Who won the war? - Stalingrad (1993) Discussion

[–] Jhr_Gustaaf 19 years ago

WWII's Battle of Britain never tested British defence resolve. The Homeguard was formed, but never really used. The defense was successfully carried out by the RAF and the Channel. Nifty Trivia: Fighter command believed that if the luftwaffe had continued bombing RAF facilities for as little as another 2 days before switching to civilian targets, The RAF would have crumbled. Then Sealion could have happened, and the Homeguard entered into the equation. You want ferocity in battle? the last non-islander to win a single battle (other than raiding an undefended fishing village) on british soil was a Norman Viking named "William The Bastard" in 1066. Britain is notoriously ineffective at wars of conquest. Top-notch navy, but all of their inland possessions were bought out or won with local troops. Even the defense of Upper and Lower Canada in 1812 was carried out by resident militias. The battle of New Orleans, one of 3 battles the US won was carried out by carribean troops.
Of course, once you start something, somebodies got to finish it, and the best defense techniques result in your enemy incapable of renewed assault. Moral superiority is necessary to superior morale. If you are not the offended party, then you need to be convinced of the inferiority of the enemy. Volunteers Beat Conscripts. Russia-Chechnya proves it, Russia-Afghanistan proves it, USA-Viet-Nam proves it. It's always been true. Read 300. Thermopilae proves it beyond proof. 300 volunteers against an army of 100 000-5 000 000 (600 000 is the numbe most historians prefer). The Lakonians may have died to the last man, but Xerxes' army was decimated, demoralized, and forced to retreat.

As far as Canadian seperatist stuff goes: Trudeu GAINED popularity by declaring Martial Law. When asked how far he would go by a journalist he just said "watch me." His protege, Chretien, once choked out a protester with his own bare hands before passing him off to his bodyguards. I *beep* you not. Made headlines internationally. In my hometown of Calgary here, the Police have very strong media complicity. Not that I mind, mind you. As long as they don't do it on the "Red Mile" or in front of too many other witnesses, they could cap Rodney King in the head in front of a local camera team, as long as the excuse was decent. *beep* they've pulled guns on me before (we all had good excuses, and went our seperate ways. Didn't even get printed. BTW, once the cops start laughing at you, you can get away with damn near anything the next time they see you. Getting a warning for being pulled over with a blood-covered dagger [not bloodied by crime FYI, but they didn't even ask] makes for a story that will only be believed by the other people in the car. Address in DL for overpriced Jewish-Mansion community, and all-non ethnic-minority passengers helps) My sis went into the hospital once with acute breathing difficulty. We saw 20+ uniformed police and army come in through emergency, bleeding and screaming. Not one damn peep out of any news source.

reply

[–] Kaleidoscope 19 years ago

Well, the USSR fought somewhere between 70-80% of the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front, but could not have done so without US support through the Lend-Lease Act. Did the Russians do the bulk of the fighting? Absolutely--aside from the aforementioned German troop allocations, the war on the Eastern Front was vicious on levels it never even came close to reaching in the Wester Front--highly comparable to the land combat in the Pacific War in terms of ferocity and mercilessness (on both sides). Then again, without American participation (especially early in the war, with the supplying of materiel), the Soviet Union would simply not have had the arms necessary to fight the Germans.

Ultimately, I'd say that neither could have done it without the other.

--Everyone knows it's not right to rebel against an English-speaking government.--

reply

[–] SPUniv 19 years ago

Well, you won't imagine, but i spent time to read it all.
And i've found a few interesting things. Like lectiure about russian spirit. Or some other researches of russian mentality, i can't say im agree with all of this, and i think i can ground my opinion, as person who live in Ukraine, so theory against real life.
A fhew things i would like to say. Main drive force of soviet war wasn't propaganda it wasn't fear of NKVD officer. It was life. Many people just have no idea of things and scale of what naziz where doing with the pople here. You don't need brainwash or fear to be punished to take rifle after you know some of this. And if brainwash is the only what makes someone to defend his country to his last breathe, than i feel sad about this "one", but even more sadness about his country.
Russians are such slaves, who just sitting and waiting for some "master" to come. Opressed by boyars, tsar & different outer forces. Hmmm... Who was free that time in the Europe? Or there was no feodalism there? There were Tataro-Mongols hordes, but can you say, that thay enslaved the nation? There also were wars with Germany, Turkey, France, Polland & many others. Most of those wars were succecfull. Slaves do not behave like this. And also i can't say that russians are like to obbey (well, who like to do this at all ;-)) & it is not, that in soviet army you can't have fear, you can't hazitate & you need to be a mechanism & not obbeying or such will result in execution. I, also, can say, that western people follow rules, manuals & other such things much more, than... I do :-). Even when there is no much sense (bad or good? It's just so).
Carribean conflict. No, i can't agree that we done it to "show what we have". Everything was done in a secret, so it wasn't a show. All it was done as an answer for american nuclear missiles in Turkey. And one of the conditions & outcome was that US removed it's missiles from there. Plus to this everybody realised, how close to the end we can be.
And at last my opinion about this top. Who won? Those who fighted against nazizm. No one would be able to do this alone, and if war happened later... then who would say, that Germans won't have nuclear weapon & better missiles?

reply

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Many points taken, but a few which are in need to be calrified.

1.About nazi doing horryfing things in Ukrain. Whole thing with Ukrain during the WWII is very complicated, because of ukrainian beliefs and not so good relationship with russians who ruled their territory after annextion before the war. Ukrainians didn't like soviets as much as germans, furthermore- some of them even helped german troops fight aginst russians, because many thought, that "western, modern ruler" would be better than "eastern opressor". Of course I'm not blaming or insluting ukrainians, I can understand such logic. Yes, some german troops used terror on ukrainian steppes. I'm talkjing about SS troops (not Wehrmacht, or Waffen SS, but SS, many people do not divide them or recognize them as different units, which is a huge mistake)specifically used to burn villages, murder civilians and so on. But the same crimes were commited by NKWD "Shock" troops, so ukrainian people didn't have much of a choice.

Good example is unit called in Poland "Wlasowcy" ("Vlasovs" in english, seek wikipedia for "Andrey Vlasov" to read more), ukrainian unit fighting on german side till the end of the war.

2. "Slavery" in middle ages, rennisance and so on. Let me remind you, that when the feudal age was ending in most of Europe somewhere between XV and XVI century, people were given many rights, blah blah blah, you know the drill. But in Russia people were still slaves, till Peter I the Great came and gave them some civil rights. Not many, I might add. Then came the time of many much worse tzarist opressors, and while western countries were rioting against monarchy, demanding better rulers, in Russia noone even wanted to change something. And when the industrialisation came to Russia and there were changes in social status (proletariat class was made) one opressor was changed to another, from tzar to commies. Yup, people thought "It might be better under the communist rule", noone can argue that Lenin's speeches drew sunny future and justice for all, but as we all know, it ended as another terror, when Stalin became the first secretary. And than again- noone wanted to change anything, everyone were "happy" as it is. That's maybe because of the prolonged feudal state of the country, but that's not the whole case (see Japan, which was feudal till the XIX century and managed to modernize and change some social stats in no time), but it's also an unique mentality, hard to explain even for somone living literally "door to door" with russians. Ukrainians, Lithuanians and others are different, but Russians and Byelarussians (the older generations in general, not younger, eager to fight for democracy) are really hard case.

3.There's a huge difference in westerners (germans mostly, as they are maybe the most organized and regulated nation in the world :)) and eastern people (and I'm tlking about poles, ukrainians, russians and others in general)- another view of work and another viow on obeying things. In general (not in all cases) westerers are more likely to obey orders given from the higher units (in a factory, firm, army or any other formalised organization you can imagine) as they were raised like that. Eastern people are diferent and hard to generalize, as they are slaves and revolutionaries in one, depending on the case. It's hard to explain really, if you don't witness it, but try to imagine such behavior. When it's needed, in the time when their motherland calls, easterners can unite, work harder than anyone else (russians defending their motherland, poles fighting for their freedom during the time POland didn't exist). To add more- on the foreign ground nowadays, they also behave like that (do not count some one-man actions, as in famous "Polish car thief" stereotype :)), working great in jobs noone else would take. But in their own countries, they show two sympthoms- they have slave mentality ("I manage to live on some decent level, have crappy job, but it probably has to be like that"- see communism-brainwshed older generations, not only in Russia and Byelarussia, but also in Poland or Ukrain) and do nothing OR they try to do something with their life(and mostly leave the country looking for better perspectives, as in my country). There are also people who were young during the system transformation (as my father) an manage to take the first breath of democracy and now are working for themslves on a decent level. But aftr the transformation, younger generations are pissed with crappy goverments always arguing or, with older generations, still have the "I'm okay with it and I'll live till the end of my days like a slave" mentality. Youngters are, and that's shame, still a smaller number than those who were till the end of their days cursed with communist spirit (like my grandparents, and I don't even try to change them- it won't work).

reply

[–] SPUniv 19 years ago

Well, can't say I'm agree with all this. What can I say. Freedom isn't something that is granted to you officialy. So change of the government doesn't mean changing "freedom-status". You saying "slaves". That Europes progress of building is based on conquering, taking by force (aren't it enslaving). Whole nations were under the rule of their neighbour for decades or centuries. Can call such foreign dorce, that conquered Russians and kept them for an extended period of time? Hope nobody will "blame" russian winter and roads (their abscence). So it seems, you and me have different views on what slaving is. As I understand you mean, that russians were enslaved by their leaders and communism. Well, if not to get into the deep filosophy (cos there you can find alot of phrases like we are slaves of everything around us - which won't help), than I try to see, how is it my family can be seen as such slaves, that you were talking about. None of my relatives have crappy work, first of all I generation of my parents. Noone stay idle, with no progress. So by my life I can't find sign of slaves, you mentioned - sure I know people, who have that crapy work and not going to do anything with it and so on, but they are just lazy or egoistic - that is the reason. Everybody judje on his own, that is mine opinion.
P.S. We had a little dialog here, with you Yoghurtt, it seems I will be forced to stop it for the time. There are hollidays and I'm going to visit 4EPHOE MOPE, KPbIM ^-).

reply

[–] yoghurtt 19 years ago

Well of course not all people have "slave" mentality, but generalisation in such cases is inevitable. :) There's huge difference in simple lazyness, ignorance, and such "I'll do as you ask" mentality. My example with jobs is just a small part of a huge construction. Just think- why, while westerners openly doubt their leaders' competence and don't fear to go out onto the streets to fight for their rights (I'm not saying that I agree with all such actions), while easterners take the situation as it is and really don't care who rules their country and how he does it? Because westerners had their democracy long ago, easterners are still learning that having your own opinion and criticising your goverment doesn't mean you have to pack your suitcase with something warm for a trip to syberian gulag. Remember when Chodorkowski was arrested by russian police with Putin's blessing? Russians who openly told what they think about it were minority. Remember Lukaszenka's election victory? Those protesting were minority. In both cases, westerners were more concerned about those situations than those, who were there and should do something.

There's of course a bright example of unity, and I'm talking about orange revolution in Ukrain, when people shown they were really sick of "old" ways and want something new. And changed it, openly talking and showing that they care. Repsect for ukrainians for that.

Well, surely there will be a pause, I'm also off to eastern border of Poland tommorow to visit my relatives,city of Bialystok if you are familiar with the name. Always wanted to visit Crimea, must be a great place, I envy you :)

reply

[–] cogs416 19 years ago

While ALL of the Allies suffered tremendously to defeat the Nazi scourge, there can be no doubt that it was the Soviets that bore the brunt of the fighting..and dying. We Americans lost about 250,000 brave souls in our efforts to defeat the Axis powers (Germany, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Romania), and we must NEVER forget their sacrifice. But homage should also be paid to our Soviet allies for their unimaginable sacrifice of over 25 MILLION soldiers and civilians. The vast majority of whom perished at the hands of the Nazi invaders.

It has been written that once the Germans invaded the Soviet Union they lost the war..I happen to agree with this view. Had they been able to bring ALL of their forces to bear against the Soviets in 1941, and not had them scattered defending France and bailing out their Italian allies in North Africa, things MAY have turned out differently. Thankfully we will never know. There were some costly strategic errors made by the Germans as they advanced thru the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941, all of which ultimately contributed to their defeat. It is highly doubtful that the Nazi's would have ever completely eradicated the Soviet Union. I'm sure even if a truce had been reached and the Soviets had ceded the lost Western parts of their country (which was offerd by Stalin at one point)hostilities would have resumed when they (the Soviets) were in a better position to retake their territory.

Also it must be remembered that the Soviets were fighting and dying for their homeland and for their right to simply live. This is an extremely motivating factor in one's willingness to bear whatever is necessary to win.

The war in Europe was decided in the vast expanses of Soviet Russia, where the bulk of the Wehrmact was engaged (70% by some estimates). This in no way lessens the contributions or sacrifices of our American soldiers, nor that of our other allies, but it is a fact.

reply

[–] gaelforce10 19 years ago

also as well soviet soldiers, which were freed from nazi concentration camps faced a similar fate when they were returned home, as they were treated like traitors for not dying in battle or commiting suicide whilst incarcerated. The Jews also, freed from camps by the Soviets faced a similar fate in Russia

reply

[–] cogs416 19 years ago

After rereading some other posts here I must agree that the effort to defeat the Nazis was of course a combined undertaking. All of the viewpoints expressing U.S. aid ect. are quite valid. But, I believe that even without any kind of assistance from outside the USSR, the Soviets would have ultimately defeated the Nazis. Although I'm sure it would have been a longer and much bloodier fight.

For those who don't know,the Soviets employed extremely draconian measures in their effort to defeat the Nazis. Prisoner battalions made up of soldiers accused of crimes were put into special battalions that would often lead attacks..sometimes without weapons. There were NKVD squads which were used as blocking units..i.e. they would follow attacking troops and shoot any retreating units. Yes shoot their own soldiers. These and other "special" measures seemed to have aided the ultimate Soviet victory. But most Soviet soldiers, just like their Allied counterparts, fought and died as patriotic citizens. Ordinary people caught up in extraordianry events.

Newsreels and movies while offering an insight, cannot convey the true sense of life under Stalin and fighting the Nazis. Intellectually, I understand the situation, but not having lived through it is impossible to truly relate the the Russian experience during the "Great Patriotic War". While the measures employed by the Soviets during the war were by Ameriacn standards horrendous, they may have been necessary.

As for the treatment of those Soviets captured or occupied by the Nazis, well that is shameful. But Stalin's (and therefore the Communist party's) paranoia was the driving force of the State. For leaders like Stalin enemies are everywhere and those citizens "contaminated" by foriegners(under whatever circumstances) become potential enemies of the State and must be rendered harmless. Here again looking through the eyes of history it is easy to condemn the actions taken in those days, but not having actually lived it makes it impossible to relate.

reply

[–] Ekkard 19 years ago

The war was lost in Russia. When U.S. groundtroops arrived in Normandy, Germany was already destroyed. The cities, attacked by US- and UK-bombers were in ruins. The russians, heading for berlin, were hunting german civilians in the eastern part of the reich like cattle and the Wehrmacht was retreating as fast as they could. Russia paid the highest price for WW2 - next to Germany itself.

[email protected] I Rostock, Germany

reply

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

Very true. By the time the western front opened, the Soviets were already in Poland.

As far as paying in human life, the USSR clearly paid the highest price. But I dispute Germany's place as second on the butcher's bill. What about China? At least 10 million (and probably many more) died.

As far as paying the heaviest cost, after looking at the entire war from 1939 to the costs being paid even now, I think Germany has paid the most without question. Despite the enormous losses, the USSR did become a superpower after the war. They occupied East Germany militarily for decades. The US military still have bases in Germany. Konigsberg is still occupied by the Russians and called Kirovograd. The old German provinces of Silesia and East Prussia have been absorbed by Poland as a means of compensating that nation for the USSR keeping the land they took from Poland in 1939. The USSR stripped many industrial centers in eastern Germany and shipped them back to Russia. Both them and the US took many of the best German scientists with them as well. Pride in being German or anything remotely associated with German nationalism has been harshly criticized while it's perfectly OK for any of Germany's neighbors to be very proud of their heritage without stigma. Reminders of the Nazi past and complicity in the Holocaust are still prominently featured in the media. WWII veterans in other nations are publicly celebrated as heroes while German veterans are often very quiet about their experiences, and usually only gather in private for fear of being accused as unrepentant Nazis. I certainly do not think a newscaster will be writing a book claiming they are Germany's 'greatest generation'! Yet no veteran that I have encountered from either side disputes the German soldier's bravery, skill, or fierceness as first class fighting men.

A heavy price to pay indeed. I'm not going to go into whether the price is fully merited or not. It is simply there.

reply

[–] Ekkard 19 years ago

I am astonished how much you know about german history. German soldiers could not have ruled over europe being the idiots they are portrayed as in many hollywood movies. BoB is handling the topic quite fair, I guess. It doesn´t go to deep, but it´s not as bad as in SPR, where the germans are not very human, more like the Vietcong in Rambo... I was in the german army myself, my grandfather was in russia and heavily wounded, his family lost all they owned to the communists.

Still it is clear to me that we started the war and had to pay the price for it. Russians and all others have their own problems dealing with their past today. I like the way ww2 is dealt with over here. To my mind, nobody was born as a hero, most are victims of circumstances, a certain number of people were simply criminals - those who started the war and made Hitler´s Holocaust come true. That made germany loose it´s best people, many of them were jews.

[email protected] I Rostock, Germany

reply

[–] cogs416 19 years ago

Being an American, I cannot fully understand the European...or more specifically German historical view of WW2. We here in America (as I'm sure you are aware) have been bombarded by images from Hollywood of Geman soldiers as simple automatons..blindly killing and dying for Hitler. Unfortunately for generations of Germans, Nazis will always be the ultimate "bad guys" in Hollywood due to their actions during the war...maybe rightly so. As with most of history this is a one-sided and incorrect image though...the victors view. Like all combatants involved the main motivator, I believe for most German (or Japanese or Italian for that matter) soldiers was patriotism. There is no cookie cutter example...all who fought did so for their own reasons...all made decisions right or wrong and had to live with those decisions. I did not live in Germany in the 1930s and 40s, so I cannot judge why people did what they did. I can only look to the historical record and do my best to prevent this type of situation from EVER happening again.

The fact that the Holocaust was perpetrated by the Germans and their many willing accomplises is a fact. Jews were hated by most citizens of Europe (especially eastern Europe) in those days..which only made the Nazi goal of extermination easier. Even my country the "good ole U.S.A." did nothing officially to help those Jews who could escape do so. In my view ALL humanity bears some responsibility for the Holocaust (and the current genocides being committed around the world) either directly or indirectly. The Nazis put their words into action..the rest of the world talked but did nothing. This truly was a crime against humanity...with all of humanity bearing some responsibilty for it's being committed or not stopped.

The truth is while the Allies won the war...Humanity was the loser. 50 million dead and for what. A Cold War that lasted 50+ years.. and our current state of affairs. I'm no pacifist..sometimes war must be waged unfortunately to defend ourselves..but in reality there are NO winners in war..ANY WAR...only those that lose less.

There are lessons to be learned from this movie and others like it..but they are not about who won..or how many died ect. They are about how and why we must work to prevent war itself whenever possible.

Cogs

reply

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

Thanks for the compliment. I'm half German, one generation removed. My Opa fought in the Wehrmacht as well. You would be surprised how many German veterans moved to North America after the war. From what I can gather, since he NEVER spoke about it in much detail to his dying day over ten years ago, he was with the 26th Panzer Division, 67th Panzergrenadier Regiment, formerly the 23rd Infanterie Division, 67th Infanterie Regiment. He was captured in Italy and sent to a POW camp in the US. He emigrated back to the US after the war.

Through reading divisional and regimental histories I do know that he participated in Barbarossa and his division was one of the few that was outside Moscow in December 1941 as part of Model's XXXXI Panzerkorps deployed to the north of Moscow. The division was refitted into a Panzer division and sent to Italy where he was captured.

The treatment of German soldiers by Hollywood has gotten better over time, but there are still examples where Germans are not shown to be monsters in older films. 'Patton' has several Germans acting quite decently, so does 'The Longest Day' regarding generals and staff officers. The actor portraying Luftwaffe ace 'Pips' Priller has some of the funniest lines in the movie. Similarly 'The Battle of Britain' shows the Luftwaffe more as worthy opponents rather than war criminals. It does show Göring being an idiotic ass, but he was! 'The Desert Fox', a movie about Rommel starring James Mason came out in 1951, only six years after the war ended.

Much depends on what the film's plot is, who directs it, and who the target audience is. Many British films featuring their side of the war show Germans as a worthy opponent in a misguided cause. By contrast, many Soviet films show Germans as Nazi thugs burning, looting, raping, and killing everything in sight. American films run the gamut of those extremes: you have the Spielberg films where Germans are more heavily on the evil side with a few personal exceptions like the Oskar Schindlers of the world, and you have Sam Peckinpaugh directing 'Cross of Iron' showing the human side of German soldiers, notably James Coburn, David Warner, and again James Mason. Guess James Mason loved wearing feldgrau...

reply

[–] Ekkard 19 years ago

I really like Cross of Iron by Peckinpah, too. I only saw one russian war movie: »Idi i Smotri« (Come and See) by Elen Klimov. A very violent and strange movie but probably true on the atrocities behind the eastern front. It would be interesting to see a production on the war in the east done BoB-style – in such a high quality.

[email protected] I Rostock, Germany

reply

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

Yes, Idi i Smotri was strange. Almost surrealistic. Well, as surrealistic as the Soviets were willing to allow probably. Many parts of it seemed very true about how the SS Einsatzgruppen operated in the occupied parts of the USSR. Roll into a village, round up the villagers, put them in a barn, then burn everything down and kill everybody. Not too sure on the SS drunken orgy scene though.

Another good Soviet made film is Osvobozhdenie (Liberation). The only problem is that it is only in Russian. No dubbed or subtitled version. The copy I saw belonged to a Russian immigrant friend of mine who was good enough to translate the gist of what was being said. It was made quite some time ago however.

Yes, hopefully a good feature film can be done about the Eastern Front. Perhaps something on the battles at Kursk, Moscow, Leningrad, Velikiye Luki, or Cholm. The problem is that after 'Enemy at the Gates' came out with a thud, the genre isn't one that Hollywood is likely to explore again soon. They spent $70 million on that piece of crap and only got $51 million back from it. They don't really get that they only made $51 million because it's an awful film. They just look at the fact that they spent $70 million on an Ostfront movie and only got $51 million back. Their conclusion is probably that Ostfront doesn't sell in the US, not 'gee, we made a massive turd: that's why it didn't sell, lets change that and make something good that will sell'. It will probably have to be a German company that makes it, just like 'Stalingrad', or 'Das Boot'. Perhaps a Russian company. And it will probably be better and more accurate than if Hollywood did it.

reply

[–] Ekkard 19 years ago

I agree though I liked parts of »Enemy at the Gates«, the battle scenes at the beginning were awesome. I will look out for »Liberation«, maybe it´s out in german, because of east germany´s history as you may know. I don´t know if you get them in english but good german titles from the past are »Hunde, wollt Ihr ewig leben«, »Fabrik der Offiziere«, »Soweit die Fuesse tragen« (old mini series and remake from 2002), »U 47 - Kapitaenleutnant Prien« and »08/15« (three parts of this movie).

[email protected] I Rostock, Germany

reply

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

The parts of Germans are acted by German actors and spoken in German. At least at first, then the Russian dubbing begins and you can't understand what's being said in German! Damn them! Maybe it is available in German.

I've seen "Hunde, wollt Ihr ewig leben", and read Kirst's Gunner Asch books, which were the basis for the "08/15" trilogy, and his book "Fabrik der Offiziere". Other good films were "Die Brücke", and "Strafbatallion 999". I'll have to look into those others - thanks!

reply

[–] Ekkard 19 years ago

You really seem to know your business, bradstory! I read the »Gunner Asch«-Books too. By the way, I just found out that »Liberation« is available as a 5-dvd-box at german »amazon.de« for 100 Euros under the title »Befreiung«. It contains a series of five parts, I guess I already saw it at a shop. It is completely in german language and I will get it soon.

[email protected] I Rostock, Germany

reply

[–] Ekkard 19 years ago

Interesting fact: Part of »enemy at the gates« was filmed in a village close to where I live in the german state of brandenburg. They used an empty old village that was deserted as a background at least for parts of the movie. I read about it in our local newspaper.

[email protected] I Rostock, Germany

reply

[–] bradstory 19 years ago

That's an odd coincidence! A film about Stalingrad filmed in Germany while 'Der Untergang', a film about the fall of Berlin was filmed in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Pretty ironic...

reply

[–] hovaisa 15 years ago

Thanks for naming movies I've never heard of. I will try to find them.
Did you see "Konvoy PQ-17", about british contribution in weakening USSR and making desive battles of 1942 even more severe.

reply

[–] Deathspoon 19 years ago

Germany could not have won against the USSR. It could not have won against the US. Put two and two together, and you have large odds in the Allies' favor. There's a reason why the two became the only superpowers after the war.

reply

[–] fw-bz 18 years ago

"Germany could not have won against the USSR. It could not have won against the US."

For "Germany could not have won against the USSR." Well that's the question. If Germany could have concentraded all its power only against the USSR there is a chance they could have won. On the other end - even if Germany not coulf have won agianst the USSR remains a question. Could the USSR have won against Germany and forcing it to surrender without the support of the other nation? I don't believe. The bombing of Germany was important to hit German power. One example: without the Allies Germany would have had the Aircraft-advantage all over the war against the USSR. In my opinion: Germany vs. USSR = ending in a draw. Maybe some advantages for Germany in the beginning (some chances to beat the USSR) and little advantages for the USSR later.

For "Germany could not have won against the US". Sure Germany wourld not be able to occupy the US - but on the other hand the US could also never have won against Germany. There is no way that they had occupied Germany alone. They had even some problems togehter with the British against 10% of the Germans. They never had beaten 100% of the German army. Again a draw. But I think this draw would ended with little advantages for Germany.

And about Britain. Germany only against Britain. They would easily have won in time. They would not have produced so much tanks and in time they would have beaten the British. At least the British alone had no chance to beat Germany.

But against Britain, USSR and US - Germany could have never won.

reply

[–] Keylimepie 19 years ago

In case no one heard, the U.S. did indeed open a second front. It was called the Pacific Theater. When the U.S. opened a second front in Europe, it was really their 3rd. America committed millions of men to the war. It does nothing for the discussion to belittle any of the Allies. The Finns fought a heroic and unwinnable action against the Soviets called the Winter War. It was horrible. Forced to abide by deploreable peace demands, the Finns then helped the Nazis because of their deep distrust and hatred of the Soviets. Nothing in war is simple, nothing in war is certain, nothing in war is easy.

What about the Australians and Kiwis? They bore a large portion of the Japanese attacks, and in proportion to their populations, they lost more men than anyone. England refused to bow to German bombing despite huge odds against them. America lost a lot of men (not in comparison, however, to the Russians), so did everyone else. Except the Irish. My own people were cowardly and craven. They favored the Reich all because of their hatred of the English. It is something rarely talked about. Remaining neutral, they were basically saved by the English, Scots, and Welsh. As all neutrals do (and this includes Sweden), they have someone else do their fighting for them.

reply

[–] dbray2 19 years ago

IMHO - I believe that Hitler and the Germans lost the war more than the allies won it.

A couple of supporting facts and then I'll let you all debate my reasoning. No particular order here...

1: Drove the allies to the sea at Dunkirk and then was persuaded to try to destroy them on the beaches by air rather than continue pressing the attack thereby allowing Britain to retain a great number of their soldiers.

2: Began the invasion of Russia a month later than planned due to instability in Greece. The extra month would have allowed them to reach Moscow and since Stalin wasn't very effective at the time, could have changed the outcome.

3: Rather than allowing Rommel to evacuate the majority of his troops and equipment when N. Africa was going badly, Hitler resorted to the ill-fated "No-Retreat" policy.

4: Rather than allowing Pallus to evacuate the majority of his troops and equipment when Stalingrad was going badly, Hitler resorted to the ill-fated "No-Retreat" policy and supply them by air.

5: For some reason, German never developed a 4-engine long range bomber to attack Russian industry when they pulled back behind the Urals.

6: Spent way too much money and time devloping "wonder-weapons" rather than concentrating on effective, practical ones.

7: Decided the best use of the Jet Rocket from the ME262 would be a bomber rather than a fighter.

8: Germany's complete reliance on ENIGMA

9: Changed tactics from strategic bombing of Britain to random wholesale bombing of London allowing RAF to keep its airfields and such. Also this galvanized the British people for the war rather than destroy their ability to wage war.

10: Declared WAR on US - allowing for official US entry into conflict.

11: Hitler's insistance on preparing and reviewing all battle plans.

12: Rather than using the millions of potential soldiers who would have almost guranteed victory - Hitler instead rounded them up into camps, gassed and killed them. Hitler and the Nazi's hatred and destruction of the German and Polish Jews was a huge error - these were potential workers and soldiers. Not to mention the infrastructure and manpower that was need to handle all of them as prisoners. People in Russia who when Germany invaded may have been swayed to fight on the side of Germany, were also rounded up and "dealt-with".

13: Alienated and forced many of the brightest scientists to leave Germany before the war. Their knowledge and ideas would have proven very beneficial to Germany but instead were employed by the Allies.

14: Lack of preparedness for Winter campaigns from resources and material. Way too many of their own died or were incapacitated due to the weather and conditions they were fighting in.

15: Hitler's insistance on "Emotional Targets" such as Leningrad or Stalingrad in the hopes of defeating Russian moral rather than strategic targets which would defeat them militarily.

These say nothing to the lack of natural resources such as Oil that are necessary to sustain a military campaign. If Germany had started the war a year later, he would have been much more successful.

While taking nothing away from the US or Russia military - my father and uncles were in the US Navy in WWII - with these glaring mistakes, it was just a matter of time. There was no way Germany would have been able to win. It's true Russia did fight the vast majority of the German Army - it did take the US and other allies almost a year to make it from France to Berlin and an almost equal amount of time for the Italian campaign and they were fighting only around 30% of German troops.

The US and Western Allies did suffer greater air losses due to the bombing campains however they were effective in disrupting (not destroying) Germany's ability to wage war. The US did provide needed resources to Russian early on in the war via the Merchant convoys.

The Russians more than anything persuaded Germany that bigger and more powerful weapons were needed and since the Germans have a nack for very meticulous and precision machines, their endeavors didn't always pan out on the battlefield whereas Russian simplicity and cheapness did. Look at the comparison of Tank development by the Germans compared to any other country in the war. The Mark I, II, II IV, Panther, Tiger, JagaPanther, JagaTiger, King Tiger - compare the complexity and total cost of ownership of these vs the Russian T-34 or US Sherman.

While German troops were better trained they weren't always properly outfitted and the moral of troops in the thick of a battle certainly cannot be lifted very high when they must push and drag their equipment out the mud and muck via horses or by hand. If you haven't read it, check out "The Forgotten Soldier" which chronicles the life on a soldier on the Eastern Front. The image of needing to urinate on ones hands to keep them warm demomstrates this point effectively. Needing to light fires under tanks and vehicles to get their fluids unfrozen before using them makes one wonder how did they manage to last in the war as long as they did.

Another common theme in my list is the over reliance on Air Power. Sure it's a great tool and having an effective air force is essential but frankly - there are certain things that air power just can't do and yet Hitler believed it could.

SO that's it. That's my humble opinion on the subject. Thanks for reading.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fightyourradio 18 years ago

saying anyone side won the war would be idiotic IMO. both were major players. both had glaring weaknesses and strengths. But ultimitly it took both sides to win the war.

reply

[–] notquiteright1231 18 years ago

The Russians were more of a factor against Germany, but it cannot be forgotton that America also had to fight the Japanese.

reply

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 15 years ago

great post dbray

reply

[–] Smokey0442 18 years ago

WOW! Does anyone here remember that we were building the atomic bomb originally to use on Germany? The war would've been over in Europe in August of 1945 anyways, because the United States had nuclear weapons and would have destroyed Germany's ability to make war.

As soon as Germany declared war on the U.S., it was over for them because of the Manhattan project.

reply

[–] cawimmer430 18 years ago

A couple of things...

Germany only declared war on the US because they were an ally of Japan. Under this agreement, Germany had to declare war on the US. Japan however didn't stick to their part of the agreement: attacking the Soviet Union from the East.

German 4-engined bombers? Someone mentioned that. Germany had a few 4-engined bombers but they were very complex and plaqued with problems. Essentially, they were built in a handful of numbers and were strategically useless. The Luftwaffe was smart enough not too waste too many resources on these things. The Germans did work on this though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerikabomber

The "Germans" didn't decide that the Me-262 was going to be a bomber: it was Hitler's personal decision. Despite this, the Me-262 was an effective bomber killer along with the Heinkel He-219 Uhu (built less than 300 times) and various BF-109's and FW-190's equipped with the MK-108 cannon.

Finally, the Soviet Union defeated Germany. The Western Allies contributed as well, but it was the Soviet Union that suffered the most casualties and destruction etc. This has been said often enough here.

The interesting part is that the massive military powers of the USA, USSR, The Commonwealth etc. took "so long" to defeat the German Army. There is an interesting quote I once read (can't remember who said it):

"The German Army may have been outnumbered and outgunned on the field of battle, but it was never outclassed."

-CW

reply

[–] Luc_op 18 years ago

i know who won the war

THE ALLIES

The U.S.S.R (if these guys wasnt in the war, Germany would have won)

The U.S.A

The UK

Austrailia

Norway (seriusly, no one thinks of it but these guys might have saved everyone by delyeing Germanys production of nuclear weapons)

Canada

(and maybe some small country that i missed)

They ALL won togheter

and who won most? the U.S.S.R, face it Americans, 70% of the german Warmacht was at the East front and even so, the russians got to berlin before you

reply

[–] Chapaev36 18 years ago

The USSR.

reply

[–] afrika_korps_3 18 years ago

Hello everyone,

I agree with the above user - that it was indeed us (the Germans) who lost themselves, but for the most part I agree with yogurtt on the fact that Russians were responsible the most for our defeat. It came to such a point where we were suffering with low supplies, even the best of our generals couldn't do anything, because we hardly had any arms to fight. If Hitler would've perhaps waited patiently for a couple of years and enlarged the economy twice as it was in 1939, then we would've most probably won the war. Considering the fact, that we were versing too many super powers with an infinite amount of supplies was hard to believe during that time that we were still winning the war. But I think it's obvious that anybody will lose in a situation where it's 10 versus 1. However, if Japan would've attacked the Russians from the east, then we could've still won. That's what we were depending on, but oh well.

Alles Gute.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]