Nov 30th 1939 - A Date which will live in Infamy

[Serb]

Originally posted by Seeker
Geeze, now I know why Reagan used to talk about the Winnable War....maybe seeing the Stars and Stripes flying from the Kremlin Krater would shut guys like Serb up...

You may say whatever you want, scream whatever you want, shout whatever you want, the fact is nor Reagan nor anybody of you don't had/have balls to attack Russia. All you can do is to shout -"we could easily kick your asses, because you-suck, while we are super-mega-fighters",- typical coward's sh*t.
Come and get as "mighty warriors", ( who run with tail between their legs everytime when bullets start to fly around ) if you are so brave.

[Boris Godunov]

So, what will this typical gay post next?

[Serb]

Who?

[Hurricane]

I never really understood the fuss about Saving Private Ryan. The opening battle is good, but after that the film turns into the typical Hollywood "good guys kills hordes of krauts", of course with the obligatory flag-waving at the beginning and the end. In fact, I think the best thing about it were grandpas's hot daughters at the graveyard.

[The Pioneer]

I think Band of Brothers does a much better job than Saving Private Ryan.

So long...

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It certainly was in 1941 and, to a large degree, in 1942.

Perhaps your army was in better condition in 1941. great and mighty US army with all its huge tank force (500!!! rusty and obsolete tanks) and huge amount of soldiers ( 100 000 soldiers)?
If Hitler attacked you in 1941 you shared the fate of France with only exception that he would crushed you much faster.
You seems do don't understant which enemy Red army faced in 1941- it weren't the same Germans your army faced in 1944 (drafted badly injured veterans of WW1 and 14 years old boys), in 1941 it were absolutely different Germans- ELITE regiments, conqueres of Europe, one of the strongest armies EVER. The guys who NEVER saw defeat, before Russians defeated them near Moscow, in 1941. Those were the guys we fought against in 1941. And what do you think we should do? Surrender, like all Europe did? You screaming about ****ines of Red Army in 1941, because my ancesters prefer to fight, while they perfectly knew that in most of the cases it means death for them, but also they knew that they are dying defending our country from agressor, that they defend their families, they parents and childrens. The people who continued to fight even in desperado conditions, but didn't surrenderd and finnaly won this war are heroes. '****iness' (and a really great ****iness, btw ) you can easily find in many of your posts David.

Even as late as 1945 Germany was winning tactical victories against the Red Army,

Like Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and Berlin, right?

and I'd argue that if the US and Britain hadn't been present in force in Italy and France, the Red Army would be seen as much worse during World War 2.

Oh great, 250 000 in Africa, about 1,5 mlns (combined USA&GB) in France. Just compare it with 29 000 000 people who served in Red army during 1941-1945.
Really decisive.
Perhaps you need data about German forces located on Russian front and in Africa&France, to compare it?

[Serb]

Originally posted by Hurricane
I never really understood the fuss about Saving Private Ryan. The opening battle is good, but after that the film turns into the typical Hollywood "good guys kills hordes of krauts", of course with the obligatory flag-waving at the beginning and the end. In fact, I think the best thing about it were grandpas's hot daughters at the graveyard.

What've you expected? This film is pure propaganda.

[David Floyd]

Perhaps your army was in better condition in 1941. great and mighty US army with all its huge tank force (500!!! rusty and obsolete tanks) and huge amount of soldiers

First, we aren't talking about the US, we're talking about the Soviet Union. I'll concede the US Army was in the ****ter if you admit the Red Army was in the ****ter too.

Secondly, it's not as if we needed a big army - we didn't go around invading countries such as Finland on a regular basis

If Hitler attacked you in 1941 you shared the fate of France with only exception that he would crushed you much faster.

Yeah, I guess if the average German soldier grew gills and flippers

And in any case, Germany did go after the US at the end of 1941

You seems do don't understant which enemy Red army faced in 1941- it weren't the same Germans your army faced in 1944 (drafted badly injured veterans of WW1 and 14 years old boys),

The Germans had elite units in the West, just as they did in the East.

You screaming about ****ines of Red Army in 1941, because my ancesters prefer to fight, while they perfectly knew that in most of the cases it means death for them, but also they knew that they are dying defending our country from agressor, that they defend their families, they parents and childrens. The people who continued to fight even in desperado conditions, but didn't surrenderd and finnaly won this war are heroes.

What the hell does this have to do with the Red Army being ****ty? Hell, I'll grant it was pretty brave - but then again, it's hard not to be brave when the NKVD is going to murder you if you retreat. Mowed down by machine guns either way you go - some choice. And yes, I said murder, because murder was exactly what it was.

Like Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and Berlin, right?

Don't be obtuse.

Really decisive.

Let's look at the air war, for example. The US/British air forces tied down over 75% of the German fighter strength, making it unable to deploy to the East (although it should be noted that the remainder of the Luftwaffe could still grab local air superiority against the Red Air Force pretty much at will throughout the war). US/Brit strategic bombers absolutely destroyed German industry, oil refining capacity, etc.

That was far more decisive than, say, Stalingrad.

In addition to that, Operation Torch forced thousands of German troops and hundreds of German aircraft away from the Eastern Front, to Africa, Italy, and the Med. This sped up - and it can be argued that it facilitated - the final outcome of the Stalingrad campaign, at least in terms of scale.

When the Allies invaded Italy, they tied down over a million men in Italy - not to mention forcing the Germans to deploy 26 divisions to the Balkans. Further, the threat of invasion forced dozens of divisions to remain in France and Germany.

When the Allies actually invaded Normandy, and in subsequent operations, a very high proportion of German armored reinforcements were diverted to the West, in an attempt to shore up the defenses in France. US/Brit operations in Operation Cobra, and the subsequent closure of the Falaise Pocket, annihilated and disorganized much of the German army in the West.

And remember, the number of troops the US/Britain deployed is not important. The number of troops, tanks, etc., that they kept from going to the Eastern front is important. These millions of troops and thousands of tanks, not to mentioned 3/4 of the Luftwaffe's fighter arm, could probably have held up the Red Army almost indefinitely. Remember, again, that after occupying much of Western Russia and Ukraine, over 40% of the Soviet population was under occupation. Assuming a prewar Soviet population of 180 million, there were only about 108 million in unoccupied areas of the SU. When compared against the combined populations of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Austria (to say nothing of volunteers from France and elsewhere), the Axis would actually have had an advantage in terms of manpower. Granted, these weren't all high quality troops - but neither were non-Russian Soviet troops, especially those from Central Asian areas.

And in addition to THAT, several million Soviet troops were in German prison camps by the end of 1941, further depleting Soviet manpower.

While it's true that the SU had (slightly) more industrial potential than Germany, it's also true that much of this industry was fueled by US resources, and Lend Lease (which you so like to denigrate) enabled the SU to concentrate almost exclusively on tanks, ammunition, etc., while Germany was forced to produce all of its needs itself. Take Lend Lease away, and military production would be a lot closer. Take into account the fact that the Red Army tended to take higher losses than the German Army - in terms of both men and equipment - any supposed advantage pretty much disappears.

Another relevant fact is that Paul Kennedy, a well respected scholar, calculated that Germany actually had slightly more "war making potential" than the Soviet Union (Germany had 14.7% of the world's potential for war and the SU had about 14.3% - and the US had over 40%).

If you are going to say that US involvement wasn't absolutely VITAL for the Soviet Union, you would be dead wrong.

[Serb]

I really don't have time David,

Originally posted by David Floyd
Let's see here:
1)The Soviet Union was 100% wrong to invade Finland, period. There is absolutely no way it can be justified. Just because Dubya is using a bull**** doctrine of pre-emption today doesn't make it OK for either Stalin or him to use it.

And in any case, Iraq and Finland are not the same situation, although both wars are/were 100% wrong.

I see no diference. In 1939 Stalin claimed that this war a pre-emptive action, which should protect Leningarad which was 32 Km away from border in case of German attack throught Finland (which actually happen in 1941, but border was already remover 250 Km away after Winter war). In 2002 Bush claims that attack on Iraq is pre-emtive action, because Saddam could have womd and use it vs. USA or give it to terrorists.
Absolutely the same justification for agression.

2)Soviets vs. Japan. First of all, Serb, you're right. A large Soviet army can't be deployed to the Far East over night. In fact, without massive US aid, it probably couldn't have been deployed at all, at least not as fast as it was. Most of its motorized transport and rail vehicles were Lend Lease from the US.

Oh sure,
Russians had no their own trains and it was Americans who worked 24 hours a day non-stop on railroads to let trains run East, not for example my second grandfather who was only 16 years old boy.

Secondly, the Japanese Kwangtung Army was nothing more than a paper tiger. Sure, it had a lot of men, but the defeat of that army should not go down as a brilliant victory.

If so, why you didn't crushed it by yourself? Why you asked Stalin to attack it?

Third, Serb, you know damn well the attack was opportunistic - yes, Stalin was "living up to the agreement" to attack, but after Japan surrendered he made a lot of bull**** territorial claims in the Far East. Why should the Soviets get client states in Korea, islands around Japan, and even, as they tried to demand, an occupation zone in Japan? I fail to understand that concept. You joined in the last days of the war, and your actions had little to no material effect on the outcome.

Because Japanese who occupied those territories were destroyed by Red Army. It was Russian soldiers who fight for those territories, risk their lives and paid their lives for victory, not American soldiers.

Totally different from the US joining in Europe a little late. Our involvement allowed the war to be won, period - between both Lend Lease and US military intervention. The fact is, without the US, the best the Soviet Union could have hoped for was a stalemate, with the Ukrainian breadbasket and probably even the Donetz industrial area in German hands.

Bull****. you've joined when germany was doomed. Nothing could stop Red army after Stalingrad and Kursk. Complete defeat of Germany was a question of time.
I see no diference between Soviet intervention vs. Japanese and American intervention in Europe.

3)Red Army being good/bad. Well, in 1941 it was saved only by the onset of winter. It's victories, prior to mid-1943, or even later, all came in winter. It's large advances were mainly won by superior numbers, and concentrating against the German allied troops such as Hungarians and Italians and Romanians. The Red Army won some campaigns when the numbers were about equal, in terms of men, at least, but the reason for their victories in these situations had to do with the US and Britain in Africa, Italy, and France, and the fact that the Red Army had a huge advantage in numbers of tanks and artillery, and that Lend Lease was providing for the motorization of the military (and the rear area transport capacity of it, not to mention food, etc.).

Blah, blah, blah.
David, do you realize that it's not funny anymore- "Russians always won because of weather, numeric superiority, superiority in number of tanks and artilery, and of course because of external help"
It's a bit silly and I guess a "bit" it's not a proper word in this case.
How do you explain in that case that Russian destroyed more then 80% of German manpower and more then 75% of all German tanks, artilery, aircrafts or any other military vhicles?
And again Lend-lease share in Soviet war epences is only 5%. Again David- F I V E %. You dar to claim that you've feed us, cloth us and arm us?
Yes, you did, BUT ONLY FOR 5% of us. Other 95% was Soviet production.
And one more thing, since which times superiority in number of tanks (and better tanks btw) and artilery (and much better artilery btw) consider as sign of ****iness?

The Red Army, BY ITSELF, was simply not one of the world's premier ground forces. It became a steamroller when it was fighting inferior forces (whether inferior numerically or inferior in terms of quality - German allies), or when it was heavily supplied and armed by Lend Lease (remember, US resources fueled Soviet factories, as well), or when the German army was heavily distracted in the West (such as December 1944, when Hitler threw away his reserves in the West, in Operation Wacht am Rhein and Operation Nordwind).

Red army was the strongest army of WW2- the army which won it.
As for 'was heavily distracted in the West '

TBS
Russian front constantly consumed all German reserves- both manpower and machines. The rest is your fantasies.

[David Floyd]

I see no diference. In 1939 Stalin claimed that this war a pre-emptive action, which should protect Leningarad which was 32 Km away from border in case of German attack throught Finland (which actually happen in 1941, but border was already remover 250 Km away after Winter war). In 2002 Bush claims that attack on Iraq is pre-emtive action, because Saddam could have womd and use it vs. USA or give it to terrorists.
Absolutely the same justification for agression.

Not really. Bush can at least claim that Iraq is violating a cease fire agreement. Stalin could make no such claim.

Russians had no their own trains and it was Americans who worked 24 hours a day non-stop on railroads to let trains run East, not for example my second grandfather who was only 16 years old boy.

All I'm saying is that such a large transportation of man and material could not have been accomplished as quickly without American aid.

If so, why you didn't crushed it by yourself? Why you asked Stalin to attack it?

The US had no troops in the area, nor did the US share a neighboring border. Duh.

Because Japanese who occupied those territories were destroyed by Red Army.

OK, but how does this entitle you to someone else's land? Sure, Japan occupied Manchuria and Korea, but shouldn't that land revert to the people who lived there prior to the Japanese occupation?
And it certainly doesn't entitle you to an occupation zone in Japan.

Bull****. you've joined when germany was doomed. Nothing could stop Red army after Stalingrad and Kursk.

Of course, the US joined before Stalingrad and Kursk - a long time before. And if you count the undeclared naval war the US was fighting, and various aid programs to Britain, the US was in it almost from the beginning.

Complete defeat of Germany was a question of time.

Certainly, once the US joined.

I see no diference between Soviet intervention vs. Japanese and American intervention in Europe.

Soviet intervention against Japan did not change the outcome. Japan had already lost. The first atomic bomb had already been dropped.

But in December of 1941, Germany was not by any means beaten, and in fact had still not reached its peak expansion.

Blah, blah, blah.
David, do you realize that it's not funny anymore- "Russians always won because of weather, numeric superiority, superiority in number of tanks and artilery, and of course because of external help"
It's a bit silly and I guess a "bit" it's not a proper word in this case.

Well, I don't think many people would argue that the Red Army was, man for man, a great fighting force. What made it "good" in offense was numbers and outside aid, nothing more, and what made it "good" in defense was numbers and weather and outside aid, nothing more. Sure, it had a lot of courage, but courage is meaningless against machine guns. Just ask British troops at the Somme or Passchendael how far courage gets you.

How do you explain in that case that Russian destroyed more then 80% of German manpower and more then 75% of all German tanks, artilery, aircrafts or any other military vhicles?

I've never disputed those figures. It was basically a combination of weather and numbers.

And again Lend-lease share in Soviet war epences is only 5%. Again David- F I V E %. You dar to claim that you've feed us, cloth us and arm us?
Yes, you did, BUT ONLY FOR 5% of us. Other 95% was Soviet production.

You again miss the point. That 5% - which is a low ball estimate, by the way, but whatever - only refers to Lend Lease. It doesn't take into account the massive effect US and British military intervention had on the war. And that figure also masks the fact that Lend Lease made up for a lot of deficiences in the Soviet economy.

And one more thing, since which times superiority in number of tanks (and better tanks btw) and artilery (and much better artilery btw) consider as sign of ****iness?

Considering that Germany pulled off several battles of annihilation, and captured or destroyed thousands of tanks and tens of thousands of artillery pieces, even when T-34s were involved, yes, in this case, I would consider it a sign of "****tiness".

Russian front constantly consumed all German reserves- both manpower and machines.

Actually German reserves of both manpower and machines were constantly diverted to other sectors - North Africa, Greece/Balkans, Sicily, Italy, the Aegean, France, Holland, Belgium, Germany itself, etc.

[The Vagabond]

In what concerns the Soviet attack on Finland being right or wrong, the answer largely depends on the following question:

Would Finland still be Germany's co-belligerent in any form even if the USSR had never attacked Finland? Or, at least, would Finland allow German troops through its territory under any circumstances (perhaps as a result of German ultimatum)?

If the answer is 'no', then the USSR was wrong.

If the answer is 'yes' or 'probably yes', then what the USSR did was a tragic necessity.

Personally I believe the answer is 'probably yes'. Also please take into consideration that in those turbulent times the USSR couldn't really afford the risk of Leningrad being so close to the border with a hostile nation.

Anyway, this doesn't want to say that Finland did anything wrong. That war was just an unfortunate consequence of tragic circumstances.

[aaglo]

The question IMO is:

Would finland have become Germany's co-belligerent, if russians hadn't attacked finland?

[The Vagabond]

aaglo: this is precisely the question I wanted to pose. Well, perhaps I screwed up a little bit with the formulation.

[aaglo]

Well... I could always try to improve my reading..

[Gangerolf]

Would finland have become Germany's co-belligerent, if russians hadn't attacked finland?

the answer is quite obvious isn't it


Another question:

Would Finland have become Germany's co-belligerent, if they knew the Germans couldn't win the war?