War between the western allies and the Sovs in '45. Who wins?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


In fact, many argue that this was the real cause of the war.

"many argue" - any mainstream historians among them?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"many argue" - any mainstream historians among them?

What's a mainstream historian?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Che, before you forget the orginal point, I am going to take
us back out of the distorted territory you are heading to.

My original point was that a war between Hitler and Stalin was certain.
You asked why, and then proceeded to add the USA into the mix.

I see the problem. PRONOUN TROUBLE!

If not for the atom bomb and Stalins's death, total war
with the USSR would have happened without doubt.

Was the part to why I was asking why. Atom bombs and Stalin's death are post Nazi Germany, so I naturally assumed you meant a clash between the US and the USSR.

I have absolutely no disagreement with previous part of your post, the inevitiablity of war between the Soviets and Nazis.

The fault was mine, then, for not being clear about to what I was responding.

[Ned]

Originally posted by curtsibling
Che, before you forget the orginal point, I am going to take
us back out of the distorted territory you are heading to.

My original point was that a war between Hitler and Stalin was certain.
You asked why, and then proceeded to add the USA into the mix.

You see:
Stalin desired the West of Europe more than we desired the Western steppes of the USSR.
Your odd assertion that only the wicked USA would go to war, and the angelic Stalinist USSR
would stay put, even when presented with an oppurtunity is close to total fantasy.

If you would have me think you understand even anything about capitalism/communism
and are not just an armchair weeny, with a part-time beliefs in what you claim,
then you will comprehend the fact that communism and nazism were complete enemies from their origins.

Look at the political creeds of Hitler and Stalin, do you really
think they would have maintained their friendship for long?

Given Hitler's hate for Slavs, and Stalins total loathing of the West,
if you think they would stay at peace, you are clueless about WW2.

Kirk, it was me, not Che Guevara, that asked what was inherent in the USSR or in Nazi Germany that would have forced them to war regardless of their 1939 "peace treaty" that laid out spheres of influence between the two European powers. I was looking for an answer somewhere in the incompatibility of fascism and communism, but you end up making a claim that the sole reason that there would be war is Hitler's disdain for Slavic peoples.

Is that it? It was personal between Hitler and the Slavs and had nothing to do with inherent incompatibilities between communism and fascism?

I know that Hitler raged against communism while coming to power and during his early years in power. But he did so because he thought that communism was an external influence controlled by the Soviet Union. When he made a deal with Stalin, he was particular to point out that the Soviet Union was no longer trying to spread its doctrine into Germany. I don't know if this was true in fact or not but that is what he said and why he justified his change of position on the USSR to his people.

[chequita guevara]

Ned, one thing about you that I find curious is that you tend to be rather incredulous when it comes to stated reasons by people known for their duplicity.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Because both Puerto Rico and the Philippines were, for all intents and purposes, independent of Spain. Puorto Rico was an autonomous part of the Empire, and the Spanish only held Manilia in the Philippines. In fact, many argue that this was the real cause of the war, the fact that the U.S. was about to lose the chance to purchase these colonies from Spain, as even Cuba was winning it's fight for freedom. It would be harder to sell an invasion of three independent countries to the American people, as opposed to "liberating" three oppressed colonies.

Many argue that the US is getting alien technology from crash sites near Area 51

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ned, one thing about you that I find curious is that you tend to be rather incredulous when it comes to stated reasons by people known for their duplicity.

True. Couldn't trust either Stalin or Hitler. In fact, I think the real cause of WWII was this aspect of Hitler's character. The Brits were no longer willing to discuss anything with Hitler.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Many argue that the US is getting alien technology from crash sites near Area 51

It's a plausible argument that Che made, don't be silly. Those countries were piss-poor anyway; Spain didn't even have the capital to drain their resources, and its military was very weak.

You know, the people in Cuba don't love Castro, but they don't buy the **** that America was there to liberate them neither.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I was talking about the Vistula and Oder Offensives losses with the aim of showing the horrible beating the Soviets just took. You brought up the Ardennes, and you compared it to both the Vistula and Oder offensives combined. And you said that the Americans suffered "similar" casulaties.

Get your facts straight. The term "casualty" commonly refers to total losses. When you talked about casualties of 100,000, I was perfectly justified to assume you weren't talking about KIAs.

If indeed you weren't, my case was that 100,000 casualties is not bad at all if you consider an offensive spawning ~400km against the best of the Werhmacht. In fact it would be ridiculously low (so low that I would disagree with it). So even at 100,000 deaths (for maybe 800,000 total losses), it seems like a reasonable number.

You obviously should expect to be called out on it. It was a comparison of your choosing. Admitting your wrong is the only option open too you.

Which wrong? My bad would have been to demonstrate that you try to overplay Soviet losses by factoring it pretty much the whole of their offensive and saying "OMG!!! they lost so much".

interresting, since the combined the Western Allies only took 80,000 casualties in the Ardennes.

Numbers diverge, as usual in all historical accounts. I've seen numbers anywhere between 68,000 and 100,000 for the Allies, and between 80,000 and 120,000 for the Germans. Pushing to 100,000 in my argument might have been a bit audacious, but it's not a ridiculous figure.

Your claim of 8,900 American deaths is probably close to the truth, but that doesn't count the 1,400 British.

Konev's Diary perhaps?

Don't start the game of own goaling. Citing requires a book, an edition, a page. I've seen German apologists make up pages of Patton's "diary" to show he wanted to conceal the shooting of German prisoners. He might have, but any "cite" that doesn't explicitly details its source is touchy, especially given the huge emotiveness involved in WW2 debates.

If Konev wrote that in his diary, I want at least a standard reference, especially from an anonymous Internet source.

Besides, with 1,000 deaths a day in half of the Soviet force, it would have taken a 315 days offensive to reach your claim of 630,000 KIAs, assuming a similar rate in the other half.

These numbers are generally accpted, and though I find nothing wrong with my links (one is Wikipedia for Christ's sake), it is your resposibility as the person who has yet to even try and provide a source to find one contrary and in better standing than my own.

The Wikipedia link sounds fine. As for the other one... it's an highly dubious source.

Care to support that bald faced and false assumption with anything. I bet you the casualty to death ratio in Iraq is something closer to 1/100.

So you're going to compare Iraq 2003 with Berlin 1945 and extrapolate anything useful out of it? Just in case you didn't notice, unless otherwise specified, my claims refer to WW2. Agreed?

That is probobly right for casualties, but certaintly not for deaths. And the character of the fighting matters not to the state of the Soviet Army that would be facing the Allies OP. If the Soviets took a million casualties, then they took a million casualties.

You do realize that extrapolations, require, uhh, that we consider the "character of the fighting"?

Funny thing is in every instance I have quoted numbers I have been talking about soley KIAs, so you are just putting up a smoke screen to hide your already outrageous comparison.

Again I said...



I bring attention to where I say "dead ALONE" in refereance to the 630,000 number and then say "casualties in the millions" for dead/MIA/POW/wounded. Perhaps you should READ before you respond.

OK. If you claim 630,000 deaths from the Seelow Heights to Berlin, you are INSANE. Not even that much soldiers died in Stalingrad. If you can bring a credible source, then do it.

And as for Warsaw, I did fail to see where you answered my comments concerning KIAs alone with something concerning casualties. Nice deflect on your part, though simultaineously making your answer irrelivant to the debate. but as stated total Allied casualties at the Battle of the Bulge were 80,000 (rounded up to give you a break) versus the Soviet 100,000.

See top of my post for the answer on the KIA/casualties issue.


On every post you make, you grossly exaggerate the Soviet losses. For instance, I remember you manipulating numbers to demonstrate that the tank losses ration In Kursk was 6:1 in favor of the Germans.

According to Putnell, "The History of World War II", quoted in the French version of "Chronicles of World War II", p. 423, the Germans engaged 2700 tanks in the Kursk offensive, that they almost entirely lost.

The Soviets engaged 3600 tanks, of which a few hundreds survived. That makes it closer to 1:1, despite your attempt to use only a part of the battle (Rothmitrov's tank army) to skew your numbers.

[GePap]

And OB pwns Patrokolos

Stalemate sounds by far the best answer, though in general this scenerio is nuts.

Anyone who thinks the democratically elected governments of the US and UK would be able to muster support for an attempt to dislodge their ertzwhile ally from Eastern Europe is absurd, specially for states like Hungary and Romania which were Nazi allies.

Stalin had no such concerns. He could sit on his location and wait it out. POlitical turmoil in Western Europe would have been high, along with economic problems due to the destruction. War in 1945 between the two groups is a silly notion.

Militarilly, the notion the USSR was "spent" is hard to understand. The soviets still had millions of men capable of fighting who were closer to the battleground and more veteran than the masses in the US not yet trained. The USSR would not be short on oil or other strategic materials, and even if it lost US production, it showed it could survive immense pain and would be more than capable of producing enough weapons and mutions for a long, one that the western allies would not be politically capable of winning.

As for "technical aspects", Allied armor was not superior to Soviet armor. To say the Pershing did well vs T34/85 is no big surprise, given the Pershing was the US heavy tank. The question, how does a M4/76 do versus a T34/86, and there the T34 has a few advantages like better armor and more manuverable, Offset by lack of radios. The Pershing thought would have been facing the IS2, and ISU152, and SU100 and other soviet tank killers.

Certainly I think the US would have been able to get general control of the air, but it would not be cheap, and the soviets would still be able to perhaps flood an area to get tactical control of the air during offensive operations, and the red army had learned how to conduct offensive operations in depth.

As for the notion that the allies led the Soviets get Berlin, if the enemy in front of you is beggin to surrender while fighting the other guys tooth and nail, not **** you will have an easier advanced. Had the germans been fighting fanatically in the west as well, no way the US could even think of reaching berlin before the USSR did.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
On every post you make, you grossly exaggerate the Soviet losses. For instance, I remember you manipulating numbers to demonstrate that the tank losses ration In Kursk was 6:1 in favor of the Germans.

According to Putnell, "The History of World War II", quoted in the French version of "Chronicles of World War II", p. 423, the Germans engaged 2700 tanks in the Kursk offensive, that they almost entirely lost.

The Soviets engaged 3600 tanks, of which a few hundreds survived. That makes it closer to 1:1, despite your attempt to use only a part of the battle (Rothmitrov's tank army) to skew your numbers.

According to The World at War [Dorset Press, 1991] Total German AFV loses were 1000 vs Soviet AFV loses of 1500. Thanks a 2:3 ration, though the soviets could replace every one of them, while the germans couldn't replace most loses.

Patrokolos also seems to forget that right at the end of the German Kursk offensive which advanced only a few miles, the Soviets crushed the Orel Salient, a salient about the size of the Kursk Salient held by the Germans. So basically, right after the Soviets had utterly spent the German attack the launch a massive counterattack that takes back huge sections of land. That is quite an impressive show.

[Patroklos]

Get your facts straight. The term "casualty" commonly refers to total losses. When you talked about casualties of 100,000, I was perfectly justified to assume you weren't talking about KIAs.

Except that I specifically stated I was talking about KIA

If indeed you weren't, my case was that 100,000 casualties is not bad at all if you consider an offensive spawning ~400km against the best of the Werhmacht. In fact it would be ridiculously low (so low that I would disagree with it). So even at 100,000 deaths (for maybe 800,000 total losses), it seems like a reasonable number.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack Traaaaaaaaaaackaaaaa. You said Warsaw, not the Vistula Offensive. Again, YOU chose to compare the combined Oder and Vistula offensives to the Ardennes, not me. Dude, say you were wrong and be done with it.

quote]Which wrong? My bad would have been to demonstrate that you try to overplay Soviet losses by factoring it pretty much the whole of their offensive and saying "OMG!!! they lost so much".[/quote]

Which is funny, since you have yet to provide a link to anything what so ever.

Don't start the game of own goaling. Citing requires a book, an edition, a page. I've seen German apologists make up pages of Patton's "diary" to show he wanted to conceal the shooting of German prisoners. He might have, but any "cite" that doesn't explicitly details its source is touchy, especially given the huge emotiveness involved in WW2 debates.9

You are free to dispute my sources, though so far you have failed in doing so. But a good start normally is to provide a counter source of your own. I find it hilarious that you attack someone about sources when you have still not linked anything yourself.

Besides, with 1,000 deaths a day in half of the Soviet force, it would have taken a 315 days offensive to reach your claim of 630,000 KIAs, assuming a similar rate in the other half.

Konev said he was losing 1000 a day due to Zukov's artillery, ie he was suffering 1000 freindly fire deaths a day. Obviously this is not a reliable number, but if it was enough for Generals of Army Groups to ***** about it it must have been a significant problem.

So you're going to compare Iraq 2003 with Berlin 1945 and extrapolate anything useful out of it? Just in case you didn't notice, unless otherwise specified, my claims refer to WW2. Agreed?

Then state so ahead of time. However, it does not change the fact that you pulled that number out of your ass.

OK. If you claim 630,000 deaths from the Seelow Heights to Berlin, you are INSANE. Not even that much soldiers died in Stalingrad. If you can bring a credible source, then do it.

Then again provide your own link you lazy bastard. Its not hard, the majority of internet sources list between 100-200,000. Not that means my source is wrong.

On every post you make, you grossly exaggerate the Soviet losses. For instance, I remember you manipulating numbers to demonstrate that the tank losses ration In Kursk was 6:1 in favor of the Germans.

If by manipulating you mean linking to then sure. Though again your campaign of disinformation rears its ugly head. The source clearly diliniates what time frame it was talking about. Again, READING is a good thing. But if you would prefer to offer your own link, go right ahead. Thought not.

According to Putnell, "The History of World War II", quoted in the French version of "Chronicles of World War II", p. 423, the Germans engaged 2700 tanks in the Kursk offensive, that they almost entirely lost.

Link. This is an internet forum. Whatever pop history is sitting on your shelf matters not to me.

Militarilly, the notion the USSR was "spent" is hard to understand. The soviets still had millions of men capable of fighting who were closer to the battleground and more veteran than the masses in the US not yet trained. The USSR would not be short on oil or other strategic materials, and even if it lost US production, it showed it could survive immense pain and would be more than capable of producing enough weapons and mutions for a long, one that the western allies would not be politically capable of winning.

Demographics. There were definetly not enough people.

Offset by lack of radios. The Pershing thought would have been facing the IS2, and ISU152, and SU100 and other soviet tank killers.

I am inclined to agree, though I note that Pershings kicked the **** out of more modern Soviet designs in Korea.

Patrokolos also seems to forget that right at the end of the German Kursk offensive which advanced only a few miles, the Soviets crushed the Orel Salient, a salient about the size of the Kursk Salient held by the Germans. So basically, right after the Soviets had utterly spent the German attack the launch a massive counterattack that takes back huge sections of land. That is quite an impressive show.

Not that Orel has anything to do with Kursk armor loss ratios. I just go ahead and add Sedan's to the German's, just as relevant.

And OB pwns Patrokolos

Hardly. The Soviet losses during the Vistula and Oder offensives are not the same as the Allied losses at the Ardennes. Period. If you want to attach your pennet to OBs sinking ship please do.

And again the original point without all your retarded tangents is the Soviets just had their best troops and equipment gutted on an end game offensive. Please do deny...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack Traaaaaaaaaaackaaaaa. You said Warsaw, not the Vistula Offensive. Again, YOU chose to compare the combined Oder and Vistula offensives to the Ardennes, not me. Dude, say you were wrong and be done with it.

Warsaw is on the Vistula.....

You are free to dispute my sources, though so far you have failed in doing so. But a good start normally is to provide a counter source of your own. I find it hilarious that you attack someone about sources when you have still not linked anything yourself.

It's easy to dismiss "sources" with ridiculous claims.

Konev said he was losing 1000 a day due to Zukov's artillery, ie he was suffering 1000 freindly fire deaths a day. Obviously this is not a reliable number, but if it was enough for Generals of Army Groups to ***** about it it must have been a significant problem.

According to Anthony Beevor's The Fall of Berlin 1945 (pg 424) The 1st, and 2nd Belorussian Fronts and the 1st Ukranian Front (the 1st B Front was Rokossovsky's involved in attacks north of Berlin into Pomerania), the final soviet offensive cost 78,291 dead and 274,184 wounded. Also, in Soviet parlance its Fronts, NOT Army Groups. And Marshalls, NOT Generals.

Then again provide your own link you lazy bastard. Its not hard, the majority of internet sources list between 100-200,000. Not that means my source is wrong.

Given that Beevor had access to direct Soviet archives, and is known for his greatly researched books (including his prize winning Stalingrad), I will go with him. Also, the Soviets had about 33,000 killed in the attack on the Seelow heights.

Link. This is an internet forum. Whatever pop history is sitting on your shelf matters not to me.

Though one would assume those links you site are basing their numbers on a source they trust, and the good sites will link to books or archives, and the best sites tell you which sources these are. Sites that give random numbers without sources are suspect.

Demographics. There were definetly not enough people.

For what? The Soviets still had millions of men left- it would have taken many years for the soviets to run out of men, so the issue is really moot.

Not that Orel has anything to do with Kursk armor loss ratios. I just go ahead and add Sedan's to the German's, just as relevant.

Actually, if the Soviets had lost 6 times as many tanks, one would have to wonder what the hell they used to crush the Orel, unless you want to claim the Soviets had some 10:1 tank advantage, and given that the Germans threw at least 1000 AFV into Kursk, one wonders how the Soviets got 10,000 AFV into battle.....

Hardly. The Soviet losses during the Vistula and Oder offensives are not the same as the Allied losses at the Ardennes. Period. If you want to attach your pennet to OBs sinking ship please do.

OB pwned you in terms of sources and making a coherent arguement about finding god ones.

No, Allied casualties for the Ardennes offensive certainly do NOT compare to Soviet casualties in two vastly bigger offensives combined. Of course, the numbers of men and areas involved in both of those Soviets campaigns were in a scale much greater than anything in belgium.

And again the original point without all your retarded tangents is the Soviets just had their best troops and equipment gutted on an end game offensive. Please do deny...

A few months after the Soviets were able in 3 days to take all of Manchuria from the Japanese, employing at least 500,000 men. Yup, that sounds like a "spent force"....

The soviets had 6.7 Million men on the front in Jan 1945. (Beevor, 11) Even if we extrapolate that the Vistula cost the Soviets more casualties as the Oder offensive, about 350,000, of which 80,000 were dead, at MOST the Soviets lost, out of 6.7 Million men, 1 Million, with 800,000 of that being wounded, and that is taking all of modern Poland and Eastern Germany agaisnt 60% of all German forces left. That still leaves 5.7 Million men in the front. I doubt the Western Allies had 4 Million men in all of western Europe in May 1945.

The math does not seem so hard.

[Vince278]

I can't believe this thread got this far without a single post from Serb.

(Oh, and the Soviets would've been toast. Talk about a missed opportunity. )

[Alexander's Horse]

the sovs have certainly been pwned in the poll