WW2:Eastern Front

[Russ]

I saw this TV show a couple of days ago, when a teenager was saying something like "Britain suffered a massive 388,000 deths" and he went on to say what a shame it was for the British, and how Britain was hard done to.

Now strangely enough this got me angry! why on earth you ask?

take the British deaths, and take away 88,000.
leaves u with 300,000 right? now thats alot of deaths for one war, never mind 1 country!
Now take that figure... and add 21 MILLION!, and thats how many russians died!

And how many people know or care? not enough! how can one country have 21.3 million deaths and nobody really say how hard they must of fought, and instead rave about how 50,000 men held off the germans so another 350,000 could escape at Dunkirk.

Now around 51 and a qtr MILLION people died in total, if you delete the deaths of the next three countries in order of deaths (china,germany,poland) all of who are heavily noted for having a high amount of deaths, theres in total comes to around 22 million.

The point of this post, im not quite sure yet, but in future, when you here about how russia suffered, listen, cos they did.

/me hugs mother russia

[Russ]

ooh and to quote Stalin "one death is a tradgey, a million deaths is a statistic"

[M@rco]

I tottaly agree i am italian and it pisses me off when people say the italian army were cowards when it is all not ture. Italians in WW2 were poorly equiped and ttained and had no real goal that they were ighting for. The Italian army didnt even ahd have proper tanks till 1940 and when they were invented they onyl created 2!!! these were driven around in trucks for parades. Then you wonder why italian troops surrenderd, becuase they wer fighting an enemy with tanks , hhmm tank vs rifleman not good odds. PLus there are many instances of insane bravery for Italian aplini troops , when they ran outa of ammo fireing at tanks they would fix bayonets and charge the enamy tanks. Ahh feel better

[Russ]

i've read numerous stories of italian special forces who carried out missions AGAINST th germans after they had surenderred.

The Itallians are hard done too, the french were worse, surrendered and left every bridge, road, canal, sub pen, tank facitlity intact, and with a big ribbon saying "to adolf", stupid really

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Russ
The Itallians are hard done too, the french were worse, surrendered and left every bridge, road, canal, sub pen, tank facitlity intact, and with a big ribbon saying "to adolf", stupid really

I'm surprised and amazed by your ill-judge comment regarding the French during the WWII.

If you've any understanding of history, you'd recognized that the Frenched a lot of people in WWI and that gave rise to pacifist approached to international politics in the 1930s. As a nation, they just didn't want to fight. Moreover, due to the lack of political and military insight into the next generation of conflict, the French was ill-equipped, ill-trained and lack leadership at the highest level to allow them to go to the fight with any chance of winning.

If you've any understanding of military history, you'd also recognized that at the beginning of WWII, the Germans had the most advanced military machine combined with the, probably, the best battlefield tactics known at the time. Utilizing speed, power and surprise, the German army were capable of more than anything the participants on the Western Front could handle. As the B.E.F. found out, they were simply no match for the German war machine. Why else should the B.E.F. evacuate from Dunkirk?

Don't forget, WWII was not a 'CNN war', there was little or no coverage, but the few brave correspondants attached to a few units. Moreover, these people seldom see real action, if at all.

Should you want to be more informed about the bloodiest chapter of human history, I've a list of books that I've read, which I think are good starting point for getting a better insight into this horrific conflict.

[Russ]

So none of us shoulf have faught? German DID have the greatest army known to man, they had a leader so brilliant i can barely begin ti describe, and EVERY1 in europe had a crap army except the germans, belguim and luxembourg fought for weeks with only a handfull of men and a poor army, did they surrender? did they hell.

I admit my comment about the french was a bit harsh, and i appreciate nearly 1 million frenchmen lost there lives in ww2.
Thats also quite a collection of books you have there, sorry if any offence was caused

[M@rco]

As i say most countries were not ready for war in 1939, the Italian army was one of the most advanceed in the world in 1936 but never upgraded therefore was using old mahcinery and tatics by 1939 the same happened with the French. The belgians fought hard as did the Polish but yet the are never mentioned my many historians its always America and England.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by Russ
So none of us shoulf have faught? German DID have the greatest army known to man, they had a leader so brilliant i can barely begin ti describe, and EVERY1 in europe had a crap army except the germans, belguim and luxembourg fought for weeks with only a handfull of men and a poor army, did they surrender? did they hell.

I just I'd correct your assumption there... Luxembourg didn't surrender because the Grand Dutchy was simply over ran by the German armies en route to Frnace and Belgium. The Belgians and Dutch surrendered when their countries were overran also.

There is a fine balance between 'fighting to the last man, the last bullet and the last gun' and calling it a day when all is lost. The Nazis had the former philosophy and German nation layed in ruins at the end of the war. You've to question yourself, are you prepare to send ill trained farmers, clerks, taxi drivers, secretaries, school boys, etc to fight against a professional army? That is simply a case of pushing the lamb into the slaughter house. Throwing adolescent boys and their granddads into an unwinnable war/battle is, in my eyes, criminal.

The Germans did have the best land based fighting machine know to man in 1940-1941. The combination of speed, shock, tactics and flexibility made them what they were. No more, no less. As the war went on, the supreme commander, Hitler, interferred more and more. Some of his decisions flied against military sense. Out of all of his decisions at critial times, the only one which proofed to correct was the command to make Army Group Center to halt its retreat from Moscow. Additionally, fact that it didn't turned into another 'stand and fight' disaster (like Stalingrad, Tunis, etc.) was that command came at a time when the Soviets were running out of steam in their own counter-attack from around the Soviet capital. Hitler did not have a better understanding of how to fight a war/battle than you and I. He was a madman who managed to gain power and was fortunate enough to have a very able army at his command. The true geniuses in the German army were the front line / army group commanders.

[TiG]

It wasn't just the French that didn't want to fight, look at how long we let hitler get away with stuff before declaring war.

In breach of the treaty banning them having only limited numbers of troops and military materials, while german was building war materials the rest of the world was making freezers, cars etc.

The only reason we didn't sucumb to the same fate was down to the english channel. I'm sure the people of this country would have made hitler pay for every step he took into britain, but i'm afraid that it wouldn't have been enough. Our tanks at this point of the war where totally outclassed by the german Panzer 2 and 3's. The matilda's and Crusaders where either too lightly armoured or had no punch to their guns.

Try playing the game Hearts of Iron if you really want a clear understanding of what options france had. That being None, even on the easiest level I can't keep france alive. Germany just decimates everything they've got.

I know this is only a game but its the most realistic game that exists which models wwII, Its got all the historical events like the pre war events in spain in 1938.

TiG

[Russ]

when hitler reached normandy, he was told by his advisors to attack England, and he didnt, he attacked russia instead. Now if he would have, before we had chance to arm our selves, and attack germany then i very much do doubt you'd be readin this today

[M@rco]

No we should remeber all that died fighting for their country weather they be British German Russian French Italian etc as the ordinary soilder was just doing his duty to his homeland fighting for his family. We should remember all who died and learn from the mistakes man kind has made in the past.

[dpm]

Originally posted by TiG
The only reason we didn't sucumb to the same fate was down to the english channel. TiG

Exactly. You hear an awful lot of french bashing on the internet, but people overlook this fact. The German military superiority at the beginnig of the war was such that they carried all before them.

Luckily Britain and America had space to prepare - to reassess their troops and tactics, and adapt to be able to fight the Germans. Despite this breathing space, and the lessons learn't in the fall of France, The UK and USA still got quite a mauling in North Africa (the 'green' American forces, especially).

France had no where to fall back to - no natural barrier like the channel, and a capital city in easy reach from Belgium. Trenches weren't going to work this time. It is ironic, becuase in the thirties France was judged as having the greatest Army in the world. The problem was that 30's armies were made as obsolete as pre-dreadnought battleships had been, 20 years earlier.

[spikegifted]

The Germans' Operation Sealion was actually well in advance planning by July 1940, after the defeat of France. They actually transferred a large number of barges from various large rivers in Germany, especially the Rhine over to Holland and Belgium in preparation for the seabourne invasion. However, the air force could not achieve superiority over the British skies, largely due to the superior Hurricane and Spitfire built by the British, but also the poor strategic planning and the lack of long range goals on the German side. If the Germans continued to bomb and destroy air fields and maintenance facilities for the air force, the British could not be able to sent the plane up and the German would have achieve superiority over the British sky. In addition, due to the lack of strategic planning, the Germans missed the opportunity to capture/eliminate a large portion of the B.E.F. before it managed to be extracted from Dunkirk. Should the evacuation of the B.E.F. was not achieved in the scale that it did, the land-based forces in the UK will significantly smaller and less well trained. The possibility of sending a smaller initial invasion force would mean the invasion with the materiale available at the time would become higher.

In general, the US troops were not accustomed to fighting outside North American soil. Additionally, at the outbreak of war, the US army was still largely non-mechanized. There were a few very able commanders who knew and preached mobile warfare to the army establishment, notably Patton and Ike. However, after the rather steep learning curve at Operation Torch and the strict dicipline imposed by Patton afterwards, the US troops became one of the most efficient fighting machine on the Allied side.

[sparky191]

Originally posted by Russ
when hitler reached normandy, he was told by his advisors to attack England, and he didnt, he attacked russia instead. Now if he would have, before we had chance to arm our selves, and attack germany then i very much do doubt you'd be readin this today

I dunno where you are getting all this from but your comments thus far have been very inaccurate. No offense but you really need to get your facts straight before just posting rubbish.

Hitler needed air superiority to invade the UK. He couldn't achieve it. Which is why the battle of britain was so important.

Hitler was a poor military tactician. He only knew one tactic which was the lighning strike. Once that didn't work he didn't what to do. He lost more battles than he won.

Russia should have been ready for Hitler. The truth Stalin spent more time fighting internal battles to hold on to power than concentrating on the threat from Hitler. The allieds gave huge amounts of material and technology to Russia during the war. Don't forget that too.

WWII is hugely complicated. Theres lots of books on it. You should do some more reading on it.

[Russ]

Originally posted by sparky191
WWII is hugely complicated. Theres lots of books on it. You should do some more reading on it.

Prehaps you should stop reading books?

I get most of my facts from living people, people who were in the RAF and the Army at the time, as this is a better source then any book, written 40 years later by a chap who's readin from another book.

[Skii]

I think we need to go back to the basics on this, the loss of Russian life in WW2 was incredible, and as Russ correctly points out, in far greater than any other country.

Russian troops were sent into battle often unarmed due to there being not enough weapons to go around, Stalin and the Russian generals believed in the ultimate use of cannon fodder, in other words just keep charging and attacking until your enemy is defeated, regardless of the cost or the caualties.

The French wer victims of one of the biggest tactical blunders of WW2 - they put their entire hope in the form of the Maginot line, - an underground bunker network with hundreds of turrets and guns, stretching for 150 miles it was designed to stop the German forces marching into France again.

Problem was, the highly mobilised German army simply went AROUND it !

France was the victim of the most efficient and devastating war machine on earth, they simply didn't stand a chance, and in the mere blink of an eye Panzer tanks were rumbling down the Champs Elysees.

Geographically, had England been in the same position, it would have been no different. Our saving grace was the English Channel.