Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A World War II Debate For You  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 5236 times:

Every time I see my uncle, one of the debates he and I always seem to get into is what had the bigger effect on the Allies ultimate victory in Europe.

He says it was the round-the-clock American/British bombing campaigns against German industry.

I say it was the incredible resistance of the Soviet Union against the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Both have their place in defeating the Thrid Reich, but, in my mind, without the dogged determination of the Soviet Army in the East, against most of the crack units of the German Armed Forces, the Western allies campaign would have been ten times as hard, and we might not have had a landing at Normandy in 1944. If Stalin's forces don't tie up Hitlers in the East, many of them would have been stacked against the U.S, Britian and others in the West.

I can't diminish the bombing campaign for what it did, but I still don't believe the Soviet Union, to this day, gets enough credit for the heroic stands it made in 1941 and 1941 against Germany, and then their inexorable march Westward after that.

What say you members?

198 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5220 times:

It's probably a combination of many different things.
-An incompetent head of state meddling too much with military affairs (Hitler/mussollini)
-The dumbest decision ever to open up a second front (tha war against the USSR) which was completely nonsense since they both had an agreement to divide up Poland and leave it to that.
-The overall inefficiency of the German production apparatus .
-The mad policy to alienate minorities like the Jewish people, the Roman gypsies, ... which inevitably led to strong resistance and hostile feelings in the US.
-The fact that the UK and much more important the US had no direct front to worry about and therefor could make great use of their vast industrial complex to build up an unprecedented military supply chain.
-their alliance with the Japanese empire who where foolish enough to start a war against the US which in turn made it possible for the US to be fully engaged on both fronts.
-The sheer difference in manpower available (UK+US+USSR+CHINA+BRITTISH COMMONWEALTH vs JAPAN+GERMANY+ITALY)
-..........

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
I say it was the incredible resistance of the Soviet Union against the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Maybe you're right about that, if the generals (Rommel, von Paulitzen) would have gotten their way there would never have been a second front and victory for the allied forces would have been much more uncertain.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
but I still don't believe the Soviet Union, to this day, gets enough credit for the heroic stands it made in 1941 and 1941 against Germany, and then their inexorable march Westward after that.

What say you members?

The former Soviet union is indeed the main reason why Germany was defeated in the end but the US and the UK (and their commonwealth partners) where the only two countries who fought on all fronts simultaniously and therefor need to get credit at least as much as the USSR IMHO.



[edit post]
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14026 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5214 times:

I would have to dig into my books for references, but AFAIK, the German industry had the highest output in 1944, before the Nazis ran it almost on a peacetime economy with as little disturbance to the civilians as possible (to keep the homefront happy).
Same as the British during the Blitz, the Germans got soon used to the strategic bombing and moved underground.

Serious disturbances by tactical bombing only started after the Normandy invasion, when bases in France were captured, which allowed fighter bombers to raid e.g. railway lines and blow up trains.

IMO, the war in Russia had a much higher influence in as far as the fighting used up a lot of Germany's industrial output and killed a lot of Germany's most experienced soldiers.

Jan


User currently onlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5710 posts, RR: 31
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5186 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
I still don't believe the Soviet Union, to this day, gets enough credit for the heroic stands it made in 1941 and 1941 against Germany

Not to mention Mikhail Gorbachev standing back as the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, followed by the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe. WW2 finally ended in the early 1990s, not 1945.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3947 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5183 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
He says it was the round-the-clock American/British bombing campaigns against German industry.

Totally disagreed with this one, and thats because I've been doing a lot of reading up on the allied bombing campaigns in Europe during WW2 recently - one statistic that sprung up was that it was only in 1945 that bombing became accurate enough to actually ensure a target was destroyed, for the rest of the war only 10% of bombs dropped fell within 5 miles of the intended target. Some raids resulted in utter confusion on the part of the Germans because they couldn't work out where the intended target was.

Another statistic I came across was that more damage was done to the German war machine by roving long range fighters than by bombers - toward the end of the war, the USAAF bombers were starting to be escorted by long range fighter escort, and it got to the point where the fighters actually had significantly more range than the bombers - they were eventually granted 'loiter time' over German territory, and granted permission to engage targets of opportunity, such as railway engines etc.

Attacking railways themselves proved to be fruitless, as the Germans could get a complex rail yard back up and running within hours of it being attacked, but the specific attacks on the engines themselves dealt a much harsher blow.

But this in no way diminishes the losses the bomber crews took - Bomber Command suffered nearly 60% losses throughout the war, with similar figures being reported for the USAAF.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
I say it was the incredible resistance of the Soviet Union against the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Agreed with this one - the USSR was in the pretty unique position that it had thousands of miles of country to retreat over, and it took its industry with it. Entire factories were dismantled and shipped eastwards, and continued to be productive throughout the war. If the Germans came within bombing range, they were simply dismantled again and moved a few hundred more miles to the east.

The Germans had no chance at all against the USSR, it was a huge mistake on Hitlers part (thank goodness).


User currently offlineCytz_pilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 569 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5176 times:

Going back further, I think it all stems from the fact that Britain wasn't defeated in the Battle of Britain. I recall reading that it was Hitler's anger at the RAF attacking Berlin during that time that led him to direct the Luftwaffe to focus on civilian targets instead of military, giving the RAF the much needed opportunity to regroup and build up its forces. After that, they had the edge they needed to win.

I can't imagine how different the war would have been had Germany invaded Britain. I often wonder if there would have been a way for the United States and the Commonwealth countries to keep fighting oceans away from Europe.

[Edited 2008-07-01 15:04:23]

User currently offlinePelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2531 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5175 times:



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
The dumbest decision ever to open up a second front (tha war against the USSR)

Well, by that time there was no second front until the invasion of Sicily (if you don't count North Africa).

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
I would have to dig into my books for references, but AFAIK, the German industry had the highest output in 1944, before the Nazis ran it almost on a peacetime economy with as little disturbance to the civilians as possible (to keep the homefront happy).

That's correct. I can add that according to the US Strategic Bombing Survey only 17% of West Germany's plant assets were destroyed by the end of the War.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):

IMO, the war in Russia had a much higher influence in as far as the fighting used up a lot of Germany's industrial output and killed a lot of Germany's most experienced soldiers

Indeed. The East Front had a much huger impact on Germany than strategic bombing. But it should be noted that the Soviets got huge amounts of industrial support from the UK and later the US of A to sustain their resitance.

pelican


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5712 posts, RR: 18
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5157 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
I still don't believe the Soviet Union, to this day, gets enough credit for the heroic stands it made in 1941 and 1941 against Germany

What they don't get enough "credit" for is their not-so-heroic stand prior to 1941 - not to mention the bittersweet taste of "liberation" by the USSR for the less fortunate half of Europe which ended up served to Stalin in Yalta on silverplate.

Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
what had the bigger effect on the Allies ultimate victory in Europe.

That's a good question. I don't think one would not be possible without the other.
You could have millions of conscripts resisting the top-notch Wehrmacht units but if you can't even feed, dress or arm them properly they become just cannon fodder. Don't forget that modern warfare is 80% about logistics.
At the same time Tunis/Italy/Normandy would be much worse bloodbath had there been no need to fight two fronts by the
Also the credit should be given to an individual Red Army soldier rather than the country/system they fought for, because the treatment the soldiers received from their top brass, political comissars who acted exactly in accordance with Hitler's "one dead is a tragedy, 100,000 dead is a statistics", the incompetence of the commanders and easiness with which the thousands were wasted in ego race between Zhukov and Rokossovsky, strategically pointles soperations such as the Battle of the Dukla Pass, etc. and then the cynicism these millions of losses were used for emotional blackmailing and leverage of the Allies. The disregard for individual human life in Soviet Union is staggering - treatment the Soviet ex-POWs received after the end of the war, who went from German POW camps straight to Soviet Gulags (because Stalin said that "no Soviet soldier will ever surrender") pretty much explains it.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
overall inefficiency of the German production apparatus

Say again???
I think it was a logistical/organizational miracle how Germany managed to sustain the level of industrial/agricultural production almost until the last days of WW2 it did despite being pressed on two-fronts, having no losing air superiority, being bombed 24/7 and yet still managing to roll out high-tech stuff such as the Me 262 jet, not to mention other more "crude" weaponry.

Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 3):
Not to mention Mikhail Gorbachev standing back as the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, followed by the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.

Too bad he did not stand back when the Evil Empire itself finally started to collapse.


User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1471 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5150 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
I can't diminish the bombing campaign for what it did, but I still don't believe the Soviet Union, to this day, gets enough credit for the heroic stands it made in 1941 and 1941 against Germany, and then their inexorable march Westward after that.

Agreed.

Some years ago when I was in Berlin on holiday I visited a museum telling the Soviet side of the WW2. The museum was in the building were the German capitulation was signed, with the room where it was signed standing as it was on May the 7th 1945. It was really interesting to see and much different from what we are normally told about the war. It's a must for everyone visiting Berlin. On a sidenote, we had to drive through what looked like an abandoned allotmentgarden on gravel roads to get to the museum which were placed nearby some abandoned barracks.
http://www.museum-karlshorst.de/

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3947 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5147 times:



Quoting Cytz_pilot (Reply 5):

I can't imagine how different the war would have been had Germany invaded Britain. I often wonder if there would have been a way for the United States and the Commonwealth countries to keep fighting oceans away from Europe.

I read a very plausable report some time ago regarding this - at the time of Operation Sealion, the Germans were concentrating on winning air superiority over the RAF, but they almost completely neglected to attempt the same thing against the Royal Navy.

The German Navy was actually very small during the 1939-1942 period, consisting mainly of U-Boats - which could not operate freely in the shallow waters of the Channel. They also neglected to deal with the threat that the RN Home Fleet posed, which at the time was based in Scapa Flow after the Dunkirk retreat.

The RN also had significant fleets operating in the Atlantic and Med, which could be recalled if necessary for defence of the home lands.

If the Germans had invaded, the invasion would likely have only lasted a few months, until the Home Fleet travelled down the North Sea and engaged the German fleet there - this would give the RN fleets in the Atlantic and Med enough time to return and vastly out number and out gun the invasion force.

If the invasion had been successful, contingencies were already being put into place in America to sustain a long range bombing campaign - the Convair B-36 was intended to strike continental Europe from continental USA, and it was even intended to carry its own fighter escort, the XF-85 Goblin which was to be carried in one of the bomb bays, and redock after intercepting enemy fighters.


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5133 times:



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
An incompetent head of state meddling too much with military affairs (Hitler/mussollini)

That is what doomed the Nazis. If Hitler would have listened to his commanders, they might forced England to sue for peace. The frustration of not being able to defeat England made him attack the USSR.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
their alliance with the Japanese empire who where foolish enough to start a war against the US which in turn made it possible for the US to be fully engaged on both fronts.

Quite true. If Japan hadn't attacked the US, we would have sat it out(actively, but still helped our cousins secretly). With the US sitting it out, the USSR would not have had the materials to fight the war as well as they did. And after England had sued for peace, most of the aid to the USSR would have stopped or slowed dramatically(Churchill would have pressured FDR to stop to keep the peace with Germany).

Quoting Moo (Reply 4):
The Germans had no chance at all against the USSR

If Hitler would have listened to his commanders, they would have taken Moscow. His "never retreat" was an impossible order to follow. Tactically, you sometimes must retreat today so you can gain the upper hand tomorrow(just look at the Korean war to see how well an advance to rear will work)

The "real" killer of Germany was Hitler himself. History has shown that leaders don't make great generals and generals don't make great leaders.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 5102 times:



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
-The dumbest decision ever to open up a second front (tha war against the USSR) which was completely nonsense since they both had an agreement to divide up Poland and leave it to that.

Granted. But I'm not talking about the decision to open the front. I'm talking about what happened after. I do agree with you though. Hitler fell into the same trap that Napoleon did.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
The former Soviet union is indeed the main reason why Germany was defeated in the end but the US and the UK (and their commonwealth partners) where the only two countries who fought on all fronts simultaniously

The fought world-wide, but not "on all fronts". The did not participate on the Eastern Front, which may have been the most brutal fighting in the history of warfare.

Quoting Cytz_pilot (Reply 5):
Going back further, I think it all stems from the fact that Britain wasn't defeated in the Battle of Britain.

Outstanding point. Britian survived the Blitz, and that gave the United States its ultimate "aircraft carrier", as it were, to launch the inevitable invasion of Western Europe. Without Britian withstanding the Blitz, the entire continent of Europe could have ended up a Soviet bastion.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 7):
What they don't get enough "credit" for is their not-so-heroic stand prior to 1941 - not to mention the bittersweet taste of "liberation" by the USSR for the less fortunate half of Europe which ended up served to Stalin in Yalta on silverplate.

I understand your sentiments, but it isn't the topic here.

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 10):
The frustration of not being able to defeat England made him attack the USSR.

I think he attacks Russia anyway. But he had nowhere else to go to the West, and he didn't like amphibious warfare, so the only place to to for the "living space" for the German folk was eastward. It was bound to happen, I believe, no matter what. Hitler wanted world domination, and he was going to turn on Russia eventually.

I can imagine the look on the face of German troops, on the morning of Dec 6, 1941, when the 40 Divisions of the Siberians were unleashed on them, when their own equipment was frozen solid in the snow. Must have been one of the most humbling moments in human history.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8149 posts, RR: 26
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5077 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):

I think he attacks Russia anyway. But he had nowhere else to go to the West, and he didn't like amphibious warfare, so the only place to to for the "living space" for the German folk was eastward. It was bound to happen, I believe, no matter what. Hitler wanted world domination, and he was going to turn on Russia eventually.

This is the best argument for his own insanity. How anyone could gather up charts, maps, planning documents, whatever, and completely overlook the distances required for every logitistical measure in the face of a six-month winter and then some is just positively nuts. And then he wondered why some in the SS tried to take him out...nobody likes going over a cliff!



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5068 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
I think he attacks Russia anyway.

Correct. That was his intention from the very beginning.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
and he didn't like amphibious warfare

At first he thought the United Kingdom and France would never declare war on the German Reich, "just because" Germany invaded Poland.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 12):
And then he wondered why some in the SS tried to take him out...nobody likes going over a cliff!

Actually that was the SA, not the SS.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBravo45 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2165 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5059 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):

Overall I agree. I don't think there even room for debate, my experience with those who make this argument is that they really don't have much knowledge of the fighting on the Eastern Front. Just the huge numbers involved, its mind blowing, no doubt both had a role but there is no question which was the primary factor.


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1853 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5034 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
The did not participate on the Eastern Front, which may have been the most brutal fighting in the history of warfare.

I think the US Marines may question that-- Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and so on. Still it was much worse than the western front.

Quoting Moo (Reply 9):
I read a very plausable report some time ago regarding this - at the time of Operation Sealion, the Germans were concentrating on winning air superiority over the RAF, but they almost completely neglected to attempt the same thing against the Royal Navy.

But as was shown (Bismark comes to mind, Midway, Pearl Harbor) air power came into its own in WW2, and with air superiority the Germans would have starved England.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7298 posts, RR: 85
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How about Hitler sucked at war?  eyepopping 

User currently offlinePROSA From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 5644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5025 times:



Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
if the generals (Rommel, von Paulitzen) would have gotten their way there would never have been a second front and victory for the allied forces would have been much more uncertain.

Well, not to sound simplistic or anything, but even if Germany's control of Europe remained ironclad, the allies still would have won the war in the fall of 1945. Of course some German cities would have ended up glowing in the dark ...



"Let me think about it" = the coward's way of saying "no"
User currently offlineKevinL1011 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2964 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5018 times:

Naw!
None of that shit cast the deciding blow.

It was Lee Marvin and the "Dirty Dozen" that brought the Third Reich to their knees.



 biggrin 

BTW..."Kelly's Hero's" were pussies.



474218, Carl, You will be missed.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4994 times:



Quoting Bravo45 (Reply 14):
Overall I agree. I don't think there even room for debate, my experience with those who make this argument is that they really don't have much knowledge of the fighting on the Eastern Front. Just the huge numbers involved, its mind blowing, no doubt both had a role but there is no question which was the primary factor.

Want a number that sums up the Eastern Front?: In one campaign in the Ukraine, the Germans encircled and capture-CAPTURED-750,000 Soviet soldiers.

That's just mind-boggling.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4975 times:



Quoting PROSA (Reply 17):
Well, not to sound simplistic or anything, but even if Germany's control of Europe remained ironclad, the allies still would have won the war in the fall of 1945.

Nevertheless, there could have been a possibility that the Wehrmacht would have still been stronger if he and Rommel weren't restricted by Hitler's bad orders, and let's face it, Hitler was a madman, not just for the genocide he's commited but also for not listening to military commanders, who do know what they're talking about. I still agree that by 1945, even with a stronger Wehrmacht, the Nazis would have been defeated by the allies, especially if they would have had to drop a nuke over Germany for it.

On the other hand, to respond to the What if scenario of the Nazis winning the war and keeping Stalin in check, there's a novel on it named "Fatherland", by Robert Harris. They also made an adaptation of the novel in an HBO production which I liked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_%28novel%29


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4965 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):
I would have to dig into my books for references, but AFAIK, the German industry had the highest output in 1944, before the Nazis ran it almost on a peacetime economy with as little disturbance to the civilians as possible (to keep the homefront happy).

No, don't bother looking 1944 had by far the highest outputs of tanks and fighters. However, the stats hide a couple of important things. The items being produced were standardized for the most part on older models and in the case of the jet fighters and the Arado bomber, the quality of the engines was hurt by a lack of some critical metals - especially Ni, Cr and Mn - Hitler ran a whole campaign to try to keep a manganese mine in Russia.

And none of that production ensured that the engines had fuel to run them.

Quoting Moo (Reply 4):
Some raids resulted in utter confusion on the part of the Germans because they couldn't work out where the intended target was.

Including a large one on the Big City - Berlin - where the Germans were bewildered as to what the RAF was trying to attack.

The strategic bombing survey concluded that the effect of the damage was marginal to the outcome of the war. I think one place where they might have erred is the effort the Germans had to put into the AA defences. Those tens of thousands of 88s would have been most unwelcome that the front. Especially by the drivers and crew of Ronsons.

Some western troops who were fighting in 42-43 (which basically means the Middle East where Alamein also made a difference) have commented that the German esprit was never the same after Stalingrad.

Curiously the battle of Kursk seems to get less attention in the west. After Kursk, the fate of Germany was sealed. It was at Kursk where the defence in depth with anti tank guns was used to effect by the Russians. They had learned a lot by then!

On the bombing of the synthetic fuels, it is difficult to know if Harris was just bloody minded or realistic. As Moo says, at nights the RAF sometimes had difficulty hitting a city never mind a factory. However, the small bombs of the USAAF were much less of a problem for repairs compared with being hit by a 4000 lb cookie.

After Sept 1944, the Germans lost their forward radar and the RAF could mount daylight raids and some raids with Tallboys (6 ton) and Grand Slams (10 ton) bombs were devastating. But that was an indication of what could have been done and not of what WAS done.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4952 times:

Russia undoubtedly suffered terribly in WW2, and played its full part in wearing down the German forces.

But it's important to remember that it was Stalin who made WW2 possible, by signing the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler on August 23rd.,1939 - a squalid deal which let him swallow up half of Poland and all the Baltic States. Then he sat back and supplied raw materials to Germany while leaving Britain to fight on alone for the best part of two years.

Even after Russia was attacked, Russian forces played virtually no 'strategic role' - their sole priority was defending Russia itself. They didn't even provide escorts and air cover for the Arctic convoys from Britain that kept them supplied. Even after the United States was attacked by the Japanese, Stalin steadfastly stayed right out of that conflict. He only declared war on Japan in the last few days, after the atomic bombs were dropped, in the hope of 'sharing in the spoils.'

It was left to the United States, Britain, and the Commonwealth to combat the Japanese; eventually driving them out of Burma and Malaya and carrying out the long bloody 'island-hopping' campaign all the way from Australia to Okinawa, to secure bases from which, at long last, Japan could be directly threatened with bombing and invasion.

I seldom see the point mentioned; but a glance at the map will show that, if Russia had joined in against Japan - and above all, allowed the Allies to use their eastern naval bases and airfields around Vladivostok - the mainland of Japan could have been directly threatened from the start.

Fair to say that the war in the Pacific would have taken a very different course if they had. For a start, the whole costly 'island-hopping' campaign, from Guadalcanal all the way to Iwo Jima, would have been largely unnecessary. The attack on the Japanese home islands could have started in 1942, and largely been carried out from Russia, China, and the Aleutians.

[Edited 2008-07-01 21:49:19]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4936 times:

Quoting FXramper (Reply 16):
How about Hitler sucked at war?

Well, he had his initial successes...really, what happened is that he (in his mind) took credit for the successes of Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein, etc., and he had "victory disease" after that. It was very hard to argue against him because he believed he was a military genius. Those who continued to argue against him (Guderian) were sacked.

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 1):
The dumbest decision ever to open up a second front (tha war against the USSR) which was completely nonsense since they both had an agreement to divide up Poland and leave it to that.

There's no way this would have held. Look at the players. It's like two street thugs teaming up to divvy up a neighborhood between themselves. Eventually one of them is going to get ambitious and attack the other. Stalin was just biding his time until he could make his move. And as it actually played out, if he had lived past 1953, we surely would have surely seen an invasion of Western Europe.

[Edited 2008-07-01 22:00:20]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

One thing that should be mentioned if Hitler's skill at war (or lack of it) should be mentioned and that is the demand for unconditional surrender. How long did that put back the end of the war in Europe. Arguably Stauffenberg would have had more support had that noose not been hanging over Germany's head. Same for Japan, and the irony was, when push came to shove, the surrender of Japan was NOT unconditional. Churchill was not at all happy at the sudden announcement of the policy, apparently without any consultation.

Was that an early version of "you are with me or against me"?


25 HAWK21M : Def the Russian Winter & the Battle for Stalingrad. regds MEL
26 Moo : Problem is, Germany did not have that type of air force - they had no proper aircraft carriers, and as such had no ability to truly interdict allied
27 Post contains links NAV20 : Thankfully, that's exactly right. Even the Messerschmitt 109 didn't have the range, the visibility, the turning ability, or the firepower to perform
28 Zkpilot : Well one thing you may be forgetting is that Germany lost the Battle of Britain in that it tried to take Britain by air prior to launching an invasio
29 EZEIZA : I agree, but I'm not so sure I'd call it "incredible resistance". Not to diminish what the Soviets did, but we have to also aknowledge that they were
30 Falcon84 : I would. The Russians lost probably 30 million people in the war, soldier and civilian. Not only did they have virtually whole armies captured in the
31 NAV20 : Agree 90%, Falcon84. But another factor was the British sending troops from Egypt to try and hold Greece and Crete in May 1941. This was largely held
32 Moo : Ahem, the Battle of Britain was in the summer of 1940...
33 NAV20 : And the Battle of El Alamein was in October 1942. Add the victories at Guadalcanal and Stalingrad, both in February 1943, and in my view you have the
34 EZEIZA : One of the turning points of the war, no doubt. Precisely why i think it was not an incredible resistance. As we agreed, the USSR was not forced to s
35 N328KF : Let's not forget an important thing...everyone focuses on the Russian contribution, and some have mentioned the US/Canadian logistical support, but le
36 Sprout5199 : I think that if the USSR had declared war against Japan, they would have LOST the war against the axis. for the USSR to have two fronts separated by
37 N328KF : Not only that but the Soviet surprise in some of the 1943 campaigns was due in large part to the redeployment of assets that had been arrayed against
38 Planespotting : This is the main thread connecting most of the posts here. According to most accounts, by 1941, Hitler really considered himself a military genius, d
39 N328KF : Well, the one incident that really emboldened Hitler was (per Guderian's biography), the invasion of France through the Ardennes. Though this plan wa
40 Planespotting : I wasn't blaming the Generals - Hitler was the main reason the upper-echelons of the German army didn't have contingency plans. Preparations for alte
41 Falcon84 : I think it shows precisely why what the USSR did was so incredible. They were losing whole armies, and large amounts of land, yet still won. They had
42 Nighthawk : Please get the name of the country right, it was Britain / United Kingdom, not england. Hundreds of thousands of Welsh, Irish and Scottish soldiers f
43 AGM100 : Falcon you are right on with this. It was a giant allied combined strategy and the Russian Infantrymen and armor divisions bore the brunt of the brut
44 N328KF : To be sure, they were given those resources. Most locomotives and medium trucks in Soviet service during World War II were of US manufacture.
45 Planespotting : Indeed - it's no wonder then that the Russians were so paranoid during the subsequent Cold War of a foreign invasion - an example being the tremendou
46 Sprout5199 : As a son of a mother who was born in Scotland and a paternal grandmother who was born in Scotland, a descendant of the clan Sutherland, and an all ar
47 GDB : Well, it is hard to argue with the USSR's land contribution, with some 80% of WW2 German land forces casualties being on the Eastern Front. With the l
48 LTU932 : This is also something one must remember: Stalin thought with a non-aggression pact, he could keep Hitler in check. And he was so dead wrong when he
49 N328KF : Stalin would have attacked Germany if it hadn't already attacked him. Look at what he did keeping himself busy while the Germans were occupied in the
50 David L : In a half-hearted way. Hitler didn't seem to think it was high priority and Heisenberg may or may not have been deliberately stalling. On the other h
51 L410Turbolet : As if he cared. Million dead here, million dead there... that really didn't bother him.
52 EZEIZA : If there is one thing Stalin did not care about was saving lives He murdered more people than Hitler ... amazing that all this happened no too long a
53 LTU932 : Of course you're right, Stalin did not care about anyone or anything, but hypothetically, if he did (emphasis on if), he could have avoided all of th
54 Flighty : HUGE Checkmark. On a side note, this is what makes the USA so powerful today. Not our weapons or our soldiers, but the fact we can _deliver_ our weap
55 N328KF : Well, he wasn't exactly helped by the fact that the core of the Manhattan Project were many of the very same German-Jewish scientists that fled due t
56 David L : Very true.
57 EZEIZA : As was mentioned previously, had the Nazi troops arrived a couple of months earlier history would be very different today. They screwed up Napoleon s
58 Pelican : Uh not this war propaganda again. While I agree that an unconditional surrender was necessary I don't see those structures you're talking about. Whil
59 NA : The single main point that caused the Third Reich´s defeat was the far superior supply and production capability of the US, not a single battle. With
60 N328KF : I am referring to the Franco-Prussian war. It wasn't a disaster in an economic sense, but it set the stage for World War I. The unification of German
61 LTU932 : What does the unification of Germany in 1871, the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine and the Franco-Prussial war that preceded the proclamation of the Ger
62 Sprout5199 : NA, you are correct. The amount of materials the US produced was uncomprensible to Germany, Japan, or even all our allies. Think about it, we were fi
63 N328KF : It set up a rivalry between France and Germany that extended to the arms race that occurred just before World War I. Also, Germany became unified and
64 LTU932 : AFAIK the rivalry between Germany and France existed long before the Franco-Prussian war.
65 Baroque : Wars are usually declared by governments and as England does not have one, it did not declare war on Germany. Whoa there. Germany started the battle
66 LTU932 : Many of those soldiers probably fought on and officers carried out those orders because they felt they are forced to do so. Remember that after the d
67 NA : The rivalry existed long before, since the Napoleonic wars where the imperialistic aggressor came from the West. The German Empire united by Bismarck
68 Post contains links NAV20 : Oddly enough, LTU932, Britain formed a similar organisation in 1940 - called the Home Guard. A collection of WW1 veterans, under-age kids, and the me
69 AGM100 : My error , you are correct . Of course it was not 200 thousand ... 2000 , 3000. As a boy I remember reading about the battle. The Author's descriptio
70 Baroque : In a nutshell, NA does it better than I: Indeed not easy being between a rock and a hard place. But the allies did themselves (and the Germans) no fa
71 MD11Engineer : By today's standards, Friedrich-Wilhelm II was a problem child. He was crippled since birth (his left arm was not fully developed) and as a child had
72 NA : That is true, as is the fact that with a better government serving him he might have become "Wilhelm II der Große". He only let opportunists serve h
73 AGM100 : Yes indeed , having a army poised in reserve ready to strike at the pivitol moment is always good for any general. I forget one point , was Citadel r
74 N328KF : I think this is giving too much credit. The Soviets had their Far East army deployed to defend against Japan, but they were likely in worse shape tha
75 Baroque : As far as I can figure it out - No, no and probably not although the German ground soldiers probably thought they had. I think the Russians did not m
76 AGM100 : The Russian generals basic plan at Citadel was too stop the German thrust ... catch them in a center position entrap and weaken them. When the German
77 LTU932 : My point exactly. What I meant in my remark is that the rivalry existed way before the war of 1870. I know Wilhelm also had the first name of Friedri
78 Baroque : Pretty much except there were two main engagements more or less of this type, with the defeat in the N coming before the more serious defeat and brea
79 Andaman : The difference was that Stalin occupied the Baltic states but never managed to do the same to Finland, in 1939-40 Russians were not prepared for the
80 N328KF : I understand, but he eventually got you to surrender on his terms (March 12, 1940). I'm sympathetic to the Finnish cause, believe me, and you guys we
81 NAV20 : Fair to say, I think, Andaman, that the Finns 'made their own luck' to a large extent by fighting so hard and stopping the Red Army in its tracks! Th
82 N328KF : To be fair to the Japanese, this worked once before (Tsushima). They had destroyed the bulk of the Russian fleet and sent them to the bargaining tabl
83 LTU932 : And yet, all they did was awaking a sleeping giant when the Japanese attacked Pearl. I wonder, what was Tojo thinking when he realised that by attack
84 Zkpilot : Well America was at a much more advanced stage... and used them to end WWII. It has been estimated by some historians/nuclear experts that Germany wo
85 Andaman : Yes but Stalin's original plan was to get Helsinki, not just a piece of South-Eastern Finland, looking back now it looks like victory Yes, and there
86 OHLHD : It is difficult to say what brought the Hitler Regime down as there were so many factors but one thing I know for sure; If Hitler had been much more a
87 Baroque : You get some idea from the length of time that the Navy kept secret from their OWN government the loss of 4 carriers at Midway. I would like to see Y
88 Post contains links NAV20 : Just as a sort of 'aside,' Baroque, I don't think anyone (even most of the aviation enthusiasts on A,net) who wasn't alive at the time could possibly
89 Baroque : All true but one advantage that the Swordfish had was its approach speed usually less than 120 mph was below the lowest value on the German predictor
90 AGM100 : Well I am going shopping today for the book by Anthony Beevor.. "Stalingrad" The book is simply awsome for detail and critical statagy effects. I read
91 NAV20 : Undoubtedly true, Baroque. But having achieved my highest-ever military rank of 'Acting/Unpaid Battery/Cpl HQ Clerk (intelligence)' - a fitting disti
92 NAV20 : Sorry, N328KF, I don't see any reason at ALL why I should be 'fair' to the Japanese, as far as WW2 was concerned. Or even the Gemans,if you press me.
93 Dougloid : I'm reading an interesting little book called A History of Aircraft Piston Engines written by a fellow named Herschel Smith. Here's what he says afte
94 Pelican : Did it really? How does the Franco-Prussian war explain the rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia which started WWI and became even more importa
95 Dougloid : Well, we have a saying here that nothing succeeds like success, and everyone wants to be on the winning side. Up until June 22, 1941 (if you weren't
96 NAV20 : Awfully, horribly, true and simple, Dougloid. The Russians' best generals were 'General January' and 'General February.' A small child who had experi
97 Post contains links Dougloid : Of course, there's also Stalin's duplicity/complicity in the dismemberment of Poland and the Baltic States that was a building block that led up to t
98 MD11Engineer : Though the Russian winter equipment was quite good (after all, much was copied from peasant's dress of people being used to the climate). They also l
99 Baroque : ?A bit more complex than that. Those two generals were on offense and the senior General was Gen December. Arguably the critical one in 1941 was Gene
100 Banco : There has been a temptation in recent years to overplay the Eastern Front and downplay the western one, simply because of the scale of casualties invo
101 AGM100 : Good post Banko and excellent points for sure. No way do I want to take away from Britain's efforts and some do take it that way. Your correct that B
102 NA : Indeed, thats the best book about the battle. Objective, well written, comprehensive without being picky. Only the picture part is a bit poor. I read
103 AGM100 : It is debatable that if German regular army generals would have been able to stop the SS from killing and burning everything that the population may
104 Baroque : Best not to ask that question AGM100. Does that help? Not only 150 more divisions, 150 more that had not been chewed up and spat out by the Russians.
105 Banco : It seems highly unlikely, doesn't it? The whole thing is a series of how impossible it would have been without one element or another. I guess the ea
106 GDB : It the case that Banco has mentioned above, it might have been the case that what we know as the 'Marshall Plan' now might have arrived sooner and for
107 Baroque : I probably agree but which ones do you have in mind? It was not only the NHS that arrived double quick. The railways and mines were rapidly going out
108 N328KF : The US had far more ships available...just that they were busy in the Pacific.
109 Dougloid : I dislike these one point extrapolations. It was a joint effort to send Hitler and his crew to hell, don't you see, and the fact that your navy provi
110 AGM100 : Agreed , I for one think that the catastrophe at Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for the German army itself. However , as far as coalition of
111 RayChuang : In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes the Germans made was they never built a long-range bomber force that could have attacked targets several th
112 Post contains links NAV20 : Certainly an interesting question. My own feeling is, probably yes, they could have. But the strategy would have had to be different, and it would ha
113 Dougloid : True. but the B24 Liberator was something of an unsung hero that was built in larger numbers than the B17 and hauled its share of tonnage you may be
114 Post contains links Baroque : Light incendiaries were effective at burning folk out of homes in the old cities, not so effective in Berlin because of wider streets, perhaps also b
115 GDB : In my alternate scenario above, I neglected to also have Hitler magic up a rather more substantial navy too! Fair comment about the US commitment to t
116 Dougloid : Bomber Harris knew that each bomb dropped was going to keep a certain number of people from getting to work, and depriving Germany of man hours was p
117 MD11Engineer : To use the light incendiaries efficiently you'll have to crack the tiled roofs of the houses first (European houses at this time were built out of br
118 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Yes, Dougloid - the RAF made good use of the Liberator, particularly for anti-submarine patrols, given its huge range. Lovely story about a guy named
119 Baroque : Correct, for dehousing, that was the recipe and the timing was critical. The effect of the cookies was why they also sent over single Mosquitoes with
120 NAV20 : About 'cookies,' by coincidence, I read a dreadful story the other day, in a book a friend (another blitz survivor) sent me about RAF aircrew in WW2.
121 Post contains links and images MD11Engineer : Another problem existed on the German side: The cookies didn't look like bombs, but rather like water tanks and the three fuzes at the front end were
122 BarfBag : What makes you think we would all have supported England ? From an Indian perspective at the time, there was no difference between the British and th
123 Post contains links NAV20 : You very much belittle the devoted service of large numbers of Indian soldiers who served with great gallantry in Abyssinia, Eritrea, Egypt, Libya, T
124 Post contains links Baroque : I understand what you are saying and I think Nav was a bit bullish, but the record tends to support him rather than your interpretation. Wiki on the
125 BarfBag : Ah yes, I was waiting for that response - I worded my statement for the purpose. The Indian efforts were indeed belittled, but it is the British who
126 Post contains links Baroque : Sounds as if you preferred Chandra Bose. Where did that get him? FDR was more against the British Empire than against colonialism - if you doubt this
127 BarfBag : It's nowhere near that binary. The tragedy of India in World War 2 is we had Indians fighting both on the Allied side and the Axis forces. But *both*
128 NAV20 : Barfbag, sounds as if you'd have been delighted if Hitler had beaten Britain and put in the British equivalent of the French puppet Vichy regime? A fe
129 N328KF : Hey, you know, you may have a beef with the British, but I think it's safe to say that had the Axis won, you guys* would have would have been screwed
130 Baroque : Well YOU might think that Britain was ungrateful, but let me tell you it was not. On your direct suggestion, do let us know what India might have gai
131 Dougloid : It's not nearly as one dimensional as you suggest. Wars are fought for moral and religious reasons all the time. Sometimes people who have little int
132 BarfBag : You simply don't get it. It's not a matter of wishing any particular side won. That is entirely besides the point. There was little qualitative diffe
133 Baroque : OK I see, what you want was a part of the national debt after WW II and presumably liability to pay the US for Lend Lease equipment. Well I am sure t
134 BarfBag : Ah the condescention continues. Now its "ok, how much money do you want ?" That's particularly appalling, coming from you, B. Why don't you take a sh
135 GDB : I'm sure those who suffered under the Nazis would have something to say about your comparison's Barf Bag. And how do you know that Britain was ungrate
136 Zkpilot : Whilst Germany as a nation existed, and economically it was successful during this time, it is not quite accurate to say that Germany was extremely s
137 BarfBag : In other words "we only subjugated you as a nation and plundered your resources, we didn't send you all off into the gas chambers", yes ? Well thank
138 BarfBag : The UK, along with the US and Russia, drove wartime and postwar strategic debate. It got a permanent membership at the UNSC. It had the opportunity t
139 VC10 : India at the time of the second world war was part of an empire , which happened to governed by the UK. Therefore Britain represented all the countrie
140 BarfBag : That is plain falsehood. France and China were under occupation *yet* had independent representation. India, despite being under colonial rule, was r
141 Johns624 : Which "India" do you think should have been part of the UN Security Council, the part that became "India" or the part that became Pakistan?
142 Dougloid : Well, Chandra Bose is another guy like Ezra Pound. He's only memorable for the reminder that when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas.
143 BarfBag : Considering that the UNSC came into existence two years before the partition, how is your question relevant ? For an Indian in the early 1940s, the B
144 Dougloid : Well, yes.....that's what you've been doing all evening.
145 Post contains links and images NAV20 : Also pays to keep both eyes open, Barfbag.   "WHEN YOU GO HOME, TELL THEM OF US AND SAY - FOR YOUR TOMORROW, WE GAVE OUR TODAY." (Inscription on the
146 BarfBag : Britain was a monstrous tyranny that subjugated India. The relative evilness of the Third Reich does nothing to make Britain 'better'. The argument i
147 BarfBag : Quite the opposite. Whatever Britain symbolized in retrospect does nothing to change the Indian viewpoint *at that time* - that they were unwelcome i
148 Post contains links Baroque : VC10 is probably right. Using my numbers that I inserted into the quote. 1. The command of the Indian army is an area where localization or whatever
149 BarfBag : 2,500,000 Indian soldiers. Decisive engagements against *both* the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Japanese Army. And you say 'localization' and 'lagging'
150 NAV20 : Ever since the Indian (technically 'Bengal') Mutiny in 1857, Indian officers were given only 'Viceroy's Commissions,' and were not permitted to rise
151 BarfBag : Thanks for the details of the systematic discrimination against Indians in its own armed forces, starting from the first War of Independence in 1857.
152 Post contains images NAV20 :     Agree that your interventions have derailed what was previously a well-balanced and constructive thread, Barfbag. But PLEASE, at least, make up
153 BarfBag : Why do things in half ? They screwed up by staying around, and they screwed up the process of leaving. In fact they screwed up their withdrawal prett
154 Vc10 : As I told you before it is a waste of time discussing anything with a certain gentleman as there is only one true version of anything and that is his.
155 N328KF : It's too late. He has destroyed this thread. He should have opened a new thread on the subject.
156 Johns624 : My point exactly. What would have happened to the seat in 1947?
157 Dougloid : You did a pretty good job of sending this thread into the Insinkerator. Would you try and refocus, Mr. Bag?
158 NAV20 : Well, trying to rescue Falcon84's memorable thread, it was all my fault at the beginning, for saying that, IMO, Britain and the Commonweatlh/Empire co
159 N328KF : I'm pretty sure that without the US, you guys would have been screwed. Russia wouldn't have saved you...they had men but not materiel...
160 Baroque : You could be right, but by early 1941, the pressure seemed to have abated although some of it came back again in the E Med. Later in 1941, before the
161 Post contains images NAV20 : The original proposition was that Hitler didn't invade Russia, and that neither the USA nor Japan got involved, N328KF. My contention was that unless
162 Arrow : I think it depends on what the US involvement was. Had the US stopped sending material support as well as staying out of the war, I don't think Brita
163 Baroque : Two words Arrow. Trucks. Boots. But the boots were only OK for non winter. In the winter, the metal pins "conducted in the cold". The Russians were u
164 N328KF : The Soviet transportation network was chiefly operated by US-supplied locomotives and medium trucks. I think they had a fair number of jeeps as well.
165 Dougloid : Was that one of the lend lease destroyers? I've heard that they were awful in heavy weather but could kick up their heels in calmer waters and reason
166 N328KF : It speaks volumes about those destroyers that the best use for them was the St. Nazaire raid...
167 MD11Engineer : The problem was that most Russian supply depots were in the western part of the Soviet Union, e.g. Minsk, which was overrun quite fast. Also, most of
168 MD11Engineer : Again, probably because they were good against the low flying German tactical bombers. Jan
169 Dougloid : Well, for the Campbelltown, anyway, but the virtue of them was that they were there, armed reasonably well, and they could carry a load of depth char
170 GDB : Well Barf Bag, Indian society is not shy of treating a portion of it's people as 'undermenshen'. No death camps, but just general shunning, exclusion
171 BarfBag : The problem with this thread is that you are so set on parroting the standard Anglo-US view of Allied operations in World War 2 that absolutely none
172 NAV20 : The moral of that, BB, is to read other people's posts more carefully. What I said was:- I didn't single out India. I don't notice the Canadians, New
173 RayChuang : If the Germans did not carry out Operation Barbarossa, they would have by fall 1941 a formidable Luftwaffe that would have caused the RAF no end of tr
174 BarfBag : NAV20: It's not my business to speak for a Canadian or a Kiwi. You seem to imply that mentioning a multiplicity of nations makes it any less outrageou
175 Johns624 : BB, you still haven't responded to my question of who (India or Pakistan) would have gotten your coveted UNSC seat in 1947...
176 StuckInCA : Even if someone referred to India during WWII in that manner, you yourself say: So... if they were subjugated then they were indeed a source of manpo
177 NAV20 : Not so, with respect, RayChuang. The Germans had to give up daylight raids in 1940, and fall back on night-bombing. The British rapidly countered the
178 N328KF : So that's the comment that stuck in your craw... I suppose you failed to notice that other Indians have participated in this thread without the angry
179 Baroque : One of the famous 50. His complaint in the situation of the Arctic convoys was the AA armament - added of course by the Brits under war emergency con
180 LTU932 : I wouldn't know about the Luftwaffe, but the Heer (the Ground Forces) would have at least not been as decimated as it was just after the "Kessel" of
181 Baroque : And in some ways proved more formidable in retreat than it had been in blitzkrieg mode.
182 LTU932 : Indeed. As a sidenote, that time is also the time of what Goebbels called "Der totale Krieg" or Total War. Goebbels gave a speech, asking people "Wol
183 Post contains images NAV20 : Don't disagree with you in principle, LTU932 - except that it's a bit more complicated than that. Hitler gave very disitinguished service as an infan
184 Dougloid : Major Parrott understood the principle well. Although his rifles were sometimes dangerous to the gun crew, they were available in quantity at the rig
185 Post contains links and images NAV20 : About Flower Class corvettes, Dougloid, have to urge you to get hold of a copy of Nicholas Monsarrat's 'Three Corvettes,' if you haven't got one alre
186 Dougloid : A superb writer, that Monserrat fellow. I first read The Cruel Sea as a high school student and I was stunned at how evocative it was. The only other
187 Post contains links NAV20 : If anyone wants to know what war can really be about - I personally have no special experience, thankfully my own knowledge is purely theoretical. Exc
188 GDB : About HMS Campbleltown, Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear did a superb doc on the St Nazaire operation, The Greatest Raid . He later said it's the best piec
189 MD11Engineer : During WW1 Hitler was a messenger, carrying dispatches from his unit's trench to the company HQ and back. This meant that he had to leave the safety
190 LTU932 : And also: Isn't it true that Gefreiter Schicklgruber had to literally demand from his superiors that he be given the Iron Cross because they wouldn't
191 Dougloid : A lot of Russian GIs were carried to the front in the back of Lend Lease Studebaker trucks which the Russians later reverse engineered. The Chinese l
192 BarfBag : It goes to India. Simple case precedent: China. The country that claimed to be the representative of China took the seat. Pakistan has never claimed
193 RayChuang : The Russians LOVED the P-39 and P-63 models because the planes survived ground fire very well and performed superbly in the type of low-altitude comb
194 GDB : Indeed Ray, rather like a Russian Mosquito. It is fair to say that in the West, the air war of the Eastern Front is all too often ignored. The Russian
195 Post contains links Baroque : And bloody thousands and thousands of them. I like the women bomber pilots flying biplanes at night. “Known by the Germans as the "night witches" b
196 Banco : You might also want to check out the Alexander Fullerton series of novels, particularly the Nicholas Everard series set across both world wars.
197 Moo : One of the best quotes I have ever heard when it comes to the USSRs approach to military machines in WWII was: 'Build it good enough, then build a mi
198 Baroque : And it worked too!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
World War II Sub Simulator posted Thu Feb 22 2007 14:36:32 by Don81603
World War II posted Tue Oct 25 2005 18:26:56 by Fubar37
Today 60 Years Ago: World War II Ends! posted Sun May 8 2005 15:33:00 by RJ100
World War II Help.. posted Sun Mar 14 2004 14:03:33 by EGFFbmi
World War II Europe posted Mon Feb 12 2001 06:12:38 by Saloth Sar
World War II Pacific posted Sun Feb 11 2001 07:39:34 by Saloth Sar
Here's A War Story For You ;) posted Fri Mar 17 2006 11:03:23 by Baylorairbear
Are We Heading For A Third World War? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 17:26:47 by Kay
Question For You Dutch Folk posted Fri Dec 7 2007 10:01:04 by BFSBHD
Internet Addiction? Then This Camp's For You! posted Mon Nov 19 2007 15:35:06 by Goldenshield