I can't believe this little kid chechnyaplutonium would compare any battle to Stalingrad.

Not fun arguing against someone with a history degree and the patience to set you straight is it little boy?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

quote:

Logistically, i don't think Russia had a prayer, as respondants have already illustrated, they were outgunned, and against superiour air power, I think Russia would've been incapable of maintaining the pace that such an invasion would've required. The only wildcard, in my mind, is the Russian Muhammed-Imar-Bruce-Lee-Chuck-Norrisesque ability to fight in winter.

Gotta be f'ing kidding me.

USSR in 1945 was the most experienced and numerically and technologically superior military force in the entire world. This is fact.

As far as logistics go, what do you think is easier? Shipping supplies across the Atlantic or across Europe in trains? If you answered "the Atlantic" - you probably should stay out of this conversation.

quote:

The problem is they didn't always overlap in areas they would have needed to get supplies to quickly, so just transfering stuff to a different train wouldn't have always been guranteed. If they were going to push through western Germany and into France they would have to make sure that wasn't going to be an issue. I'm not saying they couldn't make some new connecting lines quickly and overcome this, but how much focus do you put on that while you have the U.S., U.K., and France fighting you?

Different rail gauges were hardly an issue. It wouldn't have handicapped the Russian logistics in any noticeable way.

quote:

All that said, the USSR even after their heavy losses had a large expendable population and could have pressed far into Western Europe, however, their gains would eventually have been lost as they simply could not compete with the production capacity of the western allies.

Very important and accurate point. US industries were better organized than those of US and could produce equipment much quicker too. It would only be a matter of years before US military technology would be on par with that of the Soviet technology and having a 4 year head start on nuclear weapons would have been huge.\

The question isn't whether USSR *could* conquer Western Europe - that's largely a given - the real question is how long could they hold on to it and at what cost.

quote:

Right, I agree with you. What I was saying was that right at the end of WWII the US 'could' have nuked just about any city in Russia. We would not have done that though because we did not have enough bombs to do significant damage to a country the size of the USSR.

And just how were you going to get around that little question of flying hundreds of miles through Soviet airspace without getting shot down?

Somehow, I don't think you thought your cunning plan through.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne It's not an implication - its common historical knowledge. Here's another "implication": as troop depletion reaches critical levels - the replacements from a given pool of populace become worse and worse. Large part of it has to do that the soldiers of prime age had already been previously subscripted and killed, another part of it has to do with the fact that there is less and less time to train these troops before the need to use them becomes so great that they are rushed to the front to plug up critical holes. That's called trading space for time, a very basic element of military theory whereas it is acceptable to trade off territory to buy time. Time to train troops, time to build equipment replacements, time to form new military units. The fact that Germans kept greener troops on the Western Front is because US/UK was perceived to be a lesser threat than USSR. If you think that US/Uk/Cnanadian/Australian/French forces outnumbered the German forces, what do you think they thought about a pissed-off 11 million man army that was technologically superior to the US/UK forces by a huge margin and numerically superior coming from the East?

You dont get it. The same thing happened on both eastern and western fronts!!! German armies were depleted on both, and actually its on the Eastern Front that Germans suffered their first setbacks, the critical levels! D-Day happened in 1944. Stalingrad was in 1943. So according to your principle, "troop depletion reaches critical levels" happened on East Front first, NOT western front according to you! LOL

quote:

Rommel was just about the only worthwhile general on Western Front and he committed suicide after what, 4 months after D-Day? D-Day was in June, 1944. Rommel is implicated in the von Stauffenberg assassination plot against Hitler in July of 1944, he is shortly after removed from command. Just how much time did he spend on Western front as an active general? 2 months? Furthermore, Rommel's best contribution would have been to counterattack the Allied troops with his Panzer corps as soon as they landed in Normandy (which is what he wanted to do) but was overruled by Hitler who thought that Normandy landings were a ruse and the larger force would land at Calais (which was geographically closer to England). So tell me, what notable accomplishment did Rommel accomplish on the Western front?

HAHAHA ... I got you here, you dont know anything about German generals, do you? Rommel was called "Desert Fox" for his outstanding successful operations against Allies in North Africa who outnumbered him most of the times. He defeated a 10-times larger British force at Tunisia! LOL, so much for his "little" contribution on the Western front. OH, and he committed suicide not because he was depressed but because Hitler implicated him in assassination plot, so he chose suicide over a publicity trial.

quote:

Furthermore, let's play a little game - draw me up a list of the top 10, 20 or 30 German commanders from 1939-1945 and let's see how many of them have fought on Eastern front vs. Western front?

If I had the time, I'd be happy to find some of the names of the outstanding Germans generals of U-Boats, airplane squadrons, and generals. But since 4/5 of Nazi forces were on the East, so technically there were more generals on the eastern front. So your argument that on the western front german generals were not as good is futile. There's no evidence. Oh wait - the evidence suggests that both fronts failed! So German generals on both Eastern and Western fronts were just as bad. At least in the Western theatre German 100+ divisions (SMALL portion) were able to hold off a large Allies contingent just enough so that the Soviets fighting much larger German contingent occupy half of Europe Yeah, the generals in the East were MUCH MORE effective at slowing down the Red Army ;-)

quote:

I'll state it bluntly. Compared to Stalingrad, Kharkov, Leningrad, Sevastopol, Moscow, etc. and battles outside of Eastern Front (since you did say "one of the most brutal battles of WW2") - I can certainly make a very forceful and convincing argument that Novorossiysk was a piss in the ocean.

Duh. I didnt say it was THE MOST FIERCE battle. But according to Soviet historians, it was in the top 14 most important battles - well, thats pretty high ranking to me. Thats why I said "ONE OF THE MOST ..."


I think you have much higher expertise at determining which Soviet cities played the most important roles in WW2 than Soviet generals, historians ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Stalingrad was in 1943.

umm, it was 6 months of 42' and 2 months of 43'

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Rommel was called "Desert Fox" for his outstanding successful operations against Allies in North Africa who outnumbered him most of the times. He defeated a 10-times larger British force at Tunisia! LOL, so much for his "little" contribution on the Western front.

since when was Africa the "western" front?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey umm, it was 6 months of 42' and 2 months of 43' since when Africa the "western" front?

I didnt specify when the battle for Stalingrad began. I specified that Germans were defeated at Stalingrad in 1943 (critical levels - achieved at Stalingrad in 1943). After the capitulation, Germans lost a key army which turned the war around for good.

There were only 2 fronts, as desrcribed in history books - western front and eastern front. Hitler was fighting against his enemies on two fronts, too bad they werent a straight line as you think they were. Hitler was fighting a war on TWO fronts. Idiot. Not 4 fronts according to your thinking.

I guess you are talking about the countries' references on the compass: northeastern direction (UK), southeastern (Middle East), soouthern (Africa), Northern (Norway, Finland), south-southwestern ... ahhh fuck it.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

You dont get it. The same thing happened on both eastern and western fronts!!! German armies were depleted on both, and actually its on the Eastern Front that Germans suffered their first setbacks, the critical levels! D-Day happened in 1944. Stalingrad was in 1943. So according to your principle, "troop depletion reaches critical levels" happened on East Front first, NOT western front according to you! LOL

1. I can't make this any simpler for you - Germans generally continued to send their best troops to Eastern Front because that's where the greatest threat was perceived to be coming from. So not only did the Soviets defeat the best German troops long before the Allies even landed in D-Day, but also as the Soviets fought more and more inexperienced troops towards the end of the war - the Allies were fighting troops that were still even greener than those that the Soviets were fighting.

quote:

HAHAHA ... I got you here, you dont know anything about German generals, do you? Rommel was called "Desert Fox" for his outstanding successful operations against Allies who outnumbered him most of the times. He defeated a 10-times larger British force at Tunisia! LOL, so much for his "little" contribution on the Western front. OH, and he committed suicide not because he was depressed but because Hitler implicated him in assassination plot, so he chose suicide over a publicity trial.

"you got me"? "YOU GOT ME"??

How pathetic can you get? Has the entire core of your argument has succumbed to the level of hoping to prove just one tiny fact wrong to me and consider that some sort of Pyrrhic victory? Not surprisingly, you fail here yet again.

I am well familiar with Rommel's accomplishments with the Afrika Korps.

However, it is not relevant to the argument since we are talking about German generals on the Western Front - not Africa. Are you having difficulty with that distinction?

I never said he committed suicide because he was depressed, I clearly stated that he was removed from command because he was suspected being in on the von Stauffenberg assassination plot. Reading comprehension, trust me it's great.

quote:

If I had the time, I'd be happy to find some of the names of the outstanding Germans generals of U-Boats, airplane squadrons, and generals. But since 4/5 of Nazi forces were on the East, so technically there were more generals on the eastern front. So your argument that on the western front german generals were not as good is futile. There's no evidence. Oh wait - the evidence suggests that both fronts failed! So German generals on both Eastern and Western fronts were just as bad. At least in the Western theatre German 100+ divisions (SMALL portion) were able to hold off a large Allies contingent just enough so that the Soviets fighting much larger German contingent occupy half of Europe Yeah, the generals in the East were MUCH MORE effective at slowing down the Red Army ;-)

Oh really? Why don't you read about Sepp Dietrich's, Hoth's, Manstein's, and Guderian's exploits on the Eastern Front and their contributions to the concept of "mobile defense" in 1944-1945?

Guderian was the pioneer of "blitzkrieg" warfare and designed the entire concept and spent his entire life on the Eastern Front.

quote:

Duh. I didnt say it was THE MOST FIERCE battle. But according to Soviet historians, it was in the top 14 most important battles - well, thats pretty high ranking to me. Thats why I said "ONE OF THE MOST ..."

Those were honorary titles and had NOTHING to do with historians picking them out, they were assigned by the Politburo. They had NO historical merit whatsoever and for you to rely upon them as some sort of benchmark to qualify the "fierceness" of a city's defense is one of the stupidest things I read in this thread.

quote:

I didnt specify when the battle for Stalingrad began. I specified that Germans were defeated at Stalingrad in 1943 (critical levels - achieved at Stalingrad in 1943). After the capitulation, Germans lost a key army which turned the war around for good.

Actually no it didn't. The war was turned around for good at Zitadelle. After Stalingrad, the Germans still had a quantitative and a qualitative advantage that would have been enough to sue for peace and a stalemate. But not victory.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne 1. I can't make this any simpler for you - Germans generally continued to send their best troops to Eastern Front because that's where the greatest threat was perceived to be coming from. So not only did the Soviets defeat the best German troops long before the Allies even landed in D-Day, but also as the Soviets fought more and more inexperienced troops towards the end of the war - the Allies were fighting troops that were still even greener than those that the Soviets were fighting. "you got me"? "YOU GOT ME"?? How pathetic can you get? Has the entire core of your argument has succumbed to the level of hoping to prove just one tiny fact wrong to me and consider that some sort of Pyrrhic victory? Not surprisingly, you fail here yet again. I am well familiar with Rommel's accomplishments with the Afrika Korps. However, it is not relevant to the argument since we are talking about German generals on the Western Front - not Africa. Are you having difficulty with that distinction? I never said he committed suicide because he was depressed, I clearly stated that he was removed from command because he was suspected being in on the von Stauffenberg assassination plot. Reading comprehension, trust me it's great. Oh really? Why don't you read about Sepp Dietrich's, Hoth's, Manstein's, and Guderian's exploits on the Eastern Front and their contributions to the concept of "mobile defense" in 1944-1945? Guderian was the pioneer of "blitzkrieg" warfare and designed the entire concept and spent his entire life on the Eastern Front. Those were honorary titles and had NOTHING to do with historians picking them out, they were assigned by the Politburo. They had NO historical merit whatsoever and for you to rely upon them as some sort of benchmark to qualify the "fierceness" of a city's defense is one of the stupidest things I read in this thread. Actually no it didn't. The war was turned around for good at Zitadelle. After Stalingrad, the Germans still had a quantitative and a qualitative advantage that would have been enough to sue for peace and a stalemate. But not victory.

If the Western front had such weak green troops as you specified, Allies would have rolled over them in weeks. It didnt happen, and thhey suffered setbacks. Why would Hitler, fighting the war on two fronts, would shift all his best generals to the East and leave his western defenses open? LOL

Hitler did not sue for peace after Stalingrad or Zitadelle. And frankly, once it was evident when Soviet tannks were rolling into Germany, I am pretty sure Hitler didnt choose to surrender to Soviets even then.

Also, dont tell me that blitzkrieg was not used on the Western front! The reason why he spent so much time on Eastern front is while in the west his tactics succeeded (ex. France), he never managed to get them going on the Eastern front.

You still cant prove that Germans shifted all their best troops East and left all the weak "green" ones on the western front, which is a silly assumption. Its only your opinion. Lets keep it that way ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Aqudyne, you're arguing against someone who doesn't use logic as a basis for any argument, don't waste your finger muscles.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King i listen to trance becuase it is beautifully composed like a classical piece of music.... but with beats in it...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium I hardly if ever acknowledge sarcasm from a person I dont know because I ran into serious problems on an undisclosed buying website before.

quote:

If the Western front had such weak green troops as you specified, Allies would have rolled over them in weeks. It didnt happen, and thhey suffered setbacks. Why would Hitler, fighting the war on two fronts, would shift all his best generals to the East and leave his western defenses open? LOL

For the third time - because his opponents in the East were qualitatively and quantitatively superior to his opponents in the West.

quote:

Hitler did not sue for peace after Stalingrad or Zitadelle. And frankly, once it was evident when Soviet tannks were rolling into Germany, I am pretty sure Hitler didnt choose to surrender to Soviets even then.

No he didn't. The point of that statement was to demonstrate that the war did not "turn around for good" after Stalingrad as you had stated. Germany still had enough troops and equipment to force a stalemate and peace *IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO* and some German generals were quietly agitating for that course of action.

The real turning point of the Eastern Front was Zitadelle.

quote:

Also, dont tell me that blitzkrieg was not used on the Western front! The reason why he spent so much time on Eastern front is while in the west his tactics succeeded (ex. France), he never managed to get them going on the Eastern front.

Uh no. The reason he spent his military career on the Eastern Front was because he was needed there moreso than anywhere else. Blitzkrieg tactics were of course used on Western Front as well, what I am trying to show you is that men of Guderian's caliber were sent to the East because they were needed there.

Actually, the epitome of blitzkrieg's success was on the Eastern Front. Nowhere had the German blitzkrieg has been so successful as on the Eastern Front. Only has to look at the 3 week conquest of Poland, Operation Barbarossa, battles of Kiev and Minsk and the Black Summer of 1942 to see that the epitome of Blitzkrief effectiveness was in the East. The Western Front was specifically ill-suited for Blitzkrieg because of dense forestry (this is why largely Wacht Am Rhein failed), multiple rivers that were near each other that slowed down the advance, hedgerows and other terrain in general that wasn't well suited for blitzkrieg. However, USSR with open steppes was suited perfectly for large massed armored formations to penetrate through enemy lines via Schwerpunkt and perform encirclements - the essence of Blitzkrieg.

quote:

You still cant prove that Germans shifted all their best troops East and left all the weak "green" ones on the western front, which is a silly assumption. Its only your opinion. Lets keep it that way ;-)

Actually, that's historical fact. I'm at work right now, otherwise if I were at home I'd provide the sources for you from my library.

And it is only because I am at work and have nothing to do that I have devoted so much time to you. You should be thankful. I normally charge a rate for tutoring.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquadyne For the third time - because his opponents in the East were qualitatively and quantitatively superior to his opponents in the West.

Which doesnt mean that the generals in the West were meek. It was actually Hitler's decisions, and I dont think we can make a conclusion from that that all the great generals went to the East ;-) But anyhow, its not really a big deal. My point is, the generals on the Western front were as equally qualified to defend against Allied invasion, which they held off for long enough to let Soviet take control of over half of Europe.

quote:

No he didn't. The point of that statement was to demonstrate that the war did not "turn around for good" after Stalingrad as you had stated. Germany still had enough troops and equipment to force a stalemate and peace *IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO* and some German generals were quietly agitating for that course of action. The real turning point of the Eastern Front was Zitadelle.

I prefer it called Battle Of Kursk. It was a very important battle, but I think you're trying to show off here by going after the obvious biggest tank battle in history. However, if Soviets lost the cricual battles for Moscow and Stalingrad, there would have not been your Zitadelle ;-) So I think the capitulation of Paulus' entire army at Stalingrad was the biggest victory for Soviet Union in WW2. This victory provided the necessary moral and strategic support base for later victories over Nazi Germany. Stalingrad was also one of the costliest and appalling battlesites of WW2. It was really the first big Soviet victory over Nazis in WW2.

Hitler never chose surrender. Thats why he committed suicide. Attempts to assassinate him to end the war earlier failed.

quote:

Uh no. The reason he spent his military career on the Eastern Front was because he was needed there moreso than anywhere else. Blitzkrieg tactics were of course used on Western Front as well, what I am trying to show you is that men of Guderian's caliber were sent to the East because they were needed there.

Yes. I agree, I never said that great generals were not sent to the Eastern front. The entire discussion was started when it appeared to me that you said that ALL BEST Nazi generals were sent to the Eastern Front, which is not true. Thats why I was arguing ;-)

quote:

Actually, the epitome of blitzkrieg's success was on the Eastern Front. Nowhere had the German blitzkrieg has been so successful as on the Eastern Front. Only has to look at the 3 week conquest of Poland, Operation Barbarossa, battles of Kiev and Minsk and the Black Summer of 1942 to see that the epitome of Blitzkrief effectiveness was in the East. The Western Front was specifically ill-suited for Blitzkrieg because of dense forestry (this is why largely Wacht Am Rhein failed), multiple rivers that were near each other that slowed down the advance, hedgerows and other terrain in general that wasn't well suited for blitzkrieg. However, USSR with open steppes was suited perfectly for large massed armored formations to penetrate through enemy lines via Schwerpunkt and perform encirclements - the essence of Blitzkrieg.

Your education came really handy here ;-) Good one. Too bad Nazis never managed to succeed in their tactics. Russia is just too big to conquer. History is on our side ;-)

quote:

Actually, that's historical fact. I'm at work right now, otherwise if I were at home I'd provide the sources for you from my library. And it is only because I am at work and have nothing to do that I have devoted so much time to you. You should be thankful. I normally charge a rate for tutoring.

Oh, come on, no need to show off with your dimploma. Just because I dont have a degree in history/politics doesnt mean I am stupid compared to you. I read a lot of history and politics. I dont need tutoring, especially from you, and I actually give my services at my college for free when my classmates need it (too bad its not a political program). Thanks, but no thanks.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Also, how come if Soviet Union had better military than Nazis, better training, better armed, they always suffered greater casualties in most battles?

Here's your Zitadelle, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Zitadelle

Strength (NAZIS)
2,700 tanks
800,000 infantry,
2,000 aircraft

SOVIETS:
3,600 tanks
1,300,000 infantry,
2,400 aircraft


Casualties
German Kursk :
50,000 dead, wounded, or captured
300 tanks
200 aircraft ,
Soviet Kursk :
500,000 dead, wounded, or captured
900 tanks
200 aircraft German Kursk :
180,000 dead, wounded, or captured
1,600 tanks
1,000 aircraft ,
Soviet Kursk :
607,737 dead, wounded, or captured
1,500 tanks
1,000 aircraft

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture