CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Quotes by The Commissar: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Scout, Point 1 - Getting one's soldiers killed is not a mark of a good army, yes. Winning a war against an enemy who bests you in almost every way useing poorly trained farmers is a mark of a devoted people and a strong (if tyranical) government.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where the heck do you come up with this, "enemy who bests you in almost every way useing poorly trained farmers"? This is simply false. The Germans did not "best" the US in "almost every way". It is also funny that Germany goes from one of the "best trained forces" to "poorly trained farmers"... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Point 2 - Americans were as you say "adapt at causing casualties" because 1) The enemy was overpowered. 2) The enemy was tired and depleted from other fronts. 3) The enemy was at the end of his logistical line and his industry was at its maximum, while the US was just beginning to really fight the war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 1)So was Poland, Belgium, Denmark and others. Why do we not discredit the German victories there? 2)Excuse. The US, and the other Allies to a lesser extent, face the same multiple front war and they had an even wider area to deal with. 3)The Germans faced an increasingly SHORTER logistical line. It was the Allies who had to fight with longer and longer logistical lines, that the Allies were better at it is too bad. Sometimes people forget Germany STARTED the war... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> So, as you see, the Germans in the West were not wimps. If you take one big tough guys and jump him with 5 not-so-tough guys, he has a challange on his hand. So suppose both sides are both struggling to win. Now comes in a 6th not-so-tough guy, who is fresh and not as tired as the others. The tough guy breaks simply because of numbers and the inflow of fresh resources. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bad anaolgy. Germany is more along the lines of the short guy who thinks he is big. After the alcohol of a few victories he thought he could take on the even bigger guys. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Point 3 - Blitzkrieg was indeed performed in France the the largest extent, but was also performed to a lesser extent in other fronts. Including Barbarossa (agh, the spelling!). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Barbarossa was "classic" cauldron battles where the Germans surrounded Soviet armies and attrited them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Point 4 - Please, please don't put words in my mouth. Saying the US had not suffered as much is a fact. Saying I blame them for it is your imagination.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> By this "standard" the Soviets were the biggest conributers of the war. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Point 5 - No, it doesn't sound much like it. The Pacific war had no where the extent and brutallity of the Eastern front. There were land battles, but they were sparse and the fighting was none-constant, unlike the Eastern front. The brutallity was much less as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do you define as "brutallity"? I define it as having to root out every single defender using flame or knife because they refuse to surrender. The East Front was LARGE and there was hard fighting but I don't think it was any more brutal than the Pacific. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Howdy. Remember why that thread was locked? ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 I just love posting to a thread which will be locked in the near future. Hi Dad! ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Howdy. Remember why that thread was locked? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Because people were insulting each other when they had no points. I doubt we are forbidden for discussing the different armies of WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Because people were insulting each other when they had no points. I doubt we are forbidden for discussing the different armies of WWII.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite, but okay, find out for yourself. ------------------ Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 11, 2000 Author Share Posted October 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Not quite, but okay, find out for yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then why? Steve said, ""What if" posts always wind up with people arguing very passionately about scenarios that could never have happened except in some Star Trek epidsode." This thread is not a "what if" but a "what did". Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USTanker Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Just wanted to get in this thread before it was locked again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamstersss Posted October 11, 2000 Share Posted October 11, 2000 Croda go home, your sponsor has been out looking for you all day! ------------------ Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less. -David Edelstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Ahhh I love this stuff Cav. You really do set yourself up don't you. Your presumably sarcastic comment about the Soviets contributing most to the war due to their casualty rate IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. I would think that even the most biased war historians would have to concede that if it wasn't for the enourmous sacrifices of the then Soviet Union tying up the bulk of the German army the Western Allies chances of defeating Germany would have been, to use an Australian phrase, "buckleys & none". And before you go on about the A bomb being the weapon that would have decided the issue, I severely doubt the Americans would have used such a weapon of mass destruction in Europe for all sorts of political reasons. Have a nice day! Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Author Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Ahhh I love this stuff Cav. You really do set yourself up don't you. Your presumably sarcastic comment about the Soviets contributing most to the war due to their casualty rate IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I hardly think a simple casualty rate points to who "contributed" more. I hardly think wasting lives a contribution. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I would think that even the most biased war historians would have to concede that if it wasn't for the enourmous sacrifices of the then Soviet Union tying up the bulk of the German army the Western Allies chances of defeating Germany would have been, to use an Australian phrase, "buckleys & none". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So I guess ”American industry provided almost two-thirds of all Allied military equipment produced during the war: 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks, 2 million army trucks.” isn't that important. Or ”Where every other major state took four or five years to develop a sizeable military economy, it took America a year. In 1942, long before her enemies had believed it possible, America already out produced the Axis states together, 47,000 aircraft to 27,000, 24,000 tanks to 11,000, six times as many heavy guns. In the naval the figures were more remarkable still: 8,800 naval vessels and 87,00 landing craft in four years. Four every one major naval vessel constructed in Japanese shipyards, American produced sixteen.” and ”The United states motorized not only its own army but the Red army too. Under ‘Lend-Lease’ war aid agreements America supplied over half a million vehicles- 77,900 jeeps, 151,000 light trucks, and over 200,000 Studebaker army trucks, the backbone of the Soviet motorized supply system. America aid also made possible the revolution in radio communications by supplying 956,ooo miles of telephone cable, 35,000 radio stations and 380,000 field phones.” The real question is, "Could the Allies have survived WITHOUT America"? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And before you go on about the A bomb being the weapon that would have decided the issue, I severely doubt the Americans would have used such a weapon of mass destruction in Europe for all sorts of political reasons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> None founded in reality. [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: I hardly think a simple casualty rate points to who "contributed" more. I hardly think wasting lives a contribution. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cav i'm a bit confused here could you explain how the Soviet's wasted lives? they fought Germany alone for 3 years faceing the full weight of the German forces, something the US never faced. As to their losses I would like you to tell me what Nation could have conventionaly defeated Germany alone. Russia was the only Nation that could feild the ammount of men needed,& material & accept the casualties to do it. It took the commitment of over 5,000,000 men & advanced weapons 4 years to do it, the US & UK public never would have accepted the loss rate for either Germany or Russia on the Eastren Front in one months fighting. The Eastren Front was fought on a scope & scale never seen, the manpower & material scale on the Eastren Front was never achieved in the West, The Allies in the West faced a total comitment of 100 German divisions in the whole campaign, Yet you apperently deny the Soviets provided any contribution to the war effort, when they tied down, over 200 German Div's during the Westren campaign Ie, 165 German divisions alone during Normandy. During the Ardennes when the West faced concentrated German forces in mass for the 1st time, the Allies asked Stalin to launch his planned offensive months earlier then planned, to relieve pressure off them in the Ardennes, had US superiority been so prevailent, why ask Stalin for aid? in what the Russians considered nothing more then a small offensive, yet US suffered losses in men & matereial that were the highest, allied losses seen in the ETO. Russia's contribution to the war was buying time with blood for the US to get her factories going, & time to build an army, train it, & transport it, as well as to weaken German forces until the time the Allied troops could land on the continent. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The real question is, "Could the Allies have survived WITHOUT America"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why is that the question? of course lend lease from the US was vital, I have seen no one dispute LL's contribution here, one could also make a case Russia could have defeated Germany alone, it just would have taken longer. All I would add concerning LL is you can't put recieved goods in a uniform & hand it a rifle, recieved goods arn't going to replace manpower losses or fill a foxhole, or capture territory. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the feild". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. Febuary 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzvg Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Before this thread goes the way of the Dodo, Cavscout, quick quiz, Not counting Pearl Harbor which was a tactical effort, not the 2 bombs in the forests of Wash. state, name one point during the war in which the United States of America was gearing up for war amid the falling bombs? you see, it's considered easy to retool a factory to make tanks, when one doesn't have to rebuild the factory first. And do not trivialize the Soviet contribution, German soldiers had to man the East Front, and expend huge amounts of munitions to inflict those casualties, and they were still forced to give ground, so obviously the Russians were capable of doing something besides dying for the Rodina Eh? Folks, can we stop with these "my dad can beat up your dad" bits? I mean come on, I see people here throwing out statements that make me believe in the theory of alternate realities. Look, think whatever you please, but take note, I'll trust the judgement of West Point, Sandhurst, and the Frunze Academy a lot more. No offense, really but I don't think your contention is valid, the arguments are rhetorical, not factual, and the data is inconclusive. ------------------ Pzvg "Confucious say, it is better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Quotes by The Commissar: Scout, ... Winning a war against an enemy who bests you in almost every way useing poorly trained farmers is a mark of a devoted people and a strong (if tyranical) government. Where ... do you come up with this, "enemy who bests you in almost every way useing poorly trained farmers"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Isn't it possibly a slight misspelling? It could be beats instead of bests. This would make more sense... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Hi Guys. Well I bet you all know what Im about to do here. Im going to lock this one mainly because its an issue that Steve already decided should be put to rest. Its great to see that people can debate this way without things getting *too* heated and I thank you for that, but as Steve said, this is one that will keep being dragged up unless the lock is clicked. I think what we have here basically a difference of opinions, and Im doubtful both sides will come to an agreement. Ill leave it a couple of minutes before locking her up in case there are any last minute thoughts. [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts