WORLD WAR II Question

[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.

[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...