NationStates Jolt Archive

Selfish, american haters...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-06-09-liberia-evac_x.htm

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

Give me a good reason why you hate them. Please.

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

No, just tea time.

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

No that was the russians

Give me a good reason why you hate them. Please.
*sigh*

it's all in the rage to be hating the French! Keep up with the times will ya?


(I don't hate the French, thank you for your quick conclusion)

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

The Americans didn't help their allies until they were attacked themselves. Now that's what I call selfish.

Just something for americans to think about when they critisize the french for not helping the world. For hating america. For being "pussies" in war.

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

No, they saved you from the Brits.

*sigh*

it's all in the rage to be hating the French! Keep up with the times will ya?


(I don't hate the French, thank you for your quick conclusion)

Sorry. The tone of your post "What, you expect me to love them now?" gave me the wrong interpretation.

Are you sure they knew they were Americans? :p

Colodia: the we saved them from the Germans arguement is rather tired and wrong.

The WWII generation saved them.

I can tell you that the average Frenchmen is usually very respectful of any D-Day vets.

As one old timer told me. "We must of done good if a Parisian treated me well!" ;)

Are you sure they knew they were Americans? :p

Colodia: the we saved them from the Germans arguement is rather tired and wrong.

The WWII generation saved them.

I can tell you that the average Frenchmen is usually very respectful of any D-Day vets.

As one old timer told me. "We must of done good if a Parisian treated me well!" ;)

.....Colodia doesn't hate the French, did anyone read the post?

it's all in the rage to be hating the French! Keep up with the times will ya?

Gawd, that's just so 2002.

The Americans didn't help their allies until they were attacked themselves. Now that's what I call selfish.


Well it was not that simple. The Americans were helping were they could. Don't forget when the war started, the US was just starting to get out of the Great Depression.

Armed forces were not that big. The equipment was old.

People make comments that even when we joined, we didn't do any major fighting till 1944.

Again, the lack of a sizable trained army.

Personally, I am rather tired of the we saved France argument. We did. However, it was our grandparents that did it. On the debt books that made things square. The French helped us in the Revolution and we paid them back at D-Day.

But that is just me.....

Has anyone actually looked at the article? Methinks a bit of sarcasm in the title, mayhaps, unless the French are evil for helping with the evacuation of missionaries so they wouldn't wind up, well, dead or something.

.....Colodia doesn't hate the French, did anyone read the post?

Sorry but


what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?


sounded like the every "we saved them from the germans" comments that is frequently spouted these days.....

Well it was not that simple. The Americans were helping were they could. Don't forget when the war started, the US was just starting to get out of the Great Depression.

Armed forces were not that big. The equipment was old.

People make comments that even when we joined, we didn't do any major fighting till 1944.

Again, the lack of a sizable trained army.

Personally, I am rather tired of the we saved France argument. We did. However, it was our grandparents that did it. On the debt books that made things square. The French helped us in the Revolution and we paid them back at D-Day.

But that is just me.....

Plus, the population didn't want to get involved in the war, despite FDR's best attempts at convincing them otherwise.

Plus, the population didn't want to get involved in the war, despite FDR's best attempts at convincing them otherwise.

America didnt save france from the germans. We saved them from the russians ^_^.

(If you think that makes no sense, you obviously dont get what i mean).

America didnt save france from the germans. We saved them from the russians ^_^.

(If you think that makes no sense, you obviously dont get what i mean).

Fairly obvious, I thought, particularly as the Germans already "had" them.

America didnt save france from the germans. We saved them from the russians ^_^.

(If you think that makes no sense, you obviously dont get what i mean).

I think Russia had enough problems of it's own after WW2 to worry about taking any more land.

I think Russia had enough problems of it's own after WW2 to worry about taking any more land.

I believe the intention of the post was to suggest that without the D-Day landings and the invasion of Italy, the Soviets would have been able to keep steamrollering the Germans from the Urals right down to the Pyrenees, and then hold onto the land.

In all honesty, the U.S. saved Russia as well as France from the Germans. It was U.S. equipment and supplies that allowed the Russians to recover from the initial German onslaught and counter. Of course, the U.S. owed France for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and they owed Russia for attempting to invade Russia after WWI.

Has anyone actually looked at the article? Methinks a bit of sarcasm in the title, mayhaps, unless the French are evil for helping with the evacuation of missionaries so they wouldn't wind up, well, dead or something.
Ugh--I hate being the last post on a page. Nobody ever replies to you.

Ugh--I hate being the last post on a page. Nobody ever replies to you.

I tried to look, but the page went into eternal loading status.

Ugh--I hate being the last post on a page. Nobody ever replies to you.

If it had been anyone other than Christian missionaries, then it wouldn't have been evil.

Ugh--I hate being the last post on a page. Nobody ever replies to you.


Actually I did as for my lame joke about them knowing if they were Americans. ;)

I believe the intention of the post was to suggest that without the D-Day landings and the invasion of Italy, the Soviets would have been able to keep steamrollering the Germans from the Urals right down to the Pyrenees, and then hold onto the land.

Yeah, but face it- they had guerillas giving them enough trouble in postwar Poland. Do you think that if they decided to hold on to most of western europe they would have been able to sustain it with their horrendous losses?

In all honesty, the U.S. saved Russia as well as France from the Germans. It was U.S. equipment and supplies that allowed the Russians to recover from the initial German onslaught and counter. Of course, the U.S. owed France for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and they owed Russia for attempting to invade Russia after WWI.

Ehh- No. The US equipment was mostly crap (in comparison to what the Germans were using), and the Russians used Sherman tanks with their paper-thin armour to drive over minefields so that they didnt waste any of their better gear. P-39 and P-40 aircraft failed to make much of an impact, with the early version German Bf-109's being superior to the P-39 and on par to the numerically inferior by far P-40's anyway. The food supplies came in handy, but they would have won without them IMHO.

Yeah, but face it- they had guerillas giving them enough trouble in postwar Poland. Do you think that if they decided to hold on to most of western europe they would have been able to sustain it with their horrendous losses?

Even with their horrendous losses, they still had a large population to draw from and no qualms about expending them if they saw fit.



Ehh- No. The US equipment was mostly crap (in comparison to what the Germans were using), and the Russians used Sherman tanks with their paper-thin armour to drive over minefields so that they didnt waste any of their better gear.

I believe the Grants were quite well thought of by the Soviets for a while. Totally outclassed by the time the T-34s rolled off the production line, of course, but then what allied tank wasn't?

Yeah, but face it- they had guerillas giving them enough trouble in postwar Poland. Do you think that if they decided to hold on to most of western europe they would have been able to sustain it with their horrendous losses?



Ehh- No. The US equipment was mostly crap, and the Russians used Sherman tanks with their paper-thin armour to drive over minefields so that they didnt waste any of their better gear. P-39 and P-40 aircraft failed to make much of an impact, with the early version German Bf-109's being superior to the P-39 and on par to the numerically inferior by far P-40's anyway. The food supplies came in handy, but they would have won without them IMHO.


Western armour was crap in the Soviet Army compared with Soviet equipment, but that's probably why the Soviets did not receive much of it. You are dangerously underestimated the P-39 which was the Soviets basic fighter for most of the war (The IL-2 is not a fighter), and most Soviet fighter aces acheived their goals in P-39's.

But the Soviets are not self-sufficient to acheive the numbers they did. Soviet industry could either produce a horrendous amount of tanks or a horrendous amount of trucks. As you can well guess they opted for tanks, why, becuase the vast majority of their trucks were supplies by the United States, during the war the word Studebaker became synonymous for truck. Without trucks the Soviets, who often outran their supply lines, could not maintain even the most basic supply lines, Soviet operational doctrine envisioned massive armor breaking through and fast moving infantry (i.e. infantry in trucks) compromising the enemy rear by penetrating deep into enemy lines. Without these trucks the Soviets could not mount any of their offensives.

Not too mention all the natural resources the Soviets received from the US, most of their oil and almost all of their tin (you know the stuff used for rations), and a huge number of boots ordered specially by Russian soldiers for winter campaigning (something the Germans would have loved). Along with that came vast quantities of coal, steel, rubber, and leather.

Even with their horrendous losses, they still had a large population to draw from and no qualms about expending them if they saw fit.





I believe the Grants were quite well thought of by the Soviets for a while. Totally outclassed by the time the T-34s rolled off the production line, of course, but then what allied tank wasn't?

The Soviets were scraping the bottom of the barrel, after 20,000,000 dead they didn't have much left in the way of manpower. Replacements came from occupied areas (Romania, Hungary, Poland, parts of Finland) where they were conscripted or fused in with the Soviets once their respective nation surrendered, the Soviets were wrecked, they had no manpower reserves to draw from, they were cannibalizing units to meet replacement needs, just like the British had to in '44.

Even with their horrendous losses, they still had a large population to draw from and no qualms about expending them if they saw fit.

I believe the Grants were quite well thought of by the Soviets for a while. Totally outclassed by the time the T-34s rolled off the production line, of course, but then what allied tank wasn't?

Well yeah, but think about it this way- it's a long way from Paris to Minsk, and if you have to guard all the territory in between from a hostile population, it's a very difficult task. Think of the times they sent tanks into Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. Do you think they could have managed if Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc. burst into resistance? No way.

As for the tanks- The problem was, the front was stabilising when the tanks got there, and by the time they started hitting back, they had better gear. So unfortunately, The US equipment made little difference. It was more a question of the Germans not pushing forward for fear of spreading too thinly in the cold winter than the American tanks holding them off...

Actually it seems I under-estimated Western armour to the Soviets.

During 1941, 487 Matilda, Valentine and Tetrarch tanks were received from Great Britain, and 182 M3A1 "Stuart", and M3 Lee medium tanks were received from the USA. In 1942, a further 2.487 tanks were received from the UK, and 3.023 tanks from the USA. The first units equipped with Valentines and Matilda IIs fought in the Staraya Russia and Valdai areas in the winter of 1941/42. Usually tank units were allotted a single type of Lend-Lease tanks to simplify logistics. An example was the 38th Tank Brigade which in 1942 had 30 Matilda II tanks, and 16 T-60 light tanks. In 1944 and 1945, the American M4A2 were the highest appreciated Lend/Lease tank, and some tank corps and mechanized corps were entirely equipped with this type. In early 1945 the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps were equipped with Shermans in all of its tank units.

Well yeah, but think about it this way- it's a long way from Paris to Minsk, and if you have to guard all the territory in between from a hostile population, it's a very difficult task. Think of the times they sent tanks into Hungary, Czechoslovakia, etc. Do you think they could have managed if Germany, France, the Netherlands, etc. burst into resistance? No way.

Ah yes, I am a rational human being that can be swayed by arguments, but try telling the above to Stalin...

Actually it seems I under-estimated Western armour to the Soviets.
...

Were Tank Destroyers also sent as part of the lend-lease program? I don't believe they were, and the main role for which the Sherman was designed wasn't as an anti-armour vehicle, but as an infantry support tank. This would leave something of a hole for the Soviets to fill with their own mobile anti-tank platforms.

Western armour was crap in the Soviet Army compared with Soviet equipment, but that's probably why the Soviets did not receive much of it. You are dangerously underestimated the P-39 which was the Soviets basic fighter for most of the war (The IL-2 is not a fighter), and most Soviet fighter aces acheived their goals in P-39's.

But the Soviets are not self-sufficient to acheive the numbers they did. Soviet industry could either produce a horrendous amount of tanks or a horrendous amount of trucks. As you can well guess they opted for tanks, why, becuase the vast majority of their trucks were supplies by the United States, during the war the word Studebaker became synonymous for truck. Without trucks the Soviets, who often outran their supply lines, could not maintain even the most basic supply lines, Soviet operational doctrine envisioned massive armor breaking through and fast moving infantry (i.e. infantry in trucks) compromising the enemy rear by penetrating deep into enemy lines. Without these trucks the Soviets could not mount any of their offensives.

Not too mention all the natural resources the Soviets received from the US, most of their oil and almost all of their tin (you know the stuff used for rations), and a huge number of boots ordered specially by Russian soldiers for winter campaigning (something the Germans would have loved). Along with that came vast quantities of coal, steel, rubber, and leather.

A fellow historian, methinks? Or just a WWII buff? Either way, someone who definitely knows their history.

Western armour was crap in the Soviet Army compared with Soviet equipment, but that's probably why the Soviets did not receive much of it. You are dangerously underestimated the P-39 which was the Soviets basic fighter for most of the war (The IL-2 is not a fighter), and most Soviet fighter aces acheived their goals in P-39's.

But the Soviets are not self-sufficient to acheive the numbers they did. Soviet industry could either produce a horrendous amount of tanks or a horrendous amount of trucks. As you can well guess they opted for tanks, why, becuase the vast majority of their trucks were supplies by the United States, during the war the word Studebaker became synonymous for truck. Without trucks the Soviets, who often outran their supply lines, could not maintain even the most basic supply lines, Soviet operational doctrine envisioned massive armor breaking through and fast moving infantry (i.e. infantry in trucks) compromising the enemy rear by penetrating deep into enemy lines. Without these trucks the Soviets could not mount any of their offensives.

Not too mention all the natural resources the Soviets received from the US, most of their oil and almost all of their tin (you know the stuff used for rations), and a huge number of boots ordered specially by Russian soldiers for winter campaigning (something the Germans would have loved). Along with that came vast quantities of coal, steel, rubber, and leather.

The P-39 was a hopeless fighter (EDIT- I meant above) 15,000 feet. It was best suited to ground attack missions. Of course, some pilots were good enough to be successful with them, however it should be noticed that many British, Polish and Dutch pilots (to name a few) became aces in biplane aircraft, and this is a testament to their skill, not the aircraft in question. There were a lot of P-39's downed easily by the Germans as well. Don't underestimate the Soviet aircraft either- the French armee de l'air in exile did very well with Yakovlev planes.

I'll concede your point about the trucks, however, I have to disagree upon the issue of natural resources (except for rubber). The Soviets had massive amounts of oil coming from Azerbaijan, and later with their occupation of Iran. I honestly believe that the Soviets won eventually if they were forced to be self sufficient, though certainly not by the end of 1945.

Well it was not that simple. The Americans were helping were they could. Don't forget when the war started, the US was just starting to get out of the Great Depression.

Armed forces were not that big. The equipment was old.

People make comments that even when we joined, we didn't do any major fighting till 1944.

Again, the lack of a sizable trained army.

Personally, I am rather tired of the we saved France argument. We did. However, it was our grandparents that did it. On the debt books that made things square. The French helped us in the Revolution and we paid them back at D-Day.

But that is just me.....
What's more, the American people were avidly opposed to the war, and even when Roosevelt managed to get Americans killed when he sent supplies to Britain (worked in WW1), the Americans still oposed. Even when Pearl Harbor happened, there were still some Congressmen that wanted to sue for peace.

Were Tank Destroyers also sent as part of the lend-lease program? I don't believe they were, and the main role for which the Sherman was designed wasn't as an anti-armour vehicle, but as an infantry support tank. This would leave something of a hole for the Soviets to fill with their own mobile anti-tank platforms.

Over 650 T-48's were sent, or the Soviet designation the SU-57, only a handful of M10's were sent (50) and only 5 M18's were sent.

Ah yes, I am a rational human being that can be swayed by arguments, but try telling the above to Stalin...

lol :D

The P-39 was a hopeless fighter below 15,000 feet. It was best suited to ground attack missions. Of course, some pilots were good enough to be successful with them, however it should be noticed that many British, Polish and Dutch pilots (to name a few) became aces in biplane aircraft, and this is a testament to their skill, not the aircraft in question. There were a lot of P-39's downed easily by the Germans as well. Don't underestimate the Soviet aircraft either- the French armee de l'air in exile did very well with Yakovlev planes.

I'll concede your point about the trucks, however, I have to disagree upon the issue of natural resources (except for rubber). The Soviets had massive amounts of oil coming from Azerbaijan, and later with their occupation of Iran. I honestly believe that the Soviets won eventually if they were forced to be self sufficient, though certainly not by the end of 1945.


I should have clarified, I meant aviation fuel, not raw oil, the Soviets received almost 4/5ths of their aviation fuel from Lend Lease (Lend Lease was also Not just the US, also UK, though I don't think it was considered lend lease, just allied aid).

Over 650 T-48's were sent, or the Soviet designation the SU-57, only a handful of M10's were sent (50) and only 5 M18's were sent.

Ah. For some reason I never relaised that the SU-57 was the same creature as the T-48.

A fellow historian, methinks? Or just a WWII buff? Either way, someone who definitely knows their history.

Glad to know there are others about.

I should have clarified, I meant aviation fuel, not raw oil, the Soviets received almost 4/5ths of their aviation fuel from Lend Lease (Not just US, also UK).

OK, except the UK also relied on the USA for hi-octane aviation fuel.

OK, except the UK also relied on the USA for hi-octane aviation fuel.

I meant the Lend Lease as a whole, but I can see how I erred in that statement, it was my mistake and can easily be misconstrued, I apologize.

I meant the Lend Lease as a whole, but I can see how I erred in that statement, it was my mistake and can easily be misconstrued, I apologize.

No problem....Just don't do it again :D j/k

I think the most important aspect was the refined materials given to the Soviets through the Lend-Lease, especially as the German advance was halted. The Soviets had lost most of their infrastructure, especially established supply routes, and would have been in serious trouble trying to re-establish them by the following summer, when the Germans would have surely been able to resume their offensive. Instead, the Soviets received a massive influx of aid, and were able to launch their own offensive, because they did not have to commit resources to re-establishing those trade routes.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. :D After all, my area of specialization is Medieval warfare, particularly Asian.

I think the most important aspect was the refined materials given to the Soviets through the Lend-Lease, especially as the German advance was halted. The Soviets had lost most of their infrastructure, especially established supply routes, and would have been in serious trouble trying to re-establish them by the following summer, when the Germans would have surely been able to resume their offensive. Instead, the Soviets received a massive influx of aid, and were able to launch their own offensive, because they did not have to commit resources to re-establishing those trade routes.

Of course, I could be completely wrong. :D After all, my area of specialization is Medieval warfare, particularly Asian.


You are most correct in that regard (odd, my area of expertise is the Great Wars, but I can easily admit to knowing almost pittance about Medieval times, let alone Asia). The US provided nearly 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 rolling stock to the Soviets during the war, not too mention the various cranes and presses and other manufacturing equipment the US gave to the Soviet Union for their production (Murmansk had only one heavy crane in 1941, and it was an 11-ton one, though this upgrade goes to the British who built a heavier crane).

WWII was over for germany around 12th of july 1943 when operation citadelle was truely and irrevocably lost.

What remain after that was mopping upp operations.

As a side note the soviet operation in the south after kursk was aptly named "destruction of army group south".

And if you doubt soviet military capabilities late in the war read up on the operation in manchuria.

The D-Day invation saved western europe from from a few decades of soviet opression if the soviets would have continued after germany.

Granted the landlease trucks did wonders for soviet mechanization as most soviet vehicle factories was built from the start for the dual purpose of either tractor or tank manufacture.
And as previosly stated the russians opted for tanks.

The soviet army in the midst of reorganization sufferd horribly early on the eastern front with incompetent commanders and outdated doctrines, but they learnd and learned quickly even if they had to pay a huge price in blood for their lessons.

So you saved them from the russians not the germans the germans where already beat.

Flax the little WWII buff

The D-Day invation saved western europe from from a few decades of soviet opression if the soviets would have continued after germany.
...
So you saved them from the russians not the germans the germans where already beat. ...

The Soviets were screaming and yelling at the US and UK to land in France ASAP. -- Must've been very keen on having someone save Western Europe from communism ;)

I believe the intention of the post was to suggest that without the D-Day landings and the invasion of Italy, the Soviets would have been able to keep steamrollering the Germans from the Urals right down to the Pyrenees, and then hold onto the land.
Or not. Ever seen Fatherland? With Rutger Hauer.

The Soviets were screaming and yelling at the US and UK to land in France ASAP. -- Must've been very keen on having someone save Western Europe from communism.

The majority of this screaming was done in 1942 and 1943 (Operations Sledgehammer and Roundup respectively for each year, Allied plans for French invasion), when the Soviets were reeling from reverses on the battlefield. But by 1944 the Germans were certainly not done for, the Soviets needed another front that threatened Germany to draw soldiers to, the Soviets may have been winning but it was costing them a lot. France and Germany were also places were units were sent to rest and recoup their losses from the Eastern front (This is what Panzer Division Lehr was doing in June 1944), an Allied invasion would end this.

The Soviets were acutely aware of the risk that the Germans could reverse the current trend of defeats, they were falling back on the Carpathians and Pripet Marshes, both very good defensive terrain. At the least the Soviets feared having to lose even more millions of soldiers banging their head against the German defenses. Also while there was a cooling of "Allied" feelings between Soviet and Western leaders, the Soviet people still felt veyr warm towards their allies against Germany. Just read accounts of Westerners at each respective embassy in Moscow on June 6th when the invasion was announced, the Soviets loved them.

A second front sealed Germany's fate to them. In hindsight it's easy to see how the Germans were losing since 1943, but it's also easy to see how horrible the Soviet collapse of 1941 is. The Soviets had still not thrown the Germans out of Soviet territory (The offensive times with Overlord would destroy Army Group Centre and drive them out finally), but with two fronts, even if the Soviets were defeated or had to retreat, the West was pushing into the Rhineland, thus limiting German ability to deliver said defeat, and their ability to plug any holes created by Soviet offensive.

And still the Allies needed the Soviets to step up their military operations to draw more German troops out of France and the rest of Western Europe for operation Overlord.

And still the Allies needed the Soviets to step up their military operations to draw more German troops out of France and the rest of Western Europe for operation Overlord.

Well an amphibious assault is very hard to pulloff, your essentially landing infantry to go through hardened defenses. Nowadays armoured support can be landed with the infantry quickly enough to not get destroyed, back in '44 DD tanks were only in handfuls and armour in Higgin's were very vulnerable in the first waves. The landings were made with 5 divisions, deprived of artillery (except naval), armour, and rear area support. Even once the initial beachead is made it is extremely vulnerable, and the Allied Command had Anzio in the back of their mind, not to mention Dieppe (The other raid against France).

At Anzio the Germans had moved quickly enough to encircle the beach head and secured it, and their defensive lines south of Rome were not compromised. At Normandy the Germans would move quick to destroy any Allied beach head, the best way to reduce this effect is to draw German divisions away. But this was not done by Western request that the soviets draw divisions away, the West actually was a proponent of a timed offensive (which did happen). The Allies did this by deception (Army Group Patton, and the fictitious British 14th Army based in Edinburgh who's fake target was Norway), and their own campaign in Italy.

I'm still waiting for Fat Smelly Bastards to come and say, "I hate those fat jerko french scum! We saved them from teh nahtsees!"

I actually think he has, or I could be confusing it, since he makes remarks like that in nearly every thread.

The majority of this screaming was done in 1942 and 1943 (Operations Sledgehammer and Roundup respectively for each year, Allied plans for French invasion), when the Soviets were reeling from reverses on the battlefield. But by 1944 the Germans were certainly not done for, the Soviets needed another front that threatened Germany to draw soldiers to, the Soviets may have been winning but it was costing them a lot. France and Germany were also places were units were sent to rest and recoup their losses from the Eastern front (This is what Panzer Division Lehr was doing in June 1944), an Allied invasion would end this.

The Soviets were acutely aware of the risk that the Germans could reverse the current trend of defeats, they were falling back on the Carpathians and Pripet Marshes, both very good defensive terrain. At the least the Soviets feared having to lose even more millions of soldiers banging their head against the German defenses. Also while there was a cooling of "Allied" feelings between Soviet and Western leaders, the Soviet people still felt veyr warm towards their allies against Germany. Just read accounts of Westerners at each respective embassy in Moscow on June 6th when the invasion was announced, the Soviets loved them.

A second front sealed Germany's fate to them. In hindsight it's easy to see how the Germans were losing since 1943, but it's also easy to see how horrible the Soviet collapse of 1941 is. The Soviets had still not thrown the Germans out of Soviet territory (The offensive times with Overlord would destroy Army Group Centre and drive them out finally), but with two fronts, even if the Soviets were defeated or had to retreat, the West was pushing into the Rhineland, thus limiting German ability to deliver said defeat, and their ability to plug any holes created by Soviet offensive.
My point precisely. The USSR was all in favour of the 2nd front, thus was willing to settle for half the pie (post-war Europe).

The majority of this screaming was done in 1942 and 1943

In hindsight it's easy to see how the Germans were losing since 1943,

The Soviets had still not thrown the Germans out of Soviet territory


True hindsight is 20/20 but after the swansong of the german armourd forces in kursk they could no longer make strategic offensive operations, there would be no more summer offensives.

Germany couldnt and didnt manage to rebuild its panzer arm in the face of increasing atrittion, an atrittion made worse by the simple fact that it was increaingly rare to have german forces in controll of the battlefield and thus making recovery harder.

My question is then how could germany with without taking to the offensive

At BEST they could fight it to a standstill but that was very unlikly.
And if the war had lasted a year or two longer that means that the latest soviet tanks could be brought to bear in great numbers and the IS3 was the best tank in the world for quite some time.

Germany could and did fight an in many ways exelent defencive campain in the east even if things like the kurland pocket was severe disasters.

If you look to german force disposition you atleast see where germany saw the threat, unfortunatly i dont have my documetnation at hand so i can post the numbers.

*looks at first post looks at the post obove looks back at first post then shoots self in head*

*looks at first post looks at the post obove looks back at first post then shoots self in head*

we might have strayed a "little" bit from the subject :P

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?
Their navy saved us from the English in the Revolution!

Give me a good reason why you hate them. Please.
basically 'cause they're cheese eating, wine guzzling surreneder monkeys

you also forgot different customs, language, location, and beliefs

what? you expect me to love em now? I don't think they saved us from the Germans now did they?

Well, technically, the French did save us from the Germans. The first time, anyway. When America first entered World War I it was only because of Woodrow Wilson. United States soldiers weren't properly trained and didn't know anything, really, except how to suck at fighting. When the Americans finally got over to Europe the French helped a lot in training and improving our military, so you could probably say that with out the French in the first world war we wouldn't have helped beat the Central Powers then. Oh, and if the Central Powers had lost, we wouldn't have been able to help fight in the second world war, either, would we? Hmm.

Oh, are we forgetting the revolutionary war already? We wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the French.

The only reason why the sense of hatred of America towards the French originates because they didn't want to be involved in a war because they disagreed with President Bush that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

And guess what? The French were right, there weren't any!

In all honesty, the U.S. saved Russia as well as France from the Germans. It was U.S. equipment and supplies that allowed the Russians to recover from the initial German onslaught and counter. Of course, the U.S. owed France for the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, and they owed Russia for attempting to invade Russia after WWI.
I think you'll find that it was the onset of winter that checked the initial german onslaught, not a few obsolescent weapons

1) This has already been covered. :headbang: Read all of the thread, please.

2) At what point does equipment and supplies come to mean only weapons? I swear people, get away from your computer war games and read a book. The most important part of fighting a war is logistics, and many an army has won the battles and lost the war because they forget this. The best example of this is, of course, Napoleon's Russian Campaign. Big guns are great, but they need bullets, and tanks need gas, and soldiers need food.