russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..]

"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message et...
I always said Stuey would never amount to anything.

Add another one to the list of Mark's spiteful lies. Really, Mark,
you should know by now that there's no real satisfaction in that.

Stuart Wilkes

"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

"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message
et...
I always said Stuey would never amount to anything.

Add another one to the list of Mark's spiteful lies. Really, Mark,
you should know by now that there's no real satisfaction in that.

Stuart Wilkes


I'm just proving my point...that you can't talk about anything unless it's
about WWII.

You are the world's most boring person.

"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

"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message et...
"Stuart Wilkes" wrote in message
om...
"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message
et...
I always said Stuey would never amount to anything.

Add another one to the list of Mark's spiteful lies. Really, Mark,
you should know by now that there's no real satisfaction in that.

Stuart Wilkes


I'm just proving my point...that you can't talk about anything unless it's
about WWII.

The reiteration of your spiteful lie is still a spiteful lie.

You are the world's most boring person.

Mark is so hurt by me exposing his poorly-researched howlers and
repeated, reiterated spiteful lies, that he's reduced to munging silly
e-mail addresses.

But since he's helpless in matters of logic and evidence, he does what
he can.

Stuart Wilkes


"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

(The Black Monk) wrote in message . com...
kirill wrote in message ...
The Black Monk wrote:



I dispute the latter statements. OF course talk of the famine was
greatest in areas not under soviet control, where news was suppressed.
My grandfather and a few others - a small minority of people from
"velyka ukrainia" within the diaspora lived through the Famine, had
family that died during it. While obviously the post-Stalin USSR
could not be compared to Nazi Germany (though it was still worse than,
for example, Franco's Spain), Stalinism, and Pol Pot's communism were
not much different.

respectfully,



You forgot to add one important detail that your grandpa is cretin.
But if he is cretin his tales are good only for residents of
cretin-houses. Don't forget to remind your grandpa the right address
where he can be understood the best.

On 29 Oct 2003 10:39:24 -0800, (Stuart Wilkes)
wrote:


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?

Since Bulgarian ambassador persuaded Soviet government not to pursue
this for a moment, nothing emerged from this initiative. Nevertheless,
Soviet government contemplated the similar move Petain's did.


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.

Actually, French air force possessed less than 1,000 modern combat
aircraft according to "The Oxford Companion to the Second World War".


One wonders at the possible result if they had fought with more
committment.

They fought with as much commitment as their organisation and
equipment allowed. Most of French air units were under double chain of
command, both from army and air force commanders.


"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.

By June 15th, Paris was captured by Germans and the organised
resistance from army collapsed. Most of serviceable French aircraft
already had to abandon their original airfields due to German advance
in May and had little time to reorganise for the second phase of
German attack ("Fall Rot"). The numbers you have are misleading since
most of these aircraft lacked equipment (tyres, propellers, radios)
and pilots to fly them. The statement that "mastery of
the air was there for the seizing" is pure nonsense.

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)."

Since the campaign for France was definitely lost by June 17th, there
was every sense to save the remainder of air force to serve the
interests of France, whether to continue the war on the Allied side
(like Polish air force whose pilots also escaped from Poland) or to
serve as bargaining point in negotiations (like French navy did).

Same link as above

The link does not serve as any reliable source of information about
the Battle for France. I rather read books.

A difference being that the French could import AvGas?

They could not since Germans were about to overrun the ports within a
fortnight.



Did the French leave large assets unemployed, only to surreneder them?

They did not. They fought for as long as they could, then they asked
for truce.


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.

Your only argument is that total number of Germans killed in USSR from
June 22nd to August 4th was larger than the number of Germans killed
from May 10th to June 22nd. Let's talk the total number of forces
engaged, ratio of losses sustained during the fighting and the ammount
of territory lost.


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'd say that these 150 kilometres were by the order of magnitude less
important than Stalin's incompetance in defensive preparations.

I see this as a Good Thing.

Only if you take Stalin's policy as a given.


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.

OK, if you say so. I am not going to dig the Google for you. So, do
you maintain that Stalin was surprised by German attack?


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.

In the light of what you wrote above, do you think that Stalin
believed Britain was going to be defeated by 1942 in order to allow
"near certain" attack on Soviet Union?


You wrote how Stalin had a directive for Barbarossa,

For preparations, yes.

So, he "knew" preparations have started.

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.

Even if true, this is irrelevant. Britain was trying to warn Stalin
about the impeding German attack. So we have warnings by Britain and
copy of Barbarossa directive in Stalin's hands.

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.

Excuse me? "Mein Kampf", Barbarossa directive, British and Soviet
agents' warnings and finally the military intelligence data confirming
German build up on the Soviet borders? What else did Stalin need? A
written declaration of war in triplicate?

So, do you think Stalin had more reason to believe Hitler's word and
be "surprised" by attack than Chamberlain's declaration of war against
Germany or Churchill's warnings?


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?

You can always pressure the respective governments to allow more
troops into their countries to match the German build-up. No need to
annex the countries and murder tens of thousands of citizens because
you _might_ be invaded.


Where "in the field" were the Western elements of the anti-German
coalition fighting the German Army in September 1939?

On French border. I can list you the armies involved of you like. It
still betters the Soviet elements 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?

Because it is better to fight Germans in Poland alongside Polish army
than wait for Germany to deliver concentrated attack and then fight at
the gates of Leningrad, Moscow and Rostove. That's why.


Drax

(Drazen Kramaric) wrote in message ...
On 29 Oct 2003 10:39:24 -0800, (Stuart Wilkes)
wrote:


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?

Since Bulgarian ambassador persuaded Soviet government not to pursue
this for a moment, nothing emerged from this initiative. Nevertheless,
Soviet government contemplated the similar move Petain's did.

Then they really didn't "try to negotiate a cease fire", did they
Drax?

No they didn't.

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.

Actually, French air force possessed less than 1,000 modern combat
aircraft according to "The Oxford Companion to the Second World War".

And my source, a paper from the USAF School of Advanced Airpower
Studies, disagrees with your source.

One wonders at the possible result if they had fought with more
committment.

They fought with as much commitment as their organisation and
equipment allowed.

Committing less than a fifth of the available air force at any given
time, and that not exceeding one sortie a day.

snip

Same link as above

The link does not serve as any reliable source of information about
the Battle for France. I rather read books.

It's the USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies, at Maxwell Air
Force Base. I think they know a thing or six about air power.

snip

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.

Your only argument is that total number of Germans killed in USSR from
June 22nd to August 4th was larger than the number of Germans killed
from May 10th to June 22nd. Let's talk the total number of forces
engaged, ratio of losses sustained during the fighting and the ammount
of territory lost.

Go ahead Drax, why don't you? If you've got a point to make, then do
it.

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'd say that these 150 kilometres were by the order of magnitude less
important than Stalin's incompetance in defensive preparations.

What has one thing to do with the other?

Will not having the 150km magically make everything else better? And
who did defended against a German attack better at the time?

I see this as a Good Thing.

Only if you take Stalin's policy as a given.

Nothing about not having the 150km necessarily makes anything else
better.

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.

OK, if you say so. I am not going to dig the Google for you. So, do
you maintain that Stalin was surprised by German attack?

He was indeed suprised that Germany would attack prior to making peace
with Great Britain.

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.

In the light of what you wrote above, do you think that Stalin
believed Britain was going to be defeated by 1942 in order to allow
"near certain" attack on Soviet Union?

He seemed to have believed what His Majesty's Ambassador, Sir Stafford
Cripps, was telling him, that an Anglo-German peace was a possibility
not to be excluded.

You wrote how Stalin had a directive for Barbarossa,

For preparations, yes.

So, he "knew" preparations have started.

Absolutely.

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.

Even if true, this is irrelevant. Britain was trying to warn Stalin
about the impeding German attack.

No Britain wasn't. At the time of the warning, what the British
feared was closer German-Soviet relations. At the time it was given,
the warning was intended to disrupt the German-Soviet discussions the
British feared were going on.

So we have warnings by Britain and
copy of Barbarossa directive in Stalin's hands.

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.

Excuse me? "Mein Kampf", Barbarossa directive, British and Soviet
agents' warnings and finally the military intelligence data confirming
German build up on the Soviet borders? What else did Stalin need?

A written declaration of war in triplicate?

Information concerning the specifics of Hitler's decisions. The date
specified in the Barbarossa Directive had come and gone. A couple
other possible start dates the GRU and NKVD had ascertained had also
come and gone. Compared to these earlier dates, what reason is there
to believe, on say 20 June, that there's something special about 22
June 1941?

So, do you think Stalin had more reason to believe Hitler's word

You've not shown that he believed Hitler's word.

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?

You can always pressure the respective governments to allow more
troops into their countries to match the German build-up.

And are they going to agree to let you set up a fortified line where
you think you need to? Will they let you dig their country up to that
degree? The degree of pressure that would be required for that
amounts more or less to annexation.

No need to
annex the countries and murder tens of thousands of citizens because
you _might_ be invaded.

Where "in the field" were the Western elements of the anti-German
coalition fighting the German Army in September 1939?

On French border. I can list you the armies involved of you like.

If you would please. And tell us how many casualties they inflicted
on the German Armed Forces in September 1939.

It still betters the Soviet elements fighting the German Army in
September 1939.

Never said it wasn't.

Why should the Soviets shoulder the committment of hostilities on two
fronts with no guarantee of the Western Allies hitting Germany with
any vigor?

Because it is better to fight Germans in Poland alongside Polish army

The Polish Army itself didn't think so. The Polish Army itself didn't
want anything of the sort.

than wait for Germany to deliver concentrated attack and then fight at
the gates of Leningrad, Moscow and Rostove. That's why.

Except that in September 1939 there's not any reason for anyone to
believe that France will go belly-up in six weeks in May-June 1940.

Stuart Wilkes

"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message
t...
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.

Rawest numbers for jan 1939
Germany 1,500,000 troops
Holland 60,000
Belgium 80,000
France 700,000
Britain 154,000
total 994,000

in divisions the Germans had 136 against 136
To keep some navy in this well the German navy at the time might be able to
beat Hollands but it was totaly out classed by both major powers
In aircaft it was about 4500 against about 5900, though the Germans did have
a lower proportion of obsaleat types.

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

The Vichy government maintained a large army untill the end of 42, at which
point alot of it went over to the allies. Also alot of units, especully
reserve units, disbanded themselves late in the campain and went home where
they were left as civies.

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.

Except the only person the attack was a surprise to was the boss, due to
willful self deseption and a willingness to shoot anyone who dared to tell
him the truth, it dose speck volumes for the courage of many in the Red army
that they went on trying however. The trouble was that a large chunk of the
Red army was in its battle possitions, the possitions were just insainly
chosin. being in the middle of a major re equipment cycle and doctran change
didn't help much ether.

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?

Moving the boarder west probably saved Russia in 41, if preperations had
been made with any degree of compatence they should have done far better.
The failiers rest 110% with the guy at the top and his cronies, though
atleast he had the ability once the war started to learn from his errors if
not as fast as might be desired. Atleast he was smart enough to recognise
talent and from the middle of 42 mostly listen to people who knew what they
were talking about.

Drax

"Nicholas Smid" wrote in message ...
"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message
t...
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.

Rawest numbers for jan 1939
Germany 1,500,000 troops
Holland 60,000
Belgium 80,000
France 700,000
Britain 154,000
total 994,000

in divisions the Germans had 136 against 136
To keep some navy in this well the German navy at the time might be able to
beat Hollands but it was totaly out classed by both major powers
In aircaft it was about 4500 against about 5900, though the Germans did have
a lower proportion of obsaleat types.

The Germans didn't need much of a Navy in WWII,
since they were attacking North Africa, the
Middle East, France, and Russia, not the US.

And especially since they were fighting
with tanks, rockets, and missles,
and the rest of Europe was fighting with horses and cannons.

And since it was the invasions of
Sicily, Normany, and Norway that saved
Russia's ass from certain anniolation, you're
missing several other armies in
the analysis.









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

The Vichy government maintained a large army untill the end of 42, at which
point alot of it went over to the allies. Also alot of units, especully
reserve units, disbanded themselves late in the campain and went home where
they were left as civies.

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.

Except the only person the attack was a surprise to was the boss, due to
willful self deseption and a willingness to shoot anyone who dared to tell
him the truth, it dose speck volumes for the courage of many in the Red army
that they went on trying however. The trouble was that a large chunk of the
Red army was in its battle possitions, the possitions were just insainly
chosin. being in the middle of a major re equipment cycle and doctran change
didn't help much ether.

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?

Moving the boarder west probably saved Russia in 41, if preperations had
been made with any degree of compatence they should have done far better.
The failiers rest 110% with the guy at the top and his cronies, though
atleast he had the ability once the war started to learn from his errors if
not as fast as might be desired. Atleast he was smart enough to recognise
talent and from the middle of 42 mostly listen to people who knew what they
were talking about.

Drax

"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
"Nicholas Smid" wrote in message
...
"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message
t...
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.

Rawest numbers for jan 1939
Germany 1,500,000 troops
Holland 60,000
Belgium 80,000
France 700,000
Britain 154,000
total 994,000

in divisions the Germans had 136 against 136
To keep some navy in this well the German navy at the time might be able
to
beat Hollands but it was totaly out classed by both major powers
In aircaft it was about 4500 against about 5900, though the Germans did
have
a lower proportion of obsaleat types.

The Germans didn't need much of a Navy in WWII,
since they were attacking North Africa, the
Middle East, France, and Russia, not the US.


Where is pathetic loser Stuart Wilkes when you need him?
So they weren't attacking the US? German submarines routinely sank US ships
in US coastal waters, especially early on. They also routinely sank US
merchant marine vessels in international waters. Doenitz pleaded with Hitler
for more ships and subs. If Germany didn't need a navy, why was Doenitz
asking for them?

And especially since they were fighting
with tanks, rockets, and missles,
and the rest of Europe was fighting with horses and cannons.


Wrong. Germany used horses throughout the war like all the other continental
European countries. The US used motorized vehicles almost exclusively. The
V-1 and V-2 had no strategic impact.

And since it was the invasions of
Sicily, Normany, and Norway that saved
Russia's ass from certain anniolation, you're
missing several other armies in
the analysis.









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

The Vichy government maintained a large army untill the end of 42, at
which
point alot of it went over to the allies. Also alot of units, especully
reserve units, disbanded themselves late in the campain and went home
where
they were left as civies.

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.

Except the only person the attack was a surprise to was the boss, due to
willful self deseption and a willingness to shoot anyone who dared to
tell
him the truth, it dose speck volumes for the courage of many in the Red
army
that they went on trying however. The trouble was that a large chunk of
the
Red army was in its battle possitions, the possitions were just insainly
chosin. being in the middle of a major re equipment cycle and doctran
change
didn't help much ether.

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?

Moving the boarder west probably saved Russia in 41, if preperations had
been made with any degree of compatence they should have done far
better.
The failiers rest 110% with the guy at the top and his cronies, though
atleast he had the ability once the war started to learn from his errors
if
not as fast as might be desired. Atleast he was smart enough to
recognise
talent and from the middle of 42 mostly listen to people who knew what
they
were talking about.

Drax

"Ivan Grozny" wrote in message
...

"ZZBunker" wrote in message
om...
"Nicholas Smid" wrote in message
...
"Stuart Wilkes' mom" wrote in message
t...
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.

Rawest numbers for jan 1939
Germany 1,500,000 troops
Holland 60,000
Belgium 80,000
France 700,000
Britain 154,000
total 994,000

in divisions the Germans had 136 against 136
To keep some navy in this well the German navy at the time might be
able
to
beat Hollands but it was totaly out classed by both major powers
In aircaft it was about 4500 against about 5900, though the Germans
did
have
a lower proportion of obsaleat types.

The Germans didn't need much of a Navy in WWII,
since they were attacking North Africa, the
Middle East, France, and Russia, not the US.

Where is pathetic loser Stuart Wilkes when you need him?
So they weren't attacking the US? German submarines routinely sank US
ships
in US coastal waters, especially early on. They also routinely sank US
merchant marine vessels in international waters. Doenitz pleaded with
Hitler
for more ships and subs. If Germany didn't need a navy, why was Doenitz
asking for them?

Yes... Operation Drumbeat, off the US Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of
Mexico, caught the US quite hard early on in 1942. Also, it took time for
the US to get the convoy doctrine and patrol aircraft up and running. And to
get the lights turned off in the coastal towns at night....

And especially since they were fighting
with tanks, rockets, and missles,
and the rest of Europe was fighting with horses and cannons.

Wrong. Germany used horses throughout the war like all the other
continental
European countries. The US used motorized vehicles almost exclusively. The
V-1 and V-2 had no strategic impact.

Right again. People tend to forget that while the Whermacht used motorized
forces for blitzkrieg style attacks and front line action, the supply chain
of the German Armed forces relied very heavily on horse drawn wagons and
such, in terms of supply chain. Especially in the Eastern Front, where
trucks bogged down in mud bad, (though carts were also troubled.) Besides,
when one is short on diesel fuel and gasoline, finding food for a horse can
be easier. Up to the end of the war, the Germans used horses. As for the V-1
and V-2, yes, they were terror weapons. But by the time they came out,
German cities were taking far more damage from Allied air raids than their
V-weapons could inflict on the Allies. Also, disinformation, antiaircraft
guns and bulked up fighter defenses helped protect London against V-1
attacks after a while. One of the Western Allies' greatest contributions to
the war was the bombing campaign.

And since it was the invasions of
Sicily, Normany, and Norway that saved
Russia's ass from certain anniolation, you're
missing several other armies in
the analysis.

The battles of Stalingrad and Kursk occured before June of 1944, I believe.
Also, the Germans had forces tied down by the Allied invasion of Italy. It
was the D-Day attack that opened the way in the west, however. Kesselring
and the Apennine mountains were quite nasty delaying forces in Italy.

Though the allies did tie down German and Axis forces there. Hitler's war on
many fronts was a grand mistake. Not to mention the garrison requirements of
the countries he had already taken. From France and the Low Countries in the
west to Yugoslavia and Greece in the east.

This by no means takes anything from the bravery of the Russian people and
soldiers that fought, however. From the gates of Moscow to Leningrad to the
Reichschanchellery in Berlin, they did a ton of damage, and took a lot, too.
Not to mention the footage I have seen of people setting up factories and
working hot steel in buildings with no roofs on yet and snow coming down.
There aren't words for that kind of bravery.

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

The Vichy government maintained a large army untill the end of 42, at
which
point alot of it went over to the allies. Also alot of units,
especully
reserve units, disbanded themselves late in the campain and went home
where
they were left as civies.

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.

Except the only person the attack was a surprise to was the boss, due
to
willful self deseption and a willingness to shoot anyone who dared to
tell
him the truth, it dose speck volumes for the courage of many in the
Red
army
that they went on trying however. The trouble was that a large chunk
of
the
Red army was in its battle possitions, the possitions were just
insainly
chosin. being in the middle of a major re equipment cycle and doctran
change
didn't help much ether.

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?

Moving the boarder west probably saved Russia in 41, if preperations
had
been made with any degree of compatence they should have done far
better.
The failiers rest 110% with the guy at the top and his cronies, though
atleast he had the ability once the war started to learn from his
errors
if
not as fast as might be desired. Atleast he was smart enough to
recognise
talent and from the middle of 42 mostly listen to people who knew what
they
were talking about.

Drax