NationStates Jolt Archive

Blitzkrieg

Inw aht way do you mean "with the least resources ever"? The fact that some stages were reliant on capture of enemy supply depots for fuel to keep the vehicles rolling?

Exacty my point.

Exacty my point.

It doesn't really compare to some of the infantry offensives in the Far East when it comes down to lack of resources though, does it?

Nation:The commonwealth (Great Britain)
General: no doubt Rommel, Mac Author, Montgomery and Tsjoekow

Exacty my point.

Japan's invasion of the Western Pacific after Pearl Harbor made due with less resources, and captured far more territory. And Blitzkreig is hardly low on resources, it consumes resources at a rate an infantry advance does not. That armour, and especially all of it at once, gobbles up fuel supplies at an astronomical rate, and the rapid firing artillery (both before and during, which is used to keep pressure on the flanks) eats up shells. Not to mention the huge supplies needed for the close support aircraft used by blitzkreig. It uses resources at a rate an infantry offensive dreams of.

Nation:The commonwealth (Great Britain)
General: no doubt Rommel, Mac Author, Montgomery and Tsjoekow

no doubt Rommel

Overrated as more than a divisional commander. He would not have fared well as an Army or Army Group Commander in the east.

Montgomery

Not as overrated as Patton, but Market Garden was a disaster, and that he favoured that operation over the clearing of the Scheldt does not exactly glorify him.

Japan's invasion of the Western Pacific after Pearl Harbor made due with less resources, and captured far more territory. And Blitzkreig is hardly low on resources, it consumes resources at a rate an infantry advance does not. That armour, and especially all of it at once, gobbles up fuel supplies at an astronomical rate, and the rapid firing artillery (both before and during, which is used to keep pressure on the flanks) eats up shells. Not to mention the huge supplies needed for the close support aircraft used by blitzkreig. It uses resources at a rate an infantry offensive dreams of.

Your equating battles to wars. Yes my bicycle will go further on less gas then my car.

For the Army I would say Germany, Air Force a toss up between Germany,America, and Britain, and Navy between Japan and America

its common believe the war was lost in stalingrad. i disagree. it was at Operation Zitadelle that the war was lost.
is that youve asked for?
Nah. It was Stalingrad. Zitadelle just speeded it up. It was a complete waste of resources and men. Which could have been used to set up better defensive positions along the east.

The United Kingdom by far, it held out against the full might of the Nazi Wermacht for the whole six years, due to Germany ruling Scandinavia and France invansion could of come from Scotland to Cornwall. Bearing this in mind and the British Army all over the world due to the Empire, unable to transport them back due to Nazi U-boats that the Royal Navy was ill-equipped to fight at the time. And as for the issue of Britain losing the war quicker the France if there had been a land connection is unjustified, the French Army was poorly trained and out-dated, The Nazi's got to Paris and they all surrendered. If they captured London, the rest of Britain would not have give in. General wise, I think every one had his Vice's and Virtue's. Germany's for defeating so many nations, America's for masterminding the Normandy invasion, British General's for finding victories hopelessly outnumbered.

The United Kingdom by far, it held out against the full might of the Nazi Wermacht for the whole six years.
The full force of the Wehrmacht? I could have sworn that, except for the Luftwaffe, no Wehrmacht soldier set foot in England. You know, the English channel and all.

The full force of the Wehrmacht? I could have sworn that, except for the Luftwaffe, no Wehrmacht soldier set foot in England. You know, the English channel and all.

True as far as England goes, but the Channel Islands, which are part of the UK were occupied by the Germans.

Nah. It was Stalingrad. Zitadelle just speeded it up. It was a complete waste of resources and men. Which could have been used to set up better defensive positions along the east.
Stalingrad wasted a whole army, true.
but zitadelle took a whole years production of tanks (Tiger I and Panthers!!!) alone and launched an offensive into the best prepared and fortified defences of the whole war and then even with almost looseing every single tank hitler decided to pull back and sacrifice even this small victory. a reduction of the frontline. lol
if these tanks had been used at the frontlines, the 44 advance of the russians wouldnt be possible. and the landing at salerno would have surely ended in a desaster.

Stalingrad wasted a whole army, true.
but zitadelle took a whole years production of tanks (Tiger I and Panthers!!!) alone and launched an offensive into the best prepared and fortified defences of the whole war and then even with almost looseing every single tank hitler decided to pull back and sacrifice even this small victory. a reduction of the frontline. lol
if these tanks had been used at the frontlines, the 44 advance of the russians wouldnt be possible. and the landing at salerno would have surely ended in a desaster.
Does that mean you agree with me? :confused:

The full force of the Wehrmacht? I could have sworn that, except for the Luftwaffe, no Wehrmacht soldier set foot in England. You know, the English channel and all.

The British Expiditionary Force consisting of 100,000 men didn't get up and leave France, it fought several battles with the Wermacht, and there were 3 times as many German planes as British yet the RAF did manage to fend them off without their American Allies. If it hadn't been for the UK America would never of had an outpost to launch the invasion, even if the USSR were Allies they would not have let them come through Alsaka, meaning Nazi germany would be very real today. I'm not saying The British won the war, but without them, the War would have been lost, the Soviet's wouldn't have been able to stand the ENTIRE Nazi military, if American hadn't of opened a second front using Britain's Military facilities.

The British Expiditionary Force consisting of 100,000 men didn't get up and leave France, it fought several battles with the Wermacht, and there were 3 times as many German planes as British yet the RAF did manage to fend them off without their American Allies. If it hadn't been for the UK America would never of had an outpost to launch the invasion, even if the USSR were Allies they would not have let them come through Alsaka, meaning Nazi germany would be very real today. I'm not saying The British won the war, but without them, the War would have been lost, the Soviet's wouldn't have been able to stand the ENTIRE Nazi military, if American hadn't of opened a second front using Britain's Military facilities.
So that comment about Britain facing the entire weight of the Wehrmacht for 6 years was about the Expeditionary Force? Or what? Hmm the worst enemy the Germans faced in Russia was the weather and the vastness of the land. The Wehrmacht was not outfitted to fight in the winter. Let alone the Russian winter. Most of the tanks sunck into the mud or simply froze. The tracks were insufficiently broad.
The soldiers themselves had no suitable winterclothing. The infantry didn't have enough trucks for transportation. They had to march to get from A to Z. Artillery still heavily relied on horses to be moved. (over 600,000 horses were used in Barbarossa.)

So that comment about Britain facing the entire weight of the Wehrmacht for 6 years was about the Expeditionary Force? Or what? Hmm the worst enemy the Germans faced in Russia was the weather and the vastness of the land. The Wehrmacht was not outfitted to fight in the winter. Let alone the Russian winter. Most of the tanks sunck into the mud or simply froze. The tracks were insufficiently broad.
The soldiers themselves had no suitable winterclothing. The infantry didn't have enough trucks for transportation. They had to march to get from A to Z. Artillery still heavily relied on horses to be moved. (over 600,000 horses were used in Barbarossa.)

that is correct yes, but just over 20% of the Wermacht were on the Western Front, which if had been on the Eastern Front would have ment a Nazi victory in the East. and the Royal Army Commando's were raiding occupied France and Scandinavia, with the help of VERY heroic resistance fighters who deserve a lot of respect, Dutch and French being the most renowned. And with the extra plannes available from the lack of the RAF means the Nazi would have defeated the Soviets if not their initial invasion, but would have stopped them in their tracks in Eastern Europe.

Does that mean you agree with me? :confused:
:D yes!
i made a small typo.

scheiss english mit dem would und wouldnt und so ... kann ma passiern das da was vergessen wird. deutsch is eh viel besser und schöner ;) :D

:D yes!
i made a small typo.

scheiss english mit dem would und wouldnt und so ... kann ma passiern das da was vergessen wird. deutsch is eh viel besser und schöner ;) :D
:D Jau. Jeder sollte Deutsch sprechen.

Many think that the French and low countries blitz was fought with superior numbers and better material. That is not the case. Surely the "big cats" of the late war could at least equal the better Russian models and literally outgun everything in the western allies arsenal, but these were very late addition to the Panzertruppen.
In reality most of the Wehrmacht that poured into France was equipped with cart drawn PaK artillery and underpowered PanzerKampfwagen ausfürung II and III (PzKpfW II or III). Some were (typing from memory) equipped with the slightly better 38t models absorbed from the armoured elements of the annexed Czechoslovakian military. Moreover the Germans had fewer of them and also far less airplanes and footsoldiers.
The real issue was that armour had not been used in an open offensive since WWI. In WWI the armour was simply too slow and unreliable (a British MkI went an average of 6!! miles between utter breakdowns) to be used as anything but a shelter to punch a hole for cavalry. Needless to say this strategy was never perfected at all and outdated by WWII. The western allies still viewed armour as a support weapon by the outbreak of the war. They were soon to be lectured.

The bulk of the German wehrmacht was unquestionable the best fighting force in WWII. After the war the American military historian Colonel T.N. Depuy made an indepth analysis of all the fighting forces of the war
".. records show that the Germans consistently outfought the far more numerous Allied armies that eventually defeated them. ... This was true when they where attacking and when they were defending, when they had local numerical superiority and when, as was usually the case, they were outnumbered, when they had air superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they had lost."

The main problem (and our blessing) was that Germany was not geared for war at all. Factories were still producing Volkswagens until 43 before the German industry saddled for complete production of war material. This was obviously far FAR too late. Ressources were burnt off as fast as they were produced and even though a PzKpfW V (Panther) or VI (Tiger) is formidable it ain't worth anything by itself fielded against 20 Shermans or T34s.
Even at the end of the war the German artillery was mostly dependant on horses...

Another fact to raise the brow; German desertation did NEVER exceed the American on a per capita basis.

With all that said one must also realise that the winner (or the smallest loser as a war has no winners) must have done the best job. The Americans had practically no backbone army when they entered they war. The average GI was a baker or a cab driver and still he won the war. He was riding a tin can with a potato gun and still he defeated the mighty panzer. The question lingering in the brain is of course - could he have done it faster and with less casualities? Perhaps. I'd even say most likely. However the circumstances were not so. He had to fight quality with quantity and he did.
The same thing would apply to the Soviet forces I presume, though the senseless loss of material and human life is hard to overlook.

Naturally some (if not all) of this is based solidly in a subjective opinion of the matter. I am very happy that I don't speak from first hand experience. WWII is the peak of human cruelty and I am glad I was born way after this tragic event. Even so late after that we dare speak of it so lightly.

Yours,
- B

The United Kingdom by far, it held out against the full might of the Nazi Wermacht for the whole six years,

Even when it was alone, it did not bear the "full might of the Nazi Whermacht".

due to Germany ruling Scandinavia and France invansion could of come from Scotland to Cornwall.

Using what.... their Higgin's boats, an invasion of Great Britain was impossible from anywhere but France, and then only in Rhine Barges, in the face of the Royal Navy.

Bearing this in mind and the British Army all over the world due to the Empire,

Err.... the Empire contributed more troops then it pulled away.

unable to transport them back due to Nazi U-boats that the Royal Navy was ill-equipped to fight at the time.

They weren't concerned with pulling Imperial forces to Britain, more with sending forces to the Empire, which they did after about 1941. They were not held becuase of the U-boats, but becuase of Sealion fears, and the Royal Navy was very well equipped to fight the U-boat war, perhaps the best of any Navy in the world.

And as for the issue of Britain losing the war quicker the France if there had been a land connection is unjustified,

Britain's Army was even smaller than France's, and they lacked a lot of things the French had going for them too.

the French Army was poorly trained and out-dated,

WHAT!? Outdated? The French Army was the most advanced in the world (behind Germany anyway), and at least as well-trained as it's German counterparts, it suffered from inept leadership. It's armour was markedly better than almost anything the Germans could deploy, the DeWoitine .520 was a match for the Luftwaffe forces (Unfortunately, becuase of political lobbying, more MS .406's had been built, a decidedly inferior fighter). French artillery was superior, the only field they fell behind in was organization.

The Nazi's got to Paris and they all surrendered.
If they captured London, the rest of Britain would not have give in.

Exactly how would you know? Even when the Germans weren't on Britain itself there was a defeatist movement. And the French did not surrender when Paris fell (two weeks before they surrendered in fact), by the time they surrendered significantly more than just Paris had fallen, the Maginot had been enveloped (but still fighting on), German armour was racing through Bordeaux, and advancing to envelope Lyon and Marseilles, the entire country had fallen.

General wise, I think every one had his Vice's and Virtue's. Germany's for defeating so many nations, America's for masterminding the Normandy invasion, British General's for finding victories hopelessly outnumbered.

Not to tarnish each reputation, but the Americans did not mastermind the Normandy invasion (they campaigned for it harder, and the overall commander was American, but the British/Commonwealth did a fair share), and exactly when did the British find victories when hopelessly outnumbered (perhaps O'Connor's victory against the Italians, but the Italian African Army was hardly it's equal).

From what I've read, this was because the mountainous regions would have slowed the advance enough for the Germans to build a formiddable defence akin to the Gustav line and Monte Cassino.
D-Day as it was, was seen as the quickest route to take, to take the fight to the Germans and take them by surprise: Head on.
But Germany faced a staunch guerilla mainly in Serbia (partisans led by Tito). There would have been the option to move from the South of Italy to Albania, Montenegro and Serbia and together with the guerilla fight the Croats (Ustascha regime) in the west on the one hand - push out Romenia and Bulgaria (who already wanted to switch sides anyway) but also to head north to Hungary, Austria, Slovakia and Poland (avoiding the alps by surpassing them through Hungary and North Austria as well as the Danouba (sp?) valley) and to do a push from the south-east creating a joint front with the Soviets in the East.
With such a more risky strategy a defeat might have even been achieved faster since that would have forced Germany to move more forces to that region and would have made the landing in the Normandy easier.
And there would have been four major fronts (East, West, Italy, South-East) instead of three only.

LOL. Ehm. Ahem, Russia kept themselves neutral, and had a deal with Germany. But Hitler attacked Russia - Operation Barbarossa. It was a surprise attack, and it was the reason that the German army managed to advance with such speed. Winter, and the advancement in the russian war machine, did however take over in the end.
As a matter of fact the Russians were prewarned by spies and were aware of the threat of an attack. They themself asked their German "allies" (between 1939-41 both divided Eastern Europe between them after all) why they stationed so many troops in Poland while their enemy Britain was nowhere near Poland. The German explanation was that they were just resting. Do you think that the Soviets were really that stupid to believe that?
It is indeed a mystery why Stalin didn´t react to the threat. He rejected sending more troops at the border. He even reject to put them on high alert, although spies were reporting about plans for the German attack.
It is really a mystery why Stalin refused to act. There are different theories about it which turn to get quite cynical though - like that he wanted Hitler to bash certain regions - where the Soviet power faced some local resistance in order to easier bash them afterwards. The destiny of the Chechens, Kalkmyks, Kosaks and Krim Tatarians in 1944 would underline that theory where he used the war as pretext to conduct a campaign of ethnic cleansing against those "traitors" and sent them all to Central Asia. Millions died in that process which was conducted by special units of the secret service.
Anyway. Probably he thought that Hitler wouldn´t repeat the mistake of Napoleon in 1812 - which he did at the end.
On the other hand Stalin was criticized - after his death of course - by Chrustesh and others for doing many mistakes before and during the "Great Patriotic War" (1941-45).

America.

(God bless)

I'm not an expert on these things, but saying that Ak-47=SG-44 & MG-42=M60 seems totally incorrect to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
MG-42= MG-3(M60 fires something like 500rpm slower than MG-3)

AK-47=STG-44

Best general - Georgi K. Zhukov (Russian chap) he was the architect of operation Uranus (the encirclement of Stalingrad), commanded the Russian forces at the battle of Kursk, successfully defended a besieged Leningrad for nearly 3 years, held off the German 1941 assault on Moscow, and finally succeeded in adding the capture of Berlin to his list of scalps.

Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

Russia, Rommel, France, Britain.

Edited due to not doing Pacific; US was only major fighting force there besides the Japanese. You could aruge either way for that; US for winning or Japan for surrendering. However, I'm going for Austria as only with nuclear technology from Einstein's origins could the US have pounded Japan into giving up so 'easily'.

The best fighting country would be England, they endured the hardest of conditions [Possible Invasion, Blitz, V1-V2], The best General would have to be Montgumery thow he spearheaded the invasion of normandy i would say

Montgomery?...Puhleeze...

Monty...did NOT "spearhead" the invasion of Normandy. Take a look at his progress through France. He sat on his butt for weeks on end. Took him forever to take Caen.
Now you want to talk about spearheading a war, lets talk George S. Patton. His only problem...He didn't play the political game like Monty and Ike, thus he was doomed.

Montgomery?...Puhleeze...

Monty...did NOT "spearhead" the invasion of Normandy. Take a look at his progress through France. He sat on his butt for weeks on end. Took him forever to take Caen.
Now you want to talk about spearheading a war, lets talk George S. Patton. His only problem...He didn't play the political game like Monty and Ike, thus he was doomed.

No allied general was the best.
Rommel was the best tactician in the war, with the possible exception of Zukhov. Trouble is that he was a threat to Hitler and so needed to be put somewhere non threatening. Patton was terrible at organisation and Montgomery was terrible at subtle tactics; he waited because he wanted larger numbers than everyone else. If we had Rommel then the war would have been over before Patton had even left the US. In fact, had the Germans had him in a major role then that would have been true as well.

If it makes you feel better, I'll add a 7th spot to my list, but don't think for a minute you are going a head of Australia.

And I ask, did the Dutch have to put up with Japanese POW camps? Also are you American? Was your country bombed? Because Australia was at Darwin, and Mini Subs attacked Sydney


Yo, I dont know enough about this crap to get involved, but I can say, that doing limited research on the internet has lead me to believe that America lost more at Pearl Harbor, when AMERICA WAS BOMBED than Australia did on their home turf for the whole war.

Montgomery?...Puhleeze...

Monty...did NOT "spearhead" the invasion of Normandy. Take a look at his progress through France. He sat on his butt for weeks on end. Took him forever to take Caen.
Now you want to talk about spearheading a war, lets talk George S. Patton. His only problem...He didn't play the political game like Monty and Ike, thus he was doomed.
I agree with you. In the Overlord plan, Monty was supposed to take Caen on D-Day (or within a few days, no plan ever goes perfectly). But it took him over a month! Then he had the gall to come out and say it was always his plan to pin down the German forces near Caen so the Americans could sweep around the German western flank. What bullshit; what an asshole! If that was true, why did he waste so many British soldiers in ill-conceived and horribly executed offensives (e.g., Epsom, Goodwood)?

Patton was denied the opportunity to punch through the Siegfried Line and sweep into Germany, because Monty (again!) needed the gas for his troops, who were nowhere near achieving a breakthrough. And let's not forget the unmitigated disaster of Market-Garden.

The only battle Monty ever won was Alamein, and that was only because the Germans were trapped between the Qattara Depression and the Mediterranean Sea. This allowed Monty to build up a WWI-style offensive (his forte); a plodding, linear, frontal attack, which he only won because he had the advantage in manpower and materiel. Wow, how innovative! :rolleyes:

Russia, Rommel, France, Britain.

Edited due to not doing Pacific; US was only major fighting force there besides the Japanese. You could aruge either way for that; US for winning or Japan for surrendering. However, I'm going for Austria as only with nuclear technology from Einstein's origins could the US have pounded Japan into giving up so 'easily'.

I can't let this go without commenting. Einstein was only one person in the huge Manhattan Project. There were others who contributed just as much: Enrico Fermi, who was born in Italy; and Robert Oppenheimer, who was an American.

Also, the Japanese would have surrendered one way or the other. Long before the atomic bombs were dropped, the U.S. was planning Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese home islands. There is no way an isolated and exhausted Japan could have beaten the Americans, though there would have been heavy casualties on both sides. Luckily - yes, luckily - the atomic bombs were dropped, saving probably hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives.

And since you didn't label your list, I need to ask for clarification. Are you saying France was the "most efficient" fighting force? If not, what is France in your list for?

yah!! hitler had the plan... but he took it the hard way! hes the biggest stupid back then... if he wantedgermany to be a world power he shudnt have fought against russia and US..... he should have let russia and america fight... then he come to finish the one who won against the two... aight?

I've been thinking about this a bit, and feel there is a case to be made for Japan being the most efficient - compare different nation's tactics for taking out a tank:

Germany: build the largest tank you can field, cover it with the best armour, fit the largest calibre gun that will fit the turret and equip it with the best optics you can make. Have your tank shoot their tank.

USSR: build relatively cheap tanks on mass, and equip them with reasonable guns and lousy optics, save resources on armour plating by cunning slopes on the tank body. Have you tanks swarm the enemy: it will knock out several, but the facilites at any farming collective should be sufficient to get them up and running again.

USA: call in an airstrike on the tank, if it survives that call in massed artillery, if it survives that, then send in 8 Shermans to do the job. Two or three of them might survive.

Japan: give a bloke an anti-tank mine on the end of a bamboo pole.

Which seems more efficient to you?

I've been thinking about this a bit, and feel there is a case to be made for Japan being the most efficient - compare different nation's tactics for taking out a tank:

Germany: build the largest tank you can field, cover it with the best armour, fit the largest calibre gun that will fit the turret and equip it with the best optics you can make. Have your tank shoot their tank.

USSR: build relatively cheap tanks on mass, and equip them with reasonable guns and lousy optics, save resources on armour plating by cunning slopes on the tank body. Have you tanks swarm the enemy: it will knock out several, but the facilites at any farming collective should be sufficient to get them up and running again.

USA: call in an airstrike on the tank, if it survives that call in massed artillery, if it survives that, then send in 8 Shermans to do the job. Two or three of them might survive.

Japan: give a bloke an anti-tank mine on the end of a bamboo pole.

Which seems more efficient to you?

I think this would depend heavily on one's definition of "efficient." The example you gave would certainly seem to be efficient, at least at that small scale. Also, the Japanese did do very well for an army with virtually no heavy weapons. Their infantry was some of the best in the world, but look at their casualty rates. I don't think that could be considered efficient in the long run, on a large scale.

I think this would depend heavily on one's definition of "efficient." I don't think that could be considered efficient in the long run, on a large scale.


Well, I was only being half-serious with the example above, but Japan, as I understand it, did incredibly well for such an unindustrialized country.

I don't think that could be considered efficient in the long run, on a large scale.

If however we look at how things panned out in the long run what countries do we see today which have become economic powerhouses post-WWII? USA - its economy even improved during the war, IIRC. Germany. Japan. Which made the biggest economic gains? Japan.

yah!! hitler had the plan... but he took it the hard way! hes the biggest stupid back then... if he wantedgermany to be a world power he shudnt have fought against russia and US..... he should have let russia and america fight... then he come to finish the one who won against the two... aight?
That was indeed the problem. Germany fought the war on two sides. That was just one side too much. It tried to play east and west against each other in the 1930s. Pretty successful.
Though it was due to go wrong since it of course never stopped due to the madness of its leadership. They just went much too far towards the west. And the war was actually lost by Germany at the moment it went to war with the Soviets.
On the other hand. The entire strategy was due to go wrong since Germany is lacking the resources to be a world power. It was due to allionate both east and west (Britain, France - in the back at that time the US)
Therefore it was logical for Germany (Federal Republic) to side with the west in the Cold War. The Soviet installed regime in the Soviet occupied area (GDR) almost was overthrown in 1953 (only the Soviet saved it) and finally collapsed in 1989 leading the way to German reunification.
The strategic problem for Germany today is the fact that the West is - already since the 1960s divided. The alliance with France and with the US is a difficult balance.
And Russia is - due to the more authoritarian rule - still a country to be careful with. Aside of the "treat from the south" (islamists terrorism and WMD), which seem to replace the treat from the east.

Montgomery?...Puhleeze...

Monty...did NOT "spearhead" the invasion of Normandy. Take a look at his progress through France. He sat on his butt for weeks on end. Took him forever to take Caen.
Now you want to talk about spearheading a war, lets talk George S. Patton. His only problem...He didn't play the political game like Monty and Ike, thus he was doomed.

Took him forever to take Caen... Go figure. Take a little look at a map of Normandy and you will quickly realize that Caen is the only place where the Germans could field their tanks effectively. In fact it's a small wonder that Montgomerry managed to secure Caen reasonably fast and shield the American flank.
It took forever for the Americans to break free of the boccage. It wasn't until operation Cobra where the Allied literally carpet bombed Lehr Panzer that they where able to break free. 2 months after D-Day.
Idiotic Hitler commenced a counter-attack and almost trapped the entire armoured branch of the Wehrmacht inside the Falaise pocket. Unfortunately the Allies where incapable of capitalizing on it.

Americans quickly dismiss Montgomerry as an idiot because it removes focus from the inefficiency of Eisenhowers "broad front" strategy. If the objectives of Market Garden had been adjusted to a more long term strategy it could easily have been a success. Poor intelligence work led the Allies to believe Arnhem was undefended and they went "a brigde too far" as a famous quote from Gen. Browning says, but the real objective should have been Antwerpen to secure a harbour and prepare the logistical network for a thrust into Ruhr. Impressive as it might be Pattons Lorraine campaign was a logistical nightmare. Half of the fuel was used to transport the fuel...

This is hindsight. It doesn't really help anyone. Generals in all armies suffered from political decisions.

Zhukov was a reasonably skilled general in my opinion. He had massive numerical superiority, but had to field his army in difficult terrain. He would never have encircled Stalingrad if Hitler hadn't insisted on holding the city.

A little dialogue between Zhukov and Patton after the war. Zhukov is talking with pride of the effective Soviet tanks and mentions that the main gun on the JSIII could deliver fire over 7 miles. Patton simply replied: "Well, my dear Field Marshal. Let me tell you this; if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than 700 yards, I'd have them court-marshalled for cowardice."

Well, I was only being half-serious with the example above, but Japan, as I understand it, did incredibly well for such an unindustrialized country.
Yes, I knew you were half-joking. :) And I agree Japan did well with what they had; I tried to make that clear in my post but may not have done so well.
If however we look at how things panned out in the long run what countries do we see today which have become economic powerhouses post-WWII? USA - its economy even improved during the war, IIRC. Germany. Japan. Which made the biggest economic gains? Japan.
Yes, but your first comment points something out. Japan was unindustrialized before the war. This means that Japan's industrialization took place after the war, instead of being interrupted by it.

Took him forever to take Caen... Go figure. Take a little look at a map of Normandy and you will quickly realize that Caen is the only place where the Germans could field their tanks effectively. In fact it's a small wonder that Montgomerry managed to secure Caen reasonably fast and shield the American flank.
It took forever for the Americans to break free of the boccage. It wasn't until operation Cobra where the Allied literally carpet bombed Lehr Panzer that they where able to break free. 2 months after D-Day.
Idiotic Hitler commenced a counter-attack and almost trapped the entire armoured branch of the Wehrmacht inside the Falaise pocket. Unfortunately the Allies where incapable of capitalizing on it.

Americans quickly dismiss Montgomerry as an idiot because it removes focus from the inefficiency of Eisenhowers "broad front" strategy. If the objectives of Market Garden had been adjusted to a more long term strategy it could easily have been a success. Poor intelligence work led the Allies to believe Arnhem was undefended and they went "a brigde too far" as a famous quote from Gen. Browning says, but the real objective should have been Antwerpen to secure a harbour and prepare the logistical network for a thrust into Ruhr. Impressive as it might be Pattons Lorraine campaign was a logistical nightmare. Half of the fuel was used to transport the fuel...

This is hindsight. It doesn't really help anyone. Generals in all armies suffered from political decisions.

Zhukov was a reasonably skilled general in my opinion. He had massive numerical superiority, but had to field his army in difficult terrain. He would never have encircled Stalingrad if Hitler hadn't insisted on holding the city.

A little dialogue between Zhukov and Patton after the war. Zhukov is talking with pride of the effective Soviet tanks and mentions that the main gun on the JSIII could deliver fire over 7 miles. Patton simply replied: "Well, my dear Field Marshal. Let me tell you this; if any of my gunners started firing at your people before they had closed to less than 700 yards, I'd have them court-marshalled for cowardice."

Monty only won ONE battle in the entire war. ONE! And that against an opponent he outnumbered by at least 5:1 and which was at the end of an extremely long supply line. The battle was a WWI style battle: plodding, linear, and frontal. Monty was stuck in the inter-war years and never made it out.

If however we look at how things panned out in the long run what countries do we see today which have become economic powerhouses post-WWII? USA - its economy even improved during the war, IIRC. Germany. Japan. Which made the biggest economic gains? Japan.
It is indeed an irony of history that that two main losers of World War II Japan and Germany became economic powerhouses afterwards. Japan is economically number 2 in the world and Germany number 3.
Though Japan has after the US the second highest population in the developed world and Germany the third highest.
That explains it partly.
Though militarily the winning powers are still more important: even Britain, France and Russia. Though only one super power is left: the United States of America.
And China is gaining importance - especially economically.
And neither Japan or Germany could seriously challenge that - even if they wanted to.
Hypothetically only China could - but they are far distant away from that - except in the field of olympic medals.

Yes, but your first comment points something out. Japan was unindustrialized before the war. This means that Japan's industrialization took place after the war, instead of being interrupted by it.

Or possibly during it... however, I don't think there is any dispute that Japan became a world economic power as a result of the war.

Or possibly during it... however, I don't think there is any dispute that Japan became a world economic power as a result of the war.
Rather as a result that it was needed as an ally during the Cold War - like the newly founded Federal Republic of Germany.

It is indeed an irony of history that that two main losers of World War II Japan and Germany became economic powerhouses afterwards. Japan is economically number 2 in the world and Germany number 3. Though Japan has after the US the second highest population in the developed world and Germany the third highest. That explains it partly.

Well, it depends whether you define the Russian Federation and India as "developed" or not, however I think that drawing such a direct correspondence between population size and economic status is flawed - Luxembourg for example is sometimes rated as having the highest GDP, and Finland is sometimes ranked as being more globally competitive than the US.

Well, it depends whether you define the Russian Federation and India as "developed" or not, however I think that drawing such a direct correspondence between population size and economic status is flawed - Luxembourg for example is sometimes rated as having the highest GDP, and Finland is sometimes ranked as being more globally competitive than the US.
Per capita probably but not in total.
In total America leds. 25% of the worlds GDP, before Japan 12% and Germany 7% - closely followed by Britain and France. Italy and Canada are somewhere behind.
The Russian Federation has only the GDP of the Netherlands.
Russia is traditionally underdeveloped. Communism didn´t really change that. 20% of the GDP for defense would ruin every country after all and finally led to its economic collaps. And in the 1990s there was a massive deindustralisation.
So, lets change it to industrialized countries - if you prefer that over developed countries.
Russia is rather an emerging market - especially in the energy sector (today: second behind Saudi-Arabia - biggest supplier of Europe)

Over all It was britian who did the most work (on the allied side). The Russians ,if any one nation , turned the tide of the war. and Canada did the best/capita, as we all most always do.

Monty only won ONE battle in the entire war. ONE! And that against an opponent he outnumbered by at least 5:1 and which was at the end of an extremely long supply line. The battle was a WWI style battle: plodding, linear, and frontal. Monty was stuck in the inter-war years and never made it out.

If you are referring to El Alamein (there weren't that many commander vs. commander large scale battles in WWII as it was mostly fought as a campaign) I dare say 5:1 is an exageration if I ever saw one. I don't have the Order of Battle charts at hand, but I'd say the two armies were more or less numerically equal. Of course 8th army had far more artillery and armour and the Afrika Korps was largely filled up with Italians, but not 5:1. Not by a long shot.
The African campaign HAD to be linear clashes since it was impossible to deploy troops inland. It was largely fought in a narrow strip along the coast. At least from what I am told.

I am not saying Montgomery was the best commander of the war (or the Allied forces for that matter). I am merely saying that the man is not nearly as inept as American historians often picture him.

Had Patton been deployed on the northern front he would most likely have insisted on an offensive similar to Market Garden don't you think? I also fail to see how Market Garden qualifies as "plodding, linear, and frontal". One thing that WAS linear and frontal was Eisenhowers strategy.

- B

AK-47=STG-44

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47#History

"Tank sergeant Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov began imagining his weapon while still in the hospital, after being wounded in the battle of Bryansk. He had been informed that a new weapon was required for the 7.62 × 39 cartridge developed by Elisarov and Semin in 1943. Sudayev's PPS43 was preferred to Kalashnikov's first attempt, but Kalashnikov redesigned the rifle after examining a STG 44 in 1946. The mechanisms are not related, but there are cosmetic similarities between the two designs."

I thought they combined the Gas Operation of the STG-44 with the Soviet Rotating bolt to get the Mechanism that is in the AK-47

If you are referring to El Alamein (there weren't that many commander vs. commander large scale battles in WWII as it was mostly fought as a campaign) I dare say 5:1 is an exageration if I ever saw one. I don't have the Order of Battle charts at hand, but I'd say the two armies were more or less numerically equal. Of course 8th army had far more artillery and armour and the Afrika Korps was largely filled up with Italians, but not 5:1. Not by a long shot.
The African campaign HAD to be linear clashes since it was impossible to deploy troops inland. It was largely fought in a narrow strip along the coast. At least from what I am told.

I am not saying Montgomery was the best commander of the war (or the Allied forces for that matter). I am merely saying that the man is not nearly as inept as American historians often picture him.

Had Patton been deployed on the northern front he would most likely have insisted on an offensive similar to Market Garden don't you think? I also fail to see how Market Garden qualifies as "plodding, linear, and frontal". One thing that WAS linear and frontal was Eisenhowers strategy.

- B

Yes, I was speaking of Alamein; I must be, Monty didn't win any other battles. Eighth Army may not have had a 5:1 total advantage (probably more like 3:1), but look at the numbers of main battle tanks. Two sources (The Rommel Papers [Rommel's personal correspondence] and Panzer Battles, by Gen. von Mellenthin, Rommel's chief of staff) state that Afrika Korps had about 25 functioning main battle tanks at Alam Halfa/Alamein. Monty had HUNDREDS by the time Operation Supercharge was launched.

"Plodding, linear, and frontal" did not refer to Market-Garden. I specifically used that phrase in regard to Alamein. You're not going to deny Alamein was "plodding, linear, and frontal" are you?

I thought they combined the Gas Operation of the STG-44 with the Soviet Rotating bolt to get the Mechanism that is in the AK-47

Possibly, I am no expert on these things, but if they changed the internal mechanism as you describe, then surely STG-44 != AK-47?

Yes, I was speaking of Alamein; I must be, Monty didn't win any other battles. Eighth Army may not have had a 5:1 total advantage (probably more like 3:1), but look at the numbers of main battle tanks. Two sources (The Rommel Papers [Rommel's personal correspondence] and Panzer Battles, by Gen. von Mellenthin, Rommel's chief of staff) state that Afrika Korps had about 25 functioning main battle tanks at Alam Halfa/Alamein. Monty had HUNDREDS by the time Operation Supercharge was launched.

"Plodding, linear, and frontal" did not refer to Market-Garden. I specifically used that phrase in regard to Alamein. You're not going to deny Alamein was "plodding, linear, and frontal" are you?

Rommel was almost completely deviod of the large numbers of armour he had when he started his campaign, sweeping the Auk out of Cyrenica, but I'm fairly certain he had more than 25 functioning tanks (perhaps by main battle tanks he is reffering to a specific type), though Monty definitely had a hell of a lot more than him, or perhaps 25 refers to the ones that were currently in the line. At any rate, El Alamein was plodding, linear, and frontal, but that is becuase that was the only type of campaign that could win the war in the desert.

For the past two years both sides had had a series of quick dashes across the Coastal Highway (with some detours, like O'Connor's dash to Beda Fomm), which inexorably exhuasted the offensive force of it's supplies, leaving it wide open to be pushed back by the enemy. Montgomery had the right idea, he had to fight a set-piece battle, using as much force as he could, to do as much damage as he could to the Axis Army in North Africa. The Desert War did not need a blitzkreig attack, with a breakthrough and another retreat, it needed a front-on battle where one army would be beaten and bloodied and the other victorious. Montgomery delivered this battle, and he won considerably more than 1 battle, if you consider Alam El Halfa as seperate (which it was), than he has at least won two.

And as for the Caen campaign, quoting the initial D-Day objectives is not correct, since almost all of them were incredibly unrealistic (especially Caen). His attacks on the Germans to take Caen, did not fail becuase of poor planning, or poor leadership, but becuase of poor execution and just bad luck (none of which was Monty's fault). John Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy describes the situation in great detail. As for his tactics, they were far more plodding than say, Patton's, but they were effective. Patton's tactics could lead to larger disaster, such as his plan to send Haislip around to the east of Falaise rather than to Argentan, this would have not only stretched the American forces holding back the Mortain counterattack, but left a wide yawning gap that between Haislip and the nearest friendly Corps on his right, and the 1st Canadian Army on his left, into which he may have been pocketed (assuming Mortain succeeded under these new conditions). The battle might be called the Argentan Pocket today had Haislip continued East from Le Mans.

Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.

The Best fighting? Germany, of course. Thank god it had too many enemies to fight them all.
Most efficient against Germany? Britain, undoubtedly.

Yes, I was speaking of Alamein; I must be, Monty didn't win any other battles.
He didn't realy win the 2nd battle of El Alamein either. Rommel still managed to pull his forces out of Monty's clutches.

Possibly, I am no expert on these things, but if they changed the internal mechanism as you describe, then surely STG-44 != AK-47?
The STG 44 and the Ak47 are completley different rifles sure they look a little the same but because of the magazine, the internal mechanizms on the rifles are completly different, the stg44 is a bunch of little components crammed into the rifle the ak47 is just a few parts spread out inside the rifle thus making it much more affective and less problems can happen thats why the stg44 was a piece of crap and the ak47 is the best rifle in the world second to the m16

dont think i know what im talkin about? then check out my ak47 :mp5:
http://www.istartusa.com/timesatwar/100_0339.JPG
http://www.istartusa.com/timesatwar/100_0334.JPG
http://www.istartusa.com/timesatwar/100_0335.JPG

The Best fighting? Germany, of course. Thank god it had too many enemies to fight them all.
Most efficient against Germany? Britain, undoubtedly.

Somewhat curious how you got that Britain was the most efficient against Germany. Poland did quite well, considering their homeland was occupied.

He didn't realy win the 2nd battle of El Alamein either. Rommel still managed to pull his forces out of Monty's clutches.

If his objective had been to try to repeat O'Connors victory at Beda Fomm, then surely El Alamein would not have been a victory, but he was not trying to encircle Rommel (which is a damn near impossibility in the African Desert, with only one major highway, the Via Balbo), his objective was to seriously hurt the Axis Army and force it's withdrawal (not destruction, though that would've been a bonus he might've gone after if it had come up). He succeeded in this.

The STG 44 and the Ak47 are completley different rifles ...

Thanks. Can you shed any light on the claim that the MG-42 = M-60? From my limited understanding of things it seems like this is just as erroneus.


I'm sure you'll already have encountered this accessory for the AK-47:
http://www.audiobooksforfree.com/kalashnikov/Ak-mp3.asp

Thanks. Can you shed any light on the claim that the MG-42 = M-60? From my limited understanding of things it seems like this is just as erroneus.


I'm sure you'll already have encountered this accessory for the AK-47:
http://www.audiobooksforfree.com/kalashnikov/Ak-mp3.asp

Well first of all MG42 use 7.92mm ammo. It is still used in a modified 7.62mm NATO form in some armies today (I for one am trained in one). I very much doubt they are similar. MG42 ejects the disintegrated belt and cartridge through a shutter at the bottom. It has a handle on the side that ejects the pipe sideways so the loader can change it (to enable sustained fire without overheating). I have never held an M60 so someone may shed more light over the matter. (MG42 is an excellent weapon from a productional point of view. Most parts are very easy to manifacture.)

- B

wow thats awsome but costly

the M60 has 2 things that is very simular to the Mg42 mainly the barrel and the sight it has almost the exzact same sight but the barrel changer is basicly the same with a few changes easier and much better than the mg42 the m60 had less recoil than the mg42 because the rate of fire was slowed and was very good weapon weighin at only i think 20 some pounds very light for the firepower with it :gundge:

The problem with this is that once you separate the tanks from their infantry support units they become very vulnerable to being knocked out by infantry with portable anti-tank weapons or anti-tank guns: a tank on its own must compromise between remaining buttoned up, and so alomost blind, or spotting for itself, and so being vulnerable to losing crew members to small arms or machine guns.

This was the second tactical development of the war. To be concise:

At first the best way to scout the front lines, find a place without a lot of enemy troops that would be easy to fight through, push tons of motorized infantry and tanks through it, smashing everything in your way, cut off large numbers of enemy troops, encircle them, then let the trapped forces waste themselves against your ring of steel until they surrender. This worked because 1) you were unlikely to run into other tanks and 2) aside of other tanks and some really desperate shit (satchel charges, Molotovs, trained bomb-delivering dogs) infantry did not have any means to stop an operating tank.

However once light, portable, mobile anti-tank weapons became numberous, tanks and mechanized infantry could not romp into uncertain territory; attrition losses became too high. Unsupported tanks just got destroyed because they could not cover every angle against man-carried hollow-charge bombs (the British even came out with this crazy spring-powered bomb-launcher later on).

So the solution was a more measured advance carefully coordinating infantry and tank advance (ironically, more like World War I than early WWII). Today the situation is pretty much the same, except more so (even more anti-tank weapons on even more platforms), and so are the tactics of choice against an equivilant army. Infantry shoot up other infantry with support from the tanks; the tanks provide mini strongpoints and massive firepower.

Well first of all MG42 use 7.92mm ammo. It is still used in a modified 7.62mm NATO form in some armies today (I for one am trained in one). I very much doubt they are similar. MG42 ejects the disintegrated belt and cartridge through a shutter at the bottom. It has a handle on the side that ejects the pipe sideways so the loader can change it (to enable sustained fire without overheating). I have never held an M60 so someone may shed more light over the matter. (MG42 is an excellent weapon from a productional point of view. Most parts are very easy to manifacture.)

- B

http://www.world-war-2.info/weapons/wp_13.php
Even today it is still regarded by many experts as the best machine gun ever. The MG42, with minor modifications, is still the primary heavy machine gun of the modern German army, now called the MG3. A number of other armies around the world have adopted versions of the original, and guns looking similar, or identical, to the MG42 remain in widespread service today. The US Army's M-60 is based upon the MG42.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/M-60%20machine%20gun
Also supports that the M60 was a derivative of the MG42

I agree that there are significant differances between the AK-47 and SG-44. However I find it reasonable that, after the Soviets experienced the SG-44 firsthand, they acquired a few, figured out how it worked, and then redesigned it to best fit their purposes. I was too vague in my statement, though. Thanks to all for pointing out the differences.

Russia.

At the time of D-Day, they were engaging 80% of German forces.

Russia.

At the time of D-Day, they were engaging 80% of German forces.

In a large part because the Germans would rather lose to anyone but the Soviets, and specifically pulled forces away from the western front to try and hold the Reds back.

The United States of America.

Because of both the Lend-Lease Act, and the campaigns of both the European and Pacific Theatre.

p[/url]

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/M-60%20machine%20gun
Also supports that the M60 was a derivative of the MG42

I agree that there are significant differances between the AK-47 and SG-44. However I find it reasonable that, after the Soviets experienced the SG-44 firsthand, they acquired a few, figured out how it worked, and then redesigned it to best fit their purposes. I was too vague in my statement, though. Thanks to all for pointing out the differences.

The M-60 was also based off of the FG-42.

The similarities between the AK-47 and STG-44 are purely cosmetic, and vaguely at that. The internal workings of the two, mainly the difference between the tilting bolt of the Stg-44, and the rotating bolt of the AK-47, is what seperates them.

They are similar weapons designed for similar functions. No longer was a full-sized rifle needed to engage enemy troops at the typical ranges of 100-300 yards. Infantrymen could carry more munitions and inflict even greater casualties on the enemy.

There's no way to say who's best? because if one country from the allies was not there, there would be a massive chance that the allies would have lost. The best general? The best general is the one that saved the most lives, be it there own, and the enemie's.

The United States of America.

Because the Lend-Lease Act, ..

Overrated, old stuff for the USSR (Lee Grant tanks aso while they allready had T-34). A good help (true) but really not that important since the USSR made better stuff once they had the first blow and replaced their factories to the Ural. One of the most overrated things in history. Just saw at a WWII site that the Russians under Stalin payed it back, really had not expect that from that dictator (Joe), payments were done (even) till early 70ties.

Soviets paid their lend-lease debt till 1973 then stopped because of continious discriminating trade regulations USA used against the Soviet Union. In 1973 the Soviet lend-lease debt constituted $674 million. Neither Soviet nor present Russian Gevernment never refused to pay their land-lease debt which at present makes about $100 million. Some years ago there was a conflict between the Moscow administration and American Embassy in Moscow who denied to pay the the rentage offerring to strike it off the lend-lease debt.

.

Overrated, old stuff for the USSR (Lee Grant tanks aso while they allready had T-34). A good help (true) but really not that important since the USSR made better stuff once they had the first blow and replaced their factories to the Ural. One of the most overrated things in history. Just saw at a WWII site that the Russians under Stalin payed it back, really had not expect that from that dictator (Joe), payments were done (even) till early 50ties.

Surely you don't think the Lend-Lease only applied to the Soviet Union?

I don't like the Soviet Union. They didn't give a damn about the people that lived there, they only fought the war, because they were afraid of what would happen if they ended up in the hands of the peasents. I'm sure many Russians would have gladly let the Germans invade, if it ment the end of Stalin's reign.

Although those few crazy enough to admite it disappeared mysteriously in the night, and then appeared in some mass grave in Siberia.

Surely you don't think the Lend-Lease only applied to the Soviet Union?

Of course not, do you?
The United Kingdom contineud to pay back its debt to the United States, and in fact completed paying it back just a few years ago.


Harold Wilson said:

Lend-Lease also involved Britain's surrender of her rights and royalties in a series of British technological achievements. Although the British performance in industrial techniques in the inter-war years had been marked by a period of more general decline, the achievements of their scientists and technologists had equalled the most remarkable eras of British inventive greatness. Radar, antibiotics, jet aircraft and British advances in nuclear research had created an industrial revolution all over the developed world. Under Lend-Lease, these inventions were surrendered as part of
the inter-Allied war effort, free of any royalty or other payments from the United States. Had Churchill been able to insist on adequate royalties for these inventions, both their wartime and post-war balance of payments would have been very different.

.

Overrated, old stuff for the USSR (Lee Grant tanks aso while they allready had T-34). A good help (true) but really not that important since the USSR made better stuff once they had the first blow and replaced their factories to the Ural. One of the most overrated things in history. Just saw at a WWII site that the Russians under Stalin payed it back, really had not expect that from that dictator (Joe), payments were done (even) till early 70ties.

Soviets paid their lend-lease debt till 1973 then stopped because of continious discriminating trade regulations USA used against the Soviet Union. In 1973 the Soviet lend-lease debt constituted $674 million. Neither Soviet nor present Russian Gevernment never refused to pay their land-lease debt which at present makes about $100 million. Some years ago there was a conflict between the Moscow administration and American Embassy in Moscow who denied to pay the the rentage offerring to strike it off the lend-lease debt.

I've never heard of the Soviet Union paying back their Lend-Lease debt, a deal was made to trade an equivacal amount of Soviet grain, but it fell apart. Britain has been paying her's back for the past 64 years, the last payment is already part of the 2005 budget, it is the last time it will have to be made (They were given 31,000,000,000 in Lend Lease, of which 75% was considered "donated" and did not have to be paid back). It's not that the Soviets have refused, just we never worked out terms.

As for it's impact,


Lend-Lease
Everyone likes to downplay this, but just to show you how critical it was to the Soviets
Almost all of the Soviet Unions high-grade fuel came from the United States (You know, the stuff that makes the airplanes go)
13,000,000 pairs of felt winter boots built to Soviet designs for the Red Army, the Germans would have died for these during 1941-42. This kept the Soviet feet from freezing like the Whermacht's
The massive destruction caused by Barborassa entailed a loss of rolling stock and locomotives, and those that were not lost were busy shipping factories to the Urals and Siberia. These losses were made good by the US, which supplied 2,000 locomotives and 11,000 rail wagons, which not only made good the losses, but increased Soviet rail capacity, along with that came 3,000,000 tons of gasoline, and 540,000 tons of fresh rail (used to increase the Soviet Rail Network).
427,000 Trucks and 51,000 Jeeps - Scoff at this number, but it represents 65% of the Soviet motorized capabilities, the large proportion of them 2 1/2 ton Dodge trucks, which effectively carried everything the Soviets needed. The Soviets only were able to produce the massive numbers of armour becuase they did not have to produce trucks, the US supplied them. During the war, the word studebaker became synonomous with truck in the Soviet Union. Trucks were needed not only for supply (the Germans had failed largely becuase they didn't have enough), and the Soviets desperately needed them, they often outran their supply lines during their massive offensives, but also for battles. Without these trucks, the Soviet Operation Doctrine of "Deep-in" Offensive tactics would fail, and the Soviets would have floundered in White Russia. Soviet Offensive doctrine stipulated a massive armour attack would be exploited by fast moving infantry (ie. infantry carried by trucks) who would exploit that gap and widen it, Blitzkreig on a far larger scale. Without American trucks, the Soviets would not have enough to supply themselves and use this offensive tool.
7,000 Tanks - Most Western Armour was not wanted or needed by the Soviets, until the introduction of the 76mm variant of the Sherman, these tanks were loved by the Soviets who used them, and an entire Tank Corps was outfitted solely with the 76mm Sherman (There is a famous picture of a Soviet Tank in Vienna, the tank is a Sherman).
15,000 Aircraft - Soviet Aircraft were always subpar in the opening years (except the IL-2 Sturmovik, but it was a divebomber and ground attack plane, not a fighter), so the Soviets made good with what they had, which was a hell of a lot of P-39's, the aircraft the first Soviet aces made their names in. These aircraft were obviously replaced as the war drag on, but they were invaluable for the first year, when most of the Red Air Force was destroyed on the ground.
5,000,000 tons of Food from American Agriculture - In other words, enough food to feed every single Soviet Soldier with 1/2 pound of concentrated rations each day of the war.

Now for some percentages, to highlight the fact, the source for these percentages are two books, The Role of Lend-Lease In Soviet Military Operations: 1941-1945 by Boris V. Sokolov, and Marshal Zhukov himself.

80% of all canned meat
92% of all locomotives, rail stock, and rail material
57% of all Aviation Fuel
53% of all Explosives (you know, the stuff needed to make ammunition)
74% of all Truck Transport (This is a general figure from the war)
88% of all Radio Equipment
75% of all Copper
56% of all Aluminum
60+% of all Vehicle Fuel
74% of all Vehicle Tires
12% of all Armoured Vehicles (not just tanks, also tank destroyers, SP artillery, and halftracks)
14% of all Combat Aircraft

Not mentioned in this list is also high-grade steel (almost exclusively sent by the US), used to create tanks, medical supplies, and almost every type of machine tool used by Soviet Industry (along with the know-how to use it) - Paraphrased from Marshal Zhukov


Other things the Americans did that drained German resources
75% of 88mm guns were trained upwards towards American (and British) bombers, not facing Russian tanks.
2,000,000 German soldiers were involved in the defense of the Reich against the Allied Bombing Offensive (admittedly, after '43 these were not frontline or even second rate troops)
75% of all German Aircraft were tied down trying to stop the Bombing Offensive
20% of all Artillery ammunition went to AA defense against the Bombing Offensive

Let's not forget that the T-34 tank had heavy American influences in its' design, not limited to the total design of its' engine.

Let's not forget that the T-34 tank had heavy American influences in its' design, not limited to the total design of its' engine.

Specifically Walter Christie, but the Americans did turn down his tank designs, at least the Soviets had interest in them.

Is it who was the most efficient, or who did the most to win the war. If it's the former, I'd say the US, if it's the latter, Russia.

Clearly, if you consider that Russia almost lost to germany, then fought back at Stalingrad. it has to be Russia. The war against Germany turned from that point on. If the USA hadn't joined as a result of Japan bombing Pearl Harbour and Germany declaring war on America, then Russia would have eventually lliberated all occupied territories from the German and succeed in destroying the nazi regime. So, on that basis, Russia did the best job. Britain has much to thank Russia for. As for America, we were still paying off the "lend-lease" to the USA after the war. So America can be the country that most profitted from the war.

Clearly, if you consider that Russia almost lost to germany, then fought back at Stalingrad. it has to be Russia. The war against Germany turned from that point on. If the USA hadn't joined as a result of Japan bombing Pearl Harbour and Germany declaring war on America, then Russia would have eventually lliberated all occupied territories from the German and succeed in destroying the nazi regime. So, on that basis, Russia did the best job. Britain has much to thank Russia for.
Yes, mostly likely Russia would have "liberated" it and imposed communists dictatorships over the rest of Europe as well.
Stalinism was not such a nice thing either. Approximitly 20 million deaths due to Soviet communism - mainly in the Stalin era.
For many in Europe real liberty only was there in 1989.

Is it who was the most efficient, or who did the most to win the war. If it's the former, I'd say the US, if it's the latter, Russia.
But Russia lost everything in 1989-91.
Actually in the end it also lost the other 14 soviet republics.
The western border of Russia today is almost the same than the one of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918 (which was forced on it by Germany).
And Central Asia and the Caucasus are lost additionally.
Aside of the economic fallout. It wasn´t able to rival the US in the long-run since it had to spent 20% of its GDP on defense to do it.
Today Russia (with 150 million people) only has the GDP of the Netherlands (15 million people).
The real and long-term winner of World War II are clearly the United States of America.

Newfoundland, Canada
The Battle of Beaumont Hamel

Yes, mostly likely Russia would have "liberated" it and imposed communists dictatorships over the rest of Europe as well.
Stalinism was not such a nice thing either. Approximitly 20 million deaths due to Soviet communism - mainly in the Stalin era.
For many in Europe real liberty only was there in 1989.

If Russia had lost to Germany, then Britain would have been a protectorate of Nazi Germany. How long would Europe have to endure the oppression of living under nazism. The USA would have been ineffective in challenging a Nazi Europe, perhaps causing a "cold war" between Europe and the USA. Where would that have left us today, would a nuclear war have occurred, which maybe the USA might have lost?

The fact is Europe owes it's present liberty to the success of the Soviet armies.

If Russia had lost to Germany, then Britain would have been a protectorate of Nazi Germany. How long would Europe have to endure the oppression of living under nazism. The USA would have been ineffective in challenging a Nazi Europe, perhaps causing a "cold war" between Europe and the USA. Where would that have left us today, would a nuclear war have occurred, which maybe the USA might have lost?.
There was almost a nuclear war in 1962, if you remember right.
The fact is Europe owes it's present liberty to the success of the Soviet armies.
No, it has to thank the US (and Britain) who liberated half of Europe and stood firm during the Cold War and finally winning it. That was leading to the freedom of all of Europe.
Without the US the entire European continent would have turned communists. Would that been a good think for the Cold War position of the US and Britain (if Britain hadn´t been taken over later as well)?
Europe has to be thankful to the US.

... would a nuclear war have occurred, which maybe the USA might have lost?
As a matter of fact Germany didn´t have nukes nor even a nuclear program.
Though it possessed huges stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons it didn´t used in the war. Why? Because it feared reprisels in the same way.
The nuclear balance of power was - in my view - the only reason why the Cold War didn´t turn into a hot won. Without nuclear weapons and the fear of them there would have been an hot World War III between the Soviets and the US and Britain.
So it was won less bloody - though with some proxy wars overseas.

Actually perhaps every one has over looked the obvious answer to this question.. The Allies! The Allies did the best job in WWII. End of Story!

As a matter of fact Germany didn´t have nukes nor even a nuclear program.
Of course they had a nuclear weapons program.

There was almost a nuclear war in 1962, if you remember right.

No, it has to thank the US (and Britain) who liberated half of Europe and stood firm during the Cold War and finally winning it. That was leading to the freedom of all of Europe.
Without the US the entire European continent would have turned communists. Would that been a good think for the Cold War position of the US and Britain (if Britain hadn´t been taken over later as well)?
Europe has to be thankful to the US.
You seem to have missed my point that without the Soviets, Europe would have been under Nazi oppression for who knows how long. It's my argument that the USA would have been innefective in invading Europe if the Soviets had lost to Germany.

You seem to have missed my point that without the Soviets, Europe would have been under Nazi oppression for who knows how long.
As opposed to be under Soviet opression for nearly 50 years. Great improvement.

Of course they had a nuclear weapons program.
Of course your right, the nazis had a nuclear program, if they had beaten Russia, they would have had more time to develop it, perhaps even be ahead of the USA

As opposed to be under Soviet opression for nearly 50 years. Great improvement.
Erm, I understand we are discussing who was more effective in the second world war, not which ideology is preferable.

Erm, I understand we are discussing who was more effective in the second world war, not which ideology is preferable.
Yes, yes. Your right. We are.

Germany. If it wasn't for that pesky lack of resources and manpower.
Overall most military historians agree on that Erich von Manstein was Germany's best general. But they had so many brilliant generals and commanders. I find it hard to pick one as the best.

One should have considered the lack of resources and manpower... so the gamble didn't work and they eventually didn't do the best job.

Anyhow, I've heard the Canadians were a very good functioning force.

The best fighting country would be England, they endured the hardest of conditions [Possible Invasion, Blitz, V1-V2], The best General would have to be Montgumery thow he spearheaded the invasion of normandy i would say

I think you forgot about the already invaded countries...

Yes, yes. Your right. We are.

But I accept that the involvement of the USA did put a check on any expansion plans the Soviets may have had.

Do you know that hitler had an IQ of 160??? Do you know Bush has an IQ of 130??? He was not stupid, just evil.

Bush conceils it very very well I must say :p:p

One should have considered the lack of resources and manpower... so the gamble didn't work and they eventually didn't do the best job.
Considering the oppositon they faced, as well as the earlier succeses against overwhelming odds, I think they did.

, The best General would have to be Montgumery thow he spearheaded the invasion of normandy i would say.
So the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh didn't take part in the war then, just the English?

Bush conceils it very very well I must say :p:p
Who say's Bush has an IQ of 130? Is there a credibal source for that?

1: Your country wasn't invaded
2: Your women and children were not put in the streets and mowed down by machine guns if you killed a german officer
3: You did not run your war in sewer holes for years

Under these condition I'd say the Dutch deserve a little recognition in the top 6 at least. Yes Australia did participate, but they did not come across the difficulties the Dutch had to cope with.


Cough cough Flanders...

You seem to have missed my point that without the Soviets, Europe would have been under Nazi oppression for who knows how long. It's my argument that the USA would have been innefective in invading Europe if the Soviets had lost to Germany.
Without the Russian winter Napoleon would have conquored all of Europe and without that Russia would have lost World War II.
It was unrealistic from the begining that Russia would loose, due to its resources. Only a Blitzkrieg would have taken down Russia. But for that it is too big - not like Poland or France (which also suffered due to internal divisions).

Without the Russian winter Napoleon would have conquored all of Europe and without that Russia would have lost World War II.
It was unrealistic from the begining that Russia would loose, due to its resources. Only a Blitzkrieg would have taken down Russia. But for that it is too big - not like Poland or France (which also suffered due to internal divisions).

I agree that the Russian winter was of benefit to the Russians, however, if Hitler had not delayed his invasion of Russia due to the invasion of Yugoslavia, he chose to put down the uprising there, in spite of the advice his Generals gave. if he had continued with his planned earlier invasion, it's conceviable that a poorly equiped Soviet army may have lost to Germany.

But that was Hitlers downfall, his ego would overide his tactical knowledge.

Erm, I understand we are discussing who was more effective in the second world war, not which ideology is preferable.
Exactly. And this also a person that calls himself Stalin should take into account. Just look to the poor performance of the Soviets during the winter campaign in 1939/40 against Finnland.
And they were pre-warnened and aware of the threat of Germany. Why did Stalin not put his army under alert? Why didn´t he mobilize it. An issue which was addressed under Chrustshev later.
They could have stopped the march of the German military on their territory at least much earlier than in front of Stalingrad and Moscow. The war would have been much shorter if they had done a better job.
But they didn´t. Only in 1942/43 with US support they slowly pulled themself together and from 1943 onward the did a decent job - not great - but important.
I personally think that an invasion of the Balcans and an alliance of the US with the partisans under Titio would have been a good manoveur. So: taking a final push from the south-east through Serbia and Hungary to Austria (avoiding the Alps).
I think with that the US would have been able to secure much more of Europe, decrease Soviet influence and would have been able to unite with the Soviet forces earlier then in 1945.

Who say's Bush has an IQ of 130? Is there a credibal source for that?
dunnow, but i quoted someone on that. I think Bush probably bought his IQ like he bought his degrees :p

dunnow, but i quoted someone on that. I think Bush probably bought his IQ like he bought his degrees :p
:D Thats what I thought.

But that was Hitlers downfall, his ego would overide his tactical knowledge.
The same with Napoleon. Those guys turn to be mad - of course Hitler much, much more due to his racialists ideology.
It was indeed completly crazy. Germany had lost World War I due to the fact that it was a two-front war. So, to repeat this mistake was very stupid.
Japan wasn´t that stupid and didn´t declare war on the Soviets.
I think - hypothetically - the Soviets only could have been taken down when there would be a joint operation between Japan and Germany. Everything else was just impossible.
And Japan wasn´t able to that since it was already engaged with the US.
And Germany wasn´t really capable since it was still engaged with Britain and other parts of Europe and Northern Africa where it needed to leave troops to secure the territories. Especially in Serbia. There wasn´t the manpower available for an invasion of the entire Soviet Union - not even enough for the European part. The Soviets could easily regroup behind the Ural - outside of the range of the German air force - to start its military reproduction.
Britain by the way did a very good job. Especially with its radar, air force and defense it was able to frustrate the German efforts. And that suffering tremendously under air strikes. Certainly Britain did a very, very good job.

Uh... Germany fought a two front war dude.

I thought three fronts. The Atlantic Wall, from the north, Russia from the east and Africa from the south? or am I mistaken about Africa?

Exactly. And this also a person that calls himself Stalin should take into account. Just look to the poor performance of the Soviets during the winter campaign in 1939/40 against Finnland.
And they were pre-warnened and aware of the threat of Germany. Why did Stalin not put his army under alert? Why didn´t he mobilize it. An issue which was addressed under Chrustshev later.
They could have stopped the march of the German military on their territory at least much earlier than in front of Stalingrad and Moscow. The war would have been much shorter if they had done a better job.
But they didn´t. Only in 1942/43 with US support they slowly pulled themself together and from 1943 onward the did a decent job - not great - but important.
I personally think that an invasion of the Balcans and an alliance of the US with the partisans under Titio would have been a good manoveur. So: taking a final push from the south-east through Serbia and Hungary to Austria (avoiding the Alps).
I think with that the US would have been able to secure much more of Europe, decrease Soviet influence and would have been able to unite with the Soviet forces earlier then in 1945.

Stalin was indeed poorly prepared for the war, failing even to defeat Finland. In fact when the nazis invded Russia, he was ready to give up, only being forced to mobilise by the other leaders of the Communist party.

The reason is simple, he had already killed of most of his Generals and military experts in his purges. The fact that within a few years the Soviet army managed to develop from a poorly maintained military into a formidable force, is an argument for the fact that the Russians did the best job.

I know the answer. The country that did best, was the country that shouted and still shouts that it has done best and the most.

I hope you are familiar with the concept of sarcasm?

Let me also point out that the people who were forced to work on the atlantic wall most of the time delayed the building and sabotaged the construction, too much sand in the cement, selling nazi building material, ... Don't forget the resistance. I've heard from first hand (on tv) a fleming (just a worker man, no soldier) that was forced to work in Northern France on a bunker, he became a spy after being able to escape. He dressed up as a German officer (the resistance gave him the clothing and a luger). He got on a little motorised bike and marked every German bunker in the region. He was able to bring this info to the resistance and they contacted london. The next day every single bunker was taken out (London already had lost many plains when trying to find the bunkers). The man is a warhero now, I wonder if he still lives.

Stalin was indeed poorly prepared for the war, failing even to defeat Finland. In fact when the nazis invded Russia, he was ready to give up, only being forced to mobilise by the other leaders of the Communist party.
The reason is simple, he had already killed of most of his Generals and military experts in his purges. The fact that within a few years the Soviet army managed to develop from a poorly maintained military into a formidable force, is an argument for the fact that the Russians did the best job.
I think the Soviets were actually not that weak as they are portrayed. They were just disorganised due to the policy before and the failure of Stalin to act when the threat was already visible. So, they indeed improved their organisation. I have my own thoughts why Stalin didn´t act earlier but that is realy due to speculation. And the status of the force wasn´t that poor. The Red Army were known for surprising moves. They showed that during the Russian civil war (1918-22) or during the war with Poland in 1920 were they even stood before Warsaw.
So, they weren´t that bad actually, just suffered under a very bad leadership and planning in 1941, not on a lack of strength.

Anyway: the best defense was certainly organised by Britain and its air defense and the royal air force.

...I've heard from first hand (on tv)...

Ah, so by "first hand" you actually mean "second hand".

Ah, so by "first hand" you actually mean "second hand".
Well the thing is, the man told in person, to the reporter. Quite toughy, he went through a lot in those camps, the worst guards, he said, were the collaborator guards. They were real bastards, constantly humiliating people, a bit like those soldiers in that Iraqi prison.

Well the thing is, the man told in person, to the reporter.

And said interview was then edited and recontextualised, and delivered to you in a mediated format: thus it is no longer "first hand".

Stalin was indeed poorly prepared for the war, failing even to defeat Finland. In fact when the nazis invded Russia, he was ready to give up, only being forced to mobilise by the other leaders of the Communist party.

The reason is simple, he had already killed of most of his Generals and military experts in his purges. The fact that within a few years the Soviet army managed to develop from a poorly maintained military into a formidable force, is an argument for the fact that the Russians did the best job.Ridiculous, The Societ miliatary pre-1941 was well maintained and excellently equiped with competent generals. The unprepared factor does exist, but two main factors caused this, one Stalin was convinced Hitler was not foolish enough to launch a two front war, so he felt the SU was safe for a few more years, and certainly safe after mid-May 1941 for the rest of the year since any Nazi invasion would have been planned to start by then, and two, the SU was in the middle of preparations for a July invasion of Nazi Europe - deployment orders dating from May15, 1941. Goodness, it is not as if the Soviet army was not almost entirely deployed on the border with the Nazis.

The effects of the military purges are somewhat debatable, while the military leadership of the Winter War was certainly affected, it is doubtful if Tukhachevsky had not been purged that he would have been anywhere near as competent as Zhukov - or that Tomishenko would have ever made it past the rank of Colonel by the war's end if the purges had not taken place. they certainly had a moral effect and got rid of the "old" officer corps, but also allowed the new breed of officers trained in "modern" warfare to rise to the top, resulting in a Soviet officer corps of young energetic types trained to fight this war instead of old cautious types tying to refight the last war (what really killed the French army). Certainly the lack of experinced officers told in the Winter War, but by the time of the Nazi invasion the Societ officer corps had pretty much been reformed at the higher levels (still a significant weakness at the company level and such, in a large part because the best company level officers had been promoted to regimental and divisional commanders).

Ridiculous, The Societ miliatary pre-1941 was well maintained and excellently equiped with competent generals. The unprepared factor does exist, but two main factors caused this, one Stalin was convinced Hitler was not foolish enough to launch a two front war, so he felt the SU was safe for a few more years, and certainly safe after mid-May 1941 for the rest of the year since any Nazi invasion would have been planned to start by then, and two, the SU was in the middle of preparations for a July invasion of Nazi Europe - deployment orders dating from May15, 1941. Goodness, it is not as if the Soviet army was not almost entirely deployed on the border with the Nazis.

The effects of the military purges are somewhat debatable, while the military leadership of the Winter War was certainly affected, it is doubtful if Tukhachevsky had not been purged that he would have been anywhere near as competent as Zhukov - or that Tomishenko would have ever made it past the rank of Colonel by the war's end if the purges had not taken place. they certainly had a moral effect and got rid of the "old" officer corps, but also allowed the new breed of officers trained in "modern" warfare to rise to the top, resulting in a Soviet officer corps of young energetic types trained to fight this war instead of old cautious types tying to refight the last war (what really killed the French army). Certainly the lack of experinced officers told in the Winter War, but by the time of the Nazi invasion the Societ officer corps had pretty much been reformed at the higher levels (still a significant weakness at the company level and such, in a large part because the best company level officers had been promoted to regimental and divisional commanders).
In spite of your assertion, the Soviets were indeed poorly prepared, hence the reason why they were beaten back to within a few miles of Moscow. To say that "the new breed of officers trained in "modern" warfare" does not mean that they would necessarily be effective in real battles, which history shows, they wre not!

It was a combination of luck and strategy that allowed the Soviets to take the offensive. If the nazis had invaded even a few weeks earlier, then I doubt that the Soviets would have prevailed against them. However, Stalingrad was the turning point in the war and it's that decisive battle which turned the course of the war.

If the nazis had invaded even a few weeks earlier, then I doubt that the Soviets would have prevailed against them. However, Stalingrad was the turning point in the war and it's that decisive battle which turned the course of the war.
I don´t think so. A look on the map would make that clear. Napoleon was closer to Moscow than Hitler ever was.
The war was lost for Germany when it attacked the Soviets.
And from the end of 1941 onward it didn´t move forward anymore. So the Blitzkrieg strategy had failed. Now, there was an usual and "conventional" resource war like during World War I. And from the resources the Soviets were just superior. So, they victory was a given.
The Soviet Union is just to big for a Blitzkrieg and therefore there victory was not really caused by good strategy and planning but more by the geostrategic strength and resource strength of that country.
I can´t see an excellent Soviet strategy. They did reasonable good from 1944 onward - especially after the front in the west was established.
Though with a better strategy they might have been able to push forward earlier, securing more territories and getting a better position for the coming Cold War.
The US successfully prevented diplomatically the Soviets from entering Japan for example - securing that country completly as their future ally.
With more guts the Soviets could have pushed further, trying to secure all of Germany for themself and propably even the countries more in the west (Belgium, Holland, parts of France) becoming the new hegemonial power of Europe.

Assuming by 'Hitler' you mean 'German Forces'... didn't one motorbike based recce unit get as close as the furthest stop of the Moscow city bus service?
It was 30 km as far as I´ve heard. Napoleons armies were actually standing almost in the city, though it was set on fire - at that time huge parts were of a wood construction. That prevented its invasion.
Though the Russians of that time were quicker in fighting him back. Well, he was even more poorly equiped for the winter and decided to withdrawl anyway.

I don´t think so. A look on the map would make that clear. Napoleon was closer to Moscow than Hitler ever was.
The war was lost for Germany when it attacked the Soviets.
And from the end of 1941 onward it didn´t move forward anymore. So the Blitzkrieg strategy had failed. Now, there was an usual and "conventional" resource war like during World War I. And from the resources the Soviets were just superior. So, they victory was a given.
The Soviet Union is just to big for a Blitzkrieg and therefore there victory was not really caused by good strategy and planning but more by the geostrategic strength and resource strength of that country.
I can´t see an excellent Soviet strategy. They did reasonable good from 1944 onward - especially after the front in the west was established.
Though with a better strategy they might have been able to push forward earlier, securing more territories and getting a better position for the coming Cold War.
The US successfully prevented diplomatically the Soviets from entering Japan for example - securing that country completly as their future ally.
With more guts the Soviets could have pushed further, trying to secure all of Germany for themself and propably even the countries more in the west (Belgium, Holland, parts of France) becoming the new hegemonial power of Europe.
Prior to 1942, almost the whole of the Soviet military was destroyed with 4 million soviet soldiers held prisoner of war. By early 1942, only just over a million of them were still alive.

However when the Germans attacked Stalingrad with a force of 900,000, they were successfully repulsed with a Soviet force of 1,700,000. This did not stop the Russian losses being heavier than then Germans, even with superiority in Tanks and weapons production.

I repeat my statement, if the Germans had attacked much earlier, then they had every expectation of winning. Therefore luck did indeed play a large part in the developing Soviet preparedness.

Prior to 1942, almost the whole of the Soviet military was destroyed with 4 million soviet soldiers held prisoner of war. By early 1942, only just over a million of them were still alive..
The Soviets had still more manpower - Central Asia, Siberia were standing in the back.

However when the Germans attacked Stalingrad with a force of 900,000, they were successfully repulsed with a Soviet force of 1,700,000. This did not stop the Russian losses being heavier than then Germans, even with superiority in Tanks and weapons production...
That proves that they weren´t that good. But they had superior manpower.

I repeat my statement, if the Germans had attacked much earlier, then they had every expectation of winning. Therefore luck did indeed play a large part in the developing Soviet preparedness.
I disagree with you. The earliest start for the campaign would have been in spring. Spring in Russia however starts pretty late and can be pretty wet. Furthermore the Russians would have been more prepared for that, since an attack on that date would have been more predictable.
And secondly the Russians regrouped themself behind the Ural.
Even a fall of Leningrad or Stalingrad would not necessarily led to a Soviet defeat, given the seize of the country. And the Ural is far away even from Moscow.
So the only way to prevent the Soviet victory would be indeed an invasion of the entire country in a Blitzkrieg. But that wasn´t possible and realistic. It was a misconception. A misconception of the same size than the one of Napoleon - his grave Hitler actually visited in 1940 in France.
The inability to reach Siberia was the cause for the defeat. And Germany even didn´t reach half of the way to it. A few more weeks wouldn´t change that fact.

However when the Germans attacked Stalingrad with a force of 900,000, they were successfully repulsed with a Soviet force of 1,700,000. This did not stop the Russian losses being heavier than then Germans, even with superiority in Tanks and weapons production.

Actually the 6th army was about 280,000 strong. And thats including Hungarian, Italian and Romanian support troops.

I don´t think so. A look on the map would make that clear. Napoleon was closer to Moscow than Hitler ever was.
The war was lost for Germany when it attacked the Soviets.
And from the end of 1941 onward it didn´t move forward anymore. So the Blitzkrieg strategy had failed. Now, there was an usual and "conventional" resource war like during World War I. And from the resources the Soviets were just superior. So, they victory was a given.
The Soviet Union is just to big for a Blitzkrieg and therefore there victory was not really caused by good strategy and planning but more by the geostrategic strength and resource strength of that country.
I can´t see an excellent Soviet strategy. They did reasonable good from 1944 onward - especially after the front in the west was established.
Though with a better strategy they might have been able to push forward earlier, securing more territories and getting a better position for the coming Cold War.
The US successfully prevented diplomatically the Soviets from entering Japan for example - securing that country completly as their future ally.
With more guts the Soviets could have pushed further, trying to secure all of Germany for themself and propably even the countries more in the west (Belgium, Holland, parts of France) becoming the new hegemonial power of Europe.

As far as I know reconisance elements of Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler was literally at the fortifications around Moscow and the German artillery could be seen from the city.
A quick view on the map will also reveal something else - if Moscow falls Russia will fall too. The entire Soviet infrastructure was build like a hub around Moscow. All major roads and rail passed through the city.
The Russian invasion was fought like a blitz. Punch through and clear pockets behind the lines later on.
Despite numerical superiority it took the Russians considerably longer time to push the Germans back to the pre-war line. Like someone else pointed out infantryborn anti-tank weaponry had done their work - armour could not be exposed anymore.
Someone also mentioned the weird British portable infantry anti-tank weapon - the PIAT (I think PIAT is actually an abbreviation of just that). It does have a spring, but resembles a mortar more in mechanics. The loaded spring will ignite the propelant and suck up the recoil. Unlike other similar weapons it had no backblast making it more versatile.

The German soldier was simply the most effective in the war. He didn't even have the best material at his disposal. For the best standard issue equipment I have to say the US. All (well almost) Joes carried a semi-automatic rifle. For best tanks and artillery I have to say the Russians. Someone mentioned the 76mm/52 equiped Sherman. True, it was slightly better, but still needed to close to 500m to punch through the 130mm frontal armour on the Panthers. In comparison the Panthers 75mm/70 gun could punch through the 90mm armour on the Sherman at several kilometers. The 88mm/71 on the Tigers could just point and shoot. The "Jumbo" had ~130mm of frontal armour - still not enought to withstand the Panther at 1km. T-34, KV-type, SU-type and JS-type were simply just the better tanks of the war from broadspectred view. The Germans shouldn't have made the Tigers and Tiger IIs IMHO. They should have churned out more of the less ressource demanding Panthers and Jadgpanzers. Best logistics goes to the US once again. Best commanders will have to be the Germans if we overlook the supreme commander for a second. Best discipline will have to be Japan. Best navy is a close tie I think - perhaps the British. Best airforce.... Don't know really.

A quick view on the map will also reveal something else - if Moscow falls Russia will fall too.
No. It wouldn't. Not unless Germany also controlled Stalingrad, Leningrad and Baku.

The Soviets had still more manpower - Central Asia, Siberia were standing in the back.


That proves that they weren´t that good. But they had superior manpower.


I disagree with you. The earliest start for the campaign would have been in spring. Spring in Russia however starts pretty late and can be pretty wet. Furthermore the Russians would have been more prepared for that, since an attack on that date would have been more predictable.
And secondly the Russians regrouped themself behind the Ural.
Even a fall of Leningrad or Stalingrad would not necessarily led to a Soviet defeat, given the seize of the country. And the Ural is far away even from Moscow.
So the only way to prevent the Soviet victory would be indeed an invasion of the entire country in a Blitzkrieg. But that wasn´t possible and realistic. It was a misconception. A misconception of the same size than the one of Napoleon - his grave Hitler actually visited in 1940 in France.
The inability to reach Siberia was the cause for the defeat. And Germany even didn´t reach half of the way to it. A few more weeks wouldn´t change that fact.
Even a few weeks earlier would have been to Germanys advantage, that would have hastened the total defeat of the Russians.

You have argued my point for me. The Russians had superior numbers (as we both agree) but due to the ineffectiveness of the Soviet military, numbers themselves were not sufficient. I t all hinged on the battle of Stalingrad. true, the extreme cold weather benefited the Russians but it was from that point that the tide of war turned and the Soviets grew in experience and effectivness. hence my argument that they ultimately did the best job.

If Russia had not defeated Germany then the situation in present day Europe would have been very different than it is now.

.

In comparison the Panthers 75mm/70 gun could punch through the 90mm armour on the Sherman at several kilometers. .

"several kilometers" that is nonsense. Will post the penetration tabel from a WWII site here if needed. Altough I find that Germany used the best tanks (Panzer and TigerI and II and the nice Tankdestroyer "Hetzer".
Here are the real performances of the great Panther:

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical.
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
Panzergranate 39/42 138mm 124mm 111mm 99mm 89mm
Panzergranate 40/42 194mm 174mm 149mm 127mm 106mm


Pzgr.39/42 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap
Pzgr.40/42 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core)

Source: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther

Best navy is a close tie I think - perhaps the British.

Perhaps not, their lost of the Prince of Wales to the Japanese comes to mind whenever the British RN in WWII is mentioned. Not to mention the loss of the Hood. Granted you took out the Bismarck however the Royal Navy didnt have nearly as many wins as the USN did in the Pacific. By mid-war the USN was stronger than the RN.

Perhaps not, their lost of the Prince of Wales to the Japanese comes to mind whenever the British RN in WWII is mentioned. Not to mention the loss of the Hood. Granted you took out the Bismarck however the Royal Navy didnt have nearly as many wins as the USN did in the Pacific. By mid-war the USN was stronger than the RN.

The US certainly had more Pacific victories to it's credit, but the RN has some amazing victories in it's own right, and comes close to the USN record. The loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse is comparable to Pearl Harbor (even within a week of each other). The Battle for the Mediterranean was almost exclusively an RN endeavor (though credit is due to the Wasp for it's two fighter runs to Malta), with the spectacular raid on Taranto, and the Battle of Cape Matapan.

The Battle of the Atlantic is split between the two, the RN fought longer, and developed many of the most prominent systems, but US shipbuilding capacity, airbases, the B-24, and the USN itself played a critical part in the Battle. In the Pacific, the RN (And it's Commonwealth Allies), after ABDA played an almost non-existent role until Task Force 57 (The RN Carrier Task Force attached to the USN), they also donated the Victorious to the USN, and their carriers performance in 1944/45 is admirable.

The US certainly had more Pacific victories to it's credit, but the RN has some amazing victories in it's own right, and comes close to the USN record. The loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse is comparable to Pearl Harbor (even within a week of each other). The Battle for the Mediterranean was almost exclusively an RN endeavor (though credit is due to the Wasp for it's two fighter runs to Malta), with the spectacular raid on Taranto, and the Battle of Cape Matapan.

The Battle of the Atlantic is split between the two, the RN fought longer, and developed many of the most prominent systems, but US shipbuilding capacity, airbases, the B-24, and the USN itself played a critical part in the Battle. In the Pacific, the RN (And it's Commonwealth Allies), after ABDA played an almost non-existent role until Task Force 57 (The RN Carrier Task Force attached to the USN), they also donated the Victorious to the USN, and their carriers performance in 1944/45 is admirable.

However all the victories the RN accomplished in the Med did not come close to defining how modern naval tactics are viewed today. The Carrier became the focal point of major navies simply because of what the USN and IJN did to each other throughout most of the war. As for donated aircraft carriers..i think you got that mixed up. The US was the one donating carriers. We had more than enough of our own by 44.

However all the victories the RN accomplished in the Med did not come close to defining how modern naval tactics are viewed today. The Carrier became the focal point of major navies simply because of what the USN and IJN did to each other throughout most of the war.

Of which the genesis was developed in the RN Carriers like the Furious, and Taranto was Pearl Harbor a year before it happened.

As for donated aircraft carriers..i think you got that mixed up. The US was the one donating carriers. We had more than enough of our own by 44.

The HMS Victorious was donated in 1942/43, before the introduction of the Essex class carriers, and we had loaned them no carriers by that time (Except the Wasp, but it was never really loaned, just went on a mission for the Brits). We had 3 operational carriers at the time, and hte Victorious was a seriously needed boost to our abilities, until it was replaced by the USS Essex half a year later.

to Mr. Von Witzleben: Had the USSR been a stable country I would agree with you fully. However it is my impression that the loss of the main transportation and communiction hub would have seriously impaired the Russians ability to fight. At the time we are talking about neither Stalingrad nor Leningrad were uncontested.

to Mr. Basil Fawlty: I forgot to mention that the Sherman had 90mm EFFECTIVE armour where inclination is already in consideration. The 75mm/70 using standard APC(BC) could punch through 130mm eff. armour at 1km according to my charts which is more or less precisely the protection of a late war "Jumbo" Sherman.
Special heavy core ammunition such as APCR and HVAP can naturally tilt the charts, but these were usually used by tank destroyers such as the aforemention Hetzer or M10s.

to New York and Jersey: Indeed, but due to action it is only expected that the Royal Navy would suffer losses. The Japanese navy didn't exactly go lossless either. However I do agree that the loss of Hood at the hands of Bismarch is a dint. Perhaps the Japanese should be regarded superior. The assault on Pearl Harbor was nicely orchestrated. I am not English by the way. I am disgraced to admit my countrymen practically only fought in Waffen-SS. We surrendered too readily by my reckoning.

America.

explain that!

Do you know that hitler had an IQ of 160??? Do you know Bush has an IQ of 130??? He was not stupid, just evil.

Bush?! IQ 130... the last thing I heard his IQ was something around 80....

Oh, and Hitler really was stupid... his generals presented him several ways to solve the Stalingrad situation and win that stupid war, but the only thing he kept saying was "NO! They gotto hold the line, a german soldier doesn't use those cowardly tactics!!!" and he moved units who ceased to exist a looong time ago.... so I think at lest his tactical capabilites were somewhat "underdeveloped"...

Well WWII just wasnt about one theater. It's such a broad concept to determine who was the best in all of WWII. So here it is:

Pacific: US
Africa: Germany closely followed by the Brits
Italy: Americans
Western Europe: Americans(Sorry Brits, Monty screwed up royally with Market Garden 8,000 paratroopers lost cant be overlooked)
Eastern Europe: Russians

Best General-
Pacific-Halsey(Okay he's an Admiral but the Pacific is mostly ocean anyway)
Africa-Rommel
Italy-Patton
W. Europe-Patton
Eastern Europe-Zhukov

U.S., W.E... I don't know.... they lost 200.000 people on one day to the skeletal Bunker crews, those guys within the bunkers didn't even had reinforcements.... and yet... Ah, well I guess you know what I want to say...

U.S., W.E... I don't know.... they lost 200.000 people on one day to the skeletal Bunker crews, those guys within the bunkers didn't even had reinforcements.... and yet... Ah, well I guess you know what I want to say...
Eh what?

Oh, and Hitler really was stupid...
No. He wasn't. His talents just weren't in military matters.

Eh what?
I think e's talking about the Normandy campaign (called D-Day) from June 6th to the end of August when Allied casualties numbered about 240,000. Of course it has already been pointed out that D-Day was not solely a US operation, and 3 months is a little longer than a day . . ..

I think e's talking about the Normandy campaign (called D-Day) from June 6th to the end of August when Allied casualties numbered about 240,000. Of course it has already been pointed out that D-Day was not solely a US operation, and 3 months is a little longer than a day . . ..

Casualties = KIA+WIA+MIA. I am not sure what is meant either. The US "only" suffered 81.000 casualties in the Ardennes offensive. I don't know how many were lost of captured when the Phillipines were overrun.
Naturally I feel I must point out that Market-Garden was not entirely British either. The American airbourne elements all failed to reach their objectives in time. Naturally that is all meaningless as the entire thing was lost before it began due to the presense of 2SS Panzer corps in Arnhem. One really have to question the efficiency of Allied intelligence (the military sort). They also failed to locate 352nd Inf. Div. right on the Omaha beachhead.

Germany had the best officer corps
Finland had the best soldiers
US had the best logistics
The USSR had the best endurance - their losses would have broken any
other nation.

Naturally I feel I must point out that Market-Garden was not entirely British either. The American airbourne elements all failed to reach their objectives in time.

Let's not forget the Poles either.

Canada

You're damn right canada, the first country to attempt a landing in france until D-day, the only country to actually achieve their objective during D-day, the finest street fighters in the Italian peninsula. I met an old german once who had fought in the second world war, he'd heard a few rumours floating around, him and his budies, first they heard that the americans would be landing on the beach in a few days,then he heard the british were doing the same, and his officers still didn't really care, then he heard the Canadians were coming, one of his buddies had been fighting in italy, and actually pissed his pants!

If America was landlocked to Germany, Americans today would be speaking German

Actually, during the Continental Congresses at America's official inception, English won over German as the official language of the US by a single vote.
Makes you wonder how history might have changed if America was a german-speaking society.

IE: If America had sat out WWI it's very likely WWII, Hitler and the holocaust never would have happened.

Hows that? WW2 was about a lot of things, scapegoating, a german need for power, and so on, it was inevitable that the allies would win WW1, even without the assistance of the "Rainbow army" as the americans were called, the economic boom of the twenties followed by the depression of the thirties (the main cause of the scapegoating) would still happen, and there you have it, the holocaust is ther again, I'msorry but I don't understand your reasoning

I have to say that the best army was the Belgian. The were just with too few and I'm not saying this because I'm a Belgian ;)

Casualties = KIA+WIA+MIA. I am not sure what is meant either. The US "only" suffered 81.000 casualties in the Ardennes offensive. I don't know how many were lost of captured when the Phillipines were overrun.
Naturally I feel I must point out that Market-Garden was not entirely British either. The American airbourne elements all failed to reach their objectives in time. Naturally that is all meaningless as the entire thing was lost before it began due to the presense of 2SS Panzer corps in Arnhem. One really have to question the efficiency of Allied intelligence (the military sort). They also failed to locate 352nd Inf. Div. right on the Omaha beachhead.
Hehe..yeah. That was pretty lucky for the Brits. The 2nd SS Panzerkorps was there for some R+R and refitting after heavy fighting in France.

Casualties = KIA+WIA+MIA. I am not sure what is meant either. The US "only" suffered 81.000 casualties in the Ardennes offensive. I don't know how many were lost of captured when the Phillipines were overrun.
Naturally I feel I must point out that Market-Garden was not entirely British either. The American airbourne elements all failed to reach their objectives in time. Naturally that is all meaningless as the entire thing was lost before it began due to the presense of 2SS Panzer corps in Arnhem. One really have to question the efficiency of Allied intelligence (the military sort). They also failed to locate 352nd Inf. Div. right on the Omaha beachhead.

The Americans succeeded largely in all of their objectives (Market) in Operation Market Garden, and only suffered some minor setbacks that were already expected, by all means it was a success. But it was the British portion (Garden) that was a disaster, and by no means becuase of the British 6th Airborne itself, but becuase of horrible intelligence, in general a bad idea to send paratroopers against mechanized and armour troops, and having to advance the XXX Corps along a single road to reach them.

Hence the reason the phrase "A Bridge too Far" has been immortalized, becuase the operation was actually fairly successful, until the seizure of a bridge just too far, and the British were slaughtered.

They saved English asses and they had well awsome planes. Their soldiers were more prepared than any others they performaed their best. :mp5:

Except that England got itself whipped out of France, and the whole army would have been caught and anihilated if it wasnt for the citizens of England bringing their own small boats and suchlike to carry the main army back to England. England was only saved because it had a channel seperating it from Germany, and it posessed a much larger navy. The Battle of Britain, for instance, is an example of the difficulties faced in flying missions over hostile territory when you have absolutely no bases in said territory. Germany could not get troops into England, and England couldn't get out.

However, I would definitely say that Germany fought better and more efficiantly than any other nation. However, thanks to the Russians at Stalingrad, and the Americans at Normandy, we got a break.
The Russians had a much higher attrition rate than the Americans, and so, since the victor writes history, I would have to claim that the US wins the title of best fighting nation. And the best General? A tossup between Patton, Eisenhower, and MacArthur. MacArthur had to lead a theater with vastly less resources than the other two, and so I give him props for a job well done. Patton, of course, was one of the baddest boys we ever had in uniform. After taking Berlin, he actually asked Eisenhower for permission to attack and drive out the Russians. Of course, Eisenhower refused, although we could have easily won such an engagement. Eisenhower, of course, was just plain brilliant.

America's main contribution to WW2 in Europe was meat for the grinder. Britain and France had the technology and infrastructure but not the manpower due to Britain having a small population and a lot of France being occupied.

America could never have beaten the Russians at the end of WW2 and it shows how much of a fool Patton was for wanting to fight them.
I said before; most efficient was France for not fighting a lost cause and adopting more subtle tactics, greatest fighting nation was Russia for the massive losses yet unerring devotion to kicking German arse and their spectacular movement of the whole of their industry East. Best general goes to Rommel who lost due to not enough resources and Hitler hating him.

Most novel idea goes to person who invented pink paint for recon aircraft; it's so obvious when you think about it.

Hehe..yeah. That was pretty lucky for the Brits. The 2nd SS Panzerkorps was there for some R+R and refitting after heavy fighting in France.

'heavy fighting on the Eastern Front', shurely?

'heavy fighting on the Eastern Front', shurely?
Not unless Falaise is located in the East.

Not unless Falaise is located in the East.

Ah: my mistake, for some reason I had a brainfart and was thinking of the tank units present in Normandy at the time of D-Day. I am obviously either illiterate or an idiot.

Actually, the Royal Air Force was far more important to Britain than the Royal Navy. That's what the Battle of Britain was all about. Had Hitler succeded in destroying the RAF, we would have been doomed. Naval power alone would not have stopped an invasion force.

Also, had Britain fallen, I seriously doubt that the USA would have been able to win the war. They would have had to struggle to find somewhere to launch their operations from, and it would have been insanely difficult for them to fight on all fronts at the same time.

IMO (and I'm trying not to be biased here, lol), Britiain did the best job, but without the help of our AUSTRALIAN, Canadian, US, Polish, and other European troops the war could not have been won.

Undoubtedly, though, Germany was the worse-off at the end of it. It wasn't their fault that Hitler hijacked their government, fed them propaganda, and took them to war - but they had to live with the consequences.

Most of the countries involved in the war are still suffering from it - Look at the UK, for instance: after our devoted involvement in defending Europe (right through both world wars) most of our territory has fallen away, because we couldn't maintain it.

You forgot Australia in there!

I'll add it in mate

German for the nation and Heinz Guderian for General.

I agree with that!

You know Jews are every-where what don't the Jews own? they own everything they even own Amerikka. 9 Jews in the congress and only 2 Christians.

And for saying this I get called a anti-semitic or a terrorist but Jews get away with murder no one says anything to them?

We need to get real! Why don't America or England to a regime change in Israel?

Send all death threats hate mail to fucmegirl@hotmail.com

I agree with that!

You know Jews are every-where what don't the Jews own? they own everything they even own Amerikka. 9 Jews in the congress and only 2 Christians.

And for saying this I get called a anti-semitic or a terrorist but Jews get away with murder no one says anything to them?

We need to get real! Why don't America or England to a regime change in Israel?

Send all death threats hate mail to fucmegirl@hotmail.com

O.o

I didn't know so few Christians were in the Congress, and so many Jews...Woah is that really true?

I don't hate the Jews, the Holocaust was a terrible thing, but sadly the Modern Jews use it to make lots of money. When they stop getting this money, their new motto for the Holocaust will no longer be "Never Again" - but rather "Never enough", I feel so sorry for those who lost their lives in such a terrible crime to be used as a cash cow by their fellow people.

lol thats WW1, hitler never invaded Russia, and it was the US who declared war on Germany, Russia entered the war in the final stages because it wanted to have part of germany when the war ended.


You're wrong. Hitler did have the troops start pushing for Moscow and had even done very well at it. However, the Russian Bear, aka the Russian winter, literally stopped them in their tracks, saving the Russian's arses. Germany had Russia on the run. If Hitler had not suddenly decided to fight on both fronts, he would no doubt have taken over all of Europe by force and would have cast the entire area into a dark age. However, he made a foolhardy mistake, being so full of himself, and condemned his forces to eventual defeat.

Also, because of the Japanese bombing on Pearl Harbor, you could blame them for the Americans entering the war and thus being a major force behind both the German's and the Japanese's surrender.

Russia had the masses to back their massive armies, but they sacrificed technological advancement as well as availability of weapons to their troops. For example, they would give a gun and ammo to every third man in line and bullets to the other two. For those carrying the bullets, they had to wait until one of their gun-weilding comrades died, in order to secure a gun of their own.

Germany undoubtedly had the most advanced battlefield weaponry and technology. From their tanks, to their guns, to their Enigma machines, they excelled in this field.

The United States can be given the award for their incredible ability to massively and quickly move their entire economy into a war machine that spat out their war constructs like no one had ever seen before in such a short amount of time.

My opinion as to the best aircraft however, lies with the British Spitfire. It is truly a machine of genius creation and capability.

My opinion as to who the best general is lies somewhat equally between Patton and Rommel.

Ah: my mistake, for some reason I had a brainfart and was thinking of the tank units present in Normandy at the time of D-Day.
Uuum....the II. SS-Panzerkorps, under General Bittrich, I was talking about was in France on D-Day. And after that Bittrich and his troops were in Arnhem for R+R and refitting.

O.o

I didn't know so few Christians were in the Congress, and so many Jews...Woah is that really true?

I don't hate the Jews, the Holocaust was a terrible thing, but sadly the Modern Jews use it to make lots of money. When they stop getting this money, their new motto for the Holocaust will no longer be "Never Again" - but rather "Never enough", I feel so sorry for those who lost their lives in such a terrible crime to be used as a cash cow by their fellow people.


You only have to look it up my friend, They also own Large parts of Australia!
Jewry will not defeat the awakening nations, rather the example of these nations will finally awaken the people who still sleep under "democratic" or Bolshevist rule. That will be the time to finally solve the Jewish question. As Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg said in his speech on the Jewish question to diplomats and the world press on 7 February 1939, this can only occur by removing the Jews from all the nations where they have lived as parasites and transporting to them to a sufficiently large, uninhabited area suitable for colonization.

There are a series of familiar international Jewish organizations: the Alliance Israelite Universelle, the Independent Order of B'nai Briss, the various Zionist agencies (e.g., the Jewish Agency), the international Jewish boycott organizations against Germany, the American Jewish Joint Consultative Council — to name only a few. All of these organizations promote Jewish world power policies in some way. How they relate to each other, which are the most significant, and whether there are secret connections and a central leadership, and where that leadership might be, are subordinate questions. Whether or not there is an organized Jewish government recognized by all the Jews is less important that the fact that there is a unified and conscious Jewish desire for world power. This is proved by a variety of political events that are taking place in plain sight today.

Uuum....the II. SS-Panzerkorps, under General Bittrich, I was talking about was in France on D-Day. And after that Bittrich and his troops were in Arnhem for R+R and refitting.

Yeah. I was skimming posts and responded to your one about Arnhem thinking it was about D-Day...

Yeah. I was skimming posts and responded to your one about Arnhem thinking it was about D-Day...
They were in France on D-Day... :confused: ugh... I'm confused now.... :confused:

You know Jews are every-where what don't the Jews own? they own everything they even own Amerikka. 9 Jews in the congress and only 2 Christians.


I know I shouldn't bother answering to trolls, but here we go:

What about the other 524 (535 - 11) members of Congress?

They were in France on D-Day... :confused: ugh... I'm confused now.... :confused:

Yeah, just ignore the fact I ever raised the point. It is now too horribly confused to explain.

Yeah, just ignore the fact I ever raised the point. It is now too horribly confused to explain.
Alrighty.

I know I shouldn't bother answering to trolls, but here we go:

What about the other 524 (535 - 11) members of Congress?


http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/usa/wash_dc/capitol_building/19990514-capitol_filner.htm

http://www.jewishsightseeing.com/usa/wash_dc/capitol_building/19990514-capitol_filner.htm

Any chance of answering the question I asked - What about the other 524 members of Congress? - instead of just posting tangentially related URLs?

The Americans succeeded largely in all of their objectives (Market) in Operation Market Garden, and only suffered some minor setbacks that were already expected, by all means it was a success. But it was the British portion (Garden) that was a disaster, and by no means becuase of the British 6th Airborne itself, but becuase of horrible intelligence, in general a bad idea to send paratroopers against mechanized and armour troops, and having to advance the XXX Corps along a single road to reach them.

Hence the reason the phrase "A Bridge too Far" has been immortalized, becuase the operation was actually fairly successful, until the seizure of a bridge just too far, and the British were slaughtered.

Wow. Sorry the login timed out and threw my reply out. So I'll be brief and blunt.
I am not implying that the US troops performed substandard, but that there were given tasks beyond their capabilities. While they secure several keypoints on or even ahead of time they failed to secure Nijmegen and a brigde was blown. Unfortunately there was not room for a single failure as it turned out. The lack of a contingency plan is striking.
Market-Garden failed exactly because it went "a bridge too far" (sorry for stating the obvious). It should have concentrated largely on what it did, but have used airbourne elements along with elements of XXX corps to secure a harbour as well to supply both XXX corps and Simpsons 7th. And left crossing the Rhine until properly prepared. That would have left the logistical network at Pattons disposal and given 3 inroads into Germany.
However I feel that the idea of going through the low countries was a good. While the road net was slim it was still there opposed to other places. All in all the Netherlands wasn't a bad place to advance armour. The Germans pushed theirs through in 1940.
Also I am bewildered at the inefficiency of the Allied intelligence net. They also overlooked 352nd Volksgrenadier right in the middle of Omaha. That costed several thousand casualties cut out of 1st and 29th flesh and blood. Wonder is red tape is to blame....

On a sidenote. I have the impression that most Americans honour Patton for his brash "no non-sense" behaviour and his chutzpah style humour. I detest that side of him. For instance stealing fuel from other units is idiotic at best. It doesn't produce more fuel and renders a unit on his flank helpless. However I greatly admire his ability to draw up contingency plans. Low on fuel as he was he always kept a reserve and armour elements ready to move northbbound in case the Germans tried a counter offensive. They did and Patton could advance 4th armoured northbound before even Eisenhower knew the Germans were on the move. In my opinion his Lorraine campaign was largely like Market Garden. Mostly a success, but failed it's primary objectives.

Wow. Sorry the login timed out and threw my reply out. So I'll be brief and blunt.
I am not implying that the US troops performed substandard, but that there were given tasks beyond their capabilities. While they secure several keypoints on or even ahead of time they failed to secure Nijmegen and a brigde was blown.
No it wasn't blown. Model specificly ordered that the Nijmegen bridge was to be kept intact as it was needed for the counter attack.

No it wasn't blown. Model specificly ordered that the Nijmegen bridge was to be kept intact as it was needed for the counter attack.

Ups sorry for being so vague. Nijmegen was secured, but only with assistence of XXX corps. Furthermore another bridge (not Nijmegen) was blown up. I believe it was the Son bridge.

Ups sorry for being so vague. Nijmegen was secured, but only with assistence of XXX corps. Furthermore another bridge (not Nijmegen) was blown up. I believe it was the Son bridge.
A German engineering corps tried to blow the bridge at Eindhoven, or was it Nijmegen, but the charges didn't go off. They tried against their orders.

A German engineering corps tried to blow the bridge at Eindhoven, or was it Nijmegen, but the charges didn't go off. They tried against their orders.

Interesting. This also illustrates why the German troops were so good. They were trained to follow orders, but also to think for themselves. If either of the other bridges had been lost it would have been a lot more problematic than Son. Son was a rather small brigde over a canal. All the others cross large waterways and is not so easy to replace with portable bridges.
2SS Panzer corps had at least one engineer unit attached - 9th SS Pioneer abteilung. It would make sense to dispatch that to Nijmegen, the closest bridge to Arnhem. This would also explain why the airbourne troops encountered problems. It ain't easy for plain infantry to dislodge motorized engineer elements of a panzer corps. German troop movements are a bit sketchy so I simply go with logic here.
Regardless we seem to agree on a lot of issues. Market was largely a success the Garden element failed to capitalize properly upon, mostly due to misinformation and bad planning as a result thereof. Not trying to place words in your mouth - merely trying to summarize a bit.

It ain't easy for plain infantry to dislodge motorized engineer elements of a panzer corps.

True, but the paratroops were better equipped for close combat than your regular 'plain infantry', and thus would have had more of a chance at dislodging the dug-in engineers.

True, but the paratroops were better equipped for close combat than your regular 'plain infantry', and thus would have had more of a chance at dislodging the dug-in engineers.
If they are dug in that means the para's need to get close first. Paratroopers don't have any real heavy weaponery. They are lightly armed for mobilities sake.

Also, after the western allies got the Nijmegen bridge, the German high command threw everything at it besides the kitchen sink, including their newest jet bombers, as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets.

427,000 Trucks and 51,000 Jeeps - Scoff at this number, but it represents 65% of the Soviet motorized capabilities, the large proportion of them 2 1/2 ton Dodge trucks, which effectively carried everything the Soviets needed. The Soviets only were able to produce the massive numbers of armour becuase they did not have to produce trucks, the US supplied them. During the war, the word studebaker became synonomous with truck in the Soviet Union. Trucks were needed not only for supply (the Germans had failed largely becuase they didn't have enough), and the Soviets desperately needed them, they often outran their supply lines during their massive offensives, but also for battles. Without these trucks, the Soviet Operation Doctrine of "Deep-in" Offensive tactics would fail, and the Soviets would have floundered in White Russia. Soviet Offensive doctrine stipulated a massive armour attack would be exploited by fast moving infantry (ie. infantry carried by trucks) who would exploit that gap and widen it, Blitzkreig on a far larger scale. Without American trucks, the Soviets would not have enough to supply themselves and use this offensive tool.

I don't know about the other things you mentioned, just because there are so many I can't go back and check them, but this part is right on the money. The bulk of Soviet motorized transport (i.e., trucks) was provided by the United States. I just read this a couple days ago in Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century; Jonathan House; University Press of Kansas; 2001. You are right, Soviet doctrine in the later war years (1943-45) could not possibly have worked without those American trucks.

The Soviets had still more manpower - Central Asia, Siberia were standing in the back.
And were able to do so thanks to the United States drawing all of Japan's power to the east.

All the EUro-centrism in this thread is disappointing. Japan and the War in the Pacific are barely even mentioned. I wonder: Is this is because it greatly increases the credit due to the United States? And where is any mention of the so-called "Battle of the Atlantic"?

I am not implying that the US troops performed substandard, but that there were given tasks beyond their capabilities.
How so? This from an encyclopedia entry on Market-Garden:
"In Nijmegen the [British] boats still hadn't arrived during the night, so the troops continued to wait. They didn't arrive until the afternoon, but time was so short they [the Americans] decided to do the crossing in daylight. In what is generally considered to be one of the bravest actions in military history, they made the crossing in 26 rowboats into well defended positions. They took the banks and pressed to the bridge, which caused the Germans to pull back from their positions on the southern side. That freed the Guards Armored, who rushed across the bridge and met the airborne troops. Nijmegen bridge was now in Allied hands after four long days."
While they secure several keypoints on or even ahead of time they failed to secure Nijmegen and a brigde was blown. Unfortunately there was not room for a single failure as it turned out. The lack of a contingency plan is striking.
A factual error. The Nijmegen bridge was never destroyed. The blown bridge was at Son, over the Wilhemina Canal. The canal was crossed by building a Bailey bridge over it, and the delay was no fault of the Americans, since airborne units don't jump with bridging equipment! Also, the planning was done by Montgomery, and the American units had all of a week (!) to integrate their unit plans into Monty's "brilliant" operation.
However I feel that the idea of going through the low countries was a good. While the road net was slim it was still there opposed to other places. All in all the Netherlands wasn't a bad place to advance armour. The Germans pushed theirs through in 1940.
Another factual error. The Germans made no significant armored thrust through The Netherlands in 1940. The main armored thrust came through the Ardennes forest into France and drove toward the Channel ports.

Basic, basic historical mistakes, dude.

And were able to do so thanks to the United States drawing all of Japan's power to the east.
All the EUro-centrism in this thread is disappointing. Japan and the War in the Pacific are barely even mentioned. I wonder: Is this is because it greatly increases the credit due to the United States? And where is any mention of the so-called "Battle of the Atlantic"?
I mentioned the US assistance to the Soviets. Therefore I rejected Joe Stalins claim that the Soviets did best.
Regarding the accusation of Euro-centrism: Guilty. Since I´m from the continent I´ve a euro-centric world view.
That is what I see as the main weakness of any continental power in Europe. Napoleon underestimated both the power of the British Empire - which is not just Britain but also its colonies and today the British-American alliance - and the size of Russia. Both mistakes were repeated by Hitler. He also had an euro-centric world view like any German leader from the past even up till now. The reason for this lays in the fact that Germany - in contrast to Britain or France -never was a great colonial power (colonies lost in 1918).
That factor led to the German defeats in both wars: the euro-centric world view.

And it is alos the reason why Germany up until today has nothing to contribut into the geostrategic discussion for the Middle East for example. It is only able to shut up or either side with the US or France (which are both its allies today) The Schroeder administration decided for the latter as we all know.

Another factual error. The Germans made no significant armored thrust through The Netherlands in 1940. The main armored thrust came through the Ardennes forest into France and drove toward the Channel ports.Dead on, the German conquest of the Netherlands was a victory for air power, not armoured power. If I recall correctly only 3 armoured divisions were even availible to Army Group B, and they were committed to the South.

Germany was clearly the superior power and was defeated due to Hitler's ego. Remember, Hitler decided to take control of the military during the Invasion of USSR and had the Panzer division split to attack Stalingrad for no real reason other than ego. Had Hitler left the military to the generals, I cant see how Germany was going to lose. Yes US would have entered, but without a twofront war on the Germans, I really cant see the Allies winning other than a Nuke being dropped, which the Germans were pushing and were far more advanced in until, you got it, Hitler's ego went off and decided to go wild in USSR.

The Allies won because they capitalized on the mistakes Hitler made.

I mentioned the US assistance to the Soviets. Therefore I rejected Joe Stalins claim that the Soviets did best.
Regarding the accusation of Euro-centrism: Guilty. Since I´m from the continent I´ve a euro-centric world view.
That is what I see as the main weakness of any continental power in Europe. Napoleon underestimated both the power of the British Empire - which is not just Britain but also its colonies and today the British-American alliance - and the size of Russia. Both mistakes were repeated by Hitler. He also had an euro-centric world view like any German leader from the past even up till now. The reason for this lays in the fact that Germany - in contrast to Britain or France -never was a great colonial power (colonies lost in 1918).
That factor led to the German defeats in both wars: the euro-centric world view.

And it is alos the reason why Germany up until today has nothing to contribut into the geostrategic discussion for the Middle East for example. It is only able to shut up or either side with the US or France (which are both its allies today) The Schroeder administration decided for the latter as we all know.
And another anti Europe post by Uncle Tom. Woof!!! Woof!!! Woof!!! Woof!!! Woof!!! Who let the dog out?

Even a few weeks earlier would have been to Germanys advantage, that would have hastened the total defeat of the Russians. .
I don´t think so. The Soviets had regrouped themself behind the Ural actually.
It would not have made a difference if the German army came a few miles further - like Napoleon did.

true, the extreme cold weather benefited the Russians but it was from that point that the tide of war turned and the Soviets grew in experience and effectivness. hence my argument that they ultimately did the best job. .
If we speak about best job we have to speak about the relationship of input versus output and the efficency of its use. And in that respect - I´m afraid - the Red Army wasn´t efficent. It just had more resources (manpower) to be thrown as canon fodder. And that´s why they were able to turn the tide.

If Russia had not defeated Germany then the situation in present day Europe would have been very different than it is now.
Well, that is for shure. But how is entirely a hypothetical question. Much more people would have been killed. What would have happened after Hitlers death? Nobody knows.
After Stalins death there was the a period of "liberalisation" but the Soviet Union remained a totalitarian dicatorship up until the late 1980s. And when the change happened it collapsed.
And quite frankly spoken. Without the Americans Europe would look much different today as well. The Soviets would have taken over it. The decisiveness of the US during the Cold War and its policy of strength led to the collapse of the Eastern bloc (US 5% of its GDP for military spending, USSR 20% - no country can endure that - well, and the proxy wars which were all but Vietnam pretty succesfull. Especially Afghanistan which is pretty directly linked to the end of the USSR.
Though with that war again the focuss shifted. Some of the former allies were in fact enemies of the west (and only cooperated due to common interests, like Stalin did during World War II). Today they are the enemy in the "War against terrorism".

And another anti Europe post by
Shut up. I just point to facts. Probably you should draw conclusions from them in order not to repeat mistakes in strategic thinking.

Refused Party Program did the best job in WWII. :D

Shut up. I just point to facts. Probably you should draw conclusions from them in order not to repeat mistakes in strategic thinking.
Hmm... Germany must shut up or follow your masters. Yes. Those are facts!!!![/sarcasm]

Refused Party Program did the best job in WWII. :D
Pfft..I did. I led my 24 veteran mountain divisions, with attached engineering and artillery brigades, against 68 Soviet divisions in the battle for Moscow. And I kicked their ass.

Pfft..I did. I led my 24 veteran mountain divisions, with attached engineering and artillery brigades, against 68 Soviet divisions in the battle for Moscow. And I kicked their ass.

The Refused Party Program partied with the lonely housewives. PWN3D!!

The Refused Party Program partied with the lonely housewives. PWN3D!!
I surrender. :(

Hmm... Germany must shut up or follow your masters. Yes. Those are facts!!!![/sarcasm]
Germany is in a simular position as the United Kingdom. Either join the US or France.
Well, and joining with the US certainly makes more sense to the UK since it is its natural ally and both belong culturally together. For Germany it is more difficult since it is situated in Continental Europe. It has to remain close ties with France but also with the US. Otherwise it is going to be surrounded by a British-Polish alliance.
The alliance with France is not enough to have an efficent foreign policy.

Either join the US or France.
I know where your loyalities are. And it's not with Germany or Europe.

I know where your loyalities are. And it's not with Germany or Europe.
My loyalty goes to democracy and freedom and to a democratic Germany in Europe allied with the US.
But I won´t give unconditional support to anything. Not after this history. That is one lesson of history.
Fighting is not good. But if the cause is just and the defense of freedom is needed I would support action.
And that is what the US is doing. It eliminated the biggest threats of Europe: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.
And today it is going to eliminate the biggest threat of our time: Islamists terrorism and dictators who may transfer WMD to them which could be used for terrorists attacks. A dirty bomb could kill hundreds of thousands of people. I don´t see a difference between Osama bin Laden and Hitler. On the conterary, he may be even more dangerous since he can use everything. He doesn´t need to fear that his country may face a reprisel. Therefore this war is much more dangerous than the Cold War.
And regimes in the Middle East have to make a choice. Either they are with the US or with the terrorists. Iraq was a warning shot. Iran has to make its choice now. It seems that they are heading in the wrong direction - continuing their nuclear program. So what? Talking, talking, talking. The EU is a paper tiger but not a viable power. That is only the US. It is only the US which can stop the development to a nuclear Iran. If force should become necessary for that I would support it, for the sake of the stability, security and the freedom of the world.

My loyalty goes to democracy and freedom and to a democratic Germany in Europe allied with the US.
But I won´t give unconditional support to anything. Not after this history. That is one lesson of history.
Fighting is not good. But if the cause is just and the defense of freedom is needed I would support action.
And that is what the US is doing. It eliminated the biggest threats of Europe: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.
And today it is going to eliminate the biggest threat of our time: Islamists terrorism and dictators who may transfer WMD to them which could be used for terrorists attacks. A dirty bomb could kill hundreds of thousands of people. I don´t see a difference between Osama bin Laden and Hitler. On the conterary, he may be even more dangerous since he can use everything. He doesn´t need to fear that his country may face a reprisel. Therefore this war is much more dangerous than the Cold War.
And regimes in the Middle East have to make a choice. Either they are with the US or with the terrorists. Iraq was a warning shot. Iran has to make its choice now. It seems that they are heading in the wrong direction - continuing their nuclear program. So what? Talking, talking, talking. The EU is a paper tiger but not a viable power. That is only the US. It is only the US which can stop the development to a nuclear Iran. If force should become necessary for that I would support it, for the sake of the stability, security and the freedom of the world.
Like I always say. You are an American at heart. So why don't you emigrate to the US?

Like I always say. You are an American at heart. So why don't you emigrate to the US?
Because my loyality goes to freedom and democracy and to a democratic Germany. And I´m going to fight for it and for Germany strengthening its democratic instituitions. That is still needed and always needed.

Only those deserve liberty and life who need to conquor it daily - Goethe, Faust.

Every democracy is a natural ally of the US.
It is important for every country to have good ties to the US. Not to do so is stupid. Chirac and Schroeder did a big mistake in that respect.

Only those deserve liberty and life who is needing to conquor it daily - Goethe, Faust.
Bei allen goettern. Lern erst einmal die sprache deiner herren und meister bevor du versuchst Deutsch ins Englisch zu uebersetzen.

Bei allen goettern. Lern erst einmal die sprache deiner herren und meister bevor du versuchst Deutsch ins Englisch zu uebersetzen.
Gagaga.
Anyway, except of insults you have nothing to contribute to the topic.

Every democracy is a natural ally of the US.
It is important for every country to have good ties to the US. Not to do so is stupid. Chirac and Schroeder did a big mistake in that respect.
http://img90.exs.cx/img90/1681/Kybernetia.jpg

Gagaga.
Anyway, except of insults you have nothing to contribute to the topic.
Ist nicht meine schuld das dein Englisch so scheisse ist. :rolleyes:

You prove my point. You are childish.

Let me tell you something about Finland .

Does any of you know what Mainila is? It is a place where our borders were before the start of the Winter War. That's where the Soviets launched some bombs on their side and accused Finns for doing that. Soon after that, November 30th, the Winter War started.

Temperatures during the Winter War rose as high as -40 celsius degrees. There were a lot more Soviets than Finns, and at first it seemed impossible to stop their invasion. However, in December, we did it. We were running out of ammunition when Stalin decided that it was a political embarrasment that they couldn't win us, and we made a peace agreement. We lost parts of Karelia (Aunus and Lagoga Karelia), parts of Salla, some islands in the Gulf of Finland and the Hanko peninsula was supposed to be leased for 50 years. We also lost our second biggest city, Vyborg, to them and had to repopulate all the citizens that lived in the conquered areas.


Many people think, that Hitler decided to attack the USSR, because they couldn't beat us.

However, we were pissed off. The Nazi Army seemed invisible and we formed and alliance with them and attacked the USSR in the summer of 1941. Soon we took back the conquered areas and occupied the East Karelia, which led to the declaration of war from Britain (the war was never fought). So, we stopped and reconstructed Vyborg, that had been totally trashed in the Winter War.
After the Normandy Landings, the USSR launched a massive attack on us. We barely managed to halt their advance, but finally the peace was made. We lost the same areas as in the Winter War, with the inclusion of Petsamo, our only harbor to the Arctic Sea. Hanko peninsula was changed to Porkkala.

That was called the Continuation War. After that, began the Lapland's war. Soviet Union wanted all the German troops out of Finland and the schedule was too tight, so we had to declare a war on Germany. We got them out in time, but they burned down the whole Lapland (=northern Finland).

So, we lost 10% of our area, our second biggest city and had to repopulate a lot of people. They also punished us with massive war repayments and it took 7 years to pay them.


Since Finland gaining independence, the caliber of Russian and Finnish weapons hadn't been changed so could capture ammunition from them and use them in our weapons. We got some support from Sweden in the Winter War, but not much.


Oh, and my grandfather was fighting in the frontline in Winter War and Continuation War.

Every democracy is a natural ally of the US.

Why?

It is important for every country to have good ties to the US. Not to do so is stupid. Chirac and Schroeder did a big mistake in that respect.

I've said this before here and I'll probably have to say it again: sometimes your best friend is the one that will stand up and say "You look fucking awful in that shirt", rather than the sycophant that say "You look gorgeous" when you clearly don't...

Aaah, my first post. Took some time reading this whole thread. A lot of knowledge around here I see. Some twerps posting that have no clue at all, but all in all a pretty high standard debate! :)

I just need to post my .02$ on the matter! It has turned into the usual US/EUro war it normally does. And that's pretty understandable.

"The winners write the history" it is said. And at no time has it ever been more true than after WWII. Today the word "nazi" is synonymous with "evil". If you want someone to be a picture of evil, call them "nazi", or even better "gestapo". That, my friends, is thanks to propaganda. Purely so. War crimes were comitted on all sides, but it's the winners that are portrayed as saints, whereas the nazis are so evil it hurts.

Same with "the war effort". Who did what and why? Thanks to our lovely Hollywood we all know how our glorious americans saved us all. They won d-day (THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF WWII!!!!"#!"!"!!!!) and they won the battle of Pearl Harbor (THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF WWII!!!!)...

And that's that.

Or is it? In my opinion those two battles are two of the more insignificant of the whole war. At least D-day was. Only reason we hear so much about them is that they are the primary US-fought ones. You have some others as well, like Midway and some other pacific ones, but they are somehow not as glorious. No, better to see Matt Dameon win the battle of Pearl Harbor, or see Tom Hanks in D-day action.

In my opinion it was Russian blood that won the WWII - in Europe. In the Pacific it was the US that pulled the load - that's fairly easy to see. Although, the Germans posed a far greater threat than the Empire of Japan did. In Europe USA did nothing against the Germans. They stood for the money and some equipment, that's all. They - as in WWI - waited too long to be a major factor on the ground.

When USA entered European soil it was to stop the communists. NOT to stop the Germans. They were already doomed. D-day was on the sixth of June -44. Around a year before it was all over, and a year and a half since the real turning point took place in Stalingrad.

No, the war in Europe was won by the Russians. Yes, they got a lot of aid - and needed it. Without the aid, and the resistance of the Brits, they wouldn't have hold out. But without the russians, the germans probably would have won. The ones saying that the US won the war (in Europe)... Just have read too much of the history that gets written afterwards.

As for the way the world looks now, I think most people can figure THAT out. The countries that weren't bombed won out.

USA got a gigantic lift from the war, putting it's industries to the test, gearing up production - and selling tons of stuff! And after the war there were serious need of rebuilding! Between the capacity created, the need that had arisen (and the stuff/knowledge stolen/acheived) they surged ahead.

Same for a number of other countries, Sweden amongst them. Those who had the industries still intact sat poised for success after the war.

When USA entered European soil it was to stop the communists. NOT to stop the Germans. They were already doomed. D-day was on the sixth of June -44. Around a year before it was all over, and a year and a half since the real turning point took place in Stalingrad.


Salerno or Sicily ring any bells? - the US landed on Axis-held European soil in '43.

As for the way the world looks now, I think most people can figure THAT out. The countries that weren't bombed won out.


Ah, this explains why Japan and Germany have absolutely lousy economies...

My loyalty goes to democracy and freedom and to a democratic Germany in Europe allied with the US.
But I won´t give unconditional support to anything. Not after this history. That is one lesson of history.
Fighting is not good. But if the cause is just and the defense of freedom is needed I would support action.
And that is what the US is doing. It eliminated the biggest threats of Europe: Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia.
And today it is going to eliminate the biggest threat of our time: Islamists terrorism and dictators who may transfer WMD to them which could be used for terrorists attacks. A dirty bomb could kill hundreds of thousands of people. I don´t see a difference between Osama bin Laden and Hitler. On the conterary, he may be even more dangerous since he can use everything. He doesn´t need to fear that his country may face a reprisel. Therefore this war is much more dangerous than the Cold War.
And regimes in the Middle East have to make a choice. Either they are with the US or with the terrorists. Iraq was a warning shot. Iran has to make its choice now. It seems that they are heading in the wrong direction - continuing their nuclear program. So what? Talking, talking, talking. The EU is a paper tiger but not a viable power. That is only the US. It is only the US which can stop the development to a nuclear Iran. If force should become necessary for that I would support it, for the sake of the stability, security and the freedom of the world.

When the Islamic World invades Poland and declares racial superiority then I'll agree with you.

Can someone lock this thread now that it's been decided that Refused Party Program did the best job in WWII?

Ist nicht meine schuld das dein Englisch so scheisse ist. :rolleyes:

es tut mir leid. aber, du bist dumm.

When the Islamic World invades Poland and declares racial superiority then I'll agree with you.
Probably action should be taken before that happends - or rather an attempt to invade Israel happends. Poland is not in that frontline today. Though we are all threatened by terrorism. Tel Aviv, Istanbul, Madrid, New York, Moscow. There is no security from terrorism. The threat is real. And there is also a threat of bio-terrorism or (possibly) even nuclear terrorism. That is dangerous enough to kill possibly hundreds of thousands of people.
Saudi-Arabia is getting more and more destable and Iran is launching a nuclear program and has rockets that could reach Central Europe. Iran supports terrorists organisations just as Hizbullah who aim to destroy the state of Israel.
The threat is growing. Probably it should not be waited up until they grow that strong to really invade other countries and before they could even more threaten the security of Europe, the US and the world.

I've said this before here and I'll probably have to say it again: sometimes your best friend is the one that will stand up and say "You look fucking awful in that shirt", rather than the sycophant that say "You look gorgeous" when you clearly don't...
The behaviour of France served other purposes. They want to play the anti-US card in order to get applause in developing countries and the Arab world, especially in its former colonies (like Algeria). In Germany it was rather done by the government to secure its reelection.
And France was smart enough in the 1960s to abstain in respect to a Vietnam resolution. Germany diplomaticly supported the action and never publicly criticized it.
It wouldn´t have made a difference anyway.
Therefore the behaviour this time - to go into diplomatic confrontatin with the US - can´t be explained by that. Disagreeing is one thing but forming alliances with Russia and China to get a diplomatic defeat against an ally is another thing. And that has caused the rift. It would have been better if the French and German governments had just shut up.

i don't believe you can rank the nations in order of fighting ability. The situations and opportunities were so different for all of them.

Russia suffered the most with 25 million dead.That has to be the biggest sacrifice of the war and turned the war around by holding the Germans up at Stalingrad.

Britain held out alone for over a year and was the only power to consistently oppose and fight the Germans across the whole war. Also played invaluable role in africa and normandy.

The USA although joining later still made a massive impact, especially in the pacific and normandy and helped britain and russia economically and technologically.

Resistance movements in France, holland etc were also invaluable in terms of intelligence and sabotage.

Australia and Canadaian troops were instrumental in the pacific (australia) and normandy (canada) as well as free polish (italy)


It's good to finally read something relevant. Until your post, I didn't see any post talking about the french army. Did any of you guys know that they were fighting in africa and have beaten the germans there, and that there was another disembarquement in south of france, which involved french soldiers aswell. But most of all, the operation in Normandie would never have worked without the countless sabotage that had taken place in france during the very first days of june 1944. The communications were cut, bridges were all destroyed, etc... I'm not taking anything from the courage of the soldiers who stepped foot in normandie and Toulon, but do not take anything from the others aswell.

This was the victory of all of us over a very powerful madman, therefore I do not think there is any single general that can stand up to be claimed the best, they all did their best and worked all together, which is what is most important.

The behaviour of France served other purposes. They want to play the anti-US card in order to get applause in developing countries and the Arab world, especially in its former colonies (like Algeria). In Germany it was rather done by the government to secure its reelection.
And France was smart enough in the 1960s to abstain in respect to a Vietnam resolution. Germany diplomaticly supported the action and never publicly criticized it.
It wouldn´t have made a difference anyway.
Therefore the behaviour this time - to go into diplomatic confrontatin with the US - can´t be explained by that. Disagreeing is one thing but forming alliances with Russia and China to get a diplomatic defeat against an ally is another thing. And that has caused the rift. It would have been better if the French and German governments had just shut up.

It would have been better if that twat of GWB had shut his mouth.

In either case, Italy was the worst fighting nation.
Even Belgians defeated them in Ethiopia.

Same with "the war effort". Who did what and why? Thanks to our lovely Hollywood we all know how our glorious americans saved us all. They won d-day (THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF WWII!!!!"#!"!"!!!!) and they won the battle of Pearl Harbor (THE MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF WWII!!!!)...

And that's that.

Or is it? In my opinion those two battles are two of the more insignificant of the whole war. At least D-day was. Only reason we hear so much about them is that they are the primary US-fought ones. You have some others as well, like Midway and some other pacific ones, but they are somehow not as glorious. No, better to see Matt Dameon win the battle of Pearl Harbor, or see Tom Hanks in D-day action.

In my opinion it was Russian blood that won the WWII - in Europe. In the Pacific it was the US that pulled the load - that's fairly easy to see. Although, the Germans posed a far greater threat than the Empire of Japan did. In Europe USA did nothing against the Germans. They stood for the money and some equipment, that's all. They - as in WWI - waited too long to be a major factor on the ground.

When USA entered European soil it was to stop the communists. NOT to stop the Germans. They were already doomed. D-day was on the sixth of June -44. Around a year before it was all over, and a year and a half since the real turning point took place in Stalingrad.

No, the war in Europe was won by the Russians. Yes, they got a lot of aid - and needed it. Without the aid, and the resistance of the Brits, they wouldn't have hold out. But without the russians, the germans probably would have won. The ones saying that the US won the war (in Europe)... Just have read too much of the history that gets written afterwards.

I have a couple of issues with this post, and for the sake of space I've omitted the parts that I'm not adressing.

In the first place, I've never seen a Pearl Harbor movie in which the US was depicted as the winner of that battle. We got our butts handed to us, plain and simple. Surprise attacks do tend to turn out that way. (By the way Matt Damon has never been in a Pearl Harbor movie to my knowledge. Maybe you refer to Ben Afflek?)

D-Day was significant far above what you seem to be pointing out, if for no other reason than morale and to take the pressure off of the Eastern front. Not to take anything away from the Soviets, but had it not been for the invasion at Normandy, Germany would probably have had the resources to launch another offensive into the USSR. The courageous Soviet troops were already battle weary and low on supply and I doubt they could have repelled another attack. Germany had failed at the Siege of Stalingrad due to poor planning and preparation, not due to Soviet strength.

I agree that the Soviet contribution was huge, but let's not lose our perspective. They started the war as an Ally of Nazi Germany. Say what you want about how they won the most significant battles, but don't forget to include the ones where they conquered the Baltic states.

Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying the night the USA entered the war was the best nights' sleep he'd gotten in years. Why didn't he say that when Operation Barbarossa began?

es tut mir leid. aber, du bist dumm.


No, he is right, it is the other guy that worships and prays to the mini statue of Bush in his room that is stupid (Kybernetia), and still refuses to move to his masters in the US.

...seen anyone put the USA as the best because they fought a 2 front war. All other country faught a 1 front war this one fact puts USA as #1 fighter in the war even though they entered late in the conflict...

What are you talking about? In 1940-1942 the British stood practically alone against all three axis powers, with only the soviets for company. They effectively fought a 3-front war, fighting off german attacks on Great Britain and defending the atlantic convoys, keeping the italian navy contained in the mediterranean and fighting Rommel in north africa, and defending the asian and pacific colonies from the japanese. Not that they did the latter particularly well (*cough* singapore *cough*), they were certainly one of the most active participants in the war.

Germany was still the best in terms of fighting ability. German tactics and equipment were generally superior to anything the allies had. They just bit off more than they could chew.

Having said that, though, the sheer ferocity and psychotic dedication of the japanese shouldn't be overlooked. The way the US had to practically burn entire islands to ashes to root out every last stubbornly resisting jap... No wonder they resorted to nukes.

USA technological supremacy? have you looked at a history book? The USA's tech was by far inferior to pretty much everyone elses. As someone else has already said, 1 german tank could EASILY take out several American ones. I believe the American troops called thier tanks 'matchboxes' as in 1 strike and they go up in flames. The German guns wiped the floor with American ones, aside, perhaps from the rather delish M1 rifle, and Russian and German tanks pissed on the American ones, and the RAF planes (and pilots - British AND Internationals) could have blown the shit out of the USAAF, and whats more you know it.

Well, that's kind of true. In a way. Sort of. First of all, yes the Sherman's were less than impressive against the Tigers. However, one fact is clear -- four Shermans could be built for the price of a Tiger. Moreover, it took less time to produce those four Shermans. In that regard, the U.S. simply overwhelmed the Tigers in sheer numbes.

As for airplanes, come on. You didn't get much better than the Mustang and the P-40s back then.

I would just like to say that WW2 was fought hard by all nations.

I would also like to give my opinion on The USA.
I like the USA, always will and always have been, as i have many American friends, i'd say about 20+ and me being british obviously.

I would like to say that cocky Americans who say 'We saved your butt's in WW2' Are total bullcrap and don't know what they are talking about.

In WW2 Russia was the key fact of victory....... The Americans compared? Did nothing..... Yeah so what they sent people over and fought too, which is all well and good, but at the end of the day they couldn't give a damn about Europe... Or Britain for that fact.

Before i say my main part i would like to say that..... Obviously, FDR Despised Communists... America Sat back in their country and watched as the powers of europe slaughtered each other. but one thing that stands out is that they liked watching Russia being destroyed....... Communists obviously.

The Only reason America joined the war in WW2 was because Russia started their major push back, and America quickly realised this and decided to join the war becuase of this. If Russia was taken over, they would of left Britain to it and just kept Lend-Lease going.

Like i said, Russia started fighting back and america quickly realised this.. So they decided to join the war in Europe, to make it look like they 'saved the day' and were the only glimmer of hope and chance that Russia and Britain had to beat Nazi Germany. I think this big headedness is dispicable.. To sit back and let countless millions be killed, just because of country is Communist is disguisting, and it's true, that is what they did. By doing this, and coming in at the right time it made a 'True Democratic Nation' become the weight to tip the balance.

In my Opinion, Britain and Russia could of won the war over Nazi Germany without the help of America. The Royal Navy was beating the Germans Navy quite easily and the Russians were kicking the germans ass back from Stalingrad. had the Americans not come in, we would of won still won, and the recent win by the British over Rommel in North Africa meant that the British and Russians had a heavy flow of oil, and thousands of tanks to put it into.

I'm not disputing the fact that America helped, because when they did they gave lots of men. but at the end of the day, Britain and Russia were on the verge of pushing back, and the American Insolence, to just say, We'll take it from here is So Infuriating.....

America was NOT a great country in 1930-1945.... FACT

The Great Depression made the USA about as economically powerful as Luxembourg. They were just an overseas Russia by then.... Americans should be lucky there were countries like Russia and the UK back then, because if it wasn't for them, the USA would not be a superpower today, We gave so much money to the USA for guns etc because of our war effort, and the USA was getting rich while the UK and Russia were becoming poor.

Today...... If World War 2 had not happened...... America would certainly not be a Superpower, as it is what made them they are today, and i'm wondering that if the UK and Russia could of peacefully co-existed unlike the 'Patriotic' Americans could of, as in my opinion, if there were no WW2....... the UK and Russia would of no doubtedly be SuperPowers today.

but anyway...... I just think that America quite frankly were not needed in WW2, and that their generals were probably over exagerrated to make them look better, after all they are american :)

Best General of WW2? Maybe Rommal or Montgomery......... but Definatly Montgomery out of the two, as he smacked Rommel down like the Nazi Thug he was.

Kirov............

By the way, this thread is amusing as can be. Why? Some folks seem to have lost sight of one, simple fact -- it was the Allies who beat Germany. I think we can all agree that the involvement in the U.S., the resolve of the British and the determination of the Russions all contributed to the defeat of Germany. Had any of those nations not have made their various contributions to the war effort, things would have turned out differently, huh?

Debating over who did the most in WWII seems, well, a bit petty.

Well, that's kind of true. In a way. Sort of. First of all, yes the Sherman's were less than impressive against the Tigers. However, one fact is clear -- four Shermans could be built for the price of a Tiger. Moreover, it took less time to produce those four Shermans. In that regard, the U.S. simply overwhelmed the Tigers in sheer numbes.

As for airplanes, come on. You didn't get much better than the Mustang and the P-40s back then.

I'm sorry but the P-40 Warhawk as an outdated and inferior plane by the outbreak of WWII. They were used by the Flying Tigers with distinction, but were only issued to them because they were old and obsolete. The P-51 Mustang was arguably the best fighter of the time, but it was designed specifically to replace the aging Warhawks.

The Only reason America joined the war in WW2 was because Russia started their major push back, and America quickly realised this and decided to join the war becuase of this. If Russia was taken over, they would of left Britain to it and just kept Lend-Lease going.


Have you ever heard of a little Navy Base called Pearl Harbor? It was atacked by the Japanese on 7 December 1941. The next day the Congress of the United States declared war on Japan. (NOT the Axis in general) Immediately after, Germany declared war on the United States.


In my Opinion, Britain and Russia could of won the war over Nazi Germany without the help of America. The Royal Navy was beating the Germans Navy quite easily and the Russians were kicking the germans ass back from Stalingrad. had the Americans not come in, we would of won still won, and the recent win by the British over Rommel in North Africa meant that the British and Russians had a heavy flow of oil, and thousands of tanks to put it into.
Then why didn't they do so sooner, when they were stronger? Why did they wait until the USA 8th Air Force had joined the Battle of Britain for 2 YEARS prior to the Normandy Invasion, and why was it primarily US trops fighting their way through Italy?


I'm not disputing the fact that America helped, because when they did they gave lots of men. but at the end of the day, Britain and Russia were on the verge of pushing back, and the American Insolence, to just say, We'll take it from here is So Infuriating.....
lots of men...

No tanks, aircraft, weapons, military leadership, etc...


America was NOT a great country in 1930-1945.... FACT

True, though I'd adjust that range to 1930-1941.

but anyway...... I just think that America quite frankly were not needed in WW2, and that their generals were probably over exagerrated to make them look better, after all they are american :)


Why was Eisenhower placed in command of the Allied forces in Europe? (Except the Soviet forces, of course) Don't say it was a concession to get the USA to come help... you just said we weren't needed.


Best General of WW2? Maybe Rommal or Montgomery......... but Definatly Montgomery out of the two, as he smacked Rommel down like the Nazi Thug he was.
Montgomery was as arrogant and overcautious as Patton was crass and bombastic. Rommel was the superior strategist. The only reason Rommel saw fewer victories than his skills would have permitted was that Hitler constantly undermined him and kept him under a tight leash.

I'm sorry but the P-40 Warhawk as an outdated and inferior plane by the outbreak of WWII. They were used by the Flying Tigers with distinction, but were only issued to them because they were old and obsolete. The P-51 Mustang was arguably the best fighter of the time, but it was designed specifically to replace the aging Warhawks.

God save us from typos. I meant P-47 -- the Thunderbolt.

My problem is merely Freudian -- I'm fascinated with the history of the Flying Tigers prior to WWII. They were outclassed in their obsolete P-40s (they could outdive a Zero, and that was about it), but held their own, regardless. Besides, the paint scheme used by the Tigers on the P-40s was cool as all get-out.

While on the topic of American aircraft in WWII, you can't say enough good things about the Corsair, either.

but anyway...... I just think that America quite frankly were not needed in WW2, and that their generals were probably over exagerrated to make them look better, after all they are american :)

Whatever public school system educated you failed miserably. Hire an attorney. Sue the hell out of them. Hey, there's nothing wrong with praising the exploits of Russian and Britain in WWII, but claiming the U.S. wasn't necessary is just ridiculous.

Like it or not, it took the commitment of all the Allies to whip Germany. Live with it.

It's good to finally read something relevant. Until your post, I didn't see any post talking about the french army.

That's because the French Army was all but irrelevant. The French Resistance was awesome, and definately deserve all the credit they can get, and next to them the Army itself deserves only scorn. The bulk of it surrendered as soon as Germany swung around the Maginot Line. The soldiers in the Line fought bravely, but received no support from their fellows behind them. The Maginot Line was used more effectively by Germans againt the British, Canadians and Americans 5 years later.

All of which blows my mind that DuGaulle could still be so arrogant in his dealings with the Allies.

God save us from typos. I meant P-47 -- the Thunderbolt.

My problem is merely Freudian -- I'm fascinated with the history of the Flying Tigers prior to WWII. They were outclassed in their obsolete P-40s (they could outdive a Zero, and that was about it), but held their own, regardless. Besides, the paint scheme used by the Tigers on the P-40s was cool as all get-out.

While on the topic of American aircraft in WWII, you can't say enough good things about the Corsair, either.

Agreed, the 'Tigers really did outstanding work against the vastly superior Zeros. It's a sad shame that I would be willing to bet there's nothing about the 'Tigers in any Chinese history books nowadays... :headbang:

Agreed, the 'Tigers really did outstanding work against the vastly superior Zeros. It's a sad shame that I would be willing to bet there's nothing about the 'Tigers in any Chinese history books nowadays... :headbang:

Heh. How much do you want to bet any such history was purged either immediately after the Communists took over or during one of the early Cultural Revolutions?

Oh, that wacky Mao Tse Tung!

Heh. How much do you want to bet any such history was purged either immediately after the Communists took over or during one of the early Cultural Revolutions?

Oh, that wacky Mao Tse Tung!

Exactly. The evils of Historical Revisionism, among my favorite lessons from reading 1984 by George Orwell.

How so? This from an encyclopedia entry on Market-Garden:
"In Nijmegen the [British] boats still hadn't arrived during the night, so the troops continued to wait. They didn't arrive until the afternoon, but time was so short they [the Americans] decided to do the crossing in daylight. In what is generally considered to be one of the bravest actions in military history, they made the crossing in 26 rowboats into well defended positions. They took the banks and pressed to the bridge, which caused the Germans to pull back from their positions on the southern side. That freed the Guards Armored, who rushed across the bridge and met the airborne troops. Nijmegen bridge was now in Allied hands after four long days.".

Why do you say that as if you disagree. As far as I can see this paragraph clearly demonstrates exactly that they were incapable of fullfilling their objective with the equipment at hand. Their objective was to secure the bridge before XXX corp arrived so there would be no delay. Otherwise they might as well have been riding in the column.
Instead they had to wait for boats to arrive costing dearly. It is a popular belief that the bridge was solely secured by 504th AB Reg., but that is not true. 3rd Bat. took the far side while British grenadiers stormed the bridge.
That does NOT belittle the tremendous heroism of the 3rd Bat. A strongpoint like such a bridge is practically impossible to capture if you cannot cut the enemy off. Especially when you have a timetable.

A factual error. The Nijmegen bridge was never destroyed. The blown bridge was at Son, over the Wilhemina Canal. The canal was crossed by building a Bailey bridge over it, and the delay was no fault of the Americans, since airborne units don't jump with bridging equipment! Also, the planning was done by Montgomery, and the American units had all of a week (!) to integrate their unit plans into Monty's "brilliant" operation.

Read the next messages my friend. I made an ambiguous statement that both you and Von Witzleben misinterpreted. For that I am naturally quite sorry and offer my pardons.
I said.. well meant that a bridge was blown (Son) AND they failed to secure Nijmegen (before XXX corp needed to go over it).
They had to pass three major waterways (Meuse, Waal and the Rhine) and two minor (Wilhemina channel and Waal-Maas channel). Of these two offered two passways within the operational area - the Rhine and the Waal-Maas channel. The railbridge in Arnhem (which was significantly closer to the allied drop zone) was destroyed rather quickly (on the first day) and they had to try and capture the main bridge. The Waal-Maas bridges were both secured at some point, but was continous contested by the Germans. I believe the northern one was used.
Luckily the Son bridge is on the Wilhemina channel making it (relatively) easy to replace with a portable bridge. The Meuse bridge in Grave was taken according to schedule (even ahead of schedule if I am not mistaken). That in itself saved thousands of lives. Meuse is too big and have too much current for a Bailey bridge.
Same goes for the Rhine. The 1st Airbourne actually held a pretty large chunk of the far bank under the assumption that a bridge could be made. However it is simply not possible.

Monty's brilliant plan was based on errors that propagated downwards. The airbourne troops were battle ready as they had prepared contiously for operations that later became obsolete. They got poor briefings because Monty got poor briefings.
It is never wise to device a plan without a contingency plan. One can only hope that Patton, Hodges or Simpson would have insisted on more accurate intelligence if they had been on the northern front. I am pretty damn sure that Patton would have insisted on a very similar strategy given the intelligence reports from the first weeks of September. However I also feel that Patton may have realised that it was "a bridge too far" without seeing it carved in human flesh and deviced a more consistent course of action.

Another factual error. The Germans made no significant armored thrust through The Netherlands in 1940. The main armored thrust came through the Ardennes forest into France and drove toward the Channel ports.

Hhmmm. It is my impression that the initial attack was made through the low countries to deplete the Maginot line of it's defenses. I know that 1st Panzer Division pushed through the Ardennes, but I thought that the thrust through Benelux was assisted by panzertruppen as well.
How did they manage to punch through so rapidly then? Just out of curiosity. I don't have the OoB at hand so I cannot contest what you are saying.
The Germans also went through the low countries in the WWI. They were closer to Paris than many realise before the offensive ground to a 4 year standstill.

It is and was not my wish to belittle the sacrifice the American airbourne troops suffered nor to contest their ability to fight. I was merely trying to point out that occationally an operation fails because the troops are given objectives that are beyond want they can be expected to fullfill.
I am well aware that 101st and 82nd were among the best troops of the entire war. But they were only men. Moreover they were only men with a few jeeps, mortars and handarms.

[EDIT: Tried to eliminate a few typos.]

Hhmmm. It is my impression that the initial attack was made through the low countries to deplete the Maginot line of it's defenses. I know that 1st Panzer Division pushed through the Ardennes, but I thought that the thrust through Benelux was assisted by panzertruppen as well.
How did they manage to punch through so rapidly then? Just out of curiosity. I don't have the OoB at hand so I cannot contest what you are saying.
The Germans also went through the low countries in the WWI. They were closer to Paris than many realise before the offensive ground to a 4 year standstill.

There were tanks involved in the Netherlands. On the first day already tanks from Army group B reached the IJsselmeer lines. On may 12 tank groups crossed the river Waal near Dordrecht and went on north towards the Fortress Holland. Where they managed to isolate the Dutch troops.

In WW2 Russia was the key fact of victory....... The Americans compared? Did nothing..... Yeah so what they sent people over and fought too, which is all well and good, but at the end of the day they couldn't give a damn about Europe... Or Britain for that fact.

So all the aid given in Lend Lease (Which I have already posted in this thread I believe, if not, I'll gladly do so again) meant nothing to the Soviets? So the high-grade steel that made their tanks, they could've gone without it, over half their aviation fuel? How about 3/4 of their transportation needs (trucks), even with these they outran their supply lines and had to wait months for logisitics to catch up. Or how about explosives, the stuff needed for artillery, ammunition, etc.?

Before i say my main part i would like to say that..... Obviously, FDR Despised Communists... America Sat back in their country and watched as the powers of europe slaughtered each other. but one thing that stands out is that they liked watching Russia being destroyed....... Communists obviously.

....that explains the Lend Lease being extended to the Soviets I suppose then.

The Only reason America joined the war in WW2 was because Russia started their major push back, and America quickly realised this and decided to join the war becuase of this. If Russia was taken over, they would of left Britain to it and just kept Lend-Lease going.

......Funny, I thought a surprise attack on the Pacific Fleet then Hitler's Decleration of War did that. And America joined the war on December 7th (10th for Europe), this was before the Soviet counterattack outside Moscow (that blunted Typhoon), the Soviets were on the brink of collapse at the time. Stalingrad was over a year later, December 1941 had the Germans within spitting distance of Moscow, closing in on Sevestapol and Rostov, and encircling Leningrad, and of course, all the massive encirclements since June, Kiev, Smolensk, etc. So exactly how were the Soviets "fighting back"?

Like i said, Russia started fighting back and america quickly realised this.. So they decided to join the war in Europe, to make it look like they 'saved the day' and were the only glimmer of hope and chance that Russia and Britain had to beat Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around. And as I said, the Soviets were at the nadir of their fortunes in 1941.

I think this big headedness is dispicable.. To sit back and let countless millions be killed, just because of country is Communist is disguisting, and it's true, that is what they did. By doing this, and coming in at the right time it made a 'True Democratic Nation' become the weight to tip the balance.

How does that explain why the US didn't join the war before the Nazi's attacked the Soviets. It had nothing to do with the Soviets being communist, there was simply a huge isolationist (or at least, non-interventionist) movement in the US, "not our problem". And that would completely fail to explain why the US sent so much to the Soviets in 1941 (chief among them, a huge chunk of the over 15 million felt winter boots sent to the Soviets).

In my Opinion, Britain and Russia could of won the war over Nazi Germany without the help of America. The Royal Navy was beating the Germans Navy

B-Dienst was far ahead of Bletchley at this time, and British shipbuilding capacity was far lower than American. Without America, Britain is going to lose to Battle for the Atlantic within 2 years, the Liberator will never close the 'Air Gap', and merchant losses will not be replaced quickly enough, not to mention their will be no Escort Carriers, or Support Groups formed. The Battle didn't even turn in favor of the Allies until 1943..

quite easily and the Russians were kicking the germans ass back from Stalingrad.

??? The Germans hadn't even reached the Don yet, Stalingrad happened in 1942-43, this is 1941. Which just continues to show the Soviets were still taking quite beating in 1942.

had the Americans not come in, we would of won still won, and the recent win by the British over Rommel in North Africa meant that the British and Russians had a heavy flow of oil, and thousands of tanks to put it into.

The British had not recently won, they had just recently been beaten back across Cyrenica, and within days Tobruk would fall, one of Britains greatest humiliations.

British tanks were always subpar, they relied on American tanks (Like the Grant, and later Sherman) towards the end of the war, and preferred them in the beginning. And Monty's El Alamein victory would not have been as easywithout those 400 Shermans and self-propelled guns Roosevelt sent the British after Tobruk.

I'm not disputing the fact that America helped, because when they did they gave lots of men. but at the end of the day, Britain and Russia were on the verge of pushing back, and the American Insolence, to just say, We'll take it from here is So Infuriating.....

America contributed a hell of a lot more material than men (31 billion in Lend Lease to Britain, 11 billion to the Soviets). Britain and Russia were not on the verge of pushing back, Britain was barely holding on to it's periphereal front strategy, and Russia was on the verge of collapse.

America was NOT a great country in 1930-1945.... FACT

49% of the World GDP (That's every nation combined) is not a great country? Name one country that even came close to the US Industrial Capacity in WWII, even to Soviets lag almost half behind.

The Great Depression made the USA about as economically powerful as Luxembourg. They were just an overseas Russia by then.... Americans should be lucky there were countries like Russia and the UK back then, because if it wasn't for them, the USA would not be a superpower today,

The Great Depression did that to every country, it's not like it was exclusively the US, and industry did not totally collapse in the US, it remained the dominant economy from 1918-onwards.

We gave so much money to the USA for guns etc because of our war effort, and the USA was getting rich while the UK and Russia were becoming poor.

That was mostly Britain, Russia did not become poor from World War 2.

Today...... If World War 2 had not happened...... America would certainly not be a Superpower, as it is what made them they are today, and i'm wondering that if the UK and Russia could of peacefully co-existed unlike the 'Patriotic' Americans could of, as in my opinion, if there were no WW2....... the UK and Russia would of no doubtedly be SuperPowers today.

I fail to see how, Britain had already been consigned to crumble after the First World War, the Second just sped it up. Russia could have lost without the US, and had it won, it would probably have still collapsed, US Pressure wasn't always the deciding factor in the Soviet collapse.

but anyway...... I just think that America quite frankly were not needed in WW2, and that their generals were probably over exagerrated to make them look better, after all they are american :)

Then you clearly show no understanding of the war.

Best General of WW2? Maybe Rommal or Montgomery......... but Definatly Montgomery out of the two, as he smacked Rommel down like the Nazi Thug he was.

Rommel was a great divisional commander, but a subpar commander at anything above that. He favored abandoning Southern Italy (in fact, the Winter Line proved remarkably successful) and made demands on the crippled French railway network that simply could not be met. Not to mention his misunderstanding of the supply situation in almost any theatre.

And Montgomery, he was not the best commander by far, he was good, but not the best. Manstein was better by far, Guderian, Kesselring, Macarthur probably, Zhukov, Rokkosovsky, and Kalinin maybe.

Kirov............

Wasn't alive for the war.

Best General of WW2? Maybe Rommal or Montgomery......... but Definatly Montgomery out of the two, as he smacked Rommel down like the Nazi Thug he was.
:rolleyes: Idiot.

Which nation do you think was the best fighting nation of WWII? And just to add on to this, who do you think was the best General? Which do you think was most efficient, who do you think did the most for final victory in Europe and the Pacific?

Respond all you want.
the best fighting nation in WWII was germany. adolf hitler knew how too run a country. he gave the people exactly what they wanted, and in return, they gave him what he wanted, total domination over the jews

the best fighting nation in WWII was germany. adolf hitler knew how too run a country. he gave the people exactly what they wanted, and in return, they gave him what he wanted, total domination over the jews

It's not funny. You may think it is funny, but it is not.
Not all Germans wanted nazism or extermination of the Jews. A common mistake. The nazi's never won an election in Germany. Highest ratio of voters was in the neighbourhood of 30% (Frightening in itself. Mostly the so-called Flip-Proletaren. Translates roughly into Middleclass Trash). They used blatant force and railroaded the election to gain the Kansler seat. After that it was pretty much a totalitarian dictatorship build on oppressive force from the infamous SA. The common German soldier was doing what every soldier is doing - he believed he was defending his country and his rights.
This doesn't give the common German a clean slate, but it does put it a bit into perspective. The Jewish shop next door is vandalized and they are dragged off. You don't like it, but if you say something you are beat up. You never see them again and shrug and move on thinking they are in a working camp or expelled from Germany or something.
Hitler effectively lost the war. Had he not made serious SERIOUS blunders such as Stalingrad and Kursk the Germans could perhaps have drawn back to a defensible line and held it long enough for the Russians to make seperate peace. However he did not. He wasted months and months of precious tank production on a day and a good chunk of his best troops for absolutely nothing. Some claim he was intelligent (though I don't know what they base that on), but I tell you this - he was not very smart.
If you really think millions of German soldiers gave their life so Hitler could kill Jews you really need to read a some more books and meet some new people.
However you must be joking. It's just not funny.

To everyone else. It was trollbait. I took it. Sorry.

Best General of WW2? Maybe Rommal or Montgomery......... but Definatly Montgomery out of the two, as he smacked Rommel down like the Nazi Thug he was.

Klang!

Rommel was never a member of the Nazi party and was in fact outspoken in his dislike of the regime, arguing that Hitler should be removed from power by force.

adolf hitler knew how too run a country.

If undertaking actions which lead to the occupation of that country by foreign powers constitutes knowing how to run a country, then yes, he knew how to run a country.

Klang!

Rommel was never a member of the Nazi party and was in fact outspoken in his dislike of the regime, arguing that Hitler should be removed from power by force.

Yes I also find that remark out of place. How did Rommel die? On the battlefield? Nay. He was on his way to be executed for high treason when he opt'ed to take his life and save his wife and family of the embaressment. His crime - masterminding an attempted assasination on Hitler. (Rommels wifes birthday is D-Day if I am not mistaken. He was on his way to celebrate it in Germany when the airbourne elements landed in Normandy on D-Day minus one).
There is a preserved interview between a British POW - a leutenant in the commandos - and Rommel. They talk about strategy and warfare in general. The interview (or shall we say interogation) ends with Rommel suggesting "Perhaps we could have fought with eachother instead of against eachother," to which the Brit replies: "I hardly think so with your treatment of the Jews." Rommel jumps up and yells: "That is politics. It has nothing to do with the life of a true soldier." It may not be correct word by word. Nevertheless he knew about the atrocities, but he utterly despised Hitler. Understandable. Seeing your soldiers perish because a man is mad.

Germany, I think, was the best fighting nation, with far superior tactics and equipment. If not for the pour strategical choices of Hitler himself, I think Germany would have won the war. When you have a paranoid megalomaniac running your armed forces you can't win ....

As to the best general ... I don't know ... Rommel and Montgomery come to mind.

*after wading through 33 pages of material*

Wow. Aside from a few posts about the "Jewry" trying to take us all over (I'm assuming via subliminal messaging in Woody Allen films), this is actually a pretty good thread. I thought a knew a lot about WWII, but even I've learned a great deal on this thread.

That being said, on to the questions:

Which was the most efficient army of the war?

Army: Depends if you mean on a relatively micro level or a macro level. On the (relatively) micro level, I'd have to say the Americans win, because at the end of the war, they had the best units in any individual category. Patton's 8th Army was better than any other unit in the War at Armored Cav tactics, the 81st and 101st were the best Airborne Units, the 1st and 8th Corps in the Pacific were the best beach-stormers and jungle warfare experts, etc.

That being said, on a macro level, while the Americans had the best individual units, the Russians had millions of men who were almost as good as the very best America had to offer. They didn't have the best go of it early in the war (while the purges have been mentioned, what has not been mentioned is the fact that Stalin insisted on putting most of his units, including his best, within a few miles of the front instead of a hundred miles back like Zhukov asked. As a result, most of the Russian Army was surrounded before it even knew what was happening), but as a result of their meatgrinder-academy method of training (send 100 men into a battle, keep ahold of the 4 elites who survive, and combine them with the other elites that survive other battles, until you have 1 giant elite army), they had as a whole the most efficient and dangerous army at the end of the war. There is a reason why the U.S. invested heavily in suicidally wacky weaponry like the Davy Crockett in the '50's, and the quality of the Red Army was it.

Air Force: While the RAF comes close, I have to give it to the Americans on this one. The Americans consistently took the most dangerous assignments, and they tended to do very, very well with them. All those people who like to talk about how the U.S. didn't do anything in the war are apparently forgetting that it was the American bombing campaign that did the lion's share of the work in reducing German industry to it's component atoms. Brits did some of the work, but they did it in the form of largely inefficient nighttime raids. It was the Americans who took the more effective, albeit more lethal, daytime attacks. Additionally, it was American fighters who proved the best at dealing with the Germans. The single best fighter unit of the war was the Tuskeegee Airmen: the only unit on either side never to lose a single bomber on an escort mission. Additionally, on the other side of the world you had people like Claire Chennault, who managed to single-handedly tie down a huge number of Jap air units and keep the Burma Road open, all while working with antiquated rustbuckets one step up from Buffalo Brewsters or early-model Yaks in terms of performance.

Navy: America, hands-down. All those Aussies who were talking about how good their units were in New Guinnea forget that it was the American Navy who kept the Japs from cutting Australia off altogether at Coral Sea and later in the Solomons, and they did it usually while outnumbered and outgunned. Those units in New Guinnea would have been overwhelmed had the force Lexington and Yorktown stopped ever landed at Port Moresby. While the Americans had their fair share of flubs throughout the war (early on: Pearl Harbor, Java Sea, Savo Island, later on: Halsey's idiocy at Leyte), overall, the American Navy did a masterful job at taking out the IJN, and they did it with only token Dutch and British support.

Who was the best commander?

Army: Guderian was the best strategist, Patton the best executor of that strategy. A close second would be Zhukov.

Air: Curtis LeMay's influence cannot be underestimated.

Navy: Chester Nimitz was an outstanding strategist, and Fletcher and Spruance consistently proved themselves more than capable of executing it.

england under churchill

I said it once and I'll say it again, the allies did the best job, no one country could of won the war alone. It was the sum of all it's parts. The allies did the best job!

england under churchill

Specifically England, as opposed to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the UK?

I said it once and I'll say it again, the allies did the best job, no one country could of won the war alone. It was the sum of all it's parts. The allies did the best job!

Ah, so the contribution that the Dominican Republic, for example, made as one of the Allies was a vital part of the victory then? Certain countries which were on the Allied side were irrelevant to the final outcome.

European theater I'd have to say the Russians. Not the best tactics, but they were able to hold off the Germans for a good while, and prevented Hitler from taking his East Front troops and redeploy a majority of them to the West.

Ah, so the contribution that the Dominican Republic, for example, made as one of the Allies was a vital part of the victory then? Certain countries which were on the Allied side were irrelevant to the final outcome.

Every single person who fought and many that gave their lives are all to be treated on equal footing. This thread is nothing more then a pissing contest and it's an insult to any one who fought and died for the war effort and is not even mentioned. That's how I feel about and I suspect if you asked a WWII vet that is how they would feel about it too. Every one did what they could.

Every single person who fought and many that gave their lives are all to be treated on equal footing.

Does this include those who fought on the Axis side? Even those that supported the racial supremacy theories of the Japanese and the Nazi Party? Even the war criminals on both sides?

You make the statement that all those who 'fought' are to be treated equally, and thus it seems you do agree that the contribution of some countires, such as the Dominican Republic or Cuba, neither of whom sent troops made a contribution which is to be sonehow judged differently from those that did.

This thread is nothing more then a pissing contest and it's an insult to any one who fought and died for the war effort and is not even mentioned.

I view it differently, as there have been many posters who have put forward nations other than their own as candidates for the most efficient: note how many have advocated Germany or the USSR as the most efficient nation - not all of these people are doing so out of a misplaced sense of national pride.


That's how I feel about and I suspect if you asked a WWII vet that is how they would feel about it too.

Possibly, but I doubt there would be a unanimous agreement as to reaction from WWII vets, so I don't really think it is safe to make that assumption for them.

Every one did what they could.

Patently untrue. While one of my grandfathers was a POW and working on the Burma railroad under Japanese guard after having been part of the doomed defense of Singapore, my other grandfather was nipping back and forth over the border to the Republic of Ireland and participating in small time smuggling into Northern Ireland - his major contribution to the war effort was letting an officer be stationed in his house for a couple of months. Not all those involved in the war contributed equally or to the best of their abilites.

i reckon Germany was best fighting nation.
It took U.S.A, Britain and Soviet Union to destroy it along with heaps of other small countries. Also most historians agree that Hitler could have won the war if he hadn't stopped before reaching Moscow and left Stalingrad alone. Also if he hadn't invaded Russia during the winter he could have easily won out. Although im glad the Allies won Ireckon Germany was best fighting nation

Also if he hadn't invaded Russia during the winter he could have easily won out.

Well, technically, he didn't - Operation Barbarossa began in June, and the German troops were able to make very good headway until the onset of winter, but I know what you mean.

Hitler was distracted because his idiot cohort Mussolini created a mess he couldn't extract himself from when he staged a failed attack in the Balkans. Germany sent troops to assist and it delayed the invasion of the USSR by a critical six weeks.

If you want to talk about who did the best job, then the only way to quantify that is to say who faced the toughest assignments and won the largest proportion of them while inflicting maximum casualties on the enemy and receiving minimal casualties themselves.

The Russians are out because they suffered mass casualties... clearly they won by attrition and bullheadedness more than tactical superiority.

The British? They stormed the lighter-defended Juno and Sword beaches at Normandy. They won some victories in Africa and Italy but also suffered some very significant losses.

That leaves the Americans, who conquered the impossible odds at Omaha and Utah beaches, accomplished the legendary defense of Bastogne ("Nuts!"), followed by the tremendous accomplishment of Patton's army at the Battle of the Bulge... the battle which effectively ended German aggression and put them on the defensive for the rest of the war. Throw in all the decisive victories in the Pacific and it is no contest.

The best general would have to be Eisenhower. The war in the Pacific was decided more by brilliant naval tactics than by army tactics, so MacArthur is out of the running. Patton was great, but he was also a loon. The Russians don't have anybody, since they just ran the meat grinder. As for Montgomery... he orchestrated the debacle known as Operation Market Garden. Ike was the supreme commander for the planning of D-day and beyond. Plus, he was also able to keep that frothing loon Patton under control, no mean feat. Patton's amazing march to Bastogne was what won the day at the Bulge, but it was Ike's plan to press the attack afterwards that really broke the back of the German army.

Does this include those who fought on the Axis side?

Please don't try to twist what I'm saying. As you are a regular you know I'm a Canadian. Thus Canada being one of the countries that gave quite a lot to the war effort. However, just because my country did a lot more then many countries for the war effort that doesn't mean I don't highly respect the person from a small country who never gets any due respect for the part they played. The allies were just that. We were all fighting for our freedom. Although I do also respect the Germans who fought. The average joe blow who didn't know what the SS was doing and really had no choice but to follow their orders or be killed themselves. There are never really any winners in war. It just seems history will never get it right.

If you want to talk about who did the best job, then the only way to quantify that is to say who faced the toughest assignments and won the largest proportion of them while inflicting maximum casualties on the enemy and receiving minimal casualties themselves.

The Russians are out because they suffered mass casualties... clearly they won by attrition and bullheadedness more than tactical superiority.

Your assumption that receving minimal casualties is important is in error with respect to the Soviet Union. You have misunderstood something here: their policy of just soaking up the horrendous losses that were inflicted upon them was their tactical superiority. You are looking at it from a perspective which puts high value on those individual lives, which was not the case with the upper echelons of the USSR's command structures. It was the path which lead them to break the back of the German army and allowed them to reach Berlin before their 'allies'. Sometimes a scalpel is the appropriate tool for a job, sometimes it is a sledgehammer - the Soviet tactics were that hammer.

It just seems history will never get it right.
This is a little OT but what does that statement actually mean?

Please don't try to twist what I'm saying.

No, I wasn't trying to do that. Here we have seen that, for example, Rommel is respected by many, even though he was fighting on the losing side. As you go one to say you have respect for the common soldiers and non-political fighters who were lead by people with very uinpleasent ideologies - I feel the same, but it comes a point where you have to recognise that some of the soldiers were vicious anti-semites or believers in Japanese racial superiority, and it is here that difficult questions have to be asked: do we/can we still respect these people?


There are never really any winners in war. It just seems history will never get it right.

It should also be noted that I respect many of the conscientious objectors who refused to fight, even in the face of Nazism or the attrocities of the Japanese, as much as I respect those who did actually go off to fight... I think that is one of the interesting things about WWII (and this relates back to my difference of opinion with you as regards this thread as a pissing contest*) - even now sixty years or so after the fact it remains a morally challenging war which had no easy answers, and thus remains a rich source of discussion and interest, even if the focus has been on the actual fighting in this thread - for example can we actually criticise the tactics of the USSR and the 20 million deaths that they sustained, given that in the end they crushed Nazism?**






* What I really like is when a pissing contest collides with a flamewar and all that is left is a lot of fog and a really bad smell.


** leaving aside the issue that Stalinism is anathema as well.

This is a little OT but what does that statement actually mean?

I assume that it means that although the human race may continue to increase in technological and scientific learning, we seem to be making little progress in the ethical/moral field. Kant's dreams remain just that - dreams.

When you have a paranoid megalomaniac running your armed forces you can't win ....

Hey, don't knock it, it worked for the USSR.

I would really say that looking at World War II after all the Americans did the best job. We sometimes forget here in Europe that the war did also took place in the Pacific with Japan. That is causing an underestimation of the American contribution.
The United States defeated the two biggest threats for Europe. First Nazi Germany and later Soviet Russia.
And they were paving the way for a democratic West Germany and due to their efforts in the Cold War for an united and democratic Germany as it is today.

And in the pacific region they defeated imperialistic Japan and they contained Soviet imperialism (Korea). They were paving the way for a democratic Japan and South Korea.

Today I see two major threats: Islamic terrorism and - possibly (depending on its internal development) Communists China (with possibly links to North Korea).
I think and believe that the US will prevail also against those two threats and that at the end of the 21rst century the world is going to be a better place.

I would really say that looking at World War II after all the Americans did the best job. We sometimes forget here in Europe that the war did also took place in the Pacific with Japan. That is causing an underestimation of the American contribution.
The United States defeated the two biggest threats for Europe. First Nazi Germany and later Soviet Russia.
And they were paving the way for a democratic West Germany and due to their efforts in the Cold War for an united and democratic Germany as it is today.

And in the pacific region they defeated imperialistic Japan and they contained Soviet imperialism (Korea). They were paving the way for a democratic Japan and South Korea.

Today I see two major threats: Islamic terrorism and - possibly (depending on its internal development) Communists China (with possibly links to North Korea).
I think and believe that the US will prevail also against those two threats and that at the end of the 21rst century the world is going to be a better place.

Amen.

The US is the strongest nation in human history, hands down... and as such we have a responsibility to use that power in a way that benefits the world. I know I'm going to get flamed for saying this but that's fine. Just FYI I am from mixed international heritage and I love the countries my family comes from, but I am an American and intensely grateful that I have the honor of living in the United States.

I know we don't always get it right. Our history is not flawless. We are human beings led by human beings and sometimes we mess up. But I think that overall our history shows a nation that has been beneficial to the world, and will continue to be. World War II is one of the best examples of why we must be strong and vigilant, and time will tell how well we've learned this lesson. Our military might serves this purpose. Economically, we give aid to most of the world's nations (check it if you disagree) and we take a lot more guff from some of those very same nations than we deserve, but it's okay. We have a responsibility to share what we have and to help those who need it. WWII is an example of that as well, BTW.

I don't expect for people of other nations to kiss our butts or anything like that, but please, don't pretend that we were trivial in WWII or at any other time. The Continental United States was never really threatened, (And hadn't been invaded since England did it in the War of 1812) but we fought as hard as any nation and the blood of Americans stained the soil of Europe right next to our Allies.

What's my point? My point is that if I had to choose a nation that did the best job I choose the USA. Because:

The United Kingdom fought HARD and I tip my hat to them, but there was often a lack of organization and strength on the ground (Although the RAF are absolutely gods for their work in the Battle of Britain, and for air forces I give them the overall award)

Germany was excellent but poorly led by Herr Hitler

Italy... Nevermind

USSR started off as a buddy to the Axis and only saw the light after they were backstabbed by Herr Hitler

Japan attacked Pearl Harbor before they were ready to follow up. Big mistake.

I won't go into the list of reasons why the USA wins the award, simply because so many have already. The point, I believe, has been made.

Cheers