T1B

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:The distance the U.S. traveled from Normandy to Berlin was nowhere near as great as the distance the Soviets traveled to capture Berlin.

I think you're forgetting that the U.S. didn't start in Normandy. Admittedly we didn't have to fight our way across the Atlantic Ocean but it did present some logistical challenges to say the least..

The U.S. didn't reach Berlin via the Alps, they reached Berlin via Normandy. They didn't face anything like what the Soviets faced on the road to Berlin.

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:
The Pacific Theater was where we fought the majority of our war. The Soviets, not the U.S. or even Great Britian, were Hitler's main enemy. Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific.

Really Van. You're a fucking idiot if you think that the two European fronts were separate wars.

You're a fucking idiot if you think I think those two European fronts were two separate wars, from anything I've written.

I certainly don't think that. They were two fronts in the same war. One front was much more important though, in terms of destroying Hitler. That was the Eastern front.

Mvscal, it'll remain a topic of debate but I think it was inevitable that Hitler wears out England and eventually removes them from the war...had he never opened up the second front and instead focused all his efforts on finishing off Fortress Europa.

Maybe he doesn't occupy the entire island but he would've eventually removed England's ability to wage war on the continent.

Italy didn't exactly help out ol' Adolph a whole lot there in the Eastern front...

Van wrote:

BSmack wrote:I wasn't sure about that either. The United States had forces in action in places as diverse as North Africa, Dutch Harbor, Guadalcanal and France. Also, it was our navy that pwned the Japanese fleet. And let us not forget the US munitions and supplies that kept the Red Army from being overrun in the first place. Van is being very selective about how he's looking at this.

I've been very clear about how I'm loooking at this. I'm only talking about the European Theater.

The Pacific Theater was where we fought the majority of our war. The Soviets, not the U.S. or even Great Britian, were Hitler's main enemy. Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific.

Sorry, but only discussing the European Theater when considering the larger topic "Who was responsible for the downfall of the Axis Powers?" is being VERY selective. Let's just say for the sake of argument that our reaction to Pearl Harbor was completely opposite of our actual reaction. Let's say FDR sued for a separate peace with Japan and Germany. The end result would have been the collapse and partitioning of the Soviet Union as the Japanese moved to backdoor the Russians. Period.

To underestimate the decisive role of US manufacturing and logistical capacity in turning the tide in WWII is to completely misunderstand the whole conflict.

Van wrote:Italy didn't exactly help out ol' Adolph a whole lot there in the Eastern front...

Precisely. Because of their ineptitude Adolph was forced to expend his own resources and assets to defend Italy from the Allies. Resources and assets that could have been used on the Eastern Front and elsewhere. Had the Italians been able to thwart the Allies, I'm sure Adolph would have been much happier.

Van wrote:

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:
The Pacific Theater was where we fought the majority of our war. The Soviets, not the U.S. or even Great Britian, were Hitler's main enemy. Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific.

Really Van. You're a fucking idiot if you think that the two European fronts were separate wars.

You're a fucking idiot if you think I think those two European fronts were two separate wars, from anything I've written.

I certainly don't think that. They were two fronts in the same war. One front was much more important though, in terms of destroying Hitler. That was the Eastern front.

Wrong. Without either of the two fronts, Hitler probably would have overrun the other (but I guess we'll never know one way or the other, will we?). So, yes you ARE attempting to separate them, and you're a fucking idiot for assuming that either was more "important".

88 wrote:Van is right

Ach no, herr Kommandant.
Not zeh Eastern Front!!

Mikey wrote: Wrong. Without either of the two fronts, Hitler probably would have overrun the other (but I guess we'll never know one way or the other, will we?). So, yes you ARE attempting to separate them, and you're a fucking idiot for assuming that either was more "important".

One look at the German Order Of Battle in the West even after the Normandy invasion leaves you with egg on your face.

The Germans suspected the Allies might be up to some trickery over the Channel...so how many panzer divisions did they have in the vicinity?

It took Das Reich what, a week to reach there?

Get bent.

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:The Germans suspected the Allies might be up to some trickery over the Channel...so how many panzer divisions did they have in the vicinity?

Three. The 2nd, 116th and 21st. He should have had four more (1st SS, 12 SS, Lehr and 17th SS Panzer Grenadier) but von Rundstedt never faced Allied airpower and didn't understand what it meant to attempt to manuever armored units against Allied airpower.

It took Das Reich what, a week to reach there?

That'll happen when the rail lines are bombed, bridges blown and you're getting strafed by fighter-bombers every time anybody so much as farts out in the open. They were also under a different command.

As I recall, Der Corporal himself reserved the right to commit the other 4 Panzer Divisions. Talk about having no faith in your field commanders.

Mikey wrote: Wrong. Without either of the two fronts, Hitler probably would have overrun the other (but I guess we'll never know one way or the other, will we?). So, yes you ARE attempting to separate them, and you're a fucking idiot for assuming that either was more "important".

What he ^^^^ said.

Take away the russkies or the US and the gerries likely get over.

With the US out of the battle, the germans throw everything at the commies and likely win. Actually, if hitler weren't such a cocky dumbass and went in as a liberator to the ukrainians, he probably would have won them over to his side, making things really shitty for uncle joe. Instead, he goes in thinking that all slavs are pretty much subhuman and pays the price.

Take the russkies out of it and 1941 is a really long year for britain. Assuming the US gets dragged in when they do, it likely ends a stalemate. Hitler doesn't have the air or sea power to take a britain backed with US men and materiel. But he does have a damn well defended fortress Europe.

As for Stalin picking a fight with the germans, I doubt it. As someone said earlier, Stalin was a ruthless rotten bastard, but, unlike mein fuhrer, he wasn't stupid.

smackaholic wrote: As for Stalin picking a fight with the germans, I doubt it. As someone said earlier, Stalin was a ruthless rotten bastard, but, unlike mein fuhrer, he wasn't stupid.

It was inevitable. Hitler was correct in taking the first crack while the Red Army was still reeling from the purges.

He took his shot. Didn't work.

BSmack wrote: As I recall, Der Corporal himself reserved the right to commit the other 4 Panzer Divisions. Talk about having no faith in your field commanders.

It wasn't the field commanders he had issue with. It was the entire (and rightfully so) OKH. The Prussian-disciplined old-school officer cadre.

That's why OKW, was being pushed to succeed OKH. OKW was the ideological answer to modern "total war".

There has been an interesting series on the Military Channel in regards to that Martyred. Much of it centered on intelligence gathered from bugs planted in the quarters of officers captured and sent to England.

I'll try and get the name of the series. It was on a few weeks ago.

Better yet, read The German Generals Speak.

You can formulate a theory that the heart of your average German general wasn't into fighting a modern war as Hitler envisioned. These fossils were moving chess pieces on imaginary campaign maps and twirling their monocles as real history was unfolding.

BSmack wrote:

Van wrote:

BSmack wrote:I wasn't sure about that either. The United States had forces in action in places as diverse as North Africa, Dutch Harbor, Guadalcanal and France. Also, it was our navy that pwned the Japanese fleet. And let us not forget the US munitions and supplies that kept the Red Army from being overrun in the first place. Van is being very selective about how he's looking at this.

I've been very clear about how I'm loooking at this. I'm only talking about the European Theater.

The Pacific Theater was where we fought the majority of our war. The Soviets, not the U.S. or even Great Britian, were Hitler's main enemy. Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific.

Sorry, but only discussing the European Theater when considering the larger topic "Who was responsible for the downfall of the Axis Powers?" is being VERY selective.

I was never talking about "Who was responsible for the downfall of the Axis Powers?"

Where on earth did you get the idea that that was the topic? I was only talking about how the war in Europe was primarily decided by what happened on the Eastern front.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that our reaction to Pearl Harbor was completely opposite of our actual reaction. Let's say FDR sued for a separate peace with Japan and Germany. The end result would have been the collapse and partitioning of the Soviet Union as the Japanese moved to backdoor the Russians. Period.

Great. It has nothing to do with anything I said but great.

To underestimate the decisive role of US manufacturing and logistical capacity in turning the tide in WWII is to completely misunderstand the whole conflict.

You're trying to make yourself sound way too smart. You're attempting to change the topic to suit your agenda.

Take away the battle for the Eastern front and Hitler owns Europe before the U.S. ever has any say so in the matter. Dislodging Hitler from France via England once he locks down western Europe would've been a major bitch. Normandy doesn't happen, not if there's no Eastern front. Hitler's Europe isn't conquered via the Alps either.

Van wrote: Take away the battle for the Eastern front and Hitler owns Europe before the U.S. ever has any say so in the matter. Dislodging Hitler from France via England once he locks down western Europe would've been a major bitch. Normandy doesn't happen, not if there's no Eastern front. Hitler's Europe isn't conquered via the Alps either.

Hold on. Let's get something straight here...

Hitler's assault on France was entirely to knock them out as a continental power. The Germans merely wished a level of "control" over Western Europe. As a matter of fact, the thought of going to war with Britain (pre 1939) was quite unsettling to Hitler, as he saw the British as a "cultured" and "esteemed" nation.

The East is a completely different story. It was the main thrust of expansion and the primary source for raw material.
Western Europe had nothing of consequence in terms of bread, steel and oil. It would have been a burden to administer, (as it turned out) whereas the East was ripe for de-populating.

Sorry to take you away from your utter annihilation of B_Dumbass, I just needed to point that out.

Continue, please.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:Maybe he doesn't occupy the entire island but he would've eventually removed England's ability to wage war on the continent.

Not a chance. No air superiority, no naval superiority...no dice. The Brits knew a thing or two about how to wear out a Continental powerhouse as Nappy found out.

Nonsense. England was teetering on the brink. They'd already been driven off the continent. The Germans were in the process of developing missiles which psychologically would've eventually forced the Brits to sue for peace.

Had Hitler devoted his entire military to the defense of western Europe and had he never blown so much of his power in the Eastearn front England doesn't regain their toehold on the continent. Like I said, I'm not saying Germany occupies England. They do knock them out of the war though. England doesn't get back on France soil, were it not for the effects of the Eastern front on Hitler's forces.

Bare minimum, it would've taken a whole lot longer and it would've happened in a completely different way.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:Italy didn't exactly help out ol' Adolph a whole lot there in the Eastern front...

Wrong. Italy sent about 230,000 men of their 8th Army to fight on the East Front which was a pretty sizable commitment for them.

"For them," being the operative phrase.

You know and I know that the Italians didn't do shit on the Eastern front. In the big picture their inclusion was a relative non issue, especially in the major battles.

Van wrote: You know and I know that the Italians didn't do shit on the Eastern front. In the big picture their inclusion was a relative non issue, especially in the major battles.

He didn't say they were effective. He only established the existence of their loyalty. To a degree.

Mikey wrote:you ARE attempting to separate them, and you're a fucking idiot for assuming that either was more "important".

No, I'm not attempting to separate them. I'm pretty clear about that.

Both things happened at the same time and yes, like Tom in Va said, it was a team effort.

That being said, the Chicago Bulls were a team effort too. Make no mistake though that when it came to defeating Hitler the Soviets and the Eastern front were MJ and the Allies in the Western front were Scottie & The Jordannaires. The difference is that in popular western lore the U.S. was MJ and the Soviets were Will Perdue.

Martyred, I agree that Hitler only wished to control western Europe and that he wouldn't have attempted to occupy Blighty.

He would've knocked them out of the war though, at least insofar as their ability to ever dislodge Germany from France and the rest of the continent. That's all he needed to do with England. He just needed them out of the way, which he would've achieved had he never split his forces.

smackaholic wrote:As for Stalin picking a fight with the germans, I doubt it. As someone said earlier, Stalin was a ruthless rotten bastard, but, unlike mein fuhrer, he wasn't stupid.

It's a topic of wide debate but many historians believe Hitler simply beat Stalin to the punch. They point to Stalin's massing of troops and armaments along Hitler's southern borders in Eastern Europe as evidence. They also point to these things as being part of the reason Hitler jumped when he did.

I agree with this view. Had Hitler not attacked the Soviets and had he then gone on to lock down the western European continent that would've left the Soviets in a very untenable position, being isolated between a monolithic Germany to their west and their hated rivals China and Japan to the east.

Stalin had zero regard for human life, including his own troops. He would not have allowed the Soviet Union to be surrounded and hemmed in like that. Regardless of the cost in casualties he would've marched on Hitler's southern flanks, knowing full well that Hitler would've eventually marched east anyway.

Van wrote:Stalin had zero regard for human life, including his own troops.

True, but at least Stalin had the good sense to turn over the war planning to competent generals.

Way over-simplifed analogy Van.

You know who had real 'bode over Hitler AND Napolean ?

Russian Winter

Give your own people a break too will ya. A lot of the reason the Soviet Union was downplayed was because they too were our enemy. The cultural references to WWII throughout the war, into the fifties, sixties, were also old school propaganda PRO US and West, CON anything else.

But I assure you as a youth, reading my grandfather's WWII books and watching "World at War" with him, the boldness, sacrifice, tenacity and strength of the Soviet Soldier - add the fact they got shot by their own officers if they buckled AND The Soviet civilian wasn't lost on me.

I appreciated it. Admired it. Sat in AWE of it.

I just happened to appreciate the kids who left movie theatres after the movie reel showed the events of 7-Dec and those plucked from hills, coal mines, factories, schools, etc.. etc... to be a part of Operation Torch, to jump out of planes - being shot at by British naval ships - to land in Italy, to jump into the night sky of Normandy and to wade ashore while wave after wave of ordnance was thrust at them from the Atlantic Wall .... more.

You know why ? The Soviets had Russian Winter on their side and a German supply line that was running out of steam and wouldn't have sustained itself thanks to B-17's and Lancaster crews.

Our guys had the English Channel at their back and had no choice but to move forward.


That being said. The Eastern Front was by far the ugliest and most inhumane theatre of that war. Military and civilian alike did unspeakable things to each other.

Tom, I'm not discounting what the rest of the Allies did in Europe. I'm not discounting the sacrifices made by our own troops. I'm certainly not saying you or Bsmack or Mikey or anybody else here isn't aware of what the Russians endured and accomplished in that war.

I am however saying that many (most?) Americans are blissfuly unaware of what really happened in Europe in WWII. Growing up in this country I was scarcely aware that the Russians even fought in the war, much less that they fought on our side. Were it not for the occasional Yalta Conference pic or whatever I never would've known that they were even in the war.

By and large we were led to believe that we defeated the Japs and the Germans, along with a little help from our pals the British, who wouldn't have survived without us.

Also, regarding that Russian winter thing, yep, it was a bitch on French and German supply lines.

It was also a bitch on Russian supply lines, as was Russia's scorched earth policy. Many Russians were sent into battle without bullets during the great sieges. They too were ill equipped, starving and freezing.

It was no picnic for either side, those Russian winters.

Martyred wrote:

Van wrote:Stalin had zero regard for human life, including his own troops.

True, but at least Stalin had the good sense to turn over the war planning to competent generals.

What was left of them after the purges, anyway. I'll bet he was wishing he could dig up a handful of the ones he killed in the previous decade.

smackaholic wrote:

Martyred wrote:

Van wrote:Stalin had zero regard for human life, including his own troops.

True, but at least Stalin had the good sense to turn over the war planning to competent generals.

What was left of them after the purges, anyway. I'll bet he was wishing he could dig up a handful of the ones he killed in the previous decade.

Look, the Russians learned some pretty fucking hard lessons in '41, but they were resilient. Unlike the German officer corps, they were more flexible and their local commanders were given far more free reign than any Wehrmacht general. This, Stalin had the brains not to interfere too much in.

Van wrote: I am however saying that many (most?) Americans are blissfuly unaware of what really happened in Europe in WWII. Growing up in this country I was scarcely aware that the Russians even fought in the war, much less that they fought on our side. Were it not for the occasional Yalta Conference pic or whatever I never would've known that they were even in the war.

What school did you go to?

And we didn't fight on the same side. The enemy of our enemy wasn't our friend. We certainly didn't invade Europe out of some altruistic sense of saving the USSR.

You're totally full of shit in this thread.

You discount 4,000 plus American GI's killed in one day at Normandy, like a general playing Risk, as so much cannon fodder, like Wal-Mart shoppers.

My dad served in WWII guarding German POW's at Ft. Leavenworth and you, sir, may go unfuck yourself.

WW, pipe the fuck down. No need to wave your flag at me. We all have parents and grandparents who served. You're hardly alone there.

Read what I wrote and refute it. Don't go all brain dead on me at the first whiff of something that seems to you like it isn't 100% America First, America Only.

Fact is, only 400,000+ Americans died in WWII. 23,000,000+ Russians died. Obviously many of those Russians were civilian deaths and deaths at the hands of Stalin but still, c'mon. More Russians died in any of a number of single battles on the Eastern front than the U.S. suffered during the entire war, combining both theaters. Besides, of those 400,000+ U.S. deaths the majority were in the Pacific Theater, not Europe.

The Soviets bore the main brunt of Hitler's war machine. By far. That's all I'm saying, along with the fact that most Americans haven't a clue.

Hell, it's reactions like yours that probably are a large part of the reason why. Simply telling the average American what happened in WWII causes them to immediately become wildly defensive and stupid...

Van wrote: Fact is, only 400,000+ Americans died in WWII.

"only" 400,000 plus? Damn, you're good at this Risk game. Are you an insurance adjuster, by chance? Has State Farm covered Susan's medical bills?

Your boy TVO and the lib media have had epiletic fits over 4,000 dead in Iraq, but that's beside the point.

Russians died defending their homeland, in their own backyard.

Americans died an ocean or two away. I don't get this effort of yours to somehow differentiate which was the more important theater of war, the Atlantic or the Pacific.. or to equate the number of lives lost in either as some sorta' Pac 10 dick measuring contest.

You're an emotional wreck right now. Get back with me when you get a better hold on yourself.

mvscal wrote:They had a three cornered war going on in China between the Nationalists, the Communists and the Japs, so it really shouldn't be very surprising.

Nobody does cataclysmic civil war like China.

Give us a shot!

Sincerely,
Mexico

mvscal wrote:

Martyred wrote:Unlike the German officer corps, they were more flexible and their local commanders were given far more free reign than any Wehrmacht general. This, Stalin had the brains not to interfere too much in.

This is a comically stupid remark. Thanks for the laugh.

Name one German general that had the latitude that even Konev had.

P.S. Don't say Manstein, I may die of laughter

WW, where did I say that one theater of the war was more important than the other?

I didn't. I said the U.S. did most of its fighting in the Pacific theater, and that Hitler didn't concern himself with the war in the Pacific theater.

That's not the same thing as saying the Euro theater was more important. It was more important to Germany, yes, but not necessarily to the U.S.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:Besides, of those 400,000+ U.S. deaths the majority were in the Pacific Theater, not Europe.

WRONG.

Break down the numbers. If I'm wrong there then I'm wrong there.

I once read that the number of U.S. deaths was tilted heavily in favor of the Pacific theater but now I'm reading that the Pacific theater only suffered (much) greater deaths on a percentage basis. I can't find anything right now detailing the number of U.S. deaths in the European theater.

Definitely the mortality rate for U.S. soldiers was much higher in the Pacific...though nothing like it was for the Japanese! Keee-rist!

Wow, you seething ones are in a spin..eh?

Look...it's time to wake up...

Uh..Pilgrim?...it's...time to wake up...uh...ya see...well,...we've been lied to..uh..big time..


Well, 'scuse me, but what the good Irish boy is tryin' to tell you is that a huuuuuuge scandal has occurred...and..well..it's a little beyond what you might have imagined...

yeah...



WW

Sure, Rove Monkey, just keep playin' "army," like when we were kids in the back yard..


babs in a good mood..

Mvscal, Wiki and one other source I just read put the Pacific theater U.S. death total in the 100,000+ range but even still that makes for far more U.S. deaths in the European theater so I stand corrected.

The U.S. sure did get off relatively lightly, compared to quite a few other countries during that war. Reading about the Japanese, christ, they suffered 90% casualty rates in some battles.

On a percentage basis though, woo, it was the poor Poles who suffered the worst of any country in the entire war...

Van wrote:I was never talking about "Who was responsible for the downfall of the Axis Powers?"

Where on earth did you get the idea that that was the topic? I was only talking about how the war in Europe was primarily decided by what happened on the Eastern front.

You mean the front that US supplied with everything from wheat to tank parts to twine? That front?

In no way does this diminish the incredible sacrifice the Russians made, but the Soviet Union would have been utterly incapable of winning jack shit were it not for Lend-Lease. Christ, we were still sending them wheat 50 years AFTER WWII.

Van wrote: The U.S. sure did get off relatively lightly, compared to quite a few other countries during that war. Reading about the Japanese, christ, they suffered 90% casualty rates in some battles.

On a percentage basis though, woo, it was the poor Poles who suffered the worst of any country in the entire war...

This is generally the case when a war is fought on your turf.

sin,
MA

Like I said, we haven't had a home game since 1865. Pearl harbor doesn't count because it was a sneak attack and no actual battles were fought on US soil.