The Best And The Worst Of Your Countries History.

[Seeker]

Chris, as a history undergrad in 4th year I am interested in the astounding new thesis you've set forth here.

It is contrary to the military history I've been taught read here.

Who are the important researchers? You mentioned recently opened US archives, where from? Are they available without a Freedom of Information document? Who keeps them?

The sources in Canada are compilations of British sources from the war and immediate post-war period, and now the recently opened Russian archives. These have tended to support the idea of massive native industry in Russia, with the West's contribution being mostly SPAM and a few token tanks.

Yes the SPAM was important, but I don't think that the USSR was anywhere near about to fold without American aid.

About supposedly superior US doctrine:
What do you think of the numbers used in "A Genius For War"? Specifically the 'combat effectiveness' numbers used Rifle Section to Rifle Section? (US is squad or something)?

[Jaguar]

I'm surprised that so few brits said june 6, 1944 for their best moment.

USA's best moment? There are several
Signing the declaration of independence
Winning at concord and lexington
Winning the war of independence
the gettysburgh address
martin luther king
rebounding out of the depression
World War II
GW Bush's speech after 9-11
The days after 9-11 in which the people came together

.. and we are still writing history

worst moment
Needing to keep slavery to become independent
slavery in general
alien and sedition acts
the civil war
crash of 1893
phillipines in 1900
great depression
okinawa
assassinations
hiding under desks in the cold war
vietnam
9-11-01

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Seeker
Chris, as a history undergrad in 4th year I am interested in the astounding new thesis you've set forth here.

It is contrary to the military history I've been taught read here.

I'm not surprized.
The general concensious of late is that the USA was a spectator in the secord world war, instead of a beligerent.
Here is a web site that discusses in brief, many of the lesser known Soviet operations of WWII, and also talks about how the war in the east is mis-represented. I admit, this is short, but it is a stepping stone into uncovering a greater picture, namely, many common facts of WWII may not be as accurate as is believed today.

http://rhino.shef.ac.uk:3001/mr-home/rzhev/rzhev2.html

I found this book, "What If? : The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been" by Robert Cowley to be fasinating, and includes pasages from many prominate historians comenting on many military campaigns in history.
Here is a nice Russian site, it is a little biased, but not bad, and shows allied armor in Soviet usage:

http://history.vif2.ru/library/lend/intro.html

Who are the important researchers? You mentioned recently opened US archives, where from? Are they available without a Freedom of Information document? Who keeps them?

Harrison Salisbury's work is what got me started with this, but for some fine writing, I would recomend John Erickson and David Glantz. Richard Harrison wrote perhaps the best study I ever read on Russian doctrone in combat, called "The Russian Way of War: Operational art, 1904-1940. This shows how an out-moded and corrurt Czarist army evolved into the red army that would fight the Germans in WWII.
The things I refered to earlier are hardly recent, they date back to the 1980s, and they were seas of reports, evaluations, assesments, and other odds and ends then stored in the records section at West point, but I belive they have since moved the bulk of this to the mid-west, to St Louis, I think. All of it should be obtainable, the trick is asking the army what you want, for most of this has codified in typical army fashion, with numbers and letters. I came accross this mostly by chance, as at the time the records section was attempting to straighten out this sea of paper work. Whether it was shipped west or to the national archive, I can't say. I can say it contridicts most of what I ever heard about lend-lease in WWII, and what I was later taught in college, but I tend to believe it, as it was written not as history but as operational reports.

The sources in Canada are compilations of British sources from the war and immediate post-war period, and now the recently opened Russian archives. These have tended to support the idea of massive native industry in Russia, with the West's contribution being mostly SPAM and a few token tanks.

This seems to be the current offical line, but I'm dubious as to Russian sources, even though open now, they were still KGB controlled when first filed, so it is an even bet that most of it is highly slanted Russia's way. An interesting look at Russian econmy was made a few years ago by Paul Kennedy in his "Rise and fall of the Great powers". He holds, through economic indicators, that the claimed production of the Soviets is quite impossible, and a number of economists tend to agree with him. I myself have been disapointed at the results of recent openings of information, they seem disjointed and inacurate in many areas.

Yes the SPAM was important, but I don't think that the USSR was anywhere near about to fold without American aid.

Russia's cronic inability to feed itself was manifested even in the Cold war, when the Soviets often had to buy western food stuffs or watch thier people starve. It is interesting to view Soviet retoric, and then read how they had to humiliate themselves by asking the USA for grain sales! Again, as i mentioned earlier, traditional aeras of food supplies for the Soviets were the major battlefields, and therefore could not have fed the people or it's army, that food had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the west.

About supposedly superior US doctrine:
What do you think of the numbers used in "A Genius For War"? Specifically the 'combat effectiveness' numbers used Rifle Section to Rifle Section? (US is squad or something)?

First, let me say I respect Carlo Deste', but as for the numbers, I am always sceptical about "rifle" counting, for other factors add in, and are often glossed over in such camparisons.
Basically, US doctrone is "Firepower kills", meaning, if resistance is met, blow the hell out of it, and US forces in WWII did exactly this. A good example is the Leibstandarte's failure to breakout of the northern shoulder of the bulge in December of 44. The US forces where hardly elite, and Elsenborn ridge was not an overwhelming defensive postion, yet most of the best SS panzer division could not acchive a breakthrough, despite lack of allied aircover, because the US forces used what they did have, namely artillery assests quite liberaly, blunting the Nazi drive.
It is hard to describe the intense demoralization troops feel under barrage, it isn't glamous like looking at Panther tanks attack, or watching JS-IIs poping away, but it kills, and it kills better, then any armored thrust.

The US has been using this doctrone for years, it's only real failure was vietnam, where the NLF developed the tactic known as "belt hugging", meaning that the way to nulify arty was to get so close that the US dared not use Arty for fear of hitting it's own men, but this led to grevious losses anyway, but perhaps less then from a 105MM barage.

I think that's enough thread jakking of Spray's thread.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Chris 62
When the Soviets fought the same formations, they would suffer massive losses and succeed only through numbers, and the fact that they controlled the air.
That wasn't happening in the west.

Well, you learn something new every day. Every book I've read has said that the Allies controlled the air, but I guess that's not true cause Chris62 says that ain't the way it happened.

And of course the Allies were out numbered by the Germans troops in Normandy, but still won. And the Allies never relied on superior numbers. No, in the world according to Chris62, the Germans lost 10 Tiger tanks for every Sherman destroyed.

And everyone should remember that Chris62 is right when he says that the Russians were on their last legs in 45 and could easily been defeated. Just like everyone said they were on their last legs in 41, 42, 43.

Oh, and the Allies would have won because with the Pershing and Centurion they would have had better tanks then the Russians. The Allies would have had control of the air. And the average Allied soldier was far superior to the average Russian soldier.

Of course, in 43, the Germans had better tanks, better aircraft, better soldiers and better tactics than the Russians. It didn't help the Germans, but it would have been different for the Allies.

So in the world according to Chris62, Truman allows Russia to take Eastern Europe. Along similar logic, Stalin allowed the Allies to take Western Europe.

The US is apparently an all-powerful god in the world according to Chris62. The Soviets did not take Eastern Europe by defeating the Germans. No, the US allowed the Soviets to take it.

Mao wins in China not because he was a better general and Chiang was incompetant, but because the US allowed Mao to win. The Americans only provided supplies to equip about 10 Nationalist divisions IIRC. The fools. One more division, one more squadron would have changed history.

The Korean War becomes a stalemate not because the North Koreans and Chinese proved to be strong fighters, but because the US "accepts" a ceasefire.

Before the Tet offensive in Vietnam, US generals said the Viet Cong had ceased to be a fighting force. Then the Tet offensive happens and the generals put on the same record and say it was the Viet Cong's last desperate attack and they have been defeated. They are no longer a fighting force. Strange how the Viet Cong continued to fight until they won.

But hey, the Americans would have won if they wanted to. Put 50,000 troops in and we'll win, the generals said. Give us 100,000 troops and we'll win. Put in 200,000 troops and we'll win. Put in 300,000 troops and we'll win. Damm it we lost because we didn't put in enough troops.

[Roland]

"And everyone should remember that Chris62 is right when he says that the Russians were on their last legs in 45 and could easily been defeated. Just like everyone said they were on their last legs in 41, 42, 43."

In 1945 the soviets had been through 4 years of war with a loss ratio of something like 4:1 or 5:1 against the germans. About 1/3rd of the country in terms of population and economy was wrecked. Stalin must have been extremely pleased by Hitler's western offensive in late 44 because the red army appeared rather stuck at the Weichsel. When the worst damage was met, first thing they did was a massive overhaul of the red army after WWII. Throughout WWII, the USSR was with western support barely able to keep up with german armament output, even on their own likely inflated numbers; the US outproduced the two combined. The air war above germany tied up huge german resources - that 2nd front Stalin so heavily demanded had existed since maybe late 1942. Etc etc....

That oh so powerful soviet union in 1945, is that some fashion gimick ? I've never read this in the extreme version some put out here.

"The US is apparently an all-powerful god in the world according to Chris62."

What won WWII, short version ? The Brits holding the line early on, 10-13 million dead red army soldiers and a couple trillion $ (current currency) of US output.
Drawn out wars are decided by economic clout. Which means in 1945, the US wasn't far from what you put into Chris' mouth.

(Agreeing with Chrissie.... I really need to take another vacation...)

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Spain´s best moments:

1. The swearing in of Conservative PM Aznar.
2. 1960s - Economic boom started to occur
3. When we had a large empire.

Spain´s worst moments:

1. The entire civil war. It was a devastation to our economy.
2. Tejero Coup Attempt. I was tempted to put this in the best moment, but at the time the economy was in a recession and I don´t think a coup was the answer.
3. Right now because of Argentina messing up our investments.

Not really.

You probably only hit the nail on #3 best moment, and #1 worst. The rest are quite laughable to me.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by FireDragon
I'm surprised that so few brits said june 6, 1944 for their best moment.

It's sad that such a high proportion of best moments are military. I think most Brits probably consider surviving the Battle of Britain to be a more significant achievement than D-Day.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Croatia

The best:

Winning the war and independance again in 1990's or getting a first king in 915 AD or maby dominating the area in next 200 years and repelling the Turks between 1450 and 1900 together with the Hungarians.

The worst:
Nazi government during WWII that killed thousands. Other than that we were quite good. OK being offically on the wrong side of the two WW in 20th century. But we were not really killing thousands or torturing others since they were doing this to us most of the time...




Other bad things that have happened: When the French equalized whith that stupid goal just a minute after we scored the goal in the 1998 semi final .

[Giancarlo]

I got a question for the OneFoot, do you consider Franjo Tudjman to be a bad leader?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Yes

Under his rule we did get independance, but I recon he will get much more credit in history books than he deserves. (most of the other people that contended to be the leaders at the time would be able to pull this trough since he wasn't reall keen on defence at first) Plus he will get the credit as well for the economic disaster that happened after the war trough encouraging corruption and isolationist policies (expanionist in Bosnia). Croatia is onlt recovering now, and slowly...

[Chris 62]

Stupidity prevails...

If your going to quote, you should work on your reading comprehension, because you got it wrong, Tinky.

Originally posted by Tingkai
Well, you learn something new every day. Every book I've read has said that the Allies controlled the air, but I guess that's not true cause Chris62 says that ain't the way it happened.

First example of your stupidity:
I was refering to the Soviets would not have air superority vs the Allies, not that the allies didn't over Germany.
I was comparing the Soviet vs Allies there.
That was obvious, to everyone except you, it seems.

And of course the Allies were out numbered by the Germans troops in Normandy, but still won. And the Allies never relied on superior numbers. No, in the world according to Chris62, the Germans lost 10 Tiger tanks for every Sherman destroyed.

Before shooting your mouth off, you should take a look at the TO&E of Nazi formations after Faliese, the depths of your ignorence would probaly astound you.
In a straight tank battle, of course Nazi Armor would win handily, and US commanders were well aware of it, they studied failures like "Operation Goodwood".
The problem is, with amatuer historians like you, is you don't take into accout all factors of war, namely that the US didn't rush foward with Shermans vs Tigers, instead, allied forces used their airpower to interdict Nazi movement, disrupt what was left of Nazi logistics (The "Transportation plan") with said aorpower, and cut lose with liberal doses of artillery.
Of course, you never took any of that into account, to people like you it was magic that the allies broke out of Normandy.
In the future sir, do not try to take what I say out of context to support your stupidity, I don't care for it.

And everyone should remember that Chris62 is right when he says that the Russians were on their last legs in 45 and could easily been defeated. Just like everyone said they were on their last legs in 41, 42, 43.

The Russians themselves were the ones saying this.
Are you aware that Stalin attempted peace accords with Hitler in late 41, again in mid 42, and even after Stalingrad?
Obvoiusly not.

Oh, and the Allies would have won because with the Pershing and Centurion they would have had better tanks then the Russians. The Allies would have had control of the air. And the average Allied soldier was far superior to the average Russian soldier.

I'm not going to get into proving ground satistics, but the fact remains that the M-26 Pershing and the British Centurion were indeed far superior to the JS-2, and more then a match for the JS-III. The Centurion(with upgrades) was still in use in the 1970s as a MBT, ripping up T-62s, and the Patton series is an extention of the M-26.
You are kind of simple, aern't you?
And as for training, equipment, and leadership, allied forces were far better then Soviet forces. Russian soldiers as individuals were tough and brave, but were not well trained or fed, their logistics were problamatic at best. Their junior officers were stripped of inititive, their tactics were rigid and inflexible. Their number one assest was numbers, but by 1945 the well was dry. Against forces that controlled the air (Allies), and had an Artillery edge (Allies), I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for Soviet chances. Even in 45, German formations could still inflict horrible losses on Soviet formations in local counterattacks. This wasn't happening in the west, because anything that moved was hounded by fighter bombers, or shelled mercilessly.
Any historian knows this, and knows it well.
It is no denigration of the sacrifice of the Russian people, millions of which were killed stopping the Nazis, but we were taking about the summer of 1945, Allies vs Soviets, the Russians would have lost, and bad. This doesn't mean they would be pushed back to Moscow, but they could have been evicted from Germany and Poland, the Balkans would have been tougher.
Next time learn something before you attempt to critize others.

Of course, in 43, the Germans had better tanks, better aircraft, better soldiers and better tactics than the Russians. It didn't help the Germans, but it would have been different for the Allies.

In 43, the germans didn't have better armor or aircraft.
Ever hear of Kursk?
Germans were heavily outnumbered and had lost command of the air.
And another matter, the Tiger is over-rated.
It had an excellent gun, tis true, but it was unreliable, hard to build, dificult to maintain, overly complex, prone to breakdown, had slow turrent traverse, poorly slopped armor, and was sloooow.
In a densive postion, it could take a huge toll, on attack (as at Kursk), it was a rumlin' stumblin' mass, easy target for Russian 85mm guns, which could penitrate it's none slopped frontal armor plate at battle range.
The Panther suffered from all the same weaknesses except speed and armor slope, both were excellent. When it worked, it was great, but that was rare.
In 43, the main fighters of the Luftwaffe were BF-109G-6 and FW-190 A-8, neither are superior below 10,000 feet to La-7s or Yak-3s in anything except firepower, and they were heavily outnumbered.
The German logistics were not good, unlike the allied postion of 45 (remember, the Soviets could not interfere in the atlantic, so no interuption of supplies is possible)
So once again, we see you don't know what your talking about.

So in the world according to Chris62, Truman allows Russia to take Eastern Europe. Along similar logic, Stalin allowed the Allies to take Western Europe.

Non-sense.
All powers agreed to hold elections in liberated zones to decide their fates, the Soviets continually rigged these, coming up with communists out of thin air at times.
They had agreed on spheres of influence, but the allies could have insisted that said elections be fair, they were not.

The US is apparently an all-powerful god in the world according to Chris62. The Soviets did not take Eastern Europe by defeating the Germans. No, the US allowed the Soviets to take it.

You really this stupid, or are you just looking for an argument?
Read previous paragrapgs for enlightenment on your part.

Mao wins in China not because he was a better general and Chiang was incompetant, but because the US allowed Mao to win.

Those are your words, not mine.

The Americans only provided supplies to equip about 10 Nationalist divisions IIRC. The fools. One more division, one more squadron would have changed history.

You really don't know squat about military operations, do you?
Read some on Mao's campaign, and gain some knowledge before attempting to denigrate others opinions, because it's patently obvious you don't know jack about these topics.

The Korean War becomes a stalemate not because the North Koreans and Chinese proved to be strong fighters, but because the US "accepts" a ceasefire.

Man, you are silly.
Read any accout of the winter of 1950, and MacArthur's plans and opinion on how to stop China.
Both sides had ceased serious operations in 1951, and settled into trench warfare while "negociating" an end to this.
The US refused to turn up the heat in Korea, that is obvious to all, except for one notable acception.

Before the Tet offensive in Vietnam, US generals said the Viet Cong had ceased to be a fighting force. Then the Tet offensive happens and the generals put on the same record and say it was the Viet Cong's last desperate attack and they have been defeated. They are no longer a fighting force. Strange how the Viet Cong continued to fight until they won.

It's not strange that you got it wrong again.
Look at my intial post on this, and check what the NLF said about this.
They are the ones who said they were ready to quit, not western sources.
Again, you don't know what your taking about.

But hey, the Americans would have won if they wanted to. Put 50,000 troops in and we'll win, the generals said. Give us 100,000 troops and we'll win. Put in 200,000 troops and we'll win. Put in 300,000 troops and we'll win. Damm it we lost because we didn't put in enough troops.

US lost because it failed to fight a real war, instead stayed on the stratgic defensive.
Instead of cutting the North's seaborne supplies (that arrived in Russian ships, which is why it was allowed, all feared it becoming WW III), and failed to take the war into the North.
This was a true losing formula.
No insurrection ever defeated a great power without outside help, the US wasn't willing to cut the North's lifeline with the Soviets (not China, those two never got along).

Sorry Spray, for doing this to your thread, but ignorent Mfers like tinky have to be answered in the sprit they post.

(Agreeing with Chrissie.... I really need to take another vacation...)

I ain't pleased with it either, Rollie.

[Jon Miller]

Re: Stupidity prevails...

Originally posted by Chris 62
This doesn't mean they would be pushed back to Moscow, but they could have been evicted from Germany and Poland, the Balkans would have been tougher.
Next time learn something before you attempt to critize others.

Oh, I agree with this. I thought that what was being talked about was the end of the russian regime. Yes, the allies would/could have pushed the Russians back.

Jon Miller

[Dr. Nick]

And I always thought that the Russians were Allies too...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read any accout of the winter of 1950, and MacArthur's plans and opinion on how to stop China.

Yes, it is called 'nukes'

Truman was right to take that nutter out. We would have never won in Korea, too many Chinese.

[Alexander's Horse]

Some very interesting examples of Soviet weakness during World War II has emerged since the end of the Soviet Union. A few examples (which may already have been listed by others):

. The much vaunted winter offensive of 1941 cost the Soviets a million casualties. German casualties were a fraction of this.

. Some of the infantry who encircled Stalingrad were unarmed. They were ordered to take small arms off dead comrades as they fell.

. By 1944 the Red Army had started drafting 16 year olds because the Soviet Union was running out of manpower.