Is anyone else becoming more interested in the eastern front now that CMBB is here?

[illo]

Originally posted by Vader's Jester:

I've always been more interested in the Ostfront (due to so little info on it compaired to the West Front books and films here in the states) than the American/Brittish invasion of Europe.

Same here

[Firefly]

I prefer the Western Front, although I enjoy CMBB and other East Front games. Yes, I know that the East Front is where the war was decided and it's where the big battles took place, but I'm English: two of my Uncles served in North Africa/Italy, my Sunday school teacher was at Cassino, another Uncle had his house destroyed during the Blitz (luckily he was a firefighter and was on duty when it happened, the next-door neighbour wasn't so lucky), my mother was a nurse at a hospital in Leeds, caring for both Allied and German wounded, my Dad joined the RAF as a technician, but did a stint of guarding Blackpool from the Fascist invader before being sent to India, virtually all of my friends' parents played some part in the war and so on. The Eastern Front is interesting, the Western front is personal .

[ November 12, 2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: Firefly ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by MasterGoodale:

And yes, The Ruskies lost Ibelieve close to 11 million lives total?? Maybe that's wrong but it's what I recollect. A brutal, desperate, and sad loss indeed.

I think you mean 21 million- the main # I've heard, which is admittedly from the Panzer Blitz manual (!) is ~13.7 million dead Soviet troops, plus ~7 million dead Soviet civilians. Maybe I got civilian confused w/ solider, not sure. Either way...my g-d. Supposedly in Stalingrad the avg. life expectancy for a Private was only 24 hours.

[tiborhead]

Perhaps some of the reason the eastern front's role isn't covered more in western countries has something to do with the shear brutality of the conflict. Things on the western end were, in comparison, pretty civil in terms of mutual treatment of both sides. Perhaps the Ostfront is too graphic for some/most to handle?

[Marlow]

Originally posted by tiborhead:

Perhaps some of the reason the eastern front's role isn't covered more in western countries has something to do with the shear brutality of the conflict. Things on the western end were, in comparison, pretty civil in terms of mutual treatment of both sides. Perhaps the Ostfront is too graphic for some/most to handle?

More likely the cold war. Same reason most Soviet kids didn't learn much (anything?) about the Western Allies in WWII.

[tiborhead]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiborhead:

Perhaps some of the reason the eastern front's role isn't covered more in western countries has something to do with the shear brutality of the conflict. Things on the western end were, in comparison, pretty civil in terms of mutual treatment of both sides. Perhaps the Ostfront is too graphic for some/most to handle?

More likely the cold war. Same reason most Soviet kids didn't learn much (anything?) about the Western Allies in WWII.</font>

[Tripps]

Originally posted by tiborhead:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tiborhead:

Perhaps some of the reason the eastern front's role isn't covered more in western countries has something to do with the shear brutality of the conflict. Things on the western end were, in comparison, pretty civil in terms of mutual treatment of both sides. Perhaps the Ostfront is too graphic for some/most to handle?

More likely the cold war. Same reason most Soviet kids didn't learn much (anything?) about the Western Allies in WWII.</font>

[NewSocialistMan]

I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine who grew up outside the Mig plant in Samara. The gist of the discussion was what would have happened if the Western Allies suffered a humiliating defeat at Normandy?

My take was that the Air campaign may have continued or Hitler might have been able to negotiate a seperate peace with England and the US. Even still, by June of 1944, the Nazis were dead men walking. They were defeated, they just didn't know it yet.

The war probably would have extended into 1947 with another 5 million Russian dead, but Russia would have unified the European continent under the boot. It would be hard to see much past that, but my guess is that a Russia unantagonized by the Cold War antics of the Red Scare may have resulted in a more moderate government emerging in the post-Stalin era and an avoidance of much of the nonsense we would see in the 1950's.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by NewSocialistMan:

I had a similar discussion with a friend of mine who grew up outside the Mig plant in Samara. The gist of the discussion was what would have happened if the Western Allies suffered a humiliating defeat at Normandy?

My take was that the Air campaign may have continued or Hitler might have been able to negotiate a seperate peace with England and the US. Even still, by June of 1944, the Nazis were dead men walking. They were defeated, they just didn't know it yet.

The war probably would have extended into 1947 with another 5 million Russian dead, but Russia would have unified the European continent under the boot. It would be hard to see much past that, but my guess is that a Russia unantagonized by the Cold War antics of the Red Scare may have resulted in a more moderate government emerging in the post-Stalin era and an avoidance of much of the nonsense we would see in the 1950's.

Well, this post definitely qualifies as your own personal take and speculative guess about fictitious alternate outcomes of WWII. While you are certainly entitled to your fantasies, the simple facts are that the U.S. is still leading the world while both the Nazi and Soviet regimes have met their ends in ingnominious defeat while trying to best the Americans.

Hmmm... Maybe those Americans had something going after all.

[ November 12, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Lawyer ]

[Tarquelne]

While you are certainly entitled to your fantasies, the simple facts are that the U.S. is still leading the world while both the Nazi and Soviet regimes have met their ends in ingnominious defeat while trying to best the Americans.

Hmmm... Maybe those Americans had something going after all.

Simple facts. Fantasies. America _did_ win so America _would have won_ - cool, you are a lawyer!

[Tripps]

Gets the popcorn and awaits....

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Tripps:

Gets the popcorn and awaits....

I just want to make it clear I'm only hear to mock lawyers.

[Tripps]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Awwww

[Tripps]

Ok, i'll debate this lawyers points as well

But I wanna ask if its kept civil then

Originally posted by Lawyer:

the simple facts are that the U.S. is still leading the world while both the Nazi and Soviet regimes have met their ends in ingnominious defeat while trying to best the Americans.

Hmmm... Maybe those Americans had something going after all.[/QB]

1. USA bested Germany.

2. USA bested USSR.

3. USA still leading.

Point 1. Not by itself it didnt. And I would argue it couldnt.

Point 2. In what?

Point 3. Track record has not been the best since then now has it?

Cheers

[laxx]

Was reading an article in the October edition of WWII magazine (same guys who came up with Military History".

there was an interview with a german 109E ace, he received the iron cross with oaks and diamonds. in the interview, he said that by mid-1944, in a conversation with hitler, hitler admitted that "militarily the war is lost", however, hitler's plans was to delay and stall the allies as he anticipated that Russia would conflict with the west .

my 2 cents worth.

[Cortes]

What Lawyer and energy76 originally said. I really can only enjoy something when drawing comparisons to my own life.. I can do that with the Allies. Joe Vandeleur's Irish Guards, the thousands of Irishmen who fought in the Allied armies, however, when it comes to Germany, I really can't, nor Russia. Both countries were incredibly destructive forces. I believe Bevin Alexander put it best: "..Americans in general were gleeful that the worlds' two worst dictatorships were tearing at each other's vitals and hoped they would fight to mutual exhaustion."

In the end, I'm not having fun playing as killers, and often have trouble defending either position. As the Allies, I could roleplay with ease, but on the German and Soviet angles, I cannot. Measuring the greater evil doesn't make for a good game.

HOWEVER, the game itself, and it's just that, a game, not an ethical or historical analysis of past empires' actions, is brilliant, and I enjoy it with a fervor.

[OGSF]

I have "read up" on the eastern Front because of CM:BB. I don't mind playing the Germans, and the Russians are a novelty. But I am of British heritage, with family that fought and died in WWII before either Americans or Russians became involved. I prefer the ETO, Italy, North Africa.

I feel no affinity with the Russians and the Germans were on a hiding to nothing trying to invade the place. I will be glad when the re-write is done and CM moves on to other theaters of WWII.

(And it' is also my opinion that America won both wars....WWII and the Cold War).

[energy76]

Originally posted by Tripps:

Ok, i'll debate this lawyers points as well

But I wanna ask if its kept civil then

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lawyer:

the simple facts are that the U.S. is still leading the world while both the Nazi and Soviet regimes have met their ends in ingnominious defeat while trying to best the Americans.

Hmmm... Maybe those Americans had something going after all.

1. USA bested Germany.

2. USA bested USSR.

3. USA still leading.

Point 1. Not by itself it didnt. And I would argue it couldnt.

Point 2. In what?

Point 3. Track record has not been the best since then now has it?

Cheers</font>

[TerrorX]

Always have been curious if Germany attacked Russia first all out what the outcome might have been. With a 100% resources on the Eastern front things may have been different.

[OGSF]

Originally posted by TerrorX:

Always have been curious if Germany attacked Russia first all out what the outcome might have been. With a 100% resources on the Eastern front things may have been different.

Perhaps. If Hitler hadn't meddled in the running of the war and delayed the attack on Moscow, but I doubt it. I think Germany lost the Ostfront war in the first three months, when they didn't capture Leningrad, were held up by the Pripet Marshes and didn't capture Moscow. But even so, Germany was never on a "total war" footing like Russia, Britain, America, Australia etc. Interestingly neither was Japan. I think this would have been their undoing in the longer run.

[energy76]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />While you are certainly entitled to your fantasies, the simple facts are that the U.S. is still leading the world while both the Nazi and Soviet regimes have met their ends in ingnominious defeat while trying to best the Americans.

Hmmm... Maybe those Americans had something going after all.

Simple facts. Fantasies. America _did_ win so America _would have won_ - cool, you are a lawyer!</font>

[Tripps]

Originally posted by Lawyer:

the simple facts are that the U.S. is still leading the world while both the Nazi and Soviet

regimes have met their ends in ingnominious defeat while trying to best the Americans.

I think what Lawyer is saying is that the U.S. has outlasted other superpowers.

Well, that needs to be clarified then, I read defeat while trying best America from a WWII discussion as the USA

besting those nations singlehandedly.

Yes, they have outlasted, to further on that, when George Washington became President, in 1789, a King ruled France,

a Holy Roman Emperor ruled much of Europe, a Czarina ruled Russia, a Shogun ruled Japan, and an Emporor ruled China,

of these, only the office of President remains

I believe the logic is that the natural tendency of superpowers is that they tend to eliminate one another,

so the longest lasting one could be said to "outdo" the others, in that it survives and so wins the 'Superpower

Survial Competition'.

We have to decide on 'besting a nation during WWII singlehandedly' and 'out-lasting overall' is what was meant before we

can follow this track I think.

So for point 1: See above. As for your point about the U.S. being unable to beat Germany by itself, well,

I object. How do you reason? Do you mean in terms of the U.S. being able to invade and liberate Europe singlehandedly?

Yup, but keep in mind this is purely hypothetical of course.

I would reason they couldnt because logistically it would

have been a nightmare, take D-Day for example, and imagine the German resources at hand with no Oostfront...

Point 2: The U.S. has most certainly outlasted the USSR.

covered.

Point 3: Your response to this point seems to be an attempt to ignore the fact that the U.S.

is the world's leading superpower, by diverting attention insted to the U.S.'s "track record", which

you criticize, without clearly saying what you mean by "track record." You mean in terms of upholding and

supporting civil rights globally? Or what? I would really like a clarification.

Keeping in mind i'm coming from the viewpoint that I understood 'besting' a nation through combat, my references to track

record stem from my, albiet, limited extensive knowledge of war, but since WWII, USA has been involved in wars in Korea, Vietnam

the Gulf, and now Afganistan, without mentioning every single little skirmish in between.

This is going to be difficult without writing skreeds and skreeds of pages, which would probably just make it nonsense

But in a nutshell, 'bested' the Chinese in Korea, got 'bested' in Vietnam, I guess 'bested' Iraqi's in Kuwait, but there is still

a fella over there for the last 10 years saying you aint done nothing , and finally Afganistan, which I believe the

primary goal was to find one guy and his mates, secondary goal to put a more 'friendly' government in power. So on the fence

as to who 'bested' who.

So yeah, i'm not denying USA is a superpower in the total sense of the word, hell, everyone has there time in the limelight,

and every great nation shall fall.

I suspect you aren't an American yourself?[/QB]

You suspect right, dont see why this has any relevance, unless your assuming i'm some anti-USA guy, but I reckon there would

be enough of those types of people in America itself, but i dont really consider myself part of any one country at all, sure,

i'll cuss and scream with the rest of NZ when the All Blacks lose the rugby to the Aussies, but since I was born here, and my

ancestry is all chop-suey with different cultures, I prefer the quote "Earth is but one country, and Mankind its citizens"

cheers

[Tripps]

Originally posted by OGSF:

I think he meant before the Low Countries campaine, so it that situation the fact England and France attacking from the rear was always a threat.

I always had the impression, probably wrong, that if Germany had skipped the Balkans, left an Italian defensive force covering that area (ie, not attacking) then Moscow, and maybe even Leningrad, would have fallen.

Wether or not Russia then surrendered, and I suspect so, is another matter.

cheers

[Dark Pa]

Some sources that may be of interest:

"Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege" by Antony Beevor

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140284583/qid=1037166846/sr=2-1/ ref=sr_2_1/002-6711461-3230436

I found this a very well-written and illuminating tome.

Also a couple of Russian films - not really for grogs, but each is a true work of art and gives some insight into the ostfront from the perpective of Soviet bit-players:

"Come and See" ....1985, Dir. Elem Klimov

http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=A10400

"Ivan's Childhood" (aka "My Name is Ivan")......1962, Dir. Andrei Tarkovsky

http://www.rusfilm.pitt.edu/2001/ivan.html

[ November 13, 2002, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Dark Pa ]

[Tripps]

"so America _would have won_"

Huh? What's that mean? Would've won what? America did win so they would have...

Would have won if DDay was a failure, the original post.

Saying they 'did, so would have regardless' is pointless in a hypothectical disussion!

The basis of which is that if DDay failed, the assertation is that Russia would have taken all of Europe.

But then Lawyer comes along and puts it all down saying its all fantasy, guess what, we know that, and

then continues with his 'simple facts' that USA bested the 'Nazis and Soviets', hey, guess what, we know

that too, but didn't do it alone, which is what I feel he was implying.

Also, another aspect to the "Russia was WWII" 'debate' that could be considered: Would Russia have been able to take on the Germans and the Japanese? I believe that it's commmon knowledge that Stalin delayed removing troops out of Siberia for fear of a Japanese invasion. Without the U.S. engaging Japan, he most certainly couldn't have removed his troops out of Siberia, and an invasion may actually have happened, indeed it would be likely, as Hitler would have asked the Japanese for it(for the same reasons Stalin wanted a second front). This would've turned the tide of the war in Russia. So, it could be argued that Russia needed the U.S. as much as the U.S. needed Russia. Completely speculation, of course.[/QB]

Interesting points.

Further to that:

Russia defeated Japan in that Manchurian? battle.

There was a spy in Japan who reported to Stalin that Japan was not going to attack.

USA was not at war at that point.

And neither was Japan.

Right around of the time of the blitzfreeze, Japan attacks USA.

So, if Japan had attacked Russia instead? I think Stalin would not have had the Siberians, even though he may have considered

falling back trading space for time there as well (and its a hellava long way from Japan to Moscow as opposed to from Warsaw

to Moscow)

Which would have meant not to serious a counter attack during the winter of 41/42, if there was a counter attack at all.

Which would have left a few more experienced Germans soldiers around to carry on the next year.

As a last point, after countless hours, and many a painstaking night, which leaves me in no doubt as to the valididty of

any argument, making it beyond reproof, Japan has to attack Russia to win as the Axis in the boardgame 'axis & allies'

ha, cheers