleed each other so they have an easier fight with the nazis and less patriotic poles to deal with later.
-
Now this is getting weird....a Pole upset at the British for not dropping in the polish army to be slaughtered, but saluting the germans for being sorry for doing the slaughtering??!?!
Tronsky
-
I'm confused by this thread too.
Look its true the French let you down bigtime in the early weeks of September 1939. But thats the French military in 1939/40 for you, not much good to anyone at taht time.
I'm not sure what you wanted the western allies to do in the fall 44 warsaw uprising. By that time the US, UK, Free Polish, commonwealth and Free French were all fighting in France, the low countries and italy. They were engaged in fierce combat with the germans and all of germany stood between them and warsaw.
In your mind, what could have they done? What would you have wanted them to do?
-
Originally posted by bikekil
if we are talking about the IX.1939 - come on... you could do ANYTHING MORE then declaring a war.
Poland were slaved by Hitler and the so called allies lived the "everyday" lifes in theyr homes. Now that's a friendship :)
Is there a saying "with the friends like this, who needs an enemies"?
correct me if i misstyped.
are you drunk?
look at first and secound war in the gulf, taking troops together take 4-5 months before any offensive action
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
You were expecting help from 1939 France? Come on.. They couldnt even help themslves with 8 extra months to prepare and fighting on their home soil..
Yes, 1944 was fcked up, but blame the commies for that, the allies couldnt have done much at that time.
Grun , come on,you are smart guy
russians are not only one side responcible about uprising failure
they stand back beucose Poland was given to them by agreement with Roosvelt. And since then it was "russina zone"
And rest of allies just stand and watch.
Ots BS allies could do nothing more, they just dont lik to do anything
Rememer, when in london was victory parade, Poles where not invited.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Grun , come on,you are smart guy
russians are not only one side responcible about uprising failure
they stand back beucose Poland was given to them by agreement with Roosvelt. And since then it was "russina zone"
And rest of allies just stand and watch.
Ots BS allies could do nothing more, they just dont lik to do anything
Rememer, when in london was victory parade, Poles where not invited.
Some questions:
Ramzey when did the 44 warsaw uprising take place?
What were the western allies doing at that time?
Where were they doing it?
Where was warsaw?
What was in between warsaw and the answer to question #3?
What could western allies have done in this situatioon?
Some more questions:
Where was the Russian army during the warsaw uprising in 44?
What were they doing there?
What was beetween that place and warsaw?
What could the russians have done in thisc situation?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm confused by this thread too.
Look its true the French let you down bigtime in the early weeks of September 1939. But thats the French military in 1939/40 for you, not much good to anyone at taht time.
I'm not sure what you wanted the western allies to do in the fall 44 warsaw uprising. By that time the US, UK, Free Polish, commonwealth and Free French were all fighting in France, the low countries and italy. They were engaged in fierce combat with the germans and all of germany stood between them and warsaw.
In your mind, what could have they done? What would you have wanted them to do?
Grun , main reason for warsaw uprising was show the world about selling us for russians. Beucose ther "grates" of the world US and USRR divide europe and mark their zones.
Stallin like to have Poland inside his zone and Roosvelt give this country to him.
Uprising was against "big brothers" who decide what is good or bad for small countries.
Was obvious from begining, without help from outside uprising have no chances.
British, Canadian, S.Africans pilots voluntier to drop suppies for us. But i never heard about USAF planes or USAF pilots giving help for fighting warsaw. Guesss why they where order not to fly there;) to not piss of uncle Stalin
-
Originally posted by ramzey
are you drunk?
Ramzey arrived and since now things went personal... again :)
Nope, not driunked, bu may i ask you - are you dumb? :)
When i find more time i will seach the O'Club for a previous threads about the IX.1939. there is no need to wride the same things many many times so i will link the thread to this one.
As this thread is about the Uprising.
-
So the Poles attacked the German Army because they were upset that the USA president gave Poland to the Soviet dictator Stalin?
That makes no sense at all...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Some questions:
Ramzey when did the 44 warsaw uprising take place?
you post about something and not know when its was?;)
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
What could the russians have done in thisc situation?
give aircover,support by artillery strike, cut supplies lines by airstrike
Dont play with me about military situation and geography issues
Its all about politics , not military. Western allies dont like to help much to not piss off russians. Beucose agreement say Poland will be in russian zone. If Allies like to help , their will finde way. By politicall pressure and other solution about borders will help.
-
Originally posted by bikekil
Ramzey arrived and since now things went personal... again :)
Nope, not driunked, bu may i ask you - are you dumb? :)
When i find more time i will seach the O'Club for a previous threads about the IX.1939. there is no need to wride the same things many many times so i will link the thread to this one.
As this thread is about the Uprising.
i was just courius ;-)
Look at this from logistic point of view( wider ), not by your feelings or propaganda.
Western countries was not redy for war, same as we where not.
Same as russinas was still not ready to fight with germans in 1941.
If you think sending troops within couple days was possible, you are so wrong
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So the Poles attacked the German Army because they were upset that the USA president gave Poland to the Soviet dictator Stalin?
That makes no sense at all...
im not say it was smart
im not saying uprising have chance to win
im not saying allies do all what they can to help
im saying they have no other choice to say to the world we where berayted
-
Originally posted by ramzey
im not say it was smart
im not saying uprising have chance to win
im not saying allies do all what they can to help
im saying they have no other choice to say to the world we where berayted
That still makes absolutely no sense.
Hey Piotr, those bastard Americans sold us out to the Russians!!!!
Damn right Stanislaw, I'm pissed! I hate the Russians! Let's get even with the russians and americans by attacking the germans!
Great idea Piotr!! Lets go!
It doesnt work for me ramzey...
What do yoiu want western allies to do? Bomb Warsaw from 25,000 feet? Fly slow transports across 1/4 of occupied france, all of nazi germany, and 3/4 of occupied Poland to drop supplies into a city during street to street fighting?
The russians were right acrosss the damn river and they did nothing. Be angry at them.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
A small time frame did exist. France/GB had a much larger capacity to wage war. Their economy had much more depth than width (not a whole lot of bite, but an ability to weather the storm for a much longer period). Germany had more width (stockpiled weapons/resources for quick bursts of engagements). But that was only one reason.
As a general rule, going on the experience of the first world war, France and GB saw the attacking force would lose twice as many men/resources.. A defensive, passive stance for the allies would set the tone for the the early years of the war. This was coupled with the sheer unwillingness to fight. "An entire generation lost" 25~ years prior... it was still fresh in their minds.
[edit]: oy, like bike said, 1939 or 1944?[/edit]
The reluctance to fight had gone by '39. The problem was neither country was really in any state to wage war (especially Britain). The UK had only started re-armament slowly in 1938 after years of neglect. It is possible that swift action while the Wehrmacht was concentrating on Poland might have brought a swift peace but considering the disasters of the summer of 1940 I rather doubt anything could have been achieved a year earlier.
As to sending the Polish brigades to Warsaw the RAF and the USAAF didn't have the capacity to send such large forces by air over long distances (and through heavily defended air space). It might have been possible to airlift a few battalions by converting some of the large bombers but there wasn't time for it and it would have required the co-operation of the USSR which wasn't willing to countenance any such move.
Consider for a moment how close many of the Para drops over Normandy got to disaster: that was much closer to base (less than 200km), with much more ground support, over open countryside after months of planning and practice, and with much more reconnaisance.
What happened to Poland was terrible but there was no way for the Western Allies to prevent it. Only Russia could have done anything and it didn't want to. Agreeing to Russian dominance in Eastern Europe wasn't what either Chruchill or Roosevelt wanted it was just fait accompli: the Red Army was already there with millions of men under arms. The only alternative was war with Stalin which (if it had even been possible considering the strain of all those years of warfare had created) would have led to yet more years of bloody warfare.
Without Russian help the Warsaw Rising was doomed. Without the Germans there would have been no-one to rise against. But it's the Western Allies you are bitter with?
-
What should be done?
1) Allies should send here our paratroopers.
2) If our paratroopers could be sent here - why any other paratroopers coun d not? DOn't tell me none was avaliable.
3) Allies could provide us the supplies (madications and the ammo) and i don't mean a very few flights.
4) Decision of founding a British Military Mission (my translation) in Warsaw were put on hold because Brits were waiting till Soviets say his opinion about it (!!!) Colonel Gubbins, boss of Special Operations Executive has left to the Southern France and been back after 3 months. SOE, that by the whole world were using Polish secrat service agents in many many countries, SOE who said it's positive opinion about the uprising, in the moment of the action, failed Poland
5) at 04.08.1944 Churchill sent a telegram to Stalin. He assued that "both sides will be mature" and offered some Polish lands for Soviets and Sovied represenataives in a Polish goverment. In exchange Soviets could help... but Staling's answer was, the informatiuon that Poland gave are fake and there are only few man fighting... aka there is no need to help and nothing serious going on.
6) Polish nagotiations with soviets in Moscow failed because of LACK OF BRITISH SUPPORT ( i mean political support... because noone there cared much?)
That's at least what could be done or done better for your Allies.
-
Ok... maybe that way
Poaldn had it's giverment in UK during the war. Unfortunatelly Soviets format another Polish (communistic) goverment, as you can expect competitive to the right one.
Because Poland (i mean the Polish goverment and people) knew that Stalin is willing to slave us, the uprising was planned ( and that plans were supproted by the Breits).
Uprising was meant to stronger the Polish goverment's position in negotiations with Stalin and have a chance to have a FREE Poland after the War.
I hope you got it - in AK (a free Poland army) welcomed russian arly in free Warsaw, Stali coulnd not save that ha saved us right? Or at lease his position as a frtiend of Poland would not be so strong.
Of course it explains why he was interested in NOT HELPING anyone out there... is the uprising is over, he could just enter the Warsaw and take the credit.
Now, why Allies were interested in uprising to continue? Because they were racing to Berlin... accidently the longer Sovits were holding their army in the borders of Warsaw, the more time the (so called) Allies had to get the Berlin = the stronger position in "after war" negotiations with Stalin they have.
So we already know why Allies supported the uprising but not that hard... not hard anought to let the upriserd win or something... hard enought to let it be a week... or two weeks more... while moving his own ovensive to Berlin and playing it's own game.
simply, we were used.
Is it clear enought? or maybe there is anything wrong in what i typed?
-
Grun, warsaw uprising is very complicated case
many historians write many book about it and they never agree with each other.
Theoretical main reason for warsaw uprising was request from germans to give them 120.000 workers to build fortification on vistula line. It was obvious noone of them will back alive.
Russians forces was closing to warsaw(couple km) and theoretical ot was good time to liberate capitol city and open way for russion troops for western poland (bridges).
But, our HQ in London have false view for our homeland army.
And like to show western allies, "we wil not give up" country for commies. If they can capture and hold capitol city, they will be able to establish not communistic gov. ( week earlier russion establish temporary goverment in Lublin)
Most of units fighting in warsaw where guys without traning. As you know trained souldier with expirience is more wort then squad of noobs.
Secound bad thing was lack of weapon and supplies.
Third was no suprise for germans. Somone betreyd and germans know about uprising
Due that reasons in first day homeland army not achive objectives. Not held main strategic points and not capture bridges. If they wil have luck that would help them best.
Many supplies drop by allies was loaded by practice ammunition and uniforms. Not guns and amno
Experts consider droping brigade of polish paras close to warsaw to help fighting city. It will be mistake and lost of another lifes.
Personal i not agree with decision to start fight in this time and place due poor chances to win. Im not angry at allies or russians about what they do or not do.
Its again regular people fighting for bigger ideas for somone else.
Thats why allways i will be with all thos peoples who died in fight.
-
Originally posted by bikekil
What should be done?
1) Allies should send here our paratroopers.
2) If our paratroopers could be sent here - why any other paratroopers coun d not? DOn't tell me none was avaliable.
3) Allies could provide us the supplies (madications and the ammo) and i don't mean a very few flights.
4) Decision of founding a British Military Mission (my translation) in Warsaw were put on hold because Brits were waiting till Soviets say his opinion about it (!!!) Colonel Gubbins, boss of Special Operations Executive has left to the Southern France and been back after 3 months. SOE, that by the whole world were using Polish secrat service agents in many many countries, SOE who said it's positive opinion about the uprising, in the moment of the action, failed Poland
5) at 04.08.1944 Churchill sent a telegram to Stalin. He assued that "both sides will be mature" and offered some Polish lands for Soviets and Sovied represenataives in a Polish goverment. In exchange Soviets could help... but Staling's answer was, the informatiuon that Poland gave are fake and there are only few man fighting... aka there is no need to help and nothing serious going on.
6) Polish nagotiations with soviets in Moscow failed because of LACK OF BRITISH SUPPORT ( i mean political support... because noone there cared much?)
That's at least what could be done or done better for your Allies.
So basically you wanted the allies to stage a continous series of transport flights across occupied france, nazi germany, and occupied poland and drop these supplies into the middle of one hotly contested city, sorrounded by the germans and cris crossed with house to house fighting. Moreover you want all this done in the late summer of 1944 when the aforementied forces are fighting huge units of the germany army in France and Italy..
Ramzey was right, you must be drunk...
So again, plese feel free to blame Stalin for all this. His army was right across the Vistula and they did nothing but sit there with their thumbs up their butts...
-
Originally posted by bikekil
What should be done?
1) Allies should send here our paratroopers.
2) If our paratroopers could be sent here - why any other paratroopers coun d not? DOn't tell me none was avaliable.
3) Allies could provide us the supplies (madications and the ammo) and i don't mean a very few flights.
4) Decision of founding a British Military Mission (my translation) in Warsaw were put on hold because Brits were waiting till Soviets say his opinion about it (!!!) Colonel Gubbins, boss of Special Operations Executive has left to the Southern France and been back after 3 months. SOE, that by the whole world were using Polish secrat service agents in many many countries, SOE who said it's positive opinion about the uprising, in the moment of the action, failed Poland
5) at 04.08.1944 Churchill sent a telegram to Stalin. He assued that "both sides will be mature" and offered some Polish lands for Soviets and Sovied represenataives in a Polish goverment. In exchange Soviets could help... but Staling's answer was, the informatiuon that Poland gave are fake and there are only few man fighting... aka there is no need to help and nothing serious going on.
6) Polish nagotiations with soviets in Moscow failed because of LACK OF BRITISH SUPPORT ( i mean political support... because noone there cared much?)
That's at least what could be done or done better for your Allies.
1) No real number of troops or supplies could be sent because the allies (and anyone else for that matter) did not have the long range transport capacity even if it had been a practical option (most of the supplies that were dropped came down in German controlled areas or were lost or damaged due to dropping in built up areas: how do you think troops would have fared?). What few drops that could have been made would have require dshuttle runs via Soviet controlled airfields which Stalin refused.
2) The negotiations with Stalin failed because neither side was prepared to compromise. Chruchill repeatedly urged the Poles to come to terms because he knew that Stalin wanted the eastern parts of Poland and that he wouldn't give them up (and he had the largest army on earth already on the territory to enforce his wishes). British and US policy was to try and get the Goverment in Exile to accept some extremely unpalatable compromises so that Stalin would let it assume control of Poland and keep Poland independant. What they feared most (apart from war with the USSR) was that by failing to compromise the Poles would encourage Stalin to completely ignore the Goverment in Exile and replace it with the puppets in the Lublin Goverment (which was in fact what occurred). Could the western powers have got more for the Poles? Possibly but they felt it was much better to avoid supporting a lost cause than to lose that which could still have been saved (for example Greece and to a lesser extent the Balkans): Churchill was convinced that if the USSR gained control in the eastern med. that communisn would spread through Italy and westwards.
Waht happened to Poland was terrible, but to suggest anything of a practical nature could have been done by anyone apart from Stalin is a pipe dream of the highest order. Poland like other smaller nations bother before and since got screwed by realpolitik. A truly altruistic country (if there ever been any) might have tried to do more at huge risk but the true blame for the events in Warsaw lays with the Germans and the Russians.
-
Originally posted by bikekil
What should be done?
1) Allies should send here our paratroopers.
2) If our paratroopers could be sent here - why any other paratroopers coun d not? DOn't tell me none was avaliable.
its not possible , do you like to drop paras on ruined city? look whats happend in Arnhem. Droping them outside city had not bigger sense. Warsaw was surrounded
Originally posted by bikekil
with soviets in Moscow failed because of LACK OF BRITISH SUPPORT ( i mean political support... because noone there cared much?)
you know brits have not much to say in 1944 and 1945? arent you?
Originally posted by bikekil
That's at least what could be done or done better for your Allies.
here i agree with you
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So basically you wanted the allies to stage a continous series of transport flights across occupied france, nazi germany, and occupied poland and drop these supplies into the middle of one hotly contested city, sorrounded by the germans and cris crossed with house to house fighting. Moreover you want all this done in the late summer of 1944 when the aforementied forces are fighting huge units of the germany army in France and Italy..
Ramzey was right, you must be drunk...
So again, plese feel free to blame Stalin for all this. His army was right across the Vistula and they did nothing but sit there with their thumbs up their butts...
Grun im right in may points;)
Remember Stalin held troops beucose he know noone will push him to help warsaw. Its was not good for him to have non comunistic goverment and not counistic forces in poland.
Allies did not push stalin to help fighting city. Just stand back and watch.
You know allies forces was stop on laba river to let russians "liberate" berlin, it was part of deal
-
not exactly Pei,
please rean my first and the lest (the one before this) post.
As i think uprising were just used to server another case. The responsibility lays with Russians (nothing to discuss here) and our Allies.
Germans started a war.. then everything down the road happened because of it. they are overally responsible for the whole mess, but i don't want to blame them for the fact that they resisted the uprising.
but reading this all points me to the thought i've expressed above.
When, during the whole war was a right time for our allies to help us? not in 39, not in 40, not in 41, not in 42, not in 43, not in 44, not in 45? finally we were sold to commies.
Question is - would it be different if we had no allies at all? Nope :)
Would any other nation would be happy to have the same Allies we did? I doubt :)
and that's why we need a memory to remember about it :)
-
so Grun, you must be dumb also :)
As some flights (mostly Polish and American voleuneer pilots) dropped supplies for the uprisers, it was possible... and it was not 2-3 or 5 flights.
whey wanted to and they did the drop.
so face it - it was possible. Or please quote this part and say it was not possible? can you do it?
As for for paratroopers, Poland wanted to go there. Call me drunked, but i see noting more then a bad will (aka better purpose) in not letting them go.
To use Funked's expression from the other thread... i would not pee on the Allies like we had if they bottom part was on fire.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Rememer, when in london was victory parade, Poles where not invited.
I didn't know that; and it sounds most shabby.
Got any more about it? I'd like to know more.
To Bikekil:
Think the uprising may have been more successfull if it had harnesed the strength of the Ghetto uprising instead of (as we're taught over here) "doing a Russia" and standing back to watch the Germans slaughter the Jews.
Saved the Poles from finishing the job/taking the blame; didn't it?
-
Seeker a good book about the poles in ww2 is "For your freedom and ours".
-
And what were the loss rates on those flights, 15% maybe 20%?
-
Originally posted by thrila
Seeker a good book about the poles in ww2 is "For your freedom and ours".
Indeed, quite an excellent book.
-
Will try to find some data about the flights as it's also interesting for me.
As for the Victory Parade, Poles were not invited to participate in London and were not invited to the similar one in Paris as fas as i know
-
Allright Bikekil, time to straighten out this confusing thread a bit.
1. Enigma.
Code broken by polish mathematicians, however, further accecories were arranged by French spies and Captured hardware. There was not ONE Enigma code, there were many.
Two very important start steps were in 1940, 2 captured engimas from German U boats, 1 sunk in the channel by the RN and divers retrived the Enigma, second damaged by the RAF off the south coast of Iceland and Enigma retrived intact.
2. No Allies.
Get this straight. Hitler wanted Poland, so did Stalin. The Brits and French DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY because of Poland. They could have chosen not to do so.
At the end of the war, Churchill wanted poland to be free, and had a big fight with Stalin about it. However, the US did not back him up on that.
3. No help in the Warshaw uprising.
Well, Parachuting some poles into the fray would definately have increased the bodycount, however was not a sensible move.
Tough. However, bomber command was somewhat involved, Halifaxes (I belive) went on attack missions (or were those the supply drops?) , but it was not much they could do. A forgotten part of history.
The Russians on the other hand could have helped, and even used this to speed up their advance. After all, they were just a few miles away. They CHOSE not to.
This is indeed all so sad. Dark and dredful. The Nazis did practically everything they wanted with Poland, and were not stopped, or should I rather say stoppable while at it.
But you should not throw rocks at your allies for it, that is both unintelligent and extremely rude. After all they entered a war that lasted 6 years, and eventually thwarted the Nazi rule.....
-
Didnt Germany invade Poland by marching in backwords and saying they were leaving?
I remember learning that in school for some reason ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Didnt Germany invade Poland by marching in backwords and saying they were leaving?
I remember learning that in school for some reason ;)
That would fit very well with rest of your education.
-
Panowie,
Dajcie sobie spokój. I tak nikt tutaj tego nie zrozumie i nie przyjmie do wiadomoœci.
-
The RAF flew 196 supply sorties to Warsaw during the rising, losing 39 heavy bombers in the process. Because of the Russian refusal to allow them to land for refueling, the round trip was close to 2000 miles, and had to be flown from Italy.
-
Wow, almost exactly 20% loss rate. Thats worse than some of the bad bombing missions.
-
The insurgent forces were conspicuously supported by air dropped supplies which commenced on the night of August 4 to 5, 1944. The RAF were to make a total 116 sorties, the Polish Air Force – 97. Losses during these missions were considerable: the RAF lost 19 aircraft, the Poles 15, which was just over 16% and 15% respectively. Plans of there-and-back flights by American Flying Fortresses with stopovers for refuelling and reloading at Soviet bases behind the Eastern Front, were torpedoed by the Soviets.
I remember reading somewhere that almost all crew on those missions were volunteers.
-
The Home Army forces of the Warsaw District numbered about 50,000 soldiers of whom 23,000 were combat-ready. Their state of arms on August 1 was as follows: one thousand rifles, 300 automatic pistols, 60 sub-machine guns, 7 machine guns, 35 anti-tank guns and PIAT bazookas, 1700 pistols, and 25,000 grenades. In the course of the fighting further arms were obtained through air drops and by capture from the enemy (including several armoured vehicles). Also, the insurgents’ workshops were busy all the while producing: 300 automatic pistols, 150 flame-throwers, 40,000 grenades, a number of mortars and bazookas, and even an armoured car.
This is against 20,000 later reenforced to 60,000 combat veterans of SS and Wehrmacht.
What were they thinking...
Losses with civilians in 2 months were about 200,000 people.
Germans lost about 15000 dead and missing.
-
Can't....resist....arrrrrgh! I tried! (http://www.polymath-systems.com/misc/jokes/polish.html)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Allright Bikekil, time to straighten out this confusing thread a bit.
...
2. No Allies.
Get this straight. Hitler wanted Poland, so did Stalin. The Brits and French DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY because of Poland. They could have chosen not to do so.
At the end of the war, Churchill wanted poland to be free, and had a big fight with Stalin about it. However, the US did not back him up on that.
...
So you say that Allies were there to "declare a war" then to sit their bottom parts in a warm places caller "homes"?
You know, funny thing is that as i read it i see that everyone wanted Poland to be free, everyone wanted to help us, everyone wanted us to be happy and so on... pretty darn cool, but what else, other then "good wishes" our allies gave us?
You say "They could have chosen not to do so." - oh great, so we've signed a pact, but our great allies could have decided not to execute it's sentencies? Yeah... that's exactly what happeded...
See, you (by you i mean not you as a person, but our Allies as a whole) were great allies... on the paper... or when you needed to use our men (pilots or regular soldiers... voleuteers). But when we wanted your help, you have your good wishes.
I never said Brits are more "guilty" then Americans or any other nation. Point is ewvferyone had a good wishes and a good reason that prevented him from doing anything.
One of our allies were too weak, others were too far, some othere were too tired and other had different things to take care about.... and at the end of the day we were left for commies because... because Stali wanted so :)
Of course... our great allies don't wanted to start another war with stalin, so they decided to gave him 40 000000 of slaves in an allied country and seen it as a good deal.
Finally as we were sold to Stalin, we started to be an enemy of our great allies as one of the communistic countries.
Now from the whole picture you should pick one single thing, say "there was a reason" and be happy about it, but truth is - this kind of Allience just sucks.
AK soldiers from the uprising are still living here and there... i wish you cood face them and say how much Allied goverments wanted to help and how much you wanted Poland to be free after the war.
Do you think they'd like to hear?
-
There is one more thing to think about.
During the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising the operation Market Garden was going on. The troops you were thinking about (including a Polish Parachute Brigade) were already tasked out.
I don't know how much time you have spent in the military but
I feel for you but look at it in 1944 terms, not 2004. Look at the equipment, at the manpower. It was thought that if Market Garden had succeeded the war would have been over in months. As it was the drops on Arnhem were the longest in history. All C-47s were based out of England due to the poor supply and damaged airfields in France.
That meant that any units flown to Poland (and resupply) would have to fly in, land at a serviceable airfield, refuel and fly out. That is a pretty risky proposition when you consider you would have to fly across Germany in a C-47. Some heavy bombers had the range to Poland and back but they weren't designed to carry troops and training Airborne troops to jump out of bombers would have taken weeks to months. The planning of a full blown airborne division landing would have taken weeks to months. We would have needed target photos, flak concentrations, landing zones, set up communication and control plans. Airborne drops are a mess normally, dropping over Poland after flying 1200 miles in the belly of a B-17 or Lancaster, flown by a guy that has never trained to do airborne drops would have been a disaster.
Lets look at the units that could have dropped into Poland.
1st Polish Parachute Brigade: Mauled at Arnhem.
1st British Parachute Division: 33% strength after Arnhem (Combat ineffective)
101st US Airborne: Probably 75% strenght after Market Garden
82nd Airborne: Probably 80% strength after Market Garden
6th British Parachute: Probably 75% strenght after Normandy
Three other US Airborne divisions were forming in the Summer of 1944 but weren't combat ready. That meant sending in troops that had seen steady combat since Normandy across Nazi Germany, losing probably 1/4 to enemy fighters and flak to jump into Poland with no hope of resupply.
Any commander that approved that idea would have been relieved.
As for the politics, you are right, the West did abandon Poland. Roosevelt, obviously in failing health, foolishly trusted Stalin's assurances that the Eastern countries would have free elections after the war. It was stupid, I agree but at the time Roosevelt wasn't the man he once was.
There was a big fear of the Soviets turning on us. By 1944 the Brits were stripping AA and other ancillary services to get ground troops to finish the war. Remember, they had been engaged, on two fronts, for almost 5 years and were bled white. The US feared trying to fight Germany and Japan at the same time. Throw the Soviets in there after the war and it would have been daunting.
I still think we should have pressed Stalin. In hindsight we realize that the Soviets were exhausted as well. Stalin hid that well. If we had pressed it he would have withdrew from most of Eastern Europe.
Hindsight is 20/20
-
It’s not that simple. France suffered in World War I more than any other Western combatant. Most of the fighting on the Western Front took place on French soil, and France suffered millions of casualties.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s the French had the largest army in the world. Much of their equipment was good, and they had large resources in their colonies upon which to draw. France did not lack the tools, only the will. The French people dreaded the possibility of another war.
As Germany made noises over the "Polish Corridor" to Danzig, Britain and France made guarantees to the Polish government. In the event of an attack, the West would come to the defense of Poland.
Neither the British nor the French were in a position to back up their guarantees. Hitler correctly anticipated the poor response by the English and French and issued the armed forces to be deployed for Fall Weiß. With the rapid advance of the German attack the Brits and French could not have come to Poland’s aid. Then the Soviets invaded.
Most of the French military doctrine was based on World War 1 and wasn't prepared to start an offensive. The question is could the west have done anything that could have scared Hitler into a different course of action. I don't think so, especially after his non-aggression pact with the Soviets.
Unfortunately, Poland was left on her own. But this was a result of years of appeasement toward Germany. Hindsight being 20/20 there’s any number of arguments one could make that could have avoided the whole mess to begin with.
Had the Soviets found away to align themselves with Britain and France (and vice versa) Hitler would have been held in check.
Germany attempted to come to an agreement with Poland in regards to the "corridor". This was rejected by Poland who was bolstered by their alliance with Britain and France.
There was a series of miscalculations and mistakes that should be shared by the world. Britain and France were in no shape to respond to Germany's quick advance into Poland.
By the time of the Warsaw uprising in '44 the fate of Poland had been decided at Yalta. Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to Stalin’s demands. They really had no choice except to go to war with the Soviets so they gave in. Poland would be a part of the Soviet sphere of "influence". The Polish exiles in England wanted to show that they were willing to fight for their liberation to show the world that they should be given the right to decide for themselves how they will live following the war.
The only "ally" that was in position to support Warsaw was the Soviets and they had no interest in seeing the uprising succeed. Poland would be under there control shortly any way.
Following World War 1 Britain and France screwed up the world. Their failures lead directly to World War 2 and ultimately the expansion of communism. Their policies to the Middle East after World War 1 have direct impact on what we face in that region today.
While in hindsight it is easy to see I imagine it was a bit more convoluted at the time.
-
Bikekil.........1939 poland.
I am writing because I would like if possible to help you soften your anger and maybe help to clear up somethings for you.
I have a friend, about 90 years old ,he and his wife doesnt live to far from me.She also survived. In 39 he was a major or colonel on the staff of a general[sorry cant remember his name ] anyway he was in intell. He still has the blue number tatto on his arm the germans gave him.
It would be nice if you would read Octivious post again as it rings with much truth.
Polands fate was sealed in 1937[date right?] by chamberland and a piece of paper. Appeasement never works,a lesson many americans of today havent learned.Germany could have been stopped in 1937 but it was to late in 1939. There was a treaty between russia and germany.Germany and russia invaded poland.Because of what Octivious said no one was ready to help poland, and because of the treaty helping poland may have brought russia into the war on germanys side.
You are mistaken about the poles fighting thinking no one cared. they fought bravely as long as they could knowing it was a delaying tatic to help france and briton prepare a little more.Everyone knew it was going to be a long war.There was nothing anyone could do against germany and russia.Anyway the polish military had planed for delaying tatics. You should be proud of them they knew what they were doing, they could have surrendered sooner.
When warsaw came about the allies were again not able to help in the way you would like.You must understand russia was an ally only because she was the lesser of 2 evils. I wont go into all the reasons why, but simply, put if we had helped more than we did there was a chance war with russia might have started then, and then was not the right time plus there was nothing to help with .There are others on this thread, that have talked about this period of time ,.by and large they are right. Both churchill and fdr in 42 knew we may have to fight russia. Actually there were fights between us and russia on the ground and in the air here and there the closer we got to berlin .
Ok now the bad part.....
Simply put we,not england or anyone else sold you out.I offer no excuses but would like to explain.
fdr was sick and nearer to death during that time than anyone thought. During the time of the meeting,fdr was fine at first but became weaker thus losing the upper hand to stalin. churchill fought like hell to keep a united front against stalin,but fdr was also churchills good friend and america was the power.With out amercia churchill could do nothing but try to keep the peices together. I believe if it had been 1943 it would have been different. Now dont get me wrong ,fdr didnt just roll over.
Fdr and america was sick of war,remember we were fighting on 2 fronts, and they felt nazism had to be crushed totally.It wasnt as easy to beat germany as the movies and some books would make you think. Only 15 seconds was the difference between victory and defeat at normandy.Look at the battle of the bulge,montgomerys failed end run. In reality we were ready to fight russia but at the right time,and it would not have taken long to defeat her,but at the right time, and at the time of warsaw it wasnt the right time, plus poland and others had already been sold out. A very large factor in all this was what germany did to the jews and I am sorry to say polands part in it. With that the wind went out of the sails so far as fighting russia was concerned.The world is as it is.
I was going to call my friend seeking some advice for you but it is way to late ,so I will try.
Let it go, its over,with all the mistakes made, It was America that help to make possible the chance you now have. Take it ,run with it , make a new future for poland.Be wise and build poland up so that if attacked you may lose, but a terrible price will be paid by the attacker.Be leary of allies, but dont think you can make it with out them. Be proud of warsaw it was a guttse thing to do knowing you had no chance to win, and in its way helped to win the war.
good luck and thanks for polands support so far.
-
Originally posted by bikekil
so Grun, you must be dumb also :)
As some flights (mostly Polish and American voleuneer pilots) dropped supplies for the uprisers, it was possible... and it was not 2-3 or 5 flights.
whey wanted to and they did the drop.
so face it - it was possible. Or please quote this part and say it was not possible? can you do it?
As for for paratroopers, Poland wanted to go there. Call me drunked, but i see noting more then a bad will (aka better purpose) in not letting them go.
To use Funked's expression from the other thread... i would not pee on the Allies like we had if they bottom part was on fire.
noone of USAF pilots voluntier to fly over Poland with supply mission, afaik
It was brits, canadians, south africans. Thos pilots show your bravery and for them. They did much better then they goverments.
Bike read som good books insted on quote taily stories.
It was not possible to send paras to warsaw. C47 had no chance to reach. Do you imagine losses in such a flight? totally waste of human lifes.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can't....resist....arrrrrgh! I tried! (http://www.polymath-systems.com/misc/jokes/polish.html)
Rip, you are worse then redneck
have you found WMD?:rofl
-
One more thing the Americans did to screw up the world.
It's a wonder we can look in the mirror anymore:rolleyes:
-
What's the range of a combat loaded C-47 anyway?
Do I understand bike's contention that a massive airlift of para's from basically coastal France to Warsaw was a viable operation?
How many C-47's got shot down on the short hop from England to Normandy?
Somebody help me out here. Is the idea that a few thousand C-47's could have flown across most of occupied Europe and executed a successful paratrooper drop on Warsaw?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Yes, 1944 was fcked up, but blame the commies for that, the allies couldnt have done much at that time.
Grun, you keep amazing me.
Yes, Soviet Army should have helped the uprising that was started to oppose Soviet influence! Yes, Stalin had to send another 200-300 thousands of Soviet soldiers to assist the force that was already fighting against Soviet Army behind our lines in Belorussia!
Damn, that Russians must be superhumans! After operation Bagration they had to keep on throwing themselves into a bloodbath without any rest and regrouping. And other battles that went on at the same time (Sandomir beachhead) were unimportant.
Bourgeous Poland with it's "government" in London was our enemy. That sad loosers are to blame for the Uprising and it's failure. It's a good example of how some stupid bastards with political ambitions can screw everything up :(
-
Originally posted by bikekil
oh, and to be sure you know what i mean by Allies - SOVIETS WERE NOT OUR ALLIES! they've come here to slave us (and they did).
Do you really believe that Soviets "enslaved" you?... :( If so - sorry for that :(
I do think of Poland as of an ally. My Grand Father provided artillery support for Koscushko division (he served in Guards Mortar Corps). I only remember that he said nazis were fighting Poles more severe then Russians...
Originally posted by bikekil
Oh, and it;s nothing more then "putting a history straight".
I have no hard feelings for British, French or the Russion people (for any generation). :)
So di I. And I really feel guilty for what Russia have done to Poland. But sometimes blaming Russians is going way too far.
We also don't need apologies for 20000 (at least) Russian POWs who disappeared in Polish camps after WWI and 1920 war.
One question: what is your attitude to Baltic republics praising people who served in local SS legion as "freedom fighters"?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It's a good example of how some stupid bastards with political ambitions can screw everything up :(
Wow, while I agree with that statement in general, I must call pot/kettle on this.
Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact... Plans for slicing up Poland weeks before September of 1939. The "need" for a buffer zone, greed, and sprinkled with uncle Joe's paranoia. Yep, stupid bastards with political ambitions can screw everything up :)
Poles shouldn't have put up any resistance. Let Germany/Soviets steamroll right on through... afterall, any resistance by stupid bastards just screws everything up.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Rip, you are worse then redneck
have you found WMD?:rofl
not in the perceived quantities that the left expects! But they've found them! :)
-
after all we kicked da "sad" comies (or should i say Soviets?) outta here monsieur Boroda. So the sad looser is...?
So guys, maybe i can not read.. but what our Allies did to help us other then daclare a war (on the paper)?
As i said before, there is a reason and explenation of everything... one believe this, other believe that, but my intention is not to judge imagined (mine or yours) reasons, but the action that were done.
We were Allies right?
We've signed a pact, right?
Our Allies supposed thenselves to help us out in case of invasion right?
So what the hell they did to help other then trashtalking?
They let us serve in their armies and to die for them? What else?
As you guys said - there was allways a bad moment to help Poland out...
Same as with the Uprising, there was a good moment to say the positive opinion about that idea, but when the idea came true, there was bad moment to help out? ( a side note to Ramzey, instead of talking about reading the books, you could try to use your head in more creative way. You don't believe there was no way to help uprisiers right? If so, why you entered the thread saying that Allies were just watching?)
So still, the bottom line is - our Allies did nothing (but now i could add, "did nothing, but some are arguing about the reasons).
Noone took your hand and signed that you will help us. You promised it for some reason. Now my judgement is based on what you did, not you could or could not do.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The Soviets were not your friends, they did not come to help you or to liberate you. They came to conquer you. They did so on september 17 and they did so again on their way to berlin in 1944. So I hope that settles the russian part of it.
Great. In 1939 USSR returned it's parts occupied by Poland since 1920. Ever heard of Curzon line? Do you really think that nazi occupation was better then Soviet?
Looking at "invasion" to Poland from practical point of view: do you think that USSR had to refuse from getting some land, several hundreed kilometers, from Germans? Maybe this distance saved Moscow in 1941...
If Poland was a friendly country, if it didn't participate in division of Czechoslovakia in 1939 (that's why Poland didn't give Red Army the permission to assist Czech army or even cross Polish airspace), if it didn't wage agressive war against Soviet land in 1920 - everything could be much better.
Also please try to find some information about Soviet-British-French negotiations in Moscow in August 1939. It was obvious that "allies" will not help Poland, and USSR was the only power that could deploy troops immediately against Germany. Unfortunately - it was too much, Stalin didn't want to engage in a war for "allied" promices when they openly stated they will not engage in at least several months. So he had no other choice then to sign a treaty with Hilter :(
-
Boroda, while you said thart.. my grandpa, an officer in Polish Army in 39 serving at the eastern border got attacked and prisoned by Soviets, then he spent a winter in tent 40km from Moscow in a summer military uniform while working with no food. Soviets were sure our friends and Allies at that time :)
-
Originally posted by bikekil
Boroda, while you said thart.. my grandpa, an officer in Polish Army in 39 serving at the eastern border got attacked and prisoned by Soviets, then he spent a winter in tent 40km from Moscow in a summer military uniform while working with no food. Soviets were sure our friends and Allies at that time :)
Surely all Western Propoganda, right Boroda?
-
Originally posted by bikekil
So guys, maybe i can not read.. but what our Allies did to help us other then daclare a war (on the paper)?
So still, the bottom line is - our Allies did nothing (but now i could add, "did nothing, but some are arguing about the reasons).
Unfortunately they did not act fast enough... or at all for that matter.
But look at the options. What could have been done? Bargaining with the Soviets was nearly useless. Soviets demanded Finnish territory: buffer zone in the north near murmansk, an open port to the baltic sea, and would have had 'bonus' access to nickel (which actually was discovered later by Germany). The Allies weren't going to sellout neutral (at the time, not co-belligerent w/ germany yet) Finland in order to keep Hitler in check.
Another option: Consider France *had* the willingness and the drive to go on the offensive within days of September 3rd. The Soviets not being aligned with the Allies and seeking their own interests with the Non-aggression Pact... would they still attack Poland from the east just as the Germans attack from the west? Say the Allies were remotely successfull on the Western front during this hypothetical offensive, how would the Soviets be dealt with in Poland if they also invaded?
I know there are an infinite number of "what ifs". Too many x-factors in the equation to be sure. Hindsight is 20/20.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Wow, while I agree with that statement in general, I must call pot/kettle on this.
Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact... Plans for slicing up Poland weeks before September of 1939. The "need" for a buffer zone, greed, and sprinkled with uncle Joe's paranoia. Yep, stupid bastards with political ambitions can screw everything up :)
Poles shouldn't have put up any resistance. Let Germany/Soviets steamroll right on through... afterall, any resistance by stupid bastards just screws everything up.
Read my comments below. Unfortunately it was obvious that "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact was forced by an "allied" refusal to do anything to assist Poland.
More to say, "allies" openly demanded that USSR should declare war to help "allied" guaranties to Poland while "allies" didn't have to engage if USSR was invaded.
Do you think that USSR had to declare war on Germany why nations that guaranteed assistance to Poland said they are going to sit and watch it without doing anything? Stalin made the only possible decision. :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Read my comments below. Unfortunately it was obvious that "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact was forced by an "allied" refusal to do anything to assist Poland.
More to say, "allies" openly demanded that USSR should declare war to help "allied" guaranties to Poland while "allies" didn't have to engage if USSR was invaded.
Do you think that USSR had to declare war on Germany why nations that guaranteed assistance to Poland said they are going to sit and watch it without doing anything? Stalin made the only possible decision. :(
Our history might be crossed here :) The "allies" (france, GB), had nothing to entice the Soviets to join in the defense of Poland. Why would the Soviets attack Germany out of the goodness of their hearts? Finland was a target :) The Soviets were offered a "juicy" deal with Germany... free hand in Poland, Finland, in exchange for raw materials and of course, non-aggression between the two nations.
what is your version?
-
Originally posted by Octavius
Another option: Consider France *had* the willingness and the drive to go on the offensive within days of September 3rd. The Soviets not being aligned with the Allies and seeking their own interests with the Non-aggression Pact... would they still attack Poland from the east just as the Germans attack from the west? Say the Allies were remotely successfull on the Western front during this hypothetical offensive, how would the Soviets be dealt with in Poland if they also invaded?
This is not an option. Allied delegation that negotiated woth Voroshilov in August 1939 didn't provide any plans of attacking Germany, and more, they declared that they will be unable to deploy any troops against Germany in several months :(
Before August 22nd the agreement with "allies" was possible, but they kept mumbling instead of answering Voroshilov's questions: how many divisions they will deploy, in what time. USSR had clear answers on that, and "allies" just showed that they want to fight this war by looking at Germans, Poles and Russians killing each other. :(
-
The failure of a Soviet GB/France alliance wasn't a result of what the Soviets wanted but because of what little England and France offered in return.
The Soviets got everything they wanted anyway.
When the Soviets attacked Finland GB didn't do much to help their "ally" just like they did with Poland.
France and Britain expected the mere threat of force to be enough to deter Hitler. Hollow threats of force mean nothing to aggressors. Hitler called their bluff and won at least for the moment.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
This is not an option. Allied delegation that negotiated woth Voroshilov in August 1939 didn't provide any plans of attacking Germany, and more, they declared that they will be unable to deploy any troops against Germany in several months :(
[/b]
Well my hypothetical option would negate this negotiation :D
Before August 22nd the agreement with "allies" was possible, but they kept mumbling instead of answering Voroshilov's questions: how many divisions they will deploy, in what time. USSR had clear answers on that, and "allies" just showed that they want to fight this war by looking at Germans, Poles and Russians killing each other. :( [/B]
Again, the allies had nothing on the table to offer in exchange for Soviet assistance in the east. If the Soviets had no intention of joining the Allies, why would this Voroshilov even ask such questions? just for intel so they can go ahead with their polish attack?
-
The Soviets wanted very much an alliance with France and Britain. They had "intentions" unfortunately Britain and France could offer nothing that would make such an agreement worth while.
This led ultimately to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The Soviets would gain space (territory and time). They just didnt get enough time as it turned out.
-
Originally posted by bikekil
If you have a while, read this:
http://www.warsawuprising.com/
then, here is something that happened now:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3941897.stm
so... like in 1939 our allies could not help us better? I mean.. imagine you being one of those brave men, fighting there to realise that after all you are the only ones who care?
then you wait 60 long years and you are hunted by our "Red Friends" as being in the AK (Home Army) was seen as a crime by commies... you can not say about it as it's a crime to remember the uprising... so you waiting that 60 years to hear what? " Uh.. well.. maybe you just shoudn't do it?"
and you know what? i say,Poland doesn't need apology. What Poland needs is good memory to trust no allies.
p.s. Big goes to the Germans. You appologised for that was many many more times that it was needed and you are still doing it. I think it's about the time to say just "we do remember".. again.
Well personally nothing, I wasn't born yet, but two squadrons of South Africans volunteered to fly in supplies. They took 40% casualties between 8th of August and 22nd of September.
"The Russians refused to allow Allied aircraft to land in Russians occupied-territory, refuel and return. The Russian betrayal of the Allies placed Churchill in a terrible dilemma. He had given pledge to support the Polish partisans. The only air force units who could help were those based in Italy and specifically the heavy bombers of 2nd Bomber Wing at Foggia which were under South African control.
Churchill, realising these proposed Warsaw raids would be almost suicidal for the aircrews, could not order such missions, but he asked for volunteers. Without doubt, the Polish aircrews of 205 Bomber Group all volunteered, and they were not alone. The crews of two South African squadrons volunteered.
Between 8 August and 22 September 1944, British and Polish air squadrons, alongside 31 and 34 Squadrons of SAAF, dropped supplies to beleaguered Polish partisans fighting againstoverhelming odds in the city of Warsaw. A total of 181 sorties were attempted, with the loss of 31 B24 Liberator bomber aircraft. The loss rate of 40% (almost one man in evry two) was phenomenal. It has been debated that the sheer heroism shown by the aircrews in attempting to complete thier missions, was beyond equal. It was one of the most tragic and heroic opeartions in the SAAF history, yet it stands out among the many shining deeds in history of our Air Force."
-
Originally posted by bikekil
after all we kicked da "sad" comies (or should i say Soviets?) outta here monsieur Boroda. So the sad looser is...?
Who is the looser?
The country that had to join an agressive military alliance to fight for some foreign interests in the Middle East. At the same time paying billions of dollars to switch to unnessesary alien military equipment.
We "enslaved" you, but look, did we make Poles fight in Afghanistan instead of Russians, Ukrainians or Kazakhs?
Didn't you learn that such "allies" are indeed worse then enemies? And now they move their bases to Poland, closer to Russian border. Do you believe they are here to "protect" you? Or maybe to make you fight with us, watching it from overseas as they did several times already?
Sorry.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who is the looser?
The country that had to join an agressive military alliance to fight for some foreign interests in the Middle East. At the same time paying billions of dollars to switch to unnessesary alien military equipment.
We "enslaved" you, but look, did we make Poles fight in Afghanistan instead of Russians, Ukrainians or Kazakhs?
[/b]
You're saying the Poles should be grateful they were forced into a communist satellite state and not forced to fight in soviet wars, instead of having the freedom to choose wtf they wanted to do?
Didn't you learn that such "allies" are indeed worse then enemies? And now they move their bases to Poland, closer to Russian border. Do you believe they are here to "protect" you? Or maybe to make you fight with us, watching it from overseas as they did several times already?
Sorry.
paranoia is still this rampant?
[edit]: sorry, it's not my aim to help derail this thread. i wont post any more[/edit]
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Well personally nothing, I wasn't born yet, but two squadrons of South Africans volunteered to fly in supplies. They took 40% casualties between 8th of August and 22nd of September.
"The Russians refused to allow Allied aircraft to land in Russians occupied-territory, refuel and return. The Russian betrayal of the Allies placed Churchill in a terrible dilemma. He had given pledge to support the Polish partisans.
Sorry, but the Russian refusal to allow "allies" to use Soviet air bases had one big reason: 90% of the supplies dropped by "allied" planes was seized by Germans. It's a sad truth :(
Air raids to support the Uprising were nothing but another propaganda issue :( Look at that Evil Soviets! They didn't allow us to use their bases to supply Germans! :rolleyes:
Again, it's so ally-ish. Directly supporting the force that fights USSR already on liberated territory...
-
Originally posted by Octavius
You're saying the Poles should be grateful they were forced into a communist satellite state and not forced to fight in soviet wars, instead of having the freedom to choose wtf they wanted to do?
paranoia is still this rampant?
[edit]: sorry, it's not my aim to help derail this thread. i wont post any more[/edit] [/B]
I hoped you and Bikekil will understand my sarcasm.
As for paranoia - we have some reasons to be paranoid. NATO long-range radars control most of the North-Western Russia airspace, and Leningrad is inside NATO tactical aviation range now... Can anyone tell me why? To protect fascist Baltic regimes from Evil Russians that can come and take control of their toxic smoked fish?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who is the looser?
The country that had to join an agressive military alliance to fight for some foreign interests in the Middle East. At the same time paying billions of dollars to switch to unnessesary alien military equipment.
We "enslaved" you, but look, did we make Poles fight in Afghanistan instead of Russians, Ukrainians or Kazakhs?
Didn't you learn that such "allies" are indeed worse then enemies? And now they move their bases to Poland, closer to Russian border. Do you believe they are here to "protect" you? Or maybe to make you fight with us, watching it from overseas as they did several times already?
Sorry.
sorry but need to make sure here are you comparing commie invasion of afghanistan with coalition operations in iraq? and are you saying that nato could somehow "make" the polish fight against their will? unecessary equipment? how about better equipment compatible with everyone theyll be working with if some brainwashed robot like yourself ever comes to position of power in russia again. back to the equipment whats your personal experience with sov and western infantry weapon and radios?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Surely all Western Propoganda, right Boroda?
Definetly not.
Just as Russian POWs who were returning back home from Germany in 1918-19 through Polish terrirory. The only difference is that 90% of them didn't get out of prison camps.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I hoped you and Bikekil will understand my sarcasm.
As for paranoia - we have some reasons to be paranoid. NATO long-range radars control most of the North-Western Russia airspace, and Leningrad is inside NATO tactical aviation range now... Can anyone tell me why? To protect fascist Baltic regimes from Evil Russians that can come and take control of their toxic smoked fish?
yeah were coming for you all right. thats why were spending millions every year to help you keep your nuclear aresenal secure. no wait our guys helping out are actually part of some secret op to seize all your nukes just before we attack. if youre worried about russias future and security you need to look at home thats were all your problems are. id go get some mental help though. ive got good buddies who are russian soldiers and im pretty sure even theyd think you were a loony.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
When the Soviets attacked Finland GB didn't do much to help their "ally" just like they did with Poland.
I think it was one of the things that led to Winter War: Stalin understood that any "allied" promises are worth nothing :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Definetly not.
Just as Russian POWs who were returning back home from Germany in 1918-19 through Polish terrirory. The only difference is that 90% of them didn't get out of prison camps.
sure that ninety percent figure isnt talking about german pows after second world war? and those baltic guys fighting for ss i think they just chose lesser of two evils. after all soviets killed more innocents than nazis did. ill bet they looked at it like either nazis or commies are going to rule our odds are better with the nazis.
-
lol. Ok, yeah I missed the sarcasm.
It sounds a hell of a lot worse when reading it as it was intended. I do believe the Poles volunteered to send troops to Iraq.
As for paranoia - we have some reasons to be paranoid. NATO long-range radars control most of the North-Western Russia airspace, and Leningrad is inside NATO tactical aviation range now... Can anyone tell me why? To protect fascist Baltic regimes from Evil Russians that can come and take control of their toxic smoked fish?
[/b]
I think your sarcasm just answered your question :D
-
Bikekil....................
Dont let boroda get to you, he is silly. But If you dont listen to the truth and stay adamit about what you feel you wont be any good to the new poland.Like I said be wise and leary and rebuild. Stop bashing america and england...churchill did all he could for poland and f.d.r. was closr to death. The only reason we did not fight russia is because fdr was to sick to handle it ,and the concentration camps just made every one sick of war.
You wondered if we could face the polish soldiers in the eye.well I did and have listened to him. Most of what you are saying he would disagree with. Do you not wonder how those same soldiers would feel hearing you say they died for nothing feeling betrayed..Wrong....they knew what they fought for.
Now grow up and make poland strong..
respectfully demaw.
-
bikekil i read the stuff thanks for the tip was very interesting. what i got from it was poland always have strong warrior tradition. poles in warsaw know they are gonners. better to go down swinging than standing in line waiting for gas. i salute them. also modern poles treated with great respect by us german and uk military they work with. didnt know if you knew that.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
sorry but need to make sure here are you comparing commie invasion of afghanistan with coalition operations in iraq? and are you saying that nato could somehow "make" the polish fight against their will? unecessary equipment? how about better equipment compatible with everyone theyll be working with if some brainwashed robot like yourself ever comes to position of power in russia again. back to the equipment whats your personal experience with sov and western infantry weapon and radios?
1) Soviet assistance to Afghanistan was 100% legitimate. Compare it to your agressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq.
2) Poles already die in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) Soviet equipment is at least as good as western, especially when produced in Poland and getting all possible support and maintnance from native engineers. JFYI: 90% of Saddam's T-72s were imported from Poland. Switching to NATO standards is just another reason to feed your military-industrial complex and kill Polish industry.
4) Both US and Russia already have brainwashed robots in position of power. At least ours didn't start any agressive war yet.
5) I can disassemble and assemble AKM with closed eyes. I also was trained as a SAM technical division officer. Not even speaking about my unfinished education as a weapon engineer (conventional warheads).
I am out of this fallometric contest, let's get back to Warsaw Uprising.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
1) Soviet assistance to Afghanistan was 100% legitimate. Compare it to your agressions against Yugoslavia and Iraq.
2) Poles already die in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) Soviet equipment is at least as good as western, especially when produced in Poland and getting all possible support and maintnance from native engineers. JFYI: 90% of Saddam's T-72s were imported from Poland. Switching to NATO standards is just another reason to feed your military-industrial complex and kill Polish industry.
4) Both US and Russia already have brainwashed robots in position of power. At least ours didn't start any agressive war yet.
5) I can disassemble and assemble AKM with closed eyes. I also was trained as a SAM technical division officer. Not even speaking about my unfinished education as a weapon engineer (conventional warheads).
I am out of this fallometric contest, let's get back to Warsaw Uprising.
so you can handle an akm but never shot what its western counterparts are. never dealt with tactical comms. not an ad guy so i cant comment on sams. the poles in iraq and afghanistan were glad to be there i know i worked with some of them. they sure werent forced there they were professional soldiers to say the least. "soviet assistance to afghanistan" did that include wiping out villages of women and children to deny afhgani muj a place to eat and sleep? "soviet equipment is at least as good as western" well i dearly hope it never comes to blows between anyone and russia mainly because i know lots of russians and i like them but if it does ill sleep a little sounder knowing minds like yours are designing their warheads. it was never a contest by the way. just trying to gauge how crazy you actually are.
-
afghanistan and yugoslavia and iraq huh. heres a comparison for you. mass murder of innocents stopped after western intervention in yugoslavia and iraq. it started with sov intervention in afghanistan. t72s and akms may not hack it against soldiers with superior training comms and gear but they do well enough against muj armed with brit bolt action rifles and women and children. they have you designing any of those mines that look like toys for little afghani kids to pick up?
-
3) Soviet equipment is at least as good as western, especially when produced in Poland and getting all possible support and maintnance from native engineers. JFYI: 90% of Saddam's T-72s were imported from Poland. Switching to NATO standards is just another reason to feed your military-industrial complex and kill Polish industry.
If thats the case, then blame Saddam if Polish industry declines. I dont think he'll be be purchasing any more.
-
Boroda...............wouldnt let refuel because of faulty drops.
Boroda you are a sorry excuse for a human being . What you said about refueling is such a lie that when it got to hell the devil gave it back to earth, because it was to much for even him.
LISTEN UP: Ill tell ya all what an ally russia was. allied bombers that where shot up on bombing runs would, if they could ,rather try to make it back to england thru german defences than land in russia.Why? because russia put them in pow camps and some they charged with spying.
Listen up: the closer we got to berlin the more fire fights we had with russia. a few times german fighter pilots squads would circle above russian planes that had attacked amreican planes to watch the battle.After it was over the germans just went home......P
-
demaw, sorry, but do you have any sources for this or are you just assuming you're correct? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but as with many of your posts, just proclaiming "how it 'really' was" doesn't float to well and might cause some anger instead of understanding.
-
Boroda...............wouldnt let refuel because of faulty drops.
Boroda you are a sorry excuse for a human being . What you said about refueling is such a lie that when it got to hell the devil gave it back to earth, because it was to much for even him.
LISTEN UP: Ill tell ya all what an ally russia was. allied bombers that where shot up on bombing runs would, if they could ,rather try to make it back to england thru german defences than land in russia.Why? because russia put them in pow camps and some they charged with spying.
Listen up: the closer we got to berlin the more fire fights we had with russia. a few times german fighter pilots squads would circle above russian planes that had attacked amreican planes to watch the battle.After it was over the germans just went home......Protest by allied cammond did little,it soon stopped because we kicked your tulips and shot down to many af ya.
There were fire fights on the ground also....whoa great allies. This was not from avg. russian soldier but russias answer to the ss. O h ya they had that 2 ,1 of the reasons why was the avg russian would rather surrender than live under stalins rule.So when the battle started,if the german didnt get em the russian ss types would shoot their own people in the back if they just turned around.......
-
Boroda the west is coming to get you! The rumors are true comrade!
-
I am really sorry that two intellectually challenged creatures interfered this discussion. Sometimes I enjoy pissing them off, but it's quite another case.
Any person who says that nazism is "lesser of two evils" is mentaly diabled or misinformed.
-
Boroda, from you:
"Read my comments below. Unfortunately it was obvious that "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact was forced by an "allied" refusal to do anything to assist Poland. "
You're still having problems with this pact, whose existance you were denying just a year (or so) ago.
Maybe I should post a link?
And secondly:
"Sorry, but the Russian refusal to allow "allies" to use Soviet air bases had one big reason: 90% of the supplies dropped by "allied" planes was seized by Germans. It's a sad truth "
Well, you did permit British planes to fuel up on the way to bomb the Tirpitz. Wonder why, since it only helped the western allies to bring more overpaid and useless equipment to you........
Seriously, you're full of rubbish.
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, from you:
"Read my comments below. Unfortunately it was obvious that "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact was forced by an "allied" refusal to do anything to assist Poland. "
You're still having problems with this pact, whose existance you were denying just a year (or so) ago.
Maybe I should post a link?
I was doubting the existance of "secret protocols" to the non-agression pact. Now I am reading Ribbentrop's memoirs written in Nuremburg prison, and I see some proof that this "protocols" didn't exist.
Anyone questioning an existance of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact must go back to school and read some books.
Originally posted by Angus
And secondly:
"Sorry, but the Russian refusal to allow "allies" to use Soviet air bases had one big reason: 90% of the supplies dropped by "allied" planes was seized by Germans. It's a sad truth "
Well, you did permit British planes to fuel up on the way to bomb the Tirpitz. Wonder why, since it only helped the western allies to bring more overpaid and useless equipment to you........
Seriously, you're full of rubbish.
:D
Well, what I meant was that USSR was protecting it's interests. It's pretty stupid to assist supporting (hehe nice expression) possible insurgents controlled by a hostile government. Especially when 90% of the supplies fall into enemy's hands.
I am full of beer right now :D
BTW, USSR also supported shuttle-raids from Italy to Ukraine (Poltava), operation Frantic IIRC. Many Soviet veterans remember how they greeted allied air crews there.
-
Russian beer? I tasted Polish beer, it was good. How is russian beer. MUST KNOW?!?!?!?!?!?!
But seriously, the Russians looked at the Germans beating down the Polish uprising as a job done for them.
Well, you just said it.
And for this:
"Anyone questioning an existance of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact must go back to school and read some books."
So you went and read?
-
Octavius.........proof again.......
No I dont have proof at hand, I am sure I could find it if I took the time to look. They are all books nothing from magazines or newspapers. Thing is after the religion thread I have learned a few things about how things work in here...It seems most everyones proof comes from newspapers or magazines found on a place called google,. Thing is all information I have came from books, some even written in the peoples own hand. It didnt sastify you last time even tho I told you how to find the info.
Then phookat jumped in and started saying same things about proof.Took a while but I figured out if you reject my proof maybe I should turn it around..Well I asked for proof from him on things I knew he had wrong which was most of his arguement. Lo and behold no response no nothing because it ended up he didnt have a leg to stand on.Only explaination I know.
I wont do that here but I will say this, my great uncle who is around 85 has a bullet hole in his shoulder,he said it came from a russian rifle near berlin ,hes never trusted the russians .thats enough for me
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am really sorry that two intellectually challenged creatures interfered this discussion. Sometimes I enjoy pissing them off, but it's quite another case.
Any person who says that nazism is "lesser of two evils" is mentaly diabled or misinformed.
and subject to deportation to and a slow death from starvation and overwork in one of the many gulags run by the govt you so fervently defend. or you could be jew like with nazis. or you could be religous. or you could be reported by neighbor for saying you not like communism or communist official. long list of reasons. and at end of day more souls in heaven early from murderous use of communist authority and power than from nazis murderous acts. reason may be nazis were stopped earlier than commies but both were evil and you are defending one of them. i find it good for a laugh that someone like you is calling me "mentally disabled or misinformed". somewhere in russia a village is missing its political officer.
-
forgot to ask when you said ninety percent russian pows never make it home are you sure you not talking about soviet govt sending russians captured by germans to gulag for slow death after end of second world war?
-
Hmm... after the whole day of readong/posting i have to say it's going to wild here now ;)
First of all. We had our past with Russiand and Germans since ages. As i said few months ago in the other thread... we murdered then, then they murdered us and again and again... since ages ;)
Now, i saluted Germans because they were and still are appoligising for the war and all of this.
The same way i can appologise (as a Pole) for every single man murdered by Poles during our strikes on Russia or Germany or any other nation in the past (i'm not stupid... i know nobody cares and my appologies are worth nothing, but to be fair with myself and my feel of a pride and honour, i could do it ever single time).
Now,
i'm not blaming Russians in this thread (anyway that was not my intention to do so) because i don't see them as our Allies in WW2. Hell, i could go to Russia and drink few bottles ov Vodka with Boroda as i stand now and i'm sure it'd be a good time. Poles and Russians have similar nature ya know ;)
But of course it's obvious that Russkies was the very first guys that could help... but they was not stupid (i mean Stalin, not the soldiers) and he knew that the Uprising was against him almost that much as against the Germans...
Btw, i'm sure Russian soldiers (and the Poles who were with them and were moved back prevented from helping the uprisers) were talking a lot about people dying on the other side of the river and i believe many of them would help if they had a chance.
The whole thread was meant to ask about the friendship of our Allies. To ask what they really did to help us... because the situation is clear with our enemies - enemies came here to get our lands... but the friends who promised to help? I can't see this promised help so that was the whole point :)
Boroda, your comparision is not accurate in one, but huge point.
He are helping with IRAQ because of at least 3 things:
1) We want it (opposite to what we had in Poland after the WW2)
2) We have the Allies who were attacked by some fu#$%rs and we are supporting our Allies (opposite to what our Allies did to us during the WW2)
3) We believe we are helping the civiliand over threr (at this point i realias that the goverments are dealling about things like this.. and i'm sure iwe have something promised because of the fact we are there... i wish it's different but it's not... anyway.. i believ that our guys are doing a right things there and they are helping, not burning and ruining the place)
If we will fail our Allies some day (because of the politicians of some sort) i will be the first one who say "i'm sorry" and you will be the first ones to hear how ashames i am (not that it changes anything for the Allies unfortunatelly...)
I wish we will never fail tho.
-
What's this fascination with the Curzon line Boroda ?
Didn't the soviet deport enought pole to leave the majority to the Ukrenian and Bielarussian ?
Next you will say the Poles in Kazakhstan were just tourist :p
tss tss a bit of honesty don't hurt , you know poland was bigger in the past and it's current borders are almost a joke :)
(especially since 1945 when they shifted to the west for a unknown reason :D)
Na Zdorovie ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Grun, you keep amazing me.
Yes, Soviet Army should have helped the uprising that was started to oppose Soviet influence! Yes, Stalin had to send another 200-300 thousands of Soviet soldiers to assist the force that was already fighting against Soviet Army behind our lines in Belorussia!
Damn, that Russians must be superhumans! After operation Bagration they had to keep on throwing themselves into a bloodbath without any rest and regrouping. And other battles that went on at the same time (Sandomir beachhead) were unimportant.
Bourgeous Poland with it's "government" in London was our enemy. That sad loosers are to blame for the Uprising and it's failure. It's a good example of how some stupid bastards with political ambitions can screw everything up :(
about bastards with political ambition i can agree with you
they decide to sucrifice people in last stand , trying to keep old order in Poland.
Stalin dont like to have political oposition, so let them die
about what enemy forces behinde russian army lines on belorussia you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Do you really believe that Soviets "enslaved" you?... :( If so - sorry for that :(
I do think of Poland as of an ally. My Grand Father provided artillery support for Koscushko division (he served in Guards Mortar Corps). I only remember that he said nazis were fighting Poles more severe then Russians...
............................. ...
We also don't need apologies for 20000 (at least) Russian POWs who disappeared in Polish camps after WWI and 1920 war.
for you grand father as for veteran who fight against nazism and help our troops.
But tell me if he wil get order to support german unit fighting for red army will he refuse order? i dont think so
Do you talking about thos prisonesrs who die from typhus epidemy, thos one who stay in poland and settle down there or about thos who join ukrainian petlura army to fight against comunists?
-
Originally posted by bikekil
( a side note to Ramzey, instead of talking about reading the books, you could try to use your head in more creative way. You don't believe there was no way to help uprisiers right? If so, why you entered the thread saying that Allies were just watching?)
So still, the bottom line is - our Allies did nothing (but now i could add, "did nothing, but some are arguing about the reasons).
Noone took your hand and signed that you will help us. You promised it for some reason. Now my judgement is based on what you did, not you could or could not do.
i use my head in cretive way, not belive blinde in propaganda movies as you do.
No i not belive was exist effective way to help uprising forces, cuz they screw up at the begining. Cuz they where ordered to fight without chance to win.
Politics decide for them earlier and sucrifice of those brave man's and womans was useless.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Great. In 1939 USSR returned it's parts occupied by Poland since 1920. Ever heard of Curzon line? Do you really think that nazi occupation was better then Soviet?
Looking at "invasion" to Poland from practical point of view: do you think that USSR had to refuse from getting some land, several hundreed kilometers, from Germans? Maybe this distance saved Moscow in 1941...
If Poland was a friendly country, if it didn't participate in division of Czechoslovakia in 1939 (that's why Poland didn't give Red Army the permission to assist Czech army or even cross Polish airspace), if it didn't wage agressive war against Soviet land in 1920 - everything could be much better.
Also please try to find some information about Soviet-British-French negotiations in Moscow in August 1939. It was obvious that "allies" will not help Poland, and USSR was the only power that could deploy troops immediately against Germany. Unfortunately - it was too much, Stalin didn't want to engage in a war for "allied" promices when they openly stated they will not engage in at least several months. So he had no other choice then to sign a treaty with Hilter :(
easym easy comerade Boroda l-)
You guys loose war in 1920 but you guys start it
Your troops was close to warsaw and we push you back and stop our forces not going too far in to russia. Som part of land was for us new. But thats was punishment and repay for your attack.
Do you think we should refuse to take som land wichone could save us from another red army raid inside our territory? ;)
About Czech,
how do you imagine us, asking for free pass to mongholia , beucose we need to suport mongolinan fighting with japane?
Please not make me laugh, i dont think any country will let enemy army pass their territory if they are not in war with same enemy.
We where not in war with germans in 1938
Stalin did what he think was best for him, at last both, Stalin and hitler had same issue. Rule the world
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry, but the Russian refusal to allow "allies" to use Soviet air bases had one big reason: 90% of the supplies dropped by "allied" planes was seized by Germans. It's a sad truth :(
Air raids to support the Uprising were nothing but another propaganda issue :( Look at that Evil Soviets! They didn't allow us to use their bases to supply Germans! :rolleyes:
Again, it's so ally-ish. Directly supporting the force that fights USSR already on liberated territory...
beucose they drop it at night in to often changing front lines.
How about VVS establishing air supremacy over warsaw, to let allied drop supplies at day?
It was not impossible, still useless but not imposible
-
Originally posted by ramzey
easym easy comerade Boroda l-)
You guys loose war in 1920 but you guys start it
Your troops was close to warsaw and we push you back and stop our forces not going too far in to russia. Som part of land was for us new. But thats was punishment and repay for your attack.
Do you think we should refuse to take som land wichone could save us from another red army raid inside our territory? ;)
On April, 25, 1920, Polish army attacked Soviet troops. On May, 6th, it took Kiev and reached left bank of Dnieper. On May, 14th, Red Army started a counter attack.
Poland was definetly an agressor in 1920. It's a fact.
Originally posted by ramzey
About Czech,
how do you imagine us, asking for free pass to mongholia , beucose we need to suport mongolinan fighting with japane?
Please not make me laugh, i dont think any country will let enemy army pass their territory if they are not in war with same enemy.
We where not in war with germans in 1938
Stalin did what he think was best for him, at last both, Stalin and hitler had same issue. Rule the world
USSR was the only power that offered assistance to Czechslovakia in 1938. Poland at that time was on one side with Hitler and took it's part of Czechoslovakia... :(
I love to see how the history is rewritten.
-
At least Warsaw can be proud of the fact they put a resistance longer then the French :aok
-
Originally posted by ramzey
about what enemy forces behinde russian army lines on belorussia you talking about?
I mean AK. Same force that started an Uprising. They were fighting Soviet Army behind the lines after it liberated Belorussia and Western Ukraine.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I think it was one of the things that led to Winter War: Stalin understood that any "allied" promises are worth nothing :(
Man you are a joke, Stalin was the biggest opportunist on the
planet. You're welcome for all the lend-lease equipment you
received at great cost during WW2 as well.
Funny how little soviet equipment showed up in the western
orders of battle...that french Yak-3 unit the only one I can remember.
-
grrr shouldn't have posted.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Man you are a joke, Stalin was the biggest opportunist on the
planet. You're welcome for all the lend-lease equipment you
received at great cost during WW2 as well.
Funny how little soviet equipment showed up in the western
orders of battle...that french Yak-3 unit the only one I can remember.
He might thank you for the trucks and spam after you thank him for Bagration and Berlin. Or Leningrad, Kursk, Stalingrad and Moscow among many others.
Come to think of it with the amount of blood spilled by the Soviets they dont owe you a thing.
-
Wotan..............dont owe.
Ok what do we owe russia for about berlin or any thing else?
Why would they not owe us nothing just because of the blood they lost?
-
It’s the Ami idiot Rino wants a "thanks" for trucks and spam. Try reading the quote in my reply above.
Also please learn to type out your posts in coherent readable manner. I usually skip your drivel but since your above reply has so few lines I decided to try and decode it.
World War 2 was won on the Eastern Front by Soviet blood. Not because we gave them some trucks or because of D-Day or because allied bombing raids killed thousands of civilians.
Wars are won by armies on the ground. On the Eastern Front those battles were epic in size and violence. That’s were the Wehrmacht bled to death.
When Ami idiots post stupid stuff like "your welcome for lend lease" as if they are owed a "thank you" then they should be made aware that it was through the blood of the Red Army that Hitler was defeated. If they still hold to the belief that a thank you is in order then it’s not much of a stretch considering the sacrifices to demand one back. I hope it’s not to complicated for you to follow along.
-
Hmmm.
On this one:
"At least Warsaw can be proud of the fact they put a resistance longer then the French "
Poland fell in a shorter time than France.
However, Norway took even longer....
And secondly:
"World War 2 was won on the Eastern Front by Soviet blood. Not because we gave them some trucks or because of D-Day or because allied bombing raids killed thousands of civilians. "
I disagree. It was a combined effort thing.
Although the biggest land battles against the Germans were won with a lot of bloodspill on the eastern front, you'd be surprized how big actually the N-African battles were as a comparison, regarding manpower I mean.
The routing of the Tunisian campaign for instance lead to 300.000 German POW's.
Add to that the factors in which the Russians participated only in small scale.
Naval warfare.
Bombing of the Reich.
The fight against Japan.
I'm pretty sure that if the Western allies had left Hitler alone, he would have conquered Russia.
-
Russian should have helped but didn't. If i remember correctly the russians outnumbered the germans by almost 3 to 1 at the end of the war. Or was it at the beginning of Barrberosa. Wotan is 100% correct. the Red Army won the war in Europe. Japan was finished off at midway. The ABombs just speed up the vicory and saved many millions of lives. We payed the soviets they pad us back by winning the war. Anyone who argues otherwise does not have common sense.
I also dont think we would have won in Japan had we had to invade without russian help.
-
russians lost around twenty million i think including civvies and fighting men. they really took brunt of germans military strength in first half of war. man can you imagine what happen if russia and germany go for splitting world and fight as a team?
-
Wotan.......russian front....
I do not know the story behind the reason rino said what he said. I do know, that when an American, is pushed far enough to say something like that , it is normally because, some ungreatfull snob, who may owe his or his countrys life to the sacrifice and bloodshed of Americans, said something to demean America.
The belief that ww2 was won on the eastern front is so moronic it defies reason. It was a combined effort: the poor avg russian soldier was being killed by the germans in front, and the russian gestapo from the back.
The only thing that stopped the germans from defeating russia was 1. german arrogance..2. the russian winter..3.lend lease program, which was excused from repayment.
Trucks and spam: Oh but you are so mistaken...We sent them almost everything they had to fight with, make a list we sent it
Those trucks you stuck your nose up in the air about, the number we sent was amazing...Just how long do you think they could have held out with out the trucks.
No one is impressed with your snotty responses, and I certainaly do not care if you read anything or not. It is obvious you read nothing about history.
-
B17skull.........??
In your post, among other things, you said [WE] would have lost the war with japan.
Does that mean you are an American...
It has been said: It will only take one generation for
America to lose all its freedoms.......I am afraid that
is true..
-
Originally posted by bikekil
of course there is a reason behind every action (or a lack of action).
3,000,000 Polish Jews were murded during the war. About 50k were saved, but that is still the worst record for any Nazi occupied country. What is the reason for that?
-
you know nonthing of japan demaw. Japan used to be where every signle person almost would rather die fighting for their emperor rather than surrender. From my POV Japanese surrending is like committing murder here in the US. Honor was everything to the Japanese. The Marine Corps+ The army couldn't have feilded the amount of troops needed to take over the Japanese islands alone. The brits were dwindling as it was. Unless the USA had drawn upon its youth as Germany had done during the last few months of the war, the US wouldn't have been able get the whole Japanese islands. The Russians on the other Hand still had a fairly big army to attack manchura during the last few months ofthe war.
War not won on the Eastern from BS. The Germans attack Russia with over 3 million men. Just a guess but maybe a little of 50% of what they had. then with thew counter offensive's that just drained more resources. Also russia destroyed the Airforce. They took the oil fields in the ukraine. Which stoppped the Luftwaffe. The Allies in the West just watch then played a small part in defeating germany. The war was pretty much won in 1943 on the eastern front. With the surrender in Stalingrad there was nonthing left to stop the russian's. Army Group South was finish, and with them so were germanies oil fields.
Kursk also Destroyed the Germans. They lost almost a whole panzer Division. That Summer was all down hill. The war was won on the Eastern front.
Had Hilter not attack Russia most of Europe and North Afrika for that matter to would have been under german control until atleast the mid 50's.
lend lease my ass. In case you havn't looked at a map in a long time russia is huge. They would have won anyways. the russia mass production ability is almost as great as the US at the time. They made the T34 in huge quanties then took them by trains over the mountains to the front. The germans couldn't keep up. They did the exact same thing with planes. moved them the where germans couldn't touch them and make them in numbers germans cant match. Lend Lease only gave them temporary planes for only a month. Im sorry but anyone that says lend lease won the war is blinded.
German arrogance ill agree there. Had it been one huge army instead of 3 small armies they would have walked into moscow in 1942. The introduction of the Radial enginegave the germans a chance to counter offense from the air in the winter since it used air to cool its self. In part the Russian winter but the germsn could have over came it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
not in the perceived quantities that the left expects! But they've found them! :)
What a pile of disengenous bull****.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I mean AK. Same force that started an Uprising. They were fighting Soviet Army behind the lines after it liberated Belorussia and Western Ukraine.
id love to see how history is rewriten ;)
is your sources mention after first cooperation with red army,
that how was liberated Vilnus and Lwow (as i remember)
Polish homeland army liberate towns, start uprising and let red army come in. But aafter that this homeland units was forced to give up weapon, surrounded, arrested and send to syberia or killed. After that no wonder they not like to cooperate with red army.
Orders for our troops was avoid contact with russians and not give up weapon.
Are you suprised they fight? would you give up to russians when they fight with germans 5 years?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Wotan.......russian front....
I do not know the story behind the reason rino said what he said. I do know, that when an American, is pushed far enough to say something like that , it is normally because, some ungreatfull snob, who may owe his or his countrys life to the sacrifice and bloodshed of Americans, said something to demean America.
The belief that ww2 was won on the eastern front is so moronic it defies reason. It was a combined effort: the poor avg russian soldier was being killed by the germans in front, and the russian gestapo from the back.
The only thing that stopped the germans from defeating russia was 1. german arrogance..2. the russian winter..3.lend lease program, which was excused from repayment.
Trucks and spam: Oh but you are so mistaken...We sent them almost everything they had to fight with, make a list we sent it
Those trucks you stuck your nose up in the air about, the number we sent was amazing...Just how long do you think they could have held out with out the trucks.
No one is impressed with your snotty responses, and I certainaly do not care if you read anything or not. It is obvious you read nothing about history.
Your "history channel" education is not going to impress anyone. You know nothing about "why Germany was defeated". You just parrot the same Ami nonsense as Rino.
I have a complete inventory (complete as possible) of lend lease equipment sent to Russia. I don't need you to tell me anything.
Winter didn’t defeat Germany, that’s western arrogance. Germany was beaten by the Red Army on the battle field. To suggest anything less only shows your stupidity. America didn't save the Soviet Union, the Soviets would have defeated Hitler without America.
You probably couldn’t even tell me what "Bagration" was without an internet search. You probably couldn’t tell me the scale of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.
My "snotty" response is a direct reply to Ami stupidity.
(I am an American btw)
-
b 17 skull
Yes and for a longer period of time they died for their shogun.
If we did not have the atomic bomb, It is thought we would lose 1.5 million men,that would have been sad. So sorry, if the atomic bomb had not worked there was another plan, We would have done the same to them as germany,without russias help.Why you say? Because the russians DECIDED NOT TO FIGHT.
I am sorry cant help myself.
YOUR AN IDIOT......
If the germans werent so stupid they could have marched into moscow as conquering heros. Why ? because the first damn russian army they ran into wanted to surrender. Why ? because they thought it would be better to live under hitler than stalin. Why? because stalin killed many many many many more russians then hitler ended up killing. '
But no ,the moronic germans and their idiotic superior race crap, made the higher ups feel, they could just run right thru russia. So they shot the russians as they were trying to surrender. The russians had no choice they had to fight. The germans that lived ......lived to regret that desicion.
Sadly that gave rise to the russian gestapo, made up of party people. If ,during a battle, a soldier turned around for any reason, he would be shot. He could not surrender , because he would be shot if anyone was left to shoot him, And they were.... You see.... most of the time they were at the rear . The avg. soldier could not carry a machine gun, only the party soldiers could. the avg soldier was issued the worst weapons and his ammo was rationed.
And you are DUMB enough to believe America could not beat the russians?
Isnt it time for you to crawl back under that rock?
To left and right, sorry for the name calling, guess I cant say I dont do that anymore.
-
The Soviets would not have given up if Moscow fell. Even the Germans knew that.
More of your stupidiity.
-
WOTAN.........America like any other country has had its share of traitors
-
again your showing just how dumb you are.
Hitler more than likely killed more people than stalin.
Lies, lies, lies, and more lies. The russian's didn't just surrender when they came in contact with german's they atleast tried to put up a fight.
lol where the hell do you come up with this information.
Remember to keep on topic, your just tring to go off because you know your wrong. Lend-lease did nonthing winter did nonthing, and german arrogance had a part in it. Tryo to keep on topci next time:aok
-
WOTAN ....I said my piece to you.
skull... lol, I love it.....lies ,lies, and more lies.....those words would fit right in....in 1935 to 1945 germany....or 1917 to 1995 russia...lol....who knows maybe russia is still that way.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
WOTAN.........America like any other country has had its share of traitors
chill dude arguing over second world war doesnt make anyone a traitor. also did some reading and wotan looks like he knows more than a little. germans lost over two million fighting commies less than half a million fighting elsewhere. wotan give me names of two or three good books on eastern front second world war?
-
wow, demaw, you're out of line. Don't get angry either, you're just uninformed.
4/5 of all German forces were deployed on the Eastern front. While D-day and the western front seemed large, it was merely a fart in the overall scheme of things. Russians argued and still argue to this day that the opening of the second front (d-day) was intentionally delayed. There is only minor truth to that. The aerial bombing campaign occupied the equivalent of about 20 divisions (personnel for AA installations, destroyed city repair, aircraft pilots and maintenance). The Mediterranean was also a sideshow in the overall scheme. This was not delayed, however, the fighting in Italy was intense and Rome finally capitulated only days before D-day.
To say "America won the war!!!" is assinine and ignorant. The war by all means was not won by any single country. The overall sacrifice was emmense. ~60 million lives claimed total.
-
Beautiful. Two groups of people both saying that the other's information is wrong, and neither posting any sources. :aok
-
oh jebus thrawn. This is common knowledge :D No seriously
R. A. C. Parker, The Second World War
ISBN: 0-19-280207-0
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
ISBN: 1-56852-036-0
Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
ISBN: 0-671-72868-7
There, go read'em and decide if they're source enough for you :D
-
There are quite few good books on the Eastern Front.
Since Last June was the start of the Bagration here is a good starter for under 20 bucks:
(http://www.ospreypublishing.com/osp_img/titlecovers/P4784AL.JPG)
Zaloga's Osprey book is a nice intro, and it has some very good, Osprey style, illustrations that really clear things up a lot.
"Hitler's Greatest Defeat" by Col. Adair (who worked a lot with David Glantz) is a good study from the Soviet side of Bagration.
Also Neipold's "The Battle for White Russia" is good as well.
For a full look at the War in ther East
Earl Ziemke's two books (Moscow to Stalingrad and Stalingrad to Berlin) are god but dry rerading.
Clark's "Barbarossa" and Glantz's "When Titans Clashed" are also good.
For Kursk Anders Frankson and Niklas Zetterling Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis (Cass Series on the Soviet (Russian) Study of War).
For Stalingrad M. Kehrig - "Stalingrad: Analyse und Dokumentation einer Schlacht"
There are many good unit Histories and books about other specific battles, to many to list.
Most of the above maybe dry in that they are historical examinations rather then day by day accounts.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Your "history channel" education is not going to impress anyone. You know nothing about "why Germany was defeated". You just parrot the same Ami nonsense as Rino.
I have a complete inventory (complete as possible) of lend lease equipment sent to Russia. I don't need you to tell me anything.
Winter didn’t defeat Germany, that’s western arrogance. Germany was beaten by the Red Army on the battle field. To suggest anything less only shows your stupidity. America didn't save the Soviet Union, the Soviets would have defeated Hitler without America.
You probably couldn’t even tell me what "Bagration" was without an internet search. You probably couldn’t tell me the scale of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945.
My "snotty" response is a direct reply to Ami stupidity.
(I am an American btw)
Ok..tell me when did the soviets hit strategic targets in Germany then hero? Also the Japanese were reluctant to engage or even threaten Russia due to the war with the US. Those Siberian troops that counterattacked at Stalingrad were freed up by the lack of threat from the SE.
Stop acting like you're the only one who's ever read a book.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
WOTAN.........America like any other country has had its share of traitors
Having spent 6 years on a fast attack submarine with access to some of the "most secret" secrets it's comical to be called a "traitor" by some one like you.
Get back to your "history channel" education.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Ok..tell me when did the soviets hit strategic targets in Germany then hero? Also the Japanese were reluctant to engage or even threaten Russia due to the war with the US. Those Siberian troops that counterattacked at Stalingrad were freed up by the lack of threat from the SE.
Stop acting like you're the only one who's ever read a book.
Strategic targets were over rated:
THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm)
Richard Overy, in his book Why the Allies Won, makes the following statement about the effectiveness of British and American bombing of the Third Reich: "At the end of January 1945 Albert Speer and his ministerial colleagues met in Berlin to sum up what bombing had done to production schedules for 1944. They found that Germany had produced 35 percent fewer tanks than planned, 31 percent fewer aircraft and 42 percent fewer lorries as a result of bombing. The denial of these huge resources to German forces in 1944 fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies."
On the surface, Speer's analysis tells us that the Allied strategic bombing campaign had a decisive impact on the German war effort in 1944. Based on figures found in Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," the Germans produced in 1944: 17,800 tanks, 39,807 aircraft. So that, on the basis of Speer's statement, they aimed to produce 24,030 tanks and 52,147 aircraft. For comparison, Allied production of tanks and aircraft in 1944 resulted in 51,500 tanks (USSR: 29,000; UK: 5,000; USA: 17,500) and 163,079 aircraft (USSR: 40,300; UK 26,461; USA: 96,318). Therefore, even with the additional production that would have resulted from no bombing at all, the Allies still produce twice as many tanks and more than three times the number of aircraft as the Third Reich.
Such figures do not support Overy's conclusion that bombing Germany had "fatally weakened their response to bombing and invasion and eased the path of Allied armies." In terms of the kind of war of attrition fought in 1944 the additional German production would not have made a decisive difference. Allied production for 1944 is clearly overwhelming. Looking at the military situation on the ground in 1944 is even more telling of how the war is going.
Overy goes on to say: "The indirect effects were more important still, for the bombing offensive forced the German economy to switch very large resources away from equipment for the fighting fronts, using them instead to combat the bombing threat." At least, an ever-increasing number of Luftwaffe units were devoted to the air defense of the Reich as the war progressed. And, new aircraft production shifted towards fighters and away from bombers. The question remains as to whether this impact of the Allied bombing campaign was decisive to the outcome of the war or had just a marginal effect on it.
Furthermore, the converse of Overy's remark was also true. The production of bomber forces represented a significant resource expenditure for the US and especially Great Britain. Was this a worthwhile military expenditure? The results of the campaign are debatable. Certainly the German capitulation did not come about because of the Allied bombing campaign. That honor must go to the land campaigns fought by the allies. So, could the resources devoted to the bomber force been more effectively employed elsewhere?
Perhaps the greatest oversight in an analysis that focuses on the latter part of the war is that the crucial period to consider is from 1941 to 1943. It is in this period that German power is substantial and the possibility of a German military victory exists. How effective was the Allied bomber campaign during this period? According to a table found in the Penguin Atlas of World History, the Allies dropped about 10,000 tons on Germany in 1940, 30,000 tons in 1941, 40,000 tons in 1942 and 120,000 tons in 1943 while in 1944 they drop 650,000 tons and in 1945, about 500,000 tons are dropped in the first four months (at that rate, 1.5 million tons would be dropped over the course of 1945). Considering that Germany dropped about 37,000 tons on the UK in 1940, another 22,000 tons in 1941, with a few thousand tons every year thereafter with marginal results, there is little reason to believe that the scale of Allied bombing between 1940 and 1943 was substantial enough to alter the military balance in 1941 or 1942 either. Yet those are critical years to consider because that was when Soviet survival hung in the balance and British possessions in the Middle East were threatened by conquest.
Order of Battle - Operation Uranus (18-19 November 1942)
Red Army South-West front
Representatives of the Stavka
Army General G.K.Zhukov.
Colonel-General of Artillery N.N. Voronov.
Colonel-General A.M. Vasilevsky.
South-Westfront
General N.F. Vatutin.
21th Army.
General I.M. Chistyakov.
Rifle Divisions :
63rd
76th
96th
277th
293rd
333rd
Tank Regiments :
1st
2nd
4th Guards
4th Tank Corps : A.G. Kravchenko.
3rd Guards Cavalry Corps : P.A. Pliev.
5th Tank Army.
General P.L. Romanenko.
Rifle Divisions :
14th Guards
47th Guards
50th Guards
119th
159th
346th
1st Tank Corps : V.V Butkov.
26th Tank CCorps : A.G. Rodin.
8th Cavalry Corps
1st Guards Army
General D.D Leyushenko.
Rifle Divisions :
1st
153rd
197th
203rd
266th
278th
South-West front - Reserve :
1st Guards Mechanised Corps
2nd Air Army
17th Air Army
Major General S.A. Krasovsky.
Red Army Don front
Representatives of the Stavka
Army General G.K.Zhukov.
Colonel-General of Artillery N.N. Voronov.
Colonel-General A.M. Vasilevsky.
Don Front
Colonel General K.K. Rokossovsky.
66th Army.
Major General A.S. Zhadov.
Rifle Divisions :
64th
99th
116th
226th
299th
343rd
Tank Brigade :
58th
24th Army
General I.V. Galanin.
Rifle Divisions :
49th
84th
120th
173rd
233rd
260th
273rd
Tank Brigade :
10th
16th Tank Corps.
65th Army
Lieutenant General P.I. Batov.
Rifle Divisions :
4th Guards
27th Guards
40th Guards
23th
24th
252nd
258th
304th
321th
Tank Brigade :
121st
16th Air Army
Major General S.I. Rudenko.
Red Army Stalingrad ront
Representatives of the Stavka
Army General G.K.Zhukov.
Colonel-General of Artillery N.N. Voronov.
Colonel-General A.M. Vasilevsky.
Stalingrad Front
Colonel-General A.I.Yeremenko.
N.S. Khrushchev.
62nd Army.
General V.I. Chuikov.
Rifle Divisions :
13th Guards : A.I. Rodimtsev.
37th Guards : V.G. Zholudev.
39th Guards : S.S. Guriev.
45th
95th : V.A. Gorishny.
112th
138th : I.I. Lyudnikov.
193th : F.N.Smekhotvorov.
196th
244th
284th : N.F. Batyuk.
308th : L.N. Gurtiev.
10th NKVD Rifle Division : Rogatin.
Marine Infantry Brigade :
92nd
Special Brigades :
42nd
115th
124th
149th
160th
Tank Brigades :
84th
137th
189th
64th Army.
General M.S Shumilov.
Rifle Divisions :
36th Guards
29th
38th
157th
204th
Marine Infantry Brigade :
154th
Special Brigades :
66th
93rd
96th
97th
Tank Brigades :
13th
56th
57th Army.
General F.I. Tolbukhin.
Rifle Divisions :
169th
422nd
Special Brigade :
143rd
Tank Brigades :
90th
235th
13th Mechanized Corps : T.I. Tanashchishin
51st Army.
General N.I. Trufanov.
Rifle Division :
15th Guards
Special Brigade :
38th
Tank Brigade :
254th
4th Mechanizes Corps : V.T. Volsky
4th Cavalry Corps : Shapkin
28th Army.
?
Rifle Divisions :
34th Guards
248th
Special Brigades :
52nd
152nd
159th
Tank Brigade :
6th Guards
Stalingrad front - Reserve :
330th Rifle Division
85th Tank Brigade
8th Air Army.
General T.T. Khryukin.
Which one of those are the "siberian counter attacking troops"?
As I said you are a product of the "History Channel".
-
Soviet brigade = Regiment?
Tronsky
-
1940. Summer.
The British accept a truce with Hitler. They keep their Homeland and their colonies.
1941. January. The Japanese decide that as a combined force, the US and British are too strong to deal with. There is but one old foe who might be looked at, - RUSSIA.
1941. Springtime. Hitler now has his FULL force ready to move, befor Stalin does. That includes most of the Kriegsmarine moving in from the North, and all forces that otherwise would have been in N-Africa and on the Western front. The LW's strength is double.
1941 MAY. Hitler invades Russia. He is at the gates of Moscow in August. Japan grabs the opportunity and moves in from the east.
1941 October. All Major Russian cities have fallen. The remaining Russian forces are scattered and without support. Hitler stops moving and prepares to dig in for the winter.
1942 October. The Red army has been crushed and almost all Russian industry is in German Hands. The Japanese keep sweeping up large areas on the eastern sides of the former USSR.
At least that's how it may have went. Imagine that the force that hit the USSR had initially been twice as strong, then four times. No chance....
-
thanks wotan. makes sense to me you sound like submariner "smart guy". :)
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Soviet brigade = Regiment?
Brigade = "brigada", a unit of several batallions or regiments. Something between regiment and division.
http://encycl.yandex.ru/cgi-bin/art.pl?art=bse/00010/27400.htm&encpage=bse&mrkp=/yandbtm7%3Fq%3D1148946878%26p%3D0%26g%3D0%26d%3D3%26ag%3Denc_abc%26tg%3D1%26p0%3D0%26q0%3D402606944%26d0%3D0%26script%3D/yandpage%253F
-
So, like an english Brigade, yes?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, like an english Brigade, yes?
Probably. There was a big difference in unit names between countries. For example: in Crimean War 1854-55 British division was equal to Russian regiment.
Brigade usually means a separate unit used to "strengthen" troops, like heavy artillery or tank brigade. Also some units are called "brigades" like S-200 SAM complex: it contains of several "divizion" (artillery term equal to "batallion"): 3 fire divizions, technical and radiotechnical divizions plus some other units.
-
Ty Boroda.
Can't remember how many Battalions it needed to form a Brigade. 4 maybe?
Then you have X many Brigades forming a division.
The Brits at least had this rather fixed in WW2.
Maybe the same system?
-
Wotan.......attack subs....
There was only the normal name calling on this thread, until you and skull started writing. The first thing I gleaned about you, was the fact you were well educated, and most likely had access to more areas of information than anyone in here.... there might be one exception.
The other thing was, you were a pompass ass, full of your self,and quite elitist in nature. Hence the name calling and put downs that permeated your post. I admit ,after last night ,I can no longer say ..I never do that..
Both Octavius and Anonymous addressed me,and I accept their criticism,I will soon address both of them,and try to explain my reasons for my actions.
I wonder what difference it makes to anything, that you had access, to most secret documents,or were on an attack sub.[ if you were]
There are many I could use to make my point, I have chosen two. Did not Benedict Arnold have access to secret documents? Wasnt Jimmy Carter in subs/ or had something to do with them.?One was a traitor , the other hates America and loves the idea of a one world gov. I admit my error and believe you are either a communist,in which case you are much more dangerous than broda,or you are a carter clone.
My cousin retired from the Army a full colonal, he was in army intell. stationed in germany. I have a friend, retired engineer ,around 86, has done some side work for me. He was a major or lt colonal in 1936 assigned to the general staff in poland.That is why I was on this post ,to help bikekil try to get over his anger.[ My friend still has the blue numbers on his wrist.] I believe common sense will reveal the reason I mentioned this.
Here is a list of your statements I found to be very telling.
1. Winter didnt defeat germany, thats western arrogance.
2.America didnt save the soviet union, the soviets would have defeated hitler with out America.
3.Britian and france after ww1 screwed up the world
4.The failure of a soviet, g.b./france alliance wasnt a result of what the soviets wanted, but because of what little england and france offered in returned.
5.the soviets wanted very much an alliance with g/b and france.
6. several times:...its the American idiot
7. its American propoganda.
8 America needs to thank the soviet union for berlin...
9. you just parrot American nonsense.
this is enough but there is more....
Yes, Woton very shrewd writing...nice nuances...education, I am not even in your league...I was only able to evaluate your writing a very tiny bit , because, one day,a long time ago, for fun,
my cousin showed me a little bit of what to look for.
Now I shall just evanesce.
-
You can't even spell my nic correctly let alone put together a readable response.
I left the door wide open for you to offer proof of your statements. I did so without providing information that would prejudice your reply.
Prove your point.
Can you provide a by year break down of "lend lease equipment" sent to the Soviets?
If you could and you were honest you would see that during those crucial years where the Wehrmacht had a realistic possibility of achieving their pre- Barbarossa goals (do you even know what those were?) lend lease was insignificant and the Soviets on their own not only were able to stem the tide but were in the process of full reversal.
There's no question that the world worked together to defeat Hitler but that doesn't change the facts that the Soviets carried the majority of the burden. In fact even without the rest of the world the odds were well in the Soviets favor for full victory. The war would have dragged on longer of course.
70% of Wehrmacht casualties were on the Eastern Front. The majority of German war graves aren't in France but across the Russian Steppes. You are an idiot if you fall to comprehend the epic struggle that was taking place, not in Normandy or the skies over Berlin but on the Steppes.
When you make an outrageous claim its up to you to offer sources.
I don't believe most of your biography. A quick review of your replies in this thread works against your claim.
Calling some one a "traitor" because they don’t agree with your scanted view of History is comical at best. At its worst it shows your true character. I stand by my opinion that you are in fact an idiot.
My "source" for such a claim is revealed within your replies.
Look at Rino's last post
Also the Japanese were reluctant to engage or even threaten Russia due to the war with the US.
He has no knowledge in history when he makes such stupid statements.
On 13 April 1941 the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact was signed. This followed the defeat of the Japanese in August 1939. The Japanese were routed by a Soviet style "blitzkrieg" which pre-dated the German "blitzkrieg". After the battle the Soviets shifted their forces west to aid in their own invasion of Poland, Baltics etc. The Nazi-Soviet Pact was announced on 23 August 1939. This, along with their defeat, helped inspire the Japanese to make peace with the Soviets. Japan was an ally of Germany and Germany was an "ally" of the Soviets. From here until '45 no state of war existed between Japan and the Soviets.
Japan didn’t want to engage the Soviets because they got their arses kicked and the Soviets weren't threatening them. The Soviets had their hands full in the west. Outer Mongolia and Siberia had no real military value to the Japanese.
Once the Soviets agreed to war with Japan in ‘45 their response was a larger military campaign then what they put up against Berlin. They routed the Japanese along a huge front in Manchuria, invade the Kurile Islands etc.
If you doubt this do your own research on the scale of the Soviet assault in Manchuria.
Regardless of the specifics I stated above these types of claims made by folks like Rino and yourself have no reality in historical fact.
If pointing that out makes me a "traitor" then so what. I was never on "your side" anyway.
-
I forgot one thing, as for being called a "communist" I find that more comical then being called a “traitor”.
A Russian-Jewish immigrant on this thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124468&highlight=C18) called me a Nazi.
In threads where I spoke out against the Ami “nuke all the *******s” reaction to 9/11 I was called another thing and yet another when I was willing to give GWB the benefit of doubt with his reasoning behind invading Iraq.
One thing is clear from your replies in this thread is that once you realize can’t win on facts and you will reach for anything to lash out. I may have called you an idiot but the facts back that up.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Probably. There was a big difference in unit names between countries. For example: in Crimean War 1854-55 British division was equal to Russian regiment.
Brigade usually means a separate unit used to "strengthen" troops, like heavy artillery or tank brigade. Also some units are called "brigades" like S-200 SAM complex: it contains of several "divizion" (artillery term equal to "batallion"): 3 fire divizions, technical and radiotechnical divizions plus some other units.
In the US the word Brigade and Regiment often are used interdepdently. The old Warsaw pact doctrine had Regiments (Motorized Rifle, Mech Rifle, Tank, etc.) but you are right, they aren't the same as the US Regiments. The 1st ACR of the US has much more organic support than a similar Soviet Armored Regiment. Brigades weren't used all that much with the older Soviet divisions (they had them, but they went with Regiments more).
From what I understand this is changing and the old Regimental system is evolving into smaller brigade size units. Like the United States, I understand the concept of large division size elements is becoming passe. Smaller units are easier to move and deploy.
-
wotan what was closest germans ever came to defeat russia in second world war? consider me a student. demaw1 lighten up you seem alright think of it like this country loses twenty million people you dont ask them thanks for trucks they paid with lives of their soldiers and people.
-
Australian WW2 Brigades were made of 3 infantry battalions (plus the usual assorted additional HQ/supply/machingun etc companies) roughly the equivilant of a regiment, with 3 brigades making an Australian division.
I agree with Wotan's argument about the Russians carrying the lion share of the fighting and burden against the germans.
Commonsense (or even the history channel) would demonstrate the Luftwaffe, and Whermacht were bleed dry on the eastern front.
Most of the german divisions in the west before and immediately after D-Day were mostly complete rubbish, or 'elite' units in france to rest and refit after being smashed by the Russians.
Tronsky
-
give me a few ill post division on eastern and western front just before DDay. Got a book on it.
-
Anonymous.....taken to heart....
I accept your criticism and after further analysis have changed my mind. I do ask ,if you have time, to read my last reply to wotan before this one, I do not think it will be a waste of time.
You said he knew more than a little, and you are right, as a matter of fact he knows a lot more than that. I ask that you dont judge me until you have read this post and his.
I dont remember the number of men on each front. Perhaps your numbers are right. I know the land battles in russia were massive, I just became angry at how, history was being revised.I felt an even handed approach to russias part was warranted. If you have read my other post, you will see how slanted most of what he says is. It is right out of the cold war, soviet union, hand book of misdirection, with solid truth,and revisionist history thrown in. ....Example...
His thesis on strategic bombing ,was well written. But look closely, what did it really say.1. Richard overys book was wrong,which of course means genl Le Mays book, along with others are wrong. Dont get me wrong all books contain mistakes or wrong deductions.
In a nut shell wotan was saying the bombing effert was misguided, accomplished little, and the resources would have been better used else where..Why?Well wotan says... because that period was when the survival of russia hung in the balance...after reading my reply to wotan, reading what he said, can you see the pattern? We should have given the resources to russia.....russia would have defeated hitler sooner blah blah.
common sense time...
The bombing succeed at least in this way.
1. it tied up many fighter squadrens,that other wise would have been used against the allies and russia. I am sure russia would have liked that.
2.because of this bombing factories were converted to fighter production only, no bombers..I am sure you know what that meant.
3. thousands up on thousands of anti-aircraft guns of all calibers with crews, would have been released for use at the front. How do you think the avg. foot soldiers on both fronts would have liked that?
4 the bombing interrupted ,oil...ballbearing..aircraft production...to what degree ,who cares?
Ok he did say england was in danger in the middle east.
That is what is called misdirection. Also he said.....the bombing campaign did not cause the defeat of germany....the honor of germanys defeat goes to the land campaigns fought by the allies.
Look closely...both he and skull have said the war was won by russia on the ground.... you know he has said that, youve read it..this time he says allies, but that is misdirection, and because they have said it was russia every other time, most people, me included just pass over it, but russia is in our minds. Many people here will say the same about me they always do but I ask, which one is it russia or allies. It does make a difference.
Now here is the kicker, this post is not about bombing or fighting on the ground. It is about how bad America is and how good russia is. America made the wrong decisions, costing the lives of many russians and others. Remember the quotes from my post to wotan.? Add those to this ,what do you have.?.
1.Russia won the war
2Russia didnt need America would have beat hitler on her own.
3Lend lease blah....a few trucks and some spam.
4 America should thank russia for winning the war.
Now if the bombing campaign was so wrong ,ask wotan why stalin sent several letters to roosevelt demanding more bombing runs on german production. Better yet ask him why stalin never asked but always demanded?
The letters written to FDR. was part of a series on [You Were There] Narreated by Walter Cronkite. The original letter was made availible by the library of the congress of the united states of america.
Yes wotan is good, does he sound like a sub officer? As far as I know , those that ship out on subs are totally checked out. But maybe.
-
Anonymous..........sucked in...
Anonymous I am so sorry you are being sucked in...DONT BE THE STUDENT of this guy....Be a researcher....Read the books of those that matter first......Fdr the war president ,Churchills book,eisonhowers book,nimtzs book, lemays book...yuck...ok even montgomerys book, yes and genl marshall,or pattens book please for your own sake read some of these first.... wotan says 20million russians died.....ask him how many did russia herself kill...ask how many white russians stalin killed after they let out of german pow camps....dont believe me put me on that list where you never hear from me again.....just do this yourself.
-
Demaw,
The only revisionism going here is yours in how you attempt to redefine the thread.
During the crucial years when the Germans still had a chance at victory the western allied bombing campaign achieved very little in terms of collapsing the German economy. It wasn’t until '44 and '45 where the greatest impact of the bombing campaign was felt. But even then German production was high; they produced more aircraft for instance etc...
The greatest impact on Germany war industry late in the war was when the Romanians switched sides and the Germans had lost access to their oil.
This was accomplished by troops on the ground, Soviet troops. At this point in the war it was all but over for Hitler. The statistics are there for you to examine. It’s the same with lend lease. The Soviets didn’t receive the lion share until the situation was by far in their favor.
So these aren’t my points. These are undisputable facts. I provided you a link to the
THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY (http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm)
Try reading it. It is hardly Soviet post war propaganda. You will see it’s just as stated in the quote above. The Bombing campaign didn’t reach its goals until late in the war, at a point of time when Germany's defeat was inevitable.
Your view is skewed and unbalanced and very much biased. But either way I didn’t bring up strategic bombing your pal Rino did. I didn’t bring up lend lease your pal Rino did. I didn’t bring up who owes who a "thank you" Rino did. So quit lying about what's been said in this thread.
I also never mentioned England and the Middle East in terms of World War 2. I said following World War 1 the French and British actions in the Middle East directly led to the situation we face now.
Did you need a lesson on that as well?
All these are prime examples of you distorting what has been said in this thread. You have yet to provide facts to support any one of your points or any facts to counter one of mine.
I never replied to you until you said something to me. I care nothing about you outside of the few replies you made to me. As I said above I don’t read your posts because they are for the most part unreadable and mostly a lot of drivel.
How about making an effort to put together a coherent post with sources and facts to support your view? Leave all the psycho babble to the professionals and just put together something that contains more then just Ami arrogant nonsense.
Anonymous,
Volumes have been written on the subject of how the Germans could have defeated the Soviets. I for one don’t think it a realistic possibility. There may have been a small opportunity for the Germans to achieve the original goals but a series of mistakes, bad luck and fierce Soviet resistance (kick the door in and the whole rotten structure will collapse; kind of like Iraq but on a larger scale) proved insurmountable .
Even if the Germans achieved their goals the world would have rallied and sent massive aid to what was left of the Soviet Union. America would have landed troops in Iran and kept oil flowing and supply routes open. I don’t think the Soviets would have ever surrendered out right. Look at Leningrad for instance.
-
wotan says 20million russians died
I never offered any figure. Did you even read my replies?
Why don’t you tell us how many the Soviets killed after all it’s your point right?
Keep posting "facts" like that and you may change my mind about you being an idiot. I am starting to think you have a serious mental defect.
-
22 million soviets died.
Without the Effort of the Western allies, how many then?
50 perhaps? or a 100 including starvations and so on?
-
anonymous....
If you read Mc Aurthors book first ,what do you have to lose.
When it comes to japan, russia and america at the end of the war. Who would know more?..You will learn from the horses mouth the relationship involving these three countries. To this day he is well respected in japan,for many reasons.One of them was the way he protected japan from russia, stood like a stone wall and made them back down.I wont even say why, read for your self.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
anonymous....
If you read Mc Aurthors book first ,what do you have to lose.
When it comes to japan, russia and america at the end of the war. Who would know more?..You will learn from the horses mouth the relationship involving these three countries. To this day he is well respected in japan,for many reasons.One of them was the way he protected japan from russia, stood like a stone wall and made them back down.I wont even say why, read for your self.
ill read em all when i get the time. second world war not my forte really but i think safe bet russia was pretty tired of fighting by the end. also wotan didnt tell me twenty million russians kia i did some reading thru afternoon and saw that mentioned more than once. and i dont doubt that was same back then as it is now and always been the guys who run the gulags and shoot the political prisoners in back of head are never the guys fighting on the line. safe bet that twenty million was civvies who got caught in war unable to get clear and soldiers fighting on the line. evil leadership of soviet union are separate from some twenty years old russian packin a rifle fighting the germans to me. sadly the scum most responsible for the really heinous bs are never the guys who pay the bill. bosnia was kind of a break from the pattern so maybe there is justice every once in awhile eventually.
-
Originally posted by Angus
22 million soviets died.
Without the Effort of the Western allies, how many then?
50 perhaps? or a 100 including starvations and so on?
Didn't Stalin account for a big chunk of that?
-
Originally posted by Torque
Didn't Stalin account for a big chunk of that?
i dont think so but wotan seems to be guy to ask. stalin did lots of damage before war and screwed over a bunch of loyal russians after war because he considered them a threat. guys coming off line fighting germans for four years arent going to exactly bow down before some commisar "telling them how it really is" i think.
-
~Touche~ DeMaw
<<>>
-
Originally posted by AWMac
~Touche~ DeMaw
<<>>
Another Farm boi idiot speakth.
As to how evil Stalin is I have many posts on the subject, it’s not worth the effort to revisit it here. But no matter how evil he is both the Brits and Ami's were his "ally" and agreed to his version of post war Europe.
Macarthur can't offer a non bias view of his roll in the war any more then Tommy Franks can in his new book about Iraq or any General in any war.
They very well aren’t going to tell you their errors. But that is beside the point. There are any number of books that explain the Japanese / Soviet relations during the war. There are quite a few that explain the Soviets roll in aiding in the final defeat of Japan.
I have offered book references; de'idiot has offered nothing that comes close to being a source or fact. He just regurgitates whatever history channel has spoon fed him.
-
WW2 casualty figures:
The on-line edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica contains a Table listing estimated casualties for most countries involved in and affected by the Second World War. The information from that table, augmented by information from a web page by Phil Stokes, is reflected in the following three graphs and the subsequent table.
(http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/wwii1.gif)
(http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/wwii2.gif)
(http://www.fathersforlife.org/images/wwii3.gif)
-
Response to wotan....
You have seen wotans replys and you have seen mine. You have seen me lay out the best I can, the typical soviet /leftist propaganda .I showed ,misdirection, hard and sound truth, and revisionist history...I am sure I lost most conservatives on this one.
I only kept at it because of one young man,that was awed by a navel officer,a sub man.
I never said everything wotan said was a lie, I never put down the russian soldier or citizen, hell If the germans would have had me I would have chosen hitler over stalin to.
I never said we gave the same amount of lend lease in 42 as in 44/45. how could we , we werent geared up. I thought even the moderates in here would know, that was a given....Guess i was wrong.
I put down on my last reply to wotan ...[1 thru 9 ] some of his quotes.
and you didnt see the pattern, I was in his words an American idiot. Hey OCTIVIOUS, whens the last time you called some one an American idiot....yesterday??? I think not. Have we started talking that way now? All of you are right ,I am a country boy with a 6 th grade education. Funny Id feel a lot safer with a country boy next to me in a fox hole than most of you.
What I objected to was the total disreguard for the bravery and dedication of all the men from all the countrys that fought.Unless of course you were russian.
One of you said d-day was just a fart in total scheme of things.
that the german troops were rubish that faced us at normandy. He said to say America won the war is ignorant. I Have never heard anyone in serious conversation say that..Yet of all the times it was said here, that russia won the war,russia would have beat germany without America..he said nothing.
How many here believe, that if I could bring the smallest man that died hitting the beach , back to life, that this person, would have the guts to say to his face, the germans you fought were rubish.
I will say this:
America is the only country that could have fought germany to a stand still by herself....and maybe won.
If germany had attacked russia and not been already at war she would have went thru russia like a knife thru butter.
When germany attacked russia, her war production and economic mobilization was only at half. In 42 when the germans were at moscow,hitler thought he had it wrapped up....So he ordered a large scale cut back in war production and started recalling some units, against his generals wishes. does anyone wonder what might have happened if he had listen to his generals.
I ONLY HAVE 2 MORE POINTS.
WOTAN said, the greatist impact on germany late in the war was when romanians switched sides and the germans lost access to the oil...This was accomplished by soviet troops....russia again? contrasted by this.
Because of the bombing raids on polesti and luenas, from may 44 on, consumption of oil exceeded production. Accumulated stocks were rapidly used, and in 5 months were exhausted.
Still cant put it all together?
As I said before, wotans whole point is, bombing did little good....should have given supplies to russia....russia could then win war faster than she did. contrast this
The german experance suggests that even a first class military power ,rugged and resilient as germany, can not live long under full scale exploitation of air weapons. Thus allied air weapons were decisive in the war in europe.
The significance of full domination of the air over the enemy must be emphasized. That domination of the air is essential . With out it, attacks on the bascic economy and war production ability, by ground forces cannot be delivered.
Can anyone challange the truth of these 2 statements.....oh, please do..... So wotan at the end of ww2.....who had the air force?...war production and economic strength....the navy....the aircraft carriers.....food production. manufacturing....baseball...T ell me anyone out there, by what streach of the imagination do you believe russia would have defeated America in a war.
George w,Ball
Harry bowman
Theodore Wright.
Charles C Cabot...secretary
bottom line.....he has an agenda......I dont.
therefore the name calling and put downs= misdirection
never answering questions Why?
Thank you, from a dumb American idoit, that can do nothing but drival.
-
lol you still persist. Russia is bigger and will always have big manufacturing capablities. Its natural Resources are huge and i mean huge. There is no possible way an army of 3 million can defeat an army of 10 million on a 2000 mile front.
Again Allies opposion on normady was dwarfed by the massive German armies on the Eastern Front.
The German's have around 11 Division by normdy, 3 of which were panzers, another 2 infantry. The Rest Costal Defenses.
While during the Same time on the Eastern front the Germans have 12 Armies.
18th
16
3rd (panzer)
4th
9th
2nd
4th (Panzer)
1st (panzer)
Ruminian 4th
8th and
6th.
that made up 3 army groups.
2 Divisions= Corp
2-3 Corps= An army.
The Soveits had Army Groups, which comprised of a bunch of Army Armies.
Army Group Leningrad (Cmdr Govorov)
Army Group 2nd Baltic (Cmdr Popov)
Army group 1st Baltic (Cmdr Bagramyan
Army Group 2nd White Russian (Cmdr Sokolovski)
Army Group 1st White Russian (Cmdr Rokossovski)
Army Group 1st Ukrainian (Cmdr Zhukov)
Army Group 2nd Ukrainian (Cmdr Konev)
Army Group 3rd Ukrainian (Cmdr Malinovski)
Army Group 4th Ukrainian (Cmdr Tolbukhin)
then also have a single lone army on Crimea during D Day.
Those Russian Numbers are staggering. Around 2000-3000 men are in a division.
that means around 4000-6000 men in a Corps.
12000-18000 in an army.
im going to say around 30k-50k in a Army group.
somehow i know those calcuations aren't right.
Most of The German Divisnios were up at Calais. you have roughly 11 Divsions in a 60miles x 60 miles area up at Calais. The 11 normady divisnios i said were spreate out of 120x 120 roughly. You also had a few HQ's in that area including.
Army Group B (Cmdr Rommel) about 40 miles West of Paris.
XLVII (Panzer) Corp HQ.
7th Army down to the south (Cmdr Dolllmann)
The Only Thing Remotly close to an Airforce was the 3rd Airforce about 30 miles to the South East of Paris.
While i count 4 Airforce Divsion and a airforce Group AEAF and the 1x Tactic Air Corp.
Sorry the Guys on normandy had it easy compared to the Russian front.
anyway my source is.
The West Point Atleas of American Wars. Volume II 1900-1953
Compiled by The Department of Military Art and Engineering
United States Military Academy.
West Point, New York.
-
Bottom line Russia gets her bellybutton kicked by afganistan..there for what 2 ..3 years?
America defeats afganistan in 4 weeks turns around and rolls thru iraq in 8 weeks. If America as ruthless as russia was there would be nothing in Iraq now but some morning and evening prayers.
You want to put chart up ? put one up that shows how many russian troops dead compared to ours in afganistan.
-
That Russia is a complete Different Russia than during WW2. Also consider the Afgans where getting help from none other than the United States. When we went in there they had no help. Nice try please go back to watching history channel.
-
The raids against Ploesti did not halt oil production until May '44. Speer estimated 6-8 weeks before they could be repaired. Ploesti wasn’t awash until the Soviets gained control.
As stated to you many times even air raids on oil production, like that of most other vital German war industries, wasn't enough to stop production until it was already evident that Germany had lost the war. The reason they had lost the war was the Soviets had ground them to death on the Eastern Front. The LW flew almost 350000 sorties over the eastern front and less then half that in the West.
I didn't say "bombing did little" as a blanket statement. Quote me directly saying that; be sure to get it in the correct context.
Here I will quote exactly what I said:
During the crucial years when the Germans still had a chance at victory the western allied bombing campaign achieved very little in terms of collapsing the German economy. It wasn’t until '44 and '45 where the greatest impact of the bombing campaign was felt. But even then German production was high; they produced more aircraft for instance etc...
I also said previous to the above that the effects of strategic bombing were overrated. I then offered a source that clearly showed that strategic bombing during the vital periods of the war had only a marginal impact on how the war would turn. That's completely different then saying "bombing did little". Why do you flat out lie about what it is I have stated? Anyone here can go check it for themselves.
No one is talking about "air superiority". Blown up factories didn’t stop the LW. USAAF fighters shooting down German aircraft did. LW production in '44 was 40000 aircraft.
(There are so many misspelled words in the below statement that I hate to quote it...)
The german experance suggests that even a first class military power ,rugged and resilient as germany, can not live long under full scale exploitation of air weapons. Thus allied air weapons were decisive in the war in europe.
Allied air power was not brought up to "full scale exploitation" or "Air Dominance" until '44. By then the war was over anyway. You are taking things out of context and purposely manipulating them in the very way you accuse me of doing. Any one can verify that.
Allied air weapons were only decisive in the later part of the war. At which point the situation on the ground was already dire for the Wehrmacht.
What I objected to was the total disreguard for the bravery and dedication of all the men from all the countrys that fought.Unless of course you were russian.
Once again you resort to lying. I never said anything questioning the bravery or dedication of the rest of world in seeing Hitler defeated. You have made that up.
Any thing that remotely resembles that was in direct reply to the Ami idiot Rino. I explained that to you and even asked you if you understood it. Either you were too stupid to understand or you are just lying now to gain sympathy.
-
Wotan....
I believe I said may 44 I DID,I DID say may 44.....I got your number wotan....took a while.....but I got your number.
I dont care what spear said ,5 months or so after may 44 the oil was of no account...and the mighty russians had not taken the fields yet. Spin it any way you want to I have proof.
Oh I see now it is stop production is it....no way we didnt talk about stop production. There is always some production, the idea is to reduce production to the point that the enemy is really hurting.. As you say germany was still producing planes etc. Thats ok I will take your first flip and leave your 2nd flop alone.
Again...It was not evident in 44 that germany had lost the war. It was likely but not evident...Buy the way. If we had not greatly reduced the fuel when we did. how would russia had handled those 1800 tigers that were ready to roll?
Under no circumstances did....the soviets grinding down the germans as you say win the war. Again this type of war could not be won with out air power. You didnt come close to german war production. They were in moscow in 42, they were tearing apart your war production effert as they were going along.
Do you have any idea, what would have happened, if hitler had not cut back on war production, and start removing units until he was sure moscow was taken?....What if we were not at war with him, we were not bombing hell out of him ,and germany only had to face you. You would be up the creek without a paddle.
Bombing.....
I said , little effect...........you said......marginal.......what s the differance?
All you and germany were doing, was moving armies back and forth for a long period of time, after they for some stupid reason stopped at moscow.
I gave you the quotes about air power being decisive in ww2. With out our air power ,germany would have chewed you up and spit you out....It was a combined effert, America didnt win the war....But without America , germany would have won it.
and America was the only country that could have fought germany to a stand still / or maybe won alone.
I have read your book.....I have your number.... I have found my book.....and I have proof for most of what I have said. Believe what you want ...I am done
-
You have nothing but incoherent babble.
You claimed this:
As I said before, wotans whole point is, bombing did little good
You are a ****ing liar. I pointed that out.
That's not at all what said and any one with half a brain can go back and read it.
My "whole point" in replying to Rino about strategic bombing was to show that the effect of the bombing at the time when it was most needed wasn't realized and in fact it wasn't until '44 when the war had already swung that the bombing campaign had its greatest impact. By that time the war was already over.
Low and behold and in full idiocy you post a reply that confirms my point 100% and then you claim it as proof you are "right".
You truly are an idiot.
Do I need to quote it all again for you or can you take it upon yourself to go back and reread it?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Bottom line Russia gets her bellybutton kicked by afganistan..there for what 2 ..3 years?
America defeats afganistan in 4 weeks turns around and rolls thru iraq in 8 weeks. If America as ruthless as russia was there would be nothing in Iraq now but some morning and evening prayers.
You want to put chart up ? put one up that shows how many russian troops dead compared to ours in afganistan.
to many difference demaw1. tech difference conflict different pakistan was staging area where muj getting guns money medicine and training from west and pakistan. i was in afghanistan and ive talked to russians who were in afghanistan very diff conflicts. russian combat troops do well against muj but muj get smart and get some modern training and start hitting rear echelon and supply lines and such. and c4i of coalition in afghanistan is far ahead of anything russians had.
-
Oh I see now it is stop production is it
You can change it to "vitally impacts production" if you want the fact remains in 1944 the Wehrmacht was being defeated on all fronts. The allies were out producing Hitler in every industry imaginable. The war was all but over. Any extra production in 1944 would not have change the outcome.
Even with the reductions in production due to the bombing campaign in '44 the Germans were producing more things like tanks and aircraft then they had previously. It was of no consequence.
During the crucial periods the bombing campaign had little effect on deciding which way the war would turn. Lend lease didn’t either. It was the Red Army that reversed the situation by fighting and destroying the Wehrmacht on the Steppes of Russia.
You haven't posted one thing that contradicts that point.
-
demaw relax man you really reading way to much into things. i am far from young and i respect submariner because on few occasion i work with or around them i learn you cant have small brain and be navy nuke man. also didnt see where wotan say he was an "o" but he said six years in which leads me to think he was an "edog" god bless him. i think you reading in to much. nobody saying americans at war didnt matter or died for nothing. just facts of war battles bigger between german and russian. no doubt that us and uk being involved saved lives of civilian all over europe and russia and saved some russian soldier.
-
I didn't post the fact I was in the USN or on a submarine to garner respect but to contrast that against his accusation that I was a "traitor". They didn't let "traitors" do they job I did.
I enlisted in the USN after High School not so much out of "patriotism" but because of the opportunity my country and in particular the USN offered. It was clearly a "selfish" decision.
I spent my time and when I got out I got a job at an electric generation station where I am still employed. There's nothing unique or remarkable about my service in the Navy. I just did my job and repaid the debt I owed for my education.
I was not an Officer and never claimed to be.
I will ask him again to please stop misclassifying and misquoting what I have said.
-
Demaw,
Might as well hang it up, the current PC reworked version of
history being taught today is that the USSR won WW2 all by itself.
Sort of like the Tuskegee airmen, Navaho code talkers and
Nisei infantry beat the Axis all by themselves while 30 million
white guys sat around with their thumbs up their butts.
I certainly don't deny their important contributions, but they were
only parts of a whole as concerns the war effort.
Yes, the Soviets certainly used their advanced meatgrinder
tactics to defeat the German invasion. Their T-34s and Il-2s were
class of the world at the time on their introduction. They were
fortunate enough to have a large enough territory to be able to
move their aircraft and tank production out of range.
While I have never claimed that the US won the war by itself,
denying the American contribution is massively stupid. America
was the only combatant in WW2 that fought and won a 2 front
conflict. While our armaments were certainly not the best, they
armed virtually all of our allies during the war, including the USSR.
I merely claim that the US helped Russia massively more than
the USSR helped the western allies. The air battles on the west
front cost Germany alot of experienced aircrew and the bombing
raids on France and Germany garnered alot more attention from
Hitler than the raids from the east.
I stand by my assertion that Stalin was an opportunist..look
at the invasion of Manchuria at war's end. He "cherry-picked"
a Japan that had been pounded to dust by the US and UK.
-
demaw and Rino, please stop misrepresenting Wotan. It's making you both look really silly.
-
Originally posted by Rino America
was the only combatant in WW2 that fought and won a 2 front
conflict.
Well that isn't true.
-
WWII was won during BOB, the rest was just going thru the motions. If Hitler had captured England's deep water Ports things would be certainly different today.
-
WW2 was won in 1066 when the effeminate English nobility were replaced by the tough-as-nails, badass Frenchies.
-
Wotan, I disagree with you. I think there is No way the Russians could have won against the Germans, had the Germans not been hampered by the Western Allies.
Note that at the Battles of Stalingrad and then Kursk, won by the Russians by a MARGIN, the Germans suffered in the exact time, a crushing defeat in Tunisia (300.000 dead and captured), and Kursk corresponds with the Allied landings at Sicily (Bigger amphibious landings than Normandy).
In the biggest advances on the Eastern front in 1944, the Germans are being routed in France, and their transport is in shambles.
The engagements on the eastern front were truly big, however, not really bigger if you add together air warfare, naval warfare and the multiple fronts of the western allies.
The russians who fell were many more than the westerners, true is that. However wars are not won with ones own corpses. Remember Zhukovs words, "when my men enter a minefield, they move across it as if it was not there"
How many Germans fell on the Eastern front compared to all other fronts?
-
Originally posted by Rino
Demaw,
Might as well hang it up, the current PC reworked version of
history being taught today is that the USSR won WW2 all by itself.
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! :mad:
Originally posted by Rino
I merely claim that the US helped Russia massively more than the USSR helped the western allies. The air battles on the west front cost Germany alot of experienced aircrew and the bombing raids on France and Germany garnered alot more attention from Hitler than the raids from the east.
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".
Originally posted by Rino
I stand by my assertion that Stalin was an opportunist..look
at the invasion of Manchuria at war's end. He "cherry-picked"
a Japan that had been pounded to dust by the US and UK.
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".
-
Originally posted by Angus
Wotan, I disagree with you. I think there is No way the Russians could have won against the Germans, had the Germans not been hampered by the Western Allies.
Note that at the Battles of Stalingrad and then Kursk, won by the Russians by a MARGIN, the Germans suffered in the exact time, a crushing defeat in Tunisia (300.000 dead and captured), and Kursk corresponds with the Allied landings at Sicily (Bigger amphibious landings than Normandy).
In the biggest advances on the Eastern front in 1944, the Germans are being routed in France, and their transport is in shambles.
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.
Originally posted by Angus
The russians who fell were many more than the westerners, true is that. However wars are not won with ones own corpses. Remember Zhukovs words, "when my men enter a minefield, they move across it as if it was not there"
How many Germans fell on the Eastern front compared to all other fronts?
JFYI: 27 million lost by USSR in Great Patriotic War are mostly civilians. Combat losses of Soviet Army are about 20-30% bigger then German, mostly because of a 1941 catastrophe.
About Zhukov sending infantry to minefield: It's a quote from Eisenhower's memoirs. Zhukov explained this decision to order crossing a mine-field without removing mines. Removing mines made it possible for nazis to re-group, and meet attackers in full strength. Plus - losses from artillery fire while mines were removed. He estimated that crossing mine field immediately will reduce losses by two times, and made this order.
Russians "winning by burying enemy in a mountain of corpses" is another myth. It's the third most famous myth about Russia after bears in the streets and fur hats that all Russians wear all year around. Oh, sorry, fourth: I forgot drinking vodka instead of tea :D
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
Those Russian Numbers are staggering. Around 2000-3000 men are in a division.
that means around 4000-6000 men in a Corps.
12000-18000 in an army.
im going to say around 30k-50k in a Army group.
somehow i know those calcuations aren't right.
Infantry division full size by the regulations of 1943-44 was 9435 men. Guards infantry division was 10670 men. Usually divisions didn't reach this numbers, but a division that had 2000-3000 men left was usually counted as completely destroyed.
BTW, what you call an "Army group" was called "Front".
-
boroda and wotan from what i could find looks like 2.5 million german combat kia and 8.8 million russian combat kia. boroda russians did outnumber and outgun germans by large degree didnt they?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Bottom line Russia gets her bellybutton kicked by afganistan..there for what 2 ..3 years?
Ass kicked? When? Did I miss something?
Originally posted by demaw1
America defeats afganistan in 4 weeks turns around and rolls thru iraq in 8 weeks. If America as ruthless as russia was there would be nothing in Iraq now but some morning and evening prayers.
Soviet troops got control (real control, not strange situation when "coalition" troops can't get out of their bases ) in several weeks. By the time when 40th Army began to withdraw - government troops controlled most of the country. AFAIK now "coalition" can't completely control Kabul... :(
USSR lost 13700 men in Afghanistan in 10 years. American daily losses in Iraq exceed Soviet losses in Afghanistan by several times now. 40th Army had about 30-40 thousand men in Afghanistan, please compare it to American numbers in Iraq. Also please think that bandits in Afghanistan got all they wanted from US of A.
Originally posted by demaw1
You want to put chart up ? put one up that shows how many russian troops dead compared to ours in afganistan.
Wait for 10 years and then we'll see.
BTW, how can you compare criminal unprovoked agression against Iraq to a legal assistance to legitimate government of Afghanistan? US is an agressor and deserves all possible international sanctions. Agressors must be punished.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Ass kicked? When? Did I miss something?
Soviet troops got control (real control, not strange situation when "coalition" troops can't get out of their bases ) in several weeks. By the time when 40th Army began to withdraw - government troops controlled most of the country. AFAIK now "coalition" can't completely control Kabul... :(
USSR lost 13700 men in Afghanistan in 10 years. American daily losses in Iraq exceed Soviet losses in Afghanistan by several times now. 40th Army had about 30-40 thousand men in Afghanistan, please compare it to American numbers in Iraq. Also please think that bandits in Afghanistan got all they wanted from US of A.
Wait for 10 years and then we'll see.
BTW, how can you compare criminal unprovoked agression against Iraq to a legal assistance to legitimate government of Afghanistan? US is an agressor and deserves all possible international sanctions. Agressors must be punished.
boroda your information on coalition in afghanistan is way of. "cant get out of bases" is total nonsense. so is "cant completely control kabul". soviet version of control and what steps acceptable have nothing in common with coalition. dont even start with comments like "criminal". if coalition wanted to terrorize locals using murder and torture it would be easy to wind up like soviets and "think" we controlled things. muj for most part like us and uk they see difference in respect for human life as compared to actions of soviet union. you say attack on iraq is "criminal" are you denying that iraq in violation of ceasefire signed by hussein? stick with second world war you are close to reality there i think.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
boroda and wotan from what i could find looks like 2.5 million german combat kia and 8.8 million russian combat kia. boroda russians did outnumber and outgun germans by large degree didnt they?
Smallest number of German losses that I have seen was about 5.1 million. This is a very complicated question. There is no absolutely reliable information on Soviet and German losses.
Here is a link: http://www.rsva.ru/rus_guard/2003-11/price_glory.shtml
Unrecoverable combat losses at the Eastern front including POWs between June, 22nd, 1941 and May, 9th, 1945. USSR: 11.26 million, Germany - 7.2 million.
-
boroda i have been told that kruschev denounced some of things stalin did. you were in soviet military what was attitude of stalin purge of soviet military before second world war? what if anything did guys you serve with know and think about it?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
if coalition wanted to terrorize locals using murder and torture it would be easy to wind up like soviets and "think" we controlled things. muj for most part like us and uk they see difference in respect for human life as compared to actions of soviet union.
Facts please. Looks like you watched Rambo-3 too much. Get real please.
At least Soviet servicemen didn't take pictures of tortured civilians like nazis in Belorussia. (sorry for this one, but I have to answer what you said)
USSR didn't "think" it controlled Afghanistan, it really controlled it.
Originally posted by anonymous
you say attack on iraq is "criminal" are you denying that iraq in violation of ceasefire signed by hussein?
Would you be so kind to try explaining what you meant in other words?
;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Infantry division full size by the regulations of 1943-44 was 9435 men. Guards infantry division was 10670 men. Usually divisions didn't reach this numbers, but a division that had 2000-3000 men left was usually counted as completely destroyed.
BTW, what you call an "Army group" was called "Front".
Hehe i started to type 2nd Baltic front, since i remembered it from Kurland scenario.
Rgr i knew my calcuations were off, thanks.
-
From Boroda:
"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". "
Sorry to disappoint you, but the Germans actually lost about the same amount of planes to British Guns in 1940, as they did to Russians in 1944.
In 1944, the LW loss rate was 2000 on the Eastern front, 8000 on the western.
(Those 8000 would have made quite a difference on the Eastern front)
Closing up in Tunisia, the Brits&Yanks captured a quarter of million troops. That equals the WW2 losses of the British armed forces being captured in a single campaign. The Russians have nothing to compare that with in relative numbers.
The Generals of the Germans in the Tunisian war were Rommel and Von Arnim. The Pilots of the LW were their finest, and there were troops being moved FROM the eastern front to the desert, in the times of Stalingrad and Kursk.
Had the western allies given away the African campaign, as well as the Bombing campaign, the German strength on the eastern front would have been been double and triple, that's what I am saying. And your red army could not have coped with that.
Corpse multiplier 3...how's that?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Wotan, I disagree with you. I think there is No way the Russians could have won against the Germans, had the Germans not been hampered by the Western Allies.
Note that at the Battles of Stalingrad and then Kursk, won by the Russians by a MARGIN, the Germans suffered in the exact time, a crushing defeat in Tunisia (300.000 dead and captured), and Kursk corresponds with the Allied landings at Sicily (Bigger amphibious landings than Normandy).
In the biggest advances on the Eastern front in 1944, the Germans are being routed in France, and their transport is in shambles.
The engagements on the eastern front were truly big, however, not really bigger if you add together air warfare, naval warfare and the multiple fronts of the western allies.
The russians who fell were many more than the westerners, true is that. However wars are not won with ones own corpses. Remember Zhukovs words, "when my men enter a minefield, they move across it as if it was not there"
How many Germans fell on the Eastern front compared to all other fronts?
This is just getting silly. At Stalingrad there was no "margin" 6th army was routed. Search Operation Uranus if you want a lesson.
Do you know number combat sorties flown on the Eastern Front by the LW? Over 350000 compared to about half that in the west.
The Soviets had their defenses in depth at Kursk. Regardless of what happened is Sicily Kursk would have failed. In fact with the exception of the fighting near Prokhorovka the offensive was over before it began.
Bagration was launched on June 22.. It was the largest offensive the world had seen. Army Group Center was destroyed. Army Group North was encircled in Kurland. All this while the western Allies made multiple attempts to break out at Normandy. Even when comparing the scope and scale of Operation Cobra (break out of Normandy) you can not compare it to the size and success of Bagration.
(http://www.geocities.com/sonzabird/bagration.jpg)
Then came Berlin. And if that is not enough following that the Soviets switched directions moving a force and equipment larger then the force required to take Berlin across the Soviet union and mounted an offensive which destroyed the Japanese Kwangtung in days. It was the largest offensive of the Pacific war. Do you even know why the Japanese invaded Manchuria? Do understand the importance that Manchuria had in relation to the Japanese war industry?
Its just silly the lack historical knowledge some you of have especially when arguing points on History.
Angus don’t embarrass yourself further. You are wrong on many things in the A & V forum. Take a break and go to your local library and spend some time reading up on a subject before you attempt to comment on them.
-
Originally posted by anonymous
boroda i have been told that kruschev denounced some of things stalin did. you were in soviet military what was attitude of stalin purge of soviet military before second world war?
I didn't serve, I am the first male in my family in 3 generations who isn't an officer. I had military training in college, they prepared us as reserve SAM officers. And my civilian speciality was weapon engineering ;)
My Grand Father (Father's Father) was an Imperial cavalry officer in WWI. In 1918 he was hired by Red Army as a "military specialist" according to Trotsky's decree about mobilisation of Czar's officers. During Civil War he earned an order of Red Banner (number 123;)), and by 1932 he was in a rank of combrig (brigade commander, something between colonel and general-major). In 1932 he was arrested as a "member of a Czarist officer coup" and spent two years in BAM-Lag. He was released but got back only a rank of major, and served as a horse-breeding factory commander. He was lucky that he was "purged" before 1937...
The problem with "purges" was that most of the repressed officers were old-school cavalerists and even partisans from Civil war. Even my Father who was touched personally by this "purges" admits to some extent that it could help rebuilding Red Army...
Semi-official point of view is that "purges" were organised by Germans who gave Stalin some fake evidence about military coups and cooperation with nazis. Anyway, people like marshall Bluher were absolutely uncapable to command in modern war. (Bluher was arrested after a failure in a conflict with Japan on lake Hasan).
Originally posted by anonymous
what if anything did guys you serve with know and think about it?
Sorry, I can't understand again :( English is a foreign language for me and I am drinking beer after work now... :(
-
Boroda here let me make it a little less complex for ya.
What did the guys you serve with think about it?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hey, if the Coulda, Woulda and Shoulda Divisions had been engaged, what result then?
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :p
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.
-
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! :mad:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :mad:
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.
-
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
-
2 Poles: If you will have choice to whom you want to be sold: USSR, UK, US, Germany, Japan or Zimbabve?
-
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 :rofl
-
I know it, i know it, they have embassy in Warsaw!
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by bikekil
Boroda, don't get me wrong here... i hope you will see my point.
No problem :)
Originally posted by bikekil
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.
WWII was a result of an opportunistic policy of Western powers, including Poland. Again: Poland took it's share of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Stalin did all possible things to reach some kind of agreement with "allies", and after they refused (in a very improper impolite way) - USSR had no other option then to sign a pact with Germany.
I respect your patriotic feelings, but, as a half-Russian half-Ukrainian I think that Poland occupied our land in 1920 :( I hope you can understand that Stalin had to do what hi did ("invasion" on Sept. 17th), other wise he at best could loose space that turned out to be vital in 1941 or at least involve an unprepared country into a war for foreign interests :( Politics is a dirty business :(
Originally posted by bikekil
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 ;)
As usual - Russians cleaned the mess started by some wise guys in the West. USSR was the only country that offered assistance to Czechs in 1938 and opposed Munich treaty.
Originally posted by bikekil
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.
Napoleon got Moscow, did it help him when Russian army took Paris? ;)
BTW, here is an interesting article for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1277481,00.html
-
Originally posted by Angus
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?
Grrrrr. Again. Please tell me how many divisions were involved at El-Alamein from both sides.
Romanian cavalry in Africa - it's a joke of the month! :D :rofl You made my day!
-
Afrika Korp wasn’t receiving adequate supplies and after Torch the Germans were fighting delaying actions to tie up Allied forces.
This isn't actually true.
Rommel always whined about the amount of supplies he got, but Van Creveld points out that Rommel had as many trucks as any of the 3 Army Groups operating in Russia, and in general he recieved far more supplies than a similar sized force in Russia would.
-
Romanina cavalry on the Southern Flank of Stalingrad.
I don't know the exact strength of the Germans in N Africa, but based on the troops they lost there my estimate above could be quite true.
Tell me again if you think the USSR had won Stalingrad if the entire Axis African army had been there...
-
so it's not that easy Boroda :)
the tricky part is - whooccupied who's lands.. and how we could tell who's land should fit where?
You see... after the WW2 Poland was moved to the west.. so befoire, we posessed the lands that then belonged to USSR. Of course you know how huge country we were once... and since the begining out easters and your wertern border lines were moving in one or the other way, depending on the powers... i'm not really sure we could tell who possessed whos lands...
but i can't see how can you say we started WW2 instead of Soviety's who attacked us? :)
I'd understand a "what if" Staling won't get along with Hitler and WW2 would never start.. maybe Poland would feel stronger with the time and finally we would attack soviets? that's probable... but never happened... and we had no plans to invade you
I can't see how WW2 was the mess we started not you guys ;)
-
Originally posted by bikekil
so it's not that easy Boroda :)
the tricky part is - whooccupied who's lands.. and how we could tell who's land should fit where?
You see... after the WW2 Poland was moved to the west.. so befoire, we posessed the lands that then belonged to USSR. Of course you know how huge country we were once... and since the begining out easters and your wertern border lines were moving in one or the other way, depending on the powers... i'm not really sure we could tell who possessed whos lands...
but i can't see how can you say we started WW2 instead of Soviety's who attacked us? :)
I'd understand a "what if" Staling won't get along with Hitler and WW2 would never start.. maybe Poland would feel stronger with the time and finally we would attack soviets? that's probable... but never happened... and we had no plans to invade you
I can't see how WW2 was the mess we started not you guys ;)
Who's land is where is a stupid question if we talk about what happened centuries ago... Here I repeated things I have read in some books (pro-Soviet), but I think we need to check the Eastern border of Polish Kingdom in Russian Empire.
For me the main reason to WWII was the opportunist Western policy of "pacifying" Hitler, and refusal to do anything to stop him, in a hope that he will engage in a war with USSR... They were mistaken - so Hitler have eaten the Europe with ease. After "allies" refused to cooperate Stalin probably wanted to get the same thing with Pact, hoping that Hitler will get stuck and weakened in a WWI-like positional war with France, but France didn't survive long enough and Hitler only got stronger.
There is a good book I always recommend: Leonard Mosley, "On Borrowed Time. How World War Two Began". It can be biased against Poland, but I think that the overall picture is close to reality. Here is a link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0297178156/qid=1091803753/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6587459-1613430?v=glance&s=books) on Amazon.
-
No no no :)
As i agree (and other folks in this thread said ity also that or another way) "Western" countries screwed the whole thing after the WW1 big time.
Poland, as a pretty weak country was a part of the Western Allience but our Powers were not good enought to defend ourselves... so you can';t say the war was our fault...
Leaving the fact that our allies screwed us - with all of it "declaring a war" on the paper and with aq continous un abililty to help us anywhere and with anything during the WW2 (other then to let us form our units and die uinder them orders) then finally solding us - we can say, we were fools to follow that way... but prolly our goverment decided that that way is better... well.. if we could not be with russia or germany (you know why :) ) we had to be with someone else...
Now you say it's Allies fault that the mess started, and you say so, because Allies don't offered to Stalin the things he wanted (or they offended him with the things they offered in a unpolite way). Hmm... so please remind me, who attacked who?
Germany started with an attack on 01.09.1939 and 17 days later Soviets attacked from the other side. After thast two facts (in addition to no evidence that anyone woyuld strike Soviets on Germans, and their action was in "self defence") you say that this attacks were Allies fault and responsibility?
sorry, i can't agree.
As i can agree that Alliance Poland was a part of (oh my...) screwed the thing on a political way, i can't agree that the war was started by Allies.
It's like saying that if you don't give me a candy i have my right to hit you between the eyes.. and it's your responsibility ;) sort of...
-
Boroda:
"For me the main reason to WWII was the opportunist Western policy of "pacifying" Hitler, and refusal to do anything to stop him, in a hope that he will engage in a war with USSR... "
Well, the western allies never went to bed with Hitler, but Stalin did.....
And....although some information has occured that Stalin actually had planned to start a war against Hitler, YOU have promptly denied that possibility.
Bikekil:
I still think you've got things a bit messed up. The Western allies entered WW2 when Hitler crossed the last line, - Poland. France reluctantly, Brits rather willingly, USA standing aside and keeping loyalty to their "Monroeism"
Fact remains, that the Brits and French might have stayed out of WW2 by dumping Poland and looking at Hitler and Stalin bite each other's heads off. I guess that they didn't really belive that one, and yet, not so sure....
Had they really belived what Boroda suggested, they should have stayed out......
Oh Bikekil, BTW, look at a map and tell me what's between Britain and Poland?
-
and where was a great fleet of GB?
where were the numerous units of French army?
Finally where was the promised military help we had? Do you believe Hitler woudn't be stopped if got attacked by Allies? How many forces he had at the west while he attacked Poland?
Also, do you think, why Hitler and Stalin would bite each other if they got Poland? What the Alied "entering the war" by saying "we declare a war" changed? Hitler got Poland and got the time. They've shaked hand with Stalin and hitler moved towards the West... then few years later till the eastern offensife of Hitler, Germans and soviets lived pretty well with a joint border in the middle of Poland.. also Stalin wanted to avoid fighting with hitler pretty bad.. and gain some time to prepare. In 1939 Sovites were prepared to nothing more then invade Poland. I'm sure they would not risk fighting with the Allies.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
No problem :)
WWII was a result of an opportunistic policy of Western powers, including Poland. Again: Poland took it's share of Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Stalin did all possible things to reach some kind of agreement with "allies", and after they refused (in a very improper impolite way) - USSR had no other option then to sign a pact with Germany.
I respect your patriotic feelings, but, as a half-Russian half-Ukrainian I think that Poland occupied our land in 1920 :( I hope you can understand that Stalin had to do what hi did ("invasion" on Sept. 17th), other wise he at best could loose space that turned out to be vital in 1941 or at least involve an unprepared country into a war for foreign interests :( Politics is a dirty business :(
As usual - Russians cleaned the mess started by some wise guys in the West. USSR was the only country that offered assistance to Czechs in 1938 and opposed Munich treaty.
Napoleon got Moscow, did it help him when Russian army took Paris? ;)
BTW, here is an interesting article for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1277481,00.html
Pavel, one little diference
i never even heard about poles taking czechs to prisons, never heard about czech officers and clerks killed by bullet in a head.
I never heard about czechs forced to move from their land.
I never heard about czechs fighting with polish troops
but i heard about polish POW murdered by nkwd, i did heard about hundred thausends polish "turists" forced to move to kazachstan, syberia (at last we form 2 armies from thos folks)
I heard about som fights on the border and later.
So if we start counting who was "worse" i doubt it will be poles
-
Originally posted by bikekil
and where was a great fleet of GB?
where were the numerous units of French army?
Finally where was the promised military help we had? Do you believe Hitler woudn't be stopped if got attacked by Allies? How many forces he had at the west while he attacked Poland?
Also, do you think, why Hitler and Stalin would bite each other if they got Poland? What the Alied "entering the war" by saying "we declare a war" changed? Hitler got Poland and got the time. They've shaked hand with Stalin and hitler moved towards the West... then few years later till the eastern offensife of Hitler, Germans and soviets lived pretty well with a joint border in the middle of Poland.. also Stalin wanted to avoid fighting with hitler pretty bad.. and gain some time to prepare. In 1939 Sovites were prepared to nothing more then invade Poland. I'm sure they would not risk fighting with the Allies.
yes huge mistakes were apparently made. and everyone responsible for them is now in the grave. so move on with your damn life dude. are you saying that because uk and france were slow to act against nazis SIXTY years ago that they will always be this way if poland needs help? the civilized world is at war as you type this nonsense and youre busy trying to pin a guilt trip on a bunch of people that had nothing to do with the wrongs commited. grow up and move on. youre weeping over innocent people killed long ago by a lack of character on the part of a couple of national leaders. it isnt pretty but in the grand scheme of things its the nine hundreth time its happened in the history of the world. if it bothers you this much sixty years later enlist in polands military or become a politician and make sure it dont happen again. and while youre asking your rhetorical damning questions about the uk and the french well a bunch of the guys you are damning did way more and paid a way higher price to stop the nazis than you have ever done show some respect.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
So if we start counting who was "worse" i doubt it will be poles
Sorry, I didn't mean that Poles were "worse". I only try to show you what politics of some countries aimed at immediate success was unwise when we see all the consequences. What if Poland opposed Munich agreements and offered assistance to Czechoslovakia instead of ripping it apart together with Hitler with the assistance of "superpowers" like UK and France? What if it agreed to let Soviet air force use Polish airfields? (I intentionally don't speak about letting Red Army ground troops operate from Polish territory).
It wasn't very wise IMHO to rely on "allies" who sold out Czechoslovakia just to "calm down" Hitler.
Unfortunately, Poland was a victim of the same policy to make Germans and Russians fight each other while gentlemen in the West could sit looking at it and get profits from selling arms to both sides...
-
You clots!
If western gentlemen had wanted to sit, wach, enjoy and profit, I very much doubt they had bothered to DECLARE WAR ON NAZI GERMANY.
While the Brits were Hitler's only foe, business was prospering between him and Stalin.
Germans bought oil and paid in a number of ways, i.e. with a heavy cruiser, Bismarck blueprints, etc, etc.
(Info from Boroda) :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
You clots!
If western gentlemen had wanted to sit, wach, enjoy and profit, I very much doubt they had bothered to DECLARE WAR ON NAZI GERMANY.
Ask our Polish firends what do they think about "allied" assistance. Oh, sorry, they already said it... :rolleyes:
-
I think there were some words about the Soviet assistance, which in the Warsaw uprising was near, but none.
At least the western allies tried, as you have seen on this thread.
But, as you agreed, the Nazis crushed an uprising lead by unwanted people, so why bother.:(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Sorry, I didn't mean that Poles were "worse". I only try to show you what politics of some countries aimed at immediate success was unwise when we see all the consequences. What if Poland opposed Munich agreements and offered assistance to Czechoslovakia instead of ripping it apart together with Hitler with the assistance of "superpowers" like UK and France? What if it agreed to let Soviet air force use Polish airfields? (I intentionally don't speak about letting Red Army ground troops operate from Polish territory).
It wasn't very wise IMHO to rely on "allies" who sold out Czechoslovakia just to "calm down" Hitler.
Unfortunately, Poland was a victim of the same policy to make Germans and Russians fight each other while gentlemen in the West could sit looking at it and get profits from selling arms to both sides...
well, we both know for post ww2 europe worse enemy was comunistic russia then weimar republic germany . Thats why we focus on defence our eastern border.
Its come from "capitalistic" point of view, people who bevere loose of they property..............
But insane is suspect Poles, as enemy of russia will let them bring their troops to poland after 124 years occupacy and after 20 years of independence.
Its like ask russiians now to let US planes use land bases for striking Iraq or afganistan, Is Puting let americans use their airspace? no, som small countries did who feel independent from russia.
i dont like this weel of big politics and hate between natios , cuz i not see a reason to fight with other nations only beucose they are speak diferent language or small diferent ;)
So better lets have peace on the world and let read kids such a history from books about ancient history:aok
-
Amen to that !
-
Originally posted by Angus
Romanina cavalry on the Southern Flank of Stalingrad.
I don't know the exact strength of the Germans in N Africa, but based on the troops they lost there my estimate above could be quite true.
Tell me again if you think the USSR had won Stalingrad if the entire Axis African army had been there...
Angus stop now.
The number of Germans surrendering at Tunisia in 1943 was at the lowest near 125,000, of them 90.000 Heer members. The rest of the approx. 250,000 surrendering troops were Italians.
We can take a highest probable number from the following reports
30 March 1943: which gives 5.Pz.-Armee strength as 60,150 Heer, 35,000 Luftwaffe, 5,500 Marine, 400 Italians and 1,950 Wehrmacht Gefolge
31 March 1943: which gives German strength in Afrika as 109,178 Heer, 54,264 Luftwaffe and 5,540 Marine (that figure includes both 5.Pz.-Arme and the Germans in 1.It.-Armee)
10 February 1943: which gives Italian strength at that time as 192,000 army troops (including natives) and 21,000 air force navy and civilian workers, a total of 213,000 (unfortunately I have been unable to locate complete Italian reports for later dates)
So a figure of about 169,000 Germans and 200,000 Italians by 1 March does not seem unreasonable, and makes Allied reports of 250,000 Axis PW perfectly plausible but they are not all Germans and would have no difference in Stalingrad.
Why are you purposely distorting the importance of Tunisia? I can guess that’s because the last battle the English had a major contribution.
Romanians were not on the "Southern" flank". The Germans didn’t loose Stalingrad because of "lack of troops". Even if the Germans won in Tunisia they still would have been occupied and unable to help in Stalingrad.
You are posting nonsense that is beyond ignorant at this point.
Here's the best web source in English about Stalingrad
http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/
I doubt you can read this map anyway but look to the North, Do you see the River Don.
(http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/maps/11.jpg)
As the Germans pushed toward Stalin grad they hadn’t taken the time to clear several large Russian Bridgeheads. This gave the Soviets "jump off point" for the North portion Operation Uranus. Now read which Axis troops were defending that area. The Romanian 3rd Army was the main Axis protagonist at the decisive place on arguably the most decisive day of the entire world war: 19 November 1942 on the River Don. Had Hitler reinforced the Romanians with Manstein's 5 divisions form the Crimea instead of transferring them North and had actually looked at the map and made and effort to eliminate those bridgeheads the Soviets would not have broken through as quickly.
Hitler made another fatal mistake following Operation Blue
Again Hitler changed plans, he transferred Manstein's five divisions from the Crimea to the Leningrad front instead of the Caucasus, assuming that the Russian were almost beaten.
Once his forces had reached Rostov, Hitler decided to split his troops so that they could both invade the rest of the Caucasus and take the important industrial city of Stalingrad on the Volga River, 220 miles northeast of Rostov. Army Group South was divided in two parts. Army Groups A and B. In the north, Army Group B, (Stalingrad) commanded by von Weichs. In the south, List commanded Army Group A
(Caucasus). Hitler's generals are stunned.
This decision was to have fatal consequences for the Germans, since they lacked the resources to successfully take and hold both of these objectives.
Hitler failed to reinforce his drive toward the city but more importantly he split his forces sending Army Group A south into the Caucasus in hopes of securing the oil fields. That never happened. Maikop was blown by retreating Russians. By the time the Soviets launched Uranus there was huge gap in South between Group A and 6th army in Stalingrad. I doubt you can comprehend any of this but Tunisia would have made little difference. Those troops could not have redeployed to Stalingrad anyway.
The decision to hold 6th army in Stalingrad was a mistake based on false assumptions and false promises made by Goring to Hitler. Stalingrad wasn't the "tragedy" as you seem imply either. Army Group South recovered somewhat and were able to rebuild a defensive line. Its importance was that the Germans would never again be able to get that close to the oil fields in the Caucasus. That was the whole goal to begin with.
Also you forget (or are unaware) at the time of Operation Uranus the Soviet launched Operation Mars against Army Group Center. Mars was a complete failure and Zhukov's worst defeat of the war. Had the Soviets achieved their goals with Mars we Satlingrad would hardly be mentioned.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/fmsopubs/issues/countrpt/countrpt.htm
Operation Mars cost the Red Army nearly half a million men killed, wounded, or captured. Individual Soviet combat units were decimated in the operation. The Soviet 20th Army lost 58,524 men out of its original strength of over 114,000 men.72 General Solomatin's 1st Mechanized Corps lost 8,100 of its 12,000 men and all of its 220 tanks, and the accompanying 6th Stalin Rifle Corps lost over 20,000 of its 30,000 men.73 At lower levels the cost was even higher. The 8th Guards Rifle Corp's 26th Guards Rifle Division emerged from combat with 500 of its over 7,000 combat infantrymen intact, while the 4,500 man 148th and 150th Rifle Brigades had only 27 and 110 "fighters," respectively, available at the end of the operation.74
Soviet tank losses, correctly estimated by the Germans as around 1,700, were equally staggering, in as much as they exceeded the total number of tanks the Soviets initially committed in Operation Uranus at Stalingrad.75 In Western armies losses such as these would have prompted the removal of senior commanders, if not worse. In the Red Army it did not, for when all was said and done, Zhukov fought, and the Red Army needed fighters.
Of all the thing that were taking place during this period Tunisia was at the bottom of the list.
-
Stop? Me? Not really.
I'll contribute a little fact into the pool.
Oh, and bear in mind that I am not saying that the Tunisian campaign, or indeed any other engagements in the desert war are bigger than Stalingrad.
However, what my point is, that had the Allies given away N-Africa, the Axis would have won at Stalingrad.
Note, captured at the fall of Tunisia, 250.000 AXIS troops.
Troops in the Stalingrad fight were also from Romania (greenhorns) and Hungary.
There were Italians on the eastern front as well.
The Germans were at their best parts only 1 Km from getting the whole bank of the river. The whole city. So sure of victory that Hitler declared that Stalingrad was in their hands.
But a few things happened to turn this around.
Firstly and most importantly,the Russians kept fighting, and at horrible costs, sending in more troops.
Then the western allies sudfdenly went mad in N-Africa. At this exact turning point, Hitler sent the bulk (70%+) of his vital air transport, and 400 fighters to N-Africa. None of these were to return. BTW, I think Rommel lost roughly 500 tanks at El-Alamein. That was done on November the 3rd.
Anyway, they failed to get to the River, and therefore could not stop the Russians pumping in more troops.
What on a large scale crippled the Germans in the long fight that followed was exactly lack of supplies, and Hitler taking over the command, denying von Paulus of the only sensible move, which was to break out of the forming pocket.
It was actually lack of fuel eventually that nailed the armoured divisions down, - fuel for 50 Km's was not enough.
So SLAM. the tables turned and Germans that had been butchering the Soviets, were routed instead.
Now to N-Africa.
Stalingrad happens at the time of Tunisia, AND El Alamein, AND the landings of operation Torch.
Counting the Axis tied down in N-Africa really means ALL the axis in N-Africa, as well as the Axis that got killed in the process.
Do you think those forces would have been sufficient to capture the last 1 Km strip to the river?
-
aungus stop being an idiot. Russian's had 2 million around stalingrad. 300000 axis troops wouldn't have made a different.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Stop? Me? Not really.
I'll contribute a little fact into the pool.
Oh, and bear in mind that I am not saying that the Tunisian campaign, or indeed any other engagements in the desert war are bigger than Stalingrad.
However, what my point is, that had the Allies given away N-Africa, the Axis would have won at Stalingrad.
Note, captured at the fall of Tunisia, 250.000 AXIS troops.
Troops in the Stalingrad fight were also from Romania (greenhorns) and Hungary.
There were Italians on the eastern front as well.
The Germans were at their best parts only 1 Km from getting the whole bank of the river. The whole city. So sure of victory that Hitler declared that Stalingrad was in their hands.
But a few things happened to turn this around.
Firstly and most importantly,the Russians kept fighting, and at horrible costs, sending in more troops.
Then the western allies sudfdenly went mad in N-Africa. At this exact turning point, Hitler sent the bulk (70%+) of his vital air transport, and 400 fighters to N-Africa. None of these were to return. BTW, I think Rommel lost roughly 500 tanks at El-Alamein. That was done on November the 3rd.
Anyway, they failed to get to the River, and therefore could not stop the Russians pumping in more troops.
What on a large scale crippled the Germans in the long fight that followed was exactly lack of supplies, and Hitler taking over the command, denying von Paulus of the only sensible move, which was to break out of the forming pocket.
It was actually lack of fuel eventually that nailed the armoured divisions down, - fuel for 50 Km's was not enough.
So SLAM. the tables turned and Germans that had been butchering the Soviets, were routed instead.
Now to N-Africa.
Stalingrad happens at the time of Tunisia, AND El Alamein, AND the landings of operation Torch.
Counting the Axis tied down in N-Africa really means ALL the axis in N-Africa, as well as the Axis that got killed in the process.
Do you think those forces would have been sufficient to capture the last 1 Km strip to the river?
The city is irrelevant, that is not where the Germans lost. There were no 300000 troops in Tunisia. There were at best 150000 or so Germans were lost. They would not have made a bit of difference. They could not have been withdrawn from NA. The Italians could not have withdrawn and even if they were they would have been withdrawn to defend Italy not sent to Stalingrad.
Your phantom 300000 troops in Tunisia being sent going to Stalingrad to save the day is just fantasy bullshyt.
You haven’t added facts; you have contributed inaccurate incorrect information that is wrong on so many levels. "Romanians on the Southern Front".
Operation Uranus wasn’t about fighting in Stalingrad but in trapping 6th army there. The situation in the city didn’t become dire until it was encircled. 300000 more troops in the city would have meant another 300000 trapped. Once encircled they could not have gotten in. You have no clue as to the size of the front, the conditions that lead to 6th army being encircled and yet you feel qualified to offer an opinion on how the Germans could have won.
It’s complete nonsense. Had Germany had 300000 spare troops they wouldn’t have went to Stalingrad. The North needed reinforcement; Army Group Center was fighting for its life against Mars etc...
So yeah you should stop and head to the library.
-
What I am saying and you do not understand is this:
1. No N-African campaign from the allied side (lost or discarded) = a lot stronger German armed forces on the eastern front.
2. A good proportion of the axis air strength at Stalingrad was shipped away at a most crucial moment.
(I guess the Germans thought they already had it )
I did not say there were 300.000 Axis troops in Tunisia, however that must be close to correct, for after months of fighting, 250.000 AXIS troops were captured. Fact.
Damnit, you're as stubborn as myself
:D
Oh, and this
"aungus stop being an idiot. Russian's had 2 million around stalingrad. 300000 axis troops wouldn't have made a different."
I disagree. 300.000 troops, 500-1000 aircraft and 500-1000 tanks vs a 1 km strip along the river would have :D
-
Originally posted by anonymous
yes huge mistakes were apparently made. and everyone responsible for them is now in the grave. so move on with your damn life dude. are you saying that because uk and france were slow to act against nazis SIXTY years ago that they will always be this way if poland needs help? the civilized world is at war as you type this nonsense and youre busy trying to pin a guilt trip on a bunch of people that had nothing to do with the wrongs commited. grow up and move on. youre weeping over innocent people killed long ago by a lack of character on the part of a couple of national leaders. it isnt pretty but in the grand scheme of things its the nine hundreth time its happened in the history of the world. if it bothers you this much sixty years later enlist in polands military or become a politician and make sure it dont happen again. and while youre asking your rhetorical damning questions about the uk and the french well a bunch of the guys you are damning did way more and paid a way higher price to stop the nazis than you have ever done show some respect.
So.. .little funny guy, first of all... if you ever did more then did... i believe you are typing from your warm home, same as i do... so... take your cup of cofee and enjoy your lazy day.
Other then that...
In canse you missed, as far as i know currently our forces are supporting USA in IRAQ (not to mention many peace keeping ones in the other regions of the world). Please point me to the words i said that Poland need your help nowdays? We are doing fine by ourselves and we learned our lesson. Differently to our Allies (from WW2), we are not cowards or traitors.
Is that clear enought for you?
Face the facts dude... and before replaying this post, please once again, show me the post with me asking for help :D
-
ANGUS....you finally said it ,been waiting for someone to ,you won the prize.
You hit the nail on the head, although all points are important ,the most important is your statement that hitler was in charge and or took charge. hitler lost that war ,and the german people followed him. I came to the conclusion years ago that really no one won the war....hitler lost it.
and the only reason America would have survived was because of location and time to prepare.
-
American still got attack a fought battle on us soil in north america, Demaw. We were vurnable.
-
let me rephrase bikekil. warsaw resistance fighters are dead and gone. the fact that they rose up is what matters. it does no good to be upset about it today. if you are upset in principle today then fight for today. be un politician or be soldier for poland or un and stop what happens today. you are wrong to call fighting men of france or uk or us cowards because poland fell. warriors are not usually in position to guide course of nations this can be very bad sometimes and very good other times. and i never meant you are asking for help and like i said before i have great respect for polish soldiers i have worked with them in afhganistan and in iraq. what i was saying is mistakes made in early second world war would be learned from if situation repeated today.
-
Angus let me try a different approach:
The Germans had the troops to take Stalingrad but what they didn’t have is troops to secure the flanks. This was the result of:
1. During the push to the City itself the Wehrmacht failed to ensure the Northern Flank by eliminating the large Soviet bridgeheads. But more importantly this flank was defended by the weakest elements of Army Group South. These were the Italians, Hungarians and Romanians.
2. Hitler order Army Group South split in two dividing his forces sending Army Group A south and away from Army Group B. To the South of 6th army in Stalingrad was the second of the 2 Romanian armies.
Look at the map below:
(http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/maps/5.jpg)
Look to the North west of Stalingrad following the Don west you will see the Soviet bridgeheads on the South western bank of the Don.
South off Stalingrad locate the Kalmyk Steppe. Then locate the direction of the advance of Army Group A. They are sent south and away leaving a huge gap between Army group B and themselves and exposing Army Group B's southern flank again covered by the weak Romanians.
The Soviets could see this as obviously as we can. This how the Soviets attacked and were able to encircle 6th army.
6th was engaged in Street by street fighting in Stalingrad itself.
The reason I am walking through this is to then ask you how the 125 – 150k Germans lost in Tunisia would have made a difference.
Forget the Italians and Native troops. The Italians only had 2 armies it could field. One in the east and the other was in North Africa. The Italian troops in NA would have never been sent in to Stalingrad regardless of whether or not Operation Torch took place. They were needed contain Monty.
The answer is sending those 150k German troops to Stalingrad instead of Tunisia would have made no difference.
Victory in "Stalingrad" was untenable regardless of whether 6th army held the city itself. There were too many holes in the flanks due bad general'ing by Hitler. There was nothing to “win” at Stalingrad.
There's no reason to believe the 150k German NA troops would have been sent to Stalingrad anyway. Hitler sent Manstein's 5 divisions from the Crimea to Leningrad rather then reinforce Army Group South..
During this time Army Group Center (Operation Mars) was fighting for its life. It’s more plausible the North African troops would have been sent their. .
Army Group A was fighting to gain control of the oil fields etc...
So my point is with or without Torch 150000 troops would not have made any difference, Stalingrad was lost. Hitler screwed up and the Soviets took advantage.
The importance of Stalingrad to the Axis wasn’t that 6th army was lost. The Wehrmacht recovered. 6th army was Germany's biggest army, but only lost about 10% of its divisions at Stalingrad.
I hope I was able to better articulate my point in a way that can be understood better. I will refer to this website
http://users.pandora.be/stalingrad/
-
Originally posted by anonymous
let me rephrase bikekil. warsaw resistance fighters are dead and gone. the fact that they rose up is what matters.
well... that's the whole point, those brave people are not dead and gone. They are living in Poland and in other countries, where they was forced to escape after the war, because Soviets were hunting them down and killing as a criminals (uprising was against Soviets). After long years of silence (caused by the fact we were pushed in Soviet hands so the rest of the world could enjoy it's freedom) ended lately and after long years then can be called a heroes and we can celebrate another anniversaries of the uprising.
As i said in a first post starting this thread - i don't care about the apology and i don't really need it. My good memory of what that Alliance meant for Poland is enought, but the soldiers from the uprising are still there, and maybe it'd be a nice thing for them to hear "sorry we failed you".
They really do realise that many voleunteres were flying and dying so they could get some supplies, but they also realise that others, left them there.
it does no good to be upset about it today. if you are upset in principle today then fight for today. be un politician or be soldier for poland or un and stop what happens today.
Good or not good, i am upset. You said 60 years passed... and as i see it's still not long enought. I still see a great Allies who helped Poland. When i about that help... i mean what they did to help, other then let Poles fight in their armies i see no replay, but the Allies were still the heroes of that war.
you are wrong to call fighting men of france or uk or us cowards because poland fell. warriors are not usually in position to guide course of nations this can be very bad sometimes and very good other times. and i never meant you are asking for help and like i said before i have great respect for polish soldiers i have worked with them in afhganistan and in iraq.
So you got me wrong also... i've also said it somewhere before in this thread, i never said the soldiers or ANY nation are cowards. That Applies to British, French, American, Canadian but also German or Russian and many others who fought in that war.
Every single one believed in something and had it's own opinion, but been forced or voleutered to fight. Excepr the murderers who were killing civilians (bit that's the war) they were all brave men.
Cowards are people who faild us as an Allies, that would be the goverments on France and GB. My judgement is poined on them and them only, not the people or soldiers of France or GB... just the guys who were in charge.. who folled us with the promises and then when the time comes, did nothing that was promised. My appologies toi anyone that got me wrond and felt offended.[/QUOTE]
what i was saying is mistakes made in early second world war would be learned from if situation repeated today.
But our Allies never said that they left us... so in their opinion then made no mistake... so the situation would be the same... we would been left alone again. That is why i say Poland need a good memory, not appologies.