If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Your comparison to how the Japs treated prisoners and how we did is odious and disgusting. Not my comparison. The author's comparison. Can't you read? I can only attribute it your ignorance of the history of the period. Actually, I know a great deal about it, since I lived through it. Plonk! all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Different eras. During WWII the Americans treated their enemy captives far better than the Japanese treated their enemy captives. (Or than the Japanese treated their own soldiers, for that matter!) all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"Autocollimator" wrote in message ... Subject: Flyboys From: Cub Driver Date: 10/27/03 3:08 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: The Japanese treated their enemies badly, but hey! so did the Americans. While the Japs were beheading American flyers we were sending German prisoners to Kansas where they got better food and medical attention than they ever had in their miserable Nazi lives, Many stayed to marry American woman and are among us to this day. Your comparison to how the Japs treated prisoners and how we did is odious and disgusting. I can only attribute it your ignorance of the history of the period.. Now why don't you take your crappy Piper Cub and shove it where the sun don't shine..Imbecile. Some people are utterly incapable of appreciating context. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
(Drazen Kramaric) wrote in message ...
On 23 Oct 2003 03:20:56 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes) wrote: What were the numbers of soldiers involved in the two campaigns that you are comparing. i.e: Suprisingly equal, Rostyk. I'm suprised you didn't know that. Post the numbers, then. Size of armies in the west and the casualties? Well, the French Army alone suffered 1.9 million KIA and prisoners in the campaign in the West, while the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies inflicted ~27,000 KIA on the Germans. Your numbers are correct, but do not tell the whole story. Numbers rarely do. France surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue the war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps. And the Soviet government did not surrender, nor did it fail to employ its air force, nor did it fly a suprisingly intact air force to North Africa. Had you included only POWs captured prior to cease fire the numbers would be more correct, Why? If the French government left assets unemployed and surrendered them, why should that count against the Soviets? but would represent argument against your thesis, that Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically possible. Did I say efficient? Nope. More determined and more effective at killing German troops? Sure. In this case, the Germans faced unprepared unalerted, peacetime-strength Rifle Divisions (~6000 men) far from their assigned battle positions, which is one of the advantages you get when you do a sneak attack. You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared out of nowehere next to the Soviet border. Was it a sneak attack, or not Drax? The primary person responsible for Red Army been caught napping He took a calculated risk on being able to delay a German attack until 1942. is the man you feel was justified in invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland under the pretext of "security in case of German attack". I do not believe that the attack on Finland was justified. Why don't you address that fact for a change? I have, Drax. What I don't get is your eternal insistence on either the Germans being given the opportunity to conquer all of Poland and occupy the Baltic States. Stuart Wilkes |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
(Drazen Kramaric) wrote in message ...
On 28 Oct 2003 10:15:27 -0800, (Stuart Wilkes) wrote: France surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue the war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps. And the Soviet government did not surrender Correct. Unlike French government, it still had the territory, manpower and industrial resources to continue the fight with. However, just like French government, Soviet government tried to negotiate a cease fire. The Soviets discussed it, with the Bulgarian Ambassador in Moscow. When and to whom was the offer actually made? The difference is that Hitler rebuffed Soviet approach, but accepted the French (contrary to the wishes of some senior German generals). Had Hitler refused Petain's request for the cease fire, French government would probably left metropolitan France and settled in Algeria. It would still leave Germans as masters of France. nor did it fail to employ its air force You will be well advised to check the number of aircraft (+1500) Germans lost in the Battle for France. "The French fighter force had available to it during the battle more than 2900 modern aircraft. At no time did it have more than one-fifth of these deployed against the Germans. The operational rate of the fighter force was 0.9 sorties per aircraft per day at the height of the battle. (German fighter units flew up to four sorties per aircraft per day.) Yet in spite of committing only a minor portion of its resources at a low usage rate, the fighter force accounted for between 600 and 1000 of the 1439 German aircraft destroyed during the battle." http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a.../kirkland.html One wonders at the possible result if they had fought with more committment. nor did it fly a suprisingly intact air force to North Africa. It wasn't intact and was definitely defeated. Really. "By 15 June, the French and German air forces were at approximate parity with about 2400 aircraft each, but the French were operating from their own turf, and they had the support of the RAF. Mastery of the air was there for the seizing, but on 17 June the French air staff began to order its units to fly to North Africa. The justification put forth by the air staff was that the army was destroyed and could not protect the airfields. An examination of which units were ordered to North Africa and which were left behind reveals much about the motivation behind the evacuation. The units flown to North Africa were those regular air force squadrons with the most modern and effective aircraft--all of the squadrons equipped with the Curtiss 75A (10), Dewoitine 520 (10), Amiot 354 (8), Bloch 174 (18), Farman 222 (4), Douglas DB-7 (8), and Martin 167 (10), plus most of those with the Lioré et Olivier 451 (12 of 18). Those left behind included all of the air force reserve units--47 observation squadrons and 12 fighter squadrons--and all of the units closely connected with the army (the observation squadrons, the 10 assault bomber squadrons, and 7 night fighter squadrons converted to the ground assault role)." Same link as above Luftwaffe also had hundreds if not thousands of aircraft scattered on the airfields in Germany on May 8th, 1945. So what? They still lost the war. A difference being that the French could import AvGas? Why? If the French government left assets unemployed and surrendered them, why should that count against the Soviets? It refutes the story you are trying to sell. Nonsense. Did the French leave large assets unemployed, only to surreneder them? but would represent argument against your thesis, that Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically possible. Did I say efficient? Nope. More determined and more effective at killing German troops? Sure. First, there were much more Germans and their allies deployed on the front line in 1941 than in 1940. I don't doubt it. Check the figures. Second, the ratio of losses was appaling as well as the territory lost. I never said that the Soviets didn't take appalling losses in 1941. I said that they fought back better than the West did in the Battle of France. The only reason Soviet Union did not surrender is that it was big enough and by that I don't mean on this tiny strip of Polish and Rumanian territory stolen in 1939 and 1940. And I never said that that 150km was decisive. I've said that Soviet margins were thin in 1941, and that extra territory did impact the 1941 campaign in a way that reduced German success. I see this as a Good Thing. You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared out of nowehere next to the Soviet border. Was it a sneak attack, or not Drax? Hey, few message ago you were writing about the defensive measures Stalin adopted and were using that as a proof that he wasn't surprised and that he expected German attack in 1941. I wrote nothing so absurd. Make up your mind, either Stalin was wise by making treaty with Hitler and made all the necessary preparations for the inevitable German attack in 1941 or he took Hitler by his word and left the country unprepared for the invasion announced as early as first edition of "Mein Kampf". My mind is perfectly clear on it. Stalin believed there was a risk of German attack in 1941, that risk growing to a near-certainty in 1942. While he believed Germany would not attack while at war with Great Britain, he mobilized reserves in case he was wrong. The primary person responsible for Red Army been caught napping He took a calculated risk on being able to delay a German attack until 1942. By pretending that attack was not going to happen? Again, make up your mind. I'm quite clear on it. You wrote how Stalin had a directive for Barbarossa, For preparations, yes. we all know British were bombarding Stalin with reports about German preparations, Including during a time that British intelligence believed that the German preparations for Barbarossa were really intended to pressure the Soviets into a closer relationship with Germany. the concentration of Wehrmach in Poland was impossible to hide, Indeed. The GRU tracked the German buildup closely. What was unclear was the political intention behind it. is the man you feel was justified in invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland under the pretext of "security in case of German attack". I do not believe that the attack on Finland was justified. Was annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania justified when Soviet Union already had military bases in the area? Would 70k troops in a few bases have been enough in the event of a German attack? What I don't get is your eternal insistence on either the Germans being given the opportunity to conquer all of Poland and occupy the Baltic States. No, my eternal insistence is on Stalin declaring war on Germany and joining the existing anti-German coalition in field. Where "in the field" were the Western elements of the anti-German coalition fighting the German Army in September 1939? Why should the Soviets shoulder the committment of hostilities on two fronts with no guarantee of the Western Allies hitting Germany with any vigor? Stuart Wilkes |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
I always said Stuey would never amount to anything.
"Drazen Kramaric" wrote in message ... On 23 Oct 2003 03:20:56 -0700, (Stuart Wilkes) wrote: What were the numbers of soldiers involved in the two campaigns that you are comparing. i.e: Suprisingly equal, Rostyk. I'm suprised you didn't know that. Post the numbers, then. Size of armies in the west and the casualties? Well, the French Army alone suffered 1.9 million KIA and prisoners in the campaign in the West, while the combined Franco-Anglo-Belgian-Dutch armies inflicted ~27,000 KIA on the Germans. Your numbers are correct, but do not tell the whole story. France surrendered because it had no more manpower nor space to continue the war so all their remaining soldiers went to POW camps. Had you included only POWs captured prior to cease fire the numbers would be more correct, but would represent argument against your thesis, that Red Army represented the most efficient enemy realistically possible. In this case, the Germans faced unprepared unalerted, peacetime-strength Rifle Divisions (~6000 men) far from their assigned battle positions, which is one of the advantages you get when you do a sneak attack. You are representing this as 3,000,000 German soldiers appeared out of nowehere next to the Soviet border. The primary person responsible for Red Army been caught napping is the man you feel was justified in invading Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Finland under the pretext of "security in case of German attack". Why don't you address that fact for a change? Drax |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|