Don’t forget how the Soviet Union saved the world from Hitler [W:115]

[LeoVlaming]

7th Flleger Division.... they were used in the invasion of Poland, Denmark, Norway and France before the would have been used against the British. After that, they were used in Greece and Crete and later on against the Soviets.

And you claim this division had 10s of thousands of paratroopers?

 

[PeteEU]

And you claim this division had 10s of thousands of paratroopers?

Well a typical division had 10-15 thousand so yes. But what is the relevance? Without air defences these troops could land behind enemy lines and cause all sorts of havoc before the British could react. Nitpicking are we today?

 

[LeoVlaming]

Well a typical division had 10-15 thousand so yes. But what is the relevance? Without air defences these troops could land behind enemy lines and cause all sorts of havoc before the British could react. Nitpicking are we today?

Actually the 7th Flieger Division had far fewer troops than that. I am not "nitpicking", just pointing out you don't seem to have a firm grasp of historical facts.

 

[Andalublue]

Actually the 7th Flieger Division had far fewer troops than that. I am not "nitpicking", just pointing out you don't seem to have a firm grasp of historical facts.

You seem to set enormous store in getting the facts right, which is odd for someone who doesn't seem to use any facts or evidence in his arguments.

 

[LeoVlaming]

You seem to set enormous store in getting the facts right, which is odd for someone who doesn't seem to use any facts or evidence in his arguments.

Yes, I do believe it is important to know what one is talking about.

 

[blackjack50]

I quite agree. I am retired U.S. Navy, and when I tell my friends - and the others here on DP - that the Soviets' victory was all but ensured before we ever invaded Normandy, and that all our invasion really did was to shorten the war and ensure that the rest of the continent didn't become part of the Soviet bloc. You can imagine some of the comments I get when I say that...but when we invaded, the Soviet victories in the great battles - outside Moscow, in Stalingrad, and at Kursk - were already done and the Soviets had already pushed the Wehrmacht back inside Poland.

I don't know. There are a lot of factories that remained standing because we didn't blow them up. Plus Africa and all that? German troops would be much higher. The real question was how many more deaths could the ussr have handled? And could Germany have had enough to put them down if they weren't worried about the United States?

 

[Rogue Valley]

In 2009, Putin denounced the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as "A collusion to solve one's problems at others' expense. All attempts between 1934 and 1939 to pacify the Nazis by making various kinds of agreements and pacts with them, were unacceptable from the moral point of view, and from the political point of view were pointless, harmful and dangerous,"

But since the invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow has shifted to an increasing glorification of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and his regime's pact with Nazi Germany. Putin (11/2014)... "The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany. They say: Oh, this is so bad. But what's so bad about it if the Soviet Union did not want to go to war? What's so bad about it?"

Putin blissfully ignores the Secret Protocol(s) which divided up the territories of Poland, Romania, the Baltic nations and Finland into German and Soviet possessions. It led to the German and Soviet invasions of Poland and to the Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania. With Crimea fresh in mind, Putin disingenuously now dilutes Stalin's Carve-Em-Up Pact with the Nazi's.

Russian military forces in Moscow for the May 9 Victory Day extravaganza

Eerily reminiscent of the massive Nazi military displays in Berlin during the 30's.

 

[Grant]

So... when you are shown that you are clueless regarding WWII history in general and Soviet history in particular... you revert back to what you've started from, mindless Russians/Communism/Stalin/Stalinism/whatnot bashing. Fallen.

Yes, I do condemn any political movement which murdered over 100 million people and destroyed the lives and freedoms of many millions more. And, as usual from any good communist sympathizer, the attacks get personal and not to the point of the debate. http://www.amazon.ca/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087

 

[Grant]

In 2009, Putin denounced the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as "A collusion to solve one's problems at others' expense. All attempts between 1934 and 1939 to pacify the Nazis by making various kinds of agreements and pacts with them, were unacceptable from the moral point of view, and from the political point of view were pointless, harmful and dangerous,"

But since the invasion and illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Moscow has shifted to an increasing glorification of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and his regime's pact with Nazi Germany. Putin (11/2014)... "The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany. They say: Oh, this is so bad. But what's so bad about it if the Soviet Union did not want to go to war? What's so bad about it?"

Putin blissfully ignores the Secret Protocol(s) which divided up the territories of Poland, Romania, the Baltic nations and Finland into German and Soviet possessions. It led to the German and Soviet invasions of Poland and to the Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania. With Crimea fresh in mind, Putin disingenuously now dilutes Stalin's Carve-Em-Up Pact with the Nazi's.

Russian military forces in Moscow for the May 9 Victory Day extravaganza

Eerily reminiscent of the massive Nazi military displays in Berlin during the 30's.

I doubt those are defensive forces.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

Yes, I do condemn any political movement which murdered over 100 million people and destroyed the lives and freedoms of many millions more. And, as usual from any good communist sympathizer, the attacks get personal and not to the point of the debate. http://www.amazon.ca/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087

You may want to go back and re-read the OP so that, maybe, you might enlighten yourself as to what the actual point of this thread IS. And just a hint, it isn't communism or the relative evil of Stalin. It was about taking a moment to remember the millions who died in the effort to stop Hitler.

100% of the back and forth pissing going on in this thread could have been avoided by exercising basic reading comprehension...

 

[Wiggen]

What anti-British sentiment? Look at the facts instead of living in the nationalistic cloud.

The first line of defence for the UK is the English channel. With the Germans in command of the air, then that defensive line suddenly becomes very weak and invasion becomes much easier.

Also there were no defensive wall or anything along the British coast.... nothing really to prevent the Germans from landing and certainly nothing to prevent the Germans from sending in 10s of thousands of Paras.

Add to that, the lack of heavy weapons and you have a serious problem defending the island.

And so what? You trying to deflect or something? I have never denied that the Danes got their ass handed to them militarily, but if you knew anything about that day, you would know that there is a reason for that.... lack of weapons and ammunition that was locked up on orders of the government. The Danish population might not have known the Germans were about to invade, but the sitting socialist government sure did and handed the keys to the Germans. So calling it an "ass whupping" is hardly factual considering we surrendered before they invaded. But again, nice try in deflecting away from the topic.

First of all, Germany didn't have 'tens of thousands of paras'. That's a ridiculous claim. For example of German success using paratroopers, I suggest you read about the invasion of Crete. Their losses were so heavy they never attempted another big parachute drop.

And of course they never had 'command of the air'. That's what the Battle of Britain settled. When you are looking up the battle of Crete, you might look at that one, too.

Finally, you most ridiculous claim is that there was nothing really 'to prevent the Germans from landing...'. In fact there were two things that prevented the Germans from landing - The RAF and the Royal Navy. For God's sake do a little research before you post.

http://www.2worldwar2.com/fallschirmjager.htm

According to the above article, the Germans landed 6,000 paratroopers on Crete and had to reinforce them in order to eventually win. Not quite 'tens of thousands'.

 

[Wiggen]

And you claim this division had 10s of thousands of paratroopers?

It's a ridiculous claim, like all of his other assertions.

 

[Fallenangel]

Yes, I do condemn any political movement which murdered over 100 million people and destroyed the lives and freedoms of many millions more. And, as usual from any good communist sympathizer, the attacks get personal and not to the point of the debate. http://www.amazon.ca/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Black-Book-Communism-Repression/dp/0674076087

Great. Who ever asked you not to condemn communism/Stalinism/whatnot?!?
...as I've already shown and said multiple times, that wasn't the point of neither my OP nor of the article in it.


The fact that you are clueless about WWII history in general and Soviet history in particular isn't an insult or a personal attack, but an obvious conclusion established based on your posts:
kjwins: Lebensraum: Meaning "living space," it was a basic principle of Nazi foreign policy. Hitler believed that eastern Europe had to be conquered to create a vast German empire for more physical space, a greater population, and new territory to supply food and raw materials.
Grant:That didn't apply to Russia.
Your own link (even a second year student knows that):"Hitler, for his part, had clearly laid out his plans for European Hegemony in "Mein Kampf." In his book, Hitler spoke about securing "Lebensraum" (living space) in the east, which could only mean invading Russia."


Fallen.

 

[PeteEU]

First of all, Germany didn't have 'tens of thousands of paras'. That's a ridiculous claim. For example of German success using paratroopers, I suggest you read about the invasion of Crete. Their losses were so heavy they never attempted another big parachute drop.

I know fully about the invasion of Crete and what happened. Regardless they did have plenty of para troops and you dont need that many to take over a few fields to fly in more, or take one of the ports. The British Army had serious defensive issues due to the lack of material and denying this fact despite the historical fact and military records we do know off.. is just pure nationalistic bull**** and sticking your head in the sand.. or moors in the case of the UK.

And of course they never had 'command of the air'. That's what the Battle of Britain settled. When you are looking up the battle of Crete, you might look at that one, too.

Err never said they had. Maybe you should learn to read. I said that if Hitler had not switched to bombing cities instead of continuing the offensive against the RAF, then the Germans WOULD have had command of the air because the RAF was a day or two from total collapse when the Germans changed strategy. If you had bothered to read up the battle of Britain you would know this. For one, the death rate of RAF pilots was far higher than the replacement and during the offensive against the RAF, the replacement of planes fell far far far below what was being destroyed on the ground or in the air. Collapse was damn close, there is no doubt about that.

Finally, you most ridiculous claim is that there was nothing really 'to prevent the Germans from landing...'. In fact there were two things that prevented the Germans from landing - The RAF and the Royal Navy. For God's sake do a little research before you post.

And for god sake learn to read. First off there would be no invasion before the RAF was gone. Any military commander knew this. That is why ressoruces were pumped into the RAF once the British were defeated in France. Hell Churchill refused to send more RAF planes to France during the fighting because he and his commanders knew that they were the only real line of defence the UK had. Now the utter defeat of the RAF almost happened but in the end German tactical changes meant the RAF could recover and fight off the Germans. Now the irony is, that the reason the Germans changed tactics was because one of their own mistakenly bombed the outskirts of London (he got lost) which resulted in the retaliatory raid by the RAF on Berlin which so infuriated Hitler that he overruled (yet again) his own commanders.

Secondly, the Royal Navy? HAHAHAHHAHAHAH The Royal Navy stayed far from southern England in fear of being blown out of the water. It would be an utter suicide mission to try to prevent the Germans landing with the Germans in command of the air and their subs of course. The only reason the Germans did not blow the D-Day landing ships out of the water was that they did not command the air.

Sorry but until you learn to read and understand basic history that is not tainted by British nationalism, then you will understand that Britain was a day or two away from total defeat in 1940 had the RAF been eliminated as the Germans were close to doing.

 

[LaughAtTheWorld]

Moderator's Warning:

Any further personal attacks will result in an immediate thread ban+infraction.

 

[Grant]

Great. Who ever asked you not to condemn communism/Stalinism/whatnot?!? ...as I've already shown and said multiple times, that wasn't the point of neither my OP nor of the article in it.

How can anyone avoid that massive elephant in the room?


The fact that you are clueless about WWII history in general and Soviet history in particular isn't an insult or a personal attack, but an obvious conclusion established based on your posts:
kjwins: Lebensraum: Meaning "living space," it was a basic principle of Nazi foreign policy. Hitler believed that eastern Europe had to be conquered to create a vast German empire for more physical space, a greater population, and new territory to supply food and raw materials.
Grant:That didn't apply to Russia.
Your own link (even a second year student knows that):"Hitler, for his part, had clearly laid out his plans for European Hegemony in "Mein Kampf." In his book, Hitler spoke about securing "Lebensraum" (living space) in the east, which could only mean invading Russia."Fallen.

Yes, "lebensraum" in the east could have meant invading China as well, and that is a conclusion that author has drawn. But other sources say Hitler had other motives in invading Russia quite apart from "Living Space".

The fact is that Russians were ordered to fight by Stalin, and that they later overran Eastern Europe, as well as other areas of the world, and were a threat everywhere. It's too bad that so many people died in the defense of Stalingrad, and elsewhere, but I'm not about to sugarcoat Russian history in order to make them feel better about themselves. They allied with the devil, had already deliberately starved millions, and those acts cannot be erased by any feel good historical revisions..

 

[Fallenangel]

Yes, "lebensraum" in the east could have meant invading China as well, and that is a conclusion that author has drawn. But other sources say Hitler had other motives in invading Russia quite apart from "Living Space".

Sigh...

kjwins: Lebensraum: Meaning "living space," it was a basic principle of Nazi foreign policy. Hitler believed that eastern Europe had to be conquered to create a vast German empire for more physical space, a greater population, and new territory to supply food and raw materials.
Grant: That didn't apply to Russia.
Your own link (even a second year student knows that):"Hitler, for his part, had clearly laid out his plans for European Hegemony in "Mein Kampf." In his book, Hitler spoke about securing "Lebensraum" (living space) in the east, which could only mean invading Russia."

...only after it was pointed out to you that you were simply wrong (even according to your own "sources"), you started coming up with stuff like this:
Grant: Lebensraum was an overall rational but not the main focus for the invasion of Russia.
or like what you've written above.

Hence, the simple conclusion that you are clueless regarding Soviet and WWII history.

The fact is that Russians were ordered to fight by Stalin, and that they later overran Eastern Europe, as well as other areas of the world, and were a threat everywhere. It's too bad that so many people died in the defense of Stalingrad, and elsewhere, but I'm not about to sugarcoat Russian history in order to make them feel better about themselves. They allied with the devil, had already deliberately starved millions, and those acts cannot be erased by any feel good historical revisions..

Nobody ever asked you to sugarcoat anything, the only one that keeps coming up with that stuff over and over again, is you.
You are again and again simply missing the point of my OP and the article in it.


Fallen.

 

[Jack Hays]

By implication, America was equally complicit. Cowardice is the wrong word, Jack. Rather, mistakes were made on all sides. We're all wiser in hindsight. Politics, lest we forget, is the art and science of self-interest. America was equally cowardly for sitting out the first 2 years while others got their hands dirty, getting involved only having been left no choice.

I would argue that in our case it was indifference rather than cowardice. We were shortsighted and self-absorbed, but not afraid.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't know. There are a lot of factories that remained standing because we didn't blow them up. Plus Africa and all that? German troops would be much higher. The real question was how many more deaths could the ussr have handled? And could Germany have had enough to put them down if they weren't worried about the United States?

If Hitler had pulled every single one of their troops and tanks from the west and from Africa and sent them to the Eastern Front, it still would not have mattered. Why? Because all of those added together might have equaled what, maybe ten, twelve more divisions...and this was a relative drop in the bucket compared to the forces involved on both sides. What killed the Wehrmacht wasn't the quality or quantity of the troops - it was the logistics. It had an ever-lengthening supply line hampered by the different rail gauge and by partisans and - especially - by the incredible amounts of mud in the spring, and the bitter cold in the winter. The Soviets' supply lines, on the other hand, were getting ever shorter, and so it took them much less time to get what they needed where they needed it to go...and the big enabler in this was Stalin's order to move the thousands of factories back to the Urals.

And besides, by the time our bombing campaign against the German homeland was really beginning in earnest, the tide had already swung in the East. The first big bombing raid was against Cologne on May 30, 1942, but the battle for Moscow - the most important of the three big battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk - had already been won the previous January. The High Command had wanted to send the armies for another push on Moscow, but Hitler overrode them and demanded that they be used to take Stalingrad...and I recommend Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" so you can see how that was doomed from the beginning. Even if the German High Command had gotten their way and got to Moscow first, yes, that was an important logistics hub and would have provided a psychological boost for the Wehrmacht, but it wouldn't have mattered in the end - the factories were in the Urals, and the Soviets would simply have said, "Fine - you've got Moscow. So did Napoleon, and see what good it did him." It was only a matter of time.

 

[Jack Hays]

If Hitler had pulled every single one of their troops and tanks from the west and from Africa and sent them to the Eastern Front, it still would not have mattered. Why? Because all of those added together might have equaled what, maybe ten, twelve more divisions...and this was a relative drop in the bucket compared to the forces involved on both sides. What killed the Wehrmacht wasn't the quality or quantity of the troops - it was the logistics. It had an ever-lengthening supply line hampered by the different rail gauge and by partisans and - especially - by the incredible amounts of mud in the spring, and the bitter cold in the winter. The Soviets' supply lines, on the other hand, were getting ever shorter, and so it took them much less time to get what they needed where they needed it to go...and the big enabler in this was Stalin's order to move the thousands of factories back to the Urals.

And besides, by the time our bombing campaign against the German homeland was really beginning in earnest, the tide had already swung in the East. The first big bombing raid was against Cologne on May 30, 1942, but the battle for Moscow - the most important of the three big battles of Moscow, Stalingrad, and Kursk - had already been won the previous January. The High Command had wanted to send the armies for another push on Moscow, but Hitler overrode them and demanded that they be used to take Stalingrad...and I recommend Anthony Beevor's "Stalingrad" so you can see how that was doomed from the beginning. Even if the German High Command had gotten their way and got to Moscow first, yes, that was an important logistics hub and would have provided a psychological boost for the Wehrmacht, but it wouldn't have mattered in the end - the factories were in the Urals, and the Soviets would simply have said, "Fine - you've got Moscow. So did Napoleon, and see what good it did him." It was only a matter of time.

Maybe, maybe not.

[h=3]Amazon.com: Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's ...[/h]www.amazon.com/Lost-Victories.../dp/0760320543


Amazon.com, Inc.


Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General Paperback – August 22, 2004. by Erich Manstein (Author). 73 customer reviews ...

 

[Grant]

By implication, America was equally complicit. Cowardice is the wrong word, Jack. Rather, mistakes were made on all sides. We're all wiser in hindsight. Politics, lest we forget, is the art and science of self-interest. America was equally cowardly for sitting out the first 2 years while others got their hands dirty, getting involved only having been left no choice.

Many Americans had fled Europe because of their wars, religious persecution, lack of opportunities, and so on. Just 20 years after WWI, the "War to End All Wars", the Europeans were at it again. Of course most Americans were against getting involved in yet another European war, but they eventually did.

Does Europe appreciate the sacrifices made by the American people. Some certainly do but the number of Europeans who were, and are, anti American remains pretty much constant. The 'likes' for calling the American people 'cowards' underlies these attitudes.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Maybe, maybe not.

[h=3]Amazon.com: Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's ...[/h]www.amazon.com/Lost-Victories.../dp/0760320543


Amazon.com, Inc.


Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General Paperback – August 22, 2004. by Erich Manstein (Author). 73 customer reviews ...

I'll keep my eye out for that book - I might buy it. I did read Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader" (great book!) and saw nothing in there to change my mind.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'll keep my eye out for that book - I might buy it. I did read Heinz Guderian's "Panzer Leader" (great book!) and saw nothing in there to change my mind.

I own both Panzer Leader and Lost Victories. If you liked the former you'll like the latter. My take is that both Guderian and Manstein believed smarter leadership could have won.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I own both Panzer Leader and Lost Victories. If you liked the former you'll like the latter. My take is that both Guderian and Manstein believed smarter leadership could have won.

On 'smarter leadership', that's a truism, and an exercise in Monday-morning quarterbacking, the old coulda-woulda-shoulda game. Could the Wehrmacht have won with better leadership? Absolutely - no argument there. If they'd only prepared for the different rail gauges ahead of time, if they'd only refrained from making enemies of the locals in the Ukraine who at first welcomed them with flowers and food, if they'd only properly supplied their troops with winter gear and prepared their aircraft for winter weather...

...the list can go on forever. But the main point is, they had the very best generals, but a madman was in charge of those generals...and even if they'd pulled every man and tank in from the west and from Africa, all of that put together could not have made up for the shortcomings of the madman in charge.

 

[Jack Hays]

On 'smarter leadership', that's a truism, and an exercise in Monday-morning quarterbacking, the old coulda-woulda-shoulda game. Could the Wehrmacht have won with better leadership? Absolutely - no argument there. If they'd only prepared for the different rail gauges ahead of time, if they'd only refrained from making enemies of the locals in the Ukraine who at first welcomed them with flowers and food, if they'd only properly supplied their troops with winter gear and prepared their aircraft for winter weather...

...the list can go on forever. But the main point is, they had the very best generals, but a madman was in charge of those generals...and even if they'd pulled every man and tank in from the west and from Africa, all of that put together could not have made up for the shortcomings of the madman in charge.

Hmmm.

[h=3]Number of German divisions by front in World War II[/h]www.axishistory.com/...operations/...operations/2085-number-of-germa...


Jan 25, 2011 - Slovakian Air Force · Slovakian Army ... Number of German divisions by front in World War II ... September 1939 to May 1945 by front was compiled from the works of Georg Tessin in his epic accounting of the Wehrmacht and ... Month, Germany, Eastern, Western, Norway, Finland, South-Eastern, Africa, Italy.