yes, the various civil wars, separatist movements, and police actions eluded me. thank you.
We're here to help.
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.
cain and abel are the only ones i know by name... i know they had lots
i know about land of Nod, see my thread on the creation of the world in under 2mins somewhere
adam and eve were the first, and god then made more? if so how did he make them? if it was from body parts then thats "inbreeding"
what? no way dunk. i'm not getting into a theological debate with you over the creation of Mankind. i am an atheist so in all honesty it'd be a very very short discussion.
besides if you don't know which body parts are used for procreation then i suggest you go talk to your mummy.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Then you should also know that disease, hunger and climatic conditions were responible for more German deaths in the Russian theater than Russian bullets.
A bit more on the role the soviet union had in crushing Hitler's germany...
“Many North Americans and British mistakenly believe their nations defeated National Socialist Germany. While $11 billion of US military and financial aid to the USSR was important, it was Stalin’s Soviet Union, not the western democracies, played the decisive role in defeating Adolf Hitler and his European allies.
While honoring our own heroic veterans, it’s time we also recognize and pay homage to Russia’s dauntless courage, endurance, and suffering.
*The Soviet Union inflicted 75% of all World War II German casualties in titanic battles involving millions of men. Soviet forces killed 3 million German and Axis troops, and lost 11.3 million dead and 18.3 million wounded. Twenty million Russian civilians died.
Britain lost 340,000 men, Canada 43,000, and the US about 150,000 dead in the European Theater. The Red Army lost more men attacking Berlin alone than the US did in its entire European and North African campaigns.
*When Allied forces landed at Normandy, the German Wehrmacht’s `guts had been ripped out by the Soviets,’ said Churchill. Had the Allies met 1940’s strength and quality German troops, with an intact Luftwaffe, instead of understrength units with no air cover, they would have been driven into the Channel. The battered Wehrmacht’s dogged resistance from 1944-45 recalled Churchill’s dictum, `you will never know war until you fight Germans.’
*The Soviet defeat of Japan’s forces in Manchuria has been ignored. In a brilliant, blitzkrieg campaign along a 3,000 km front on 9 Aug, 1945, Soviet Far Eastern armies crushed Japan’s weakened 710,000-man Kwantung Army, killing 80,000 and capturing 594,000."
A bit more on the role the soviet union had in crushing Hitler's germany...
“Many North Americans and British mistakenly believe their nations defeated National Socialist Germany. While $11 billion of US military and financial aid to the USSR was important, it was Stalin’s Soviet Union, not the western democracies, played the decisive role in defeating Adolf Hitler and his European allies.
While honoring our own heroic veterans, it’s time we also recognize and pay homage to Russia’s dauntless courage, endurance, and suffering.
*The Soviet Union inflicted 75% of all World War II German casualties in titanic battles involving millions of men. Soviet forces killed 3 million German and Axis troops, and lost 11.3 million dead and 18.3 million wounded. Twenty million Russian civilians died.
Britain lost 340,000 men, Canada 43,000, and the US about 150,000 dead in the European Theater. The Red Army lost more men attacking Berlin alone than the US did in its entire European and North African campaigns.
*When Allied forces landed at Normandy, the German Wehrmacht’s `guts had been ripped out by the Soviets,’ said Churchill. Had the Allies met 1940’s strength and quality German troops, with an intact Luftwaffe, instead of understrength units with no air cover, they would have been driven into the Channel. The battered Wehrmacht’s dogged resistance from 1944-45 recalled Churchill’s dictum, `you will never know war until you fight Germans.’
*The Soviet defeat of Japan’s forces in Manchuria has been ignored. In a brilliant, blitzkrieg campaign along a 3,000 km front on 9 Aug, 1945, Soviet Far Eastern armies crushed Japan’s weakened 710,000-man Kwantung Army, killing 80,000 and capturing 594,000."
I found one of my textbooks from high school. Shhhh obviously I never returned it to my high school. The book is called 'A History of Western Society.' It was written by McKay, Hill and Buckler and published by Houghton Mifflin. I looked up WWII and on page 950 it reads:
As of Soviet Russia (yes this is what it says) so great was its strength that it might well have defeated Germany without Western help. In the face of the Germany advance, whole factories and populations were successfully evacuated to eastern Russia and Siberia. There, war production was reorganized and expanded, and the Red Army was increasing well supplied. The Red Army was also well led, for a new generation of talented military leaders quickly arose to replace those so recently purged. Most important of all, Stalin drew on the Soviet people. Broad-based Russian nationalism, as opposed to narrow communist ideology, became the powerful unifying force in what was appropriately called the "Great Patriotic War of the Fatherland."
Now skipping to page 952 as it mentions many other battles with American, British and the Ally forces but I'm only focusing the on Soviets here:
Barely halted at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad in 1941, the Germans renewed their Russian offensive in July 1942. This time they drove toward the southern city of Stalingrad, in an attempt to cripple communications and seize the crucial oil fields of Baku. Reaching Stalingrad, the Germans slowly occupied most of the ruined city in a month of incredibly savage house-to-house fighting.
Then, in November 1942, Soviet armies counterattacked. They rolled over Romanian and Italian troops to the north and south of Stalingrad, quickly closing the trap surrounding the entire German Sixth Army of 300,000 men. The surrounded Germans were systematically destroyed, until the by the end of January 1943 only 123,000 soldiers were left to surrender. Hitler, who had refused to allow a retreat, had suffered a catastrophic defeat. In the summer of 1943, the larger, better-equipped Soviet armies took the offensive and began moving forward.
Skipping to page 953 again focusing on the Soviets:
The Russians, who had been advancing steadily since July 1943, reached the outskirts of Warsaw by August 1944. For the next six months they moved southward into Romania, Hungary, and Yugoslavia. In January 1945 the Red armies again moved westward through Poland, and on April 26 they met American forces on the Elbe River. The Allies had closed their vice on Nazi Germany and overrun Europe. As Soviets forces fought their way into Berlin, Hitler committed suicide in his bunker, and on May 7 the remaining German commanders capitulated. Three month later, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Mass bombing of cities and civilians, one of the terrible new practices of WWII, had ended in the final nightmare-unprecedented human destruction in a single blinding flash. The Second World War, which had claimed the lives of more than fifty million soldiers and civilians, was over.
These paragraphs basically support what Byrnzie has been saying and yes they are taken directly out of my high school history book. The problem isn’t that we are not provided with the correct information but it’s because we tend to focus on the American roll in history and then stories become twisted to make it more interesting to us. Anyhow, at least we are all getting a history lesson.
"...believe in lies...to get by...it's divine...whoa...oh, you know what its like..."
As someone who has studied this war and many other military conflicts I can say that, yes, it is true.
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.
That's like saying Bobby Boucher won the Bourbon Bowl. The Louisiana Mud Dogs won the Bourbon Bowl, not Bobby Boucher. But without Bobby Boucher, Red Beaulieu and the Cougars would have won. That's what people mean by "Without america, we'd all be speaking german."
The US was the MVP, that's all. If you want, you can say Russia was MVP, but what Russia did for the game of football really kind of cancels out any positive contributions it may have had.
given the number of german casualties in russia, the MVP was russia, and the russian winter.
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
yes i'm nit-picking but i dont give a fuck... there is more to the UK than just England... as great and informative as this thread is, this really is quite ignorant, and its a common Americanism to just say England when they mean Britain
I know Ahnimus and Jammin are pretty clever fuckers and probably didnt realise but England didnt fight in WW1 or WW2 it was the British Forces who fought...
sorry..... it just fucks me off
the british army had millions of indians and pakistanis to, fighting the germans in a war that wasnt theirs to fight.
indian casualties in ww2 was second to only that of britain (amongst the ALLIES)
I have faced it, A life wasted...
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
As someone who has studied this war and many other military conflicts I can say that, yes, it is true.
You honestly believe that more german soldiers died in World war two at the hands of the weather, than in battle? I am amazed that someone who has supposedly studied the subject can say such a thing. Please provide any evidence.
You honestly believe that more german soldiers died in World war two at the hands of the weather, than in battle? I am amazed that someone who has supposedly studied the subject can say such a thing. Please provide any evidence.
Yes.....it's simple logic. You overextend your supply line, send out troops equipped for short-term fighting in decent weather and force them into a siege. Historically, sieges have been the death knell for the besieged. However on the Russian front, both sides suffered due to the climate and the fact that neither side could adequately supply themselves with the bare essentials. The invasion of the Soviet Union began in the spring........Blitzkrieg troops were lightly equipped due to the rapid movement required of this warfare. The key to the success of such movement was based on the ability to gain supplies from the lands that you conquered, which was generally farmlands in the west as urban street to street fighting bogged down the Blitzkrieg. The Russians enacted their "Scorched Earth" policy, which means that their asses retreated initially in advance of the German offensive, and they burned everything useful to the Germans (including the rail system which the German planners had in their mind to use as supply line) as they retreated. This was part of their planning and was a tatic used by the Russians against both Sweden and France in its long history. They used the nature of the Blitz against it. The Russians entrenched at the larger cities. Blitzkrieg soldiers were not prepared or trained for fighting in the urban environment nor were they carrying adequate supplies for such an army that was suddenly so far from home. They were also dressed in summer uniforms. The security of a supply line this long and across enemy territory is dicey at best, and the Germans had a hard time with Russian units, both regular and irregular, disrupting their supply lines. So come winter, you had thousands of under-fed, under-dressed Germans camped around places like St. Petersburg, Stalingard and Moscow with a very ineffective supply line. The Wehrmacht was not prepared to be sitting on its collective asses in the snow not really doing anything......this is very similar to what happened in WWI with trench warfare. How long were these sieges??? Over how many seasons did they last?
My information is learned over years of study and research........I did not watch a special on the History Channel last week or read a wikipedia article yesterday. It would probably take me some time to locate either my books or my notes (I moved twice within the last year and a half, most recently in June, thus I don't know where everything has come to rest), which ain't happening today.
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.
Yes.....it's simple logic. You overextend your supply line, send out troops equipped for short-term fighting in decent weather and force them into a siege. Historically, sieges have been the death knell for the besieged. However on the Russian front, both sides suffered due to the climate and the fact that neither side could adequately supply themselves with the bare essentials. The invasion of the Soviet Union began in the spring........Blitzkrieg troops were lightly equipped due to the rapid movement required of this warfare. The key to the success of such movement was based on the ability to gain supplies from the lands that you conquered, which was generally farmlands in the west as urban street to street fighting bogged down the Blitzkrieg. The Russians enacted their "Scorched Earth" policy, which means that their asses retreated initially in advance of the German offensive, and they burned everything useful to the Germans (including the rail system which the German planners had in their mind to use as supply line) as they retreated. This was part of their planning and was a tatic used by the Russians against both Sweden and France in its long history. They used the nature of the Blitz against it. The Russians entrenched at the larger cities. Blitzkrieg soldiers were not prepared or trained for fighting in the urban environment nor were they carrying adequate supplies for such an army that was suddenly so far from home. They were also dressed in summer uniforms. The security of a supply line this long and across enemy territory is dicey at best, and the Germans had a hard time with Russian units, both regular and irregular, disrupting their supply lines. So come winter, you had thousands of under-fed, under-dressed Germans camped around places like St. Petersburg, Stalingard and Moscow with a very ineffective supply line. The Wehrmacht was not prepared to be sitting on its collective asses in the snow not really doing anything......this is very similar to what happened in WWI with trench warfare. How long were these sieges??? Over how many seasons did they last?
My information is learned over years of study and research........I did not watch a special on the History Channel last week or read a wikipedia article yesterday. It would probably take me some time to locate either my books or my notes (I moved twice within the last year and a half, most recently in June, thus I don't know where everything has come to rest), which ain't happening today.
I'm not denying that thousands of germans succumbed to the cold and to disease outside Moscow in 1942, but it was in combat that they suffered their greatest losses. The Germans had learnt the lesson of Moscow and so at Stalingrad and there after, up to Berlin, the winter weather was no longer such a major factor in their losses. As for the Rusians blowing the train tracks, as far as I'm aware, the reason the germans were unable to supply the front lines was because of the vast distance (and the speed at which the front advanced, as you mention), and the simple fact - overlooked by the germans - of the gauge difference in railroad tracks between German and Russian railroads.
Here's a little something from Richard Overy - professor of history at the University of Exeter. Author of 'Russia's war'.
'On 22 June 1941, some three million soldiers of Germany and her allies began an attack on the Soviet Union. This war was supposed to be over in a matter of months, but it lasted for four years, and grew into the largest and most costly conflict in all history.
It was here, in the vast struggle between the two dictatorships, that the German army was defeated and the outcome of World War Two was decided in favour of the Allied powers - the British Empire, the United States and the USSR. The cost to the Soviet Union was an estimated 27 million dead.'
The central question of the German-Soviet war is why, after two years of defeats, and the loss of more than five million men and two-thirds of the industrial capacity of the country, the Red Army was able to blunt, then drive back, the German attack.
The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.
Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.
Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base.
The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.
The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942.
Every area of Soviet military life was examined and changes introduced. The army established the equivalent of the heavily armoured German Panzer divisions, and tank units were better organised - thanks to the introduction of radios. Soviet army tactics and intelligence-gathering were also overhauled.
Camouflage, surprise and misinformation were brilliantly exploited to keep the German army in the dark about major Soviet intentions. The air force was subjected to effective central control and improved communications, so that it could support the Soviet army in the same way as the Luftwaffe backed up German forces.
The Red Army was fortunate that in 1942 Stalin finally decided to play a less prominent role in defence planning and discovered in a young Russian general, Georgi Zhukov, a remarkable deputy whose brusque, no-nonsense style of command, and intuitive operational sense, were indispensable in making the Red Army a better battlefield force. The Communist Party also accepted the need to give the Red Army greater flexibility in fighting the war, and in the autumn of 1942 scaled down the role of political commissars attached to the armed forces.
The Soviet people also played their part. Despite exceptional levels of deprivation and loss, they kept up the production of food, weapons and equipment. Some were terrorised into doing so, particularly the millions of camp labourers who worked fully for the war effort. But others did so from a genuine patriotism or a hatred of German fascism.
The harsh treatment of the Soviet population in those areas of Russia occupied by Germany made it easier for the Stalinist regime to mobilise support elsewhere in Russia for the war effort. Stalin relaxed the repression of the Church so that it could be used to mobilise enthusiasm, while propaganda played on the theme of past Russian glories against European invaders, rather than on Communist successes.
An exceptional burden was borne by Soviet women. By 1945 over half the workforce was female, and on the land, more than four-fifths. Women fought in their thousands in the Soviet armed forces as pilots, sharpshooters, even tank commanders. Many women joined the partisan movement operating behind the German lines - and by 1943 there were an estimated 300,000 of them. They constantly harried German troops, and were themselves the victim of harsh punitive expeditions, which led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent villagers along with the partisan bands.
Soviet victory came at a high price, but a combination of total-war mobilisation, better fighting methods and high operational skills defeated a German army that in 1944 was a formidable, heavily armed and modern fighting force. Soviet resistance made possible a successful Allied invasion of France, and ensured the final Allied victory over Germany. The Soviet state was transformed in the process into a superpower, and Communism, close to extinction in the autumn of 1941, came to dominate the whole Eurasian area, from East Germany to North Korea.
That's an interesting excerpt that explains how Russia was able to mobilize an effective counter-offensive.
However, I don't think it will ever be possble to objectively quantify exactly what proportion of German casualties were attributed to the weather, and which were attributed to Russia's military might and tactics.
The Germans were not equipped with cold weather gear. This may not have killed them directly, but I see it as very possible that this could easily have affected their ability to fight.
As for supply lines:
The 600,000 large western European horses the Germans used for supply and artillery movement did not cope well with this weather. The small ponies used by the Red Army were much better adapted to this climate and could even scrape the icy ground with their hooves to dig up the weed beneath.
Additionally:
Some German weapons also malfunctioned in the cold. Lubricating oils were unsuitable for extreme cold weather, with the result that engines malfunctioned and automatic weapons would not fire. To load shells into a tank’s main gun, frozen grease had to be chipped off with a knife. Soviet units faced less severe problems due to their experience with cold weather. Aircraft were supplied with insulating blankets to keep their engines warm while parked. Lighter-weight oil was used. Gasoline, which powered all German tanks and most of their trucks, was subject to freezing in the harsh winters. Most Soviet trucks and pre-war tanks also used gasoline, but diesel fuel used in the new-generation of Soviet tanks did not freeze in winter.
Fact: The Soviet Union did not defeat the Nazi army all by itself. The entire Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine did not invade the Soviet Union. The Nazi state was defeated by a combination of Allies operating on many different fronts and styles of warfare. Resistance movements, strategic bombing of the German infrastructure back home (while the Russian infrastructure was safe behind the Urals), anti-submarine warfare, the ability to move supplies from countries such as the U.S., Canada and parts of South America to beseiged nations (including the Soviet Union) and forcing Nazi Germany to fight on at least three major fronts all contributed to the Nazi defeat. To speculate that any single nation could have or would have defeated the Nazis is just that......pure speculation or hypothesis.
Fact: The Soviet Union (historically Russia) had the largest population and the largest landmass of any European nation, thus they could use their tried and true anti-invasion tatic. They swapped land and men for time. Read about Peter the Great's war with Sweden (Yes, in that era Sweden was a European power) or Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The same shit, different day, just that the combatants had trains, planes and tanks in the 1940s. Yes, this method could be considered as "wasting men" (cannon fodder) or as a bad tatic, but it worked in the long run. Remember they burned Moscow to the ground in 1812 to present Napoleon with a hollow victory that helped doom that invasion.
Fact: Yes, they, the Russians, "took a hit" for the team. They had two options when the Nazis invaded. They could pull a France and basically give up or they could do what they did.......stall for time. In 1941, their armed forces were not going to beat the Nazis at the Nazi's game....open field warfare. In truth, no one was going to beat the Wehrmacht in 1941 in the open field. That's why the Russians changed the rules. You take an army designed, trained and equipped for rapid, open-field movement, and you make them set on their collective asses in the cold mud and rubble for three years. This leads to attrition by lack of food, lack of water, disease and demoralization. If one attempts to discount the importance of morale on the battlefield, then you do not understand human warfare.
Remember too that Russia was not an innocent at the beginning of World War II.....they invaded eastern Poland while the Nazis were storming in from the west, and they invaded Finland in attempt at conquest. While not an actual ally of Nazi Germany, they had signed a non-agression pact with Hitler that was broken by Hitler.
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.
Fact: The Soviet Union did not defeat the Nazi army all by itself. The entire Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine did not invade the Soviet Union. The Nazi state was defeated by a combination of Allies operating on many different fronts and styles of warfare. Resistance movements, strategic bombing of the German infrastructure back home (while the Russian infrastructure was safe behind the Urals), anti-submarine warfare, the ability to move supplies from countries such as the U.S., Canada and parts of South America to beseiged nations (including the Soviet Union) and forcing Nazi Germany to fight on at least three major fronts all contributed to the Nazi defeat. To speculate that any single nation could have or would have defeated the Nazis is just that......pure speculation or hypothesis.
Fact: The Soviet Union (historically Russia) had the largest population and the largest landmass of any European nation, thus they could use their tried and true anti-invasion tatic. They swapped land and men for time. Read about Peter the Great's war with Sweden (Yes, in that era Sweden was a European power) or Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The same shit, different day, just that the combatants had trains, planes and tanks in the 1940s. Yes, this method could be considered as "wasting men" (cannon fodder) or as a bad tatic, but it worked in the long run. Remember they burned Moscow to the ground in 1812 to present Napoleon with a hollow victory that helped doom that invasion.
Fact: Yes, they, the Russians, "took a hit" for the team. They had two options when the Nazis invaded. They could pull a France and basically give up or they could do what they did.......stall for time. In 1941, their armed forces were not going to beat the Nazis at the Nazi's game....open field warfare. In truth, no one was going to beat the Wehrmacht in 1941 in the open field. That's why the Russians changed the rules. You take an army designed, trained and equipped for rapid, open-field movement, and you make them set on their collective asses in the cold mud and rubble for three years. This leads to attrition by lack of food, lack of water, disease and demoralization. If one attempts to discount the importance of morale on the battlefield, then you do not understand human warfare.
Remember too that Russia was not an innocent at the beginning of World War II.....they invaded eastern Poland while the Nazis were storming in from the west, and they invaded Finland in attempt at conquest. While not an actual ally of Nazi Germany, they had signed a non-agression pact with Hitler that was broken by Hitler.
Firstly, at what point on this thread has anyone suggested that the Soviet Union defeated the German army all by itself?
Secondly, who forced Nazi Germany to fight on at least three major fronts? This was a decision taken by Hitler. Nobody forced him to take that decision.
Thirdly, your 'cannon fodder' argument is not only wrong, but it is unbelievably disrespectful to all those millions who fought to crush the 3rd Reich. To write off the Russian effort in world war 2 as mere 'cannon fodder' reeks of desperation on your part to simply hold up your unfounded and weak argument.
The Russians didn't just '"take a hit" for the team'. This wasn't a game of fucking baseball!! These were real people, making real sacrifices in a struggle to liberate their land from a foreign invader. To describe them as 'cannon fodder' is a cheap, and lame argument.
And do you really think that the four year battle on the Eastern front can be simplified by stating that the Russians had an ability to 'stall for time'? You've already made the ludicrous assertion that the German army on the Eastern front was defeated by the weather. Now you're trying to reduce the Russian army's achievements to 'an excess of cannon fodder'.
This kind of ignorance is exactly why I started this thread in the first place.
Firstly, at what point on this thread has anyone suggested that the Soviet Union defeated the German army all by itself?
Secondly, who forced Nazi Germany to fight on at least three major fronts? This was a decision taken by Hitler. Nobody forced him to take that decision.
Thirdly, your 'cannon fodder' argument is not only wrong, but it is unbelievably disrespectful to all those millions who fought to crush the 3rd Reich. To write off the Russian effort in world war 2 as mere 'cannon fodder' reeks of desperation on your part to simply hold up your unfounded and weak argument.
The Russians didn't just '"take a hit" for the team'. This wasn't a game of fucking baseball!! These were real people, making real sacrifices in a struggle to liberate their land from a foreign invader. To describe them as 'cannon fodder' is a cheap, and lame argument.
And do you really think that the four year battle on the Eastern front can be simplified by stating that the Russians had an ability to 'stall for time'? You've already made the ludicrous assertion that the German army on the Eastern front was defeated by the weather. Now you're trying to reduce the Russian army's achievements to 'an excess of cannon fodder'.
This kind of ignorance is exactly why I started this thread in the first place.
One....you are starting to cross the line that holds as being decent. In other words, you are starting to be both rude and ugly in how you address me.
Second....I don't write them off as cannon fodder....but spending troops to the front in the manner that the Soviets did in the early days of the campaign is the same as using them as cannon fodder. I am not implying that the use of cannon fodder is of the high moral ground or that it was done with evil intent. It was done because at the time that was the only option. It was just something was that done. Was there a better option? At that point in history, No. Do I consider a bad decision? No. It was actually a noble sacrifice on the part of those people who gave their lives to hinder the movement of the Nazis. It was not really different than what the Western allies did at D-Day. D-Day was just on a smaller scale.
Thirdly....yes, some of the decisions to fight on multiple fronts were made by Hitler....the United States did not have to aid in the supplying of Russia....they did not have to contribute anything to the ETO, including North Africa.....they did not have to take the fight to Italy.....they did not have to enact the Lend-Lease Act.....they and the British Empire did not have to invade Europe, but they did. These actions were just a few of the many that aided and abetted the total and allied effort to end the Nazi movement.
Fourth....I may have gotten the notion that you were implying that the Soviet Union could have or was primarily responible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. If I was mistaken, I apologize. I have not discounted their role in that process. I have never said that they were simply cannon fodder. Yes, some did have serve in that role, but I never implied that this was the sum of their effort. I have attempted to put in a historical context what and how the Soviets and their allies pulled off this major victory. Your author of choice probably includes this factor in his catchall phrase of "bad tatics."
Go back to the writing of that expert that you located......re-read the part about the comparisons between industrial output. Industrial output is equal to the amount of arms that one can put in the hands of soldiers. Prior to the Nazi invasion, the bulk of Soviet industry that could produce arms was located in the areas invaded or very strategically close to those areas (in range of the Luftwaffe bombers). They were forced by these circumstances and smart enough to move these industries thousands of miles to the east, physically re-locating these factories and their workers. This was a monumental task that required great effort and lots of time. Thus, they had to find time to move these industries, re-route supply chains and to get these factories running to produce arms all the while defending the homeland from invasion. Not an easy task. In fact, it took, yes, time.
This is basically the same thing that the United States had to do in the early years of their involvment in the Pacific. The early efforts against the Japanese were basically stalling tatics...keeping them from conquering Hawaii and Australia... while the industrial infrastructure back home attempted to get into high gear. Mid 20th century industry did not and could not adapt as quick as industry might today.
The German industrial infrastructure had been in an arms producing frenzy since the mid 1930's. a large jump on everybody that was not an Axis power. This was referred to as the "Blitzkrieg" economy. Stalin did not go into such an economy because he believed that the Non-agression pact had bought him more time than it actually did.
Yes, the Soviets/Russians stalled for time. Time is a key element in warfare. You always want more time to prepare, plan, build, test and train. The German Navy felt the same way, they did not expect/plan for war before the mid 1940's. Stalling for time is usually the correct move. The Soviets could do it because of their landmass.....the U.S. could stall for time in the Pacific because of the vastness of that ocean.
The Russian (and later Soviet) method for handling an invasion in my view is a work of art. You trade land for time. Military planners would trade their souls for more time. Time can not be purchased with gold or silver....you either have to trade lives or land. You use this time to prepare, plan, rearm and slowly bleed your enemy of resources (it costs your enemy resources to hold captured lands, especially scorched earth). This method worked three different times in three vastly different historical eras in Russian history. It first made them a European power (under Peter the Great) and later it set Napoleon on the path to his down-fall. I find nothing wrong with the plan or in the belief that it worked....because it did all three times that Russia was invaded from the west in its long history. It was a plan to sucker the Nazis further in and make them pay for holding onto Russian lands while the Soviets used the time wisely to prepare the knock-out counter-offensive that they did.
Yes, the weather did aid and abet in the defeat of the Nazis. The Wehrmacht that the Russians began their counter-offensive against was nowhere near the Wehrmacht (in fighting ability) that first crossed the Russian frontier. This was not dumb luck. This was part of the overall strategy used by the Soviets in their response to the invasion. Once again, it is the same plan used against Sweden and France in different centuries. I repeat, it was part of the plan. This is part of the "slowly bleeding your enemy" component previously introduced. Death by a thousand pin pricks. When I say weather, I am actually lumping disease and hunger into that category. Two factors which were also an enemy to the besieged Russians. It is also possible that those two factors killed more Russians than German bullets prior to the counter-offensive.
World War II was prehaps the first "Total War" experienced on this planet. To accurately describe it, one must take into account all factors whether you find them tasteful or distasteful. One has consider how the Non-agression pact affected the Soviet military strategy, how did the purge of the Soviet military in the 1930's affect the ability of the Soviets to intially confront the invasion, what role did their recovery from the Great Depression and failed Five Year Plans play in the early years of the war? How did Allied strategic bombing affect the resupplying/re-arming of the Wehrmacht bogged down in the Soviet Union? Did the supplies forwarded to Russia (under great peril) help the Soviets eke by until their industry and their agriculture was completely up and running? (The Ukraine=the breadbasket of Russia, and we know about the Ukraine)
By the way, I never reduced or attempted to reduce the Soviet efforts in the fight against the Nazi. This theater of the war is just as complicated, if not more so, as any other theater of World War II. But the beauty of the theater is that it can't simply be boiled down to "the Germans invaded Russia, Russia fought back, lost millions of lives, but in the end THEY beat the Germans because they are great and noble." It is a wonderful thread in the tapestry that is Russian history.....a refrain that has been repeated (three times!!!). They used not only the arms that they produced with their hands to best the enemy, but used the heart of Mother Russia.....her people, her land and her climate. These are the things that make the Russian people unique among the European nations.
You are missing the beauty of the plan because you are hung up on words like "cannon fodder" and retreat and weather. It was all part of the dance.
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 battle of Stalingrad was the largest single battle in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile due to the vast scope of the battle and the fact the Soviet government didn't allow estimates to be run for fear the cost would have proven too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations; however, the Soviet counter strike cut off and annihilated the entire 6th Army (which was exceptionally strong) and parts of the 4th Panzer Army. Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies: 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured. In addition, and as many as 50,000 turncoat Soviets were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered 478,741 men killed and 650,878 wounded (for a total of 1,129,619). These numbers; however, include a wide scope of operations. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the 6th and 4th Panzer armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties, making it by far the largest in human history.'
dude, NEVER cite wikipedia as a source. please.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Um, do you actually have an argument to make here?
I've read about 10 of the 24 pages here, and I'm still trying to find a legitimate point. It's weird that a thread that really starts from nowhere, and goes nowhere, can generate this many pages.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
You are missing the beauty of the plan because you are hung up on words like "cannon fodder" and retreat and weather. It was all part of the dance.
Incidentally, "cannon fodder" isn't an inaccurate statement as applied to the Red Army ... Yes, one can use it in a dehumanizing way on purpose, and that's not the intent here. But seriously ... When you're throwing human waves against machine guns, and basically beating your enemy with sheer numbers, the phrase doesn't seem that inappropriate ...
I've read about 10 of the 24 pages here, and I'm still trying to find a legitimate point. It's weird that a thread that really starts from nowhere, and goes nowhere, can generate this many pages.
I didn't want to single that dude out, but there is exhaustive detail in this thread, and he comes along and goes "yeah ... Russia can do everything", after a bunch of us spent all these time trying to argue against the point.
Total U.S losses during world war 2 = approx 400,000.
Total British losses during world war 2 = approx 300,000.
Total Russian losses during world war 2 = approx 30 - 40,000,000.
To be fair though, the fact that so many millions died was arguably the fault of the terrible leadership of Josef Stalin, for both the military and civilians. The people had basicallly no choice but to fight for survival against both an invading army and a horribly corrupt centralized government. The German deaths in the USSR were mostly due to Hitler's inability to understand the realities of fighting a war during the winter in near-tundra conditions. It was just a bunch of assholes killing their own people for no good reason. You're of course correct that the US was not willing to spend lives in Europe until they got sucked into the war by Pearl Harbor. Before that it would have been politically insane for either Roosevelt or his opponent (Wilkie) to campaign on entering the war. Wilkie even gained a lot of votes by being even more emphatic about staying out of the war and arguing that Roosevelt was indirectly leading the country into war.
I remember reading that when the Soviets were fighting in Finland, the generals basically had the strategy of using their own soldiers as pawns. The Soviets had the Finns greatly outnumbered, but the Finns had a greater will and drove out the Red Army, and when they were down with that, they drove out the Germans! I guess the moral of this story is that Finland is badass.
Incidentally, "cannon fodder" isn't an inaccurate statement as applied to the Red Army ... Yes, one can use it in a dehumanizing way on purpose, and that's not the intent here. But seriously ... When you're throwing human waves against machine guns, and basically beating your enemy with sheer numbers, the phrase doesn't seem that inappropriate ...
And what phrasing would you recommend? I have not heard a politically correct term for this activity. I actually mean no disrespect to anyone by using said term, I just find accurate for my perception of the events. The same term can be applied to the poor souls on either side of the trenches in WWI.
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.
And what phrasing would you recommend? I have not heard a politically correct term for this activity. I actually mean no disrespect to anyone by using said term, I just find accurate for my perception of the events. The same term can be applied to the poor souls on either side of the trenches in WWI.
Nah, man ... I was trying to back up your use of the term. I think its accurate, based on how the Soviets often fought.
I say who really cares if Russia made the biggest impact against the germans. The world would've been better off if they had lost. The west would've eventually beaten the nazis (with the US kicking the most ass) and the words "cold war" wouldn't even be in our vocabularies.
One....you are starting to cross the line that holds as being decent. In other words, you are starting to be both rude and ugly in how you address me.
Second....I don't write them off as cannon fodder....but spending troops to the front in the manner that the Soviets did in the early days of the campaign is the same as using them as cannon fodder. I am not implying that the use of cannon fodder is of the high moral ground or that it was done with evil intent. It was done because at the time that was the only option. It was just something was that done. Was there a better option? At that point in history, No. Do I consider a bad decision? No. It was actually a noble sacrifice on the part of those people who gave their lives to hinder the movement of the Nazis. It was not really different than what the Western allies did at D-Day. D-Day was just on a smaller scale.
Thirdly....yes, some of the decisions to fight on multiple fronts were made by Hitler....the United States did not have to aid in the supplying of Russia....they did not have to contribute anything to the ETO, including North Africa.....they did not have to take the fight to Italy.....they did not have to enact the Lend-Lease Act.....they and the British Empire did not have to invade Europe, but they did. These actions were just a few of the many that aided and abetted the total and allied effort to end the Nazi movement.
Fourth....I may have gotten the notion that you were implying that the Soviet Union could have or was primarily responible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. If I was mistaken, I apologize. I have not discounted their role in that process. I have never said that they were simply cannon fodder. Yes, some did have serve in that role, but I never implied that this was the sum of their effort. I have attempted to put in a historical context what and how the Soviets and their allies pulled off this major victory. Your author of choice probably includes this factor in his catchall phrase of "bad tatics."
Go back to the writing of that expert that you located......re-read the part about the comparisons between industrial output. Industrial output is equal to the amount of arms that one can put in the hands of soldiers. Prior to the Nazi invasion, the bulk of Soviet industry that could produce arms was located in the areas invaded or very strategically close to those areas (in range of the Luftwaffe bombers). They were forced by these circumstances and smart enough to move these industries thousands of miles to the east, physically re-locating these factories and their workers. This was a monumental task that required great effort and lots of time. Thus, they had to find time to move these industries, re-route supply chains and to get these factories running to produce arms all the while defending the homeland from invasion. Not an easy task. In fact, it took, yes, time.
This is basically the same thing that the United States had to do in the early years of their involvment in the Pacific. The early efforts against the Japanese were basically stalling tatics...keeping them from conquering Hawaii and Australia... while the industrial infrastructure back home attempted to get into high gear. Mid 20th century industry did not and could not adapt as quick as industry might today.
The German industrial infrastructure had been in an arms producing frenzy since the mid 1930's. a large jump on everybody that was not an Axis power. This was referred to as the "Blitzkrieg" economy. Stalin did not go into such an economy because he believed that the Non-agression pact had bought him more time than it actually did.
Yes, the Soviets/Russians stalled for time. Time is a key element in warfare. You always want more time to prepare, plan, build, test and train. The German Navy felt the same way, they did not expect/plan for war before the mid 1940's. Stalling for time is usually the correct move. The Soviets could do it because of their landmass.....the U.S. could stall for time in the Pacific because of the vastness of that ocean.
The Russian (and later Soviet) method for handling an invasion in my view is a work of art. You trade land for time. Military planners would trade their souls for more time. Time can not be purchased with gold or silver....you either have to trade lives or land. You use this time to prepare, plan, rearm and slowly bleed your enemy of resources (it costs your enemy resources to hold captured lands, especially scorched earth). This method worked three different times in three vastly different historical eras in Russian history. It first made them a European power (under Peter the Great) and later it set Napoleon on the path to his down-fall. I find nothing wrong with the plan or in the belief that it worked....because it did all three times that Russia was invaded from the west in its long history. It was a plan to sucker the Nazis further in and make them pay for holding onto Russian lands while the Soviets used the time wisely to prepare the knock-out counter-offensive that they did.
Yes, the weather did aid and abet in the defeat of the Nazis. The Wehrmacht that the Russians began their counter-offensive against was nowhere near the Wehrmacht (in fighting ability) that first crossed the Russian frontier. This was not dumb luck. This was part of the overall strategy used by the Soviets in their response to the invasion. Once again, it is the same plan used against Sweden and France in different centuries. I repeat, it was part of the plan. This is part of the "slowly bleeding your enemy" component previously introduced. Death by a thousand pin pricks. When I say weather, I am actually lumping disease and hunger into that category. Two factors which were also an enemy to the besieged Russians. It is also possible that those two factors killed more Russians than German bullets prior to the counter-offensive.
World War II was prehaps the first "Total War" experienced on this planet. To accurately describe it, one must take into account all factors whether you find them tasteful or distasteful. One has consider how the Non-agression pact affected the Soviet military strategy, how did the purge of the Soviet military in the 1930's affect the ability of the Soviets to intially confront the invasion, what role did their recovery from the Great Depression and failed Five Year Plans play in the early years of the war? How did Allied strategic bombing affect the resupplying/re-arming of the Wehrmacht bogged down in the Soviet Union? Did the supplies forwarded to Russia (under great peril) help the Soviets eke by until their industry and their agriculture was completely up and running? (The Ukraine=the breadbasket of Russia, and we know about the Ukraine)
By the way, I never reduced or attempted to reduce the Soviet efforts in the fight against the Nazi. This theater of the war is just as complicated, if not more so, as any other theater of World War II. But the beauty of the theater is that it can't simply be boiled down to "the Germans invaded Russia, Russia fought back, lost millions of lives, but in the end THEY beat the Germans because they are great and noble." It is a wonderful thread in the tapestry that is Russian history.....a refrain that has been repeated (three times!!!). They used not only the arms that they produced with their hands to best the enemy, but used the heart of Mother Russia.....her people, her land and her climate. These are the things that make the Russian people unique among the European nations.
You are missing the beauty of the plan because you are hung up on words like "cannon fodder" and retreat and weather. It was all part of the dance.
O.k. Fair points. And I apologise if I came across as rude in my previous post.
Comments
what? no way dunk. i'm not getting into a theological debate with you over the creation of Mankind. i am an atheist so in all honesty it'd be a very very short discussion.
besides if you don't know which body parts are used for procreation then i suggest you go talk to your mummy.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
That's just not true.
“Many North Americans and British mistakenly believe their nations defeated National Socialist Germany. While $11 billion of US military and financial aid to the USSR was important, it was Stalin’s Soviet Union, not the western democracies, played the decisive role in defeating Adolf Hitler and his European allies.
While honoring our own heroic veterans, it’s time we also recognize and pay homage to Russia’s dauntless courage, endurance, and suffering.
*The Soviet Union inflicted 75% of all World War II German casualties in titanic battles involving millions of men. Soviet forces killed 3 million German and Axis troops, and lost 11.3 million dead and 18.3 million wounded. Twenty million Russian civilians died.
Britain lost 340,000 men, Canada 43,000, and the US about 150,000 dead in the European Theater. The Red Army lost more men attacking Berlin alone than the US did in its entire European and North African campaigns.
*When Allied forces landed at Normandy, the German Wehrmacht’s `guts had been ripped out by the Soviets,’ said Churchill. Had the Allies met 1940’s strength and quality German troops, with an intact Luftwaffe, instead of understrength units with no air cover, they would have been driven into the Channel. The battered Wehrmacht’s dogged resistance from 1944-45 recalled Churchill’s dictum, `you will never know war until you fight Germans.’
*The Soviet defeat of Japan’s forces in Manchuria has been ignored. In a brilliant, blitzkrieg campaign along a 3,000 km front on 9 Aug, 1945, Soviet Far Eastern armies crushed Japan’s weakened 710,000-man Kwantung Army, killing 80,000 and capturing 594,000."
I found one of my textbooks from high school. Shhhh obviously I never returned it to my high school. The book is called 'A History of Western Society.' It was written by McKay, Hill and Buckler and published by Houghton Mifflin. I looked up WWII and on page 950 it reads:
As of Soviet Russia (yes this is what it says) so great was its strength that it might well have defeated Germany without Western help. In the face of the Germany advance, whole factories and populations were successfully evacuated to eastern Russia and Siberia. There, war production was reorganized and expanded, and the Red Army was increasing well supplied. The Red Army was also well led, for a new generation of talented military leaders quickly arose to replace those so recently purged. Most important of all, Stalin drew on the Soviet people. Broad-based Russian nationalism, as opposed to narrow communist ideology, became the powerful unifying force in what was appropriately called the "Great Patriotic War of the Fatherland."
Now skipping to page 952 as it mentions many other battles with American, British and the Ally forces but I'm only focusing the on Soviets here:
Barely halted at the gates of Moscow and Leningrad in 1941, the Germans renewed their Russian offensive in July 1942. This time they drove toward the southern city of Stalingrad, in an attempt to cripple communications and seize the crucial oil fields of Baku. Reaching Stalingrad, the Germans slowly occupied most of the ruined city in a month of incredibly savage house-to-house fighting.
Then, in November 1942, Soviet armies counterattacked. They rolled over Romanian and Italian troops to the north and south of Stalingrad, quickly closing the trap surrounding the entire German Sixth Army of 300,000 men. The surrounded Germans were systematically destroyed, until the by the end of January 1943 only 123,000 soldiers were left to surrender. Hitler, who had refused to allow a retreat, had suffered a catastrophic defeat. In the summer of 1943, the larger, better-equipped Soviet armies took the offensive and began moving forward.
Skipping to page 953 again focusing on the Soviets:
The Russians, who had been advancing steadily since July 1943, reached the outskirts of Warsaw by August 1944. For the next six months they moved southward into Romania, Hungary, and Yugoslavia. In January 1945 the Red armies again moved westward through Poland, and on April 26 they met American forces on the Elbe River. The Allies had closed their vice on Nazi Germany and overrun Europe. As Soviets forces fought their way into Berlin, Hitler committed suicide in his bunker, and on May 7 the remaining German commanders capitulated. Three month later, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Mass bombing of cities and civilians, one of the terrible new practices of WWII, had ended in the final nightmare-unprecedented human destruction in a single blinding flash. The Second World War, which had claimed the lives of more than fifty million soldiers and civilians, was over.
These paragraphs basically support what Byrnzie has been saying and yes they are taken directly out of my high school history book. The problem isn’t that we are not provided with the correct information but it’s because we tend to focus on the American roll in history and then stories become twisted to make it more interesting to us. Anyhow, at least we are all getting a history lesson.
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
indian casualties in ww2 was second to only that of britain (amongst the ALLIES)
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
You honestly believe that more german soldiers died in World war two at the hands of the weather, than in battle? I am amazed that someone who has supposedly studied the subject can say such a thing. Please provide any evidence.
True. And the top fighter aces of the Battle of Britain were Poles.
My information is learned over years of study and research........I did not watch a special on the History Channel last week or read a wikipedia article yesterday. It would probably take me some time to locate either my books or my notes (I moved twice within the last year and a half, most recently in June, thus I don't know where everything has come to rest), which ain't happening today.
I'm not denying that thousands of germans succumbed to the cold and to disease outside Moscow in 1942, but it was in combat that they suffered their greatest losses. The Germans had learnt the lesson of Moscow and so at Stalingrad and there after, up to Berlin, the winter weather was no longer such a major factor in their losses. As for the Rusians blowing the train tracks, as far as I'm aware, the reason the germans were unable to supply the front lines was because of the vast distance (and the speed at which the front advanced, as you mention), and the simple fact - overlooked by the germans - of the gauge difference in railroad tracks between German and Russian railroads.
'On 22 June 1941, some three million soldiers of Germany and her allies began an attack on the Soviet Union. This war was supposed to be over in a matter of months, but it lasted for four years, and grew into the largest and most costly conflict in all history.
It was here, in the vast struggle between the two dictatorships, that the German army was defeated and the outcome of World War Two was decided in favour of the Allied powers - the British Empire, the United States and the USSR. The cost to the Soviet Union was an estimated 27 million dead.'
The central question of the German-Soviet war is why, after two years of defeats, and the loss of more than five million men and two-thirds of the industrial capacity of the country, the Red Army was able to blunt, then drive back, the German attack.
The idea that the USSR had limitless manpower, despite its heavy losses, is inadequate as an answer. Germany and her allies also possessed a large population, and added to it the peoples of the captured Soviet areas - men and women who were forced to work for the German army or were shipped back to work in the Reich. Soviet armies were always desperately short of men.
Above all, Soviet tactics in 1941-2 were extremely wasteful of manpower. If the Red Army had continued to fight the same way, it would simply have sustained escalating losses for little gain.
Nor did the USSR enjoy an advantage in economic resources. After the German attack, Soviet steel production fell to eight million tons in 1942, while German production was 28 million tons. In the same year, Soviet coal output was 75 million tons, while German output was 317 million. The USSR nevertheless out-produced Germany in the quantity (though seldom in the quality) of most major weapons, from this much smaller industrial base.
The impressive production of weapons was achieved by turning the whole of the remaining Soviet area into what Stalin called 'a single armed camp', focusing all efforts on military production and extorting maximum labour from a workforce whose only guarantee of food was to turn up at the factory and work the arduous 12-hour shifts. Without Lend-Lease aid, however, from the United States and Britain, both of whom supplied a high proportion of food and raw materials for the Soviet war effort, the high output of weapons would still not have been possible.
The chief explanation lies not in resources, which Germany was more generously supplied with than the Soviet Union, during the two central years of the war before American and British economic power was fully exerted. It lies instead in the remarkable reform of the Red Army and the Russian air force, undertaken slowly in 1942.
Every area of Soviet military life was examined and changes introduced. The army established the equivalent of the heavily armoured German Panzer divisions, and tank units were better organised - thanks to the introduction of radios. Soviet army tactics and intelligence-gathering were also overhauled.
Camouflage, surprise and misinformation were brilliantly exploited to keep the German army in the dark about major Soviet intentions. The air force was subjected to effective central control and improved communications, so that it could support the Soviet army in the same way as the Luftwaffe backed up German forces.
The Red Army was fortunate that in 1942 Stalin finally decided to play a less prominent role in defence planning and discovered in a young Russian general, Georgi Zhukov, a remarkable deputy whose brusque, no-nonsense style of command, and intuitive operational sense, were indispensable in making the Red Army a better battlefield force. The Communist Party also accepted the need to give the Red Army greater flexibility in fighting the war, and in the autumn of 1942 scaled down the role of political commissars attached to the armed forces.
The Soviet people also played their part. Despite exceptional levels of deprivation and loss, they kept up the production of food, weapons and equipment. Some were terrorised into doing so, particularly the millions of camp labourers who worked fully for the war effort. But others did so from a genuine patriotism or a hatred of German fascism.
The harsh treatment of the Soviet population in those areas of Russia occupied by Germany made it easier for the Stalinist regime to mobilise support elsewhere in Russia for the war effort. Stalin relaxed the repression of the Church so that it could be used to mobilise enthusiasm, while propaganda played on the theme of past Russian glories against European invaders, rather than on Communist successes.
An exceptional burden was borne by Soviet women. By 1945 over half the workforce was female, and on the land, more than four-fifths. Women fought in their thousands in the Soviet armed forces as pilots, sharpshooters, even tank commanders. Many women joined the partisan movement operating behind the German lines - and by 1943 there were an estimated 300,000 of them. They constantly harried German troops, and were themselves the victim of harsh punitive expeditions, which led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent villagers along with the partisan bands.
Soviet victory came at a high price, but a combination of total-war mobilisation, better fighting methods and high operational skills defeated a German army that in 1944 was a formidable, heavily armed and modern fighting force. Soviet resistance made possible a successful Allied invasion of France, and ensured the final Allied victory over Germany. The Soviet state was transformed in the process into a superpower, and Communism, close to extinction in the autumn of 1941, came to dominate the whole Eurasian area, from East Germany to North Korea.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
However, I don't think it will ever be possble to objectively quantify exactly what proportion of German casualties were attributed to the weather, and which were attributed to Russia's military might and tactics.
The Germans were not equipped with cold weather gear. This may not have killed them directly, but I see it as very possible that this could easily have affected their ability to fight.
As for supply lines:
Additionally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Fact: The Soviet Union (historically Russia) had the largest population and the largest landmass of any European nation, thus they could use their tried and true anti-invasion tatic. They swapped land and men for time. Read about Peter the Great's war with Sweden (Yes, in that era Sweden was a European power) or Napoleon's invasion of Russia. The same shit, different day, just that the combatants had trains, planes and tanks in the 1940s. Yes, this method could be considered as "wasting men" (cannon fodder) or as a bad tatic, but it worked in the long run. Remember they burned Moscow to the ground in 1812 to present Napoleon with a hollow victory that helped doom that invasion.
Fact: Yes, they, the Russians, "took a hit" for the team. They had two options when the Nazis invaded. They could pull a France and basically give up or they could do what they did.......stall for time. In 1941, their armed forces were not going to beat the Nazis at the Nazi's game....open field warfare. In truth, no one was going to beat the Wehrmacht in 1941 in the open field. That's why the Russians changed the rules. You take an army designed, trained and equipped for rapid, open-field movement, and you make them set on their collective asses in the cold mud and rubble for three years. This leads to attrition by lack of food, lack of water, disease and demoralization. If one attempts to discount the importance of morale on the battlefield, then you do not understand human warfare.
Remember too that Russia was not an innocent at the beginning of World War II.....they invaded eastern Poland while the Nazis were storming in from the west, and they invaded Finland in attempt at conquest. While not an actual ally of Nazi Germany, they had signed a non-agression pact with Hitler that was broken by Hitler.
Firstly, at what point on this thread has anyone suggested that the Soviet Union defeated the German army all by itself?
Secondly, who forced Nazi Germany to fight on at least three major fronts? This was a decision taken by Hitler. Nobody forced him to take that decision.
Thirdly, your 'cannon fodder' argument is not only wrong, but it is unbelievably disrespectful to all those millions who fought to crush the 3rd Reich. To write off the Russian effort in world war 2 as mere 'cannon fodder' reeks of desperation on your part to simply hold up your unfounded and weak argument.
The Russians didn't just '"take a hit" for the team'. This wasn't a game of fucking baseball!! These were real people, making real sacrifices in a struggle to liberate their land from a foreign invader. To describe them as 'cannon fodder' is a cheap, and lame argument.
And do you really think that the four year battle on the Eastern front can be simplified by stating that the Russians had an ability to 'stall for time'? You've already made the ludicrous assertion that the German army on the Eastern front was defeated by the weather. Now you're trying to reduce the Russian army's achievements to 'an excess of cannon fodder'.
This kind of ignorance is exactly why I started this thread in the first place.
One....you are starting to cross the line that holds as being decent. In other words, you are starting to be both rude and ugly in how you address me.
Second....I don't write them off as cannon fodder....but spending troops to the front in the manner that the Soviets did in the early days of the campaign is the same as using them as cannon fodder. I am not implying that the use of cannon fodder is of the high moral ground or that it was done with evil intent. It was done because at the time that was the only option. It was just something was that done. Was there a better option? At that point in history, No. Do I consider a bad decision? No. It was actually a noble sacrifice on the part of those people who gave their lives to hinder the movement of the Nazis. It was not really different than what the Western allies did at D-Day. D-Day was just on a smaller scale.
Thirdly....yes, some of the decisions to fight on multiple fronts were made by Hitler....the United States did not have to aid in the supplying of Russia....they did not have to contribute anything to the ETO, including North Africa.....they did not have to take the fight to Italy.....they did not have to enact the Lend-Lease Act.....they and the British Empire did not have to invade Europe, but they did. These actions were just a few of the many that aided and abetted the total and allied effort to end the Nazi movement.
Fourth....I may have gotten the notion that you were implying that the Soviet Union could have or was primarily responible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. If I was mistaken, I apologize. I have not discounted their role in that process. I have never said that they were simply cannon fodder. Yes, some did have serve in that role, but I never implied that this was the sum of their effort. I have attempted to put in a historical context what and how the Soviets and their allies pulled off this major victory. Your author of choice probably includes this factor in his catchall phrase of "bad tatics."
Go back to the writing of that expert that you located......re-read the part about the comparisons between industrial output. Industrial output is equal to the amount of arms that one can put in the hands of soldiers. Prior to the Nazi invasion, the bulk of Soviet industry that could produce arms was located in the areas invaded or very strategically close to those areas (in range of the Luftwaffe bombers). They were forced by these circumstances and smart enough to move these industries thousands of miles to the east, physically re-locating these factories and their workers. This was a monumental task that required great effort and lots of time. Thus, they had to find time to move these industries, re-route supply chains and to get these factories running to produce arms all the while defending the homeland from invasion. Not an easy task. In fact, it took, yes, time.
This is basically the same thing that the United States had to do in the early years of their involvment in the Pacific. The early efforts against the Japanese were basically stalling tatics...keeping them from conquering Hawaii and Australia... while the industrial infrastructure back home attempted to get into high gear. Mid 20th century industry did not and could not adapt as quick as industry might today.
The German industrial infrastructure had been in an arms producing frenzy since the mid 1930's. a large jump on everybody that was not an Axis power. This was referred to as the "Blitzkrieg" economy. Stalin did not go into such an economy because he believed that the Non-agression pact had bought him more time than it actually did.
Yes, the Soviets/Russians stalled for time. Time is a key element in warfare. You always want more time to prepare, plan, build, test and train. The German Navy felt the same way, they did not expect/plan for war before the mid 1940's. Stalling for time is usually the correct move. The Soviets could do it because of their landmass.....the U.S. could stall for time in the Pacific because of the vastness of that ocean.
The Russian (and later Soviet) method for handling an invasion in my view is a work of art. You trade land for time. Military planners would trade their souls for more time. Time can not be purchased with gold or silver....you either have to trade lives or land. You use this time to prepare, plan, rearm and slowly bleed your enemy of resources (it costs your enemy resources to hold captured lands, especially scorched earth). This method worked three different times in three vastly different historical eras in Russian history. It first made them a European power (under Peter the Great) and later it set Napoleon on the path to his down-fall. I find nothing wrong with the plan or in the belief that it worked....because it did all three times that Russia was invaded from the west in its long history. It was a plan to sucker the Nazis further in and make them pay for holding onto Russian lands while the Soviets used the time wisely to prepare the knock-out counter-offensive that they did.
Yes, the weather did aid and abet in the defeat of the Nazis. The Wehrmacht that the Russians began their counter-offensive against was nowhere near the Wehrmacht (in fighting ability) that first crossed the Russian frontier. This was not dumb luck. This was part of the overall strategy used by the Soviets in their response to the invasion. Once again, it is the same plan used against Sweden and France in different centuries. I repeat, it was part of the plan. This is part of the "slowly bleeding your enemy" component previously introduced. Death by a thousand pin pricks. When I say weather, I am actually lumping disease and hunger into that category. Two factors which were also an enemy to the besieged Russians. It is also possible that those two factors killed more Russians than German bullets prior to the counter-offensive.
World War II was prehaps the first "Total War" experienced on this planet. To accurately describe it, one must take into account all factors whether you find them tasteful or distasteful. One has consider how the Non-agression pact affected the Soviet military strategy, how did the purge of the Soviet military in the 1930's affect the ability of the Soviets to intially confront the invasion, what role did their recovery from the Great Depression and failed Five Year Plans play in the early years of the war? How did Allied strategic bombing affect the resupplying/re-arming of the Wehrmacht bogged down in the Soviet Union? Did the supplies forwarded to Russia (under great peril) help the Soviets eke by until their industry and their agriculture was completely up and running? (The Ukraine=the breadbasket of Russia, and we know about the Ukraine)
By the way, I never reduced or attempted to reduce the Soviet efforts in the fight against the Nazi. This theater of the war is just as complicated, if not more so, as any other theater of World War II. But the beauty of the theater is that it can't simply be boiled down to "the Germans invaded Russia, Russia fought back, lost millions of lives, but in the end THEY beat the Germans because they are great and noble." It is a wonderful thread in the tapestry that is Russian history.....a refrain that has been repeated (three times!!!). They used not only the arms that they produced with their hands to best the enemy, but used the heart of Mother Russia.....her people, her land and her climate. These are the things that make the Russian people unique among the European nations.
You are missing the beauty of the plan because you are hung up on words like "cannon fodder" and retreat and weather. It was all part of the dance.
dude, NEVER cite wikipedia as a source. please.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
The lack of detail here is telling.
Um, do you actually have an argument to make here?
I've read about 10 of the 24 pages here, and I'm still trying to find a legitimate point. It's weird that a thread that really starts from nowhere, and goes nowhere, can generate this many pages.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Incidentally, "cannon fodder" isn't an inaccurate statement as applied to the Red Army ... Yes, one can use it in a dehumanizing way on purpose, and that's not the intent here. But seriously ... When you're throwing human waves against machine guns, and basically beating your enemy with sheer numbers, the phrase doesn't seem that inappropriate ...
I didn't want to single that dude out, but there is exhaustive detail in this thread, and he comes along and goes "yeah ... Russia can do everything", after a bunch of us spent all these time trying to argue against the point.
what kind of man tries to take on the 'whole world'?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
To be fair though, the fact that so many millions died was arguably the fault of the terrible leadership of Josef Stalin, for both the military and civilians. The people had basicallly no choice but to fight for survival against both an invading army and a horribly corrupt centralized government. The German deaths in the USSR were mostly due to Hitler's inability to understand the realities of fighting a war during the winter in near-tundra conditions. It was just a bunch of assholes killing their own people for no good reason. You're of course correct that the US was not willing to spend lives in Europe until they got sucked into the war by Pearl Harbor. Before that it would have been politically insane for either Roosevelt or his opponent (Wilkie) to campaign on entering the war. Wilkie even gained a lot of votes by being even more emphatic about staying out of the war and arguing that Roosevelt was indirectly leading the country into war.
I remember reading that when the Soviets were fighting in Finland, the generals basically had the strategy of using their own soldiers as pawns. The Soviets had the Finns greatly outnumbered, but the Finns had a greater will and drove out the Red Army, and when they were down with that, they drove out the Germans! I guess the moral of this story is that Finland is badass.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Nah, man ... I was trying to back up your use of the term. I think its accurate, based on how the Soviets often fought.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
O.k. Fair points. And I apologise if I came across as rude in my previous post.