The most important battle of WW2

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-08-2005, 02:45 PM

Well anyways it would not have mattered in the long run any how.

01-08-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

Who said about putting them there in April?

When you say they should have been forward deployed prior to D-day you must pick a date well before D-day. The German's had no idea when the invasion might be. It could have been in May, it could have been in June, or it might have been in Sept.

The point is, whenever they were "moved up", the Allies would have known about it and known exactly where they were and planned accordingly. The huge advantage of good intel vs. bad intel, and total air superiority.

=S=

Lunatic

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-08-2005, 04:34 PM

I have to agree with Lunatic on this.

Pertsajakilu · 01-08-2005, 05:50 PM

Sorry to bring You the disappointement.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill to Parliament: "It is the Russian Army that has done the main work of ripping the guts out of the German Army . . . :

When Germans started Barbarossa they had 3 miilion solidiers in that operation. I could not think what those trained troops had done in Normandy. Hollywood bullshit have created totally wrong picture of WWII

Russian front was the bitter front where the German force was killed. US has all the golry, buth in eastenf forn all of the US casualties suffered in whole war was happenig in single battle.

Petsajakilu

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-08-2005, 05:55 PM

No it was Hitler that ripped the guts out of Wehrmacht by invading Russia. He should have left the Russians alone atleast until he was done with the British. What I dont understand is how you can say the US suffered all its casualties in a single battle. They fought North Africa, they fought in Italy, they fought in Normandy, The Netherlands, the rest of France, Belgium, and Germany just to name some of the places in Europe. There were thousands of battles fought and that does not include the air war, thousands of Americans lost there lives in the air war. The victory in Europe owes a lot to everyone, the US, England and the Commonwealths, Russia and many more.

Lightning Guy · 01-08-2005, 11:21 PM

I am curious if Pert thinks the Soviets could have continued to stand up to the Wermacht if German industry wasn't being pounded to ruins? Or if the Luftwaffe wasn't required to base countless fighter units in France to fight off the American and British bombers? And if the Russians were doing so well, why was Staling screaming for a second front?

Pertsajakilu · 01-09-2005, 03:09 AM

Ahem... Sorry my wording was very bad!

These damned electrical forums. I rarely wrote forums like this and it is sooo easy to sound rude. I apologize my previous post. Let try it again.

Imortance of Russian front is many times ignored when talking about WWII. If we look at war movies or TV it never existed ( few exeptions ). Many people live in believe that western allies did all the important job. US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war. By the time of Normandy German was beaten and quality of its troops were rapidly decreasing.

I doubt that in US public opinion in would have accepted losses of million or more men. And that it would have been without Russian front. It would have been job for an A-bomb like in Japan.

Ex Natzi generals often accuse Hitler of loosing war but that is only excuse for defending themselves.

Pertsajakilu

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-09-2005, 05:14 AM

Dont worry Pertsajakilu, you did not sound rude and no offense was taken. I agree the Ost Front was a meat grinder and that the Wehrmacht as a whole was decreasing in quality by the time Normandy cam but 5 years of fighting will do that to you. However if the Germans had been able to concentrate there whole efforts on the Russians, Russia would not have stood a chance. As for the Nazi Generals, yes they have a pivotal role in the defeat of Germany but Hitler pretty much sealed Germanys fate.

lesofprimus · 01-09-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.

UMmmmmmm.....

Quote:

In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.

Do u have any idea what u are saying????? The #'s involved here???

rebel8303 · 01-09-2005, 11:06 AM

What would have happened if the Allies never landed on Europe?
Could the Russians take out the Germans - and conquer Europe themselves?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-09-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Quote:

US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.

UMmmmmmm.....

Quote:

In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.

Do u have any idea what u are saying????? The #'s involved here???

I hope we are all just misunderstanding his writing because yes it does sound crazy what he is saying. As for the next post, if the allies had not invaded Russian I think both parties would have fought until they were completely expended. I do think Germany would be able to defeat Russia but even if the Russians defeated Germany then, I dont think they would be in any position to conquer the rest of Europe, they would have been militarily spent.

Pertsajakilu · 01-09-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Quote:

US forces did a lot in europe but the meat grinder was in eastern front. In my opinion most of the really critical battles were fought there. In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.

UMmmmmmm.....

Quote:

In single battle there could be casualties what were equal at size what were whole US losses in second world war.

Do u have any idea what u are saying????? The #'s involved here???

Yes I am!

And again I am very sorry of my first post. It was very bad and I am ashamed. I am not trying to dishonore or underestimate any allies deeds and what they have done. All allied soldiers who died or fought in WWII are respected. And I believe that many German soldiers fought without Nazi views but in believe of fatherland. But still in one single battle eg. Stalingrad hundreds of thousands soldiers perished. "Uncle Joe" and Mr. Hitler created battles which are huge and unbelievably costly to both sides. Can You imagine single battle where 300 000 US, British or any other allied soldiers have perished. Meat grinder was in eastern front and there was two leaders who did not care about casualties. Stalin later learned, but his paranoid mentality was ( mildly saying ) an unfortunate for Soviet people.

I am glad that Allies won and Finland survived. Last year I buried with my family WWII veteran ( my uncle ) and I have known several of them. So don't feel offended of my opinions I am not trying to offend anybody, winners or loosers of WWII. And I think that we all won after defeat of Germany and Japan.

Pertsajakilu

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 01-09-2005, 05:14 PM

Dont worry no offense was taken but what about D-Day where 7000 allied soldiers died on a beach (my numbers may be wrong, actually I am pretty sure they are way off), and the Battle of the Bulge. How about the air war over western Europe, thousands upon thousands of US and British airmen died. You have to account into a whole here, neither front was pretty. I do agree that the East Front was far more brutal then the west but war is hell no matter what.

Pertsajakilu · 01-09-2005, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Dont worry no offense was taken but what about D-Day where 7000 allied soldiers died on a beach (my numbers may be wrong, actually I am pretty sure they are way off), and the Battle of the Bulge. How about the air war over western Europe, thousands upon thousands of US and British airmen died. You have to account into a whole here, neither front was pretty. I do agree that the East Front was far more brutal then the west but war is hell no matter what.

They did not died for nothing. What the airmen did saved a lot of Allied soldiers later in the war and shortened the war and the invasion of course. Also the very important help of US food and trucks accelerated Soviet victory consiredably.

What I was trying to say was that Russian part of the war is often forgotten. And for the Hollywood media usually gives us totally single sided view what happened. I do not care, but many people believe that view ( like new version of Pearl Harbour). And I believe that Western Allies were not ready to took such a casualties of war than the Russians. This is why I believe that the war was won in eastern front. Somebody had to took German juggernaut and bleed it to death. I believe that no one nation in the world could have done it. The scope of casualties are totally different in eastern front. I just don't get it, because it was so huge. But I admit that speculation of facing 3 000 000 men against invasion of Normandy is stupid.

Normandy without eastern front is just speculation without any reality. Stalin would have started a war against Germany because he was waiting for it but not in 1941.

I am not saying that soldiers of the western front soldiers died for nothing. Russian front is forgotten and it saved a lot of dead US, British, Canadien, French....etc troops. Likewise US material help helped a lot of Russians. German fighting force was decimated in Russia. Bah..... Why I coudn't say that before..... because it's my simple opinion

. Argh... think too much at the same time. Good bye... better watch looney tunes and forgot this forum.

Pertsajakilu

Lightning Guy · 01-10-2005, 12:13 AM

And the Eastern Front without Normany is just speculation.

Honestly, I think the Western Allies would have had a better chance. They had the strategice bombing which was grinding down the German war machine in its own right (to which the Soviets added nothing - not rude, just a fact). Also, the Western powers didn't typically approach a problem merely by throwing more soldiers into the "meat grinder." Soviet commanders often viewed there me as commodeties to be spent and that was a major reason for their high casualty figures.