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 |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
(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 |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|