Which country is it?

[Iriemon]

Because if the front is a few hundred miles outside of Moscow, the "outcome was (NOT) pretty much certain by 44". Had it been a few hundred miles outside of Berlin, you would have an arguement. The Soviets "by 44" still had to fight through Belorussia and Poland just to get to Germany. Just to get back to square one where they started in 41.

What difference does it make? If the German army was crumbling and in full retreat there wasn't much issue about the fight. And by Jun 44 the Russians were thru Belorussia and Poland and on the German border.

 

[Iriemon]

Oh I suspect the remaining citizens of Leningrad, who had suffered a couple years of being surrounded and cut off by a perimiter of German forces, constantly bombarded at will from the air and by surrounding artillery, believed the Soviet forces needed to take the city back. I said the germans were looting leningrad and didnt say they took it. Regardless, what possible relevence do you imagine these assinine distinctions have to your original claim?

I'll take the version of history set out by credible sources over your suspicions based on you high school class. Others can decide for themselves.

 

[Iriemon]

Well, if you ignore the fact that right up to August 43 the Germans were making advances deeper into Soviet territory.
Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm won't waste my time with you; if anyone other than dixon has a question about this I'll be happy to address it.

 

[dixon76710]

I'm won't waste my time with you; if anyone other than dixon has a question about this I'll be happy to address it.

How does a Wehrmacht with a broken back mount an offensive pushing deeper into Soviet territory?

 

[Iriemon]

How does a Wehrmacht with a broken back mount an offensive pushing deeper into Soviet territory?

Cite to where the Germans mounted an offense pushing deeper into Soviet territory in 1944?

 

[dixon76710]

I'll take the version of history set out by credible sources over your suspicions based on you high school class. Others can decide for themselves.

Sooo lets see it. Anything that contradicts anything I have said.

 

[dixon76710]

Cite to where the Germans mounted an offense pushing deeper into Soviet territory in 1944?

Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

remember, the little black arrows indicate which way the front is moving.

edit- missed your 44 strawman. You said

If the German lost a million men, the panzer armies were decimated, and they were retreating about as fast as they could out of Russia in 1943,

to which I offered the map showing the German offensives up through August 43. Thats why you are responding with 44 now. You guys have been slithering from the original claims about before the Americans "set foot in Europe" to sometime now in mid 44

 

[Slainte]

Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

remember, the little black arrows indicate which way the front is moving.

:rofl

remember, the dates are at the bottom!!!!

 

[dixon76710]

:rofl

remember, the dates are at the bottom!!!!

No, I misseed the dates of his straw man.

 

[Slainte]

No, I misseed the dates of his straw man.

You're quite someone to talk about strawmen :mrgreen:

Are you planning on responding to any of my posts, or are you just going to wait a bit and then repeat that the Germans were still in Soviet territory in '44?

 

[Iriemon]

No, I misseed the dates of his straw man.

You've apparently missed a lot of dates.

I never said that outcome was pretty much certain by 1943.

The chart you showed of the one minor German offensive in the summer, which as you well know resulted in a decisive Soviet victory and German retreat in August, was in 1943.

I said that 1944 the outcome was pretty much certain.

And the fact that you could show a single German offensive penetrating deeper into Russia in 1944 is final proof of the point.

Heh heh -- he says I argued a strawman in the same post when he puts up an irrelevant chart from the wrong year.

 

[dixon76710]

They weren't just going to be expelled from Soviet territory, from there it would have been straight through Poland down to Romania and eventually all the way to Berlin.

Even still quite a stretch to presume that an invasion of Berlin from the East, without an invasion from the west, would result in the same outcome for Europe.

 

[Slainte]

Even still quite a stretch to presume that an invasion of Berlin from the East, without an invasion from the west, would result in the same outcome for Europe.

I never said it would result in the same outcome for Europe! For one Germany would never have been partitioned, Europe would probably have looked completely different!

I said it would result in the same outcome of the war. By which I clearly meant an Allied victory and an Axis defeat in Europe.

 

[Iriemon]

Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

remember, the little black arrows indicate which way the front is moving.

edit- missed your 44 strawman. You said

Originally Posted by Iriemon
If the German lost a million men, the panzer armies were decimated, and they were retreating about as fast as they could out of Russia in 1943,

to which I offered the map showing the German offensives up through August 43. Thats why you are responding with 44 now. You guys have been slithering from the original claims about before the Americans "set foot in Europe" to sometime now in mid 44

What I said about 1943 was true.

My question was no strawman at all. The fact that the Germans attempted one last offensive in the Summer of 43 that ended in a decisive defeat does not undermine my contention that by 1944 the outcome was pretty much certain.

 

[dixon76710]

You've apparently missed a lot of dates.

I never said that outcome was pretty much certain by 1943.

Sheesh the stream of strawman seems endless. You said

If the German lost a million men, the panzer armies were decimated, and they were retreating about as fast as they could out of Russia in 1943,

to which I replied

Well, if you ignore the fact that right up to August 43 the Germans were making advances deeper into Soviet territory.
Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We are talking about 1943. You picked the year and now you try to distance yourself from it. Typical.

 

[dixon76710]

What I said about 1943 was true.

My question was no strawman at all. The fact that the Germans attempted one last offensive in the Summer of 43 that ended in a decisive defeat

A defeat AFTER the Germans pushed the lines deeper into Soviet territory, all done at a time when the entire German military supposedly had a "broken back"

 

[Iriemon]

A defeat AFTER the Germans pushed the lines deeper into Soviet territory, all done at a time when the entire German military supposedly had a "broken back"

Who said the Germans had a "broken back" in 1943?

 

[Iriemon]

Sheesh the stream of strawman seems endless. You said

to which I replied

We are talking about 1943. You picked the year and now you try to distance yourself from it. Typical.

LOL - distance from what? I never said the Germans had a broken back by 43 or that the outcome was pretty certain. I said by '44. Events in '43 broke the back of the Germans (including the brief advance the Germans made leading up to their decisive defeat at Kursk in Augs 43).

Who is making the strawman argument here.

Please show us what advances the Germans made deeper into Soviet territory in 1944 to show that their back was not "broken" by 1944.

 

[dixon76710]

LOL - distance from what? I never said the Germans had a broken back by 43 or that the outcome was pretty certain.

Notice the complete absence of any reference to a broken back or anything being certain in my post

Well, if you ignore the fact that right up to August 43 the Germans were making advances deeper into Soviet territory.
Image:Eastern Front 1943-02 to 1943-08.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

making this just another in a long line of your strawman arguements.

 

[Iriemon]

I said in any earlier post in this thread that anyone can make a mistake.

Some folks just can't admit it.

 

[MSgt]

Isn't this a repeat of what was posted here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057554740-post4.html

and acknowledged to be incomplete and humorous?

I posted this last year too. What he posted is a bit incomplete. Mine's a bit more thorough with plenty of links.

 

[dixon76710]

Who said the Germans had a "broken back" in 1943?

First Slaint, and now you.

Events in '43 broke the back of the Germans

Did you have a point?

 

[dixon76710]

I said in any earlier post in this thread that anyone can make a mistake.

Some folks just can't admit it.

Actually, I admitted my mistake using the distance calculator and I admitted
I missed your straw man arguement. You spoke of 1943, I responded regarding 43 and in response you fired back a question about 44. I just missed your slither from one year to the next.

 

[Iriemon]

First Slaint, and now you.

Did you have a point?

Sure. The Germans' "back was broken" during the course of 1943 (and late 42), so that by 1944, they had a "broken back." Thus the outcome was a pretty certain thing by 1944. As you have helped prove for us -- shown by the fact that the Germans were never able to launch an offensive and drive deeper into Russia in 1944.

Not that I agree that "broken back" is a perfect analogy but close.

Does that help clear it up for you?

 

[Iriemon]

I posted this last year too. What he posted is a bit incomplete. Mine's a bit more thorough with plenty of links.

OK. It's just that this same basic list was posted 2-3 times on this thread and 2-3 times on the preceding thread by different people. Someone pointed out that they have it on the Weekly Standard, which might explain it.