So there's this new show on cable. Was interested in it except I find out the first episode sets out to show that it wasn't the USA involvement in WW2 that defeated Hitler but rather the Soviet Army that did the brunt of the work.
And I'm like....yeah, I knew this in Grade 2. But maybe Americans don't know this. I'm not sure. :huh:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states,88625/
Oliver Stone's Untold History Of The United States isn't quite that. For the most part—at least in the first episode, which focuses on World War II—it's just recounting stuff that history tomes that dig a little bit deeper than the official story would get into. Stone bases much of the first hour around the thought that the Nazis lost World War II not because of the American military launching an offensive in France, but because the Soviet army eventually exhausted and beat the German forces back. At that point, what the Americans and British pulled off at Normandy was important, but the course of the war was essentially set. The Germans had essentially defeated themselves, thanks to Hitler's hubris and Stalin's gutsy decision-making and, well, the Russian people's willingness to sacrifice itself out of its sheer refusal to give an inch. In this episode, Stone, who narrates, constantly praises the battles on the Eastern Front as the greatest ever fought, and when he's talking about them, it's not hard to agree.
I dont see anything overly wrong with the bolded portion.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I dont see anything overly wrong with the bolded portion.
I believe Jos' point is that it's not news.
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2012, 01:35:39 PM
And I'm like....yeah, I knew this in Grade 2. But maybe Americans don't know this. I'm not sure. :huh:
Wow you had military history in Grade 2. I certainly learned this in school but that does not mean everybody was paying attention in class :P
Quote from: merithyn on November 13, 2012, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I dont see anything overly wrong with the bolded portion.
I believe Jos' point is that it's not news.
Oliver Stone announces water is wet and shocks the world!
QuoteIn this episode, Stone, who narrates, constantly praises the battles on the Eastern Front as the greatest ever fought, and when he's talking about them, it's not hard to agree.
I must say he has one sick opinion about what makes something great and praiseworthy.
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2012, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2012, 01:35:39 PM
And I'm like....yeah, I knew this in Grade 2. But maybe Americans don't know this. I'm not sure. :huh:
Wow you had military history in Grade 2. I certainly learned this in school but that does not mean everybody was paying attention in class :P
NO. I didn't say I learned it in school. My dad was a WW2 buff and I used to sit on his lap and watch The World At War series.
Quote from: merithyn on November 13, 2012, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I dont see anything overly wrong with the bolded portion.
I believe Jos' point is that it's not news.
Granted. Apparently it is to some. Did you read the comments in the link he posted?
The comments are always the best thing in any Internet posting :D
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2012, 01:47:24 PM
The comments are always the best thing in any Internet posting :D
Quite.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:45:02 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 13, 2012, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I dont see anything overly wrong with the bolded portion.
I believe Jos' point is that it's not news.
Granted. Apparently it is to some. Did you read the comments in the link he posted?
I'd have to bother going to the link to do that. :P
It's not really news to me, but my degree is in History, so there was a certain amount of WWII history that I had to take. I could see it being a different viewpoint for a lot of people, though. Especially those who go to school where they teach that the planet is only 6000 years. ;)
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:45:02 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 13, 2012, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on November 13, 2012, 01:40:07 PM
I dont see anything overly wrong with the bolded portion.
I believe Jos' point is that it's not news.
Granted. Apparently it is to some. Did you read the comments in the link he posted?
Only read some of them but they all seem to agree that the Soviets did all the heavy lifting.
Seems like a strawman used to generate interest. The significance of the Soviets is hardly "untold".
Does it include shit about the Kennedy assassination?
You can go too far the other way in giving credit for Soviets. Yes, it was Soviet soldiers who were getting slaughtered, but they were taken to the slaughter by American trucks and rail cars. If Soviets had to take care of their own secondary, but still very much critical, materiel needs, how much more trouble would they be in than they already were?
Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying. Would have been a much tougher war without either.
Quote from: Kleves on November 13, 2012, 02:24:09 PM
Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying. Would have been a much tougher war without either.
Also the allies diverted a lot of German troops and weapons from being usable on the Eastern Front. And Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.
QuoteAnd Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.
Smart man.
Quote from: DGuller on November 13, 2012, 02:23:52 PM
You can go too far the other way in giving credit for Soviets. Yes, it was Soviet soldiers who were getting slaughtered, but they were taken to the slaughter by American trucks and rail cars. If Soviets had to take care of their own secondary, but still very much critical, materiel needs, how much more trouble would they be in than they already were?
Well the Western Allies also took prisoner millions of German soldiers, soldiers who would have likely fought on in the East rather then be taken captive. The US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe. That's a lot of people that the Soviets would have had to fight through. Not to mention that the Western Allies force Germany to spread their resources thinly over several fronts rather then focus on one front.
Quote from: DGuller on November 13, 2012, 02:23:52 PM
You can go too far the other way in giving credit for Soviets. Yes, it was Soviet soldiers who were getting slaughtered, but they were taken to the slaughter by American trucks and rail cars. If Soviets had to take care of their own secondary, but still very much critical, materiel needs, how much more trouble would they be in than they already were?
Yes, there is no doubt that the Eastern Front was where the bulk of the fighting actually took place. But it was a close-run thing and without the distractions provided by the allies things could have turned out differently.
The USSR also contributed fuck-all to the war with Japan of course.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 03:52:42 PM
The USSR also contributed fuck-all to the war with Japan of course.
That's not a bad thing. It was lack of war with Japan that saved Moscow, and likely the war. Allies were better off with Soviets not "helping" with Japan.
Quote from: DGuller on November 13, 2012, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 03:52:42 PM
The USSR also contributed fuck-all to the war with Japan of course.
That's not a bad thing. It was lack of war with Japan that saved Moscow, and likely the war. Allies were better off with Soviets not "helping" with Japan.
Yes, my understanding is that it allowed Stalin to send 40 divisions of high-quality troops from the east to the front with Germany, at a crucial time too.
I'm wondering now if Stone contemplated the fact that the USSR was nearly as bad as Nazi Germany from a moral point of view :hmm:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2012, 03:20:08 PM
QuoteAnd Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.
Smart man.
No shit. "Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying" was wholly dependent on which time zone discussed.
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2012, 01:35:39 PM
So there's this new show on cable. Was interested in it except I find out the first episode sets out to show that it wasn't the USA involvement in WW2 that defeated Hitler but rather the Soviet Army that did the brunt of the work.
And I'm like....yeah, I knew this in Grade 2. But maybe Americans don't know this. I'm not sure. :huh:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states,88625/
Oliver Stone's Untold History Of The United States isn't quite that. For the most part—at least in the first episode, which focuses on World War II—it's just recounting stuff that history tomes that dig a little bit deeper than the official story would get into. Stone bases much of the first hour around the thought that the Nazis lost World War II not because of the American military launching an offensive in France, but because the Soviet army eventually exhausted and beat the German forces back. At that point, what the Americans and British pulled off at Normandy was important, but the course of the war was essentially set. The Germans had essentially defeated themselves, thanks to Hitler's hubris and Stalin's gutsy decision-making and, well, the Russian people's willingness to sacrifice itself out of its sheer refusal to give an inch. In this episode, Stone, who narrates, constantly praises the battles on the Eastern Front as the greatest ever fought, and when he's talking about them, it's not hard to agree.
And how did Stalin manage to beat the Nazis? Without the allied supplies, there's no way he could have beaten Germany so bad. An eventual stalemate, but difficult to see a massive counterattack being successful.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
June of 1945. Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?
I would like to think this combined with us carbet bombing German cities helped the Soviets out a little bit.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?
Critical, IMO.
German shortages of war materials were always a huge throttle on their operations.
From the obvious (oil, steel) to the not so obvious (tungsten).
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
I think that is a vastly overly simplistic view. The outcome of the war was not binary, and the procces of winning, losing, or some other result was not driven by some "crucial point in time" prior to which the outcome was in doubt and after which the outcome was no longer in doubt.
IN other words, less earlier interference of any kind could have resulted in a change in outcome later, even after the "crucial point".
The Soviet Army, for example, reached peak combat strength sometime in late 1943, early 1944. From 44 to 45 it steadily declined in overall combat power measured by resources such as men, materials, fuel, and such. So while there was not much doubt as to the final outcome as early as January of 1944 (for example), it is the case that the USSR could have simply exhausted their ability to drive the Germans out of the USSR before the German Army finally cracked apart as it did. A stalemate could have ensued - with neither side having the critical weight to move the other.
This did not happen, at least in some part because of the support the USSR received, both directly and indirectly from the Western Allies.
I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.
Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?
Never heard about any effects in WW2, but that could be due to my ignorance. I don't really care much for the actual war history.
In WW1 it led to widespread malnutrition.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2012, 04:36:51 PM
I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.
Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?
I think, though, that's the point. Sort of a "contrary to what you may have been taught, we (America) did not win this war by ourselves. There was this big bad empire, well, actually, we were friends then...there was this big empire to the east that did the brunt of the work."
The Germans were not too horribly off in terms of food until the war ended, unlike WWI they had huge tracts of conquered territory they could loot for food. For things like petroleum and other raw materials it was a much bigger problem.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2012, 04:29:58 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 13, 2012, 04:16:36 PM
What effects did the British naval blockade have in that critical period of the war, significant or marginal?
Critical, IMO.
German shortages of war materials were always a huge throttle on their operations.
From the obvious (oil, steel) to the not so obvious (tungsten).
Ah, that's what you mean. I am sure it had a considerable effect on the German war effort.
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2012, 04:36:51 PM
I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.
Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?
The qualifier "secret" wouldn't make sense though.
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2012, 04:54:40 PM
I think, though, that's the point. Sort of a "contrary to what you may have been taught, we (America) did not win this war by ourselves. There was this big bad empire, well, actually, we were friends then...there was this big empire to the east that did the brunt of the work."
They have weird assumptions like this all the time. The Korean War typically gets referred to as the "forgotten war" even though I am not sure exactly who forgot about it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
June of 1945. Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.
A lot of the seven million POWs will in fact have fought the Russians. In the last week or two of the war, many units tried to quickly surrender to the Americans instead of the Russians.
That said, by the time the Western allies started to take many POWs, the tide in the East had already turned and eventual Soviet victory was pretty much inevitable. Yes, it could have taken longer, yes, it could have been bloodier. But the result was no longer in doubt.
Of the 5.3 million soldiers Germany lost in WW2, around 4 million will have been on the Eastern Front.
The 25,000 who died during the Battle of France hurt most of all though right? :frog:
Quote from: Valmy on November 13, 2012, 05:15:36 PM
The 25,000 who died during the Battle of France hurt most of all though right? :frog:
Hurt being a speedbump.
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
June of 1945. Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.
A lot of the seven million POWs will in fact have fought the Russians. In the last week or two of the war, many units tried to quickly surrender to the Americans instead of the Russians.
That said, by the time the Western allies started to take many POWs, the tide in the East had already turned and eventual Soviet victory was pretty much inevitable. Yes, it could have taken longer, yes, it could have been bloodier. But the result was no longer in doubt.
Of the 5.3 million soldiers Germany lost in WW2, around 4 million will have been on the Eastern Front.
The question is, would it have been inevitable if they could have thrown millions more into the fray. That sorta changes the dynamics. I mean, they were surrendering because they had no where else to go. With out the West the Germans would have more manpower to focus on the East and ground to fall back to. Not to mention they could buy resources or weapons from people without the British blockading them and they wouldn't need to waste resources on V2 rockets or defending the skies over Germany or Uboats.
Quote from: Josephus on November 13, 2012, 04:54:40 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 13, 2012, 04:36:51 PM
I find it amusing that Stone's very first episode of the "Secret history of America" is about the Soviet Union defeating German in WW2.
Wouldn't that be the secret history of German, or the USSR?
I think, though, that's the point. Sort of a "contrary to what you may have been taught, we (America) did not win this war by ourselves. There was this big bad empire, well, actually, we were friends then...there was this big empire to the east that did the brunt of the work."
Who is taught the opposite? I mean certainly early on in school they don't get into all those moral shades and Russia is first good for helping us then bad - but I don't recall them pretending that Russia played a minor role. Perhaps that was different for those in school back in the day but still a hard cry from it being a secret.
Yeah, this isn't really a secret. I don't know of many Americans (really any I've ever met) who thought it was us alone versus the Nazis in WWII and we heroically won the day. Virtually all Americans I know are at least aware a good bit of fighting happened before we even really got involved. Now, maybe the average man in the street doesn't know all the intricacies, and how big a deal the Eastern Front was, but it's not really a secret either. I mean, there have been major Hollywood films about German vs Soviet soldiers on the Eastern Front, so it's certainly not a secret. Not nearly as popular as films and stories about Normandy, Battle of the Bulge etc.
The Soviets won primarily by outlasting the Germans and avoiding a critical loss of Moscow in the initial phase of the invasion. The Soviets produce a ton of tanks and planes, more tanks than anyone I believe, but they produced virtually no trucks for example during the war and a lot of their locomotives (rail was vital to parts of the Soviet Empire) came from America too. It's a zero-sum game when talking about wartime manufacturing, so all the trucks they received from us were trucks they did not have to build at the cost of tanks. If they didn't have those trucks their ability to advance would have been significantly limited.
The Soviets also received significant amounts of petroleum from America (the world's top producer during WWII far and away), while the Germans fairly early on had fuel shortages. Take away the logistical support and the Soviets either have to build it themselves, which is difficult and takes away from other things they did make, or they simply don't have it and their movements against Germany are slower which probably means fewer Germans captured/killed in the counterattacks and Germany being able to fight on longer.
If you take away all allied assistance it's probably a very different war. "All Allied assistance" would mean, Germany can freely trade with the rest of the world, has no fear of invasion from the West from the UK or the U.S. etc. That would dramatically change things. Russia was so big and vast and had so many people I do not know that Hitler could ever conquer/tame it all. If he had none of those other concerns he probably could have captured Moscow though, which could have ended the war. (It would depend on whether Stalin politically survived the Fall of Moscow.) We could definitely end up with a superpower-sized Germany and a weakened Russia, for sure.
But yeah, the Soviets did a lot of dying in that war that we should all be grateful for, and deserve the lion's share of the credit for beating the Germans. But like DGuller said, you can get a bit facetious if you go too far the other way. I've seen that from some Russophiles on forums, making the claim that the Soviets essentially won WWII wholly by themselves.
The Germans would have won if they had more black counters with white printing.
Quote from: PDH on November 13, 2012, 09:41:35 PM
The Germans would have won if they had more black counters with white printing.
You know it.
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2012, 07:52:33 PM
Who is taught the opposite? I mean certainly early on in school they don't get into all those moral shades and Russia is first good for helping us then bad - but I don't recall them pretending that Russia played a minor role. Perhaps that was different for those in school back in the day but still a hard cry from it being a secret.
Ask your average American. Perhaps those that didn't take advanced history classes in high school....you know, Republican types. Ask them how WW2 was won, and let me know how many times they mention Russia in their narrative.
edit: Hell, I know a woman, not even American, granted. A typcial, only high school educated woman, not much into reading other than cake recipes. She probably, I'm willing to bet, couldn't even tell you that Russia was in the war, let alone whose side they're on.
I'm pretty sure the Eastern Front gets covered by about 5th grade.
Though I'm not sure what that says anyway. Average person is ignorant of most history.
Does it really matter what ignoramuses think?
Quote from: garbon on November 13, 2012, 10:16:34 PM
is ignorant of moat history.
lulz. IT SURROUNDS A CASTLE
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 13, 2012, 08:34:12 PM
Yeah, this isn't really a secret. I don't know of many Americans (really any I've ever met) who thought it was us alone versus the Nazis in WWII and we heroically won the day. Virtually all Americans I know are at least aware a good bit of fighting happened before we even really got involved. Now, maybe the average man in the street doesn't know all the intricacies, and how big a deal the Eastern Front was, but it's not really a secret either. I mean, there have been major Hollywood films about German vs Soviet soldiers on the Eastern Front, so it's certainly not a secret. Not nearly as popular as films and stories about Normandy, Battle of the Bulge etc.
The Soviets won primarily by outlasting the Germans and avoiding a critical loss of Moscow in the initial phase of the invasion. The Soviets produce a ton of tanks and planes, more tanks than anyone I believe, but they produced virtually no trucks for example during the war and a lot of their locomotives (rail was vital to parts of the Soviet Empire) came from America too. It's a zero-sum game when talking about wartime manufacturing, so all the trucks they received from us were trucks they did not have to build at the cost of tanks. If they didn't have those trucks their ability to advance would have been significantly limited.
The Soviets also received significant amounts of petroleum from America (the world's top producer during WWII far and away), while the Germans fairly early on had fuel shortages. Take away the logistical support and the Soviets either have to build it themselves, which is difficult and takes away from other things they did make, or they simply don't have it and their movements against Germany are slower which probably means fewer Germans captured/killed in the counterattacks and Germany being able to fight on longer.
If you take away all allied assistance it's probably a very different war. "All Allied assistance" would mean, Germany can freely trade with the rest of the world, has no fear of invasion from the West from the UK or the U.S. etc. That would dramatically change things. Russia was so big and vast and had so many people I do not know that Hitler could ever conquer/tame it all. If he had none of those other concerns he probably could have captured Moscow though, which could have ended the war. (It would depend on whether Stalin politically survived the Fall of Moscow.) We could definitely end up with a superpower-sized Germany and a weakened Russia, for sure.
But yeah, the Soviets did a lot of dying in that war that we should all be grateful for, and deserve the lion's share of the credit for beating the Germans. But like DGuller said, you can get a bit facetious if you go too far the other way. I've seen that from some Russophiles on forums, making the claim that the Soviets essentially won WWII wholly by themselves.
I agree with most of what you say, but the Soviets did build a bunch of trucks. I think they built slightly more trucks they got from the US, and they got a lot of trucks from the US. Locomotives on the other hand, the Soviets built very few. Perhaps the biggest thing was grain. The Soviet Union could barely feed itself during times of peace, and with the Germans ruling over much of their best farm land they desperately needed American Foodstuffs.
I agree.
I can't name anybody not aware of the role of the USSR in WW2.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2012, 03:20:08 PM
QuoteAnd Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.
Smart man.
No shit. "Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying" was wholly dependent on which time zone discussed.
I thought EdAnger was calling Stalin smart for not fighting the Japs.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
June of 1945. Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.
You are an idiot troll.
Anyway, this whole thread seems like a strawman. Yes, who would have thought that historical facts a popular tv programme targeted at general public (including young people) considers to be not very well known are actually known by many people on a forum composed of hardcore gamers united by their interest in niche historical games. Let's have a circle jerk over it.
And let's face it. Most people take their history knowledge from Hollywood. And I don't think the Soviet war effort features that prominently in Saving Private Ryan, Patton or Pearl Harbor.
Quote from: Siege on November 14, 2012, 01:35:16 AM
I agree.
I can't name anybody not aware of the role of the USSR in WW2.
This is probably a self-selecting bias - you normally discuss history with people who know about history. I'm pretty sure that if you did a vox pop and asked people in the street about the role of the US vs. the USSR in winning WW2, most people in the US would say that the role of the US was dominant.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2012, 02:16:47 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 04:26:37 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 13, 2012, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 03:29:34 PMThe US had around 7 million captured in Northwest Europe.
When? In May 1945? The crucial point of time was certainly before the invasions of Italy in 1943 or even Normandy in 1944 and I doubt the US had captured very many German soldiers before that.
June of 1945. Any point in time would have meant that the Soviets would still have to fight them if there wasn't a Western release valve.
You are an idiot troll.
Brilliant argument. With an incisive mind like that, it's easy to see how the law firm's cleaning staff took you on. I bet you outwit plenty of dust bunnies and stains.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 13, 2012, 07:02:36 PM
The question is, would it have been inevitable if they could have thrown millions more into the fray. That sorta changes the dynamics. I mean, they were surrendering because they had no where else to go. With out the West the Germans would have more manpower to focus on the East and ground to fall back to. Not to mention they could buy resources or weapons from people without the British blockading them and they wouldn't need to waste resources on V2 rockets or defending the skies over Germany or Uboats.
Your argument to quantify the importance of the Western Allies was the high number of POWs. However that was only after the war, so it is meaningless. I don't dispute that the Western Allies did fasten or even only enable Germany's defeat. However, the statistic you quoted doesn't help us at all to evaluate how important their contribution compared to the Russians was.
Being taken prisoner was a major factor in ending the war. If there were no Western Armies to surrender to, then they wouldn't have surrendered. They would have kept on fighting. The German government tried to surrender only to the Western allies at first. Only after being told that no surrender would be accepted that didn't include the Soviets did the Germans finally give up. The presence of the Western Armies was essentially like steam valve, allowing German pressure to against the Soviet to dissipate. With out that mechanism, they would have to fight all those Germans.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2012, 02:15:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 13, 2012, 04:03:22 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 13, 2012, 03:20:08 PM
QuoteAnd Stalin really didn't do squat in defeating the other land-hungry Axis empire.
Smart man.
No shit. "Americans did the building, Soviets did the dying" was wholly dependent on which time zone discussed.
I thought EdAnger was calling Stalin smart for not fighting the Japs.
The fuck does he know, he stockpiles strudel. Ed, not Stalin.
I know that not sticking your dick into a bees nest while a bunch of kraits are slicing you up is the best policy.
WHERE WAS OUR SECOND FRONT?
And don't say "China".
We are Americans, we can handle such Herculean tasks without help from dodgy allies.
General Petraeus could apparently handle multiple fronts, lulz.
:lol:
For once I agree with Marti...or he agrees with me, since it's what I've been saying all along.
The average person, (not people on this forum or our friends) have a lot less knowledge of basic WW2 history than you think. As Marti said, Private Ryan is their extent of their knowledge.
For them the WW2 narrative goes something like:
A long time ago when everything was black and white, there was this German guy and he hated Jews so he invaded some country with a lot of Jews. He killed Jews, and that made the USA mad, cause we got lots of Jews, so we went to rescue the Jews. Then they attacked Pearl Harbour which was like 9/11. We left from Omaha and arrived on some beach in Germany, and then we threw a atom bomb and Hitler died but not before he threw this tantrum which you can see memed on youtube a lot. And we won the war and Private Ryan went home.
Rather shocking that J and Marti would take the stance that they are more intelligent than their fellow humans. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2012, 02:25:56 AM
This is probably a self-selecting bias - you normally discuss history with people who know about history. I'm pretty sure that if you did a vox pop and asked people in the street about the role of the US vs. the USSR in winning WW2, most people in the US would say that the role of the US was dominant.
We had our hands full fighting another empire that apparently doesn't count.
Quote from: Martinus on November 14, 2012, 02:21:03 AM
Anyway, this whole thread seems like a strawman. Yes, who would have thought that historical facts a popular tv programme targeted at general public (including young people) considers to be not very well known are actually known by many people on a forum composed of hardcore gamers united by their interest in niche historical games. Let's have a circle jerk over it.
And let's face it. Most people take their history knowledge from Hollywood. And I don't think the Soviet war effort features that prominently in Saving Private Ryan, Patton or Pearl Harbor.
When someone names their series the "
Untold History Of The United States", it is reasonable to expect some actual contrarian history, even if the average mook on the street knows nothing about history.
Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2012, 08:30:17 AM
Rather shocking that J and Marti would take the stance that they are more intelligent than their fellow humans. :rolleyes:
I actually don't doubt that for a second. I worked for two summers on a construction site. I've heard people talk.
One guy I met was convinced that sharks don't die.
"You never see dead sharks floating around on Jack Cousteau." He said to me.
I give most people more credit then some of you guys.
Quote from: Josephus on November 14, 2012, 09:30:02 AM
One guy I met was convinced that sharks don't die.
"You never see dead sharks floating around on Jack Cousteau." He said to me.
They don't get cancer, either. Never seen a shark smoke, have you?
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 09:27:33 AM
When someone names their series the "Untold History Of The United States", it is reasonable to expect some actual contrarian history, even if the average mook on the street knows nothing about history.
Well yeah if the assumption is you are talking to people who have not heard any history then anything can be untold.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:51:41 AM
Being taken prisoner was a major factor in ending the war. If there were no Western Armies to surrender to, then they wouldn't have surrendered. They would have kept on fighting. The German government tried to surrender only to the Western allies at first. Only after being told that no surrender would be accepted that didn't include the Soviets did the Germans finally give up. The presence of the Western Armies was essentially like steam valve, allowing German pressure to against the Soviet to dissipate. With out that mechanism, they would have to fight all those Germans.
Yes. Doesn't change the fact that the number you cited does not tell us anything about the comparative effort of the Americans and Soviets which is what both your original post and the thread are about.
Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2012, 10:30:03 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 14, 2012, 09:27:33 AM
When someone names their series the "Untold History Of The United States", it is reasonable to expect some actual contrarian history, even if the average mook on the street knows nothing about history.
Well yeah if the assumption is you are talking to people who have not heard any history then anything can be untold.
The Untold History of England: the Anglo-Saxon kingdom was invaded in 1066 by Normans!
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2012, 11:10:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:51:41 AM
Being taken prisoner was a major factor in ending the war. If there were no Western Armies to surrender to, then they wouldn't have surrendered. They would have kept on fighting. The German government tried to surrender only to the Western allies at first. Only after being told that no surrender would be accepted that didn't include the Soviets did the Germans finally give up. The presence of the Western Armies was essentially like steam valve, allowing German pressure to against the Soviet to dissipate. With out that mechanism, they would have to fight all those Germans.
Yes. Doesn't change the fact that the number you cited does not tell us anything about the comparative effort of the Americans and Soviets which is what both your original post and the thread are about.
Okay, I give up. What is it exactly you want me to say here?
I've seen figures based on the number of months each division spent deployed on active front and iirc 79% of total German active combat was spent against Soviet units.
The discussion about who provide what resources, is a bit misleading as it's looking at them the wrong way, what's more important is that those are a consequence of the allies co-operating and planning production between them. So whether its US yard concentrating on merchant tonnage to allow the UK yards to concentrate on naval repairs or the Soviets concentrating on tanks with the Americans providing lots of trucks and electronics for the Red Army.
All of which stands in stark contrast with the threadbare attempts by the Axis partners to work together.
Here is a question to WW2 historians. Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million. If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow. Was it really the case? The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 11:27:49 AM
Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2012, 11:10:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 03:51:41 AM
Being taken prisoner was a major factor in ending the war. If there were no Western Armies to surrender to, then they wouldn't have surrendered. They would have kept on fighting. The German government tried to surrender only to the Western allies at first. Only after being told that no surrender would be accepted that didn't include the Soviets did the Germans finally give up. The presence of the Western Armies was essentially like steam valve, allowing German pressure to against the Soviet to dissipate. With out that mechanism, they would have to fight all those Germans.
Yes. Doesn't change the fact that the number you cited does not tell us anything about the comparative effort of the Americans and Soviets which is what both your original post and the thread are about.
Okay, I give up. What is it exactly you want me to say here?
Nothing. I am just saying that what you already said was not relevant considering the topic.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2012, 01:33:46 PM
Here is a question to WW2 historians. Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million. If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow. Was it really the case? The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.
I believe casualty rates were close to 1-1 after Kursk. Keep in mind that the Germans were also fighting elsewhere and Germany wasn't the only country to be fighting in the Soviet Union.
Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2012, 01:40:26 PM
Nothing. I am just saying that what you already said was not relevant considering the topic.
Well, so long as I don't have to do anything. I'm still not following your thinking here though.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2012, 01:33:46 PM
Here is a question to WW2 historians. Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million. If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow. Was it really the case? The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.
Germany probably lost about 2.7 million soldiers on the Eastern Front until the end of 1944, with close to half of that in 1944 alone. The Soviets had probably lost about 7-9 million by then. The final months in Germany were particularly bloody for the German army and it probably lost about 800.000 men against the Soviets. So that makes about 3.5 million to 8.5-10.5 million.
It's likely that a hundreds of thousands died as POWs after the war as well.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2012, 09:31:10 AM
I give most people more credit then some of you guys.
You probably believe in haunted toasters too.
Quote from: DGuller on November 15, 2012, 01:33:46 PM
Here is a question to WW2 historians. Looking at the casualty statistics, it seems like Soviet military casualties were only twice as high as German military casualties, 10 million to 5 million. If you take out 1941, where about 4 million Soviets were killed, or taken prisoner and almost certain to die, while Germans suffered considerably less, it almost looks like Soviets and Germans traded casualties close to 1-1 ratio after Moscow. Was it really the case? The narrative seems to be that throughout the entire war, Soviets took on much more casualties, but had more replacements waiting, while Germans were being bled dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)#Casualties