Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soviet/Russian Myths of the Great Patriotic War 1-The Second Front

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

  • Originally posted by Scott Fraser View Post
    What I said: "I do not believe..." I do not believe it because it makes no sense.
    It does make sense as Dieppe Raid was a mean to show the Soviets that any landing was impossible so there would be no Second Front soon. Here what is written in any Soviet\Russian historical book...

    It took two years to prepare for D-Day, mainly to amass the transport needed. If the invasion had failed, that transopt lost, it is reasonable to conclude it would take at least another two years to replace it. Of course, they could have spread the effort out over several years, so as to be ready by 1966.
    You mix huge scale invasion of D-day and relatively small diversionary landing.

    There was no catastrophe with trasport syste after Dieppe Raid.

    I don't see reasons why collapse of 3-4 division diversionary landing would result to huge troubles with trasport in future.

    There was only reason to invade Europe, and that was to defeat Germany. The suggestion that three or four divisions be landed strictly as a diversion, to draw forces away from the Eastern Front, is absurd.
    Why absurd????


    Firstly, it would be weeks before any impact was felt in the East, if ever.
    OK, Let's imagine some Western forces landed. Hitler ordered 4 panzer divisions (it's a imaginary number) to be transfered there from the Soviet-German Front. So righe after the landing the divisions would be loaded in trains and would be trasported to West. So it is possible to say that the influence of thelanding on the enemy disposition on the Soviet German Front would be immediate.

    Secondly, without orders to march on Germany, such forces would be squandered, left to be destroyed in detail by the Wehrmacht for no concrete gain.
    Why? For example, their initial task would be to expand the bridgehead and to hold it. Like in any breadgehead. So where is the trouble?

    Third, the loss of the men and equipment sacrificed for such an empty gesture would delay a real invasion by months or years, practically guaranteeing a Soviet occupation of France following a Red Army victory in 1945 or 1946. No western leader would ever countenance such an action, even in the "Alternative Reality" Forum.
    Why do you mean "empty gestrure" word here? To save Stalingrad - isn't it a good military task?

    And decide at first what was the main reason - to win Hitler or to prevent Stalin from liberating France?

    If you suppose the problem of Stalin was more important so I have no questions more. It speaks itself about such "Allies". I don't want to have such allies.
    Last edited by Andrey; 25 Apr 10, 21:46.

    Comment


    • Andrey, here in the West we sometimes use the expression, "The lesser of two evils". Have you ever heard this expression, or is there a Russian equivalent of it?
      "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Panther3485 View Post
        Andrey, here in the West we sometimes use the expression, "The lesser of two evils". Have you ever heard this expression, or is there a Russian equivalent of it?
        "Menshee iz dvukh zol" in Russian.

        For me Hitler was the larger evil so it was necessary to think about how to crush him at first.

        In 1944 amd later it was clear that Germany would lose.

        But in 1942-43 Germany still had chances to win - if it won in the Soiviet-German Front...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
          "Menshee iz dvukh zol" in Russian.

          For me Hitler was the larger evil so it was necessary to think about how to crush him at first.
          I agree. In my opinion, the Nazi regime was by far the greatest evil. I therefore believe that the Soviet Union and the Western Allies very much did the right thing, to form an alliance to crush Nazism.

          I am also glad that the Soviet Union and the West were able to mostly set aside their suspicions of each other, to concentrate on the task of destroying Hitler. Unfortunately, some suspicions remained under the surface and we all know what happened with the 'Cold War' after WW2 ended. I am happy that this 'Cold War' is behind us now.
          "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
            "Menshee iz dvukh zol" in Russian.

            For me Hitler was the larger evil so it was necessary to think about how to crush him at first.

            In 1944 amd later it was clear that Germany would lose.

            But in 1942-43 Germany still had chances to win - if it won in the Soiviet-German Front...
            Germany had no chance to win once US entered the war in 1941 regardles of what happened on the Eastern front. Remember that in WW1 Central Powers won on the Eastern Front but lost in the West. US military was much more effective then any other. I think fighting in Normandy shows that superiority. And it didn't need massive casualtied to achieve the defeat of the Germany. Even if Soviets collapsed it would be only a matter of time before US with remaining Western allies rolled into Berlin. Plus there was alway the nuke available in 1945.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
              Germany had no chance to win once US entered the war in 1941 regardles of what happened on the Eastern front. Remember that in WW1 Central Powers won on the Eastern Front but lost in the West. US military was much more effective then any other. I think fighting in Normandy shows that superiority. And it didn't need massive casualtied to achieve the defeat of the Germany. Even if Soviets collapsed it would be only a matter of time before US with remaining Western allies rolled into Berlin. Plus there was alway the nuke available in 1945.
              Question 1: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting the Soviets?

              Question 2: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting all of the Western Allies combined?

              Question 3: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting the Americans only?


              And remember, before you answer, this is about what actually happened, not what could have happened, OK?

              Take your time answering, pawelj. We have all day if you like.
              Last edited by panther3485; 26 Apr 10, 09:43.
              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Panther3485 View Post
                Question 1: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting the Soviets?

                Question 2: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting all of the Western Allies combined?

                Question 3: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting the Americans only?


                And remember, before you answer, this is about what actually happened, not what could have happened, OK?

                Take your time answering, pawelj. We have all day if you like.
                The question of infliction of losses is a interesting one. Published historians have touched on it, but not delved deeply Egorka examined the question of losses in combat forces in some detail here on the ACG forums. The thread is archived. On another web site forum Egorka placed the same question/examination in a more lengthly thread, here:

                http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...is-powers-quot

                I recommend reading both. After filitering out the fluff & chattering there are interesting statistics & some usefull references to look for. Both of those threads would be a usefull starting point for examining losses of combat forces.

                Of course losses of combat units is only part of the story. Losses of imports into the Axis industry, losses of industrial base, losses of civilian population, losses of facist allies are other important questions.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
                  Germany had no chance to win once US entered the war in 1941 regardles of what happened on the Eastern front. Remember that in WW1 Central Powers won on the Eastern Front but lost in the West. US military was much more effective then any other. I think fighting in Normandy shows that superiority. And it didn't need massive casualtied to achieve the defeat of the Germany. Even if Soviets collapsed it would be only a matter of time before US with remaining Western allies rolled into Berlin. Plus there was alway the nuke available in 1945.
                  Very strange set of statemets...

                  Red Army lost 8 million soldiers and officers fighting against Germany. Was the US ready to suffer such casualties?

                  About the US army quality - read memoirs of Bradley, "Armageddon" by Hastings... The US troops in Europe had large troubles with discipline after a half of a year of combats in Europe in 1944. There was a shortage of soldiers for replacement. I have serious doubts that even the US Army of 1944 was ready to fight against full strength Viermacht and to suffer heavy casualties which were inevitable.

                  Reread this thread - one ofthe argument why Second Fron was not opened in 1942-43 was that the US ARmy still was not ready to fight effectively against Germans.

                  So the collapse of the USSR in 1941-42-43 would be a catastrophe for the US and Britain.

                  Comment


                  • One of the biggest myths is that once an offensive fails utterly, you can just name it diversionary operation and claim it was succesfull.
                    Wisdom is personal

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Karri View Post
                      One of the biggest myths is that once an offensive fails utterly, you can just name it diversionary operation and claim it was succesfull.
                      Indeed. It's a new trend among Russian historians to make excuses for every SNAFU of their favourite military commanders. Somehow they think that it's acceptable to fight a war by feeding Russian soldiers in an obvious meatgrinder withiout any due preparations just to keep German soldiers busy machinegunning them by the thousands, all for achieving some success on another front where the Germans would not be able to send their reserves. The stories of Peterhof and Schlisselburg landings are little known to Western scholars because of their relatively small scale but they could serve an indication of what Zhukov would come up with less than an year later.
                      www.histours.ru

                      Siege of Leningrad battlefield tour

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Karri View Post
                        One of the biggest myths is that once an offensive fails utterly, you can just name it diversionary operation and claim it was succesfull.
                        what if it really was a diversionary operation?....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                          what if it really was a diversionary operation?....
                          How would you define one? And how would you define a succesfull one?

                          Just because it ties down reserves doesn't mean it is a success.
                          Wisdom is personal

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Panther3485 View Post
                            Question 1: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting the Soviets?

                            Question 2: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting all of the Western Allies combined?

                            Question 3: How many casualties did the Germans suffer fighting the Americans only?


                            And remember, before you answer, this is about what actually happened, not what could have happened, OK?

                            Take your time answering, pawelj. We have all day if you like.
                            Looking only at casualties figures poses more questions that it answers:
                            Like for instance how is that Soviet Union lost about 8 million men fighting from 1941-1945 on one front, but Germany faught from 1939-1945 on all fronts lost about 3.2 million?

                            Fighting and defeating is not just about inflicting and taking casualties.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by pawelj View Post
                              Looking only at casualties figures poses more questions that it answers:
                              Like for instance how is that Soviet Union lost about 8 million men fighting from 1941-1945 on one front, but Germany faught from 1939-1945 on all fronts lost about 3.2 million?

                              Fighting and defeating is not just about inflicting and taking casualties.
                              OK, so you don't want to answer those questions. Wonder why.

                              Try another one, then.

                              Of the 3.2 Million casualties you've just told us the Germans suffered, how many of those were on the Eastern Front?
                              "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Andrey View Post
                                Very strange set of statemets...

                                Red Army lost 8 million soldiers and officers fighting against Germany. Was the US ready to suffer such casualties?

                                About the US army quality - read memoirs of Bradley, "Armageddon" by Hastings... The US troops in Europe had large troubles with discipline after a half of a year of combats in Europe in 1944. There was a shortage of soldiers for replacement. I have serious doubts that even the US Army of 1944 was ready to fight against full strength Viermacht and to suffer heavy casualties which were inevitable.

                                Reread this thread - one ofthe argument why Second Fron was not opened in 1942-43 was that the US ARmy still was not ready to fight effectively against Germans.

                                So the collapse of the USSR in 1941-42-43 would be a catastrophe for the US and Britain.
                                Nothing strange, Andrey,

                                US would only lose that many if it fought using Soviet tactics, material and with equal wasteful disregard for the lives of their men. US military by 1944 possessed the best artillery and air support of any army fighting in WW2. Put that together with superior mobility and supply system and it is more then enough to offset any shortcomings in other areas.
                                It was the superiority of artillery that allowed German's to be successfully up until 1942-43. They were facing superior numbers with heavier weapons fighting the Soviets, yet they managed to get as far as they did.

                                US Army was not ready in 1941, but did face some reverses in north Africa, but they learned fast and after Kesserine Pass never suffered a reverse like that again.

                                Soviet army had masses of artillery, but they could not use it to support attacks and more importantly in defense with any flexibility.

                                Had the Soviet collapsed in 1942, it would not mean the end of fighting in Russia, or complete transfer of all forces to other theaters of war. It would not allow Germany to improve their air force, or the navy. Russia collapsed in WWI and it did not help Germany much. Likewise in 1942-3 it would still need to expand massive numbers in men and material on occupying and defending territories it captured.
                                In Normandy Allies faced the best Divisions Germany had to offer and they gave them a massive pounding by a combination of artillery and air support. Even if Germany had more units they would have suffered the same faith.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X