World War II

[illeagle]

I'm very interested in studying about it. BUt my stupid social class only touched on it. Pretty much all the class said was axis and allied, allied won. woopedy doo.
I'm reading a book "Battle of El Alamein" and learned more from the book.
I also watched Saving Private Ryan, and read the story of D-Day.
Anybody know some weird and interesting facts and stories from WWII?.

edit: 8 minutes after this forum was created, w00t.

[Krelian]

it's been a while since i studied anything about ww2, but i've always thought it was impressive how the brits held out so long without help, and that it's somewhat embarassing how long america waited to join in. this should be interesting considering we have several people from the uk around. most americans i know think we won the war by ourselves, and i hear most brits think they could've won without our help.

[illeagle]

Maybe, they held Germany off in North Africa, but we helped with the D-day invasion.

[Titchimp]

us Brits arnt as weak as you yanks think , i hate the way the yanks always make films showing off what they did when it was actually us, has anyone ever seen the film about the US capturing an Enigma from a sub? U571? i cant remember but it was us brits that did that and then we went on to decode many German messages with the enigma (just 10miles from my house)

[bl0ss0m]

I really am enjoying this already, I love to hear how each side of the allies talk about the past now each country tries to make them sound better than the other. Other than that, it was teamwork that help the allies defeat Germany (hopefully I am right in a way, I never really went into it in school because I was too busy cutting school lol). I pretty much only watched movies, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and a few more, I really enjoyed all of them, especially reliving them in the games :) Would have been nice to see CoD's version of Omaha Beach too. :tweet:

[Krelian]

us Brits arnt as weak as you yanks think

not all of us think that ;) most, but not all.

i hate the way the yanks always make films showing off what they did when it was actually us, has anyone ever seen the film about the US capturing an Enigma from a sub? U571? i cant remember but it was us brits that did that and then we went on to decode many German messages with the enigma (just 10miles from my house)

i agree with you, but unfortunately the american public only wants to hear about american soldiers, and hollywood will do whatever they can to make a buck. if a war movie doesn't glorify the us, it isn't worth watching to most americans.

[genesis]

And since american movie market being the largest, they go with majority. It's pretty simple actually. I think there should be some amazingly great british made movie that'll tell there side of the story. Is there any?

[Billy The Mountain]

Well since I am, (I think?) the oldest in this forum. I can remember and have learned (a long time ago) in school and from many of my direct relatives who were in the action in both the Pacific and European theaters, and from reading on my own quite a bit about WWII.

First let’s remember that a large part of the reluctance for we Americans to get involved was that we had not that many years previously fought and won the WAR to end all WARS namely World War One.

There were still a lot of People who were alive ( My Grandpa was a WWI vet and died when I was about 7) and had fought in the trenches and also during the early 1900's we still fought much like we did during the Civil War here in the states.

That is to say we massed hundreds of thousands of people in several places along a front and had them charge bravely into withering decimating fire and the casualties were horrendous to say the least. After all we had the most primitive medical gear No Penicillin or any other antibiotics only the sulpha drugs.

So if you were wounded and not necessarily seriously wounded you were very likely to catch an infection and die, the death rate was also very high from wounds just from bleeding to death as our abilities to do transfusions were negligible. And surgery techniques were deplorable and amputations were the norm of things.

So a little over 20 years later here was the Bosch (the name for the Nazis in WWI) going at it again! But we didn’t really worry too much in some ways because we had set up an armistice on November 11 1918. In which the Germans had to do a number of things which was supposed to ensure that Germany would not be able to rebuild their military machine again.

Here are some of the major things we made Germany do out of 34 terms

1. Evacuate all captured territory it now had

2. Give up the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine (which it had taken in a war in 1870-1871

3. Allow the allied forces to move into Germany and occupy the Rhines left bank and the three bridgeheads on the right.

4. The whole German navy had to go to a British Naval base at Scapa Flow and be interned.

5. They had to surrender to the allies over 150,000 Freight train cars, over 5000 Locomotives, over 1700 aircraft, 5000 artillery pieces, and over 25,000 machine guns

Unfortunately due to rotten politics, the cowardice of the french, and so much more that there have been libraries full of books written about the whys and wherefores. It came to be that once again the Wehrmacht (German for war machine) was polished up and even more powerful than before and basically running amuck un- challenged for a period of over a year.

March 12 1938 Germany invades Austria

October 1 1938 Germany occupies Czechoslovakia

September 1 1939 Germany invades Poland

September 17 1939 Russia invades Poland too

On September 3 1939 Britain and france declare war on Germany and before the end of the month Poland has been occupied by Russia and Germany

This little over a year’s time that Germany was having its way may not seem like much time but they were training their troops in the most effective way possible by live warfare making their troops a very effective force.

Well my fingers are sore from typing so dang much and this ought to perhaps help to start out a lively little discussion :rolleyes:

Oh yeah did ya hear about the french rifle for sale on Ebay?

Never been fired and only dropped once :P

[Phaze]

... I've read books on El Alamein, Gazala, Battle of the bulge, and other places like that... But, not much. Ugh, this makes me wanna play Bf1942, lol. :P. You guys are seriously teaching me about some of this war stuff, heh. Keep it coming! :)

[Krelian]

i'm starting to remember a little now. the rebuilding of the german war machine was quite interesting, i thought. winston churchill is one of my favorite historical figures, and he was against the idea of appeasing the nazis the whole way through. it wasn't until it was too late that everyone started paying attention to him. actually, he also started warning people about russia and communism long before the cold war. a very interesting man...

as for america, i suppose our general public at the time was just isolated, naive, tired, and afraid of going to war. had we (or the british or the french) not hesitated to stop germany early on, ww2 would hardly have been a war.

[bl0ss0m]

Oh yeah did ya hear about the french rifle for sale on Ebay?

Never been fired and only dropped once

How about that surrender flag that this so called grandpa picked up at this abandoned base during the war.. :rolleyes: I saw it top 600 bucks a few years back.


Thanks for the info, this is really getting intresting. :tup:

[illeagle]

Yeah I find WWII VERY interesting, and plan on checking out most books in my school library about it.

[Krelian]

i also heard that the french had developed some special tanks. 5 reverse gears, and one forward in case the enemy sneaks up behind them :P

[Silent Killer]

THis is my gramps tellin me to say this: No one during the 40's was afraid to go to war, no the brits not the US, not even France(my gramps does not like the french). but if we had entered the war earlier, other countries would have said its not our business. We could have stopped hitler early on, but no one thought he would do anything. Thsi is waht is happening with iraq, n korea, no one thinks they will do anything, jsut like wut happened with hitler adn the nazis

[Kingox]

Originally posted by jman@Nov 24 2003, 10:03 PM
it's been a while since i studied anything about ww2, but i've always thought it was impressive how the brits held out so long without help, and that it's somewhat embarassing how long america waited to join in.* this should be interesting considering we have several people from the uk around.* most americans i know think we won the war by ourselves, and i hear most brits think they could've won without our help.
Also helped us out by having some of their destoryers here, but ran away when the japaness took control of indonessia. :P

i don't acclualy know much about WW2 :o

I really am enjoying this already, I love to hear how each side of the allies talk about the past now each country tries to make them sound better than the other. We were just pupets back then, and did what the brits told seeing we were still loyal to the motherland back then. as for this agreeument, its hards for my to chose a side seeing a have both yank and brits in my family.

and hollywood will do whatever they can to make a buck. if a war movie doesn't glorify the us, it isn't worth watching to most americans. I think hollywood is making a movie about bristish history now.

[Recluse]

Originally posted by Titchimp@Nov 24 2003, 03:16 PM
us Brits arnt as weak as you yanks think , i hate the way the yanks always make films showing off what they did when it was actually us, has anyone ever seen the film about the US capturing an Enigma from a sub? U571? i cant remember but it was us brits that did that and then we went on to decode many German messages with the enigma (just 10miles from my house)
What about Enemy at the Gates?

The defense of Stalingrad by the Russians against the Germans didn't feature any glorification of "yanks" that I recall.

[GreyHunter]

You both s*ck. Mother Russia all da way.

[Billy The Mountain]

Well this is turning out to be an interesting little discussion for sure :)

First of all, let’s remember that even though America had not joined into the war itself......

If it wasn’t for our Merchant Marine fleet (USA) supplying millions upon millions of tons of raw products, and massive amounts of ammunition, medical supplies, and food stuffs; Brittan may not have been able to continue with their brave resistance.

But America was not the only one involved in merchant marine fleets. Brittan and even france had many ships sunk. Starting in 1939 and for the next 3 1/2 years, the German wolf packs sank more than 130 ships, totaling over 850,000 tons.

This was almost 3 times the tonnage sunk by conventional war ships in naval battle.

Winston Churchill is one of my favorite historical figures, and he was against the idea of appeasing the nazis the whole way through. it wasn't until it was too late that everyone started paying attention to him. actually, he also started warning people about Russia and communism long before the cold war. a very interesting man...
Said by JMAN


Churchill was called to power on May 10, 1940 which was exactly 5 days before Holland fell. Churchill had vainly argued, pleaded and warned people from as early as 1932, to be prepared and draw a strong line against Adolph Hitler, and to also be wary of the Russian threat (even though at that time in the early 30's, Russia was in the middle of the Ukrainian Famine).

As said by: Silent Killer

This is my gramps tellin me to say this: No one during the 40's was afraid to go to war, no the brits not the US, not even France(my gramps does not like the french). but if we had entered the war earlier, other countries would have said its not our business. We could have stopped hitler early on, but no one thought he would do anything. Thsi is waht is happening with iraq, n korea, no one thinks they will do anything, jsut like wut happened with hitler adn the nazis

I can only say (Yay Gramps!) B) And I think you are right that we ought to be a lot more wary especially of korea.

But I feel that france had lost its heart in the trenches of WWI and never really recovered . Also france has not had a real army since the middle ages. Even Napoleon was not french, and their toughest fighting force is the french Foreign Legion lol

While the general American public has never been afraid of war and has constantly over the years defeated enemy forces many times their size, and more technologically advanced, the blood baths that were fought in the trenches of WWI stood out in peoples minds.

This was partly because photography, radio, telegraphs, all the news media was much quicker and more able to show the horrors of war to the common citizen. And to be fair to the french, they had suffered gigantic losses to the extent of almost whole generations of males being killed.

And at this time due to the delicate and often malignant political distortions of the failed League of Nations, Americans too did not want to appear over bearing and forceful in the affairs of other countries.

Remember too that America was in its isolationist period of history, and this was (due partly at least) to the fact that we had spent so much in lives, money, time, and grief fighting WWI which as I mentioned before was supposed to be the war to end all wars.

The public opinion was that America should avoid this war, as we gained precious little from our previous involvement in the seemingly never ending conflicts in Europe.

Phew! :wacko: I am attempting to try to stick to the facts historically and in a time-line leading up to the US Of A's entering into WWII

[Billy The Mountain]

Ok I think it is necessary to give some more background as to some of the things that helped to bring Europe closer to the brink of war.

In July of 1936 General Francisco Franco landed in Spanish Morocco to take control of over 24,000 rebel troops and led an uprising against the left wing government of the Republic Of Spain.

You will see how this Spanish Civil War was a training ground pre-cursor to the upcoming global catastrophe which was WWII

General Franco ended up being stuck in Morocco and so he asked for help from Mussolini and Hitler. They were glad to give him assistance.

On August 1936 Hitler sent 30 transport planes escorted by 6 fighter planes these fighter planes were called the Condor Legion.

Also during this time large numbers of German technicians and flyers were arriving in Spain with tourist passports so they could go through the Loyalist government territories into the rebel Nationalist areas of control.

The Loyalist Government was asking for help too and France sent some infantry gear (left over from WWI) and 200 planes The USA and Britain gave only food and clothing, while Russia sent 550 troops, over 240 planes, 1200 guns, and 700 tanks.

Plus there was a combined force of people that were recruited from throughout Europe, the USA, and Canada called the International Brigades. There were over 40,000 people in the Brigades including the American Abraham Lincoln Brigade with over 3000 men.

And for the next 2 years plus the fighting continued (some excellent reading can be found on the Spanish Civil War) and for the first time in history the Germans coordinated assaults with tanks thrown together as a large unit (and with Aerial support) rather than the usual being split up throughout different infantry divisions.

Besides the training and development of new tactics shattering the old fashioned military doctrines, Hitler gained access to Spain’s iron ore and magnesium deposits for munitions manufacturing,

And on June 5th 1939 The Germans of the Condor Legion returned home to a victory parade.

[Blade]

I just thought I would say - although some complain that America took too long to join the war, IMO it is lucky that they did, because it gave them time to actually build up a sizeable army. If they had entered the war earlier, their army would have been much much weaker, and they would have influenced the war much less.

[CowDoc]

Great write-ups Billy! If you (illeagle) or others are interested in learning more about WWII, I recommend other books by Stephen E. Ambrose (Band of Brothers fame) especially "Citizen Soldiers". A really good historical book on WWII is John Keegan's "The Second World War", a great overview of the war. I'm sure there are other great sources out there, but these are the only two I'm familiar with that covered WWII. Last, but not least, are people who were actually there. My Father was in the Pacific during WWII, and 5 of my Uncles were scattered around the world...they have some great stories. Many of those in that generation are not going to be around for long...I suggest talking to gramps or his friends or anybody else if you are really interested in learning about who fought the war.

[buzz]

nah we brints arnt weak.

we just have a gay goverment. :D

EDIT: you guys should watch the film 'The Rock'

its not about world war its about the alktraz prison. it gives a great ww1 and 2 amposphere

[urbn]

Originally posted by buzz@Dec 22 2003, 09:20 AM
EDIT: you guys should watch the film 'The Rock'

its not about world war its about the alktraz prison. it gives a great ww1 and 2 amposphere
What does the rock have to do with WW1 or 2? :huh:

I don't think the French were that weak. They just had a poor strategy that neglected the idea of northern invasion. They built a huge barrier with much artilery and men near the German border after WW1. As they did it they thought: never again. The only problem was that the germans bypa$$ed it and invaded from the north by going through Holland.

WW2 is quite an interesting subject. I love the Band of Brothers movie series. They seem quite realistic and very interesting. I want to read the book too. The Great Escape, Tora, Tora Tora and Saving Private Ryan were all great WW2 movies. Tora Tora Tora was interesting because it showed how pearl harbor developed on both sides and what mistakes lead to it being such a huge disaster and also narrowly escaping a worse one (our aircraft carriers were not there). The situation involved many coincedences and strange happenings.

[Kingox]

Originally posted by Blade@Dec 10 2003, 01:18 AM
I just thought I would say - although some complain that America took too long to join the war, IMO it is lucky that they did, because it gave them time to actually build up a sizeable army. If they had entered the war earlier, their army would have been much much weaker, and they would have influenced the war much less.
IMO, they'dd been attacking other countries, for decades before WW2 (or so i'm told) so there army was big enough, IMO

[Boss_Hotrod]

All I really know about is that the american's :w00t: didnt enter the war for a while becuase they wanted to be isolated from the world and be self sufficient.

[urbn]

Originally posted by Boss_Hotrod@Dec 24 2003, 06:04 AM
All I really know about is that the american's :w00t: didnt enter the war for a while becuase they wanted to be isolated from the world and be self sufficient.
That is sad... You should know more about one of the most important happenings in world history.

[Blade]

It is lucky that the Americans entered late, because it gave them time to build up their military. If they had entered early, their army may not have had such a large impact on the war. You should really study some history class on WW2 mate...

[urbn]

I don't know blade, if hitler was opposed earlier then I don't think he would have made it as far. If we were in from the start he would have had a lot to deal with and I think it would have lessened the destruction. I think it would have ended earlier if we entered earlier.

[Kashoggi]

Hi all I'm Kashoggi/Kash. I'm new to this forum, but couldn't find a 'hello' thread so I'll take this opportunity to introduce myself to you. :)

First off, I have found that programs on TV are not as near as precise as books. So, if you really want to know about WW2 I'd recommend reading books instead of watching Discovery or films.

Seems there is quite an amount of Yanks... uhm... American citizens I mean... here. But no worries, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. ;)

If you want to know about WW2... really want to KNOW about it, you should probably do a 5 year study. So much happened in those 6 years. he||, if you want to grasp why the whole damn war started in the first place, you'd probably have to go all the way back to 1870 and study the French-German war over the Elzas (sp?). And then study WW1 before you go to WW2.

Me being Dutch... Hmmm.... Let's start this sentence a bit different. Someone I know went to the US a couple of weeks ago and had to explain a lot about her and our country. So I'll do that first.

I am from The Netherlands. That's a country in Europe... and no we don't all live in Amsterdam. Only 1/20 part of the population does. :) We aren't in the neighbourhood of Iceland. Actually Iceland is closer to Greenland than it is to us. And we aren't a poor country which is run by a monarch. Actually I believe we're in 7th place as far as rich countries go, and we DO have a working democracy.

Ok... here I go again. Me being Dutch, the history I was taught was more about the occupation than it was about military movements. The resistance, the Dutch Nazi party (NSB, friggin' traitors), the holocaust (Anne Frank's diary really captures the atmosphere full of fear rather well), the hungerwinter, Operation Market Garden, the Japanese invasion of The Dutch Indies, The battle at the Java-sea, Japanese concentrationcamps and so on. I'll try to dig up some books in English and post them later.... If anyone is interested ofcourse.

And before jokes are made about how we lost the war in only 5 days, please be aware that the soldiers at most Dutch defenselines fought untill the last man. I'll be more than willing to discuss the events in may 1940 with ya, if you want to know. But in a respectfull manner.

[genesis]

Originally posted by Kashoggi@Dec 27 2003, 01:01 PM
Seems there is quite an amount of Yanks... uhm... American citizens I mean... here. But no worries, I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. ;)
Welcome to the boards Kash. No one will be able to flame you as long as you're outside the Battlefield, which is a forum here for flaming :D

Seems like you have pretty good information about our history. Have fun and let me know if you need anything.

[Kashoggi]

OFF-TOPIC:

Heh, well I hope that I'll be able to steer clear from that area tbh. I like a little name-calling, as long as it's all in jest. :tup:

[papa_kulikov]

im replying to a message that was posted back in november.......i think the British could have won the war without the help of america.....................all they needed where the soviets and the Canadians.....(go Canada)....

[Billy The Mountain]

Well they never would have suceeded without America.

The whole world would be speaking just a few languages by now theres no doubt.

The reason I say this is that Canada did not have the ability to mass produce the volume of material needed.

I am not saying that they were not brave enough, just that Canada did not have the industrial complex to produce the massive ammounts of war supplies needed.

Also if it were not for the supplies and materials sent by America The Germans would have had a lot easier time on the Russian Front.

What I mean is without the war materials that the good old USA sent out in huge quantities (and of which we have never been paid back for except for like 3 nations) The Brits would not have been able to be nearly as aggresive as they were and so the Germans could have focused much more military strength on the Russian Front.

The winter of the battle for Stalingrad was a battle won by the Russians by the thinnest of margins

[papa_kulikov]

good point with that..............what is your opinion on the american use of the atomic bomb in japan?

[deadmeat]

one of the real reasons why the nazis war machine was so sucessful was that it had filtered gold antiques and jewish money through banks in switerland . if britain and america had known this at the time they cound have bombed switerland back into the stone age and shut hilter's bank account ...........stop the nazis economy . :no: the military experts say that the war could have finished sooner rather than later millions of lives could have been saved

[deadmeat]

World war II ...... no side won, the nazis were defeat britain america russia and men and women from all those countries that have been invaded by the germans who resisted the german armies and fought back against the nazis invasion helped in the downfall of an evil man.... no one country can call true victory as many people where killed. the only thing we won was are freedom :thumbsup:

[papa_kulikov]

good point..............

[illeagle]

Originally posted by deadmeat@Jan 17 2004, 01:31 AM
World war II ...... no side won, the nazis were defeat britain america russia and men and women from all those countries that have been invaded by the germans who resisted the german armies and fought back against the nazis invasion helped in the downfall of an evil man.... no one country can call true victory as many people where killed. the only thing we won was are freedom :thumbsup:
your somewhat right.
american, great britain, canada, austrailia all the contries had freedome already.
we were defending ours.

[Blade]

Originally posted by papa_kulikov@Jan 10 2004, 12:44 PM
im replying to a message that was posted back in november.......i think the British could have won the war without the help of america.....................all they needed where the soviets and the Canadians.....(go Canada)....
You have to remember, if the Americans didn't fight, the military strength of the Germans that was being focused on the Americans would have been focused on the British and Russians.

In addition, if the Americans didn't fight the Japanese would have a free reign of the sea, and if the British wanted to do anything about it, it would stretch their resources greatly. Japan would have been free to focus on invading Australia and other pacific nations, or whatever else they may have wanted to do.

[papa_kulikov]

what do you think about the use of the atomic bomb?

[genesis]

It was barbarick and a slaughter, should never be done or even talked about. So many people were wasted and so many are still under the effect. That's not what we are in this world for.

[Red is my neck]

The atomic bomb is a tool not a weapon and the US knows how to fix things.

[Recluse]

The Atomic bomb decision was made by US President Truman in 1945 because the US had taken all the smaller Pacific islands at great cost and were ready to focus on invading the island of Japan in order to finish the war.

Truman's war analysts and advisers estimated, based upon experience in the Pacific, that it would cost over 1 million US casualties to invade Japan and defeat the enemy, not to mention a greater number of Japanese casualties. Truman believed this potential yet realistic cost in US lives was so abhorrent that he decided to use the Atomic bomb in order to force Japan to surrender without causing more than 2 million combined casualties.

It was a horrific weapon, but its use resulted in the end of the war at a fraction of the cost in Japanese lives, and a complete avoidance of the cost in US lives. It was a choice of either one or the other, and I think Truman made the right choice.

[Blade]

I would have to agree, but you have to take into account that those who were killed in the nuclear bomb were mostly innocents, who had not agreed to fight in the war.

However, it ended the war, so I think it was a good decision.

[Recluse]

Until modern times, the idea of civilian casualties in war was just an accepted fact of war.

Everyone believed that any civilians that were killed in war were the fault of their leaders for leading their country into war in the first place, and that when you were at war with a country, it was the entire country, not just their army.

[Blade]

I guess. If something of that scale were to happen these days, the government would be in enourmous trouble. Think about it - in the Iraq war, there was a huge uproar about a cruise missile that had missed it's target and landed in an Iraqi market.

[Recluse]

One of the things I try to point out when discussing these sorts of accidents is that the very idea of minimizing civilian casualties, something the US went to great lengths to do in Iraq, is a relatively new concept in warfare, and one BTW that seems to be a standard expected ONLY of Western Nations, and in particular the US.

In passing judgment on these types of incidents, it's imminently unfair to judge them by the ideal of zero civilian casualties, when in fact historical comparison quickly shows Iraq to be a war that featured the fewest civilian casualties ever for a war of this scale.

It reminds me a bit of the bad rap we get on slavery. The US is never referred to as one of the first two nations (UK was first) in the history of the world to actively abolish the timeless institution of slavery, as well as actively pressure other nations to do the same, we're always portrayed in a bad light on the issue...always.

[Billy The Mountain]

The use of the Bomb was totally justified.

First of all the Japanese culture was arrogant, cruel, racist, and extremely warlike. In fact their whole culture was based on an ancient warrior code of honor called Bushido.

The Japanese had never lost a war in the history of the country and that written history went back several thousand years.

They had thumbed their respective noses at Genghis Kahn and several Chinese dynasties over the centuries and had never lost a war to a foreign nation.

Here is a little blurb from a site that you ought to check out.

Men, women, children, were killed with bayonets, swords, bamboo sticks... their bodies s*xually mutilated. They were murdered by the Japanese Monsters of Frankenstein (japmof), in the beautiful ancient city of Nanjing, China. In that winter, at Nanjing, Japanese army massacred over 300,000 civilians and POWs, raped at least 20,000 women.
http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/ (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/)

You will be sickened as you read and find out that the japs considered Chinese sub-humane, just like the nazis considered the Jews. And that they did the same inhumane treatment of concentration camps, horrendous medical experiments and more...

How many of you have ever heard of the Batann death march? Did you know that if you were taken prisoner by the japs that even if you were seriously wounded you were expected to walk and keep up or be killed (quickly if you were fortunate as the japs loved to torture)

If you survived the trip to a jap POW camp you were in for a long death of over work, starvation, and torture. That was the best you could hope for from them.

as said by Recluse:

Truman's war analysts and advisers estimated, based upon experience in the Pacific, that it would cost over 1 million US casualties to invade Japan and defeat the enemy, not to mention a greater number of Japanese casualties. Truman believed this potential yet realistic cost in US lives was so abhorrent that he decided to use the Atomic bomb in order to force Japan to surrender without causing more than 2 million combined casualties.
It was a horrific weapon, but its use resulted in the end of the war at a fraction of the cost in Japanese lives, and a complete avoidance of the cost in US lives. It was a choice of either one or the other, and I think Truman made the right choice.


So with that sort of mentality and with their fanatic defense of fighting to the last man we were more than justified in using nuclear technology.

I would like to mention at this point that when we captured the German facilities where the (mostly) captive scientists were working on the Atom bomb. That they were only months away from developing a full blown deliverable weapon!

They also already had Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles ready to deliver the bombs anywhere in the world.

Do you suppose even in your wildest dreams? That they would have hesitated for one second to nuke London, Washington DC Stalingrad and many, many other cities?

[papa_kulikov]

i think dropping the bomb on a japanese city was totally wrong............
they could have dropped it on an island with only military targets on it..
i think the us on it to end the war was a good idea..........but other then that..........

[Billy The Mountain]

It was a tragedy but war is full of them. They had to drop a bomb somewhere the politicians and rich politic elite could see first hand what could very well soon happen to them.

They realized that they were no longer insulated from the horrors of war sad so many innocents die in war but then that is why they say "War is he||

[Cdon]

Originally posted by Recluse@Jan 20 2004, 01:36 PM
It reminds me a bit of the bad rap we get on slavery. The US is never referred to as one of the first two nations (UK was first) in the history of the world to actively abolish the timeless institution of slavery, as well as actively pressure other nations to do the same, we're always portrayed in a bad light on the issue...always.
I agree. Every racist situation is considered to be caused by a white, or so the media says. It aggravates me to think that if a black calls a white a "honkey" or "cracka," it isn't considered a big deal, just a joke, even if it was in a serious manner. But if a white person calls a black a "ni**er," (:o do you notice that when you see this word, you automatically are drawn to it in a negative way, unlike honkey or cracka) it's suddenly a huge commotion and the white is labeled as a racist person. Sure the white did do something extremely stupid and indeed racist, but did the black, or to make you feel better, "African American" get the same type of punishment? Does that seem a little wrong to you?

And just to let you all know, blacks were not the only humans to be enslaved. Have you ever heard of a serf (a mainly white slave).

[Billy The Mountain]

Yeah and not to mention that 98% of black slaves were already slaves to their respective kings and chiefs and were sold for a bucket of beads or a mirror.

Slavery was already an institution in Africa long before trade routes opened to the new world.

[papa_kulikov]

the situation is getting better for them........they should be thankful the dont live in pre-civil war times...................

[illeagle]

Kenny, we ALl did our parts, does it really matter who ended it?
IT sure as he|| didn't to the soldiers out there.

[Billy The Mountain]

As said by papa_kulikov
the situation is getting better for them........they should be thankful the dont live in pre-civil war times...................

And they ought to be real glad there not living in about 90% of Africa today!

[papa_kulikov]

What about what they did??On Haiti they slaughtered and killed all the white people on the island after gaining independence from France......

[Teufel]

us Brits arnt as weak as you yanks think

Well, the British survived the massive bombings on their little islands, survived in Africa, and managed to defeat the Luftwaffe at the Battle of Britain, thereby making an invasion of Great Britain impossible. I'd hardly call that weak. ;)

it's somewhat embarassing how long america waited to join in.

I think Blade's response to this hit the nail on the head -

Originally posted by Blade
I just thought I would say - although some complain that America took too long to join the war, IMO it is lucky that they did, because it gave them time to actually build up a sizeable army. If they had entered the war earlier, their army would have been much much weaker, and they would have influenced the war much less.

Aside from America being isolationist, after World War 1 it had let its army atrophy terribly. It was in NO position to take on the Wehrmacht, even if the American people had wanted to. It needed those years to build up its army, navy, airforce, and finally get out of the Great Depression.

let’s remember that a large part of the reluctance for we Americans to get involved was that we had not that many years previously fought and won the WAR to end all WARS namely World War One.

Sorry, but if you're trying to say America won World War 1 you are dead wrong. Our reinforcements were definitely a big boost to the morale to other Allies and we did win some battles, but it wasn't soon enough for a major victory. Hands down, I think victory in that one goes to the British. The British Defense Forces bravely kept France from falling to the Kaiser, and its navy kept Germany from getting vital supplies.

In addition, if the Americans didn't fight the Japanese would have a free reign of the sea,

They also could've hit the Soviet Union.

If it wasn’t for our Merchant Marine fleet (USA) supplying millions upon millions of tons of raw products, and massive amounts of ammunition, medical supplies, and food stuffs; Brittan may not have been able to continue with their brave resistance.

Yeah, that was definitely imporant. And even in World War 1, without our getting the British supplies, they would've been forced to surrender.

---

Also, off topic, but Blade and Recluse are right about America's airforce going to extreme lengths to avoid civilian casualties (not in WW2, I mean now). It's unprecedented. The UN predicted 500,000 civilians would die in Iraq - the actual figure was 100 times less!

I can't stand it when people say America's not being careful. If that were true, why would the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists be moving their military targets into civilian areas? ;)

[Blade]

Some very good points there, there is just one thing I would like to comment on though:

Well, the British survived the massive bombings on their little islands, survived in Africa, and managed to defeat the Luftwaffe at the Battle of Britain, thereby making an invasion of Great Britain impossible. I'd hardly call that weak.

The British were tough enough to survive the bombings, and in Africa, but luck was on their side when it came to the Battle of Britain. The Germans were pounding British airbases, and the British were going on the back foot. However, the Germans began to think that they were losing, and started to bomb British cities instead. This gave the British time to rebuild their airbases, and use their aircraft to drive the Luftwaffe away.

If the Germans had known they were winning, the outcome would have been quite different, but I'm not even going to attempt to predict who would have won...

[papa_kulikov]

Hitler was about to invade Britain but started his drive in the east instead....................sparing the British from invasion........................
and the first bombs dropped on Londen where actually a mistake made by an air crew of a german bomber.........starting the bombing of Berlin and the Londen Blitz.........

[Teufel]

The British were tough enough to survive the bombings, and in Africa, but luck was on their side when it came to the Battle of Britain. The Germans were pounding British airbases, and the British were going on the back foot. However, the Germans began to think that they were losing, and started to bomb British cities instead. This gave the British time to rebuild their airbases, and use their aircraft to drive the Luftwaffe away.

Ah, didn't know that, thanks. Also, I think the British had just invented radar which gave them an edge over the Germans (I think, not sure about it.)

[papa_kulikov]

i think the germans had rader before the British........(im not sure either)

[Blade]

Well, in Battlefield 1942, in the Battle of Britain map, the British have high-tech radar which the Germans don't have.

(I'm making assumptions about history based on a computer game... :lol: )

[Billy The Mountain]

As said by teufel:

Sorry, but if you're trying to say America won World War 1 you are dead wrong. Our reinforcements were definitely a big boost to the morale to other Allies and we did win some battles, but it wasn't soon enough for a major victory. Hands down, I think victory in that one goes to the British. The British Defense Forces bravely kept France from falling to the Kaiser, and its navy kept Germany from getting vital supplies.

Not true. The trench war that was WWI had been stalemated for quite a while and if it was not for the presence of American troops arriving to end the situation things would have turned out much differently.

Heinrich Hertz started experimenting with radio waves in his laboratory in Germany in 1887

However it was a Scottish physicist who developed the radar locating of aircraft in England his name was Sir Robert Alexander Watson-Watt.
Radar was patented (British patent) in April, 1935

The heroic battle of Britain was possible because of a very extensive radar system and a huge network of observers and listening posts.

Also the majority of the British Airforce was scattered throughout the English countryside in peoples barns sheds fake haystacks etc..

This way when a flight of enemy planes was plotted they could intercept and it was not just from one direction that they attacked from. This also increased the response time tremendously.

Plus the Germans could not bomb a few targets and take out the whole airforce.

[papa_kulikov]

i dont know much about world war I............i guess i should do some reading........who was the red Barron??????Erich Von something i think?????????????

[Mr. bean]

Manfred Frhr von Richthofen was his name the Red Baron was a top flying ace for the germans during world war 1. Vaux sur Somme, France is where he was i believe shot down he had about 80 victory missions against the allies during WWI. He was actually trained to be a mounted horse man and had very little expeirance with a Air Plane. I guess practice makes perfect and he was Prussian also I know little about wwI, but when it comes to good ol Richthofen i can spare a bit of knowledge.

[papa_kulikov]

there was a german pilot Erich von something.........he was well known for something but i dont know what..............does anybody know??????

[Mr. bean]

Manfred Frhr von Richthofen was his name the Red Baron was a top flying ace for the germans during world war 1. Vaux sur Somme, France is where he was i believe shot down he had about 80 victory missions against the allies during WWI. He was actually trained to be a mounted horse man and had very little expeirance with a Air Plane. I guess practice makes perfect and he was Prussian also I know little about wwI, but when it comes to good ol Richthofen i can spare a bit of knowledge.

Thats him my friend Von richthofen

He was a top flying ace for the germans

[Teufel]

Not true. The trench war that was WWI had been stalemated for quite a while and if it was not for the presence of American troops arriving to end the situation things would have turned out much differently.

The Germans would've fallen, even without America entering the war. Granted it would've taken longer and cost more British lives, but nonetheless. The British navy's blockade of Germany and her allies, keeping food and badly needed supplies out is one of the reasons they capitulated, along with the fact they knew they would lose to the British. The ironic thing is the Germans almost forced the British to surrender earlier by keeping food from getting to Britain from America with their U-boats.

And I believe the Allies had so much respect for the Red Baron they buried him with honors or some such.

[papa_kulikov]

i think the american involvment helped establish the victory in WW I much quicker saving the lives of many french and british.......

[imported_Aesir]

What about the Australians in world war 1?
what they did at ANZAC cove could make a far better war movie than another medievil epic. i know ANZAC has been done before in the movie "Gallipoli" directed by Peter Wier, but thats old and needs an update.

[Pravda]

not all of us think that ;) most, but not all.



i agree with you, but unfortunately the american public only wants to hear about american soldiers, and hollywood will do whatever they can to make a buck. if a war movie doesn't glorify the us, it isn't worth watching to most americans.
thats all well and good and all, but what about the russian side? i mean sure you brits and americans did a pretty bang up job, but russia did something too, all we see is american soldiers on the movie screen, and brits are starting to get mad cause they've only seen americans and not brits, but comeon, what about russia? we contributed to the war too. :icon_mad:

[relax 1.0]

talk about reviving an old topic....its 2 years old !

[Alpha_Pasta]

Russia made the largest contribution to the war effort - certainly in man power.

They commited 160 divisions in the final assault.

[catman]

Russia had more or less good usage of available materials throughout the war. What they didn't have was good leadership. Yet, without someone as cruel as Stalin, Russia might have folded..

just my 2 cents..

[ColonelChaos007]

Never talk about Comrade Stalin like that. The man's a saint! :icon_wink:

[PZIV]

Chaos, your "saint" killed about 4 times as many people as Hitler did. Think about that one buddy...

Russians sucked. The only thing that saved them was the Russian winter. The British were good troops, but had a hell of a time facing the military might of Germany.

America came into the war after the Germans were exhausted. Without all countries collapsing, the Nazi's would have won the war.

The greatest fighting force of the war in my opinion.

[ColonelChaos007]

I don't care. I like Stalin. So don't talk to him like that.

I don't give a damn what Stalin did.

And that's all bull, Russians did not suck. I love Russians.

[PZIV]

Don't take my word for it then. Do some personal research and you will see. For every german soldier killed 32 Russians died.

Stalin was an idiot and the spawn of satan.

Here you go people. Take a look at what he did to his own people.

http://judicial-inc2.biz/famine_1.WMV

[ColonelChaos007]

Yeah but did Stalin kill a generation of Jews? Stalin loved his men and his motherland, but he didn't kill Jews, think, don't be stupid.

[PZIV]

Does it really matter what you kill in the name of? No, it matters if you killed and how many. Hitler is horrible, I will not deny, but you're not thinking of the true Stalin.

Yeah but did Stalin kill a generation of Jews? Stalin loved his men and his motherland, but he didn't kill Jews, think, don't be stupid.

[ColonelChaos007]

Actually, yes.

If I decided right now to kill you and your whole generation of family, would you be angry? What would people say about that? Huh?

Of course people would say I'm a racist, I'm a sadist, I'm a dumb idiot and what was I thinking.

Now that is racism. That's what Hitler did. He tried to annihilate the Jews, and he did one hell of a job.

Stalin, loved his men, he loved his country, Comrade Stalin killed those who he thought was going to turn against him.

Watch Enemy at the Gates, they killed their own men because they don't trust traitors and cowards. If I was Stalin I would do the same thing to my people who don't have the courage to even fight for the whole country for a country that was so largely big in Asia.

[PZIV]

Once again, I'm not talking about the people who died in the war. I'm talking about the innocent people of Russia who died before and after WWII.

They were sent to concentration camps just like Hitler did.

[ColonelChaos007]

Blah blah yada yada. Innocent Jews died too, I don't give a freakin' damn.

I am right, you are wrong.

I'd want to see you get sent to a concentration camp..hehe...

[PZIV]

Well, my work on this subject is done. If it's gone past basic maturity, I have no desire to discuss this with you.

[ColonelChaos007]

It was over after my last post, why are you still talking to me?

I win. Case settled.

[Alpha_Pasta]

Stalin killed an estimated 20 million of his own people.

ColonelChaos don't rubbish other's arguments.

[ColonelChaos007]

But all of it wasn't intentional like Hitler would kill the Jews. It wasn't an annihilation - total - for a purpose to erase a certain race. Stalin only did it to protect the motherland. Hitler did it for his own sick plan.

So I win, in a way.

[PZIV]

Alpha, I do believe it was closer to 40.

EDIT:

Early researchers of the number killed by Stalin's regime were forced to rely largely upon anecdotal evidence, and their estimates range as high as 60 million

This is from Wiki. I think 60 is too high, but I wouldn't put it past him to be 40.

[MidnightRider]

The mojority of this information was known by me but to be historicaly correct i have searched my libiary of books and the internet to be sure i am presenting the most factuial info i could.

Stalin was every bit the mad man as Hitler, the only difference was Stalin was not trying to attempt the extermaniton of a race. Stalin was a brutal leader and he cared nothing for his people as far as the induvidual went. He cared only for his power and his hold over Russia.

But even before WWII his rise to power was tainted with blood. After Lenin died Stalin became the general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party in 1921 or 22, unsure of the date. Then came about The Great Purge, a brutal supression of any politcal views that difered form Stalin's, this included punishments such as death by fireing squad, "relocated" by force, and prison and labor camps where many died from malnutrition, starvation, disease, and being overworked. Sound fimuliar?

Yes even during WWI he ordered his officers to shoot any man that turned and ran as a tratior or coward. I have heard many ppl complain that America refused to enter the war untill Pearl Harbor, but Stalin also negotiate a non-aggression pact with Hitler prior to the war. His plan was to let Germany and the western nations, USA and France and Great Brition to duke it out and soften each other up. At that point he would sweep in and prepare the world for "Sovietization".

Sept 1 1939 Nazi Germeny invaded Poland and Stalin changed his views, invadeing Poland as well anexing estern Poland. A month later the Red Army crossed the Finnish border and sparked the Winter War. This exposed a lack of capablities in the Russian army the the world took notice of, and Germany was not blind to it. In 1940 Stalin approved the execution for more than 25,700 Polish "nationalist, educators and counterrevolutionary" activists in the newly anexed Poland.

In 1941 Hitler broke the pact with Stalin and invaded Russia, prob his intent all along, and while Stalin knew it was comeing he didnt expect it so soon. A myth is that Stalin appeared unwilling to accept the fact and, according to some historians, was too stunned to react appropriately for a number of days. And this myth is dispelled by people who have looked into the Soviet Archives after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both Richard Overy and Simon Sebag Montefiore have showed that he held at least 8 major meetings the same day as the invasion. Stalin ignored much intelligence warning of a German attack.

Once WWII was in full swing the allied nations met for several conferences with Churchill and/or Roosevelt in Moscow and while the first conferences are good, near the end of the war Stalin became mistrustful of both Roosevelt and Churchill.

According to Stalin's Order No. 227 of 1942, any commander or commissar of a regiment, battalion or army, who allowed retreat without permission from above was subject to military tribunal. The Soviet soldiers who surrendered were declared traitors, but most who survived the brutality of German captivity were mobilized again as they were freed. Between 5% and 10% of them were sent to gulags (policital prisons).

Of an estimated four millions POW's taken by the Russians, including Germans, Japanese, Hungarians, Romanians and others, some 580,000 never returned, presumably victims of privation or the Gulags. Returning Soviet soldiers who had surrendered were viewed with suspicion and some were killed.

Stalin's internal repressive policies continued well after WWII. He had hoped that American withdrawal and demobilization would lead to increased communist influence, especially in Europe. Each side might view the other's defensive actions as destabilizing provocations and these security dilemmas frayed relations between the Soviet Union and the western nations, leading to the Cold War.

Stalin spent a great deal of effort in createing a "cult of personality". Forming in the Soviet ppls mind his idea of how they would view him. Any person's thought to discredit or speak out against him were imprisioned, bansished to Sibera, or killed out right.

Soruces:

Stalin's Folly: The Tragic First Ten Days of WWII on the Eastern Front by Constantine Pleshakov
Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945 by Richard Overy
Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar by Simon Sebag Montefiore
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/index.htm

[PZIV]

Good info nightrider. I am too lazy to write up a summary like that, but I'm glad someone isn't.

I would much like to know if you had AIM. You seem knowledgeable enough to have an actual historical discussion, which is hard to find.

Contact me via PM, or my SN for AIM is Craterus793.

Thanks.

EDIT: I'm going to watch a taped show of mine on the Gestapo I've been meaning to watch. Ill catch up with you later.

[MidnightRider]

Thanks, i really dont like to use instant msgs they end up pissing me off. I used them mostly to trade files. There are plenty of places to look for info on WWI and other wars, books, TV, moives, internet ect ect ect all ya got to do is look. Id be happy to carry on this conversation here with you.

[PZIV]

Oh I'm sure I know most of the information you do. It's more fun to discuss it with people though. We can do it via PM if you'd like.

I PMed you.

[MidnightRider]

I admire and enjoy your intrerst in all things WWII but im sure others would like to be involved in it as well, besides thats what this thread is for.

[PZIV]

Alright then. Good point.

Someone care to choose a topic? I think we've exhausted Stalin...:icon_wink:

[MidnightRider]

Ok well for my British friends here on the boards, what do we know about Churchill, that was an intersting man.

[ColonelChaos007]

I wanna talk about Fidel Castro, even though he has no correlation with WWII and it's era.

I don't know much about the ol' "Trippy" Cuban Dictator, but after watching Scarface it made me want to focus more into Castro.

After Castro I feel like talking about Ferdinand Marcos, President also known as "Dicator" of the Philippines.

[PZIV]

Inner workings of this man was not something to be messed with. In my opinion was about as bad morally as General Patton was, or even worse, but he didn't show it.

It was really his idea to firebomb Dresden, which was just a way to get back at Germany, through killing thousands of innocent german civilians as well as damaging thousands of years of history. He wanted it to happen.

Ok well for my British friends here on the boards, what do we know about Churchill, that was an intersting man.

[ColonelChaos007]

I wanna talk about Fidel Castro, even though he has no correlation with WWII and it's era.

I don't know much about the ol' "Trippy" Cuban Dictator, but after watching Scarface it made me want to focus more into Castro.

After Castro I feel like talking about Ferdinand Marcos, President also known as "Dicator" of the Philippines.

QFT

[Alpha_Pasta]

New topic, new thread.

===

Midnight rider churchill sounds good :). I think he was the drving force behind us winning the war.

[MidnightRider]

New topic, new thread.

===

Midnight rider churchill sounds good :). I think he was the drving force behind us winning the war.

Churchill was an outstanding man from the military stand point of WWII. Here is something that gives insight into the character of the man.

Before 1900 in South Africa Churchill set as a war correspondent. Once in South Africa, he accepted a lift on a armored train; this train was derailed by an ambush. Churchill, even though he was not officially a combatant, took charge of operations to get the track cleared and managed to ensure that the engine and half the train, carrying the wounded, could escape. Churchill, however, was not so lucky and, together with other officers and soldiers, was captured and held in a POW camp in Pretoria, despite uncertainty about his combatant status.

Churchill managed to escape from his prison camp, resulting in a long-running criticism and controversy as it was claimed that he did not wait for two men who had planned the escape, but who were unable, or unwilling, to risk slipping over the fence when Churchill did. Once outside the Pretoria prison camp, Churchill travelled almost 300 miles (480 km) to Portuguese Lourenço Marques in Delagoa Bay, with the assistance of an English mine manager who hid him down his mine and smuggled him out on a train.

This gives us a hint about Chruchill as a man, clearly there is some controversy about him even early in his life. Mostly Alpha i agree with you, were it not for the combined effort of Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill WWII would have been lost for the Allies. It is entirely untrue to say that any of these three men won the war. Think of it this way, after WWI we figured we had Germany locked down and unable to recreate the war machine. How wrong we were. In two wars, involveing nearly every major army on the planet it took the combined might of several nations to stop a threat from just one nation, with the exception of Japan in WWII. Even so it would have taken the USA YEARS of fighting in the Pacific to bring conflict with Japan to an end had it not been for the A-bomb. Even so, Germany was on the very brink of creating their own A-bomb when they were overrun by the Soviets.

[PZIV]

I find something wrong with this personally.

First of all, many of the Generals (like Montgomery), for all the allies, were total idiots. Unfotunetly so were the presidents. Churchill had bad moral judgement (like I stated earlier), when he came up with the idea to firebomb Dresden.

Do not confuse the people who won the war for the allies. The soldiers who put there lives at risk every day, and every hour, for years, were the ones who won the wars. The politicians were good for nothing people, who ate, slept and were entertained in the most luxuriast ways. They can sit on their asses and come up with plans, but do not forget who it was that made those plans work. The soldiers get the credit, the presidents do not, and in WWII the allied generals do not.


This gives us a hint about Chruchill as a man, clearly there is some controversy about him even early in his life. Mostly Alpha i agree with you, were it not for the combined effort of Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill WWII would have been lost for the Allies. It is entirely untrue to say that any of these three men won the war. Think of it this way, after WWI we figured we had Germany locked down and unable to recreate the war machine. How wrong we were. In two wars, involveing nearly every major army on the planet it took the combined might of several nations to stop a threat from just one nation, with the exception of Japan in WWII. Even so it would have taken the USA YEARS of fighting in the Pacific to bring conflict with Japan to an end had it not been for the A-bomb. Even so, Germany was on the very brink of creating their own A-bomb when they were overrun by the Soviets.

In reality, a submarine carrying plutonium or uraniam (I forget which one), was shipping from Germany to Japan. Once at Japan they had everything ready to launch it at San Fransisco. We dropped the A-bomb 11 days before they could launch their bomb.

Also, the Germans would have come up with the A-bomb quicker than the allies if they had the same sircumstances. Everytime they would develop a plant or something, the allies would take that area of Europe leaving them to start over. With a war raging, most of the money was sent towards fighting instead of making a nuclear bomb.

[MidnightRider]

Ok thats acceptable, but really, did the German and Jap comanders do any better once the war was in full swing? There were huge blunders on either side, and on a war of that scale its bound to happen at least 5 or 6 times a day. God bless the GI that was on the lines everyday, but face it, if the choice were to go and fight or stay home what do you think they would prefer? Had those comanders not pulled men from the home frount and sent them to war we might all be speaking German today and singing the praises of Hilter.

From the Allies standpoint it brought the worlds ecomenys out of the dark ages. Face it war is good for bussiness. Look at the US before they entered the war, we were shipping supplies to both Germany and France, and later to the UK, and made a bundle doing it. Inmoral? Yes. Profitable? Absoulty. Still going on today? You can bet your ass on it. Your not going to find a perfect leader. My point is we have give note to the comanding leaders of the big 3. Were it not for these men to stand up and push us to war things in history may have be very very different.

[PZIV]

Well, German commanders were the best of the war in my opinion. They made mistakes, yes, but every commander did in the war. No one wants to be in the line of fire, but those who are, are deffinetly braver than the fat ass Churchill who sat on his throne giving orders.

I agree the war brought us out of the depression, but at what cost to the world? For the people who didn't lose family or friends (which was rare), how would you explain it to them? "Well ma'am, at least our nation has a better economy. Maybe you can go out and have a nice dinner." I don't think we should look at any positives from this war.

I might give credit to Rosevelt, because I do find him as a descent leader, but I will most certainly not give credit to Churchill or Stalin. They are both murderers of innocent people just like Hitler.

Ok thats acceptable, but really, did the German and Jap comanders do any better once the war was in full swing? There were huge blunders on either side, and on a war of that scale its bound to happen at least 5 or 6 times a day. God bless the GI that was on the lines everyday, but face it, if the choice were to go and fight or stay home what do you think they would prefer? Had those comanders not pulled men from the home frount and sent them to war we might all be speaking German today and singing the praises of Hilter.

From the Allies standpoint it brought the worlds ecomenys out of the dark ages. Face it war is good for bussiness. Look at the US before they entered the war, we were shipping supplies to both Germany and France, and later to the UK, and made a bundle doing it. Inmoral? Yes. Profitable? Absoulty. Still going on today? You can bet your ass on it. Your not going to find a perfect leader. My point is we have give note to the comanding leaders of the big 3. Were it not for these men to stand up and push us to war things in history may have be very very different.

[MidnightRider]

As i said, if the world had not given up that loss of life, how much better do you think it would have been under Hitler. Hitler wouldnt have lasted much longer than his death anyway, he showed signs of Parkinsins or syliphis, and who do you think would have taken his place. There were plenty that were so devoted to Hitlers idea of a perfect race they would have caried it on as far as it could go.

The Desert Fox was a hell of a comanding officer, but in the end even an army with the might that Hitler created, he still couldnt achive victory over the Soviets, Americans and British. No Churchill might have been incorrect in his judgment with Dresden. But this was a war time event, how about Hitlers persacution of the Jewish faith? No way is there a comparision of Churchill to Hitler. Despite my eailer post Stalin didnt go near as far as Hitler.

[PZIV]

I'm not saying we shouldn't have given up the loss of life. You made a point that the war was good in a way, and I don't like to think of any good in it. I wouldn't even say that defeating Hilter is good, because his murderous regime shouldn't have happend in the first place.

EDIT: And I don't really think it's fair to the families of those who lost there lives, or those who lost there lives themselves, to say that there death helped others live easier or more richly.

As i said, if the world had not given up that loss of life, how much better do you think it would have been under Hitler. Hitler wouldnt have lasted much longer than his death anyway, he showed signs of Parkinsins or syliphis, and who do you think would have taken his place. There were plenty that were so devoted to Hitlers idea of a perfect race they would have caried it on as far as it could go.

[MidnightRider]

No one wants to lose a loved one, not in a car wreck, not in child brith, not in a accident at the swiming pool, and most certinaly not in a war, but how do you justify takeing away from those men and women the greatest achivement they could ever have, makeing the world a better place by way of their deaths. If i were to had to go to WWII i would have gone knowing that my wife and kids would go on in a world free of such horid disregard for human life, and God keep those brave souls that did just that.

[PZIV]

People shouldn't have to die to make the world a better place, but I guess you really are correct. The fact is they did and I guess we should be thankful that they made our lives better. I do think you know what I was meaning throughout my last few posts.

No one wants to lose a loved one, not in a car wreck, not in child brith, not in a accident at the swiming pool, and most certinaly not in a war, but how do you justify takeing away from those men and women the greatest achivement they could ever have, makeing the world a better place by way of their deaths. If i were to had to go to WWII i would have gone knowing that my wife and kids would go on in a world free of such horid disregard for human life, and God keep those brave souls that did just that.

[ColonelChaos007]

No. You are wrong. People have to die to make the world a better place. Freedom costs lives.

[PZIV]

It's easy for people who don't lose their lives to say that.

[ColonelChaos007]

Of course it is. Why don't you go pick yourself an M-16 instead of your worthless WWII MIlitaria crap and go board a ship to Iraq, go kill some Talibans and Al Qaeda and die for your country.

[PZIV]

Of course it is. Why don't you go pick yourself an M-16 instead of your worthless WWII MIlitaria crap and go board a ship to Iraq, go kill some Talibans and Al Qaeda and die for your country.

Does everyone see this? This is ignorance at it's finest. Iraq is not home to the Taliban or Al Qaeda. That is Afghanistan and more rescently Pakistan. :applaus:

[ColonelChaos007]

We don't care. A noob like you should be sent off to Military School. You just have no life, all you do is strive to find WWII Militaria.

Sooner or later, some antique you get is possessed by some Nazi ghost and will haunt your life forever with whatever Steven King can think of.

[catman]

and you just strive for an argument. that is enough. dont need one of your gay responses here. if you respond, it merely means you are lower in stature.

[PZIV]

Now when you say "We don't care." are you referring to you and your other you? I doubt I will find an antique that is possessed. I think these items hold more worth than some measly XBOX 360 or some electronics.

Plus didn't you say you wanted me to find a real Luger for you?
We don't care. A noob like you should be sent off to Military School. You just have no life, all you do is strive to find WWII Militaria.

Sooner or later, some antique you get is possessed by some Nazi ghost and will haunt your life forever with whatever Steven King can think of.

[ColonelChaos007]

*Scoffs* Yeah more worth in dust collecting and seeing them rust over the years and to see your "children" make fun of you for wasting half your life finding those things instead of going out and have male/female intimacy.

[Tizmo]

Blah blah yada yada. Innocent Jews died too, I don't give a freakin' damn.

I am right, you are wrong.

I'd want to see you get sent to a concentration camp..hehe...
Chaos, that is not acceptable. You have already had a suspension, and that is basically a warning. We do not allow this kind of talk to other people here. This kind of action cannot go unpunished. You are hereby suspended for 2 weeks. There length of the suspension increased by the number of suspensions. Last time you had a 1 week suspension, now it is two. Enjoy your vacation.

[catman]

:arco:

:mog:

[MidnightRider]

Der Totenkopf']People shouldn't have to die to make the world a better place, but I guess you really are correct. The fact is they did and I guess we should be thankful that they made our lives better. I do think you know what I was meaning throughout my last few posts.

Anyway, before we were so rudely intrupted, you are the one that is right. Ppl shouldnt have to die to make the world a better place, but the sad reality is it happens every single day.

I understand your meaning in your last few posts and agree with them, but it comes down to this, at the end of the day we all go to sleep in a bed that was made safe by the brave men and women of the worlds fighting forces.

[PZIV]

I would like to get one thing strait before we go any further though.

People want to say "I'm glad they all died" and things of that sort towards the German soldiers and people of Germany, but would you agree it is sad the innocent civilians and most of the soldiers who died should be mourned? I mean, Hitler's idea of the perfect Aryan race was horribly flawed and because of his stupid idea everyone condemns the entire German race to being Nazi's?

I feel just as sorry for the civilians who died in fighting that were Germans as well as many of the soldiers who died. Most soldiers in my opinion only fought to protect the motherland, not some perfect race.

Do you agree?

[MidnightRider]

I agree it is wrong to hold against the general German population the sins of only a few men, but one has to understand that the world has fought two wars on a scale that had NEVER been seen in the recorded history of warfare and they can be laied at the feet of German rule. This is by no way trying to comdem the German culture and otherwise rich past, but it is hard for a world to forget these things. Anyone who has held a grudge knows its hard to let go of that grudge, and it is extreamly unfortnate that Germany has become forever linked to Hitler and two world wars.

[PZIV]

Yes, you are right. It might be especially hard to forgive when someone has lost a loved one.

Being part german and as you can tell by avatar, name and signature, a German national enthusiast, it's easier for me to see it in a more general picture. I'm glad you realize this.

[MidnightRider]

Every culture has its dark points, but as a whole the human race needs to look past our petty diffs and look on furthering our race in a productive maner. While two world wars may be the most noted events to date, they are but a drop in the ocean in a universe so vast we are not even sure we know how old it is.

[PZIV]

Every culture has its dark points, but as a hole the human race needs to look past our petty diffs and look on furthering our race in a productive maner. While two world wars may be the most noted events to date, they are but a drop in the ocean in a universe so vast we are not even sure we know how old it is.

^^Wise man right there. ^^

[Alpha_Pasta]

Absolutely. You speak very wisely.

[MidnightRider]

awww shucks, ya'll just saying that

[PZIV]

awww shucks, ya'll just saying that

Nope.

Alltough, we do know however that early man developed in Africa 7 million years ago. About 1-2 million years ago spread to Asia, 500,000 years to Europe, 40,000 to Australia and 10,000 to north Africa, so in reality we do know the age of humans...

...then again you said we didn't know the age of the universe, which is correct.

I just had to state a bit of knowledge I have, because I'm reading Guns, Germs, and Steel...:icon_redface:

[MidnightRider]

Der Totenkopf']Nope.

Alltough, we do know however that early man developed in Africa 7 million years ago. About 1-2 million years ago spread to Asia, 500,000 years to Europe, 40,000 to Australia and 10,000 to north Africa, so in reality we do know the age of humans...

Early man does not inclued man, most primates and neanderthal man are not a relitive of modern man at all, proven throu dna testing. In fact it is thought that neanderthal man is an entirely diff species from man.

Anyway we have wandered far from the topic at hand, being WWII. :fol:

[PZIV]

Excuse me, I should have said the evolution of man. Neanderthal was considered man, but a different species, according to this book.

EDIT: Right, back to the topic WWII...

Subject being... The Battle of the bulge:
Early man does not inclued man, most primates and neanderthal man are not a relitive of modern man at all, proven throu dna testing. In fact it is thought that neanderthal man is an entirely diff species from man.

Anyway we have wandered far from the topic at hand, being WWII. :fol:

[ChicagoKilla*]

ColonelChaos007 honestly your opinion about worshiping a guy as if he was around during these times and you know him to the bone is kinda cute. I'm sure there are germans out there who are feel the same way about you how germans are great and hitler was a great leader.

Sadly that is ignorance and both stalin and hitler were contributions of mass evil. Key word mass evil, alot of people here, europe, usa, etc have their own sins and evils. Driven by money, driven by greed, sadly one of your people was driven by power and murder. If thats your thing thats your thing.

Sad to see some people have such poor maturity levels to the point where they cannot respect someone elses point of view. The whole I'm right your wrong might as well be lead to a my dad is bigger then your dad thread.

[MidnightRider]

Well said CK.

Toten start us off on the Bulge if you like.

[PZIV]

The idea of the battle of the bulge or as the Germans called it, Operation Wacht Am Rhein, was to split the allied forces in two and suround them. The operation only lasted 10 days because of the lack of supplies to the German troops. It did however, set back the allied offensive, prolonging the war an other few months.

It took place in December of 1944 around the Ardennes forest.

Personally, I think if the oil supply was there, they might have crushed the allies after encircling them.

[MidnightRider]

The idea behind Operation Wacht Am Rhein was to split the Allied forces but not suround them, but preform a pincer movement, and would most likely would have been achived if, as original planed, the Germans could have taken allied ammo and fuel dumps. The Germans were already in short supply of petrol at this point in the war with the failed assult on Russia. Stalin at this point was willing to watch and see what happend in eastern Europe before pressing his advantage in western Europe, to the disaproval of England and the US.

There was more at work against the Germans than the lack of fuel. At this point in the war Hitler called the remaining reserve troops that Germany had left for this offencive, vets and young men below the age of fighting men prior to that time. There was also the fact that even thou the offencive caught the Allied forces by suprise, through some problmatic sections of the German assult, the US and English forces were able to recover much faster than Hitler had expected.

The only reason the assult got off the ground in the first place was because of heavy cloud cover and snow storms. This prevented Allied bombing raids on the German supply lines, as well as put a halt to any air recon of German troop movement. Had that not been the case, the German army would have had no choice to hold the lines and retreat one step at a time.

The war was over for Germany at this point simply because Hitler had used all of his remaing troops for this offencive and would have had nothing left to fight off Stalin's crushing attack on his western front. Stopping the allied advance into Germany would have only put off the fall of Nazi power as Stalin would have marched in the moment he saw that Hitler was busy dealing with the other two Allies. This is pretty much what happend as it was, but expeaidated VE Day throught the combined might of 3 armies marching on Berlin.

Hitler fell prey to something that has taken greater comanders and nations to their knees. Never fight a war on two fronts and never attack in the Russian winter.

[PZIV]

If Hitler started the invasion one month to one and a half months earlier the entire war could have been different. The Russian winter saved the world.
The idea behind Operation Wacht Am Rhein was to split the Allied forces but not suround them, but preform a pincer movement, and would most likely would have been achived if, as original planed, the Germans could have taken allied ammo and fuel dumps. The Germans were already in short supply of petrol at this point in the war with the failed assult on Russia. Stalin at this point was willing to watch and see what happend in eastern Europe before pressing his advantage in western Europe, to the disaproval of England and the US.

There was more at work against the Germans than the lack of fuel. At this point in the war Hitler called the remaining reserve troops that Germany had left for this offencive, vets and young men below the age of fighting men prior to that time. There was also the fact that even thou the offencive caught the Allied forces by suprise, through some problmatic sections of the German assult, the US and English forces were able to recover much faster than Hitler had expected.

The only reason the assult got off the ground in the first place was because of heavy cloud cover and snow storms. This prevented Allied bombing raids on the German supply lines, as well as put a halt to any air recon of German troop movement. Had that not been the case, the German army would have had no choice to hold the lines and retreat one step at a time.

The war was over for Germany at this point simply because Hitler had used all of his remaing troops for this offencive and would have had nothing left to fight off Stalin's crushing attack on his western front. Stopping the allied advance into Germany would have only put off the fall of Nazi power as Stalin would have marched in the moment he saw that Hitler was busy dealing with the other two Allies. This is pretty much what happend as it was, but expeaidated VE Day throught the combined might of 3 armies marching on Berlin.

Hitler fell prey to something that has taken greater comanders and nations to their knees. Never fight a war on two fronts and never attack in the Russian winter.

[MidnightRider]

It at least saved the world from Hitler anyway.

[Mitch]

Well, I'm sure just about everyone on all sides suffered loses due to the Russian winter...well, except of course, the Russians.

[MidnightRider]

Mitch even the Rssians lost, the Soviet civilian pop lost more then the Germans did as the Red Army burnt and destroyed crops land and armored deployments.

[PZIV]

Most of the people who died in WWII were Russians.
Mitch even the Rssians lost, the Soviet civilian pop lost more then the Germans did as the Red Army burnt and destroyed crops land and armored deployments.

[ColonelChaos007]

I hate it how people say the Russian Winter change the part of the war. That's kinda nonsense. Stalin had more forces than Hitler. He would over run that b******.

(Edit: Alpha_Pasta.)

Language a little more subtle please.

[HoboJoe]

But it did change the war... Even with Stalin's mass forces, Hitler still probably would have succeeded with Operation Barbarossa.

[PZIV]

And how were these masses used? To dive in front of bullets to use German ammunition. The Russian soldiers were horrible.

I hate it how people say the Russian Winter change the part of the war. That's kinda nonsense. Stalin had more forces than Hitler. He would over run that b******.

(Edit: Alpha_Pasta.)

Language a little more subtle please.

[ColonelChaos007]

I diasgree. They are not, You are. The Russians would have kicked Germany in the ass, they always have. Who went to Berlin first? Answer that. THE RUSSIANS.

[Pravda]

I am full russian. i have studied the eastern front more than anyone. look here, hitlers barbaossa did get a good start because he caught stalin off guard. stalin had got warnings but didnt listen to them. when the germans were stopped outside moscow, it was because hitler thought he could win the war quick, but he didnt think he would have to face the russian winter, so he didnt equip his forces with the clothing they needed, the germans froze outside moscow and the russians took advantage of this. Then the germans engaged the russians at stalingrad, they almost captured the city, but hitler refused to aknowledge the fact that russian forces were building up on Paulus's flanks, and they were encircled, then starved, then beaten and froze in the cold.

everyone says that the russians were barbarians, sending person after person straight into the germans, BUT, while crude, it was effective. and russia was big enough and populated enough to do this. on top of all that, hitler was fighting a war on two fronts, which we all know he should have never done if he expected to win quickly, or win at all.

Stalingrad was the changing point in the war in russia. the germans froze in the cold. this subject iis always debated and always will be i suspect.

[HoboJoe]

@ Chaos: Not really. Soviet Russia I don't think would have beaten Germany, Soviet Russia could have maybe fought for a while but in the end the Nazi's would have came out on top. But that is my opinion and you have your opinion.

[PZIV]

@ Chaos: Not really. Soviet Russia I don't think would have beaten Germany, Soviet Russia could have maybe fought for a while but in the end the Nazi's would have came out on top. But that is my opinion and you have your opinion.

And he'll push his opinion on you with bad language until you agree...

[HoboJoe]

Der Totenkopf']And he'll push his opinion on you with bad language until you agree...
You forgot stubbornness... :icon_razz:

[PZIV]

You forgot stubbornness... :icon_razz:

Sorry, with my experience with him, it is not funny.

[HoboJoe]

Go read in the Internet thread, see my experience with him.

[ColonelChaos007]

Both of you are wrong. Russia was a strong nation, and it remains strong today.

[HoboJoe]

But that is your opinion that they would have won, it is not a fact!

PS. About you xfiring me calling me a punk and telling me to watch my mouth around you because I don't know you: You don't know me so do the same, and I really don't care that you call me a punk...

[Pravda]

ok ok ok guys. everyone has there opions and this subject is always argued about, just as long as he doesnt go racial or personal on it, its fine :icon_biggrin:
(but i agree with colonelchaos :D)

[ColonelChaos007]

Long live Mother Russia! :D :D :D

[PZIV]

Long live Mother Russia! :D :D :D

I'm just making an observation, so don't send me a messege on AIM calling me names and telling me to shut up like you told me and HoboJoe:

You're not Russian. It's not mother Russia for you?

And let's start a civilized conversation on our different viewpoints.

[ColonelChaos007]

Ummm..how about no. Punk.

So what....

[PZIV]

Ummm..how about no. Punk.

So what....

MODS!!!

This is rediculous...

[ColonelChaos007]

Hey hey hey! You added to the effect, I'm just here to settle this, but if you insist in turning it into a flamewar...go ahead, at your own risk.

I'm just here to debate, what I came here for, and fight for my reasons...

[PZIV]

Hey hey hey! You added to the effect, I'm just here to settle this, but if you insist in turning it into a flamewar...go ahead, at your own risk.

I'm just here to debate, what I came here for, and fight for my reasons...

You have yet to come up with facts. Go on, let's see them...

[ColonelChaos007]

I'm going to post this here about the Battle of Stalingrad, since I don't want to be vague.

The battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile owing to the vast scope of the battle and the fact the Soviet government didn't allow estimates to be run for fear the cost would have proven too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations; however, the Soviet counter strike cut off and annihilated the entire 6th Army (which was exceptionally strong) and parts of the 4th Panzer Army.

Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured. In addition, and as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered 478,741 men killed and 650,878 wounded (for a total of 1,129,619).

These numbers; however, include a wide scope of operations. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the 6th and 4th Panzer armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, a total of anywhere from 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties resulted from the battle, making it by far the largest in human history.

Although people say the Winter had made the Russians win the war, I highly disagree. The winter was something inevitable for the Fascists, it's something that can't be changed by man and WILL NOT change whatsoever. So stop complaining and blabbering about how the winter helped the Russians greatly, because the Russians were skilled in number and they took out the Germans in the face, even though they suffered more heavily losses their suicidal banzai charges. But still I have high respect for the Russians and for the losses they took, but still it's the Russians who set foot on Berlin soil and ended the war there for good....

[ColonelChaos007]

Der Totenkopf']I'm just making an observation, so don't send me a messege on AIM calling me names and telling me to shut up like you told me and HoboJoe:

It's HoboJoe and I not "me and HoboJoe."

[HoboJoe]

It's HoboJoe and I not "me and HoboJoe."
WTF you maniac, if someone was to correct you, you flame them!

[HoboJoe]

I'm going to post this here about the Battle of Stalingrad, since I don't want to be vague.

The battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile owing to the vast scope of the battle and the fact the Soviet government didn't allow estimates to be run for fear the cost would have proven too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations; however, the Soviet counter strike cut off and annihilated the entire 6th Army (which was exceptionally strong) and parts of the 4th Panzer Army.

Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured. In addition, and as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered 478,741 men killed and 650,878 wounded (for a total of 1,129,619).

These numbers; however, include a wide scope of operations. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the 6th and 4th Panzer armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, a total of anywhere from 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties resulted from the battle, making it by far the largest in human history.

Although people say the Winter had made the Russians win the war, I highly disagree. The winter was something inevitable for the Fascists, it's something that can't be changed by man and WILL NOT change whatsoever. So stop complaining and blabbering about how the winter helped the Russians greatly, because the Russians were skilled in number and they took out the Germans in the face, even though they suffered more heavily losses their suicidal banzai charges. But still I have high respect for the Russians and for the losses they took, but still it's the Russians who set foot on Berlin soil and ended the war there for good....
The winter still helped. Hitler knew about Russian winters but didn't supply his troops for it because he thought that he was just going to win in Russia shortly. If they had been supplied for the winter, they probably would have won.

[HoboJoe]

Der Totenkopf']MODS!!!

This is rediculous...
I agree, every topic that Chaos posts in usually turns into a flame war... Plus he is insulting members of the board and not many people like him.

[ColonelChaos007]

I disagree, Hitler's armies would have lost, then why the hell did he disembark and betray Stalin's pact? If he sided with Stalin he would have not been defeated in the first place. Listen, Stalin would have won...one way or another.

Oh and I am not insulting anyone, if that includes off site then it has no point and concern here on the boards, so mind you, but this is business...and a lot of people like me, not here, but on xfire and scrims and real life, something you don't have by the look of things.

[HoboJoe]

I disagree, Hitler's armies would have lost, then why the hell did he disembark and betray Stalin's pact? If he sided with Stalin he would have not been defeated in the first place. Listen, Stalin would have won...one way or another.

Oh and I am not insulting anyone, if that includes off site then it has no point and concern here on the boards, so mind you, but this is business...and a lot of people like me, not here, but on xfire and scrims and real life, something you don't have by the look of things.
An insult right there saying I have no life.

But you are so stuckup you always think you are right, notice how I say "Hitler probably would have one" because there is no fact that he would have lost no matter what, but you just say "He would have lost" with out showing good proof that even while supplied for winter he still would have won.

[ColonelChaos007]

Read my post a few sections above about what I said regarding the winter and stuff. Hitler wouldn't have won, it's common sense. LIKE I SAID MANY TIMES BEFORE, THE WINTER IS SOMETHING THAT HE COULD NOT AVOID AND DOING SO HE WOULD NOT HAVE WON WHATSOEVER. DISREGARDING THE WINTER, STALIN WOULD HAVE WIPED HIM OUT OF RUSSIA ANYWAYS.

There you have it, Hitler was stupid. Don't make the same mistake he did by replying something belligerent or that will show how "mentally challenged" you are. Thank you. I can't be bothered to be arguing with any of my enemies.

[HoboJoe]

Hitler was overconfident due to his rapid success in Western Europe, as well as the Red Army's ineptitude in the Winter War against Finland 1939-40. He expected victory in a few months and did not prepare for a war lasting into the winter; his troops lacked adequate clothing.He thought that he would win in a couple months so he didn't worry about the coming winter, yes they couldn't avoid it, but Hitler thought he was going to win before it.

The Soviet numerical advantage was also more than offset by the greatly superior average quality of German planes along with the much superior training and readiness of German forces. The Soviet officer corps and high command had been decimated by Stalin's Great Purge (1936–1938), during which almost one-third of experienced Red Army officers and almost all of its generals were executed or shipped to Siberia, replaced with officers deemed more "politically reliable." Three of the five pre-war Marshals and about two-thirds of the Corps and Division commanders were shot. This often left younger, less well-trained officers in their places; for example, in 1941, seventy-five percent of Red Army officers had held their posts for less than one year. The average Soviet Corps commander was 12 years younger than the average German Division commander. These officers tended to be very reluctant to take the initiative and often lacked the training necessary for their jobs.
The Red Army was dispersed and unprepared, and units were often separated and without transportation to concentrate prior to combat. Although the Red Army had numerous, well-designed artillery pieces, many of the guns had no ammunition. Artillery units often lacked transportation to move their guns. Tank units were large and well-equipped, but lacked training and logistical support. Maintenance standards were very poor. Units were sent into combat with no arrangements for refuelling, ammunition resupply, or personnel replacement. Often, after a single engagement, units were destroyed or rendered ineffective. The Army was in the midst of reorganizing the armor units into large Tank Corps, adding to the disorganization.
As a result, although on paper the Red Army in 1941 seemed at least the equal of the German army, the reality in the field was far different; incompetent officers, as well as partial lack of equipment, insufficient motorised logistical support, and poor training placed the Red Army at a severe disadvantage. For example, throughout the campaign, the Red Army lost about six tanks for every German tank lost.
Yeah, if it wasn't for the winter, Hitler would probably had a nice summer home in Moscow.
Those were all taken from the Wikipedia page about Operation Barbarossa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa).

[ColonelChaos007]

There you go, good job, you just answered your own question. Now we can stop acting like total nitwits and carry on.

Hitler THOUGHT he was going to win the battle with the Soviets or how the Germans like to call them the "Kommunistans" but like I said, Hitler was a jackass punk, so he paid the price for his lack of vision and overconfidence.

Good, so my point was clearly conveyed, thank you for helping me correctly answer the problem, case closed: Winter had nothing to do with either side winning or losing...

[Alpha_Pasta]

You guys have the ingriedients for a really good debate, unfortunately also for a flame war. Lets have less of the later and get on with the real business.

[relax 1.0]

hahah everythng invlovling chaos turns into flamewar, do you guys hate him? I dont.....yet..... =P

Stalin would not have beat hitler if the winter didnt save his ass.

[HoboJoe]

You guys have the ingriedients for a really good debate, unfortunately also for a flame war. Lets have less of the later and get on with the real business.
You know I was thinking the same thing, but Chaos is to stupid to see that. Honestly by saying "Good, I win, Good Bye and signing off", or buy saying "It doesn't even matter, The winter effected both sides, so screw what you said".

[PZIV]

Tonight you'll get a post from me siteing info like Hobo did. I still don't have any info from the other side.

[PZIV]

Here goes. It's exactly 6:00pm right now...

Ok, let's begin with the invading armies in Barbarossa. First of all, the German troops entered operation Barbarossa with 3500 tanks, whereas the Soviets had approx. 20,000. As well as tank superiority though, let's take at the numerical advantage.

July 1941, though, amounted to a little more than 5 million men, which was more than the German land forces deployed for Barbarossa.

The German army mobilized 3.2 million men for the operation. The soviets? 5 million.

The number of artillery pieces and aircraft was also heavily in the Soviets' favor

Again, an other important fact. The Soviets had more artillery as well as aircraft. But before we go any further into the operation on the ground during fighting, let's look at a little insight of the brilliance of the German commanders in WWII. First of all we have Adolf Hitler, a brutal man, but a clever man none the less. By leading Stalin into a false sense of security he prepares for war with his grand army. Is that all? Of course not...the Germans have much more up their sleave. Reinhard Hydrich also had a way to trick Stalin into killing his own generals.

He is believed to be the creator of the forged documents of Russian correspondence with the German high command. While it is now known that the Stalin's Great Purge of the Soviet military officer corps was at most tangentially related to this forgeries...

Now that we have seen a bit of the prerequisites the Germans had for the operation we can dive back into the military aspect of the war in the east.

Operation Barbarossa started on June 22, 1941 and lasted until December of the same year, but there is a smaller operation (or battle) in this period called the battle of Bialystok - Minsk. As this part of the operation commenses, key targets are taken out by German air campaigns allowing the German ninth and fourth armies to cross the border. General Pavlov assembled his army and within two days were in the game. They counter attacked the Germans with the 6th, 11th Mechanized and 6th Cavalry Corps.

This attack failed with heavy losses, although it may have allowed some units to escape the western encirclement towards Minsk. In the evening of 25 June, the German XXXXVII. Panzerkorps cut between Slonim and Volkovysk, forcing Pavlov to order the withdrawal of all troops in the salient behind the Shchara River at Slonim to avoid encirclement

As you can see. The first counter attack is repulsed. A second counter-attack by the 20th Mechanized and 4th Airborne Corps fail as well and by June 30th the pocket was completely closed. In it, the German forces surround and eventually destroy the Soviet 3rd, 10th, 13th and portions of the 4th Soviet Armies. The remainder of the Soviet 4th Army fell back eastwards towards the Berezina River. In a matter of 17 days the Soviets lose 420,000 men. Let's jump ahead here to save some time.

The battle of Leningrad, is not the most famous battles, but deffinetly the most famous seige. By December the German army had advanced 600 km to Leningrad and 800 km to Moscow. In Leningrad there wasn't much to tell. The Germans did a good job of basically starving the city into submission. They refused to assault the massivly fortified city, but instead stood waiting outside the gates of Leningrad. They started on September 8th of 1941 and was not taken down until January of 1944 with operation Spark.

In Moscow it was a different story. About an even number of troops from both sides fought in this battle. The lead German Panzer Groupe was about 19 miles from Moscow. At this time fresh Siberian troops ready for winter war were transfered to the front. The Soviet winter had given the Germans a terrible time and the added stress of troops equipped and trained for harsh weather fighting were there. Even with this sort of pressure the Germans hold firm. They hold the line for a long time despite large numbers of men dieing from cold as well as food ration problems. Approx. 248,000 German soldiers die during the battle of Moscow. Many from the elements NOT the Soviet soldiers. The Soviets however, are not so lucky. With the support of good resources as well as winter clothing they are for the most part protected from the winter, but still manage to lose 650,000 - 1.28Million troops. A staggering number compared to a demoralized German army.

By August 21, 1942, the German army had completed there efforts for the "pincer" movement they had been so diligently working for. The German forces start with the Luftwaffe bombing the city to rubble. By the end of August the German troops had taken over the Volga north of Stalingrad.

The life expectancy of a newly-arrived Soviet private in the city dropped to less than twenty-four hours.

After November 19th, the Soviets counter attacked, but it was not the valient Germans they defeated. It was instead, the weak south flank held by the Romanians. The Soviets led attacks on all sides of the German 6th army (as well as parts of the 4th Panzer army).

The Soviets had completely encircled the 6th army, as well as many of the Axis death toll numbers come from Hungrian, Romanian and other countries rather than German, shows more of the German strength. Moreover, the casualties STILL do not add up. Even when encircled and lacking much needed supplies the axis casualties hold up at around 740,000 killed, while the Russians, with many advantages manage to again lose 750,000 + soldiers. Take into consideration only 400,000 of the axis casualties were German.

This concludes my portion of the attack into Germany and the start of the slow retreat across Eastern Europe. Maybe later I will finish up, but it is now 7:19 pm (yes, I worked on this for 1 hr and 20 minutes) and so, I want to play some CoD2. Hopefully this is a nice read for you all.

[BritishBulldog1]

As I have said all along, if the Germans didn't have other fronts to contend with, they wouldn't have stood a chance. Russians only defeated the Germans because they had more cannon fodder to throw at them.

BB1

[catman]

russians were poorly trained. when you show up at stalingrad, they give you a rifle and tell you to run till you die. only speical groups such as cavalry were good

[Savage]

omfg im soooo pissed i spent 20 typing a post and then it screwed up

[Savage]

well i retyped it. i hope someone aleast find it interesting reading. its only make shift with little dates.

First of all can some one plz ban chaos. he is being gay

The battle of Britain was a very important battle. Because if the air force was not able to hold out the Germans it was looking pretty bad for Britain. Because after the battle of Dunkirk the Britain’s had nothing and at the time Britain did not have the resources to produce the stuff they needed to fight a ground battle. Now America did in fact join the war although it was unofficial. Firstly a lot of Americans joined the RAF although Britain was “obliged” to turn them down. Britain wasn’t going to say no to a few hundred extra fighter pilots. The battle lasted about 6 weeks. (I have many books written by pilots of the time if anyone is interested)

America also had found a loop hole in the agreement with Germany that allowed it to send supplies to Britain legally. Also Goering made the mistake of switching from airbases to cities after the fateful attack on Berlin. This was started by a stray bomber bombing London. If he had kept up the pounding of airbases the outcome would have been much different.

The Americans came into the war when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour. They were reluctant to do so because they did not have the means to fully attack Germany.
The Americans focused on Europe but also sent many troops to the Pacific.

The English after the battle of Britain went to North Africa to fight a fierce battle with Rommel and with the help of Australians and some Americans were able to beat back the Germans from the desert.

Soon after Rome fell and it was a matter of time before d-day happened.

June 6th 1944 a well known day to millions. Americans and British forces attacked the beach head of France. The German forces were beaten back and the allies had a foot hold in Europe and started the long drive forward to Berlin. It took almost a year to get there and they weren’t the first there.

The eastern front was a major front of the Second World War. The main reason the Russians won it was because of numbers. But the winter in Stalingrad helped. Now the Russians had been pushed back along way before they were able to start a counter attack. Now in the most important battle Stalingrad the Russians were normally outnumbered by the Germans because they only sent in the fewest amount of troops so that they were able to build up and army for a counter attack. But the Germans thinking that the Russians were being weakened sent in all the had and failed to take the city back. Now they were unable to take the city before winter. Which caused a problem because u cannot launch an effective assault in minus 0 temperatures because u can not hold guns correctly because the metal is so cold that it takes chucks of flesh off your hands. It makes motors impossible to start and tracks from tanks freeze up.

The atomic bomb was necessary to end the war. In war it is a fact that civilians people die. It took this much force to bring the japs down.







Now many people complain about the modern wars in irak and what not but the people didn’t want war either but they didn’t complain the way that modern people are complaining. Because this war was started by Americans and the 2nd world war was started by the Germans the difference is that the Americans had war thrown against them rather then them start it.

[DFC COL TAZZ]

i have always loved reading about and got movies about ww2.to me they don't teach about enough in schools.:icon_question:

[Savage]

their probly not allowed to teach that much

[Alpha_Pasta]

I would like to see more WW2 stuff in the sylabus, but thats just my preference. Remember there are millions of other kids who want to see their interest in the history course - thats why it tries to cover as many things as possible.

[PZIV]

That is why you go to college to get classes specialized in World War II. :icon_wink:

[DFC COL TAZZ]

i think it should be manditory for everyone to take it.

[BritishBulldog1]

I think everyone should learn about the history of their own country first and foremost and to be proud of their country's acheivements or not, when things were obviously wrong. But you cannot pass the sins of the father onto the child and stupid claims for wrongs performed long before living memory should be resisted and dropped in the trash can.

BB1

[MFKR]

History isnt interesting to some people like it is with alot of us here. Ive always been a history buff, but in school i remember math wizz's who would struggle with History.

It would bug me when people have no idea or interest in finding out about their family roots.

[Alpha_Pasta]

You're very correct there.

It boils down to what sorta brain you have I guess.

[MidnightRider]

History isnt interesting to some people like it is with alot of us here. Ive always been a history buff, but in school i remember math wizz's who would struggle with History.

It would bug me when people have no idea or interest in finding out about their family roots.

I agree 100%. As the saying goes, those who forget the lessons of the past, are doomed to repeate their mistakes.

[Alpha_Pasta]

I completely agree. Its annoyes me so much that people have such ignorance.

[MidnightRider]

I just dont understand how someone wouldnt want to know how their country was founded, or how it came to be what it is today. Its like they think it just happend overnight.

[Col.Darby]

Everyone should in fact learn the history of their country. However, it takes a truely seeking mind to find out the true history. What you are taught in school or read by popular authors usually only tells the half truths. Countrys don't like to have the negatives of their actions widely known and therefore they are not commonly made available. In the sense of America you are not told of the true genocide of the Native Americans in our drive Westward. We are not told of the millions killed in the wake of Columbus reaching The New World.

As far as WW2 goes, no schools teach of the fire bombing of tokyo ordered my Col. Lemay which killed many more than both Atomic Bombs, the repeated claims by Paratroopers who were told by their supperiors "To take no prisoners on D-Day," the friendly fire incident in the airborne drop into Sicily which tore Col. Tucker's Battalion apart.

My point is, if one is truely passionate about any subject from history to art to science, he/she will delve into that subject with no relenting until all the information they seek has been amassed. Do not wait for it to be taught to you, take the time to learn it.

[DFC COL TAZZ]

Everyone should in fact learn the history of their country. However, it takes a truely seeking mind to find out the true history. What you are taught in school or read by popular authors usually only tells the half truths. Countrys don't like to have the negatives of their actions widely known and therefore they are not commonly made available. In the sense of America you are not told of the true genocide of the Native Americans in our drive Westward. We are not told of the millions killed in the wake of Columbus reaching The New World.

As far as WW2 goes, no schools teach of the fire bombing of tokyo ordered my Col. Lemay which killed many more than both Atomic Bombs, the repeated claims by Paratroopers who were told by their supperiors "To take no prisoners on D-Day," the friendly fire incident in the airborne drop into Sicily which tore Col. Tucker's Battalion apart.

My point is, if one is truely passionate about any subject from history to art to science, he/she will delve into that subject with no relenting until all the information they seek has been amassed. Do not wait for it to be taught to you, take the time to learn it.
very well said col.ppl should find more on there own.and yes they teach what they want you to know.not what you should know.

[PZIV]

I say this directed at all of you really. Many people think that because the Nazi's were the 'bad' guys of WWII, their history should be forgotten from that time period, Germans included.

How very wrong they are. For all the people who call me a Nazi because I'm interested in this sort of history, I really don't care. Someone has to learn their history and if it involves name calling, so be it.

[BritishBulldog1]

History is history and NONE of it should be swept under the carpet because it may not be palatable. Britain has more than it's share of skeletons in the closet, so long as people don't blame the modern nation for the faults of their ancestors.

BB1

[PZIV]

History is history and NONE of it should be swept under the carpet because it may not be palatable. Britain has more than it's share of skeletons in the closet, so long as people don't blame the modern nation for the faults of their ancestors.

BB1

What my post is exactly. I'm glad you agree.

[Col.Darby]

Don't be afraid to claim you like the German side of WW2. The Germans were masters of defensive warefare. Look what they were able to accomplish fighting on 2 fronts(Not to mention Italy). Now if you were to claim you loved the Nazi form of government.....that is something else. But as an Army, the Germans of the 1940s were a foe to be reckoned with and one that would not like to be met on the battlefields too soon.

[MidnightRider]

Well said, every nation has its own dark past. Its a shame that Germanys has to be tainted by Hitler and two world wars. Germany has a wonderful and illustrious culture and history. You cannot blame the sons for the sins of their fathers

[mnchster67]

Dunkirk

The Germans overran Paris and were now heading for the coast of France. The British forces were exhausted and the only way back were evacuating them. The Germans had taken the city of Dunkirk, and British divisions had to hold the line to help the other soldiers get evacuated. Stuka planes bombed the beaches, and it got worse, when French troops arrived. The plan went wrong for the British. Many small boats left from England and picked up soldiers, many HMS ships were bombed. 41 HMS ships started at the evacuation, only 9 remained. In the end, 340,000 British and French troops arrived safely back in England. The injured and dead were left behind along with many weapons and tanks.

[Savage]

by discovering the past you can dertime the future