WORLD WAR II Question

[Rikk]

I just wanted to post this here because more people in this forum could/would answer it. I know this forum is usually for current politics, but hey...

Why did Hitler invade Russia after making a pact with them that included Poland? While I believe he would have lost in the end (the Americans), the war would have lasted a lot longer and the Americans would have had a lot less time and less troops for the Pacific effort. It just seems startling that Hitler could imagine he would ever have beaten the Russians...especially on Russian soil. It was probably the biggest mistake made by any of the powers during WW II.

[Atomic Dyver]

Hitler was politcal mind not a great military mind. Most of his failures were from not listening to his generals. Hitler based most of what he did on German volk (german folklore) which stated that germans were decendants of arians and they were to dominate "inferior" races. Russians were considered inferior and he believed that 1: he was luring them into a false sense of security and 2: that his german supermen would defeat them even against the Russian winter. What did favor germany was technology and war theory. At the time the blitzkrieg was a combination of speed and technology (for the time) His ignorance (and he was warned) did not take into account that weather conditions would negate supply lines and the speed and accuracy of the blitzkrieg.

This ignorance also cost him at Dunkirk (backing off the panzers and allowing the luftwaffe to attack) and not building long range 4 engine bombers.

However even if he did not make these mistakes our industrial might and tactics would have beat him in the end.

Absolute power induces absolute ignorance.

[Nickdfresh]

Attacking the USSR was Hitler's singular, overriding goal. He saw the defeat of Bolshevism as paving the way for the Third Reich and the "triumph of National Socialism" worldwide. He never had any intentions of keeping his pact, it was just a stalling tactic to keep the Soviets off is ass while he invaded Western Europe.

BTW, Stalin had a plan to attack Germany, incidentally.

Hitler envisioned the Ukraine as the Third Reich's "breadbasket and the vast expanses of the SU for "Leibenstraum," or colonisation and the Slavs as inferiors worthy of only slavery and death.

Here's some more info:

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2570

[Rikk]

Yeah, I was intrigued because I just got the World War II documentary THE WORLD AT WAR (BBC, from the mid-70s, narrated by Lawrence Olivier). Great and thorough documentary...anyone else seen it?

Anyway, I just can't believe the blunders. The maniac could have controlled Europe if:

1) The Americans had elected the Republican candidate in 1940, who was totally against entering the war.

2) The Japanese had found other ways to gain oil and other supplies and thus not needed to attack Pearl Harbor and domination of some of the surrounding regions.

3) If Hitler had never entered into an alliance with the Japanese in the first place.

4) If Russia and Germany had been able to co-exist...unlikely. That would have made the Cold War that eventually occurred seem mild.

[Atomic Dyver]

Another key mistake was starting WW2 when he did. At the time Chamberlains policy of appeasement was to stop war. After WW1 europe did not want another general war and was willing to go to great lengths to avoid it. Thus buying the Nazis time to complete the weapons they were developing.

Had he waited he would've had jet fighters, better rockets and control systems and a stronger navy which he needed to defeat England.

By not beating England he gave us the launchpad to win the war.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Atomic Dyver
Hitler was politcal mind not a great military mind. Most of his failures were from not listening to his generals...

Damn that sounds familiar....:eek:

[Atomic Dyver]

History does repeat itself....and often gives the answers to the future

[Atomic Dyver]

One last note on Russia when they were attacked: at the time the Russians were large in numbers but were not technologically advanced. They had all antiquated equipment: their tanks, planes and ships were a joke at the time.

The technology they used for the cold war were from us and german equipment captured from WW2. During the war we gave them tanks, planes and weapons.

[FORD]

As others have hinted at already, Chimpy and Hitler have a lot of similarities in their mentality as well as their tactics.

These BCE/PNAC/Likud neocon shitbags have ALWAYS over-estimated their own abilities. They claimed Iraq would be a "cakewalk", which was complete ignorance not of only history, but more recent opinions including, ironically enough, Chimpy's own father, who had a better opportunity to invade Baghdad then Chimpy did, but wisely turned it down because Poppy understood the stability that Saddam brought to the country, and the futility of trying to keep three different ethnicities tied together in an artificial country. Poppy was even proven right in post-Soviet Yugoslavia which had a similar ethnic dynamic and ended up a mess of sectarian violence.

Hitler had the same arrogant mentality. He thought he was literally destined to lead a great world empire which would last for a thousand years. That arrogance led him to believe he could eventually take down Stalin, but at least Adolf had the brains to realize he couldn't do so in the early stages of the war.

The difference is that at least Hitler had some success to parade before his own people in order to ensure their loyalty. He brought Germany out of the economic nightmare they were in as a direct result of WWI. He built the Autobahn, which was the first freeway system on the planet. He commissioned the creation of the Volkswagon as an affordable vehicle for all German families, and that company continues to do well even now.

If Hitler had stopped there, he might have been fondly remembered as a great leader, despite the fact that his prejudice against certain folks was already well established.

Chimp, on the other hand has NO success at anything which commands loyalty from the American people. It's all the whore media propping him up.

If Hitler had today's corporate media, he would have easily won World War II :(

[Nitro Express]

Originally posted by Atomic Dyver
One last note on Russia when they were attacked: at the time the Russians were large in numbers but were not technologically advanced. They had all antiquated equipment: their tanks, planes and ships were a joke at the time.

The technology they used for the cold war were from us and german equipment captured from WW2. During the war we gave them tanks, planes and weapons.

Yes, but Russia had it's arms factories inland by the Ural mountains. They had one of the best tanks in WWII and produced them in mass numbers. The Russians also understood fighting in cold weather more than the Germans did.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Atomic Dyver
One last note on Russia when they were attacked: at the time the Russians were large in numbers but were not technologically advanced. They had all antiquated equipment: their tanks, planes and ships were a joke at the time.

The technology they used for the cold war were from us and german equipment captured from WW2. During the war we gave them tanks, planes and weapons.

Not true at all, the Soviet Red Army had some of the finest equipment such as the T-34 tank. They received a lot of help from the US and UK, but they had some very good weapons....

[Atomic Dyver]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Not true at all, the Soviet Red Army had some of the finest equipment such as the T-34 tank. They received a lot of help from the US and UK, but they had some very good weapons....

The Nazis invaded in 1941, at the time there were very few t-34's as full scale production began that year. Russian weapons were improving but were not advanced when they were initially attacked. But no question the T-34 was a great tank.

[hideyoursheep]

....I wonder how different the world would be if Patton had his way?

[Atomic Dyver]

Hey the man had a tank named after him...he only knew one way to win.

[hideyoursheep]

We need that guy right now....

[binnie]

The biggest mistake Hitler made, and certainly aided the Allies in snatching victory:

From what I remember, the mission was called "Operation Barbarossa". The Nazi regime was not set up to fight a war on two fronts and struggled with supply lines: consequnetly, German troos in Russia were chronicly under-supplied and many died as a result of the severe weather conditions, which their winter gear would have prevented. Initially the Germans made great headway, taking vast swathes of Russian land as the Bolshevik forces simply retreated. This simply stretched German supply lines further and addded to their problems. Sort of a military rope-a-dope by the Russians.

The war fought on that front was bloody, as the Russian forces were also poorly equipped and the civilians fought as well. From what I remember, no country last more people in WWII than Russia, 20 million + I think. They do not get enough credit in helping to bring down the Nazi regime, largely becuase the histories writte during the Cold War obviously slanted the reality in favour of the British/American side of the Cold War.....

Interestingly, Hitler made exactly the same mistake that Napolean had: invading Russia cruched his armed forces, and once again this was more due to natural factors than Russian military might.

[Atomic Dyver]

Originally posted by binnie
Sort of a military rope-a-dope by the Russians.



Interestingly, Hitler made exactly the same mistake that Napolean had: invading Russia cruched his armed forces, and once again this was more due to natural factors than Russian military might.

spot on

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by binnie
From what I remember, the mission was called "Operation Barbarossa". The Nazi regime was not set up to fight a war on two fronts From what I remember, no country last more people in WWII than Russia, 20 million + I think. They do not get enough credit in helping to bring down the Nazi regime, largely becuase the histories writte during the Cold War obviously slanted the reality in favour of the British/American side of the Cold War.....

The Soviet post war conduct CREATED the Cold war.They were almost barbaric .It was the allied press that kept quiet about what the Soviets were up to in post-war Europe. Patton himself wanted to push them out of europe.

[ODShowtime]

If you look at Hitler vs Stalin as a single war, it has got to be the worst one ever in mankind's history. The most dead people, some of the worst weather conditions, the hatred that had been installed in the participants, how BOTH sides were able to overrun and terrorize HUGE swaths of civilian populace... and the coup de grace?

Systematic raping of entire regions' populations.

Pretty much the high water mark for evil so far.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Atomic Dyver
The Nazis invaded in 1941, at the time there were very few t-34's as full scale production began that year. Russian weapons were improving but were not advanced when they were initially attacked. But no question the T-34 was a great tank.

True, but when the T-34 emerged, it shocked the Germans and they even pondered making a direct, reversed-engineered copy. But of course, being Germans that take pride in all things mechanical, they instead designed and produced a tank that was slightly more combat effective, but less realiable --The Panther:)


http://www.saak.nl/panzersinnormandy2/panzer99.jpg

(Auf march!)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Rikk
Yeah, I was intrigued because I just got the World War II documentary THE WORLD AT WAR (BBC, from the mid-70s, narrated by Lawrence Olivier). Great and thorough documentary...anyone else seen it?

In parts...


Anyway, I just can't believe the blunders. The maniac could have controlled Europe if:

1) The Americans had elected the Republican candidate in 1940, who was totally against entering the war.

I don't know --unless he were an absolute isolationist, a lot of Republicans may have had to make the same choices to go to War. We were beginning to fight a Naval proxy war in the North Atlantic with the Germans (USN Destroyers vs. U-boats), and many would say that a US-Japanese showdown was inevitable because of US pressure to cut off natural resources over Japan's War of aggression in China...

I believe FDR also began the draft, and had industrialists begin to scout factories so they could plan for large scale war production...


2) The Japanese had found other ways to gain oil and other supplies and thus not needed to attack Pearl Harbor and domination of some of the surrounding regions.

They were pissed and their military, especially the Japanese Imperial Army, was beyond irrational at this point.


3) If Hitler had never entered into an alliance with the Japanese in the first place.

Hitler was not bound by the alliance to declare War on the US after Pearl Harbour. The terms of the treaty regarded only self-defense against enemy aggression, not a surprise attack. This is the rationale and reason why the Japanese never declared war on the Soviet Union after Germany invaded...


4) If Russia and Germany had been able to co-exist...unlikely. That would have made the Cold War that eventually occurred seem mild.

Never...They were plotting against each other from the get-go. (Ironically, they had an early alliance in which German troops trained in armored warfare in Russia in the 1930s!)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Rikk
I just wanted to post this here because more people in this forum could/would answer it. I know this forum is usually for current politics, but hey...

Why did Hitler invade Russia after making a pact with them that included Poland? While I believe he would have lost in the end (the Americans)

I'm don't think so. Russia killed 10 times as many German troops as the rest of the allies put together.

WWII Trivia quiz here.

http://www.funtrivia.com/trivia-quiz/History/Wacky-WWII-Tidbits-183846.html

Damn I only got 6/10...:(

[Seshmeister]

Woohoo 15/15 for this one.:)

http://www.funtrivia.com/trivia-quiz/History/Structure-of-WWII-21181.html

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Rikk
Yeah, I was intrigued because I just got the World War II documentary THE WORLD AT WAR (BBC, from the mid-70s, narrated by Lawrence Olivier). Great and thorough documentary...anyone else seen it?


It's the biggest and the greatest and will never be matched because it was done at a time whilst many of the people were still alive so could give first hand accounts.

The dumb shit you get on Discovery just doesn't compare.

I would be curious to see the script of a WWII documentary on the History Channel or Discovery. Once you stripped out the introduction which is repeated three times for the commercials and also the dumb Jerry Springer conclusions they always stick on the end, a lot of them must just be a couple of paragraphs on a single sheet of paper.

[Seshmeister]

Tricky

http://www.funtrivia.com/trivia-quiz/History/World-War-II-Strange-and-Less-Known-Facts-160450.html

8/15.

[binnie]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
The Soviet post war conduct CREATED the Cold war.They were almost barbaric .It was the allied press that kept quiet about what the Soviets were up to in post-war Europe. Patton himself wanted to push them out of europe.

Sorry, just to clarify: I was not trying to make the Russians blameless in the coldwar (far from it), I was merely stating that Cold War British and American historians played down the Russian role in defeating Hitler...

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by binnie
Sorry, just to clarify: I was not trying to make the Russians blameless in the coldwar (far from it), I was merely stating that Cold War British and American historians played down the Russian role in defeating Hitler...

I guess it all balances out, then,

Most historians today seem to downplay the role the Western Allies had in defeating the Germans.

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

There is some interesting stuff on this page.

http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

e.g. 80% of the Russian males born in 1923 never survived the war!

or

Germany's casualty statistics:

By D-Day, 35% of all German soldiers had been wounded at least once, 11% twice, 6% three times, 2% four times and 2% more than 4 times
The average officer slot had to be refilled 9.2 times
Germany lost 136 Generals, which averages out to be 1 dead General every 2 weeks
Germany lost 110 Division Commanders in combat
Air attacks caused 1/3 of German Generals' deaths
84 German Generals were executed by Hitler

Germany lost 40-45% of their aircraft to accidents

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by binnie
Sorry, just to clarify: I was not trying to make the Russians blameless in the coldwar (far from it), I was merely stating that Cold War British and American historians played down the Russian role in defeating Hitler...

Well, the Soviets did kill about 75% of all German soldiers that died in combat in WWII..

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I guess it all balances out, then,

Most historians today seem to downplay the role the Western Allies had in defeating the Germans.

:gulp:

Name one...

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Name one...

I believe the phrase you are looking for is "proof or stfu"

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Name one...


BBB is totally correct on this. All of them basically.

There has been alot of revisionist history going on in Hollywood like the US joined the war to save the jews which is just fucking BS.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Not true at all, the Soviet Red Army had some of the finest equipment such as the T-34 tank. They received a lot of help from the US and UK, but they had some very good weapons....

...and most of the front line stuff they received from the UK was junk compared to their own kit.

It's often said that the war on the Eastern front was won thanks to nothing more than US Studebaker trucks.

The military doctrine of the USSR was simply feed people into the meat grinder faster than they can be killed. The Studebaker did the feeding.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
...and most of the front line stuff they received from the UK was junk compared to their own kit.

It's often said that the war on the Eastern front was won thanks to nothing more than US Studebaker trucks.

The military doctrine of the USSR was simply feed people into the meat grinder faster than they can be killed. The Studebaker did the feeding.

I was going to poopoo you because I didn't think there could have been enough but I just checked and the US apparently sent over 375 000 trucks to Russia during WWII. I had no idea so much was sent.

[binnie]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, the Soviets did kill about 75% of all German soldiers that died in combat in WWII..

That was my point, they also suffered higher casualties than any other nation.

[Warham]

Imagine if George W. Bush rounded up every muslim in this country and put them in internment camps...

Do you think the press would treat him well?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by binnie
That was my point, they also suffered higher casualties than any other nation.

12 million. Over twice as many as the rest combined.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
BBB is totally correct on this. All of them basically.

Eh? I think you misunderstand. BBB is basically saying that the Red Army's contribution to destroying Nazism is overrated by contemporary historians. Something I find hard to believe, especially with the statistics you've provided on Wehrmacht casualties. I think it was rare for Western historians to even really fully contemplate the USSRs contribution until that last decade or so; this is due mainly to the Cold War, and a key fact that needs to be reconciled: Stalin was a murdering cunt in his own right, and Soviet citizens were fighting for the "devil that (they knew)"....


There has been alot of revisionist history going on in Hollywood like the US joined the war to save the jews which is just fucking BS.

Well, there's no question. The WWII board I go too has Russians absolutely hating "Enemy at the Gates" even though it mostly presents Russians/Soviets in a very sympathetic light...

Hollywood gets a lot wrong (the sappy, cliche-filled dialogue of "Saving Private Ryan" for instance).

But there are some gems like "Band of Brothers" and "The Thin Red Line."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I was going to poopoo you because I didn't think there could have been enough but I just checked and the US apparently sent over 375 000 trucks to Russia during WWII. I had no idea so much was sent.

A huge amount was sent via lend lease...

Another notable contribution was the P-39/63 Aircobra fighter. An aircraft detested by its US/UK aircrews, but loved and revered in Russia to this day as a war winner...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Imagine if George W. Bush rounded up every muslim in this country and put them in internment camps...

Do you think the press would treat him well?

Imagine if you weren't http://www.funky.co.uk/competitions/img/clueless_main.gif

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Imagine if you weren't http://www.funky.co.uk/competitions/img/clueless_main.gif

The usual dull response.

[Warham]

Imagine if Bush had 13,000 citizens in this country arrested, including members of the Democratic party, and called them enemies of the state.

How would he be treated by the press?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Imagine if Bush had 13,000 citizens in this country arrested, including members of the Democratic party, and called them enemies of the state.

How would he be treated by the press?

"Imagine that" mentally-"4F" online pussies like you were called out for not fighting our enemies at the front while the rest of us endured a total mobilization draft, ration cards for gas and spam, no new consumer goods for five years, and Congress actually declared War on a tangible enemy that exists, with stated, measurable goals for victory?

Oh wait! That would mean that you'd actually have to SACRIFICE something! Nevermind, just piss on the same soldiers' backs and forget about them as you go about your boring life completely disconnected from anything war related...

Yeah, imagine that pigeon brain...

And stop hijacking this thread fuckwit, the adults are talking here. Not the inbred bible thumpers that cannot question their own beliefs because of fear and insecurities...If you want to start some bullshit parallels between the "War on Terrah" and WWII, fine. But do it some place else nimrod...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The usual dull response.

Well, you're the usual dull poster with nothing to offer...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Eh? I think you misunderstand. BBB is basically saying that the Red Army's contribution to destroying Nazism is overrated by contemporary historians.

Reading it again and knowing BBB you're probsbly right.

First time I read it I thought that he meant that historians quite rightly downplay the role of the Western powers.

If your reading of his post is correct then basically he is saying he knows more than all the historians...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Imagine if Bush had 13,000 citizens in this country arrested, including members of the Democratic party, and called them enemies of the state.

How would he be treated by the press?

Badly you would hope.

If you are aluding to internment it's an entirely different situation because in WWII you were at war with foreign countries.

No matter how many times Bush says it, his war on terror is no more a war than saying we should have a war on litter.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister

If your reading of his post is correct then basically he is saying he knows more than all the historians...

No, I'm not saying that, but....

Read Grimsdale post above again.

I agree with him totally.

I've read quite a few books on the Eastern Front (as one who devours WWII history, it's my favorite theatre to read about) and maintain the Red Army wasn't the almight juggernaut it was made out to be. Hell, even when they were within 30 miles of Berlin it took them an additional five months to conquer the city because their frontline units had suffered extremely heavy casualties (the Germans killed them at a 9 to 1 ratio) and their supplies were spent.

Soviet commanders had a different mindset: feed the troops into the meatgrinder no matter the costs. It was common to march entire battalions over mine fields and feed platoon after platoon into machine gun nests just to take out that one gun. The Red Army soldier couldn't retreat or refuse either with NKVD troops at their backs ready to shoot them if they did.

Look, I'm not downplaying the role the Soviets played in defeating the Germans. They did a lot of fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis. However, they would have had a much harder time without a second front in France. Hell, I'll even suggest the Germans would have defeated the Russians had Hitler let his Generals fight the war and if he had a proper economic policy.

:)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
And stop hijacking this thread fuckwit, the adults are talking here. Not the inbred bible thumpers that cannot question their own beliefs because of fear and insecurities...If you want to start some bullshit parallels between the "War on Terrah" and WWII, fine. But do it some place else nimrod...

Who's an inbred bible thumper? If you are referring to me, I have no insecurities about my beliefs at all, but I think you do.

Actually, I was comparing the War on TerrOR to the Civil War. I figured somebody with your level of historal education could have figured that out.

[binnie]

Originally posted by Warham
Imagine if Bush had 13,000 citizens in this country arrested, including members of the Democratic party, and called them enemies of the state.

How would he be treated by the press?

He's already treated pretty bad for invading Iraq and imprisoning people illegally at the Bay....

[Warham]

Originally posted by binnie
He's already treated pretty bad for invading Iraq and imprisoning people illegally at the Bay....

I don't remember a Supreme Court ruling that said imprisoning foreign terrorists was unconstitutional.

[Seshmeister]

Who says they are terrorists?

Plenty have been releassed without charge after 2 or 3 years of torture.

What we do know is this sick barbaric action has led to the creation of terrorists.

Even fucking Blair has said it was unacceptable.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, I'm not saying that, but....

Read Grimsdale post above again.

I agree with him totally.

I've read quite a few books on the Eastern Front (as one who devours WWII history, it's my favorite theatre to read about) and maintain the Red Army wasn't the almight juggernaut it was made out to be. Hell, even when they were within 30 miles of Berlin it took them an additional five months to conquer the city because their frontline units had suffered extremely heavy casualties (the Germans killed them at a 9 to 1 ratio) and their supplies were spent.

Soviet commanders had a different mindset: feed the troops into the meatgrinder no matter the costs. It was common to march entire battalions over mine fields and feed platoon after platoon into machine gun nests just to take out that one gun. The Red Army soldier couldn't retreat or refuse either with NKVD troops at their backs ready to shoot them if they did.

Look, I'm not downplaying the role the Soviets played in defeating the Germans. They did a lot of fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis. However, they would have had a much harder time without a second front in France. Hell, I'll even suggest the Germans would have defeated the Russians had Hitler let his Generals fight the war and if he had a proper economic policy.

:)


I don't disagree that the USSR having such high casualties proves their significance. That would be like saying the Iraqis in the 1st gulf war put up a great fight,

What is significant is the number of Germans they killed. Also in 1944 3/4 of the German army was in Russia with the other 1/4 spread around Europe.

In simplistic terms then you could argue that Russia was 75% responsible for the defeat of Germany. :)

Hitlers mismanagement, constant killing of his gernerals(84) and the fact that everyone was too scared to tell him what was going on half the time was obviously a huge problem.

In happier moments I liked to think that it kind of proves that evil is inherently weak.

Then Bush got re-elected...:)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister

What we do know is this sick barbaric action has led to the creation of terrorists.

Even fucking Blair has said it was unacceptable.

Ridiculous. That's like saying the beheading of Americans over in the sand box has created terrorists here. I think you have a low opinion of the Arab people.

Besides, it's not like they didn't already want to kill us. :cool:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by binnie
He's already treated pretty bad for invading Iraq and imprisoning people illegally at the Bay....

The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Ridiculous. That's like saying the beheading of Americans over in the sand box has created terrorists here.

9-11 definitely created plenty of terrrorists in the US government.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian

Besides, it's not like they didn't already want to kill us. :cool:

Who is this 'they'.

The guy that runs your local 711?

The guy that was walking along the street in Bagdhad and lifted and taken to Guantanamo?

The western muslim who was at a wedding in Afghanistan with bad timing?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

The Democrats are the least of it. The whole rest of the world doesn't approve.

And the US government became the 'evil doers' so you could say the Democrats helped them by being pussys for the last few years.

[Seshmeister]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FsNLbK8_rBY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FsNLbK8_rBY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[binnie]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

So, lets say your in Saudi Arabi and someone there doesn't like the look of you, arrests you, doesn't tell you why you've been arrested and then proceeds to hold you indefinatley whilst they find evidence - that fair?

Thought not.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't remember a Supreme Court ruling that said imprisoning foreign terrorists was unconstitutional.

Imprisoning ANYONE without charging them is unconstitutional.

If you have evidence that they're a terrorist, charge them with a crime and put them on trial.

What's the problem with that?

Unless there's no evidence....... which means you probably had no reason to hold that person in the first place.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, I'm not saying that, but....

Read Grimsdale post above again.

I agree with him totally.

I've read quite a few books on the Eastern Front (as one who devours WWII history, it's my favorite theatre to read about) and maintain the Red Army wasn't the almight juggernaut it was made out to be. Hell, even when they were within 30 miles of Berlin it took them an additional five months to conquer the city because their frontline units had suffered extremely heavy casualties (the Germans killed them at a 9 to 1 ratio) and their supplies were spent.

Soviet commanders had a different mindset: feed the troops into the meatgrinder no matter the costs. It was common to march entire battalions over mine fields and feed platoon after platoon into machine gun nests just to take out that one gun. The Red Army soldier couldn't retreat or refuse either with NKVD troops at their backs ready to shoot them if they did.

Look, I'm not downplaying the role the Soviets played in defeating the Germans. They did a lot of fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis. However, they would have had a much harder time without a second front in France. Hell, I'll even suggest the Germans would have defeated the Russians had Hitler let his Generals fight the war and if he had a proper economic policy.

:)

I pretty much agree, but I would add that the Red Army was responsible for breaking the Wehrmacht from late 1942 through to mid-1943. After that point the Germans were never in a situation to launch a large scale offensive with a chance of success. Sure the Russians lost a lot of men in process but they had the advantage of having a lot of manpower and a political system that was happy to do so.

To be fair to the western allies many German soldiers swear that fighting at Anzio, Cassino and some of the Normandy fighting was every bit as hard and unpleasant as the Eastern Front. Don't forget the Huertgen Forest which wasn't exactly a walkover either.

The western allies contributed a lot before D-Day and after through the air campaign. It's interesting to note that German production actually reached a peak in 1944 at probably the height of the air campaign but imagine how much higher it would have been had there been no bombing.

As for Hitler's military abilities, for the first couple of years in the eyes of his generals he could do no wrong. The overall strategy for the campaigns in Poland and France were to a large part his own idea. It could be argued Russia was simply too large to be conquered, however had Barbarossa kicked off in May as originally planned rather than June things might well have ended up differently at the gates of Moscow. The delay was imposed mainly because of Mussolini's problems in Greece fighting the British and the Germans diverting forces south. Also much German airpower was tied up in France engaged in the bombing of the UK. Had the UK fallen in 1940 Barbarossa may well have suceeded to some degree. Perhaps the Germans would have captured Moscow and Stalin would have sued for peace?

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The Democrats are the least of it. The whole rest of the world doesn't approve.



When the "whole rest of the world" decides US policy of national defense and has a vote in deciding our government, that may mean something. Until then, it means nothing, nada, zilch.

:cool:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by binnie
So, lets say your in Saudi Arabi and someone there doesn't like the look of you, arrests you, doesn't tell you why you've been arrested and then proceeds to hold you indefinatley whilst they find evidence - that fair?

Thought not.

Maybe not, but it's their law. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. When in another country, you'd better obey their laws. Screaming "that's not fair" won't get you anything but laughed at.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Imprisoning ANYONE without charging them is unconstitutional.

If you have evidence that they're a terrorist, charge them with a crime and put them on trial.

What's the problem with that?

Unless there's no evidence....... which means you probably had no reason to hold that person in the first place.

Hmm....

I think the Supreme Court just ruled that these "enemy combatants" in Gitmo weren't privy to the US Constitution. I'll trust in them as the final decision of US Constitutional law.

Besides, what are these people?

Terrorists.

[Warham]

Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.

[Warham]

Originally posted by binnie
So, lets say your in Saudi Arabi and someone there doesn't like the look of you, arrests you, doesn't tell you why you've been arrested and then proceeds to hold you indefinatley whilst they find evidence - that fair?

Thought not.

You'd be lucky to get three square meals a day, prayer rugs and Korans, exercise and TV time, and be able to talk to your fellow prisoners in their prisons. And probably lucky not to have parts of your body whacked off in the process.

Our prisoners are being treated like royalty down in Club Gitmo.

[Seshmeister]

A lot weren't combatents.

And these people weren't in YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY.

You invaded foreign countries, kidnapped people and then tortured them for years with no evidence.

This is the real reason the US is one of the very few countries tha wouldn't sign up to the International Court because she wants to act appallingly.

[binnie]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Maybe not, but it's their law. "Fair" has nothing to do with it. When in another country, you'd better obey their laws. Screaming "that's not fair" won't get you anything but laughed at.

But what if you hadn't broken a law; just like have the people in the bay haven't (for all we know)?

[Warham]

Yeah, they're all saints down there in Gitmo, aren't they?

You wouldn't mind having them over to watch a football game and have a few beers, right?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, they're all saints down there in Gitmo, aren't they?

You wouldn't mind having them over to watch a football game and have a few beers, right?

Probably not now that they have been mentally damaged by your forces torturing them for year after year.

I don't know if they are saints because there was never any trial or evidence offerred.

The 'intelligence' that picked these people out was often based on rumors or information from torturing other prisoners. The same kind of intel that told us there were WMD's in Iraq.

You ever seen The Crucible by Artthur Miller?

What I do know is thet the ones with British passports were eventually released and no charges were ever brought.

[Warham]

I trust that they aren't there because they were boy scouts over in Iraq.

[binnie]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, they're all saints down there in Gitmo, aren't they?

You wouldn't mind having them over to watch a football game and have a few beers, right?

Not saying they are "all" saints, I'm saying that a country that prides itself on democracy should have a fair system in place to determine which ones are innocent and which ones are guilty.

However, it looks like neither of us is gonna change our opinion on this, so lets agree to disagree. It's been nice discussing it though.

[Warham]

I agree with your assessment. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
No, I'm not saying that, but....

Read Grimsdale post above again.

I agree with him totally.

I've read quite a few books on the Eastern Front (as one who devours WWII history, it's my favorite theatre to read about) and maintain the Red Army wasn't the almight juggernaut it was made out to be. Hell, even when they were within 30 miles of Berlin it took them an additional five months to conquer the city because their frontline units had suffered extremely heavy casualties (the Germans killed them at a 9 to 1 ratio) and their supplies were spent.

So you disagree with Ambrose's assessment that the Red Army was one of the most adept manuver/combined arms warfare machines by 1944/45?

They had excellent equipment, and some good commanders, like Marshall Zhukov, rose to the top.

Yes they suffered more casualties than the Germans in battle, but they were on the attack against an army whose main strategy had become defensive attrition...

The US and Brits also suffered heavy casualties in their armored forces due to the inferiority of the outclassed, outdated M-4 Sherman tank as compared to the Panther, Tiger, and Panzer Mk.IV.


And they were also held up for months as the supply lines became overextended...

Does that make their contribution "overrated" then too?


Soviet commanders had a different mindset: feed the troops into the meatgrinder no matter the costs. It was common to march entire battalions over mine fields and feed platoon after platoon into machine gun nests just to take out that one gun. The Red Army soldier couldn't retreat or refuse either with NKVD troops at their backs ready to shoot them if they did.

These are all exaggerrations (with some basis in truth).

Sent battalions over mine fields? Show me a source on that one...


Look, I'm not downplaying the role the Soviets played in defeating the Germans. They did a lot of fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis. However, they would have had a much harder time without a second front in France. Hell, I'll even suggest the Germans would have defeated the Russians had Hitler let his Generals fight the war and if he had a proper economic policy.

:)

Some good points. But the German generals are at fault for allowing Hitler to attack with an army that was unprepared for a long term war of attrition. They deserve as much blame has he does...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Who's an inbred bible thumper? If you are referring to me, I have no insecurities about my beliefs at all, but I think you do.

Actually, I was comparing the War on TerrOR to the Civil War. I figured somebody with your level of historal education could have figured that out.

I would think that a Mod could figure out that this thread is about WWII...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.

Bullshit! Many at Gitmo were not captured by American forces. They were simply handed over by the Northern Alliance, and there is substantial evidenced that many of them were victims of grudges or revenge by members of the NA...

They were wearing the standard uniform that they were able to scrounge in that part of the world. A completely false and discredited argument...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, they're all saints down there in Gitmo, aren't they?

You wouldn't mind having them over to watch a football game and have a few beers, right?

The guys in US prisons aren't saints either, but they've had a fucking fair trial to insure that they should actually be there...

[Oxford]

Bottomline Hitler way underestimated Russia ferocity and stamina,Russia were outdated and totally under equipt but they had the hearts and soul to fight.In which Hitler never anticipated.Once we enter the equations with the Brits and the Poland Germany was overwhelmed plain and simple.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Sent battalions over mine fields? Show me a source on that one...

I know BBB posted the original comment but I've heard of this too. The Russian Army had many punishment battalions, essentially these were desserters or criminals who had been captured and were offered a chance to redeem themselves by charging German lines essentially unarmed. Taking that on board there's no doubt many were sent straight into minefields, in terms of the cold logic of Stalin's Russia it makes sense.

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

They shouldn't even have standard Geneva Convention rights applied to them because they weren't uniformed officers or enlisted men.

I think Warham's right on the last bit. My understanding is the Geneva Convention expressly forbids civilians (i.e. non-uniformed combatants) to take part in fighting. If they choose to disobey that they fall outside of the convention.

[Seshmeister]

So what?

The majority weren't combatants and kidnap and torture are against international law as well as natural law and any semblence of morailty.

[Seshmeister]

So what?

The majority weren't combatants and kidnap and torture are against international law as well as natural law and any semblence of morailty.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
I know BBB posted the original comment but I've heard of this too. The Russian Army had many punishment battalions, essentially these were desserters or criminals who had been captured and were offered a chance to redeem themselves by charging German lines essentially unarmed. Taking that on board there's no doubt many were sent straight into minefields, in terms of the cold logic of Stalin's Russia it makes sense.

They were called "penal battalions."

I have heard different, often conflicting opinions and facts regarding their use.

Russians themselves claim they were given more dangerous objectives, and often served as pickets and cannon fodder. But they were armed.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Mr Grimsdale
I think Warham's right on the last bit. My understanding is the Geneva Convention expressly forbids civilians (i.e. non-uniformed combatants) to take part in fighting. If they choose to disobey that they fall outside of the convention.

But many WERE wearing a uniform of sorts...

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
The only thing "illegal" about it is the Democrats don't approve. Just another way they are helping the evil-doers.

Both of your sentences in this post are faulty.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Besides, what are these people?

Terrorists.

And this is where your premise is completely fucked!

You CAN'T trust gw&friends to decide that. To have the power to pick people up and make them disappear.

Just like you couldn't trust Hitler, or Stalin, or ANYONE with those sorts of powers. It always gets out of hand.

[Nickdfresh]

And why were they "terrorists" for fighting Northern Alliance and US military personnel on the field of battle?

Whose definition "terrorism" does that meet?

Because now US troops can be labeled "terrorists" for conducting operations, and can be tortured since assholes have decided that the Geneva Conventions only apply when they feel like it...

[Nickdfresh]

BTW, the answers to your WWII questions can be found here: http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/

Use the search function before starting threads, please...

[Mr Grimsdale]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They were called "penal battalions."

I have heard different, often conflicting opinions and facts regarding their use.

Russians themselves claim they were given more dangerous objectives, and often served as pickets and cannon fodder. But they were armed.

I've read accounts by Germans saying the penal/punishment battalions were as good as unarmed.

The Russians would probably want to paint a slightly more romantic version of the events.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Warham
Enemy combatants shouldn't have any rights according to our constitution.

YOU ARE A FUCKING ROCK!

Get your head out of your ass, for fuck sakes!:rolleyes:

[Chevan]

Helloy guys
This my first post in this excellent forum and English is not my native so excuse me if something will wrong.
Reading the posts above i saw a lot of prejudices of Cold war period and i/m not surprised.
The first question of this thread was why Hitler invide the USSR , right?
So if you read the some of his works ( like Main Kamph and ets) where the Hitler "dreamed" about eastern lands and slaves you will not ask this questions. Moreover the Jewish-Bolshevic gov of USSR was the ideological mortal enemy of Nazi. There were no any doubts that Soviet-Germany war was inevitable.
The Soviet-German pact of 1939 was the forced solution (for the short time only) of both sides. Hitler wished to captured the continental Europe, Stalin hoped to "steal the time" for the re-armed the Army ( for the new kings of wearponry) and "move" the soviet border far to the West ( it was both political and war reasons).