Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something must be considered when discussing OP. I don't believe Hitler's intention in 1939 was "World Domination". I think his goal (there is evidence to back this) was control over Central and Eastern/Soviet Europe. This could have been accomplished if Poland had accepted Hitler's offer. Poland was the domino that set everything in motion. England, France and USA do not come to the rescue of Soviets and/or Jews. Hitler hated Communist and just like Churchill and Patton (among others) connected Communism and Jews. Hitler's admiration for England and numerous examples of sparing the British illustrated he didn't intend on controlling all of Europe
This could have been accomplished if Poland had accepted Hitler's offer.
What offer would that have been, relinquish Polish sovereignty, the annihilation of ethnic Poles? That offer?
Quote:
England, France and USA do not come to the rescue of Soviets and/or Jews.
Quote:
Hitler's admiration for England and numerous examples of sparing the British
That will come as news to the survivors of the Blitz and the bombing of Coventry in particular.
Quote:
he didn't intend on controlling all of Europe
Can I add that this also will be news to the Czechs, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Belgians, and the Dutch? So who's left? Switzerland escaped Nazi conquest only as result of timing and geography. Hungry, Romania were certainly under the "influence" of Nazi Germany and France made a puppet state so I'm not sure where the innocence of intentions comes from (well that's not totally true).
What offer would that have been, relinquish Polish sovereignty, the annihilation of ethnic Poles? That offer?
That will come as news to the survivors of the Blitz and the bombing of Coventry in particular.
Can I add that this also will be news to the Czechs, Swedes, Norwegians, Danes, Belgians, and the Dutch? So who's left? Switzerland escaped Nazi conquest only as result of timing and geography. Hungry, Romania were certainly under the "influence" of Nazi Germany and France made a puppet state so I'm not sure where the innocence of intentions comes from (well that's not totally true).
Offer would have been equal to the treatment of Hungary and Romania: millions less gentile Poles die and treatment would not have been any worse than 50 years of Soviet rule. In many aspects much better
Battle of Dunkirk
Doesn't mentioning the endless number of countries that maintained neutrality help make my argument?
Offer would have been equal to the treatment of Hungary and Romania: millions less gentile Poles die and treatment...
The Poles had an agreement with Nazi Germany, an agreement that went by the wayside because Poland would not cede territory and its essential national sovereignty to Hitler. As for the specious argument that the Poles would have suffered less under the Nazis than the Soviets, that assumes that the 2 million non-Jewish slavic Poles hadn't been murdered to enjoy the experience.
Dunkirk?? The evacuation of British forces was the result of German charity, that risible. You need to put down the revisionist history and find credible historians who point to Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May that called for the annihilation of Allied forces. It was only because of Goering's brilliant(sic) military judgement that the armored attack shouldn't proceed without air cover that the Germans were unable to accomplish the order.
Quote:
Doesn't mentioning the endless number of countries that maintained neutrality help make my argument?
Only when you fail to recognize that that endless list of countries that attempted to remain neutral were invaded and occupied by the Nazis.
Most of us in the US tend to think that America "won" the war, saving the allies after we joined the fight following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
That's the Hollywood movie version of events, and it's far from the truth.
The USSR battled the Germans toe to toe for years on the Eastern Front, while we and the Brits stayed around the periphery for a couple of years (1942-43), leaving the heavy fighting to the Red Army. Something like 75% of the casualties suffered by the Wermacht were on the Russian Front.
The scale of battles in Russia is mind-boggling, sometimes involving more than a million troops on each side in a single engagement. In the entire history of the US Army, they've only had one single encounter on that scale: the Battle of the Bulge. And our army was heavily pressed by the then depleted German army in 1944. Think of how hard the fighting would have been against a fresh, well supplied Wermacht a couple of years earlier.
No, the war in Europe was fought mostly by the Russians. We carried the load in the Pacific and defeated Japan. But it wasn't America's entry into the war that tipped the scales entirely. The combined resources of the Soviet Union and British Empire would have eventually worn the Germans down, even w/o US involvement. But the war would have lasted longer and ended in a negotiated settlement rather than an unconditional surrender.
America's entry in the war did alot more then some seem to know. Of course the USSR fought the largest land battlles in the war and fought 70% of the German army. But you have to remember the US started off in 1942 with the 17th largest armed forces in the world and by 1945 had the second largest armed forces on earth with just over 12 million in uniform. The USSR had about 13 million in uniform in 1945 but most of their service men and women were land forces as thats what they needed to defend their land. The US put large forces in the field but they were all over the world. Heck the US had over 7 million service men over sea's in 1945 with 5 million in the army and over 2 million in the navy and marines. The US did put over 3.5 million army troops in the European and Mediteranean theaters and about 1.5 million army troops in the Pacific with over 2 million navy and marine troops also in the pacific. I agree the battle of the bulge was the largest land battle the US fought in as they threw over 600,000 men into that battle. At Okinawa the US had over 500,000 ground and navy troops involved in that invasion so I would say they did have some large battles they fought in.
It seems to me the Soviets threw so many men in the war in that many were not very well trained and did not have good weapons at first as they mobilized a few million men in weeks from what I have read so they could not have been trained to well and I would think that contributed to so many causualties. Also I read they would just throw their men right into a minefield since they had so many men to fight in the army ground troops. I believe about 90% of all Soviet troops served in the army since their war with Germany was mainly a land battle. And the Germans seemed to hate the Soviets and treated them with so much brutality that it was a huge bloodbath. Ron
It seems to me the Soviets threw so many men in the war in that many were not very well trained and did not have good weapons at first...
I understand your point but on the other hand it wasn't like the Soviets had a whole lot of time or the luxury of geography to train and equip their armed forces. The first major offensive by U.S. Forces didn't take place until November of 1942 during the invasion of North Africa and not until August 7, 1942, when the U.S. launched the Solomon Island offensive. By that time the Soviets had halted the German advance and were posed to break the back of the German Army.
I understand your point but on the other hand it wasn't like the Soviets had a whole lot of time or the luxury of geography to train and equip their armed forces. The first major offensive by U.S. Forces didn't take place until November of 1942 during the invasion of North Africa and not until August 7, 1942, when the U.S. launched the Solomon Island offensive. By that time the Soviets had halted the German advance and were posed to break the back of the German Army.
You are correct and I did not mean it with bad intention towards the Soviet troops. As I really mean it to praise them on how great a job they did with basically no time for any training. Its amazing the feet they did. And I also agree one reason the US took so long to get troops in combat was they had to pretty much train a whole new army. Ron
because the soviets didnt value each life whatsoever.
Probably the most propagated myth about the Red Army in WW2 and while there is a grain of truth to it, the implication of the statement is simply untrue.
Quote:
troops were literally expendable in their eyes.
As are all troops as long as the objective is gained.
Quote:
the cold and diseases demolished them as well.
Cold and disease demolishes all armies, but the Soviets did much better on the cold front than pretty much any other nation in the war.
It seems to me the Soviets threw so many men in the war in that many were not very well trained and did not have good weapons at first as they mobilized a few million men in weeks from what I have read so they could not have been trained to well and I would think that contributed to so many causualties. Also I read they would just throw their men right into a minefield since they had so many men to fight in the army ground troops. I believe about 90% of all Soviet troops served in the army since their war with Germany was mainly a land battle. And the Germans seemed to hate the Soviets and treated them with so much brutality that it was a huge bloodbath. Ron
Your opinion is wrong. Soldiers were trained in the back. They received all necessary knowledge. Time of training depended on the status. For the infantryman it was smaller time. Training of the pilot of the fighter was 3 months and more. Often them didn't allow in fight. They flied in the back. Got experience. Having got experience they could be allowed in real fight. training of the pilot of a bomber took 2-1,5 years. Pilots arrived in 1942 could fly to army not earlier than 1943.
The Soviet armies sustained big losses. The reason of it in the following situation-The Soviet armies attacked a lot of time. Attacking have more killed and wounded. Defending lose smaller number of soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nolefan34
Stalin also purged his officer corps 2 years before the invasion, so the Soviet military did suffer a big snag there. But in terms of overall buildup, the Soviets had plenty of troops and eventually overwhelmed the Germans with numbers instead of quality
You retell fantastic stories of enemies of Stalin. From army banished drunkards and thieves. Young officers could promote. it became a strong course.
Also the USSR army lost traitors and cowards. The German investigation lost opportunity to influence a situation
P.S. In Russia WWII has a name - Great Patriotic War
Last edited by red_rus; 06-01-2013 at 02:47 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
