Stalingrad remembered.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso


I guess the only smart guys were Americans. Disembarked in 1944, had Paris deserted and the rest of the cities surrendered by telephone and when they got beaten in Ardennes they could always call for a massive and 'stupid'(in the terms of human sacrifice) Soviet offensive.

As for your lowly opinion about Stalin, you should probably read the obituary speech of W. Churchill on the news of his death.

It is very unfortunate taht you were not in charge of Russians during WW2. I am sure you would devise the way not to lose so many soldiers vs. Germans. French already found a way to do that - surrender.

This isn't about the Americans.

I have no idea what Churchill said about Stalin, it was probably diplomatic nonsense. In any case Churchil was wrong on as many occasions as he was right. In this country we acknowledge Churchil has flaws ( although killing 10 million of his own citizens wasn't one of them.

Why is being concerned about minimizing your own casualties a sign of weakness.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger

I have no idea what Churchill said about Stalin, it was probably diplomatic nonsense.

NOt really. Stalin was already dead.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso


NOt really. Stalin was already dead.

Bit Stalin wasn't denounced by Kruschev for some years, and it wasn't the done thing to compare the man who was on your side during a recent war to the man you beat in that war

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Bit Stalin wasn't denounced by Kruschev for some years, and it wasn't the done thing to compare the man who was on your side during a recent war to the man you beat in that war

he was already denounced as a dictator who drew over an iron curtain

[TheStinger]

Whatever Churchil did or didn't say about Stalin doesn't alter the fact that along with HItler he was the biggest mass muredrer of all time and certaintly didn't give a rats arse about ensuring his troops were cared for and only fought neccesary battles

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Whatever Churchil did or didn't say about Stalin doesn't alter the fact that along with HItler he was the biggest mass muredrer of all time and certaintly didn't give a rats arse about ensuring his troops were cared for and only fought neccesary battles

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by LaRusso

So Stalin wasn't a mass muredrer and did care about his troops

[Fidel]

Originally posted by TheStinger


So Stalin wasn't a mass muredrer and did care about his troops

hehe, cmon, make up your mind

[Master Zen]

So Stalin was a mass-murderer, IMO the worst of all time since he butchered his own people, at least Hitler slaughtered mostly other races.

Still, the issue here is on the battle. The Soviets defended the city for the same reason the Nazis attacked it: not its military value but as a symbol of Stalin's name. It might have seemed militarily mad to hold on to it ( from russian POV) as it was to assault it for months (german POV) but even as the battle started the battle had enourmous advantage to the soviets:

1) unable to defeat the Germans in terms of armour and mobility, the ideal situation was to stand and fight in a confined space where the Wehrmachts advantages would not be decisive

2) city fighting is bloody and long, the Germans did not have the manpower or the reserves to fight a prolonged battle in those circumstances, the Soviets did. The soviets could lose men at a prodigious rate and still win.

As for the US, they actually did fight a major city battle, nowhere are heavy as Stalingrad of course, but the Battle of Manila was pretty fierce. I don't know how many US troops died but over 100,000 civilans were killed.

If I were a general, my priority would be winning the war, but my soldier's lives would be a very close second. I would try to do evertyhing possible to minimize my casualties, and the only reason I would order full frontal Soviet-style slaughterhouse assaults would be if there were no other alternatives to victory. I don't think soviet infantry training was good enough to go for an Allied-style infantry doctrine. They were also more poorly equipped and supplied.

Add to this that Stalin in fact did not care much for his troops...

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Master Zen
So Stalin was a mass-murderer, IMO the worst of all time since he butchered his own people, at least Hitler slaughtered mostly other races.

odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him

Still, the issue here is on the battle. The Soviets defended the city for the same reason the Nazis attacked it: not its military value but as a symbol of Stalin's name. .

this crops up again and again. do you really think russians would surrender volgograd or czariczin but not stalingrad? mind you, stalino (now doneck) has already fallen by that time in ukraine. stalin did not sacrifice truckloads of infantry to defend that one

It might have seemed militarily mad to hold on to it ( from russian POV) as it was to assault it for months (german POV) but even as the battle started the battle had enourmous advantage to the soviets:

1) unable to defeat the Germans in terms of armour and mobility, the ideal situation was to stand and fight in a confined space where the Wehrmachts advantages would not be decisive

2) city fighting is bloody and long, the Germans did not have the manpower or the reserves to fight a prolonged battle in those circumstances, the Soviets did. The soviets could lose men at a prodigious rate and still win..

so you are saying that it actually made a LOT of military sense to defend the city and that it was a perfect spot to bleed germans to death. so stalin is guilty of losing troops in a fight with the BEST army there was in ww2.

As for the US, they actually did fight a major city battle, nowhere are heavy as Stalingrad of course, but the Battle of Manila was pretty fierce. I don't know how many US troops died but over 100,000 civilans were killed...

according to your previous standards, killing foreigners is a tad better than killing your own people. that is why firebombing dresden suddenly looks less horrible in that perspective

If I were a general, my priority would be winning the war, but my soldier's lives would be a very close second. I would try to do evertyhing possible to minimize my casualties, and the only reason I would order full frontal Soviet-style slaughterhouse assaults would be if there were no other alternatives to victory.

those alternatives have already been tried against the germans. e.g. french tried digging in. british occassionally surrendered (tobruk) and soviets tried it all. the only thing that really stopped germans was a deliberate all out defense, and the only thing that really pushed them back was a deliberate attack. some attacks soviets made were simply brilliant (like 1944 summer offensive) and some german attacks were suicidal (kursk). again, sometimes russians attacked with a disregard for human loss (berlin operation) and, you might say, political reasons. but then again, russians did not need a command to charge like mad on berlin, every single soldier wanted vengenace. for more on this, i reccomend a superb book bu cornelius ryan : the last battle.

I don't think soviet infantry training was good enough to go for an Allied-style infantry doctrine. They were also more poorly equipped and supplied.

Add to this that Stalin in fact did not care much for his troops...

first sentence: ?. second sentence: they had guns and no chocolates in their backpacks. admittedly, russians got jeeps and light trucks from americans, but the rest of the equipment (light tanks) was useless

last sentence: because they were the only people standing between him and hitler?

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by LaRusso
odd, why would you be bothered then. let russians decide then on whether they were 'butchered' by him

Though Zen's post was nonsense too, this speaks volumes 'nuff said on the issue.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Though Zen's post was nonsense too, this speaks volumes 'nuff said on the issue.

your avatar is just perfect.

[David Floyd]

Actually, Volgograd should be renamed to Americograd, in recognition that the Soviet Union would have been defeated without US involvement in the war

[Serb]

*throw up*


Stuipid troll.

[David Floyd]

Well it's true, but it was also a troll