Patton's take on WWII

[rightwinger]

Links please.

No, he's accurate here. The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans. Their tanks were better. A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955. The Germans however, used them far better. The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters. The Germans however once again used them better. The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.

They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale. In tank production alone it is almost a joke. The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war. The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone. Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.

he is? the quote was-

But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role

where is this version?

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military materiel they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis. That the Sherman tank was a feared fighting machine

 

[elvis]

No, he's accurate here. The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans. Their tanks were better. A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955. The Germans however, used them far better. The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters. The Germans however once again used them better. The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.

They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale. In tank production alone it is almost a joke. The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war. The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone. Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.

he is? the quote was-

But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role

where is this version?

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis

80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped. is that fucking savage enough for you?

 

[rightwinger]

he is? the quote was-



where is this version?

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis

80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped. is that fucking savage enough for you?

In war

Payback is a bitch. Want to go into how the Soviet civilians were treated by the Nazis?

 

[elvis]

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis

80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped. is that fucking savage enough for you?

In war

Payback is a bitch

so you agree with those rapes.....

 

[rightwinger]

80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped. is that fucking savage enough for you?

In war

Payback is a bitch

so you agree with those rapes.....

 

[elvis]

In war

Payback is a bitch

so you agree with those rapes.....

and the women who were raped were responsible for that. You agree with the rapes. Good to know.

 

[rightwinger]

so you agree with those rapes.....

and the women who were raped were responsible for that. You agree with the rapes. Good to know.

No..I am acknowledging the fact that the Nazis inflicted far worse on the Ukranian, Georgian and Russian civilian population long before the Soviets got near the German population

 

[Trajan]

No, he's accurate here. The Soviet artillery was every bit as good as the Germans. Their tanks were better. A single T-34/76 halted Army Group Center for a whole day at the beginning of Barbarossa and in general Soviet tanks had the measure on a qualitative basis
of the German tanks except for the Panther series which is arguably the best tank in the world from its inception till 1955. The Germans however, used them far better. The Katyusha rocket was better than the German Nebelwerfer and the last series of fighters were the equivalent of the German fighters. The Germans however once again used them better. The Soviet Stormovik was the best ground attack aircraft of the war bar none.

They were also able to outrpoduce the Germans on a massive scale. In tank production alone it is almost a joke. The Germans produced 18,000 tanks of all types during the war. The Russians manufactured 55,000 T-34's alone. Then add on the KV series, JSU's, Su's, JS's, T-60's, T70's etc. and it is amazing what the Germans were able to accomplish with how little they had.

he is? the quote was-

But the US version of how we won WWII tends to downplay the role

where is this version?

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military materiel they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis. That the Sherman tank was a feared fighting machine

links please.

 

[Trajan]

In war

Payback is a bitch

so you agree with those rapes.....

wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.


you are some piece of work.


so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?

 

[elvis]

so you agree with those rapes.....

wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.


you are some piece of work.


so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?

rightwinger is a communist, so naturally he is a Soviet apologist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

killed means squat, removing soldiers from the battlefield any which way you can is what counts especially since there was no prisoner exchanges.

You are choosing to see this in your own narrow framework,
Nothing happens or happened in a in a vacuum. Events took place simultaneously.

I will make the point again, and provide an example.

Dissipation of forces, stretching resources and destroying resources is all that counts.

When the Germans evacuated Tunisia, what was there loss in Africa overall? Do you know? I do. If I told you they lost approx. 400k men 1500 tanks and 2500 aircraft in the year from the first battle of El Alamein in july of 42, till they got booted from Tunisia in may of 43, what would you say? Allow me.....

Those divisions and the resources it took to get them there, helped make possible the soviet gains in the east.

Between july of 42 and may of 43 the events in Russia came to a head, if Manstein had even a quarter of the troops and equipment they had to send to Africa, he would have destroyed the Russian armys after Stalingrad was overrun, further iot probably would not have fell, only his strategic and tactical acumen alone kept the whole Don basin and the Russians beyond the Volga into the winter of 42 and Kursk would have find the germans with approx 1500 more tanks and 2600 aircraft to add to the battle and Kursk as bad a plan as it became and as compromised as it was do to soviet spys, would have broken the soviets front with consequences unimaginable .

Let us suppose for a moment that the western allies decided not to invade Italy. They went no further. Those 15 divisions that wound up being sent to West and to Italy in 43 never would have went as well.

on another note we just had a pretty good temblor here....

Strawman arguments and immaterial. For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire. The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43. But it didn't, and that's the point. We have to deal with what happened.

Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.

And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."

you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?

Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages. Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trajan, you post “I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany, what does the above have to do with that.”

Nope, that is your red herring. You are finessing the argument and going off the tracks. No, the issue was not Patton defending Germany and throwing out the Russians. Your point was that Patton should have taken on the Russians and driven them out of Eastern Europe and back into the USSR. I am right about that? If I am, then, yes, the Russians would have defeated us soundly.

Our strategic air capability would have had a long way to go to get to the Urals and the factories and back. The USSR air force would be quite capable with numbers, box air formations, ADA, and radar in handling the USAF. The Soviet tactical and combat air formations would have competently handled defense over the primary battle zones. No, the Me-262 factories were in ruins, so that would not have been a factor.

Your point has no realistic expectation of success. Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, in that order would not have permitted Patton to attack Soviet formations. Why? We had a war with Japan (and don’t bring up-Okinawa to have me knock it down then you say it does not matter) and they weren’t the least bit scared of us either and gave us no thought they would be surrendering.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One thing we do know..

If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.

We would have saved England and thats about it

Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe. It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943. Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.

Very politely, horseshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

he is? the quote was-



where is this version?

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis

80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped. is that fucking savage enough for you?

Probably as savage as the Germans in the Soviet Union. So what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

so you agree with those rapes.....

wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.


you are some piece of work.


so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?

None of this is justification for Patton to begin a war with the Soviets that we could not win.

 

[JakeStarkey]

wow, just wow. boy did you drop your pants.


you are some piece of work.


so, tit for tat, the Russians who didn't give a shit for jews either raped and ran over columns of fleeing civilians with tanks because they were avenging jews, or had some right to do so because the nazis were butchers?

rightwinger is a communist, so naturally he is a Soviet apologist.

That is what a fascist would say, Elvis. But you are not a fascist, and RW is not a communist.

Let's have some sense here.

 

[westwall]

As a child growing up in the Cold war, the version of WWII that it was D Day and the Battle of the Bulge that defeated the Nazis. The version that said lend lease provided the Soviets with the military material they needed to survive the Nazi invasion. My HS History book had no mention of Stalingrad or Kursk in its description of WWII.

This is still the version pushed by many rightwing conservatives in the media. That it was the US and British who won WWII...that the Soviets were inept savages that we saved from the Nazis

80-90 percent of the German women encountered by the Red Army between ages 8 and 80 were raped. is that fucking savage enough for you?

In war

Payback is a bitch. Want to go into how the Soviet civilians were treated by the Nazis?

How about how the Russians were treated by the Russians? Hitler muredered 6 million or so Jews, Gypsys and other "undesirables". Stalin murdered over 50 MILLION of his own people. In his gulags. The rape and murder of innocents is never "OK". At least the Germans were doing what they did according to treaties that prescribed exactly what they were allowed to do in the event of Partisan warfare. I don't approve even of that but they were following the law. The Jewish issue is seperate from that of course.

Your knowledge of history seems to be lacking.

 

[westwall]

Strawman arguments and immaterial. For instance, if Rommel had four more divisions, more tactical aircraft, and fuel for all of it, (plus Hitler taking Malta with an air assault) ~ Hitler would have won the war by sealing of Great Britain from the empire. The island could not have lasted until late winter of 43. But it didn't, and that's the point. We have to deal with what happened.

Within the context of what happened: the Soviets would have defeated the Axis without our help eventually and the Soviets certainly inflicted many more casualties on the Axis in the East than the Allies did in the West.

And within the context of what happened, Patton would have gotten his nose smashed if he had tried to teach Ivan a "lesson."

you don't think without our help Germany would have succeeded in starving Britain, or knocking her out of the war?

Yes, the USA was instrumental in saving Great Britain, which was necessary as a physical platform for invasion of the continent, along with many other advantages. Nonetheless, without our help, the Soviets would have eventually beat back the Germans with one possible exception: if the Nazis had develop the bomb first, civilization would have been held hostage by Hitler.

We didn't need the UK as a jumping off point for the invasion of Europe. We invaded North Africa directly from the US. We could easily have done the same in Europe. Germany could never have developed the bomb. They were following the wrong path and were trying to develop a hydrogen bomb not knowing you needed a fission bomb to set it off.

 

[westwall]

Trajan, you post “I thought the debate had become the Russians didn't need us, and the balance of forces vis a vis the allies deciding to get Russia out of Germany, what does the above have to do with that.”

Nope, that is your red herring. You are finessing the argument and going off the tracks. No, the issue was not Patton defending Germany and throwing out the Russians. Your point was that Patton should have taken on the Russians and driven them out of Eastern Europe and back into the USSR. I am right about that? If I am, then, yes, the Russians would have defeated us soundly.

Our strategic air capability would have had a long way to go to get to the Urals and the factories and back. The USSR air force would be quite capable with numbers, box air formations, ADA, and radar in handling the USAF. The Soviet tactical and combat air formations would have competently handled defense over the primary battle zones. No, the Me-262 factories were in ruins, so that would not have been a factor.

Your point has no realistic expectation of success. Truman, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Bradley, in that order would not have permitted Patton to attack Soviet formations. Why? We had a war with Japan (and don’t bring up-Okinawa to have me knock it down then you say it does not matter) and they weren’t the least bit scared of us either and gave us no thought they would be surrendering.

You are completely wrong about the capability of the Soviet air capability. They couldn't eliminate the Luftwaffe with a 10 to 1 advantage, and nearly unlimited supply as compared to the Germans. Our bombers didn't need to reach the factories. In point of fact the bombing campaign against Germanies factories was a failure. The attack on rolling stock and transportation and POL resources on the other hand were extremey effective.

Our fighter pilots would heve swept the Russians from the sky in short order. Also the Russians had rudimentary night fighting capability whereas our P-61 Blackwidow could detect target as far as 10 miles away and track and kill them.

 

[westwall]

One thing we do know..

If Hitler had maintained his alliance with Stalin and concentrated on maintaining Western Europe it would have been impossible to drive the entire German Army out of occupied Europe.

We would have saved England and thats about it

Actually Stalin was getting ready to invade Europe. It would have happened in either 1942 or most likely early 1943. Stalin feared Hitler and hated Europe. He wanted to destroy it.

Very politely, horseshit.

I hate to tell you pal but it is fairly well documented.

http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/stalwarplans.html