Jump to content

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Churchill and FDR As Military Leaders.


JerseyJohn

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Shaka and Konstantin

I didn't know the army was leading the way against it's own officers. It makes sense, in every closed inquisition, the accused always beget other victims and an hysteria of accusations ensues.

Yeah, in the Red Army there was Kritika and Samokritika. These were criticism sessions that were encouraged and held with the various units of the RKKA.

Kritika was held openly in a unit gathering setting. Each soldier got to air his issues and they were discussed. Solutions were devised.

Samokritika was were more closed and this is usually were the denouciations took place.

The accusations were generally investigated and yes I have seen documentation of officers that were aquitted.

I also saw a story of a soldier that accused his officer of being an enemy of the people. It was investigated and the accusation was false, the accuser got arrested.

Unfortunately for a lot of soviet officers, the defination of being an enemy of the state was quite vague. It could include have contacts in foreign countries, travel to foreign countries, friends that were Kulaks (wealthy upper class land owners before the revolution), being a Trotskyite, on and on.

The new information coming out on the purges is absolutely fascinating. David Glantz has really uncovered a lot of excellent stuff buried in the old Soviet archives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

jerseyjohn-- good post! the japanese (our allies in ww1) would have also been an interesting one to follow from 1861 onward, as you point out.

you said--

Also, I don't necesarrily agree that if left alone the Southern States would have abolished slavery in the 1880s. While the Civil War was in progress, various southerners were discussing the south's future as expanding into South America where the cotton industry could continue to flourish as never before. I doubt those gentlemen were planning to pick the stuff themselves.

yes of course the war seperated, and defined the different sides, it polarized the issues, making the extremes on both side more exteme.

if the war would have been postponed for any reason, i believe pressure could have been applied by many sources. every country that was hanging onto it gave it up in the next few years.

all british and french colonies had officially given it up already.

1811 to 1867

Operating off the Atlantic coast of Africa,160,000 slaves are liberated by the British Navy's Anti-Slavery Squadron between 1811 and 1867.

1863

The government of the Netherlands takes official action to abolish slavery in all Dutch colonies.

Brazil was the last country in the western hemisphere to abolish slavery (1888).

in the us it wasnt a matter of morals, or convenience, it was a matter of money. machinery was begining to be produced that made it cost prohibitive.

use iowa (my home state) as a comparison. in the 1800s it was a small farm state.you grew what you ate with a tiny bit left over on good years to buy a good horse. mechanization and mass production then made it possible for a farmer to be more efficient, and therefore to aquire more land (like the big plantations). multiply this by a few decades, and only the most efficient and largest farmers survived. if you were a small farmer, you just couldnt produce enough to survive.

this is slavery in a nutshell. eventually, you couldnt keep enough land or slaves to be profitable. left with fewer and fewer slaveholders, each of them larger and larger,and more efficient,any anti-slavery pressure applied would have shifted the most ardent ones views, especially if a repayment per slave was involved. (as your mention of slaves being renumerated to libya)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Konstatin

Well, that was a nice try defending Stalin, But I think that Robert Duvall could have done a better job running the war! Stalin knew how to murder people, mostly those closest too him. Brothers, wives, children, diplomat's, generals, armies, whoever. That takes no skill, his only skill was being a disfunctional twisted psudo-priest sadist misfit pervert(your basic despot dictator). Show me where he had any concept of military strategy or economic knowledge and I will be truly supprised, he only truly knew how to be a bully, and could back it up with deadly cruel calculation. Russia had a large pool of cannon fodder (it's people), and a lot of space with rivers and marshes plus a horriffic winter to stop the Germans. Not until Stalingrad did the Russians even believe that they were equal to the Weremacht, even though they were three times larger. The only salvation that Russia had was the willingness of their soldiers to take a bullet, either from the Germans or the NKVD.

Besides all above I think Stalin was a really nice guy!

To Shaka

I agree with your assessment of FDR and Churchill, but not with the Jap pilots. The Japanese pilots were samuri minded, flying by themselves and not together. The Americans pilots at Guadalcanal beat them with slower planes but better tactics (the loose duce, or the four finger formation) each pilot having a wingman to cover his tail. Those Jap Navy pilots that were killed at midway were good but very few, and Japan couldn't replace them showing the weakness of the JN forsight and depth.

General Adolf Galand of the Luftwaffe said in his book that the German pilots were most afraid of the RAF Fighter pilots, even when America had the P-51. He said that the brit pilots would attack and were fearless. But B-17's shot down more germans fighters than anything else, so who knows.

To Jersey

Mussolini had many good qualities. He always kept fit so that the women would like him, he could speak before huge crowds, and at the beginning he intimidated Hitler. And I understand he could write well, although I have never read anything that he wrote. When it came to war he couldn't find his ass with both hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

To Konstatin

Well, that was a nice try defending Stalin, But I think that Robert Duvall could have done a better job running the war! Stalin knew how to murder people, mostly those closest too him. Brothers, wives, children, diplomat's, generals, armies, whoever. That takes no skill, his only skill was being a disfunctional twisted psudo-priest sadist misfit pervert(your basic despot dictator). Show me where he had any concept of military strategy or economic knowledge and I will be truly supprised, he only truly knew how to be a bully, and could back it up with deadly cruel calculation. Russia had a large pool of cannon fodder (it's people), and a lot of space with rivers and marshes plus a horriffic winter to stop the Germans. Not until Stalingrad did the Russians even believe that they were equal to the Weremacht, even though they were three times larger. The only salvation that Russia had was the willingness of their soldiers to take a bullet, either from the Germans or the NKVD.

Besides all above I think Stalin was a really nice guy!

Don't read much Eastern Front stuff do ya.

Stalin was not a military genius. Unlike Hitler, Stalin came to terms with this, and allowed his generals to conduct the war after his early over-ambitious set backs (Winter 1941/42, Kharkov 42, Leningrad 42).

Stalin would give them an objective, such as Destroy this, this and this and capture points A, B and C. His generals then would make the plans.

Same with the economic issues. He would inform his advisors what he wanted and expected them to do it.

He was a political genius, not a military strategist or an economist. He knew how to manipulate things to get what he needed. Want a popular example, ok. Konev and Zhukov in the drive on berlin. Stalin drew the line separating the fronts on the map and stopped it short of berlin. He did this because he knew of the rivalry between the two and doing this would spur them on.

As I said in the previous post, he was not a swell guy. However you discount the great service and he and they russian people did, and that was defeat nazi germany.

But hey the second world war was won on the beaches of Normandy, wasn't it? Or at least thats what most people think.

Oh here is a link to an article written by a definately anti-soviet person that deals with the above. The statisics mirror a lot of books:

http://www.ww2n.com/archives/art-20010426.shtml

[ April 29, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Konstatin V. Kotelnikov ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Comrade

We were talking about Military leaders and their competency, not how many Ivan's or Fritz's were murdered in Mother Russia.

Your Berlin analogy is hilarious. Russian troops in US trucks and jeeps, eating US food, masterfully destroying old men and little boys with panzerfaust, and still the Russians lost 1,000,000 men taking Berlin, what an achievement!

And what was that about Trotsky, your hero. HE was a idealistic cowardly commie romantic slim, who would have become another Stalin given the chance. Socialism is crap with choclate coating!

I'm not trying to be mean, but really, Trotsky? Do you like democracy?

And yes I read plenty on The Great Patriotic War, and the USSR Army, not impressed, yes they killed a lot of germans, but 1 german killed 20 russians, bad tactics, poor treatment of their own troops, and not very good Generals, SC should have the Russian Generals around the same as the Italians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Dear Comrade

We were talking about Military leaders and their competency, not how many Ivan's or Fritz's were murdered in Mother Russia.

Your Berlin analogy is hilarious. Russian troops in US trucks and jeeps, eating US food, masterfully destroying old men and little boys with panzerfaust, and still the Russians lost 1,000,000 men taking Berlin, what an achievement!

And what was that about Trotsky, your hero. HE was a idealistic cowardly commie romantic slim, who would have become another Stalin given the chance. Socialism is crap with choclate coating!

I'm not trying to be mean, but really, Trotsky? Do you like democracy?

And yes I read plenty on The Great Patriotic War, and the USSR Army, not impressed, yes they killed a lot of germans, but 1 german killed 20 russians, bad tactics, poor treatment of their own troops, and not very good Generals, SC should have the Russian Generals around the same as the Italians.

That is your opinion, not based on much historical fact, but you are entitled to it. And we all know what they say about opinions...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaWolf

We forgot to mention how he kept the trains running on time and that, for a while, he rid Italy of the Mafia -- he wanted his own operation to be the only crime ring in town.

Your unkind assessment of his non-existant military skills are perfectly correct, as we all knew. I just wanted somebody to put in a good word for him.

Also, according to Kurt Vonnegut, Jr, he used to make opponents who he felt had wronged him drink a large glass of castor oil. The result was usually severe abdominal problems or death. Probably he figured such deaths could be disguised and presented as natural.

Another odd thing about his administration is the extent to which it was riddled with political lackies and inept officers. Libya, for example, had been Italian since 1911, yet aircraft stationed there in WW II were not equiped with sand filters. Which is ironic considering it was the first place were bombs were dropped from an aircraft upon enemy troops -- Itanlian pilot, Ottoman troops.

He started out as a newspaperman, and a socialist.

[ April 29, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comrade KK

That is your opinion, not based on much historical fact, but you are entitled to it. And we all know what they say about opinions...

Which part is not historical, Stalin didn't know military strategy, Trotsky was a boob, or the Soviet Army traded blood for bullets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear SW,

You're right, we need one. Let me try to find one I haven't used already.

My favorite is of him being jealous of Germany's successes and swaggering in to see Hitler with a cheerful grin on his face pronouncing "Fuhrer, we are on the march!"

Hitler was busy trying to line the Balkans up as allies, including Greece and Yugoslavia. Greece was on the verge of striking a deal when IL Duce made his inspired move. He waited till the rains started hoping to catch the Greeks off guard and, as a further strategic inspiration he also withdrew thousands of troops on the eve of the invasion, befuddling everyone, especially his own generals.

Witnesses said Hitler began quivering and trembling uncontrolably as Mussolin finished with, "Italy is taking posession of Greece."

Meanwhile, I'm offering this British Propaganda Poster alledging to be an X-ray of his brain. :D

xray.jpg

[ April 29, 2003, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Which part is not historical, Stalin didn't know military strategy, Trotsky was a boob, or the Soviet Army traded blood for bullets.

Hehe... the only "historical" thing in your post is your historically-common response to defining any quasi-positive opinion on Soviet performance as heresy.

As they say in California, 'chill dude'.

And, for the record -- regardless of anyone's opinion of Stalin, the Soviet Army or communism in general -- like Konstantin, I'm still grateful that the former did the world a great service: contributing the most towards ridding the earth of Nazis.

I can only hope that someone steps forward to do the same the next time around.

As for SC's focus on the Eastern Front as just about the most critical to winning/losing the game, I'm glad Hubert didn't take the politically-correct way out and make the USA the absolute colossus it is in some other games.

SC is... how should I put it... just right. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

Comrade KK

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That is your opinion, not based on much historical fact, but you are entitled to it. And we all know what they say about opinions...

Which part is not historical, Stalin didn't know military strategy, Trotsky was a boob, or the Soviet Army traded blood for bullets. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fastball high and tight -- he ducks or he'd have gotten beaned -- and the dugouts are emptying -- what a brawl!"

By normal standards I'd have to agree with SeaWolf. By the Standards of the Soviet Union it becomes more convoluted. Soviet Russia was the legacy of the Czars. Five centuries of generally brutal rule, often combined with gross misrule, left the place different from the rest of Europe. Less than a hundred years earlier much of the population had been bound to the land as serfs. I think Stalin, more than Lenin, became the successor to the Czars, and Lenin's rule had also been brutal by the standards of other countries.

Personally I've always liked Trotsky's writings, especially his account of the 1905 events. But in the Russian Revolution he was the ruthless leader of the fledgling Bolshevik Army, ordering the execution of an entire regiment on one occasion.

Whether or not all the butchering, brutality and especially the gulags, were necessary is still up for debate. I don't think it was but, by the same token I wouldn't claim to be an expert on Stalinist Russia.

My views on this subject have always been about the same as SeaWolf's. Were all the marching through minefields and other high casualty tactics really necessary? Surely there were better methods. Soviet infantry, even without mine detectors, would have been just as capable of feeling their way through minefields using bayonets as any other country's soldiers. I'm sure most units did, then I read about (usually penal battalions) being ordered to treat a minefild as though it were an enemy position and attack through it and I have to shake my head in disgust.

What I'm wondering about is whether, if Josef Stalin hadn't existed, the USSR would have found a leader exactly like him. Again, I'm not convinced it would have. Without Stalin I think Trotsky would have ruled Russia more inteligently and humanely and his results would have achieved faster and better than was done under Stalin.

Anyhow, this thread is to allow us to duke out differences of opinion and hear everyone's viewpoints. It's good that we have such a variety of them, otherwise the place would get awfully boring.

[ April 29, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Konstantin

". . ..in the Red Army there was Kritika and Samokritika. These were criticism sessions that were encouraged and held with the various units of the RKKA.

Kritika was held openly in a unit gathering setting. Each soldier got to air his issues and they were discussed. Solutions were devised.

Samokritika was were more closed and this is usually where the denouciations took place.

Glad you filled us in on them. While watching Doctor Zhivago for perhaps the 20th time the other day I was pleased to see, and for the first time understand, both types of meetings in the Russian Revolution/Civil War scenes.

[ April 29, 2003, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benito Mussolini (1883 - 1945)

I did the best with what I had

The year is 1922, the 39 year old Mussolini has become the head of government. But he has to share power with special interest groups, the King and the Church. Italy is poor, undeveloped, largely rural and agrarian. It doesn't like Germany, but it hates the French more.

Over the next eleven (11) years: invasion of Libya in '22, Somalia in '23; abolish the constitution (no more special interest group politics); Fascist party cleansed of any competitor (except Balbo); Air Force pro-fascist; Naval ships built.

Now its time to show who is the leader of Europe. Invites France, Britain and Germany to Rome in June '33 and it results in the Four Power Pact. Germany is the junior partner to be used against France and Britain. Hitler and Mussolini meet in '34, but for some reason, Hitler doesn't understand his role. He's a silly little monkey.

Still two problems. Monarchy and the Church. Some compromises were made with the Church but they still need to go. Can't get rid of the King, because he has the Army and Navy behind him. Can't do anything with the Army/Navy since they answer to the King. Catch-22. Duce needs a war and the successes of a war so he can get rid of the King and Pope. And politically, he needs to get the credit, not the military. Enter the Carnicie Nere, the Blackshirts (ie CCNN).

Ethiopia invaded in '35, Spanish Civil War in '36. But a few problems pop up. CCNN are a joke. Germany now has a border with Italy (Austria '38) and that worries Italy. Corruption and incompetence are hampering technical advancement in the Air Force. And now the military wants a break. And the King and the Pope are still bugging Il Duce.

Time to declare a great success. There is now an Italian East Africa, and the British and French couldn't stop us. Gives Duce time to work on the anti-German attitudes and get ready for war in around '43 or '45. And maybe the German alliance can give Duce some leverage to break the grip of the King and Pope.

1939 started off as a good year. Spanish Civil War ended (March), Albania invaded (April), alliance with Germany (May). Other than problems with the Pope, not too bad. Then the stupid little monkey invaded Poland (Sept), giving Duce one week's notice. Italy calls the shots, not Germany... nonbelligerence is declared. By the end of 1939, it looked like WWI was gonna happen again. But we'll sit this one out and pick up the pieces afterwards.

April '40, Denmark and Norway fall. Its starting. May '40, Germany invades France. Il Duce watches his dream of getting French Syria, British Egypt crumble as the French fall faster than his mistresses knickers. June '40 Duce orders the Italian military to invade France so he can get something out of the deal. Once France surrendered, Italy had lost 5,000 men and 2 kilometers of territory. They had inflicted 15 losses. And to make it worse, Vichy France had control of the territory that Italy wanted.

June to Oct '40 was a bad time for the Allies. Great Britain was alone, the US was neutral and the Russians had a nonaggression pact with Germany. Perfect time for Italy to act. But there was political chaos. It takes until Sept '40 before the Army will move and invade British-controlled Egypt. They advance a few miles, then stop. Oct '40 the Army invades Greece. Need I say it? Advance a few miles then stop. Dec'40, the Greeks counterattack and drive the Italians back into Albania. The same day in Dec '40, the British counterattack in North Africa. Hundreds of miles are lost and a significant number of troops as well over the next two months.

Jan '41, the British began a campaign to conquer Italian East Africa. Feb '41 the British are in Libya. The Italian military prepares a coup against Il Duce.

April '41, German Afrika Korps goes into action against the British in Libya. The British retreat. Apr 3 '41, Pro-Nazi coup in Iraq. British invade and take control by end of May. Apr 6 '41, Germany, Italy and Bulgaria invade Yugo and conquer it within a week. April 9 '41 Germany invades Greence and counquers it in eleven days.

The actions of April (and the British putting troops into Greece) are the only things that saved Il Duce from the coup. But he was a broken man, his dreams were gone and he became a German puppet. And the Army decided to start making reforms. For one brief moment, the old Il Duce came back. It was around '42 (?) when he pleaded with Hitler to make peace with Stalin. Hitler didn't listen.

What went wrong?

I'll answer that later today, cause its late and I need my sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now, as for the "NATION OF TEXAS", states rights as granted by the 10th amendment does not mean 50 individual little nations
I agree, but Texas actually WAS an independent country for a time.

========

Let me try one more time on the Civil War thing (I enjoy these discussions, I don't intend to be argumentative in a bad way...):

Slavery was one of the issues, no question. It was part of the issue of two separate groups of states:

1. "North" - more urban living, manufacturing economies

2. "South" - rural economies, virtually un-mechanized.

Slaves were CRUCIAL to the Southern economy. The only place the south could get all of the mechanical gizmos that made the slaves obsolete was from the north. And the northern businesses would do what they always do--try to get every last penny they can.

The Yankees saw the war as the war to "keep the country together" (at least that's what I was taught in school in Michigan), and freeing the slaves was a nice bonus. Given the intolerance toward blacks in the north, it's pretty hard to imagine anyone actually wanting to die to free slaves in 1861.

The Rebs saw the war as the only way to preserve their 'lifestyle'--and I don't mean owning slaves. The wealth to support the genteel Southern lifestlye that the upper classes had came from agriculture--and no slaves, no agriculture. Slavery wasn't something the south did because they were evil. It was simply the way the southern economy had always worked--from before any of the civil war generation were born.

So when the big "moral" push to abolish slavery came along it was easy for the north to go along (after all it didn't cost them anything). And when Robt E Lee was kicking the Yankee army all over Virginia, Lincoln realized one important point: The south had a 'cause,' and therefore a morale advantage. His overt support for 'emacipation' was at least partly inspired by his search for a 'cause' for the north.

And finally: Whatever one's allegiances (north or south) Robert E Lee has to be recognized as probably the best general the US has ever produced. He was also a man of great character, I believe. He did not break his oath to the US constitution in order to go to war for slavery; he became a confederate because he believed his duty to his state of Virginia superceded his oath to the US. Many people made personal decisions one way or the other; but Lee's carries special meaning because he was such a great American, I think.

[ April 30, 2003, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Konstantin:

Thanks for all of your excellent information about Russia and the USSR. I got carried away in my original post--when I used the word "idiot" I didn't mean it in the sense of lack of intelligence. Stalin was a very smart man.

Many of the western leaders (Harry Hopkins, for example) who met him right after the war started were extremely impressed with his intelligence--in fact, one of the main reasons that Britain and the US decided to help Russia with "lend-lease" can be traced by to the Hopkins and Cripps's belief that Stalin could lead the USSR to victory. There was a significant contingent in both Britain and the US who believed that the USSR would be quickly defeated, and that the west should continue with their war plans without her. Stalin's ability to convince them of the USSR's staying power was a significant accomplishment. Unfortunately, it was only necessary because he

made the huge mistake of trusting the Germans. He believed that since they signed the non-agression pact in 1939, they would adhere to it.
That was a huge mistake. The national interest of the USSR was in no way congruent with that of Nazi Germany--the 1939 non-aggression pact was a phenominal diplomatic mistake that cost Russia dearly in WWII and afterward (Poland). No other leader (including Hitler) made the mistake of trying to form an alliance with a regime that had repeatedly sworn to exterminate them.

I agree completely the Britain and France were responsible for driving Stalin to this desperate measure. But even a weak alliance with the west would have been infinitely better than what he got.

At all costs, he should have been focused on preserving France (second front). Once Germany walloped France, it FINALLY dawned on Stalin what a horrible possition he had created for his country: Germany had a spectacular land army and no navy. Anyone on land near Nazi Germany was going to be in big trouble, especially when the Germans hit a coastline in their westward expansion.

He was "clever" enough to reverse the British strategy. The Brits wanted to get Germany into a war with the USSR. Stalin thought he could get Germany into a war with France and Britain, then come in and pick up the pieces. The consequence of this miscalculation was that Russia (actually, the Russian part of the USSR) wound up having to bear the vast majority of WWII in Europe alone.

That, I believe, was Stalin's worst mistake--he underestimated the Germans. I don't believe he ever thought they would defeat the French as easily as they did. And as you said in an earlier post, the Germans badly underestimated the USSR. A catastrophic irony.

====

Just read a few of the most recent posts and have to add: Regardless of feelings about Stalin, communism, whatever there can be little doubt that 1)the USSR paid an enormous human price during WWII, 2) that people paid that price becuase they believed in their country, and 3) it was a major contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. My problem with Stalin was that diplomatically he was the biggest reason that price had to be paid by his own people.

[ April 30, 2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: santabear ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka, Santabear

Great posts, unfortunately I'm on my way out the door and won't be back till late. Looking forward to reading the rest of these things and throwing my two cents in.

santabear You're throwing Texas into this -- which means that, in addition to Lincoln, we'll be throwing Sam Houston and Santa Anna into the mix. :rolleyes: Can Atilla the Hun be far off with his fun loving brigands?

[ April 30, 2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

santabear---

agree mostly and completely with 90% of what you said abt. the south and slaves , etc.

you said---

The Rebs saw the war as the only way to preserve their 'lifestyle'--and I don't mean owning slaves. The wealth to support the genteel Southern lifestlye that the upper classes had came from agriculture--and no slaves, no agriculture.
i think texas and arizona(confederate territory) would be two excellent examples to disprove your "lifestyle" theory.ah yes, i can picture it now:

sitting on the veranda of my plantation, just south of plano,texas a sugared mint julip in my hand, and the sounds of my son bringing in the slaves from a hard days work, my wife in her hoop dress strolls toward me,waving her fan to get my attention. she says to bring the buggy around so we can go to town and see if we can find a good "house darkie" at the weekly auction. a good one who is educated and polite, who can greet visitors.

each state was in fact different, and slave-holding was linked to agriculture(i agree) but to support a "genteel lifestyle" is just a little too convenient an argument for you. what part of slave-owning agriculture did arkansas,florida or tennessee have in 1861? little or none! unless you take the tack that all of the other states were "bullied" into joining with "genteel" s. carolina, mississippi and virginia.

carbeuraters were once crucial to the auto industry. if you worked making carbeurators in detroit, man your job was secure!

who would have thought that times would suddenly change and what was once an integral part of the auto industry would just become a useless oddity.

that was slavery in a nutshell. on it's way out.

lee may not have been(imho) the best general, but he had character. he heard about several generals in 1865 who talked about guerilla warfare, instead of surrender. taking to the mountains and living off the land. lee would have none of it!

what a difference that would have made, eh?

mexico had too many leadership gaps to fill. maximillian and the french out, brigands in.

a southern border perceived as "weak" (whether it was or not ) would have been a juicy target for someone.

[ April 30, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: disorder ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To KK

Dear forum fellow and comrade in wargames, I apologies for any harsh words yesterday, had a bad day, I respect your opinion and position even if it differs from mine, but heck that makes the world go round.

I'm not a newby to the eastern front publications (probibly read two dozen books about it), but always find myself reading the books written by germans, or americans about germans. When I have read books written by russians they are so poorly written, with propaganda instead of facts that it turns me off to it's hogwash, I guess I need to read your list of competent authors.

Humbly Your

Seawolf

[ April 30, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SeaWolf_48:

To KK

Dear forum fellow and comrade in wargames, I apologies for any harsh words yesterday, had a bad day, I respect your opinion and position even if it differs from mine, but heck that makes the world go round.

Understood, not a problem, everyone has bad days, completely natural.

Yes you will find the authours I mentioned much different and more objective than previous russian authours. They represent the new wave of writers who have access to what the soviets had previously kept classified.

For an overview of the war try Erickson's two books, Road to Stalingrad and Road to Berlin. They are good. Even recommended to me by Glantz.

Glantz books are great as they detail battles and the red army in general.

Zaloga handles T&OE and equipment.

Reese did the social history of the Red Army.

We as wargamers we tend to be a little more knowledgable than John Q. Public. It's not uncommon for me to be asked at a WWII event; "Russia was in WWII?" And there is all the narrow minded stuff like "All germans were nazis" which we all know they weren't. On and on.

Of course I also have done 10+ years of american civil war and those questions run the gamet of "Are those Uniforms Hot" and "Is that a real fire".

Of course I have not read one bit of the civil war discussion here. After those 10+ years I am a little burnt out on civil war. LOL ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Konstatin

Read the Erickson books, found them at the used book store, he didn't have the gift to paint a picture of which units were here or there, just 6th Army attacked 57th Ukraine Army at so and so. It did however portray the difficutly the germans had retreating from russia back to germany. Will try the others you suggested however.

Now reading a book called "Panzer on the East Front" by Genreal Gaus. Leader of the 6th Panzer Division. Very well documented. Names the Regiments and Divisions used, very good.

Guderian explained in his book "Panzer Leader" that the smallest unit on the East Front to have command structure was the division (you know what I mean, not smallest unit). I like reading history with the Division as the main element of the historian. e.g. 82nd, 101, Big Red One, 12SS HJ, HG Div 1. Corps level is next best but not as discriptive, and lastly Army and Army Group level, very broad and is too easily generalize.

Although SU fought three fourths of the Wehrmacht it didn't however fight the air war over germany or the sea battles of the north atlantic. These battles consumed highly trained personal, and very high technological advances. If a value of armed forces plus work force were graphed, I think that the democracies did fight the equivalent of what Russia had facing her (but that's just my hunble opinion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...