MickeeMao

*bump*

Hi All - I recently saw a book for sale titled 'The Battle for Budapest - 100 days in WWII' - does anyone own this book or know if it's any good? The reason I ask is that I'd like to create some scenarios for CM:BB that take place in Budapest, but there is unfortunately a lack of English titles on the subject - this is one of the first I've seen. Another title is 'Budapest - Stalingrad of the Waffen SS'. Can anyone vouch for this one? Or perhaps recommend a good source for this subject? Mostly I'm looking for a book that a) contains a good map of the city with the positions of the formations of both sides and has a good order of battle for the units involved. Thanks! M.Mao

Good point! For a great overview of the organizational development of Soviet forces during WWII, try Zaloga's 'Red Army Handbook'. This book also gives a basic, but highly informative overview of Russian weapons development during the war.

The books you saw were probably 'The Road to Stalingrad' and 'The Road to Berlin' by John Erickson. They're both excellent operational studies of the conflict - I'd highly recommend them. If you're looking for another good introduction to the Eastern Front, try 'When Titans Clashed' by Glantz.

Oops, looks like another R&D specialist has escaped from RAND - get back to work, you! As for those of you who happened to read the above posting, you're all under arrest, as you've been made aware of future US weapons development plans. Report to the Donald Rumsfeld Recreational Gulag immidiately!

Hi - There's a book out by Glantz called 'The Battle for L'Vov July 1944' - have you checked this out yet? There's currently a used copy of it at Amazon.com. M.Mao

I've already explained in previous posts why I didn't think Russia should be punished (co-belligerent). I may have mis-read the part of your post where I said you were speculating. I'll leave it at this -Poland started the war with Russia in 1920 by attacking the Red Army. The Poles drove far into Soviet territory before they were stopped. The Red forces counter-attacked and drove the Poles back to Warsaw. Poland started the war. I get the feeling, however, that our discussion is beginning to bog down - it's getting circular in nature with us making the same points over and over - no doubt we'll soon be arguing over what the defintion of 'is' is (to quote an American ex-president). I applaud your stamina and, feeling that I've made my point, respectfully yield the field to you. Ofcourse it does, if the new government has made peace agreements that define its borders. So in your opinion FE Germany is entitled to her pre-WW1 borders, although there have been many regime and border changes? And what was the speculation part? The history of the Continuation War is not very well known outside Finnish borders and Russian archives. Certainly in my 'must-read' list also. Now you have to define what is and what is not unfair in power politics of the world... </font>

Baltic states, Eastern part of Poland, Karelian Isthmus and Bessarabia for starters. Soviet Union was formed after 1917, remember? Stalin dreamed about restoring the borders of Russian empire, but it doesn't make your question any more relevant. **So you're saying that because a country changes its style of government, its no longer entitled to its former borders? That doesn't make any sense.** Yes you are right, Poland attacked first before Red Army troops, that were trying to conquer Poland and spread the revolution **You're indulging in speculation** Go to Russia and find war diaries (and other documents I can't remember just now) of the Leningrad Front and the 30th Guards Rifle Corps, or learn Finnish and get hold of Niilo Lappalainen's book "Ihantala kesti" (in which those documents and others were used). **If this is all you have to offer, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.** Edit: During my correspondence with Mr Glantz, he told that his new book about Leningrad has a chapter of Soviet operations against Finland 1944 (at Karelian Isthmus only though), and occupation of Finland in his view was one of the goals of Soviet Union. I haven't read the book myself so I cannot give any details. **I was going to pick up this one anyway - I'll give it a read** How the hell the fallen empire should be rewarded for its actions during WW1, and how did it legitimize aggressive foreign policy of Soviet Union? :confused: </font>

As for Glantz, I don't think he is unbiased. He seems to have quite an axe to grind with Zhukov. I read his book on Mars, and I still don't get what his problem is. *In all honesty, I haven't read his book on Mars yet. I have read 'When Titans Clashed' and attended some of Glantz's lectures (one of which, on 'Hube's Pocket', was a facinating operational study of that battle)* Germany wasn't the only country that got screwed after WWI. A well known German spy by the name of Lenin (the JEWS bombed the WTC, and CIA shot Kennedy), gave quite a bit of Russia away. And Stalin wanted to restore the Russian empire to it's former borders. [/QB]

The massive industrialization could have been to prevent the sort of invasions Russia suffered throughout its history. In the 20th Century alone, they were invaded by Germany, Austria-Hungary, Poland, the United States, Japan, Turkey, Britain and France (I may be leaving a few out here). Given such a history, it seems natural that they would want a large army. The part of Poland taken by Russia during their invasion used to be part of Russia (I'm not sure of the exact borders, but I believe it adheres to Russia's pre-WW1 border fairly closely), but was taken away from them just after WWI ended. Finland was also part of Russia when WWI began. Russia offered Finland a land-swap for the territory they wanted (Russia wanted a buffer zone next to Leningrad), but the Finns refused. The Russians didn't even want all of Finland back - just the buffer zone (if they had wanted all of Finland, they could've taken it in '44). For the record, I support an independant Finland - if a new Poland was to be created, however, it should have been taken entirely from the territory of Germany (I believe this is what ended up happening when WWII came to a close). I'm always suspicious of historians who too closely identify with one side or the other. This is why I like historians like Glantz and Erickson - they seem to lay blame where it is warranted and give credit where it's due. I don't see why I should waste my time political ideologues from either side - this is true from any period of history, not just WWII.

Potential decisiveness of ME-262 has surely been overrated, because German war economy simply lacked resources to produce it in large numbers. I don't have Hannu Valtonen's book "ME-109 and the German War Economy" with me right now, so I can't give accurate enough answer, but i do remember that there were certain specific materials that were not properly available (I'll check this one later). </font>

A lot of these points have all ready been addressed by other members, but there's a few I would like to offer my opinions on. If any of these notions are ill-conceived, please enlighten me with your opinions 1. Stopping the panzers at Dunkirk. *Was this really such a big mistake? Goering said he'd be able to smash the English bridgehead with airpower, and I'm sure at the time it seemed possible. Who knew that the English would send such a huge armada to rescue their troops? Given the unbroken line of successes for the Luftwaffe at this point, I would think that Goering and his officers would be justified in thinking they could decisively interdict any attempt at evacuation or supply, forcing the trapped Brits and French to surrender without having to expose the precious panzers to a city fight.* 5. Failure to understand the importance that a navy plays in global strategy, as evidenced by Germany's failure to build a navy of any consequence before WWII. *For Germany, the construction of any surface fleet was sheer folly - given their limited resources, it would have been wiser to build more submarines than was historically the case or more panzers.* 7. Failure to understand the role of advanced technology in his wartime strategy. (He ordered ME-262s to be used as bombers instead of fighters, and directed the V-1 and V-2 missiles at civilian rather than military targets -- imagine the havoc they could have caused had they been fired at the beachheads and vital ports the Allies to receive supplies for the Western Front during the last half of 1944!) * I'm pretty sure the V weapons weren't accurate enough to be used against specific military targets. Many V-2s were launched later in the war against Antwerp because of its status as a major resupply port - I'm not sure how successful they were. Anyone have any info on this? I think the potential decisiveness of the ME-262 is overrated - while an excellent anti-bomber weapon, my impression is that allied fighters came up with tactics to counter them* Cheers! [/QB]

"DUUUUUUUDE! It's right OVER THERE!" <points out the window> That probably accounts for a good chunk of those able to locate the Pacific. </font>

......bump.....