it was the Soviets who lost 20 million men in that fight. But they did shoulder the burden against the Japanese ... They did build the air armada that crippled the German's industrial capabilities, probably enabling a Soviet victory ... The Soviets generally got outfought by the Germans, badly. They won because of sheer numbers and because the German war machine/industry was being pounded from the air. This was a joint effort. And finally, the Americans did more than any other nation to help rebuild in the aftermath.
Which air armada are your referring to??? The U.S./British one??? Or a Russian one?
Good point........you took some of my longwindness and made it concise.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Which air armada are your referring to??? The U.S./British one??? Or a Russian one?
Good point........you took some of my longwindness and made it concise.
Yeah, the Ruskies had a HUGE airforce. They'd have to, for the Germans to shoot down so many. I think there were something like 50 or so German aces that downed over 100 Soviet aircraft (sorry, I have read more that I care to admit on the air war in WW-II ...
Thing is, they were mostly tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers. The Russian air force nailed a great many German vehicles on the ground, during the battles ... The Il-2s had a field day, because the Germans were running out of fighter planes. But the U.S./British airforce wrecked the factories that were building them. The Germans did not have enough Panthers, Tigers, artillery pieces ... After Kursk, they fought the Soviets and inflicted immense damage while basically running on fumes ... There were always enough men, but there was never enough material.
So, what are you saying? That Russia could not have defeated the nazis on their own?
I agree with Byrnzie, its hypothesis, not fact ... But yes, I actually do hold that belief. If they could have beat Germany solo, it would have taken a lot longer ... Several more years of terrible losses.
Yeah, the Ruskies had a HUGE airforce. They'd have to, for the Germans to shoot down so many. I think there were something like 50 or so German aces that downed over 100 Soviet aircraft (sorry, I have read more that I care to admit on the air war in WW-II ...
Thing is, they were mostly tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers. The Russian air force nailed a great many German vehicles on the ground, during the battles ... The Il-2s had a field day, because the Germans were running out of fighter planes. But the U.S./British airforce wrecked the factories that were building them. The Germans did not have enough Panthers, Tigers, artillery pieces ... After Kursk, they fought the Soviets and inflicted immense damage while basically running on fumes ... There were always enough men, but there was never enough material.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we seem to agree that the Russian air force was more about directly protecting their own troops or working in concert with their ground forces? The allied air forces carried out that function as while as projecting force via strategic bombing, yes? And the Nazis were running out of fighter planes because of losses in Great Britain, Italy, North Africa and in defending the Fatherland from Allied strategic bombing, yes?
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Correct me if I am wrong, but we seem to agree that the Russian air force was more about directly protecting their own troops or working in concert with their ground forces? The allied air forces carried out that function as while as projecting force via strategic bombing, yes? And the Nazis were running out of fighter planes because of losses in Great Britain, Italy, North Africa and in defending the Fatherland from Allied strategic bombing, yes?
Correct me if I am wrong, but we seem to agree that the Russian air force was more about directly protecting their own troops or working in concert with their ground forces? The allied air forces carried out that function as while as projecting force via strategic bombing, yes? And the Nazis were running out of fighter planes because of losses in Great Britain, Italy, North Africa and in defending the Fatherland from Allied strategic bombing, yes?
You may or may not have done this intentionally, but you just made a distinction between the allies and the Russians.......may a thousand scornful posts be wished upon you.
You may or may not have done this intentionally, but you just made a distinction between the allies and the Russians.
It was unintentional.........better wording on my part would have been Russians/Soviets and the western Allies. I do not believe that there were ever any major joint operations between the air forces of the eastern allies (Russians/Soviets) and the western allies (primarily the Brits & the Yanks).
I do know of one B-17 that was forced (by damage from the Nazis) to land behind the Russian lines at one of their air fields. This was probably in Romania. There was co-operation between all parties to get that particular B-17 airworthy again and back to homebase in Italy. My grandfather was the flight engineer on that B-17.
Which brings up another point..........the Russian death toll includes men, women and children. The mechanical staff at the Russian airfield visited by my Grandfather was all female. They even used women combat pilots.
And Byrnzie, in regards to a united Russia.....read up on Ukraine and what happened there during WWII.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
The Soviets generally got outfought by the Germans, badly. T
What, like at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin?
Edit: You're right in that they got whooped in the early period of the war. But, coincidentally, as soon as Stalin relinquished control of the armed forces and placed military decisions in the hands of his generals - principally Zhukov - things changed.
P.s, I love those IL-2's. Those planes pack some punch!
I
And Byrnzie, in regards to a united Russia.....read up on Ukraine and what happened there during WWII.
I know full well that the Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis with open arms. A lot of Ukrainians made up the death squads in the east whose job it was to hunt and kill jews.
What, like at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin?
P.s, I love those IL-2's. Those planes pack some punch!
Have you looked at the casualty figures for the German Army vs. the Red Army? The weather won the battle of Moscow, really, and while the Russians won Kursk with good tactics and superior numbers, they got bloodied pretty badly. Immediately after Kursk, the Russians tried to press their advantage and got spanked pretty badly. Its amazing that they were able to keep fielding so much armour, considering how many tanks the Germans knocked out. And by the time the Russians entered Berlin, the worst was over ... The Germans had almost no major units intact, and no real way to fight an organized defense.
I am not saying that the Soviets couldn't fight. If nothing else, they were tenacious and very well-equipped. But the Germans won many of the individual battles, at least if one is using relative casualty rates as a metric. It makes one wonder what the Germans could have done with adequate materials.
listen, I'll share my orginal point and then let you have to last word, because that seems important to you...
my point is this: when someone tends to speak out against the US, past or present, someone always makes a comment about "blaming America" or "yeah, everything is America's fault" or "So this is just another random, run-of-the-mill US bashing thread"....rather than addressing the issue, some tend to reject any mention or thought that America is not perfect...hey, if you think so, that's cool with me...I just happend to point out the pattern, which not soley your personal pattern, it just seem to a pattern on this board in recent weeks....
Grenada wasn't a war. The Americans killed a bunch of builders on an airstrip or something. Grenada was simply Reagans way of trying to make America feel good about itself again after Vietnam. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Americans only invaded Grenada in order to increase box office sales of the film Heartbreak Ridge.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Nah ... History went the right way when Hitler was defeated.
Which is what? Germany becoming an extension of U.S. culture?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Which is what? Germany becoming an extension of U.S. culture?
I'd take that over the entire globe functioning as an Aryan police state.
I know its more complicated than that ... Arguably the Soviets under Stalin were no better than the Nazi party in many ways. Nevertheless, usually people concede that defeating the Nazis was a good thing.
I'd take that over the entire globe functioning as an Aryan police state.
I know its more complicated than that ... Arguably the Soviets under Stalin were no better than the Nazi party in many ways. Nevertheless, usually people concede that defeating the Nazis was a good thing.
Oh, I agree, it's good that Hitler wasn't successful, I thought you were referring to the events that occured after.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Oh, I agree, it's good that Hitler wasn't successful, I thought you were referring to the events that occured after.
That post was poor wording on my part ... The Cold War isn't really "history going the right way". I was, as you noticed, referring specifically to defeating Germany in WW-II.
I know full well that the Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis with open arms. A lot of Ukrainians made up the death squads in the east whose job it was to hunt and kill jews.
Then you should also know that disease, hunger and climatic conditions were responible for more German deaths in the Russian theater than Russian bullets.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
If I'm not mistaken, WWII represents the last whites vs. whites war. Every war following WWII was between whites and some other ethnicity, or some other ethnicity vs. some other ethnicity. I'm leaving out the cold war, of course. And you know I don't mean to say that the US is only white or that any army other than the nazis were only white, for that matter.
If I'm not mistaken, WWII represents the last whites vs. whites war. Every war following WWII was between whites and some other ethnicity, or some other ethnicity vs. some other ethnicity. I'm leaving out the cold war, of course. And you know I don't mean to say that the US is only white or that any army other than the nazis were only white, for that matter.
Not quite, but kinda ... You could say that the Falkland Islands War was between whites, I guess. I think the greater determinant is democracy. There have been few (if any) wars between democratic states in modern history, and most of these states have a predominately white population.
Maybe one major exception would be the civil war in Yugoslavia ... Which wasn't technically a democracy when it broke up, mind you. Anyway, if you want a post-WW-II example of whites killing whites, there you have it.
Not quite, but kinda ... You could say that the Falkland Islands War was between whites, I guess. I think the greater determinant is democracy. There have been few (if any) wars between democratic states in modern history, and most of these states have a predominately white population.
Maybe one major exception would be the civil war in Yugoslavia ... Which wasn't technically a democracy when it broke up, mind you. Anyway, if you want a post-WW-II example of whites killing whites, there you have it.
oh yeah, forgot about the slavs and their civil war. Argentina white?
Are Hispanics technically white? I believe they are, in a strictly racial sense, but of course people make the distinction between Hispanic and white all the time. Not to mention that most people in Central/South America are technically of mixed heritage, I suppose ...
Are Hispanics technically white? I believe they are, in a strictly racial sense, but of course people make the distinction between Hispanic and white all the time. Not to mention that most people in Central/South America are technically of mixed heritage, I suppose ...
most european, according to wiki. so yes, that is another example of a whiteboy on whiteboy situation. thanks.
"More than any other Latin American country, Argentina's population is of European origin. Most of the population is made up of descendants of Spanish, Italian, and other European settlers"
oh yeah, forgot about the slavs and their civil war. Argentina white?
Don't forget that NATO carried out some strategic bombing of Serb positions.
How about some of the small wars in the former Soviet areas......in Georgia and Chechnya White on white???
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
Good point........you took some of my longwindness and made it concise.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Yeah, the Ruskies had a HUGE airforce. They'd have to, for the Germans to shoot down so many. I think there were something like 50 or so German aces that downed over 100 Soviet aircraft (sorry, I have read more that I care to admit on the air war in WW-II ...
Thing is, they were mostly tactical aircraft, not strategic bombers. The Russian air force nailed a great many German vehicles on the ground, during the battles ... The Il-2s had a field day, because the Germans were running out of fighter planes. But the U.S./British airforce wrecked the factories that were building them. The Germans did not have enough Panthers, Tigers, artillery pieces ... After Kursk, they fought the Soviets and inflicted immense damage while basically running on fumes ... There were always enough men, but there was never enough material.
I agree with Byrnzie, its hypothesis, not fact ... But yes, I actually do hold that belief. If they could have beat Germany solo, it would have taken a lot longer ... Several more years of terrible losses.
Bingo.
You may or may not have done this intentionally, but you just made a distinction between the allies and the Russians.......may a thousand scornful posts be wished upon you.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
I do know of one B-17 that was forced (by damage from the Nazis) to land behind the Russian lines at one of their air fields. This was probably in Romania. There was co-operation between all parties to get that particular B-17 airworthy again and back to homebase in Italy. My grandfather was the flight engineer on that B-17.
Which brings up another point..........the Russian death toll includes men, women and children. The mechanical staff at the Russian airfield visited by my Grandfather was all female. They even used women combat pilots.
And Byrnzie, in regards to a united Russia.....read up on Ukraine and what happened there during WWII.
What, like at Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, and Berlin?
Edit: You're right in that they got whooped in the early period of the war. But, coincidentally, as soon as Stalin relinquished control of the armed forces and placed military decisions in the hands of his generals - principally Zhukov - things changed.
P.s, I love those IL-2's. Those planes pack some punch!
I know full well that the Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis with open arms. A lot of Ukrainians made up the death squads in the east whose job it was to hunt and kill jews.
Have you looked at the casualty figures for the German Army vs. the Red Army? The weather won the battle of Moscow, really, and while the Russians won Kursk with good tactics and superior numbers, they got bloodied pretty badly. Immediately after Kursk, the Russians tried to press their advantage and got spanked pretty badly. Its amazing that they were able to keep fielding so much armour, considering how many tanks the Germans knocked out. And by the time the Russians entered Berlin, the worst was over ... The Germans had almost no major units intact, and no real way to fight an organized defense.
I am not saying that the Soviets couldn't fight. If nothing else, they were tenacious and very well-equipped. But the Germans won many of the individual battles, at least if one is using relative casualty rates as a metric. It makes one wonder what the Germans could have done with adequate materials.
which was...?
listen, I'll share my orginal point and then let you have to last word, because that seems important to you...
my point is this: when someone tends to speak out against the US, past or present, someone always makes a comment about "blaming America" or "yeah, everything is America's fault" or "So this is just another random, run-of-the-mill US bashing thread"....rather than addressing the issue, some tend to reject any mention or thought that America is not perfect...hey, if you think so, that's cool with me...I just happend to point out the pattern, which not soley your personal pattern, it just seem to a pattern on this board in recent weeks....
have a great weekend...:)
Axis and Allied casualties by country... you'll need to do the % yourself:
Country Pop. Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)
Germany 78m 8.1 million 2million
Italy 44m 333,000 70,000
Japan 72m 1.75 million 350,000
Rumania 20m 800,000 400,000
Bulgaria 6m 10,000 50,000
Hungary 10m 370,000 200,000
Finland 4m 145,000 4,000
China 450m 3.1 million 9 million
Poland 35m 330,000 2.5million
U.K. 48m 700,000 60,000
France 42m 600,000 270,000
Australia 7m 70,000 --
India 360m 100,000 --
New Zealand2m 30,000 --
So. Africa 10m 23,000 --
Canada 11m 92,000 --
Denmark 4m 2,000 1,000
Norway 3m 10,000 6,000
Belgium 8m 28,000 100,000
Holland 9m 21,000 250,000
Greece 7m 90,000 400,000
Yugoslavia 15m 320,000 1.3million
U.S.S.R. 194m 27 million 19 million
U.S.A. 129m 600,000 --
EDIT: Looks like it's not keeping my spaces... so messy but I suppose you can still manage to read it....
Grenada wasn't a war. The Americans killed a bunch of builders on an airstrip or something. Grenada was simply Reagans way of trying to make America feel good about itself again after Vietnam. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the Americans only invaded Grenada in order to increase box office sales of the film Heartbreak Ridge.
No one can argue that the Soviets didn't take one for the team. Holy Christ.
You're right. I wasn't aware that the figures were so high. That's fucking incredible. 46 million? I thought they'd lost between 30 & 40 million.
Nah ... History went the right way when Hitler was defeated.
Which is what? Germany becoming an extension of U.S. culture?
I'd take that over the entire globe functioning as an Aryan police state.
I know its more complicated than that ... Arguably the Soviets under Stalin were no better than the Nazi party in many ways. Nevertheless, usually people concede that defeating the Nazis was a good thing.
Oh, I agree, it's good that Hitler wasn't successful, I thought you were referring to the events that occured after.
That post was poor wording on my part ... The Cold War isn't really "history going the right way". I was, as you noticed, referring specifically to defeating Germany in WW-II.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Not quite, but kinda ... You could say that the Falkland Islands War was between whites, I guess. I think the greater determinant is democracy. There have been few (if any) wars between democratic states in modern history, and most of these states have a predominately white population.
Maybe one major exception would be the civil war in Yugoslavia ... Which wasn't technically a democracy when it broke up, mind you. Anyway, if you want a post-WW-II example of whites killing whites, there you have it.
oh yeah, forgot about the slavs and their civil war. Argentina white?
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Are Hispanics technically white? I believe they are, in a strictly racial sense, but of course people make the distinction between Hispanic and white all the time. Not to mention that most people in Central/South America are technically of mixed heritage, I suppose ...
most european, according to wiki. so yes, that is another example of a whiteboy on whiteboy situation. thanks.
"More than any other Latin American country, Argentina's population is of European origin. Most of the population is made up of descendants of Spanish, Italian, and other European settlers"
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
How about some of the small wars in the former Soviet areas......in Georgia and Chechnya White on white???
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825