Honoring The Sacrifices Of The Soviet Union in WWII….Really?

[AZrailwhale]

exactly---hahahahahah--then why is transportation so important ?

You really are an idiot, transportation and logistics are everything in modern warfare. Hurtgen Forest a small defensive battle that was bungled by the US commander. As for the Bilge, the Germans had to move everything by night, then wait for a long string of bad weather to ground Allied TACAIR and still failed to achieve a single one of their objectives.

 

[rightwinger]

If the Germans had even half a brain, they could have easily defeated Stalin and the communists. All they had to do was support the various separatist movments in the republics. Everybody hated Stalin and the communists, the Ukrainian people welcomed the Germans as liberators until the SS got there and started murdering civilians.

In theory, yes
In practice no because Hitler considered them to be subhuman

 

[AZrailwhale]

Thank you for your words! I knew some people from russia\SU they told me " if you want to know little bit more about Soviet Union people bravery look at the Siege of Leningrad". Really,do you think civil people were not surrender to the nazis for 2 years and 4 months only because they fear to be shot by Stalin? And yes Soviets did shot their own, but as far as I know, they did this only in case of soldiers leaving field of battle without an order.

All the siege of Leningrad accomplished was to tie up some third line Axis troops from Romania and places like that and starve millions of Soviet citizens to death. The citizens of Leningrad were no more brave than those of London. They endured hardship because Stalin couldn’t be bothered to evacuate them during the long months Lake Ladoga was frozen. He brought troops and munitions in instead of taking the civilians out. It was all for propaganda.

 

[rightwinger]

The Luftwaffe was a joke compared to the USAAF. We defeated them over their own airfields in their own radar coverage. The Luftwaffe did the same to the Red Airforce. The Soviets were unable to gain even air parity over Eastern Front battlefields until the USAAF gutted the Luftwaffe’s fighter strength. If the US had gone to war with the USSR, it wouldn’t only have more fighters and bombers by a huge margin, but far better ones as well. The Soviets would have been further handicapped by having to use low octane gas for aviation fuel as their entire supply of the octane boosters came from the US as well as a large percentage of their aviation fuel as well. The Soviets would have had a short window of relative equality in mobility until the lend lease supplies ran out and the poorly maintained American Studebaker trucks the Red Army depended on began to breakdown in large numbers. Remember, the instant combat with Soviet forces starts, all lend lease stops and the Soviets are only left with the small amounts they have stockpiled. In 1945, the Soviets couldn’t even feed their own army, let along their civilians. Starvation and disease would quickly wreck the Soviet Union allowing the Western Allies to walk in and pick up the pieces just as they did in Germany.

You underestimate the Soviet forces
They had superior tanks to the US Shermans and were skilled at tank warfare.
They also had the advantage of fighting on their home turf. An advantage that defeated the Germans. The Soviet forces would have been willing to lose hundreds of thousands. Something the US public would not have tolerated in invading a former ally

 

[harmonica]

You really are an idiot, transportation and logistics are everything in modern warfare. Hurtgen Forest a small defensive battle that was bungled by the US commander. As for the Bilge, the Germans had to move everything by night, then wait for a long string of bad weather to ground Allied TACAIR and still failed to achieve a single one of their objectives.

You really are an idiot,HAHAHAHHAHAAHAH--you fkd up----I said the Germans did well at the Hurtgen Forest!!! HAHAHAHAHAH....
....they [ Germans ] didn't need massive transportation at the Hurtgen
....o O!!!!! so the Germans didn't win the Hurtgen battle, the US lost it!!!! HAHAHAH = bullshit

 

[harmonica]

You underestimate the Soviet forces
They had superior tanks to the US Shermans and were skilled at tank warfare.
They also had the advantage of fighting on their home turf. An advantage that defeated the Germans. The Soviet forces would have been willing to lose hundreds of thousands. Something the US public would not have tolerated in invading a former ally

the US was not going to beat the Russian army
remember, the US had FULL air and naval supremacy in Vietnam, but still did npt win

 

[AZrailwhale]

so, I ask you, your NYT buddy wants to let Germany sink our ships and we do nothing.............you AGREE with that?

There’s a big difference between fighting the Germans and supporting the Soviets.
as for the Germans sinking our ships, if we had been behaving like a proper neutral country the Germans would have had no reason to sink our ships. FDR had the USN escorting British convoys halfway across the Atlantic because the R.N. lacked the escorts. FDR was waging an undeclared war against Germany in violation of nternational law.

 

[harmonica]

If the Germans had even half a brain, they could have easily defeated Stalin and the communists. All they had to do was support the various separatist movments in the republics. Everybody hated Stalin and the communists, the Ukrainian people welcomed the Germans as liberators until the SS got there and started murdering civilians.

the Germans are not defeating Russia at all ...too big---too much population ......
..even with TOTAL air and naval supremacy [ including massive aircraft carriers/etc ] the US could not defeat China or NVietnam

 

[harmonica]

You underestimate the Soviet forces
They had superior tanks to the US Shermans and were skilled at tank warfare.
They also had the advantage of fighting on their home turf. An advantage that defeated the Germans. The Soviet forces would have been willing to lose hundreds of thousands. Something the US public would not have tolerated in invading a former ally

.....AND MacArthur really fkd up in Korea....one example was that he said our airpower will stop the Chinese....well, it did not---the Chinese gave everyone an ass whoopin, except the USMC ...they kicked a whole corps off the peninsula..they did kick the USMC off the peninsula, but the USMC gave them heavy casualties
AND, that's with USMC air which had the premier air support force
...so airpower was limited, big time...they didn't have smart weapons/etc back then

 

[AZrailwhale]

.I know all about it
what does that have to do with the Panzers not there on DDay?

The Panzers were there. They were placed behind the beaches because they were a MOBILE reserve intended to repulse landings at any number of places. It was a bad judgement by Rommel under pressure of Hitler. But to excuse Rommel, he had never fought under a sky totally controlled by the allies or within bombardment range of a hostile ocean. If he had placed the Panzers near the beaches, they would have been destroyed by naval gunfire as happened in the counterattacks at Anzio. By holding them further back, they were destroyed by air attacks. As I recall, Hitlerjugend lost over fifty percent of its strength trying to move to the beaches to launch their counter attack in Normandy.

 

[AZrailwhale]

..you, also don't know much about the military/wars/etc here's why:
..doesn't matter if they are brave or not --you should still honor them

....AND---just like in ALL countries, the soldiers did not make the political decisions!!!!!..if you don't want to honor Stalin, fine...but it wasn't the ground pounder soldiers who made the decisions/etc

I don’t honor soldiers who fought for evil countries. I can respect their sense of duty and even their bravery, but honoring them is a different matter. YOU may honor the NKVD and Waffen SS if you want, but I won’t.

 

[harmonica]

I don’t honor soldiers who fought for evil countries. I can respect their sense of duty and even their bravery, but honoring them is a different matter. YOU may honor the NKVD and Waffen SS if you want, but I won’t.

..I honor all soldiers that do not commit war crimes ...they've done nothing wrong......you, obviously, have never served

 

[harmonica]

I don’t honor soldiers who fought for evil countries. I can respect their sense of duty and even their bravery, but honoring them is a different matter. YOU may honor the NKVD and Waffen SS if you want, but I won’t.

..the US was wrong to fight in Vietnam...war crimes were committed ....so, what about all the US Nam vets? ..you can say the US is an evil country for Vietnam/PG2/etc...
AND----AND---AND the Iranian OVERTHROW of an ELECTED official!! and the overthrow of the Guatemalian government !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so, the US was UNDENIABLY evil

 

[harmonica]

The Panzers were there. They were placed behind the beaches because they were a MOBILE reserve intended to repulse landings at any number of places. It was a bad judgement by Rommel under pressure of Hitler. But to excuse Rommel, he had never fought under a sky totally controlled by the allies or within bombardment range of a hostile ocean. If he had placed the Panzers near the beaches, they would have been destroyed by naval gunfire as happened in the counterattacks at Anzio. By holding them further back, they were destroyed by air attacks. As I recall, Hitlerjugend lost over fifty percent of its strength trying to move to the beaches to launch their counter attack in Normandy.

jesus christ I posted that on 22Aug !!!!

 

[AZrailwhale]

Under what scenario do you have us fighting on the Western Front and the Soviets fighting on the Eastern Front and us ending up with all the territory on the Eastern Front?

Without lendlease from the US and UK the Eastern Front would have been North Africa writ large. The Germans would attack driving the Soviets back on their supply bases and overextending the German supply lines. Then the Soviets would counterattack driving the Geamans back on their supply bases overextending the Soviet’s supply lines. Then the Germans counter-counterattack driving the Soviets back. Both armies were largely horse drawn, neither had a real logistics advantage without western support. The result would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the Soviets would eventually win by a Pyrrhic victory Leaving them too few men to take advantage of. In the meantime the western war proceeds the same, or even better with the WAllies occupying Germany and liberating Eastern And Western Europe to return to free local rule.

 

[rightwinger]

Without lendlease from the US and UK the Eastern Front would have been North Africa writ large. The Germans would attack driving the Soviets back on their supply bases and overextending the German supply lines. Then the Soviets would counterattack driving the Geamans back on their supply bases overextending the Soviet’s supply lines. Then the Germans counter-counterattack driving the Soviets back. Both armies were largely horse drawn, neither had a real logistics advantage without western support. The result would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the Soviets would eventually win by a Pyrrhic victory Leaving them too few men to take advantage of. In the meantime the western war proceeds the same, or even better with the WAllies occupying Germany and liberating Eastern And Western Europe to return to free local rule.

Stalemate that would result in the Soviets and Germans controlling Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
Would not have made them Western Democracies
The US invading Western Europe and continuing through Germany into Poland and the Ukraine was not going to happen

The American public would not have tolerated the additional losses from fighting Germany then the Soviet forces

 

[harmonica]

Without lendlease from the US and UK the Eastern Front would have been North Africa writ large. The Germans would attack driving the Soviets back on their supply bases and overextending the German supply lines. Then the Soviets would counterattack driving the Geamans back on their supply bases overextending the Soviet’s supply lines. Then the Germans counter-counterattack driving the Soviets back. Both armies were largely horse drawn, neither had a real logistics advantage without western support. The result would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the Soviets would eventually win by a Pyrrhic victory Leaving them too few men to take advantage of. In the meantime the western war proceeds the same, or even better with the WAllies occupying Germany and liberating Eastern And Western Europe to return to free local rule.

....again, that's a lot of speculating/what ifs/etc = opinion only = no proof/etc = wrong ....come on over to WW2Forums if you want to discuss in detail .......

 

[AZrailwhale]

You underestimate the Soviet forces
They had superior tanks to the US Shermans and were skilled at tank warfare.
They also had the advantage of fighting on their home turf. An advantage that defeated the Germans. The Soviet forces would have been willing to lose hundreds of thousands. Something the US public would not have tolerated in invading a former ally

No they didn’t. The only thing about the T-34 that was superior to the Sherman was that it had lower ground pressure until the HVSS suspension was added to the Sherman. The Sherman’s 75mm gun had almost identical performance to the T-34s 76mm gun and the Sherman’s 76mm gun was as good as the T-34’s 85mm gun with regular ammo and superior to it with the late war HVAP ammo. The various KV and JS heavies were slow, unreliable and maintenance hogs useful only for frontal assaults on fortified positions or last ditch stands. The Soviets were never skilled at armored warfare, they were skilled at using a their armor as a expendable club to overwhelm their opponents,

 

[harmonica]

Stalemate that would result in the Soviets and Germans controlling Eastern Europe and Ukraine.
Would not have made them Western Democracies
The US invading Western Europe and continuing through Germany into Poland and the Ukraine was not going to happen

The American public would not have tolerated the additional losses from fighting Germany then the Soviet forces

JESUS CHRIST--again, these people think it's a board game where you move pieces on a game board !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! typical
.....again--the HUGE issue is logistics and distances to travel!!!!!! = almost impossible
and, for AZ --remember = the longer your distance travel/''conquered'':
needs MORE logistics EXPONENTIALLY
AND makes you WEAKER....
= the longer your supply lines are and the more territory you ''conquer'' the more weaker
AND the more transportation/etc needed
etc

 

[harmonica]

Without lendlease from the US and UK the Eastern Front would have been North Africa writ large. The Germans would attack driving the Soviets back on their supply bases and overextending the German supply lines. Then the Soviets would counterattack driving the Geamans back on their supply bases overextending the Soviet’s supply lines. Then the Germans counter-counterattack driving the Soviets back. Both armies were largely horse drawn, neither had a real logistics advantage without western support. The result would be a long, drawn out war of attrition that the Soviets would eventually win by a Pyrrhic victory Leaving them too few men to take advantage of. In the meantime the western war proceeds the same, or even better with the WAllies occupying Germany and liberating Eastern And Western Europe to return to free local rule.

it's not a BOARD GAME!!! where you move pieces here and there and magically fly units all over the board
......see post # 479.....the US doesn't have the logistics to go that far and still be strong ..they didn't have enough logistics for Patton and Market Garden/etc etc