Announcement

Collapse

New Site - PLEASE READ

Hello All,
My name is Ashley and I am the one that moved the forum to its new hosting location. This was done for security reasons and try to keep the forum from going down every other day. I understand that the new forum looks very different from the old one but I promise almost everything you had before you still have it might just be in a different place.

Items that are gone due to a limitation of the new hosting/ forum update:
- Awards
- Flags

As I was going thought your posts I was able to fix a lot fo the issues you were listing. Below is kind of a running list of issues an what is fixed and what I am still working on.

Items that I have fixed from your comments:
- Smilie are now working.
- Color/Theme changes
- Signature are now showing up. (Here is how to edit them https://screencast.com/t/OJHzzhiV1)
- Ranking is now showing up.
- Private messaging is now working.

Some issues I am still working on are:
- Missing items from the Calendar
- Like button the posts is giving an error.

One other note I have seen a lot is theme/color related items. I know this is important to all of you but at the moment the most important thing was getting you back a functioning forum with as many features I can get you back from before.

Theme/color is something we can change but it the moment I do not have the time and resources to fix all of the issue and design the site. I did do some theme updates yesterday but it is very time consuming. Please just be patient with the forum as we get it back to as close as I can to what you had before.

If anyone has any issues that they are running in to please let me know in the post below. Please give me as much detail as possible .
https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/world-history-group-welcomes-you/armchair-general-magazine/5034776-new-site-please-read
See more
See less

Defeat of Germany in World War II Was Possible Without U.S. Help, Russians Say

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kurt Knispel View Post
    ..Also, the invasion of Africa, Sicily, and Italy by the Western Allies had Hitler sending many divisions of the Wehrmacht to these fronts, which could have stayed on the Eastern front...
    Right, this map from Chester Wimot's book "The Struggle for Europe" says it all: the pressure of the Allies in the West meant dozens of German divisions had to be brought from the East front to try to contain them-

    Comment


    • This map gives a wrong picture of the situation :it is not so that the 124 divisions outside the east could have gone to the east ,IF there was no Allied pressure .

      The truth is that if these divisions were not where they were, the Allies would have been in Berlin in 1942,or even in 1941 .

      If in june 1941 there were no Germans at the Pas de Calais, ONE British brigade would be sufficient to go to Berlin .

      Comment


      • Again, the success of the nazis in the early parts of the war created a need to commit German resources but it also brought new foreign resources, including 1 million foreign soldiers and volunteers. So, one needs to see both parts of the equation...


        From
        https://www.amazon.com/Eastern-Front.../dp/1780768907

        Page xxxvi

        ...Compared to 22 June 1941, it [Wehrmacht] had since become a mere shadow of itself, propped up by the deployment of more than a million foreign soldiers and volunteers...
        How many divisions did these people form?

        Comment


        • And on top of everything I said above, one needs to see the army sources that Soviets had to use in the Far East to keep the Japanese in check...

          From

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuen#cite_note-95


          The primary entities responsible for protecting the USSR from Japanese aggression in 1941 were the Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts, under the command of Generals Iosif Apanasenko and Mikhail Kovalyov,[75][i] respectively.[76][77] The Trans-Baikal Front, with nine divisions (including two armored), a mechanized brigade, and a fortified region was tasked with defending the area west of the Oldoy River near Skovorodino, while the Far Eastern Front, with 23 divisions (including three armored), four brigades (excluding antiaircraft), and 11 fortified regions guarded the land to the east, including the crucial seaport of Vladivostok. Combined, the two fronts accounted for some 650,000 men, 5,400 tanks, 3,000 aircraft, 57,000 motor vehicles, 15,000 artillery pieces, and 95,000 horses
          and

          In accordance with the general mobilization ordered by the GKO on 22 July 1941, the combined strength of the Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts was to be raised to more than 1 million by 2 August.[88] By 20 December actual manpower levels totalled 1,161,202, of whom 1,129,630 were regular officers or enlisted men and the remainder were cadets or course attendees.
          and

          On the whole, between June 22, 1941 and May 9, 1945 an aggregate total of 344,676 men, 2,286 tanks, 4,757 guns and mortars, 11,903 motor vehicles, and 77,929 horses were removed from the Far Eastern and Trans-Baikal Fronts to bolster the desperate fighting against the Wehrmacht,[85] the vast majority of whom arrived before early 1943.[86]
          So, a first appreciation of the magnitude of the Soviet forces in the Far East shows that even after calculating the transfer of troops from that region to the west, we still find huge numbers of Soviet manpower used to protect the borders with Manchuria...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by pamak View Post
            Again, the success of the nazis in the early parts of the war created a need to commit German resources but it also brought new foreign resources, including 1 million foreign soldiers and volunteers. So, one needs to see both parts of the equation...
            1 Million is a bloated figure, the majority of which would have fought for the Nazis against the Soviets regardless of what was going on in the West.


            Take a closer look at your link, most of the volunteers were already in conflict with the Soviets or communism in general.


            How many divisions did these people form?
            The better question is how many 1st rate divisions did these people form (not many....).

            I hope you're not counting the regular national armies of Germany's allies in this number. The Romanian, Finnish, Italian armies, etc. do not count as volunteers. The hundreds of thousands of Soviet people that volunteered make up the vast majority of "volunteers", but the only units with any combat value were a handful of SS and the Spanish Blue Division.
            "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
            -Omar Bradley
            "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
            -Anonymous US Army logistician

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Javaman View Post
              1 Million is a bloated figure, the majority of which would have fought for the Nazis against the Soviets regardless of what was going on in the West.




              Take a closer look at your link, most of the volunteers were already in conflict with the Soviets or communism in general.




              The better question is how many 1st rate divisions did these people form (not many....).

              I hope you're not counting the regular national armies of Germany's allies in this number. The Romanian, Finnish, Italian armies, etc. do not count as volunteers. The hundreds of thousands of Soviet people that volunteered make up the vast majority of "volunteers", but the only units with any combat value were a handful of SS and the Spanish Blue Division.
              And how is this different from the British who were already @ war with the Germans? And yes, I do count the German allies who fought against the Russians. Just like the Germans had to spend resources to fight Russia's allies, the Soviets had to do the same to fight German's allies. It does not make sense to talk about only the western allies and not the Axis ones...

              By the way, I did not say "1 million volunteers." I said "... 1 million foreign soldiers and volunteers"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Alk View Post
                Finally his pathological hatred of Albert Speer makes him hypercritical of everything he did.
                It seems that many readers and a few professional historians in the decades immediately after the war had never heard the saying that "nobody looks bad in their own memoirs". They took in particular German memoirs at face value. That includes the generals', and Speer's.
                Later historians remembered the saying.

                Defining Tooze's caution about Speer as "pathological hatred" does tell us something - but not about Tooze.
                Michele

                Comment


                • Speer was an imposter,a very big part of his successes (not only in the aircraft ) were the work of Todt, he was also a liar (the stats he ordered to his spin doctor ,Wagenführ, are falsified ).At Nüremberg, he pretented to know nothing of the Holocaust, while he was knee deep involved in it . After he was liberated he paraded as the good and intelligent German who would have won the war ,but was prevented of doing it by Hitler . During the war he licked the boots of Adolf, after the war he licked the boots of the USSBS.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                    It seems that many readers and a few professional historians in the decades immediately after the war had never heard the saying that "nobody looks bad in their own memoirs". They took in particular German memoirs at face value. That includes the generals', and Speer's.
                    Later historians remembered the saying.

                    Defining Tooze's caution about Speer as "pathological hatred" does tell us something - but not about Tooze.
                    I agree.

                    From a guide for researchers using historical sources.

                    Therefore, “being consonant” does not necessarily guarantee the reliability of memoirs as sources of information. Conversely, those memoirs that seem to be quite dissonant with "the political and general atmosphere" should not be dismissed lightly as being exceptional, falsified or distorted
                    In other words treat all memoires with due caution, they may be accurate but again they may not. Moreover parts may be incorrect but that does not damn everything. For example the year before last I unearthed in the India Office Archives correspondence between Sir John French and the Secretary of State for India from 1914 that directly contradicts some things said in his later memoirs but that does not mean that everything in those memoires is false - only that they should be approached with caution and where and when possible checked against other sources and/or other evidence. The same applies to ALL memoires including from Julius Caesar to current times and Tooze in being sceptical about Speer's account is doing no more than what one should expect from an impartial professional historian.
                    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michele View Post

                      Defining Tooze's caution about Speer as "pathological hatred" does tell us something - but not about Tooze.
                      Amen. +1
                      Will no one tell me what she sings?--
                      Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow
                      For old, unhappy, far-off things,
                      And battles long ago:
                      -William Wordsworth, "The Solitary Reaper"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                        And how is this different from the British who were already @ war with the Germans? And yes, I do count the German allies who fought against the Russians. Just like the Germans had to spend resources to fight Russia's allies, the Soviets had to do the same to fight German's allies. It does not make sense to talk about only the western allies and not the Axis ones...

                        By the way, I did not say "1 million volunteers." I said "... 1 million foreign soldiers and volunteers"
                        Well, the number of volunteers is closer to 1 million, that's why I had to verify. Germany's allies numbered far beyond that just in regular Soldiers and Airmen though.

                        "The Romanian Army had a total of 686,258 men under arms in the summer of 1941 and a total of 1,224,691 men in the summer of 1944"
                        "By November 1942, the 8th Italian Army (Russian Exp Force) had a total of 235,000 men in twelve divisions and four legions. It was equipped with 988 guns, 420 mortars, 25,000 horses, and 17,000 vehicles."
                        Finland, 325,000 or so men.
                        Hungary had close to 1 million by 1944

                        That's about 2.5 million just from national armies and not including SS foreign contingents. I'm still not sure what you're try to get at with the mention of the British though, their not part of the OP.
                        "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                        -Omar Bradley
                        "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                        -Anonymous US Army logistician

                        Comment


                        • @Javaman


                          My point is that if people want to discuss the claim of if the USSR could have won without the US help, why do they start making additional assumptions by excluding the UK or the occupied countries which tied German resources in the west? If one does this, then he should also exclude the Axis allies, including Japan which tied Russians resources in the Far East even after the 1939 war. If one wants to discuss if the USSR could have won without the US help, then he should take out just the US.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pamak View Post
                            @Javaman


                            My point is that if people want to discuss the claim of if the USSR could have won without the US help, why do they start making additional assumptions by excluding the UK or the occupied countries which tied German resources in the west? If one does this, then he should also exclude the Axis allies, including Japan which tied Russians resources in the Far East even after the 1939 war. If one wants to discuss if the USSR could have won without the US help, then he should take out just the US.
                            Its in the OP. "Most Russians believe the Soviet military would have been able to win World War II without the efforts of the U.S. or its allies, a new poll finds.

                            Read the link, its short but puts the thread in proper context.
                            "Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics"
                            -Omar Bradley
                            "Not everyone who studies logistics is a professional logistician, and there is no way to understand when you don't know what you don't know."
                            -Anonymous US Army logistician

                            Comment


                            • Here's another interesting map from "The Struggle for Europe", the Germans had to use 9 panzer divisions and 9 Infantry divs (plus several battlegroups) to try to contain the Allies in the West-

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Javaman View Post
                                Its in the OP. "Most Russians believe the Soviet military would have been able to win World War II without the efforts of the U.S. or its allies, a new poll finds.

                                Read the link, its short but puts the thread in proper context.

                                Got it! I went with the title of the thread. Now it makes sense...

                                In this case, I think there are two separate issues

                                1. If the USSR could win without a US help
                                2 If the USSR could win alone

                                I am inclined to say "yes" for the 1st and "no" for the 2nd
                                Last edited by pamak; 05 Sep 17, 21:16.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X